This is one of those situations where the lines aren’t black and white.

The case against the Rev. A.W. Moldenhauer at St. Matthew’s church has been a controversial one to be sure. We’ve taken a fair amount of criticism from supporters of the pastor for reporting on the case. Most say the charges are false; Rev. Moldenhauer has denied them, though a clerical panel disagreed and has suspended him.

First, some clarification on the paper’s policy is in order.

In a situation like this, we make no judgment about a person’s guilt or innocence. Truth be told, we don’t know whether the reverend is guilty.

What we do know is that at least two women from the church have lodged a complaint of inappropriate physical contact by Moldenhauer with the Lutheran church hierarchy.

What we do not know — to this editor’s consternation — are any of details. The church examined the evidence and agreed with the complainants, calling for Moldenhauer’s suspension. An appeals panel re-examined the complaint, dismissed one charge, but upheld the decision to suspend him.

No report has been filed with North Tonawanda police, meaning there hasn’t been a public criminal investigation. The church is not subject to the same Freedom of Information laws as a public entity like the police department, meaning we can gain no more access to the details of the case than anyone involved is willing to give us. Despite dogged attempts by this paper to ascertain more of the details of the case against Rev. Moldenhauer, those efforts have as yet been unsuccessful.

Adding a layer of unfortunate secrecy, the names of the women who have alleged the wrongdoing have not been made public.

That means Rev. Moldenhauer has been charged with unknown crimes by people whom he cannot confront in public. The church has seen fit to remain silent on the matter, except to offer assurances of due process that we have no way to verify.

And given their unwillingness to offer any kind of proof, why should anyone believe them?

From the editor’s desk, it gets to a thorny question. There’s been a debate going on in the journalism community for some time about whether newspapers should withhold the names of women who report being raped or sexually abused. Most papers — including this one — do not publish the alleged victim’s name. The logic is rather obvious: A victim of a sexual assault doesn’t want it to become common knowledge and thus doesn’t report the crime if they know they’ll be in the paper. Rapists would get away free because their victims are afraid of even more humiliation.

Of course, there’s a flip-side. The men accused of such things don’t have their names withheld pending conviction. While the court of law presumes a defendant’s innocence, the court of public opinion too often presumes the opposite. There might be a half dozen stories about a crime, but there’s only one that says the person was innocent. It comes at the end, when a jury foreman says “not guilty.”

Is that really fair and balanced?

While I am comfortable not naming victims, I will say that anonymity can be a dangerous decision.

As with the case against Rev. Moldenhauer, all we can do is report what we know to be true. Many congregants and supporters of the well-known pastor have called, imploring us to “get all the facts.” We’re trying, but the sad reality is unless someone is willing to give them to us, we can’t. All we have is a letter from the church appeals panel, upholding the suspension. No explanation. No detail. The accused himself has been largely (and understandably) silent, except for a brief statement to the press maintaining his innocence.

We’re essentially being asked to take some quasi-legal investigative panel at its word that some form of wrongdoing has occurred. We don’t know what happened, nor do we know what means were used to reach the conclusion that justified his suspension.

Given the lack of public access to the proceedings, I sympathize with Rev. Moldenhauer and his family. Whether he’s guilty or not (and plenty of reputable people in this city have stepped forward to vouch for his good character, including the North Tonawanda Chief of Police) he deserves the opportunity to publicly confront his accusers and defend his reputation.

If something so egregious happened as to warrant his removal from the pulpit, why weren’t the police called? It’s a legitimate question — and the public doesn’t know who can provide the answer, much less what it would be.

Whether he did it or not, in this society we have the right to confront our accusers. That a man who’s spent a lifetime serving his community can have his reputation tarnished without so much as a single word of public defense is not justice. It’s the opposite. It’s unjust.

And in this country, it’s just not how we do business.

Managing Editor Eric DuVall’s column appears every Wednesday and Sunday. Contact him at 693-1000, ext. 112 or by e-mail to duvalle@gnnewspaper.com.