“Your honor, my primary intention on taking money from the bank was to pay off the mortgage for an elderly widow. The crime of robbery was only a secondary outcome and in no way intentional.”
“Okay, run along now you little scamp.”
Why would anyone want to protect such an institution that often has put children in harm’s way and purposely has enabled pedophiles to go on molesting them? 
When I hear of such a thing, it reminds me of something Hitchens once said: “Religion makes morally normal people say and do disgusting and wicked things.” I need time to pick my jaw up off of the floor. I think I will go have my stroke now.
In the light of this discussion about Cardinal Mahoney, it’s interesting to see all the cooing and aww-ing that the news media has been doing over the pope’s resignation. Very little mention of gay cabals or anything like that, either … just talk about its “historic significance.” I have not been paying much attention, as I do not much care who runs Child Molester Central.
There’s been not much mention of Mahoney’s outrageous utterance either, perhaps because he’s been overshadowed by the homophobic English cardinal’s resignation after several subordinates reported that he made improper advances to them.
a
Point is, the mainstream media with their very limited attention span are having the effect of protecting the Catholic church’s image.
Bricker prides himself on, and takes great pains to, constantly confront other posters about the difference between legality and morality. Hell, that’s how he came into this very thread. Yet here he is pretending that his moral interpretation of Cardinal’s motivations somehow carries any legal weight at all regarding specific intent. The blatant hypocrisy is amusing.
Luckily, Bricker also prides himself on his ability to admit that he is wrong. Luckily for him, he’s given himself another great opportunity to do just that. Hopefully, despite his recent reticence to post more than a cursory thought, he’ll have the wherewithal to once again apologize for being blatantly wrong and providing misinformation as to the legalities of specific intent.
The fact that the you and your vile church willfully refuse to distinguish between a woman and an ectopic pregnancy is just inexcusable morally. Particularly in light of said church’s long and disgusting history defending criminals such as Nazis and pedophiles. Celibacy and staying away from half the human race is probably indeed the best course of action for such scum. Catholic organizations should certainly never be in charge of any form of health care institution. It is clear the leadership is unable to see women as human beings rather than mere unimportant vessels who may be forced to sacrifice body parts so that a handful of idiots can play stupid word games and imagine themselves better people for having forced women into needless surgery.
I had the shots to get rid of a non-viable fertilized egg that was threatening my health and probably my life. Any sexist priest who feels what I did was immoral, who does not see the difference between me and a flawed embryo, is a fucking asshole. If you feel that way about my actions you are equally loathsome. You should consider joiniing them in their celibacy and avoidance of women lest we offend you with our scientific understanding that a non-viable embryo is simply a non-viable embryo and not a living human being.
Bricker, I can’t understand why the cardinal would protect evil to protect his church. But, I think I could get closer to understanding if you could explain what about your faith leads you to intellectual dishonesty.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to reject your premise.
Yes.
At that time, there was a general belief that pedophiles could be cured via therapy. This, combined with what was in retrospect a foolish application of Christian forgiveness, made him confident at each juncture that the man would not reoffend.
Sending pedophiles to therapy instead of prison and then releasing them back into the public, in the 1970s and 80s, was not the exclusive province of the Roman Catholic Church. The justice system itself did this.
I don’t agree that I have.
At the risk of being cursory.
I doubt you intend it, but you are helping me understand why modern adherents allow the church to continue adding evil to this world.
How utterly predictable. What, pray tell, don’t you agree with?
Can you square that thinking with this action?
Time for someone to say something nice about Bricker. I’d do it, but nobody would believe me because I’m so sarcastic and all. So…
Eenie meenie minie mo
Catch a Bricker by the “d’oh!”…
So, Hamlet. Oh, wait. Lawyer. Sigh.
Eenie meenie minie mo…
Although I’ve already covered these in previous posts, I’ll make it easier for you Bricker. I’ll put aside your hypocrisy of your correcting someone on the legal v. moral definition of “criminal” while you do the exact same thing with “intent”. Instead, I’ll focus on your … troubling … analysis of the legalities in this case.
First, you posted: *"the element of specific intent must have been present, namely, that the accused must have harbored, concealed or aided with the intent that the principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment. (People v. Hardin, 207 Cal.App.2d 336 at 341)
Every piece of evidence I’m aware of shows that Mahoney’s intent was to protect the diocese from exposure and litigation, not to protect the offending priest. It was on that basis that the grand jury could not indict him."*
This is factually unsupported by any evidence, and a misrepresentation of the law. First, there is no evidence whatsoever an indictment wasn’t obtained due to a finding of a lack of intent by the Cardinal. Rather the evidence is it was because of the statute of limitations and a lack of mandatory reporting laws. So you simply made something up.
Second, you state that Mahoney’s intent was to protect the diocese, so he could not have the intent to stop the arrest or prosecution of the priest. That’s a misrepresentation of the law; a defendant’s motive can not magically undue his specific intent, and the statutory requirement of specific intent can be met easily by the evidence of the cover-up.
Third, there was this exchange: *Q: “So, theoretically, I help my brother cover up a crime, but the evidence shows that my intent was not to protect my sibling, but to save my parents from the shame of knowing their son is a criminal. Thus I could not be indicted?”
Bricker’s A: Not in California."*
This is, again, patently false. No court case I’ve ever been aware of, in California or anywhere else, has ever decided that a person can form only one intent, or that a person’s motive can somehow erase a person’s specific intent. My requests for supporting caselaw for this assertion of yours were met with silence.
Finally, you contradict not just the law, but yourself, when you conclude an appellate court could find the evidence sufficient to justify a conviction, but yet insist there is no evidence whatsoever that he had this intent.
It’s these misrepresentation of the requirements of “specific intent”, and your conclusion both that there was no evidence of that intent, but that an appellate court could conclude there was, are laughable coming from a non-lawyer. Coming from one who has practiced law, they’re not so funny.
I guess it may seem to people who prefer abstractions to reality that this is the right way of looking at things.
As my very pro-life wife said to me more than once during her potentially childbearing years, “If it ever comes down to saving my life or that of our unborn baby, you’d best not be flipping a coin.” The two lives would not be morally equal, and it is giving into theory and abstraction to treat them as such.
I’m sure that (supposedly) celibate bishops and priests are very good theoreticians, very talented at abstract reasoning concerning women’s bodies, and the bodies growing inside them. Unfortunately, their theories have not been leavened by living with women, or even better, being women. It’s easy to be all nice and theoretical when you’re not the ox being gored by the theory.
They didn’t release them back into public. They sent them back to their jobs watching the very group they pulled their victims from. The rape of children did not even cost them their current job. I mean Jesus Christ!!! The fucking very least absolute minimum they should have done is keep them away from kids. What, they didn’t have an old folks home they could have put them in charge of? A convent? A desk job? Anywhere but a position of authority over children?
BTW, anyone see Mea Maxima Culpa on HBO?
Seeing the dying deaf man finally confront the old priest that had molested him and hundreds of others over many years (and yes, the Church knew about it and kept it secret) was both heartbreaking and infuriating. The priest didn’t give a fuck and the priest’s deaf housekeeper was offended that victim had the GALL to accost a priest.
I can see your point. You can’t make an omelet without raping some eggs.
More Mahony, ‘What WOULD Jesus Do?’ awesomeness.
'Hmmn, Pass The Paedo seemed like a great game but now we seem to be down $660 million. Just think how much worse it would have been if we’d just acted like those followers of; you know, no don’t tell me - Jewish guy, got nailed to a tree - Christians. Huh, huh? Who’s with me?
Anyway what poor stiffs can we find to stick with the bill?
Tricky.
Hang on. I’ve got a plan so cunning we could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel.
We’ll just bill it to THESE stiffs.
Yep, rob the dead to pay for the sins of the Church. That’s exactly what Jesus would do. It’s like The Sermon on The Mount and the Parable of the Good Samaritan all wrapped up into one neat, pithy parcel. I’m pretty certain I can hear Angels singing.
Yea Bricker. We know. Legally on this, rainbows fountain from his ass and there are tiny little unicorns on even tinier surfboards riding the waves.
We know.
<Sighs in a deep and spectacular fashion. Takes deep breath. Adopts slightly pained and patient tone>
Mahony has already explained this. What is your major malfunction Typo? His Masters degree in Social Work didn’t have a module on Raping Kids is Wrong, so how was he to know? If only someone had mentioned it things might have been different. But they didn’t.
It’s all right the rest of us, with our fancy Social Work Masters degrees that did have such a module, standing here in judgement over him. We know Raping Kids is Wrong but he couldn’t have.
So - nothing to see here Typo. Move right along.
I would also like to point out that none of the above requires an offender to be moved outside of the jurisdiction of the investigative body. This may explain why the church was comfortable in letting these people loose among the congregation (although, how many times must this practice fail in its intended result before you look for alternatives?) but it doesn’t give a reason to move those people in the first place.
I contend that the only sound reason for moving these priests that relates to the admitted goal of protecting the church is to prevent their prosecution thus showing Cardinal Mahoney’s intent.