What you see in the "souls of man" is not there. You are imagining things. The real issue of disagreement the blaming of innocent people, and the actions taken against innocent people.
Is that what you think it is? That in itself is curious because people have explained their point of disagreement, and that is NOT my point of disagreement.
The disagreement is whether you can elevate people to positions of leadership, and support their continued elevation, while being unconnected to their crimes. It is about whether to can hang out regularly in a Nazi bar, filled with nazi sympathysers, and still claim to not be one yourself. It is about whether you can give money to the coffers of those who commit heinous crimes, and claim to be innocent. It is about whether you can learn of the heinous crimes supported by your money, your time, your membership, and then say, “it wasn’t me.” It is about whether you can work to support a structure that gives power to these criminals and then say their power does not depend on you.
The disagreement is about WHETHER they are innocent people.
You seem to be claiming that point is settled. It is not.
The kidnapping and murder of children is a heinous crime, but no one defends it here; no disagreement is involved.
Indeed there is disagreement. About how closely you can socialize and conspire with the doers of heinous crime, and still avoid all culpability, legally and morally.
Martin Luther King Jr. said:
For evil to succeed, all it needs is for good men to do nothing.
Martin Luther King Jr. said:
“First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
The crimes of organizations, whether it is a mob, a corporation, a religion, a “sun down town,” or the Catholic church, the ongoing crimes of these organizations
depend upon the power of organization to be repeated decade after decade.
The thousands of rape cases against priests, who used the social and legal power of the church to avoid detection and to moe to a new place and victimize new people,
required that power to get away with it. That power came from the parishioners. That
ability to to continue was built by the voluntary contributions of money and membership that made the church big enough to be used for evil. Many of those leaders are still in place, and the people who give them
legitimacy are the parishioners.
The crimes of the residential schools relied upon the name, history and power of the catholic church. When the indigenous people complained, the everyday parishioners stood silent. Or even defended their institution - the institution that protected the heinous criminals. People who
murdered children.. This news is not new. They have been telling us for decades. Decades. And each member of that religion has continued to let their leaders do it. They have not called for the actions to find the bodies of the dead. They are culpable for that. They never called for the closing of the schools run in their name. They are guilty of that. They have not even acknowledged the crimes. They are guilty of that.
You continue to argue that giving them money does not contribute to the crime. You continue to argue that being a member, and allowing them to say, “we have a billion members to give us power” does not contribute ot the cover up.
Ask yourself WHY are these crimes still uncovered? WHO is responsible for the wall of silence? They are guilty.
Every word you write is an argument that this should be shrugged off because you don’t think anyone should be made to look for more recent murders. No one should be able to force the church to check they back yards for bodies. “Hey, you have to give me an actual murderer before anyone is culpable. And without that, we sweep it under the rug…
still.
I keep reading what you write and while you say, “someone did something heinous,” you follow it up by saying, but they are probably dead and since no one else is responsible, you people are wrong to force the Catholic Church to be treated as a suspect.
A landlord owns a thousand proprties, the first two have bodies in them. But we can’t claim the superintendant should be arrested because…. They succeeded in distancing themselves. “Nice tribe you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.” But, who, me? I didn’t do anything worong.
It’s really really disturbing how little you have cared to discuss what should be done
about the thousands of murdered children who are still missing, and the RCC who refuses to look for them. And you say, “Yeah, I agree they shouldn’t have to look. I have all these little explanations for why they are not culpable, if you hold it just so and shine a blacklight on it from a 20 degree angle at sunset.”
I find your energy in making sure no one is examined to be very disturbing.
