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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If only CLR 17, § 2* or CMatR 18, § 6** or CMkR 9, § 42*** 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 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.
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?