Some? Everyone involved with Al Qaeda are bad apples.
And if you want to play the “logic” game, by your logic, all the employees of Enron & Worldcom are evil or amoral.
A great many were at the top; I’m not certain how many low level employees were involved. And when you get right down to it few companies are anything better than amoral; quite a few qualify as evil, as far as I’m concerned. In many cases employees and all; anyone who works in any way for a tobacco company, for example.
In any case, I’ve never heard either accused of being a haven for pedophiles. And the CC isn’t a slouch at financial sleaze either. On a moral level I’d rate the Catholic Church below either.
I’d love to respond at length, but I’ve gotta get to Mass.
Sorry, that’s not a great first post, but this thread was right at the top of the list, and I couldn’t resist.
I think that before the 80s or so, EVERYBODY collaborated in the rape of children–if you were caught, sure you went to jail or the chair, but there was pretty much no mechanism or paradigm in place for what to do with any of these men. It was just covered up and never, ever talked about.
They’re not outlawed because they have some bad apples. They’re outlawed because the goals and tactics of the organizations are criminal.
So, you’re saying these terrorist cells operate independently and are loosely controlled by the foreign leadership? 
Sorry, tom. The devil made me do it. Great post by you.
This is ludicrous. ‘Thinking’ something is true doesn’t make it so. Ever heard of looking for evidence before believing in something? I’m a Catholic. I wasn’t involved. Right there, your ‘theory’ is wrong. :rolleyes:
‘Some’?? 
Um. All of them are ‘bad apples’. The entire body of those organizations are pursuing criminal goals. A really pitiful ‘example’ that proves exactly nothing. Try again.
Criminal law generally (I stress generally) applies to INDIVIDUALS. If Catholic clergy have committed crimes, then it’s the job of the government to individually prosecute them.
Even if we look at examples (and they’re poor examples) like the Mafia and al-Qaida, the members of such organizations are properly dealt with by being individually prosecuted for the crimes they have committed. The government doesn’t ban the Mafia - it would be nearly impossible to do so - they put mobsters in the clink.
The problem you have in calling for the govenrment to “ban” the Catholic church is that 99% of the Roman Catholic Church are laity - the folks in the pews. To ban the Catholic Church, you would have to find a way to brainwash fifty million Americans so that they forget they’re Catholic. If you were to imprison all Catholic clergy (which would be rightly regarded by every civilized nation on earth as a crime against humanity) and threaten to imprison anyone else who took the Holy Orders, the laity would simply appoint new surrogate clergy in the form of deacons or what have you.
I’m fully aware of the problems the Church has had and I think if anything they’ve been understated, but everyone knows that MOST Catholic priests haven’t diddled little boys. The idea of using the state’s force to coerce innocent people into hiding their religious beliefs is disgusting to any decent man or woman; it sounds like Saudi Arabia or the Inquisition.
The government goes after organizations all the time.
Because the Mafia doesn’t operate out in the open. If there were known Mafia buildings and open Mafia bank accounts, the government would take those too. And I do think the comparison is fair; the CC isn’t so far from those organizations; it’s more subtle, not morally superior to them. The Catholic Church, for example, isn’t breaking the law by as far as I know by lying about the “dangers” of condoms in places like Africa, but it’s killed more people than Al Qaeda I’m sure by doing so. In a just world the Catholic church as an institution would have been destroyed or driven underground centuries ago.
Nonsense. The Catholic Church is an organization; you could outlaw it without brainwashing anyone. Confiscate it’s funds, raze it’s buildings, arrest it’s administration.
But it wouldn’t be the same organization, even if they call themselves the same. Nor have I suggested going that far; just go after the institution. The bishops, the Vatican; the organization’s money. Without an international organization to hide and shield them, the individual criminal priests would be far easier to catch; they wouldn’t be smuggled off to some other country, or be able to pressure the authorities to back off as easily.
Why is it any different than arresting the leadership of a corrupt corporation ? To be blunt, the Catholic Church is a corrupt corporation.
Who said anything about forcing anyone to hide their religious beliefs ? Going after a corrupt, dangerous organization isn’t persecuting people for their religious beliefs. And as far as most priests not raping boys, that’s probably true; but far more cooperated in the cover up than in the actual rapes.
Well, to be fair, it’s not like anyone expects the Spanish Inquisition…
Is there a church policy on whether a priest or other church personnel are allowed to be alone with a minor?
Nobody is talking about outlawing a religion, least of all the OP. The discussion is about going after a group of people. Keeping this firmly in mind is essential. Even if the American branch of the Roman Catholic Church were outlawed, Roman Catholicism would still be perfectly legal.
Saying the Roman Catholic Church is under the control of a foreign country displays the worst kind of ignorance. It also smacks of the anti-Catholic prejudice against JFK when he was running for president.
First: there is a huge difference between national endeavors and religious activities. That the Vatican (or is it the Holy See) is an independent country and a theocracy plays no part in the simple fact that the RCC in the US is a religious enterprise.
Second: The RCC’s policy certainly was not “Let’s go out and have our priests rape as many children as they can.” As noted above, the RCC hierarchy addressed–obviously not very competently–the issue.
Third: There is still the religious confidentiality between confessor and penitent.
Fourth: The OP is positing his conclusion and then essentially asking “Answer with either yes or no: have you stopped beating your wife?” It’s a bogus OP, and prejudice just drips from it.
Really?
I see no qualifiers to this statement in the OP.
Some thought has been given to using the US Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law to obtain criminal indictments of the RCC, anyway.
Andrew Bird started 3 threads about Catholics, and 1 on Christians. Sounds like a theme developing to me. Maybe SDMB could start a separate board to make it easier.
tomndebb: He specifically said “group”, not “religion”. Unless you think he thinks all Catholics were hiding child molestors, the only “group” he can logically be talking about is the Roman Catholic Church. If you think a belief system somehow acted criminally, I have no way to continue this discussion with you.
What I meant, obviously, was that I’m not aware of ANY organization or segment of society–teachers, doctors, scoutmasters, etc.–that dealt in a way that we would consider ‘enlightened’ by our current standards, which from my informal survey of the laws don’t seem to have been set in great detail until the mid-80s and varied a great deal from state to state. There were people a kid avoided, we all had them, and very occasionally they were priests. But usually they were creepy shopkeepers, or weird neighbors, or teachers, or most often somebody’s dad. Picking on priests just because they were part of a large organization–one that is based on redemption and believed, along with most of the medical minds of the time, that such urges could be cured if a man was removed from his ‘temptations’ and was ‘treated’ by a doctor, and then, if deemed ready, was able to resume his duties, doesn’t seem fair.
The only child molestor I’m aware of from literature is the one in A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN, who is also a child murderer and grabs Francie (she breaks free, unharmed, and the man is last seen being set upon by angry mothers who kick him nearly to death before he is arrested).
Speaking of mothers, it is their boyfriends that really seem to be dangerous for kids. In such books as Adrian Nicole LeBlanc’s Random Families, it is reported that the sexual abuse of young girls (usually) by the new men in their mother’s lives is regarded as almost inevitable. If you simply must interfere in people’s lives in service of a greater good, I think you’d be much better off passing laws that say that any single woman with children under 15 or so in the house may not remarry or let an unrelated man move in.
That’d be a lot easier than trying to outlaw the world’s largest single Christian denomination that’s ten times older than America, and probably just about as easy to enforce. 
Hey, the Catholic Church is at least honest about their pedophilia. Listen, every few years there’s this week-long celebration called World Youth Day. It’s held in a gigantic field with loud rock music and glowsticks at night. Lots of sweaty young men. What do you think happens in this “holy time” ? I’ve been to one before and I’m STILL sore.
Seriously though, the answer to your question is no. If you dont know why by now, then you’re not a good reader.