"No. Lori does Tuesdays"
Pope's Justification For Pedophilia
- Thread starter ejderha
- Start date
"No. Lori does Tuesdays"
Illegality of sex with a minor does not depend upon consent.
It is statutory rape.
statutory rape law definition
Sexual intercourse with an individual who is a minor or under the age of consent (today, usually 18), by an adult. Neither consent of the minor, nor ignorance of the minor’s age, can be used as a defense.
It is statutory rape.
statutory rape law definition
Sexual intercourse with an individual who is a minor or under the age of consent (today, usually 18), by an adult. Neither consent of the minor, nor ignorance of the minor’s age, can be used as a defense.
But it's not RAPE as we underdstand it.
Obviously sex with minors is against the law, but if the law was relaxed then it would no longer be considered statutory rape.
Sodomy was also against the law until recently (historically), but was still practised in the catholic establishment.
My point is, just as sodomy laws were quashed, so statutory rape can be as well.
jan.
I think the Pope was just stating what he thinks is happening in the world. He obviously does not endorse or condone it.
Why do people take things out of context to make their point? If you follow the link and read the entire article it is easy to see that the Pope is not condoning or endorsing this way of thinking. He is merely stating how modern civilization defines "conscience" .
I think the Pope, while saying what he has to say to appease the public, appears to be trying to lay some of the blame on society. That's like blaming disco for your cocaine problem. He refuses to consider that there may be something about the nature of the Church organization or the nature of their relationship with churchgoers that encourages abuse of power in this most horrendous way. I refer to their long standing doctrines of sexual repression, the fact that priests can't marry, that homosexuals and homosexuality are condemned. It's not a sexually free society that leads a grown man to abuse a child sexually, it could very well be a repressed (chaste, pure, above material pleasures, use whatever euphemism you want) subculture that caused it.
I don't think the Pope is blaming society, he is just stating how he sees the current society.
As far as I know catholic doctrine does not condem homosexuals, it condems homosexual acts.
There are bad priests that have abused their power and molested children, yes. Is it still happening?, probably yes. Should it stop now?, yes. Does catholic doctrine condem this behavior?, yes.
Should people condem the catholic church because some of its members do not follow their own doctrine? no.
spidergoat,
That's a silly comparison, but i'm sure you realise that.
The Pope does have a point as alot of the priests were found to have personality, and behavioural problems. Also substance abuse is a high factor, not to mention being the victims of child sex abuse themselves, mostly by adult males. All this is previous to becoming priests.
Celebacy, or even, sexual repression is not a pre-requisite for the illeagal act of child sex abuse.
Apart from that, they can give in to their urges without having to break the law.
You're kidding right?
jan.
That's a silly comparison, but i'm sure you realise that.
The Pope does have a point as alot of the priests were found to have personality, and behavioural problems. Also substance abuse is a high factor, not to mention being the victims of child sex abuse themselves, mostly by adult males. All this is previous to becoming priests.
Celebacy, or even, sexual repression is not a pre-requisite for the illeagal act of child sex abuse.
Apart from that, they can give in to their urges without having to break the law.
You're kidding right?
jan.
Wise words spidergoat.
Yes, the Catholic church is in denial about deep problems within. That showed itself clearly in the choice of the current Pope. They needed root and branch reform, and they chose the Status Quo.
This man is unworldly, and I'm afraid that carries with it the drawback of not understanding what is going on. He has made repeated blunders.
It's interesting to see how an organisation can behave very much like an individual who has done something wrong.
They try to find the blame outside themselves. They ignore the problem. They convince themselves it is less bad than it seems. etc
@Jan
A very young child cannot give consent, because they do not understand the nature of the act.
Yes, what is underage sex, and therefore statutory rape, can be a matter of local law. It can vary currently from 14? years upwards.
I don't know the laws, but I would guess that at the lower age, countries that allow it specify that it must be within marriage.
But pedophilia, with young children, is always rape, I hope you agree.
Last edited:
There's something seriously wrong with your understanding of rape, sexual relationship, adult, minor.
Anything passing between consentual adults is incomperable with anything between an adult and a child.
You too see homosexuality or some other sexual tendencies between consentual adults as "sin". This approach is ridiculous and pathetic. And holding this as an excuse...
If a leader of a dominating religion is not able to see the difference and blame the world culture by addressing "the democracy" and "free speech" and make a logic of it by the religion's perspective there is something seriously wrong how that religion percieve human being today. And it means it's not even functional in itself.
Mistaking a sexually free society with sexual perversion of the minors of that society, who needs immediate care to survive is out right disturbing.
That's what happens when religion have power. Your devine "morals" and "logic" have so disoriented your perception, you almost sound like "of course it's hapenning, because people have sex with other people all the time."
And thinking that you're breeding and raising children...
But other than that, thanks to Christians and theists who honestly said "This is wrong".
Anything passing between consentual adults is incomperable with anything between an adult and a child.
You too see homosexuality or some other sexual tendencies between consentual adults as "sin". This approach is ridiculous and pathetic. And holding this as an excuse...
If a leader of a dominating religion is not able to see the difference and blame the world culture by addressing "the democracy" and "free speech" and make a logic of it by the religion's perspective there is something seriously wrong how that religion percieve human being today. And it means it's not even functional in itself.
Mistaking a sexually free society with sexual perversion of the minors of that society, who needs immediate care to survive is out right disturbing.
That's what happens when religion have power. Your devine "morals" and "logic" have so disoriented your perception, you almost sound like "of course it's hapenning, because people have sex with other people all the time."
And thinking that you're breeding and raising children...
But other than that, thanks to Christians and theists who honestly said "This is wrong".
Impossible, these are men of god and are well above such things. They have been chosen amongst all men to have this honor bestowed upon them, therefore whatever they do is sanctioned by god.
ejderha,
Why?
You forgot to add consentual, as in between consentual adult and child.
But, it depends on the particular circumstances as to whether the act is incomparable.
What IS different though, is the leagality.
It's best you don't try and analyse my personal position on this, as it only creates complication, and we end up going off on tangents.
Have you even looked at studies regarding this type of behaviour in general?
Why don't you answer the questions I asked, we don't have to get off on the wrong foot.
Look how you have let this get out of hand.
Why are you thanking people for saying 'this is wrong'?
And why do you insinuate that I condone this behaviour?
jan.
Why?
You forgot to add consentual, as in between consentual adult and child.
But, it depends on the particular circumstances as to whether the act is incomparable.
What IS different though, is the leagality.
It's best you don't try and analyse my personal position on this, as it only creates complication, and we end up going off on tangents.
Have you even looked at studies regarding this type of behaviour in general?
Why don't you answer the questions I asked, we don't have to get off on the wrong foot.
Look how you have let this get out of hand.
Why are you thanking people for saying 'this is wrong'?
And why do you insinuate that I condone this behaviour?
jan.
!!
If you look at the testimonies of some victims (and also some third parties who are simply bewildered that such things can happen in church), their dilemma is basically about this:
One the one hand, they feel obligated to believe that the people who abused them were indeed men of God; on the other hand, they do have some sense of what was done to them was wrong. But they seem to be unable to resolve this dilemma.
(A similar dilemma can be experienced when a parent beats their child in the name of God, or when congregational members physically or psychologically gang up on another member.)
For such a victim to seriously consider that what these people have done were _not_ examples of proper theistic conduct can sometimes be simply too much, they are unable to do that.
I have watched interviews with some victims, grown men in their fifties, and they seemed stumped, paralyzed by the dilemma, unable to take any step further.
Some have become atheists, not wanting to have anything to do with God or religion.
The answers the church gave also didn't seem to help resolve it.
I myself feel paralyzed by this dilemma as well; having experienced some abuse in the name of God / by people of God.
Given your reply to Q, you seem to have a clear idea of right and wrong in such cases, could you work it our for us as well, here?
What do you think is going on in a person when they get stuck in this dilemma? Why can't they move past it?
Why do they hold on to a stance like "Impossible, these are men of god and are well above such things. They have been chosen amongst all men to have this honor bestowed upon them, therefore whatever they do is sanctioned by god." -?
Why am I willing to believe that a theist is free to kill, rape and pillage with impunity?
Perhaps fighting it very fiercely "officially".
Have you ever seen child pornography and witnessed child abuse - and have done nothing about it? If you haven't, you have contributed to the idea that child pornography and child abuse are something normal.
Once at the local grocery store, I saw a man in his sixties inappropriately touching a girl of perhaps five years of age. I am sure I was not the only one who saw it. The girl seemed confused. But nobody did anything then.
It is such passivity of the general population that makes child pornography and child abuse make seem normal.
You seem to come from the position that the Catholic Church should live up to the standards given by secular society, and should be judged by those standards.
If yes, could you explain why you think so?
Hi Signal,
Happy New Year.
First, why do you think these acts are 'sanctioned by God'.
Do the victims know this to be the case, or, do they believe this to be the case?
Either way give reason.
Alot of the priests who commited these acts were mentally damaged from their own childhood experiences. This is a plausible reason for their acts, as it is consistent with this behaviour in or out of the church.
jan.
Happy New Year.
First, why do you think these acts are 'sanctioned by God'.
Do the victims know this to be the case, or, do they believe this to be the case?
Either way give reason.
Alot of the priests who commited these acts were mentally damaged from their own childhood experiences. This is a plausible reason for their acts, as it is consistent with this behaviour in or out of the church.
jan.
I don't think they are doing that at all.
They believe that man is by nature sinful, and that it is for the most part futile to demand perfection from people in this world.
They accept that sin is part of life on earth, and that this is just how it is. They do not condone sin, they just accept it as a given - and as such, have some more equanimity about it in comparison to people who don't. They have some equanimity about sin, but they do not condone sin.
The problems of aging, illness and death are overwhelming for secular society, and there is a characteristic mystification of them and avoidance of talking about them.
Many religions, however, focus precisely on the problems of aging, illness and death, make people face them, and offer solutions.