Cardinal: Paedophiles aren't criminals
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Saying its not criminal is a bit weird, but it did bring up an interesting conversation in our house.
The Internet has probably taught everyone that there are many people with... 'Unusual' sexual fetishes.
Realistically paedophilia is just another fetish. Now, people shouldn't be allowed to act on said fetish for obvious reasons, but ultimately, one could argue its a 'mental' disorder.
kd
The Internet has probably taught everyone that there are many people with... 'Unusual' sexual fetishes.
Realistically paedophilia is just another fetish. Now, people shouldn't be allowed to act on said fetish for obvious reasons, but ultimately, one could argue its a 'mental' disorder.
kd
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 8,732
- Location
- sawley/ long eaton
paedophiles have free will they know right from wrong
nothing to do with there upbringing
nothing to do with there upbringing
I know people push forward the idea that his sentence is technically correct; however letting pedophiles in position of trust is not wise. We don't put high risk people in charge of thing that could be compromised due to illness.
So even if it is just illness, such people still should not be protected by other priests and allowed to stay in the system because they have access to children and trust of parents, both which are compromised due to their "illness", so even if they have restrain to not act upon pedophile tendencies they should not be allowed in position of trust (priesthood) that has access to children.
So in essence, covering up for pedophiles in church should be illegal, thus being in a pedophile and priest should be illegal.
Also, what about those people who help cover up priests who sexually abused children, are they being arrested?
So even if it is just illness, such people still should not be protected by other priests and allowed to stay in the system because they have access to children and trust of parents, both which are compromised due to their "illness", so even if they have restrain to not act upon pedophile tendencies they should not be allowed in position of trust (priesthood) that has access to children.
So in essence, covering up for pedophiles in church should be illegal, thus being in a pedophile and priest should be illegal.
Also, what about those people who help cover up priests who sexually abused children, are they being arrested?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Well that's shear ignorance. It's widely known that most RSOs have been victims of abuse at one point during their lives.
Paedophillia is considered a mental illness by the medical profession, and isn't illegal in itself, I don't see why anyone would condemn the cardinal.
The vast majority of abuse victims do not go on to commit similar crimes, it's not like werewolves as the paedofinder general would suggest. So being abused is not any kind of excuse.
I'm not sure I'd consider things like paedophilia or zoophillia to be fetishes in the classical sense, they seem more akin to sexual orientation.
The vast majority of abuse victims do not go on to commit similar crimes, it's not like werewolves as the paedofinder general would suggest. So being abused is not any kind of excuse.
I'm not sure I'd consider things like paedophilia or zoophillia to be fetishes in the classical sense, they seem more akin to sexual orientation.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
Pedophilia is both a crime and a mental illness.
It leaves victims with horrible scares both physically and mentally. I don't care what it is classed as but it is despicably wrong and shouldn't be defended.
On the other hand I don't agree with lynch mob law or prisoners serving so called justice on others. I wish it could be treated before offenders offend.
As a so called illness I wonder what would happen if you went to your GP and said you fancy children? I bet you would be locked up rather than treated.
It leaves victims with horrible scares both physically and mentally. I don't care what it is classed as but it is despicably wrong and shouldn't be defended.
On the other hand I don't agree with lynch mob law or prisoners serving so called justice on others. I wish it could be treated before offenders offend.
As a so called illness I wonder what would happen if you went to your GP and said you fancy children? I bet you would be locked up rather than treated.
However considering the recent history of the Catholic Church he should probably have chosen his words a bit better and made it perfectly clear that anyone acting on such desires should face the full extent of the law. Otherwise we are back to the position of wondering if the Church is going to cover up any future abuses and try to "help" the offender whilst telling the victims to keep quiet. Sadly the recent Keith O'Brien situation has shown that, once again, the Church is more interested in it's reputation than any victim.
Technically that's not what he said.
He implied that paedophiia is more like a mental illness than a deliberate attempt to break the law - in which he is half right. (but it seems he is trying to have his cake & eat it), but you either have right/wrong & "moral responsibility" or you don't.
To be fully right he would have to bin the entire concept of good & evil he cherishes so much.
Most criminals are dysfunctional human beings, either the result of poor genetics or a bad environment (bad as in lacking what they needed to turn out well) - if you view people from a mechanistic sense & abandon the concept of good & evil this is always true.
BIGGS WAS A LEGEND
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,188
The normal state of things is to have sexual relations with a mature member of the opposite sex. Anything else is abnormal, and could easily be explained as a mental illness rather than a crime. In fact we have completely decriminalised homosexuality already, accepting it is not a crime. Paedophilia is completely abhorrent, but so was homosexuality 100 years ago.
A mental illness is not abnormality, it's defined as a state of mind that causes significant distress and impairment to the individual or can result in harm to others. Paedophilia fits that definition, homosexuality doesn't.
Well he's saying that he doesn't take the position that they should be punished or be criminally responsible. I think technically the OP seems to be pretty much on the money....
"Now don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that. I don't think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished. He was himself damaged."
You have just made the shortlist for the Moron of the Year 2013 award. Congratulations.
I'm no fan of any religious institution, and while it was probably a hamfisted approach, there's nothing wrong with what the Cardinal has said.
Being attracted to children is a state of mind/sexuality, it may even be genetic to some extent. To turn someone into a criminal simply because of the way they are 'made', or because of what they're attracted to is wrong. Same can be said for homosexuality.
The difference between those, however, is that homosexuality between two consenting adults is fine, whereas a Paedophile (a word which has unfortunately grown a stigma, and instantly seems to provoke revulsion and hatred) who acts on it is taking advantage of a child who cannot (at least by law) consent to the actions - which should be punished, and is.
Would you convict somebody for thinking about killing someone, but not acting on it? Or would you punish them for attempting to kill someone?
Thought crime is a dangerous area.
Both acts are unnatural, many still see it as an abhorrent act, i think this world needs to be cleansed of such filth.
so you'd be fine if someone dropped into a conversation that your child is 'attractive' and can be described as 'their type' but instead you'd suggest for them to visit a psychologist to deal with their 'issues'
so you'd be fine if someone dropped into a conversation that your child is 'attractive' and can be described as 'their type' but instead you'd suggest for them to visit a psychologist to deal with their 'issues'
Using inflammatory statements like this is silly. Of course he would be repulsed and probably want to kick the crap out of the person that said it but it still doesn't make said person a criminal in the sense this thread is discussing.
It is possible he could be found guilty of a Breach of the Peace however but that is entirely different from being criminalised for being a paedophile.
The issue is that, as soon as the "pedo" word is used, people seem to abandon all rational thought processes.
Last edited: