The guy had already been removed from active ministry, and had no contact with kids at that point.
You understand that, right?
You said: The guy had already been removed from active ministry, and had no contact with kids at that point.
You understand that, right?
My response:
Who cares.
He was still a priest.
And the church’s refusal to remove him from the priesthood is indefensible.
No contact with children, huh. Never walked near a playground, huh. Never ventured near a schoolyard? Never had any contact with a child after that?!
Give me a break. Are we basing that on his character or on the sanctity of his vows?!
And don’t you think being a priest would allow him to get past a lot of parental defenses- easier say than some other middle aged guy that approaches kids on a playground.
I have no idea if any of the above scenarios happened, but the church made herself liable for them when it did not separate this man (and many like him) from the ministry at the first confirmation of his transgressions.
Will Wallace
Check you mail