NittyGritty,
First off, I tend to agree with you about Vidiot's comments. It seems rather speculative to connect the hierarchical nature of the organization with the prevalence of child molesters, and a bit far fetched to claim that child abuse will automatically become institutionalized in such an organization. Aside from the lack of evidence, it doesn't even logically hold up in a situation like the Cont case, where the abuser was not even very high up in the chain of authority.
As for the 1989 letter, as I said, it didnt have anything to do with avoiding liability for child abuse. I'd have to go back to the trial transcript, but I don't think that Rick Simons even claimed that it did. I think that came from assumptions that people made on this forum. You are right that they may not have been specifically contemplating suits by child molesters. But I dont think that matters. The point was that the overall policy of confidentiality had financial purposes; not that it specifically related to child molesters. Rather than consider in each case whether it made sense to maintain strict confidentiality, they just decided it was easier (and maybe cheaper) to just have a blanket policy.
Additionally, I dont think you are looking at it correctly by saying that a child molester would never sue. If someone was merely accused, but not convicted of any assault, and felt wrongly branded as a pedophile, there is a very good chance they might sue. Have you followed the story in the news in the last month or so about Alan Dershowitz? He practically exploded and went on the warpath in the media and in the courts upon being accused of having sex with underage girls.
