No more crackers and sacramental drink for Biden.

[metis]

So is it the perfect representation of god or is it a flawed and criticizable organization? It can't be both.

It is an imperfect organization as it was imperfect to begin with, as even some of the Apostles had to be reprimanded by Jesus. No matter which organization one may belong to, there are always going to be some who don't "walk-the-walk". And Jesus was quite realistic in calling out flaws but also willing to forgive.

 

[metis]

The Church has always prioritized the right to life.

True, but "right to life" is not just about the issue of abortion, but so many on the right only see it that way, including I fellow I just corresponded with yesterday on Fb.

 

[metis]

of course not

is that why, during the dark ages, anyone who disagreed with their sole arbiterness, were labeled as ‘heretics’ , and ended up dying a painful tortured death?

just wondering

Absolutely, which is why I never could have belonged to the pre-Vatican II Church. Not that what I say next justifies this in any way, but we weren't the only denomination that should have publicly confessed the sins of our past. At least the CC has and has made significant changes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're mixing politics (abuse accusations) and religion (sacraments, mass, and apostolic sussession) of the church.

In what way? I've not mentioned the religious practices of the church, just specifically support of it. Presumably, it is not outside of the realm of possibility for somebody to still engage with the religious tenets and practices of Catholicism without necessarily supporting or belonging to the organized Catholic church as it currently exists.

Also, how are abuse accusations political? And they're not just accusations. In many cases, the church itself has admitted to it.

Murders? I haven't heard that claim before in 2021.

I'm referring mainly to the historic deaths of children in Catholic orphanages and the sick left to die in numerous Catholic-run care centres.

What do you think would happen to the people-their homes, no food, or anything-if the church just disappeared because people hate some of its higher ups?

Firstly, it wouldn't disappear. If the Catholic church no longer existed, it's vast, vast stores of wealth would go into public hands, and be put to use continuing to fund the church's charitable endeavours, which it would be able to do for centuries.

Secondly, I don't think this is a very reasonable argument. If I ran a criminal enterprise, but I also used some funds from this enterprise to support shelters and charities, I don't think it would be a reasonable thing to say that my criminal business shouldn't be shut down because of my charity work.

Thirdly, I don't actually support the total elimination of the church. I support a total restructuring of it, coupled with making it far more transparent and opening it up to numerous police investigations. I simply think that it is morally unjustified to continue to work for and support the church in its current form and with its history that it has yet to be held fully accountable for.

Sometimes I think it's because it's the church and not an old-ball organization.

I would never call anyone or anything for that matter evil.

I would call raping children and covering it up pretty evil. I have no issue with that.

I'd have to see some document or something that says something like that actually. I don't trust media.

You don't trust... ANY media?

Yes, the guilty should be held accountable. I hope pope francis can fix the problem. Maybe a said apology or something or other so it won't reprimand the nature of the church and why people are actually a part of the church.

But people only belong to the church under the false pretense that it is a moral institution. These historic abuses prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is not, and is in need of serious reform.

I wonder why the church has so much attention when there are many other denominations that have similar problems.

Because the Catholic church is the most powerful religious organization on the planet, and the extent and reach of their wrongdoing is currently unequalled by any other denomination.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I don't believe so with the second. How I'm hearing it it sounds like you want to through thousands of priests in jail cause if it. I'm not sure how pope Francis is handling it or if it was already addressed but I do feel sorry for the guy if he did walk in the middle of all of it.

I think you are projecting some energy on me that I didn't bring here if that is the case. And if not please show me where in our exchange that gave you this impression.

What can priests and practitioners do to politically and maybe legally address the problem?

Maybe when the priest becomes a bishop he's have some influence.

I think most Catholics focus on Christ and sacraments. I'm quite sure if they found their home priest molested a child they'd send theyr child to another priest not drop the church.

Maybe those handful of priest just need to go to confession, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they were excummunicated for it.

Criticize it for one. Though it is against their religion to do that. So its a bit of a catch 22. So thats why I can can make sweeping claims about Catholicism but I won't about Susan who happens to be a Catholic.

Is there a non media influenced document that shows the Catholic coverup?

So far I only read from the media. People follow them as if they were Christ himself.

So...is there a piece of media that isn't media or influenced by media only its media itself? What? If there is published news that already makes it media.

 

[Friend of Mara]

It is an imperfect organization as it was imperfect to begin with, as even some of the Apostles had to be reprimanded by Jesus. No matter which organization one may belong to, there are always going to be some who don't "walk-the-walk". And Jesus was quite realistic in calling out flaws but also willing to forgive.

Then why do they have the authority of god as if they are infallible? Why are they so angry when someone who isn't Jesus makes legitimate criticism?

 

[metis]

Then why do they have the authority of god as if they are infallible?

The Church is not infallible, nor has it ever taught that it is infallible. Even the issue of "papal infallibility" has sharp limitations and is rarely used.

Why are they so angry when someone who isn't Jesus makes legitimate criticism?

Who's the "they"? Also, maybe check out my post #63.

 

[Friend of Mara]

The Church is not infallible, nor has it ever taught that it is infallible. Even the issue of "papal infallibility" has sharp limitations and is rarely used..

Then I would supposed we are in agreement of levied criticisms.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you are projecting some energy on me that I didn't bring here if that is the case. And if not please show me where in our exchange that gave you this impression.

Oh. If all the priest are guilty for a handful of priests and upper management crimes, we mind as well throw them all in prison. If all the priests were guilty because they were in cahoots for covering up crimes, where else would or should they go?

Criticize it for one. Though it is against their religion to do that. So its a bit of a catch 22. So thats why I can can make sweeping claims about Catholicism but I won't about Susan who happens to be a Catholic.

John could be a priest and a catholic just as Susan but people blame John because he is a priest.

It's a double standard. Why blame one and not the other?

So...is there a piece of media that isn't media or influenced by media only its media itself? What? If there is published news that already makes it media.

For example, if the new pope apologized for the misdeeds of the church events, that's one. Maybe an interview or something other than media-because they do try to "get a story."

People already dislike the church, so it's easy to grab on too--especially with these headlines.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Absolutely, which is why I never could have belonged to the pre-Vatican II Church. Not that what I say next justifies this in any way, but we weren't the only denomination that should have publicly confessed the sins of our past. At least the CC has and has made significant changes.

what you say is definitely something worth respecting

though, it does open up another question I hadn’t thought of before

we probably agree that God never changes?
so if religions change over time, were they wrong before, wrong now, or wrong all the time, or wrong never, or?

and if religions are wrong, why belong to them?

hey, I like asking questions, as you probably figured out

please don’t take them seriously, or get offended
no offense intended ever

just curious about stuff

i know, curiosity killed the cat

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In what way? I've not mentioned the religious practices of the church, just specifically support of it. Presumably, it is not outside of the realm of possibility for somebody to still engage with the religious tenets and practices of Catholicism without necessarily supporting or belonging to the organized Catholic church as it currently exists.

Also, how are abuse accusations political? And they're not just accusations. In many cases, the church itself has admitted to it.

They are political because Church doctrine does not support the accusations. Its political in nature.

Firstly, it wouldn't disappear. If the Catholic church no longer existed, it's vast, vast stores of wealth would go into public hands, and be put to use continuing to fund the church's charitable endeavours, which it would be able to do for centuries.

What organization has so much money that it can support such a thing outside the church?

Secondly, I don't think this is a very reasonable argument. If I ran a criminal enterprise, but I also used some funds from this enterprise to support shelters and charities, I don't think it would be a reasonable thing to say that my criminal business shouldn't be shut down because of my charity work.

I don't see it as a criminal organization. Is there something formal that says the church covered all this up-maybe an apology from the pope?

Thirdly, I don't actually support the total elimination of the church. I support a total restructuring of it, coupled with making it far more transparent and opening it up to numerous police investigations. I simply think that it is morally unjustified to continue to work for and support the church in its current form and with its history that it has yet to be held fully accountable for.

Reconstruction, I agree. I rather have that then closing down a religious organization because of some of its higherups. The problem is not all parishes are guilty.

The problem I have is generalization and blaming. I wish there was some reconstruction of the church but I'd have to assess the problem more than what media tells me.

I would call raping children and covering it up pretty evil. I have no issue with that.

Shrugs. I call the behavior evil (just as any other murder regardless the person's age, sex, looks, etc) if to use the word. Not the person though.

You don't trust... ANY media?

Not those with wildheadlines and one-sided. Some media the reporters actually take sides (like Trump thing) and reporting should be neutral.

Interviews and things like that I think it's harder to exaggerate stories. I think this has more to do with it being the church involvement not the rapes itself.

But people only belong to the church under the false pretense that it is a moral institution. These historic abuses prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is not, and is in need of serious reform.

They belong to the church cause of the sacraments and doctrine.

Because the Catholic church is the most powerful religious organization on the planet, and the extent and reach of their wrongdoing is currently unequalled by any other denomination.

I think that's why it has so much attention. Any other organization, media would blow over it in less than a month and people would forget about it no near longer than that.

That and if it was just a murder of an adult, people wouldn't pay too much mind to it. Since it's rape and children, that's another issue right there.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Oh. If all the priest are guilty for a handful of priests and upper management crimes, we mind as well throw them all in prison. If all the priests were guilty because they were in cahoots for covering up crimes, where else would or should they go?

I said they were in cahoots because they are part of the same organization. To go against the organization means to be excommunicated. Am I wrong? If a priest knew of abuse and didn't report it they are as guilty as the person who did it. If they knew nothing then they are not implicated. But if they scorn dissent against the church all the same I have questions for their judgement but wouldn't have them thrown in prison.

John could be a priest and a catholic just as Susan but people blame John because he is a priest.

It's a double standard. Why blame one and not the other?

One is in a position of power while the other is a follower. Though I don't advocate for throwing all priests in jail which is an absurd claim.

For example, if the new pope apologized for the misdeeds of the church events, that's one. Maybe an interview or something other than media-because they do try to "get a story."

People already dislike the church, so it's easy to grab on too--especially with these headlines.

So you mean media you agree with. Got it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They are political because Church doctrine does not support the accusations. Its political in nature.

How does that work? Anything that isn't doctrine is political?

What organization has so much money that it can support such a thing outside the church?

This seems like an odd question to ask when I just said we could still use the church's money to support them.

I don't see it as a criminal organization. Is there something formal that says the church covered all this up-maybe an apology from the pope?

There is a lot of investigative journalism out there. The church has officially apologized for many scandals, but many of the pope's apologies steer clear of actually implicating the Church in coverups.

Reconstruction, I agree. I rather have that then closing down a religious organization because of some of its higherups. The problem is not all parishes are guilty.

Again, I think this attitude is overly simplistic. It was not just "some of its higher ups", it was institutional. Not every individual or parish within the Church is culpable, but every individual or parish who would continue to support the institute of the Church is at the very least partially responsible for the impugnity that allowed them to get away with it.

The problem I have is generalization and blaming. I wish there was some reconstruction of the church but I'd have to assess the problem more than what media tells me.

History shows that the Church isn't going to reform itself if it doesn't have to. I strongly suggest you get over your issues with the media and read some investigative reporting on the church.

Shrugs. I call the behavior evil (just as any other murder regardless the person's age, sex, looks, etc) if to use the word. Not the person though.

I would agree with this.

Not those with wildheadlines and one-sided. Some media the reporters actually take sides (like Trump thing) and reporting should be neutral.

Is it reasonable to be "neutral" when you're covering a story about children being raped and an institution that is supposed to be the highest moral authority on earth protecting their rapists? I think it's fairly okay to take the "anti protecting paedophiles" side.

They belong to the church cause of the sacraments and doctrine.

No, they belong to the church on the promise and indoctrination that it is the on true moral authority on earth. I have never met a Catholic who chose to be one out of love for the doctrine and sacrements. By and large, they are Catholic because they had no choice and were simply raised in a Catholic family or in a strongly Catholic community. Catholicism is one of the mosy psychologically manipulative religions out there. I even have friends who are lapsed Catholics but still feel tremendous pangs of psychological guilt over such things as wanting to sleep with somebody, or using contraception. Coercion is a huge part of Catholicisms success.

I think that's why it has so much attention. Any other organization, media would blow over it in less than a month and people would forget about it no near longer than that.

I'm pretty sure that if the same extent of wrongdoing were tied to any other organization, that would not be the case. In fact, I'm willing to bet that, in some cases, it would actually be far MORE widely reported. The Catholic church still has tremendous media influence, and there is still a huge movement to prevent information about the churches wrongdoing from being disseminated. There are many, many people who don't know about the mass child graves in Ireland, or the massive number of AIDS deaths in Africa. In fact, I often see these things downplayed in media.

That and if it was just a murder of an adult, people wouldn't pay too much mind to it. Since it's rape and children, that's another issue right there.

Well... yeah. Because raping children is just about the worst thing you can do. So when an organization that is supposed to be the highest moral authority on earth not only has members in its order who do it, but actively PROTECTS THOSE MEMBERS FROM PROSECUTION and ALLOWS THEM TO CONTINUE RAPING CHILDREN, it's a pretty bad look.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I said they were in cahoots because they are part of the same organization. To go against the organization means to be excommunicated. Am I wrong? If a priest knew of abuse and didn't report it they are as guilty as the person who did it. If they knew nothing then they are not implicated. But if they scorn dissent against the church all the same I have questions for their judgement but wouldn't have them thrown in prison.

But all priests?

I'd only excommunicate the guilty ones. I don't know all the criteria for excommunication though.

One is in a position of power while the other is a follower. Though I don't advocate for throwing all priests in jail which is an absurd claim.

Thank goodness. Though, I know a lot of people won't take their child to the priest in, say, NY because some priests in, I don't know, Italy abused children. That and thinking that if the one in NY did, the Church as a whole will cover it up. Which the connection is weird.

So you mean media you agree with. Got it.

No? Media as in say presidential speeches. I don't watch things like FOX, NBC, or anything especially when it sounds like coercion and push-push-push. Which means I don't watch enough media to agree with any of it.

99% of the time I watch it when I do for five minutes and look at something else. Unless its say our mayor telling us what the next step our state is doing with COVID pandemic or a presidential debate (aka anything live and not clipped).... which is different than seeing FOX news talking about convincing people to get the vaccine. One is educational, the other I just cut it off and do something else.

Kinda see the difference in interest?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I said they were in cahoots because they are part of the same organization. To go against the organization means to be excommunicated. Am I wrong? If a priest knew of abuse and didn't report it they are as guilty as the person who did it. If they knew nothing then they are not implicated. But if they scorn dissent against the church all the same I have questions for their judgement but wouldn't have them thrown in prison.


One is in a position of power while the other is a follower. Though I don't advocate for throwing all priests in jail which is an absurd claim.



So you mean media you agree with. Got it.

How should a Catholic act before bad Popes? Plinio Corrrea de Oliveira

I'm assuming majority of Catholics (as said) do not focus on the politics of the church (some may keep themselves updated-but that doesn't make them leave catholicism).

"The Popes are infallible only when they teach a doctrine ex cathedra, when they officially invoke their prerogative of infallibility over that doctrine. In such a case, one cannot disagree with it."

So, again, most catholics are following the Church in its dogma and sacraments. Anything popes do outside of ex cathedra, they probably put on the backburner in regards to spiritual influence... which would make it sad if they left the church because of the abuse but not so much unless they leave their faith altogether.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I try to put things in my own experience and perspective to get a gist of things. I don't like generalizing cause there are so many people in the world that I bit my tongue when I do.

How does that work? Anything that isn't doctrine is political?

Taking and/or giving the sacraments to a Catholic isn't political.

Have you every practiced doctrine-in your heart-without influence of the outside world and their opinions in your devotions?

This seems like an odd question to ask when I just said we could still use the church's money to support them.

I go from top to bottom when I answer posts. So, whatever you answered later in the post I wouldn't have seen it yet.

Though, I do wonder how and what organization will pick up the slack if the Church is gone all of the sudden. The catholic church isn't the only organization that has people who sin in it.

There is a lot of investigative journalism out there. The church has officially apologized for many scandals, but many of the pope's apologies steer clear of actually implicating the Church in coverups.

It's good that the church is officially apologizing for many scandals. It's a good start.

What other place I can go to learn about the coverups beyond what I read on the media?

News Stations seem to be pretty bias-you can tell who likes who when they do the reporting.

Again, I think this attitude is overly simplistic. It was not just "some of its higher ups", it was institutional. Not every individual or parish within the Church is culpable, but every individual or parish who would continue to support the institute of the Church is at the very least partially responsible for the impugnity that allowed them to get away with it.

I would genuinely need to look more into it than what I read from media which is near impossible. I can only comment on the behavior but coverups? Even using that word sends a red flag that there's got to be more to the story than blaming the church on that alone.

History shows that the Church isn't going to reform itself if it doesn't have to. I strongly suggest you get over your issues with the media and read some investigative reporting on the church.

That's a fallacy. Appeal to tradition.

We never know. Probably not in our life time.

I don't watch media unless it's updating myself for COVID or something important; so this opinion is only for this conversation nothing more.

I would agree with this.

Is it reasonable to be "neutral" when you're covering a story about children being raped and an institution that is supposed to be the highest moral authority on earth protecting their rapists? I think it's fairly okay to take the "anti protecting paedophiles" side.

It depends on how the reporters tell it. I'm not saying the media is lying about the accusations itself just when they start saying coverups, and all of that, that sounds like getting audience attention for more views.

Has the church done anything else recently that had nothing to do with rape and children that gets the same attention?

No, they belong to the church on the promise and indoctrination that it is the on true moral authority on earth. I have never met a Catholic who chose to be one out of love for the doctrine and sacrements. By and large, they are Catholic because they had no choice and were simply raised in a Catholic family or in a strongly Catholic community. Catholicism is one of the mosy psychologically manipulative religions out there. I even have friends who are lapsed Catholics but still feel tremendous pangs of psychological guilt over such things as wanting to sleep with somebody, or using contraception. Coercion is a huge part of Catholicisms success.

I have. I went to a more liberal church, though. We had bible studies and people can talk about their faith and other topics.

Maybe you mean cradle catholics?

Christianity has that psychological guilt in general-my thing is, the catholic church is not special in regards to christianity being a guilt-oriented religion. I see a lot of beauty in people's devotion to the church but that's different than how I feel about it politically. I'd have to have more information before blaming an religious organization.

In other words, I don't have bad experiences with the church and christianity and don't like generalizing people negatively, so it makes it hard for me anything bad about people just because of their religious affiliation. Maybe those who had bad experiences in the church and/or dislike dogma have a bone to pick with the church-and seeing crimes within it kinda confirms that bias.

I'm pretty sure that if the same extent of wrongdoing were tied to any other organization, that would not be the case. In fact, I'm willing to bet that, in some cases, it would actually be far MORE widely reported. The Catholic church still has tremendous media influence, and there is still a huge movement to prevent information about the churches wrongdoing from being disseminated. There are many, many people who don't know about the mass child graves in Ireland, or the massive number of AIDS deaths in Africa. In fact, I often see these things downplayed in media.

Yeah. Media does downplay and "upplay" a lot. That's one main reason why I don't give it no nevermind.

Even without this mess, people would still have something to pick with with the catholic church. Main reason why we left to be protestants because of it.

Well... yeah. Because raping children is just about the worst thing you can do. So when an organization that is supposed to be the highest moral authority on earth not only has members in its order who do it, but actively PROTECTS THOSE MEMBERS FROM PROSECUTION and ALLOWS THEM TO CONTINUE RAPING CHILDREN, it's a pretty bad look.

You don't have to caps (hurts my eyes anyhow).

I personally don't see raping a child different than raping an adult. Both are "evil."

But I do bet that if the church coverup crimes that have to do with male, white, adults, it would have blown over.

 

[Friend of Mara]

But all priests?

I'd only excommunicate the guilty ones. I don't know all the criteria for excommunication though.

If you knew and didn't make an effort to stop it or especially in any way went to cover it up it makes you guilty.

Thank goodness. Though, I know a lot of people won't take their child to the priest in, say, NY because some priests in, I don't know, Italy abused children. That and thinking that if the one in NY did, the Church as a whole will cover it up. Which the connection is weird.

The secrecy and broadness of the sexual abuse scandals make it difficult to know where it wasn't taking place. The church probably needs to do more to regain the trust of the people. I mean it went all the way up to bishops who would shuffle the priests around knowing what they had done in order to avoid the law. I'm not saying you should assume a priest is a pedophile. It was still a small number and even as bad as it was the more concerning thing was that the church put its own reputation ahead of its integrity.

No? Media as in say presidential speeches. I don't watch things like FOX, NBC, or anything especially when it sounds like coercion and push-push-push. Which means I don't watch enough media to agree with any of it.

99% of the time I watch it when I do for five minutes and look at something else. Unless its say our mayor telling us what the next step our state is doing with COVID pandemic or a presidential debate (aka anything live and not clipped).... which is different than seeing FOX news talking about convincing people to get the vaccine. One is educational, the other I just cut it off and do something else.

Kinda see the difference in interest?

What about journalism in general?

 

[Friend of Mara]

How should a Catholic act before bad Popes? Plinio Corrrea de Oliveira

I'm assuming majority of Catholics (as said) do not focus on the politics of the church (some may keep themselves updated-but that doesn't make them leave catholicism).

"The Popes are infallible only when they teach a doctrine ex cathedra, when they officially invoke their prerogative of infallibility over that doctrine. In such a case, one cannot disagree with it."

So, again, most catholics are following the Church in its dogma and sacraments. Anything popes do outside of ex cathedra, they probably put on the backburner in regards to spiritual influence... which would make it sad if they left the church because of the abuse but not so much unless they leave their faith altogether.

Which means that the Church itself can be the target of criticism. Good to know.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you knew and didn't make an effort to stop it or especially in any way went to cover it up it makes you guilty.

Yes. Though priests take oaths to the sacraments so their focus is on christ. If I made that oath "to christ" and the church let me fulfill that oath, I would be hard-pressed for the political part of the church influence the "ex cathedra" part of the church.

I wouldn't know how to address it, though. I'd have to form a fact based opinion on evidence of whether or not the church is at fault for coverup or its just the nature of the crime as it being the church that has more precedent. That, and the (US) law can only do but so much in religious affiliation.... so its too vague for me to take a side against the church just the behaviors of its priest and yes, past history.

The secrecy and broadness of the sexual abuse scandals make it difficult to know where it wasn't taking place. The church probably needs to do more to regain the trust of the people. I mean it went all the way up to bishops who would shuffle the priests around knowing what they had done in order to avoid the law. I'm not saying you should assume a priest is a pedophile. It was still a small number and even as bad as it was the more concerning thing was that the church put its own reputation ahead of its integrity.

If it's a secret, then we're just assuming what "could" be but we don't know.

What came to mind was thinking that the individual parishes in which these events happened, the bishop or whomever overseas that parish may have covered it up and the church is embarrassed and that's probably why they don't speak of it. So, instead of covering up, maybe they don't want to own up to their embarrassment. People have been blaming the church for years.

With that said, that's the only way I can think of it just now to gain people's trust both practitioners and those who respect the church is to own up to the events not be blamed for them.

Kind of like a child of nine who goes off and kills someone and the parents are too embarrassed to tell their friends even when that child is no longer living in the household. I think that's different than blaming the parents for a bad household and blaming the siblings because of the relationship.

But, yeah. There are many who won't take their child to any priest any where in the world because of it.

What about journalism in general?

I've never been a fan. Most my childhood was in hospitals or schools and other child stuff outside more than in front the television. As an adult, though, I just watch it when I need to. I don't have a television, so I catch live news on YouTube if it's relevant-like the COVID thing. Mostly, no.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Yes. Though priests take oaths to the sacraments so their focus is on christ. If I made that oath "to christ" and the church let me fulfill that oath, I would be hard-pressed for the political part of the church influence the "ex cathedra" part of the church.

I wouldn't know how to address it, though. I'd have to form a fact based opinion on evidence of whether or not the church is at fault for coverup or its just the nature of the crime as it being the church that has more precedent. That, and the (US) law can only do but so much in religious affiliation.... so its too vague for me to take a side against the church just the behaviors of its priest and yes, past history.

If your oath to god has you do objectively bad things then you have not made an oath to a loving god.

I'm not even saying burn the church down or anything. But I lay out the criticisms as I see them.

If it's a secret, then we're just assuming what "could" be but we don't know.

What came to mind was thinking that the individual parishes in which these events happened, the bishop or whomever overseas that parish may have covered it up and the church is embarrassed and that's probably why they don't speak of it. So, instead of covering up, maybe they don't want to own up to their embarrassment. People have been blaming the church for years.

With that said, that's the only way I can think of it just now to gain people's trust both practitioners and those who respect the church is to own up to the events not be blamed for them.

Kind of like a child of nine who goes off and kills someone and the parents are too embarrassed to tell their friends even when that child is no longer living in the household. I think that's different than blaming the parents for a bad household and blaming the siblings because of the relationship.

But, yeah. There are many who won't take their child to any priest any where in the world because of it.

Sure. But we will hold adults who do bad things to adult standards. A priest who is a grown man who does something isn't just akin to a kid. Even if there is a leadership aspect they aren't a "parent" to a "disobedient child". But I get where you are coming from. I also don't have an answer to how to improve the image of the church. I'm also not concerned with that.

I've never been a fan. Most my childhood was in hospitals or schools and other child stuff outside more than in front the television. As an adult, though, I just watch it when I need to. I don't have a television, so I catch live news on YouTube if it's relevant-like the COVID thing. Mostly, no.

If you are not a fan of journalism then I don't know what to tell you. Standards are always good to have with what news you intake and I will agree that today's cable news networks and buzzfeed style articles are far from pure truth. However being informed by trusted sources are incredibly important.

And just a side note since we are getting off track with this tangent. Televised news networks don't do the actual research themselves. They just report on it. The journalists on the ground are usually very hardworking people where credibility is everything. A journalist that peddles fake news won't ever get hired again. In some countries its even illegal to do so.