# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/361 "2013-03-04T19:06:05Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Where, in the Bible, does God ever countenance the performing of evil in the name of a greater God? > > Consider the story Nathan told to David to convict the King in the matter of Uriah’s murder. Um: > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sure Mahoney knows that God is not for a moment deceived… assuming Mahoney still believes in God. But if he believes in God, then he must have felt, **wrongly** , that God would countenance this evil in the name of the greater good of saving the Church. (emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/362 "2013-03-04T19:08:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I suppose it is changing the subject, but this debate is not new. > > When Jesus and the apostles are in Bethany, Mary (not Jesus’ mother, but the confusingly similarly-named sister of Lazarus) uses an extremely expensive jar of perfumed oil to anoint Jesus. The apostles rebuke her, noting that the jar could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus rises to her defense, saying that the poor will always be with us. I always thought that was Mary Magdelene (probably because the first school I went to was Saint Mary Magdelene in Camarillo, and they might have encouraged this interpretation). Too many chicks named Mary in that book, that’s all I’ve got to say… ETA: Too many Lazaruses, too. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/363 "2013-03-04T19:09:18Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I’m not Rufus T, but speaking for myself, I can’t agree with it. > > At least until you clear something up for me. It’s my understanding that you’re not allowed to do something illegal in order to accomplish something that’s legal. Is this not correct? No, too much wiggle room for that general statement to be true. There is something called the defense of necessity – to paint a classic example, you may trespass to save a dying man, and assert necessity as your defense. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/364 "2013-03-04T19:09:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok, let me pose a more directly tailored question: > > If you believe that Mahoney’s intent was **solely and only** to protect the Church, then he’s not guilty. > > Agree? Having checked some online legal dictionaries, I think you’re confusing _intent_ and _motive_. The general premise here is that Mahony knew his actions would likely prevent prosecutions of molesting priests, and did those actions anyway. As best as I can tell, that _defines_ intent. He may have been _motivated_ by another goal, but that’s neither here nor there. [Black’s Law Dictionary](http://thelawdictionary.org/intent/) describes intent as follows: “a resolve to do or forbear a particular act…Intent shows the presence of will in the act which consummates a crime. It is ‘the exercise of intelligent will, the mind being fully aware of the nature and consequences of the act which is about (o [sic] be done, and with such knowledge, and with full liberty of action, willing and electing to do it.” Note the recurring presence of the word _act_. It seems that intent applies to the _act_, and includes the consequences of that act to the extent that one is aware of them, and commits the act freely. So I think you’re asking me to assume two contradictory things at the same time: first, that Mahony knew his actions would likely prevent prosecutions of molesting priests, and did those actions anyway, and second, that he had no intent whatsoever to prevent those prosecutions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/365 "2013-03-04T19:10:33Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I always thought that was Mary Magdelene (probably because the first school I went to was Saint Mary Magdelene in Camarillo, and they might have encouraged this interpretation). > > Too many chicks named Mary in that book, that’s all I’ve got to say… > > ETA: Too many Lazaruses, too. Don’t get me started on the parade of James. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/366 "2013-03-04T19:11:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The thing is, though… that’s not really how trials work. > > It’s the same principal car dealers know all too well: they have no real hope of getting someone to pay the MSRP, but they set it high, knowing a negotiation will being it down to something more reasonable. A car dealer who tries to set the price at his real, rock-bottom price will do fine as long as he doesn’t have to negotiate. But you cannot, as a matter of strategy, start negotiations at what you believe the endpoint is, because there’s no where to move but into territory you regard as unfair. I know how trials work. I also know how negotiations work. You can take responsibility for what you did wrong and still dispute the amount of damages. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/367 "2013-03-04T19:17:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe that if you repeat a claim a lot, it gets truer? > > And do you believe that what is, or is not, a person is a matter of science? It isn’t a matter of science, though we do have the power to use science to make a delineation. In other words, science doesn’t decide it for us, but we can use science to articulate a decision. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/368 "2013-03-04T19:18:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is that, exactly? Because we give people heart transplants and lung transplants and liver transplants, and they’re still the same person. You can lose an arm or leg, and you’re still the same person. But scoop out your brain, and you’re an ex-person, at least within the confines of this reality. The brain seems to be unique in this property, among all of the organs of the body. Whether there is a greater reality in which persons continue to exist once they’re ex-persons in this one is a subject on which we are almost certainly in agreement. But it’s not something you can go basing laws on. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/369 "2013-03-04T19:23:22Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So I think you’re asking me to assume two contradictory things at the same time: first, that Mahony knew his actions would likely prevent prosecutions of molesting priests, and did those actions anyway, and second, that he had no intent whatsoever to prevent those prosecutions. I’m asking you to assume that Mahoney didn’t CARE about prosecutions of priests. He cared only about making sure nothing stained the Church’s name. Granted that his actions in protecting the Church also could have frustrated a police investigation. But that was never his specific intent. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/370 "2013-03-04T19:24:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is something called the defense of necessity – to paint a classic example, you may trespass to save a dying man, and assert necessity as your defense. Are you seriously asserting that your church saw a \*necessity \*to rape children? If that defense does not apply here, then your answer could have been a simple Yes. But that would be admitting something everyone else here but you already knows, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/371 "2013-03-04T19:27:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Are you seriously asserting that your church saw a \*necessity \*to rape children? No, he’s not. He’s answering a question about law that I asked. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/372 "2013-03-04T19:32:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Because we give people heart transplants and lung transplants and liver transplants, and they’re still the same person. You can lose an arm or leg, and you’re still the same person. But scoop out your brain, and you’re an ex-person, at least within the confines of this reality. The brain seems to be unique in this property, among all of the organs of the body. > > Whether there is a greater reality in which persons continue to exist once they’re ex-persons in this one is a subject on which we are almost certainly in agreement. But it’s not something you can go basing laws on. Excuse me, but that’s a circular definition: the brain makes you a person. Why? Because when you lose it, you’re not a person. If you lose your nervous system – except for the brain – you’re not a person either, I might claim with as much rationale. The brain is undoubtedly a critical organ. But other aspects of our bodies are also critical. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/373 "2013-03-04T19:36:36Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > It isn’t a matter of science, though we do have the power to use science to make a delineation. > > In other words, science doesn’t decide it for us, but we can use science to articulate a decision. We can. But science doesn’t compel a result: science provides information and insight into what is happening in the natural world. How we define a person is not a matter of scientific fact. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/374 "2013-03-04T19:36:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe that if you repeat a claim a lot, it gets truer? > > And do you believe that what is, or is not, a person is a matter of science? So a tubal pregnancy is a human being to you and one must take care not to kill it deliberately? Is that what you truly believe? Because that’s just a belief that has no grounding in science. A tubal pregnancy is not a person anymore than chemical pregnancy is a person. Your argument is a crazed and quite frankly cruel and evil assertion that forces women to undergo needless surgery and lose a body part rather than have far less invasive shots and blood tests. No human being should be denied appropriate medical care because of another person’s deliberate ignorance. It’s not defensible policy. It’s sexism and nothing more. Were the celibate, stupid old men who run the church to get pregnant, it’s not even a medical process that would be a matter of procedure anywhere. It is utterly disgusting to see you defending this nonsense yet again. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/375 "2013-03-04T19:40:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m asking you to assume that Mahoney didn’t CARE about prosecutions of priests. He cared only about making sure nothing stained the Church’s name. > > Granted that his actions in protecting the Church also could have frustrated a police investigation. But that was never his specific intent. No, counselor, that’s **motive** , not intent. The ‘why’ you did it, the what he **cared** about, is **motive**. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/376 "2013-03-04T19:42:25Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > No human being should be denied appropriate medical care because of another person’s deliberate ignorance. I agree completely. I just wish you agreed that an embryo was also a human being. See, this is where you are stuck. I get that you don’t believe it. You seem to believe that what a “human being” is is somehow a matter of science. But to shore up that belief, you simply keep repeating it, and throwing insulting phrases at me to boot, as though that also strengthens your argument. I don’t concede to you the power or ability to define what constitutes a human being. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/377 "2013-03-04T19:46:17Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > No, counselor, that’s **motive** , not intent. The ‘why’ you did it, the what he **cared** about, is **motive**. No. His intent is whatever outcome he wished to occur as a result of his actions. His motive is the REASON he wished for that outcome to occur. The outcome he wished was no stain on the Church’s reputation. Did he ALSO wish no prosecution for the priests? I say he didn’t care about that, except to the extent it reflected on the Church. You can say – and have good evidence to support – the claim that he ALSO intended for no prosecutions to occur – that he did care about that, ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/378 "2013-03-04T19:47:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Excuse me, but that’s a circular definition: the brain makes you a person. Why? Because when you lose it, you’re not a person. Only if you ignore the fact that when you lose your brain, you, or rather your body, becomes an inert slab of spoiling meat. And by any reasonable definition, that’s not a person. I really thought that was too obvious to need to say, but how could I forget your willingness to nitpick practically anything? And if you contend that an inert slab of spoiling meat IS a person, then please get help. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/379 "2013-03-04T19:49:19Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > No, he’s not. He’s answering a question about law that I asked. I provided for that possibility. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/380 "2013-03-04T19:52:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > His intent is whatever outcome he wished to occur as a result of his actions. His motive is the REASON he wished for that outcome to occur. Sorry, but I’ve got a law dictionary cite that says you’re wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=20)