Replies

Even if the purpose of the memo is to get the laicized priest out of town (and not necessarily to another parish), this is still aiding and abetting a felon. If you helped a rapist skip town, you'd be arrested even if you were confident that the rapist wasn't going to repeat his crime.

The individual in question had been convicted of child abuse in New Hampshire in 1996.

The Pope's decree was written in 1999.

I'm not sure about this, but I believe the perp was actually serving prison time at the time of the decree.

There was no misprision of felony, no aiding and abetting a felon, nobody "escaping justice". There was a order by the Church telling a convicted perp that he was no longer to function as a priest anywhere, and ordering him (once released from prison) not to live in a specific area.

I'm sure you don't want to spread falsehood about the Pope aiding the escape of a felon, when the felon in question was not only not escaping, but was already convicted and imprisoned, so I'd ask you kindly to consider revising your remarks.

That is an excellent point. I was unaware that the priest had already been convicted (from the post that Notwistanding has addressed to me, I thought that no charges had been filed).

You're correct, once the person has already been released from prison, then it is impossible to be aid and abett that particular felon from escaping justice on that crime.

You'd be astonished to know that I'm a practicing Catholic (was at mass last night). I don't blame the Pope for any of this, I think the American Church hierarchy has done its best to hide its skeletons from everyone... including the Vatican. What I'm concerned about is that the American Church's primary concern is helping the abusive priests and not the abusive children. I think the New Hampshire priest whose case you cite is unique, the Boston archdiocese seems to specialize in moving priests around before they get caught.

Thank you for correcting my error.