In response to a barrage of recent accusations that Catholic priests had molested children in Greater Boston, His Eminence Cardinal Bernard F. Law last week stripped Rev. D. George Spagnolia of his ability to exercise priestly ministry and revoked his monthly stipend of $1,400. The cardinal claims that this action was justified by the Archdiocese’s new “zero-tolerance” policy for alleged molesters, which was developed as a response to scandals over the past months that have uncovered hundreds of potential victims. As a result of the Cardinal’s swift-handed “responsiveness,” Rev. Spagnolia can no longer live at St. Patrick’s rectory in Lowell. His ousting was spurred by the accusation of one man who claimed last week that when he was 14 years old, Spagnolia had twice sexually abused him at St. Francis de Sales Church in Roxbury 31 years ago.

All this comes in the wake of John J. Geoghan, a now-defrocked priest who has been convicted of child molestation and sexual abuse and issued a sentence of nine to ten years’ imprisonment, and had been protected by Law for many years. During the course of about three decades he was moved to different, unsuspecting parishes across Greater Boston. He was transferred each time complaints began to mount from each community he “served.” In contrast, Spagnolia has vehemently professed his innocence and is publicly supported and lauded for his courage by hundreds of his parishioners.

Child molestation and sexual abuse are serious crimes, and most will agree that guilty men and women should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. However, uncorroborated, decades-old accusations alone should not result in removal of a priest’s ability to practice. The Archdiocese says that these measures are designed to protect minors from potential abhorrent behavior. While one would fully expect that those deemed a significant risk following a full investigation be removed and quickly defrocked, it is difficult to imagine that the claims of one alleged victim who, as he admits, does not intend to press criminal or civil charges can be used as the deciding factor in removal.

Under canonical law, Spagnolia can still appeal to the Vatican for reinstatement, but if he is later exonerated, to whom can he appeal for restoration of his reputation? The Cardinal’s removing him from the parish has already left an indelible stain, whether or not he is later absolved of wrongdoing.

Cardinal Law’s recent backpedaling seems to be an overreaction to redeem his reputation in the public eye for the disastrous handling of Geoghan. By removing Spagnolia, Law seems to be acting solely on hearsay without having launched a full investigation. Making snap judgments on such a damning accusation goes against the very foundation of American law that one is innocent until proven guilty.

If Spagnolia had been a teacher, and a former student from decades past approached the school’s current administration, allegations alone would not likely result in removal without pay. If the investigation were to determine that the accusations were unfounded, a professional’s career and hard-earned reputation would be permanently scarred. Sex crimes are among the most abhorrent in our society, and a simple allegation can cause unimaginable hardships.

While the accusations against Spagnolia would probably fall outside the statute of limitations given that the alleged incident occurred 31 years ago, the Church still intends to pursue an investigation into the matter. If legitimate analysis finds reason to believe that Spagnolia may be a threat, he should be removed immediately, but Law’s move essentially announces the outcome of any inquiries before they begin. The Archdiocese should reconsider its overreactions and policy, for when the burden of proof begins to fall on the accused, a dangerous precedent of abuse of power is established.

—Michael A. Capuano