I'd like to say "no" because I know a lot of priests personally and I like them just fine, and their reasons for joining the gang priesthood were generally to do some good — but I'm unable to wash that slate entirely clean because this is a problem that has been around for a very long time and has been known by church officials for just as long. When I was an altar server, my parents didn't tell me of the issue of sexual molestation — but in retrospect I saw their concern if I was ever too close to a priest or was alone with a priest for any significant amount of time; I just didn't know why. So, while I wouldn't claim the culpability is equal to that of the Crips and Bloods, I'd say it's there and it's significant. I never recall hearing of any priest blowing the whistle on another priest who was abusing a child. Protection of the Church was paramount, and clergy weren't stepping up and righting the wrongs, protecting the helpless, upholding the moral virtues they espouse.

After seeing the clip it reminded me of something I saw on YouTube some time ago....It's only about 6:30 long and has some strong language but I think it applies to this post.

If I know somebody who killed somebody and didn't report it...im guilty by association. Hands down. That's exactly what's going on in the Catholic church

I'd include in that all Roman Catholic Church members. You give your money to an organization that has done what Catholic priests have done, "You're culpable!" Thanks for sharing this Victoria.

Maybe... I think complicit is a more accurate term.

I don't think anyone want to take responsibility for anything anymore. Other wise the NRA would have to shoulder the blame for putting out horrible weapons with their only purpose to inflict maximum destruction, and no ability to define another purpose. However what she was talking about in the gang culpability was just another extension of the Jim Crow attack on black people. Funny/not funny how churches, the NRA, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, water poisoners, food poisoners, or basically any other industry has ever been held to such a concept of their complicite responsability.

Love this film. the actress is in a good film called fargo based on a real story too

I'm voting maybe because, as I've seen a lot in Utah,a lot of people aren't really given a choice in their lives about religion. Part of that, sadly, is that they've never reached a point of understanding that what the church does could be wrong. They're taught/brainwashed to the point where they aren't in a position to understand. Now, that's your bottom level believer, who is completely indocrinated and is not in a position to be exposed to the truth and understand it.
The higher you go the more complicit or culpable you are.

In Utah the average child doesnt understand that they can question things. The elders (returned missionaries) are in a place where they've been exposed to the world in such a way that many christians are, which is "There are people who say the church is wrong, and they're satan tempting you" etc. At this point they SHOULD be willing to hear the truth and respond to it.

Further up you have your bishops (priests). Unfortunately, these ****ers are often the ones people report sexual assault and abuse to, and they're the ones telling women that they shouldn't be complaining, that their rapists are "good people" and "shouldn't be judged". They're bastards and at this level they absolutely know what they're doing is wrong.

Now, what about the bishops who aren't straight up evil? eople that want to do the right thing but are still indocrinated? Like Resserts answered already (I love his answer, people should read it if they haven't!) people who are on the same level, and know of the abuse and awfulness have a moral responsibility to say something. At this point they have a responsibility to protect their people and act in accordance with the morality they espouse. I don't believe they're bad people, but they're afraid. Afraid of standing out or getting excommunicated, and it sucks to be in that position. I get the fear, and I'm sympathetic to it. But people are hurting and they need someone to be on their side. That's the whole good point to religion is to help people. Its the only good point. If people are failing to do that, then there is no point at all to it.

Then you've got the higher level people (Quorum and presidents and executives in the LDS church, cause you've gotta have a freakin "Quorum of the Twelve" yes im serious) who are fully aware of what's going on, and have the power to stop it but they don't want to lose any influence by actually admitting any wrongdoing. They're the people hell would be for if it existed.

No definately not for the crime that was committed. I can't hold anyone culpable for a crime, they themselves didn't commit. However, there is another entirely seperate question. Are they accessories to the crime? The answer to that is, YES! "IF" they continue to support the organization that facilitated the crime.

For me, it is here we go, can of worms time. Yes, I agreed they are culpable. These priests, Bishope, Cardinals and the Pope know what is going on and they look the other way (what else can they do except leave). I had a good friend who was raised in a Catholic Seminary in England. After HS he was told that to go on to college level he would have to sign a paper saying he would agree to being ordained. He said he had too many questions. He looked around and saw that those agreeing were usually the simple types that didn't questiion much. He did leave but as he got older (and heavier and balder) he has reembraced his faith. This addresses the culpable part. I thought I would link to the site because it is an interesting place. I have been there. [stonyhurst.ac.uk]

My question is what about things outside of religion in which we are all involved that can also make us culpable. Our lifestyles will and do create harm somewhere and even thought we may try and learn and attempt to modify our behavior we cannot escape our own person responsibilities. Life in the 21st century has made it almost impossible for a person to live a life and not do serious damage somewhere. It is a real conundrum and, for me, it hurts.

Of course they are culpable especially the bishops and those higher up in their gang of thieves and perv's. Most priest receive extensive training in pschology and reading people by their responses, posture, verbal inflection and body language so, I am highly doubtful that most are not aware of the character of their fellow priests.

By the same logic then, all Christians are guilty of the wholesale slaughter of Jews by Pope Urban II before the Crusades, and the slaughter of pagans by Charlemagne, and the genocide of Indians in the new world, and Hitler's final solution, etc… But justice is the intrest of the stronger.

No, these laws are likely a hard line approach to ward their community against the spreading of conduct.

The reason I say no is:
I am atheist, some atheists murder and rape, I'm not responsible for what some atheists do.

Any man of the religious cloth is a deceiver and guilty of something, as long as he is not guilty of the crime it would be unethicle to punish him for it.

Wow. A part of me want sto say yes, but I also see it as what happens if the shoe is ever on the other foot? Meaning, if the goernment ever turns theocratic, and it becomes illegal to ba and theist (as i sht ecase in some countries), woudl I want to be held cuplable for wha tother atheists do?

The fairness of holdign one cuupable depends on where the lines are drawn to determihne what society says is right or wrong.

If a person is a part of a church that hides pedophiles, and they know the church is doign that, even if they dont' agree with it, then it seems they have some responsibility. Howeer our morality is not defined well enough to determine jus thow much responsibility, and we live in a society where a person is innocent until proven guilty, which is the best systen (so far) that best insures that the innocent are not falsely imprisoned.

I checked off "Maybe", because i think there is soem respo9nsbility if a person is a part of a group where they know wrong doign is going on, but I simply do nto feel wise enough to know where to draw the lines to dtermine who is cuplable and for how much.

i have to say "yes" - it's like feeding the bird something that makes her sick, not knowing that, but instead with the intent of doing good. i am still guilty of the bird's unwellness.

ignorance doesn't prevent guilt.

Wow! Very powerful.
I, personally, could not align myself with an organization known to commit such atrocities. However, as long as the clergy member is innocent of such behavior and makes efforts against it, I would not hold them personally responsible. Even though I do not believe in their dogma, I do respect their right to believe it.

I think they are culpable -- to an extent -- ONCE they are aware of it and then don't agitate credibly for change, and beyond some point I think they'd have to bail altogether if the organization remains corrupt. I know I would.

But I answered No because I don't literally believe that, say, a priest who has never laid a hand on anyone is equally as guilty as a priest that has. Or that the nice couple next door to me are guilty of or even complicit in "boy fucking" because they donate to and support their local parish. Particularly since they actively feed the homeless, etc., through extensive involvement in Catholic Charities. That is a needle for them to thread. I know they are extremely disturbed by the scandals and have given serious consideration to exiting. They haven't as yet, because in part I think they believe they can still change it for the better from the inside. I don't agree with them on that, it is far too corrupt for there to be real hope of that. But I'm not Catholic and I leave that to the conscience of individual Catholics.

I don't find the laws the character in this clip is citing about the L.A. gangs to be fair to non-participants and it seems to me that such laws would result in a lot of people being falsely accused / imprisoned. I understand the impulse behind such notions of course, but feel it's an exagerated notion of complicity that does more harm than good to society.

There's not quite enough context, here. Belonging to an organization does not immediately grant you culpability for all acts of that organization. Defense and support of that organization with knowledge of those acts does. The gangs...well, I suppose that knowing who in the gang did something, and shielding them, imparts some culpability. But not as much as actually committing the crime. It's a lesser culpability.

They would be culpable if they knew of the actions and knowingly did nothing to change it for the better.

Just because a person is religious does not mean they are a bad person. Just misguided.

I think the culpability example she used regarding California street gang law is a false equivalence to any random priest. The gang law states "with knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, as defined in subdivision E of Section 186.22 , and who willfully promotes, furthers, assists, or benefits from any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang is guilty of conspiracy to commit that felony and may be punished as specified in subdivision A of Section 182 .

[codes.findlaw.com]

Love it just think all clergy will be in jail with Bubba/Bubbett as their cell mates.

I loved that movie so much!

those gang laws sound so american. only a cock eyed politician could come up with something so mean [ and probably rascist]. there are plenty of good clergy, as there are gangsters