Cite where I say legal restrictions should be overlooked, please.
Why won’t you just concede that he can’t be charged, let alone punished, for anything he’s done, no matter how much you dislike it?
I admire your willingness to decide for me what is and isn’t crystal clear.
Also the way you assume that I knew that the Missouri law took effect in 1991 and was just confused about the chronological nature of time, is a completely honest assumption for you to make.
Every post in which you “overlook” them is my cite.
I know you looked up the law – because you quoted the specific chapter and section number. Am I to believe you didn’t check to see when the law was passed, especially when that’s the precise infirmity surrounding the analogous Massachusetts law?
If you didn’t, then that’s willful ignorance, which I don’t believe has much distinction from actual knowledge and willingness to disregard the law.
He’d rather continue to insist Law can be jailed, without identifying any actual criminal law that could be used to prosecute, and simultaneously indignantly deny that he supports such a thing.
And you know what’s especially irksome?
I have to defend an immoral, power-hungry jerk who placed institutional power above kids’ welfare.
I’m going to respond to this post politely, because I am a morally superior person to you. I knew about the timing of the Massachusetts law because it was mentioned in the NYT article I read about the case. I knew about the Missouri law because I did a Google search on “child endangerment laws Missouri”. I actually did a search on “date child endangerment laws Missouri” but couldn’t find anything. I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know how to find those things.
I will say that I try to interact with you pleasantly, but you are rapidly making me join the majority opinion of you. Personally I thing you should apologize for your douchebag tone, but it’s your life and if you want to be an ass I won’t stop you.
I believe that you are troubled by his actions, which has nothing to do with your making sure that people understand why he was able to escape punishment in the US.
I am much more troubled by the fact that he escaped punishment by his church. I understand how important legality and law is to the RCC, but it just bothers me that this is not a punishable act by the church. I begrudgingly accept that the RCC has not covered all possible immoral acts that tarnish its reputation as a punishable offense, even if I am not happy with this and it only lowers my opinion of the institution and its long history of abetting abhorrent actions.
Now, back to my question? Why was the German bishop punished/vanished for what seemed like a mere administrative disagreement (which tarnished the name of the church).
Depends on why he moved him, doesn’t it? If he knew the guy was diddling kids, then it seems a slam dunk barring the time issues.
Up until recently and primarily due to public opinion, did the church think what he did was in any way wrong?
In 2004, after he’d left Boston and resigned as Archbishop of Boston, Pope John Paul II appointed him as archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. So, I don’t think they thought what he did was *that *wrong.
It does depend why, but knowing he was abusing wouldn’t be enough. The stated reasons for moving him were to get him away from the victims of abuse, and to allow for prayer and counselling that would stop him abusing further. You may very well believe that there’s no way that could work, and that he (morally) should have contacted the police to deal with it - I believe both those things - but that doesn’t make what he did illegal.
My understanding is that it was Church policy at the time to do what he did, and that there was (and still is, they just can’t get away with it so much) a belief that the Church should handle any matters of clerical wrongdoing internally, that it’s not the secular authorities’ business. This isn’t a view that’s unique to the RCC, it’s common in all religions and most large institutions. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s neither unusual nor, sadly, surprising.
Ok.
Can I just gently point out that even though you knew there was valuable information to learn when the law was enacted – you attempted to discover it, after all – you did not temper your reporting of the law by saying something like, “Here’s the current law in Missouri, although I admit I can’t seem to find out when it was enacted.”
What I objected to was a tone of certainty in your posts, when you did not appear to have the complete set of facts.
For example:
What is your understanding of an archpriest?
See, it appears to me that you found that statement, thought it sounded like an important job, and so you offered it up here.
And before the 1600s, you’d have been correct.
Today, though, most of the Roman Catholic world doesn’t use the term “archpriest.” The job previously described by the title “archpriest,” a priest with supervisory responsibility over several geographically close parishes, is now called dean, or in technical canon law a vicar forane.
The term survives as a figurehead position. An archpriest has zero supervisory authority over the clergy in the parish for which he is nominally the archpriest. He has zero responsibility as well.
However, being an archpriest is, technically, an ecclesiastical office.
Canon law does not allow anyone to be involuntarily disposed of an ecclesiastical office unless there’s a trial and that’s the penalty.
However, canon law does allow the Pontiff to transfer people to new offices, and canon law does require that upon reaching age 75 (bishops) or 80 (others) an office-holder offer his resignation.
A Cardinal is entitled to hold an ecclesiastical office.
So all of this is to say that going from Archbishop of Boston to Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore is not a promotion. But canon law entitled Law to hold some office.
No, you *don’t *have to. You *choose *to. Why?
But congratulations on beginning to show some hint of the horror and revulsion we non-loyalists feel about what he did, and what the victims must have felt. That does matter to normal, moral humans.
I didn’t know this, and the information about canon law entitling cardinals to hold an ecclesiastical office is new to me. Though, couldn’t they have made him archpriest of a mud hut in Outer Mongolia?
Fair enough, I accept the rebuke. Though for your sake I hope you remain without sin after casting this stone, because otherwise I’ll make you eat these words.
Because idiots like you keep posting false, uninformed accusations about him, and because allowing such accusations makes a mockery of the rule of law, demeans those making them (so giving them a chance to recant is good), and at the extreme puts everyone in danger if respect for the law falls too low.
It, really, has nothing to do with defending Bernard Law except as a proxy for defending fair treatment of everyone accused of wrongdoing.
Cite the specific false accusation **ElvisL1ves **made, please, because the only person I see making false accusations here is you.
Shithead is not making false moral or ethical accusations against Law. I don’t see in this thread where anyone is attempting to defend Law morally or ethically.
Shithead (and others) are making false legal accusations against Law. The laws under which they would like to prosecute Law did not exist at the time of the offenses. Honestly, the rule of law is far more important to me than the prosecution of Law for ex post facto offenses.
I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re saying here. Want to rephrase?
By substituting ElvisL1ves for shithead, you may not only gain understanding of my post, but also you will demonstrate that you have not read the thread.
I’m uncertain as to what sock I am supposed to have exposed. Care to enlighten me?