Regarding “the uninsured” – As far as I know, where there is bodily injury, the car’s insurers would be legally obliged to pay the damages due, even if the driver himself was not covered by the insurance policy (being under-age, not licensed or whatever), The insurance company would then sue the driver concerned for compensation (without much hope of recouping their dues).

I may be wrong, but maybe a lawyer would wish to clarify.

Was it, however, legally obliged to pay the ex-priests’ legal fees? I doubt it.

Even if it weren’t, but chose to do so anyhow, it would be admission on the church’s part that the priests somehow needed their (albeit financial) help, since they formed part of the church community, even in their wrong-doings.

Where does that leave the boys (now men) who were left at their mercy?

X’qatta nies bla skrupli u bla kuxjenza hawn.

I find their reasoning shocking – that all that is legal is morally acceptable. It most certainly is not, especially when coming from the representatives in Malta of the Catholic Church.

The difficult legal question (to me – I’m no lawyer) is how does the victim get compensation from priests who supposedly (being priests) have nothing?

I dragged employers into it because technically I suppose the church was their employer! But if employers shouldn’t be made to pay (I agree – it’s ludicrous) why should the church? That is were the legal question is a bit quirky to me.

I believe the church SHOULD be liable NOT because they are priests BUT because the abuse happened in a home administered by the church.

I agree with you that the compensation should be paid, but, taking the example of the drunk driver:

The drunk driver gets sent to prison, but is uninsured/joy riding and still lives with his parents or simply doesn’t own property, and has little in the bank.

What happens?

Should his parents / family or employers be forced to pay?

[Daphne – OF COURSE NOT, DAVID. Once you are over 18, your parents are not responsible for your actions. And I can’t see what his employers have got to do with it. The answer is that the unlucky person gets nothing, on the same principle that you can’t get what you’re owed from a company that’s bankrupt.]

It’s a difficult legal question!

[Daphne – It isn’t, actually, at all.]

I haven’t followed the nitty gritty of the case but if the church knew of past problems with these pederasts then they should definitely shoulder part of the blame.

I believe that the the Church authorities must be legally responsible for the environment of church homes, just as I would hold school authorities responsible if, God forbid, something so terrible happened to a schoolchild on the premises.

And finally, how the hell do priests sworn to poverty afford those very pricey lawyers, did they offer their services pro bono?

1. People with disability who were discriminated against (Equal Opportunities Act 2000).

2. Persons who were about to be married and one of the spouses chickens out of the marriage at the last moment.

Am I right?

I agree with you on this one, Mr Hewitt.

[Daphne – Better to be miserable in comfort than in poverty, Etil. That’s what I always tell people when they bore me with ‘money can’t buy happiness’. Funny how you never hear the rich say that.]

You still haven’t provided a good enough reason for compensation. Adequate compensation, to really rub it in.

Perhaps the logic of their action will dawn on us when we see them crying all the way to the bank, as the man said.