[Goanet] Defrocked Priests

[roland.francis]

The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[eric pinto]

??????????? Rolly, at the school today, stared at the old German portraits:
???????? There with their grace, go I.? And you.??Some of it hurts.
?????????Dear old Hetting was Dutch, as was Gense. They escaped the 1914
???????? deportations.???? eric.

From: roland.francis
Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests


The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[Tim de Mello]

Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient.
They comitted criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

The Church (read Pope Benedict) could be judged to have subverted the course of justice.

Tim de Mello




> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:13:45 -0500
> From: roland.francis at ymail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.
>
> The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.
>
> Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.
>
> Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293
>
> Roland.
>
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."


COMMENT:

NONSENSE !
Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement

jc

[Alfred de Tavares]

Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....

I detect a flaw in your contention.

If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
for themselves.

So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.

They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.

AT


> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> NONSENSE !
> Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
>
> jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear AT & JC:



The revelations of the defrocked priests came after the Vatican?s U.N. ambassador in Geneva, was grilled by a United Nations humans rights committee probing abuse by priests and what was being done to prevent it.

Previously they were just subjected to Canon Law.



The names and whereabouts of priests on the list have yet to be disclosed by the Vatican.



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 ? including pensions and space in a retirement home set aside for priests ? but there are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from sexually assaulting again.



The Vatican (now, for the first time) insists nothing in its church process prevented victims from going to police.

Prior to this victims were ?forced? to settle out of court. There is plenty of evidence to support this.



Now we shall see true justice being meted out to these offending priests.



Tim de Mello


> From: alfredtavares at hotmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org; goanet at goanet.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:06:22 +0100
> Subject: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....
>
> I detect a flaw in your contention.
>
> If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
> in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
> of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
> for themselves.
>
> So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.
>
> They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.
>
> AT
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> > From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> > To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> > Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
> >
> > On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> > criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> > Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
> >
> >
> > COMMENT:
> >
> > NONSENSE !
> > Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
> >
> > jc
>

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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

[Tim de Mello]

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: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:36:01 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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
>
>

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

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?

--

My dear Tim,

Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.

I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
"jurisdiction".

Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
criminal acts.

jc
Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
the land.

I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
the system.

1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)

2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm

good wishes

jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



I will not "move the goal posts".



Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?



Regards



Tim



> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:16:34 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> --
>
> My dear Tim,
>
> Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.
>
> I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
> "jurisdiction".
>
> Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
> priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
> the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
> criminal acts.
>
> jc
> Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
> children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
> MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
> are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
> strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
> as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
> the land.
>
> I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
> our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
> Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
> Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
> task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
> the system.
>
> 1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)
>
> 2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/
>
> 3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm
>
> good wishes
>
> jc

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"

No.
But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.

jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"

Totally disagree.



One should not go by technical definitions here.

Question is was it morally right?



Anyway let us leave it at this.



Peace



Regards



Tim de Mello


> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:03:04 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"
>
> No.
> But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.
>
> jc

[Jose Colaco]

Re: ". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"o

> On Jan 25, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jose:
> Totally disagree. One should not go by technical definitions here.
> Question is was it morally right?
> Anyway let us leave it at ......

Comment:

Dear Tim,

I regret to inform you that legality and 'obstruction of justice' are legal terms....not moral ones.

best

jc

[Jose Colaco]

Re: ". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"o

> On Jan 25, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jose:
> Totally disagree. One should not go by technical definitions here.
> Question is was it morally right?
> Anyway let us leave it at ......

Comment:

Dear Tim,

I regret to inform you that legality and 'obstruction of justice' are legal terms....not moral ones.

best

jc

[Jose Colaco]

Re: ". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"o

> On Jan 25, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jose:
> Totally disagree. One should not go by technical definitions here.
> Question is was it morally right?
> Anyway let us leave it at ......

Comment:

Dear Tim,

I regret to inform you that legality and 'obstruction of justice' are legal terms....not moral ones.

best

jc

[Jose Colaco]

Re: ". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"o

> On Jan 25, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jose:
> Totally disagree. One should not go by technical definitions here.
> Question is was it morally right?
> Anyway let us leave it at ......

Comment:

Dear Tim,

I regret to inform you that legality and 'obstruction of justice' are legal terms....not moral ones.

best

jc

[Jose Colaco]

Re: ". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"o

> On Jan 25, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jose:
> Totally disagree. One should not go by technical definitions here.
> Question is was it morally right?
> Anyway let us leave it at ......

Comment:

Dear Tim,

I regret to inform you that legality and 'obstruction of justice' are legal terms....not moral ones.

best

jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"

Totally disagree.



One should not go by technical definitions here.

Question is was it morally right?



Anyway let us leave it at this.



Peace



Regards



Tim de Mello


> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:03:04 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"
>
> No.
> But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.
>
> jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"

Totally disagree.



One should not go by technical definitions here.

Question is was it morally right?



Anyway let us leave it at this.



Peace



Regards



Tim de Mello


> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:03:04 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"
>
> No.
> But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.
>
> jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"

Totally disagree.



One should not go by technical definitions here.

Question is was it morally right?



Anyway let us leave it at this.



Peace



Regards



Tim de Mello


> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:03:04 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"
>
> No.
> But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.
>
> jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



". . .neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice"

Totally disagree.



One should not go by technical definitions here.

Question is was it morally right?



Anyway let us leave it at this.



Peace



Regards



Tim de Mello


> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:03:04 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"
>
> No.
> But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.
>
> jc

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"

No.
But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.

jc

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"

No.
But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.

jc

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"

No.
But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.

jc

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 25, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?"

No.
But, it was neither illegal NOR was it obstruction of Justice.

jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



I will not "move the goal posts".



Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?



Regards



Tim



> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:16:34 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> --
>
> My dear Tim,
>
> Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.
>
> I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
> "jurisdiction".
>
> Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
> priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
> the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
> criminal acts.
>
> jc
> Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
> children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
> MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
> are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
> strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
> as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
> the land.
>
> I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
> our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
> Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
> Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
> task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
> the system.
>
> 1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)
>
> 2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/
>
> 3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm
>
> good wishes
>
> jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



I will not "move the goal posts".



Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?



Regards



Tim



> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:16:34 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> --
>
> My dear Tim,
>
> Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.
>
> I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
> "jurisdiction".
>
> Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
> priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
> the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
> criminal acts.
>
> jc
> Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
> children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
> MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
> are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
> strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
> as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
> the land.
>
> I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
> our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
> Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
> Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
> task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
> the system.
>
> 1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)
>
> 2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/
>
> 3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm
>
> good wishes
>
> jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



I will not "move the goal posts".



Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?



Regards



Tim



> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:16:34 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> --
>
> My dear Tim,
>
> Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.
>
> I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
> "jurisdiction".
>
> Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
> priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
> the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
> criminal acts.
>
> jc
> Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
> children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
> MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
> are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
> strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
> as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
> the land.
>
> I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
> our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
> Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
> Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
> task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
> the system.
>
> 1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)
>
> 2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/
>
> 3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm
>
> good wishes
>
> jc

[Tim de Mello]

Dear Jose:



I will not "move the goal posts".



Do you think that not passing the info that Pope Benedict had about the offending priests to lawful authorities was the right thing for him to have done?



Regards



Tim



> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:16:34 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> --
>
> My dear Tim,
>
> Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.
>
> I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
> "jurisdiction".
>
> Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
> priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
> the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
> criminal acts.
>
> jc
> Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
> children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
> MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
> are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
> strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
> as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
> the land.
>
> I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
> our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
> Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
> Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
> task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
> the system.
>
> 1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)
>
> 2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/
>
> 3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm
>
> good wishes
>
> jc

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

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?

--

My dear Tim,

Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.

I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
"jurisdiction".

Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
criminal acts.

jc
Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
the land.

I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
the system.

1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)

2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm

good wishes

jc

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

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?

--

My dear Tim,

Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.

I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
"jurisdiction".

Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
criminal acts.

jc
Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
the land.

I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
the system.

1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)

2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm

good wishes

jc

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

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?

--

My dear Tim,

Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.

I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
"jurisdiction".

Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
criminal acts.

jc
Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
the land.

I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
the system.

1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)

2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm

good wishes

jc

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 24 January 2014 11:36, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

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?

--

My dear Tim,

Here you go again ..... moving the goal post one more time.

I wish you would understand the terms "legality of action" and
"jurisdiction".

Please advise me HOW Pope Benedict could order the jailing (say) of ANY
priest unless he was a JUDGE in a criminal court under whose jurisdiction
the offending and offensive priest(s) were committing (allegedly) their
criminal acts.

jc
Someone who has for 25 years worked pro-bono for the cause of abused
children, been to court for their cases, successfully lobbied for the
MANDATORY reporting of such alleged actions (by those who might suspect or
are made aware) who might know a thing or two or three about Law, and who
strongly believes in the right of an accused to defend him/herself as much
as one who believes the guilty should be punished according to the law of
the land.

I invite you to read the following hree sites, and PLEASE ....let us use
our head and not necessarily ONLY our emotions when we discuss a topic.
Also, please stop moving the goal posts. You are making a mockery (like
Aires Rodrigues and the Goa Children's Act have done) of the very difficult
task that some of us faced & continue to face in getting such cases through
the system.

1: http://www.colaco.net/3/church-lurch.htm (from 2002)

2: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

3: http://www.colaco.net/1/gca2003.htm

good wishes

jc

[Tim de Mello]

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: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:36:01 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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
>
>

[Tim de Mello]

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: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:36:01 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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
>
>

[Tim de Mello]

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: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:36:01 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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
>
>

[Tim de Mello]

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: colaco1 at gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:36:01 -0500
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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
>
>

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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

[Jose Colaco]

On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> 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

[Tim de Mello]

Dear AT & JC:



The revelations of the defrocked priests came after the Vatican?s U.N. ambassador in Geneva, was grilled by a United Nations humans rights committee probing abuse by priests and what was being done to prevent it.

Previously they were just subjected to Canon Law.



The names and whereabouts of priests on the list have yet to be disclosed by the Vatican.



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 ? including pensions and space in a retirement home set aside for priests ? but there are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from sexually assaulting again.



The Vatican (now, for the first time) insists nothing in its church process prevented victims from going to police.

Prior to this victims were ?forced? to settle out of court. There is plenty of evidence to support this.



Now we shall see true justice being meted out to these offending priests.



Tim de Mello


> From: alfredtavares at hotmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org; goanet at goanet.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:06:22 +0100
> Subject: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....
>
> I detect a flaw in your contention.
>
> If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
> in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
> of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
> for themselves.
>
> So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.
>
> They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.
>
> AT
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> > From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> > To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> > Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
> >
> > On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> > criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> > Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
> >
> >
> > COMMENT:
> >
> > NONSENSE !
> > Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
> >
> > jc
>

[Tim de Mello]

Dear AT & JC:



The revelations of the defrocked priests came after the Vatican?s U.N. ambassador in Geneva, was grilled by a United Nations humans rights committee probing abuse by priests and what was being done to prevent it.

Previously they were just subjected to Canon Law.



The names and whereabouts of priests on the list have yet to be disclosed by the Vatican.



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 ? including pensions and space in a retirement home set aside for priests ? but there are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from sexually assaulting again.



The Vatican (now, for the first time) insists nothing in its church process prevented victims from going to police.

Prior to this victims were ?forced? to settle out of court. There is plenty of evidence to support this.



Now we shall see true justice being meted out to these offending priests.



Tim de Mello


> From: alfredtavares at hotmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org; goanet at goanet.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:06:22 +0100
> Subject: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....
>
> I detect a flaw in your contention.
>
> If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
> in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
> of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
> for themselves.
>
> So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.
>
> They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.
>
> AT
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> > From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> > To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> > Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
> >
> > On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> > criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> > Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
> >
> >
> > COMMENT:
> >
> > NONSENSE !
> > Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
> >
> > jc
>

[Tim de Mello]

Dear AT & JC:



The revelations of the defrocked priests came after the Vatican?s U.N. ambassador in Geneva, was grilled by a United Nations humans rights committee probing abuse by priests and what was being done to prevent it.

Previously they were just subjected to Canon Law.



The names and whereabouts of priests on the list have yet to be disclosed by the Vatican.



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 ? including pensions and space in a retirement home set aside for priests ? but there are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from sexually assaulting again.



The Vatican (now, for the first time) insists nothing in its church process prevented victims from going to police.

Prior to this victims were ?forced? to settle out of court. There is plenty of evidence to support this.



Now we shall see true justice being meted out to these offending priests.



Tim de Mello


> From: alfredtavares at hotmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org; goanet at goanet.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:06:22 +0100
> Subject: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....
>
> I detect a flaw in your contention.
>
> If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
> in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
> of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
> for themselves.
>
> So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.
>
> They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.
>
> AT
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> > From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> > To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> > Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
> >
> > On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> > criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> > Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
> >
> >
> > COMMENT:
> >
> > NONSENSE !
> > Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
> >
> > jc
>

[Tim de Mello]

Dear AT & JC:



The revelations of the defrocked priests came after the Vatican?s U.N. ambassador in Geneva, was grilled by a United Nations humans rights committee probing abuse by priests and what was being done to prevent it.

Previously they were just subjected to Canon Law.



The names and whereabouts of priests on the list have yet to be disclosed by the Vatican.



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 ? including pensions and space in a retirement home set aside for priests ? but there are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from sexually assaulting again.



The Vatican (now, for the first time) insists nothing in its church process prevented victims from going to police.

Prior to this victims were ?forced? to settle out of court. There is plenty of evidence to support this.



Now we shall see true justice being meted out to these offending priests.



Tim de Mello


> From: alfredtavares at hotmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org; goanet at goanet.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:06:22 +0100
> Subject: [Goanet] FW: Defrocked Priests
>
> Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....
>
> I detect a flaw in your contention.
>
> If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
> in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
> of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
> for themselves.
>
> So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.
>
> They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.
>
> AT
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> > From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> > To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> > Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
> >
> > On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> > criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> > Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
> >
> >
> > COMMENT:
> >
> > NONSENSE !
> > Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
> >
> > jc
>

[eric pinto]

??????They do?not answer to their two superiors, the Attorney General (Law Minister)
??? and the governor.? One DA?sent Nixon's Attorney Gen., Mitchell, to prison.
??????? The DA of New York State prosecuted the last?governor and forced him
??? to resign.
?????? Numerous members of the clergy are now serving terms. Canon Law may
??? have come to their rescue in Lisbon and Madrid where the Church is the
??? official religion of State.?? eric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

[Alfred de Tavares]

Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....

I detect a flaw in your contention.

If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
for themselves.

So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.

They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.

AT


> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> NONSENSE !
> Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
>
> jc

[eric pinto]

??????They do?not answer to their two superiors, the Attorney General (Law Minister)
??? and the governor.? One DA?sent Nixon's Attorney Gen., Mitchell, to prison.
??????? The DA of New York State prosecuted the last?governor and forced him
??? to resign.
?????? Numerous members of the clergy are now serving terms. Canon Law may
??? have come to their rescue in Lisbon and Madrid where the Church is the
??? official religion of State.?? eric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

[Alfred de Tavares]

Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....

I detect a flaw in your contention.

If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
for themselves.

So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.

They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.

AT


> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> NONSENSE !
> Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
>
> jc

[eric pinto]

??????They do?not answer to their two superiors, the Attorney General (Law Minister)
??? and the governor.? One DA?sent Nixon's Attorney Gen., Mitchell, to prison.
??????? The DA of New York State prosecuted the last?governor and forced him
??? to resign.
?????? Numerous members of the clergy are now serving terms. Canon Law may
??? have come to their rescue in Lisbon and Madrid where the Church is the
??? official religion of State.?? eric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

[Alfred de Tavares]

Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....

I detect a flaw in your contention.

If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
for themselves.

So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.

They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.

AT


> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> NONSENSE !
> Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
>
> jc

[eric pinto]

??????They do?not answer to their two superiors, the Attorney General (Law Minister)
??? and the governor.? One DA?sent Nixon's Attorney Gen., Mitchell, to prison.
??????? The DA of New York State prosecuted the last?governor and forced him
??? to resign.
?????? Numerous members of the clergy are now serving terms. Canon Law may
??? have come to their rescue in Lisbon and Madrid where the Church is the
??? official religion of State.?? eric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

[Alfred de Tavares]

Tim, top o' the year to you & Yours....

I detect a flaw in your contention.

If, at all, the Catholic clergy is shielded, which is not true, from prosecution,
in courts of law, for civil/criminal offences presumed commited, by the virtue
of the defrock-ation (re-cullotization?) by Benedict XVl, they are left to fend
for themselves.

So, where does any (further/continuing) shielding of the creatures lie.

They are, I would venture to say, as bare-assed as any of their alleged victims.

AT


> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:01:07 -0500
> From: colaco1 at gmail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
> criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
> Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> NONSENSE !
> Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement
>
> jc

[eric pinto]

??????They do?not answer to their two superiors, the Attorney General (Law Minister)
??? and the governor.? One DA?sent Nixon's Attorney Gen., Mitchell, to prison.
??????? The DA of New York State prosecuted the last?governor and forced him
??? to resign.
?????? Numerous members of the clergy are now serving terms. Canon Law may
??? have come to their rescue in Lisbon and Madrid where the Church is the
??? official religion of State.?? eric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."


COMMENT:

NONSENSE !
Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement

jc

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."


COMMENT:

NONSENSE !
Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement

jc

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."


COMMENT:

NONSENSE !
Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement

jc

[colaco1 at gmail.com (J. Colaco )]

On 22 January 2014 11:53, Tim de Mello <timdemello2 at hotmail.com> wrote:

"Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient. They comitted
criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution."


COMMENT:

NONSENSE !
Tim would do well to provide evidence to support his statement

jc

[roland.francis]

The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[eric pinto]

??????????? Rolly, at the school today, stared at the old German portraits:
???????? There with their grace, go I.? And you.??Some of it hurts.
?????????Dear old Hetting was Dutch, as was Gense. They escaped the 1914
???????? deportations.???? eric.

From: roland.francis
Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests


The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[Tim de Mello]

Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient.
They comitted criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

The Church (read Pope Benedict) could be judged to have subverted the course of justice.

Tim de Mello




> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:13:45 -0500
> From: roland.francis at ymail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.
>
> The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.
>
> Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.
>
> Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293
>
> Roland.
>
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile

[roland.francis]

The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[eric pinto]

??????????? Rolly, at the school today, stared at the old German portraits:
???????? There with their grace, go I.? And you.??Some of it hurts.
?????????Dear old Hetting was Dutch, as was Gense. They escaped the 1914
???????? deportations.???? eric.

From: roland.francis
Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests


The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[Tim de Mello]

Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient.
They comitted criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

The Church (read Pope Benedict) could be judged to have subverted the course of justice.

Tim de Mello




> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:13:45 -0500
> From: roland.francis at ymail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.
>
> The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.
>
> Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.
>
> Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293
>
> Roland.
>
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile

[roland.francis]

The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[eric pinto]

??????????? Rolly, at the school today, stared at the old German portraits:
???????? There with their grace, go I.? And you.??Some of it hurts.
?????????Dear old Hetting was Dutch, as was Gense. They escaped the 1914
???????? deportations.???? eric.

From: roland.francis
Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests


The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[Tim de Mello]

Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient.
They comitted criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

The Church (read Pope Benedict) could be judged to have subverted the course of justice.

Tim de Mello




> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:13:45 -0500
> From: roland.francis at ymail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.
>
> The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.
>
> Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.
>
> Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293
>
> Roland.
>
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile

[roland.francis]

The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[eric pinto]

??????????? Rolly, at the school today, stared at the old German portraits:
???????? There with their grace, go I.? And you.??Some of it hurts.
?????????Dear old Hetting was Dutch, as was Gense. They escaped the 1914
???????? deportations.???? eric.

From: roland.francis
Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests


The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.

The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.

Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not ?publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.

Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293

Roland.



Sent from Samsung Mobile

[Tim de Mello]

Defrocking priests involved in pedophilia is not sufficient.
They comitted criminal offences and need to be tried and punished accordingly.
Canon Law just shields these priests from public prosecution.

The Church (read Pope Benedict) could be judged to have subverted the course of justice.

Tim de Mello




> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:13:45 -0500
> From: roland.francis at ymail.com
> To: goanet at lists.goanet.org
> Subject: [Goanet] Defrocked Priests
>
> The recent news that Benedict has defrocked 387 priests in the past two years is another shocking episode in the never-ending Catholic Church saga.
>
> The figure is much higher if you read the ABC news link shown below that outlines the procedure that has allowed many more to slip through the cracks and thus avoid the church's maximum punishment.
>
> Figures and incidents of such priests involved in sexual abuse and pedophilia are not publicly known for Goa, while in Kerala abuse of nuns by priests has been well reported and written about by some victims themselves.
>
> Are we Goans above such scandals or just too ashamed to expose them.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21576293
>
> Roland.
>
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile