Maybe so. That’s well beyond my caring about this thread now.
I’m fed up with the shithead right up to here.
All? Okay, where did you get that from? 
Oh, btw, learnsome new ones. You’re welcome.
Law was about to be subpoenaed by it when he hurriedly left for the safety of Rome, never to return.
Gee, perhaps it was from this post by you. Shithead.
Liar.
He left after being questioned by two grand juries.
You literally know nothing about this case, do you?
No. As I explained in post 55:
“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.”
And as I explained in post 146, “helping him get away with it,” is not the legal standard involved. Law can say, “I moved the priest so he wouldn’t be around people who knew about his prior offenses,” and that’s legal. He can even say, “I moved him so the police would not get involved.”
That’s legal. (Or was at the time these acts occurred.)
Still not read post 146, eh?
Every tenth post or so after you post something like that you should slip in something along the lines of “…but of course I think it would be morally wrong for him to do something like that.” or “…but of course I would never condone something like that, because that would be wrong”.
You know. Just so people don’t get get the wrong idea.
Bricker, I am still waiting for an answer to post #108, whenever you have a moment.
There’s the interesting case of that bishop in Germany who spent 35M on remodeling his residency and was “vanished” by the pope. There’s a dearth of information on what his exact crime was, but it seems kind of interesting.
Because liberals can’t read post #64? Or just you?
If I made a list of the most annoying habits of SDMB posters, this shit would be in the top 5 (right up there with elucidator’s “I’m educating through humor [never mind that I never say anything funny]” schtick*). You rarely have anything to contribute to a thread other than snark and throwaway lines, yet you love to come in and claim things like “we’ve shown you this time and time again” or “we’re all acting way more mature than you”.
Stop trying to claim the moral high ground because your opinion happens to be shared by other posters. You know who else used to do that? A moron named gonzomax. You’re a sanctimonious idiot with delusions of intelligence. Shut the fuck up and go away.
*Yes yes, I know: “You don’t have to read my posts, chief.” Whether or not I read your posts has nothing to do with the fact that you’re nowhere near as funny as you think you are. You would do better if you worked on your actual point as hard as you do at trying to make it humorous.
With respect to the standard of proof, canon law requires that give the judge must have in his mind “moral certainty” about the matter to be decided. This moral certainty must arise from the record of evidence adduced in the case.
Y’know, just saying “post #64” doesn’t really convey the sincerity, especially after you do a bunch of posts explaining step by excruciating step exactly why the scumbucket got away with the shit he got away with. Perhaps if you had spent several posts being righteously pissed off at the scumbucket, describing how you felt about shitheads that that covered up crimes like that, and posted a “post #64” that explained the reasons why the scumbucket got away with it people would would be so damn angry. Your “post #64”, and your constant referrals back to your precious “Post #64”, read like nothing more than a legal disclaimer at this point-a “CYA” to point to whenever someone says, “But what about that actual victims?”
Another liberal who can’t read.
Maybe if you lot stopped resisting school vouchers, the next generation won’t suffer as you do.
I’m pretty certain you’re wrong (depending on just how much wiggle room you’ve made by expanding your argument to include “willful blindness”). For a few reasons, but let’s stick with this: it makes no damn sense. Where’s the motivation? They’re pissed off at Cardinal Law, they want to see him put in prison, so they’ve decided to … make claims on a message board that they know are easily proven false.
And if, in your heart of hearts, you really think they’re lying in this thread, then why are you still arguing the point with them?
You’re debating with ElvisL1ves and elucidator, two posters who, whatever their virtues, are not known for facilitating the most useful political debates. To those who are willing to listen you’ve made your point, but those two were never going to agree with you. Picking at that scab and then claiming that theirs is a symptom of some liberal disease is not the most dignified thing I’ve seen this week. Or should I go hang out at Free Republic and start making some diagnoses?
There’s a good chance I’m merely catching you at bad times, but lately you seem more vexed than you used to be by the whole left-leaning board phenomenon. Just an observation.
Right, Bricker.
“Liberals”.
How sad.
Or am I missing the point of participating in a Pit thread, and actually just pissing on everyone’s parade?
I think this is a pretty lousy standard.
Example: here, in one of the Israel/Gaza threads, **Trinopus **said: “It’s astonishing that we have four or five concurrent threads discussing whether Israel’s military action is “disproportionate” and not even one single thread discussing the Syrian government’s shelling of its own cities.” This was a dumb complaint because, as was pointed out by **LHoD **in the following post, that Syria’s actions are despicable literally goes without saying, and is agreed upon by all, so there’s no debate.
Likewise here: I don’t see anyone disputing that Law is guilty of shitty behavior, so there no need to say it more than (or even as much as) one time. Implying that someone actually condones the thing that they happen not to be condemning at this precise moment would make this place uninhabitable if it was applied consistently.
This response puzzles me. Czarcasm’s post clearly wasn’t ignoring or incorrectly criticizing your post #64. Rather, pointing out why your toxic attitude pisses off everyone and makes your argument impossible to take seriously–regardless of its merits. He read your post. I think you didn’t read his.
But hey, “liberals” and all that.
Well a 12 hour flight away, and I don’t have the resources for a proper investigation - but as a “leaping of point” for where AG Thomas F. Reilly’s sympathies might lie why not take a look at where he schooled
Naturally, this is not “proof positive” and neither would I make an accusation based on this alone - but it would be interesting to build a researched portfolio making a case one way or another.
And by the way - nothing here says he did anything illegal (or even immoral) with the case and evidence being so murky.