You are the one being misleading. I am not characterizing it as essentially an assualt on Christian sensibilities, I am simply saying that its properties in that regard are larger than chocolate Jesuses. Suppose someone were to describe a gay bashing incident as "the worst attack on homosexuals ever", and I were to ask "Worse than the Holocaust?", and you were to respond "The Holocaust was an attack on Jews, not homosexuals, and it's misleading to chracterize it as essentially an attack on homosexuals".
OK, I'm supposing it. Now what?
You're missing the point, Art. The Holocaust involved assaults, often fatal ones, on
people (whether Jewish, Christian, Roma, disabled, homosexual, or otherwise). The chocolate Jesus incident was limited to an assault, at most, on
sensibilities (tastes and feelings). It makes sense that Donohue would be comparing it to other incidents in which only tastes and feelings were offended and no one's person was assaulted. Unless there is evidence somewhere explicitly establishing that Donohue meant to include within the scope of his comparison instances where people were physically assaulted (such as your examples of sex abuse, the Holocaust, or 9/11), it's simply unreasonable to infer that he believes that the chocolate Jesus incident was comparable to those other things.
The only way it could not be evident is if you are ignorant of the facts.
Were it not for, among other things, my professional contacts with members of the litigation bar in the relevant jurisdictions, my familiarity with many of the relevant court records, and my knowledge of the principles of collective liability for criminal acts and other wrongful conduct, I might lack confidence in my grasp of the pertinent facts of the clerical sex scandal in the United States, Art. As it is, not only do I think my grasp of them reasonably solid, but I recognize the limitations of the available facts.
That comparison is absurd. The sex abuse scandal never could have happened without the willful and egregious negligence of the general leadership, and the active support of specific leaders.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "active support", but the rest of it is consistent with what emerged from the Tailhook investigations. Indeed, in the case of Tailhook, credible allegations of misconduct during and after the incident went much higher up the chain of command then was ever the case with respect to the Catholic sex abuse scandal (recall what came out about the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations). Based on the only criteria you've offered, the analogy isn't absurd. Moreover, you haven't indicated why the head of the Catholic League, solely by virtue of his position, is any more implicated in the sex abuse scandal than the head of the Navy League, solely by virtue of his position, was implicated in Tailhook, which was the real point of that example.
When that big of a scandal breaks, the only reasonable response is for the Pope, as well as anyone who could have stopped it, but didn't, to resign; establish procedures to keep it form happening again; and cooperate with the civil and criminal actions against the Church and its leaders.
Given that the person who was pope when the scandal brok presided over a steep decline in sexual abuse incidents (they trailed off remarkably during the course of John Paul II's papacy) and that I'm not aware of any evidence that he was at all personally negligent or responsible, I query whether his resignation would have been reasonable under the circumstances. It appears that some measures to keep it from happening were implemented well before the scandal actually broke, and such measures were greatly heightened when the nature of the problem was made clear to Rome and the U.S. bishops' conference. As for criminal proceedings against the institutional Church and its leaders, the reason few have been seriously contemplated even by the most zealous prosecutors is that the facts are simply insufficient to support a finding of criminal misconduct. (Individual priests are another matter.) Even the civil lawsuits have resulted in findings of actual institutional liability on a surprisingly small number of occasions; were it not for the fairly liberal application of the doctrine of
respondeat superior, most such cases would have a hard time getting off the ground except as regards the individual priests.
Also, although you suggest that "the only reasonable response is for ... anyone who could have stopped it, but didn't, to resign", you still haven't shown why Donohue fits that description.
Where do priests get their money? Where do they find kids to abuse? Catholics provided priests with opportunity to abuse kids. Donohue's organization represents Catholics. Hence, Donohue's organization is responsible.
By all indications, sexual misconduct with minors (and the associated ass-covering and general mishandling by bureaucrats) has been at least as big a problem (and probably bigger) in public school districts as in Catholic dioceses. Where do public schoolteachers get their money? Where do they find kids to abuse? Taxpayers and parents provided schoolteachers with opportunity to abuse kids. The PTA represents parents and taxpayers. Hence, the PTA is responsible. By your reasoning, why shouldn't the PTA president resign?
You seriously don't see how the head of the Catholic League resigning would not have had a symbolic value?
I take it you concede that it would not have had any practical value. But no, I seriously don't see how Donohue's resignation would have carried much in the way of symbolic value. In fact, I find the suggestion itself to be fundamentally unserious.
