Skwim
Veteran Member
otherwise you're something else. The Catholic church's exculpatory reasoning effectively separates the evils of its representatives from the church itself. A convenient ploy.
So, even if a priest is preforming his duty by serving communion and suddenly grabs the crotch of a young boy, at that very moment he ceases to being a dutiful priest. Of course he would immediately go back on duty the moment he releases the boy and resumes his communion duties. Therefore, the church and its hierarchy of leaders are not culpable for the act of the priest.
As I said, "convenient."
Asinine, but convenient.
"Chris Naples says something snapped inside him that January day.
The New Jersey resident sat in the gallery of the Delaware Supreme Court earlier this year watching as a lawyer for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Trenton N.J., told the justices that the Rev. Terence McAlinden was not “on duty” — or serving in his capacity as a priest — when he allegedly molested Naples on trips to Delaware in the 1980s.
“How do we determine when a priest is and is not on duty?” one of the justices asked, according to a video of the session on the court’s website.
“Well,” replied the diocese lawyer, “you can determine a priest is not on duty when he is molesting a child, for example. … A priest abusing a child is absolutely contrary to the pursuit of his master’s business, to the work of a diocese.
The statement — one prong of the diocese’s argument that it should not be held responsible for McAlinden’s alleged assaults — left Naples reeling."
source
Let me reemphasize this rationalization.The New Jersey resident sat in the gallery of the Delaware Supreme Court earlier this year watching as a lawyer for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Trenton N.J., told the justices that the Rev. Terence McAlinden was not “on duty” — or serving in his capacity as a priest — when he allegedly molested Naples on trips to Delaware in the 1980s.
“How do we determine when a priest is and is not on duty?” one of the justices asked, according to a video of the session on the court’s website.
“Well,” replied the diocese lawyer, “you can determine a priest is not on duty when he is molesting a child, for example. … A priest abusing a child is absolutely contrary to the pursuit of his master’s business, to the work of a diocese.
The statement — one prong of the diocese’s argument that it should not be held responsible for McAlinden’s alleged assaults — left Naples reeling."
source
Q. “How do we determine when a priest is and is not on duty?”
A. "you can determine a priest is not on duty when he is molesting a child, for example."
A. "you can determine a priest is not on duty when he is molesting a child, for example."
So, even if a priest is preforming his duty by serving communion and suddenly grabs the crotch of a young boy, at that very moment he ceases to being a dutiful priest. Of course he would immediately go back on duty the moment he releases the boy and resumes his communion duties. Therefore, the church and its hierarchy of leaders are not culpable for the act of the priest.
As I said, "convenient."
Asinine, but convenient.
Last edited: