May I suggest that you don't respond to Jim at all rather than respond in this rude manner. In fact, Jim's point is well made. Whatever you say about the forces pulling in different directions within the Church, it is essentially an undemocratic, authoritarian institution that attempts to impose dictats on its members. In that regard it may not be the worst of the big religions, but that's how it is. It isn't my club any more so I haven't got much to say about celibacy or about how many gay men are permitted to become priests. The gay men I know are all wonderful, balanced human beings as it happens and I don't see it as an issue. The point is about the institutional nature of the cover-up of what we have learned to be widespread abuse. It simply isn't believable that these things went on unobserved or without concern for decades, or centuries, and it's clear that the ranks higher up than the perpetrating priests were concerned enough to cover for them in all the escalating ways Jim describes. The abuse has been so widespread that it simply isn't possible that the highest authorities were not aware of the scale of the issue. Yet it isn't the Church that has been leading the exposures. In other words, the people who knew most about the abuse were the one saying the least and doing the most dragging of feet (and, in consideration of the cover-ups, I think I'm being kind there). It isn't an excuse to say the the Church is in fact many churches and that there was no control. Sure, priests may find it easier than many to carry out the abuses by dint of the position they are in. The Church isn't to blame for that, but it is completely to blame for its lack of vigilance, and, worse, its apparent greater concern for the abusers, and for itself, than for the victims. It isn't the same as saying that Catholics still have abortions in spite of the dictats. It isn't illegal to have an abortion in most places, but sexual abuse is not only a breach of Church law but also, universally, a breach of secular law. As a supposed moral arbiter, the Church should have shouted every abuse from the rooftops, but it did the precise opposite.

I'm uncomfortable with the concept of big financial compensation for this kind of crime. If you're injured by a crime and can't work, or if you lose your money or property, that's different. Of course, there are mental as well physical injuries and it isn't possible to be black and white about it. But I'd hate to think that the prospect of a huge payout would be the main enticement to claim abuse. I also think that the prospect of having to pay out vast sums to many victims would be an enticement to cover up. I can see vast compensation prospects getting in the way of justice and closure. Shoot.