darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

I do not agree that what the church did was understandable in any way. You can't cover that up and claim to be a moral authority at the same time.

Have you ever lied to your kids about something because you thought the truth would do more harm than good?

Covering something up ultimately does more harm to a cause anyway.

If you have lied to your kids, you probably realized then that this statement is absolutely true once they discovered the truth. Yes, it ultimately does more harm than good. Covering up just kicks the can down the road. The Boy Scouts of America, an agency very devoted to the teaching of moral values, has done the same thing. I still respect the good it does in spite of covering up abuse cases.

Of course I've lied to my kids for their greater good. I can't believe you would equate the two. Care to explain what good it ultimately did the church? If you were molested by a priest who had been transferred instead of exposed, what good would you see in it?

I understand the desire to protect religion and the institutions that use religion, but don't be so blinded by loyalty. No good could have possibly come from protecting child molesters. To compare it to telling white lies to your own children is just plain ridiculous.