OK, thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
Could #32 apply? Is reassigning a priest to another parish an ecclesiastical function?
Probably not. That appears on the surface to be administrative.
I think you’d have the same issue as with aiding and abetting in the secular law. That is, that “to harm another” implies intent to harm, not merely that the act does, in fact, lead to harm. So, for a breach of the law to happen, you would have to show that not only did his moving of priests cause harm to others, and not even that he knew it would do so, but that his motive for moving them was to cause harm.
It seems clear to me that Law’s motives in moving priests were (more or less in order) to protect the church, to help the offending priests stop offending*, and to protect the abused from further attacks. I consider those priorities reprehensible, but not criminal.
*That this was a sincere view shows, to me, how warped that religion is, or at least was.
Maybe a jury should decide this, and not you.
They did decide that, when they decided - twice - that he had no case to answer. Or are you conveniently ignoring the two grand juries he went before?
What charges do you want him to answer, that weren’t covered by those juries?
A grand jury may very well be “grand”, but it isn’t actually a jury in the sense of a decision on guilt or innocence, its mainly a device to decide whether to proceed with a prosecution or not.
Yeah, a grand jury’s decision isn’t final. Even if they decide not to indict, the prosecutor can still bring a case.
And to **Steophan **regarding what to charge him with:
You can’t tell me that’s not a crime in some state. Let’s run him past a jury in every state he sent a child-molesting priest to, and let’s find out if he broke any laws.
How about you find the law or laws you think he broke, rather than keep making unsubstantiated claims he must have done? As yet, neither the prosecutors or grand juries have found any, but I’m sure you’ll have better luck…
And the decision not to prosecute means that they don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to convict him - that is, they don’t believe it is possible to show he broke any law.
Again, if you disagree, please cite the law or laws you think he broke, and the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.
I think he broke child endangerment laws, just not in Massachusetts, where at the time they didn’t have child endangerment laws in place.
So, you think he might have broken some non-specific law somewhere that he wasn’t, and you can’t provide any evidence? That’s convincing…
Seriously… What law? Where? What’s the evidence?
You do not get to claim someone is a criminal just because you dislike what they did, and think it should be illegal. You have to prove it was illegal when and where it happened. You have not even attempted to do such, and those who have attempted found there was no case to answer.
And just in case it isn’t clear, this isn’t a defence of Bernard Law, he’s basically irrelevant here. It’s an attack on dangerous, unethical people such as Evil Economist and ElvisL1ves who believe that their views are more important than law, due process, or the presumption of innocence.
You are exactly the same as those who lynched people because of the colour of their skin, rather than follow the law. Exactly. If there was such as thing as cosmic justice or karma, you or your loved ones would find themselves falsely accused, and unable to defend themselves, and you would have the joy of watching people cheer at your doom.
You’re an idiot.
Child endangerment laws are actual laws that actually exist, which you could have verified for yourself rather than getting all recreationally outraged, you insane moron. As I mentioned previously, Massachusetts didn’t have child endangerment laws in place at the time, but they do now, and other states did have them in place at the time.
And just to reiterate, your entire post is stupid. You like to deliberately misrepresent people’s opinion and then get angry over your imagined misrepresentation. Let me be clear here: you are lying about my motivations and posts.
Then cite the fucking law, dickhead. Show the evidence that he broke it.
Oh, you can’t. Because there’s no such law that he broke.
But that’s ok, let’s punish him anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Idiot.
I’m not going to respond to you if you go into full histrionics every post.
Going from a discussion of canon law to “you want to lynch black people” in one post is a little much even for the pit. I’ll continue this conversation once you’ve demonstrated that you’ve gotten yourself back under control.
In other words, you’ve got nothing.
Boy, he got you good, EE! You don’t want to mess with a sharpie like Steophan!
By the way, anyone else notice that he’s turning into a Dollar Store Bricker? Has he actually said “legal and Constitutional” yet?
Perhaps I can help.
He engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of sexual abuse to a child by reassigning pedophile priests to new pastures of victims over and over again.
He failed to take reasonable steps to stop such risks by not informing the new Parrish, the parents or the police of the abuse he knew had taken place.
The Problems:
-
I do not know when 265-13L was passed. My google fu is weak. For all I know, it may have been enacted in response to Cardinal Law’s immoral behavior
-
As Bricker has already pointed out, if this was the law when Law (I hate his name! Can we just start referring to him as Dickhead?) committed his acts, the statute of limitations has already passed.
Our only recourse now is tar and feathers.