# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/81 "2013-02-27T19:07:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Whatever you say, Mr. Outliar. > > But sticking to the current topic, are there, or are there not, long-standing statutes that make it a crime to knowingly act to conceal, in whole or in part, a criminal’s connection to a particular crime? Yes, there are, in some jurisdictions, statutes similar to what you describe. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/82 "2013-02-27T19:12:17Z")
Everyone’s all upset that I dared to point out a technical definition, when it was so obvious a colloquial use was intended. But when I see such a thing, look how I respond: > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I would also ask the Bricker describe in what way Cardinal Mahoney is a slime given that he appears to be entirely solid and made of meat. The word ‘slime’ also means " a repulsive or odious person." [Cite.](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slime) See – this an excellent example of how easily these kinds of inquiries can be defused. We fight ignorance with links to the dictionary. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/83 "2013-02-27T19:13:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not getting all technical because I believe someone posted something that was just blowing smoke. I’m getting technical because I believe there’s a great deal of value in reminding people why we have laws and a system of justice. And when your manner of reminding people offends them and turns them off to your point of view, what have you accomplished? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/84 "2013-02-27T19:15:30Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > Y’know what? I’m offended by this. I’m offended that you claim to think that since I don’t give a crap whether a man who committed acts that are IN FACT NOW ILLEGAL and has been COLLOQUIALLY called a criminal in a fucking message board thread is in fact TECHNICALLY an ACTUAL CRIMINAL, and that I’m annoyed that someone would hijack said thread to quibble about the difference, means that I don’t care about fighting ignorance. > > I don’t think you actually think that. You’re acting all injured because someone yet again dared to point out that the Catholic Church is less than perfect, and you came into this thread looking for targets and had to scrape up something you could fling poo at. Go to hell, you incurable pedant. No. If you did, in fact, care about fighting ignorance, these words would not have come from you when they did: > [@](#): > > Jesus fuck, WHO CARES? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/85 "2013-02-27T19:19:12Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > And when your manner of reminding people offends them and turns them off to your point of view, what have you accomplished? People will almost always be offended in these circumstances, because they suffer from cognitive dissonance: they simultaneously picture themselves as caring about justice and the rule of law, and yet utterly willing to see a particular hated individual get punished because he deserves it, not matter the pesky barrier of no actual violation of the law. But my hope is that even while people are getting all offended and self-righteous, some part of their mind is reminding them, “Yeah, that’s a fair point. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where we did things that way.” Because people are proud, admissions of that realization rarely materialize. But I’m convinced – or at least hopeful – that they happen. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/86 "2013-02-27T19:22:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, you disagree. With what California crime should he be charged? First degree buzz-harshing, at bare minimum. Also partial, if not total, bogosity. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/87 "2013-02-27T19:24:53Z")
**Bricker** , you know it’s possible for a person to not mean the exact literal definition of their words, right? You’re the only person in this thread that seems to not understand that. When there’s a missed call in a football game, and an announcer says that a player just got away with murder, do you actually think he believes a person’s life was illegally ended? No? Then shut the fuck up. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/88 "2013-02-27T19:31:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s the problem: > > > [@BobLibDem](#): > > > > The guy’s a monster, if half of what has been said is true. It’s perfectly acceptable to be outraged and proclaim that he is a criminal and deserves to be in jail. Do I know if there is a specific statute that he could be tried and convicted on? No. Do I give a flying fuck? No. > > I believe him. That is: I believe **BobLibDem** would be perfectly comfortable in sending Mahoney to jail even without a specific criminal statute that was violated. Hmm, I see what you’re talking about, but I think that you’re reading something that isn’t necessarily there. There’s a big difference between “hey, it would be nice if people who did awful things like cover up child molestation always got what they deserved… I don’t care what the law is, because I’m not making a legal argument, I’m just saying, this guy deserved punishment because he did terrible things. Wait, there’s not a law that he actually technically broke? God damn it, let’s write that fucking law!” and “I think this guy did awful things and deserves to go to jail. I don’t care what the law is, let’s throw his ass in jail anyhow. C’mon, cops and government, THROW HIS ASS IN JAIL JUST BECAUSE!!!”. The first is claiming that the guys karmically deserves punishment regardless of whether the law provides for that punishment, and, if the law doesn’t provide for that punishment, bemoaning that as a weakness in the law; the second is claiming that the guys deserves punishment, and actively and literally endorsing him receiving that punishment from the legal system even with no actual trial or criminal conviction. This is a topic that lends itself to misunderstandings, because words like “should” and “deserve” are not always very precise. So, what they heck, before we go dashing around and accusing people of vigilanteism, let’s actually ask them for clarification. So: **BobLibDem** , can you step in and clear things up for us? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/89 "2013-02-27T19:33:37Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Hmm, I do not recall that thread. But assuming it was as you describe, I appreciate your even-handedness… although to a certain extent you did not answer my question, which was not so much “would you EVER” but “would you ALWAYS”. We all have a limited amount of time and energy to devote to posting on the SDMB. We can’t post every comment we might like in every thread we might ever possibly want to respond to. I therefore strongly suspect that your choice of what threads to engage in and what threads not to engage in is at least influenced, if not dictated, by factors such as “hey, the Catholic Church is an organization which I’m a member of, and care passionately about, and thus consciously or subconsciously would like to defend”. And there’s nothing wrong with that, and it should not be taken as evidence of bias or hypocrisy. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529558) was the OP: > [@mswas](#): > > RIP Mary Jo Kopechne > It makes me very sad that Mary Jo Kopechne is just a footnote in Ted Kennedy’s byline. Now that he is dead she is about to be forgotten by history. That makes me very sad. A few of my responses: > [@Bricker](#): > > Her death was a tragic accident, and it’s fair to remember both “tragic” as well as “accident.” But I think the OP is a thinly-veiled attempt to blacken Ted Kennedy’s name. Yes, her death was sad. But it was an accident. In this, she differs little from any other tragic accident victim. Why, specifically, are you sadder about her? > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@mswas](#): > > > > Blacken his name how? He killed her and everyone knows it. Yes, it’s relevant. So while people are remembering his life, I wanted to remember hers. I mean it’s obvious that I started this thread because Ted Kennedy died, but the hyperbole is unnecessary. I wanted to put up a remembrance of her, and if that blackens Ted Kennedy’s name it’s not because of anything I have done. He killed her. full stop. > > Yes, but not intentionally. That’s why we call it an “accident.” Although the death was a result of his driving, it wasn’t something that we’d attach guilt to. When you say, “He killed her,” you deliberately blur that distinction, and suggest a level of guilt that doesn’t exist. > [@bricker](#): > > > [@mswas](#): > > > > From what I understand Chappaquiddick is a slow moving river that is only about five or six feet deep. At least that’s what someone from Mass once told me and the pictures he showed me seemed to confirm it. Is that true? If that’s true then Kennedy should have been able to get her out himself. > > Do you have any particular expertise in underwater rescue of people trapped in cars? What, if anything, do you base this analysis on? > [@mswas](#): > > Usually when a drunk kills someone, or even when a sober person kills someone and flees the scene without alerting authorities we consider it to be murder. Why is Ted Kennedy different? > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, when a drunk kills someone, we consider it a type of murder. > > When a sober person has an accident and flees the scene, though, we do NOT consider it murder. Fleeing the scene is a crime itself, yes, but does not transform an accidental death into a murder. > [@bricker](#): > > Remembering the paucity of cell phones in 1969, and considering that his car was upside down, there’s no reason to believe that his calling anyone would have saved her life. Kennedy made several attempts, himself, to dive down and pull her out, but was unsuccessful. Even if he had had a working cell phone and could have immediately called 911, it’s doubtful resuce could have arrived in time to save her. Faced with the prospect of having to get to a phone, it’s utterly unreasonable to say that she might have lived if he had immediately called for help. > [@bricker](#): > > In Massachusetts, the law provides that > > > [@](#): > > > > Whoever . . . without stopping and making known his name, residence and the register number of his motor vehicle goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any other vehicle or property . . . shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than two weeks nor more than two years > > That’s it. The vehicular homicide law appears to be Chapter 265: Section 131/2. It defines manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle as causing a death while operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of “…alcohol … marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances … or the vapors of glue.” There’s nothing in there about leaving the scene as an element of vehicle-related manslaughter. Notice the big difference in that thread? I’m defending a liberal. So the usual thirty-poster pile-on fails to appear. But notice how I’m doing it? Exactly the same way I’m doing this. Because what matters to me are facts. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/90 "2013-02-27T19:34:10Z")
I’m going to go with there is probable cause to charge Mahoney with a number of crimes, including obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and criminal conspiracy. I hope he is charged. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/91 "2013-02-27T19:34:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > People will almost always be offended in these circumstances, because they suffer from cognitive dissonance: Ah, I see. So if you offend people, you will ask God to forgive them for being stupid. Hey, you and Mahoney have a lot in common! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/92 "2013-02-27T19:39:02Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > When there’s a missed call in a football game, and an announcer says that a player just got away with murder, do you actually think he believes a person’s life was illegally ended? No? Then shut the fuck up. Huh. I asked if that’s what was happening, using a similar analogy: > [@Bricker](#): > > Pretty much all criminals need to be punished in accordance with the law. > > But I’m not sure I understand what crimes Mahoney committed. > > But I’ll save you some time – maybe you meant “crimes” in some nebulous sense that doesn’t include “acts prohibited by the criminal code.” Like “It’s a crime the way the Academy ignored ‘Dumb and Dumber’ at Oscar time.” And the response I got to that question was: > [@Enderw24](#): > > That’s precisely it. And to further strengthen your analogy, I’m going to edit the IMDB listing to include the fact that the Academy helped cover up the rapes of children while they filmed “Dumb & Dumber.” Because without that crucial “fact” it would appear to the casual observer that your analogy is fucking idiotic. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/93 "2013-02-27T19:53:43Z")
We humans call it “sarcasm”, Sheldon. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/94 "2013-02-27T19:59:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > People will almost always be offended in these circumstances, because they suffer from cognitive dissonance: they simultaneously picture themselves as caring about justice and the rule of law, and yet utterly willing to see a particular hated individual get punished because he deserves it, not matter the pesky barrier of no actual violation of the law. > > But my hope is that even while people are getting all offended and self-righteous, some part of their mind is reminding them, “Yeah, that’s a fair point. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where we did things that way.” Because people are proud, admissions of that realization rarely materialize. But I’m convinced – or at least hopeful – that they happen. Interesting that you look at it from that direction. I tend to look at it from the other side: if I am correct about a fact, and yet people are rejecting out of hand what I’m saying, _there is something about the way I am delivering my message that is putting them off._ I cannot dictate how people react to what I’m saying. I can only change what I’M doing in delivering my message to have a better chance for it to be accepted. Maybe my tone is insulting. Maybe my word choice doesn’t click with the person I’m talking to. Maybe I smell funny. And maybe I’m just not the right messenger, because of the recipient’s preconceptions. (Lord knows, I’ve had too much of that lately; we’ve been doing home improvements. I’ll make a suggestion, Sweetie will argue with me, but if he talks to my dad who suggests the exact same thing, he’ll accept it. 'Cause dad’s an engineer, and I’m not…it’s frustrating.) But if I know that my message is being rejected, and I do nothing but expect that the OTHER person will change and come to the truth in time, because by golly they should, then I’m going to be waiting a longass damn time. Which bookends nicely with your statement about my drive to fight ignorance: > [@](#): > > No. > > If you did, in fact, care about fighting ignorance, these words would not have come from you when they did: You have proudly and self-righteously decided, from four words of mine, that I have no interest in fighting ignorance. I suspect I may have to wait a long time for you to consider that you might be wrong, because I am done trying to convince you otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/95 "2013-02-27T20:13:02Z")
I see this prince of the Roman Catholic Church learned in the mid-80’s that at least two of his priests were raping children. I see that he participated in providing advice to these priests to help them avoid triggering mandatory reporting and otherwise counseled on how they could avoid secular punishment. Thankfully, God’s special grace helps this prince seek to forgive those who would confront him as a monster. I wonder how a prince with such hubris learns humility. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/96 "2013-02-27T20:37:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Pretty much all criminals need to be punished in accordance with the law. > > But I’m not sure I understand what crimes Mahoney committed. > > But I’ll save you some time – maybe you meant “crimes” in some nebulous sense that doesn’t include “acts prohibited by the criminal code.” Like “It’s a crime the way the Academy ignored ‘Dumb and Dumber’ at Oscar time.” > > Was that it? > > Or maybe this is another one of those, “Well, he’s a bad guy, so really, any accusation against him should be permitted; any defense of any accusation is the same as defending him against all criticisms. You say he’s not a criminal, Bricker, so you must be in favor of molesting little boys!” > > Is that it? It never occurred to me until reading this latest apology. You were raped by a priest as a young boy weren’t you? It’s okay. You don’t have to keep apologizing for them. It’s not your fault. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/97 "2013-02-27T21:01:27Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So: **BobLibDem** , can you step in and clear things up for us? Did I mean throw him in jail without a trial? Of course not. It’s my opinion that he’s a very evil person and deserves to be in prison. If we lack the evidence or crime to put him there for real, that’s irrelevant. I would like to see him behind bars but I’m not advocating that it not be done without the standard due process. Similarly, if I see someone lying in the street bleeding profusely I might say “that dude needs to be in the hospital” without having a precise medical diagnosis. To repeat, I don’t advocate that we jail people without trials. But we all have our opinions, and my opinion is that the guy is a criminal. If that word gets someones panties in a bunch, too bad. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/98 "2013-02-27T21:07:03Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > You were raped by a priest as a young boy weren’t you? That couldn’t have happened, as you can plainly see with a simple experiment involving paper towel tubes. 😉 > [@](#): > > It’s not your fault. At this point, yeah, it pretty much is. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/99 "2013-02-27T21:13:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Notice the big difference in that thread? I’m defending a liberal. So the usual thirty-poster pile-on fails to appear. > > But notice how I’m doing it? Exactly the same way I’m doing this. > > Because what matters to me are facts. I’m entirely happy to stipulate to the following: (a) in that thread you posted in defense of a prominent liberal because of the facts of the case (b) you have also done so in plenty of other threads (c) if there were an army of thousands of clones of Bricker, enough that one could be assigned to every thread on the SDMB, the opinions you and your clones would post in those threads would be largely motivated by facts and not ideology… at least moreso than many posters, and moreso than many of your critics would suspect What I’m skeptical of is the idea that how you choose to apportion your time on the SDMB is in some fashion totally neutral and purely fact-based. Not that this is in any way a criticism… but presumably in cafe society threads you spend more time talking about TV shows you like and are interested in than ones you’ve never seen. Similarly, in GD and Pit threads, it’s almost certain that you spend more time talking about issues that interest you, and/or issues that you’re knowledgeable about, than other issues. Although this is a pretty navel-gazing tangent at this point… ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/100 "2013-02-27T21:27:57Z")
The bishop in Nova Scotia made an apology on behalf of the RC church for its priest’s sexual abuse of young people going back to the 50s, a 15 million dollar settlement was reached, and five days later he was caught importing child porn. [Yup. Criminal.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Lahey) Oh, wait a minute, this thread is about the fellow who was in charge of the apology and settlement in L.A., not N. S. My bad. (Well, maybe not my bad. More likely that it is the RC church’s bad.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=6)