So Who Isn't Apologizing for Pedos Today?

[Lemur]

Just a weird thing I noticed today, seems like everybody's excusing or explaining away pedophiles. First there's filmmaker Roman Polanski, who raped a 13-year-old girl. Guess who's name is at the top of his apologists? Woody Allen. Oh, the jokes just write themselves.

Today, Martin Scorsese and David Lynch also added their names to those of sixty-odd other cinematic luminaries who've signed a petition calling for Polanski's immediate release. But the award for complete lack of self-awareness has to go to another new signee who placed his moral capital in such matters on the table today as well: Woody Allen.

I mean, it's not like he was tipping his step-daughter, right? C'mon, folks, let's have some understanding here!

Staying with the Roman theme, The Holy Catholic Church has issued a statement about pedophile priests that amounts to (a) Everybody does it, and (b) Is it really pedophilia if you're doin' a teen?

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common. [...]

The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."

So if only one in twenty priests may be a pedo, and if they're doing it with boys as old as eleven, what's the big whup? Why can't everybody take a chill pill?

Did I miss anybody? Were there any other pedo apologists in the news today?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm glad Polanski was finally caught. I wouldn't mind him spending the rest of his days in prison. Testimony from his trial is here. Be warned, it ain't pretty.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Lemur, you just ignored paragraph one of your Guardian article so you could bash the Catholic Church. Classy.

The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was "busy cleaning its own house"

As in "trying to do something."

[Husar]

I'm right here!

Ever since I read an articcle about paedophiles who go to a clinic for help and who try to deal with their weird feelings without harming minors, it changed my opinion about paedophiles. The ones who rape children, the criminal paedophiles should not be defended though, just like people who rape men/women should not be defended (unless they're hot, russian and called Olga perhaps).

But yeah, it's weird how they defend him just because he is popular and it's been a while ago.

[Lemur]

Lemur, you just ignored paragraph one of your Guardian article so you could bash the Catholic Church. Classy.

First of all, I linked to the entire article, and you just availed yourself of it. Sorry I didn't quote the part that you think is relevant, but that does not make me dishonest.

Second of all, anyone who has spent time in the Backroom will tell you that I never, ever go out of my way to "bash" the Catholic Church. I have a great deal of respect for the institution and its history. However, I find their statement on this matter to be absurd. Especially the attempt to distinguish between pedophilia and ephebophilia, a distinction that does nothing to exculpate the guilty or excuse the silent.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

a distinction that does nothing to exculpate the guilty or excuse the silent.

Nor do they try and make it do so.

[HoreTore]

Nor do they try and make it do so.

Perhaps, but I can also tell you another thing the catholic church ain't doin':

Bending over backwards.

That's really what they should be doing. Not trying to spin it to make the church look better. The only thing that will make church look good in this case, is the Pope on his knees with his behind in the air. Nothing else will do.

[LittleGrizzly]

If people like the things people make/create enough they seem willing to ignore a bit of paedophilia, I heard some comedian make a joke about MJ to that effect. On the other hand should it be Bob down the road who smells funny is time to form a lynch mob.

[/moral superiority]

It gets tiring being so much better than the common mob

[Idaho]

Strange how I actually support this extradition and trial of a foreign national to the US.

Bobby Fisher I don't understand. The Autistic conspiracy hacker I don't understand. Neither of which seem to get any high profile defence.

Maybe their mistake was that they failed to drug and sodomise a 13 year old girl.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Strange how I actually support this extradition and trial of a foreign national to the US.

drug and sodomise a 13 year old girl.

So do I.

I am a bit dismayed that it took Europe (France, Switzerland and Poland) thirty years to decide that forcefully sodomizing a 13 year old is not on. Even when accounting for the liberated, experimentative 1970's.


Edit: oh, the Catholic church.
'We didn't do it, and besides, everybody else did it too' in my book does not count as 'cleaning your own house'.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I feel a bit sorry for them, they can't choose their preferences any more than anyone else.

But if they act on it, IMO they should not be allowed into society again. Yeah it's crappy, but it's the only realistic option.

I remember a documentary about one of these institutions for pedo's in the US. None of them ever made any progress. What I don't understand though is why these guys are like timebombs, it's just a matter of time before they go for their next victim. People of other orientations seem to be able to abstain, but these guys apparently couldn't.

[Fragony]

No special treatment for the (extremely) gifted. I am kinda sad about this I always respected him.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Harvey Weinstein:

In an opinion piece in London's the Independent, Weinstein Co. co-founder Harvey Weinstein, who is circulating the pro-Polanski petition, wrote: "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored. . . . This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally."

In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe."

Here's a sample of Harvey's real compassion.

Polanski got an extremely light sentence and couldn't even face the possibility of less than two years in jail. I hope he gets many more for fleeing.

CR

[Strike For The South]

These people are about as useful as tits on a bull.

[Viking]

In most cases, a 13 year old would not make pedophilia as far as my understanding of the word goes.

[Tratorix]

Hollywood blacklists people with a reputation for being hard to work with, but pedophiles are fine. Also, the Woody Allen thing is hysterical.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In most cases, a 13 year old would not make pedophilia as far as my understanding of the word goes.

Paedophilia means litterally, "boy love", by a man. So the Cardinal is splitting unbelievably fine hairs.

Beyond that though, he seems to be pointing out that Catholics have been (unfairly?) singled out, and that they are still being attacked when they are now "getting their house in order" (which is clearly the context of that remark).

Further, you will note this was all started by a "humanist" and it has the whiff of prejudice about it.

Oh, and HoreTore, in order for the Pope to do what you suggest he would have to bend fowards; which is much easier. If you're going to suggest the Pope should be personally sodomised at least get your commonplaces right.

[Lemur]

Beyond that though, he seems to be pointing out that Catholics have been (unfairly?) singled out, and that they are still being attacked when they are now "getting their house in order" (which is clearly the context of that remark).

What I find absurd about the Church's current position is that they're "cleaning house" by trying to rid themselves of homosexuals. Problems with this approach:

1. Pedophiles ≠ homosexuals
2. Needless purging of perfectly good priests who are not the problem
3. Ignoring the ongoing problem with heterosexual priests who do their thing with little girls

Pedos are a pedo problem, not a gay problem. Purging each and every gay prelate will not fix things.

Frankly, I think it's long past time for the church to drop the marriage ban for priests, especially since it has no basis in scripture, and is (by Western Civilization standards) a recent invention (Second Lateran Council, anyone?).

A significant percentage of people who think they can handle a vow of celibacy can't. There is absolutely no reason that the Catholic Church should sacrifice its treasure, prestige and labor to an outdated system designed to prevent clerical inheritance.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.

In most cases, a 13 year old would not make pedophilia as far as my understanding of the word goes.

I would tend to agree with that as well. A teenager, a pubescent child is technically a sexually mature individual, biologically speaking. In the past, most cultures married girls after first blood. To be attracted to teenage females seems perfectly reasonable to me.

By the time a female is 15, there is little difference between what she and a 20-year old looks like. I found that out much to my shock as I now attend the Uni, and see no difference between the girls there and my female high school classmates, which have not skipped 12th grade like I did.

Now, a true paedophile by the psychological definition that I have read is one who takes a liking to pre-pubescent children, or closely similar to Nabokov's Humbert, which is regarded as deviant behaviour. The average male is not attracted to children of that age.

[Viking]

Paedophilia means litterally, "boy love", by a man. So the Cardinal is splitting unbelievably fine hairs.

Beyond that though, he seems to be pointing out that Catholics have been (unfairly?) singled out, and that they are still being attacked when they are now "getting their house in order" (which is clearly the context of that remark).

Further, you will note this was all started by a "humanist" and it has the whiff of prejudice about it.

I mainly had Polanski in mind, but sure it applies in all conditions..

According to, e.g., Encyclopædia Britannica (word highlighted by me):

pedophilia
psychosexual disorder
also spelled paedophilia Main
psychosexual disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child of the same or the opposite sex.

Many words have interesting etymologies, but in a non-linguistic debate they are typically not relevant..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What I find absurd about the Church's current position is that they're "cleaning house" by trying to rid themselves of homosexuals. Problems with this approach:

1. Pedophiles ≠ homosexuals
2. Needless purging of perfectly good priests who are not the problem
3. Ignoring the ongoing problem with heterosexual priests who do their thing with little girls

Pedos are a pedo problem, not a gay problem. Purging each and every gay prelate will not fix things.

Frankly, I think it's long past time for the church to drop the marriage ban for priests, especially since it has no basis in scripture, and is (by Western Civilization standards) a recent invention (Second Lateran Council, anyone?).

A significant percentage of people who think they can handle a vow of celibacy can't. There is absolutely no reason that the Catholic Church should sacrifice its treasure, prestige and labor to an outdated system designed to prevent clerical inheritance.

Actually, peadophilia can only be committed by a homosexual male adult, according to the technical definition. Also, the Church defines both a deviency; so the position is internally consitant (which doesn't make it right).

After all, the Catholic Church is all about the traditional definition.

As far as celibacy goes, it is very ancient as an ideal, but after the collapse of the Empire it could not be enforeced. In fact, the marrital status of our Bishops was one of the reasons the Pope gave for William the Bastard's Invasion. When the Papal legates arrived in 1070 they deposed all Bishops, Abbots and Canons with wives. Lanfranc then forbade any new marriage by a cleric higher than Subdeacon.

However, despite this, you have (almost) correctly indentified the problem. The Roman Church has traditionally indentified all sexual activity as devient, including within the marrital bed. To be fair, Christ says in the Bible that (ideally) we should all be chaste and love God; then he goes on to say this is hard for most people, so get married.

The Church is not meant to bend to modern social mores; it is meant to defend God's laws against his rebellious children. Only the Catholic Church interprets the laws so strictly.

[Beskar]

By the time a female is 15, there is little difference between what she and a 20-year old looks like. I found that out much to my shock as I now attend the Uni, and see no difference between the girls there and my female high school classmates, which have not skipped 12th grade like I did.

There are quite noticeable differences, but some females do look younger than their real ages while others do look that noticeably more mature.

[HoreTore]

There are quite noticeable differences, but some females do look younger than their real ages while others do look that noticeably more mature.

Indeed!

Boobs very often appear in that time period.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Indeed!

Boobs very often appear in that time period.

Not in America, or at least in my school . By about 11th grade all the girls got their full compliment... I recollect reading somewhere that most girls pretty much stop growing height-wise by 16 years of age.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm going to point out that there's a big difference between what Harvey Weinstein &Co are doing for Polanski and what the Catholic Church is doing, and to conflate the two is disingenuous.

CR

[Papewaio]

Well maybe the child abuse rate is consistent across job types. It might turn out that 1.5% to 5% of movie luminaries are child abuser's too.

[ajaxfetish]

Actually, peadophilia can only be committed by a homosexual male adult, according to the technical definition. Also, the Church defines both a deviency; so the position is internally consitant (which doesn't make it right).

While the original meaning of paedo- was indeed boy, when borrowed into English it has generally had the meaning 'child,' not restricted to masculine gender. For instance, a pediatrician treats girls as well as boys. I'm not sure what kind of source you're looking to for a technical definition. The OED online defines pedophilia and pedophile in terms of sexual attraction to children, not mentioning the word boy anywhere.

To be fair, Christ says in the Bible that (ideally) we should all be chaste and love God; then he goes on to say this is hard for most people, so get married.

I'd always thought it was just Paul that had made those claims. Does it come up in the gospels as well? Could you point me to a reference?

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While the original meaning of paedo- was indeed boy, when borrowed into English it has generally had the meaning 'child,' not restricted to masculine gender. For instance, a pediatrician treats girls as well as boys. I'm not sure what kind of source you're looking to for a technical definition. The OED online defines pedophilia and pedophile in terms of sexual attraction to children, not mentioning the word boy anywhere.

I'd always thought it was just Paul that had made those claims. Does it come up in the gospels as well? Could you point me to a reference?

Ajax

Ah, but the Catholic Church speaks Latin and then Greek, not English. The references are in several Gospels, pretty much any time someone asks Jesus about divorce. I can dig them up later, have to go to work now.

Not in America, or at least in my school . By about 11th grade all the girls got their full compliment... I recollect reading somewhere that most girls pretty much stop growing height-wise by 16 years of age.

Girls stop growing height wise and "otherwise" around 21, it's just that major development usually stops at 16. Even so, they do continue to develop, sometimes quite substantially. If you're not attracted to women you won't notice the subtle differences.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ah, but the Catholic Church speaks Latin and then Greek, not English. The references are in several Gospels, pretty much any time someone asks Jesus about divorce. I can dig them up later, have to go to work now.

I don't much care what language various religions use to confuse themselves and their followers, they must follow the law. The meaning of paedophilia in law is very clear for each country, and defined for them to understand and follow.

[HoreTore]

Not in America, or at least in my school . By about 11th grade all the girls got their full compliment... I recollect reading somewhere that most girls pretty much stop growing height-wise by 16 years of age.

Nonsense! Oh wait, I just remembered that I don't know how old people are by the "11th grade" in the US....

Anyway.

Boobs continue to grow up till the age of at least 20. This is why implant boobs really should be banned until the age of 20 or so, simply because they might not have grown to their full size yet. Not to mention when they get on the pill, that usually bumps their boob size up a bit, and you usually start with the pill around 17-19.

And I have personal experience on this field, of course. My second girlfriend, who was 18 at the time, had no boobs. All right, she did have a little, but not much. I didn't see her for a couple of years, and met her again last winter(age 22). There was boob all over the place! And yes, they were real. And yes, I know because I checked.

My third girlfriend didn't have much going on in the chest-department either. Until I got her on the pill, that is...

Anyway, to get this back on topic... No, you really shouldn't have much problem seeing whether a girl is 22 or 14. 16 or 14, OK, I'll grant you that one. But how is that relevant? Why would you want a 16-year old anyway? Also, where do you find the womenz? At the pub... And if they're old enough to get into a pub, you know they're over 18(or whatever limit the pub has), so there's no real problem. Might be a year under the drinking age, but still, that should be more than legal. Same applies if you meet a woman who's working, child-labour laws means that if she has a job, she's over the sexual age. Problem solved.