View Thread

Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Catholic cardinal says that pedophilia is not a ‘criminal condition’
Skeeve
Committing a crime isn't criminal. Got it.

http://www.rawsto...condition/
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
JohnH
While probably correct in the legal/moral sense that pedophila is an aberration, the tenor of the comments are far too typical of the "one true church".

We must deal with pedophiles in an aggressive and pro active fashion and not allow them to control the "one true church" should have been the tenor of the comments, not those stated.

Morals are so easy for the religious. I believe in god therefore I need no morals.
 
seeker
Well that makes it all better doesn't it. Is it just me or is there more and more of this nonsense that somehow we can't be responsible for controlling our impulses?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Theory_Execution
A part of their double standard. They tell the world that pedophiles cannot control their impulses, yet demand homosexuals do just that.

Where one is utterly unconcerned with the welfare of the victim, the other is exercised at the will of those involved.

Maybe the justification is, if both the child rapist and the child agree they do not want the rape, then they are morally superior to two homosexual men or women agreeing that they do both want the love making.

Does it come down to resistance to the sins of the flesh, i.e. the protestation of how you do not want to do something is the important point.
 
jayon
They are correct in a way that simply being one and not acting on the impulses is not criminal, but the fact that they are making the statement probably to defend priests is deplorable. Just like someone who sees nothing wrong with killing people in cold blood but doesn't act on it is not criminal, however if I defended them being in a higher office over people -- especially one where they are teaching people things like morality and especially if I was in an office overseeing them -- that would be deplorable. They should remove the priests from office and get them real help. If they've acted on those impulses, they should turn them in to the proper authorities. That statement seems to suggest they will do neither.
 
Theory_Execution
I think the only help we should give to a violent rapist, and some rapists of other types (statutory rape I have my doubts about) would be the immediate death penalty.

Of course the legal system would have to be improved - which is a massive problem because society pressures women to under-report cases of rape.

As for 'help' for people who are sexually attracted to children, I think it is about as effective as me trying to 'help' myself from liking beautiful intelligent unattainable women of my own age group - fucking impossible. I really would like to be drawn to ugly boring women, it just doesn't work in that way.
 
Hypatia
Lately I've read a couple of articles about one group in particular (don't remember what they call themselves, but could probably find it again, I think), but also individuals and other groups, who are advocating that pedophilia is nothing more than a way of sexually identifying, or as they seemed to think, a 'choice', and that it should be as socially acceptable as being GBLT.

I have no idea how small or large of a thing this is - it certainly isn't of Movement proportions, but I'm very disturbed that anyone is openly advocating for that idea.
 
Theory_Execution
NAMBLA? North American Man Boy Love Association?

I don't know if they are real, but they appeared in an episode of South Park I think.

On the basis of thinking and sexual arousal over children, I don't think you can make laws against that (although people would like to do so).

It is the active pursuit that is the problem - inclusive of the child rape in images and video, because a child must be abused to generate that imagery and I know from my own legal porn use, that the same images can get tired, you need new content.

I suppose pedophiles can stay away from physical content, but without some release I don't know how possible that is - there may be some info on that out there.

I just see no evidence for their being a way of changing these feelings - if there was, as I said above, I would not chose the women I am currently interested in.
 
Hypatia
The group I read about recently wasn't NAMBLA, a group we've known about for quite sometime now. Their name was something like GK3 - a couple of letters and a number, I think it was.

This particular group seems to think it's the rest of us who have a skewed view of adults having sex with children and that instead it would be more 'normal' if we looked at it as and accepted it as just another kind of sexual preference or way of sexually identifying.

I know there have been some cultures that have had that attitude, but it's one I cannot see ever being acceptable in the society I live in.
 
JohnH
Things can get dicey around the edges.

When I was about 13 I was strongly attracted, including sexually, to a woman who was over 18. I think there may have been some reciprocity, but way too many years ago so I cannot be sure that memory is correct. If I was correct and we had acted on the sexual attraction she would have been criminally liable.

This is however much different than preying on young people because you are sexually attracted to them. Consensual sexual activity between a post pubescent person and a technical adult is something much different than someone using a power difference to have a sexual relationship or seducing someone much younger. In this case by seducing I mean convincing that younger person that they are consenting to sex.

As in much of human sexual relationships and much of human behavior the devil is often in the details.

Much tread drift eh.
 
Theory_Execution
Sex with the young was quite common due to low life expectancy, so the legal age limits we have are quite artificial in that sense - so a sexually interested 13 year old does not worry me too much - I was one.

I was very interested in women and their bodies well before I hit puberty.

However, I imagine children of the past were also quite mentally developed as they had to be to survive - children today are over protected in my opinion, and worse, they are taught nonsense at schools (another subject entirely).

So this opinion that children should still be sexually available has no real support - the population dying out is a non-issue, and you just cannot connect with a child as you can another adult.
 
Hypatia
JohnH wrote:

Things can get dicey around the edges.

When I was about 13 I was strongly attracted, including sexually, to a woman who was over 18. I think there may have been some reciprocity, but way too many years ago so I cannot be sure that memory is correct. If I was correct and we had acted on the sexual attraction she would have been criminally liable.

This is however much different than preying on young people because you are sexually attracted to them. Consensual sexual activity between a post pubescent person and a technical adult is something much different than someone using a power difference to have a sexual relationship or seducing someone much younger. In this case by seducing I mean convincing that younger person that they are consenting to sex.

As in much of human sexual relationships and much of human behavior the devil is often in the details.

Much tread drift eh.


Yes, there is a world of difference between consensual and coerced, mutual and manipulative. I am also in agreement with your second to the last sentence, and understand T_E's point about there being a time when people seemed to grow up and take responsibility at a younger age than they do in our current societies. It's one thing for children to be aware of their sexuality and with which gender they identify, etc., but it's quite another thing to be emotionally, physically and mentally ready to have sexual relationships with anyone, of any age, but most especially with adults, who happen to prefer children for sex over other adults. I realize someone of legal age may not be emotionally, physically or mentally ready for a sexual or committed relationship either, but at least then they are 'of age'.

I just think children should get to have their childhoods and not have to be too concerned with things like sex, with of course the exception of the obvious - they still need to be taught about sex, the biology of it and how to deal with surging hormones and curiosity and being safe and responsible when they do become sexually active. Again, different than having that personal part of their life decided for them and forced and visited upon them by some adult who decides for them it's alright and that they are 'ready' for it.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Cardinal William Levada Black Collar Crime and Hypocrites Watch 6 06/14/2012 07:34
WTF is wrong with the Catholic Church? Christianity 8 02/24/2012 07:54
Catholic investigator jailed for child porn The Rant Room 7 01/12/2012 19:20
Thousands of Germans Leave Catholic Church Christianity 36 01/12/2011 14:06
Vatican claims Homer & Bart are Catholic Christianity 4 10/20/2010 02:18