The important point here being, of course, that his support of the Church — including his financial support of it — actually does make him culpable for the harm done by the policies they execute.
I have mentioned this to him over and over, yet he’s still making the not-culpable argument. He’s wrong about that. He is culpable, and personally so. If he feels my argument is somehow flawed (and I don’t see how that’s logically possible, frankly) he ought to at least acknowledge that the argument is on the table instead of simply ignoring it in the hopes it will go away.