Organizational Responsibility

[Timminz]

What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The situation is quite different with governmental organizations. I guess they could leave the country. Better yet, try to get a third party candidate elected. Not just vote for them, but give their campaigns your time and money. You should have extra of both after you disown the Catholic church.

I think you can be Catholic and disagree with the church, some of its officials and even the Pope. The most immediate example that comes to mind is Francis of Assissi.

Not that I'm a Catholic myself, even a lapsed one, but I can see how disagreeing with officials and their actions could make one angry without leading to a break from what one believes wholeheartedly to be the only way into heaven.

And please, disgruntled Catholics, don't split from the Church and set up yet another Christian sect for us to argue with!

Assuming Catholicism is the way to heaven implies that the Catholic God is real. If that's the case then the organization that is the one true path is being run by pedophiles an those who defend and protect them. If believers are so certain, then shouldn't they be partaking in, or at least forgiving pedophilia? I mean, God condones it, right?

[PLAYER57832]

So the question has come up in two forms. How much blame or responsibility should members of an organization have for the activities of that organization or the leaders of the organization? This has come up in the context of two items:

(1) The Catholic Church and its protection of accused pedophiles and whether parishoners should be responsible for this activity or should carry some of the blame.

The issue here is that the Roman Catholic Church vests a lot of its power in the idea that priests.. and then Bishops and ultimately the Pope are not just more learned people, but actually better people, closer to God than average folk.

In one sense, that means that parishoners have little responsibility for the views of leadership, because they are not truly free to object and debate. Instead, it might point to reasons why they might turn their backs on the church (which many have), but that is a very, very difficult issue. On the other hand, every Christian, even within the Roman Catholic church has not just the right, but the obligation to point out and stand against repeated sinning, evil. There is a process for that, (not getting into that) that differs from in standard society, but it is there. So, basically, parishoners have an obligation to lovingly and Biblically challenge their church to do what is right. However, that does not necessarily mean they have to or should publically condemn the church in any real way.

(note.. I do draw a definite distinction between the response necessary after all this has happened, particularly to the leadership that is guilty of improperly dealig with the events versus anyone who was in a position to directly observe, know and possibly intervene. ANYONE must intervene directly and immediately in any way they can to protect a child.)

(2) The US federal government and its killing of innocent civilians through drone strikes and whether US citizens and/or supporters of the current or two prior administrations should be responsible for this activitiy or should carry some of the blame.

Of course we all share some blame.
Our primary power is in the voting box. The problem is that no one presented has presented any indication they would do things differently.

This is just one example of our broken system. We need to fix the system, rather than just concentrating on the results.

In the immediate, people can write letters of concern, but its of minimal worth.

I think there some factors that go into the assignment of blame or responsibility. I'll list two of them here (off the top of my head, so don't hold it against me if I miss something):

- Relative effect the members have on leadership or the organization itself. Can Catholic parishoners influence the Church? Can citizens of the United States influence the federal government? To what extent can they influence or change the organization or its leaders?

- Consequences to the members of the organization for activities of dissent. What is the consequence to Catholic parishoners if they stop attending mass or stop tithing? What is the consequence to citizens of the United States if they protest or stop paying taxes or vote for someone else?

Stopping paying taxes will do nothing, because taxes go to far too many needed places. It is the worst possible response. In fact, one of the biggest problems I have with the so-called "conservatives" wanting to cut taxes is that they really seem to just want to hamstrung average people, cut average people's voices in various ways to build up their supporters and cronies, not really to make cuts where cuts should be made -- be it reigning in true waste or limiting various types of abuses such as drone strikes against people not legally convicted of anything.

- Does your opinion of the members of a particular organization change if you know that the members have been attempting and continue to attempt to remedy the problem? Do you have less anger towards Catholic parishoners if they make demands of the church? Do you have less contempt for American citizens if they vote for someone who would not use drone strikes or protest the use of drones?

EDIT (forgot one)

I don't hold Roman Catholic parishoners responsible for these actions for the same reasons I am not Roman Catholic. I don't believe the average parishoner's feelings or ideas are given much credence. It is a hieirarhical system. I put the blame on the Popes and on down. The problem is that Popes, Bishops and Priests are just plain human... but that is essentially a heretical thought to most Roman Catholics, particularly traditional Roman Catholics.

We will ALL, however, be held responsible for the actions of our government, becuase we are fundamentally a Republic and even when it is somewhat fictional, put ourselves forward as a thinking and caring society of rules.

[tzor]

I think you can be Catholic and disagree with the church, some of its officials and even the Pope. The most immediate example that comes to mind is Francis of Assisi.

There is a lot of strange myths that grew up around Francis, so he is probably not a good example. Basically there had been several orders approved and the various people in Rome were hesitant of starting yet another one. So resisting bureaucracy is not quite the same as downright disagreement.

A better example would be that young lady (now a saint but I forget her name) who told the Pope to get his (you know what) out of France and back into Rome where he belonged. Now that's a good example of disagreeing with the Pope on a matter not related to faith or morals.

[BigBallinStalin]

So the question has come up in two forms. How much blame or responsibility should members of an organization have for the activities of that organization or the leaders of the organization? This has come up in the context of two items:

(1) The Catholic Church and its protection of accused pedophiles and whether parishoners should be responsible for this activity or should carry some of the blame.

(2) The US federal government and its killing of innocent civilians through drone strikes and whether US citizens and/or supporters of the current or two prior administrations should be responsible for this activity or should carry some of the blame.

I think number one and number two are completely different problems.

If we just consider the specific point in point one and ignore the broader issues, there is a tendency for all organizations to "protect" their own members. Whether this "fraternal protection" is a good or a bad thing depends on the level of the protection. When it crosses the line into a cover up it is clearly a violation in terms of the law. You need a third party to investigate these issues.

The whole pedophile problem is normally linked with the Catholic Church, but in fact the repercussions are everywhere. They include public schools and sporting events (if you have a girl or boy in track and you have to take them someplace for a major event, you need adults in groups of two now) to any organization that has kids and adults together without parent supervision.

Number two is a pile of horse manure. I'm sorry for being so blunt about it but war is hell and defense is never perfect. If you want a better example for your use consider that in the case of the recent cop who went rogue, in defending his potential targets, many innocent civilians have been shot by the police. link to my favorite site - which some of you hate - Godfather Politics

Los Angeles officers guarding a ‘target’ named in the posting shot and wounded multiple people in Torrance who were in a pickup but were not involved, authorities said. The extent of their injuries was not released. It’s not clear if the target is a person or a location. The Daily Breeze in Torrance also reports (http://bit.ly/YWhBLi) that there was another police shooting nearby involving another pickup truck, but the driver wasn’t hurt. ‘We’re asking our officers to be extraordinarily cautious just as we’re asking the public to be extraordinarily cautious with this guy. He’s already demonstrated he has a propensity for shooting innocent people,’ said LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith.

Two innocent bystanders were caught up Thursday in the search for Dorner. At 5:15 a.m., LAPD officers had a report of a pickup truck matching the description of Dorner's driving with its lights off in Torrance, near one of the primary protection targets.

Officers spotted the truck and fired on the vehicle hitting the people inside, who turned out to be female newspaper carriers.

Both were transported to hospital. One has a minor gunshot wound and is being released. The second had two gunshot wounds and is in stable condition.

"Tragically, we believe this was a case of mistaken identity by the officers," Beck said.

One could go "ballistic" on these officers, but given the current circumstances, I'm not going to rush to judgement. The idea that you can have a clean war when your opponent is playing dirty is nonsense. Ideally you try to avoid these problems but you also don't want to get your own men killed in the process.

Nah, police should be held to the same standards. If you killed someone accidentally because you thought they were someone else who was going to hurt you, then sorry you should still go to jail--just like everyone else. Otherwise, the police face lax constraints. Cheering for subpar policing only serves to maintain a low-quality police force.

Regarding voters who select presidents with aggressive foreign policies, yes, those voters are partly to blame. Denying this is simply a way of making one feel better about being complicit in the murders/killings of others. Once you've bought your own illusion, then voting again for aggressive presidents becomes so much easier. There's no need to demand any serious change if you fail to be morally consistent.

"War is hell, and (lol) 'Defense' isn't perfect." The same could be said of anything--like financial trading and its consequences. Still, imperfection and terrible consequences are no excuse for killing a US citizen without a trial, training the military forces of dictatorships, implanting puppets, and killing many innocents in the attempt to eliminate a suspected terrorist. If that's all acceptable, then so is terrorism--when the "war is hell; defense isn't perfect" justification is consistently applied.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think the responsibility is strongest for those who provide the money for the organization's operations.

If US citizens wanted to demand something from their government, with the help of the social networks they could organize and not pay taxes for, say one week, to show the muscle.

Just something that occurred to me in this moment, I know someone will prove me wrong soon.

Since taxation is an involuntary exchange, I doubt people will respond the right incentives to revolt. The IRS, the contracted collection agencies, and ultimately the police provide the 'right' incentives for you and I to keep paying taxes. Also, those who earn the most have the most to lose too.

I'm talking something big. Social networks can do that. Imagine half a state decides he's not gonna take it anymore and decide to boycott some taxes for a little while... but normally parties can sense the people and act before hand, which then indicates power is still on the people, we, maybe, don't liket to take responsibility and
like being victims. Perhaps. I'm talking out of my ass here, don't know much, just theoritizing.

The government, its agencies, its guns, and its monopoly on the legal system provide a more compelling reason to not boycott taxes.

I'm just sayin' that the following, "I think the responsibility is strongest for those who provide the money for the organization's operations," is false. If you're coerced into providing money to an organization, then I find it difficult to hold the coerced responsible.

[thegreekdog]

What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The issues associated with leaving the Church would not be advisable for most Catholics, in my opinion. I believe (the key word I suppose) that I need to be associated with the Church, a member of that organization, and a parishoner. So let's say that leaving would provide more pain than continuing as a member.

[thegreekdog]

And please, disgruntled Catholics, don't split from the Church and set up yet another Christian sect for us to argue with!

I'm not sure which Catholics you're arguing with, but most of the Catholics I associate with are not antithetical to evolution. Obviously, there are some examples of Catholics that are (Santorum comes to mind).

[thegreekdog]

The issue here is that the Roman Catholic Church vests a lot of its power in the idea that priests.. and then Bishops and ultimately the Pope are not just more learned people, but actually better people, closer to God than average folk.

In one sense, that means that parishoners have little responsibility for the views of leadership, because they are not truly free to object and debate. Instead, it might point to reasons why they might turn their backs on the church (which many have), but that is a very, very difficult issue. On the other hand, every Christian, even within the Roman Catholic church has not just the right, but the obligation to point out and stand against repeated sinning, evil. There is a process for that, (not getting into that) that differs from in standard society, but it is there. So, basically, parishoners have an obligation to lovingly and Biblically challenge their church to do what is right. However, that does not necessarily mean they have to or should publically condemn the church in any real way.

(note.. I do draw a definite distinction between the response necessary after all this has happened, particularly to the leadership that is guilty of improperly dealig with the events versus anyone who was in a position to directly observe, know and possibly intervene. ANYONE must intervene directly and immediately in any way they can to protect a child.)

I think there is some truth to the idea that priests are given deference, but they are also held to higher standards than laypeople by laypeople. Whether it's an American exceptionalism thing or not, American priests tend to be beholden to parishoners rather than the other way around. In other words, I think American Catholics understand that priests, bishops, and the pope are human beings, not divine by nature of their jobs.

I'm also sort of getting annoyed with this somewhat prevelant idea that Catholic parishoners cannot or do not or would not object to anything the Church does. I have seen many public condemnations of Philadelphia-area priests by Catholic parishoners. I have engaged in some of these myself. I don't know if this is a Philadelphia thing or an American thing or what, but there has been and will continue to be criticism here about the Church's protection of alleged pedophiles in the priesthood.

[thegreekdog]

If we just consider the specific point in point one and ignore the broader issues, there is a tendency for all organizations to "protect" their own members. Whether this "fraternal protection" is a good or a bad thing depends on the level of the protection. When it crosses the line into a cover up it is clearly a violation in terms of the law. You need a third party to investigate these issues.

The whole pedophile problem is normally linked with the Catholic Church, but in fact the repercussions are everywhere. They include public schools and sporting events (if you have a girl or boy in track and you have to take them someplace for a major event, you need adults in groups of two now) to any organization that has kids and adults together without parent supervision.

I agree that most groups will protect their own. I think the problems with the Catholic Church protecting alleged pedophiles is that the Catholic Church is a religious and supposedly moral organization and the Church does a lot of preaching to others about what is and is not right and moral. So when a bishop goes on about gay marriage or abortion and then turns around and protects an alleged pedophile, it is rather hypocritical.

Number two is a pile of horse manure. I'm sorry for being so blunt about it but war is hell and defense is never perfect. If you want a better example for your use consider that in the case of the recent cop who went rogue, in defending his potential targets, many innocent civilians have been shot by the police. link to my favorite site - which some of you hate - Godfather Politics

Los Angeles officers guarding a ‘target’ named in the posting shot and wounded multiple people in Torrance who were in a pickup but were not involved, authorities said. The extent of their injuries was not released. It’s not clear if the target is a person or a location. The Daily Breeze in Torrance also reports (http://bit.ly/YWhBLi) that there was another police shooting nearby involving another pickup truck, but the driver wasn’t hurt. ‘We’re asking our officers to be extraordinarily cautious just as we’re asking the public to be extraordinarily cautious with this guy. He’s already demonstrated he has a propensity for shooting innocent people,’ said LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith.

Two innocent bystanders were caught up Thursday in the search for Dorner. At 5:15 a.m., LAPD officers had a report of a pickup truck matching the description of Dorner's driving with its lights off in Torrance, near one of the primary protection targets.

Officers spotted the truck and fired on the vehicle hitting the people inside, who turned out to be female newspaper carriers.

Both were transported to hospital. One has a minor gunshot wound and is being released. The second had two gunshot wounds and is in stable condition.

"Tragically, we believe this was a case of mistaken identity by the officers," Beck said.

One could go "ballistic" on these officers, but given the current circumstances, I'm not going to rush to judgement. The idea that you can have a clean war when your opponent is playing dirty is nonsense. Ideally you try to avoid these problems but you also don't want to get your own men killed in the process.

Why have a war in the first place? An illegal war at that, one not approved or declared by Congress.

[Timminz]

What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The issues associated with leaving the Church would not be advisable for most Catholics, in my opinion. I believe (the key word I suppose) that I need to be associated with the Church, a member of that organization, and a parishoner. So let's say that leaving would provide more pain than continuing as a member.

I don't understand this at all, because I have never felt anything similar. To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation in order to keep doing it.

I don't mean that to be a slight upon you personally (or any others who feel the same way), I just honestly have no basis for comparison. Is it because you'd be shunned by friends and family?

[thegreekdog]

What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The issues associated with leaving the Church would not be advisable for most Catholics, in my opinion. I believe (the key word I suppose) that I need to be associated with the Church, a member of that organization, and a parishoner. So let's say that leaving would provide more pain than continuing as a member.

I don't understand this at all, because I have never felt anything similar. To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation in order to keep doing it.

I don't mean that to be a slight upon you personally (or any others who feel the same way), I just honestly have no basis for comparison. Is it because you'd be shunned by friends and family?

I guess that means your opinion is that my participation at mass as a parishoner means I support (financially, morally, and otherwise) child molestation. I can't really wrap my mind around that and perhaps that's where the discussion should go. It is not really a personal attack, I suppose, because you really don't have a basis for comparison. But I can maybe help with that.

There are numerous instances in history and right now where people directly or indirectly financially (or otherwise) supported immoral acts. I've noted only one other above. There does not seem to be the same outrage or the same accusations of supporting some horrible act. In some instances, there are even defenses of these positions.

For example, you will rarely hear or see a reasonable individual, such as yourself, say or type something like that "To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation [by going to Penn State University] or murder of innocent civilians [by voting for either presidential candidate] or torture [by voting for either presidential candidate]."

[PLAYER57832]

The issue here is that the Roman Catholic Church vests a lot of its power in the idea that priests.. and then Bishops and ultimately the Pope are not just more learned people, but actually better people, closer to God than average folk.

In one sense, that means that parishoners have little responsibility for the views of leadership, because they are not truly free to object and debate. Instead, it might point to reasons why they might turn their backs on the church (which many have), but that is a very, very difficult issue. On the other hand, every Christian, even within the Roman Catholic church has not just the right, but the obligation to point out and stand against repeated sinning, evil. There is a process for that, (not getting into that) that differs from in standard society, but it is there. So, basically, parishoners have an obligation to lovingly and Biblically challenge their church to do what is right. However, that does not necessarily mean they have to or should publically condemn the church in any real way.

(note.. I do draw a definite distinction between the response necessary after all this has happened, particularly to the leadership that is guilty of improperly dealig with the events versus anyone who was in a position to directly observe, know and possibly intervene. ANYONE must intervene directly and immediately in any way they can to protect a child.)

I think there is some truth to the idea that priests are given deference, but they are also held to higher standards than laypeople by laypeople. Whether it's an American exceptionalism thing or not, American priests tend to be beholden to parishoners rather than the other way around. In other words, I think American Catholics understand that priests, bishops, and the pope are human beings, not divine by nature of their jobs.

I'm also sort of getting annoyed with this somewhat prevelant idea that Catholic parishoners cannot or do not or would not object to anything the Church does. I have seen many public condemnations of Philadelphia-area priests by Catholic parishoners. I have engaged in some of these myself. I don't know if this is a Philadelphia thing or an American thing or what, but there has been and will continue to be criticism here about the Church's protection of alleged pedophiles in the priesthood.

I fully understand that individual Roman Catholics can and do disagree with what the church teaches. As one commentor noted, just look at the numbers of kids people have and you can see that not everyone agrees with the stance on birth control, for example. (her words, not mine). I absolutely and unequivocably understand that essentially all Roman Catholics (except the guilty.. and perhaps not even them) abhore the activities of a few priests.

My issue is that the church's problems with pedophilia and some other issues are inherent to the structure of the church. However, as a non-Roman Catholic, I have rejected that whole structure anyway. I know plenty of people who hold to it, who feel that the Roman Catholic church is the "true" church. I don't really want to get into that whole debate here, nor do I think you do, at least right now. However, the other side to the structure, follow the hierarchy "coin" is that there is more of a tendency to condemn the whole church, rather than, say, just one congregation or group. I think that is what you are seeing. Also, there are plenty of people who just want any excuse to condemn churches.

[PLAYER57832]

And please, disgruntled Catholics, don't split from the Church and set up yet another Christian sect for us to argue with!

I'm not sure which Catholics you're arguing with, but most of the Catholics I associate with are not antithetical to evolution. Obviously, there are some examples of Catholics that are (Santorum comes to mind).

I believe there are quite a few issues of debate amongst Christians other than evolution.

[thegreekdog]

The issue here is that the Roman Catholic Church vests a lot of its power in the idea that priests.. and then Bishops and ultimately the Pope are not just more learned people, but actually better people, closer to God than average folk.

In one sense, that means that parishoners have little responsibility for the views of leadership, because they are not truly free to object and debate. Instead, it might point to reasons why they might turn their backs on the church (which many have), but that is a very, very difficult issue. On the other hand, every Christian, even within the Roman Catholic church has not just the right, but the obligation to point out and stand against repeated sinning, evil. There is a process for that, (not getting into that) that differs from in standard society, but it is there. So, basically, parishoners have an obligation to lovingly and Biblically challenge their church to do what is right. However, that does not necessarily mean they have to or should publically condemn the church in any real way.

(note.. I do draw a definite distinction between the response necessary after all this has happened, particularly to the leadership that is guilty of improperly dealig with the events versus anyone who was in a position to directly observe, know and possibly intervene. ANYONE must intervene directly and immediately in any way they can to protect a child.)

I think there is some truth to the idea that priests are given deference, but they are also held to higher standards than laypeople by laypeople. Whether it's an American exceptionalism thing or not, American priests tend to be beholden to parishoners rather than the other way around. In other words, I think American Catholics understand that priests, bishops, and the pope are human beings, not divine by nature of their jobs.

I'm also sort of getting annoyed with this somewhat prevelant idea that Catholic parishoners cannot or do not or would not object to anything the Church does. I have seen many public condemnations of Philadelphia-area priests by Catholic parishoners. I have engaged in some of these myself. I don't know if this is a Philadelphia thing or an American thing or what, but there has been and will continue to be criticism here about the Church's protection of alleged pedophiles in the priesthood.

I fully understand that individual Roman Catholics can and do disagree with what the church teaches. As one commentor noted, just look at the numbers of kids people have and you can see that not everyone agrees with the stance on birth control, for example. (her words, not mine). I absolutely and unequivocably understand that essentially all Roman Catholics (except the guilty.. and perhaps not even them) abhore the activities of a few priests.

My issue is that the church's problems with pedophilia and some other issues are inherent to the structure of the church. However, as a non-Roman Catholic, I have rejected that whole structure anyway. I know plenty of people who hold to it, who feel that the Roman Catholic church is the "true" church. I don't really want to get into that whole debate here, nor do I think you do, at least right now. However, the other side to the structure, follow the hierarchy "coin" is that there is more of a tendency to condemn the whole church, rather than, say, just one congregation or group. I think that is what you are seeing. Also, there are plenty of people who just want any excuse to condemn churches.

I agree that the church's problems with protecting alleged pedophiles has to do with the hierarchical nature of the church (as well as the secrecy), but couldn't we say that for many other organizations?

[Timminz]

What can members of these organizations do? Well, ideally they could leave the organization. Stop being affiliated with them. Stop giving them money.

That is what Catholics should be doing.

The issues associated with leaving the Church would not be advisable for most Catholics, in my opinion. I believe (the key word I suppose) that I need to be associated with the Church, a member of that organization, and a parishoner. So let's say that leaving would provide more pain than continuing as a member.

I don't understand this at all, because I have never felt anything similar. To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation in order to keep doing it.

I don't mean that to be a slight upon you personally (or any others who feel the same way), I just honestly have no basis for comparison. Is it because you'd be shunned by friends and family?

I guess that means your opinion is that my participation at mass as a parishoner means I support (financially, morally, and otherwise) child molestation. I can't really wrap my mind around that and perhaps that's where the discussion should go. It is not really a personal attack, I suppose, because you really don't have a basis for comparison. But I can maybe help with that.

There are numerous instances in history and right now where people directly or indirectly financially (or otherwise) supported immoral acts. I've noted only one other above. There does not seem to be the same outrage or the same accusations of supporting some horrible act. In some instances, there are even defenses of these positions.

For example, you will rarely hear or see a reasonable individual, such as yourself, say or type something like that "To me, there is nothing that I need to do so badly that I would support child molestation [by going to Penn State University] or murder of innocent civilians [by voting for either presidential candidate] or torture [by voting for either presidential candidate]."

I've obviously touched a nerve, and I'm sorry for that. I'm honestly just trying to understand your perspective.