Friday, November 24, 2006
ANOTHER PRIVILEGED BISHOP ACCORDING TO EWTN
Does Bishop Walsh believe he is above the law? From an EWTN article:
State law requires clergymen to immediately report any suspicions of child sex abuse and to follow up by fax or e-mail within 36 hours. A violation has a potential penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Perhaps it is the state that exempts bishops from adherence to this law?
Bishop Daniel Walsh of Santa Rosa will follow a four-month counseling program, rather than face criminal charges, for failing to report child abuse allegations against a local priest, announced Sonoma County District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua.
Breaking the law has not helped the priest in this case either:
The 68-year-old priest worked at St. Francis Solano Church in Sonoma before admitting misconduct in an April 28th meeting with the bishop and two other church officials. However, the bishop delayed reporting the abuse for three days, giving Ochoa ample time to flee to Mexico before authorities could arrest him, deputies said.
What about the obligation resting on the two other witnesses to the priest's admission of misconduct? Did they not also have an obligation to report to the police? Since it would appear they did not report, what penalty have they incurred?
Thanks to a reader for sending in the link. Looks like we have yet another instance of "teflon bishops". Which leads back to my question of the other day, when does the evidence of corruption become so overwhelming that it obligates the Catholic in the pew to separate himself from the bishop, and thus from the Church in a particular diocese, to avoid being just another example of hypocricy in the Church?
