Not necessarily talking about you, although WEIRD that you’re agnostic but jumped to defend the clergy and also believe abortion is murder just based on your own personal beliefs with zero evidence, and you’re willing to enforce that view on others at the cost of their life.
It’s not that weird. Like you said, agnostics are more likely to prefer an evidence based approach rather than eat all the hyperbole going around. So what do we know?
Did the church cover up pedos? Yep, that they did. And they deserve the ire they get for it and more. Do pedos make up more than a tiny percentage of the church? No, they don’t. That’s the facts.
I’m agnostic and was never Catholic (I was Pentecostal in my youth, but that’s a completely different nightmare…). I don’t like that the church covered up sex abuse. It makes me trust the church as an organization less. But I also don’t assume the local priest is banging his alter boys.
The abortion/murder thing isn’t something scientific. It’s a value judgement about whether a particular action is “right” or “wrong.” Right and wrong are a human invention - the universe just is what it is regardless of how we feel about it. So it’s up to humans to figure that out.
Personally, I tend to favor the rights of the mother, but that’s doesn’t make someone who disagrees with me wrong. It just means they don’t agree with me.
And when you have an whole organization covering up for pedos, you might as well just consider everyone in the organization a pedo.
The very nature of the catholic church (looking for adult men who will ‘be celibate,’ excluding women altogether) may be attractive to pedophiles in fact.
That’s an off-the-cuff remark that his spokespeople refuted. Essentially the equivalent of a political gaff. Think about it: how would he know, and if he did know, why would he tell a reporter? He likely just pulled what he thought was a small number (2%) out of his hat as a way of saying “very few” before he realized how many people that would actually be. Politicians make that kind of mistake all the time, and the pope definitely falls into the category of politician.
And the “everyone in the organization is a pedo” is just plain unfair. Is a bank teller responsible because the company she works for is making shady investment deals? Is a forest ranger responsible because the president decided to sell off a bunch of national parks? There are specific people who are guilty and should be held responsible, and the organization as a whole should be viewed with suspicion, but the majority of the people there - especially at the bottom levels - are just doing their jobs. The majority of them are even more pissed off at pedophiles ruining the reputation of the church they’re dedicated to than you are.
As far as the “attractive to pedophiles” bit, I’m not sure how that computes. Attractive to gay religious men who would prefer celibacy over sin, sure - that’s an old argument. I’ve even known a couple priests that I suspect went into the priesthood because they couldn’t express their sexuality. But pedophiles? What does “no women” and “celibacy” have to do with pedophilia? Few pedophiles are exclusive to kids. Most of them are perfectly capable of having a wife and family.
It seems to me like you’re treating the church like a storybook organization of villains. Things in the real world rarely work like that.
Nah I have the same opinion of the catholic church that I have of cops.
It takes effort to maintain that much corruption. The whole organization is implicit.
Comparing a bank teller to a companies misdeeds is backwards. That is someone at the bottom of the pyramid. In the church, those at the top of pyramid where the ones who covered up and moved pedophiles around, FOR DECADES. So, thats a rotten organization.
The bank teller thing is exactly what I was saying. Priests are down toward the bottom of the pyramid. Assuming every priest you meet is a pedo is pretty disturbing.
As far as the similarity to cops, the difference there is that the cops all abuse their authority from time to time. Almost every single one of them. Even if it’s just fucking with someone for the fun of it, they’ve all done it. And they’ve got support from the more authoritative-minded people like the “back the blue” folks. It’s definitely an attractive career for people who like to hold power over others - that’s not even in question.
No one supports pedophiles. The church covers them up out of embarrassment, not because they condone that sort of behavior.
No one supports pedophiles. The church covers them up out of embarrassment,
So you know, from a child victim’s point of view there is no fucking difference between supporting pedophiles and covering up for them. You cannot cover up for a pedo without supporting them. Intentions do not fucking matter, actions do. Almost everyone has good intentions.
Not necessarily talking about you, although WEIRD that you’re agnostic but jumped to defend the clergy and also believe abortion is murder just based on your own personal beliefs with zero evidence, and you’re willing to enforce that view on others at the cost of their life.
Most agnostics prefer an evidence based approach
It’s not that weird. Like you said, agnostics are more likely to prefer an evidence based approach rather than eat all the hyperbole going around. So what do we know?
Did the church cover up pedos? Yep, that they did. And they deserve the ire they get for it and more. Do pedos make up more than a tiny percentage of the church? No, they don’t. That’s the facts.
I’m agnostic and was never Catholic (I was Pentecostal in my youth, but that’s a completely different nightmare…). I don’t like that the church covered up sex abuse. It makes me trust the church as an organization less. But I also don’t assume the local priest is banging his alter boys.
The abortion/murder thing isn’t something scientific. It’s a value judgement about whether a particular action is “right” or “wrong.” Right and wrong are a human invention - the universe just is what it is regardless of how we feel about it. So it’s up to humans to figure that out.
Personally, I tend to favor the rights of the mother, but that’s doesn’t make someone who disagrees with me wrong. It just means they don’t agree with me.
the Pope himself said it could be as many as 1 in 50 https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/07/13/331166102/pope-reportedly-says-that-1-in-50-clergy-are-pedophiles
And when you have an whole organization covering up for pedos, you might as well just consider everyone in the organization a pedo.
The very nature of the catholic church (looking for adult men who will ‘be celibate,’ excluding women altogether) may be attractive to pedophiles in fact.
That’s an off-the-cuff remark that his spokespeople refuted. Essentially the equivalent of a political gaff. Think about it: how would he know, and if he did know, why would he tell a reporter? He likely just pulled what he thought was a small number (2%) out of his hat as a way of saying “very few” before he realized how many people that would actually be. Politicians make that kind of mistake all the time, and the pope definitely falls into the category of politician.
And the “everyone in the organization is a pedo” is just plain unfair. Is a bank teller responsible because the company she works for is making shady investment deals? Is a forest ranger responsible because the president decided to sell off a bunch of national parks? There are specific people who are guilty and should be held responsible, and the organization as a whole should be viewed with suspicion, but the majority of the people there - especially at the bottom levels - are just doing their jobs. The majority of them are even more pissed off at pedophiles ruining the reputation of the church they’re dedicated to than you are.
As far as the “attractive to pedophiles” bit, I’m not sure how that computes. Attractive to gay religious men who would prefer celibacy over sin, sure - that’s an old argument. I’ve even known a couple priests that I suspect went into the priesthood because they couldn’t express their sexuality. But pedophiles? What does “no women” and “celibacy” have to do with pedophilia? Few pedophiles are exclusive to kids. Most of them are perfectly capable of having a wife and family.
It seems to me like you’re treating the church like a storybook organization of villains. Things in the real world rarely work like that.
Nah I have the same opinion of the catholic church that I have of cops.
It takes effort to maintain that much corruption. The whole organization is implicit.
Comparing a bank teller to a companies misdeeds is backwards. That is someone at the bottom of the pyramid. In the church, those at the top of pyramid where the ones who covered up and moved pedophiles around, FOR DECADES. So, thats a rotten organization.
The bank teller thing is exactly what I was saying. Priests are down toward the bottom of the pyramid. Assuming every priest you meet is a pedo is pretty disturbing.
As far as the similarity to cops, the difference there is that the cops all abuse their authority from time to time. Almost every single one of them. Even if it’s just fucking with someone for the fun of it, they’ve all done it. And they’ve got support from the more authoritative-minded people like the “back the blue” folks. It’s definitely an attractive career for people who like to hold power over others - that’s not even in question.
No one supports pedophiles. The church covers them up out of embarrassment, not because they condone that sort of behavior.
The people moving the pedophiles around and covering up for them consisted of bishops and cardinals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_transfers_of_abusive_Catholic_priests
So you know, from a child victim’s point of view there is no fucking difference between supporting pedophiles and covering up for them. You cannot cover up for a pedo without supporting them. Intentions do not fucking matter, actions do. Almost everyone has good intentions.