What defines a "pedophile" to you?

I don't know. Celibacy is though, Satan attacks the most vulnerable, and innocent children sadly suffer.
I've read books by exorcists who claim that Satan became deeply rooted within the walls of Vatican (including some of high positioned cardinals). Feel free to laugh, people, I don't care.

A cousin of mine is a young priest.
He has some experience in education of future priests in Croatia, as well as in several other countries. Before I say more, know that although there are isolated cases of pedophilia in clerical Croatia, it is not as nearly widely spread as in some other countries. In his opinion (and experience) there is a difference between how societies work, the role of priests and how they're accepted in communities, and how women are viewed in Croatia vs.some other countries.
A priest is not pure and holy, as you stated, and he shouldn't be. Now, I'm not saying he is just like the rest of us, but he is certainly not meant to be pure and holy. Here he is a man who hangs out with the rest of us. A priest can go and get cofee with an old or young woman or man, hanging out with a woman is not a taboo to him, he isn't taught that women are like Eve, sneaky and forbidden, a priest can even drink a glass of wine or two too much. He is one of the people, he is of people, and he is with people.
Sure, we should all strive for holiness, but life is not only sustaining from pleasures - life is joy, God is joy. Holiness isn't only achieved through suffering. If you deprive yourself of everything, you are bound to fail because you are merely human.
Priests used to be called "uncles", which showed how deep their role in local communities is - they are like family, they are not separated and isolated in their churches, and only remembered on Sundays, they are with us.

 

Lol does that even make sense?

 

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html

 

Thanks for the thoughtful post, and yes, it made sense! I like the thought of calling priests "uncle." It makes more sense, since Father should probably be reserved for God (in my view).

I live in a very Catholic area, and have attended many different churches. I've only encountered one priest who fits the description that you put forth--and he was probably the most interesting and effective priest that I have ever met. In my experience, most priests here are older men who don't seem to blend in with the Parish. They live up to that "pure and holy" title that I used earlier. There is a sense of detachment from the rest of the people, and maybe that sort of detachment influences the rate of pedophilia, at least in America.

It's interesting what you say about Satan being rooted in the walls of the Vatican. There were some very dark and bloody times in Catholic history, so I can see where Satan would have influenced some of those people and their otherwise inexplicable actions.

 

Something that really disturbs me is those who operate on what they consider to be the "periphery" of paedophilia.

The sort who'd say "oh I'm not a paedophile, I'm a pederast" And the old "oh there's far too much fuss made, its the parents that cause all the drama".

We live in a society that is obsessed with "sexual freedom" and ignores responsibility.
We have people trying to ban words like "pervert" and replace them with "kink".
And we have an ever extending list of what people aren't allowed to criticise.

What saddens me most is all the unreported cases of paedophilia.
It reminds me of a former neighbour of mine. Really he was a stereotypical paedophile in some ways. Certain neighbours had figured him out. But there was a group that was saying "oh thats outrageous, you're conducting a witch hunt". Unfortunately, he DID conform to a "profiling pattern" and it did emerge he had behaving highly inappropriately with children. Sadly, paedophiles are often smart. You only need to see how some of them are "hidden in plain view".

To me, his views were enought to show he should not have been working with children unsupervised.

Even today, he'll swear blind he's a "pederast" and that they "consented".

 

I'd be interested in reading that book.

 

It made kind of sense and I also applaud your in depth response :daisy:

 

It's an interesting question that the OP raised, and I'm glad it's been left open for discussion.

I think it is a dangerous route to go down to define the concept of paedophilia (spelt the English way ... which demonstrates that the etymology has nothing to do with feet!!!) solely by reference to the legal age of sexual consent. The legal age of sexual consent varies from time to time and from place to place; and to discuss paedophilia at all I think we need a definition which is static, and to which we can address our comments knowing that we are all thinking of the same thing.

I have to say, as well, that I think the distinction between the urge or the desire, on the one hand, and the act in the other hand, is a key one which we should always bear in mind. I am afraid I cannot see or accept the point of view that says it is all the same thing. It is not.

We all have, from time to time, urges or desires to do things which are either illegal or offensive to popular sentiment (or both); but we have free will, and we have the ability to choose whether to give in to them or not.

I might have the desire to take something that is not mine. That does not make me a thief, unless I actually take it. If I do not take it, there are few who will say I should be punished for having had the desire ... and rightly so.

I often feel an urge - sometimes a terrifyingly strong urge - to step off the railway platform just as the train approaches; but I have never committed suicide, because I have always resisted the urge.

I have sometimes felt an urge to set fire to things, or to harm somebody, or to give myself sexual pleasure when I am in an inappropriate situation for such behavior. Again, I have successfully resisted these urges.

These are all urges which, if I had acted upon them, I would have committed an offence, and society would have punished me for it. But I did not act upon them, therefore I committed no offence, and society therefore has no right to punish me for them.

The same applies to the urges - which I am reliably informed some men have - to commit sexual acts with animals, or dead bodies, or ...

And yet ...

... I read people on threads such as this, seriously advocating the case that men who feel amorous desires towards children under a certain age are somehow different. The very fact that they have those urges (whether they wish it or not) appears to be the unspeakable crime. The fact that they may successfully resist the urge to act on them is neither here or there, apparently. Because we simply don't believe that they can. They must be doing something about it. Therefore they are all criminals, deserving to be punished, castrated, even (I think I read) executed ... and for what? For simply having an urge, a desire, which they could not help themselves having, but which they COULD and DID help themselves from acting on?

I'm sorry ... but I'm not buying it.

Somebody who feels the urge to steal, but steals nothing, commits no offence.

Somebody who feels the urge to harm somebody, but harms nobody, commits no offence.

Somebody who feels the urge to commit arson, but burns nothing down, commits no offence.

And somebody who feels amorous urges towards children, but performs no amorous acts towards children, commits no offence.

The analysis is the same in each case. We may consider paedophilia especially heinous when carried into practice. But whilst the urge to it is being successfully resisted, then it is no different from any other urge to criminal behavior which is successfully resisted.

 

That's a vision and model of priesthood which I really applaud.

 

Sure, we can do that. Just remember that several "success stories" don't make for a very good statistic.

Also: how many "success stories" can you find among the victims of the abuse.

I read your post as differentiating between actual child molesters and persons who "merely" watch child pornography but doesn't actually carry out the abuse. That's what my post picked up on. I apologise if I was wrong.

Women are mothers which translates into care not the behavior of a predator.

 

Gabriele Amorth is your guy. He wrote two books, I read both of them. But you can google his interviews (he doesn't give many interviews, it will be easy to find his opinion about Satan in Vatican). He also works with medical experts, to make sure it's not in fact a psychiatric illness, but a possession.
You may find his opinion about Harry Potter and yoga weird, but it's still an interesting read.
Also, I don't know if you are familiar with the Emanuela Orlandi case, the girl who went missing. Amorth insists that it was someone inside Vatican.

Yes.
Even Jesus Christ himself didn't establish a perfect Church, he chose apostles who would deny and betray him, which is pretty much normal human behaviour.

 

No, no, no! I was trying to separate the desire from the action (Beachball elaborated on the subject much more clearly than I did). I don't advocate for the manufacturing or viewing of child porn. o.o

 

For example:

 

I'll definitely check that out. I've never watched or read Harry Potter, and I'm not into yoga. No worries there.

 

What if the "porn" is entirely animated cartoon-style, rather than filming of actual children?

Where do you go with that?

Do you see it as a harmless, victimless way of providing an outlet for those who seek to resist their urges, but need an opportunity to "let off steam"?

Or do you view it as the first step on a slippery slope which can only lead in one direction?

 

If you do end up reading any of the books, let me know what you think! I am curious.

 

Will do! I don't get a lot of time to sit and read, so it'll be a while.

 

I was advocating the death penalty for convicted pedophiles, obviously. You can't punish someone who has not committed a crime.

But, if I knew a friend of mine was in treatment because they had the urge but had not acted on it, I would keep my child very far away from them.

 

Wait! What? Never? Why ever not? Maybe you feel the same way about Harry as I feel about Star Wars :/

 

Oh for fucksake, a possession...medical experts my ass! Christians always got a way out, huh?

Un-fucking-believable










Yes.
Even Jesus Christ himself didn't establish a perfect Church, he chose apostles who would deny and betray him, which is pretty much normal human behaviour.[/QUOTE]