I’m quite calm. I think we both agree that there are various colloquial uses of the word “criminal” that do not involve prosecutors or a court system.
I’m saying your analogy sucked donkey testicles. Because it did. In the same way when my friend says to me “my dad just died of a heart attack. It was horrible!” I don’t get to respond “Oh I know all about horrible. Yesterday I went to the ice cream shop and they were out of chocolate! I know that feel, bro” and then act shocked that my friend would get insulted even though I used a dictionary-correct definition of the word.
The true followers of the FSM know he is Sweet, Savory and Bitter. The doctrine of Holy Noodle Trinity is sacrosanct and will not be denied, death to the infidel!
In the real world, rather than Hand-Waving-Apologist-Bizarro-World, we recognise criminals for what they are regardless of whether they have yet been convicted of anything.
I’m with this former editor of The Catholic Herald on this.
But in California, case law provides that in order to prove that crime, you generally have to show that the accused had specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by another, and had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense. In this instance, that means you would have to prove that Mahoney specifically intended that priests would molest, as opposed to simply wanting to protect the Church against disclosure.
It seems to me that a grand jury declined to indict him, which suggests that they found not even probable cause to believe a prosecutable crime was committed.
For some reason, making a simple, factual statement like this causes people to lose their minds. I get accused of defending Mahoney, under the apparent theory that because he’s a prick, a despicable louse of a man that enabled molesters to prey on children, therefore saying anything about him is just fine.
I don’t understand that - I really don’t. The English language is full of hundreds of vile terms that accurately describe vile repulsive acts undertaken by a vile repulsive individual. Why must the one negative term that ISN’T factually accurate also be pressed into service?
He’s a betrayer of trust, a slime, a sellout, a man who should be reviled.
But so far as I know, he’s not an arsonist, a sous chef, or a cocker spaniel. So if someone calls him an arsonist, a sous chef, or a cocker spaniel, I genuinely don’t understand the impulse to let it slide, especially on a site that supposed shares an interest in fighting ignorance.
To prevent further interruption of the Bricker Show already in progress, I’ll merely state that while I already knew Mahony was a scumbag of (almost literally) the highest order, the obliviousness and chutzpah contained in that blog post is breathtaking. And I mean that in the “mustard gas” sense, not the “beautiful sunset” one.
So let’s say my buddy robbed a gas station, the cops are after him, and I didn’t want him to get caught. I give him the keys to may car and a hundred bucks cash.
He drives my car to another gas station and robs it. In Calinfornia I’m guilty of nothing, because I didn’t intend for him to rob another gas station?
The main reason is that section was added to California law in 2001, as the “Sherrice Iverson Child Victim Protection Act.” It arose because of the horrific molestation and murder of Sherrice Iverson in a casino restroom, a crime witnessed by a man who did nothing but walk away. The public was furious that the second man could not be charged with any crime, but no crime existed which criminalized a failure to report. As a result, the legislature passed into law PC 152.3
Mahoney’s acts in protecting O’Grady happened in 1986.
No. You’re basically one of the Saints of old taken new form to walk the Earth, blessing us with your sheer presence. Have you not been paying attention?
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.
I discuss the case in a bit more detail in the GQ thread that addresses statute of limitations issues for Mahoney here.
Again, these are factual issues, and the kneejerk reaction of “How dare you defend Mahoney?” absolutely astonishes me. He’s not in prison because his acts weren’t criminal. He’s a scum, a weak man who let evil flourish, a horrid example to humanity, much less the clergy. Why we can’t let adjectives like that work for us is a mystery.
I do believe that there have been statutes on the books for essentially forever that make it a crime to knowingly cover the tracks of someone else’s crime. I might not be capable of naming them - does obstruction of justice fit? I don’t know, and I don’t have to: we both know there are applicable statutes.
So yeah, throw him in prison, where what goes around can very specifically come around.