> A lot of the church abuse scandal happened during a couple of decades when the church's handling of the cases were the result of following the then scientific consensus on the matter. The church was not alone in this. The scientists told us they could be reformed.
That is not what happened though. Is there any evidence that the church decided that it would hide and cover up accusations of abuse and move clergy around to avoid them being charged and convicted because that was the "scientific consensus"?
Certainly many within the church believed they could reform the abusers in their midst, but that's a wholly different statement than claiming the coverups, which are what's being discussed here, were due to this belief and not that they were merely protecting their own and putting their own judgement above the legal system in which they lived.
That is not what happened though. Is there any evidence that the church decided that it would hide and cover up accusations of abuse and move clergy around to avoid them being charged and convicted because that was the "scientific consensus"?
Certainly many within the church believed they could reform the abusers in their midst, but that's a wholly different statement than claiming the coverups, which are what's being discussed here, were due to this belief and not that they were merely protecting their own and putting their own judgement above the legal system in which they lived.