Immortalist wrote:
Nosterill wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
Yep, that vaunted Christian morality
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-06/06-25-06/01topstories.htm
Mr. Walsh has listed at the top of his accomplishments the successful
prosecution of pedophile priest James Porter in 1993. It was the first
case in the nation that began unraveling decades of the Catholic
Church's cover-up of clergy sexual abuse.
If we compare this supposed cover-up with other social and corporate
cover-ups, what distinguishing mark makes this one special?
The monstrous hypocrisy is the main difference. Corporations are there
to make profit and the kind of people who rise to the top are driven -
so the occasional excursion beyond the legal bounds of accounting is
almost to be expected. The celibacy of the priesthood and generally
strict sexual morality are cornerstones of the catholic doctrine, so
they aren't covering up for going too far - they are covering up for
flying off in the exact opposite direction to all they profess.
But wouldn't you say that in most all cases of "cover ups" that there
must be some differences and similarities at the same time? You seem to
point out only to the differences.
You asked for a distinguishing mark: I think I've given it. Any
corporate boss would happily tell you that he's there to make profit,
but he would cover up the fact that he's overstepped the boundaries of
legallity. The analogy to this would be a priest admitting that he
enjoys sex with young adults but covering up the fact that some of them
are under the age of consent.
So, I have to repeat that it's the hypocrisy that distinguishes the
case.
.
