On Sep 13, 2004, at 2:28 PM, Damon Agretto wrote:
While even 0.1% is too much, condemning a whole group of people for this, while ignoring the responsibility for the other 97.4% sounds like an ax to grind to me.
Because it's easier to condemn a high profile organization like the Catholic Church than to condemn individuals.
Ah -- but if the CC is complicit, as it *has been* in a number of cases, in hiding the truth, in moving priests to other parishes where they ostensibly cannot get access to victims, then it is *perfectly acceptible* to condemn the CC as an entity.
Intrinsic corruption is not a state anyone should accept in any body of individuals, particularly if that body has power over others. *Especially* if that body purports to offer succor in times of sorrow, and most especially if that body claims to hold the keys to some eternal reward or other.
We're looking at institutional hypocrisy. What's wrong with labeling it accurately, with condemning the entire institution responsible for it?
As for the numbers ... I sincerely hope they're high, very high. My feeling is that they are, because abuse is so hard to define in the first place and because so many crimes go unreported -- while false accusations and implanted memories add to the confusion.
That's not the point, though. The first time a boy or girl was raped by a priest and the CC covered it up, the entire institution became suspect. That it's happened for decades (and probably centuries) makes it absolutely indefensible. How many times does a religion have to be absolutely wrong before its faithful realize they're involved in a giant mistake?
-- WthmO
I've never held an opinion. I give them away freely. --
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
