The Catholic Church is still protecting criminals

The Catholic Church just does not care about people at all… unless those people are priests who are sexually abusing children.

The Irish government has just released a report showing that the Church in Ireland was covering up abuses by priests until as recently as 2009 – fourteen years after they promised to report all cases of abuse to civil authorities.

It never ends! These people are nothing more than criminals who will do anything they can to preserve their reputations and avoid punishment for the atrocities they’ve committed.

A group called Bishop Accountability, quoted in the article, gives a concise summary of the entire sex abuse scandal.

[The Cloyne Report is] disheartening confirmation that even today, despite the church’s knowledge of the profound anguish of thousands of victims, its reform policies are public relations ploys, not true child protection programs.

Exactly. In every incident, the Church has taken care to protect its reputation above all else, and avoided taking responsibility or showing true remorse for the horrible things its members have done.



Filed under Catholic Church, News, Religion

7 responses to “The Catholic Church is still protecting criminals

  1. We were so close to agreeing on this one, as I am quite prepared to assert that the catholic church’s practice above is a moral evil, that their view of sexuality is wrong (and of less interest for you, object to their perversion of the Gospel of salvation by faith alone), but we have to disagree again, since your moral subjectivism prevents you from saying they’re doing anything wrong. I wish you could join me in saying that those priests are not just doing something that is unfashionable or socially disadvantageous, but that they’re committing moral abominations.

    • What does it mean to say that something is morally wrong?

      • It’s an interesting question in its own right, but I make no special claim as to the “meaning” of the word “wrong”, and am open to various definitions which attempt to faithfully convey in English our direct experience of what is morally “wrong”, as long as they don’t re-define this moral word in non-moral terms (as Sam Harris has been rightly criticized for doing in his latest book “the moral landscape”). So in essence, I am not interested in moral “semantics”, but in moral “ontology”, that is, the question of the grounding of moral values in reality, raising the two questions of whether objective moral values can exist if God does not exist (a point on which we agree), and whether objective moral values do exist (a point on which we disagree). As to who can provide the best set of words to define “wrong”, I leave that up to linguists; I hardly qualify, English is not even my first language.

      • I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

        You say that you believe the Catholic Church is doing something morally wrong. I’m asking you what you mean by that.

      • I “mean” nothing special that wouldn’t be captured by standard dictionaries, with expressions like “immoral”, “unrighteous”, “sinful”, or “the breaking of a moral law”. I can’t imagine that you’d find this really confusing. Your real issue rather seems to be whether such moral values exist. And here the all too common atheist request to “explain to me what the meaning of the word is” usually comes as an attempt to trap the theist with an alleged charge of circular reasoning, the atheist saying “you can’t tell me what moral wrong is without referring to moral wrong, so you’re begging the question of the existence of morality.” but of course I commit no such fallacy, because I happily concede that we can’t “define” moral terms in non moral ones, yet I make no such semantic claim, only an ontological one about the “grounding” of moral values. Hence my reluctance to detail to you the most basic question of what it “means” for some act to be wrong, and would rather focus on whether objective wrong exists. When you join me in considering a catholic priest who rapes a little boy, I don’t think you need my help to know what it “means” to say he’s doing something wrong. The only question is whether that’s an objective truth or a matter of subjective preference.

      • …Which is a long-winded way of saying “I can’t tell you what I’m talking about.” If you can’t define your terms, then it’s impossible to have a discussion.

      • Yes, that’s just about what I said. I guess I have to put up those smoke screens to hide the intellectual bankruptcy of religion. Oh well, thanks for bearing with me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s