# 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:** 6
**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, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/101 "2013-02-27T21:29:35Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 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 Thanks. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, sure. I click on threads with titles that interest me. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/102 "2013-02-27T21:53:23Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 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. > [@Bricker](#): > > Well, sure. I click on threads with titles that interest me. A laudable approach to participation on the Dope. [What is your rubric for deciding which direct questions that are posed to you in those threads you will respond to? 'Cos I don’t think I’ve _quite_ managed to decode whatever it is…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16049424&postcount=35) ---
**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:** [February 27, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/103 "2013-02-27T21:55:27Z")
Bricker, just out of curiosity do you understand why so many of us are annoyed at your nitpickery in this (and other) threads? Or is it totally baffling to you? And if you do understand why do you keep doing it? Hint: Its not because anyone here believes or has suggested that the rule of law should be suspended in the case of Cardinal Mahoney. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/104 "2013-02-27T22:05:09Z")
I’m still confused as hell over this. (Pun intended.) Let’s say I’m the VP of sales at a major toy company. I have a guy who recruits kids to play with the toys in a marketing test. Then I find out he’s been molesting kids. So to cover my ass and my company’s ass, I send him off to Pittsburgh, Denver, wherever, and I LET HIM KEEP THE SAME JOB. He continues to recruit kids, molests, gets caught, gets prosecuted. There is no doubt in my mind I would be fired and prosecuted immediately. I willingly sent a molester across the country without notifying my company or authorities that he shouldn’t be around kids. Now let’s say I’ve done that for 2, 5, 10 or 20 kid recruiters. I can expect much more charges filed against me. I could also expect the toy company I worked for to go down in flames. So why isn’t this the same process for a business like the catholic church?? (And, no, do not tell me the RCC is NOT a business.) A boss, not THE boss, but a boss who used inappropriate methods and behaviors to extend the amount of child abuse in his company. It costs the company billions of dollars and world-wide ridicule. At the toy company, every finger would point at me. Looks like no fingers are pointing the cardy’s way from his business. If I were catholic, I’d run away just for this. Show some decency and turn the guy in. Prove you’re not above man’s law. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/105 "2013-02-27T22:10:53Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > **Bricker** , I’m curious to know something: On a personal level, does it disturb you at all to contemplate that Cardinal Mahoney is likely to prove beyond the reach of the secular system(s) of justice we have in this country? > > ETA: Please consider this in the context of the actions he has taken that are under discussion in this and other threads. Yes. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/106 "2013-02-27T22:12:00Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > A laudable approach to participation on the Dope. > > [What is your rubric for deciding which direct questions that are posed to you in those threads you will respond to? 'Cos I don’t think I’ve _quite_ managed to decode whatever it is…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16049424&postcount=35) When I’m answering lots of different posters, and you’re one of many, re-directing my attention to a question almost always garners results. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/107 "2013-02-27T22:19:46Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > More of these criminals need to be sent to prison. This. Plus a thousand. ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/108 "2013-02-27T22:19:59Z")
> [@Locrian](#): > > I’m still confused as hell over this. (Pun intended.) > > Let’s say I’m the VP of sales at a major toy company. I have a guy who recruits kids to play with the toys in a marketing test. Then I find out he’s been molesting kids. So to cover my ass and my company’s ass, I send him off to Pittsburgh, Denver, wherever, and I LET HIM KEEP THE SAME JOB. He continues to recruit kids, molests, gets caught, gets prosecuted. > > There is no doubt in my mind I would be fired and prosecuted immediately. I willingly sent a molester across the country without notifying my company or authorities that he shouldn’t be around kids. Fired - of course. That’s the toy company’s decision; they don’t have to justify their decision to anyone. So in order to conclude that you’d be fired, you don’t have to identify some highly specific reason. Even if you said to the company, “Look here, at the employee manual – there’s no section about failing to fire molesters. So you can’t fire me!” they could still fire you. But the criminal law is a different matter. In the context of criminal law, a accused person IS entitled to say, “Where does it say this is illegal?” So to prosecute someone, you have to be able to point to a specific section of the criminal code and say, “This, right here, is what you did wrong.” And the code has to be specific enough to give an ordinary person reasonable awareness of what conduct is prohibited. So – when you say you could expect to be prosecuted, what law, specifically, might that be? > [@](#): > > Now let’s say I’ve done that for 2, 5, 10 or 20 kid recruiters. I can expect much more charges filed against me. I could also expect the toy company I worked for to go down in flames. By what process would the toy company go down in flames? Again, be specific. It seems to me that the company’s downfall would happen if its customers believed that the company as a whole was complicit. If its customers did not believe that, i see no reason to imagine the company would go down in flames. ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/109 "2013-02-27T22:21:01Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > This. Plus a thousand. Within the bounds of due process and the criminal law. Yes? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2013, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/110 "2013-02-27T22:27:41Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Apparently [self-pity and passive-aggressiveness](http://www.cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/2013/02/called-to-humiliation.html) are the Church’s new cardinal virtues: Oh, they’ve been using that particular combo for quite some time now. It must be so frustrating to be a wanna-be martyr without any stakes or crucifixions, but they’ll soldier on. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/111 "2013-02-27T22:57:21Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > [What is your rubric for deciding which direct questions that are posed to you in those threads you will respond to? 'Cos I don’t think I’ve _quite_ managed to decode whatever it is…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16049424&postcount=35) > [@Bricker](#): > > When I’m answering lots of different posters, and you’re one of many, re-directing my attention to a question almost always garners results. Ah. Thanks for clarifying that. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > **Bricker** , I’m curious to know something: On a personal level, does it disturb you at all to contemplate that Cardinal Mahoney is likely to prove beyond the reach of the secular system(s) of justice we have in this country? > > ETA: Please consider this in the context of the actions he has taken that are under discussion in this and other threads. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Again, thank you. Could you share what it is you do with those feelings of distress? And if it’s not too intrusive a request, could you describe them at all? If you feel that answering that last question would not be appropriate for this forum, feel free to say so. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/112 "2013-02-27T23:00:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fired - of course. That’s the toy company’s decision; they don’t have to justify their decision to anyone. So in order to conclude that you’d be fired, you don’t have to identify some highly specific reason. Even if you said to the company, “Look here, at the employee manual – there’s no section about failing to fire molesters. So you can’t fire me!” they could still fire you. > > But the criminal law is a different matter. In the context of criminal law, a accused person IS entitled to say, “Where does it say this is illegal?” So to prosecute someone, you have to be able to point to a specific section of the criminal code and say, “This, right here, is what you did wrong.” And the code has to be specific enough to give an ordinary person reasonable awareness of what conduct is prohibited. > > So – when you say you could expect to be prosecuted, what law, specifically, might that be? > > By what process would the toy company go down in flames? Again, be specific. > > It seems to me that the company’s downfall would happen if its customers believed that the company as a whole was complicit. If its customers did not believe that, i see no reason to imagine the company would go down in flames. Would you hold onto _your_ stock? Would you direct your broker to increase your holdings? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/113 "2013-02-28T00:49:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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: > > 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. Really? Since you’re such a fan of the dictionary, I’ll use the same one you did. The word ‘criminal’ also means “Disgraceful.” [Cite.](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminal?show=0&t=1362012097) You might protest that “disgraceful” is the fourth (and last) item on the list of definitions of criminal. But from your link, “respulsive or odious person” is also last on the list of definitions of slime. So if you’re willing to say that the definition that is last on the list and the most colloquial is fine and dandy for “slime”, then it should also be the same for “criminal”. And if a pedantic biologist came into the thread to “correct” you on your use of “slime” and respond that they’re simply fighting ignorance because someone out there might think you’re referring to actual slime, then they would be rightfully mocked. And if the SDMB had a resident pedantic biologist who made a point of responding to every thread where someone uses the colloquial definition of slime and then getting on their one-trick pony about it, then they would be called out on it as well. ---
**Author:** ![BunnyTVS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BunnyTVS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyTVS)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/114 "2013-02-28T01:50:20Z")
> [@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? Honest attempt at an answer here. California Penal code 32PC, accessory after the fact? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/115 "2013-02-28T01:54:26Z")
What, its illegal to buy a purse? ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/116 "2013-02-28T02:08:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What, its illegal to buy a purse? Careful now, you don’t want to break Bricker’s positronic matrix by setting up some sort of legal paradox based on semantic confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/117 "2013-02-28T02:10:47Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > Really? Since you’re such a fan of the dictionary, I’ll use the same one you did. > > The word ‘criminal’ also means “Disgraceful.” [Cite.](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminal?show=0&t=1362012097) > You might protest that “disgraceful” is the fourth (and last) item on the list of definitions of criminal. But from your link, “respulsive or odious person” is also last on the list of definitions of slime. > > So if you’re willing to say that the definition that is last on the list and the most colloquial is fine and dandy for “slime”, then it should also be the same for “criminal”. And if a pedantic biologist came into the thread to “correct” you on your use of “slime” and respond that they’re simply fighting ignorance because someone out there might think you’re referring to actual slime, then they would be rightfully mocked. And if the SDMB had a resident pedantic biologist who made a point of responding to every thread where someone uses the colloquial definition of slime and then getting on their one-trick pony about it, then they would be called out on it as well. Of course – in fact, someone DID criticize my use of ‘slime,’ and I defended it without rancor. I just posted the definition. So, sure, if someone wants to say they were using that definition of criminal – and explain how that definition fits into the prison chatter – I’ll welcome it. Calmly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/118 "2013-02-28T02:12:33Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Ah. Thanks for clarifying that. > > Again, thank you. > > Could you share what it is you do with those feelings of distress? And if it’s not too intrusive a request, could you describe them at all? > > If you feel that answering that last question would not be appropriate for this forum, feel free to say so. I’m not sure what one “does” with feelings, other than experience them, and share them as relevant to a discussion. So… I feel them, and as opportunities come up to share them, I do. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/119 "2013-02-28T02:14:47Z")
> [@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. You know what would go a long way towards helping you realize that goal? Not being an asshole. See, you always do this Socratic thing, where you ask a bunch of leading questions. This is the sort of thing that you can get away with in a court of law, or a classroom, but in a conversation between ostensible peers, it makes you sound like an absolutely _titanic_ douche. I know this, because there are times when I want to sound like an absolute titanic douche, and that’s exactly the method I use to achieve that end. If you have information relevant to a thread, or a correction to someone else’s post, _just fucking say it._ Just _say_, “The terrible thing about this situation is that there are no laws that are relevant to Mahoney’s actions. There’s nothing we can charge him with, so he’s never going to see the inside of a jail.” That way, you’re adding relevant and interesting information to a thread, without coming across as an aggressive jerk. Or you could keep doing exactly what you’ve been doing. How’s that been working out for you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521/120 "2013-02-28T02:15:31Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Would you hold onto _your_ stock? Would you direct your broker to increase your holdings? > > 😃 It depends. I might buy more stock. If I saw that the fundamentals of the company were sound, and I saw an unwillingness on the part of the public to assign vicarious blame to the company, I might set up a buy order to take advantage of a temporary dip in an otherwise strong performer. If, in contrast, it appeared the public was voting with its pocketbook and abandoning the store, I’d sell. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cardinal-mahoney-god-grant-me-the-grace-to-forgive-my-accusers/651521.md?page=7)