# The RCC now has zero tolerance for child abuse. Well, except... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 25, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492 "2014-08-25T20:11:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/261 "2014-09-04T17:00:02Z")
OK, thanks. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/262 "2014-09-04T21:56:03Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > They don’t. I mean, they do have general rules against immoral behavior, i.e., the commandments and such, obviously, but in canon law, it looks like the only actions that the law forbids or proposes penalty for are: > > … > > 1. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical function > 2. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical function to harm another > … Could #32 apply? Is reassigning a priest to another parish an ecclesiastical function? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/263 "2014-09-04T22:14:20Z")
Probably not. That appears on the surface to be administrative. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/264 "2014-09-05T02:09:47Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Could #32 apply? Is reassigning a priest to another parish an ecclesiastical function? I think you’d have the same issue as with aiding and abetting in the secular law. That is, that “_to_ harm another” implies intent to harm, not merely that the act does, in fact, lead to harm. So, for a breach of the law to happen, you would have to show that not only did his moving of priests cause harm to others, and not even that he knew it would do so, but that his motive for moving them was to cause harm. It seems clear to me that Law’s motives in moving priests were (more or less in order) to protect the church, to help the offending priests stop offending\*, and to protect the abused from further attacks. I consider those priorities reprehensible, but not criminal. \*That this was a sincere view shows, to me, how warped that religion is, or at least was. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/265 "2014-09-05T15:26:41Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It seems clear to me that Law’s motives in moving priests were (more or less in order) to protect the church, to help the offending priests stop offending\*, and to protect the abused from further attacks. I consider those priorities reprehensible, but not criminal. Maybe a jury should decide this, and not you. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/266 "2014-09-05T15:38:08Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Maybe a jury should decide this, and not you. They did decide that, when they decided - twice - that he had no case to answer. Or are you conveniently ignoring the two grand juries he went before? What charges do you want him to answer, that weren’t covered by those juries? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/267 "2014-09-05T15:51:34Z")
A grand jury may very well be “grand”, but it isn’t actually a jury in the sense of a decision on guilt or innocence, its mainly a device to decide whether to proceed with a prosecution or not. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/268 "2014-09-05T16:01:40Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A grand jury may very well be “grand”, but it isn’t actually a jury in the sense of a decision on guilt or innocence, its mainly a device to decide whether to proceed with a prosecution or not. Yeah, a grand jury’s decision isn’t final. Even if they decide not to indict, the prosecutor can still bring a case. And to \*\*Steophan \*\*regarding what to charge him with: > [@](#): > > Cardinal Law and bishops under him knowingly transferred priests charged with sexually abusing children from parish to parish while not warning their new churches of their histories. In some cases, Cardinal Law even wrote glowing letters of commendation for the priests after learning about their abuse of children. You can’t tell me that’s not a crime in some state. Let’s run him past a jury in every state he sent a child-molesting priest to, and let’s find out if he broke any laws. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/269 "2014-09-05T16:09:50Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Yeah, a grand jury’s decision isn’t final. Even if they decide not to indict, the prosecutor can still bring a case. > > And to \*\*Steophan \*\*regarding what to charge him with: > > You can’t tell me that’s not a crime in some state. Let’s run him past a jury in every state he sent a child-molesting priest to, and let’s find out if he broke any laws. How about you find the law or laws you think he broke, rather than keep making unsubstantiated claims he must have done? As yet, neither the prosecutors or grand juries have found any, but I’m sure you’ll have better luck… ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/270 "2014-09-05T16:11:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A grand jury may very well be “grand”, but it isn’t actually a jury in the sense of a decision on guilt or innocence, its mainly a device to decide whether to proceed with a prosecution or not. And the decision not to prosecute means that they don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to convict him - that is, they don’t believe it is possible to show he broke any law. Again, if you disagree, please cite the law or laws you think he broke, and the evidence that leads you to that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/271 "2014-09-05T16:14:51Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > And the decision not to prosecute means that they don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to convict him - that is, they don’t believe it is possible to show he broke any law. > > Again, if you disagree, please cite the law or laws you think he broke, and the evidence that leads you to that conclusion. I think he broke child endangerment laws, just not in Massachusetts, where at the time they didn’t have child endangerment laws in place. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/272 "2014-09-05T16:22:19Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I think he broke child endangerment laws, just not in Massachusetts, where at the time they didn’t have child endangerment laws in place. So, you think he might have broken some non-specific law somewhere that he wasn’t, and you can’t provide any evidence? That’s convincing… Seriously… What law? Where? What’s the evidence? You _do not_ get to claim someone is a criminal just because you dislike what they did, and think it should be illegal. You have to _prove_ it was illegal when and where it happened. You have not even attempted to do such, and those who have attempted found there was no case to answer. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/273 "2014-09-05T16:25:59Z")
And just in case it isn’t clear, this isn’t a defence of Bernard Law, he’s basically irrelevant here. It’s an attack on dangerous, unethical people such as **Evil Economist** and **ElvisL1ves** who believe that their views are more important than law, due process, or the presumption of innocence. You are exactly the same as those who lynched people because of the colour of their skin, rather than follow the law. _Exactly_. If there was such as thing as cosmic justice or karma, you or your loved ones would find themselves falsely accused, and unable to defend themselves, and you would have the joy of watching people cheer at your doom. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/274 "2014-09-05T16:49:39Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > And just in case it isn’t clear, this isn’t a defence of Bernard Law, he’s basically irrelevant here. It’s an attack on dangerous, unethical people such as **Evil Economist** and **ElvisL1ves** who believe that their views are more important than law, due process, or the presumption of innocence. > > You are exactly the same as those who lynched people because of the colour of their skin, rather than follow the law. _Exactly_. If there was such as thing as cosmic justice or karma, you or your loved ones would find themselves falsely accused, and unable to defend themselves, and you would have the joy of watching people cheer at your doom. You’re an idiot. Child endangerment laws are actual laws that actually exist, which you could have verified for yourself rather than getting all recreationally outraged, you insane moron. As I mentioned previously, Massachusetts didn’t have child endangerment laws in place at the time, but they do now, and other states did have them in place at the time. And just to reiterate, your entire post is stupid. You like to deliberately misrepresent people’s opinion and then get angry over your imagined misrepresentation. Let me be clear here: you are lying about my motivations and posts. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/275 "2014-09-05T16:56:09Z")
Then cite the fucking law, dickhead. Show the evidence that he broke it. Oh, you can’t. Because there’s no such law that he broke. But that’s ok, let’s punish him anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that. Idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/276 "2014-09-05T17:12:04Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Then cite the fucking law, dickhead. Show the evidence that he broke it. > > Oh, you can’t. Because there’s no such law that he broke. > > But that’s ok, let’s punish him anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that. > > Idiot. I’m not going to respond to you if you go into full histrionics every post. Going from a discussion of canon law to “you want to lynch black people” in one post is a little much even for the pit. I’ll continue this conversation once you’ve demonstrated that you’ve gotten yourself back under control. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/277 "2014-09-05T17:18:22Z")
In other words, you’ve got nothing. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/278 "2014-09-05T17:28:48Z")
Boy, he got you good, **EE**! You don’t want to mess with a sharpie like **Steophan**! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/279 "2014-09-05T17:38:08Z")
By the way, anyone else notice that he’s turning into a Dollar Store **Bricker**? Has he actually said “legal and Constitutional” yet? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/280 "2014-09-05T18:06:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Then cite the fucking law, dickhead. Show the evidence that he broke it. > > Oh, you can’t. Because there’s no such law that he broke. > > But that’s ok, let’s punish him anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that. > > Idiot. Perhaps I can help. > [@](#): > > Under Chapter 265-13L of the Massachusetts general statutes, you could face up to 2.5 years in prison for child endangerment. The laws define this crime as “wantonly or recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child” or failing to take reasonable steps to stop such risk when it is present. He engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of sexual abuse to a child by reassigning pedophile priests to new pastures of victims over and over again. He failed to take reasonable steps to stop such risks by not informing the new Parrish, the parents or the police of the abuse he knew had taken place. The Problems: 1. I do not know when 265-13L was passed. My google fu is weak. For all I know, it may have been enacted in _response_ to Cardinal Law’s immoral behavior 2. As **Bricker** has already pointed out, if this was the law when Law (I hate his name! Can we just start referring to him as Dickhead?) committed his acts, the statute of limitations has already passed. Our only recourse now is tar and feathers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=15)