Obviously you are not Episcopalian or ELCA or...
I don’t think they qualify as protestant churches anymore. Don’t you have to be Christian first?
But this, and articles like this, are a bit childish. Both sides are saying “Well, I am not as bad as that OTHER guy!”. That does not address the problem, but is a weak attempt to shift the blame. This article paints a very broad brush. If I had posted one that was reversed, many Catholic FReepers would be very upset and not a few would claim that I was either attacking the Catholic Church or stupid.
The fact is that there were many cases of priests having improper conduct with young males (and a few with women). There were some who appear to have been protected by various members of the Catholic hierarchy. Most Catholics, and just about all on FR, will agree to that.
As to what the current Pope is doing or has done to remedy that, by all accounts he is not going very easy on the poofters. In fact, if the UK does grab him this fall, I suspect that Hate Speech (or the equivalent) will be one of the charges.
The rather interesting legal question, which the Vatican brought up the other day, is what exactly is the Catholic Church in general and the office of the Pope in particular. Now in the the US, there is no legal body called "The Roman Catholic Church", any more than there is one called the "Lutheran Church Missouri Synod". Both are made up of a series of legal corporations that include the diocese/district on down to the local parishes. Which is why when the Davenport diocese went bankrupt a few years ago, the courts could not start seizing assets from the local congregations. For under the law they are separate, distinct, corporations.
The interesting thing is that creates some problems when it comes to authority. The claims being made are that the Pope, being the "Head of the Church" is responsible for the conduct of the various bishops, monks, and priests that make up the Catholic Church. Which makes theological sense. The problem is that those bishops, priests, and monks are not legally part of the same corporation. Like the case of the parish in St. Louis that did not want to close down, the bishop (or pope) has no legal authority over another corporation. I have seen cases in the LCMS where the LCMS head body had to state, in court, that a pastor and parish was not part of the LCMS, because of some loans going into default (the parish was poor, and was in the process of merging with another).
The other complicating issue is that the Vatican said that the Pope, as a head of state, is granted Sovereign immunity. Which he is, as the head of the Vatican. But that begs the question if his authority over the Catholic Church is theological, or for lack of a better term, regal. Is the Catholic Church a State, or a corporation, or a religion.
Sorry for the rant. This is proof why you should never drink with a lawyer.