Contradictions
Many times in the past (and particularly in the Catholic Church because of celibacy and the consequently greater social isolation), churches have defended the abusive actions of their priests on the basis that the priests were socially immature and didn’t understand that what they did was wrong. In my own case, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney argued in court that when the offending minister went through college (1959-61), there was no training on this issue. Yet at the same time, the Catholic Church argues that it’s the result of sexual immorality in wider society. So tell me: are they subject to society’s influences and practices, or so unaware that they don’t even grasp when society thinks something is abhorrent? It can’t be both! And is training in theological college necessary to teach intending priests that child sex offences are wrong? Most people know it without that! Would you want a guy as your priest if he’d had to be taught that as an adult because he didn’t already know it? And doesn’t the fact that offenders conceal their actions indicate an awareness of wrongdoing?
No, I’m sorry – the “we didn’t know any better” excuse just doesn’t hold water…and especially not in an organisation that claims the moral high ground.