Moral Certainty in Uncertain Times: The Importance of Standards of Proof When Responding to Accusations of Clerical Misconduct

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Recent high profile civil and criminal trials in the United States and elsewhere have reinforced the importance of due process in an age of snap judgments. Similarly, Catholic priests accused of misconduct often seem to be assumed guilty until proven innocent, even within the Church, despite the principle of the presumption of innocence, now contained in canon 1321 §1, and the moral certainty standard of proof in canon 1608. This article reviews the various standards of proof under both civil and canon law, discusses their origin, and highlights their fundamental importance in the current environment. It also scrutinizes the use of certain inferior substitutes to moral certainty currently being employed in canon 1717 preliminary investigations and in decisions to publish the names of accused clerics. Through the lens of well-known secular standards of proof such as "reasonable suspicion," "probable cause," "clear and convincing," and "beyond a reasonable doubt," the article aims to bring more clarity to an environment that stands in need of more precise and uniform language.