Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashpoint
Or a company that said "no gays allowed... cause there's something wrong with them..."
|
This is what really makes me boggle.
You've got a church that won't accept someone being homosexual, something the individual has little or no choice over, but will accept and shelter pedophiles, also something the individual also has little or no choice over.
The homosexual acting out on their sexual preference does no harm to anyone but is labeled bad and should be rejected, but the pedophile acting out on their sexual preference DOES do harm to others and while also labeled bad actions speak louder than words, the pedophile isn't subject to the same things.
Would a homosexual priest be allowed to keep their priesthood? Unlikely, they'd probably be, what defrocked? But pedophile priests get to keep their status and just get shuffled around.
It's all about values, and their actions show them to value appearances above all else.
Incidentally I don't actually think booting a pedophile priest out of the church would be a good thing, at least not compared to the other possible options. Keep them in the church where they could have the social support necessary so they can keep above their desires, and put them in positions where they don't have the opportunity to reoffend.. the church has great power and resources, a pedophile priest could still serve sweeping floors in the Vatican or in the archives or doing research or something, somewhere where there's no kids involved but still contribute to society and be in all other respects normal people. It's not like people choose to be pedophiles.