“My contention is that in the cases of where the church knew about the abusive priest and covered for him by hushing it all up and moving him around, they are complicit in his crime, just as any other person in any other venue would be.”
You are aware that in many cases, putting him under house arrest and assigning him to a different diocese is more rather than less lenient than what he would receive from the courts?
“Legally, if you don’t stop a crime by someone you are with and it’s in your power to do so, you can be charged with the same crime. The Catholic hierarchy should not be exempt in this regard.”
We differ on ‘doing what is needed to stop things’, as to what is or is not effective in stoppoing the problem. Yes, there are a few examples where the bishop has been protecting priests. I am curious as to whether you can actually name the ones who are known, and their dioceses.
“I met someone once who was charged with rape because the friend he was out with picked up a girl and raped her and this guy didn’t try to stop him. He let his friend rape the girl. That made him guilty of the crime in the eyes of the law and he went to jail for it.”
Ok, now how is that the same as suing McDonalds because the rapist worked there? It’s one thing not to do anything when you are right there, quite another to charge them, when they were not there at all.
Sure it's more lenient. That's the problem. That's why there were serial molesting priests.
Anyone who molests children deserves to be in jail. Indefinitely. No questions asked.
No keeping him out. No way, no how.
You're apparently not reading my posts. It's not that it happened. It's that it happened and people knew about it and either did nothing or moved the guys to protect them. The Catholic church history is replete with examples of it happening. There have been LOTS of threads on the topic.
If McD's knew the guy was raping girls and still kept him on, yes, there would be a case.