On 26 Jul 2002 at 22:16, Mark Collins wrote:
> On Friday 26 July 2002 6:44 pm, you wrote:
> > Saying that a priest who takes sexual advantage of a child
> > entrusted to his care "suffers from pedophilia" implies that there is
> > something wrong with his sexual functioning, just as saying that
> > he suffers from pernicious anemia implies that there something
> > wrong with the functioning of his hematopoietic system. If that
> > were the issue, it would be his problem, not ours. Our problem is
>
> Also, it wouldn't be the problem of his employer either. Why is everyone
> sueing the church because of the actions of their employees, actions which
> are not taken on the churches behalf?
>
> Would you consider sueing the employer of someone who raped you tomorrow?
>
If that employer or its executives had a shadow policy of relocating
rapist employees from post to post in various cities and not insulating
women from them in the performance of the duties they were
subsequently given, I would indeed consider their conduct actionable.
> --
> ===
> Mark 'Nurgle' Collins
> http://www.thisisnurgle.org.uk
> Stupid IRC quote of the <variable time period>:
> <phoenix> insider, you'll have to excuse nurgle, he's the epitamy of evil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT