"Most things that happened before the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) are irrelevant."

"So, no, it's not fair to judge the Catholic Church primarily by things that happened before Vatican II."

There seems to be two discussions going on at the same time. One, the broader church and religion, and the other, cases of abuse of children some type by those in the church specific locations.

It seems problematic to make a general statement/assessment as you have done in the first quote, Joe, since it is likely that some of the people in positions of power over children and in church affairs most likely retained their power and church influence beyond the event you noted.

The second statement has more logic, mainly because you use the word "primarily" in that case.

Of course people will judge organizations by all events, past and present. Organizations do not absolve themselves from responsiblity for past events by saying "we had a meeting and we have changed". Branding an organization is more complex than that and takes time and with real-examples exemplifying thhis change. IMO, attempts at denying unfortunate past events happened, or attempts to limit their significance, takes away, rather then reinforces an embedded view that real change has actually not occured. As with other large organizations, fir example GM, expect that any new reports of bad actions will renew memories of bad past evenrs.