# Cardinal Mahoney: God Grant Me The Grace To Forgive My Accusers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 27, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521 "2013-02-27T15:13:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/181 "2013-02-28T22:13:44Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Perhaps an analogy would help brickshit comprehend his assholery. > > It’s the days before televised replays were available to basketball officials. Acme College is hosting its arch-rival, Ajax College. One of the Acme players rebounds an Ajax shot and lobs it to a teammate racing down the court. While the referees are watching the play toward the Acme basket, underneath the Ajax basket, an Ajax player knees an Acme player in the groin. The Acme crowd goes wild, screaming at the Ajax player’s flagrant foul. In the stands, a nerdy little fan stands up to lecture the crowd: "Sorry, but there was no foul. The rulebook, section 2, subsection J, paragraph 3, subparagraph ii plainly states “A FOUL may be called or not called at the sole discretion of the referee(s) based on their observation alone.” “Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! It CAN’T be a foul because the referees didn’t observe it. I’m not defending the Ajax player, but it’s my job to fight ignorance among ignorant rubes like you.” This further incenses the crowd. > > “Fuck off, you little four-eyed weasel. It was a foul and we all saw it.” > > “No, you are incorrect and should not use that word “foul”. Can you not read the rulebook? Do the letters not make sense to you?” > > “Jesus Christ, he kneed the guy in the balls! If that ain’t a foul, what is?” > > “I can’t believe you are unable to understand the rulebook. It can’t possibly be a foul if the referee doesn’t see it. And by using the word “foul”, you are spreading ignorance and it is my life’s ambition to belittle anyone who doesn’t see every life situation through the wonders of legalese. Since the ref didn’t see it, it’s leeeeeeeeeeegal.” > > “You stupid fuck! He kneed him in the fucking balls!” > > “And you’re just upset because I’m an Ajax fan. You Acme fans just don’t think logically, do you? Here I am, trying to educate your ignorant lot and this is the thanks I get? I know that anything I do, short of becoming an Acme fan, is going to piss you off.” > > “No, you dickshit. Even if you were an Acme fan, you’d STILL be an asshole.” > > “You’re just jealous because I’m a smart lawyer. The rulebook is on my side, that’s all that matters. I’m awesome, I’m awesome, I’m awesome!” > > At this point, someone grabs the little twerp and tosses him out of the balcony and gets a standing ovation. Quoting this entire post because I think it’s an important and relevant one. Sure, some of the reason that people argue with Bricker a lot is because he’s conservative on a liberal message board in a very divisive time in our national discourse. Nonetheless, this perhaps-slightly-silly analogy really clearly spells out the dyamic of the thread. A public figure who is known to have acted really horrifically in the past has the gall to act the victim in public because people say bad things about him. A bunch of people were ranting about that. And then Bricker jumps in and starts nitpicking the language of the ranting. Sure, there’s an extreme interpretation of the language they were using which might indicate that they were not just ranting but were in fact seriously calling for vigilante justice and ignoring the rule of law… and if someone was in fact literally seriously endorsing something like that, that would be the time for a serious discussion of the definition of criminal-vs-not. But Bricker just started that conversation even though no one else wanted to have it, and then acted all victimized when people responded negatively, and clucked his tongue at our general lack of precision in posts, etc etc etc. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/182 "2013-03-01T00:06:23Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > and then acted all victimized when people responded negatively, and clucked his tongue at our general lack of precision in posts, etc etc etc. With any luck, **Bricker** will offer to pray that God forgive us our sins because we’ve harassed him so much. That’ll pretty much bring this thread full circle. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/183 "2013-03-01T00:14:15Z")
Well, now, its not likely to do many of us any real good, now is it? I mean, how many of us are so close that having the sin of hassling **Bricker** off of our Permanent Record will mean we will get our PIN number for the Pearly ATM? On the other hand, who can say it isn’t true? God can be _such_ a little bitch, sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/184 "2013-03-01T01:53:21Z")
> [@Me](#): > > I would challenge [**Bricker**] to adduce \*\*more than one or two instances \*\*where someone who was not a Conservative Republican or Catholic leader was accused of something heinous and he put in their defense in these forums the amount of legal argumentation he has spent on any of those who are, at any time in the past seven years or so.(Emphasis added) > [@Bricker](#): > > I already linked to a thread in which I advanced precisely the same sort of defense for Ted Kennedy, against someone who was insisting on calling him a murderer. > > Unless you discount that because you consider Ted Kennedy a Catholic leader? > [@Cyros](#): > > I believe that starts you on your way to producing\*\* more\*\* than one or two instances. I’ll accept the Kennedy one; got any more to point to? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/185 "2013-03-01T02:04:27Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I’ll accept the Kennedy one; got any more to point to? These kinds of things aren’t really susceptible to search terms. But from memory – and oddly – another Kennedy, Patrick this time: > [@Abysmal judgement gene rears it's ugly head again-Kennedy stupidity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/115): > > In the same sense that only Nixon could go to China, I believe I should be above suspicion of pandering to the Kennedy name. > > I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that Rep. Kennedy did anything improper with regard to using his influence to change how he was treated. The Capitol Police did not act properly, and they may well have been motivated by the Kennedy name… _but that’s not Patrick’s fault, and that doesn’t imply any guilty knowledge or conscience on his part._ > > There is virtually no evidence that he was drinking. It’s well documented that Ambien can have such effects as amnesia. We’re talking about a crime here – this means that the people bringing the accusation must have SOMETHING in the way of proof that rises higher than mere speculation. > > If it should develop that he had been drinking somewhere, and there are actual witnesses to that drinking, THAT is evidence. Right now, there is none. The man took some sleeping pills, got disoriented, and crashed his car. Now he’s seeking expert advice about the use of sleeping pills; very reasonable for a recovering addict. > > Sorry - unless and until more damning evidence comes along, I’m willing to skewer the Capitol Police for not following procedure, but not Patrick Kennedy for being the recipient of that largess. Show me he asked for it, or show me he needed it, and I’m a convert to the “hang 'im high” corner. But if the only reasoning you have is “Isn’t it obvious?” then my answer is no. It’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/186 "2013-03-01T02:09:51Z")
Now, here’s an interesting situation. After then-Speaker Pelosi was accused of malfeasance for not flying commercial, I said: > [@Pelosi's Palatial Plane Preference: Piggishness or Republican Pablam?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-palatial-plane-preference-piggishness-or-republican-pablam/391385/7): > > The Speaker is the second person in line for the Presidency. It seems utterly obvious to me that she should have a government plane that is capable of taking her back home without refueling. Hastert did, but of course his home is Illinois, much closer, so this didn’t come up. > > Thirty years ago, I’d have said that the Speaker should suck it up and fly commercial. Today, that would be madness. Ms. Pelosi should fly on whatever military plane is equipped to move her and her staff non-stop. > > Now, I don’t know details of plane models, but that’s my view of what the policy should be, and it’s a no-brainer. I was fully prepared to grind out a battle, but interestingly… no real disputes arose on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/187 "2013-03-01T02:12:53Z")
In this thread, I defend Obama against charges that his job offer to someone constituted bribery: > [@Should Sestak Squeal?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/7): > > I agree. And so far as I can determine, there is no law that would forbid offering an appointed job to a person with the intent of removing him as a candidate for an elected position. That’s called “strategy.” ---
**Author:** ![madrabbitwoman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c37758/32.png) [@madrabbitwoman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madrabbitwoman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/188 "2013-03-01T02:14:08Z")
> [@Robb](#): > > So, that the evidence shows that Mahoney warned one rapist-priest to stay in New Mexico because he had so many victims in Mahoney’s area that returning from California would certainly lead to the arrest of the rapist-priest doesn’t show the necessary intent? > > The evidence that Mahoney counseled rapist-priests to avoid secular therapists doesn’t show the necessary intent? Mahoney knew that secular therapists were mandatory reporters and would be required to inform law enforcement if they believed that the rapist-priests would continue it rape? > > Are you contending that if Mahoney had the intent to protect the diocese he couldn’t also have the intent to conceal crimes by keeping rapist-priests away from mandatory reporters and to help rapist-priests evade arrest by counseling them to stay in a different state than their victims? > > **Bricker** , I realize you hedged your claim by saying that you haven’t seen evidence. I’ve never seen Tokyo, but my observations having nothing to do with whether Tokyo exists. There is plenty of evidence in the link I posted ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/189 "2013-03-01T02:34:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > These kinds of things aren’t really susceptible to search terms. > > But from memory – and oddly – another Kennedy, Patrick this time: You look at those examples and say, “Wow, when I offer legal information in defense of liberals, nobody gets mad!” I look at those examples and say, “Wow, when you offer legal information without being a giant douche pseudo-socratic-dialoguer who poisons the well in his first post with a bunch of pre-emptive sneering self-martyrdom, nobody gets mad!” Tomato, tomato. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/190 "2013-03-01T02:46:05Z")
“…and the duck said, ‘Just put it on my bill!’ Thank you, thank you, but enough of this. It is my honor to announce the winner of the SDMB 2013 Award for High Broderism and Utterly Non-Partisan Objectivity! May I have the envelope, please?..” (' **luc** opens the envelope, glances at the card, screams “WHAT the FUCK!” and faints dead away…) ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/191 "2013-03-01T03:15:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, that last check is a problem. > > (People v. Hardin, 207 Cal.App.2d 336 at 341) > > Every piece of evidence I’m aware of shows that Mahoney’s intent was to protect the diocese from exposure and litigation, not to protect the offending priest. It was on that basis that the grand jury could not indict him. So, theoretically, I help my brother cover up a crime, but the evidence shows that my intent was not to protect my sibling, but to save my parents from the shame of knowing their son is a criminal. Thus I could not be indicted? ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/192 "2013-03-01T03:41:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, that last check is a problem. > > (People v. Hardin, 207 Cal.App.2d 336 at 341) > > Every piece of evidence I’m aware of shows that Mahoney’s intent was to protect the diocese from exposure and litigation, not to protect the offending priest. It was on that basis that the grand jury could not indict him. Then the grand jury didn’t get to hear enough because its main concern should have been about protecting the kids. It doesn’t take much reading at all to know what lengths Mahony (no e) went to so that the perv could still continue on molesting and raping kids. It should have been about protecting them; not protecting a pervert or the diocese and worrying about litigation. At least that’s what a righteous man would do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/193 "2013-03-01T04:16:05Z")
> [@sugaree](#): > > So, theoretically, I help my brother cover up a crime, but the evidence shows that my intent was not to protect my sibling, but to save my parents from the shame of knowing their son is a criminal. Thus I could not be indicted? Not in California. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/194 "2013-03-01T09:39:41Z")
When the next school shooting spree happens and the defence proferred is ‘I was intending to empty the magazines of bullets’ I trust our response will be ‘well alrighty then. On your way, you little scam.’ We wouldn’t want to give him the chance to feel all butt-hurt with our baseless accusations. When this guy started playing shell-games with child molesters his intent was that they got off free. That outcome is completely inseperable from any intent to get the RCC off scot-free as well. Besides - [it is by no means clear he’s not going to face criminal charges](http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/01/cardinal_roger_mahony_sex_abuse_cover_up_snap.php). > [@](#): > > Founded in 1988, SNAP is the world’s oldest and largest support group for clergy abuse victims and has more than 12,000 members. > > Clohessy adds, “Remember one simple fact and one simple adage: Al Capone was nailed on tax evasion [and] ‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way.’” > > \ > > SNAP’s Clohessy says it’s “factually and morally wrong to assume that criminal charges can’t be brought against current and former top LA archdiocesan officials.” > > He notes that other prosecutors have come up with various ways to go after predator priests, including one case in Massachusetts where a priest “was prosecuted under a law passed in the 1800s.” > > “When wrongdoing is ignored,” says Cloheesy, “wrongdoing is repeated. We urge law enforcement and government officials to help us end this repetitive cycle now.” I’m reaching for my crayons to colour myself unsurprised that Bricker is devoting time, expertise and energy on defending the RCC which could be better used finding some way to nail these criminals.’ Meanwhile in other ‘what WOULD Jesus do?’ news; in the UK the RCC’s attempt to wash its hands clean by pretending that priests etc, being officer holders and not employees and therefore ‘nothing to do with us guv’ is [laughed out of court](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/catholic-church-abuse-claims-compensation). > [@](#): > > The Catholic church could facing spiralling compensation costs after an attempt to avoid liability for abuses committed by priests and nuns was dismissed by the UK supreme court. > > \ > > The refusal by the UK’s highest court even to hear the church’s challenge that clerics are not “akin to employees” marks the end of a potential legal escape route from responsibility for compensation. > > \ > > Commenting on the decision, Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society, said: "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of this case : it will almost certainly become an international precedent, opening the door to financial liability against the church for tens of thousands of victims of abuse, worldwide. > > “Evidence abounds of the shameless lengths to which the church has stooped for decades to evade financial responsibility for widespread abuse of children in its care. To have fought to evade liability for admitted abuse is both morally repugnant and a continuing blatant breach of the church’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child.” ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/195 "2013-03-01T12:57:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not in California. Cite? We’ve been over the wording of the statute and the **Hardin** case, and there is nothing in either that restricts a defendant to only having one intent. As I already pointed out, your opinion that people somehow only have one “intent” doesn’t hold true. The fact the Cardinal’s motive was to protect the church does not mean that he didn’t intend the priests not to be arrested or prosecuted. They simply aren’t mutually exclusive. Now if there is a case in California that holds that a wife lying to police to cover up her husband because she loved him, not because she didn’t want him to be arrested, or a gang member disposing of a murder weapon because he had a crush on a gang member not because he wanted the shooter not to be arrested, I am all ears. But in my little bit of research, there is nothing to support your claim that the Cardinal can only have one intent. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/196 "2013-03-01T13:42:03Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Cite? > > We’ve been over the wording of the statute and the **Hardin** case, and there is nothing in either that restricts a defendant to only having one intent. As I already pointed out, your opinion that people somehow only have one “intent” doesn’t hold true. The fact the Cardinal’s motive was to protect the church does not mean that he didn’t intend the priests not to be arrested or prosecuted. They simply aren’t mutually exclusive. > > Now if there is a case in California that holds that a wife lying to police to cover up her husband because she loved him, not because she didn’t want him to be arrested, or a gang member disposing of a murder weapon because he had a crush on a gang member not because he wanted the shooter not to be arrested, I am all ears. But in my little bit of research, there is nothing to support your claim that the Cardinal can only have one intent. Don’t sweat it. Bricker just pulled that ‘intent’ thing out his ass. I can find nothing about the Grand Jury outcome other than the statute of limitations, which in the case of obstruction of justice is only 3 years, ran out on these crimes. ‘Intent’ was no more than the first thing his fingers clutched at when ‘his side’ (which happen to be nothing more or less than an international criminal cabal of child-molesters) came under fire. It’s one of his prime hand-waving tactics - spout off some legal sounding bullcrap and set the thread scrambling off down the false trail. If there was a political will to hold the RCC accountable for its many and varied crimes against humanity, a way would be found. There isn’t so all we can do is continue to keep its crimes in the public eye, even if it’s something as petty as threads like these. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/197 "2013-03-01T14:18:19Z")
Besides, Bricker’s self-serving, smoke and mirrors interpretation of intent is what is known in legal circles as ‘bollocks’. Mahony and his co-conspirators intended that those who had committed felonies escape punishment as that would lead to the goal of the conspirators. To say they did not ‘intend’ the felons to escape detection (and as it turns out, continue raping on their merry way) is as absurd as saying a whole bunch of kids were murdered just because you only ‘intended’ to empty the magazine. No jury in the world would buy that. It’s just that there is still not a political will to go after the RCC, to the extent that people who have clearly conspired to allow felons to conceal and continue their crimes, feel it’s okay to act all butt-hurt when called on it. Not to mention that people even join in to help them out. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/198 "2013-03-01T14:21:36Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Cite? > > We’ve been over the wording of the statute and the **Hardin** case, and there is nothing in either that restricts a defendant to only having one intent. As I already pointed out, your opinion that people somehow only have one “intent” doesn’t hold true. The fact the Cardinal’s motive was to protect the church does not mean that he didn’t intend the priests not to be arrested or prosecuted. They simply aren’t mutually exclusive. > > Now if there is a case in California that holds that a wife lying to police to cover up her husband because she loved him, not because she didn’t want him to be arrested, or a gang member disposing of a murder weapon because he had a crush on a gang member not because he wanted the shooter not to be arrested, I am all ears. But in my little bit of research, there is nothing to support your claim that the Cardinal can only have one intent. Nor do I say he can have only one intent. What I can say is that there’s no evidence – certainly no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt – to support his having that second intent. Now, a jury could certainly infer that second, criminal intent from the evidence – no doubt of that. But they’d be doing so for precisely the reasons I decry above: he’s a bad, bad man and we want to get him on something. That’s the kind of thinking that I despised when I was a defense lawyer. It’s one thing to have your guy get tagged for the bad stuff he did. But occasionally I’d run into prosecutors who were perfectly comfortable in saying, at least to themselves, “I know this guy isn’t technically guilty, but I can convict him anyway, _and he deserves it because of the other bad shit he’s done that I can’t convict him on._” **tagos** ’ post about the SNAP organization shows that sort of thinking too. ‘Let’s be creative – let’s find some way to snag that sonovabitch!’ I know everyone’s cheering for that kind of approach now, because it lets us punish a guy who needs punishing. But can’t you see what a wrong and dangerous idea that is? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/199 "2013-03-01T14:31:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But can’t you see what a wrong and dangerous idea that is? No. All I can see is a many decades long conspiracy between church and state the world over to give the RCC a pass. There are clear laws concerning accessory after the fact, conspiracy and for all I know, the good old federal ‘conspiring to deprive’ or something. They seem to have no problem finding something to deal with civil rights crimes from the 60’s. Or RICO. What I see as dangerous is if an international conspiracy can keep its crimes concealed for a few years it gets off scot-free. I completely reject your unsupported premise that the law is powerless. I maintain it hasn’t really even tried and then there are the ‘useful idiots’ like you, ever willing to wring your hands and shed those crocodile tears. The law is not an ass. It just attracts jackasses. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/200 "2013-03-01T14:34:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony > To be honest with you, I have not reached the point where I can actually pray for more humiliation. I’m only at the stage of asking for the grace to endure the level of humiliation at the moment. > > In the past several days, I have experienced many examples of being humiliated. In recent days, I have been confronted in various places by very unhappy people. I could understand the depth of their anger and outrage–at me, at the Church, at about injustices that swirl around us. > > Thanks to God’s special grace, I simply stood there, asking God to bless and forgive them. For this disgusting scumbag to actually “ask God to forgive” people who tell him he is actually a disgusting scumbag… Well that’s just par for the course for this supposed “man of God” who actually enabled child molesters to get more children for themselves. Yes, that’s right. He HELPED child molestors. He assisted them to continue to molest children, when he knew what they were doing. ETA: Sorry - hope I’m not highjacking this legal education thread of **Bricker** ’s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=11)