Prime Time last week. Parish Priest and Serial Abuser Walsh

Xizors Palace

JimiTime wrote: »

No. Paedophilia is being sexually attracted to pre pubescent children. Sex with a 15 year old may be illegal, but its certainly not paedophilia.

My point exactly, contrary to what El_Duderino 09 was saying.

See the first two paragraphs of post #60. I clarified it for you and other's benefit.

El_Duderino 09

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I think we cann fall into the trap of intellectualising a problem without actually addressing it. We seek to mask reality with fancy terms, whilst the dog in the street is perfectly aware of what happened. The dog in the street knows what the predominant problem was in the priesthood. Additionally, if it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

I suppose there are also conflicting moralities at play too. The orthodox Christian position would be that sex is only for marriage between one man and one woman. Once you depart from that, it gets murky.

Take Peter Tatchell. He is a gay activist who advocates for a lower age of consent. This means young people will be put at risk of predation. If a 40 year old preys upon a strapping 15 year old, that would still be wrong (despite what new UK legislation might say), and it would be homosexual predation, not pedophilia. Do you agree?

I say call a spade a spade. If an adult man is attracted to pre-pubescent kids, that's pedophilia. If he is attracted to adolescent males, that's homosexuality. Most of the abuse in America, as illustrated by the authoritative John Jay Report, was inflicted on adolescents; that is, young males becoming men, vulnerable as they were to the advances, manipulation, seduction, and rape of their abusers.

Within the gay movement itself, there are conflicting opinions about what is acceptable and what is not. I guess that is what happens when you stray from the straight and narrow path illuminated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Perhaps if more priests had been paying attention to the Magisterium and to living their Christian faith, rather than satiating their perverse desires in the 'free love' way, we mightn't have ended up in the mess we are in.

That's really all I have to say about the matter, in a nutshell.

Maybe we should start using a different word rather than pedophilia, i dont mind which word we use. So long as we are referring to the harm done to the children.

Regarding the ducks we see, i see it walking like a scheming pedophile while i think you see it mincing like a gay from a carry on movie. Haha. i think we could agree that the overarching problem within the church is that they had within them, men who did harm to children, they chose to hide those men, shield them from prosecution under the law and in too many cases they simply ignored the abuse and moved them to avoid dealing with the problem. whether the men did what they did because they were Homosexual pedophiles or heterosexual pedophiles they were pedophiles in that they sexually abused children and caused them harm.

With respect i would hate to avoid addressing the problem. Surely the problem is the harm that was caused by the sexual abuse and compounded by the actions of the Catholic church in dealing with that abuse. If the RCC would like to discipline their members thats ok with me, so long as it does not interfere with the legal process for reporting and dealing with abusers, sexuality of the abuser becomes irrelevant at this point. do we agree on that?

I agree that sex, between Christians, should be between one married man and woman. Once Christians depart from that it becomes murky for them.

Regarding Peter Tatchell looking to lower the age of consent, it would increase predation, and would also allow exceptionally mature young people to be sexually active earlier. on balance i would not support his cause because it would take away protection from those who need it.

In the case of the 40 year old and the 15 year old. the 15 year old could be exceptionally mature in which case it might not be morally wrong but would be rightly illegal. (unless you adhere to a belief system which considers homosexuality to be immoral in which case it would be neither moral or legal.)

morality is not black and white but the law is. you cant vote, drink, have sex, sign a legal document and so on the day before the law says you can. its not ideal, its law.

Xizors Palace

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Regarding the ducks we see, i see it walking like a scheming pedophile while i think you see it mincing like a gay from a carry on movie. Haha. i think we could agree that the overarching problem within the church is that they had within them, men who did harm to children, they chose to hide those men, shield them from prosecution under the law and in too many cases they simply ignored the abuse and moved them to avoid dealing with the problem. whether the men did what they did because they were Homosexual pedophiles or heterosexual pedophiles they were pedophiles in that they sexually abused children and caused them harm.

With respect i would hate to avoid addressing the problem. Surely the problem is the harm that was caused by the sexual abuse and compounded by the actions of the Catholic church in dealing with that abuse. If the RCC would like to discipline their members thats ok with me, so long as it does not interfere with the legal process for reporting and dealing with abusers, sexuality of the abuser becomes irrelevant at this point. do we agree on that?

I agree that sex, between Christians, should be between one married man and woman. Once Christians depart from that it becomes murky for them.

Regarding Peter Tatchell looking to lower the age of consent, it would increase predation, and would also allow exceptionally mature young people to be sexually active earlier. on balance i would not support his cause because it would take away protection from those who need it.

In the case of the 40 year old and the 15 year old. the 15 year old could be exceptionally mature in which case it might not be morally wrong but would be rightly illegal. (unless you adhere to a belief system which considers homosexuality to be immoral in which case it would be neither moral or legal.)

You keep saying children yet it has been agreed by myself and Jimitime that a 15 year old young man is not a child. Such abuse would not therefore be pedophilia but homosexual predation. The age of consent protects young people from sexual abuse and exploitation. It's role is not to arbitrarily set what constitutes pedophilia and what constitutes homosexual abuse. Sexual maturity is essentially a measurable biological fact, irrespective of age. Hence if it walks like a duck it is a duck. If it looks like a young man who is 15 then it is a young man and such exploitation is not pedophilia but homosexual predation which constituted the vast majority of abuse in the USA according to the authoritative John Jay Report and I expect a similar study would yield similar results in Ireland. Do you understand what I am saying?

The question at hand here is not about cover-up or moving perverts around which we can all agree was wrong, we're now looking at the nature of the abuse itself. If you can confirm whether or not my understanding of your position as per my revised first two paragraphs in post #60 is correct as well as looking at what I've just written, then that would be helpful for our discussion should you wish to continue with it.

El_Duderino 09

Xizors Palace wrote: »

You keep saying children yet it has been agreed by myself and Jimitime that a 15 year old young man is not a child. Such abuse would not therefore be pedophilia but homosexual predation. The age of consent protects young people from sexual abuse and exploitation. It's role is not to arbitrarily set what constitutes pedophilia and what constitutes homosexual abuse. Sexual maturity is essentially a measurable biological fact, irrespective of age. Hence if it walks like a duck it is a duck. If it looks like a young man who is 15 then it is a young man and such exploitation is not pedophilia but homosexual predation which constituted the vast majority of abuse in the USA according to the authoritative John Jay Report and I expect a similar study would yield similar results in Ireland. Do you understand what I am saying?

The question at hand here is not about cover-up or moving perverts around which we can all agree was wrong, we're now looking at the nature of the abuse itself. If you can confirm whether or not my understanding of your position as per my revised first two paragraphs in post #60 is correct as well as looking at what I've just written, then that would be helpful for our discussion should you wish to continue with it.

Ah I didn't see your last edit (the first two paragraphs) until a few minutes ago. The law needs to set an arbitrary cut off (to protect what it calls children) I suppose whether we like it or not.

oh i do see what you are saying now. I think your figures showed that 73% were under the age of 15. As you and Jimitime have decided that 15 year old is a man that leaves 27% homosexual predation and 73% pedophile predation according to your study.
have I misunderstood?

I'm not really sure I do understand your point fully. what if the 15 year old looks much younger? is he a man? what if a 13 year old looks 15, is he a man?

by way of helping me understand, what would you propose as a solution?

Xizors Palace

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah I didn't see your last edit (the first two paragraphs) until a few minutes ago. The law needs to set an arbitrary cut off (to protect what it calls children) I suppose whether we like it or not.

oh i do see what you are saying now. I think your figures showed that 73% were under the age of 15. As you and Jimitime have decided that 15 year old is a man that leaves 27% homosexual predation and 73% pedophile predation according to your study.
have I misunderstood?

I'm not really sure I do understand your point fully. what if the 15 year old looks much younger? is he a man? what if a 13 year old looks 15, is he a man?

by way of helping me understand, what would you propose as a solution?

What about a 17 year old that looks like a 12 year old? There was a guy at my university like that. He looked 12 but was actually 17.

I'm not really interested in percentages. If everybody just followed the teaching of the Church, then there would be no problem.

I suppose you would need to do a detailed study of the victims to determine what you are wondering about. I don't think that is going to happen.

JimiTime

Xizors Palace wrote: »

My point exactly, contrary to what El_Duderino 09 was saying.

See the first two paragraphs of post #60. I clarified it for you and other's benefit.

Apologies.:o

El_Duderino 09

Xizors Palace wrote: »

What about a 17 year old that looks like a 12 year old? There was a guy at my university like that. He looked 12 but was actually 17.

I'm not really interested in percentages. If everybody just followed the teaching of the Church, then there would be no problem.

I suppose you would need to do a detailed study of the victims to determine what you are wondering about. I don't think that is going to happen.

You said "Sexual maturity is essentially a measurable biological fact" that might be the case it sounds pretty subjective but surely looking 12 is even more subjective so I don't know how to deal with that case. I will leave it to Jimitime and yourself to rule on that one. I honestly don't have a clue. Should we class him as a 12 year old? after all if it walks like a duck... what do you say?

I'm sorry i thought when you said the part quoted below in post 64 that you were interested in statistics.

"If it looks like a young man who is 15 then it is a young man and such exploitation is not pedophilia but homosexual predation which constituted the vast majority of abuse in the USA according to the authoritative John Jay Report and I expect a similar study would yield similar results in Ireland. Do you understand what I am saying?"

Now that the 'vast majority' has turned out to be 27%, i am curious to know how will you phrase your point in future now that the authoritative John Jay report suggests otherwise.

(i'm tempted to ask if you understand that 27% is not a vast majority, and it is important to understand that if you wish to continue this discussion but that would be cheeky. Wouldn't it?)

I agree that if Catholics followed the teaching of the Catholic Church they wouldn't be in this position.

Again I would be interested to know if you have any solutions to the problem?