Well, the “suffer” part translates as “permit, allow” the little children. It wasn’t meant to be a threat.
NOW you tell me? :smack:
I’m beginning to think I’m never going to be Pope.
Not unless I can get a good lawyer anyway.
No, not at all, especially if it protects children from future abuse. Unless the wiki article I read about has got it all wrong, then there should already be enough on Mahoney to have him locked up for a very long time, I would think. If the documentary Deliver Us From Evil that wiki quotes from is accurate, Mahoney knew of a priest having a two decade history of abusing and molesting children (including one infant), but he failed to keep him away from children. It claims in 1984, after a Stockton police investigation into sexual abuse with this one particular priest named O’Grady, that the allegations were dropped when the diocesan officials promised to remove the priest from children. They did not; instead, Mahony reassigned O’Grady to a parish in CA where he continued molesting and raping children. Authorities had obtained enough documents by 2012 to know that Mahony has organized a movement of sexual predators across jurisdictional boundaries to complicate any possible prosecution. In 1987 he prohibited a priest seeking therapy on the grounds that a therapist might report the crimes to the police. Over 500 victims of child abuse from the LA RCC resulted in a $660 million settlement.
So if there isn’t something that is not already on the books, there needs to be, so yes, “let’s find some way to snag that sonovabitch!” Poor Mahoney suffering humiliation is he. He said he could understand the depth of our anger and outrage of him and the church and for all of the injustices, but yet he asks God to forgive them for all of the humiliation they have put him through. :dubious:
Thanks so much everyone for tuning in to the Bricker Show. I hope everyone had fun, and learned a little bit about how to hijack a thread away from a pedophile-enabling piece of shit Cardinal of the Catholic Church named Mahoney, and turn it into a legal clinic on motive vs. intent.
Remember, he has extensive experience with juries buying his bullshit, or at least being so baffled with his obfuscations that they simply conclude there’s some reasonable doubt underneath it all. No wonder he holds them, and by extension the common clay of the new West who comprise them, in such contempt. And no wonder he’s so pouty-faced about getting called on all of it here.
I don’t think that Bricker has kept us from realizing that Mahoney was walking with Jesus when Mahoney helped his rapist-priests evade secular justice.
A few days ago, General Questions had a question about where the Bible tells us that Jesus loves us. Discussion fell to a passage where he commends his disciples to love one another as he has loved them. Mahoney demonstrates that too many priests believe that Jesus loved his disciples non-consensually.
Well, Jesus just goes ahead and loves you anyway, right? Your permission, or your outright rejection, doesn’t matter much.
I’ll have you note that while I may be a jackass, I’m no lawyer.
On topic (no - the real topic): Mahoney is a very bad man, who allowed other very bad men to do very bad things to children. He must need a wheelbarrow to carry his testicles after asking God to forgive those of us who don’t hold him high enough esteem.
I’ve come to the conclusion that his (and the rest of the RCC hierarchy’s) primary intent in shuffling predator priests was to protect The Church at all costs. Protecting the priests from detection and prosecution was pretty obviously a means to that end. In hind-sight, the right (and smart) thing to do would have been to turn them over to civil authorities, but, I think, they were all afraid that might cause their parishioners to doubt them, and in extension The Church.
Are you a lawyer? I didn’t know that.
He’s extremely proud of his humility, isn’t he?
Yes, if “The Church” means the Gay and Perv Boys’ Club who get to wear the funny clothes and hold ridiculous ceremonies and demand obedience from the non-cool non-members. Yes, protecting each other from the Unordained and Unwashed and Unchosen has obviously been the sole priority for a pretty large number of them.
It took them over two hundred years to admit that, perhaps, they might have possibly treated Galileo a bit unfairly.
I’m not holding my breath.
Can you show me on this doll where Jesus loved you?
The fact that more posters can’t recognize this is Reason #1429 why no one should be bragging out how bright we are here.
I wanna get down on my knees and start pleasin’ Jesus
I wanna feel his salvation all over my face!
OK, but who’s left who doesn’t get it yet?
So – thanks for being honest.
But how do you balance this attitude against the idea that before we punish a criminal, we should have written the law that defines his crime?
I feel that no matter how heinous the crimes, it’s worse for us as a society to accept that we can allow us to do this “Let’s find a way to snag him.”
“The way” to snag him needs to be a law that was written before the conduct took place, and one that clearly and unambiguously lays out the prohibited conduct.
If we can’t do that, we shouldn’t charge him. And I would say the same thing about Saul Alinksy or Eugene V. Debs or Fred Phelps. This is not a defense that arises because he’s a Catholic prelate. it’s a defense that arises because I think the rule of law is more important than punishing the conduct of anyone.
He really doesn’t recognize that there’s such a concept as justice, that it is not synonymous with law, or the concept that the law is merely a tool that exists to implement justice. All this morality stuff simply baffles him. An argument based on a presumption of that understanding is doomed, since he’ll simply dismiss it as unlawyerly muzzyheadedness.
Yes. He was under the same moral obligation that binds any person with even a shred of decency.
And he was under an even stronger obligation – well, what should have been stronger – as a priest, as a bishop, to protect children, even at the cost of his Church’s dollars and reputation. His betrayal of that duty is sickening. It’s sinful, mortally sinful, and given the lack of repentance he’s expressed so far, I believe he will burn in Hell for it.
He was under a civil obligation, in that his failure to do so violated a duty of care, and constituted tortious liability on the part of the archdiocese.
nm
True its just the 90% of bad apples give the other 10% a bad name.