# Suppose the Catholic Church made amends for the scandals. What would you like see them do? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2012, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239 "2012-08-31T09:51:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Rodgers01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Rodgers01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodgers01)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/81 "2012-09-04T05:27:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The problem with that is that the Roman Catholic Church isn’t just any big organization. It isn’t Microsoft or Pepsico. It claims special moral standing, and in fact has no reason to exist as it is if it lacks that standing. > > So if it isn’t going to act in a morally exemplary fashion, rather than just doing the minimum required by law, it really should disband. That doesn’t make much sense to me. What’s the saying - “Making the perfect the enemy of the good”? Because an organization falls short of the high moral ideals it sets for itself, it should just pack it in? We’d lose not _only_ all religions, but many charities, non-profit organizations, the UN… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/82 "2012-09-04T06:18:56Z")
> [@Rodgers01](#): > > That doesn’t make much sense to me. What’s the saying - “Making the perfect the enemy of the good”? Because an organization falls short of the high moral ideals it sets for itself, it should just pack it in? We’d lose not _only_ all religions, but many charities, non-profit organizations, the UN… There’s a rather large gap between “perfect” and “just doing the minimum required by law”. An organization or person claiming to be some kind of moral arbiter may not be perfect, but it had better be quite a bit better than the legal minimum to deserve to be taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/83 "2012-09-04T11:10:47Z")
> [@Rodgers01](#): > > That doesn’t make much sense to me. What’s the saying - “Making the perfect the enemy of the good”? Because an organization falls short of the high moral ideals it sets for itself, it should just pack it in? We’d lose not _only_ all religions, but many charities, non-profit organizations, the UN… The church doesn’t even get within 5 light years of perfect. Year after year, decade after decade, century after century the church conspires with the rich and the powerful and actively engages in crimes against humanity in the broader ‘interest’ of itself or according to whatever flavour of mumbo-jumbo it subscribes to at the time. I doubt there has been any ‘good’ Pope in the last 1500 years apart from the guy who dropped dead in a month or so. And now we have the current evil little incumbent - up to his eyeballs in the active cover-up of the child scandals. And on whose watch the church is still fighting tooth and nail against disclosure, against compensation, against the primacy of national legal systems all the while shedding crocodile tears about how ‘sorry’ the church is. A truly ‘sorry’ church would not have elected this Pope, would not continue to obstruct justice, would not continue to shelter wanted abusers within the wall of the Vatican. You might as well ask the Mafia to reform itself as ask the Church. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/84 "2012-09-04T11:22:33Z")
And as just one example of hook-wriggling. And remember they tried this in the USA also (with similar results). They claim priests are not ‘employees’ so the church isn’t liable for their actions. [Yes, priests are employees.](http://www.aoadvocates.co.uk/child-abuse-general/court-of-appeal-affirms-vital-ruling-on-vicarious-liability-of-catholic-church/) > [@](#): > > In a powerful affirmation of the High Court’s ruling on the same case in November 2011, the Court of Appeal has found in the case of JGE v The English Province of Our Lady of Charity & Another that a Roman Catholic bishop may be held liable for acts of a priest in his diocese. (Read the full ruling here) > > Echoing the decision of Mr Justice MacDuff in the High Court, Lord Justices Ward and Davis both found that the relationship between a Catholic bishop and a priest within his diocese is sufficiently similar to a conventional employer-employee relationship that it is just and fair to impose “vicarious liability” on the bishop. That means that the church as an institution can be held responsible if one of its priests acts wrongfully – which the Catholic Church sought to avoid. > > This case involves claims of repeated sexual abuse by a priest, Father Wilfred Baldwin, against a woman known by her initials, JGE. The abuse occurred at a children’s home in Hampshire some 40 years ago when JGE was a young girl. Father Baldwin died in 2006. Unless the church authorities who had charge of Father Baldwin can be held liable for his actions, JGE will have no legal redress. > > As in the High Court, the Lord Justices’ discussion of the case centred upon the question of whether a priest is an employee (or akin to such) of the bishop of his diocese. The law is well established that employers can be liable for employees’ misdeeds – for example, someone injured because a bus driver was careless may be able to sue the company that owns the bus and hired the driver. But churches have argued that priests are not really employees; they are “independent agents”, performing their ministry for God, not for any earthly organization. No ‘penitent’ organisation would even try to run with that defence. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/85 "2012-09-04T12:11:59Z")
> [@Rodgers01](#): > > Because an organization falls short of the high moral ideals it sets for itself, it should just pack it in? I never before considered the avoidance of institutionalized child buggering to be a high moral ideal. To me it is pretty basic. For example, lets look at a short list of high moral ideals: [ul] [li]Encourge world peace.[/li][li]Feed the hungry.[/li][li]Stop institutionally ass fucking youngsters in its care.[/li][/ul] Somehow that last one just doesn’t seem to fit in the high moral goals category, unless, of course, the organiztion is grossly debased in the first place. If that’s the case, then that organization ought to disband. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/86 "2012-09-04T13:12:25Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > I never before considered the avoidance of institutionalized child buggering to be a high moral ideal. To me it is pretty basic. > > For example, lets look at a short list of high moral ideals: > > [ul] > [li]Encourge world peace.[/li][li]Feed the hungry.[/li][li]Stop institutionally ass fucking youngsters in its care.[/li][/ul] > > Somehow that last one just doesn’t seem to fit in the high moral goals category, unless, of course, the organiztion is grossly debased in the first place. If that’s the case, then that organization ought to disband. Quite. Or kidnapping babies (Spain, Canada, Argentina etc etc). Or castrating orphans in its care (Holland). Or electing morally corrupt popes. Or not offering safe haven to wanted abusers within the Vatican. Or lying about contraception and Aids. Etc etc etc etc. Sputnik could come in under that bar. Not the RC though. IMHO the RC is ripe for prosecution under a wide range of racketeering and crimes against humanity codes. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/87 "2012-09-04T16:37:14Z")
> [@Rodgers01](#): > > That doesn’t make much sense to me. What’s the saying - “Making the perfect the enemy of the good”? Because an organization falls short of the high moral ideals it sets for itself, it should just pack it in? We’d lose not _only_ all religions, but many charities, non-profit organizations, the UN… Oh, gimme a break. What I said was, “It claims special moral standing, and in fact has no reason to exist as it is if it lacks that standing.” Most charities and nonprofits have plenty of reason to exist if they’re doing good, even if they’re not doing as much good as one would hope for. Ditto the UN. Religions, though, are a bit of a special case, because they do in fact claim special moral standing, and they don’t have a reason to exist if they fail to live up to it. But we’re not talking perfection here - at least, I’m not. What’s involved in maintaining one’s moral standing is the usual stuff that any person of integrity does: setting high standards for oneself, trying to attain them, being honest about one’s failures, and making amends where appropriate. Those last two apply to the RCC in a rather obvious way right now. And if a religious denomination isn’t willing to apply to itself the standards that a person of integrity would apply to him/herself, that would be a pretty crappy religion and probably should have the sense to either reform or go out of business, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/88 "2012-09-04T17:32:32Z")
First punish the offenders. Countries have laws and sentencing for pedophilia and rape so sentence the priests who have done those deeds and covered up for them to the appropriate punishments. Second, restitution. For the harm of covering up the untold decades of molestation going on, let the courts again decide civilly what the penalty should be. Last, make sure this can’t happen again. I like what some people suggested already like removing the diplomatic protection of the Vatican (they are simply not a country. They’re a large religious organization. If they want to operate from a central location, choose a country and base yourself out of it), and allowing women into all levels of the priesthood including having the first Pope after this scandal be a woman. Also let priests marry, update their rules to allow condom use and pragmatic sexual teachings, remove all Cardinals and Bishops currently serving and ban them from the church for life, elect whole new ones to replace them including having proportional representation from all of its countries, make it a policy to never speak of, about, or on politics. If they want to keep thinking that god favors them, then they need not care about the laws of men. They should never be in politics or part of it in any way ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/89 "2012-09-05T00:04:13Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Or kidnapping babies (Spain, Canada, Argentina etc etc). As far as Canada goes, the kidnapping of babies was the residential school system, which was run by churches (RC about 60%, Anglican and United or United’s predecessors for most of the rest) which were funded by the government. The residential school system was so profoundly flawed that the government terminateed it entirely, paid compensation, and formally apologized. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/90 "2012-09-05T08:51:52Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > As far as Canada goes, the kidnapping of babies was the residential school system, which was run by churches (RC about 60%, Anglican and United or United’s predecessors for most of the rest) which were funded by the government. The residential school system was so profoundly flawed that the government terminateed it entirely, paid compensation, and formally apologized. Sure. I was thinking of this [as well](http://news.yahoo.com/forced-adoptions-for-unwed-mothers-around-the-globe.html). > [@](#): > > Two weeks ago, a prominent Canadian law firm announced that it would file a class-action lawsuit against Quebec’s Catholic Church accusing the Church of kidnapping, fraud and coercion to force unwed mothers to give up their children for adoption. > > Attorney Tony Merchant represents several hundred women who claim that when they were in maternity homes in the 1950s and 1960s, social workers, nurses, doctors, and even men and women in the employ of the Catholic Church cooperated with government officials to force or, even coerce, young women to sign away their rights to keep their child never knowing they even had a choice. > > Merchant was quoted in the Montreal Gazette as saying, “The beliefs the Catholic Church (in Quebec) had about premarital sex and the judgmental approach the church had, made it particularly aggressive in pressuring women into putting their children up for adoption.” Cue no doubt the next version of the ‘these people? Never seen them before in our lives’ defence from the RC. ---
**Author:** ![Agent\_Foxtrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc29f/32.png) [@Agent\_Foxtrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agent_Foxtrot)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/91 "2012-09-06T20:35:18Z")
If they would open all of the Vatican secret archives to the public, that would be good enough for me. I guarantee you there’s some crazy shit in there. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/92 "2012-09-06T23:03:18Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Sure. I was thinking of this [as well](http://news.yahoo.com/forced-adoptions-for-unwed-mothers-around-the-globe.html). > > Cue no doubt the next version of the ‘these people? Never seen them before in our lives’ defence from the RC. Thanks for pointing that out. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/93 "2012-09-07T01:58:40Z")
> [@Agent\_Foxtrot](#): > > If they would open all of the Vatican secret archives to the public, that would be good enough for me. I guarantee you there’s some crazy shit in there. yeah 2,000 years of manipulation and cover ups would be awesome ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239/94 "2012-09-07T02:21:31Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > **Suppose the Catholic Church made amends for the scandals. What would you like see them do?** Sell all the Church has and give it to the poor. That’s what Jesus would do, anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-the-catholic-church-made-amends-for-the-scandals-what-would-you-like-see-them-do/633239.md?page=4)