But what's the evidence? I don't know myself, so that's why I ask authors like Frank to provide it while they provide helpful fodder for faith-bashing. We know now that such a problem exists in the Catholic Church, but why does the narrative of the topic stop at the Catholic Church as if it is a Catholic problem primarily and not a more general problem in a society that for years has had an undercurrent of child sexual objectification? Skepticism shouldn't rest just because the target is a faith based organization.
What is different with the Catholic Church is that it had an official world-wide policy of covering it up, codified in canon law and other Papal documents, which resulted in victims being sworn to silence, perpetrators being moved on to avoid detection and to facilitate their behaviour elsewhere, and the civil authorities not being informed. This didn't happen with any other Church in Ireland though perhaps you can find examples of small sects elsewhere in the world with a similar pattern.
To this day the Vatican and local Catholic dioceses invoke diplomatic and clerical privilege to avoid handing over incriminating evidence to the police. If this were done by any other organisation, it would be declared a criminal conspiracy and prohibited from operating in the state at all. notes from no w here
Article 24 The rights of the child 1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity. 2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration. 18.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364/13 3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests. notes from no w here
Part of that discussion would require due diligence on the part of Church authorities that children are, in fact, demonstrably safer today under the civil institutions of the EU, because such has arguably not been the case historically in Europe and even possibly presently elsewhere, but I'm certainly compelled by the public available evidence on the Irish scandal that more civil oversight rather than church oversight may have prevented the cover-ups had people actually prioritized child protection during in the 1970's like they do now.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Which presents another good reason why political advocacy groups should not be allowed to claim religious exemptions in their hiring practises, etc. It ferrets out the worst fundagelicals without having to snoop around at their internal meetings.
The very fact that human rights are so controversial - e.g. in Gaza - should make it obvious that they are not universally accepted absolutes. notes from no w here
Santiago won't touch this. Align culture with our nature.
So I think it's a good assumption that the Church might also justify its use of legal maneuvers to avoid hurting innocent people with public embarrassment in much the same way.
There's absolutely no evidence that the Catholic Church systematically uses legal maneuvers to avoid hurting innocent people.
And there's plenty of evidence that the Catholic Church has systematically attempted to cover up criminal activity.
Lawyers, journalists, police and psychologists are not a monolithic pseudo-corporate multinational, and are hardly comparable to the Church's institutionalised attempts to claim moral authority while deriving political influence through deliberately sanctioned abuse.
The closest comparable organisation is Scientology - and not even Scientology has been credibly abused of systematic child abuse.
This is one of the rare situations where the moral questions are entirely black and white.
'Other people do it too' is hardly a defence against them - because they don't on anything like the same scale, or for the same reasons.
This isn't moral rocket science for most people, and healthy skepticism can draw its own conclusions when there's such overwhelming evidence of wrong doing.
You're clearly deciding to ignore that evidence, or to keep lying about it knowingly and hoping that no one will notice.
Well - good luck persuading anyone with that, here or elsewhere.
