Seems to correct approach to me. She was not a minor. And he should not be a priest. I hope she sues him for child support.

Will be interested in hearing ultimate resolution.

In PA if a person commits a misdemeanor if he “Views, photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records another person without that person's knowledge and consent while that person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where that person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Since the priest will soon be unemployed he might consider suing the parents so he can support his baby girl.

Good point, Dana. I did overlook the fact that these parents did seem to be too busy lining up "money shots" to ... parent.

In another recent case in the Court of Appeals of Minnesota a certain Jane Doe's claims were rejected in favor of the Diocese of New Ulm. Ms. Doe's attorney was none other than SNAP's darling Jeffrey R. Anderson.

The issue the court examined was whether Ms. Doe's assertion that the diocese committed intentional misrepresentation by not disclosing that a certain priest had a past history of abuse. The court concluded that “But because appellants' intentional-misrepresentation claim is based solely on nondisclosure and appellants failed to allege or establish that respondents had a duty to disclose, we affirm the grant of summary judgment [in favor of the Diocese] on the merits.

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inmnco20100831357

This story reminds us in heaven of the need to protect the children. We want everyone to know that we, as two of the most famous gay saints, have led the campaign in the celestial realm to change certain things. We didn't agree with the decision to let Cardinal Richelieu past the pearly gates so soon. And we especially didn't like how he was looking at some of the little cherubs flying around, Thanks to our efforts all the sweet cherubs have snazzy little outfits (with sparkly borders!) that we designed, and, more importantly are protected from the prurient eyes of Cardinal Richelieu! You see we as gay people know that society, even heavenly society, has a big job in protecting children. That is why we are so sad for Thom that he is taken in by Maggie Gallagher. We know a few things about her that others don't. We have tried to tell Thom about Maggie's secret life as the priestess of a Wicca. Our objection to the Wiccan faith is that it involves a lot of lesbian music. We love Joan of Arc, but we can't stand that group The Butchies she listens to. We think it is a bad influence on kids, too many references to menstruation. If Thom could have seen her making offerings in the forest while smeared with what looked strawberry jam, while her acolytes licked her and danced in a circle around her, he would think twice about following her. We just had to turn our heavenly ears away when they all started talking about healing their vaginas with Godess love.

But even worse Thom is taking the words of the National Review as gospel just because Maggie says it is good. That is what he wrote at the American Principled Project this morning. The Editors arguments appear so silly. We are glad that they have finally admitted that what they are really arguing for is regulating sex. they wrote: "What the institution and policy of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. " No, it is all about protecting the children. And it is because only people who are in LOVE usually have the energy to bring a child into their lives. . It is all about energy from society's point of view, the energy necessary to provide the impetus to care for children. . We must protect the children. Straight love relationships can protect children, and gay love relationships can protect children. How silly these National Review people are. If society needs to regulate sex will they outlaw doggy-style? How stupid! And they seem to be arguing for a way of thinking about that the issue that could justify more interference by the government in child-rearing. Have they forgotten about the law of unintended consequences.?

Anyways, please pray for Thom. He cannot get up the nerve to talk to the cute guy he sees at the Shrine all the time. We know that Thom goes there because he loves how hot Jesus our Lord looks as Pantocrater. Talk about holy pecs!1 He worries that thinking Jesus is hot as Pantocrater makes him gay. We told him, it is no big deal Thom, we know him, and the Lord is not into his looks.