Parts are still problematic, but at least he has hopefully by now realised the gravity of what has happened, and that statements such as his are not acceptable in any context, according to the morals and values of society. And I truly hope that in his explanation and seeming apology, he is not perhaps suggesting that he had anything to do with shifting sexual predators from parish to parish in the 1990s. I would also like to ask the Cardinal whether the case/cases he referred to on the BBC ended with a police investigation and the sexual predators in jail, or whether they indeed got no punishment, when he has said he personally thought they deserved none.
If you follow this link to our earlier article, the first on the interview published in this corner of the world, to my knowledge: this account is what I believe is a fair account of what happened, and a context and history to this, including some statements by another bishop, who believed that there was a serious betrayal in South Africa, of Christ and victims, which has yet to see the light of day.
Just before I give his view, I'd quickly like to quote the BBC on his interview, to show the grave statements, which so concerned those who objected to the statements of the cardinal: whether he was ambushed or not, and whatever context they were in. These are the sort of statements which do need serious clarification, which it seems the Cardinal has realised this dire need in such a scenario as his words on British Broadcasting Corporation Radio 5 have created:
Napier said to the BBC's Stephen Nolan Show on BBC 5, according to the BBC:
'"What do you do with disorders? You've got to try and put them right.BBC | ''Paedophilia not criminal condition' says Durban cardinal' by BBC at 16 March 2013 Last updated at 02:13 GMT
"If I - as a normal being - choose to break the law, knowing that I'm breaking the law, then I think I need to be punished."
He said he knew at least two priests, who became paedophiles after themselves being abused as children.
"Now don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that. I don't think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished. He was himself damaged."'
And now: Napier's response to me: