Ship of Fools: Another Nail .............

Thread: Another Nail ............. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025209

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Archbishop of Durban shoots every other Roman Catholic in the head.

I am speechless, not at one man's views (the idiot) but because of the ever so worrying thought that he represents a body of leadership that still thinks this nonsense. Is it a generational thing? It it a cultural thing? Is it an Evil thing?

I am almost at a loss for words. After EVERYTHING the church has been through how does a leader still think like this never mind say it aloud to a reporter?

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Here in South Africa the comment caused widespread despondency and embarrassment, judging by local media reactions. I hope Archbishop Napier's view isn't shared by the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

[brick wall]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Is it a generational thing? It it a cultural thing? Is it an Evil thing?

Probably all these things, and an Ivory Tower thing as well. Not so much another nail in the RCC's coffin more like another bolt on the door.

It doesn't matter whether we call paedophilia a crime or a contagion, either way it needs to be prevented or stopped in all walks of life .

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This was the view in the 60s and 70s, and paedos were often not sent to jail, since it was believed that they could be cured, through various ways, psychiatry, and so on. This view was later abandoned.

So I'm not sure if he is holding on to an old-fashioned approach, or exculpating abusers, or both.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Paedophilia can probably be cured with a course of consecrated beetroot and garlic, available from a catholic dispensary near you.....

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Is it a generational thing? It it a cultural thing? Is it an Evil thing?
Probably all these things, and an Ivory Tower thing as well. Not so much another nail in the RCC's coffin more like another bolt on the door.

It doesn't matter whether we call paedophilia a crime or a contagion, either way it needs to be prevented or stopped in all walks of life .

Yes. But set against the typical view that the solution is to hound paedophiles, treat them as uniquely evil and force them into ever greater withdrawal from the norms of society, I'd say it's an equal and opposite error.

There are reasons why he's very wrong, but some of what he says (or is reported as saying) is an important corrective to dangerous, misguided and harmful misconceptions which are held by others.

Unfortunately, it's not a subject on which it's generally possible to have a rational discussion. I expect this thread to conform to that trend.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

He's also replacing both/and by either/or. It's not a question of paedophilia either being a sickness or a criminal offence - it's both. In fact, psychotherapy for paedos has made a kind of comeback, and is being practised today. With what success, I don't know. But they are still punished by jail sentences.

But then murderers are also able to receive therapy, but they are still sent to jail!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

Unfortunately, it's not a subject on which it's generally possible to have a rational discussion. I expect this thread to conform to that trend.

You seem to be hinting that you can be more rational about this than others. What helps you to be so?

Why is it not a subject on which it's generally possible to have a rational discussion?

Child abuse is a terrible thing. But we are capable of rationally discussing many terrible things, are we not?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

On the one hand, he does have a point that people who have been abused as children are often psychologically damaged and sometimes this leads them to abuse others as a result. And he also has a point that Paedophilia, defined as a sexual interest in children, is a psychological condition. It is in the DSM-IV, the international 'bible' for psychiatrist diagnosis, and described as:

quote:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Many justice facilities in both America and the UK now place people convicted of child sexual abuse in a psychiatry facility, to treat their urges using cognitive and behavioral therapies and similar.

However it is also a crime to act on these psychological urges, and this needs to be fully recognised. The Archbishop's comments are incredibly inappropriate and insensitive considering his position and the current context. While what he said may have some merit, he should not be the one to say it because of the perception it causes to have a leader of the church appear to downplay the seriousness of child abuse as a crime, which is what the church has historically been guilty of. He's a blinkered idiot, with no concept of what things are not politik or helpful to voice.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Last week, Fox Napier could potentially have been elected leader of 1.2 billion catholics.

If Francis wants to restore any credibility to the Church this guy should be fired, as he would be in virtually any other large organisation for spouting crap like this. If the RCC doesn't do that immediately, they will expose themselves to being seen to be continuing to nurture and protect such individuals. Wacko theories on a subject which is currently costing the church squillions in compensation and irreparable reputational damage are not what is currently required from a "Church for the poor".

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
This was the view in the 60s and 70s, and paedos were often not sent to jail, since it was believed that they could be cured, through various ways, psychiatry, and so on. This view was later abandoned.

Certainly I agree but I'm not sure it's safe to say that view has been abandoned entirely quetzalcoatl. It does seems to recur still.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
This was the view in the 60s and 70s, and paedos were often not sent to jail, since it was believed that they could be cured, through various ways, psychiatry, and so on. This view was later abandoned.
Certainly I agree but I'm not sure it's safe to say that view has been abandoned entirely quetzalcoatl. It does seems to recur still.

My impression was that it fell into disfavour, and then made a return. In fact, there is quite a lot of therapy/psychiatric treatment today, but not instead of prison. Yes, my earlier post was a bit inaccurate.

I'm pretty certain that some therapists and psychiatrists do claim that they can have success, at least with not acting out the urges towards children. And with hebephiles, there seems to be some success in pointing them to adult relationships.

[ 16. March 2013, 11:18: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I think, though, that therapies used now are as Hawk said, cognitive and behavioural. They would be of more modest, but hopefully more realistic aims.

I can't imagine any cognitive therapy would be a walk in the park - more like the terror behind the closed door for a paedophile.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Web MD suggests that it is a condition which becomes a crime when acted upon. It also suggests it can be treated; not to make it go away but to make the urges manageable.

That makes sense.

Whether or not the Archbishop of Durban should have said what he said is another question.

It is possible to have compassion for the perpetrators of a crime, especially when the crime they commit has its roots in a crime that was committed against them.

The problem is that him saying it sounds like a temptation to return to the era of covering up such crimes by the church. He did not advocate that and it cannot help but to be taken as that because of the unfortunate history of how pedophilia was treated in the past.

How sad.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think, though, that therapies used now are as Hawk said, cognitive and behavioural. They would be of more modest, but hopefully more realistic aims.

I can't imagine any cognitive therapy would be a walk in the park - more like the terror behind the closed door for a paedophile.

Indeed. There was an excellent documentary by Louis Theroux a few years back as he investigated one facility in California. The criminals sent there after their prison punishment were held on indefinite sentences, and were only released after significant therapy to manage their urges. They had to be willing to volunteer for the therapy though as it wouldn't work if they resisted. Many chose to stay imprisoned indefinitely than even try and face themselves in therapy.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

He may be tactless for saying this right now, but he's not wrong. Pedophilia is a psychological disease. Just because someone has that disease doesn't mean that they have acted on those urges, and that needs to be understood and recognized. It's only a crime if someone actually abuses a child or uses CP.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
.... the typical view that the solution is to hound paedophiles, treat them as uniquely evil and force them into ever greater withdrawal from the norms of society, I'd say it's an equal and opposite error.

I might be inclined to agree with you were it not for recent revelations that indicate abusers are not always those withdrawing into the shadows, but brazenly getting away with it protected by their influence and position.

FWIW , since visiting the Ship I have seen plenty of both heated and rational debate on paedophilia. One might hope that the overall consensus is that sexual abuse of minors is wrong . The only room for disagreement is how to prevent it from happening .

[ 16. March 2013, 13:21: Message edited by: rolyn ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
.... the typical view that the solution is to hound paedophiles, treat them as uniquely evil and force them into ever greater withdrawal from the norms of society, I'd say it's an equal and opposite error.
I might be inclined to agree with you were it not for recent revelations that indicate abusers are not always those withdrawing into the shadows, but brazenly getting away with it protected by their influence and position.

italics mine
It is not an either/or thing. Many do not have influence or position. Pushing them into the margins can leave them unmonitored and this is dangerous. They just always be monitored.

I've no objection to attempting to help them, as long as it is not a catch, treat and release. It is not definitively curable and you are betting someone else's welfare.

It is a difficult subject to discuss rationally as it is difficult for some of us to see them as anything but monsters. I trust people are capable of understanding why.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quetzalcoatl, rolyn and others above have it right.

I think the issues of punishment and treatment have sometimes obscured the issue of control and monitoring so that further offences are prevented. I take no issue with the need for treatment, medical and psychological. However, I would like punishment to be secondary to the need for control and prevention for re-offending. Lifetime sentences in my view are completely appropriate with the possibilities being: lock-up if the person is assessed as high risk and dangerous, and various forms of loosening of the lock-up as danger is assesses as dropping. I see no reason why a paedophile who is assessed at low risk might be living outside of a jail, working etc., so long as (s)he is electronically monitored, with tracking of all movements. For the rest of the life span. Any deviation from the requirements of the supervision would result in the person returning to a more secure locked environment.

I have thought this sort of continuum of care balances both the need for the potential future victims with the possibilities of (a) treatment having an effect, (b) lowering costs of keeping these people locked up, with (b) being lower on the priority list.

The bishop in this case is probably responding to the priests he personally knows, isn't considering their victims, doesn't understand that there is no cure, and probably thinks that treatment is more effective than it is. Better is for people to talk about things they know something about. And to consider the people with lower status and power in all pastoral or societal situations. Which is the past and present victims.

We've had in Canada, a professor and Conservative political advisor say similar awful things: '...strategist suggested that people looking at child pornography shouldn’t be jailed'.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

One of the folks on my case load has this condition. I have great sympathy for him; he does not want to be sexually attracted to young children; it utterly destroys his life (and it is a nightmare for us to manage).

1. He cannot live (by court order) where he regularly encounters children -- sees them out the window, meets them in the hallways, catches glimpses of them across the street. We find him a neighborhood full of old folk far from a school; three weeks later, bam, a family with kids moves in down the block. We have to move him 5 or 6 times a year, sometimes oftener, in a city with a vacancy rate of less than 1%.

2. Every single bit of his mail must be gone through and screened, redacting images and text about kids. This includes his newspaper and TV Guide. It's an hour or two of work every day.

3. Every single TV or radio broadcast must be monitored and turned off the minute kids are seen or mentioned.

4. He must be accompanied by a staffer 24/7. He has zero privacy at home and precious little freedom out in public. He has had to wait -- sometimes so long he's had accidents -- before entering a public restroom because someone was in there with a kid.

5. He has tried every therapy known to humankind -- behavioral, cognitive, even aversion therapy -- with no reduction in the intensity of his urges.

6. He is, forgive the un-PC term, "high-functioning." He is self-aware, intelligent, charming, with social skills and much to offer society if he could do something like attend school and/or hold down a job, but for the fact that he lives, not only under constant surveillance, but also under the strain of constantly-but-barely-repressed intense sexual urges towards little kids.

He does not want to hurt little children. He understand full well -- morally, legally, behaviorally -- that acting on his feelings would be utterly and profoundly wrong. The very thought of actring on his urges horrifies and frightens him. He is suicidal much of the time.

There is this important distinction, however, between my client and the Cardinal of Durban: much of my client's suffering stems not only from the need to repress his urges, but also from his intense concern for the objects of his longings.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He's also replacing both/and by either/or. It's not a question of paedophilia either being a sickness or a criminal offence - it's both. In fact, psychotherapy for paedos has made a kind of comeback, and is being practised today. With what success, I don't know. But they are still punished by jail sentences.

But then murderers are also able to receive therapy, but they are still sent to jail!

Exactly. Crimes are based on conduct. Sentencing may well take into account why you did it, and hopefully if the reasons why you did it are medically treatable then there'll be some treatment in jail (yes, tremendously idealistic of me), but fundamentally the conduct is still criminal.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I see no reason why a paedophile who is assessed at low risk might be living outside of a jail, working etc., so long as (s)he is electronically monitored, with tracking of all movements. For the rest of the life span. Any deviation from the requirements of the supervision would result in the person returning to a more secure locked environment.

1. Almost no-one will give a job to a known pedophile. Thus, 24/7 monitoring would effectively prevent employment.

2. You seem to be conflating "pedophile" and "convicted child molester". There are some people who do need that level of supervision. But not everyone who admits to suffering from sexual attraction to minors to their therapist needs that sort of regime. And if treatment for pedophiles who have not been convicted of anything is as restrictive as the "least restrictive" option you are suggesting, then no-one will seek treatment without being caught. This will lead to more children being harmed.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

In an illustration of the difficulties of this issue, there is a current story of a 29 year old man, with no prior police record, charged in January of possessing downloaded child pornography. Thursday last, he cut off his monitoring device and (allegedly) kidnapped a woman and her daughter, raped the daughter and killed the mother.
Could the court system have predicted this? No. Did they follow proper procedure? Yes.
And yet....

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

There are other conditions which can be regarded as mental disorders or as crimes. Some people like to watch fires burn, which becomes a crime when they commit arson. The conflation of the two--mental illness and crime--is not unique to pedophilia.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

Unfortunately, it's not a subject on which it's generally possible to have a rational discussion. I expect this thread to conform to that trend.
You seem to be hinting that you can be more rational about this than others. What helps you to be so?

It may seem that way to you, but that isn't the case. It doesn't take a perfectly objective, detached and rational person to see when a subject regularly and predictably turns into a completely polarised shouting match.

quote:
Why is it not a subject on which it's generally possible to have a rational discussion?

Child abuse is a terrible thing. But we are capable of rationally discussing many terrible things, are we not?

Maybe we are in principle, but in practice, not so much. This is a subject that pushes a lot of people's buttons in both directions. It's not unique in that respect, and there are other topics which I don't generally think generate particularly helpful discussions, but I very rarely see any discussion of this that adds much to the sum of human knowledge. Maybe this will be the exception.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

I am speechless, not at one man's views (the idiot) but because of the ever so worrying thought that he represents a body of leadership that still thinks this nonsense. Is it a generational thing? It it a cultural thing? Is it an Evil thing?

Perhaps he's a friend of the RC Archbishop of Mozambique, who claimed that European-made condoms were deliberately infected with HIV in order to commit genocide on Africans.

Link.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

I am speechless, not at one man's views (the idiot) but because of the ever so worrying thought that he represents a body of leadership that still thinks this nonsense. Is it a generational thing? It it a cultural thing? Is it an Evil thing?

Perhaps he's a friend of the RC Archbishop of Mozambique, who claimed that European-made condoms were deliberately infected with HIV in order to commit genocide on Africans.

Link.

So it's a cultural thing then? An African cultural thing?

You trust the conclave not to elect nutters with views like this to the top job, but these nutters were appointed from within the same organisation which winces at their ignorant outpourings. Is it strategically more acceptable to disaster-manage these nutters from within the organisation than to acknowledge that had you not appointed them in the first place their maunderings would never have received the light of publicity? Is the Vatican the last of the colonial powers, dispensing some sort of ceremonial but effectively impotent functional authority in order to - what? - further its proselytizing, because that's all it knows to do?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It would not matter if there were FULL transparency. I'm ceasing to have any understanding of punishment from God on up.

And if we're serious about images, then we should be serious about the transparency of their transmission.

Porridge [Votive]

for ALL concerned. The cheapest and kindest, christian, constrained, utilitarian thing all round could well be institutionalization. Which he may prefer.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why is it not a subject on which it's generally possible to have a rational discussion?

Child abuse is a terrible thing. But we are capable of rationally discussing many terrible things, are we not?
Maybe we are in principle, but in practice, not so much. This is a subject that pushes a lot of people's buttons in both directions. It's not unique in that respect, and there are other topics which I don't generally think generate particularly helpful discussions, but I very rarely see any discussion of this that adds much to the sum of human knowledge. Maybe this will be the exception.

I think the problem is that no one can come up with a just solution. Children must be protected, but it seems harsh to drastically restrict a person's freedom because he has overpowering urges to hurt children. I see such restriction as necessary, but I feel for the person subject to it.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Full restrictions should be mandatory for those with overpowering urges. The law is woefully inadequate in this. The problematic ones are like the person I described up thread. He hadn't, as far as authorities know, actually hurt anyone prior to his initial arrest.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

mmmm. Cardinal Napier certainly got himself tied in knots in the interview. I really think Cardinals and senior figures who are likely to be called upon to give interviews should be given some really massive and professional formation in responding to interviews. The danger with that, though, is that it looks like spin-doctoring.

Cardinal Napier's interview (I have read the full transcript, not just the news item) is the classic example of going on the defensive, getting upset and then making a complete cock-up.

The Cardinal was specifically referring to two cases that he had dealt with, where both abusers had once been abused themselves - and he thought they needed psychological help because of the abuse they had suffered, not just punishment: they had suffered psychological damage themselves. He did not say that as a complete generalisation about all child abusers.

He has issued a clarification, should anyone be interested. Even in the clarification, however, he then defaults to the defensive footing, and its next step, being upset and feeling got at. The first part of the clarification is fine, but then he loses it again.

So I don't think he has handled this well at all, but I don't think the BBC headline is entirely accurate either.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
There are other conditions which can be regarded as mental disorders or as crimes. Some people like to watch fires burn, which becomes a crime when they commit arson. The conflation of the two--mental illness and crime--is not unique to pedophilia.

Indeed, we had a discussion a week or so ago about a woman who had killed her mother, spent a couple of years in a mental hospital, was released and subsequently killed someone else.

Except that in that case, the courts happily fell into the same either/or error that the Cardinal makes here, but without the same outcry.

[ 18. March 2013, 02:52: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
mmmm. Cardinal Napier certainly got himself tied in knots in the interview. I really think Cardinals and senior figures who are likely to be called upon to give interviews should be given some really massive and professional formation in responding to interviews. The danger with that, though, is that it looks like spin-doctoring.

Was thinking that.

I served as a part-time press officer at one time in my working life. The preliminary training was interesting. Produced a certain "paranoia" as a result of which I started to examine every word I said or wrote in the role to see how it might be misconstrued by anyone with headline-making or even just mischievous intent. I learned to put my "press head" on.

I wasn't very good at the role. I like explaining. As a press officer, your first duty is to defend, to find words for an "explanation" that will protect against misrepresentation. It's not so much that truth is a casualty of this kind of "verbal war", rather that education is. It's wrong to assume fairness of response - either way. If you can manage to get some truth "out there" while preventing misrepresentation, you're doing well.

So it becomes a kind of doleful chess game. Probe and defend, calculate moves in advance. I found it hard to do well and maintain integrity. I think that can be a struggle regardless of which side of the media divide you work.

[ 18. March 2013, 06:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think that, strictly from a PR perspective, anybody with any position above janitor in the Roman Catholic Church cannot afford to say anything that could remotely be taken to imply that people molesting children shouldn't be held accountable. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether pedophelia is a crime or an illness or both or neither or what-the-fuck, but that won't help the RCC's image, or how people feel about its claimed moral authority.

That this guy didn't know that, or couldn't figure it out, or was incapable of acting (or not acting) on it, at least suggests that he may not be suited to his position.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

This is a slightly different perspective...

AFZ

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
This is a slightly different perspective...

AFZ

404

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

Oops, wrong thread, had two tabs open (and ridiculously tired). Please could some kindly host move it? (So done, B62)

[ 18. March 2013, 21:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

What, an African bishop less orthodox than an American? Wonders never cease...

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

This reminds me of a seriously held view by one of my relatives, that if a convicted murderer becomes a Christian in jail, they should be set free because they have been forgiven their sins! People should serve the terms of their sentence, regardless of the help they receive from priests or health professionals while they are incarcerated.

I guess the view held by my relative is rather similar to the naivety of the Roman Catholic church in previous decades - 'he said sorry for the abuse so we'll find him a different placement and don't need to do anything else'.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Although I think that attitude was fairly common in the 60s and 70s. There was a hebephile at my school, and after much grumbling from parents, he got a job at another school.

I think in the US public school system, this was known as 'passing the trash', and shows how abuse was taken more lightly, probably until the 90s.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
This is a slightly different perspective...

AFZ
404

Try here. [Smile]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Oops, wrong thread, had two tabs open (and ridiculously tired). Please could some kindly host move it?

Wilco MarsmanTJ. Not quite sure how just yet - may have to transfer it as a quote under my name. (Later - a quote it is)

B62, Purg Host

[ 18. March 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I sometimes wonder whether church leaders of any denomination have any business making public statements or giving interviews at all. It rarely seems to put the church in a positive light, and I can't help feeling that their time would be better spent on pastoral care and shepherding the church.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Except, of course, they are constantly asked for interviews.

This may be of some interest to those wondering about the new Pope's stance:

quote:
Skorka: I would like to clarify that a priest who falls in love with a girl and then confesses is one thing, and a case of pedophilia is quite another. Pedophilia has to be cut off at the roots. It's very serious. Two adults who love each other having an affair is something else.

Bergoglio: The idea that pedophilia is a consequence of celibacy is ruled out. More than seventy percent of cases of pedophilia occur in the family and neighborhood: grandparents, uncles, stepfathers, neighbors. The problem is not linked to celibacy. If a priest is a pedophile, he is so before he is a priest.

Now, when that happens, we must never turn a blind eye. You cannot be in a position of power and destroy the life of another person. In the diocese it never happened to me, but a bishop once called me to ask me by phone what to do in a situation like that and I told him to take away the priests' licenses, not to allow them to exercise the priesthood any more, and to begin a canonical trial in that diocese’s court. I think that's the attitude to have. I do not believe in taking positions that uphold a certain corporative spirit in order to avoid damaging the image of the institution. That solution was proposed once in the United States: they proposed switching the priests to a different parish. It is a stupid idea; that way, the priest just takes the problem with him wherever he goes. The corporate reaction leads to such a result, so I do not agree with those solutions. Recently, there were cases uncovered in Ireland from about twenty years ago, and the present Pope [Benedict XVI] clearly said: “Zero tolerance for that crime.” I admire the courage and uprightness of Pope Benedict on the subject.

From he book Sobre el Cielo y la Tierra (“On the Heavens and the Earth”) published in 2012 by the Sudamericana publishing company - a conversation between Cardinal Bergoglio and Rabbi Abraham Skorka, rector of the Latin American Rabbinical Seminary.

See here for context.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

God bless Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Except, of course, they are constantly asked for interviews.

Lent's a good time to practice not giving in to temptation.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0