|
|
Don wrote:
> There is no suggestion that he was an accessory in child sexual
abuse.
He was an accessory. He took know child abusers and moved them to new
churches where new children would available to abuse. And he knew
they
would re-offend. The recidivism rate for this type of offense is
very high.
There
> is no suggestion that he committed any criminal act or that he
incited or
> conspired with other persons to commit child abuse.
He put them in new parishes with new children. He also didn't go to
the
police, fire the offending priests, or let the new victims know about
the
impending danger.
Go talk to some of the victims some time. Then maybe you won't be so
quick to defend Bernard Law.
BTW, you do realize there are charges that this type of thing went on
long
before Law? That many of Laws predesseors knew of this crisis and
chose to look the other way?
|
|