The Pope is not above the Law.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

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.

I guess it depends if they have committed a crime or not.

I think we are assuming that if they are a pedophile, it is probably known because they have been caught.

In which case, I think it's very appropriate to suggest that they should be kicked out and face charges.

I would agree to your point if they hadn't committed a crime, as I think everyone else would. Of course, that reasoning wouldn't just apply to priests.

But why should someone in one organization get special treatment, where others face the law? I'm sure a pedophile who has committed a crime would lose his job if he/she was not a priest.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by photon

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.

Umm, no. You sexually asault a child, you should go to jail for a very long time. Priest or not. They can get counselling in there...by their very large and overly freindly cell-mate.

[GGG]

I think a big reason that their are a higher concentration of pedophiles in priesthood is more that the occupation doesn`t allow a person to have a family.

Essentially to become a preist you have to sacrifice having a wife and family. Therefore you eliminate a lot of non-pedophiles. Most people to not consider the preist hood as an option because of the sacrifice you have to make.

If you allowed preists to marry you would get a lot more people interested in being a priest. Therefore you would reduce your concentration of homosexuals.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Some American Catholic church poobah is claiming the priests in question, aren't pedophiles as most of the victims are post pubescent, so they are homosexuals.
Whatever, they are predators.

http://www.alan.com/2010/03/31/bill-...ost-pubescent/

Ah, Bill Donohue. That raving idiot could watch the Pope himself violate a 8-year-old in the Sistine Chapel and he'd blame it on the f@gs, atheists and liberal media.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Umm, no. You sexually assault a child, you should be brutally tortured in ways that would make Clockwork Orange look like child's play, skinned alive and then doused in bleach and piss, castrated and then sodomized by a rusty katana covered in broken glass. Priest or not. They can get counselling in there...by their very large and overly freindly cell-mate.

FYP for my opinion.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I guess it depends if they have committed a crime or not.

I think we are assuming that if they are a pedophile, it is probably known because they have been caught.

In which case, I think it's very appropriate to suggest that they should be kicked out and face charges.

Face charges for sure, sorry never meant to imply that they should be treated any differently than anyone else. Kicked out, I'm not so sure.

Originally Posted by Daradon

But why should someone in one organization get special treatment, where others face the law? I'm sure a pedophile who has committed a crime would lose his job if he/she was not a priest.

Again sorry I didn't mean they shouldn't face the law, but a church is supposed to be about helping people and society so kicking them out may not result in the greater good.

Let's assume that the person gets a suspended sentence or serves their time or whatever.

So the church kicks them out. Now you've just got another pedophile on the street who can't get a job, has already demonstrated they are having problems controlling their attraction, can't get help, is reviled by society for something he didn't choose, no social support network, depression.. ideal situation to re-offend.

On the other hand if after his sentence the church takes him back in, not as a priest but just as a worker, places them where they don't interact with kids, provides support so the person can live with their desires without acting out on them (because what other choice do they have). So now the church has hopefully reduced the chance to re-offend thereby serving the community by getting a pedophile off the streets and helping them control themselves, and helping the person too.

Originally Posted by Zevo

Umm, no. You sexually asault a child, you should go to jail for a very long time. Priest or not.

Again sorry didn't mean to imply that they shouldn't be subject to the law.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

So the church kicks them out. Now you've just got another pedophile on the street who can't get a job, has already demonstrated they are having problems controlling their attraction, can't get help, is reviled by society for something he didn't choose, no social support network, depression.. ideal situation to re-offend.

On the other hand if after his sentence the church takes him back in, not as a priest but just as a worker, places them where they don't interact with kids, provides support so the person can live with their desires without acting out on them (because what other choice do they have). So now the church has hopefully reduced the chance to re-offend thereby serving the community by getting a pedophile off the streets and helping them control themselves, and helping the person too.
\

Fair enough, I can't disagree with that, but that would only be if the church was acting the way it preached, and it certainly has a long way to go before it can claim that. And not just in this area.

Kicking them out would be a good first step from what they are doing now. At least it would be around the social norm.

I agree there are a lot of even better what if's out there when it comes to this topic. And that doesn't just include the church.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Thor

Curious, what specifically bugs you about them?

I will field this.
I agree with everything Dawkins has to say.
But he has a poor understanding of human nature and a pretty good arrogance to him.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I will field this.
I agree with everything Dawkins has to say.
But he has a poor understanding of human nature and a pretty good arrogance to him.

I get the arrogance thing (maybe we can blame that on Oxford and that posh accent, or maybe he's just arrogant) but what do you mean by "a poor understanding of human nature"?

[Patek23]

The catholic church is full of nut jobs. I grew up in the church and I can remember my mother being more concerned that I was wearing condoms that the fact I was having unmarital sex. Seems they get a lot of things ass backwards, probably why the priests bang boys instead of girls.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

The catholic church is full of nut jobs. I grew up in the church and I can remember my mother being more concerned that I was wearing condoms that the fact I was having unmarital sex. Seems they get a lot of things ass backwards, probably why the priests bang boys instead of girls.

Well, if you were wearing condoms to church, I wouldn't blame her!

[mikey_the_redneck]

All of this legal immunity for the pope is garbage...

If investigators find out he has been hiding or covering up wide-spread sexual abuse, pope or no pope he should hang in that fancy little court yard of his....

[Knalus]

Allowing priests to marry means that the job posting of priest now has a lot more applicants. More decent family oriented people, and fewer pedophiles looking for Targets. It means that fewer boys will get assaulted by Catholic priests, and those predators would move to other areas where they can get access to children. Like hockey coaches.

[Vulcan]

The way I remember it, boys at about 13 are sent to the seminary to start their training so I don't think at that age, they are pedophiles looking for a target. My guess is that some are indoctrinated into the life style at that age or earlier and pass it on.

Not to say that I don't think it would be a good idea to allow them to marry. The not marrying law had little to do with piety but more to do with the Church inheriting the priests property.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I will field this.
I agree with everything Dawkins has to say.
But he has a poor understanding of human nature and a pretty good arrogance to him.

Don't disagree, but he's a voice in a chorus that started this 'new atheism' as its called.

I prefer to listen to Sam Harris speak over him, unless its about Biology. I love reading and listening to Danniel Dennett and Hitchens.

I guess my problem is so many athiests/agnostics that are about lets all just get along really get upset about these guys talking, I just think its crazy.

[pepper24]

Dear Pope: So homosexuality is wrong but protecting pediophile priests who have destroyed the lives of thousands of boys is ok?

Please resign and Happy Easter!

- pepper24

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I get the arrogance thing (maybe we can blame that on Oxford and that posh accent, or maybe he's just arrogant) but what do you mean by "a poor understanding of human nature"?

Just think it is pretty poor of a scientist to include that something is "stupid, insane and crazy". That may be a accurate description, but not reason.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Don't disagree, but he's a voice in a chorus that started this 'new atheism' as its called.

I prefer to listen to Sam Harris speak over him, unless its about Biology. I love reading and listening to Danniel Dennett and Hitchens.

I guess my problem is so many athiests/agnostics that are about lets all just get along really get upset about these guys talking, I just think its crazy.

Because it's not real atheism or agnosticism. It's some silly reductionist Darwinian perspective not based in the real human experience. You don't think there were atheists before these guys? They are morons.

[RougeUnderoos]

Back on topic -- one of the pope's chums claims this whole firestorm about priests raping children is akin to anti-Semitism.

"The use of stereotypes, the shifting of personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the most shameful aspects of anti-Semitism," he quoted from the letter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8601084.stm

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think a big reason that their are a higher concentration of pedophiles in priesthood is more that the occupation doesn`t allow a person to have a family.

Essentially to become a preist you have to sacrifice having a wife and family. Therefore you eliminate a lot of non-pedophiles. Most people to not consider the preist hood as an option because of the sacrifice you have to make.

If you allowed preists to marry you would get a lot more people interested in being a priest. Therefore you would reduce your concentration of homosexuals.

If you are saying that pedophiles and homosexuals are the same than you are really showing some ignorance.
One point to note is that 50% of pedophiles are married too.