By Diogenes (articles ) | Jul 01, 2004
A Salesian superior assures the world that of course he didn't move a priest from Australia to Samoa to help him avoid child-abuse charges. He didn't know the police were still interested in the case, the superior says.
OK; the explanation is plausible. Let's test it against some other information:
- The superior says that he sent the offending priest to Samoa to keep him away from children. Stop me if I'm wrong-- I admit I've never been to Samoa-- but I think there may be children there.
- The superior acknowledges that he signed a legal document testifying that the priest in question had no criminal record. In fact the priest did have a criminal record. But the superior says he signed the document "in good faith."
Ah: in good faith! So maybe he's telling us now, in good faith, that he wasn't trying to shelter a predator from prosecution.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Jul. 01, 2004 11:42 AM ET USA
Since most of these perverts think of themselves as still fit for ministry after, at most, forcing a pro-forma apology on their victims (and demanding that the victims absolve them immediately and accept their "rehabilitation" as sufficient recompense), let's look at a wonderfully suitable ministry assignment: Antarctica. Here each could say Mass daily for the intentions of the Pope and be nowhere near children. But then there would also be none of the honors and perks of power...