No, logic doesn’t dictate that.
You presumably agree that a five year old child is a human being.
And you presumably agree a bicycle accident can kill a five year old child.
Yet you presumably understand why we don’t pass laws forbidding five year old children from riding bikes.
Frankly, I’m surprised they paid for it out of a fund like that and didn’t close schools and charities in a pet then argue that those big meanies just absolutely forced them to do it. Robbing the dead is better than fucking over the living. They just happen to be doing both.
Fine. I don’t believe Mahoney had the specific intent to stop the arrest or prosecution of the priests. I acknowledge that there’s a sufficient factual record for a rational finder of fact to conclude otherwise, however.
And you presumably still agree that regardless of this concession, the statute of limitations issue prohibits a criminal conviction.
Doesn’t this, by definition, make you an “irrational finder?” It certainly does in my book. Mahoney did not intend to stop the arrest or prosectution of the priests in his attempt to save the good name of the church? Remind me again what would have happened to the good name of the church if those priests had been arrested and prosecuted - (I mean, hypothetically, of course because Mahoney made damn sure that never happened)?
You see no disconnect there?
Alrighty … enjoy your tainted communion wafers, I guess.
Why do you refuse to believe reality?
The only thing I can conclude is that you are fine with men raping little children as long as they are Catholic priests.
Not in the slightest.
A rational fact finder can conclude a number of different things from the evidence.
The statement in Wikipedia that you quoted is sourced to the New York Times Opinion Page, and an editorial that reads as follows:
(Emphasis added). This seems to support the point I am making.
And we’re done with the “he meant to protect the Church” as having any bearing on whether or not he had the specific intent to protect priests from arrest or prosecution?
See, you came into the thread with guns ablazing over the use of the term “criminal” and made a big deal out of the differing legal and colloquial use. Then, in the very same thread, you relish the use of the legal term “intent”, ignoring the legal requirements of its use and muddying the waters by confusing it with the more colloquial “motive”. Your inconsistency, as well as the factual errors and problematic conclusion based on the evidence, are why it is hard to respect your opinion.
I believe so.
I’m not a church, but if I find out that a subordinate has been committing horrific crimes while under my supervision, and I turn that subordinate in, it’s evidence that I’m a good citizen, rather than an enabler, and that any liability I or the organization I represent might bear for inadequate supervision of the subordinate ought to be mitigated.
Why would an official of the Church reason differently? I just can’t figure it out.
Guess that just shows that I’m not cut out to be an official of the RCC.
The RCC is richer than god. The Vatican could have paid that $660 mill with money from the proverbial sofa back.
I agree that simply having the intent to protect the Church does not precluse his also having the criminal intent to deflect prosecution.
But we’ re not done with my denial that he had the specific intent to protect priests from arrest or prosecution.
I did not take the time to lay out my argument as specifically as I could have. This led to the confusion over what I was pushing as far as my argument with respect to intent.
I don’t believe, however, that even if I had laid out the specifics that are now clear, my opinion would have been respected. I don’t believe there’s any real interest here in the question of whether Mahoney is a criminal – only that he’s criminal-ish.
But it isn’t. By turning someone in, you’ve helped the victims make their case for inadequate hiring, poor supervision, poor training. Turning an offender in does NOT typically mitigate damages as to acts already done.
Admittedly, it would mitigate damages in the sense that the malefactor could no longer offend in the future. But it doesn’t take the organization off the hook.
But they usually say that any rule that goes against them is an excuse to harm others. Can’t discriminate against gays? Well, I guess we can’t deal with adoptions. Can’t tell women what to do with their bodies? Well, I guess we can’t fund hospitals.
It’s actually an improvement that they didn’t say, “Oh, we have to give money out? Well, I guess we have to end all charitable giving.”
I’d go further to say that his motive to protect the Church makes it even more likely to have the criminal intent to deflect investigation and prosecution.
And, outside of the “he didn’t have the criminal intent because he wanted to protect the Church” baloney rationale we’ve rejected, what evidence is there to support your conclusion? To me, it seems pretty cut and dried that he intended to obstruct the investigations in order to protect the Church.
There are ongoing discussion of both the legal and the moral aspects of his behavior. And we agree that Mahoney is reprehensible human being for his moral failings in dealing with these cases. But it was your legal conclusions that, to me, were where you lost credibility. And that doesn’t help your position.
Thanks for clearing that up (wrt damages). But as far as the reputation of my organization, showing a willingness to step forward and accept the consequences of my inadequate hiring, poor supervision, poor training should make me look better, rather than worse, to disinterested observers (at least).
To my mind you have not laid out a plausible mechanism for how moving these priests would protect the the church other than by preventing their prosecution and that is what is making not respect your opinion in this matter.
The Church has assets it can sell. It has investments, it has gold bullion, it has long term securities. It has art. It has property. It has banks. It has huge investments. It is the richest oraganisation on earth. It should pay for its sins from its own blood and sinews.
It’s been accumulating wealth for coming on to 2000 years. It had $115m in just one cemetry fund.
The cash assets alone are estimated at Euro 50 billion
I seem to recall reading something about camels and eyes of needles.
None of this attempts to rebut what I said in post #276. You’re welcome to your opinion, of course, but in my case it’s totally unsupported for now.
Preventing their prosecution is what protects the Church’s reputation.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it seems like any secondary objective would be sufficient to prevent prosecution under your interpretation.