Here is a great article by Greg Craven in The Australian asking why it appears to be OK to be offensive towards the Catholic Church in certain circles - the sort of offensiveness we've seen from some of the contributors on this thread http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/religious-reporting-has-really-gone-to-the-dogs/story-e6frgd0x-1226453607419.

He is presumably ignorant of this thread, but it even has a reference to a "shepherd" in it.

GrahamY,

I reject the imputation I've been "offensive" about the Catholic church, or at least that I've been unjustifiably so. If some people find the truth offensive then so be it!

Reject all you like, but your "Shepherding" claim carries the imputation that it is part of the practice of the Catholic Church to not just condone but to encourage paedophilia, and that it institutionally protects paedophiles through its practices. That's pretty inaccurate and pretty offensive.

Graham,

To be fair, it's not so much an imputation of overtly "encouraging" paedophilia, more that there is more value to the Catholic church in protecting the perpetrators. The upshot is that the church's reputation has, in the past, been placed well ahead of any wrongs committed. "Shepherding" (in football parlance) those accused into new parishes without addressing the accusations, tacitly condones the crimes.

Is it possible or helpful to gain some perspective, to weigh the pro's and con's and ponder options and alternatives, or is it only possible to criticize - because we can?

Who or what in the world today is not subject to criticism, not without blemish, vested interest or prejudice? (Maybe His Holiness the Dalai Lama.) But when or how shall the lion finally lay down with the lamb?

Diver Dan, good point, but we live in a Capitalist world, and have done for a long time, so it is understandable that any organisation, religious or otherwise, would have to participate in this setting to have any chance of success. The principal difference, in the Church context, may be motive and intent, vision and purpose.

Is the vision of the Church, originating in the teachings and example of Jesus, to dominate and hold subservient, or to elevate and guide towards peace, harmony and virtue?

Squeers has pointed us to some links which make accusations of some questionable or possibly criminal financial activities within the upper echelons of the Church. Potentially criminal misdealing cannot be justified, irrespective of any virtuous intent, but perhaps some consideration may be given to the use being made of any acquired funds? Have Hank Paulson and his cohorts been brought to justice for their part in bringing the world's most affluent nation virtually to its knees and dragging so many others down with it? And, out of pure self-interest.

Jesus tried to provide a vision, and the Christian Church has endeavoured to foster that vision (but not always through the best means). Can that vision not still have meaning and relevance, or is there a better vision and a better means of its attainment? Or, will we simply wait for the likes of Al Shabaab to take up farming and benevolent endeavours, for potentates to relinquish all their worldly possessions and retire to solitary contemplation, for nations to lay down their arms and take up Buddhism or New World Ethics?

We may yearn for means, opportunity and vision, but we still need guidance.

Well it's a fine point of semantics, GrahamY (you're slow but catching on), and not really what the article or my responses have been about, but yes ok, I'll go with that. It's certainly not encouragement in terms of advocacy, but an institutional policy, for generations, of moving offending priests on to fresh pasture, when they offend, can hardly be called "disencouragement".