# 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:** 4
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/61 "2014-08-27T18:50:41Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > The problem is this line > > 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. Actually, I think a case can be made that that Law knew, or at least should have known, that a new crime would occur. As **RNATB** suggests above, perhaps on the first, or the second, or the third instance of transferring a priest, Law might plausibly claim, “I thought he’d stay clean.” But not on the sixth, or seventh. But the problem here is you’re discussing the text of a New York criminal law, and Massachusetts had a differently-worded law, with different court decisions interpreting it. > [@](#): > > General Laws c. 274, § 2, provides: “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.” The following principles emerge from an examination of our case law in this area. In order to be found guilty as an accessory before the fact, the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant must "in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in **something that he wishes to bring about, [and] that he seek by his action to make it succeed."** _Commonwealth v. Raposo_, 595 NE 2d 773 (1992), quoting Commonwealth v. Stout, 356 Mass. 237, 241 (1969). Emphasis added. In order to convict in Massachusetts for accessory before the fact, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent for the crimes to happen. He can’t just know and not care. He has to want it to happen, he has to participate in it as something he wants to make occur. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/62 "2014-08-27T19:00:42Z")
Can we at least all agree that the Church should kick him to the curb at this point? What he did may not have been illegal in his particular jurisdiction, but it certainly wasn’t the moral thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/63 "2014-08-27T19:09:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Higher than you can count. So, let’s say 11. > 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. > > 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. > > Yes. So, you only have fiat declarations to back up your nonsense? You snivel and whine that you’re being oppressed, because you keep faceplanting in thread after thread. Sometimes, Bricktop, you lose because you suck. Keep fucking that chicken, Bricktop. KFTC. ---
**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, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/64 "2014-08-27T19:13:33Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Can we at least all agree that the Church should kick him to the curb at this point? What he did may not have been illegal in his particular jurisdiction, but it certainly wasn’t the moral thing to do. It was absolutely not the moral thing to do. Again drawing on **RNATB** ’s commentary, it may well be that in 1979, when Law first heard that Robert Gale abused a child and he ordered him to undergo treatment, and then assigned him to a new parish, he honestly and sincerely felt that Gale was cured. I’ll give him that. And it might even be true that in 1981 when he learned that Gale had again abused a child, he believed that another round of therapy would be effective. But at some point – in 1983, 1987, or 1992, all years that saw further reports of Gale’s abuse – he can’t credibly say, “I thought therapy and prayer would work.” So, yeah, even granting him all the most friendly inferences, Law acted immorally. There’s zero question of that in my mind. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/65 "2014-08-27T19:16:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So, you only have fiat declarations to back up your nonsense? You snivel and whine that you’re being oppressed, because you keep faceplanting in thread after thread. Sometimes, Bricktop, you lose because you suck. > > Keep fucking that chicken, Bricktop. KFTC. Lobohan, in this very thread, liberals are posting things that fairly suggest that Law should be prosecuted. How is that merely my declaration? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/66 "2014-08-27T19:16:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It was absolutely not the moral thing to do. > > Again drawing on **RNATB** ’s commentary, it may well be that in 1979, when Law first heard that Robert Gale abused a child and he ordered him to undergo treatment, and then assigned him to a new parish, he honestly and sincerely felt that Gale was cured. I’ll give him that. > > And it might even be true that in 1981 when he learned that Gale had again abused a child, he believed that another round of therapy would be effective. > > But at some point – in 1983, 1987, or 1992, all years that saw further reports of Gale’s abuse – he can’t credibly say, “I thought therapy and prayer would work.” > > So, yeah, even granting him all the most friendly inferences, Law acted immorally. There’s zero question of that in my mind. The trouble is, the believed that prayer would work, because he was under the delusion that prayer works. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/67 "2014-08-27T19:17:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Lobohan, in this very thread, liberals are saying that Law should be prosecuted. > > How is that merely my declaration? How many? And why is that number indicative of liberal in general, if this board is highly liberal? ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/68 "2014-08-27T19:28:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > liberals are posting things that fairly suggest that Law should be prosecuted. Is revulsion at child rape a liberal thing? :rolleyes: ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/69 "2014-08-27T19:28:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Lobohan, in this very thread, liberals are posting things that fairly suggest that Law should be prosecuted. > > How is that merely my declaration? > [@Lobohan](#): > > How many? And why is that number indicative of liberal in general, if this board is highly liberal? In this thread, I’d count three posters whose tone at least suggests the impression. In prior threads, obviously, there are more. That number is indicative of liberals in general because this board tends liberal. Therefore liberals are perfectly comfortable in discarding the Ex Post Facto clause, or otherwise prosecuting someone even in the absence of an existing criminal law, as long as it’s a Catholic cardinal. Or a member of the Bush administration, probably. ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/70 "2014-08-27T19:34:57Z")
Anything to defend your crime family, huh? Even if it’s looking for ways to excuse knowing facilitators of child rape. You sick, sick lying fuck. ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/71 "2014-08-27T19:42:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So, yeah, even granting him all the most friendly inferences, Law acted immorally. There’s zero question of that in my mind. Now, how about the way the \*capo \*of the time moved Law _himself_ out of the jurisdiction, to keep him out of trouble? They made \*him \*a fucking \*saint \*not long ago. His successors as the organization’s chosen _leaders_, purportedly guided by God himself so they claim, have kept him there since. Yet you keep looking to these people as a source of moral guidance. Why? And do you understand why others do not, and consider your absolute fealty and even attempted defenses of them to be a sign of a problem far worse than mere delusion? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/72 "2014-08-27T19:58:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In this thread, I’d count three posters whose tone at least suggests the impression. _Posters whose tone suggests the impression._ Well that certainly sounds ironclad. > [@](#): > > In prior threads, obviously, there are more. > > That number is indicative of liberals in general because this board tends liberal. Exactly. If you find three people that maybe, kinda want him prosecuted. Then it stands to reason that the hundred or so other liberals that read this thread aren’t implying that, right? For instance, I’m a liberal who doesn’t think he should be charged if the law doesn’t allow it. I think he should be mocked, and probably have an eggplant shoved up his ass, but I’m not expecting an ex post facto conviction. > [@](#): > > Therefore liberals are perfectly comfortable in discarding the Ex Post Facto clause, or otherwise prosecuting someone even in the absence of an existing criminal law, as long as it’s a Catholic cardinal. Or a member of the Bush administration, probably. Your conclusion doesn’t follow. What you’ve shown is that three liberals, maybe suggested the impression of what you say. Suggesting that liberals are all for it, when you can only find three maybe, kinda examples in a thread full of liberals is simply the sort of weak reasoning that makes you a Republican. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/73 "2014-08-27T20:19:00Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > _Posters whose tone suggests the impression._ Well that certainly sounds ironclad. > > Exactly. If you find three people that maybe, kinda want him prosecuted. Then it stands to reason that the hundred or so other liberals that read this thread aren’t implying that, right? > > For instance, I’m a liberal who doesn’t think he should be charged if the law doesn’t allow it. I think he should be mocked, and probably have an eggplant shoved up his ass, but I’m not expecting an ex post facto conviction. > > Your conclusion doesn’t follow. What you’ve shown is that three liberals, maybe suggested the impression of what you say. OK, maybe there are a few liberals who would reluctantly allow Bernard Law to be protected by the Constitution. ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/74 "2014-08-27T20:50:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Anything to defend your crime family, huh? Even if it’s looking for ways to excuse knowing facilitators of child rape. > > You sick, sick lying fuck. Oh all right - alligators too. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [August 27, 2014, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/75 "2014-08-27T21:38:46Z")
If only [CLR 17, § 2\*](http://biblehub.com/luke/17-2.htm) or [CMatR 18, § 6\*\*](http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-6.htm) or [CMkR 9, § 42\*\*\*](http://biblehub.com/mark/9-42.htm) were actual things, with real-world penalties attached, it wouldn’t bother me so much that so many have managed to avoid being dealt with by our criminal justice system. \*Term of art, or poetic license or something, meaning Code of Luke Regulations \*\*Term of art, or poetic license or something, meaning Code of Matthew Regulations \*\*\*Term of art, or poetic license or something, meaning Code of Mark Regulations I dunno, maybe they’re parody. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/76 "2014-08-27T22:27:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, maybe there are a few liberals who would reluctantly allow Bernard Law to be protected by the Constitution. Being shown wrong hurts, I get it. But you’ll get over it. In fact, you’ll probably forget all about it, and make the same mistake in a few days. \<3 ---
**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, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/77 "2014-08-27T22:47:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Being shown wrong hurts, I get it. But you’ll get over it. In fact, you’ll probably forget all about it, and make the same mistake in a few days. > > \<3 I wasn’t wrong. I said, “liberals in general.” The mere fact that you’ve pointed out a couple of counter examples doesn’t change the bloodthirsty nature of the breed. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/78 "2014-08-27T23:34:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I wasn’t wrong. I said, “liberals in general.” The mere fact that you’ve pointed out a couple of counter examples doesn’t change the bloodthirsty nature of the breed. How about the mere fact that you couldn’t point out one example? And the idea that liberals are bloodthirsty… compared to what? Compared to conservatives? I see I was right. You fail utterly, give a weak-ass admission and are right back to your previous ignorant state in the space of a few hours. You’re like a memory metal. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/79 "2014-08-28T00:20:31Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You’re a pustule, but I don’t judge conservatives in general by you. Most of them are misinformed decent enough people. Fortunately, we know that he does not in any way fit into that category. In that thread from 2002/ 2003 referenced above ( and in other relevant threads of that era on this topic ), I was most vociferously advocating that Bernard Cardinal Law be extradited back from The Vatican City to Boston to stand trial. But no. There is the law of the land and then there is The Holy Roman Catholic Church. And, as has been proven most horrifically by the last many decades of child-rape and connected crimes, the law of the land comes in way, way, way second. Jesus was apparently a kindly loving person who believed in the sanctity of every human being. Ironic, no, that the H.R.C.C. now regards under-aged boys as an endless supply of receptacles instead of the aforementioned human beings? Yes. Ironic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/80 "2014-08-28T01:55:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > How about the mere fact that you couldn’t point out one example? I did. And, hey, look: here’s another. > [@Cartooniverse](#): > > Fortunately, we know that he does not in any way fit into that category. > > In that thread from 2002/ 2003 referenced above ( and in other relevant threads of that era on this topic ), I was most vociferously advocating that Bernard Cardinal Law be extradited back from The Vatican City to Boston to stand trial. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=5)