I seem to recall that one of the women made a comment on social media that she was going to defile a house of God - that speaks to intent and foreknowledge of the consequences of such an action.
Bit of a slam-dunk to me …
I live not too far from Pearl River.
As I understand it, all the video, including that of the alert citizen who called the police, was confiscated by the police. Given the reputation of that police force, I won’t be surprised to see the videos up on the internet in a few days or weeks.
But yeah, messing around with young boys is one thing, but messing with the alter in a small town church in the deep south, I don’t know what will happen. As has been pointed out by the priest’s lawyer, no crime has been committed. But if the local DA (who is currently running for re-election) even hints at going easy on these three-the alter wouldn’t be the only thing burned down. And the priest had better not think about a jury trial. 
Nobody around here is laughing about this one.
The next church over lost a priest at the same time because he admitted messing around with a young boy about 10 years ago. That is just another sad state of affairs. People are used to that kind of thing. But the Pearl River incident, that struck a nerve.
Repaint, ye sinner!
I just need to say this: it’s “altar”.
As in the Victorian-era joke, that the three words uppermost in the mind of the bride as she enters the church for her wedding are:
Aisle
Altar
Hymn
“Defilement” means loss of sanctity. Your slam-dunk requires proof that an otherwise-ordinary object once possessed factual sanctity, which has been harmed by the accused actions. Good luck.
Perhaps. But I doubt it.
If the diocese was “forced” by their own internal policies to replace it, that’s no different than my example of the highway department being “forced” to overpaint my graffiti by their policy.
The fact that must be established in secular court is that the diocese did replace the altar at some expense and the need for that was a direct consequence of the priest’s actions. The religious aspect of sanctity or defilement is IMO not relevant to the secular vandalism charge.
Although I agree completely with you that the whole concept of religion is nonsense, and that proving sanctity in a secular court is a fundamental category error akin to proving the inherent color of a math formula.
I also think that, ref the comments of our own almost-on-scene reporter @rbroome above, the local courts near Pearl River will have no trouble fully including religious dogma in their decision-making without the slightest evidence of awareness of the constitutional issues involved.
Oops!
My (and my spell checker’s) mistake.
Altar it is.
So, it wasn’t an altarnate spelling?
at least one of the women was from out of state. Did he pay travel costs too?
Bishop takes Queen and Pawn? Clearly against the rules. Next on the docket: The Steeple Versus Father Two-Time. I don’t think he was nave, given two chancels and trying to make the Host of them.
It is also possible the local stores were sold out of Lysol wipes. These are challenging times for everybody.
To merge with a perennially popular topic, “That would be the apse, Bob”.
His post said “boys” not “males”. I took that to mean differentiating between adult women & underage boys.
“Bishop takes Porn”, surely?
There was a vehicular manslaughter case in (IIRC) Southern Ca. some years ago (mid-1990’s?): A drunk driver nearly killed a pedestrian who was a Jehova’s Witness. The doctors said she needed blood to survive. The victim adamantly refused blood, and did in fact die.
Was the driver guilty of vehicular manslaughter? The defense argued that the victim could have survived, but had declined to receive medical treatment that could have saved her, and the drunk driver could not be held responsible for that.
The prosecution argued that the victim’s right to her religions convictions must be respected, and that cases like this must follow the legal dictum “You takes them as you find them”.
The jury convicted the driver of vehicular manslaughter.
ETA: Aha! I found a link:
Very interesting. And wow is that a badly written article from AP.
So in relatively secular SoCal, the jury went with the lesser offense, thereby implying the decedent contributed at least some to her demise. Which is probably factually accurate, though how much is “some” is certainly debatable even by the medical experts who were treating her.
Good bet therefore that in Pearl River LA the jury (or a judge) would find the diocese justified in replacing the altar.
I think that’s spelled “Jehovah’s” with an “h”.
Queen takes Bishop, threatening Porn?
I remember the case just a little differently (possibly inaccurately?), and I didn’t care enough to read additional articles on it. The case did make headlines back then. Here’s how I think I remember it:
The drunk driver was definitely drunk and caused great bodily injury. That much was never in dispute.
But I recall the case being that he should be found guilty of some-degree-of-homicide versus not-guilty-of-homicide. (Femicide?) I didn’t recall there being a choice among various-degrees-of-homicide.
Details!