What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

Like I said, the people who protected these molesters are just as much at fault. The Church does not condone this.

And yet, the church hierarchy has and does protect the perpetrators at the expense of the victims.

How's that dissonance?

There have been people in the Church who have covered it up, yes. Those people did wrong and were definitely not acting on Church teaching.

[Foxaèr]

There have been people in the Church who have covered it up, yes. Those people did wrong and were definitely not acting on Church teaching.

Reason informs me that if I was informed of corruption within an institution that I respected to the point of following its dogma, no longer would I be a participant of stated institution.  Of course, I already know that religious people do not reason properly.

[Catholic_Lady]

Like I said, the people who protected these molesters are just as much at fault. The Church does not condone this.

I'm not saying the Church condoned it.  But it sure as hell protected them.

And furthermore, you have ignored Jesus's point, that the essential qualities of an organization imbue its members.

What would Jesus think of a Catholic Church which shelters child molesters against justice?

And -- do you still donate to the plate? Do you support a church which protects molesters?

The Church is made up of 1 billion people right now. To say "the Church" as a whole protected molesters is inaccurate. There were individuals within the Church who did, yes. But it was never condoned by the Pope and it was never even close to something the majority of Catholics did. The fact that human beings can make bad decisions does not, to me, dismantle an entire institution made up of billions of people.

Public school teachers commit more acts of abuse than any other career field, and a lot of times the school does cover it up. More so than the Church ever has done any of this. And yet it would be silly for any of us to make the blanket statement that "Public Schools" are bad, or that Public Schools support child abuse. It would also be silly to say all teachers are bad. People are people and people from all walks of life will do bad things. This is never an excuse, but it is a reason to not stereotype entire groups of people and not discount entire institutions based on the actions of the relative few.

---

There have been people in the Church who have covered it up, yes. Those people did wrong and were definitely not acting on Church teaching.

Reason informs me that if I was informed of corruption within an institution that I respected to the point of following its dogma, no longer would I be a participant of stated institution.  Of course, I already know that religious people do not reason properly.

I respect your views, but I feel differently. Reason informs me that bad people come from all places and all walks of life. Yes, there are Catholic people who make very bad decisions. Being Catholic will not automatically stop people from doing bad things or from being flawed individuals. We never claimed it did.

The fact that some Catholics did some bad things (in the very small minority) does not, to me, discount an entire instituion which is comprised of a billion people.

Like I told another poster. There are far more teachers than priests who abuse children, and there are far more school staffers who cover it up then there are Church officials. But we don't make the broad statement that public schools are bad, or that teachers are bad, or that education is bad.

People are just people, and some people do horrific things.

[Foxaèr]

People are just people, and some people do horrific things.

The only people who have done more horrific harm to our society than any other people are religious people.  Religious people claim the higher moral ground, yet they are constantly behaving immorally.  Why then could any reasonable individual believe that religion is for the good of society?

[Jackalope]

And yet, the church hierarchy has and does protect the perpetrators at the expense of the victims.

How's that dissonance?

There have been people in the Church who have covered it up, yes. Those people did wrong and were definitely not acting on Church teaching.

How long did the church shield the perpetrators from civil authorities?

Your protestations ring hollow.

[Longhorn]

CL, sorry if I missed it, but I don't think you answered. Can you make a case for why all sexual activity outside the context of a husband and a wife is morally wrong other than 'bible says'?

[Catholic_Lady]

There have been people in the Church who have covered it up, yes. Those people did wrong and were definitely not acting on Church teaching.

How long did the church shield the perpetrators from civil authorities?

Your protestations ring hollow.

"The Church" is an institution made up of 1 billion people. To say "the Church" as an entire entity shielded abusers, is inaccurate. The individuals who covered up were not even close to being the majority of Church members, nor were they working under the direction of the Pope.

With that being said, I do not know how long each individual who covered up abuse went before either telling the police or being found out. I suppose it would depend on which particular person you are referring to.

There are far more teachers who abuse and far more school staffers who cover up abuse than has ever happened in the Church. And yet we can all agree that it would be silly to make the general statement that "teachers are bad, schools are bad, education is corrupt" etc. There are bad seeds in every group. Please don't base your views on the Church or my people on the actions of the relative few.

[rexbeccarox]

And yet, the church hierarchy has and does protect the perpetrators at the expense of the victims.

How's that dissonance?

There have been people in the Church who have covered it up, yes. Those people did wrong and were definitely not acting on Church teaching.

"People"?  Really?  These aren't just "people", they're the leaders.  These are the people leading your church.

A general criticism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C..._responses

All of this couldn't continue to happen without leadership intervening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C...ir_effects

Do you understand that the only problem isn't the child abuse within the church (although, it's pretty awful, being that the Church claims to be the ultimate moral authority), but the cover-ups made by your church leaders, and the prevalence of that fact?  That's not just pedophiles and sex abusers doing some awful stuff to people, but the people who enabled them... and by giving to your church, you are enabling it too.  You can protest as much as you want, but I think a good look at what you're backing would benefit you in a lot of ways.

[Jackalope]

And yet, the church hierarchy has and does protect the perpetrators at the expense of the victims.

How's that dissonance?

There have been people in the Church who have covered it up, yes. Those people did wrong and were definitely not acting on Church teaching.

Let's approach this from another angle.

The Catholic church features a top-down hierarchy, does it not? You know, Pope-as-Vicar-of-Christ and all that.

When did any Pope implement a policy of cooperating with civil authorities regarding child molesting clergy? Hell, when did any Pope implement a policy of not stonewalling civil authorities regarding same?

[Catholic_Lady]

CL, sorry if I missed it, but I don't think you answered. Can you make a case for why all sexual activity outside the context of a husband and a wife is morally wrong other than 'bible says'?

You have not missed it.

My views are that God intended sex to be something shared between a man and a woman who commit to each other for life. Children are a natural result of sex, which to me, helps solidify the fact that sex speaks the language of permanence, of family, and of commitment. AKA, marriage.

Using sex outside of this context has led to some negative things like pregnancy before the timing is right, abortion, children without fathers, sexually transmitted diseases (if multiple partners are involved), etc.

Therefore, I see sex as being something we should keep sacred. To me, this means in a loving, self giving commitment between husband and wife.

I don't think you will like my answer because religion and God are deeply involved in it. But that is my answer, and I respect that you have very different opinions on it.