Replies

As other replies have pointed out, castrated by whom?

Also as other replies have pointed out, the pedophile/homosexual abuse scandal in Holland has been exposed and rightly vilified and so even more reason for the church to reject homosexuality.

So what’s your point?

Q: As other replies have pointed out, castrated by whom?

A: A doctor, I would presume.

While I agree that the reporting at The Times is slanted and atrocious, the Church should keep to a *much* higher standard.

One of the open questions I have here:

Was the victim under the authority of a legal guardian at the time of castration? If so, who?

My point:

THE CHURCH SHOULD NOT FOSTER AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE ANYONE IS MOLESTED.

The story should get the facts correct, but the Church’s actions are indefensible, and are not “justified” under the facts not in dispute.

Vindication: “justification against denial or censure” - Webster

Am I clear?

OK, so now it turns out that the "uncontested" facts are:

400 men --- men with sexual disorders, and sex offenders --- were castrated under Dutch psychiatric "care" for therapeutic, eugenic, and punitive purposes;
ONE of them--- Henk Heithaus--- had this done to him at a psychiatric institution sponsored by the Catholic Church. One, "and possibly nine others."
Thus, 0.25%, or possibly up to 2.5% ,of these castrations were allegedly done by psychiatrists and surgeons in institutions "under the auspices of" the Catholic Church. I.e., at least 97.5% were not.
In fact, castration for eugenic, psychotherapeutic or punitive purposes, is forbidden by the moral doctrines of the Catholic Church.
And any possible connection to pedophilic abuse is impossible to subsantiate, since perpetrators or victims, guilty or innocent, moral monsters or slandered caregivers of 60 years ago are not "available for questioning."

There's the story.

What? That wasn't in the story? Why not?

Because 97.5% --- or up to 99.5% --- of the truth, was not considered by the media to be "news we can use".

And The Media Never Lie!