« No to gun control in U.S. | Main | Re-elect Barack Obama »

February 29, 2012

Bishop’s stand in case

Bishop Robert Finn says the law as applied to him is vague and unconstitutional (2-16, A4, “Bishop’s team fights charges”). The law seems clear to me.

Any person, especially in authority, is obligated by the church and civil law to report suspicious child abuse. Defense claims the grand jury falsely implied a legal duty on Bishop Finn under the reporting statute.

Because the church has a reporter agent, Bishop Finn is relieved of any further obligation?

So now would that mean the reporter, and not the bishop, must bear the brunt?

Who knows? Maybe this false argument would fly with a jury, but I find it indefensible.

Willa Pierce

Kansas City

 

Comments

Ken W

Dear Neil,

Children are safer in a Catholic parish or parochial school than in just about any other institution on the planet. If you do not believe me, Google "Greenwood Baptist Church". And then read the Abel and Harlow Study. Conclusion: the typical make up of people who abuse children appear to be the middle class guy next door. Could even be you.

Mike

Patrick why do you hide behind "Neil Allen" you have a lot of built up hate don't you? WOW

Neil Allen

The law doesn't matter, and Finn doesn't matter anymore.

What Finn proved is that the Catholic church is still hiding known pedophile priests 10 years after they admitted they had 4,392 "Jerry Sanduskys".

The important thing is that the story is permanent on the Internet, and the world knows

1) to keep their children away from Catholics
2) that the Catholic church is a safe haven for pedophiles
3) that bishops will blatantly hide these pedophiles, and will force parishioners to pay $1 million in legal fees to keep themselves from going to jail

This was God's way of telling everyone that that Catholic church is not a church of Christianity.

a ruskin fence on every school campus

www.yahoo.com/Science

"....... no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them.

On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.

He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills.

Whether the researchers are testing people's ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as "above average" — even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It]"

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright