Cardinal says paedophilia 'not a criminal condition'

Somerville said:

When those in charge have covered up crimes time and time again, when those in charge refuse to accept that actions of some of their members are criminal - what should governments do?




Denying reality is not the way for the Church to move forward.

Click to expand...

Should the government outlaw religion?

apdst said:

Should the government outlaw religion?

Click to expand...

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?

apdst said:

Should the government outlaw religion?

Click to expand...

Our government cant but wish it could (be the only religion)..

Progressives like Pelosi and ObamaClownToolBoy view themselves as idols...

Progressives in government dream about being Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot et al while using forces like Che Guevara to achieve that goal, well after they ban everything that can be used in self-defense.

I suppose in Lenins "Utopia" religion was horrible because it distracted people from worshiping his government and having obedience to his government and his Red Army.

Mr.Nick said:

Our government cant but wish it could (be the only religion)..

Progressives like Pelosi and ObamaClownToolBoy view themselves as idols...

Progressives in government dream about being Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot et al while using forces like Che Guevara to achieve that goal, well after they ban everything that can be used in self-defense.

I suppose in Lenins "Utopia" religion was horrible because it distracted people from worshiping his government and having obedience to his government and his Red Army.

Click to expand...

You have a very strange view of reality or - you are trolling

Somerville said:

You have a very strange view of reality or - you are trolling

Click to expand...

Really? you think ANY of the first Ten Amendments can be banned?

I don't expect much black or white from a socialist sympathizer thief tho.

Somerville said:

When those in charge have covered up crimes time and time again, when those in charge refuse to accept that actions of some of their members are criminal - what should governments do?




Denying reality is not the way for the Church to move forward.

Click to expand...

Wait wait wait? I hate pedophiles as much as the next person...but are you telling me that it isn't a mental disorder? It is a criminal action yes. I get that. People deserve punishment for their crimes, but pedophilia is a mental defect like someone being a sociopath. Maybe I misunderstood the title and your post...maybe I missed the context...and I hope I did...but it seems like you are saying pedophiles aren't defective mentally?

The word "pedophile" has seriously been rebranded from anthropology and its defined terminology ....

Obviously we have our own ethics but in some cultures it is not odd for a 35-year-old to have children with a 14-year-old - it's just human nature.... Of course that is anthropology and not our western ethics....

Sociologically typing - I think that our culture is obsessed with fetishes and views sex as with a "child (an individual between 13-17)" as some sort of wicked act but the cultures that engage in such a practice do so for reproductive purposes.

Of course I live in the west and our culture is different... But historically and even presently in the Middle East, Africa and Asia it's common.... Many countries are trying to adapt to the western ethics tho... I don't know if that is good or bad.

apdst said:

Should the government outlaw religion?

Click to expand...

You cannot imagine an action somewhere between banning religion and doing nothing? Really?

Mr.Nick said:

Our government cant but wish it could (be the only religion)..

Progressives like Pelosi and ObamaClownToolBoy view themselves as idols...

Progressives in government dream about being Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot et al while using forces like Che Guevara to achieve that goal, well after they ban everything that can be used in self-defense.

I suppose in Lenins "Utopia" religion was horrible because it distracted people from worshiping his government and having obedience to his government and his Red Army.

Click to expand...

Man, you have so little clue as to what liberals and/or progressives are interested in that it is hilarious. Best laugh in awhile with this post, thanks.

Mr.Nick said:

The word "pedophile" has seriously been rebranded from anthropology and its defined terminology ....

Obviously we have our own ethics but in some cultures it is not odd for a 35-year-old to have children with a 14-year-old - it's just human nature.... Of course that is anthropology and not our western ethics....

Sociologically typing - I think that our culture is obsessed with fetishes and views sex as with a "child (an individual between 13-17)" as some sort of wicked act but the cultures that engage in such a practice do so for reproductive purposes.

Of course I live in the west and our culture is different... But historically and even presently in the Middle East, Africa and Asia it's common.... Many countries are trying to adapt to the western ethics tho... I don't know if that is good or bad.

Click to expand...

13 to 17 is not pedophilia.

Sarcogito said:

Yeah, pedophilia isn't a crime, but child molestation is. I figure some people become pedophiles as a result of life experiences, such as being molested themselves at a young age, and some people may even be born "wired" that way.

Frankly, I feel sorry for pedophiles. I can't imagine what kind of hell it must be to live with those kind of urges. Don't get me wrong, the moment they act on those urges they lose my sympathy.

Medical help should be free and readily available to pedophiles who seek assistance in controlling their urges. And we shouldn't judge people who actually take the proactive measures to seek treatment.

But once you have shown you are willing to molest children you MUST be removed from society.

Click to expand...

No such luck in treating paedophiles yet. They respond poorly to therapy.

AmericanWoman76 said:

no, you are using the actual medical definition for diagnosis of pedophilia AS A MENTAL DISORDER. The actual definition of mental disorder is abnormal psychology that causes a person to be a danger to themselves or others. That is known as going to the proper source for information and then USING THAT SOURCE INCORRECTLY. You are basing your incorrect definition of pedophilia as always being a danger to oneself and others, on incorrectly defining pedophilia as synonymous to, , pedophilia AS A MENTAL DISORDER, which is CIRCULAR LOGIC. You are compounding your suckish research skills and your circular logic, By telling me that I'm Incorrectly defining pedophilia as abnormal psychology by actually using the actual medical professionals' definition of pedophilia as abnormal psychology. That is known as going to the proper source for information, you are just calling it incorrect use.

Click to expand...

Pedophilia is a mental disorder. It takes acting on the urges also in order to make one a pedophile. Not acting on them makes one closeted and/or sick dreamer.

Mr.Nick said:

Really? you think ANY of the first Ten Amendments can be banned?

I don't expect much black or white from a socialist sympathizer thief tho.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should read your Bible:

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

The Purpose of the Law

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator.
20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one.
21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian,
26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.

Click to expand...

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?

Redress said:

What the **** does this have to do with either atheists or homosexuals?

Are many pedophiles molested as children themselves? Seems unlikely but I really don't k ow for sure.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but my memory seems to remember hearing routinely from both medical sources and more anecdotal (Dr. Drew for example) that those who have been abused or exposed to abuse are more likely TO abuse. This is in a general sense...from physical abuse to pedophilia.

Honestly, if you removed this being from a Cardinal and told me it was from someone like a Dr. Drew I wouldn't have blinked an eye. I know it's the whole "Catholic says something about Pedophilia! Kill it with Fire", but trying to look at this even mildly objectively, I can somewhat see his point. He's not suggesting the act of pedophilia is inherently not criminal. But he's suggesting a thought that there's a different in terms of the criminal aspect, seemingly in terms of motivation and intent, between those who seemingly just choose to do the action as opposed to those who have been abused in the past and then choose to do it.....

I guess putting it another way as an analogy...

A person who uses crack the first time because "hey that'd be fun" an a person whose been using it for years and wants to stop but keeps doing it because they're addicted could be viewed as different in how people view the criminality or culpability of the act, because one's doing it fully by choice and the other is affected by something akin to an illness. Doesn't make the act "Good" or "okay" or "acceptable", but PERHAPS shines a different light upon the motivation for the act.

I think Middleground says it well a little ways back in terms of his meaning. It doesn't make it okay in any way, or something that shouldn't be dealt with, but it's arguable that perhaps there's a different degree of responsability.

Somerville said:

When those in charge have covered up crimes time and time again, when those in charge refuse to accept that actions of some of their members are criminal - what should governments do?




Denying reality is not the way for the Church to move forward.

Click to expand...

Oh goody, another chance to bash the Catholic church...

Zyphlin said:

I'm not sure, but my memory seems to remember hearing routinely from both medical sources and more anecdotal (Dr. Drew for example) that those who have been abused or exposed to abuse are more likely TO abuse. This is in a general sense...from physical abuse to pedophilia.

Honestly, if you removed this being from a Cardinal and told me it was from someone like a Dr. Drew I wouldn't have blinked an eye. I know it's the whole "Catholic says something about Pedophilia! Kill it with Fire", but trying to look at this even mildly objectively, I can somewhat see his point. He's not suggesting the act of pedophilia is inherently not criminal. But he's suggesting a thought that there's a different in terms of the criminal aspect, seemingly in terms of motivation and intent, between those who seemingly just choose to do the action as opposed to those who have been abused in the past and then choose to do it.....

I guess putting it another way as an analogy...

A person who uses crack the first time because "hey that'd be fun" an a person whose been using it for years and wants to stop but keeps doing it because they're addicted could be viewed as different in how people view the criminality or culpability of the act, because one's doing it fully by choice and the other is affected by something akin to an illness. Doesn't make the act "Good" or "okay" or "acceptable", but PERHAPS shines a different light upon the motivation for the act.

I think Middleground says it well a little ways back in terms of his meaning. It doesn't make it okay in any way, or something that shouldn't be dealt with, but it's arguable that perhaps there's a different degree of responsability.

Click to expand...

The issue to me is not that it is the catholic church(The Cardinal from Chicago was on Meet The Press yesterday and made alot of sense on the subject and presented what the church is doing in a very good light), but that what was said by this cardinal tends to forget why pedophilia is a crime, which is the victim. Why they do what they do is secondary.

j-mac said:

Oh goody, another chance to bash the Catholic church...

Click to expand...

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?

Redress said:

The issue to me is not that it is the catholic church(The Cardinal from Chicago was on Meet The Press yesterday and made alot of sense on the subject and presented what the church is doing in a very good light), but that what was said by this cardinal tends to forget why pedophilia is a crime, which is the victim. Why they do what they do is secondary.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. However, in the type of situation the Cardinal is talking about you're looking at two victims...the first and now the second. It doesn't excuse the actions of the person performing the current abuse, it doesn't make those actions "okay", it doesn't make them something that should be ignored...but I guess I'm saying that I understand the notion of looking to not just punish, but perhaps also provide help, to those who were abused and then go forward with abuse.

It's not just paedophilia. If a girl grows up watching her father abuse her mother and abuse her verbally and physically (But not sexually), if that girl grows up to be abusive to her children and her husband then I have at least some sympathy for her because I realize part of why she's doing that is because she TOO was a Victim. It doesn't excuse the action she's taking against her own family, but it does interject a slightly different spin to the situation and in terms of what actions may be most needed to bring it to a resolution.

This is one of those threads I kind of wish CC was around for. I'll try to look up some information...but I'm almost positive that amongst victims of abuse, regardless of the kind, the potential for those people to go on and be abusers themselves increases SIGNIFICANTLY.

That's not excusing their action, it's not saying their action shouldn't have consequences, but it's saying that there is perhaps a different level of intent surrounding the inspiration to take the action and perhaps a different set of issues to deal with in terms of punishment.

Zyphlin said:

Absolutely. However, in the type of situation the Cardinal is talking about you're looking at two victims...the first and now the second. It doesn't excuse the actions of the person performing the current abuse, it doesn't make those actions "okay", it doesn't make them something that should be ignored...but I guess I'm saying that I understand the notion of looking to not just punish, but perhaps also provide help, to those who were abused and then go forward with abuse.

It's not just paedophilia. If a girl grows up watching her father abuse her mother and abuse her verbally and physically (But not sexually), if that girl grows up to be abusive to her children and her husband then I have at least some sympathy for her because I realize part of why she's doing that is because she TOO was a Victim. It doesn't excuse the action she's taking against her own family, but it does interject a slightly different spin to the situation and in terms of what actions may be most needed to bring it to a resolution.

This is one of those threads I kind of wish CC was around for. I'll try to look up some information...but I'm almost positive that amongst victims of abuse, regardless of the kind, the potential for those people to go on and be abusers themselves increases SIGNIFICANTLY.

That's not excusing their action, it's not saying their action shouldn't have consequences, but it's saying that there is perhaps a different level of intent surrounding the inspiration to take the action and perhaps a different set of issues to deal with in terms of punishment.

Click to expand...

But the problem here is basically the power of the message kinda thing. When you have a major controversy in your organization, thinking better about what you say is important. I again contrast it to what was said on Meet The Press yesterday, where he opened by condemning child molestation, then explained how the church had changed it's rules to make stopping it easier and better, then talked about how what happens now is that cases are reported, that happened before the changes the church made, which keep people thinking the church was not fixing the problem. It's a major difference in tone between those comments and the ones reported here. Saying that some child molesters should not be punished, and making excuses, when your organization has a very unpleasant history on the topic, is the exact wrong thing to do.

Redress said:

But the problem here is basically the power of the message kinda thing. When you have a major controversy in your organization, thinking better about what you say is important. I again contrast it to what was said on Meet The Press yesterday, where he opened by condemning child molestation, then explained how the church had changed it's rules to make stopping it easier and better, then talked about how what happens now is that cases are reported, that happened before the changes the church made, which keep people thinking the church was not fixing the problem. It's a major difference in tone between those comments and the ones reported here. Saying that some child molesters should not be punished, and making excuses, when your organization has a very unpleasant history on the topic, is the exact wrong thing to do.

Click to expand...

It has now become more a matter of the coverup than the crime(s), for the coverup shows that for too many in the hierarchy and far too often, denying the crime was more important than stopping the predators.

Somerville said:

It has now become more a matter of the coverup than the crime(s), for the coverup shows that for too many in the hierarchy and far too often, denying the crime was more important than stopping the predators.

Click to expand...

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. If some one was molested 20 years ago and it was covered up then, and it comes out now, it is not evidence that the church is still covering things up.

1) Where was the statement that "they should not be punished"

2) You're contradicting yourself when you're implying the issue is how the message is delivered and then turn around and again claim it's simply a case of "making excuses".

If you're asking me was it a dumb thing to say in light of the realities of how a majority of people treat almost anything out of a Catholic persons mouth regarding pedophilia/chlid molestation and what's occured within the church then I'd say "absolutely". However that's not what people have been by and large talking about in this thread. The topic hasn't been focused on the presentation and how it comes across poorly, but the content itself. My posts were not railing against the presentation or the perception because that's not what's been being focused on. My posts have gone the way they were because people seem to have an issue with the substance, and I think there's a very reasonable and realistic argument to be made along the line of what he's actually saying. Some people in this thread have been happy to make assumptions and guesses towards the intent and thoughts behind his words in the most negative way possible and to criticize for it. Those people are in their right to do that. I'm suggesting however that with no more, and perhaps less, assumptions on my part that the statements he's making are reasonable and understandable while in no way "excusing" the action as being okay.

j-mac said:

Oh goody, another chance to bash the Catholic church...

Click to expand...

See you in the "attack Islam" threads!

Zyphlin said:

1) Where was the statement that "they should not be punished"

2) You're contradicting yourself when you're implying the issue is how the message is delivered and then turn around and again claim it's simply a case of "making excuses".

If you're asking me was it a dumb thing to say in light of the realities of how a majority of people treat almost anything out of a Catholic persons mouth regarding pedophilia/chlid molestation and what's occured within the church then I'd say "absolutely". However that's not what people have been by and large talking about in this thread. The topic hasn't been focused on the presentation and how it comes across poorly, but the content itself. My posts were not railing against the presentation or the perception because that's not what's been being focused on. My posts have gone the way they were because people seem to have an issue with the substance, and I think there's a very reasonable and realistic argument to be made along the line of what he's actually saying. Some people in this thread have been happy to make assumptions and guesses towards the intent and thoughts behind his words in the most negative way possible and to criticize for it. Those people are in their right to do that. I'm suggesting however that with no more, and perhaps less, assumptions on my part that the statements he's making are reasonable and understandable while in no way "excusing" the action as being okay.

Click to expand...

From the OP article:

"Don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that," he said.
"I don't think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished when he was himself damaged."

Click to expand...

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

"Don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that," he said.

Click to expand...

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".

If the man honestly believes nothing should be done, then he's absolutely wrong. But I think the general notion leading up to that conclussion is not a poor one.

Also, I think the constant drumbeat of "catholic cover up" is one given by people who seek to find news that suits their agenda and have no desire what so ever to be objective (not saying you're doing this). Even if we take this as entirely face value, it's a singular catholic priest. On the flip side you have another catholic priest, Arch Bishop Stephen Brislin, stating:

“However, the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference is well aware of the devastation caused by sexual and other abuse of minors, both for the victims and their families, and condemns all abuse unreservedly.

“For centuries, there has been a veil of silence in the world surrounding child abuse and it is only in recent years that the *matter is receiving the attention it deserves.

“Unfortunately, there have also been failures on the part of the church.”

According to Brislin, paedophilia was “de facto a criminal offence”.

He said: “We will comply with the legal requirements when such cases come to our attention.

“Perpetrators must take responsibility for their actions.”

Link

Click to expand...

And as you noted the conversation on Meet the Press. Yet those don't get linked by many of those who immedietely jump on this as some grand example of "Catholics" or "Catholic Leadership" trying to "excuse" or "cover it up". If the guy's meaning is literally what the Telegraph is attempting to paint it as, then he should be called out. HE should be called out. But not surprisingly, it rarely is the individual being called out but the faith as a whole or the clergy as a whole regardless of what the majority of others are actually stating. We see people leaping forward to go "Hey, Not all Democrats....!" and "hey, not all Republicans...!" when a singular individual does or says something stupid, and yet it quickly is "Catholic Leadership" in these situations.