Religion

that the accused was not named in public by the church prior to formal charges being filed. Actually I think that is prudent.

They fired him for an unrelated matter (alcoholism) because they could probably objectively prove that. That took immediate action to remove him from access to children (unless there are prior accusations that were not followed up on - nothing about that appeared in this story).

I am not sure I see much wrong the church did. Maybe they didn't properly vet the employee. That is what a civil trial might demonstrate. This is a far cry from moving the accused around while trying to suppress the accusations.

I wonder how this would have played out without the initial police report from the family. That was a very wise decision on their part and something that should happen in all of these cases.