# 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:** 20
**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 4, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/381 "2013-03-04T19:56:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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.** That’s kinda a big deal you’re glossing over there. The criminal investigation and possible criminal charges undeniably would “reflect on the Church”. So concluding that he didn’t care about about the criminal investigations and possible prosecutions makes little or no sense. Of course he cared about them, because they would clearly "reflect on the Church. That’s where this latest attempt of yours falls apart. The Cardinal doesn’t get to claim that he didn’t intend the clear natural and probable consequences of his actions because he had some other goal that was forwarded by his actions too. Especially when his overall goal (protecting the Church) is clearly served by the consequences of his actions. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/382 "2013-03-04T19:58:25Z")
> [@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? If Mahoney thought he could protect the church by purposefully protecting a pedophile from prosecution, he gets a pass for protecting that priest? Just kind a went on alliteration safari there… ---
**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, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/383 "2013-03-04T20:06:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Yes, that’s what I was saying, in case it wasn’t clear. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/384 "2013-03-04T20:08:22Z")
**Typo** : If your premise is that the particular church in question can do no wrong, then yes, that’s what it means. The human power of rationalization is strong. There’s a reason such argumentation is called “Jesuitical” - and that the term is not complimentary. **Frylock** : You might have tried the brain-transplant hypothesis on our obstinate friend, but I doubt it would convince him. (He and Kim Kardashian swap brains; which body is now the real Bricker? Or is there one anymore, even with no loss of material etc.?) ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/385 "2013-03-04T20:11:09Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > If Mahoney thought he could protect the church by purposefully protecting a pedophile from prosecution, he gets a pass for protecting that priest? > Just kind a went on alliteration safari there… Pass the spittoon, please. Well, not as much of a pass as you might think, since it would be easy for a jury to conclude that he also specifically intended to protect the pedophile. But I stand by the claim that, as hard as it might be for a jury to separate the two, if they find that he really didn’t care about protecting the pedophile and had no intent in that area, then the jury should acquit. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/386 "2013-03-04T20:11:18Z")
I don’t know, maybe this sounds really out there, but I would think that the moral, Christian thing to do would be to worry about protecting children from harm, rather than the church’s so-called “reputation”. In fact, I would also go so far as to say that had they done so, they would have been praised for rooting out evil! But then, what do I know? > [@Bricker](#): > > I say that what’s immoral and disgusting is your willingness to murder a fellow human being, simply because that human being is unborn and thus defenseless. > > Of course, I recognize that this is simply my opinion, and not the law. Do you also reccognize that [tubal pregnancies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy) are not viable and will end miscarriages (almost usually fatal), if not taken care of? > [@](#): > > With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. Furthermore, they are dangerous for the mother, since internal haemorrhage is a life-threatening complication. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to death. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/387 "2013-03-04T20:12:43Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Are you really so batshit insane as to argue that my decision to save my own fucking life by ending an ectopic pregnancy was an act of murder? > > :eek: > > Do you really think my decision to follow my doctor’s advice and have the thing removed properly was similiar to the Sandy Hook shooter’s actions in deliberately murdering small children? > > Your assertion is not an opinion. Your assertion evidence of someone truly not in touch with reality. A tubal pregnancy is a medical emergency not a person. Your willful refusal to admit this, worse to unequate the thing with a full blown person is borderline psychopathy. Can you really not understand that a fertilized egg that is incapable of implanting in the right place is only a fertilized egg and not now nor ever will be a person? Or are you so blinded by the crazed Catholic doctrine that puts fertilized eggs above the medical needs of actual women that you are simply incapable of understanding science? > > Thanks for reminding me of the many reasons I hate the fucking Catholic church. Sometimes the only thing worse than the stupid old men who run the church are their even more lunatic supporters. My post # 319. Anyone is entitled to be batshit crazy, as long as they do not try to enforce their warped view of the universe upon others. That crosses the line from batshit crazy to facist. To dangerous. To immensely dangerous. He and others who share his (im)moral framework would own your body if given a chance. In some states in the USA, they already do own your body. For shame. For shame. ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/388 "2013-03-04T20:14:14Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Do you also reccognize that [tubal pregnancies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy) are not viable and will end miscarriages (almost usually fatal), if not taken care of? Yes, I do. But the mere fact that a human being is certain to die does not transform him into something non-human. So the fact that an ectopic pregnancy is doomed to end with the death of the embryo doesn’t transform the embryo into a non-human. ---
**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 4, 2013, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/389 "2013-03-04T20:17:19Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > If Mahoney thought he could protect the church by purposefully protecting a pedophile from prosecution, he gets a pass for protecting that priest? I guess it could also be argued (by some) that if someone knew a damning fact about the church, and was going to reveal that fact to the news media, this would have resulted in damage to the church. Mahoney wants to protect the church. Mahoney could then give $10,000 to a known contract killer, and tell them : “I need the church protected. Here is Mr. X’s name and address. Do your job.” This means that Mahoney could not be prosecuted for murder, since his intent was NOT to kill the person, but rather to protect the church. I’m sure this would stand up in court. ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/390 "2013-03-04T20:18:23Z")
Most people consider it morally permissible to kill a human being in self defense. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/391 "2013-03-04T20:20:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Pass the spittoon, please. > > Well, not as much of a pass as you might think, since it would be easy for a jury to conclude that he also specifically intended to protect the pedophile. But I stand by the claim that, as hard as it might be for a jury to separate the two, if they find that he really didn’t care about protecting the pedophile and had no intent in that area, then the jury should acquit. As someone else already posted in this thread… so if someone kills his parent in order to inherit their fortune, and are put on trial for murder, and are able to convince the jury that they really just wanted the fortune, and would have been perfectly happy to not kill their parent… then they should be found innocent of murder? That seems beyond-bonkers-crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/392 "2013-03-04T20:21:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is that, exactly? > > Who decided that the brain was the center of personhood? > > I agree it’s the center of much of what makes people people. I don’t agree it’s presence is the definition of a person. Wrap your head around this, Oh Most Holy Counselor. There you sit. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year. Watching the person you’ve shared your adult life with subsist in a state of decay. Oh, she decays slowly because you have a decent healthcare plan. The sores that bloom along her bony emaciated joints rise and fall like the tides, causing relentless pain as she shifts in her bed. No manner of foam padding or air mattress delivers relief- but you’re not ever really sure of how much pain she’s in. Because she suffered a massive aneurysm 4 years ago and was declared brain dead. Since- as we are all learning- you have some pretty definite ideas on what is and is not life, you refuse to pull the plug. So there she lies. The organic machine that is her body is decaying in agonizingly slow steps. Her mind is gone. Her brain decimated within an hour of the bleed’s initial forceful rupture. There is no recognition to stimulii. You will happily let her whither slowly, so very slowly, until she is a wraith in that bed. Until her body deconstructs and eventually fails- and then because you are the arbiter of What Is Life, machines will keep her going for many many more years. Because you decide what is Life and what is not Life. What’s it like, having that kind of power? Kind of elevates you way above all of the rest of us, doesn’t it? You, **Bricker** , are a perversion. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/393 "2013-03-04T20:22:09Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Most people consider it morally permissible to kill a human being in self defense. Do you? Yes. ---
**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, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/394 "2013-03-04T20:23:39Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I guess it could also be argued (by some) that if someone knew a damning fact about the church, and was going to reveal that fact to the news media, this would have resulted in damage to the church. Mahoney wants to protect the church. > > Mahoney could then give $10,000 to a known contract killer, and tell them : “I need the church protected. Here is Mr. X’s name and address. Do your job.” This means that Mahoney could not be prosecuted for murder, since his intent was NOT to kill the person, but rather to protect the church. > > I’m sure this would stand up in court. Very doubtful. Why would the jury in that case possibly conclude Mahoney meant anything other than the death of the victim to occur? ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/395 "2013-03-04T20:25:03Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > As someone else already posted in this thread… so if someone kills his parent in order to inherit their fortune, and are put on trial for murder, and are able to convince the jury that they really just wanted the fortune, and would have been perfectly happy to not kill their parent… then they should be found innocent of murder? That seems beyond-bonkers-crazy. Again, very doubtful, because the accused did some act which caused the death of the parent. That’s the crime of murder, right there. On what basis would the jury find he intended anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/396 "2013-03-04T20:34:15Z")
> [@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. Please satisfy the curiosity of a non-lawyer: Are there specified limits as to what alternative motivations are allowed? Could he a covered up the child molestations due to the fact that if they were exposed his time would be wasted by lots of officials asking questions and there was a chance he would miss that nights Simpsons rerun? If so this seems to make the law entirely toothless since “Because I felt like it” would be an adequate excuse. ---
**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 4, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/397 "2013-03-04T20:34:39Z")
I think “very doubtful” is a good way to describe your conclusion that the Cardinal’s intent to protect the Church somehow didn’t include the intent to protect the Church and its priests from criminal investigations and prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/398 "2013-03-04T20:40:28Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I think “very doubtful” is a good way to describe your conclusion that the Cardinal’s intent to protect the Church somehow didn’t include the intent to protect the Church and its priests from criminal investigations and prosecution. Right. If the defense said that Mahoney relocated the offending priests to other dioceses in order to protect the reputation of the church, my first question is, “How does relocating someone protect the church’s reputation?” If the answer is, “Because relocating them allowed them to escape prosecution,” then I can’t see how I can come to any other reasonable conclusion except that Mahoney intended to prevent the prosecution of the priests. If there was some other reputation-saving benefit of relocating those priests, I’d love to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/399 "2013-03-04T20:43:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I stand by the claim that, as hard as it might be for a jury to separate the two, if they find that he really didn’t care about protecting the pedophile and had no intent in that area, then the jury should acquit. Sounds a little like you are equating ‘intent’ with ‘desired result’. To my layman’s damaged mind, he _wanted_ to protect the church (of course) but knew he had to protect the …not doing the alliteration thing again…criminal from justice. So intent= _keep pedophile from justice_ and desired result = _protect the church._ I cannot see how one could claim that he did not _intend_ to shield the pedophile, when shielding the pedophile was the only way to (in his mind) protect the church from scandal. Would not ‘protect the church’ be a motive and not an intent? > [@](#): > > Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. **Amy’s intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy’s taunts.**. What am I missing? ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/400 "2013-03-04T21:04:18Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > Wrap your head around this, Oh Most Holy Counselor. > > There you sit. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year. Watching the person you’ve shared your adult life with subsist in a state of decay. Oh, she decays slowly because you have a decent healthcare plan. The sores that bloom along her bony emaciated joints rise and fall like the tides, causing relentless pain as she shifts in her bed. No manner of foam padding or air mattress delivers relief- but you’re not ever really sure of how much pain she’s in. Because she suffered a massive aneurysm 4 years ago and was declared brain dead. Since- as we are all learning- you have some pretty definite ideas on what is and is not life, you refuse to pull the plug. > > So there she lies. The organic machine that is her body is decaying in agonizingly slow steps. Her mind is gone. Her brain decimated within an hour of the bleed’s initial forceful rupture. There is no recognition to stimulii. > > You will happily let her whither slowly, so very slowly, until she is a wraith in that bed. Until her body deconstructs and eventually fails- and then because you are the arbiter of What Is Life, machines will keep her going for many many more years. > > Because you decide what is Life and what is not Life. > > What’s it like, having that kind of power? Kind of elevates you way above all of the rest of us, doesn’t it? > > You, **Bricker** , are a perversion. This is silly. Bricker can just as validly argue that you, pulling the plug, have declared yourself arbiter of what is life and what isn’t life. That, in itself, can hardly count as a criticism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=21)