Posted on 08/28/2014 1:53:21 PM PDT by Dr. Thorne
THE Catholic Church paid more than $40,000 in rent for a convicted paedophile priest who molested at least eight young boys and was set to stand trial on a string of new charges before he died earlier this year.
Wilfred Bakers crimes against children were so horrific he was placed on administrative leave in 1997 and never again worked as a priest, and was officially laicised in September 2012.
But the Herald Sun can reveal the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne paid Bakers rent for at least four years until his death in February, despite his sickening record of abuse on children over a 20-year period.
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldsun.com.au ...
If he was incarcerated it would have cost the community a lot more. Do we apply a double standard Church vs state? We should be somewhat thankful the state did not have to pick up the tab.
Why wasn’t he rotting in an Australian jail?
He only spent 4 years in jail, what 1999-2003 ? Why? He had more time to molest children after that before hospice. As a Catholic I’m glad he was arrested and jailed but why was he out? The church should not have paid for his rent, but Australia didn’t keep him in jail. This sickens every Catholic too, you know. Still, as a church child molesters are a smaller percentage then in the general public or in other denominations or religions. It doesn’t excuse it, but the media loves to run the story of the evil Priest, so much so people think that’s all the church is.
40,000?
Why not put him in a monastery while he awaits trail?
You mean an archdiocese paid for a dying man’s room in a hospice? I can’t see anything wrong with that. The other matter of shuffling him around despite knowing of his crimes that was wrong.
Part of Christian teaching is to treat all people humanely. That includes criminals. That does not preclude punishment for their crimes. It does mean that they are due decent care when they are ill or dying.
I am guessing the charges were lessened as part of a plea bargain and that is why the sentence was so light. Unless he was seriously ill a hospice seems a rather odd choice. A monastery certainly makes more sense. If he was under the court’s jurisdiction such as being on parole or probation or having sex offender status maybe he was restricted to where he was allowed to live.
Ideally he should have been in prison.
That sort of sentence is typical in Australia. It only comes to light if there is an outcry about some priest, or someone whom the media is set against.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.