Why aren't Cardinals & Bishops in jail?

[Bricker]

@Some_Call_Me.Tim

I have no additional details to give about the example I threw in at the last minute, and don’t particularly want to derail the thread.

Do you have any thoughts about the question I asked?

I do.

My thoughts are: the law you mention has specific elements. Those elements aren’t met in this case.

[quiltguy]

If the big boys weren’t so disingenuous(and I’m being kind here) the statute of limitations wouldn’t/shouldn’t make any difference to THEM. I wonder what Jesus would tell them? They SHOULD remember Jesus, he figures prominently in that book they shake at others to apprise them of their sins(thank you, Bill Maher)

Has anyone ever asked Cardinal Law(isn’t THAT ironic) why he flew the coop? Oh yeah, that’s right, no one can, he’s secreted himself in Vatican City. Way to go, Bernie.

[Bricker]

@quiltguy

If the big boys weren’t so disingenuous(and I’m being kind here) the statute of limitations wouldn’t/shouldn’t make any difference to THEM. I wonder what Jesus would tell them? They SHOULD remember Jesus, he figures prominently in that book they shake at others to apprise them of their sins(thank you, Bill Maher)

The statute of limitations exists as the law of the land, and applies regardless of the beliefs of the accused.

How do you imagine they would disavow it, specifically?

Has anyone ever asked Cardinal Law(isn’t THAT ironic) why he flew the coop? Oh yeah, that’s right, no one can, he’s secreted himself in Vatican City. Way to go, Bernie.

This PDFis from the state attorney general’s office. It sharply criticizes Law and the Archdiocese, but makes clear that no criminal laws were broken by Law or other archdiocese officials: (at page 3)

Although evidence gathered during the investigation establishes that senior Archdiocese managers did not report suspected child abuse to public authorities, the state’s child abuse reporting law is not applicable because it was not expanded to include priests until 2002.

Since he had no criminal liability, why do you believe he flew the coop?

[quiltguy]

@Bricker

The statute of limitations exists as the law of the land, and applies regardless of the beliefs of the accused.

How do you imagine they would disavow it, specifically?

I guess because there’s a thread that runs through Christian orthodoxy that contrasts the letter and the spirit of the law. You’re certainly correct that running out the SOL is not illegal, but it’s also certainly not the moral thing to do.

This PDFis from the state attorney general’s office. It sharply criticizes Law and the Archdiocese, but makes clear that no criminal laws were broken by Law or other archdiocese officials: (at page 3)

Again, knowing what little we know about the machinations of this sordid scandal, and the far-reaching influence of the Roman Catholic Church, I’m not really surprised at the attorney general’s pronouncement.

Since he had no criminal liability, why do you believe he flew the coop?

I believe he got out of town before he could be questioned in depth, under oath. If, as many people believe, you haven’t done anything wrong, then why WOULDN’T he hang around to assist in ministering to those who were sinned against?

NONE of Law’s brother cardinals and archbishops have done the right thing. They are hiding behind the letter of the law. Shame on them.

[slash2k]

@quiltguy

I believe he got out of town before he could be questioned in depth, under oath. If, as many people believe, you haven’t done anything wrong, then why WOULDN’T he hang around to assist in ministering to those who were sinned against?

Define “wrong.” There’s a difference between “committed a crime” and “behaved in a manner that is personally and professionally embarrassing”; this thread is about the former.

[Bricker]

@quiltguy

I believe he got out of town before he could be questioned in depth, under oath.

Why do you believe that?

Here is a link to Law’s deposition, under oath, made on Wednesday, May 8th, 2002.

He left Boston for the Vatican in December 2002.

Can you explain what you mean?

If, as many people believe, you haven’t done anything wrong, then why WOULDN’T he hang around to assist in ministering to those who were sinned against?

There are levels of “wrong,” here. Law did not commit any crimes. He did plenty of things wrong, however. Still, I am not sure what you mean by this complaint. He w deposed in May; he left in December. Are you suggesting he had some obligation to remain on Boston for the rest of his life?

NONE of Law’s brother cardinals and archbishops have done the right thing. They are hiding behind the letter of the law. Shame on them.

I don’t agree.

But perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “the right thing.” The USCCB has adopted zero-tolerance policies that include removal from active ministry and mandatory reporting to civil authorities. Are these not right things?

[octopus]

@Bricker

So you now understand that it was not some shadowy exercise of power, but the simple fact that when the accusations came to light there was no general obligation to report child sexual abuse enshrined in law?

Of course, your complaint is still intact when we look down a layer: the priests evaded prosecution and their victims kept silent for years because of a misuse of power, to be sure, and that was the vicarious power of the Church, misused and perverted for that purpose.

So you’re not wrong in a more general sense. But when specifically considering the bishops’ role, you can’t say it was their powerful roe that saved them: it was the lack of any criminal law their actions violated.

Yes. You are correct.

The strange thing is that this common property of institutions is so often ignored though. It doesn’t matter what the right thing is. Or what the purpose of the institution is. It seems like institutional self preservation is exceedingly strong.

[astorian]

Speaking as a conservative Catholic, I think it would be WONDERFUL if some bishops did some jail time. Indeed, I think the only way to be SURE that “zero tolerance” is being enforced would be for some bishops to be held personally accountable.

IF there’s a case to be made that any bishop obstructed justice or acted as an accessory after the fact, I’d be THRILLED if a devout Catholic DA prosecuted him.

But as many other smart people here have noted, evil acts are not necessarily illegal.