Releasing abusive priest names in Texas

  • Thread starter Thread starter phoage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joeybaggz said:
While I can see your logic, and good intention, I might suggest that no one be named until (at least canonically) convicted. I have seen “credible” evidence fall apart during the “trial” process and it would be a shame to destroy a man’s reputation and career by an accusation that, while seeming credible, in the end is false. Maybe citing that there are X number of accusations that have some credibility to them would be okay, I still have to side with caution and charity in such a situation.
Click to expand...
To clarify: by credible evidence, I mean that they have at least violated protocols meant to protect them from this kind of thing.
 
For legal reasons, I don’t think the diocese wants to make a lot of legal pronouncements on what happened in a particular case. They might do something like Pittsburgh did and list a brief summary of the facts and what happened to the priest (died, laicized, etc).
 
Given all we’ve been forced to experience, I’ve no idea why every bishop isn’t ordered to release records of those who have been credibly accused. I’d also like them to release all information on when and where those credibly accused were moved. This is the only responsible path forward.
 
Last edited:
Their list is compliled from public records. There may be more in the diocesan files.
 
Some may be from public record but in my diocese there are cases that never went to court.
 
While it’s a good site, it’s not comprehensive. My brother recently found cases in our hometown diocese that weren’t listed and shared them with bishop-accountability.org to be added. Additionally, we shouldn’t have to rely on a third party for this information. The Church should voluntarily provide it.
 
Theo2 said:
The important thing is not to define so that the list is not credible which would invite the AG to investigate.
Click to expand...
The AG should absolutely investigate any credible accusations made. If the list is not credible, it would be utterly worthless.

Accepting responsibility for this disaster and moving forward as a church absolutely means that civil authorities will end up investigating and adjudicating claims. Failing to disclose information that might lead to prosecution is why so many teens and children were molested.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
For legal reasons, I don’t think the diocese wants to make a lot of legal pronouncements on what happened in a particular case. They might do something like Pittsburgh did and list a brief summary of the facts and what happened to the priest (died, laicized, etc).
Click to expand...
It may be for reasons having to do with complying with the requirements of their insurance companies, too. I don’t know how these policies are written, but it’s going to be tough to get insurance if you will not comply with insurance company’s counsel.
 
Here’s a sidebar that irks me. A former professor at one of Pennsylvania’s public colleges was convicted of sex crimes.
The PA Attorney General won’t release the details. He says it’s becase there’s an agreement not to.

The convict says he couldn’t care less if the details are released. The victims have been requesting for years to have the details released.

Why release the priest report’s details but not the professor’s? Because the state could be liable in lawsuits. We want to protect the taxpayers

It’s all about justice when the Church is on the hook for $millions. But when the taxpayers might have to foot the bill…justice has a price tag. 😠
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top