Poor Pope John Paul II. He just had no authority to discipline the hierarchy, aid the victims, or address the flock.
Lets see, you post a paper by a bishop's conference that is supposed to explain it all away. And you wish others to see this as an unbiased presentation, as if it had been produced by an uninvolved party out of one side of your mouth, while from the other side of your mouth comes this little gem "rather than buy the MSM line" in which, absent any knowledge you attempt to float an assumption that all of my knowledge of this must stem from the MSM. That absolutely is not going to fly. I have had knowledge of this since long before the press switched sides and began exposing pedophiles - which Internet competition forced them to begin doing in the 90s. I will also note that government investigations confirm the press reports - but my primary source has been and continues to be people who were abused as children.
You floated that there was a lot of stuff that didn't amount to pedophilia. That's true there was, and that is it's own topic - I am addressing the pedophilia specifically and there was still a lot of it. For the record, while much of the press has focused on homosexual pedophiles, there was plenty of good old heterosexual pedophile abuse as well, and my post did not single out the homosexual variety specifically. You can go on about the gays in the priesthood all you want, but that is outside of the topic I am bringing to the fore and I won't really brook your attempt to change the topic of debate.
Next you brought up the topic of predators in schools. There are plenty there, and also within the mental health profession and within law enforcement. Anywhere a predator can gain some semblance of authority to shield their actions. That does not, however excuse the church anymore than Eve's sin excused Adam. You paralleled Adam's attempted defense extremely well.
You did not address at all the continued failure of the church to provide actual help for those that were harmed. Indeed, as of yet there is nothing for you to say.
As for your other post, well absent a thourough and contrite effort to make amends to those harmed, the church absolutely will be judged in the public square. While this concept is evidently foreign to your way of thinking, the people who were helpless children years ago, and had no way to make it stop, are now grown and the church has no way to make them, or those who take their part shut up.
What goes around comes around, or, to put it another way - You reap what you sew
It's harvest time. Maybe making restitution would be a much better strategy for the church than the self righteous bluster you personally are attempting.
“self righteous bluster that you personally”
So, is this going to get personal, or is it possible to disagree without becoming disagreeable?
“I am addressing the pedophilia specifically and there was still a lot of it.”
It’s easy to say “a lot,” but what constitutes a lot? Some percentage of the total? Some raw number? A number that is larger than seen in society at large?
“You can go on about the gays in the priesthood all you want, but that is outside of the topic I am bringing to the fore and I won’t really brook your attempt to change the topic of debate.”
The fact is that somewhere between 80% and 99% of the abuse of lay people was homosexual sodomy. What is your purpose in refusing to examine that?
“my primary source has been and continues to be people who were abused as children.”
What is your sample size? Did they report these things to you as counselor of some sort? How did it happen that so many people who were abused as children have chosen to discuss that excruciatingly painful topic with you?
“That does not, however excuse the church”
No, but it does serve to provide some perspective on claims that Catholic clergy are immensely more prone to this dastardly behavior than teachers or protestant clergy.
“You did not address at all the continued failure of the church to provide actual help for those that were harmed.”
You can, of course, insist that whatever has been done is inadequate, but the fact is that “continued failure” is far from the truth.
“absent a thourough and contrite effort to make amends to those harmed, the church absolutely will be judged in the public square.”
Inasmuch as the actions taken to date seem to have escaped your notice entirely, I wonder if any effort could possibly be adequate to placate you.
“While this concept is evidently foreign to your way of thinking”
Weren’t you complaining about assumptions just above? You do a great disservice when you presume that Catholics are less troubled by these things than you are.
We often see people make exaggerated claims, then allege that attempts to bring these exaggerations in line with fact are efforts to “whitewash” or “deny.”
The fact that some very evil things happened is not a license for unlimited accusation. As bad as these things were, a person still has an obligation to check his facts and hold his accusations to those the facts support.
“What goes around comes around, or, to put it another way - You reap what you sew”
That remark sounds like you think it just to browbeat people who had nothing to do with these events, who in many cases were not even born at the time. Do you think you have the right to punish people for transgressions that they neither committed nor condoned?
“It’s harvest time.”
And you’re the reaper? By whom were you appointed to punish the innocent?