Pedophilia not a crime

This is like saying a kleptomaniac is not a criminal. You think long and hard enough about something you can spin it into anything, but what is the motive here for him to come up with this?.

It’s not entirely clear to me what he means. But paedophilia is indeed not a crime. Having sex with minors is. There is a difference between the two.

For me that horror Gert van Rooyen always springs to mind. He certainly did his bit in giving pedophiles everywhere a bad name. But ja, I think you are right. Whatever happens within the confines of one’s skull cannot be criminal. There are no laws governing thoughts, desires and fantasies, and neither should there be. But acting out is of course a different matter.


Yes, that’s one of the more prominent benefits of the postmodernists’ deconstructionist “everything is a subjectively interpretable narrative” approach to reality. Naturally, deconstructionism has a bosom buddy in exe- and eisegesis.

Damage control and refurbishing the RCC’s tainted image. With a new boss comes a new broom. The old boss carried the stench of paedophilia cover-ups all around him. Today we have a gentler dispensation (vomit), and Africa is the only continent where Roman Catholicism is growing. This happy coincidence must be exploited!

But if, as Cardinal Napier has it, paedophilia is “a psychological condition, a disorder”, one has to wonder why his god blesses such an inordinate number of his own most loyal devotees with this disturbing syndrome.

Oh wait, it’s theology that’s beyond the grasp of we ordinary mortals — and most of all beyond the grasp of those kids who were and are at the sharp end of this god-ordained condition, this god-crafted disorder.


Nah, its the devil … or don’t they believe in the devil anymore? (It’s sometimes hard to keep track.)


Nope, none of that would matter a jot. After all, their god in all his omniscient omnipotence made the devil too, so, either directly or indirectly, he gave them the condition, the disorder.

Oh wait, it’s those darn theological subtleties I’m missing once more…


He (Napier) expressed himself clumsily, but he’s dead right. Paedophiles should be able to get help before they commit a crime, and that involves treatment, not driving them underground. A column on this:

In and of itself this is of course an entirely reasonable and empathetic take on Napier’s pronouncements. The problem is that one cannot easily divorce the good Cardinal from the hidebound institution he represents and its history. A foundational principle of RC dogma is that the Church itself is the ultimate source of its teachings, not a lone bishop or cardinal.


I learned something new here. Didn’t know there was a difference, thanks for pointing it out to me. But I think the common person’s definition of a pedophile is someone who already did the deed and that makes him a criminal in my book. Psychopathic behavior can also be defended with Napier’s argument but it does not make said behavior OK.

Unfortunately, that common misconception is due to various media, and it’s hardly clear in which sense Napier actually meant the term.

In any event, Napier has taken a lot of flak about his comments and is backpedalling at a furious rate. It’s always fascinating to watch the PR shimmies the RC can conjure up at the drop of a mitre. No doubt, Napier got an admonishment from Rome.


The truth is the same can be said for most any criminal. The govt likes to pretend that prisons are there for rehabilitation and they somehow stop people from committing crime again. Yet the opposite happens: prisons ruin people even more than they were previously ruined.

For me the questions thus raised become:
Can a criminal actually be rehabilitated fully?
Can a paedophile actually be rehabilitated fully?

If it were found impossible to fix the “broken wounds” (more on quoting later) of a person’s childhood the point would be moot, the only question left would be: how do you minimise the damage to society? Presumably you’d want to stop the damage being re-inflicted on a next generation somehow.

Anyone have input on the treatability of this “condition”? I quote “condition” because in PC circles it’s easily bandied about that a gay person is gay “by nature”, they were born that way and churches trying to treat homosexuals are evil, etc. Couldn’t this be a case of the same thing? Would it be similarly futile to try and treat paedophiles?

Moreover if you switch the situation around: If you can “treat” paedophiles, doesn’t that lend credibility to the idea of “treating” homosexuals?


I read a book (very crappy) once where the world was divided according to behavior. The criminals would be send to a criminal nation (like the Brits send them to Australia), you had your gay nation and so on. It was a crappy story and I don’t think I finished it.