Dear Jose:
You ask: "Are You suggesting that the Vatican in 2014 should have jailed these folks?" What would you suggest for these pedophiles who have destroyed countless lives? Should they be allowed to offend again? Tim de Mello > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:36:01 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests > > On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <[email protected]> wrote: > > "(1)Previously they were just subjected to Canon Law." > > "(2)The names and whereabouts of priests on the list have yet to be disclosed > by the Vatican." > > "(3)The maximum penalty for a priest convicted by a church tribunal is > essentially losing his job: being defrocked. A defrocked priest can lose all > his benefits — but there are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender > from sexually assaulting again." > > Dear Tim, > > I believe that Eric has answered the major facet of your previous post. > > NOW, please note what you wrote: "Canon Law JUST SHIELDS these priests from > public prosecution. The Church (read Pope Benedict) could be judged to have > SUBVERTED the course of justice." > > SHIELDS as in present tense? > > And HOW exactly did Pope Benedict SUBVERT the course of justice. > > Even though you have moved the proverbial goal-post in your recent ( post > quoted ) above, I will try commenting on the points in your post. > > Re #1: Do not know which time frame the 'previously' refers to. > > Re # 2: Please advise on which legal basis the Vatican was expected to do > that? ( I know that the law has changed in certain jurisdictions, including > the one I live in, wherein reporting is mandatory. > > Re # 3: Are You suggesting that the Vatican in 2014 should have jailed these > folks? > > jc > >
