In the year 2006 a priest of the Erzdiözese New York was accused to have itself at a 17jährigen Bur out of print.

(kreuz.net) in the year 2006 began for Hw. Christopher Pliauplis hell. Of it New Yorker local newspapers `the journal News' reported on 5 June.

Hw. Pliauplis was accused of the sexual abuse. His archbishop, Edward cardinal Egan of New York, gave time off him with immediate effect as a minister.

A 17jähriger Bur had accused the clergyman it into the step to have reached when the two along-went in January 2006 the corridor of a school.

The clergyman was director for the religious education in sank at that time - Patrick Pfarrei in the town Richmond in the west of the US Federal State New York.

The allegedly troubled boy belonged to a group of high school students, who were active as Katecheten at the school.

A revision commission of the Erzdiözese New York recommended to the there archbishop, Edward cardinal Egan to suspend the priest as a result of the announcement.

The case finally before the New Yorker Diözesangericht one negotiated. The church court found that the accusations against Hw. Pliauplis are groundless.

It recommended that the priest could become active again in the Pastoral.

The vatikanische Glaubenskongregation judged the case likewise and confirmed the Diözesangericht.

A speaker of the Erzdiözese New York explained that the result of the investigation is published in the Diözesanzeitung, because the reproaches were likewise spread against the priest over the media:

„We met this measure to restore around the good name priests “- it explained.

When the priest was accused in the year 2006 of his slanderer, it explained before the press:

„I was accused a crime, which I did not commit. “

Hw. Pliauplis is gotten assigned of the Erzdiözese New York starting from 1 July a new place.

From a smart money for the priest or a punishment of its slanderer became so far nothing admits.

Regina 1961: @Pünktchen

If I read myself in such a way board of directors for priests, there stands nevertheless also in it, as a priest is to behave opposite women: , No embraces protect distance… The list would let itself would continue to continue still. Gladly if a linking became this text makes, are however not so fit in „computerisch “. Why could these rules generally be valid not also for young people or for humans? A certain irony is here however also in the play.
LG
Regina1961

Pünktchen: With these whole reproaches

there is a structural imbalance! The accusing is always the stupid one - independent of the question whether the accusations apply or not. Even after a formal acquittal „something remains hanging “.

Although the abuse reproaches in the USA nourish whole branches of profession (lawyers, consultant, detectives etc.) and it long over „Big Business “(amounts in million height!) goes and although there are some one, which its hate on the church/on a priest by unjustified reproaches expression gives, dares it nevertheless nobody to place the reliability of the accusations in question. Who would do it, comes even immediately into the Viser of the victim lawyers and the church-hostile Presse.Es prevails thus in the reason the debt assumption, the innocence assumption is bare theory!

One shifts only once into the role of a risk-conscious US priest. What would he have to do, in order to prevent preventively all conceivable suspecting? Wouldn't it have to attach video cameras in the vestry and at other places, where it could zusammtreffen as only adults with young-finite regularly? Might it still permit a young person to cross the threshold to its dwelling? Wouldn't it have to leave, as soon as it is alone with a young person into an area, this immediately? …

LandorganistII: If hetznet

reported on each individual case now in detail, the material does not go out into all eternity. Thus one secures oneself the right of existence.