Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
All of those are bad things, yes. But I don't agree that they amount to "continuing the abuse". There is an enormous difference - worlds apart - between the abuse that was committed and the things that are being done now to fail to acknowledge or deal with it. Those can't be conflated, the one is not a continuation of the other.
I certainly understand how upsetting it is that the Church isn't releasing information or paying what they should be paying in restitution, or that their past apologies for this conduct aren't satisfying, but a) that isn't in any way comparable to the crimes it actually committed, and b) in my view, at least, is nowhere near enough to justify going around vandalizing and burning churches.
The argument about whether I'm right about "b)" is probably academic anyway. Let's face it, people aren't really vandalizing and burning churches to try to spur some action by the Church itself. They're just angry, and want to express that anger by doing some damage to the entity that's making them angry. It's not really complicated. It's understandable, as you've said - human beings do this stuff. But it's not reasonably defensible.
|
I dunno, a lot of stuff I have read and listened to recently sure sounds like they feel tormented by the Church's refusal to step up. Imagine, if the Church stepped up and took responsibility, released documents, worked with the Indigenous community to find graves, even punish those who may still be alive and responsible. What if they donated some of their funds to Indigenous causes, and supported them in anyway they could? They have no shortage of money to be used for good in this world, right? Would that not be a major benefit?
Would that not help relive some of the mental anguish? The point is they can do many things that would make a difference, but have chosen not too.