A priest is a priest unless he’s molesting someone.

napThen? All bets are off.

Arguing before the Delaware Supreme Court, a lawyer for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Trenton N.J. is using as a defense that

…the Rev. Terence McAlinden [pictured] was not “on duty” — or serving in his capacity as a priest — when he allegedly molested (Chris) Naples on trips to Delaware in the 1980s.

As you may imagine, this particular priest-not-a-priest has done some fancy legal footwork leading up to this case. Why would he stop now? And why would the Roman Catholic Church issue such a ridiculous, shot-full-of-holes defense?

And thanks, Jay, for the link.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to A priest is a priest unless he’s molesting someone.

  1. sharon says:

    Well, that’s a new one. Are there any professions in which child molesting /is/ part of the job description, I wonder? And does this mean that priests can do anything they want to on their own time, with no cisequences to their profession?

  2. Jay Croft says:

    The lawyer is lying. I’m not familiar with Roman Catholic ordination vows, but I’m pretty certain that “priesthood” is not a matter of when one punches in a time clock.

    • leftover says:

      The lawyer represents the diocese. They knew exactly how the defense was going to be argued. If the lawyer lied, the diocese is, at least, culpable.

  3. Jac says:

    I’d like to know, how can church members and decent priests stand for this?