A key to resolving the betrayal of priests by The Judas Crisis bishops, who effectively treat exonerated priests to be as guilty as hell, is to define the terms used:
(1) substaniated (2) non-substantiated (3) false [or] (1) credible (2) non-credible (3) false [or] (1) True (2) Libelous calumny.
SET NUMBER ONE
SUBSTANTIATED: Some people perjure themselves, which is why sworn testimony isn’t good enough. There needs to be proof: pictures, videos, semen, witnesses… This should be what is required in a court of law. However, this level of evidence has perhaps never been required by whatever (Arch)Diocese. Note that in some “substantiated” cases, such as that of Father Gordon MacRae (About), it can turn out that the accuser and witnesses later admit of fraud and perjury, that no abuse occured, ever. That would mean that the case is no longer substantiated, and that there never was any truth to it. They easily admit to lying to get the money.
NON-SUBSTANTIATED: This category is unreasonable. It is based on the idea that if the alleged incident is theoretically possible – the priest lived on the earth at the same time as the plaintiff – then one cannot say that it didn’t happen, and that, therefore, the priest is to be held as guilty as hell. This protects, for instance, the modus agendi of The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc., which cannot admit the fact of an innocent priest, ever. (See: The Judas Crisis).
FALSE: About the only time this happens is when it is proven that the accuser “existed” only on paper, a figment of the imagination of the attorney, simply to get money in the usual quicky out of court settlement in which no questions are asked. Another possibility is an admitted case of mistaken identity, which is then proven to the agreement of all. Sometimes, however, in an unusually decent process, the word “unfounded” will be used. That means that the allegations were fase, and calumny.
SET NUMBER TWO
CREDIBLE and NON-CREDIBLE and FALSE are basically the same as the three-fold division above, but some have further nuances for who knows what end. A priest can be said to have unsubstantiated allegations against him, which are nevertheless deeded to be credible. Thus, without any proof, the priest is destroyed for life. This feeds into the ways and means of the NCRRG.
SET NUMBER THREE
TRUE: This is when a perpetrator pleads guilty, or is proven guilty with verified pictures, videos, etc. Note that pleas of no-contest or plea bargains might later be shown to be the result of defendants being scared of a long prison sentences. Look up the stats on plea-bargains made by innocent defendants. Note that this is the usual course of affairs in a court of law. Many in this category can wind up in the category below if their cases are re-tried.
CALUMNY: This means that the accuser cannot prove the claims. Period. The priest is totally exonerated and returned to ministry with accolades. Period.
This third set of terms, no longer used, is the only way things were ever judged previously. The first two categorizations are unjust.
To put an edge on reading this, imagine that such unjust categorization of the guilt of an alleged offense (the first two sets) were to be used by Satan at the Last Judgment, with God’s permission, against those bishops who used these self-serving categorizations unjustly against their priests just to save a few bucks. Would not those bishops run themselves straight into hell… for… eternity… ? Remember, the word of the accuser is absolute, and they can have nothing to say under these rules. Think about it.