Victims of clerical sex abuse have reacted furiously to Pope Benedict's claim yesterday that paedophilia wasn't considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.

In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered “normal” by society.

“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html

One thing I like about the "new normal" vs. the old normal. Apologists and pundits aren't afraid to stand up in defense of all abhorrent behaviours. It's better to see your enemies clearly for what they are.

Another bizzare choice of comments from someone who should know better.

You just can't make up stuff like this .... truely bizzare

Another bizzare choice of comments from someone who should know better.

You just can't make up stuff like this .... truely bizzare

Not just bizarre - while such ideas are expressed by the head of such a major organisation there can be no satisfactory agreement on the evilness of child abuse.

By the way, can any sensible RC member explain (or reconcile) the celibacy of the clergy with 1 Timothy chapter 3 - first few verses. ?????

I'd like to see what the Pope actually said rather than what the Belfast Telegraph says he said before commenting.

It is, however, true that sexual relations with children were condoned at a time when active homosexuality was still a hanging offence (I'm thinking 18th century; I don't know how recently opinions changed so radically.) I post this simply to show that views even of fairly extreme moral positions can change.

I'll look up 1 Timothy 3 when I have time, and see what I can say, HB.

The part in Timmothy you must be refering to is the part about 1 wife ..... that was meant to mean not 2 or more wives not that you had to have a wife. At least thats how they rationalise it against the idea that they are married to god and can't marry a human. But litteraly it does say to be a leader in the church you need a wife.

This stems from those who have distorted the meaning of pedophile. It used to mean someone who prefers sex with prepubesant children (and still does among medical professionals) but the media have turned the meaning into something else. If ones thinks that an 18 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl is "pedophilia", than the Pope might have a point.

I think he confused the word normal with a word like commonplace or not especially unusual ....... when he spoke that child porn was normal I think he meant something along those lines in that child porn is common and finding it a normal course of events in todays world for those who look for it. But whatever he meant it was not not a very well thought out choice of words.

Yes, the Catholic Church is remarkably good at putting its foot in it!

1 Timothy 3, HB. Two main points:- first, as MrRealDeal has mentioned, the word episkopos in the Greek means 'overseer' or 'church leader', not bishop, though that is where our word bishop comes from. Secondly, Paul is giving instructions as to how a primitive church, consisting largely of new converts, should choose a leader..... a sensible, established citizen, wife and kids, good character, in fact just what you or I might suggest. He is not laying down laws for ever after. The Letter to Timothy is simply not about the same thing as clerical celibacy.

In the early centuries, the Church developed, and needed dedicated priests. Quite soon, the idea grew up that a priest should be 100% committed to his Church work, and should not have outside entanglements in the shape of wife and family. By the third and fourth centuries, this was becoming mandatory, though for some time married men could be ordained priests, as they still are in the Orthodox Communion. They were not allowed to marry after being ordained. This did not become canon law until the First Lateran Council of 1123.

In modern Catholic teaching, the celibacy of the clergy has become 'a jewel of the church'. Personally, I disagree. Yes, I think it is a wonderful thing if a man can dedicate himself 100% to Christ, but I do not think all priests are strong enough to keep this vow under all the pressures of the modern world. The dream turns sour, and that is where much of the pedophilia comes from. So, in my opinion, the Catholic Church needs to rethink its laws on the celibacy of the priesthood. This will not be easy, as it is ingrained in Catholic belief... and the very thought of a Mrs Bishop Proudie in a Catholic see fills Catholics with horror.

I agree that the Church should rethink its laws of celibacy, but I do not think that it turns people into pedophiles. They entered the priesthood with that tendency.

I agree that the Church should rethink its laws of celibacy, but I do not think that it turns people into pedophiles. They entered the priesthood with that tendency.

Are you a psychologist, UG?

That sounds a bit like mob-engendered psychology. Do you really think that they underwent years of arduous and focused training, and then did not, in most cases, even volunteer for a teaching order, because they wanted to abuse boys? Or that they had the tendency, but did not realise it? In the latter case, what brought the tendency to light? Many of us may have tendencies to do all sorts of things, but we don't act on them; what made these men act on their tendencies?

I happen to have known a few pedophiles (all dead now, I think), one of whom was a school headmaster. He was clever enough never to touch a boy at his school, but indulged himself overseas in his holidays.

I don't condone the behaviour of the pedophile priests any more than you do, but they're human beings, and I think we should try to see what went wrong. My suggestion in my last post was doing just that. Personally, I think the Catholic authorities who covered up instances of pedophilia are far more to blame.

No I am not a psychologist, but I have read what they have to say on the subject and a person has developed their sexual interests long before they would be ordained as a priest. I am refering to the medical definition of a pedophile as someone who prefers sex with prepubesant children and that is not something that is going to happen to someone who has had normal sexual urges up to that point.

No I am not a psychologist, but I have read what they have to say on the subject and a person has developed their sexual interests long before they would be ordained as a priest. I am refering to the medical definition of a pedophile as someone who prefers sex with prepubesant children and that is not something that is going to happen to someone who has had normal sexual urges up to that point.

No, indeed, but they might well have thought they could overcome it. There are, after all, thousands of priests who have overcome their sexual urges (and many, I agree, who have not).

I see ThornTree, the Lonely Planet forum has been closed down by administrators for alleged paedophile posts.

Often mods can seem petty and vindictive but this is surely an area where they have to err on the side of heavyhandedness.

LP is owned by the BBC which of course is responsible to a much higher authority.

I see ThornTree, the Lonely Planet forum has been closed down by administrators for alleged paedophile posts.

Often mods can seem petty and vindictive but this is surely an area where they have to err on the side of heavyhandedness.

LP is owned by the BBC which of course is responsible to a much higher authority.

Surprised by that, given that forum is more for first time backpacking types.

See some questionable comments on here from time to time regards paedophiles in Thailand, sad that some lack simple common sense even if not engaging in such behaviour.

The Pope is acting out the usual Church self interest of course. An increasingly irrelevant figure.

MI am not a supporter of paedophilia, in fact contact with one at school gave me a lifelong aversion to these slimy exploiters of innocent young people.

However in the 60ies and 70ies we thought that we had invented sex and it wasn't so much 'anything goes' as 'you have to try everything'. The behaviour of people like the disgusting Jimmy Saville should be seen in this context: not excusable but explainable. Saying no to any sexual proposition was thought to be very uncool.

Saying no to any sexual proposition was thought to be very uncool.

I wish that some of the more attractive young ladies that I begged for sex in my youth had felt that way.

Saying no to any sexual proposition was thought to be very uncool.

I wish that some of the more attractive young ladies that I begged for sex in my youth had felt that way.

Some of us just don't have IT, UG (poor dears!).

People are offended by paedophilia for various reasons (breach of trust; taking advantage of immature children and adolescents, physical revulsion, etc). The pope is also offended by it for the same reasons. In his pastoral role as a much younger priest in the 60s and 70s I'm sure he was aware of what people thought about these matters. And I can remember an unapologetic lesbian feminist teacher being sacked from a Melbourne school around 1980 for defending underage sex, I think in the context of teaching a piece of literature.

Young girls, around 14 years of age, have been used for years as pouting cover models because they are seen to be attractive (and able to get into small sized clothing). And Camille Paglia notes that "As a glance at any suburban high school prom these days will show, there has been a vast increase in sexually revealing, super-adult clothing among middle-class girls. Yet most seem curiously unaware of the erotic charge of their racy regalia, which has become as standard issue as army fatigues. Sex is already routine in a hooking-up culture." http://wonkette.com/...-sexy-pop-music

This doesn't justify paedophilia, but it alerts us to the centrality of sexuality in the minds of teenage girls. And one can assume, if Ms Paglia is correct, that the erotic charge, whether innocently or otherwise induced, is real and widespread.

If paedophilia was a totally unattractive phenomenon to well-balanced, sensitive and ethically sound men and women under all circumstances, why is it that Nabokov's novel Lolita, about a sexual road trip across America by a middle-aged man and a 12 year-old girl, has sold 50 million copies and is generally regarded as one of the finest novels of the 20th century?

I am not defending or excusing paedophilia. Far from it. I have raised two daughters and have a granddaughter who is not far off those teenage years. I am defending the Pope's comments, however, as I suspect he knows what he is talking about. Unfortunately, Benedict XVI, even if not translated well, has a record of saying things that, though maybe true, could be expressed more sensitively.

Incidentally, for those interested in the 1 Timothy 3 quote, it's worth noting that this letter was attributed to, but not written by Paul, but by an unknown disciple (perhaps Polycarp?). There was no insistence on celibacy for non-monastic clergy until the 12th century, when the western church prescribed it as a way to clarify inheritance of church-owned vis-a-vis family owned property. Some churches (Eastern or Uniate, e.g. Lebanese, Ukrainian) have married clergy. An old friend of mine, married for many years, became a Ukrainian Catholic priest at 60 with his wife's and the Church's blessing.

The hierarchy of Bishop, Priest and Deacon, with the latter obedient to the former, is said to have been first proclaimed by Ignatius of Antioch in the 1st century (40-50 years after Paul died) and it was consolidated in the fourth and fifth centuries. The primitive church was not like the post-Constantine church, but the continuities and discontinuities are, of course, disputed. The authority of the bishop was certainly well established in Cyprian's time (3rd century - pre-Constantine) and in Augustine's (4th century).

I am willing to believe that the Pope's comments were not translated well.

I also am willing to believe that there exists differing views on what is considered "normal". For instance here on ThaiVisa you can see ads with pictures of teens or pre-teens you can "meet".

I think that's exploitive, immoral and bordering on illegal but it may be normal. I hope not though.

Thats lot of baloney about pre teens ....... you really think the girl in that picture is not of legal age ? ....... Stop with the nonsense propoganda their are enough real problems in the world to worry about.

Your accusing TV of promoting sites that have 12 year old girls you can meet ....... utter garbage and simply a lie

Or you are accusing TV of funding themselves and taking money from people who have 12 year old girls you can meet ....... your a moron

Thats lot of baloney about pre teens ....... you really think the girl in that picture is not of legal age ? ....... Stop with the nonsense propoganda their are enough real problems in the world to worry about.

Your accusing TV of promoting sites that have 12 year old girls you can meet ....... utter garbage and simply a lie

Or you are accusing TV of funding themselves and taking money from people who have 12 year old girls you can meet ....... your a moron

I showed the picture to my 16 year old daughter who says it's really creepy. She places the odds of the girl in the picture being 13 0r 14 at 80%. 10% for 12. 10 for 15. I agree with her its creepy but it earns money for this site and clearly there are plenty of people here like you that think that's OK and "normal".

If you thought I would believe the apple fell all that far from the tree you would once again be incorrect ...... the fact is your both just plain wrong , the fact that you would accuse TV of accepting money from people advertising 12 year olds for meeting with tourists is also wrong and absurd.

The girl in that picture is 18 at least, weather or not you want to believe that ...... And like it or not in todays world their are numerous dating sites with young looking 18 year old girls which is both normal and ok.

If you thought I would believe the apple fell all that far from the tree you would once again be incorrect ...... the fact is your both just plain wrong , the fact that you would accuse TV of accepting money from people advertising 12 year olds for meeting with tourists is also wrong and absurd.

The girl in that picture is 18 at least, weather or not you want to believe that ...... And like it or not in todays world their are numerous dating sites with young looking 18 year old girls which is both normal and ok.

I believe what you infer is just as inaccurate in this case as what you inferred form the thread on infanticide.

My daughter happens to be an expert on Thai teenage girls so I'll go with her assessment.

If you thought I would be suprised that you are wrong about another issue you would once again be incorrect .......

People are offended by paedophilia for various reasons (breach of trust; taking advantage of immature children and adolescents, physical revulsion, etc). The pope is also offended by it for the same reasons. In his pastoral role as a much younger priest in the 60s and 70s I'm sure he was aware of what people thought about these matters. And I can remember an unapologetic lesbian feminist teacher being sacked from a Melbourne school around 1980 for defending underage sex, I think in the context of teaching a piece of literature.

Young girls, around 14 years of age, have been used for years as pouting cover models because they are seen to be attractive (and able to get into small sized clothing). And Camille Paglia notes that "As a glance at any suburban high school prom these days will show, there has been a vast increase in sexually revealing, super-adult clothing among middle-class girls. Yet most seem curiously unaware of the erotic charge of their racy regalia, which has become as standard issue as army fatigues. Sex is already routine in a hooking-up culture." http://wonkette.com/...-sexy-pop-music

This doesn't justify paedophilia, but it alerts us to the centrality of sexuality in the minds of teenage girls. And one can assume, if Ms Paglia is correct, that the erotic charge, whether innocently or otherwise induced, is real and widespread.

If paedophilia was a totally unattractive phenomenon to well-balanced, sensitive and ethically sound men and women under all circumstances, why is it that Nabokov's novel Lolita, about a sexual road trip across America by a middle-aged man and a 12 year-old girl, has sold 50 million copies and is generally regarded as one of the finest novels of the 20th century?

I am not defending or excusing paedophilia. Far from it. I have raised two daughters and have a granddaughter who is not far .

While it's always been exceedingly obvious what an intelligent and erudite poster you are, you have, as so many do, confused Pedophilia with Ephebophilia. A primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent but under the age of consent children (teenagers) may arguably be an indication of some inadequacies or maladjustment -- and even more so if one succumbs to such an attraction -- but, unlike Pedophilia, it is not regarded as a mental disorder, is "normal" in biological terms and such relationships were normal in societal terms not so long ago and for centuries.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Well said. Too many people confuse Pedophilia with Ephebophilia.

Just got an email telling me someone had liked my post and then realized that the post was partly in error. In fact, it is only when the PRIMARY or EXCLUSIVE sexual interest is in teenagers, it is Ephebophilia. The OCCASIONAL sexual interest in someone under 18 is not any sort of condition at all, and even less of anything resembling a paraphilia.

Hence the fact that models, pop stars and starlets who are or look like teenagers are often seen as sexually attractive by the mainstream (and why, for example, any large and legitimate lingerie makers will sell a LOT of "schoolgirl" outfits - to women). Again, you can make a case that such an attraction indicates something less than admirable about the person who feels it, but it's not freakishly depraved and completely removed from the horrifying and repulsive mental illness that is Pedophilia.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Well said. Too many people confuse Pedophilia with Ephebophilia.

It's become the norm -- in the press and society at large. It not only manufactures disproportionate and/or misdirected outrage in so many cases but it ultimately detracts concern and focus on prevention from where it should be.

A 40 year old teacher who has consensual sex with some 16yo student (just for one random hypothetical) has done something wrong on so many levels and clearly deserves to be punished within the law. However, to include him with men or women who rape prepubescent children is not only inaccurate but wrong for a number of reasons (clinical, legal and ethical). And I can easily imagine even less egregious examples of so called "pedophiles".

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Just got an email telling me someone had liked my post and then realized that the post was partly in error. In fact, it is only when the PRIMARY or EXCLUSIVE sexual interest is in teenagers, it is Ephebophilia. The OCCASIONAL sexual interest in someone under 18 is not any sort of condition at all, and even less of anything resembling a paraphilia.

Hence the fact that models, pop stars and starlets who are or look like teenagers are often seen as sexually attractive by the mainstream (and why, for example, any large and legitimate lingerie makers will sell a LOT of "schoolgirl" outfits - to women). Again, you can make a case that such an attraction indicates something less than admirable about the person who feels it, but it's not freakishly depraved and completely removed from the horrifying and repulsive mental illness that is Pedophilia.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Thank you. I'd never heard of ephebophilia.