|
"Remember the issue is the ability to SUE the Catholic Church for actions of its Priests. We are NOT talking about CRIMINAL actions against said priests. That comes under a separate Statute of Limitations regarding Criminal actions (Generally Two years for most "non-violent" crimes, higher for crimes involving force or the use of force )."
----A statute is a statute is a statute....the only difference I see is that in the case of criminal cases, a prosecutor has the option to pursue a case of sexual misconduct or not. In civil suits, a judge may or may not throw out the case. Bear in mind that many civil cases of past sexual misconduct for damages have been allowed to proceed on the basis of psychological conditions that preclude full awareness. Denied in some areas, allowed in others.
"Thus the problem with Pedophilia is that the victim KNEW he or she was a victim BEFORE they turned 18. Unless you can show that after age 18 they could NOT have known of the causation of the harm done to them the statute starts running at age 18."
----That is not true in all cases and you know it. Moreoever, in the case of criminal action b/f age 18, this idea is not even relevant, except to the defense attorney who attempts to make it so. In addition, Pedophilia is a psychological condition that is not (1. determined to exist by a court of attorneys, however much they would like it to be and (2. criminal intent or action is neither proven or denied by psychological conditions alone. To say that one has 2-6 years in which to file is to deny the verified fact that, on average, most victims of criminal sexual conduct only begin to deal with the after affects of their victimization in their 30's. So how does it help society if statutes limit access to criminal or civil courts at that time, justice is not served, and potential repeat offenders are given a free ride?
"The Second problem with your position is the Age of the Victims and how the Common Law Handled sex with people of that age. Under the Common Law the age of Consent was 12 not the 14, 15, 16 or 18 of todays statures (Thus such cases are referred to as "statutory rape" for they are "rape" under the Statute NOT the Common Law). An old rule of statutory Construction is that any law in derogation of the Common Law must be construed strictly i.e. to its written terms unless it is a complete re-write of the Common Law (Which most Statutory Rape laws are NOT)."
----The problem with these positions you cite is that they are older than the hills, virtually useless to society and do not address the repeat nature of these crimes. But hey, what do I know, segments of society still believe the earth is 6000 years old, deny gravity and pray to pagan idols.
"I bring this up for the fact most of the cases involving Priests and Children, the Children are over age 12 (With very few between the ages of 10 and 12 and None under the age of 10 based on the latest study on Catholic Church Records regarding cases of Priests abusing Children and such Abuse being reported to the Church Hierarchy)."
----Your information is in error. Regardless, the church is hardly the entity to trust for complete information as they have a vested interest in making it appear that wanton homosexual youths trysted with adult male homosexual priests. Differing views on the gender and ages of clergy abuse victims are everywhere. Consent laws vary by state as you well know. Again, there is no law for being diagnosed with Pedophilia or Schizophrenia or for having Depression. In actuality, the majority of the offending priests are presumed to have more than one serious mental illness. Physical force alone has never formed the sole basis for lack of consent.
"......Now it is hard to prove each act of pedophilia (and often such accusations are made without foundation)but after moving the priest once and the reports continued in the new parish shows that the problem was NOT a false report but the priest himself."
NOTE: no definition of "foundation".
----Again, pedophilia is not a crime and is not the basis of either a civil or criminal action. Rather, civil or criminal action is pursued for damages. The church incurred the huge problem they have because they secretly, systematically and relentlessly moved sick individuals around areas where children played, went to school and participated in religious activities. What the "church" wants now is irrelevant as our laws prohibit or are supposed to prohibit lienciency for organizations that clearly disregarded the laws in this country, the rights of children and the very basis of a christian family; exposing the young to barbaric practices. The supposed reforms of the 80's were nothing but a toothless tiger, by the mid 90's a mere handful of Bishops had enacted a few of the supposed reforms but congregation members were still shut out from the knowledge that their "Father" was a sick bastard who liked to mess with kids or young people. The current reform measures are NOT enacted in all areas of the US and it remains to be seen what effect they may have in the future. The church has already dropped several key provisions of their reform measures.
Allow me to point out that all debt that is unpaid without the consent of those to whom payment should be made amounts to theft. The RCC has acted as a thieving snake in the grass and is now paying its debts to the extent that the laws or mere mortals permit it. For all the parents who were so willfully deceived by the deceit of Bishops, Cardinals and yes, Rome, I say, Good! Its about time and frankly, its too bad that more christian parents don't sue their churches for fraud.
|