God facepalmeth.

"Zero" as in "rounding down to zero".

Zero tolerance for resistance, more like it.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

Otherwise known as "Don't repeal it on the merits, or whether or not you believe child molesters should be brought to justice. But please repeal it because we have a lot of child molesters in our ranks and if they all go to jail we have no one to be priests."

Link (new window)

Catholic clergy says removing statute of limitations on sex abuse is unnecessary because they've eliminated sex abuse through a zero tolerance compliance policy

FTFY

I trust websites that look like they are being viewed from a 1993 time machine. Its like they are too classy to change with the web development 'fads' of today.

Every day the Hole See gives a new reason for Facepalm.

ExtremeHobo: I trust websites that look like they are being viewed from a 1993 time machine. Its like they are too classy to change with the web development 'fads' of today.

All the good web designers are lutherans.

dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Such as?

How almighty autoerotic of them.

Shut them down.

CygnusDarius: Every day the Hole See gives a new reason for Facepalm.

This was from the Bishops in Connecticut, not the Holy See.

Wouldn't removing the statue of limitations on past crimes be unconstitutional? At least the ones that have already gone past the statue of limitations?

Kentucky's Supreme Court recently ruled that a sex offender living restriction law couldn't be applied to those convicted before the law.

/not defending the creeps

We've got a good start here. Once we redistribute the assets of the Catholic Church, and arrest the Pope, we can start the healing process.

lennavan: dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Such as?

There is, when the Catholic Church has proven that it really has eliminated pedophile priests from the order and is serious about enforcement.

It hasn't.

Is there anyone left who still believes that the catholic church is there to help one build a relationship with god?

dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Like people making shiat up in hopes of a payday?

However, the new bill that would eliminate that statute of limitations would also require more evidence for any crime that allegedly took place more than 30 years ago. So manipulating the system would be tougher.

lennavan: dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Such as?

The only thing that springs to mind to me is lack of physical evidence. After 16 - 20 years what proof can possibly be provided that any molestation occured.

lennavan: dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Such as?

How can you defend yourself against an allegation of molestation from 40 years ago? Imagine a girl you had sex with in college charging you with rape when you're in your 50s, married with kids in college yourself? How would you possibly deal with that? Now imagine a person accusing you of a crime that allegedly happened when they were 7?

FTFA:
Such statutes serve the common good by helping courts produce accurate results. Delayed claims means litigation after documents have been discarded, memories have faded, and witnesses have moved away or died. When California passed a similar bill, the dioceses there were forced to defend cases involving allegations against over 100 dead priests. Trials are unlikely to produce fair results when the only person able to testify about the alleged wrongful conduct is the party seeking the damage award.

Is this completely unreasonable?

0 tolerance towards discussing it publicly or writing any more of those darned letters that keep leaking out, amirite?

The previous policy, I guess, allowed some child raping. Too bad someone didn't think of this zero tolerance stuff sooner!

Next up: Zero tolerance for homicide. Our streets will be safer.

This is the guy the Church is trying to protect:
"Reardon had practiced medicine at St. Francis for 30 years, and, as chief of endocrinology, was a prominent member of the staff. He had resigned from the hospital in 1993. His home, part of an estate valued at less than half a million dollars when he died, has twice been sold, most recently in 2003.

The magnitude of the basement find, according to Lt. Donald Melanson, one of the West Hartford investigators on the case, was stunning - about 50,000 35mm slides and more than 100 8mm video reels. The number of victims - people previously unknown to federal, state and local law enforcement experts who investigate child pornography - appears to be in the hundreds, Melanson said."

For once, Catholic bishops and pedophiles can agree on something...

Close2TheEdge: lennavan: dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Such as?

There is, when the Catholic Church has proven that it really has eliminated pedophile priests from the order and is serious about enforcement.

It hasn't.

So if I follow your reasoning, if the Catholic Church boots pedophile priests from the order, we should have a 30 year limit on busting all child molesters (not just catholic priests)? How does this make sense?

12349876: Wouldn't removing the statue of limitations on past crimes be unconstitutional? At least the ones that have already gone past the statue of limitations?

Kentucky's Supreme Court recently ruled that a sex offender living restriction law couldn't be applied to those convicted before the law.

/not defending the creeps

Bingo.

Essentially, The clergy is overreacting over nothing.

Why not revoke ALL statutes of limitations and sue the bejesus out of the Church for everything it did going back to 1 AD?

Oh I know why. Because it's stupid.

Until the Catholic church allows it's priests to engage in normal sexual relationships, it will always have problems with sexual offenses among the clergy.

ackb4r:
All the good web designers are lutherans.

Computers probably too choked up with kiddy-pron spyware to run Visual Studio or any modern web development tool

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: How almighty autoerotic of them.

Shut them down.

I think it's reasonable, I mean, some percentage of the priesthood are pedophiles, so we should destroy the entirety of the catholic church.

Let me know how your little war with Catholicism turns out. It's always fun to hear about zealots fighting.

Oh all those pictures and film were child porn, in case you were wondering, which the good doctor made himself.

IamFrums: lennavan: dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Such as?

The only thing that springs to mind to me is lack of physical evidence. After 16 - 20 years what proof can possibly be provided that any molestation occured.

I agree with this, that there might not be enough evidence. Which is why a prosecutor looks at the evidence (or lack thereof) and decides to bring it to trial or not. And then a jury looks at the evidence (or lack thereof) and decides to convict or not. Meanwhile the statute of limitations has the drawback of bringing trials with a plethora of evidence. Say for instance video tape of the actual crime being committed. Wait, that was 30+ years ago and you're 48+ years old?? Nope, sorry.

Why does that make sense?

12349876: Wouldn't removing the statue of limitations on past crimes be unconstitutional? At least the ones that have already gone past the statue of limitations?

Kentucky's Supreme Court recently ruled that a sex offender living restriction law couldn't be applied to those convicted before the law.

/not defending the creeps

you make a good point.

While I'm generally in favour of a statue of limitations, I'm all for an exception for the church.

The Bishops are concerned that parishes are going bankrupt paying settlements to the abused? Those poor victims deserve every penny you've got.
The catholic fantasy may be that you don't have to pay for your crimes until after you're dead but here in the real world you farking pay up now.

@Godscrack

That photo reminds me of Bramstokers Dracula

Im also waiting for the Southpark Sex addiction class photo of them being told that recovery is learning how not to get caught.

StoneColdAtheist: Is there anyone left who still believes that the catholic church is there to help one build a relationship with god?

I think they've changed it to a relationship with their Rod.

rcain: Until the Catholic church allows it's priests to engage in normal sexual relationships, it will always have problems with sexual offenses among the clergy.

As long as we are human we will always have problems with sexual offenses in every part of society. Married clergy in other churches are not exempt, what makes you think that it would change something in the Catholic church?

Philip J. Fry: lennavan: dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Such as?

How can you defend yourself against an allegation of molestation from 40 years ago? Imagine a girl you had sex with in college charging you with rape when you're in your 50s, married with kids in college yourself? How would you possibly deal with that? Now imagine a person accusing you of a crime that allegedly happened when they were 7?

A week later, 20 years later, what's the difference? Unless you are examined after the incident almost immediately, I am guessing the evidence would be the same in both situations. In most cases it is one person's word against another and there aren't any witnesses or physical evidence, so what should it matter? Molestation is a little easier to prove than rape also considering there is no such thing as consensual. You don't have the element that if physical evidence was found, it could be consensual.

IamFrums: lennavan: dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Such as?

The only thing that springs to mind to me is lack of physical evidence. After 16 - 20 years what proof can possibly be provided that any molestation occured.

Beyond that even, how much can you really trust anybody's memory of the facts 40 years after it happened?

lennavan: IamFrums: lennavan: dittybopper: Much as I want to see child molesters punished, there are some very good reasons for statute of limitations.

Such as?

The only thing that springs to mind to me is lack of physical evidence. After 16 - 20 years what proof can possibly be provided that any molestation occured.

I agree with this, that there might not be enough evidence. Which is why a prosecutor looks at the evidence (or lack thereof) and decides to bring it to trial or not. And then a jury looks at the evidence (or lack thereof) and decides to convict or not. Meanwhile the statute of limitations has the drawback of bringing trials with a plethora of evidence. Say for instance video tape of the actual crime being committed. Wait, that was 30+ years ago and you're 48+ years old?? Nope, sorry.

Why does that make sense?

My apologies, I should switch the situation back to reality. It's not criminal court. Instead, a judge or jury decides the merits of the case on the evidence provided and so still a statute of limitations should not exist. I'm sure any lawyer would take up your case on either side =] The same reasoning and question applies, how does it make sense to put a time limit on it when still ultimately a judge or jury decides the merits and validity based on the evidence (or lack thereof) of your case?