Guest Paddy (1)
May I quote myself?:- "To say "How can a bishop walk into a room and discover a priest interfering with a child and simply ignore it? (this is not a hyphothetical example)" is just not good enough. For all legal purposes this is a fairy tale. You *must* name and shame, especially since you claim it is not hypothetical. If you *can* name, then you must report this to the police. If you do not, then you are part of the conspiracy of silence and culpable. There is no middle way!"
What's wrong with this? Surely that is what every right-minded person would want to happen;that the guilty *should be named* and *reported to the police*. If *you* don't find this position acceptable, then *you* are part of the problem too.
As for not accusing priests unjustly, there was mention earlier in this thread of a priest in Ireland somewhere being accused on two separate occasions, brought to trial on two separate occasions and found NOT GUILTY on both occasions. What should happen to his accusers? Is he not now a victim worthy of compassion and Christian love? Is he not your neighbour, Paddy, whom you admonish us to love? Or, maybe, your's is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?