All vast institutions that span millennia are going to have done both good and evil. Institutions consist of people, and people are flawed. The idea that we judge institutions based only on the evil they have done is all the rage as critical theory spreads, but viewing history through the lens of hyper-criticism is as myopic as viewing history based only on the good things institutions have done. Institutions, like people, are mixed bags of good and evil. Focusing on evil to the exclusion of good is not only unproductive, it’s also detrimental to society. What message do we send people knowing no matter what they do in the future, one sufficiently evil act will taint them forever? We all do evil over the course of our lives. When we are at our worst, is that evil the only thing worthy of mention for the rest of our lives? Not only as an asterisk, but to the exclusion of anything good a person might accomplish in their life? This is true for institutions as it is for people.

When someone like the pope does something good, can we not look at the merits of that action alone, or does every action he makes, no matter how meritorious, ultimately have to end in condemnation?

Also, I think you’ve missed the point about the phrase “he who casts the first stone. Pope Francis isn’t throwing a stone by saying homosexuality isn’t a crime. In fact he is lowering the arm of some Catholic stone-throwers. That’s a good thing. Why not celebrate good, just as we condemn evil?

[deleted]