RC Church try weasel out of abuse payments: priests not technically employees

mikhail

I think this may be important enough for its own thread, and I don't see it elsewhere, but the mods might prefer to merge it.

Catholic church's plea could rule out damages for priests' abuse

Victims' lawyers condemn 'scandalous' defence that Catholic priests are not legally employees of the church

Jamie Doward
The Observer, Sunday 24 July 2011

Link goes to article on guardian.co.uk.

MagicMarker

Scum

Penn

Victims of sexual abuse by priests will no longer be able to sue the Catholic church for damages if a landmark judgment rules that priests should not be considered as employees.

In a little publicised case heard this month at the high court, the church claimed that it is not "vicariously liable" for priests' actions. The church has employed the argument in the past but this was the first time it had been used in open court and a ruling in the church's favour would set a legal precedent.

The use of the defence raises further questions about the church's willingness to accept culpability for abuse. It follows a damning report into abuse at the diocese of Cloyne in Ireland which prompted the Irish president, Mary McAleese, to call on leaders of the church "to urgently reflect on how, by coherent and effective action, it can restore public trust and confidence in its stated objective of putting children first".

Those planning to bring claims in relation to the high court case expressed dismay. "As children, we weren't given an innocent, carefree and safe environment," said one. "We weren't given a peaceful structure in which to grow and develop normally. By some miracle, some of us are still here to voice the words of so many who can't. Only a small number of victims ever come forward. The full potential of who we could have been as adults has been stolen."

The church's defence has been condemned by lawyers. "I think the Catholic church's attempt to avoid responsibility for the abhorrent actions of one of its priests is nothing short of scandalous," said Richard Scorer of the law firm Pannone, which specialises in abuse cases. "The Catholic church would be better served by facing up to its responsibilities rather than trying to hide behind spurious employment law arguments."

The ruling is being made as part of a preliminary hearing into the case of "JGE", who claims to have been sexually abused while a six-year-old resident at The Firs, a children's home in Portsmouth run by an order of nuns, the English Province of Our Lady of Charity. "If we fail, it would mean that no other victims of Catholic priests would be able to be compensated," said Tracey Emmott of Emmott Snell, a specialist in working with sexual abuse claims who is representing JGE.

JGE alleges that she was sexually abused by Father Wilfred Baldwin, a priest of the Roman Catholic diocese of Portsmouth and its "vocations director", who regularly visited The Firs during the 70s. Her legal team claim the nuns were negligent and in breach of duty, and that the diocese was liable for Baldwin's alleged abuse as he was a Catholic priest engaged within the work of the diocese.

Previous hearings in the House of Lords and the court of appeal relating to other church organisations have found that ministers should be treated as employees. But there has been no judgment yet on whether the relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is akin to an employment relationship.

"They claim that the relationship between the bishop of the diocese and the parish priest in question does not amount to anything akin to a relationship of employment, and therefore there cannot be any 'vicarious liability' for the priest's acts," Emmott said.

"That is to say, whatever sexual abuse their priests might commit, it is not their responsibility. They are absolved of blame. We need to show that, while Father Baldwin wasn't strictly an employee of the church, he was acting on the bishop's behalf and that the bishop clearly had a degree of control over his activities."

Criminal proceedings against Baldwin, who was the subject of a police investigation, concluded when he died of a heart attack in 2006.

For mobile readers etc.

CiaranMT

As if the ordinary priest needed any more evidence that they mean nothing to the Vatican, really.

Really shows how cut-off they are, especially after reading the IT article over the weekend by Kathy Sheridan.

Nodin

....winning hearts and minds again.

magicbastarder

Barrington wrote: »

For mobile readers etc.

the guardian website automatically redirects to the mobile version, afaik.

Sarky

Despite the serious nature of that piece, I nearly laughed out loud in the office at the sheer audacity of the church. I mean, wow.

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

Scum

No doubt..

The question you have to ask yourself though is whether this ducking an diving going to harm the longevity and influence of Catholic church more than their paying out?

I'd say it does them more damage.

Genghiz Cohen

antiskeptic wrote: »

No doubt..

The question you have to ask yourself though is whether this ducking an diving going to harm the longevity and influence of Catholic church more than their paying out?

I'd say it does them more damage.

I'd hope they will have to pay eventually, so this BS only adds to that.
Much better off if, at the start they said: "Yep, that was our fault. We will do our best to root out the minority who hurt children and once we compensate the victims, we can all get back to normal."

But no...

Doctor DooM

antiskeptic wrote: »

No doubt..

The question you have to ask yourself though is whether this ducking an diving going to harm the longevity and influence of Catholic church more than their paying out?

I'd say it does them more damage.

It will probably do them more damage in the eyes of people and perhaps will end their relationship in our country, but will make them more money in the eyes of banks and probably not be heard of in the developing countries they are sinking their teeth into.

No competition it seems.

housetypeb

"the gimlet eye of a canon lawyer" description from Enda kenny is apt.

housetypeb

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'd hope they will have to pay eventually, so this BS only adds to that.
Much better off if, at the start they said: "Yep, that was our fault. We will do our best to root out the minority who hurt children and once we compensate the victims, we can all get back to BUSINESS as normal."

But no...

Fixed your post there for ya, mister.

Genghiz Cohen

housetypeb wrote: »

Fixed your post there for ya, mister.

Golly! Thanks!

the culture of deference

Smart Scumbags

Brainwash a country, get the guillible peasents to donate land and money to keep the church in the style they love.

Hide under canon/state law when the going gets tough.

Quietly move to the next ignorant country and repeat.

The time for waiting for a response from the vatican has gone.

Take action NOW Mr. Kenny

wonderfulname

Such a disgusting organisation, although I have to laugh at how out of touch they are to even think of such a move.

Jimmy Bottlehead

This is utterly sickening. How anybody can support this church at this point is beyond me. If you are religious, at least grow a pair and support a different denomination that isn't as blatantly disgusting and irresponsible as the catholic church.

MrPudding

Whilst I think this is, legally, an interesting move. I would be quite unpleasantly surprised if it was successful.

Of the two aspects to this defence the one I would be most worried about is the priest / bishop relationship. I think this is the one most likely to cause problems. There are certain elements required to prove a master / servant relationship, and if the church can argue that any of these are missing the defence could be successful.

If the first aspect of the defence fails I very much doubt the second string of the defence will be successful. For this they will try to show that the actions of the priests, raping kids, was so far removed from what their duties actually were, that their employer could not be held responsible, they were on a “frolic of their own.”

This is quite a complicated and interesting area of law. If the court finds that the acts carried out by the employee carried out it duties, albeit in an improper way, then the employer will be liable. This will be the case even where the employer has specific rules against the type of act the employee committed. For example, there is a Northern Ireland case where a petrol tanker driver was smoking whilst delivering petrol to the petrol station, an act that was, unsurprisingly forbidden by his employer, and the cigarette caused an explosion. His employer was held vicariously liable.

More relevant to this particular case is a case involving a care home called Hasley Hall. This was a home for difficult children and some of the employees were sexually abusing the residents. The owner of the hall argued that, amongst other things, sexual abuse was not part of the employee’s duties and therefore they should not be liable, the employees were on a “frolic of their own”. The court held that whilst sexual abuse was not part of their duties sexually abusing the children amounted to carrying out their duties in an improper mode.

Another thing to note about vicarious liability is that there is a strong element of public policy about it. Part of it is trying to ensure the costs are borne by someone that can bare them. The courts will, or at least should be, cognisant of the fact that the people that have been abused should be compensated. For them to be compensated there need to be a person or a body that can pay. For this reason I am hopeful that they will find that priests are employees and the church is vicariously liable.

MrP

magicbastarder

i can't see how they'd get away with it anyway. who provides the priest with accomodation and spending money?
income is not simply salary.

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

i can't see how they'd get away with it anyway. who provides the priest with accomodation and spending money?
income is not simply salary.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. A servant works for the master and performs tasks under the direction and control of the master. The master must know and consent to the actions. The law is concerned with various things when deciding if a master / servant relationship exists. I think control will be the most relevant in this particular case.

You can have an independent contractor, which is probably the kind of argument the church will try to use. In this case the priest may be employed to carry out a particular task, but how he carries out that task is more or less up to him. The master does not dictate how the priest should work.

MrP

hairy sailor

The sad thing is people will still go to mass & fill the churches coffers with thier hard earned money,the whole rotten cult need's to be boycotted untill it's driven from this island,I reckon as soon as the older generation is gone that's it for the church,hopefully most of the youth today have a brain in thier head's & can make up thier own mind's & see it for the b*llox that it is.It's time to move onward & upward in this country without the noose of the church dragging us backward's.That is move on after the w**nker's pay thier victim's what they owe them.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Of the two aspects to this defence the one I would be most worried about is the priest / bishop relationship. I think this is the one most likely to cause problems.

I'd have thought that could work either way.

I don't believe there church issues job contracts to priests or that it produces works rules or guidelines books (save for those specifically related to child abuse; am open to correction here), so the church might have a hard time claiming the frolic excuse, since there's not much documentation specifying properly what they should be up to. But there's oodles of precedent, if not paperwork, I'd have thought, to suggest fairly firmly that priests are working within a fairly standard manager/employee relationship and that standard employment and liability law should apply to both.

BTW, I'm sure I've asked this before, but can't remember what the answer was... In legal terms, just what the hell is the church in Ireland? A registered charity, limited company, trust, something else entirely?

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

I'd have thought that could work either way.

I don't believe there church issues job contracts to priests or that it produces works rules or guidelines books (save for those specifically related to child abuse; am open to correction here), so the church might have a hard time claiming the frolic excuse, since there's not much documentation specifying properly what they should be up to. But there's oodles of precedent, if not paperwork, I'd have thought, to suggest fairly firmly that priests are working within a fairly standard manager/employee relationship and that standard employment and liability law should apply to both.

The lack of a contract is not an issue, the courts will infer one if necessary based on how the relationship works.

The lack of any documentation as to what the priest should be doing is of more concern. If it is a case of, “you are a priest now, crack on…” then it could be very hard to show a master / servant relationship.

The frolic excuse will only come into play if the church is unsuccessful in showing the priests are not employees. Personally, given past case law, I would not expect the frolic defence to be successful, but I am concerned about the master / servant relationship.

robindch wrote: »

BTW, I'm sure I've asked this before, but can't remember what the answer was... In legal terms, just what the hell is the church in Ireland? A registered charity, limited company, trust, something else entirely?

I am not actually sure. I think it might be a mixture of all of the above.

MrP

magicbastarder

MrPudding wrote: »

The lack of any documentation as to what the priest should be doing is of more concern. If it is a case of, “you are a priest now, crack on…” then it could be very hard to show a master / servant relationship.

would that be covered by the several years' training a priest would typically get?

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

would that be covered by the several years' training a priest would typically get?

This is a tricky one, and that is what concerns me. My reading of the case law is that the courts are concerned with the amount of control the "master" had when the acts were committed. If it is the case that the priests are trained and then pretty much left to their own devices, then there might be a problem.

I can't really say for sure as I don't know how much control bishops have over how a priest actually carries on his day to day duties. If the priests role is more of an agent, then the church will not be liable. It will boil down to the contract between the priest and bishop, be it an actual contract or one which the court infers, is a contract of service (what we want) or a contract for services (what we don't want).

MrP

Mistress 69

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

This is utterly sickening. How anybody can support this church at this point is beyond me. If you are religious, at least grow a pair and support a different denomination that isn't as blatantly disgusting and irresponsible as the catholic church.

The way I see is that devout Catholics worldwide should not have to opt out of their church because of the dispicable actions of a minority who bring it into disrepute. They would rather that the ''men'' guilty of abuse, cover up and denial of responsibility were dealt with by the authorities. Much has been said in the media over the past week on this issue.

magicbastarder

Mistress 69 wrote: »

a minority who bring it into disrepute.

but it seems that the people at the top were complicit in that they tried to cover it up.

Mistress 69

magicbastarder wrote: »

but it seems that the people at the top were complicit in that they tried to cover it up.

Agreed. It certainly does seem that senior hierarchy have had a policy of cover up.

MrPudding

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Agreed. It certainly does seem that senior hierarchy have had a policy of cover up.

Does anyone remember the Ballymaloe scandal?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ideyididcw/

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0119/allen.html?view=print

I think this is very interesting. Here we have a man that was convicted of possessing child pornographic images. There was uproar. This was one man in a company, admittedly high up in a company, that was caught with illegal images on his computer. There was no indication or evidence that he had ever personally directly harmed a child, I say personally and directly as I believe it can be argued that merely possessing images of child pornography is harmful to children as it is creating market for them.

After his conviction there were calls for Ballymaloe to be shut down. There were countless calls for their product to be boycotted.

Then we have the Roman Catholic Church. What can I say? Years upon years of child rape, sexual and mental abuse, thousands of victims discovered and probably thousands more to be discovered. We have cover up after cover up, with personnel at the highest level being implicated in morally questionable and possibly legally questionable behaviour. An organisation that, having been caught, put procedure in place to make sure it did not happen again, and then ignored them. An organisation that has attempted to thwart investigation after investigation into their behaviour.

Shame on you.

MrP

wonderfulname

What is the relevance of ballymaloe? Seems a very different situation altogether to me.

MrPudding

wonderfulname wrote: »

What is the relevance of ballymaloe? Seems a very different situation altogether to me.

not relevant, per se, but I find the difference in the public’s reactions to it, compared with the church, to be interesting.

The crime in the Ballymaloe case was considerable less than the crimes committed by agents of the church; yet the public uproar is very different.

Ballymaloe was one man and one crime yet there were calls for boycotting of the company to put it out of business. The church has thousand of crimes on its books, yet it is just a few bad apples. I just find it an interesting comparision.

MrP

wonderfulname

In all fairness our taoiseach spoke out against them and it was met with resounding approval, for god sake they want to make laws that interfere with the churches operation, that's huge, the majority of people are behind it. There have been many calls to boycott the organisation over the course of the scandals, I'd wager they were listened to and all.

Maybe I just didn't notice it with ballymaloe, or maybe it's a case of selective reporting in the media, but the public sentiment towards the church is on a whole other level.

Mistress 69

MrPudding wrote: »

Does anyone remember the Ballymaloe scandal?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ideyididcw/

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0119/allen.html?view=print

I think this is very interesting. Here we have a man that was convicted of possessing child pornographic images. There was uproar. This was one man in a company, admittedly high up in a company, that was caught with illegal images on his computer. There was no indication or evidence that he had ever personally directly harmed a child, I say personally and directly as I believe it can be argued that merely possessing images of child pornography is harmful to children as it is creating market for them.

After his conviction there were calls for Ballymaloe to be shut down. There were countless calls for their product to be boycotted.

Then we have the Roman Catholic Church. What can I say? Years upon years of child rape, sexual and mental abuse, thousands of victims discovered and probably thousands more to be discovered. We have cover up after cover up, with personnel at the highest level being implicated in morally questionable and possibly legally questionable behaviour. An organisation that, having been caught, put procedure in place to make sure it did not happen again, and then ignored them. An organisation that has attempted to thwart investigation after investigation into their behaviour.

Shame on you.

MrP

Shame on who exactly?.... the millions of devout Catholics, (and not so devout ones),the overwhelming number of clergy and lay people involved in the RCC, who are good honest people that feel exactly the same about the abuse and cover ups as you do.

Sarky

Don't forget the people who failed to report it, either for fear of going to Hell (those parish priests and bishops were the Big Daddy in Ireland, remember, and could do no wrong) or that wonderful old "just following orders" excuse, and the clergy that deliberately covered it up, all the way up to the freaking pope himself.And if it managed to get from a backwater little place like Ireland to the ears of the pope and back again in the form of instructions to hush it up, then I don't think it's a great stretch of the imagination to conclude that rather a lot of people knew about it.

I'd imagine those folks should be feeling a little bit ashamed, don't you?

Undergod

This is pretty worrying- I can't see it working in court, or any judge being willing to rule in favour of it. Even if it does get ruled that priests are not employees, or that their abuse does not make the church itself culpable, the fact of the organized cover up at the higher levels can hardly be defended this way.

At what level does a clergyman become an "employee", according to the church?

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

If you are religious, at least grow a pair and support a different denomination that isn't as blatantly disgusting and irresponsible as the catholic church.

I don't think that that really represents the complexity of the situation.

The fact that individual members abused children, and that the wider organization covered it up, has pretty much zero impact on any parishoner's dealings with their own local priest or the parish.

Besides, it's not as simple as up and joining a new denomination. For a catholic to go "I've had it with Rome's shenanigans, I'm a presbyterian now" is effectively saying "I've had it with Rome's shenanigans, therefore I no longer believe in transubstantiation, and predestination is in now." It would be entirely hypocritical- the church's actions does not mean their doctrine is wrong.

MrPudding

Undergod wrote: »

This is pretty worrying- I can't see it working in court, or any judge being willing to rule in favour of it. Even if it does get ruled that priests are not employees, or that their abuse does not make the church itself culpable, the fact of the organized cover up at the higher levels can hardly be defended this way.

This is about the church being vicariously liable for the actions of the priests. If it is ruled that the priest are not employees of the church then the victim will lose the right to claim compensation off the church. If they want compensation it will have to come from the individual priests that abused them. I would not expect many of them would have the means to settle the claims.

This case has huge implications.

Undergod wrote: »

At what level does a clergyman become an "employee", according to the church?

That is the multi-million dollar question.

MrP

Mistress 69

Sarky wrote: »

Don't forget the people who failed to report it, either for fear of going to Hell (those parish priests and bishops were the Big Daddy in Ireland, remember, and could do no wrong) or that wonderful old "just following orders" excuse, and the clergy that deliberately covered it up, all the way up to the freaking pope himself.And if it managed to get from a backwater little place like Ireland to the ears of the pope and back again in the form of instructions to hush it up, then I don't think it's a great stretch of the imagination to conclude that rather a lot of people knew about it.

I'd imagine those folks should be feeling a little bit ashamed, don't you?

There is no question about it people did fail to report it. There was an interesting viewpoint put forward in the Irish Times in the past few days by an ageing priest and as to how all the ordinary clergy feel about this.
This dispicable abuse went on in Ireland for years. Make no mistake about it, other people/organisations outside the church knew of it.. and did nothing!

So far it has not been shown that the present Pope or Pope John Paul ll colluded in the cover ups.

MrPudding

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Shame on who exactly?.... the millions of devout Catholics, (and not so devout ones),the overwhelming number of clergy and lay people involved in the RCC, who are good honest people that feel exactly the same about the abuse and cover ups as you do.

Shame on the people that still defend this despicable organisation.

By continuing to defend this church and attending mass as if nothing has happened you are sending a signal to the hierarchy that you support them and how they have acted.

I am sure there are plenty of catholic, both lay and clergy, who are disgusted by what has gone on. When are they going to grow some spine and how the pope and his cronies how they feel? Fricking do something. Stand outside the church for five minutes and go in late. Stand with you back to the alter. Fcuking do something to show them you are not happy, you do not approve and you aren’t going to take it anymore. Stop acting like fcuking sheep that can’t think for themselves and can’t live without the church. You are better than this.

Sarky wrote: »

Don't forget the people who failed to report it, either for fear of going to Hell (those parish priests and bishops were the Big Daddy in Ireland, remember, and could do no wrong) or that wonderful old "just following orders" excuse, and the clergy that deliberately covered it up, all the way up to the freaking pope himself.And if it managed to get from a backwater little place like Ireland to the ears of the pope and back again in the form of instructions to hush it up, then I don't think it's a great stretch of the imagination to conclude that rather a lot of people knew about it.

I'd imagine those folks should be feeling a little bit ashamed, don't you?

I would hope so. I have to say, I feel some tiny amount of sympathy for the secular authorities that have been remiss in their duties. The church has spent 2000 getting itself into a position where people would not question it. And guess what? People didn’t question it. And let me make it clear, whilst I have some sympathy for the secular authorities that were remiss in their duties I think that if they broke a law they should be prosecuted or if they broke a procedure they should be disciplined.

MrP

Sarky

Oh, of course. Anyone who had a hand in those crimes should be subject to prosecution, religious or secular. Everyone in Ireland should be answerable to Irish law.

kylith

I don't really see how priests couldn't be called employees. Do they not get paid? If they don't then they must certainly get room and board, which I would consider as payment in kind.

Undergod

MrPudding wrote: »

This is about the church being vicariously liable for the actions of the priests. If it is ruled that the priest are not employees of the church then the victim will lose the right to claim compensation off the church. If they want compensation it will have to come from the individual priests that abused them. I would not expect many of them would have the means to settle the claims.

Yeah, I understand that, but I was just pointing out that it doesn't quite eqaul the church getting off scot-free.

Could the church be liable for knowingly putting abusers in areas where they could prey on children? It's not quite the same as blaming them for the priests' actions, but it may be closer to negligence or something? Or would that too be impossible if they were found not to be employees?

MrPudding

Undergod wrote: »

Yeah, I understand that, but I was just pointing out that it doesn't quite eqaul the church getting off scot-free.

It probably would…

Undergod wrote: »

Could the church be liable for knowingly putting abusers in areas where they could prey on children? It's not quite the same as blaming them for the priests' actions, but it may be closer to negligence or something? Or would that too be impossible if they were found not to be employees?

I see what you are getting at, but I am not sure. We are talking about civil actions here, tort law. The actionable wrong is the abuse. The church did not carry out the abuse, a priest did. In order for the church to be liable the priest must be an employee.

It is possible that the church might attract liability where they moved a known offender to a new area, knowing that he was likely to abuse again. The problem is this will only work, if it works at all, in cases where the priest was known to abuse and was moved. It will not help people that were abused where the tendencies of the priest were not known to the church.

That is why this case is so important. If priests are employees then that will cover all victims, those of priests who where known to be abusers and those that weren’t.

MrP

MrPudding

kylith wrote: »

I don't really see how priests couldn't be called employees. Do they not get paid? If they don't then they must certainly get room and board, which I would consider as payment in kind.

It is not that simple. Payment may be a factor, but it is not the only factor and is not even really an important one.

For example, Person A asks a decorator to do some wallpapering in his house. Whilst the decorator is there, and unbeknownst to Person A, he sexually abuses the neighbours child. Are you saying that because Person A paid the decorator he is liable for the abuse? This is the issue, it is not simple.

MrP

Undergod

MrPudding wrote: »

It will not help people that were abused where the tendencies of the priest were not known to the church.

That is why this case is so important. If priests are employees then that will cover all victims, those of priests who where known to be abusers and those that weren’t.

MrP

I was forgetting that part- thanks.

TwoShedsJackson

On the one hand this attempt to weasel their way out disgust me.

On the other hand, the more of this crap they pull, the faster they are driving away the middle of the road 'religious' and exposing their organisation for the monstrosity it is.

goose2005

MrPudding wrote: »

Shame on the people that still defend this despicable organisation.

By continuing to defend this church and attending mass as if nothing has happened you are sending a signal to the hierarchy that you support them and how they have acted.

I am sure there are plenty of catholic, both lay and clergy, who are disgusted by what has gone on. When are they going to grow some spine and how the pope and his cronies how they feel? Fricking do something. Stand outside the church for five minutes and go in late. Stand with you back to the alter. Fcuking do something to show them you are not happy, you do not approve and you aren’t going to take it anymore. Stop acting like fcuking sheep that can’t think for themselves and can’t live without the church. You are better than this.

Evidence of this?

goose2005

it sounds like they actually want someone to burn down one of their palaces. Maybe the insurance is more than the building is worth?

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

I can't really say for sure as I don't know how much control bishops have over how a priest actually carries on his day to day duties. If the priests role is more of an agent, then the church will not be liable. It will boil down to the contract between the priest and bishop, be it an actual contract or one which the court infers, is a contract of service (what we want) or a contract for services (what we don't want).

Worth bearing in mind last year's Pastoral Letter Of The Holy Father To The Catholics Of Ireland (non-catholics were ignored), in which Ratzinger laid the blame at the feet of the bishops his organization appointed, and washed his corporate hands of the affair. I wonder if the bishops can or will claim a similar level of "I appointed him; what he does is no responsibility of mine."

MrPudding wrote: »

There was no indication or evidence that he had ever personally directly harmed a child, I say personally and directly as I believe it can be argued that merely possessing images of child pornography is harmful to children as it is creating market for them. After his conviction there were calls for Ballymaloe to be shut down. There were countless calls for their product to be boycotted.

Interesting comparison. Though I would point out that paying for child-porn is what creates the market; merely viewing or downloading without paying, creates nothing.

MrPudding wrote: »

Then we have the Roman Catholic Church. What can I say?

Nothing that's not been said a thousand times before, and to little effect. And still people hand over money to it, and still people go on a Sunday morning. I suspect out of loyalty to what they thought it was, or what it still, somewhat less triumphantly than previously, claims to be, or perhaps because the local PP is a decent guy and isn't connected with the ongoing scandals -- an excuse I was familiar with from my own family, right up until the point that the PP was carted off in handcuffs some years back.

Mistress 69

robindch wrote: »

-- an excuse I was familiar with from my own family, right up until the point that the PP was carted off in handcuffs some years back.

No funnies intended.... really mean that! ... did you or any of your family or friends suspect him or was it an out of the blue moment.. was he guilty as sin... was he convicted?

MrPudding

goose2005 wrote: »

Evidence of this?

Evidence that you are better than sheep? Sorry. Don't have any, simply blind optimism on my part.

MrP

robindch

Mistress 69 wrote: »

[...] did you or any of your family or friends suspect him or was it an out of the blue moment.. was he guilty as sin... was he convicted?

I understood he was a well-respected PP with many loyal church-goers in his rural parish. Had a reputation as an intellectual, I believe. Never met the man myself, nor ever went to his church (hey, I'm an atheist!), but I gather he was convicted perhaps five years ago and is spending/has spent several years in the slammer since then.

Mistress 69

robindch wrote: »

I understood he was a well-respected PP with many loyal church-goers in his rural parish. Had a reputation as an intellectual, I believe. Never met the man myself, nor ever went to his church (hey, I'm an atheist!), but I gather he was convicted perhaps five years ago and is spending/has spent several years in the slammer since then.

Hope he stays there for a long time. This whole issue defies comprehension. When I see/hear the phrase '' Child Protection'' in a church context I have to ask why it even exists.... Just imagine trying to explain it to Daniel O'Connell or at the very least your Grandparents...........cant even explain it to anyone..:(