Posted on 05/21/2010 9:19:42 AM PDT by TSgt
34
I find it funny that if the NY Times or any other organ of the liberal media did a smear job on any conservative politician, some of the very people on this thread would be screaming outrage and would not accept the premise of the article, no matter how many facts cited. But if the same liberal media attacks the Pope or the Church, there is no questioning of the facts whatsoever.
Benedict/Ratzinger has done more to address the crisis in the priesthood than any previous Pope or prelate.
I don't think they can afford to do that based on slippery slope principles. If here, why not everywhere? I suspect they know that to come clean would be financial suicide. In a legal sense to fairly compensate every victim would be tens of billions of dollars. It would bankrupt the Catholic Church, and perhaps no amount of indulgences (even with 0% financing) could bail them out.
Nat. Review did equally well dicing up your boy’s fibs, as you already know.
lol.
My guess is "indulgences" carry a massive interest penalty. 8~)
I think what they’re hoping for is if they drag it out long enough the Pope will die and then they can express outrage for a bit, pay the billions of dollars worth of fines, and in fifty years make him a saint because someone sees him on a corn chip.
Conceivably so.
However, there IS a LOT of wealth in that system.
Perhaps you are unaware of the strict policy hereon.
They've known about the criminal activity for quite awhile. It would seem that they should have eliminated most of it. Is there a time limit for civil suits?
I’m sorry if I said anything that shouldn’t have been said. But I see one post after another attacking Pope Benedict, and I felt a need to set the record straight a little bit.
I see posts about the Pope’s face appearing on a corn chip. I see other posts ridiculing the beliefs of Catholics. And my post was removed? And yet these other posts are allowed to stay. Can I ask why? What did I say in my post that was so offensive that it had to be removed? Now I wish I had saved a copy of it.
Yes, the statutes of limitations vary state to state. The clock does not automatically start ticking with the commission of the tort, however. "Tolling" occurs in cases while the person is a minor or was not in a reasonable position to know of the wrongdoing (psychiatric reasons). This looks like a decent site that breaks it down state by state:
Thanks for the info. I'll check the site.
I think you might see where I'm heading in the discussion. If there is a limitation and they've known of the problem for a long time they can minimize the damage if they've cleaned up the problem.
I quess the underlying problem is the minor status of the victims eliminating a limitation. However, the time factor would still work to their advantage even with a lesser standard for civil cases because so little real evidence would still exist. Also, wouldn't they be able to argue that 30 yrs ago treatment was considered appropriate
Sure, the sooner they stop the less the damages. It's a shame that they even have to think of it in those terms. Why not just attack the problem (even if not publicly) because it's the Christian thing to do? Kind of reminds me of the Pinto and Ford.
However, the time factor would still work to their advantage even with a lesser standard for civil cases because so little real evidence would still exist.
That's true, but OTOH with so many of these cases out there just the accusation itself almost counts as enough evidence in the minds of many jurors. (Some will be weeded out, but still ...) In civil cases the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
Also, wouldn't they be able to argue that 30 yrs ago treatment was considered appropriate.
Probably yes. I'm sure the same actions were criminal 30 years ago, so they would need to show that the best medical knowledge at the time said that with "treatment" the recidivism rate was extremely low. My guess is that they don't have those numbers and their best shot would be to claim that at the time all they could do was reasonably guess. The jury can decide if they were reasonable considering the time. (Were I a potential juror I'm sure they would exclude me in less than 3 seconds. And that would have nothing to do with my Freeping. :)
No argument from me. My anger for anyone involved in this kind of thing is white hot. I'm just trying to be pragmatic in how a huge organization could minimize it's liability. I think how they are responding reveals more of a failure to correct the problem than to solve it.
In civil cases the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
I think you're right they will probably get hammered pretty hard at the initial trial with a jury. But on appeal they would have a real good chance of reducing the penalties wouldn't they?
Why not just attack the problem (even if not publicly) because it's the Christian thing to do?
Amen brother!
Which brings another set of questions....
It really does. We either walk by faith or we don't.
I'm not sure, but I don't recall any other church being so uncooperative with turning over information/investigations to professional law enforcement.
If it's zillions, then yes. However, if the particular case is comparable to other cases in which the Church has already settled or been ordered to pay tens or hundreds of millions, then new multi-million dollar verdicts will likely stand. Barring any state law (caps) to the contrary, precedent will matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.