[Campion]

Not so fast on those crickets.

First of all, the charge of "misprision of a felony" assumes that the violator is aware that a felony has been committed. Notice that the law does not speak of mere "suspicion". IOW, the law assumes that some investigation has already occurred to establish that a felony was actually committed, and the person(s) doing the investigating have willfully chosen to conceal the crime.

The people Alamo-Girl describes are officers of the court, and they would function under a different set of rules than civilians.

Let me bluntly ask you this question: if your wife were raped, and did not want to press charges, did not want any publicity, and did not want to talk to the police -- would you report the rape anyway, in violation of her wishes?

Remember, not to do so is misprision of a felony.

\\ It's Catholic moral doctrine, and does not need to be repeated in the decree we're talking about because it is supposed to be assumed by everyone, that everyone, including bishops, including priests, is required to obey the civil law of the jurisdiction in which they reside, unless and until it requires them to sin.

[newgeezer]

Re suspicion vs. knowledge: If an altar boy that I knew to be trustworthy gave a firsthand account of our priest's dirty deed, that's knowledge. Agreed? Yes, if the boy isn't the victim or isn't trustworthy, I concede it's only a suspicion.

Let me bluntly ask you this question: if your wife were raped, and did not want to press charges, did not want any publicity, and did not want to talk to the police -- would you report the rape anyway, in violation of her wishes?

If I'm an officer of the court, do I have a choice?

Besides, if my wife could for even a moment be so irrational or selfish, it would quickly pass. We are one flesh.