“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.
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.
My edit was an attempt to change the focus from knowledge of a single current incident to knowledge of the history of the accused. I think we're both just having a hard time trying to cover all the bases. I can see legal holes in your wording, and you're probably seeing holes in mine. I honestly am not sure what to do with statutes of limitations, though. I'm inclined to waive them when a history of criminal activity is exposed, generally agree that they should be upheld, and can't find any Biblical "case law" examples of letting the perp get away because too much time has elapsed. I could be persuaded to go either way.
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.
Could you go into more detail on this? It sounds like you're discussing a priest not being known to be a priest by the victim, or a priest molesting someone "off the clock", but I'm not sure I'm reading it right. And why would it only apply in the UK?