Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
The defense lawyer blew a gasket. Totally out of line and unprofessional conduct.
He should be disqualified on that alone.
Even if he didn’t know anyone who claimed to be abused, the fact that he attended the seminary should be enough to disqualify him for conflict of interest.
Not that the defense would ever want to compromise the trial or delay the trial or confuse the trial or subvert the trial. Nah.
Let's think about this for a moment. Either the defense attorney was a seminarian at the same time and same place the abuse was occurring or he wasn't. That's not too difficult to discern.
And if it is true that he did attend the same seminary at the same time when the abuse took place, don't you think that's a pretty salient fact he should have disclosed so as to avoid a mistrial down the line?
That's like saying school boards intentionally hire molesters.
That could be really handy!
The Roman church attempted to temporize with homosexuals in their priesthood and it blew up in their face. I think that this churches experience presages what will happen to the rest of society when homosexuals are placed in positions of authority over boys in schools, the scouts and even young men in the military.
“the RCC intentionally hatches homosexuals”
Can you elaborate on this a little more or give some proof?
In the military, I think the homos are going to get their butts beaten by young recruits and non-coms. This whole queer thing is DOA with the Marines.
You could hand me a million dollars and you would still be an anti-Catholic bigot.
The military will oppress the normals. Anyone complaining about homosexual harrassment will be disciplined.
They get what they want. They always have.
And most of the sexual abuse by priests for centuries has been priests raping young boys who, in turn, are scarred for life by such an ungodly breach of trust.
And still they refuse to repent and sin no more.
I think there will be open defiance. 95% of the military already despises their so-called commander-in-chief. If nothing else, watch enlistment plummet.
Not the fact that this defense attorney most likely attended the same seminary at the same time the alleged sexual abuse was going on?
Facts like that are convenient to be kept hidden until such time as one would want a mistrial to be called. Say in about a year or so, as the trial is concluding and the guilt of the defendants is about to be declared.
“Rome wants men who prefer the company of other men to women and children.”
Can you give any proof of this? Are there any papal documents outlining why homosexuals are preferred in the “priescraft”?
The guilty ones should have their testicles removed using a branch trimmer or a tin scissors. Just make sure they are guilty, and the accusation isn't the proof.
I attended a seminary for four years during a time when I have read homsexuallity was rampant in United Staes seminaries. I must have been mightily unattractive because I was never propositioned a single time by priest or student.
The same holds true during my altar boy years. Our pastor had a contrary personality and went through about six curates in the eight years of my grade school days. Not one of them made untoward advances, although I discovered years later that one of them, incidentally my favorite of those days, died of AIDS. He didn't get it in a blood transfusion. The rumor was he picked it up from adults.
The long and short of it is, even the homosexual, or the one I learned was, and all the rest were basically decent men as far as I can tell. Many of them worked long and hard to drill an education into me.
I realize my story is anecdotal. I simply refuse to believe the majority or even a large minority or Catholic priests are living breathing Lucifers. The bad ones should be strung up. Bishops we can prove to be enablers should be strung up along side them.
I just know the accusation isn't proof.
One of the stupidest things I've ever read on here.
Incredible, just incredible
RC apologists love to send others off on “evidence” gathering. But what we’ve seen time and again is that NO evidence is ENOUGH evidence.
Rome draws men who prefer the company of other men to the company of women and children. If it didn’t, it would call men who were married with children to act as shepherds for the flock.
Instead, Rome gets what it wants. Men dressed up in women’s clothing and red Prada shoes and bejeweled headgear who think of themselves as “another Christ” and who corrupt the children in their care.
Yes, that's a sorry thing to say.
Because it's not a "hard to get a handle on."
Roman Catholic priests rape children in their care because the "celibate" priesthood calls men who prefer the company of other men to the company of women and children.
And has for centuries.
This judge also gave a waring to the Monsignor that his interest could be compromised by having attorneys of the Dioceses ..and he declared he was fine with his "team" ..that removes very nicely that issue for a retrial ... This judge is taking all mistrial issues off the table ..smart woman
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.