Replies

Just so everyone understands what’s going on here, what the pope did was to say that a former priest—someone who had been returned to the status of a layman—ought to start a new life in a new location. Isn’t this what parole boards recommend to released inmates—that they not return to the neighborhood that nurtured their maladies?

Had the defrocked priest been prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Did he serve jail time? Or was he simply defrocked and released into society anonymously? If so, then a definite coverup was going on, and that is the problem. Sex offenders have to register as such. If a priest was simply defrocked and sent back into society, then how would that society know that they had a child molester (or whatever he was) in their midst?

These molestations have not been treated as a crime by the Church. Priests who molest need to be prosecuted and serve jail time. Not just released into the public into a new location. Sorry, Mr. Donahue, but releasing a former-priest/child-molester into a new location just isn't good enough. They also need to serve jail time, and then register as sex offenders in their new location.

It seems that the Church is so desperate for nuns & priests that they have been willing to overlook sexual crimes among their clergy. Or, they don't want to air their dirty laundry in public (so to speak). Or, they just don't consider sexual crimes to be that serious. Whatever the reasons, it is a real tragedy.

And, the coverup is just as bad as the crime.

I know there have been many mistakes made;some by omission and others through commission. Some in the hierarchy had evil intent,some were negligent,others self protective,some were blackmailed,others erred through misplaced compassion and others were just plain stupid. And one should never forget that there are cases of possession which may have played a part in the actions taken by the abusing priests as well as protector bishops. Someday,some will know.

Meanwhile you can have any opinion that you want but I have read both of your posts throughout the year,and it seems you both usually seek to base your opinions on facts. Assuming you haven't changed you M.O.'s,the facts are the priest in question was reported,convicted,jailed and laicized. It was a comment on the decree of laicization and it was appropriate.

In this case the sub-title of this thread is a fact,and that is;[Rabid Bigots Falsely Accuse Pope]