Ah, yes. It's always "no substantial proof" and "questionable proof."
Did you read the evidence presented in the Philadelphia pederast priest scandal? Or is that all "questionable proof," too?
And here's the Grand Jury's report from 2005, which serves to illustrate how the Grand Jury's suggestions to the RCC were completely ignored.
The article does not claim any substantial proof was given or that credible allegations had been made in all cases. It simply reads that the priests were accussed.
By the way that Grand Jury report the investigation leading to those findings was indeed confidential.
It might have escaped your notice but accusations are not the same as a Grand Jury report. If you want I am sure someone with more patience can explain the difference.
It seems it really bother you that the law presumes innocent until proven guilty when it comes to pirests accused of crimes against children.
Does this same standard apply to any person accused of crimes against children? Doe it apply to any person accused of any crime?
I am asking in all sincerity. What other rights or laws do you think should be plowed under to meet your prejudice against priests?
Should there be a separate legal standard under civil and criminal law for priests accused of abuse? Should they have a right to trial? Should they have the right to legal counsel? Should they have the right to face their accuser in court if that accuser is now an adult? Should they have the right to see the evidence against them?
If not why not?
Here is the opinion of a real court.
” The diocese(?) says at least eight of the 33 priests on the list are dead and the rest no longer are in the ministry.”
So far, the courts have sided with the archdiocese and barred publication of the list.