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?
“My edit was an attempt to change the focus from knowledge of a single current incident to knowledge of the history of the accused.”
Yes, I’m aware of this. However, all, or almost all of the abuse cases are well past the statutes of limitations. This is problematic because now you are using one standard for everyone else, and another for priests.
“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”
The problem is that this isn’t the case in the criminal justice system. I can’t draw up allegations that are more than 7 years old and charge someone with them. Criminal history only covers convictions, not stuff that someone might have done way back when and was not convicted.
You can’t use stuff that old to establish a pattern of behaviour because it’s inadmissible, and trying to do that would likely get everything tossed, including the recent accusation. Convictions, yes, but not unreported allegations.
“I could be persuaded to go either way.”
Well as you said, fiat lex. The law is King. :D We have to go by what the common law states, and the common law has a privision to protect the defendent in having a statute of limitations.
“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”
Well, say I work at McDonalds. I get off my shift and go rolling in my truck. I get up and I beat up a bum, get back in my truck and roll away. Is McDonalds responsible for the assault?
It has nothing to do with letting the perpetrator off, but to distinguish between the official duties and the private lives of the perpetrator. Ask yourself this? Is there any distinction between a priest and between the average joe on the street from the perspective of the victim? If the answer is no, then I don’t see how you can hold the Church responsible.
“And why would it only apply in the UK?”
Well, this is a UK case. It would only apply to citizens of their particular country, not foriegn nationals.