German priest admits 280 counts of sexual abuse

[seekerz]

Things like this make me very sad as a Catholic. What I’m most worried about is that something like this had been allowed to go on for so long. Catholicism is already on a sharp decline in Europe, and this certainly does not help matters.

I think the negative effect of such scandals is not what causes people to leave the Church. In my childhood there were enough whispers about certain priests and nobody left the Church over that. The real problem causing people to beak with the Church, in my mind, is not the offenses but the way they were initially handled by authorities. Also, now that they’re being handled better by Church authorities, us continuing to blame the devil and the media just offends victims and their families as well as those who were wavering to begin with. Why can’t we simply take our flak without whining or seeking scapegoats?

 

[Tenofovir]

See, now that’s what I, as a parent, find utterly disgusting…

I am not saying anything such. I frankly don’t know how you got that but I can assume that you’re looking through this through some emotive prism. You being a parent is also irrelevant. We’re all equal human beings, and being a parent does not bring you closer to the truth. Please calm down. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Not sure what century you live in, but it’s been some time since 14 year olds were socially considered adults whether in terms of employment, education, entertainment, civic duties or marriageability.

Age of consent is below 18 in most in countries. In quite a few, it is as low as 13.
avert.org/age-of-consent.htm
In Catholic Angola, age of consent is 12 for girls. But most countries hover around the 14-16 mark.
Note that accordingly, all these governments (most of which are democratic or look at democratic nations of guidance) are supporting pedophilia.

Note the age of first marriage in numerous countries - the average ages are:
Philippines:19.3 for women. (19.3 is average, so minimum is much lower, unless only 20 year olds are marrying in PH)
Nepal: 18.8 for women.
Niger: 17.6 for women.
Chad: 18.0 for women.
Mozambique:18.0 for women.
India: 21.3 for women. - the second most populous nation in the world.
From Wiki.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage

I personally do not think people should procreate till they’re at least 25-30 y/o - in case you think I personally advocate early age of consent laws. These days one must qualify what one is and isn’t in case emotional people get the idea one is pushing some agenda or one is some closet pedophile himself.

It is not sinful in the eyes of the Church for people to marry and then have sexual relations in a young age as long as such age is legal. Of course I could be wrong - in that case I apologise, and then you could lead me to the relevant section of the Catechism which says it is sinful and only 25 year olds may marry or some such.

As for behaviour deviant from social norms, there are trends in the psychiatric community to stop trying to cure pedophiles. There are also trends the days in the mental health and pediatrics communities to make sex less of taboo for children. A while ago the a provincial German government issued guidance to parents on “stimulating their young children sexually” because it was “beneficial”. It was apparently withdrawn after complains but such things are appearing. Time Magazine in 1982 had a front cover story about benefits of child-adult sexual relationships. The media themselves are happy to push the issue. Child sex ed these days is offered in primary schools, long before kids have interest in the opposite sex.

***Pedophilia is any sexual violation of a person ***, period.
This is false. Pedophilia is a mental illness where an adult (or one who is 17y+) is attracted sexually to pre-pubescent children (age 13 and below). I don’t really care that the legal community may have hijacked this definition to include attraction for 20 year olds when the age of consent is 21. The lay public and the media have also made a mess of this definition. Statutory rape would be the legal definition of having sex with someone who is over 13 but below the age of consent (if different). This definition makes sense in light of natural law too, which is to say that sex is meant to be procreative and not merely for pleasure or bonding (as modern culture suggests).

 

[Tenofovir]

Continued…

It may be sub-classified according to age, but it is still pedophilia and still immoral. Any attempt to make it seem less offensive than it is, is itself offensive.

Ephebophilia is not the same as pedophilia. The former is quite common - look at the movie American Beauty. Kevin Spacey’s character had it. Current mass media do push teens sexuality - turn on the TV and you’ll see girls in their teens sexualised all the time on channels like MTV.
From Wiki:

Because mid-to-late adolescents may have physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among adults.[6] Ephebophilia is used only to describe the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. Generally, the preference is not regarded by psychologists as a pathology when it does not interfere with other major areas of one’s life, and is not listed by name as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), the ICD-10, or as a paraphilia. However, the preference can sometimes be diagnosed as a disorder if it results in dysfunction or exploitative behavior

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles (16 or older) to be termed pedophilia.

Wikipedia definition, but you may fact check it with the DSM IV Manual. Feel free to Google.

If a priest, charged with tending God’s flock, violates his vocation in such a horrendous manner, he deserves to have to be publicly disciplined, both by the justice system and by the Church, if only to act as a deterrent to others and protect children in the future. I don’t see any problem whatsoever with that.

And I agree, where did I say I didn’t agree. I mentioned to you or someone else in this thread that the Bishop and his confessor should take the matter up with him. For his mental illness, if he is lusting after 13yo and below, he should be managed by a psychiatrist. For breaking the law, he should be investigated by law enforcement and charged if there is evidence by the prosecutor/DA. This is all obvious.

Humility and acknowledgment are two necessary components of repentance and hopefully, those were behind this priest’s confession. If people, priests or not, don’t want public humiliation, they should familiarize themselves with laws/social norms and respect them. It really is as simple as that. Besides, having one’s sins broadcast on the internet are not worse than being paraded in shame through the streets before being cast in prison, which is how the early Church reportedly treated such priests.

Humility is important but one does not instil personal humility by humiliating a transgressor. This is wrong.
Public humiliation is uncharitable and probably sinful. It is a sign of hate and hypocrisy. The priest made mistakes, committed sins, etc. but why this should lead to public humiliation, I don’t know. I disagree here. This goes for any form of sinner, otherwise we’d have public confessions. You’d stand up in front of the whole church and publicly confess your sins and the whole church would hear and people would laugh and point fingers. We don’t do that in the Catholic Church, no?

Also you’ve missed my main point.

 

[Tenofovir]

I have seen you post similar opinions before but have never seen you post any supporting statements to show that they are anything more than your personal views and THAT is what I find curious.

Now this actually upset me a little. I’ll tell you why. Because I never suggested this. I reported on what many consider the modern trend (which I find depressing). I never said I supported it either. If you read me charitably you’d have known that. My English is not that bad.

A personal note to you: When someone suggests that society is going down the drain for an increasing tolerance to pedophilia or when someone suggests that legalisation of gay marriage (or at least some arguments for the notion) may open up the road for child-adult marriages or marriage between brother and sister, it does not mean that this person is supporting pedophilia or incest. Again please don’t shoot the messanger, and please next time, re-read what I’ve written. Unless I was psychotic at the time, I would never have written anything in favour of pedophilia or incest. I merely state that the trends are troubling. If that’s supproting pedophilia or incest, then I don’t know what to say to you.

What’s worrying for me is that the progressive media bash the Church over something they themselves advocate or would not condemn if it came from the top intellectual elites. If the Communist League or even the United Nations was found to have some members who used it to abuse children, I am sure we would not see the huge uproar we currently see over these abuse scandals. So a priest has a mental illness. Why should the media publicise a human being with an illness? Come on, it’s one political agenda.

 

[seekerz]

I am not saying anything such. I frankly don’t know how you got that but I can assume that you’re looking through this through some emotive prism. You being a parent is also irrelevant. We’re all equal human beings, and being a parent does not bring you closer to the truth. Please calm down. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Age of consent is below 18 in most in countries. In quite a few, it is as low as 13.
avert.org/age-of-consent.htm
In Catholic Angola, age of consent is 12 for girls. But most countries hover around the 14-16 mark.
Note that accordingly, all these governments (most of which are democratic or look at democratic nations of guidance) are supporting pedophilia.

Note the age of first marriage in numerous countries - the average ages are:
Philippines:19.3 for women. (19.3 is average, so minimum is much lower, unless only 20 year olds are marrying in PH)
Nepal: 18.8 for women.
Niger: 17.6 for women.
Chad: 18.0 for women.
Mozambique:18.0 for women.
India: 21.3 for women. - the second most populous nation in the world.
From Wiki.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage

I personally do not think people should procreate till they’re at least 25-30 y/o - in case you think I personally advocate early age of consent laws. These days one must qualify what one is and isn’t in case emotional people get the idea one is pushing some agenda or one is some closet pedophile himself.

It is not sinful in the eyes of the Church for people to marry and then have sexual relations in a young age as long as such age is legal. Of course I could be wrong - in that case I apologise, and then you could lead me to the relevant section of the Catechism which says it is sinful and only 25 year olds may marry or some such.

As for behaviour deviant from social norms, there are trends in the psychiatric community to stop trying to cure pedophiles. There are also trends the days in the mental health and pediatrics communities to make sex less of taboo for children. A while ago the a provincial German government issued guidance to parents on “stimulating their young children sexually” because it was “beneficial”. It was apparently withdrawn after complains but such things are appearing. Time Magazine in 1982 had a front cover story about benefits of child-adult sexual relationships. The media themselves are happy to push the issue. Child sex ed these days is offered in primary schools, long before kids have interest in the opposite sex.

***Pedophilia is any sexual violation of a person ***, period.
This is false. Pedophilia is a mental illness where an adult (or one who is 17y+) is attracted sexually to pre-pubescent children (age 13 and below). I don’t really care that the legal community may have hijacked this definition to include attraction for 20 year olds when the age of consent is 21. The lay public and the media have also made a mess of this definition. Statutory rape would be the legal definition of having sex with someone who is over 13 but below the age of consent (if different). This definition makes sense in light of natural law too, which is to say that sex is meant to be procreative and not merely for pleasure or bonding (as modern culture suggests).

I find your quoting of my definition and the place you cut it off, very interesting. If you’re going to quote me, please be kind enough to do it accurately, otherwise it brings into question your integrity.

Pedophilia is sexual abuse of a child, regardless of how disturbing, irritating or inconvenient anyone may find that fact. Anyone who can’t accept that fact raises serious questions in my mind.

I would be interested in understanding where you got the cut-off age of 13 for the definition of child.

 

[seekerz]

Now this actually upset me a little. I’ll tell you why. Because I never suggested this. I reported on what many consider the modern trend (which I find depressing). I never said I supported it either. If you read me charitably you’d have known that. My English is not that bad.

A personal note to you: When someone suggests that society is going down the drain for an increasing tolerance to pedophilia or when someone suggests that legalisation of gay marriage (or at least some arguments for the notion) may open up the road for child-adult marriages or marriage between brother and sister, it does not mean that this person is supporting pedophilia or incest. Again please don’t shoot the messanger, and please next time, re-read what I’ve written. Unless I was psychotic at the time, I would never have written anything in favour of pedophilia or incest. I merely state that the trends are troubling. If that’s supproting pedophilia or incest, then I don’t know what to say to you.

What’s worrying for me is that the progressive media bash the Church over something they themselves advocate or would not condemn if it came from the top intellectual elites. If the Communist League or even the United Nations was found to have some members who used it to abuse children, I am sure we would not see the huge uproar we currently see over these abuse scandals. So a priest has a mental illness. Why should the media publicise a human being with an illness? Come on, it’s one political agenda.

You try to explain yourself by demonizing the media. Did the media commit pedophilia against these children or did the priest?

 

[seekerz]

Continued…

Ephebophilia is not the same as pedophilia. The former is quite common - look at the movie American Beauty. Kevin Spacey’s character had it. Current mass media do push teens sexuality - turn on the TV and you’ll see girls in their teens sexualised all the time on channels like MTV.
From Wiki:

Wikipedia definition, but you may fact check it with the DSM IV Manual. Feel free to Google.

And I agree, where did I say I didn’t agree. I mentioned to you or someone else in this thread that the Bishop and his confessor should take the matter up with him. For his mental illness, if he is lusting after 13yo and below, he should be managed by a psychiatrist. For breaking the law, he should be investigated by law enforcement and charged if there is evidence by the prosecutor/DA. This is all obvious.

Humility is important but one does not instil personal humility by humiliating a transgressor. This is wrong.
Public humiliation is uncharitable and probably sinful. It is a sign of hate and hypocrisy. The priest made mistakes, committed sins, etc. but why this should lead to public humiliation, I don’t know. I disagree here. This goes for any form of sinner, otherwise we’d have public confessions. You’d stand up in front of the whole church and publicly confess your sins and the whole church would hear and people would laugh and point fingers. We don’t do that in the Catholic Church, no?

Also you’ve missed my main point.

Ephebophilia is a load of crock which some people use to excuse sexual perversion. What makes it less wrong than the medical definition of pedophilia?

All offenders, priests included, need to have their pictures circulated worldwide so they have no place to hide to continue their violation of children.

 

[seekerz]

Maybe the post-modernists who tailor diagnoses to suit changing ideologies are not the ones whose definitions Catholics should turn to…

The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18. Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of pedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger. The term ephebophilia , derived from the Greek word for “youth,” is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty.

Read more: Pedophilia - children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html#b#ixzz1jS0HdIHX

(emphasis, mine)

At any rate, sexual activity with anyone defined as a child by the courts is morally wrong at least because it is a violation of laws framed by legitimate authorities.

 

[Hokomai]

It’s not a new term. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to those 13 and younger. In fact attraction for >13 year olds i.e. people who have secondary sexual characteristics and can reproduce is common in history and was probably the norm for thousands of years. People lived into their 30s. They would marry in their early teens. It’s also not seen as a psychiatric disorder. It may be seen as a legal problem, but that depends on the age of consent. It’s also not sinful as far as I know. If a man of 30 was to marry and 14 y/o and then engage in relations with her, it would not be sin. I gather parental permission may be needed depending on secular law, but given that, it would not be sin.

But you’ve also missed my point. The point I wished to state was that pedophilia is quite rare in the church. Sexual relations between priests and 15 year old boys are not pedophilia. Pedophilia ends at 13. The media may however gloss over this difference and some people are happy to accommodate them in perpetuating the error and at the same time bashing the Church. The latter is also curiously very linked to gender with a predominance of male victims. The media of course does not harp about that at all. One can argue that pedophilies are also not sex selective, but ephebophiles are different.

.

Not where I live, and not in any country that has a proper understanding of childhood. Tenofovir and others would be less likely to fall into this sort of self-defeating ‘defence’ of the Church if the Church itself under canon law were to refuse marriage to girls of 14 and 15 (and preferably older, if I had my way).

 

[ringil]

Ephebophilia is a load of crock which some people use to excuse sexual perversion. What makes it less wrong than the medical definition of pedophilia?

All offenders, priests included, need to have their pictures circulated worldwide so they have no place to hide to continue their violation of children.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

I am a therapist and I never heard of this “Ephbophilia” until looking at posts here seeking to redefine the Church Abuse Crisis as a homosexual matter and not what it is.

In fact, I had to look up the term in my “Psynopsis of Psychiatry” to see if it actually existed.

Yes, there are a few references, but nothing compared to the VOLUMNINOUS references to Pedophilia. Epbothilia is this little known descriptive psychological term which nobody uses in practice and rarely in research.

And this lame defense and lack of accountablility is supposed to HELP the image of the Church?!?!

Fortunately, the Bishops aren’t falling for this c&*p.

 

[St_Francis]

Psychiatrists are the ones who have differentiated between lusting after and/or abusing pre-adolescents and adolescents+. And there is a perfectly good reason for this, which is that it is a much different matter.

I agree with Tenofer that there is media hypocrisy. The media sexualizes adolescents, and then calls people over a certain age who want to bed adolescents pedophiles as if they were going after children who are legally too young to give consent to sexual activity with anyone.

The media and the left push adolescent sexual activity among each other, but then get all twisted out of shape when what they have pushed causes someone else to sin.

Moreover, I don’t care who says what: the abuse by priests has been by far male/male adolescent or post-adolescent… at and after a time when seminarians were complaining about a flamboyantly homosexual atmosphere at the seminaries. Hello? Does this sound like homosexuality? and yet the media pushes acceptance of homosexual activity and homosexual attempts at marriage.

I could go on and on about this, but I have to go. BTW, I have 4 children and if anyone were to harm them in this way, maybe there’d be a different kind of scandal.

 

[seekerz]

Psychiatrists are the ones who have differentiated between lusting after and/or abusing pre-adolescents and adolescents+. And there is a perfectly good reason for this, which is that it is a much different matter.

I agree with Tenofer that there is media hypocrisy. The media sexualizes adolescents, and then calls people over a certain age who want to bed adolescents pedophiles as if they were going after children who are legally too young to give consent to sexual activity with anyone.

The media and the left push adolescent sexual activity among each other, but then get all twisted out of shape when what they have pushed causes someone else to sin.

Moreover, I don’t care who says what: the abuse by priests has been by far male/male adolescent or post-adolescent… at and after a time when seminarians were complaining about a flamboyantly homosexual atmosphere at the seminaries. Hello? Does this sound like homosexuality? and yet the media pushes acceptance of homosexual activity and homosexual attempts at marriage.

I could go on and on about this, but I have to go. BTW, I have 4 children and if anyone were to harm them in this way, maybe there’d be a different kind of scandal.

Say what you will, whenever pedophilia in the Church is the topic, the next post (or two) becomes about the media. Not about what can be done. Not about how we feel for the victims. Not about our concern for the perpetrator’s fate…The second or third post is almost, always about the media.

My big question is: WHY? If we kept our house in order they’d have no stories to print!

BTW, the media often keeps me company for most of the day and I have never heard pedophilia of any type (homosexual or heterosexual) excused or normalized. Strange where that normalization is attempted… The recent media frenzy over the coaches’ transgressions is no different than that over the priests, except that very correctly, they hold the Church to a higher standard.

 

[seekerz]

The media and the left push adolescent sexual activity among each other, but then get all twisted out of shape when what they have pushed causes someone else to sin.

I just did a retake. Would you mind clarifying that statement? What does “when what they have pushed causes someone else to sin” mean?

And since when does the media set behavior standards for Catholics, let alone priests?

 

[unafraid]

Semantics and pschological wordplay are stale and unsatisfying in their attepts at finding understanding where there is none. What we have here are abominations, severe corruptions that crack the sense of purity within the priesthood itself. These things confound us because reason never can penetrate evil, nor explain it away. These are wounds that seep and never seem to heal. An apostasy within the priesthood is buckling the very foundations of the Church.

Personally, I used to struggle with the pain that these things wrought upon my soul, as if a dagger was being thrust into my heart, then bitterly turned; as if I was under assuault. These reports of abuse would slice me to the core. I prayed for a way in which to cope with such heartache, and what I discerned was that my pain was as if I were watching the Lord being scourged, and that the severity of my angst represented the depth of my love for Jesus Christ. These abominations hurt me so deeply because the Lord means so much to me. That has been a revelation to me. My suffering regarding these horrors has affirmed the breadth of my faith to myself.

Perhaps, the Church needs a new sort of internal “Inquisition”, in the purest sense of that term. Maybe, from the Horn of Africa to the Arctic Circle, every priest should be reevaluated, and be candidly re-appraised for their virtues, and vices. We must remove the corruption from the priesthood, before more damage can be done. It sounds extreme, but this current state of affairs cannot continue. The hierarchy must excise the cancer now, before it consumes the entire Church.

My hope for the Church in this time of trial reflects upon the tribulations of Saint Peter. He knew Jesus was the Son of God, yet he denied Him three times. Imagine the depths of despair this man must have endured during Christ’s Passion. But, the Holy Spirit buttressed him, just as Christ had foretold, and he perservered. Judas killed himself, but Peter was sustained. He was restored through grace.

The bones of Peter, the “Rock” of our religion, rest beneath the alter of the Basilca which bears his name (more than two-thousand years after his sin). Let us hope, that even through these dark days of the Clerical Sex Abuse Scandal, that the Roman Catholic Church will regain Herself, as Saint Peter did, and once again lead the world toward its only hope…Jesus Christ.

 

[ringil]

It’s the gays.
It’s the media.
We’re not praying for our priests enough.
It’s modern Psychology.
It’s Fatima.
It’s the Devil.
It’s the 60’s.
It’s the sexualization of TV.
It’s Vatican II.
It’s lack of doctrinal fidelity. . . . .
(Did I miss any)

Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. . . .

Thank God the Pope isn’t taking this route of distraction and blame-shifting.

 

[St_Francis]

I guess I figured that we all agreed that what those predatory priests did was evil and hideous so we didn’t need to go into that.

I think that the media is biased and hypocritical, and I do know that people disagree about that and since the discussion seemed to have moved in that direction, I wrote what I thought about that.

 

[Scoobyshme]

I guess I figured that we all agreed that what those predatory priests did was evil and hideous so we didn’t need to go into that.

I think that the media is biased and hypocritical, and I do know that people disagree about that and since the discussion seemed to have moved in that direction, I wrote what I thought about that.

The media is clearly anti-Catholic. If their real concern were the abuse of children, they’d be ranting every day about ALL the sexual abuse of children, not the .2% (point 2 percent) that occurs in our society through priests. A child, statisically, is 100 times more likely to be abused by an ermployee of the school systems of this country than by a priest. And much more likely to be abused by a family member, than by a priest. But we do not hear about those, in any near proportion to abuse by priests. And, it’s not “the priesthood” that’s the problem as one poster seemed to say. It’s a very small percentage of priests. The vast majority of priests are wonderful, holy men, sacrificing their lives for the Body of Christ. I think it is sinful for anyone to broadbrush “the priesthood” for the sins of a few.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

It’s the gays.
It’s the media.
We’re not praying for our priests enough.
It’s modern Psychology.
It’s Fatima.
It’s the Devil.
It’s the 60’s.
It’s the sexualization of TV.
It’s Vatican II.
It’s lack of doctrinal fidelity. . . . .
(Did I miss any)

Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. . . .

Thank God the Pope isn’t taking this route of distraction and blame-shifting.

(Did I miss any)

Yes, you missed one: It’s the “pedophiles”.

 

[Ana_v]

17 is the age of consent, generally. But, personally, I don’t know that at 17 every boy or girl can give a true consent – having the maturity to handle it and, as we know, there are parts of the brain that do not fully form until later – the part of the brain that speaks of consequences.

So, now pedophilia is under 15. And this new term, ephebophilia, is 15 -19. Do, I see a problem? Yes. Both are equally morally wrong, even if you give it a new term. Legally wrong for over 16 = no, unfortunately.

Sexual a*buse *is morally wrong. And *non-marital sex *is morally wrong. But, would you propose that it is morally wrong for a 30 year old man to marry a 15 year old girl? If so, what are we to make of ancient Jewish society in which girls were commonly married in between the ages of 12 and 15? The Blessed Mother married at around age 14, and you can be assured Joseph wasn’t a young adult. (Now of course, we know that they were both chaste, and had no relations. But please don’t lose sight of the point – the point being had Mary been any other Jewish woman, yes, relations would have occured and no, it would not have been viewed as morally wrong).

In our society, relations between a young teen and an adult are considered morally wrong. Yet us Catholics profess objective, transcendent morality, (none of this “morality is culturally relative” nonsense). So how can it be the case that for most of history relations between adult and teen, were seen as morally legitimate, and it is relatively recent in history that they have come to be viewed as wrong. Which understanding is right? Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive.

But anyways, I simply repeat, the moral wrong is sexual abuse, regardless of the age of the victim. A priest is gravely guilt whether he abused a 9 yeard old, a 16 year old, or a 28 year old. However, in the cases of pre-pubescent children, the abuse is more grave, because such children are entrusted to the care of adults, and that abuse severs the trust, as well as violates a the childrens’ innocence.

 

[incense]

I would say that is ancient history with ancient needs. What was the average life expectancy? What was the life expectancy of women? And then, women were considered property, and if you were going to get your money’s worth from them, they needed to start bearing children at an early age. And family’s were glad to get rid of a worthless daughter as soon as possible and let someone else take on the expense. And in the later centuries, men would marry younger women so they could raise them to ensure the women grew up to have the mental outlook the men wanted them to have. Then we get into virginity, and wanting to make sure the child was theirs, or the men wouldn’t get a disease from their wife… That’s how the expression “it’s a man’s world” came about.

This case is about pederasty, a man molesting adolescent boys. Always morally wrong. It doesn’t matter what some societies allowed sometime in history, they were wrong. Man’s law can change, God’s does not.

It’s amazing how well the arguments have been on this thread that it’s really okay to lust after and want to have sex with these almost adults. I’m not saying you other posters are for pederasty. But you can see how the movement to legalize sexual abuse of children is well on it’s way.