When the standard of proof during an ecclesiastical preliminary investigation is that "it could have happened", as occurs all too often, the "deepest sin against the human mind" is committed. Anyone can pull together the name of a priest, the time frame, and the place and lodge a complaint.

Accordingly, the pursuit of the semblance of truth (cf. can. 1717 CIC), especially in historic cases, i.e., those bound by the statute of limitations, calls for more than a probability test. It should seek to find solid ground for prosecution (cf. can. 1718 CIC) by differentiating between rumor, suspicion, opinion, and the history of behavior and reputation of the accused among reasonable people (cf. can. 1572 CIC). At the same time, it should consider the reasonableness and likelihood of the alleged misconduct, inquire about the facts of the location at the relevant time, and review the reputation of the accuser as well as his or her motive for coming forward.

The presumption of innocence establishes that the burden of proof lies with the accuser and not the accused.

Therefore, the pursuit of justice, i.e., giving each his due, and the truth of the matter, demands nothing less.