Except, of course, when it's a Catholic priest accused of child sexual abuse 20-50 years AFTER THE FACT.
Do you think that it doesn't matter to the victim how many years after the fact it is?
What? After 20 or 50 years, they're expected to have gotten over it?
It doesn't count any more cause the legal statute of limitations has been passed?
Tell me, what are the consequences of a priest living with unresolved, habitual sin in his life? Does that not affect the validity of the sacraments which he performs. I recall reading somewhere that priests are expected to keep short accounts with God and that if they have sin in their lives, that any sacraments they perform, like baptism and confirmation, etc, are rendered invalid.
Would that mean that a marriage ceremony he performed isn't valid and the couple is still living in sin? What about a priest who oversees a confirmation ceremony for a child he molested? Would a baptism then not absolve the child of original sin?
Thank you for bringing your thread back to its stated topic. That blatant double standard arises from the position of presumed guilt with respect to Catholic priests and presumed innocence when discussing the non-Catholic clergy. It truly is "Nifonging the Catholic Church. Too bad too many are too damned dumb to understand what you wanted to do with this thread.
While I do enjoy discussions of hill-billy history and Calvin's sins those should be subjects of their own threads.