I think the fact that he knew that there was a crime going on-he not only knew, but he was responsible for his diocese, and didn’t report it, makes him guilty of a cover-up. He could have kicked those priests out, he could have gone to the police and reported the abuse. Instead he covered it up by reassigning them, enabling MORE children to be abused.
Compare Law to Bishop Donald Wuerl, here in Pittsburgh. I may not be a big fan of Wuerl, but his record on pedophile priests is excellent. He even defied the Vatican by refusing to reinstate a priest who was known to have abusesd children in his diocese.
What’s that saying, “All that needs for evil to happen is for good men to do nothing?” Well, Law did nothing. He was like Pilate-“I wash my hands of it, it’s not MY responsibility.” Let’s use another cliche-“The buck stops here.”
Thank you, Guinastasia, an excellent response to Bricker’s question.
Comparing an Archbishop, Bricker, to an electrical engineer, a chef and a stock broker isn’t really possible, unless there is a similar level of responsiblilty and accountability. If a manager in a brokerage house lets illegal trades go on, or if an engineering firm lets designs go out with known and dangerous problems, there would, eventually, be heads rolling, wouldn’t there? And the fact that you have to ask “what crime?” is also a problem, in my view. Cardinal Law was never really investigated. I’m quite sure that a person in another capacity, without the clout and weight of “the Church”, would have been questioned and/or investigated just a bit more intensely.
Here’s a hint: Martha Stewart was guilty of a cover-up, and criminally liable as well, because when you trade stocks, the law imposes on you a duty to disclose certain facts. Stewart, the jury believed, did not truthfully disclose those things. She violated a law.
Had Cardinal Law been a school teacher, as was suggested above, he probably would have been guilty of a crime, because the law provides that teachers that reasonably suspect child sexual abuse must report it. Ditto for him being a social worker, or a nurse, or a doctor.
But he was none of those things. So I’m asking you: what law did he violate?
People is jail? Depends. I spoke to the illegal trades issue with my Martha Stewart example. If a manager of an engineering firm lets designs with dangerous problems go out, and people die, he might well be criminally liable - but not for murder. But if people die as the result of your negligence, the law may punish you.
No one died as the result of Law’s negligence.
Again: WHAT LAW WAS VIOLATED?
You may say there was no investigation. OK. Give me the facts that a hypothetical investigation would have turned up. In other words, I’ll accept your reasonable hypothesis that an investigation would prove that Law knew priests were guilty of child molestation, and, knowing that they were guilty, he (a) didn’t call police, and (b) re-assigned them to parishes.
I don’t know if there was a specific law he violated. I would think that knowing that certain people are committing crimes and covering up for them would at least warrant a conspiracy charge. Especially since he enabled these priests to abuse even MORE children by moving them around-giving them a whole new parish with lots more kids to molest!
Morally, he violated his oaths. Look, I’m following the Michael Jackson case, and everyone is asking-these employees, who SAW some abuse going on-WHY the hell didn’t they report it? Well, it’s the same thing here.
So maybe he didn’t commit a “crime”, at least not according to the legal code-I still think he was guilty of allowing it to go on, not just covering it up, but enabling it. He was in charge of the diocese, there were crimes going on during his watch, and he was responsible.
Well, he knowingly coverd something up, does that qualify under RICO? It takes two act from this list in a space of ten years to qualify as a racketer, so:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2260 Prev | Next
§ 2260. Production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for importation into the United States
Bricker, you’re the lawyer, so I’ll ask you: what do laws against ‘aiding and abetting’ criminals generally cover?
IANAL, of course, but there does seem to be a general legal principle that it’s against the law not only to help criminals plan or commit crimes, but to avoid detection or capture afterwards. I think others in the discussion expect that this principle (if it is in fact a principle of Anglo-Saxon law) surely is enshrined in statute law, and I would kind of expect that myself. Hence my question. Any help?
Mandated reporters in Massachusetts prior to 2002:The legislature has outlined a number of health care professionals, including doctors, dentists and nurses, as mandated reporters. The list also includes teachers, guidance counselors, school administrators, psychiatrists, psychologists, family counselors or therapists. Social workers, police, fire fighters and even court personnel are required to report cases of suspected abuse, as are a number of specialized fields.The law was changed:In 2002, the language was changed to include: priests, rabbis ordained or licensed minister of any church or religious body, an accredited Christian Science practioner, a person performing one or more of the official duties of a priest, rabbi, ordained or licensed minister of any church or religious body or an accredited Christian Science practitioner, a person or layperson in any church or religious body acting in the capacity as a leader, official, teacher, delegate or other designated function on behalf of any such church or religious body to supervise, educate, coach, train or counsel a child on a regular basis, are now designated as mandated reporters.So - not a crime then, but a crime now to not-report these incidents, if I’m reading this correctly.
You are. In response to the outrage over the incidents, the law was changed. Cardinal Law’s conduct was not illegal. If done now, it would be.
As a matter of decency – I agree with holmes.
With some caveats. I believe that if Cardinal Law truly believed that prayer and a stay at a priest rehabilitation facility could cure these pedophiles, then I give him a pass for ONE re-assignment. In other words, the priest offends, he’s sent off for treatment, returns, and is reassigned, all in good faith.
Even the most hopeful and charitable spirit would realize, after the same priest re-offends, that that wasn’t the way to handle it. At that point, re-assigning the priest again was absolutely unconsciencable.
No. The law there refers to physically harboring and concealing the fugitives. If Law had kept them hidden, fed, and sheltered in the basement of the cathedral, and shrugged his shoulders when the police came by asking if he knew where they were, this might have applied.
I think you’re on the right track here, Bricker, since people didn’t know then how small the likelihood was of rehabilitating child molesters.
But I’d add a caveat to your caveat: once Law had ‘rehabilitated’ and reassigned a number of priests, and gotten sufficient feedback to have reason to doubt the reliability of the Church’s rehabilitation program, further reassignments should have been to Chruch administrative offices, Catholic old-age homes, and the like, even for an individual priest’s first reassignment.
Amen! Rather anemic, indeed. The whole thing stinks, and I still don’t see that significant institutional changes have been made. It’s amazing this didn’t bring the whole church crashing down.
I think you’re making a different sort of distinction here, actually, and one that might be valid, even if I don’t like it. It sounds like you’re saying that if the police know there’s been a crime, and I help the criminal “avoid or escape detention, arrest, trial or punishment,” then I’m an accessory after the fact.
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.
It takes a lot more than this to bring down an institution that has been a going concern for two millennia, and has over a billion adherents around the globe. This ain’t no Jim and Tammy Bakker Ministries we’re talking about here.
But I wonder what would happen if a significant percentage of American Catholics were to withhold their usual contributions from the collection plate until Cardinal Law was defrocked? It’s the one lever they have to influence the Church, short of abandoning their faith.