‘Paedophilia not criminal condition’ says Durban cardinal. If the Catholic Church ever wants to regain credibility, it appears to us that Pope Francis’ first order of business should be to fire this guy. He’s obviously at the very least an enabler.
‘Paedophilia not criminal condition’ says Durban cardinal. If the Catholic Church ever wants to regain credibility, it appears to us that Pope Francis’ first order of business should be to fire this guy. He’s obviously at the very least an enabler.
This website uses cookies.
View Comments (29)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/16/man-accused-killing-woman-raping-child-in-new-york-mall-carjacking/?test=latestnews
These disturbed people who commit these crimes make a decision to do so and they know it is a criminal act. This cardinal is wrong in his attempt to de-criminalize pedophilia.
The legal definition of insane as far as a court goes is that the person was incapable of understanding what they did was wrong. You have to be pretty whacked out to achieve that status.
Sorry, but i think these priests pedophiles know quite well what they're doing is wrong as do their enablers like this Cardinal.
It was wrong when it was done to them (if that's their excuse) and it's wrong when they do it to some child. They know it's wrong, they know they're stealing some child's innocence, they know they're probably creating another molester, yet they molest anyway.
They can justify it all they like, it doesn't make it legal or right.
The church needs to start taking this seriously. They should be excommunicating these abusers of power, they should be turning them over to the cops for arrest and prosecution.
They shouldn't be quietly paying off families and shuttling priests off to other cities, states, countries where they hide out and do it again and again.
We had a situation here where a 40 something year old man when to a retirement home for priests. He got hold of the 7o something year old priest that molested him when he was a child and beat the holy crap out of him.
He was arrested, went to trail and was not convicted by a jury of his peers. Kind of makes you think the legal system at least works correctly sometimes.
Yes. Sometimes.
The guy has some points, but he's off base. Something can be a mental disorder and still be criminal. The problem is that we do not really identify and treat it UNTIL it becomes criminal. It's like the Batman shooter - he is batcrap crazy, but what he did was also criminal. You can't absolve the criminal parts because of the mental illness.
This Cardinal is on the right track, but he is either saying things wrong, or being quoted wrong. And he seems to forget that the victim ceases to be a victim once they become an abuser.
But for the record, we DO need to swoop in and get real, hardcore psychological treatment for child victims BEFORE they can grow up to become offenders. Our government should be pouring money into programs to help these kids for the betterment of all of society.
Easy now.. Government pouring money into anything is pure porn to statists. I had a thrill shoot down me leg, though my proclivities do lean towards science, infrastructure, and weapons systems
i did not say that the government should be HANDLING the care of the abused children. They should be investing in them, using OUR money, to protect US.
There is no question that almost every single child abuser was once an abused child. There is no doubt that not all abused children become abusers themselves. There is also significant evidence that most pedophiles have many many victims - some say as many as 100. If even 25 of them become abusers and go on to abuse 100 children themselves, the impact becomes HUGE over just a few generations. Which is what we are seeing today, in certain environments.
So heck yeah - if the government is going to take my money for social purposes, that's where I want them to put it. Help those poor children before they become predators of more innocnts.
Karmaa, I gotta take exception with you here, don't hate on me. I don't agree with your supposition that the government has any right to do anything with our money other that those things enumerated by the US Constitution. Anything outside the perview of the obligations and responsibilities set by the US Constitution for the federal government should be relegated to the individual states and by the states to those private entities and organizations best suited to the care of children and not just some faceless government bureacracy full of overpaid and undereducated bureacrats. The federal government doesn't even have a right to take our money for this endeavor in the first place! You don't want bureacracy here, you want something with some real oversight in case things get out of hand. If you have a bureacracy doing it it's like letting the fox tend the henhouse...we already have way too much of that going on now.
I couldn't hate on you - and in theory, I agree. However, we can't turn back the clock to where we SHOULD be as far as government intervention is concerned. I completely agree that the government as it is is not how it was supposed to be. That said, they ARE going to confiscate our money. I just want it used for things that will help society and not just friends of the dictator.. I mean the president... Helping abused children would help society, and I can accept that use of tax dollars.
<3 <3 <3 <3
I love sweetheart, but this president has got to go away and take his thieving sycophants with him before I'll relax to the idea of letting the gubmint take my money to do anything resembling something useful, outside the things it's supposed to do that is.
No argument there. I just don't think we can stop everything until he's gone. Because honestly, "the other side" is so screwed up that I don't see them doing anything but going into beta dog subservient position and allowing the thieves to continue to steal elections. If we wait out the next 3 years, what the heck will be waiting for us on the other end? Obama 2.0? WORSE?
We need to get on our feet and do grass-roots stuff. One thing we can do is try to save the children. Give them a future and give them hope, so that they don't fall prey to the race pimps. Give them the tools they need to succeed, and to see things with a critical eye, rather than just accepting the pablum that they get spoon fed by the people who NEED to keep them drugged, stupid and dependent. And, like the activists of the 60's (who certainly had good intentions) we need to use the resources we can to make this stuff happen. Unlike the druggies of the 60's though - we need to do more than just sing kum-by-ah to the kiddies. We need to give them a picture of the future that is not just hopelessness - and that starts with helping them overcome the abuses and neglect that they have likely suffered.
That's all I am getting at. You know that I am no fan of government - and certainly not of THIS government. But I am a huge believer in promoting positivism, especially to the people who need it most.
So basically the Thought Police from 1984? Everyone's a criminal before they become a criminal.
Did I not make myself clear? Frankly, if YOU have gotten so many thumbs up, I obviously didn't express myself correctly.
My point is that we need to HELP victims. Innocent children. What does that have to do with thought police?
No, you were clear. The thumbs up are more a testament to poor critical thinking than how well you express yourself. If one can't distinguish between intervention and arrest/punishment, then that is entirely his problem.
I think he got up thumbs for no reason other than that post didn't mention corporate greed or ron paul, regardless of how dimwitted it was...just sayin.
It's just like the election all over again. An option that the mainstream doesn't like actually gains support and they say it's a mistake.
1. That isn't what I said.
2. I wasn't talking to you.
He doesn't care, he is like an oil leak, doesn't care where it dribbles and never listens when you tell it to stop...
LOL - true! :)
It seemed truly out of character for him. It was only moderately stupid.
Is this guy a catholic or a Muslim?
"'Paedophilia not criminal condition' says Durban cardinal'.And water is not wet, and Obama is a conservative and Crowley is the smartest guy in mom's basement....
The Catholic Church, despite its many detractors and fools in red and rose cossacks, is not the reason there are pedaphiles in our churches. There pedaphiles all over the world and in every denomination and when it comes down to counting who has the most, it's not the Catholic Church, even though one is two too many, it's the Department of Indoctrination and you'll never hear that in the crime wave media. They and they alone bear responsibility for overestimating the problem in the Catholic Church because that's what they do. Despite the fact that there are, in my estimation, too many homosexual men pretending to be priests and too many weak, flacid, and uneducated catholics letting them hang around and play doctor with their flocks, the bulk of the problem in this country has come to us primarily from one scource and under the care of one whack job bishop now cardinal Mahoney. The media played to the hand of the anti-religious, anti-God, atheistic LGBT and Marxist agenda in this country. If there's an american bishop who doesn't think pedaphilia isn't a criminal condition he's an asshole, maybe a pedaphile himself and he doesn't represent the Catholic Church. Just keep this in mind the next time you want to throw the Pope out with the bath water, he hasn't even given his first pontifical mass yet. This man is very solid and very humble and I think you're going to be pleasantly surprised, even if you're not catholic. You might even like what he does so much you may even think about praying for his continued success!
The media utterly refuse to cover all the secular charities that are used as "boy farms" for pedophiles. Every time - every damned time! - there's a pedophile ring busted in America or Europe, there's a "charity" attached to it, which is used as the supply line to get the children needed to feed the twisted hunger of these monsters. And most of the time of the time it's boys. (In the Cathlic Church scandals, it was 81% homosexual incidents. Quite an accomplishment for a proclivity that represents 2% of the population.)
When the Sandusky story started to lead into that familiar territory of crooked charity, then that was the moment the media lost interest in the story.
Check out Jimmy Savile, Haute de la Garenne, Elm Guest House, the Franklin scandal, etc. It's always charities that provide cover for the organized operation.
The media went on a very targeted and controlled attack against the Catholic Church with the express intent of getting the public to connect the word "priest" with "molester." Is your child more likely to get molested by a priest than a by teacher, soccer coach or drama coach? The media doesn't want to investigate that. They're too busy destroying religion.
And another thing: Why do we constantly hear about Catholic Church scandals but the media ignore the uncountable number of rapes by UN "peacekeepers"?
I think because they want us to be totally unprepared to protect ourselves from the UN troops that are massing, as we speak, inside the borders of THIS country. When the hammer (and cicle) comes down we're going to see first hand just how nice and peaceful the UN peace keepers really are!
We may just have to take a few hundred UN "peacekeepers" hostage. It's worked a few times in other countries.
The mention of the Sandusky turd tends to make me think of the clinton administration's chief cover-up artist louie freeh. For some reason, anytime this puke talks about something, there is always something else involved from which attention is being diverted for nefarious purposes. Great little article about all that - http://americanfreepress.net/?p=5136
Great article!
But they left something off his list of embarrassments: the Columbine shooting. There were other kids accused of being involved with the Trenchcoat Mafia and involved in the shooting (not just Harris & Klebold). One of those kids was the son of the lead FBI investigator on the case, and was "cleared." The FBI saw no conflict of interest with this.