VATICAN CITY (CNS) – People who act shocked that a priest would bless a gay couple but have no problem with him blessing a crooked businessman are hypocrites, Pope Francis said.
“The most serious sins are those that are disguised with a more ‘angelic’ appearance. No one is scandalized if I give a blessing to an entrepreneur who perhaps exploits people, which is a very serious sin. Whereas they are scandalized if I give it to a homosexual – this is hypocrisy,” he told the Italian magazine Credere.
The interview was scheduled for publication Feb. 8, but Vatican News reported on some of its content the day before when the magazine issued a press release about the interview.
But why would anyone beome a priest then?
I am an (agnostic) atheist, but let’s be clear: not all priests are pedophiles, this is a huge exaggeration. But I still think they should be able to marry and have children, like normal people. And I believe that this would at least stop some of them doing pedophilic acts.
Pedos are going to pedo, but if you only recruit from an audience of people that are actively trying to avoid romantic adult relationships, I imagine going to have a higher percentage of pedos in that group.
By allowing priests to marry, be LGBTQ+, etc, you’re going to have fewer open seats at the alter for pedos.
I would even challenge that pedos are going to pedo. Obviously there’s no research on this, but are pedos only attracted to children? Are all pedophiles also rapists? I find that hard to believe. I think that “child molesting priests” are an intersection of priest, pedophile, rapist, and sexually frustrated.
If the wikipedia page is accurate: some pedophiles are only attracted to children ("exclusive pedophiles), but some are also attracted to adults; and not all pedophiles commit rape.
I mean, to me this is just common sense.
My bad, thought you were genuinely asking
No, not all pedophile are rapist but almost all consume materials that were produced by raping children. One problem is that there are only a few programs that actually targeting helping pedophiles to deal with their condition. So we leave them on their own to figure out how to deal with their condition.
Big [ citation needed ] there that triggers my BS sensors. CP is a huge problem but it’s literally impossible to know if “most consume materials” like that. Not defending pedophiles in any form, but hate bad logic.
That was my impression - might be wrong. I will check up on it.
EDIT:
Seems also inconclusive, since it’s a difficult topic to research:
"In summary, child and/or adult pornography is a feature in the lives of many pedophiles and other sex offenders, just as it is a feature in the lives of some persons who do not commit sexual offences. Alternatively, some sex offenders do not use pornography of any kind. "
https://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/jus/J3-2-2000-5E.pdf
Maybe there is newer research you are aware of.
So what’s your take on lolicon?
Depends on if it’s more a substitute or a trigger. I personally don’t know of any conclusive research on this topic. But people consuming lolicon defenetly need psychological help, don’t think it’s a healthy fantasy no matter how to look on it.
So still bad?
Troubles reading?
It would also help if church would actually punish (by assisting police investigation) and kick out offenders instead of covering up and moving them around.
But Lemmy only deals in extremes. Like AcAB
That’s a bad example since it’s true
So then All Firemen Are Drunks?
Because that’s true too.
All the nuns you can eat
Please elaborate
Nun of yo damn buisness.
Free room and board? They don’t even hold you to a vow of poverty, the Monsignor at my (former) diocese drove a Mercedes, just like Jesus would have wanted for him.
if thats why you think people become priests, I’m more concerned that you consider child rape to be an incentive.