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.
> > 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