>surely you aren't suggesting all those abused by priests were 16 or 17.<
NO.
For the 30th time, I am suggesting there is a difference between pedophilia, rape, and consensual homosexual sex. I am also giving the reasons I think it's important to distinguish between them.
Having homosexual sex with a legal consenting 16 or 17 year old would not be prosecuted. Many psychologists would tell you that an offender like that would not be prone to repeat offenses and would respond to treatment.
So in those cases, if the church decided to retain, treat, and monitor the priest, you and I might disagree with that course of action, but most reasonable people would agree that it's a lot different than covering up the rape of a 7 YO (where it's clearly illegal, is a mental illness that is extremely unlikely to respond to treatment, and is totally horrifying).
This is important if you are actually trying to understand the "extent" of each of the "different problems" the church has and the "actions the Church took" in "some" cases.
It's not accurate or fair to lump all cases and actions together as pedophilia and rape. That is done as a method of attack to paint a more horrifying picture.
Please no more BS.
Do not say that I am suggesting that this makes these other cases OK or that there weren't cases of pedophilia and rape that were covered up. Obviously both happened.
I am defining the various problems so the entire issue can be understood well, discussed properly, and the extent of each of problems can be identified. That way you can see that the Church is not the Evil Empire it is being portrayed as. It is a good institution with a some bad apples, just like every other institution on the planet. |
