# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/421 "2014-09-08T16:12:09Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > No doubt \*\*Bricker \*\*is preparing a devastating comeback. While he’s busy preparing that, I submit the following piece of evidence: > > > [@](#): > > > > According to a summer poll conducted by ABC News and [Beliefnet.com](http://Beliefnet.com), eight out of 10 Americans believe bishops who failed to act on abuse allegations should be prosecuted criminally. > > By \*\*Bricker’s \*\*reckoning, 8 of 10 Americans is therefore a dirty Liberal. Hard to explain election results given that piece of information, but I’m sure he’ll find a way. Not at all. That poll asks generically about all bishops, and all time frames. Hell, I’d answer that question “Yes,” if yes and no were the only options. But in this thread, we’re discussing a specific bishop, a specific state, and a specific time frame. And in those specifics there’s unfortunately no applicable criminal law available. So I agree with the 8 out of 10 Americans that, as a general principle, bishops that failed to act on abuse allegations should be prosecuted criminally – that is, of course, assuming that an available and applicable criminal statute exists for a given specific bishop. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/422 "2014-09-08T16:15:40Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I’ve voted Conservative in every election I’ve been able to vote in. Sure. But that’s your choice in a foreign (to me) choice of policies. When I call you a liberal, I mean to categorize where you fit on the American policy spectrum. I freely concede that in other political systems you fit differently. By a similar token, I don’t mean you’re a classical liberal (aka libertarian) either. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/423 "2014-09-08T16:26:19Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > emphasis coding added by me - **kd99** > > On the face of it, I suppose not, especially if one reads your qualification as “_so far as I am inclined to attempt to discern_.” > > [I’m sure you’ll see this as a false equivalency, but I did manage to come up with it within about two minutes, and I find myself too diffident to spend much more time and energy searching for a more exact example of a non-liberal demonstrating the “mindset.”](http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/boehner-irs-targeting/2014/04/07/id/564210/) > > 😛 So far as I can tell, Boehner in that example is talking about violating specific laws, laws that existed at the time Lerner’s conduct occurred. Can you explain why you feel that’s analogous to talking about sending someone to jail in the absence of any applicable criminal laws? From your cite: > [@](#): > > And the Oversight Committee, he added, meets Thursday, about possible contempt charges. He said after an Easter break, he expected the issue could come to a vote before Congress. And there are in fact such laws: 2 USC § 192 provides for jail time and fines for appearing but refusing to answer questions; § 194 provides for referral of such prosecutions to the US Attorney. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/424 "2014-09-08T17:13:42Z")
Only liberals would want to convict someone with no law on the books. For example, look at Uzi–he’s a liberal who wants to do that. But wait! How do you know Uzi is a liberal? Well, he wants to convict someone without a law on the books, and only a liberal would want to do that! Circular much? ---
**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 8, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/425 "2014-09-08T17:37:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So far as I can tell, Boehner in that example is talking about violating specific laws, laws that existed at the time Lerner’s conduct occurred. > > Can you explain why you feel that’s analogous to talking about sending someone to jail in the absence of any applicable criminal laws? > > From your cite: > > > [@](#): > > > > And the Oversight Committee, he added, meets Thursday, about possible contempt charges. He said after an Easter break, he expected the issue could come to a vote before Congress. > > And there are in fact such laws: 2 USC § 192 provides for jail time and fines for appearing but refusing to answer questions; § 194 provides for referral of such prosecutions to the US Attorney. It was my understanding that he wanted to know who was going to jail NOT for putative violations of that law, but for the activities that those questions were aimed at eliciting information about. I mean, he KNEW who was potentially jeopardizing her freedom wrt 2 USC § 192; why would he be asking who would be going to jail for that? The snippet of the article you quoted strikes me as a bit of misdirection. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/426 "2014-09-08T17:41:44Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > Only liberals would want to convict someone with no law on the books. For example, look at Uzi–he’s a liberal who wants to do that. > > But wait! How do you know Uzi is a liberal? Well, he wants to convict someone without a law on the books, and only a liberal would want to do that! > > Circular much? If that were my only reason to believe he’s a liberal, then sure, I’d have to admit my argument was circular. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/427 "2014-09-08T18:12:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If that were my only reason to believe he’s a liberal, then sure, I’d have to admit my argument was circular. It’s the only reason you’ve _provided_ to believe he is liberal. ---
**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 8, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/428 "2014-09-08T18:17:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Look, you don’t get to pretend he’s not a liberal simply because he refuses to admit he’s a liberal. If this is the hill you want to die on, then go ahead. I’ll just sit over here feeling embarrassed for you. When I’m caught in these kind of situations I admit error and move on, but then I consider myself to be a moral person. And just so there’s no ambiguity, let’s just make sure everyone understand the hill you’re proposing to die on. You want to judge millions of liberals based on the posts of _one person_, which in fairness is better than the alternative which you are so opposed to admitting to, of judging all liberals based on no evidence whatsoever. You lose even if you win this argument (which you’re not winning, by the way, just in case you were fooling yourself). ---
**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 8, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/429 "2014-09-08T18:26:34Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > If this is the hill you want to die on, then go ahead. I’ll just sit over here feeling embarrassed for you. When I’m caught in these kind of situations I admit error and move on, but then I consider myself to be a moral person. > > And just so there’s no ambiguity, let’s just make sure everyone understand the hill you’re proposing to die on. You want to judge millions of liberals based on the posts of _one person_, which in fairness is better than the alternative which you are so opposed to admitting to, of judging all liberals based on no evidence whatsoever. You lose even if you win this argument (which you’re not winning, by the way, just in case you were fooling yourself). Oh, and on your way up the hill, here’s a quick little obstacle for you: > [@](#): > > Most Boston-area Catholics want to see Cardinal Bernard F. Law prosecuted for his failure to remove sexually abusive priests from ministry, according to a new Boston Globe poll. Boston-area Catholics are known for being a notoriously liberal bunch. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/430 "2014-09-08T18:49:10Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > It was my understanding that he wanted to know who was going to jail NOT for putative violations of that law, but for the activities that those questions were aimed at eliciting information about. I mean, he KNEW who was potentially jeopardizing her freedom wrt 2 USC § 192; why would he be asking who would be going to jail for that? > > The snippet of the article you quoted strikes me as a bit of misdirection. I don’t get why that was your understanding, when he explicitly says that Lerner is a target of this analysis. He certainly makes clear that he’s not limiting his commentary to Lerner, but rather is expecting an investigation to reveal if anyone besides Lerner should be the subject of criminal charges. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/431 "2014-09-08T18:52:30Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > If this is the hill you want to die on, then go ahead. I’ll just sit over here feeling embarrassed for you. When I’m caught in these kind of situations I admit error and move on, but then I consider myself to be a moral person. > > And just so there’s no ambiguity, let’s just make sure everyone understand the hill you’re proposing to die on. You want to judge millions of liberals based on the posts of _one person_, which in fairness is better than the alternative which you are so opposed to admitting to, of judging all liberals based on no evidence whatsoever. You lose even if you win this argument (which you’re not winning, by the way, just in case you were fooling yourself). Millions of liberals? I’ve clearly said not all liberals share this flaw, but that everyone who is willing to say or imply their desire to disregard the rule of law and criminally prosecute Law is a liberal. It seems pretty clear from here. ---
**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 8, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/432 "2014-09-08T18:55:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Millions of liberals? I’ve clearly said not all liberals share this flaw, but that everyone who is willing to say or imply their desire to disregard the rule of law and criminally prosecute Law is a liberal. > > It seems pretty clear from here. So, your entire argument is that \*\*Uzi \*\*is a liberal, and that he is the only person in the world “willing to say or imply [his] desire to disregard the rule of law and criminally prosecute Law”? Because that’s the evidence you came to the table with. Or maybe the hole isn’t deep enough for your liking yet? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/433 "2014-09-08T19:01:10Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Oh, and on your way up the hill, here’s a quick little obstacle for you: > > > [@](#): > > > > Most Boston-area Catholics want to see Cardinal Bernard F. Law prosecuted for his failure to remove sexually abusive priests from ministry, according to a new Boston Globe poll. > > Boston-area Catholics are known for being a notoriously liberal bunch. Wow, that does look bad for me. Unless that sentence was quoting a source that pre-dated the Massachusetts Attorney General report that concluded there were no applicable criminal law charges that could be brought. After all, I don’t expect people to know the specifics of criminal law – for people in 2014, in this thread, to want Law prosecuted was evidence of their disregard for the rule of law. But if that “new” Boston Globe poll was actually over ten years old at this point, then it simply proves that most Boston-area Catholics thought there was an applicable law, and subsequently learned otherwise…at which point they of course realized that prosecuting him was a bad idea. My ire has been reserved for the people that have been told, and shown, that there’s no applicable law, and still want to jail Law. I’m not perturbed at someone who hears what Law did and wants to see the criminal justice system involved; I’m perturbed at someone who learns there’s no criminal law that can be invoked and STILL says or implies Law should be jailed. So… just clear up this last little mystery. Did you by chance quote some story from, say, 2003? And not link to it in order to conceal the story’s age? And offer the story up as evidence for your claims, knowing that it wasn’t because it preceded the AG report? Did you do any of that, “moral” person? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/434 "2014-09-08T19:02:46Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > So, your entire argument is that \*\*Uzi \*\*is a liberal, and that he is the only person in the world “willing to say or imply [his] desire to disregard the rule of law and criminally prosecute Law”? Because that’s the evidence you came to the table with. > > Or maybe the hole isn’t deep enough for your liking yet? It’s true that he’s the only person I’ve identified by name so far. But it seemed cleaner to get his case handled before moving on to the next poster that implied Law should be jailed regardless of whether the law permits it. ---
**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 8, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/435 "2014-09-08T19:22:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow, that does look bad for me. > > Unless that sentence was quoting a source that pre-dated the Massachusetts Attorney General report that concluded there were no applicable criminal law charges that could be brought. After all, I don’t expect people to know the specifics of criminal law – for people in 2014, in this thread, to want Law prosecuted was evidence of their disregard for the rule of law. Yes, let’s talk timing. That poll occurred \*after \*Law resigned and \*after \*“State Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly indicated he did not believe Law violated any state laws.” Speaking of forgetting to mention things, you forgot to mention that. ---
**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 8, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/436 "2014-09-08T19:24:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s true that he’s the only person I’ve identified by name so far. > > But it seemed cleaner to get his case handled before moving on to the next poster that implied Law should be jailed regardless of whether the law permits it. Yeah, the only person you’ve identified by name so far. The same person who told you that he isn’t a liberal, told you he voted conservative, and apparently agreed with you on the voter ID issue. An overwhelming torrent of evidence so far, those posts from that one guy who isn’t a liberal. ---
**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 8, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/437 "2014-09-08T19:29:54Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Yes, let’s talk timing. That poll occurred \*after \*Law resigned and \*after \*“State Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly indicated he did not believe Law violated any state laws.” Speaking of forgetting to mention things, you forgot to mention that. Oh, maybe a more recent report. Note this one is from 2010: > [@](#): > > “To keep Cardinal Bernard Law in the position he holds would suggest the papacy does not understand the principles of accountability,” said Sean O’Conaill, acting coordinator of Voice of the Faithful in Ireland. But Irish Catholics are a notoriously liberal bunch. ---
**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 8, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/438 "2014-09-08T19:35:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t get why that was your understanding, when he explicitly says that Lerner is a target of this analysis. He certainly makes clear that he’s not limiting his commentary to Lerner, but rather is expecting an investigation to reveal if anyone besides Lerner should be the subject of criminal charges. Specifically 2 USC § 192, though? :dubious: Doubtful, AFAIAC. Sounded more like he wanted to go fishing. I can go find you a duck’s bottom, if it would make matters more convenient for you. ---
**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 8, 2014, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/439 "2014-09-08T19:41:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My ire has been reserved for the people that have been told, and shown, that there’s no applicable law, and still want to jail Law. I’m not perturbed at someone who hears what Law did and wants to see the criminal justice system involved; I’m perturbed at someone who learns there’s no criminal law that can be invoked and STILL says or implies Law should be jailed. Be perturbed at the Midwest Conservative Journal, then. A website which by the way appears to be right of the far right: > [@](#): > > Should Bernard Law spend the rest of his days doing hard time in the hole? In a perfect world. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/440 "2014-09-08T19:46:50Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Specifically 2 USC § 192, though? :dubious: Doubtful, AFAIAC. Sounded more like he wanted to go fishing. Why “doubtful?” Look, the whole problem here is people discussing how Law should be jailed, and when I ask, “For violation of what law?” they either cannot answer, or answer with laws that are not applicable to his conduct, or laws that didn’t exist when his conduct happened. You try to draw an analogy to Lois Lerner, but in her case I have provided a law that specifically applies to her conduct and existed at the time she completed the acts in question. So I’d say if your goal is to show me a conservative doing the same thing, those are the goal posts. I’m perfectly willing to admit error – find me a conservative who genuinely contends that someone should be jailed, even when there’s no applicable law that could be used to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=23)