Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[color="Navy"]
It sounds noble but it's really little more than rhetoric. We live in a vindictive society, probably more so today than any other time in history.
Most on this thread will no doubt give you a firm pat on the back for your tone of hatred aimed toward these people. And, they ARE actually people, Bob, who merely have been given an unpopular label. But, you know what, Bob? I've little doubt that these people have as much loathing for themselves as you do towards them. I remember many years ago on the Oprah Winfrey show where one or two male molesters had volunteered to face their victims and apologize to them face-to-face. At the time I thought, "Oh no, these people are very stupid ...they are among the most hated people on the planet ...they will get torn apart by an angry mob of self-righteous 'Oprah worshipers!" And, I was right. It was quite a feeding frenzy. I'm unsure but I do seem to recall that the victims (females) acknowledged the sincerity offered by the males, especially on a TV show as seen by millions, and also accepted their apologies. But, not so the audience who vented their wrath toward the perpetrators in quite an alarming manner. On the other hand a female molester of an at the time under-aged boy was also on the same show. At one point she broke down and cried which prompted Oprah to put her arm around her and say, "There, there, it's not so bad." I thought, "What the . . .?!" Do any of you remember the show I'm referring to?
As I've stated before with absolute accuracy. People NEED to hate someone or something. If it were not pedophiles it would be someone or something else. Human bonding relies on some kind of a witch-hunt going on to assure each of us that we're on the winning team.
As I've stated before with absolute accuracy. People NEED to hate someone or something. If it were not pedophiles it would be someone or something else. Human bonding relies on some kind of a witch-hunt going on to assure each of us that we're on the winning team.
Witch hunts are aimed at innocents.
That excludes pedophiles.
Simply put there is no distinction between a NAMBLA member nor a priest who performs an illegal act of pedophilia. Both are properly caged upon conviction.
Opposition to pedophilia is not about hate but because it's a crime that damages children. Who knows why some act on their criminal impulses whether to sexually use children, to kill, to steal, etc.
Some posters seem to think child molestation is a victimless crime. I know it isn't because I've seen the damage done to some victims. A 12 year old girl who had to have a hysterectomy due to repeated rape. Abused children who killed themselves after being abused. Abused children who grow up to abuse others.
Never forget that sexual abuse of children is a crime whether perpetrated by priests, coaches, scout leaders or anyone else.
Simply put there is no distinction between a NAMBLA member nor a priest who performs an illegal act of pedophilia. Both are properly caged upon conviction.
Most on this thread will no doubt give you a firm pat on the back for your tone of hatred aimed toward these people. And, they ARE actually people, Bob, who merely have been given an unpopular label. But, you know what, Bob? I've little doubt that these people have as much loathing for themselves as you do towards them. I remember many years ago on the Oprah Winfrey show where one or two male molesters had volunteered to face their victims and apologize to them face-to-face. At the time I thought, "Oh no, these people are very stupid ...they are among the most hated people on the planet ...they will get torn apart by an angry mob of self-righteous 'Oprah worshipers!" And, I was right. It was quite a feeding frenzy. I'm unsure but I do seem to recall that the victims (females) acknowledged the sincerity offered by the males, especially on a TV show as seen by millions, and also accepted their apologies. But, not so the audience who vented their wrath toward the perpetrators in quite an alarming manner. On the other hand a female molester of an at the time under-aged boy was also on the same show. At one point she broke down and cried which prompted Oprah to put her arm around her and say, "There, there, it's not so bad." I thought, "What the . . .?!" Do any of you remember the show I'm referring to?
As I've stated before with absolute accuracy. People NEED to hate someone or something. If it were not pedophiles it would be someone or something else. Human bonding relies on some kind of a witch-hunt going on to assure each of us that we're on the winning team.
Well, I'll give you one thing. You have remarkable powers of rationalization. Somehow or another, after paying lip services to the atrocities committed, you manage to twist things around so that these priests are somehow too old to be prosecuted, and doing so is pointless, little more than an exercise in moral posturing. To seek justice for the sexually abused is to succumb to the needs of the 'angry mob,' as you put it. In the end, if the trail of your logic is carried out to its conclusion, it's more important to show mercy to these priests in their old age than to comfort their victims. Or repair the moral foundations of how a church should operate.
It's probably time to review the issues at hand.
1. Sexual abuse causes lifelong emotional damage to its victims.
2. Catholic priests indulged in sexual predation on a shocking scale.
3. The Catholic leadership knew of these outrages and didn't act on them, instead simply moving the offending priest to another unsuspecting parish.
4. Despite what you say, the scandal continues to churn on, with fresh new abuses being uncovered, many of which have taken place in recent years long after the original sordid revelations took place.
I get it. You want to defend Catholicism. But there is an enormous gulf between defending a faith and defending an institution. While I don't wholly agree with Catholicism and have made my denominational choices accordingly, I do respect the faith of Catholics. What I don't respect are the institution's choices, whether by policy or by just bad decision making, to abet these priests in one sickening case after another. And, as the Pennsylvania grand jury's findings show, those abuses aren't just old news.
Children are the most vulnerable members of our society. They lack agency. They lack awareness to recognize a predator and act accordingly to safeguard their health. And when that predator comes in the guise of someone who is offered up as the very embodiment of trustworthiness, a child is simply unequipped to respond. After all, the priest is the representative of God and moral force in the eyes of the child. Further, the emotional scar inflicted on a child is lifelong.
This is the source of the outrage, what you call 'witch hunt.' Your use of the term that implies that the quest for justice and truth is an uninformed exercise simply looking for blood and headlines, chasing after non-existent offenses. The use of this term itself means you do not take the allegations and damage seriously. What's more, dragging Oprah into this is a lazy and false equivalency, because the large majority of people think teachers should serve time for violating their mission of student welfare. It is a deliberate and cynical attempt on your part to muddy waters, a smoke screen for men who systematically violated the trust of children and their parents. What's more, it ultimately means that you haven't reckoned with the damage these men have done to the Catholic Church in particular and Christianity in general.
Which brings us to your breathtaking question, "Why prosecute these old men?" You might as well ask why murderers should be prosecuted decades after a crime was committed.
This is not a game of Kick The Can, a game where, if the offender avoids scrutiny for a specified period of time, they are home free. All that would do is to confirm the Catholic church's past strategy of hiding crimes, denying offenses, and obfuscating the truth. The amorality of this question is shocking, unintentional as it may be. You've allowed institutional self-interest to get in the way of what is righteous in your own mind.
That institutional self-interest is the root cause of the outrage in the first place, by the way. We've been pretty clear on this thread that such abuses can take place in any denomination. What makes the Catholic Church unique is its complicity. In effect, by covering for its priests, it was practically holding down the victims for sexual abusers.
In the end justice for the victims demands it, that's why. It is the final and vital act of a society, in effect telling the victim, "The person who did this to you will not get away with it. We defend you, even after the fact." It tells the world that such behavior is repulsive, and those who do it will be hunted to the ends of the earth. It tells the institutions of the world that they cannot hide behind their personae of public morality, nor hide in their marble temples. By prosecuting the offenders, we give the Catholic Church a chance to purge itself in ways that the toils of its bureaucracy obviously couldn't achieve.
And, ultimately, it tells the world that there are standards for behavior. You know, what the Catholic Church is supposed to stand for in the first place.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 08-28-2018 at 07:26 AM..
Most on this thread will no doubt give you a firm pat on the back for your tone of hatred aimed toward these people. And, they ARE actually people, Bob, who merely have been given an unpopular label. But, you know what, Bob? I've little doubt that these people have as much loathing for themselves as you do towards them. I remember many years ago on the Oprah Winfrey show where one or two male molesters had volunteered to face their victims and apologize to them face-to-face. At the time I thought, "Oh no, these people are very stupid ...they are among the most hated people on the planet ...they will get torn apart by an angry mob of self-righteous 'Oprah worshipers!" And, I was right. It was quite a feeding frenzy. I'm unsure but I do seem to recall that the victims (females) acknowledged the sincerity offered by the males, especially on a TV show as seen by millions, and also accepted their apologies. But, not so the audience who vented their wrath toward the perpetrators in quite an alarming manner. On the other hand a female molester of an at the time under-aged boy was also on the same show. At one point she broke down and cried which prompted Oprah to put her arm around her and say, "There, there, it's not so bad." I thought, "What the . . .?!" Do any of you remember the show I'm referring to?
As I've stated before with absolute accuracy. People NEED to hate someone or something. If it were not pedophiles it would be someone or something else. Human bonding relies on some kind of a witch-hunt going on to assure each of us that we're on the winning team.
No, Rom, they are not people who merely have been given an unpopular label. They are people who have done physical acts that harm children, a group of people who have no defense against bigger humans who want to use their bodies for sexual gratification.
Yes, I get that some of them may have self-loathing because of their drives. But "oops, that was bad, I shouldna maybe done that" doesn't undo the damage they leave upon their victims. And of course, not all do have that self-loathing. A father who says, "She's my baby, I should be able to have sex with her if I want" as I told of earlier in the thread, is not a person filled with regret and self-loathing over their actions.
As a matter of fact, a therapist I knew whose job was in part to interview parents whose children had been removed from the home (usually for reasons of drug abuse) to see if the family should be reunited said the biggest clue he looked for was whether the parents were filled with regret over their actions causing their children to be removed or if they were angry that their children were removed. If it was the former, he felt that they had a chance for healing and reconciliation. If they were merely angry, he didn't recommend the children be placed back in the home. I think this would probably be a good indicator, as a start, for the potential of treatment of child molesters. Do THEY recognize that their proclivities are harmful to their targets?
We can feel sympathy for people who carry this aberration within themselves, but first and foremost the priority is to protect the defenseless potential victims whose bodies they seek to use for their sexual gratification.
That's why I think it is best for their victims AND for them if they are isolated from the general population where they cannot get access to children.
Simply put there is no distinction between a NAMBLA member nor a priest who performs an illegal act of pedophilia. Both are properly caged upon conviction.
One can and seriously should evaluate themselves if such determines that the act of unconsented sexual activity is okay at least if one of them is of age. Get yourself in check before having a bleeding heart for the perpetrator. Few want reformed and more admit that there is no reason to conform to society just because they have a different desire .
Go visit parts of thailand. ..where parents willingly pimp their kids ..as young as two. They actually have clubs with police kickbacks to allow this perversion to endure.
The profession doesn't protect the ailment..and it's not an ailment most recipients with this pedophilia want to modify.
Just close the drapes and let them exist...Augh!!! I'm glad most speak up and do get repulsed..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
