South African cardinal says paedophilia is 'not a criminal condition'

The Guardian ^ | 3/16/2013

[bboop]

So, is he saying, then, that homosexuality is a mental aberration? I believe it is. It used to be classified as such, until the ‘stealth vote’ in the APA.

[Houghton M.]

Why don’t you read the full quote rather than the headline. All the headlines that came up in a Google search break off his quote with “condition” —implying that he said pedophilia is not criminal at all.

But he said, even in the Guardian story, that for those who were abused as children it is not criminal in the same way as for those who were not.

Get that? It’s criminal either way but for those who were abused, it criminal in a different way.

You idiots fell for typical MSM slander.

Do you not agree that having been abused as a child is a mitigating circumstance?

Or do you just not give a damn?

[Houghton M.]

No you are flat wrong. Rarely does mental disorder totally eliminate culpability but it is taken into account in assessing culpability in a lot of crimes. That’s all he was saying.

[mojito]

I agree fully with all you said. But I fear this may be indicative of something worse.

I fear a homosexual/pedophile cabal has institutionalized itself within the Church, and this diseased, satanic cardinal is speaking for it. Worse, in announcing it in this way he is saying that he’s secure in the belief that the new pope will do nothing about it.

[Houghton M.]

He is not making a blanket statement about homosexual orientation nor about homosexual acts. He was specifically referring to those who have a same-sex orientation and were also abused as children.

It may be the case that a high percentage of those with the orientation were abused as children—we don’t know because the gay lobbey sabotages most research.

But he was speaking of a specific subset of homosexuals—who themselves were victims of criminal acts.

[x]

He said it’s not a criminal condition and that paedophiles weren’t criminally responsible.

[mojito]

He's saying that pedophile’s aren't criminals and shouldn't face criminal justice.

But you can put your head in the sand all you like.

[Houghton M.]

Calumny and rash judgment on your part.

[Houghton M.]

He did not say that.

[Houghton M.]

not criminally responsible in the same way. That means he is saying that they ARE criminally responsible.

Can you read?

[omega4412]

Time to revive the Service for the Degradation of a Bishop (Degradatio ab ordine pontificali), which can be found in the Roman Pontifical of Pope Benedict XIV in 1862.

Here is an English translation from the Web. For the real thing in Latin see http://www.liturgialatina.org/pontificale/091.htm

If the degradandus [the cleric to be degraded] be an archbishop, the degrading prelate removes his pallium, saying: We deprive thee of the rights and privileges of the episcopal dignity, symbolized in this pallium, since thou hast abused them.

Then, even if the degradandus be a mere bishop, the degrading prelate removes his mitre, saying: We strip thy head of this miter, emblem of the episcopal dignity, since thou hast befouled it by thy ill government.

Then one of the ministers brings the Book of the Gospel to the degradandus, which the degrading prelate takes from his hands, saying: Give us back the Gospel! Since thou hast spurned the grace of God and made thyself unworthy of the office of preaching, we rightly deprive you of this office.

Then the degrading prelate removes the ring from the finger of the degradandus, saying: Rightly do we pull off thy ring, the sign of fidelity, since thou hast made bold to rape God's own bride, the Church.

At this time one of the ministers brings the degradandus a crosier, which the degrading prelate takes from his hands, saying: Thy shepherd's staff we take from thee, that thou shalt be powerless henceforward to exercise that office of correction, which thou hast brought to disarray.

Then the ministers take off the gloves of the degradandus, and the degrading prelate lightly scrapes thumbs and hands with a knife blade or a shard of glass, saying: We hereby deprive thee, to the extent of our powers, of the grace of spiritual blessing and of sacramental anointing, that thou shouldst forfeit the office of sanctifying and of blessing, and their effects.

With the same knife blade or shard the degrading prelate lightly scrapes the head of the degradandus, saying: We utterly erase and eradicate the consecration, blessing and anointing bestowed upon thee, and we put thee out of the episcopal order, whence thou returnest unclothed.

The ministers remove the shoes from the degradandus. Thus ends the ceremony.

[Houghton M.]

Totally irrelevant.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

people who were abused as children and became paedophiles were not criminally responsible for their actions

I think he's mostly talking about packers, who propagate by raping young boys. Many of these go on to become the next generation of disease-ridden, boy-raping whack-jobs.

[SuziQ]

Neither Church Traditions NOR the Catechism excuses sinful BEHAVIOR! Christianity, and yes, Catholics are Christians, teaches that thinking about something is not sinful in itself, but ACTING on one's thoughts, if they are sinful IS a sin. If someone commits a crime, it doesn't matter if they have a disorder that could incline them toward a behavior, they ARE responsible for that behavior. It's up to a jury to decide the punishment, which might be mitigated if they took into account a disorder, but frankly, I don't think so, especially where a crime against a child has been committed.

The Cardinal is speaking too 'pastorally', and in terms of forgiveness of the person committing the crime, in my opinion, and not considering the ramifications of the actions of the pedophile on the victim of his crime. This is the kind of thinking that got so many Bishops in trouble throughout the world in the sexual abuse scandals. They were acting as 'fathers' to their priests, thinking they needed to 'pastor' them. The Bishops weren't thinking in terms of punishment for the priests' actions, which they should have been doing simultaneously.

[Houghton M.]

people who were abused as children and became paedophiles were not criminally responsible for their actions

IN THE SAME WAY

That means he says they ARE ARE ARE ARE ARE ARE ARE criminally responsible but not in the same way as those who were not abused as children.

You are falling for a leftist (Guardian) trap.

What part of mitigating circumstance do you not understand?

But go ahead and love the Leftists when it suits your prejudices.

[Houghton M.]

What part of “the same way” don’t you get? The headline
is
a
LIE, it intentionally distorts what he said. Since when do we form our judgments based on headlines from lying leftist newspapers

in
the
same
way

[ROCKLOBSTER]

What part of mitigating circumstance do you not understand? But go ahead and love the Leftists when it suits your prejudices.

What the hell are you talking about, none of this applies to me.

[BenLurkin]

Soon to become a "lifestyle choice"

[Mrs. Don-o]

Be careful. You are extrapolating a great deal, vaultng to the worst possible interpretations. This is an offense against justice. It would be better to watch and wait, than to make a rash judgment harming men's good reputations on little evidence.

Although "rash judgment" is honored as if it were a Gift of the Holy Spirit around here.

[Jim Noble]

They key words are "From my experience, paedophilia is actually an illness, it is not a criminal condition, it is an illness..."

This has clearly been a problem for a very long time.

Most bishops probably have "experience", in the sense that this particular moral failing will have passed across their radar screens (if not been their own) enough to be desensitized.

I'll give you an example. I knew a guy who had a busy family practice, until he was (credibly) accused of molesting young girls. He committed suicide.

Now, I have no interest in molesting any young people. And, if it was my daughter, I'd be leading the lynch mob.

But the thought DID cross my mind, "what a hard, lonely life he had, in solo family practice". The thought didn't last, but I DID think it.

The American Church's "child safety initiatives" miss the point.

These abuses have been tolerated by men who know how hard and lonely the clerical state is, they are now relentlessly exposed (Luke 8:17), and the bishops bear the guilt and now must atone, which they have yet to do.