1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case
I do find it good that you distinguish between "child abuse" which is not a disease nor a criminal "condition" - unless repeated and prolonged - but a crime, a criminal occurrence, and "paedophilia" which is or is supposed to be a disease, a medical condition. Exactly as with sodomy and homosexuality, except that sodomy is in many legislation no longer a crime.
I also find it good that you say one should not be punished for a disease.
However, a crime gives society a reason to rid itself of a danger, somehow - the world does it by killing or locking up, in milder cases or when the motivation is economic by fining and the Church does it by defrocking - for heresy or apostasy, for sodomy or child abuse. A punishment for a crime should be compulsory.
A cure for a disease should not be compulsory. If a heart fails, one should not be obliged to accept a transplant. If lungs are damaged by too much smoking, a smoker should not be physically forced to stop smoking and accept operation for lung cancer. If a doctor considers someone a paedophile, that is nowise a reason why he should be compulsorily subjected to a cure for paedophilia.
If a crime is publically known, the criminal should usually be subjected compulsorily to punishment. But not by decision of a doctor, but by decision of a judge. And the judge should have discretion to mildness, to not punishing if he has serious hopes the criminal regrets and will not commit his fault again.
One reason is that doctors have a tendency to overmedicate in and from cases where twice the penecilline needed won't harm the patient and half the penecilline needed will do no good (once one is sure penecilline is good for a disease), and a few other cases like that. That means doctors are prone to overestimate any medical condition. That is they are bad judges of what should be compulsory.
You see, judges need to operate on the assumption of innocence till otherwise proven. Doctors need not.
That is why doctors should have no say about paedophilia as far as imposing compulsions, but judges should have a say as far as judging whether guilty or innocent and imposing punishment on those proven guilty. And of course, guilty of child abuse, not of paedophilia.
You asked for compassion for those guilty of abuse after being themselves abused. I once did so myself, to a Californian judge, about an abuser in the sexual way who had been abused in probably other ways in Concentration Camps. Good and fine. But what is certain is that substituting compulsory treatment thirty years after a crime for punishement thirty years after a crime is not compassion. It is lawlessness, because it makes doctors judges of peoples' crimes, motives, lives.
Medical doctors were invented for curing pneumonias and cancers or broken bones, not for imposing compulsory cores for paedophilia or homosexuality, when it is really child abuse or sodomy that should be punished by a judge.
Of course broken souls need healing too. But their doctor is not from Med School. St Bennet's rule calls the abbot and the Christian faith in general Christ the doctor of souls diseased. If a doctor from Med School calls himself "psyches iater" or psychiatrist, he takes a prerogative of Christ, and one which He chose to share with his Church, not with Med School.
It is time the Church of Christ starts to do some pastoral on its own instead of betraying souls, some of which were indeed very diseased from sin beforehand, others of which were rather innocent, to doctors from Med School who take on mental issues in order to avoid dental or vascular and otorhinolaryngological ones, which are often more disgusting physically.
So, you may have to qualify your statement a bit further when it comes to retaining a reputation for Catholic Orthodoxy.
Doctors are abusing words like homosexuality to put the same label on people who want sodomy and on those who want normal intercourse but have traces of homoeroticism mentally, and words like paedophilia which can cover things as different as:
- abuse of babies, which is a monstrosity
- homosexual abuse of pederastic type, which is the worst crime of sodomitic type, sodomy itself being also a monstrosity
- heterosexual premature "marriage" with prepuberal children
- abuse of minors not really children
- marriage with legal minors not really children (as when pointing fingers at gipsies that wed their daughters at thirteen).
It seems some apply the word even to a notable age difference, if the man is the older. It is absurd to allow such smearing of innocence and such whitewashing (by putting in too broad a category) of monsters. It is absurd to allow it for other reasons, and it is absurd to allow it for an exaggerated respect for Med School too. A respect which does in extension punish (or persecute with the determination of anti-Mafia judges) first disease rather than a crime and then what is not even diseased.
Mouffetard Library in Paris
St Ambrose of Siena, O.P.