An Allegation Should Begin an Investigation, Not End a Reputation

OpEd

An Allegation Should Begin an Investigation, Not End a Reputation

By Tim King

Every allegation of sexual abuse must be taken seriously.

Every person accused of sexual abuse must be treated fairly.

Those principles are not in conflict, and we should not have to abandon one to honor the other.

The Rev. Michael Pfleger has again been removed from ministry at St. Sabina while the Archdiocese of Chicago investigates an allegation of sexual abuse said to have occurred more than 30 years ago.

He strongly denies it. I have known and admired Father Pfleger for years, and I believe him.

I also believe that my personal feelings do not mean the allegation should be ignored.

This is the fifth accusation made against Father Pfleger since 2021. The previous allegations were investigated and determined to be unfounded, and each time he was returned to ministry. Those outcomes do not prove that the latest allegation is false. But neither should the number of accusations be treated as proof that it is true.

As a Catholic who attended Catholic schools through graduate school and worked for Catholic institutions, I have had overwhelmingly positive experiences with the Catholic Church. But those experiences do not blind me to the Church’s long and shameful history of failing to protect children. Priests were too often protected while children and families were left to carry the pain.

That history requires the Church to investigate every allegation thoroughly. It does not require treating every allegation as proof.

We do not correct one injustice by creating another.

Institutions may need to take temporary action to protect potential victims and preserve an investigation. But those measures should reflect the circumstances, not operate as automatic punishment.

Before removing an accused priest entirely from ministry, the Archdiocese should consider the specificity of the allegation, any preliminary supporting evidence, how long ago the conduct allegedly occurred, whether there is a present risk to children and whether narrower restrictions could protect the community while the investigation proceeds.

As reported in multiple media outlets, St. Sabina leaders are requesting a tiered suspension policy, greater transparency, independent review and quicker decisions. Those are not demands that allegations be dismissed. They are demands that the process distinguish between precaution and punishment.

I understand why that distinction matters because I am living through a similar ordeal.

In 2021, a former Urban Prep student accused me of inappropriate contact that he claimed occurred more than a decade earlier. Multiple investigations, including two by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, found no misconduct. Yet the Chicago Public Schools Office of Inspector General pursued the allegation and deemed it substantiated.

My accuser later signed a sworn, notarized statement admitting that his allegations were false. A Cook County judge then reversed CPS’s administrative decision as to all counts after finding that CPS had violated my due-process rights.

Yet CPS is still investigating, despite both my accuser’s sworn recantation and the court’s ruling.

At what point does an investigation stop being a search for truth and become punishment by process?

My experience does not prove that the allegation against Father Pfleger is false. It gives me no special knowledge of what happened at St. Sabina three decades ago. What it proves is that false allegations are possible, the truth and motives of those involved should not be assumed at the outset, institutions can conduct flawed and unnecessarily lengthy investigations, and consequences begin long before a final decision.

For Father Pfleger, those consequences extend beyond him. St. Sabina is a center of worship, youth programs, anti-violence work and advocacy against racism, poverty and disinvestment.

When its longtime leader is removed, the congregation and surrounding community are affected too.

That makes a fair and prompt investigation even more important. It also creates an obligation institutions too often neglect: restoring an accused person’s reputation when an allegation is not sustained.

If an institution publicizes a leader’s removal through letters, news releases and public statements, it should use the same channels and comparable prominence to announce an exonerating outcome. News organizations should do the same. Restoring a damaged reputation is not a courtesy. It is part of telling the whole story.

People who report abuse deserve compassion, protection and a serious investigation. People who are accused deserve notice, an opportunity to respond, an impartial process and a timely decision.

We can protect those who report abuse while preserving due process. We can investigate vigorously without prejudging.

What we cannot do is allow an unproven allegation to destroy a reputation.

Latest Stories

Latest Podcast

Home Purchases and Preservations