Not to generalize, but it seems that organizations that exist to defame the Catholic priesthood are guilty of defaming individual priests.
Federal judge issues sanction against SNAP for violating discovery orders.
After the priest was accused of being a child molester, he sued SNAP and others for a conspiracy to defame him on the grounds of being a Catholic priest. Then, SNAP wilfully failed to comply with orders to turn over documents, which resulted in the federal judge issuing sanctions determining that the conspiracy charge had been established.
Showing posts with label Sex Abuse - Catholic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex Abuse - Catholic. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Depositions
St. Louis Archbishop Says He Didn’t Know It Was Illegal For Priests To Have Sex With Kids
I've probably taken or defended over a thousand depositions like this one. Sometimes depositions are nothing less than exercises in pragmatic epistemology.
For example, what you don't see is the part where this guy was put under oath and told not to guess or speculate and to say what he knew or not.
If the question was whether in the '70s he believed that it would have been a crime for an adult to have sex with a child, he might have - probably would have - said "yes." However, does he "know" that for a fact, probably he doesn't.
I have a near ontological certainty that adults having sex with a child was a crime in California was a crime in the 1970s, and I would be shocked beyond all recognition to find out that it wasn't, but do I "know" that to be the case? If I am honest, I ought to say I don't know it until I verify it for myself.
Moreover, if I think about what I knew at the time, I can't say that I ever thought about whether it was a crime or not. I think I must have felt at the time that it was a crime, if I thought about it, but if I am honest, I would have to say that today I do not really know what I knew then.
I definitely would have felt that it was wrong and ought to be a crime, but did I ever actually think about it? I would be kind of speculating to answer the question, and the attorney who is asking the questions at the beginning of the deposition told me not to speculate.
Of course, he looks awful, but that was the intent.
That's the trap that is unexplained in this video.
St. Louis Archbishop Says He Didn’t Know It Was Illegal For Priests To Have Sex With Kids
I've probably taken or defended over a thousand depositions like this one. Sometimes depositions are nothing less than exercises in pragmatic epistemology.
For example, what you don't see is the part where this guy was put under oath and told not to guess or speculate and to say what he knew or not.
If the question was whether in the '70s he believed that it would have been a crime for an adult to have sex with a child, he might have - probably would have - said "yes." However, does he "know" that for a fact, probably he doesn't.
I have a near ontological certainty that adults having sex with a child was a crime in California was a crime in the 1970s, and I would be shocked beyond all recognition to find out that it wasn't, but do I "know" that to be the case? If I am honest, I ought to say I don't know it until I verify it for myself.
Moreover, if I think about what I knew at the time, I can't say that I ever thought about whether it was a crime or not. I think I must have felt at the time that it was a crime, if I thought about it, but if I am honest, I would have to say that today I do not really know what I knew then.
I definitely would have felt that it was wrong and ought to be a crime, but did I ever actually think about it? I would be kind of speculating to answer the question, and the attorney who is asking the questions at the beginning of the deposition told me not to speculate.
Of course, he looks awful, but that was the intent.
That's the trap that is unexplained in this video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
