A friend sent this cogent analysis on the case of Fr. Redmond Raux, the priest who was accused of molesting a kid, had the case settled, and was sent off to the military chaplaincy with a clean recommendation.
OK, by far the simplest, the most obvious, most likely explanation of these data is that Raux and Law are both lying: Raux boffed the boy and Law lied to get him a chaplain’s job.
But suppose Raux were telling the truth. How do we explain the $200,000 settlement?
A) Raux, though pure as the driven snow, is pressured by the Archdiocese into a settlement to avoid a media scandal.
B) Raux, though pure as the driven snow, is terrified of publicity and begs the Archdiocese not to defend him in court, even though he’ll be vindicated, but asks that they buy him out of the embarrassment.
C) Raux, though pure as the driven snow, reckons the legal fees in his (successful) defense will be higher than a settlement, and believes the Church’s money, i.e., the difference between the anticipated legal fees and the settlement, should go to the poor instead.
D) Raux, though pure as the driven snow, was named in the same suit as a truly guilty priest, and the $200G was the cost of settling the other guy’s crime. Raux, however, felt it would be simpler to go along with the settlement rather than defend his good name or counter-sue.
E) Raux never abused the boy (in the sense required by the pertinent statute), but behaved in a culpable way, e.g., showed him porn or the like. He’d be vindicated in court, but a lot of stuff would come out in the course of the trial that he’s not eager to have his family and parishioners know. He accedes to the settlement.
Notice that while the Archdiocese claims it notified the Military Ordinariate that the allegation against Raux was “unsubstantiated,” that’s not the same thing as saying the claim was impossible to substantiate, or that it was false. On its face, it could mean the claim was never looked into.