Foxy,

There was a bloke who was officially named "Lord Bloody Wog Rollo", he was briefly famous because he was summoned to appear before a Magistrate to answer charges relating to the defacing of tobacco billboards as part of the B.U.G.A.R.U.P campaign.

He was outside the Court House when the clerk came out and called "Rollo" three times. he did not respond and was called upon to explain why he had not answered the summons.

He explained that he was there as requested but that his name was not called, he said that he did not hear anyone call "Lord Bloody Wog Rollo" three times.

Explanation accepted.

That was a legal technicality.

The concept of "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a basic tenet of our system of law and is way beyond a technicality, those who say/think that it is are either pushing an agenda in which truth does not matter, or are willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant.

Note:
Lord Bloody Wog Rollo had changed his name legally and during that process, he was told that "Bloody Wog" was not acceptable, he countered that it was a name that he was commonly known by and, in fact, he had been called a Bloody Wog ever since he came to Australia; explanation accepted and the relevant paper issued.

Mr 0,

At least I am not a failed engineer like you. History and Sociology is not worth a pinch of BS in legal matters. I would stick to flipping burgers.

That I called it right while you and 3 victorian judges got it wrong shows that engineers 1, arts majors 0. Mr 0 is a good name for you.

Foxy,

The high court didn't get it wrong. The 7 most senior judges ruled unanimously, so it wasn't even close.

SR,

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that the witness J didn't embellish his story? Have you a shred of evidence other than his testimony that you wholeheartedly believed without hearing it.

.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth2),

.

You wrote :

« First, surely, let priests marry, hetero or homo wouldn't matter. In fact, REQUIRE priests to be married … »
.

Marriage might act as a safety valve in some cases, Joe, and relieve some of the built-up pressure from their libido. But I suspect that may be the exception rather than the rule.

I think it is largely a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg ? Was it the priest who became a paedophile or was it the paedophile who became a priest ?

Probably a bit of both, but more likely the latter. Most of the scientific research I have come across on the question indicates that people with paedophile sexual orientation become aware of it at a very early age.

That being the case, it is not difficult to imagine that some may be attracted to activities and professions that give them access to children. They may become teachers, members of the clergy, Scout leaders and so on. Others may become members of the clergy, not because they want to have access to children, but for exactly the opposite reason.

That said, not all paedophiles are sex offenders and not all sex offenders are paedophiles. But, whatever the case, neither should become priests. They know they are potential sex offenders and it is criminal of them to impose that risk on the population.

Most are probably not interested in marriage except, perhaps, to dissimulate their real sexual orientation.

According to one study, "research on psychological characteristics suggests that sexually offending Roman Catholic clergy tend to be angry, resentful, entitled, and lack concern for others.

"Furthermore, research suggests that sexual misconduct perpetrated by clerics tends to be associated with sexual deviance (mostly homosexual paedophilia) as determined by phallometric testing.

"A particularly curious finding in the limited literature is that clerics, in comparison to a non-cleric sample of offenders, are significantly more likely to use physical force in the commission of the sexual act and are more likely to victimize adolescents or adults" :

http://www.philipfirestone.com/p%2035%20CLERICS%20WHO%20COMMIT%20SEXUAL%20OFFENSES.pdf

.

Paul,

Still waiting for that reference to female Catholic clergy.

Shadow Minister,

When you say:

"At least I am not a failed engineer like you. History and Sociology is not worth a pinch of BS in legal matters. I would stick to flipping burgers."

You are in fact telling everyone how ignorant you are.

Here is what engineering does.
http://www.facebook.com/va.shiva.ayyadurai/videos/256524908724845/?t=288