NONONO!!!!.... keep that creepy organization away from children.... whoever their parents are!

A fresh approach to brainwashing? (among other things)

don't appreciate your anti-Catholic bigotry.

has encouraged bishops to speak out against LGBT couples adopting. New boss, better marketing team.

I have no bigotry against Catholics.

I just don't like ANY supernatural crap having any authority. Ghost stories and exorcism horror films are great fun, but actually believing in such nonsense is just detrimental.

all atheists of being creepy.

No he's not. As usual, you people didn't get to the end of the sentence. You're all outraged about a statement of how attitudes change over time. Here's what he said:

"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as *I* or anyone would today,” he said.

Read it a couple of times and see if you can actually understand what he said. I know you can do it....with great effort perhaps.

And I think young people should stay away from Catholicism, and religion in general, until they can clearly understand it is mythology and stone age and bronze age guesses that have nothing to do with the universe or one's place in it. My objections have nothing to do with being "creepy."

everyone knew was wrong -- even decades ago, when he was a child. And even "mild" pedophilia. Pedophiles and kidnappers were why children were warned to stay away from strangers (even though most aren't strangers), and pedophiles were a lot more common than kidnappers.

The difference between then and now isn't changing standards. It's that society has stopped covering up for these criminals. Most people, unlike Richard Dawkins, don't minimize the crimes of years ago. They were just as harmful to children then as they are to children today -- which is why there have been prosecutions of cases as far back as the 60's and 70's.

I'm sure you can figure this out. With a great effort, perhaps.

I realize all this reading between the lines and encompassing interpretations of the actual words written may be necessary to make the Bible anything but practically useless in this day and age.... but all that is not necessary with Dawkins.

In his statement he clearly states he condemns pedophilia (and he clearly is not talking about fellatio, intercourse, or seriously sick crap) today.... and in the past.... but one must not project current attitudes onto the past.

But go ahead.... have fun making up meanings to things that aren't there.

any better because of the cultural attitude of the time, is still being a pedophile apologist. The pedophiles of several decades ago were as guilty as those now, despite what Dawkins says.

When Richard Dawkins was growing up, everyone knew pedophilia -- even mild pedophilia -- was wrong. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

where did he say it wasn't wrong?

Still making things up that are not there.

He's a moron. And a pedophile apologist.

I know a man, a contemporary of his, who was seriously harmed by a very similar experience.

Dawkin's own experience, sadly, has warped his perspective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/richard-dawkins-pedophilia_n_3895514.html

CANTERBURY, England (RNS) Richard Dawkins, one of the world's best-known and outspoken atheists, has provoked outrage among child protection agencies and experts after suggesting that recent child abuse scandals have been overblown.

In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called "the mild pedophilia" he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters "pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts."

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm."

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/

In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”

Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

Soon.

Where are the details of this 'fresh approach'?

will be discussed by all those taking part, and not dictated by him. He is
simply initiating the call for a meeting to deal with this subject. That's
the way it appears to me.

It just sounds rude. In the past he has attacked gay families with fierce and unyielding language, so his mealy mouthed words here certainly do not come close to a change of direction. He has much to make amends for if he is a decent person.

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 08:15 AM - Edit history (1)

as, poverty.

In the area of sexuality, the Catholic Church is way, way back behind the times.
I don't think the pope has the authority to simply pronounce a change, and I
doubt it that the Church would follow him, if he did. The pope doesn't have as much
authority as you might believe. There is a great deal of tradition -- especially
with the Catholic Church's 2,000 year old history. It's going to take a long, long
time for such changes to take place.

At least the past 3 popes(including this one) have been harsh critics of the capitalist system, along with emphasizing the need to help the poor.

it does not work as claimed, that it does not trickle down to the poor, that it stays at the top. I
believe the other popes spoke in generalizations. He is the first one to mention a name.

Just another day, another pope thread. Aaargh.

TYY

Yep.

did you know Jesus was gay?

From what he actually said, I don't gather that he's looking for a fresh approach. It would be great if he was... but, this is all kind of too vague.

Particularly from a religious organization that excels in obfuscation and outright lies masquerading as deep, complicated truths.

In discussing the process of educating future priests, he says:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-tells-religious-wake-world-outlines-modern-struggles-church

Referencing advice he received as a young man to "think clearly and speak obscurely" the pope says "that was a clear invitation to hypocrisy." "We need to avoid that at all costs," he states.

"Formation is a work of art, not a police action," the pope continues. "We must form their hearts. Otherwise we are creating little monsters. And these little monsters mold the People of God. This really gives me goose bumps."

discrimination against the child, so if he really wants to create a new direction he needs to use language equally supportive of those families and apologize for his previous characterizations or he is just sending an RSVP on that invitation to hypocrisy.
I see no such clarity in this alleged call for a new way. I see not one positive word about gay families, and all the words he does use are negative. A hard to understand challenge, my Mommy's girlfriend does not love me. These are not kindnesses.

the church needs to change and if the conservatives have their way there will be none.

given enough time maybe this guy will be able to pull of a miracle

Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2014, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

There is no proof that the Pope told the Bishop to 'speak out.'

And it wasn't pope who advocated against same-sex marriage in Argentina. That was someone else!

adoption by gay couples?

Why do you think he has changed his mind?

of child abuse, discrimination against the child and he added lots of language about Satan being the author of laws giving gay families equal standing. Attempts to deny his real history are the offensive tactic that keeps causing division on DU.

I really am torn over this, especially as a lapsed Catholic boy.

not because it's wrong, but because it makes it too hard to convert them.

A message many liberals will conveniently ignore the last half of, because it utterly negates the faux progressive sentiment in the first half.

Okay fine with that, but what about the parents, can we at least still hate them? <sarcasm>

that aspect is deafening, to those of us who know the RCC well (current and former confirmed Catholics).

It speaks volumes.

further his point against gays. Francis, you could hear from many a kid declaring that "mother's BOY friend does like me". Francis just might be over his head in certain areas.

Spot-on observation.

With all the millions more stepfathers in the world who stepkids have a hard time with, why does he have to single out lesbians and try to make them look bad.

Fail. I'm still not convinced that this man is not playing a role.

And it's despicable.