This isn't right; white robe crime without jail time -- First criminal indictment against Catholic priest won't go forward.
In a 9-17-04 post titled "Say what? Vote pro-choice, you'll go to hell; molest kids, hey, we won't tell -- Catholics told to let abortion guide vote over all other issues," I vented about an Archbishop telling Catholics how to vote, instructing them that "[y]ou have an erroneous conscience if you think there is some case in which you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate," and that while they may debate issues such as war or capital punishment, abortion must outweigh every other issue for Catholic voters.
I noted that we are still so close to all of the revelations about the coverup and secrecy of actions by priests in a number of American Archdioceses and Dioceses, that it sort of struck me as ironic to read that Atlanta's archbishop has the gall to be disseminating such counsel.
Well, we are closer than I realized. Today I read there was an indictment unsealed last week charging yet another priest with molesting two boys in the 1970s, this becoming the first Roman Catholic prelate to face criminal charges in the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the American church.
The article discusses a diocese having reached a $7 million settlement with 46 people who say they were abused by priests, and another where the archdiocese paid a $450,000 settlement to a man who said a priest sexually assaulted him.
(Is such behavior included in drive to limit judgments? I don't know. Just asking.)
In the indictment noted, after the indictment was returned, the district attorney in the jurisdiction said that he would not prosecute the Roman Catholic Bishop on child rape charges because the statute of limitations has expired in the case.
I am an attorney, but not a criminal attorney. But generally I would think that any statute of limitations would be tolled (that is, not run) while the assaultee (if you will) was a minor. Another topic, but hopefully no more such news will be forthcoming.
Again I note that discussing religion, more specifically someone else's religion, is something I have always felt was off limits for me, and to the extent apologies to any are in order, consider them duly and sincerely made.
(story in 24-Hour News.)
I noted that we are still so close to all of the revelations about the coverup and secrecy of actions by priests in a number of American Archdioceses and Dioceses, that it sort of struck me as ironic to read that Atlanta's archbishop has the gall to be disseminating such counsel.
Well, we are closer than I realized. Today I read there was an indictment unsealed last week charging yet another priest with molesting two boys in the 1970s, this becoming the first Roman Catholic prelate to face criminal charges in the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the American church.
The article discusses a diocese having reached a $7 million settlement with 46 people who say they were abused by priests, and another where the archdiocese paid a $450,000 settlement to a man who said a priest sexually assaulted him.
(Is such behavior included in drive to limit judgments? I don't know. Just asking.)
In the indictment noted, after the indictment was returned, the district attorney in the jurisdiction said that he would not prosecute the Roman Catholic Bishop on child rape charges because the statute of limitations has expired in the case.
I am an attorney, but not a criminal attorney. But generally I would think that any statute of limitations would be tolled (that is, not run) while the assaultee (if you will) was a minor. Another topic, but hopefully no more such news will be forthcoming.
Again I note that discussing religion, more specifically someone else's religion, is something I have always felt was off limits for me, and to the extent apologies to any are in order, consider them duly and sincerely made.
(story in 24-Hour News.)
posted by Sid Cottingham | 4:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home