//Well, I'm not opposed to the death penalty...//

You seem awfully keen to change the subject, Is Mise. What's wrong, unwilling to face up to the uncomfortable truth that if the Catholic isn't seen to be doing something to keep it's own house in order pretty damn quicksmart they're going to lose whatever little moral authority they have left?

.

For those who may not have seen it, here is an interesting account of the Wilson affair by Frank Brennan, a Jesuit priest, human rights lawyer and professor of law in the Public Policy Institute at the Australian Catholic University :

http://johnmenadue.com/frank-brennan-the-sentencing-of-archbishop-wilson-eureka-street-3-7-2018/
.

Guilty or innocent, Archbishop Wilson obviously has no desire whatsoever to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I guess faith has its limits.

.

Toni,

As far as I'm concerned any Religious who are paedophiles should be prosecuted to the full extent of the Law and if they are serial paedophiles, and found guilty, then they should be executed, this also goes for any other serial paedophiles.

Banjo,

"Guilty or innocent, Archbishop Wilson obviously has no desire whatsoever to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I guess faith has its limits."

Christ had no earthly court to which to appeal, Wilson has, and as he considers himself innocent then he has a duty to appeal.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« Christ had no earthly court to which to appeal, Wilson has, and as he considers himself innocent then he has a duty to appeal »
.

The judicial system was not organised in Jesus’ time as it is today, but his conviction was not quite as simple and summary as the absence of a court of appeal (such as it exists today) would have us believe.

I understand that there were several phases to the judicial process of Jesus – any of which could have acted as a safeguard and influenced the final result, one way or another :

« There were six parts to Jesus’ trial: three stages in a religious court and three stages before a Roman court.

The night of Jesus’ arrest, He was brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and an assembly of religious leaders called the Sanhedrin (John 18:19-24; Matthew 26:57). After this He was taken before Pilate, the Roman Governor (John 18:28), sent off to Herod (Luke 23:7), and returned to Pilate (Luke 23:11-12), who finally sentenced Him to death » :

http://www.gotquestions.org/trials-of-Jesus.html
.

In any event, it seems that Jesus did not seek to appeal his conviction. He accepted it. It appears that his execution was “God’s deliberate plan” :

Romans 3:25: “God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his sacrificial death”.

Acts 2:23 New International Version (NIV) :

“This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross”
.

Here is the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter :

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM
.

Presumably, any “duty” Jesus may have had to appeal his conviction (as you suggest), because – no doubt – he considered he was innocent, was over-ruled by “God’s deliberate plan” for his sacrifice.

.

Banjo,

Are you postulating that Wilson's conviction was God's plan and that he should go along with it?