1, the incident reported actually occurred.
2, that the incident was reported before statutes of limitations.
3, that the Church had knowledge of the incident prior to it being reported.
Otherwise, no.
For the most part, this works for me. I'd change point #3 to add "...or the Church had knowledge of previous incidents committed by the same individual". Does that change work for you?
“For the most part, this works for me. I’d change point #3 to add “...or the Church had knowledge of previous incidents committed by the same individual”. Does that change work for you?”
Would still fall under the statutes of limitation. You couldn’t for example, go back 20 years and say you were abused, have the Church show that there was abuse 20 years ago from events even further back and hold the church responsible.
I’m not sure exactly how to word number 3, because it’s important. There would have to be knowledge to the superiors documenting their knowledge that an incidence has occurred, that it is true, and that they did not act on the incident to confine the priest. All within the statute of limitations.
You’d also have to have something about the priest acting in his official capacity. There would have to be knowledge that the victim would know that X was in fact a Catholic priest.
And this would only apply to citizens of the UK.