Do you agree with this? (Priests/abuse)

[6_Time_Momma]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ap/20041101/ap_on_re_us/church_abuse_database

Now, I wouldn't have a problem at all posting those convicted, with settlements against them, with cases pending, or even those accused more than once. However, it bothers me a little to think that even those accused once, and later unfounded, would be listed. Those who have been falsley accused could end up with their reputations ruined.

I also understand that the info wa gathered from public sources, however the general public just isn't up on where to find that info.

I don't know.....it just bothers me.

 

[bananiem]

I agree with you on this one, Kristy. If they've been proven guilty or confessed then go ahead and put their name on the list. But if they are just accused... I can just see people looking at it and saying " Father So-and-So was at our parish for 6 months. Maybe I can get some settlement money." I think the whole thing is getting out of hand. My in-laws belong to a Protestant religion and their asst. pastor was convicted of molesting teenage girls yet it was never even mentioned in their newspaper.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I agree with you. I have a friend whose life was nearly ruined due to being falsely accused of some pretty horrible stuff.

I really see no point in listing the names of those found not guilty. They've been through enough and if they are innocent, why continue to list their names as though they were not.

 

[Carl]

I also am against the list.