Question about the latest Pope scandal.

[Hamlette]

Priest Kiesle tied up two boys and "molested" them. The Pope delayed defrocking him. It's the case with the letter with Ratzie's signature you see all over today and yesterday.

It says Kiesle was arrested in 1978 and plead guilty to lewd conduct for the incident. He was place on probation. The stink is that Ratie delayed things. What I don't get is how is "molesting" a boy you have tied up misdemeanor "lewd conduct"? Did the prosecutor's go easy on him too? Was that prevalent too? Is that a scandal or was the incident really that minor? Something that started out innocent then the priest exposed himself or something. Molestation doesn't really get reduced to lewd conduct very often.

Anyone know?

[panader0]

1. It seems to me that tying them up amounts to a lot more than "lewd Behavior"

How about kidnapping, rape?

[Hamlette]

2. me too, which seemed strange they would bargain it down so low

I suppose it could have started as a game. when we were kids we did cowboys and indians, I got tied up a time or two but there were NO adults playing with us. That would have bee freaky wrong.

I don't get it.

[TheWraith]

3. In many places back then, raping males wasn't legally "rape."

For a long time, rape law assumed a male perpetrator and female victim. It was even that way in the US not too long ago. I think I recall there being a case in the late '80s or early '90s where a woman was sexually assaulted by two other women, and they had trouble pressing charges because they couldn't be charged with rape since there was no penis involved.

I'm not saying that I know this was the case with the law in that area, just saying it's a possibility.