No, it doesn't. We're all sinners, all fallen, but for the grace of God.
The problem is in the secrecy and the sheltering. That gives the appearance of impropriety, at a minimum. At the extreme, it implies complicity for the entire hierarchy.
You're making a huge mistake, with all these "see, other people do it too" efforts at deflection. It's not coming across the way you want, at all.
Or conversely, if one Protestant sins, does that make all Protestants bad?
All Protestants are sinners, too, all fallen and in need of redemption, which comes through repentance and acceptance in faith, of the gift of salvation. Those who fail to show remorse, to turn to God and to repent, and instead continue on in their sin, deflecting blame and denying any need to repent, are invited to leave any Bible-believing Christian church with which I've had the good fortune to associate. It's just common sense. You just don't accept ongoing, unrepentant sin in the congregation. Will people fail on occasion? Of course. I'll take a blubbering Jimmy Swaggart, on his knees and in tears, admitting his failure and sin any day, over arrogant denials and attempts to paint everyone else as being just as sinful in order to protect a particular church.
To make excuses, to revert to a childish "you do it, too, you started it" is not indicative of repentance. To continue to conceal, to have secrets ... well, I assume you know what is written about your secrets finding you out, in all your dark places.
Your church put itself in this position. You can choose to acknowledge the problem and rid yourselves of it, or you can continue to deflect. Both have consequences. It's not as if the problem of widespread homosexuality in your priesthood is a newly discovered phenomenon. It's not as if sexual abuse of pubescent males by these homosexual priests is a newly discovered phenomenon, either.
Deal with it. Cast these priests out of any position of authority, if not from your church as a whole. No good can come of continuing down this path. I realize this advice is coming from outside your church, and therefore you place very little value upon it. But, there it is, the answer that is obvious to those who have no vested interest in the matter.
Cardinal Ratzinger was not implicit in in a deliberate cover up. I agree that those pedophilic priests should have been turned to the police yes. It was common back then to believe that pedophilia could be cured by therapy. Not just in the Catholic Church. Other denominations and I’m sure other religions as well.
It’s hard to make sense of this now, because things are so different and there are rigorous child protection systems in place in churches now. Have you ever wondered why the victims never went to the Police at the time, I’m speculating here but maybe they did go to the police but they didn’t take it seriously and probably said the same thing that the Priest would be cured by therapy and they sent the Priest away.
It was common thought back then. No one knew much about pedophilia. Serious mistakes have been made, but we have no evidence the heirarchy did this with any malice of forethought. They actually thought that therapy helped.
The Vatican is not to blame and neither is the Pope, the archdiocese of the time when this abuse took place is to blame. But the true story, what I’ve just noted, wouldn’t be such an intriguing story for the mainstream media, would it?
I’m fed up with the Catholic Church being targeted while of the rest of Christian denominations, many who have higher rates of abuse than in the Catholic Church, are let of scot free in the media. Regarding abuse in the present, and the past.
You wrote:
“I’ll take a blubbering Jimmy Swaggart, on his knees and in tears, admitting his failure and sin any day, over arrogant denials and attempts to paint everyone else as being just as sinful in order to protect a particular church.”
Yeah. . . except there’s no reason to believe Jimmy’s blubbering was anything other than a put on job. That’s what the Assembly of God thoght! He was trying desperately to save his “particular church”. He was faking it. That was in 1988. You apparently forgot that he was again caught with a prostitute in 1991. This time - already booted out of his sect by the governing board and on his own - he refused to apologize and said to his congregation, “The Lord told me it’s flat none of your business.” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974120,00.html
You apparently have no idea of what you’re talking about.