Catholicism and Child Molestation

[blacksinow]

I've always wanted to ask this, how is it that the vatican hasn't executed priests in their order who are guilty of child molestation? They should know that they are causing harm to their victims, so why do they keep these monsters alive?

[ccgr]

I think they should be tried instead of being shuffled into other churches where others may get hurt

[blacksinow]

The problem with trying them is that is like saying that they will seek treatment. We are talking about monsters, not murderers or drug users, but monsters of the worst kind! Atleast someone guilty of murder might actually feel BAD about taking a life. These... things aren't interested in being treated, they want to feel pleasure. Can you really say that without a shadow of a doubt that someone who relies so much on feeling pleasure can change? They only care about their bodies, not the people they harm, they aren't even intelligent enough to be considered human.

[ArcticFox]

We are talking about monsters, not murderers or drug users, but monsters of the worst kind!

No. We're talking about people with a mental illness. Casting them aside as monsters does nothing to remedy the problem. If it makes you feel better when you sleep at night to think about how much better than they are you feel because you're not like them then go ahead... but then you may as well treat people with any form of mental illness the exact same way and go on back to 19th Century thinking.

And to be clear, this isn't a problem that's in any way unique to Catholic priests. In fact statistically, child molesters are more likely to be a family member than a priest.

The error the Catholic church committed during the heyday of this problem was that they covered it up rather than let the guilty be tried in court as they should have been. That problem has since been remedied.

[brandon1984]

What mental illness are you talking about as far as DSM?

[blacksinow]

We are talking about monsters, not murderers or drug users, but monsters of the worst kind!

No. We're talking about people with a mental illness. Casting them aside as monsters does nothing to remedy the problem. If it makes you feel better when you sleep at night to think about how much better than they are you feel because you're not like them then go ahead... but then you may as well treat people with any form of mental illness the exact same way and go on back to 19th Century thinking.

And to be clear, this isn't a problem that's in any way unique to Catholic priests. In fact statistically, child molesters are more likely to be a family member than a priest.

The error the Catholic church committed during the heyday of this problem was that they covered it up rather than let the guilty be tried in court as they should have been. That problem has since been remedied.

If they could be treated and kept out of the reach of children, I'd have no problem. But people in their... situation hardly ever stay with their treatment. What is important is the safety of children, not whether or not someone has a mental illness that makes them molest little kids. They should be put down if they cannot be treated, not locked up in an institution. The welfare of children concern me, not whether or not some sick person won't want treatment and becomes a monster as a result.

This is the problem, at the moment that people start to realize that it is okay to segregate someone on the grounds of religion, then people are going to start founding new religions to control who they can and can't interact with. One nutjob has already created his own religion due to a bet (aka scientology), I don't think I could tolerate that level of ignorance.

Free Speech doesn't really mean that you are free of the consequences of your actions. People get fired all the time for exercising their freedom of speech. What about contractual agreements stating that you cannot divulge corporate secrets of a company that you have previously worked for? Should freedom of speech take president and allow you to ruin a company, because you choose to or because it is convenient for you?

[ArcticFox]

If they could be treated and kept out of the reach of children, I'd have no problem. But people in their... situation hardly ever stay with their treatment.

This is inaccurate. Actually, treatment is a condition of probation/parole for this class of offense so it's not like they have a choice of whether or not to stay with it.

Furthermore, sex crimes in general have a lower recidivism rate than most other types of felony ever since that law was passed. It works. Now, it's true that certain, very specific types of sex crimes have a troubling repeat offense rate, but that's why those individuals are watchedmore closely by their probation/parole officers.

What is important is the safety of children, not whether or not someone has a mental illness that makes them molest little kids. They should be put down if they cannot be treated, not locked up in an institution.

How humane of you.

This is the problem, at the moment that people start to realize that it is okay to segregate someone on the grounds of religion, then people are going to start founding new religions to control who they can and can't interact with. One nutjob has already created his own religion due to a bet (aka scientology), I don't think I could tolerate that level of ignorance.

So you promote intolerance. Ironic, since you seem to take such a dim view of people whom you view as intolerant.

Free Speech doesn't really mean that you are free of the consequences of your actions. People get fired all the time for exercising their freedom of speech.

Are you comfortable with this?

What about contractual agreements stating that you cannot divulge corporate secrets of a company that you have previously worked for?

That's different. It's a contract that a person enters into through their own free choice. Nobody is ever forced into such an agreement.

[blacksinow]

If they could be treated and kept out of the reach of children, I'd have no problem. But people in their... situation hardly ever stay with their treatment.

This is inaccurate. Actually, treatment is a condition of probation/parole for this class of offense so it's not like they have a choice of whether or not to stay with it.

Furthermore, sex crimes in general have a lower recidivism rate than most other types of felony ever since that law was passed. It works. Now, it's true that certain, very specific types of sex crimes have a troubling repeat offense rate, but that's why those individuals are watchedmore closely by their probation/parole officers.

What is important is the safety of children, not whether or not someone has a mental illness that makes them molest little kids. They should be put down if they cannot be treated, not locked up in an institution.

How humane of you.

This is the problem, at the moment that people start to realize that it is okay to segregate someone on the grounds of religion, then people are going to start founding new religions to control who they can and can't interact with. One nutjob has already created his own religion due to a bet (aka scientology), I don't think I could tolerate that level of ignorance.

So you promote intolerance. Ironic, since you seem to take such a dim view of people whom you view as intolerant.

Free Speech doesn't really mean that you are free of the consequences of your actions. People get fired all the time for exercising their freedom of speech.

Are you comfortable with this?

What about contractual agreements stating that you cannot divulge corporate secrets of a company that you have previously worked for?

That's different. It's a contract that a person enters into through their own free choice. Nobody is ever forced into such an agreement.

When it comes down to it, I detest people who would cause harm to others because they cannot control their own urges. Because these monsters will not submit to how society actually works, that despite what they believe, children are a "do not touch" policy. I care about children, not child molesters. If they have learned to submit to the same rules as every civilized being submits themselves too, then that is an entirely different story and it means that they can be reformed. But if they cannot, would you be willing to put your children at risk because of a maybe?

[Bruce_Campbell]

Wait, you said executed, not excommunicated, right?

I agree with AF (mostly… I er… skimmed over a lot of this…). And I'm an atheist and a sexual abuse victim, so I've got no love for the catholic church or pedophiles. Executing someone is pretty extreme, even for a horrible crime like sexual abuse. Was the child abuse scandal in the catholic church a travesty? Absolutely. And I would blame the people who covered it up just as much if not more than the actual pedophiles. But again, putting someone to death is something I believe should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances, if used at all.

EDIT: If I agree with AF, does that count as another seal being broken? Or does it only count if ArchAngel does it?

[Orodrist]

To be honest I'm all for executing priests. And the pope. Heck, burn the Vatican down while we're at it, been too long since Rome's had a proper sacking

[blacksinow]

Wait, you said executed, not excommunicated, right?

I agree with AF (mostly… I er… skimmed over a lot of this…). And I'm an atheist and a sexual abuse victim, so I've got no love for the catholic church or pedophiles. Executing someone is pretty extreme, even for a horrible crime like sexual abuse. Was the child abuse scandal in the catholic church a travesty? Absolutely. And I would blame the people who covered it up just as much if not more than the actual pedophiles. But again, putting someone to death is something I believe should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances, if used at all.

EDIT: If I agree with AF, does that count as another seal being broken? Or does it only count if ArchAngel does it?

My concern is that they are too concerned with their own bodies to be of any use to the public. But I'll be fair, I can deal with a second chance policy. "You can serve time, but if you touch another kid, we will put you in the gas chamber." People are saying that they can become useful members of society, they shouldn't have probably with this policy.

[brandon1984]

What mental illness are you talking about as far as DSM?

I looked it up and pedophilia is indeed included in the DSM-V but with a significant qualifier: the patient must be distressed by his or her actions. This qualifying language is used frequently in psychiatric diagnoses. Now that I think about it, pedophilia is probably an addictive behavior which is in a broad sense mental illness. And, this should definitely be weighed when considered a just punishment for any offence.

My concern is that they are too concerned with their own bodies to be of any use to the public. But I'll be fair, I can deal with a second chance policy. "You can serve time, but if you touch another kid, we will put you in the gas chamber." People are saying that they can become useful members of society, they shouldn't have probably with this policy.

I empathize with your feeling. Here's the problem you'll face. When the punishment for a particular crime is more severe than the crime itself, then the criminal tends to up the ante. Consider if minor theft was punishable by death. Then, a petty thief would turn into a murderer just to cover up his trail. Historically, the punishment for a particular crime needs to be equally weighted, hence the scales of justice.

Now that we live in a society with ample resources our retributive justice even for physical harm and murder is found in remuneration and imprisonment. And, our restorative justice is found in rehab. I honestly don't know how effective these are at whatever outcome we would be interested in such as deterring and how satisfied victims are with the justice system. In general, I hear things like "Our justice system is broken" and I wonder if its human imperfection at play or something wrong with the law code (probably both ay?).

In reality pedophilia probably does deserve both retributive and restorative justice. Retributive justice is imprisonment then monitoring this person to make sure they never get an easy chance to reoffend (i.e., sex offender registration), and restorative justice is in whatever kinds of therapy are available.

So, I hope this sounds amicable.

[ArchAngel]

No. We're talking about people with a mental illness. Casting them aside as monsters does nothing to remedy the problem. If it makes you feel better when you sleep at night to think about how much better than they are you feel because you're not like them then go ahead... but then you may as well treat people with any form of mental illness the exact same way and go on back to 19th Century thinking.

We might be starting another counter, but I agree with blacksinow on this. They are monsters. You can point at psychological causes all day long, but the atrocities they commit are no less heinous. These aren't mentally handicapped people, like those who talk to people who aren't there, or spend all day rocking and muttering, or peeing on the family pet; they abuse children in some of the most worst ways and the damage echoes throughout their victims lives. I reserve a Cocytusian level of hate for people who commit these crimes.

The error the Catholic church committed during the heyday of this problem was that they covered it up rather than let the guilty be tried in court as they should have been. That problem has since been remedied.

I have not seen that. The latest I've seen was in 2011, where new Vatican guidelines recommended bishops to work with police and local laws, but they are not required to do so. Not required to do so? They are more required to move in diagonal lines than to expose rapists. This is far from remedying the problem.
The catholic church has used it's power to not only keep child rapists out of courts, but also moved them to new parishes where they continued to abuse more children. And when I say power, I do not only mean money and resources, but that their mandate to cover up also incriminated and excommunicated those who would try to expose the abuse. You can rape a little boy, but not try to stop it. This is nothing short of pure evil. Oh, and guess what, the last pope was part of the committee that wrote that edict.
They have not done nearly enough in response to such a horrible and catastrophically evil practice. Remedied? Not by a long shot. This blight cannot be written off so easily.

[blacksinow]

No. We're talking about people with a mental illness. Casting them aside as monsters does nothing to remedy the problem. If it makes you feel better when you sleep at night to think about how much better than they are you feel because you're not like them then go ahead... but then you may as well treat people with any form of mental illness the exact same way and go on back to 19th Century thinking.

We might be starting another counter, but I agree with blacksinow on this. They are monsters. You can point at psychological causes all day long, but the atrocities they commit are no less heinous. These aren't mentally handicapped people, like those who talk to people who aren't there, or spend all day rocking and muttering, or peeing on the family pet; they abuse children in some of the most worst ways and the damage echoes throughout their victims lives. I reserve a Cocytusian level of hate for people who commit these crimes.

The error the Catholic church committed during the heyday of this problem was that they covered it up rather than let the guilty be tried in court as they should have been. That problem has since been remedied.

I have not seen that. The latest I've seen was in 2011, where new Vatican guidelines recommended bishops to work with police and local laws, but they are not required to do so. Not required to do so? They are more required to move in diagonal lines than to expose rapists. This is far from remedying the problem.
The catholic church has used it's power to not only keep child rapists out of courts, but also moved them to new parishes where they continued to abuse more children. And when I say power, I do not only mean money and resources, but that their mandate to cover up also incriminated and excommunicated those who would try to expose the abuse. You can rape a little boy, but not try to stop it. This is nothing short of pure evil. Oh, and guess what, the last pope was part of the committee that wrote that edict.
They have not done nearly enough in response to such a horrible and catastrophically evil practice. Remedied? Not by a long shot. This blight cannot be written off so easily.

Let's assume for a moment that someone not only murdered their whole family, but ate them as well. Let us say that they continued this behavior and psychologists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was due to a mental illness, what could you do with them that could actually work? You can't just diagnose somebody with a mental illness and let them be on their way or serve a few years in prison, it is unjust for the victims.

[ArcticFox]

When it comes down to it, I detest people who would cause harm to others because they cannot control their own urges. Because these monsters will not submit to how society actually works, that despite what they believe, children are a "do not touch" policy. I care about children, not child molesters. If they have learned to submit to the same rules as every civilized being submits themselves too, then that is an entirely different story and it means that they can be reformed. But if they cannot, would you be willing to put your children at risk because of a maybe?

I have 5 kids and I can still look at this issue objectively. Your approach, while emotionally satisfying, makes things worse, not better. I'm much more interested in solutions that actually make my kids safer.