# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/121 "2014-08-31T19:09:10Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Regnal? They’re \*kings \*to you? In fact, they are kings of Vatican City, an elective monarchy. It supposes no attitude of reverence or holiness towards the popes on my part for me to refer to them by the names they choose to reign under. It’s a tradition for over a thousand years for a pope to take a regnal name, and it’s no skin off my nose to refer to them that way. Your attitude obviously varies, and as long as you realize that it inhibits rather than enhances understanding, well, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/122 "2014-08-31T19:48:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’re confusing the Vatican as a recognized nation-state with the Roman Catholic Church as a human association. It’s the latter we’re discussing. Actually, it’s the Catholic Church, aka the Holy See, not the Vatican, that’s a permanent observer state, sends ambassadors, and enters into treaties. This is distinct from the Vatican, which is a state. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/123 "2014-08-31T20:56:01Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > In fact, they are kings of Vatican City, an elective monarchy. That has exactly nothing to do with their role as enablers of child rape, except insofar as it gives them an opportunity to hide Law that would not be available if not for that small plot of land in Italy. I’d \*rather \*refer to them by their inmate numbers, but if you insist on using their lodge nicknames, you certainly may. It’s a matter of your own choice, but don’t claim it should be anybody else’s, and I hope you understand why. > [@](#): > > Your attitude obviously varies, and as long as you realize that it inhibits rather than enhances understanding, well, whatever. I would suggest that the opposite is true - that giving them deference by virtue of a token governmental leadership is inhibiting _your own_ understanding of their roles leading their organized crime family. ---
**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:** [August 31, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/124 "2014-08-31T21:30:50Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That has exactly nothing to do with their role as enablers of child rape, except insofar as it gives them an opportunity to hide Law that would not be available if not for that small plot of land in Italy. Well, that and the unfortunate fact that he didn’t commit any crime. I probably have as much dislike of the Catholic church, and religion in general, as you, but you’re a fucking ignorant embarrassment on this subject. You don’t get to accuse people of crimes simply because you dislike what they’ve done. You should probably also look up what “crime family” actually means at some point. And “law”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/125 "2014-08-31T22:10:42Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Well, that and the unfortunate fact that he didn’t commit any crime. That is not _at all_ established. :dubious: Besides, is that all you think they need to stand for, especially given their role as self-appointed arbiters and guides of morality? If there’s no problem, then why is Law where he is? ---
**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:** [August 31, 2014, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/126 "2014-08-31T23:09:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That is not _at all_ established. :dubious: > > Besides, is that all you think they need to stand for, especially given their role as self-appointed arbiters and guides of morality? If there’s no problem, then why is Law where he is? Well, it’s established to the point that he’s not been charged with a crime, and no-one can actually find a law he’s broken. Which, of course, doesn’t mean there’s “no problem” at all. Quite probably his behaviour _should_ be illegal, but it isn’t. So, what should the Church do? Keep him where they can closely watch him, or send him back to America to continue doing what he was doing? There are many things that the Church (and all religions) can be criticised for, but their current response to child abuse isn’t one of them. Yes, it’s 50 years or more too late, and yes that’s disgusting, but they literally can’t do anything about that. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/127 "2014-08-31T23:26:28Z")
> [@Canadjun](#): > > Bush’s frat nickname is not commonly known, so using that would be confusing. No cites, but ISTM that the name a pope takes on when he becomes pope rapidly becomes **FAR** more well known than their original name. **That** is why it is appropriate to use their new name, not necessarily because of any sense of respect. I’m atheist and I will still call the current leader of the RCC “Pope Francis” because that is the most recognizable and easily remembered name. Also easier to type. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/128 "2014-08-31T23:40:07Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > no-one can actually find a law he’s broken. Scroll up. > [@](#): > > So, what should the Church do? Keep him where they can closely watch him, or send him back to America to continue doing what he was doing? How about firing his ass and letting him face his own consequences, like any company without claims to be the Vicars of Christ but with a recognition or legal obligations as well as moral ones would do? Why is that not an option? > [@](#): > > There are many things that the Church (and all religions) can be criticised for, but their current response to child abuse isn’t one of them. When they send Law back, without any support behind him, then you can start to tell us about that. “All religions”, you claim? What are some of the others you can point to that compare? > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s 50 years or more too late, and yes that’s disgusting, but they literally can’t do anything about that. What \*are \*they doing for the victims, then? We already know what the apologists are doing for the children - getting bothered by calling their rapists and their enablers by their real names, not by what what was done to them. :rolleyes: ---
**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 1, 2014, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/129 "2014-09-01T00:08:26Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Scroll up. I read the thread, and the other thread about this. In neither has anyone found a crime that fits. As it happens, the Church changed its own rules so that, in future, it will be a crime, but that shouldn’t be retrospective. > [@](#): > > How about firing his ass and letting him face his own consequences, like any company without claims to be the Vicars of Christ but with a recognition or legal obligations as well as moral ones would do? Why is that not an option? It’s not a company, for starters. And what exactly do you mean by “firing” him? He resigned… > [@](#): > > “All religions”, you claim? What are some of the others you can point to that compare? They all lie to control people - that’s their reason for existing. > [@](#): > > What \*are \*they doing for the victims, then? We already know what the apologists are doing for the children - getting bothered by calling their rapists and their enablers by their real names, not by what what was done to them. :rolleyes: Someone’s “real name” is that which they choose to be called by. In the case of a Pope, that is their regnal name. It’s already been shown repeatedly what they’re doing - paying for counselling and other help for victims (which is referred to as hush money by those who want to spin it), changing their laws to prevent recurrence of this situation, and investigating allegations and, where appropriate, punishing the criminals. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Church works. It’s not a company or a crime family (:smack:), and the central organisation doesn’t have unlimited power over Bishops and priests - indeed, it has far less than most governments or companies would. But hey, keep going on about how wanting to punish someone who’s not broken any rules makes you a better person. Most people can see through that, without ignoring the harm that Law and the Church have done. But the solution is to fix what’s broken, not break more in vengeance. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/130 "2014-09-01T01:15:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > We already know what the apologists are doing for the children - getting bothered by calling their rapists and their enablers by their real names, not by what what was done to them. How dare you call me an apologist for rapists and enablers? Back off, shithead. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/131 "2014-09-01T04:18:07Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I’m curious as to what message you are hoping to communicate by referring to the Popes by their family names rather than their far more familiar regnal names. A refusal to recognize the authority a “regnal” name implies, I gather. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/132 "2014-09-01T11:08:42Z")
[Religion columnist James Carroll](http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/31/abolish-vatican-statehood/HCgsMqBjqaWWAvOkyD5tgM/story.html) discusses how the organization’s retention of a vestigial nation-state warps it. > [@](#): > > In a show of toughness, church officials defrocked Wesolowski and promised to try him according to the laws of Vatican City. In effect, though, church officials once again shielded a predator priest from civil jurisdiction. Victims and officials in the Dominican Republic were left to stew. > > The Holy See might have boxed itself into handling the accused diplomat in that odd manner. Before the United Nations last winter, representatives of the Vatican had insisted that it was morally and legally responsible only for abuse perpetrated by Vatican citizens — and not for abuse by thousands of Catholic priests around the world. Both then and now, the Catholic hierarchy has been hiding behind the political prerogatives of a sovereign state, violating broader norms of ethical responsibility. Vatican statehood is part of the problem. > [@](#): > > Institutional survival has been the absolute standard since Cardinal Bernard Law was protected, and the strategy may be working. The broad public seems to have grown accustomed to the unending drumbeat of this scandal. Few Catholics sustain the sort of stunned indignation that greeted revelations a decade ago of rape by priests and cover-ups by bishops. Rome-based prelates have settled into a business-as-usual approach that blithely allows a clerical diplomat to avoid facing his accusers, and the sacrosanct principle of local legal jurisdiction to be thwarted. Meanwhile, once ubiquitous demands for a top-to-bottom reform of the inbred, misogynist, all-male, and forcibly celibate clerical culture are rarely heard. > [@Frank](#): > > How dare you call me an apologist for rapists and enablers? Just going with the evidence. What you have chosen to tell us you’re upset about is not child rape, but calling people by their real names and pointing out their own roles in the crimes. So what else should one conclude? The “inhibited understanding” you complain of might just be your own. ---
**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 1, 2014, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/133 "2014-09-01T11:19:23Z")
Cite for the Vatican refusing a legitimate extradition request? Otherwise, they’re the same as any other state. No-one’s defending rapists or enablers, at least beyond the level that the law does in general, for everybody. Which is, that they have to have committed an actual crime, not an imaginary one, and be proven guilty of it, not just assumed. And refusing to call anyone by their chosen name is asinine. Would you care to tell me your “real” name, so I can use it instead of **ElvisL1ves**? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/134 "2014-09-01T11:20:14Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I read the thread, and the other thread about this. In neither has anyone found a crime that fits. Horse, water. > [@](#): > > And what exactly do you mean by “firing” him? He resigned… He’s still a cardinal, a fucking “Prince of the Church”, under its protection as both an organization and a nation-state. > [@](#): > > They all lie to control people - that’s their reason for existing. That’s more than a bit unfair to all of the religions that do work to improve the human condition, convincing rather than demanding belief and subservience, and without raping children. > [@](#): > > Someone’s “real name” is that which they choose to be called by. That’s inseparable from context, and here the context is abhorrent. > [@](#): > > It’s already been shown repeatedly what they’re doing - paying for counselling and other help for victims (which is referred to as hush money by those who want to spin it), changing their laws to prevent recurrence of this situation, and investigating allegations and, where appropriate, punishing the criminals. Criminals like Wesolowski? > [@](#): > > You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Church works. It’s not a company or a crime family (:smack:) You would do well to point out what those differences are, then. > [@](#): > > and the central organisation doesn’t have unlimited power over Bishops and priests - indeed, it has far less than most governments or companies would. You’re telling me they can’t fire a child-raping priest? Of course they can. Any organization can. > [@](#): > > But hey, keep going on about how wanting to punish someone who’s not broken any rules makes you a better person. Granting for the moment that that last part is true: Is \*that \*your moral standard (I hear \*\*Bricker \*\*yelling in glee)? If so, then yes, I do think not raping children, and not excusing those who, does indeed make me a better person than them. It’s astounding to have the question even asked. > [@](#): > > But the solution is to fix what’s broken, not break more in vengeance. When they’re able to get their standards of conduct up to a normal human standard, they can let us know, okay? Until then … ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/135 "2014-09-01T11:37:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Just going with the evidence. Cite exactly what evidence you have that I am an apologist for rapists and enablers. Shithead. I’ve been reading this thread with great interest. I asked, out of curiousity, what message you were trying to send by the way you refer to the popes. You told me. As far as I was concerned, that was the end of it. And now, because I refer to them the same way as 99.99999% of the world, I’m an apologist for rapists and enablers. Shithead. I lost 95% of my respect for you back in 2008. Now that last remaining vestige is gone. You may be fighting the good fight, but you are doing in such a way as to disgust even those on your own side. That’s typical of you. Shithead. ---
**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 1, 2014, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/136 "2014-09-01T12:23:10Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Horse, water. Nope, you’ve still not done it. > [@](#): > > That’s more than a bit unfair to all of the religions that do work to improve the human condition, convincing rather than demanding belief and subservience, and without raping children. That would be none of them. Plenty of _individuals_ do those things, even when their religion would argue against it. > [@](#): > > Criminals like Wesolowski? Yes, criminals like that one who we know is a criminal _precisely_ because of the church acting. > [@](#): > > You’re telling me they can’t fire a child-raping priest? Of course they can. Any organization can. You are intentionally conflating different issues again. They can, have, and still do fire them. However, they can’t fire one - such as Law - who hasn’t broken any rules. > [@](#): > > Granting for the moment that that last part is true: Is \*that \*your moral standard (I hear \*\*Bricker \*\*yelling in glee)? If so, then yes, I do think not raping children, and not excusing those who, does indeed make me a better person than them. It’s astounding to have the question even asked… Yes, my moral standard is that any state or organisation punishing someone who’s not broken it’s laws or rules is not just wrong, but about as wrong as it’s possible to get. An individual can only do so much harm, even if they rape or kill they destroy a relatively small number of lives. An out of control state destroys millions. That last, by the way, is why I detest all religions - because they are out of control and destructive. The sad facts are that you are attacking the Catholic church for one of the rare times it is _not_ acting in such a way and, abhorrently, suggesting that governments should act against their own rules to punish those you dislike. So yes, if you want Law to be punished despite not breaking any laws or rules, then you are worse than a child rapist. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/137 "2014-09-01T13:23:53Z")
\*\*ElvisL1ves \*\*is in rare form here. Yeesh. It’s just full speed ahead, like one of the internet’s walls has a hole in it shaped like a special-ed kid. > [@Bricker](#): > > What would they say if they meant that in his case, the constitutional protections of Ex Post Facto should be ignored? No offense, but: Dude, how do get normative and legal arguments mixed up every time? Unless I’m missing something, the people in this thread (and elsewhere) calling for Law’s prosecution are claiming that he did break Massachusetts law. They can be (and apparently are) wrong about that, but that’s very different from claiming that they want to make an exception out of Law’s constitutional rights. (Stereotypically, of course, you’re accused of making the opposite mistake: responding to normative arguments as if they were legal ones. I don’t know how prone to that you actually are, but I have seen at least a couple baffling instances, hence my comment above. So, maybe watch out for that?) I also think extrapolating from this thread to condemn liberals in general for inconsistency is uncharacteristically dumb. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/138 "2014-09-01T14:05:42Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That would be none of them. Plenty of _individuals_ do those things, even when their religion would argue against it. True, but you’re condemning _all religion_s for desiring to control people. Even the ones who _don’t_ depend on indoctrination, threats, and simple demands to believe in order to gain and hold adherents and their donations, and keep their silence and acquiescence when necessary, which in fact is \*most \*organized religions. > [@](#): > > Yes, criminals like that one who we know is a criminal _precisely_ because of the church acting. The Dominican police seem to have played a prior role in that one. :rolleyes: The _church’s_ actions have been to whisk him away from the legal system there, placely safely (for now) under protection of their rump state. So what is it exactly that you’re giving them credit for? > [@](#): > > However, they can’t fire one - such as Law - who hasn’t broken any rules. This right after you claim he’s resigned? Keep pedaling. > [@](#): > > Yes, my moral standard is that any state or organisation punishing someone who’s not broken it’s laws or rules is not just wrong, but about as wrong as it’s possible to get. **Bricker** , why are you bothering to use a sock? :rolleyes: Law /= morality, for most of us, even most atheists. > [@](#): > > An out of control state destroys millions. Yes, it certainly has, over the centuries and continuing today. > [@](#): > > I detest all religions - because they are out of control and destructive. You’re letting the example of the outrageous moral failures of just one define your perception of them all. ---
**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 1, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/139 "2014-09-01T15:11:47Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Law /= morality, for most of us, even most atheists. Good thing I didn’t say that, then. I don’t hold with the law punishing people for things that go against my personal morality, no matter how bad I think they are, if they’re not illegal. So, I no more want you locked up for posting bullshit on this forum than I do want Law locked up for moving priests around instead of reporting them. I’m really not sure why you object the the Vatican treating it’s people the way any other state or organisation should, in these cases. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/140 "2014-09-01T18:05:07Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > \*\*ElvisL1ves \*\*is in rare form here. Yeesh. It’s just full speed ahead, like one of the internet’s walls has a hole in it shaped like a special-ed kid. > No offense, but: Dude, how do get normative and legal arguments mixed up every time? Unless I’m missing something, the people in this thread (and elsewhere) calling for Law’s prosecution are claiming that he did break Massachusetts law. They can be (and apparently are) wrong about that, but that’s very different from claiming that they want to make an exception out of Law’s constitutional rights. > > (Stereotypically, of course, you’re accused of making the opposite mistake: responding to normative arguments as if they were legal ones. I don’t know how prone to that you actually are, but I have seen at least a couple baffling instances, hence my comment above. So, maybe watch out for that?) > > I also think extrapolating from this thread to condemn liberals in general for inconsistency is uncharacteristically dumb. It’s impossible to believe that there are people seriously claiming Law broke Massachusetts law when the Massachusetts AG report has already been linked to together with the conclusion that Law did NOT break Massachusetts law, and case law has also been cited showing the key elements of Massachusetts law. You handwave that way with, “…They can be (and apparently are) wrong about that…” But how can they “apparently” be wrong about that after such clear demonstration? What possible honest mistake would allow then to continue to believe that Law violated Massachusetts law? No, no – what these people are doing is precisely what I said: arguing that Law should be tried and convicted even if he did not actually break Massachusetts law. How else do you square what they’re saying with the actualities of Massachusetts law? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=8)