On Tue, 21 May 2002, Brad DeLong wrote: > But it ain't a crime. A Cardinal--Law or Egan or Mahony--or one of > their auxiliary bishops comes in, reassures the family of the victim > that the case is being properly handled and that the offender won't > commit this crime again, transfers the guy to another parish in > another part of the diocese, and tells everyone who knows to shush. > > That's not a crime (on the part of the Cardinal, or the auxiliary > bishop). At least, that's never been a crime yet. It may well be a > civil offense--the diocese may owe victims a h*** of a lot of > money--but it isn't a criminal offense. > > But I think it's likely to become a crime in the future...
I wonder: if the offending priest has been moved many times, and if this cover-up behavior is repeated every time, it seems to me that the cardinals in question may be guilty of: being accessories to rape/molesation, conspiring to commit rape/molestation, or aiding and abetting the commission of rape/molestation. Wouldn't these be considered crimes? Especially if the rape/molestation is treated by the Catholic hierarchy as little more than an unfortunate symptom of a problem chiefly characterized by the priest's damaged relationship with God, and not as a crime in itself? Marvin Long Austin, Texas "Never flay a live Episiarch." -- Galactic Proverbs 7563:34(j)
