I was very glad to read these victims were seeking damages from the Archdiocese.
"...although the police and Suffolk prosecutors quickly cleared the janitor of criminal wrongdoing, the Immaculate Conception School’s parish priest was removed by Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, and the school’s principal and a second-grade teacher were forced to resign.
The lawsuits have already begun. Last week, Alison Kelly, the former principal of Immaculate Conception School, filed a $1 million lawsuit against the archdiocese. According to the Boston Globe, “She claims the church forced her to resign in January even though she had immediately reported the parent’s complaints to the pastor in charge of the school.” Claiming that her firing was a “cold, calculated attempt by the Church to do some face-saving at the expense of innocent people,” Ms. Kelly’s attorney told reporters that the archdiocese did not bother with a full investigation into the recent episode because “it served their own aims to appear to be taking quick and decisive action against its employees.” An attorney for the fired teacher plans to file her own lawsuit within the next week."
her firing was a “cold, calculated attempt by the Church to do some face-saving at the expense of innocent people,”
Welcome to the world of Catholic priests.
Here is the pathetic double talk from the Cardinal's communications henchman:
Mr. Donilon assured the reporter that the church observes a “zero-tolerance policy” in efforts to protect children from sexual abuse. Mr. Donilon continued: “All mandated reporters must report suspected or potential child abuse to the appropriate authorities
A 'zero tolerance' is supposed to be predicated upon a credible allegation of sexual abuse.
Going peepee in the potty is not sexual abuse. This why the police and DA did not charge the victim of hysteria with a sex crime.
The Archdiocese can't say things are sex crimes when they are not.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a deposition.
1. Has the Cardinal or Donilon ever used a public restroom in a theater, mall, restaurant,airport?
2. Were these incidents reported as suspected sex crimes and zero tolerance applied?
3. Produce the criminal codes and statutes used to determine their allegation a sex crime was committed.
4. What living male above the age of 8 could escape their malicious accusation the use of a rest room is a sex crime?
If something is not a sex crime, the zero tolerance policy is not applicable.
If an allegation is found not credible by law enforcement, evidence exonerates the accused and the zero tolerance policy is not applicable.