The way I phrased it was important. I first asked for a consideration of actions 12M had taken that may have been harmful or hurtful to others. At that point I did not make any suggestions as to whether 12M considered his actions OK or not OK. It wasn't assumed, whereas in your paraphrase it was.
Granted. I guess I misread it.
I asked the question as I believed 12M would accept that most of the things he has done wrong, he knew were wrong. To me , that provided an answer to the question 12M posed about why would priests would do something if not because they thought it was OK.
You don't think they might have edited/rationalized their morality into believing that it was OK?
Good question. I'm sure there would be a great deal of rationalisation. However, that in itself does not mean you think you are genuinely doing the right thing. You don't need to edit or rationilise anything if you truly believe it is OK, in my view.
Or are you suggesting that if something is done often enough, the rationalisation becomes increasingly less and eventually you genuinely do believe you are doing something OK?
It's easy to assume that everyone is violating their own morality when they do things we find to be wrong. Easy, lazy, and a great way to fail at understanding others' motives.
There is some truth to that, of course. But in the specific behaviour being discussed, I believe it to be a reasonable assumption.