[pugsville]

That comparison does not hold. When people travel on an airplane, there is an assumed obligation.

I think you would need to prove and get into specifics about whether a similar assumed obligation existed with priests.

There is also the logical fallacy of argument of extremes. Sometimes there can be a little bit of truth in a certain perspective, but one situation is very different from another one. It is like a continuum.

There are similarities between the two situations, yes, but they are also not the same. Your idea of liability might theoretically hold a little bit, but does not hold nearly as much as it does in the other situation.

The Catholic church employed known pedophiles in position of trust in the community and actively suppressed information, and sought to avoid actual criminal investigations.

The Catholic church knew more children would be abused by these priests but chose to cover up their crimes, continue to employ them, foisting known offenders on unsuspecting communities.

I think most congregation assume that church is not going to place own pedophiles as priests. I think there *IS* an assumed obligation. And there should be a legal one. A School or sporting club would be criminally liable. Teh church should be too. It's just the power and wealth of the church that prevents it being held accountable in the normal way,

If an organization employs known pedophiles, just moves them to different parts of the organization knowing they will offend, covers up their crimes and seeks to avoid any actual investigation. It should be criminal liable.

When people are employed in positions of trust, teachers, priests, youth group leadership the idea that the employing organization can ignore child abuse, cover up crimes, and avoid investigation is somehow fine and legal behavior is pretty poor standard.

[pugsville]

None of that is entirely true.

The Church had suspicions, yes, or accusations, but it did not know for absolute certain.

Any of those accusations made by victims could have easily been given to police.

You have to more precisely define "cover up". You can NOT claim that merely "covering it up" means they should be liable. You will have to get more specific.

"Positions of trust" is also kind of vague. The question is did those positions have implied responsibility.

None of what you say is really logical, in the strictest sense.

No it's entirely true.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are engaging in an overgeneralization fallacy (a logical fallacy). You are not differentiating between the active and passive forms of "hiding".

Not reporting something you are suspicious of, totally should not make you liable for that crime.

You are defending the Church, which did the active form of hiding sexual abusers.

And since you are defending that, it is worth pointing that out.

[Scamp]

Can you imagine a religion that has their leaders abstain from sex with women.
But little boys are OK to have sex with.
What a bunch of sick fucks.

[Puffer Fish]

The Catholic church employed known pedophiles in position of trust

What it comes down to is you believe the employer should be held responsible because the employer did not remove an employee from a position based on suspicion.

I do NOT believe it is so clear that the employer should be held financially responsible.

I think the Left does have a tendency to be too enthusiastic about looking for any excuse to take money from big employers or large organisations, or believing they are the ones who should be held responsible and liable for things.

If you believe there should be punishment for not reporting strong suspicions of a crime, then why not advocate punishment to the specific people involved? Why are you trying to make this about money?

[pugsville]

What it comes down to is you believe the employer should be held responsible because the employer did not remove an employee from a position based on suspicion.

I do NOT believe it is so clear that the employer should be held financially responsible.

I think the Left does have a tendency to be too enthusiastic about looking for any excuse to take money from big employers or large organisations, or believing they are the ones who should be held responsible and liable for things.

If you believe there should be punishment for not reporting strong suspicions of a crime, then why not advocate punishment to the specific people involved? Why are you trying to make this about money?

It was not suspicion,. They knew.

Oh All of them should be in jail;. Every lats bishop and church official who covered this up, I *DO* advocate punishment against specific individuals involvement,


YOU made it about money in the thread OP.