This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Scapegoat for Catholic evils?

Scapegoat for Catholic evils? - Comments

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 1 by Mr DArcy

Well it might jolt one or two thousand of the other RCC clergy out of their hitherto "see no evil" approach! Up till now they seem to have been wearing the kind of shades that Zaphod Beeblebrox puts on when danger approaches!

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:37:18 UTC | #950035

Sample's Avatar Comment 2 by Sample

I commented about this story on a Catholic site focusing on the following:

However, his [Church] attorney later fired back at the court calling the sentence of six years, "grossly imbalanced."

So let me get this straight. One priestly conviction, thousands upon thousands of children harmed and it's the sentencing that's accused of being grossly imbalanced? Dante was prescient placing clergy and certain lawyers in the same circle of hell.

Ugh.

Mike

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:44:51 UTC | #950037

memetical's Avatar Comment 3 by memetical

Dear Prof.Dawkins. What you have just written is so very true and humane. You publicly reflect our most natural desire - to protect our loved ones and others around us - no matter how much culture 'memetically' changes. As Prof Dennett has extolled in his book 'Freedom Evolves' (pg304), "In the next century it will be our memes, both tonic and toxic, that will wreak havoc on the unprepared world".

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:49:49 UTC | #950038

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 4 by Zeuglodon

The trouble is that the only argument to counter the Catholic Church being the target of liquidation, as opposed to those individuals who were directly involved, would be evidence that the crime was perpetrated or aided by higher levels, if not by all levels, of the organisation. You could also refer back to the history of the church and the atrocities it commits.

The reason this is a trouble is because they do "charity" work and that the crimes are claimed to be against the church's official ethos, which means you have to check their written documents. In some people's minds, this "negates" many of the wrongdoings, which is a double standard as a business that acted like this would be condemned and dismantled in a heartbeat. This appeal to the good that the church does is often seen among Catholics who otherwise condemn the actual practices.

You're not going to get the church liquidated until you remove this "religions are special" glamour and convince people that religion is a cost without benefit, or in more subtle cases a cheater and an exploiter who has you in a psychological trap. By this, I mean you have to convince people that the church's raison d'etre is either hocus-pocus or nothing exclusive to them. Not to mention people fear (or at least act prudently around) something that wields more influence than they do. If the Church was reduced to a cult like Scientology, there'd suddenly be a lot less political pussyfooting.

The solution? Keep beating religion on intellectual grounds, and promote better alternatives like secularism, humanism (or personism, if you insist), science, reason, and a genuine consideration of ethics as opposed to religious doctrine that claims to be about morality. Remove the justification for religious privilege and get this removal recognized by politicians and the judiciary system - by the usual avenues of lobbying, protesting, and making your stance clear when you have a chance to vote for something. Only when the glamour is removed will it be easier to tackle religions as you would any other organization.

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:52:53 UTC | #950040

thebaldgit's Avatar Comment 5 by thebaldgit

I expect the catholic church is like any other organisation feeling the heat from criminal departments, they serve up as many sacrificial people as possible to keep its most important people away from any possible criminal sanctions that would inevitably result in jail sentences.

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:37:57 UTC | #950043

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 6 by God fearing Atheist

"the real evil, which is the entire culture of the Catholic church"

I think that is a category error. The only active agents in any organisation are the humans that make it up. They are the only who are culpable.

The paedophile priests should by punished. Those who covered it up should be punished. "I was only following orders" is not mitigation. The only possible "cultural" influence is "I thought the boss would tell me to cover it up, so I covered it up without even bothering to tell him". I'd like to see that one used as an excuse in court. But that is actually down to individual humans, not the collective. The only way an inferior could have picked up on his boss's intentions is if the boss had stated his opinion to others in the organisation that had got back via the rumour mill.

The police should investigate and pursue the chain of "orders" through the organisation. The links are from human to human. Where they get sufficient evidence, those individuals should be prosecuted. Given standards of evidence it is likely that those at the top of the RCC who merely give subtle hints / said nothing in front of multiple living witnesses / left no physical evidence, will get away scot-free.

Only the police can say if this guy was a pawn. Did they follow the trail until it went cold, or did they stop after getting one scape-goat? Did they suspect others in the RCC of perverting the course of justice by handing over evidence against the pawn, but withholding the rest of the trail? If so, then the police have more crimes to investigate.

This is really about the skill and determination of the police investigators, vrs. the cunning of criminals in covering their tracks.

Even with brilliant police work, I suspect that standards of evidence will mean only a few percent of the criminals are ever be prosecuted, but the investigation will make the rest more careful about leaving evidence. The RCC will still be full of bad apples, and hence, I suppose "culture of child abuse" is an appropriate shorthand.

The final piece is the police investigators. Did they do a thorough job? There may be rotten apples in the justice system who also "issued orders".

So, my belief that the monsignor is a fall-guy is inversely proportional to my belief that the police did their job properly. I'll guess there is a 15% chance he is just a fall-guy, and 85% chance this is where the evidence Petered out.

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:49:07 UTC | #950046

Joepublic's Avatar Comment 7 by Joepublic

I really can't forego saying thank you to God Fearing Atheist for such a thoughtful, balanced and free-from-white-hot-vitriol comment that so often dominates these pages. Well done. Others take note please.

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:35:12 UTC | #950054

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 8 by Neodarwinian

" Can the church claim that, because individual priests are put in prison, that lets them off the hook? "

Surely they can claim this! As a many headed Hydra the church can shed these monsignors forever. The church culture, if not the church, has to go. If I had my druthers the church, as all churches, would pay taxes just like everyone else.Would have minimal to maximum regulation, like almost anyone else Would be fined by Federal agencies, just like everyone else.Would get bad mainstream press, like anyone else Would be allowed to fail, just like Enron, which is rather the church's culture anyway.

PS: No bailouts!

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:37:36 UTC | #950055

78rpm's Avatar Comment 9 by 78rpm

Ditto to comment 7.

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:39:35 UTC | #950056

agoodman's Avatar Comment 10 by agoodman

Well, two things. First the obvious, Comment 6 seem well put to me as well. Good job moving the conversation from systems to individuals.

Second, I think that this posting by R.D. is an important one. We -should- be watching to make sure we are getting justice not revenge or scapegoating. We are supposed to be the rational ones here. Now in this specific case (which is all you should look at when an individual is prosecuted under the law), we have a person who is being convicted of covering up a single case (from the article: "conviction on a single count of child endangerment") getting near the maximum sentence. That sounds like justice. The followup to that is that I don't know why he wasn't convicted on the other coverups and why others are not also being convicted. Now we need to make sure this doesn't let the RCC "off the hook."

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:28:37 UTC | #950060

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 11 by ZenDruid

It's the institutional code of silence among the hierarchy that chaps my hide.

Maybe they should accept the inevitable, cut their losses, and offer up a scapegoat from every diocese and parish. Only then would I be inclined to believe any positive motion on their part in regard to child abuse.

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:45:53 UTC | #950061

maria melo's Avatar Comment 12 by maria melo

The most benemerit thing that ever could be done was the accusation of the pope as representant of an institucion that as part of it´s common practise covered up crimes for more than 20 years. I didn´t read yet The Case of The Pope (what I plan to do in the near future).

If people don´t put in to action the mechanisms of justice, how could they expect justice to be done ?

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:17:57 UTC | #950066

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 13 by Schrodinger's Cat

There comes a point where an organisation reeks of evil and hypocrisy to such an extent that one really doesn't care if there are to be found one or two 'innocent' people within its hierarchy of power. [Removed by moderator]

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:30:46 UTC | #950069

RJMoore's Avatar Comment 14 by RJMoore

Are his fellow prisoners likely to have the discernment to distinguish a coverer-up from an actual paedophile, and how will they treat him? I am not optimistic.

Is RD saying that the prisoners should treat him differently from the way they would treat a priest who did abuse children? What way should or shouldn't they treat him, and why does that matter? What is RD 'not optimistic' about?

Is the conviction of Monsignor Lynn designed to take the heat off the real evil, which is the entire culture of the Catholic church?

Designed by whom? The state authorities that took the case against him?

Can the church claim that, because individual priests are put in prison, that lets them off the hook?

Who is making that claim? Isn't the CC complaining that the sentence was too harsh?

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:55:42 UTC | #950071

cynicaloptimistrealist's Avatar Comment 15 by cynicaloptimistrealist

Professor Dawkins,

As always your post demonstrates the balance that few of us are capable of. Particularly when it comes to those who peddle deities and fiddle with children. I do agree with you that the psychological damage Catholicism does is far worse, not to mention the fact that if you draw an enconomic map of the world you will see that most of the poorer areas of the world are in the grip of either the Pope or Muhammad. Combined with their message that poverty equals piety they are one of the most damaging forces in the world.

He did not molest children himself, but covered up the activities of other priests.

I agree, but the sentencing structure is different in the US, I often see cases from the US where when you consider the crime the sentences seem excessive. I can't help but think that the high murder rate in some parts of the US directly relates to the structure of sentences there. In this case I feel it's just rewards. Suppose a colleague entered your office and admitted that he was an active paedophile, I imagine that you (as I would) contact the police and indeed social services if the person in question had children. Just suppose that instead the colleague entered your office and admitted the above, then explaining that he was in fear of a police raid, asked you to take care of his laptop for a while until the storm had blown over. If one was to agree to the request and not immediately pass the evidence over to the police, then one would be guilty of denying justice to those who have been abused and enabling the abuse of other children or the ongoing abuse of those he has access to. So, it is my belief that an enabler who acts knowing the seriousness of the crimes committed deserves to be treated as an accomplice.

Are his fellow prisoners likely to have the discernment to distinguish a coverer-up from an actual paedophile, and how will they treat him?

I imagine that he will be segregated as his crime involves the abuse of children.

But is this particular priest the fall guy for a Catholic culture in which he was just a pawn?

In a sense, yes, it has the effect of calming the great unwashed screaming for blood. Although I think it's another headline that the Catholic Church would rather not see, I think even Barnum who said "There's no such thing as bad publicity!" would make an exception in this case. There's an often told joke that when John Paul II visited Ireland and said "Young people of Ireland, I love you!" that he was merely reflecting the physical desires of his clerics. Let's face it headlines like that are only going to have a detrimental effect on membership.

I do feel that governments and law enforcement are going after the wrong target. The organisation as a whole should be hauled over the coals financially, they are an extremely wealthy organisation, I am sure you have noticed on your travels as I have that even in places where grinding poverty exists, that the church is usually an impressive building in contrast to the local hovels and that the priests homes are not that shabby either. So my view is that the organisation as a whole should pay dearly in the financial sense. If a police officer through accident or deliberate action injures an innocent member of the public there are heavy financial penalties for the force he is a member of, the same should apply to religious organisations,

Is the conviction of Monsignor Lynn designed to take the heat off the real evil, which is the entire culture of the Catholic church?

I would say that some of his superiors are wiping the sweat from their brow and thanking their God (that is if they believe in one, I can't see how anyone who has even read their scriptures can maintain a faith of any kind - probably the reason why Catholics are encouraged to parrot off prayers rather than explore their scriptures). Again I fail to understand, particularly in the litigious US why there have not been more multi million dollar cases taken against dioceses.

Can the church claim that, because individual priests are put in prison, that lets them off the hook?

I am sure they will try, I imagine they will say sorry for a few more years, then claim they are being victimised for something that happened in the past (similar to the way right wing parties shriek "victim" when anyone mentions the violent, un-evolved, racist halfwits they so recently attached themselves to). In many ways they're already back on their old hobby horse in this part of the world with a bishop recently speaking out against gay marriage and abortion, of course not one member of the subservient media asked "Considering its history, what gives your organisation the right to speak out on morality?".

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:38:43 UTC | #950079

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 16 by QuestioningKat

I did a quick check (which may be inaccurate) showing that the average sentence for rape is over nine years while the actual time served is about five years. Chances are this monsignor will serve about three years if he survives the general population.

This issue reminds me of concentration camp guards who went about following the rules without questioning their validity or impact on others. They blindly anesthetized themselves - out-of-sight, out-of-mind. He probably thought someone else would handle it. He does need to serve time for his crime, but what about the priests doing the actual rape? How many have walked freely or died without facing the consequences? The religious have the attitude that God will handle the situation now that they are passed, but this is not good enough. People know this and the Church knows that people are unhappy and expect action.

He is a scapegoat, but certainly not an innocent one.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:08:23 UTC | #950081

MilitantNonStampCollector's Avatar Comment 17 by MilitantNonStampCollector

Can the church claim that, because individual priests are put in prison, that lets them off the hook?

They can if they like but it is not going to fool anybody who is informed about the systematic cover-up of secrecy by the Rapin-Catlick-Church™.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:09:23 UTC | #950082

raytoman's Avatar Comment 18 by raytoman

Comment 6 by God fearing Atheist

"the real evil, which is the entire culture of the Catholic church"

I think that is a category error. The only active agents in any organisation are the humans that make it up. They are the only who are culpable.>>

I think you have that wrong.

The RCC will not recruit sexually normal (married) people as priests or nuns and will in fact expel any who get married.

This is institutional and is a clear signal that normal sex is not tolerated in the RCC and this of course becomes a beacon for sexually disfunctional people who know they will be protected.

Since paedophile priests become Bishops and Popes (the current Pope actually drafted some of the coverup procedures (why he was elected?) and the cioverups are still active in Ireland, even after the systemic sexual abise of children was exposed in most if not all RCC run institutions) you can argue that paedophilia IS institutionalised and not just a disparet few individuals.

An investigation into the RCC in Holland identifed over 10,000 sexually abused children and 800 paedophile priests and I gather none have been prosecuted yet. This is probably due to the ongoing coverup. What is even more thought provoking is that Holland is a small country with basically a Protestant lean and with a significant Muslim population. This suggests that it is not just a few RCC Priests that are paedophiles. I don't know the total of RCC priests in Holland within which the 800 lurk, but it must be a significant percentage.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:21:30 UTC | #950083

raytoman's Avatar Comment 19 by raytoman

Given the large numbers of paedophile priests and sexually abused children in small countries like Ireland and Holland, when you consider there are well over a billion RC's, the global totals must be huge.

It is likely to be many millions of sexually abused children and many tens if not hundreds of thousands of paedophile Priests.

That's institutionalisation of this odious and criminal practice by a very sick organisation.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:41:04 UTC | #950085

RJMoore's Avatar Comment 20 by RJMoore

Comment 16 by QuestioningKat

He is a scapegoat, but certainly not an innocent one.

From Wikipedia:

A scapegoat: "In modern usage a scapegoat may be a child, employee, peer, ethnic or religious group, or country singled out for unmerited negative treatment or blame".

It strikes me that the blame apportioned to the priest in question wasn't unmerited, nor was he singled out by the church or prosecuting authorities to deflect blame away from another person. He was charged with and found guilty of a particular offence, based on the evidence the prosecutors collected; what else is there to say? How does his conviction preclude that (or another) prosecuting authority from charging other clerics with similar offences?

I must say I find this thread a little bit strange. Finally an individual is called to account for his actions, in a court of (state) law, and people are perturbed....eh...why?

What kind of judicial magic bullet do people think is out there?! This is how the law works.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:51:13 UTC | #950086

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 21 by QuestioningKat

comment 20 If you object to "scapegoat" what description would you prefer? fall guy? pawn? You're picking at details here.

We want the entire RCC to collapse, so don't act surprised. Bravo a few priest are going to jail. We'd rather the entire corporation be shut down.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:02:26 UTC | #950087

RJMoore's Avatar Comment 22 by RJMoore

Comment 21 by QuestioningKat

If you object to "scapegoat" what description would you prefer? fall guy? pawn?

The convicted. Who do you claim has made him a scapegoat? The CC or the state? Both?

You're picking at details here.

Not at all. Whether or not this particular priest is a scapegoat is what's under discussion, no?

We want the entire RCC to collapse, so don't act surprised.

By persuasion and using reason, I would have thought.

Bravo a few priest are going to jail.

What's your magic bullet? You dont think that a successful prosecution in a case such as this might spur other prosecutors to be bring similar charges in other states?

We'd rather the entire corporation be shut down.

I'd rather those who commit criminal offences are called to account in courts of law. The corporation is on its way out anyway.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:20:50 UTC | #950088

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 23 by susanlatimer

Comment 20 by RJ Moore

I must say I find this thread a little bit strange.

I don't. It's a perfectly useful thread for discussion.

What kind of judicial magic bullet do people think is out there?! This is how the law works.

I agree. This was a conviction in a court of law and this is one of the ways in which progress is made. A criminal conviction in a particular case is all the law can do, and the immediate and long-term implications are important. That is why we make laws. The law can do what the law can do and that is no small thing.

I'm not sure we're confined to legal discussion in this thread, but I think you're right that it's important to make the distinction.

How much further up the ladder can and should the law pursue the rape of children and the cover-up by the catholic church? That's a separate discussion.

But I understand what you mean about this specific legal case. I think you're right.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:18:00 UTC | #950092

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 24 by Premiseless

Since invisible authority is very obviously putrid, it is inevitable the buck will stop with supporters, and especially those commanding higher rank as representative of it, no matter how deluded by it they as individuals are. In some ways class reversal is what you see here, where the rank is taking the heat for the consciousness grooming of the masses, mainly due the rank having deluded them all to begin with and rendering their minds enslaved to its deceptions and vices.

What you see as, in part and pertaining to an individuals plight per se, an injustice is common or garden amongst the rank and file. It seems the past cooks up these scenarios for the unwary and ill educates in their droves. Someone; innocent, misled, unassuming, delusional or all four, pays the price of what history preserves, in all its poisons.

This is the paradox of justice: in some senses it is hedging of bets against ranges of innocence and of guilt to address the exploitation of others, that essentially is an imperfect process hoping to dilute the sum total of the problems it identifies.

There is no real justice per se, though we like and often default to black and white positions in respect of it all - most probably because that's how we would like ourselves to be viewed.

Darwinesque really. At no point is there an individual of whom it can be said they were perfectly honorable minus the input of their environment and similarly it begs the question as to how well we can make the reverse claim.

We're getting into very personal spaces here and empathy and degrees of perception as to who deserves to take the heat dependent upon who does what and how this can be allocated due delusion or intent. We really are touching into the type of territory where we'd be absenting parents from the rights to advocate circumcisions and such like. This invisible authority (world gods) is going to find its unwitting and sometimes maybe deserving targets if it is to be overturned - ever, unless of course someone has a more rational and sustainable process of reform absent the inherent legal ones.

It's ironic we argue for atheism here and we can't foresee how glaringly obvious, nay unavoidable, these kinds of incidents are going to become if the plights of the tomorrows adults are not going to be paying an even higher price for something that is made to look as though they are indeed evil for failing to support the delusions of!

The justice system, in many respects is designated to defer to scapegoats, rather than put stops to the predominantly untouchable powers that propagate crime and make courts necessary. Not for a second do I think the majority of the worst amongst us ever see life in a prison.

This is I think why it goes against some grain within us when we see individuals caught between hard places and either resorting to wrongdoing or perpetuating a denial of it. It's tricky to say which is the worst of the two in many comparisons since each can be corrupted by indoctrination.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:59:45 UTC | #950094

AgriculturalAtheist's Avatar Comment 25 by AgriculturalAtheist

I don't get the whole scapegoat mentality. Children were raped. Adult genitalia were forced upon minors (or vice versa). These children will always be troubled and haunted by this. True, it could have been prevented by someone above them who knew about it, but from the victims' points of view, it was the individual priests' penises - not the scapegoat's - that raped them. Like the Penn State Sandusky case, justice will not be properly served until the ACTUAL RAPISTS are behind bars. THEN we can begin working on those who helped sweep the issue under the proverbial rug, at which point they won't be "only" scapegoats any more.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:11:12 UTC | #950108

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 26 by Premiseless

Comment 25 by AgriculturalAtheist :

I don't get the whole scapegoat mentality. Children were raped. Adult genitalia were forced upon minors (or vice versa). These children will always be troubled and haunted by this. True, it could have been prevented by someone above them who knew about it, but from the victims' points of view, it was the individual priests' penises - not the scapegoat's - that raped them. Like the Penn State Sandusky case, justice will not be properly served until the ACTUAL RAPISTS are behind bars. THEN we can begin working on those who helped sweep the issue under the proverbial rug, at which point they won't be "only" scapegoats any more.

This might be a good point at which to mention "multiculturalism" and how human brains per se are supposed to integrate a universal ethic on the subject minus examples of each cultures infectious memes becoming "cross cultural"

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:17:46 UTC | #950115

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 27 by Alan4discussion

This seems a clear and valid conviction.

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_%28legal_term%29

Accessory after the fact - Someone who assists another 1) who has committed a felony, 2) after the person has committed the felony, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the felony, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment. An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, inter alia, obstruction of justice. - http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/accessory_after_the_fact

It is a moot point in the case of repeat offenders, as to which category of accessory the cover-up facilitators were.

Any evidence implicating others, should be considered for further prosecutions.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:41:44 UTC | #950118

michaelplogue's Avatar Comment 28 by michaelplogue

I agree with Alan4discussion: cases such as these should be pursued in order to identify all individuals involved in the criminal act.

It's a shame that neither the RICO act nor CCE (continuing criminal enterprise) laws cannot be applied against religious organization's criminal activities However, conspiracy (accessory after the fact) could easily be applied towards anyone with knowledge of the criminal act. Simply based on the testimony of the defendant, DOJ could easily indict his 'boss' - and probably convict him - on the same charges.

While (by definition) CCE can only be applied to drug trafficking organizations, it would be an interesting exercise to see if one can legally define the Catholic church (or any other church for that matter) as a Racketeering organization - in order to press RICO charges. An example would be the use of extortion and/or "protection" schemes (give a certain percentage {cut} of your income to the church or you'll burn in hell for all eternity).

Do this, and you could legally take down the whole organization in one fell swoop....

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:48:23 UTC | #950135

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 29 by Steven Mading

We already have plenty of proof that the cover-up methodology was ordered from higher up the chain of command and in fact goes all the way up to the current pope from just before he became pope (+). I feel the same way about this that I do about that US army private who was prosecuted for the Abu Ghraib abuses - while what she did was horrible, and "I was only following orders" is an insufficient excuse, the guilt from following an order to do evil is lesser than the guilt from giving the order to do evil. It's not a bad thing that she got prosecuted, but it is a bad thing that she got prosecuted instead of the person who authorized it - Donald Rumsfeld.

If person A orders person B to do something evil and person B is in a position of subservience to person A in some big way ( i.e. A is a boss that can fire you or a commanding officer), then my order of preference for convictions is as follows:

Best -> both A and B get in legal trouble.

Good -> A gets in legal trouble but not B.

Bad -> B gets in legal trouble but not A.

Worst -> neither A nor B get in legal trouble.

We're only barely one step above "worst" here. Yes this person is a fall guy.

We already know who the top of the chain of command is who's responsible for ordering this behavior in the organization. He's the guy who likes wearing red shoes and a pointy hat.

(+) I wonder if this has anything to do with why he was selected by the cardinals - be nice to the guy who you know has the most dirt on you.

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:08:56 UTC | #950157

Klaasjansch's Avatar Comment 30 by Klaasjansch

Actually, I think this crusade is one of other Christian factions upon the Catholic faction. The Catholics were just stupid enough to start a cover up that got out. I’m afraid that if we were to look in to other organizations we would find the same problem. It's just not discovered yet. Well, some were. Take the Brach Davideans. It was the sexual abuse that made the balance tip to spring into action.

Here in the Netherlands there is actually an investigation going on into the child protection agency that relocated children and also wasn't careful enough in choosing the right families.

Still, the religious faiths of this earth are a real problem which as a whole should be investigated for blundering on and brainwashing and scaring people, causing wars and famines in its wake.

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:21:02 UTC | #950162