Since the Pope has made headlines with his apology for paedophile priests, I thought it was time to think about what the Pope can, and cannot, do.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-apologizes-for-priests-sex-abuse-promises-strong-response/

The Pope is not a dictator. He is Bishop of Rome, and primus inter pares. He has tremendous moral clout, but he cannot dictate..

He cannot sack a Bishop, let alone a Cardinal, just like that, even if he wanted to. The dismissal of the 'Bishop of Bling' took some months (though the Pope was able to suspend him from his episcopal duties). The normal way of getting rid of a bishop or cardinal is what was used with Cardinal Law of Boston.... strong hints are made that he should resign, and possibly some alternative position (such as retirement to a closed order) is suggested.

You should also remember that the Church is by definition concerned with the souls of the offenders, not with their physical punishment. It is not an agent of the State, whatever country you are talking about.

“The horrors of the manipulation of education that we experienced in the great genocidal dictatorships of the twentieth century have not disappeared; they have retained a current relevance under various guises and proposals and, with the pretense of modernity, push children and young people to walk on the dictatorial path of ‘only one form of thought’,” he warned.

I can see some people immediately saying, "Well, what about the Catholic Church? Doesn't it indoctrinate?" Yes, it does. Every religious parent, Catholic, extreme Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, wants his/her children to follow in his/her footsteps as a good member of their faith. This is natural, surely! But it is not the same thing as indoctrination in such evil creeds as Nazism, Khmer Rouge and others, which the pontiff was referring to.

What is your opinion on various extreme (or what I consider to be extreme) sects within the various religions?

I am talking about groups such as Opus Dei in the Catholic Church, the various Mahdi-inspired sects in Islam, even some mainstream Muslim beliefs like Ashura, some of the American sects like snake-handling and such, Thuggee-ism, Shinto sects that still worship military glory and many others.

Sure, we should want to bring up our children in the broad-brush of the overall creed that we have ourselves followed, but does the Pope, or the Vatican in general, understand the family structure well enough to lead us in this exercise? The way kids test their parents from the time they understand individuality (say about 3 or 4 years old) and increasingly apply pressure until their teens - after which they drift off and start the whole cycle again. Thinking they'll do better.

This thread was not intended to be about indoctrination.... but since the Pope mentioned it in the link, I felt I had to comment!

If you allow, and we must. parents to teach their children the way to live and behave in our society, and that for many will include their religious beliefs, you should not limit that to "approved" faiths, tempting though it is to do so. If that permission can be weighted in favour of mainstream groups, so much the better; they are less likely to include frankly dotty beliefs. This could be used as an argument for having an Established Church.

Opus Dei.... I think the jury is out on this one. Too many people have got their idea of Opus Dei from the Da Vinci Code, which may be a good read, but it is complete nonsense.

Catholic views of the family.... I think our parish priests know a lot more about what goes on in the family than you give them credit for. That said, next year's Synod of Bishops is focused on family values. Pope Francis does not seem to want the Church to be as Vatican-dominated as it used to be, and a lot of his initiatives are 'from the bottom up'. For example, in the Commission set up to protect children, one of the members was abused as a child. Several are women, and it is not dominated by celibate priests.

Every religious parent, Catholic, extreme Protestant, Mormon, Muslim,

Do you have to be an extreme Protestant to want your child to follow in your foot steps, but just an ordinary Catholic, Mormon or Muslim?

Every religious parent, Catholic, extreme Protestant, Mormon, Muslim,

Do you have to be an extreme Protestant to want your child to follow in your foot steps, but just an ordinary Catholic, Mormon or Muslim?

No, but the not-so-extreme ones, like the Anglicans, seem to be less concerned about this. But yes, the word 'extreme' was unnecessary!

Y'know. I could pay your fine if you are in debt. I could serve time in jail if you have done wrong. I could even die on the gallows for you but one thing I cannot do it take away your responsibility and that is what the CC is asking for. Well no, man up to your crimes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27583474

Strong language from the Pope, which many people will welcome. Of course it needs to be followed by action. I hope it will.

Pope Francis said he would meet eight victims and Cardinal Sean Patrick O'Malley, who is head of a commission set up by the Vatican to investigate sex crimes committed by priests and to care for victims.

Cardinal O'Malley said last month he will recommend that negligent clerics be held accountable regardless of their rank in the Church - a move that victims' groups have pressed the Vatican on.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27583474

Strong language from the Pope, which many people will welcome. Of course it needs to be followed by action. I hope it will.

Pope Francis said he would meet eight victims and Cardinal Sean Patrick O'Malley, who is head of a commission set up by the Vatican to investigate sex crimes committed by priests and to care for victims.

Cardinal O'Malley said last month he will recommend that negligent clerics be held accountable regardless of their rank in the Church - a move that victims' groups have pressed the Vatican on.

Pope Francis' predecessor was arguably quite negligent. It will be interesting to see if "regardless of their rank" stands.

Oh! But he's retired. Nothing can be done then. Never mind.

Pope Benedict was not negligent. He wasn't very good at publicising what he did (nor was he after publicity). If you read the OP, you'll see at least part of the reason why we heard little of what Benedict did.

Pope Benedict was not negligent. He wasn't very good at publicising what he did (nor was he after publicity). If you read the OP, you'll see at least part of the reason why we heard little of what Benedict did.

Are you suggesting that as Pope Benedict or as Joseph Ratzinger, he never covered up for a paedophile or simply arranged a transfer?

Pope Benedict was not negligent. He wasn't very good at publicising what he did (nor was he after publicity). If you read the OP, you'll see at least part of the reason why we heard little of what Benedict did.

Are you suggesting that as Pope Benedict or as Joseph Ratzinger, he never covered up for a paedophile or simply arranged a transfer?

I'm not "suggesting" anything, Seastalion. I'm just asking you to look a bit more carefully before you condemn him. If you must judge him (though I don't know who appointed you as a judge), don't cherrypick; judge him on his whole record.

Pope Benedict was not negligent. He wasn't very good at publicising what he did (nor was he after publicity). If you read the OP, you'll see at least part of the reason why we heard little of what Benedict did.

Are you suggesting that as Pope Benedict or as Joseph Ratzinger, he never covered up for a paedophile or simply arranged a transfer?

I'm not "suggesting" anything, Seastalion. I'm just asking you to look a bit more carefully before you condemn him. If you must judge him (though I don't know who appointed you as a judge), don't cherrypick; judge him on his whole record.

"Pope Benedict was not negligent. "

No, you're right, you did not suggest. You stated. I was trying to soften my language.

Nobody appointed me as a judge. Does that mean I can not discuss Joseph Ratzinger in a critical way?

You do seem to be making a suggestion now that his good works should make his "not so good works" inconsequential and to be ignored. Swept under the carpet.

If you are suggesting that, I think we have a subject to debate; For any person, can the slate be wiped clean if that person shows remorse or "makes up for it" later in life? For any transgression, or are some sins/crimes simply unforgivable?

If you want to make a specific case, against Pope Benedict for example, I think you should say what exactly he did wrong, and give some evidence. I'm not so much trying to defend him as objecting to a non-specific accusation which by its nature is virtually unanswerable.

Of course God can forgive any sin (except apparently the 'sin against the Holy Ghost', but nobody quite knows what that refers to).

In the OP, I said

"You should also remember that the Church is by definition concerned with the souls of the offenders, not with their physical punishment. It is not an agent of the State, whatever country you are talking about."

The CC is a religious body so therefore exempt.

Granted the Prosecutor has not yet decided to go ahead with a prosecution, it is doubtful that these charges have been filed frivolously in The Hague with the International Criminal Court ;

http://www.popeaccountability.org/

In my mind, charge number 2 is heinous and most easy to prove;

2. The fatal adherence to forbidding the use of condoms, even when the danger of HIV/AIDS infection exists.

The charge relevant to what we have been talking about, ie covering up paedophilia, has much to back it too.

However, that said, and the internet being not reliable, I will make no accusations at present and leave the subject of J Ratzinger alone.

Do recall, though, that it was my question about Francis that invoked this side-topic; Will he follow through at all levels?

I did look at your source, Seastallion! It's more than a little biassed.

Together with many millions of other Catholics, I disagree with the Church's stance on condoms. Ideally, yes, but this is not an ideal world, and we are not ideal people. I would much rather people used condoms than had abortions.

It is difficult to judge how much Pope Francis can follow through on the directives he has given. I think he will be pushing for enforcement, but there are quite a few other things he has to do! He may step,in (or speak out) unexpectedly at times; that's one thing we've learnt in his first year in office.

If people were less profligate in their sexual mores, there would be far less unwanted pregnancy, far less distribution of HIV/AIDS.

Why cannot men keep their flies zipped, women their knickers on?

I worked abroad for nearly 40 years, some of it in Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore and other reasonably 'liberal' places, but seldom felt the need to fornicate outside marriage. (f''r instance - ten years married to a Thai lady and never strayed once, despite the long separations when I was not working in Thailand).

The Catholic church's concern about preventing contraception may have blinded them to the benefits of curbing STDs, but the discipline of celibacy (or just not fancying any of the available offers) is not difficult to follow and surely leads to greater self-awareness.

If people were less profligate in their sexual mores, there would be far less unwanted pregnancy, far less distribution of HIV/AIDS.

Why cannot men keep their flies zipped, women their knickers on?

I worked abroad for nearly 40 years, some of it in Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore and other reasonably 'liberal' places, but seldom felt the need to fornicate outside marriage. (f''r instance - ten years married to a Thai lady and never strayed once, despite the long separations when I was not working in Thailand).

The Catholic church's concern about preventing contraception may have blinded them to the benefits of curbing STDs, but the discipline of celibacy (or just not fancying any of the available offers) is not difficult to follow and surely leads to greater self-awareness.

I think for once, HB, you're not being very realistic!

One of the reasons for the sexual profligacy of the West is the decline in religion generally. Nowadays large numbers of people think that they have the right to do as they like sexually, and take a dim view of those who suggest otherwise. Sex before marriage is the norm among many classes of society, and sometimes the marriage doesn't follow (but the baby does).

Another point which you seem to have overlooked is the difference in the sexual urges of different individuals. Some seem to want it (I don't say need!) much more than others.... and as it is acceptable in the society to which they belong, they indulge it.

Celibacy is easy for some, very difficult for others. Personally, I blame much of the paedophilia among Catholic priests on the difficulty of maintaining their vows of celibacy when the world round them has the morals of an alley cat.

I'm inclined to be much more pragmatic about contraception. So long as the necessary precautions are taken before sex, or at latest, the morning after, and therefore before the sperm has fertilised the ovum, I cannot see the argument that a soul is endangered thereby. As I've said on other threads, Take precautions, No abortions!

I agree with Isanbirder Humphrey, that the ease of celibacy depends very much on the individual. Libido can be a very powerful force. Very.

Monogamy (more accurately, fidelity), on the other hand should have little to do with libido and much to do with love, respect, and if you're that way inclined, morals.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-laicizes-former-nuncio-to-dominican-republic-33370/

A Vatican tribunal has laicized a former Papal nuncio to the Dominican Republic. He now faces civil proceedings both in the Vatican and in the Dominican Republic.

This man, an Archbishop, is, I think, the highest-ranking priest so far laicized for pedophilia.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/07/pope-francis-catholic-bishops-child-paedophile-abuse-priest-condemn

The strongest condemnation yet by the Pope of bishops who covered up cases of sexual abuse of children.

Getting better, but I'm with SNAP in that words are not concrete policy.

I'm disappointed that he said, "and will in future be held accountable, ", implying that the historical crimes of omission will be left alone.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28282050

In the interview, Pope Francis was quoted as saying that the 2% estimate came from advisers. It would represent around 8,000 priests out of a global number of about 414,000.

While the incidence of paedophilia as a psychiatric disorder in the general population is not accurately known, some estimates have put it at less than five percent.

"Among the 2% who are paedophiles are priests, bishops and cardinals. Others, more numerous, know but keep quiet. They punish without giving the reason," Pope Francis was quoted as saying.

"I find this state of affairs intolerable," he went on.

The Pope's Press Secretary, Fr. Lombardi, whose hair must be rapidly graying, has denied that these were the Pope's actual words. It was a report of "a conversation, not an interview", and was not taped.

The 2% figure is close to the 1.6% which was the most credible estimate I had seen earlier. I think what the Pope is doing is simply defining the problem, a necessary step before trying to solve it. A Commission is already at work, and no doubt the Pope knows what it is doing, and judges his public pronouncements accordingly.

I took a few things from the report.

The church is upset that the Pope may have said that some cardinals are pedos. Are cardinals above getting the "psychiatric disorder"?

That paedophilia is a "psychiatric disorder". Labeling it thus, in fact just by giving it a label, tries to steer blame away from the criminals; It's not their fault, they are sick. I don't accept that paedophilia is any more caused by a mental disorder than murder.

Pope Francis is saying the proportion of clergy afflicted is of a lower proportion than that of the general populace. "We're not as bad as all that". Really? Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.

Cherry=picking again, Seastallion?

If paedophilia is not a 'psychiatric disorder", what do you think causes it?

Cherry=picking again, Seastallion?

If paedophilia is not a 'psychiatric disorder", what do you think causes it?

That's not cherry-picking, IB, come on now! It's direct comment on the entire gist of the article.

As I said, I consider paedophilia as no more a psychiatric disorder than homicide. They both are crimes of passion, literally. In fact, some murderers are indeed psychologically dysfunctional; The psychopaths (who have been shown to be genetically inclined to their dysfunction). Perhaps some paedophilia can be put down to phsychological dysfunction, but the majority of it is lust.

I sincerely and strongly do consider that by attempting to lay the blame on a mental disorder, the church is trying to diminish the culpability of people who did something they knew was wrong, and chose to do, often repeatedly, and could have refrained....would have refrained if they knew they would be caught. Psychopaths do not consider the consequences nor do they refrain, regardless of if they will be caught out.

Kleptomania is a dysfunction. Most thieves are not kleptomaniacs, just dishonest people, thieves.

When my brother was arrested for shoplifting, my devastated mother, in tears, pronounced him a kleptomaniac. She was wrong, He was a thief. But I understood her stance. By making out that somehow he couldn't help himself, or in some way beyond his control he was driven to steal, she was to an extent absolving him of his crime, at least in her mind. She couldn't bear to think that one of her sons, brought up the way we were, could be so dishonest of his own free will.

The church is doing the same thing, and worse, because the leaders are very intelligent men and they know full well that the kiddy fiddlers are plain criminals. They just can't say it publicly because it would be disastrous PR.

Murder is not a crime of passion under British law; it is premeditated. The crime of passion would be called manslaughter.

You say most paedophilia is just lust. And where does the lust come from? It's surely excessive expression of our sexuality. Caused by what? Sexual starvation? Maybe. A deliberate intention to do something wrong? Sounds unlikely. A psychiatric disorder of genetic origins?

I don't think it is quite so simple. Many of the same people, if they were married and not celibate, might well be able to steer clear of paedophilia. What is wrong with Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter? They could have whatever sexual thrills they wanted because of their celebrity status, yet they all go for children. Surely that's a psychiatric disorder.

In all discussion of paedophilia, the thoughts and feelings of the paedophiles are disregarded. Why do they think they do it? What leads them to start on this path?

I don't agree that the Catholic Church under Pope Francis is trying to cover up paedophilia or make it seem less important. On the contrary, they are trying to understand it so that they can take action to prevent it in future. They are not quite as naive as you seem to think.

Murder is not a crime of passion under British law; it is premeditated. The crime of passion would be called manslaughter.

You say most paedophilia is just lust. And where does the lust come from? It's surely excessive expression of our sexuality. Caused by what? Sexual starvation? Maybe. A deliberate intention to do something wrong? Sounds unlikely. A psychiatric disorder of genetic origins?

I don't think it is quite so simple. Many of the same people, if they were married and not celibate, might well be able to steer clear of paedophilia. What is wrong with Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter? They could have whatever sexual thrills they wanted because of their celebrity status, yet they all go for children. Surely that's a psychiatric disorder.

In all discussion of paedophilia, the thoughts and feelings of the paedophiles are disregarded. Why do they think they do it? What leads them to start on this path?

I don't agree that the Catholic Church under Pope Francis is trying to cover up paedophilia or make it seem less important. On the contrary, they are trying to understand it so that they can take action to prevent it in future. They are not quite as naive as you seem to think.

When I say crime of passion, I don't mean in a legal sense but a literal sense.

Do you think Gary Glitter or Father O'Grady would have molested little boys if they thought they would get caught and face the consequences?

I don't think so. Glitter took his perversion overseas to hide it from the authorities. Father O'Grady did it in the vestibule or in his chambers and made threats to keep it secret.

How do you account for all variety of sexual preferences desires? Is a desire to have or perform (say heterosexual) oral sex a perversion? It's certainly not sex for procreation. Is it a dysfunction? The proportion of the population that enjoy giving and receiving oral sex would be quite large, I'd say, thus it is not abnormal.

Is popularity the yardstick with which we separate normal from abnormal, and is abnormal thus a mental condition? I would say no. People are just different.

I am not saying Pope Francis is trying to cover up or make it (paedophilia) seem less important. I am saying that the Church is trying to lessen the culpability of those that committed the historical crimes by turning the crime into a pathological condition, the inference being that they could not help themselves.

If we are to follow the attitude of the Church on this matter, we should allow Glitter and Harris (I think Saville may indeed have had a mental condition) some leeway too. Poor things, they had a mental disorder.

For paedophiles, should we use Luke 23:34; Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do?

As you say, SeaStallion, people are just different.

Your references to oral sex are not relevant.

I've only known one paedophile at all well. He was the headmaster of a well-known school. He controlled himself while in the UK, and took his holidays in Sri Lanka and later in Thailand where he could indulge his tastes. . But he controlled his urges in the UK because it was against the law.... and I guess Gary Glitter was much the same. I think this is an important point; it is an urge, like the sexual urge which all of us have, and it can be controlled. When that control breaks down, you have paedophilia. Indulging in that urge, and then using your status to cover it up (as Harris, Saville, and many of the priests did) is wrong on two counts. And some people have more willpower than others.

I asked my friend why he liked young boys, and he said that was just the way he was made. If that view is widespread, it supports the suggestion that it is a psychiatric disorder.

As I suggested in the OP, the Church is concerned with the spiritual welfare of these people, not with earthly punishment. We should indeed ask God to forgive them.

Any suggestion that Pope Francis is trying to minimise these people's sins conflicts with numerous statements he has made recently.

BTW, the reference to cardinals which you picked on is a subtle one. The remarks were non-attributable, as they were not recorded or noted at the time, but it is agreed that the reports generally agree with what he said. What did he really mean by the reference to cardinals? That they are not immune to Church law on the matter? That he actually knows of one or more paedophilic cardinals? Or was it no more than saying, The law applies to everyone? Since we don't know his exact words, we have to leave that open (David Willey called it 'studied ambiguity').

"I asked my friend why he liked young boys, and he said that was just the way he was made. If that view is widespread, it supports the suggestion that it is a psychiatric disorder."

On the contrary, it supports the suggestion that it is NOT a disorder. It's the way some people are. Dare I say, natural.