|
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2013 : 06:32:26
|
http://news.yahoo.com/south-africa-cardinal-says-pedophilia-not-crime-155418854.html
..JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A South African cardinal who helped elect Pope Francis this week has told the BBC pedophilia is an illness and not a crime.
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, the Catholic Archbishop of Durban, told BBC Radio 5 on Saturday that pedophilia was a "disorder" that needed to be treated.
"From my experience, pedophilia is actually an illness. It's not a criminal condition, it's an illness," he said.
Napier said he knew of at least two priests who became pedophiles after they were abused as children.
"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."
The Catholic Church has had its image deeply tarnished by a widespread child sex abuse scandal.
Napier was one of the 115 cardinals in the Vatican conclave that elected Pope Francis on Wednesday, the BBC reported.
The first non-European pope in nearly 1,300 years, Francis has signaled a sharp change of style from his predecessor, Benedict, for the 1.2-billion-member Church, which is beset by scandals, intrigue and strife.
He said on Saturday the church should be poor and remember that its mission is to serve the poor.
(Reporting by David Dolan; Editing by Jason Webb) |
I know a cure for this illness: chemical castration; for what purpose do clergymen, who have taken vows a celibacy, need to have erections. As a matter of fact, as a show of good faith, all clergymen ought to undergo this treatment at the beginning of their priesthoods.
According to jesus, lust is a sin:
| Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart |
...and so by undergoing chemical castration, these clergymen would be unable to commit such a sin. By the bible's rationale, chemical castration would be an act in favor of the christian god's will. But it doesn't stop there, as jesus immediately goes on to say:
| Matthew 5:29-30: If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. |
This cardinal's opinion and plea for insanity, also, opens up an entire spectrum for debate: Are societies deviants to be treated as criminals or the mentally ill? I wonder if he holds the same sentiments towards axe murderers, or Adam Lanza and James Holmes. It seems that he's attempting to blur the lines between the criminally insane, which is what prison systems are comprised of, and the mentally insane. I know that in the nordic countries the prison systems are entirely focused on actually treating criminal behaviour and reforming criminals as opposed to prison systems in other countries, which, are oriented in punishment, subjecting criminals to inhumane conditions and enviroments. If, in fact, this cardinal is suggesting something along the lines of the former, he's contradicting his religious doctrine which does condone punishment for sinful acts.
Should the concept of punishment be removed from the justice system, and if so, wouldn't that render the term justice meaningless? Personally, im in favor of the model of nordic prison systems, because I believe that anyone who has commited a legitamite crime has done so due to our destructive human tendencies; it all boils down to human psychology, and human psychology -- as science has proven over the last century -- is malleable.
|
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
Edited by - teched246 on 03/20/2013 07:08:10
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 09:40:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
http://news.yahoo.com/south-africa-cardinal-says-pedophilia-not-crime-155418854.html
..JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A South African cardinal who helped elect Pope Francis this week has told the BBC pedophilia is an illness and not a crime.
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, the Catholic Archbishop of Durban, told BBC Radio 5 on Saturday that pedophilia was a "disorder" that needed to be treated.
"From my experience, pedophilia is actually an illness. It's not a criminal condition, it's an illness," he said.
Napier said he knew of at least two priests who became pedophiles after they were abused as children.
"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."
The Catholic Church has had its image deeply tarnished by a widespread child sex abuse scandal.
Napier was one of the 115 cardinals in the Vatican conclave that elected Pope Francis on Wednesday, the BBC reported.
The first non-European pope in nearly 1,300 years, Francis has signaled a sharp change of style from his predecessor, Benedict, for the 1.2-billion-member Church, which is beset by scandals, intrigue and strife.
He said on Saturday the church should be poor and remember that its mission is to serve the poor.
(Reporting by David Dolan; Editing by Jason Webb) |
I know a cure for this illness: chemical castration; for what purpose do clergymen, who have taken vows a celibacy, need to have erections. As a matter of fact, as a show of good faith, all clergymen ought to undergo this treatment at the beginning of their priesthoods.
According to jesus, lust is a sin:
| Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart |
...and so by undergoing chemical castration, these clergymen would be unable to commit such a sin. By the bible's rationale, chemical castration would be an act in favor of the christian god's will. But it doesn't stop there, as jesus immediately goes on to say:
| Matthew 5:29-30: If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. |
This cardinal's opinion and plea for insanity, also, opens up an entire spectrum for debate: Are societies deviants to be treated as criminals or the mentally ill? I wonder if he holds the same sentiments towards axe murderers, or Adam Lanza and James Holmes. It seems that he's attempting to blur the lines between the criminally insane, which is what prison systems are comprised of, and the mentally insane. I know that in the nordic countries the prison systems are entirely focused on actually treating criminal behaviour and reforming criminals as opposed to prison systems in other countries, which, are oriented in punishment, subjecting criminals to inhumane conditions and enviroments. If, in fact, this cardinal is suggesting something along the lines of the former, he's contradicting his religious doctrine which does condone punishment for sinful acts.
Should the concept of punishment be removed from the justice system, and if so, wouldn't that render the term justice meaningless? Personally, im in favor of the model of nordic prison systems, because I believe that anyone who has commited a legitamite crime has done so due to our destructive human tendencies; it all boils down to human psychology, and human psychology -- as science has proven over the last century -- is malleable.
|
It would seem that if homosexuals were born that way then pedophiles could make the same claim, no? Evolutionary biology does not consider man's laws or his morals when it comes to sexual orientation, does it? Otherwise it appears that the claim is homosexuals are born with their orientation while pedophiles have chosen theirs and I don't see how that could be. Either they both were born with their sexual orientation or they both were not. Those are the two options that I see |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 10:58:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
It would seem that if homosexuals were born that way then pedophiles could make the same claim, no? Evolutionary biology does not consider man's laws or his morals when it comes to sexual orientation, does it? Otherwise it appears that the claim is homosexuals are born with their orientation while pedophiles have chosen theirs and I don't see how that could be. Either they both were born with their sexual orientation or they both were not. Those are the two options that I see |
Doesn't matter if anyone is "born that way" or not. What matters is consent. Minors cannot legally give consent, which makes pedophilic acts rape, a crime. Whether or not pedophiles are "born that way" or should get treatment instead of or in addition to prison are independent questions which don't make their rapes not criminal. By analogy, if an alcoholic commits a crime, we punish them for the crime and try to get them to go into treatment. Cardinal Napier is simply wrong to offer a false dichotomy.
On a side note, "homosexuals are born that way" is one of the weakest pro-gay arguments around. (I don't have a car-driving gene, but it's legal for me to drive, anyway.) I think the only reason "born that way" is ever used is in answer to those who insist that sexual orientation is entirely a choice, but there are better counter-arguments to that nonsense, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 11:10:18 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
It would seem that if homosexuals were born that way then pedophiles could make the same claim, no? Evolutionary biology does not consider man's laws or his morals when it comes to sexual orientation, does it? Otherwise it appears that the claim is homosexuals are born with their orientation while pedophiles have chosen theirs and I don't see how that could be. Either they both were born with their sexual orientation or they both were not. Those are the two options that I see |
Welcome back Bill.
Pedophiles could indeed make the same claim. But pedophiles who act on their proclivities do harm to others. To make it into the DSM, there has to be some dysfunction involved that interferes with a person’s wellness. Pedophilia meets that criteria, and homosexuality doesn’t. I mean, the same could be said about sociopaths. They might be born that way, but that doesn’t give them a pass to kill people.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 11:14:05 [Permalink]
|
Dave and I cross posting is happening a lot these days. Coincidence? You decide.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 12:56:50 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Doesn't matter if anyone is "born that way" or not. What matters is consent. |
Yep. I agree. I was just wanting some verification that if one sexual orientation was "born that way" then they all were or if one sexual orientation was a choice then they all were. I was trying to think of some plausible scenario in evolutionary biology where one sexual orientation was "born that way" and one was a choice and I could not think of any.
| Minors cannot legally give consent, which makes pedophilia acts rape, a crime. |
Agreed. So whether a pedophile is "born that way" or is that way by choice society has told them that they must restrain from their natural sexual orientation or make another choice. If they don't then they are in violation of man's law and man's established moral conduct. So really the only difference from those who tell homosexuals to refrain from their natural sexual orientation or to make another choice and those who say the same thing to pedophiles is where they happen to draw the line in the sand as far as man's law and man's morals go. Some would draw the line at what conforms to man's law and acceptable moral conduct at homosexuality while some go a step further and draw that line at pedophilia. The same would apply to bestiality and all other forms of sexual orientation. I am sure a pedophilia would argue that society has no right or authority to say that a 15 year old cannot consent and I am sure somewhere there are 15 year old's who would argue the same thing. And I am sure that they, like the homosexuals before them, are holding on to the hope that maybe someday the Supreme Court will agree with them. It wasn't all that long ago that man's law forbid homosexuality but the thinking of many has evolved in this area. I would imagine that based on this all of those who practice pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy etc... hold on to the hope that one day their orientation would be considered legal and moral as well. We have evolved this far so what's a few more steps so that all orientations can practice their sexuality in a legal and moral setting without living in constant fear of being being discovered, oppressed and persecuted.
| On a side note, "homosexuals are born that way" is one of the weakest pro-gay arguments around. (I don't have a car-driving gene, but it's legal for me to drive, anyway.) I think the only reason "born that way" is ever used is in answer to those who insist that sexual orientation is entirely a choice, but there are better counter-arguments to that nonsense, too. |
I agree, again. I think it's because homosexuals are constantly reminded that one look at the human anatomy clearly shows that this was never designed or indented to fit into that. They are constantly reminded that homosexual couples physically cannot procreate. They are constantly reminded that not to long ago their orientation was illegal, and still is in some places, and that they were oppressed and persecuted based only on their orientation. So in an attempt to mute this criticism they simply say that they were "born this way". I would guess that in their defense the pedophile, those who practice bestiality, the polygamist etc... would say the same thing. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 13:28:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So really the only difference from those who tell homosexuals to refrain from their natural sexual orientation or to make another choice and those who say the same thing to pedophiles is where they happen to draw the line in the sand as far as man's law and man's morals go. |
You say that as if the justifications for where the line is drawn don't matter, as if they're all just arbitrary lines. Of course, knowing you as I do, I know you're thinking that "man's" this-or-that is entirely arbitrary, right?| We have evolved this far so what's a few more steps... |
As soon as you step over "consent," you go to jail. There shouldn't ever be any evolving beyond that.| I think it's because homosexuals are constantly reminded that one look at the human anatomy clearly shows that this was never designed or indented to fit into that. They are constantly reminded that homosexual couples physically cannot procreate. They are constantly reminded that not to long ago their orientation was illegal, and still is in some places, and that they were oppressed and persecuted based only on their orientation. So in an attempt to mute this criticism they simply say that they were "born this way". |
No. If you're going to generalize their motivations, you should at least listen to what they're actually saying.
Let me ask you a question, Bill: at what point in your life did you choose to be heterosexual? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 13:36:46 [Permalink]
|
I would say that the Cardinal could be speaking from the position as a spokesperson for the Catholic Church and that the Churches position is that child rapist to be buggering children is not a crime in the eyes' of the Church or their God, if they are still virgins.
He would have to be basing that position on a solid foundation from the Bible, a Book he should be well learned in. It's not that exceptional or rare for theist to consider themselves only holding to God's Laws and not man's, when it suits their purpose like now.
E.g.
Numbers 31: 18
18. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
In the verse 35 we are told that Jews caught as booty 32,000 preteen girls for themselves.
(GOD had really blessed them that day!) |
That's where the Cardinal gets his morality from after all, from God through the Bible. Any Cardinal should be in a capacity to speak authoritatively on Church doctrine considering his elevated position. That Cardinals' comment addresses nothing concerning the civil criminal codes. An area he is clearly ignorant of or not addressing.
Why should he? The codes speak for themselves and don't need his biased self-serving immoral interpretations. His comment and Church doctrine are irrelevant when there are violations of criminal law as they should be. Such as the rape laws priest are guilty of violating and other laws their overseers are guilty of breaking by covering up the crimes after the fact.
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 16:07:35 [Permalink]
|
First, clinical pedophilia is not the same as criminal pedophilia. Clinical pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent individuals of either or both sexes. That one is considered a disorder and counted as such on the DSM-IV. To configure as a (clinical) pedophile, one must present persistent attraction to pre-pubescent individuals (under 13 years of age), be older than 16 years of age, being at least five years older than the child(ren) in question, and persist for more than six months.
Criminal pedophilia, on the other hand, is the sexual act (often included under the umbrella term "pedophilia" are inappropriate touching, exposure to pornography or other sexual acts or material, the creation of pornography, etc.) with a minor (in most countries defined as an individual under 18 years of age, according to the International Convention for the Rights of Children and Adolescents, but of course mileage may vary according to country). The age of consent fluctuates around countries, from between 13 at the earliest and 18 at the latest. My own country works peculiarly and sets a "grey zone" between fourteen and eighteen years old where the "criminality" of the act will be decided by a judge.
Criminal pedophilia is, well, a crime. Much the same way rape is a crime (and really, the distinction pedophilia/rape is irrelevant because criminal pedophilia is by definition rape). The same way heterosexuality is wholly natural and rape is still a crime, so is clinical pedophilia natural and acting upon the urge still a crime. The same could be said about sociopaths who commit murder and are fully aware and responsible for their actions: the urge may be natural - a disorder - but that does not automatically make the act lawful.
Also, clinical pedophilia and criminal pedophilia are not inextricably linked. There are pedophiles (clinical) that never act on their urges: thought and fantasies are not crimes. That is, in fact, one of the existing arguments why virtual child pornography is not a crime in some countries, notably Japan: drawings, animations, 3D models, etc., materials produced without the participation of a real human minor, are not illegal, whereas child pornography consisting of pictures, videos, etc. of real children are illegal.
Contrariwise, there are criminal pedophiles who are not clinical pedophiles. Some prey on children because they're easier victims, or for other reasons, but they do not have a persistent attraction to children, so, technically, they are not clinical pedophiles.
So, in essence: yes, pedophilia is an illness. In my research I have not found anything pro or against the notion (clinical) pedophiles are born that way; there is some evidence that pedophilia may appear due to lesions and tumors on the brain, but the results are inconclusive because most pedophiles won't actually confess to being so, and there is some doubt whether the pedophilia was always there and made latent by the lesion (loss of inhibition, for one) or whether it was caused by the lesion.
That does NOT make it anywhere near legal. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 03/21/2013 16:08:47 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2013 : 22:41:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yep. I agree. I was just wanting some verification that if one sexual orientation was "born that way" then they all were or if one sexual orientation was a choice then they all were. I was trying to think of some plausible scenario in evolutionary biology where one sexual orientation was "born that way" and one was a choice and I could not think of any. |
I smell a false dichotomy and dilemma here. It's not either/or, not "born that way" or "a choice". And "a choice" isn't really the correct option either, but "environment".
I think most of us here agree that we're talking about a fluid range of factors that determine the outcome. Not the simplistic black-or-white position that is symptomatic in the thinking of many religious people.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2013 : 05:43:26 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| As soon as you step over "consent," you go to jail. There shouldn't ever be any evolving beyond that. |
But replace consent with homosexual and that was the law of the land for years. However, we eventually did evolve and are now talking about gay marriage. As I said, I am sure the pedophiles, those who practice bestiality or polygamy etc... are hoping for the same thing.
| Let me ask you a question, Bill: at what point in your life did you choose to be heterosexual? |
That is an easy one for me and I remember it as if it were yesterday. 1979 and I was in the 3rd grade. Susan West came over to my desk and while fluttering her baby blue eyes at me and with a big smile she said that she and her mom were looking at the class picture and they both thought that I was the cutest boy in the class. The butterflies I got in my stomach over that encounter were off the chart. It was at that moment that I decided there was nothing I wanted to be more that day than a heterosexual. I officially had my first crush and the rest is history. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2013 : 09:24:54 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
But replace consent with homosexual and that was the law of the land for years. |
Consent only because it was against the law. Not because one of the parties was unable to give consent due to age. You are tying to make a slippery slope argument where none exists. The only reason homosexuality was once against the law was because of ignorance largely motivated by religion, and the lack of scientific studies on the subject to counter that cultural bias against it. The law was not based on age, which has a scientific basis.
You are mixing apples with oranges.
Bill:
It was at that moment that I decided there was nothing I wanted to be more that day than a heterosexual. |
But you didn't choose it. By your own admission, you felt it. You never weighed your options. In all probability, had you been gay, you would have not been turned on or felt anything but the embarrassment at your predicament.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2013 : 11:51:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| As soon as you step over "consent," you go to jail. There shouldn't ever be any evolving beyond that. |
But replace consent with homosexual and that was the law of the land for years. |
Replace "consent" with "homosexual" and the law makes no sense. The anti-sodomy laws were struck down because the government could put forth no reasonable justification for prohibiting that conduct.| However, we eventually did evolve and are now talking about gay marriage. As I said, I am sure the pedophiles, those who practice bestiality or polygamy etc... are hoping for the same thing. |
And they'd be irrational to do so.| Let me ask you a question, Bill: at what point in your life did you choose to be heterosexual? |
That is an easy one for me and I remember it as if it were yesterday. 1979 and I was in the 3rd grade. Susan West came over to my desk and while fluttering her baby blue eyes at me and with a big smile she said that she and her mom were looking at the class picture and they both thought that I was the cutest boy in the class. The butterflies I got in my stomach over that encounter were off the chart. It was at that moment that I decided there was nothing I wanted to be more that day than a heterosexual. I officially had my first crush and the rest is history. |
So up until that moment, you'd been giving serious thought to whether or not you were sexually attracted to boys? How long had you been wavering on that decision? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2013 : 16:45:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But replace consent with homosexual and that was the law of the land for years. However, we eventually did evolve and are now talking about gay marriage. As I said, I am sure the pedophiles, those who practice bestiality or polygamy etc... are hoping for the same thing.
|
What's wrong with consensual polyamory? I mean, it's even got the thumbs-up of most religions. David comes to mind, and Solomon, and Mohammed.
The butterflies I got in my stomach over that encounter were off the chart.
|
So if instead of Susan West it was Brad West, Susan's sweet brother, you'd have decided to be gay?
You know, I had the same happen with a boy once. The butterflies, the crush, the whole deal.
Then I had the same happen with a girl. Was not expecting that.
I still find both attractive.
Still do not see the relevance of any of this to the fact pedophilia is biological and that it is also a crime in most countries. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2013 : 17:34:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
What's wrong with consensual polyamory? |
Bill may still think that if there are kids involved, the cost of a possible divorce on those kids would be too high to allow there to be more than two parents. At least, that was his argument in favor of a blanket prohibition on bowling teams adopting children. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
South Africa cardinal says pedophilia not a crime
