# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/41 "2014-08-27T14:21:27Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > How many is a “vast number?” I’d like to see _any_ that can \*honestly \*be described as such. But you can’t expect that from him, sadly. > [@Bricker](#): > > when the alleged criminal is someone that liberals don’t like. Is it just liberals who don’t like child rapists? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/42 "2014-08-27T14:43:58Z")
And the Devil was sitting around one day, then snapped his talons and said: “I know what I should do! I’ll invent a profession that specializes in excruciatingly precise analysis as a means of defining a heinous action as being, technically, innocent! What a great _idea_!..” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/43 "2014-08-27T15:05:04Z")
Let’s just hope he has a “My God, what have I _become_?” moment, and soon. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/44 "2014-08-27T15:15:32Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > Rolling on the floor laughing! 😃 You left out the short Italian waitress shouting insults for atmosphere. I think that can be assumed as a given anywhere in Rome. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/45 "2014-08-27T15:49:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not all that quick on the draw, are you? No, Law didn’t break the mandated-reporter law. But there are others, you know, I listed a few. No, actually you posted a cite that said specifically > [@](#): > > (the attorney general) did state that Law had not broken any laws… Perhaps I am being rash, but I assume you know the meaning of the word “any”. As in “not only is **ElvisL1ves** a liar, there isn’t any syphilitic crocodile he won’t fellate”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/46 "2014-08-27T15:55:34Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > How many is a “vast number?” Higher than you can count. So, let’s say 11. > [@](#): > > And do posts on this board comprise “liberals” in general? Yes. More specifically, they serve as a useful proxy for what liberals in general believe. The board trends liberal; the liberals here proudly assert they’re _la creme de la creme_, so sure. > [@](#): > > And do you think ignorance might be at fault for at least some of it? Well, every time an effort is made to reduce that ignorance, the liberals resist strongly, fighting back with vicious attacks and insinuations that the effort to clarify what the law is is in reality a cover for defense of pedophilia. So even if it is ignorance, blame for that ignorance is fairly imputed to the liberals. > [@](#): > > And do liberals do this more that people in general? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/47 "2014-08-27T15:57:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, actually you posted a cite that said specifically And you left off the part that qualified it as referring only to mandated-reporter laws. You’re a sad, sick little person. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/48 "2014-08-27T16:10:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here is a thread from 2002 in which **SuaSponte** and I discuss the lack of applicability of charges like obstruction and accessory to the Cardinal Law case, in case anyone’s interested. Interesting, but you both seem to have ignored the fact that Law _moved priests around knowing they would reoffend_. At some point that behavior crosses over from “protecting the Church” to assisting felons. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/49 "2014-08-27T16:27:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Interesting, but you both seem to have ignored the fact that Law _moved priests around knowing they would reoffend_. At some point that behavior crosses over from “protecting the Church” to assisting felons. No, we didn’t ignore that fact: > [@Bernard Cardinal Law and Edward Cardinal Egan should be arrested](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernard-cardinal-law-and-edward-cardinal-egan-should-be-arrested/103862/6): > > Sorry, I don’t see this anywhere. Even moving the priests to other parishes was not an active step to prevent information from coming to light. Your definition of “active steps” is overbroad. > > From a legal point of view, both the parents and the cardinal are in the same position - they have knowledge of a felony and don’t come forward. (To be sure, they are in very different moral situations). Whether or not the cardinal moves the priest to another parish doesn’t affect that in any way. Nothing about moving the priest suppresses the information. It gives further incentive to the parents not to come forward - the priest isn’t going to be near their child again, but that’s not the same as suppressing information. > In any event, barring additional criminal activity - bribery, extortion, etc. - even taking active steps to present the dessemination of information about criminal activity, **so long as there is not an active police investigation** , is not a crime. > > Sua What specific crime are you contending applied? ---
**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:** [August 27, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/50 "2014-08-27T16:44:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, we didn’t ignore that fact: > > What specific crime are you contending applied? Wouldn’t criminal facilitation apply? > [@](#): > > S 115.05 Criminal facilitation in the second degree. > A person is guilty of criminal facilitation in the second degree when, > believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends > to commit a class A felony, he engages in conduct which provides such > person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in > fact aids such person to commit such class A felony. > Criminal facilitation in the second degree is a class C felony This is for New York, but I imaging other states have similar laws. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/51 "2014-08-27T16:58:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And you left off the part that qualified it as referring only to mandated-reporter laws. So you don’t know what “any” means? OK, then let me rephrase - **ElvisL1ves** will only fellate syphlitic crocodiles. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/52 "2014-08-27T17:09:00Z")
To put it in terms you understand: Shut up, you fucking troll. Derision, ElvisL1ves ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/53 "2014-08-27T17:09:01Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Wouldn’t criminal facilitation apply? > > This is for New York, but I imaging other states have similar laws. That’s why we discussed Massachusetts law in particular. [Pages 21 and 22](http://www.bishop-accountability.org/downloads/archdiocese.pdf) (warning: PDF) might be of some help here. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/54 "2014-08-27T17:32:18Z")
It doesn’t explain why accessory before the fact doesn’t apply. MA Gen. Laws, Title I, Ch. 274, §2: > [@](#): > > Whoever aids in the commission of a felony, or is accessory thereto before the fact by counselling, hiring or otherwise procuring such felony to be committed, shall be punished in the manner provided for the punishment of the principal felon. It’s my understanding that Law moved individual priests who had molested children _several times_. After the first offense (and surely after the second) his conduct was knowing, or at least reckless. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/55 "2014-08-27T18:19:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It doesn’t explain why accessory before the fact doesn’t apply. MA Gen. Laws, Title I, Ch. 274, §2: > > It’s my understanding that Law moved individual priests who had molested children _several times_. After the first offense (and surely after the second) his conduct was knowing, or at least reckless. Knowing isn’t enough in Massachusetts, as the PDF report I linked to explained. See _Commonwealth v. Perry_, 256 NE 2d 745 (Mass 1970): > [@](#): > > But mere knowledge that a crime is to be committed, even when coupled with subsequent concealment of the completed crime, does not make one guilty as an accessory before the fact or as a principal to the crime about which he has knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/56 "2014-08-27T18:22:55Z")
Knowing isn’t all he _did_, now is it? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/57 "2014-08-27T18:23:31Z")
Care to spend any time digging into those law books and finding a way to help out those that have been molested? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/58 "2014-08-27T18:33:07Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Wouldn’t criminal facilitation apply? > > This is for New York, but I imaging other states have similar laws. The problem is this line > [@](#): > > A person is guilty of criminal facilitation in the second degree when, > believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends > to commit a class A felony It’s going to be very difficult to prove that the person moving the priests around believed he was rendering aid to someone who intended to commit a crime rather than that he was naive or relying on professional advice or simply believed the priest’s assurance that it would not happen again. Simply failing to put barriers in the way of someone committing a crime is not enough to constitute criminal facilitation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/59 "2014-08-27T18:44:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Care to spend any time digging into those law books and finding a way to help out those that have been molested? The Massachusetts Attorney general spent considerable time, effort, and energy examining the criminal law of Massachusetts in effect at the relevant times. His office concluded, correctly, that there was no criminal law that could correctly be brought to bear against Bernard Law. Your question suggests that there’s a criminal law somewhere, hidden in fine print in a little-used, obscure volume, and if only diligent effort were applied to find it, magically we could charge Bernard Law with a crime! Earlier, **Lobohan** asked if this kind of mindset was limited to liberals, and if it arose from ignorance. I averred that liberals were the principal offenders and that, even if it was ignorance, that ignorance in turn arose from determined liberal effort. And that’s just the kind of effort you’re exerting now. Why ask me to “dig into law books?” Why don’t you invent a time machine, or lobby for the repeal of the Ex Post Facto clause? The principal barriers to convicting Law of a crime are: (1) He did some bad shit (2) That wasn’t a crime when he did it (3) Or it was, but when it came to light the statute of limitations had expired No amount of digging will change that. Now, on the other hand, if you get off your lazy ass and invent a time machine, we can nail the bastard. Or if you can get that pesky Ex Post Facto clause erased from the Constitution, we can nail the bastard. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/60 "2014-08-27T18:47:12Z")
Law _actively reassigned_ priests, on multiple occasions. That isn’t just failing to stop them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=4)