Churches are clearly unfit as moral guides

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

The Catholic church has been harbouring peadophiles (at least, thats what all the evidence points to). The reality probably is - its not so much that the Church is evil as it is behind the times. Child abuse used to be the kind of thing no one talked about, when it occured it generally got swept under the carpet because it was all so embarrasing. That was true 50 years ago or more, but hasn’t been true for at least the last two decades. As always, though, Churches (filled with OAPs like the Pope) are behind the times.

This isn’t a new thing. When Britain abolished slavery, it had to pay compensation to Church of England Bishops who were still keeping slaves. By this time, most educated people had twigged that there was something pretty wrong about slavery, but the Church of England was (predictably) set in the middle ages when villienage and other forms of slavery were still fine - they saw nothing wrong with a good old bit of slavery.

Surely anybody who looks to these instituions as their moral guides is barking? They are clearly run by old people out of touch with modern evolutions in what is right and wrong. They are always harking on about ‘traditional values’ - because thats all they can remember. But old values are outdated values - and the new ones are generally better (like the newfound intorelation of peadophilia).

2

People are unfit as moral guides…the church, as a body, is not an individual and is therefore not assigned guilt as a whole…unless you think they act as a monolith.

3

Isn’t a monolith like a large piece of rock or something?

The churches generally claim to offer moral guidence. Thats part of thier selling point: and thats what I am critiquing.

4

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. – Lord Acton

This is just as true for churches as any other organization. When Pope Rat was elected, I knew it was going to be a bad business. He’s ultra-conservative both in practice and theology, and totally fascist and corrupt in practice. But power, particularly that existing behind a sheen of sanctified glamor, has a way of attracting people into its rotten web, and it appears to do so still.

5

I agree. Radzinger was my least favourite member of the Vatican ever since I studied Liberation Theology in high school. It was a travesty when he got elected Pope, in my opinion.

6

Not to be a stickler for details, but defending pedophiles would make the Church ahead of the times if anything, not behind.

7

As Cardinal Ratzinger, he operated as John Paul’s Grand Inquisitor. That about says it all, doesn’t it?

8

What pedophiles do should never be defended. Period. Once a pedophile is caught, he or she needs to be isolated and kept away from potential victims. However, I also think that everyone has the potential for healing, including sex offenders; and they should receive good counseling and rehabilitation until they are ready to re-enter society. This goes for all criminals by the way.

9

No, I just wanted to second it and add my two cents. I like your socially humanist views.

10

The recidivism rate for pedophiles is so close to 100% it doesn’t count. I’d go for the isolation part, but there is no amount of rehab that’s going to work well enough to keep them from re-offending given the opportunity.

11

That’s probably because the mental health system is itself fucked. It takes very good counseling and time, in human hours, to create the environment for healing. Then the those that are healing must become healers themselves and participate in the system. Throwing drugs and a little group therapy at them is not going to do it.

12

Nuff said, right?

If they’re selling morality, then it would seem to nullify the idea by definition, huh?

13

Just a few questions: Are large groups of people ever fit to be moral guides for individuals? Can we really generalize what is happening in the Roman Catholic Church to all churches? Are sanctions against pedophilia really new? If so, how new?

14

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending what the Catholics are doing Re: pedophiles. I’m mocking a modern culture that’s coming down so hard on the Church for doing what they themselves will probably be doing within the decade anyway. Tell me why pedophilia is wrong, oh useless and secular culture, and then tell me what the Church is doing wrong.

Me, I can condemn the Church, but only from the point of view of my anachronistic, religiously informed moral system.

Re: the likelihood of curing a pedophile with therapy- I reckon it’ll be a similar success rate and method as curing the homosexual. I say this while having no prediction what that rate may actually be.

15

Uccisore,

I hope you have both the sense and the ability to distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality, and I hope that you realize that pedophilia is a bad thing no matter where and when it occurs.

Identified pedophiles need to be isolated from any potential victims until they are completely healed and rehabilitated. That would be the most human way to deal with them. This society, however, is not set up to treat sex offenders though. I think the standard solution is to let them be if they are rich and/or powerful, or to lock them up and drug them if not. That, of course, doesn’t solve anything.

Homosexuals need to be simply left alone to go about their lives as they wish. They don’t need to be changed or cured; they’re fine just the way they are.

j

16

its the power of control. people get so sucked up literally.

17

I have the ability, and I have the realization.

I am skeptical that this present culture will have either in a generation or so. For as different as the two may be, they do have a few things in common, and it’s those very qualities upon which homosexuality was moved to be accepted.

Agreed.

This society is not set up to deal with the concept of a ‘sex offender’ in any coherent way, much less the treatment thereof.

Because what they do doesn’t hurt anybody, and ‘as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody’ is as deep as we let our ethics go.
Which is precisely why you’ll be seeing more pedophilia in the coming years, as IT doesn’t hurt anybody either. You just think it does because some vestiges of the ‘specialness’ of sex remain in this culture, such that we can’t help but see a blowjob as having a mystical quality that makes it different from a handshake. As if the mere presence/absence of ‘consent’ (do you believe in free will, jonquil?) could turn an act from perfectly acceptable to heinous beyond comprehension.

18

Pedophilia is a criminal addiction that knows no particular predilection either for sexual preference or gender. In other words, pedophilia has nothing more in common with homosexuality than it does with heterosexuality or bisexuality or even a-sexuality. It is a human affliction and a scourge on the young.

Agreed.

I think the concept of a ‘sex offender’ is clear enough to most people these days. However, the concept of justice is a different story. There is one justice for the rich and/or powerful, and another justice for the poor and disempowered. As for treatment, that takes time and a good deal of well-thinking on the part of the treatment providers. Right now, the mental health system is designed for fast turnover and quick profits; and the criminal justice system is designed for profits and enslavement of prisoners. What is lost is the sense of community and care on the part of all the members. The way lives are structured these days simply does not allow for this, either time-wise or connectedness-wise.

There is no logical connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. There is a real connection between child abuse and pedophilia, though. Many pedophiles were abused themselves.

As for what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, I could care less. As for what an abusive adult does to a child, that I care about. This is NOT a homosexual issue; it is a child abuse issue. Remember, pedophilia knows no particular sexual preference; pedophiles come in every type, so to speak. It really needs to be separated from homophobia.

19

Of course. What you’re calling pedophilia is a wide variety of mental problems, thought processes, and beliefs which you’re identifying by the last, most obvious result- an outward behavior.

If you tried to find similarities among thieves, you’d have similar luck- the only thing they have in common is the act by which you defined them.

But somewhat more in common with these than it has with horseshoes, ballroom dancing, or long division, yes?

As clear as the concept of God. A sex offender is one who performs sex with a person, or in a situation that they shouldn’t. So damn simple, it’s easy to forget that homosexuality and sodomy met this definition just a short time ago. Masturbation a while before that.

There’s an obvious logical connection, they’re both sexual behaviors that were considered paraphilias until very recently. You’re limiting your scope to what you happen to think ought/ought not be permissed, but I’m talking about something broader than that.

You can’t go on talking about abuse as though I didn’t just counter the concept with my last pose, it’s not fair. So now I have to repeat myself. The only reason a sex act with a child is considered ‘abuse’ is because we hang on to a notion that there is a mystical value to a sexual act that is not there in a non-sexual act. It is my claim that offering a child a piece of candy for a handshake is different than offering a child a piece of candy for a handjob, only because of what our culture used to believe about the specialness of sex (and possible risk of carpal tunnel, I suppose).

That specialness was precisely what needed to be attacked, and destroyed, in order for homosexuality to be accepted. We haven’t felt the full repercussions yet. Can our society maintain this contradiction? Yes, indefinitely…if there weren’t forces seeking to open their eyes yet further.

But maybe do the equation. Is the harm/wrongness of rape fully and totally accounted for by the physical harm incurred combined with the lack of consent? If so, it should be treated no differently than any other violent assault. If you disagree with this, then you think there’s another element. If you think you can define that element in a way that isn’t purely cultural, and thus in danger of going away any day now, I’d like to hear it.

20

You got it. And a lot deeper thinking as well. :sunglasses: