I haven’t looked into this case. Are they actually making a specific ruling regarding priests, or is it just that this case involved priests? I could easily see headlines claiming the ruling to be more specific than it actually is, for clickbait reasons.
It isn’t that specific. The supreme court ruled that because it is hard to build a defence after so much time has passed, it is against the constitution to allow people to sue someone after the statute of limitations has passed. Failing to recognize it is even harder to prove you’re a victim after such long time has passed.
I haven’t looked into this case. Are they actually making a specific ruling regarding priests, or is it just that this case involved priests? I could easily see headlines claiming the ruling to be more specific than it actually is, for clickbait reasons.
It isn’t that specific. The supreme court ruled that because it is hard to build a defence after so much time has passed, it is against the constitution to allow people to sue someone after the statute of limitations has passed. Failing to recognize it is even harder to prove you’re a victim after such long time has passed.