Paedophilia is an illness that needs treatment, not a criminal condition?

It's excuse behavior for what is a pure criminal act.

Pedophiles don't just give in to 'urges', they pick a target(someone with overly-trusting parents, or with parents that don't seem to care enough), and groom him/her(separate them from the herd), then they sexually-assault them in a situation, and in a way, where they can discredit the child, and create an appearance of innocence for themselves.

Pedophiles are hunters, and that hunting is why it's an evil, and very criminal act.

The Pedophile-feelings are an illness which need treatment(or isolation, because pedophilia is a very fundamental mistake, where you sexualize kids and think it's love, so just living in a 'closed situation' away from kids, could be the only cure), but the act of abusing children is very rational, very well thought-out, to maximize the chances of getting away with it.

Which isn't an illness, it's TEXT-BOOK criminal behavior.

The act of being a pedophile is about as criminal, and as predatory as it gets, the law should punish pedophiles, a lot heavier then they are today.

Cardinal Napier is attempting to palm off pervert priests within the catholic church, as something out of the organisations control.

And while people are agreeing/disagreeing with him, they might forget it was the church who moved these child abusers around, rather than face up to a filth spreading within their midst.

Nice try Napier but some of us aren't falling for it.

If it's an illness the vatican MUST pay for treatment & cure the sickos.

I say good luck with that.

Sorry, I do not believe it's a disease, some abused as children, DO NOT grow up & repeat history.

Paedophilia is a criminal offence, for which there seems to be no readily available cure.

Preventing it is down to an individual.

And like we know some people are better than others.

I am not aware of any treatment that can cure these people, even castration doesn't stop them using other means of abuse.

Try telling the victims it isn't criminal!

Everybody has urges and fantasies ,i don't just mean paedophilic ones , we all have all sorts of nastiness in our heads from time to time. What bullied child did not fantasize about the slow torture of their bully.Who didn't dream of robbing a bank? The thing is the vast majority do not act on these thoughts and have no intention of acting on them. Someone might dream of sexually abusing a child but as long as they do not act on it and do not seek out images and stories of child abuse they are only harming themselves.

The minute a person puts thought into action and does something illegal they must be caught and punished. If there is any treatment then they should be given this too, we have to protect society and to punish alone is not enough.

I have some sympathy with the idea that it is a condition that needs treatment whatever that might turn out to be. But the definition of a crime is an act or omission against the state, thus those acts and omissions are determined as such by the state whereby the executive and parliament make laws, some of which are decreed to be criminal offences.

Paedophilia takes various forms from looking at images to assaulting and murdering children. It therefore bears the hallmarks of much other behaviour that is classed as criminal.

The Cardinal may be trying to suggest that there is an absence of the mens rea - the mental element required for most crimes - by suggesting maybe a form of automatism. Here he is saying that those who have been abused more or less go on to be abusers because they cannot help themselves.

I accept that in many cases abusers are those who have been abused but the legal definition of insanity (of one who doesn't know what he is doing or if he does, does not know it to be wrong) might be more useful.

I can't see them getting away with it.

There are several systems to improve rapidly and naturally vision.

To know how to do that you can discover here a compelte technique focused around researches done by some researcher, for a shabby price: ( http://getyourvisionbacknow.keysolve.net/ )

I can provide for you simply a few tips however I recommend to give a look to the technique that i posted above...for illustration you can take more sustenance that holds vitamin A, for example, carrots may help to naturally improve your vision. We can likewise dependably do exercises. There are exercises, for example, rolling your eyeball to form an undetectable square that are constantly recommended by the doctors to improve one's vision. I don't think about rapidly as there is no quick approach to reach one's objective. Vegetarians can help to improve one's vision. I accept it in light of the fact that I am a vegetarian and my eye short-sightedness power remains the same without any increase after around 2 years. The doctor was stunned in light of the fact that teenagers at my years will normally have a most increase since we are continually staring at the TV, playing computers furthermore reading. I don't know whether it is completely true or not yet it does influence a bit on the result. At any rate i propose to check the connection that I posted.

I watched this on the BBC News this morning also, and was screaming abuse at my television set. It's a stretch too far for me too Corny. It is rightly a criminal offence to all right thinking people throughout the civilised world. How can it be anything other. A psychological illness that cannot be treated. If it could be successfully treated, then why is it so many are released from prison after being given treatment, then go on to re-offend time after time after time, and do their utmost to remain in a position to do so time after time after time? Even experts say paedophilia cannot be treated.

I have not read the article but it seems to me he is trying to justify something that cannot be justified,its not a sickness,its a nasty perversion and should be treated as such,lock them up and throw away the key,in all these debates we lose sight of one very important thing,we must protect the children,that must be the priority in all this,if a man(and occasionally a woman) is found to have abused a child he or she should get a life sentence,minimum 20 years,no therapy works because they are not sick,as soon as they can they will abuse again. I was abused by an uncle many years ago,i was lucky my parents believed me and my father beat him to a pulp,we never saw him again,this was in the 1960's,my father went to the police but as i was 13 they didn't really know how to deal with it,my parents did not want to put me through doctors examinations and court so as i said,my father dealt with it himself. We did tell all the rest of the family and it later emerged that 2 of my cousins had been abused by him too,he became an alcoholic and died in his 40s,no one except his wife went to the funeral,her excuse for him was that he was sick,they did not have any children, its not a sickness.

Yes, i'd agree with that to a point. The point is - choices. The choices are do i or don't i do this.

Paedophiles are generally adults and they make their own lifestyle choices. They could simply walk away from temptation - especially Priests. When they don't walk, that's when it becomes a criminality issue and all the flim flam of the Churches cannot alter that fact.

It's then compounded with lies, defamatory lies about the poor victim and lies again when the paedophile is moved on to another parish.

It's no good this man in a frock throwing out edicts from on high, what he and others of his rank should be doing is making absolutely certain that all the victims are able to speak up without fear of being condemned to roast in the fires of hell for all eternity and that they receive enough compensation to help them get over the trauma. Unfortunately some have died and never had even a very simple apology.

Perhaps investigations should start at the doors of the Archbishops, Bishops & Cardinals who ignored the plight of the abused and compounded it by moving paedophiles who then committed more offences?

They're still very much on their high horses in denial, trying to save the bricks and mortar and the riches of the Church whilst denying the truth which damages the FAITH.

Have a look at these two links, very educational,

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9239792.Abuse_vict...

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/11/21/co...

Poor Mr. Maxwell never did get what he wanted - an apology for the abuse and for being called a liar.

Sickening.

When anything is done to young people under a certain age they don't have the mature ability to decide for themselves if they should consent or not. Britain has set the age of consent for both sexes at 16.

Anyone forcing or persuading them under this age are committing a criminal offence.

There is often a very fine line between sickness and criminality.

Remember, the word "paedophile" is a fairly new one and is now used all the time. As a family history researcher for many years with access to many old newspapers I can date the introduction of the expression to the early 1980 coinciding with the onset of AIDS.

I regret rightly or wrongly previous to this any offenders against boys were simply described as "Homosexuals"

Paedo's need locking up if for no other reason than to keep them away from children.

I do however believe it is an illness, or somethiing in the genes.

As a normal hetro-sexual male (or female,I guess), how can you understand a mentality that finds sexual gratification in a small child ?

It's obviously highly disturbing stuff but I don't think anyone 'chooses' this pervertion.