• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cardinal says paedophilia 'not a criminal condition'

Zyphlin said:
Because you don't bold it doesn't mean it's not there.



Which seems to be that in the line of conversation the Priest was talking about it in relation to others peforming pedophliac actions that weren't victims of molestation themselves in the past. The statement regarding deserving to be punished could be an across the board thing, or it could be something said within the context of relating it to the punishment of those who were not previously victims themeslves. Again, you're making an assumption that the entire statement, and the thoughts behind those statements, are meant in a literalistic way and are presented as "in context" by the arthur. Given the line the writer uses just before the one you quoted, I can clearly see a way someone could make that statement in a way that's not suggesting that the action shouldn't have a "punishment" of sorts but dissimilar to others of a different situation and that there is a differing level of "deserving" it.

I'd be interested to see the Priests actual words rather than the snippets taken by the Telegraph. It reads to me as similar to how I've seen some people talk about Insanity pleas in the United States, that the person isn't being "punished" by being put into a mental institution but are being given treatment and aid....even though, yeah, it's definitely still "punishment".
Click to expand...

I included it in the quote, I am certainly not trying to suggest it is not there. However, he did specifically and clearly state that they should not be punished.
 
Redress said:
The point to remember here is that the church has improved, and I do not know of any evidence that they are currently covering it up.
Click to expand...


Has it though? I mean, just because we aren't hearing anything, doesn't mean that they just haven't gotten better at covering it up. Also, with the comments of the current Pope, I don't know if they really have fixed the problem. Remember, that the church STILL holds the power to move around or even recall these preiest back to where they are protected. When the church officially changes their stance to where they agree to hand over any priest for investigation then maybe I'll reconsider.
 
Redress said:
I included it in the quote, I am certainly not trying to suggest it is not there. However, he did specifically and clearly state that they should not be punished.
Click to expand...

And given the context of the statement prior comparing the two, and the entire point he's making, along with lacking the entire transcript I can quite easily see that not being a clear statement of no punishment what so ever. For example, something that muddies it is that earlier he says that you try to "put right" those with disorders, suggesting medical treatment, which would seemingly be forced. That sounds much like what happens with those who are found not guilty be criminal insanity here in the U.S. They're not "punished" in the traditional sense, but it still is defacto a "punishment" as they are confined to medical facilities until such a time that their condition can be "put right". As I said, we're taking snippets of words from a story that was from a short interview and making assumptions regarding intent, meaning, and what other things were stated in context.

I liked your post because you provided a quote regarding your commend, and with it I clearly see where you come to your view on it. However, I simply disagree in terms of how "Clear" it is that he thinks nothing should be done in such a situation. As I said, if he truly believes nothing should be done I strongly disagree with him, and personally even if he just felt forced treatment was necessary I'd still disagree on that. But I don't disagree with him on the general notion that an individual who themselves was victimized that goes on to victimize others is one I'd look at with a slightly different view than those who simply victimize others. There's a level of sympathy and empathy that would not be present otherwise...a level that doesn't make me wish to see them not be punished, but one that recognizes that said punishment is likely just one on a long line of horrors that the person has been subjected to.
 
Somerville said:
Maybe you should read your Bible:

from what is thought to be the earliest known canonical text: The Epistle to the Galatians



One 'problem' for True Believers: Just which parts of your Holy Text are you supposed to believe?


and, why should any rational human expect "black or white" answers to complex questions?
Click to expand...

Are you an atheist? Just curious. Not every denomination is the same, but for what it is worth:

The laws of the Old Testament were earthly laws. They were to govern our existence and give us a path to repent for our sins according to the old covenant. A covenant is a contract. When Jesus died on the cross he suffered for all our sins. He filled the contract. He then created a new covenant. A new contract. It is between you and God. Me and God. Accept Jesus. Does the Old Testament not apply? No. It is valid. It has many wonderful teachings and lessons. Many though are customs.

"Render unto Ceasar." It is morally right and just to follow the laws and customs of our culture. The question is can you rationalize them with your faith and your heart.

You call it a problem to decide on which Old Testament "laws" are hard to follow for "True Believers." It isn't hard. It might be difficult for people who read literally or who read with closed minds.

Ps

This is my view. This is the way I understand it. It is the way I see the PC USA doctrine. It is the way I have explained to youth. I am no great scholarly Christian. I am a sinner. I have made mistakes and I am at a point of what one might call a faith crisis right now. I still believe and I always will. I just feel distant from God. That is ok. Others need him more than I right now. So take what I say with whatever grain and salt flavor you like. It is what gets me through.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
It's called "binary thinking", and the rightwing is immersed in it
Click to expand...

That seems too much of a concrete statement to be accurate. Would you like to edit that before someone contradicts it?
 
Redress said:
So you think the Catholic church should get a pass on the subject of child molestation? How would you suggest it be addressed so as to not offend your tender sensibilities?
Click to expand...

No, and I don't think they have...The church has lost a lot in terms of membership, credibility, and trust. Pope Benidict did some good things to move toward resolution, and I am hoping that Pope Francis will likewise move toward reforms that further address this for the future. But, there are many who see any mention of the Church as an opening to bash, mock, and deride not only the Church, but its members. How long before they can put this dark chapter behind them?
 
sangha said:
It's called "binary thinking", and the rightwing is immersed in it
Click to expand...

Ok I think you have had enough time. So. Where to start?

Well let's start with the irony of you saying the RIGHT is immersed in binary thinking. I wonder if you are aware of the irony in that comment?

I am also curious if you think that the left is absent of binary thinking? I could agree. Binary thinking is fundamental in how the human mind operates. If the left doesn't have it...well...it could explain the lack of moral constructs.

Of course I don't actually believe that the left lacks it. I'm dating a democrat. She has moral constructs. Many of my college friends had them, a close friend and roommate had them and he is going to be a lawyer. It is an important concept in the legal profession. So really one must possess some binary thinking to function as a human. So it obviously exists in the left as well.

Well. Here is the fun part and I will address your irony now too. How can a left wing exist with binary thinking? How can you have democrat politicians without republican politicians? How can you believe something is right or wrong? Do you see? To comprehend a political position on the left you agree with that position. If that position is in opposition to a right wing position...well you disagree and boom...you have binary thought. Eventually your brain requires binary thinking to define something. Especially something political on a political debate website.

Irony is funny huh?
 
Last edited:
stonewall50 said:
Well. Here is the fun part and I will address your irony now. How can a left wing exist with binary thinking? How can you have democrat politicians without republican? How can you believe something is right or wrong? Do you see? To comprehend a political position on the left you agree with that position. If that position is in opposition to a right wing position...well you disagree and boom...you have binary thought. Eventually your brain requires binary thinking to define something. Especially something political on a political debate website.

Irony is funny huh?
Click to expand...

It's obvious that you don't understand what binary thinking is.

It is profoundly different that merely choosing between one position or another. Ironically (since you seem to be such a fan of irony), your belief that the only choice one has is a choice between the rightwing one and the leftwing one (or the dem one and the repub one) is a classic example of binary thinking. IOW, your post does nothing but support my claim that the right is immersed in binary thinking.

So "Yeah, irony *is* funny"
 
sangha said:
It's obvious that you don't understand what binary thinking is.

It is profoundly different that merely choosing between one position or another. Ironically (since you seem to be such a fan of irony), your belief that the only choice one has is a choice between the rightwing one and the leftwing one (or the dem one and the repub one) is a classic example of binary thinking. IOW, your post does nothing but support my claim that the right is immersed in binary thinking.

So "Yeah, irony *is* funny"
Click to expand...

I think I grasp it pretty well. One can choose a variety of positions on the political spectrum. But that really isn't where the binary thinking comes into play now is it? So how does it work?

It comes into play on the issue to issue basis. You either accept a premise as right or wrong. That is binary. It may take literally a dozen or more computations of "right and wrong" to define a gray area, but that is how binary works. How do you think computers work? So let's break this down even more.

You use binary thought when thinking "left" or "right" or "up and down" or "good and bad." Some of these are polar opposites but they have a middle right? So let's take up and down. What if it is in the middle. Neither up nor down? How is that binary?

A middle by definition does not have an opposite. Your position is premised on that concept. Middle does not have an opposite. So how can that be binary?

Well. Middle does have an opposite. "Not middle," or an "extreme or limit." So it is not up nor is it down. You used binary thinking. You used your concept of up and down...and a binary process...to define the middle. The middle is not up. The middle is not down. The middle is the middle. 001

So. Binary thought is more basic than "political" spectrum. It is "left vs right" and how the human mind works. Check out a dictionary for a middle ground definition. Again. I get it. Read a little more on it before you use it again.
 
stonewall50 said:
I think I grasp it pretty well. One can choose a variety of positions on the political spectrum. But that really isn't where the binary thinking comes into play now is it? So how does it work?
Click to expand...

And yet, in your prior post, you described only two positions (either dem or repub, or right or left)

It comes into play on the issue to issue basis. You either accept a premise as right or wrong. That is binary. It may take literally a dozen or more computations of "right and wrong" to define a gray area, but that is how binary works. How do you think computers work? So let's break this down even more.
Click to expand...

And again you demonstrate the binary thinking of the right. On any issue, there are a variety of responses, and one is never required to decide that one position is "right" or "wrong". Instead, one can decide "better" or "worse", which is something that binary thinkers are incapable of.


You use binary thought when thinking "left" or "right" or "up and down" or "good and bad." Some of these are polar opposites but they have a middle right? So let's take up and down. What if it is in the middle. Neither up nor down? How is that binary?
Click to expand...

That would not be binary. However, it contradicts your own claims that there is a good position and a bad position.

IOW, once again you have demonstrated that you don't understand what "binary thinking" means, and that you engage in it.
 
Somerville said:
Do YOU think there is the slightest chance the American government will make any moves toward outlawing religion? If you do believe it is possible, what actions taken by the government cause you to believe such a thing? or were you just attempting a trolling?
Click to expand...

You asked what governments were supposed to do. I asked if you support the outlawing of religion.

Don't open the can, if you're afraid of touching the worms.
 
sangha said:
And yet, in your prior post, you described only two positions (either dem or repub, or right or left)
Click to expand...

Um. I described them as EXISTING. Does implying that these positions exist mean they are the ONLY positions that can exist politically? No. I don't recall EVER saying that. When I said, "left and right" I meant...< and > in DIRECTIONAL sense. Not politically. I see your confusion. Maybe that ought to clear it up?

And again you demonstrate the binary thinking of the right. On any issue, there are a variety of responses, and one is never required to decide that one position is "right" or "wrong". Instead, one can decide "better" or "worse", which is something that binary thinkers are incapable of.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!! You don't get it do you? Binary exists at a MUCH more base level than "better or WORSE." Do you NOT understand what a premise is? To come to a position that something is "better" or "worse" you must first understand the argument. There are literally hundreds of premises that may be involved in coming to a conclusion that something is better or worse in ranking something. Why is XYZ better than XYZA? I reject A...therefore XYZ is better than A. You have a hundred different reasons to RANK something as better or worse. When it comes down to it...it MUST be broken down into why 1 thing is better than another. That is BINARY. It is broken into ACCEPT or REJECT.

NOW...does that mean that YOUR view of ACCEPT or REJECT is the SAME as my ACCEPT or REJECT? No. The binary system for acceptance or rejection is different between us. The A of XYZA may actually be POSITIVE for me...and be NEGATIVE for you. Are you following yet? The human brain is very similar to a computer...only it operates considerably faster and can make these "binary" calculations hundreds of times faster.

That would not be binary. However, it contradicts your own claims that there is a good position and a bad position.
Click to expand...

Good and bad may in fact be defined in a ranking system that required a binary process as bad thing A is less than bad thing B and it is still even LESS bad than C so... A<B<C...A<C...B<C...C>A...and so on. All of these calculations can be done in a BINARY process. If they could not...computers could not run...as they ALL operate on a binary system.

You coming to the conclusion that I am WRONG about binary thinking...means that you are taking a position that is the OPPOSITE of mine. Do you agree or disagree?
 
stonewall50 said:
Um. I described them as EXISTING. Does implying that these positions exist mean they are the ONLY positions that can exist politically? No. I don't recall EVER saying that. When I said, "left and right" I meant...< and > in DIRECTIONAL sense. Not politically. I see your confusion. Maybe that ought to clear it up?
Click to expand...

Actually, you did more that describe them as existing, but I don't blame you for running away from your ridiculous claims. And you most certainly did describe the left and right positions as being in opposition, but I won't dismiss the possibility that you don't realize the meaning of the words you've used.



LMAO!!! You don't get it do you? Binary exists at a MUCH more base level than "better or WORSE." Do you NOT understand what a premise is? To come to a position that something is "better" or "worse" you must first understand the argument. There are literally hundreds of premises that may be involved in coming to a conclusion that something is better or worse in ranking something. Why is XYZ better than XYZA? I reject A...therefore XYZ is better than A. You have a hundred different reasons to RANK something as better or worse. When it comes down to it...it MUST be broken down into why 1 thing is better than another. That is BINARY. It is broken into ACCEPT or REJECT.
Click to expand...

Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding about what binary thinking is. It is not "breaking things down and judging one thing better than another". That is "reductionist thinking", not "binary thinking"

NOW...does that mean that YOUR view of ACCEPT or REJECT is the SAME as my ACCEPT or REJECT? No. The binary system for acceptance or rejection is different between us. The A of XYZA may actually be POSITIVE for me...and be NEGATIVE for you. Are you following yet? The human brain is very similar to a computer...only it operates considerably faster and can make these "binary" calculations hundreds of times faster.
Click to expand...

Again, binary thinking isn't about judgement. It's about a misperception of the available choices.

Good and bad may in fact be defined in a ranking system that required a binary process as bad thing A is less than bad thing B and it is still even LESS bad than C so... A<B<C...A<C...B<C...C>A...and so on. All of these calculations can be done in a BINARY process. If they could not...computers could not run...as they ALL operate on a binary system.

You coming to the conclusion that I am WRONG about binary thinking...means that you are taking a position that is the OPPOSITE of mine. Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

You are confusing reductionism with binary thinking.

Here's a hint: binary thinking is sometimes referred to as "black and white thinking"
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Pope. I'm an American and I believe it's morally wrong to participate into elevating a human being to a social status above other humans, and I'm a Protestant and I believe it's morally wrong to participate in elevating a person to spiritual status above other humans. But he is right about this and you are wrong. It is a fact that Pedophilia is an incurable medical condition, not a crime. Pedophilia isn't ever a person's action, and only person's actions can be crimes. Sexual attraction is a chemical reaction, not a choice. Choices can be wrong but chemical reactions are just science. (Not that the Pope wouldn't throw science in Prison if he could, But then I'm no fan of the Pope anyway.) Child Molestation is not a medical condition. Child Molestation is a crime. It's always a crime because it's always an action which hurts another person. There are varying degrees to which it is wrong because there are e varying degrees to which it hurts another person. Raping a child is more wrong than sexually fondling a child. You're creepy if you don't agree with the Pope that there are varying degrees. It would take a creepy person to see sexually fondling a child as being no different than raping a child. The Pope is right and you're wrong. Looking at live-action video or still photographs of Child Pornography is less wrong than raping a child. It's still wrong, and it's still a crime. Looking at it, creates a market demand for raping or sexually fondling a child. But it takes more than one customer to create enough demand to cause a child to be raped or sexually fondled, so it's less wrong than raping a child. .Looking at Live-Action or Photograph-stills of Child Pornography is therefore equally wrong as sexually fondling a child. Looking at animations and drawings depicting Child Molestation is wrong. It's wrong because it creates a market demand for Live-Action and Photograph Stills of Raping or sexually fondling a child. It takes more than one customer of animation or drawings of raping or sexually fondling a child, to create a demand for Live-Action and Photograph Stills of Raping or sexually fondling a child. So it's less wrong than Looking at Live-action video of Raping or sexually fondling a child, and it's less wrong than sexually fondling a child. Don't get me wrong, I recommend the death penalty for all of the above, including Pedophilia. Maybe the Pope does too, have you asked him? Or were you too busy mentally exaggerating his true statements, into him cheering for hurting children? Killing all Pedophiles would prevent all Child Rape and Child Sexual fondling. Killing in self-defense is okay, and to quote Michael Jackson (Ironic?) We Are The Children. There is no self-defense truer than that of killing all Pedophiles. Pedophilia isn't a crime and it isn't wrong, we just should kill them all, that's all.
Click to expand...

So it goes in Iran. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty.
 
I find the discussion on this thread a little perplexing.

I think we all can agree that "paedophilia" as in having certain sexual urges is not a crime, by itself. Acting upon such urges is a crime, however - one of the worst imaginable. Just as hating someone's guts is not a crime, but actually smashing his head with a hammer most definitely is.

The cardinal said something else: He had suggested that paedophiles who had actually hurt children should be viewed as psychiatric, not criminal cases - IF they were abused as children themselves. From the all-important angle of protecting potential victims, the difference is immaterial: they are going to be locked up in either case. I disagree with what he says , but I am kind of amused by the near-uniform reaction on the Left.

So...the circumstances of upbringing, even most damaging ones, do NOT matter, after all? Good to know.
 
Cyrylek said:
I find the discussion on this thread a little perplexing.

I think we all can agree that "paedophilia" as in having certain sexual urges is not a crime, by itself. Acting upon such urges is a crime, however - one of the worst imaginable. Just as hating someone's guts is not a crime, but actually smashing his head with a hammer most definitely is.

The cardinal said something else: He had suggested that paedophiles who had actually hurt children should be viewed as psychiatric, not criminal cases - IF they were abused as children themselves. From the all-important angle of protecting potential victims, the difference is immaterial: they are going to be locked up in either case. I disagree with what he says , but I am kind of amused by the near-uniform reaction on the Left.

So...the circumstances of upbringing, even most damaging ones, do NOT matter, after all? Good to know.
Click to expand...


What is the "near-uniform reaction on the Left"? The problem for the Church goes beyond the crimes committed to its ongoing refusal to acknowledge that many of its prelates hid the perpetrators on an ongoing basis.
Cardinal Egan Criticized for Retracting Apology on Sex-Abuse Crisis - NYTimes.com

In 2002, at the height of the outcry over the sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic priests, the Archbishop of New York, Edward M. Egan, issued a letter to be read at Mass. In it, he offered an apology about the church’s handling of sex-abuse cases in New York and in Bridgeport, Conn., where he was previously posted.

Now, 10 years later and in retirement, Cardinal Egan has taken back his apology.

In a interview with Connecticut magazine published on the magazine’s Web site last week, a surprisingly frank Cardinal Egan said of the apology, “I never should have said that,” and added, “I don’t think we did anything wrong.”

He said many more things in the interview, some of them seemingly at odds with the facts. He repeatedly denied that any sex abuse had occurred on his watch in Bridgeport. He said that even now, the church in Connecticut had no obligation to report sexual abuse accusations to the authorities. (A law on the books since the 1970s says otherwise.)
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
What is the "near-uniform reaction on the Left"? .
Click to expand...

The angry condemnation of this cleric for suggesting that some of the molesters may not be culpable because of traumatic events of their childhood.
Even though blaming "environment" (rather than individual judgement) was one of the major "liberal" memes for decades.
 
The fact that so many people in the Catholic hierarchy covered up the sex acts against children and, I might add, adolescent girls and women, too, and why they have not publicly blamed the priests involved, and why they have seemed more like apologists for the priests than people concerned for the victims is a special problem for the following reason.

Traditionally, historically, this church covered up all sorts of crimes and sins committed by priests because it had a teaching that it would be worse to let it be known because it could cause people to criticize the church and that would be a sin. I may be wording this incorrectly, and I'm not providing a link because, frankly, I'm too lazy. But I remember reading somewhere about some kind of Catholic teaching like this. And I'm guessing,, but I think that this is why the whole sex scandal thing has left this church in a muddle about how to deal with the situation.

Of course, the other problem is that the Catholic church has never really taken sex crimes such as having sex with little kids and raping girls and women as seriously as some others, and it is having a hard time understanding why other people think they are really heinous.
 
choiceone said:
The fact that so many people in the Catholic hierarchy covered up the sex acts against children and, I might add, adolescent girls and women, too, and why they have not publicly blamed the priests involved, and why they have seemed more like apologists for the priests than people concerned for the victims is a special problem for the following reason.

Traditionally, historically, this church covered up all sorts of crimes and sins committed by priests because it had a teaching that it would be worse to let it be known because it could cause people to criticize the church and that would be a sin. I may be wording this incorrectly, and I'm not providing a link because, frankly, I'm too lazy. But I remember reading somewhere about some kind of Catholic teaching like this. And I'm guessing,, but I think that this is why the whole sex scandal thing has left this church in a muddle about how to deal with the situation.

Of course, the other problem is that the Catholic church has never really taken sex crimes such as having sex with little kids and raping girls and women as seriously as some others, and it is having a hard time understanding why other people think they are really heinous.
Click to expand...

This is a deplorable charge....To think that the Catholic Church, a church that teaches about St. Francis and the love of animals, as well as St. Nicholas the patron saint of children, and often teaches how Jesus loved the children, I really would like to know what proof you have to back up this claim....

Nah, I think that the scandal was an embarrassment to the church, and since the church is run by man, then it is subject to the failings of man.
 
Somerville said:
None of your post is coherent.

What does the new Holy Father have to do with the New York Times?

What is the connection between the NYT and the Church's continuing denial of the problems with child abuse within its priesthood?
Click to expand...

The guy who helped cover up Savile's pedophilia is now the editor of the NYT. If we use the premise of this idiotic thread, then it's safe to assume that all of the media is complicit in pedophilia and is actively working to cover it up.

Jimmy Savile scandal: New York Times editor questions if Mark Thompson is the right man to be her boss | Mail Online

BBC knew of Jimmy Savile's 'dark side' before tribute aired | Media | The Observer
 
Last edited:
Wow you totally argued with your own self there. no one but you mentioned anyone being guilty until proven innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom