This sentence gave me an immediate earworm: David Bowie’s “Starman”.
Except my brain changed it to “Strawman”.
mmm
My POV is that the entire organization is corrupt.
If members of the Bandidos MC, NY Branch raped and killed someone I wouldn’t go out of my way to defend the Banidos MC, NJ Branch.
No, but you also wouldn’t swear out a warrant for the NJ Branch’s members.
O.K., suppose that you’ve been arrested for a horrendous crime that you didn’t do. You know that there are a lot of people who dislike you, but you’ve never done anything nearly as bad as what you’ve been accused of. You’re taken to a room where you’re introduced to the lawyer who’s been appointed as your defense attorney. After everyone else has left the room, he says, “I have no intention of actually defending you. You are a thorough jerk. I intend to deliberately screw up your defense. If I actually find evidence that proves that you didn’t do what you’re accused of in this case, I will destroy that evidence. A jerk like you deserves to be found guilty of anything and everything, even if you didn’t do it.” In this thread I’ve effectively acted as the defense attorney for the hierarchy of the church (although that’s not what I wanted to do when I entered this thread). I have to honestly defend them, even if they did other things that were thoroughly despicable. Lying about some person or organization because they are guilty of some other deed that they’re not being accused of at the moment is wrong. We’re talking here about a specific deed, and they didn’t do it in this one case. They are still despicable, but they should be accused of the bad things that they actually did, not one thing that they didn’t do. Since the church hierarchy did lots of bad things already, it’s not necessary to accuse them of one thing that they didn’t do.
No, you don’t, unless you’re literally representing them as their lawyer. You can choose who to defend and who not to. Pick your battles wisely. Sometimes it’s better not to be pedantically correct.
Let me make it clear. I hate defending them. I hate the fact that I ever entered this thread. I randomly entered it, saw an error in it, corrected that error, and assumed that it wasn’t a big deal. Then some people started telling me how worthless I was for defending the church hierarchy for anything whatsoever, even if it was something they didn’t do. What you’re doing is saying that the SDMB isn’t about correcting errors, it’s about talking how evil certain people and organizations are, even in the cases that they didn’t do the particular thing being discussed.
I’m saying The BBQ Pit isn’t about correcting errors.
You’re not wrong, but this isn’t the place where being not wrong is valuable enough to interrupt posters venting.
Being pedantically correct is making a big fuss about someone’s spelling error, not mentioning that some person or some organization didn’t do something they’re accused of.
I disagree. The SDMB is about learning new (correct) things. Venting is all right, but it isn’t more important than getting something right.
Here’s my POV:
When I first saw this thread, my first thought was: “Again? Is the Catholic Church still doing this? Haven’t they learned their lesson yet? Is this yet another, new offense, or is it old news?”
So I clicked the OP’s link to try to find answers to these questions.
Is this a new story? Well, yes and no. What we have is a new, recent development or comment on an incident that originally happened years ago.
Has the RCC learned their lesson, or are they still doing the same things they have been so rightly criticized for (e.g. protecting and excusing pedophile priests)? Well, that’s why it’s so relevant and important to point out that this is one specific Polish church/diocese, not the RCC in general. The RCC may or may not have cleaned up their act, but this specific incident is not evidence that the Catholic Church in general is still defending pedophiles.
These are all the actions of Independent Contractors. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either the RCC has authority to punish this Polish church to the extent that they already have, making them back off and apologize, or they have no official association at all and they cannot tell this Polish church what to do or say. Does this Polish Roman Catholic Church recognize the authority of the Pope and the Mother Church, or not?
Read for nuance and subtlety.
Here is some detail regarding the Polish RCC and the Vatican.
“Accepted the resignation of”. The RCC is a large and powerful org, which could in theory pursue genuine punishment against the bad actors. However, it also has an image to maintain,
and meting out severe punishment that might compromise that image is problematic. If parishioners and other Xtian sects come to perceive the RCC in a less than favorable light, their power might be unacceptably diminished, and we cannot be having any of that.
AIUI, there are millions of Polish catholics. 624 victims of abuse is a tiny fraction of a percent of that congregation. Some people need to suffer that others might gain salvation. You know, like that Jesus guy did.
OTOH, 382 seems like a rather large number of clerics.
What kind of genuine punishment did you have in mind? In some cases, the appropriate punishment (e.g. prison time) is something that’s up to the state, not the church.
Why would it have to be up to the state? The Vatican itself is actually a state. Why should they not take direct responsibility for dealing with their miscreants? A fucking Cardinal, for crissake – one of they guys who votes on the Papacy, is so deeply enmeshed in the church hierarchy that they really ought to be able to call him back to Lazio and shove him into a dank hole (after due process, of course). Accepting his resignation is some weak sauce.
Kinda like the way Barone Sanitation & Cartage is one specific business and any bad thing they might do shouldn’t throw shade on the mafia.
Okay, I understand now.
How about firing his ass? That is, literally, the least they could do. And they did not even do that.
I was assuming that a 97-year-old who “was prohibited from attending any celebrations or public meetings (and) forbidden to use bishops’ insignia” had essentially lost whatever job he may have had. If my assumption was incorrect, then yeah.
Your assumption is incorrect. What happened to him was closer to “suspension with pay and benefits intact” than a firing.