| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
I requested the name of any priest convicted of RAPING a 13 yo. Not molesting. Raping.
Let’s look at the entire article:
According to the complaint, the victim, now 43, had never told anyone about the incidents until he confided to his girlfriend last year. He later told family and decided to report the matter to police. He told investigators that Blume was kind and generous to him, and took him on trips out of state and to ski in Wisconsin. During the trips, they stayed in motels or at Blume’s parents’ home in Indiana, and Blume would assault him while they slept, the victim told investigators.
At least one time, Blume told him to consider it their secret and not to tell anyone, the complaint indicates.
Earlier this year, Elm Grove police Detective Craig Mayer flew to Florida to interview Blume, who told him he had worked as a brother for the Catholic Church and lived at the St. Charles Boys Home in Wauwatosa before leaving in 1978. He became a priest in 1980 but told Mayer he was forced to take a leave of absence in 1989.
Blume admitted knowing the victim and taking him and other boys on trips, but he denied ever sleeping next to the victim. When Mayer urged him to clear his conscience, Blume told the detective the assault might have happened, but he could not recall it, the complaint says.
Blume taught religious education classes at St. Luke’s parish in Brookfield in the 1970s, according to Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which tracks sexual abuse cases.
Two civil suits were filed against Blume in the 1990s in Indiana, according to the group, and Blume was officially removed from the priesthood last year.
LaVoy said his client has not been a priest since 1989 and is technically retired.
THE (SO-CALLED) VICTIM, NOW 43.
Anyone could be accused of anything 30-40 years after the fact, and have a difficult time proving their innocence. I have to wonder about that detective, as well.
Clear your conscience! Tell me everything, old man.
"Molesting" a 13-year-old boy is raping him.
Do you even read these posts?
"Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the consent of the younger person or mistake about their age is not a defense....Federal law makes it criminal to knowingly engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you.
Is any of this getting through?
Yeah, the judge and jury called him a victim and the judge and jury called the priest a pederast rapist who got 10 years in jail.
The defense of the indefensible is limitless around here.
No, molesting is NOT raping. That’s sick.
Just the opposite.
The more time that goes by, the harder it is to prove guilt.
But that fact doesn't deter RC apologists who are blind to the sins of their priestcraft.
You do not know the law. Obviously.
Okay. Ever spank your children (if you have any) or did your parents spank you? Then you violently put your hands on your child’s buttocks. Did you rape him/her?
Ever pick up a child and hold him/her? How to avoid touching the child’s buttocks, or embracing the child? Was it a loving act? What was the intent? Can intent be proven?
I never claimed to be a lawyer. But there is a difference in the law between molesting and rape.
None of these priests was sent to prison for "picking up a child and holding him."
These hundreds if not thousands of pederast priests are accused of sexually molesting children, which, according to federal law, is statutory rape.
Your falling off the limb you’ve been creeping out onto all night.
The more time that goes by, the harder it is to prove INNOCENCE. Especially when someone gleefully wants to prosecute for cash.
The more time out from the crime, the harder it is to prosecute. Ask ANY lawyer, cop or judge.
Anyone who speaks TRUTH is on solid ground. I am not falling off anything, as I stand on the TRUTH, and don't make the thread about me, that's against the rules.
Robert Burns (not the the poet or a cigarillo), “pleaded guilty to six counts of rape of a child under 16 and seven counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14.”
Oct.1, 2005 Boston Globe
And I reiterate: The more time out from the so-called crime, the harder it is to prove innocence when inflammatory allegations are made, and inflated by leftist media out to destroy the Catholic Church. That is exactly what I meant by "Nifonging the Catholic Church."
According to "Dr. Eckleburg" that's the same thing as rape.
Yeah. When we find one of those, then we'll have a point.
You admitted you were no lawyer several posts ago and you have substantiated that claim with these goofy statements.
As Alex reminded us in post 189...
"Statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the consent of the younger person or mistake about their age is not a defense....Federal law makes it criminal to knowingly engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you.
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.