What does confuse me Mark is that they are often lauded as hero's! ...
The way I see it many of those who may have left the church only recently (say the last ten years of a bit more) are often accustomed to thinking of these folk as heroic opinion leaders. Sometimes because that is how they were presented while in. Sometimes because they, while in, may have been involved in the same sort of 'heroic' abuses in which their favorite leaders routinely engaged. Sometimes it's just because the cult instills in its members the admiration of seniors & opinion leaders and that pattern itself carries over in life after the church.
Also, former leaders are often excused as not particularly bad since the admirers routinely engaged in the same sort of activities themselves while involved with the church. When the leader has left it may be taken as a validation or justification of themselves.
My view is far less generous.
Anyone involved in senior management or who worked closely with senior management in some public capacity after the early '80s is necessarily severely ethically compromised for their role in promoting the continuing abuses of the church.
They are to be pitied, not admired. Tolerated, but not trusted.
They aren't necessarily 'bad people', but they have clearly demonstrated that they are untrustworthy and should be regarded as such.
Mark A. Baker