# Cardinal Law in the Vatican **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 8, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314 "2005-04-08T00:48:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/41 "2005-04-08T18:48:39Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Hookay, I went to [SNAP](http://www.snapnetwork.org/)(The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), entered RICO into the search engine and found some stuff. > > > [@](#): > > > > It may be years before researchers have a more complete understanding of the role homosexuality and the vow of celibacy have, or don’t have, in the current scandal. And it will require more full disclosure from the church itself – something that attorney Jeff Anderson, who has represented numerous plaintiffs against the Catholic Church in the past 20 years, is actively seeking. Anderson filed suit last week under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) alleging that Catholic > > bishops have conspired to conceal sexual misconduct by priests. > > > > The charges in his suit include conspiring to bribe and avoid prosecution by maintaining secret files available only to church bishops, moving priests from parish to parish to avoid lawsuits and criminal prosecution, routinely not reporting child-abuse allegations, even in states where the law requires it, and reaching secret settlements, which he calls bribery. > > > > Like Sipe, Anderson believes child abuse by priests is vastly underreported. Because so many cases are settled out of court, Anderson says, there is no way to know what percentage actually becomes public. “The RICO law clearly applies to the conspiracy at the highest levels of the Catholic Church.” > > > > Says Anderson: “If they act like mobsters, then they have to be held accountable like mobsters.” Private citizens do not file criminal charges. RICO allows for private causes of action - civil suits - and that is what Anderson is pursuing. He may well obtain a finding that Cardinal Law is civilly liable, and he may do so because of the cause of action supported by RICO. But that is not a crime. That’s winning a lawsuit. > [@](#): > > Oh, and re:accesoty after the fact, see [http://www.snapnetwork.org/legal\_courts/why\_boston\_report\_wrong.htm](http://www.snapnetwork.org/legal_courts/why_boston_report_wrong.htm) for > So, basically, I have not been able to find any recent articles on it. However, it would seem like cases are still going on. The report defines accessory after the fact of a felony as requiring “proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant rendered aid to a felon with the specific intent to help him avoid or escape detention, arrest, trial, or punishment.” This has never applied to a person who is not charged with a crime. In other words, the statute mentions detention, arrest, trial, or punishment. It does not say, “…avoid detection…” There has never been a prosecution in Massachusetts history under that law for failing to report a crime, or even for civil settlement of suits with the proviso that no criminal charges be brought. It’s simply not illegal. If you contend it is illegal, show me anyone in Massachusetts who has ever been prosecuted under that law for a similar fact pattern. The report says: > [@](#): > > What the Attorney General should have done is simple: Bring criminal charges against the Church under any and every theory that possibly fits. After all, there is no question that crimes were committed, or that the Church had a role in them. That’s not right. The end result of that would be a long and expensive legal process, and the judge would end up being the bad guy, because he would have to dismiss the charges… or, if he convicted, then the appellate courts would be the bad guy in overturning the conviction. Some may believe that this describes a pretty good outcome – after all, even if he ultimately isn’t convicted, at least he’s forced to defend himself, and live through months of apprehension. But that’s not the way the law works. If the Attorney General does not have a good-faith belief that an accused is actually guilty of a specific crime, he cannot bring charges just to harrass. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > But if I know there’s been a felony committed, and my actions are limited to (a) not calling the police myself, and (b) taking action to make sure others that know about it don’t get mad enough to call the police themselves, then I’m not an accessory after the fact. > > Is this a fair interpretation? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/42 "2005-04-08T19:58:07Z")
> [@](#): > > smiling bandit, I have an honest question. How do we know that he has honestly repented? Legal matters aside (basically, he’s not leaving the Vatican and will not go back to the US) it isn’t our place to even ask. He is not going to be doing it any more. And it is the place of now man to hold him accountable morally. I have heard that he did confess after speaking with the Pope, and that is more than enough for me. Although many are going to deliberately misinterpret this statement, I stand by it: the Church is not and never has been for the holy men. It was made for the sinners. If all the Apostles, Jesus chose Peter. Not Paul, not Matthew, and not Luke or John. Peter. He was foolish, confused, erratic, and brash. Paul publicly rebuked him several times after Jesus’ death. The Church was founded on Peter the Fool. It is the shelter for the weak, not the strong and the proud. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/43 "2005-04-08T20:17:42Z")
> [@](#): > > It is the shelter for the weak, not the strong and the proud Oh, please, it’s a _predator_ for the weak, for the unwary and the gullible and the defenseless. The Church is a defender of child molesters and unrepentant about its actions. Fuck the Catholic Church. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/44 "2005-04-08T20:31:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@RTFirefly](#): > > > > But if I know there’s been a felony committed, and my actions are limited to (a) not calling the police myself, and (b) taking action to make sure others that know about it don’t get mad enough to call the police themselves, then I’m not an accessory after the fact. > > > > Is this a fair interpretation? > > Yes. Like I said, I may not agree with the law, but thanks for having the patience to clear up for us what the law _is_. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/45 "2005-04-08T20:42:23Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > [O]f all the Apostles, Jesus chose Peter. Not Paul, … Paul wasn’t one of the 10 anyway. Is that thread about Christians being woefully ignorant of their own faith still active? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/46 "2005-04-08T20:45:12Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Paul wasn’t one of the 10 anyway. Is that thread about Christians being woefully ignorant of their own faith still active? Well, there were 12 Apostles, not 10, and Luke wasn’t one of them either. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/47 "2005-04-08T20:55:07Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > The Church was founded on Peter the Fool. It is the shelter for the weak, not the strong and the proud. _Exactly._ And so the strong, proud Cardinal Law, having abused his power and strength, almost immediately gets another high position. If the Church is shelter for the weak, and not the playground of the strong and proud, Cardinal Law should be just plain old Bernard Law somewhere, rather than a mover and shaker in the Vatican. Completely aside from the message his role sends to the world about the Church thinking child molestation is really no big deal, and all of J.P. II’s talk about sexual morality was just so much BS. Unless the priestly buggering of little boys falls under the rubric of traditional sexual morality, which - I guess they’re saying - in the Catholic Church, it does. Guess the little boys in question didn’t experience the Church as the “shelter of the weak”, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/48 "2005-04-08T21:02:06Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > Well, there were 12 Apostles, not 10, … Dwarves Disciples. It’s so easy to get them confused. :smack: I knew that. Teach me now to reread before hitting submit. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/49 "2005-04-08T23:18:40Z")
It is interesting to note that when the scandal reached a fever pitch, Law went to Rome and attempted to surrender his post. The Pope refused to accept his resignation, and sent him back. Only after more damning evidence surfaced of Law’s complicity did the Pope finally give in. In his heyday, Bernard Law had was more connected in High Places than just about any American Bishop, and JP II had in Law a staunch and powerful ally in America. Law was very much in tune with the conservative aspects of JP II’s pontificate, was unfailingly loyal, and rewarded for it. JP II brooked little opposition within the clergy, as a rule, and Law was the kind of ally he wanted. I suspect JP II knew at least as far back as the early 90s when these allegations first started getting significant press, but it wouldn’t surpise me if he was aware of the standard practice of shuffling Priests accused of abuse to other parishes much earlier than that. I’ve always been curious about how widespread the issue is outside of the US, which is a more litigious society as a rule, and more likely to prosecute such matters, than, say, one might expect in African or Latin American dioceses. ---
**Author:** ![Vlad\_Igor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Vlad\_Igor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vlad_Igor)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/50 "2005-04-09T00:23:49Z")
> [@Snickers](#): > > Bullshit. Bull Shit. > > (Not picking on you personally, **Vlad/Igor** , you just happened to be the last person to echo this sentiment, which I’ve seen often lately on the boards.) > > The Pope’s the leader of his institution. It’s his job to fix what’s wrong with that institution, even if the wrongness started ages ago way before he got there. There is and must be a distinction between leadership responsibility and corporate response in cases like this. **RTfirefly** made the clarification above, namely that while JP II shouldn’t necessarily be personally responsible for the actions of the priests in question, but as the leader of the RCC he is responsible for how the church handled the crimes and attendant issues. I agree that he soft-pedaled a response that was nearly as damaging to the victims and laity as the actions of the molesting priests. Personally, I find it more tragic than heinous that he could not muster the courage and backbone to stand up to RCC tradition and stop the bureaucratic inertia as it steamrolled over the whole mess. What’s left is a church that has pushed itself even further away from relevance to the real world. Vlad/Igor ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/51 "2005-04-09T00:49:21Z")
Peter may have been the Fool, but he strikes me as the kind of guy that, had he caught say, Thomas diddling little kiddies, would have had their guts for garters. You didn’t fuck with Peter. He may have been a hot head and a goof off, but I don’t think he’d go for that shit. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/52 "2005-04-09T01:58:13Z")
I just want to say that every time I see the thread title, I expect some sort of Spanish Inquisition. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/53 "2005-04-09T02:20:06Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > > [@gobear](#): > > > > Well, there were 12 Apostles, not 10, … > > Dwarves Disciples. It’s so easy to get them confused. > :smack: I knew that. Teach me now to reread before hitting submit. Weren’t there 7 Dwarves? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/54 "2005-04-09T02:28:32Z")
No there were 7 Dwarfs ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/55 "2005-04-09T02:32:19Z")
I was going to try to lay a bunch of b.s. and say I was talking about the dwarves in The Hobbit, but double checking reveals there were 13 of those bastards. Me and numbers just aren’t getting long very well today. I better check my cash and make sure I didn’t get stiffed at lunch. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/56 "2005-04-09T02:36:59Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > I just want to say that every time I see the thread title, I expect some sort of Spanish Inquisition. NObody expects the Span . . . aw, you guys finish it. ---
**Author:** ![Mac\_Guffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mac\_Guffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mac_Guffin)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/57 "2005-04-09T07:40:59Z")
Just to throw a “what if” out there. Law is a Cardnal, right? Holds High rank in the vatican, eh? What if the “Holy Ghost” desends on the Cardnals and tells them to make Law POPE? What message would THAT send? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/58 "2005-04-09T13:40:01Z")
> [@Mac Guffin](#): > > What if the “Holy Ghost” desends on the Cardnals and tells them to make Law POPE? > > What message would THAT send? God to Catholics: _Run away!! Run away!!_ ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/59 "2005-04-09T13:44:01Z")
> [@Mac Guffin](#): > > Just to throw a “what if” out there. Law is a Cardnal, right? Holds High rank in the vatican, eh? > What if the “Holy Ghost” desends on the Cardnals and tells them to make Law POPE? How much you want to bet that’s what Law is praying his ass off for? He’s wanted to be Pope for a long time, wanted desperately to be the first American Pope. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314/60 "2005-04-09T16:21:00Z")
Naah, the Cardinals are not electing _any_ (US)American Pope for a few more rounds anyway. Not until they find one that can actually control his own home constituency. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-law-in-the-vatican/298314.md?page=4)