That’s kinda a big deal you’re glossing over there. The criminal investigation and possible criminal charges undeniably would “reflect on the Church”. So concluding that he didn’t care about about the criminal investigations and possible prosecutions makes little or no sense. Of course he cared about them, because they would clearly "reflect on the Church.
That’s where this latest attempt of yours falls apart. The Cardinal doesn’t get to claim that he didn’t intend the clear natural and probable consequences of his actions because he had some other goal that was forwarded by his actions too. Especially when his overall goal (protecting the Church) is clearly served by the consequences of his actions.
If Mahoney thought he could protect the church by purposefully protecting a pedophile from prosecution, he gets a pass for protecting that priest?
Just kind a went on alliteration safari there…
Typo: If your premise is that the particular church in question can do no wrong, then yes, that’s what it means. The human power of rationalization is strong.
There’s a reason such argumentation is called “Jesuitical” - and that the term is not complimentary. Frylock: You might have tried the brain-transplant hypothesis on our obstinate friend, but I doubt it would convince him. (He and Kim Kardashian swap brains; which body is now the real Bricker? Or is there one anymore, even with no loss of material etc.?)
Well, not as much of a pass as you might think, since it would be easy for a jury to conclude that he also specifically intended to protect the pedophile. But I stand by the claim that, as hard as it might be for a jury to separate the two, if they find that he really didn’t care about protecting the pedophile and had no intent in that area, then the jury should acquit.
I don’t know, maybe this sounds really out there, but I would think that the moral, Christian thing to do would be to worry about protecting children from harm, rather than the church’s so-called “reputation”. In fact, I would also go so far as to say that had they done so, they would have been praised for rooting out evil!
But then, what do I know?
Do you also reccognize that tubal pregnancies are not viable and will end miscarriages (almost usually fatal), if not taken care of?
Anyone is entitled to be batshit crazy, as long as they do not try to enforce their warped view of the universe upon others. That crosses the line from batshit crazy to facist. To dangerous. To immensely dangerous.
He and others who share his (im)moral framework would own your body if given a chance. In some states in the USA, they already do own your body.
But the mere fact that a human being is certain to die does not transform him into something non-human. So the fact that an ectopic pregnancy is doomed to end with the death of the embryo doesn’t transform the embryo into a non-human.
I guess it could also be argued (by some) that if someone knew a damning fact about the church, and was going to reveal that fact to the news media, this would have resulted in damage to the church. Mahoney wants to protect the church.
Mahoney could then give $10,000 to a known contract killer, and tell them : “I need the church protected. Here is Mr. X’s name and address. Do your job.” This means that Mahoney could not be prosecuted for murder, since his intent was NOT to kill the person, but rather to protect the church.
As someone else already posted in this thread… so if someone kills his parent in order to inherit their fortune, and are put on trial for murder, and are able to convince the jury that they really just wanted the fortune, and would have been perfectly happy to not kill their parent… then they should be found innocent of murder? That seems beyond-bonkers-crazy.
Wrap your head around this, Oh Most Holy Counselor.
There you sit. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year. Watching the person you’ve shared your adult life with subsist in a state of decay. Oh, she decays slowly because you have a decent healthcare plan. The sores that bloom along her bony emaciated joints rise and fall like the tides, causing relentless pain as she shifts in her bed. No manner of foam padding or air mattress delivers relief- but you’re not ever really sure of how much pain she’s in. Because she suffered a massive aneurysm 4 years ago and was declared brain dead. Since- as we are all learning- you have some pretty definite ideas on what is and is not life, you refuse to pull the plug.
So there she lies. The organic machine that is her body is decaying in agonizingly slow steps. Her mind is gone. Her brain decimated within an hour of the bleed’s initial forceful rupture. There is no recognition to stimulii.
You will happily let her whither slowly, so very slowly, until she is a wraith in that bed. Until her body deconstructs and eventually fails- and then because you are the arbiter of What Is Life, machines will keep her going for many many more years.
Because you decide what is Life and what is not Life.
What’s it like, having that kind of power? Kind of elevates you way above all of the rest of us, doesn’t it?
Again, very doubtful, because the accused did some act which caused the death of the parent. That’s the crime of murder, right there. On what basis would the jury find he intended anything else?
Are there specified limits as to what alternative motivations are allowed? Could he a covered up the child molestations due to the fact that if they were exposed his time would be wasted by lots of officials asking questions and there was a chance he would miss that nights Simpsons rerun?
If so this seems to make the law entirely toothless since “Because I felt like it” would be an adequate excuse.
I think “very doubtful” is a good way to describe your conclusion that the Cardinal’s intent to protect the Church somehow didn’t include the intent to protect the Church and its priests from criminal investigations and prosecution.
Right. If the defense said that Mahoney relocated the offending priests to other dioceses in order to protect the reputation of the church, my first question is, “How does relocating someone protect the church’s reputation?” If the answer is, “Because relocating them allowed them to escape prosecution,” then I can’t see how I can come to any other reasonable conclusion except that Mahoney intended to prevent the prosecution of the priests.
If there was some other reputation-saving benefit of relocating those priests, I’d love to hear it.
Sounds a little like you are equating ‘intent’ with ‘desired result’.
To my layman’s damaged mind, he wanted to protect the church (of course) but knew he had to protect the …not doing the alliteration thing again…criminal from justice.
So intent= keep pedophile from justice and desired result = protect the church.
I cannot see how one could claim that he did not intend to shield the pedophile, when shielding the pedophile was the only way to (in his mind) protect the church from scandal.
Would not ‘protect the church’ be a motive and not an intent?
This is silly. Bricker can just as validly argue that you, pulling the plug, have declared yourself arbiter of what is life and what isn’t life. That, in itself, can hardly count as a criticism.