and this is what I got:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jan/08011410…

Note: I must admit it did substitute the "Q" for "reporter" and the "A" for "Bishop" for clarity, but that is all the editing that I did.

When the Bishop asks"Of course, but why is an abuser of minors sick?" He is asking the reporter a question, he is not making a statement. I do think he is interested in seeing what the response of the reporter would be to that question.

The reporter responds by saying that abuse is a relationship that is not consented to.

The Bishop then gives an example you can actually have an abusive situation where there is consent.

The Bishop is entirely within his right considering this was all that he said at that time, to clarify his position later on so that people would not take his words out of context which would be easy to do.

Why aren't you giving the Bishop given the same opportunity you are giving me now asking your question "Do you think sex with kids is OK? Is that what you're defending?

Why aren't you doing the same thing most everyone else would be doing on this site and accuse me of defending pedophillia like Donati is doing with the Bishop?

It is interesting to me that you asked me that question. Why isn't the Bisphop given the same opportunity? You are not even allowing him the opportunity to clarify his position later on.

But it seems that the bishop was also saying that abusers of minors aren't sick. Do you think sex with kids is OK? Is that what you're defending?

Reporter: The difference between a homosexual relation and an act of abuse is clear.

Bishop: Of course, but why is an abuser of minors sick?

Reporter: To begin with, the abuse is a relationship that is not consented to.

Bishop: There might be minors who consent to it, and in fact, there are. There are adolescents of thirteen years of age who are minors and are totally in agreement and furthermore desire it. Even if you take care they provoke you. This aspect of sexuality is somewhat more complex than it appears.
_____________________________________________________________

All the Bishop said was that the abuse of children isn't always when there isn't consent. Some children who are abused consented to the sex and further more desire it.

I agree with him on that point, I remember being 13, I was never abused but when I masturbated I was certainly desirous of it. Under certain circumstances I can see how it would have been an enjoyable experience.

It doesn't take away the fact that it is abuse, and again the Bishop never said it wasn't abuse, he simply said there are cases of abuse where there is consent.

Now that you have everything, you tell me if Donati took the Bishop words out of context.

However, it is about statements he made in 2010, which do not in any way reference his own earlier statement but instead complain about people going after the church.

The article Jenny got her quote from refers to part of a speech he made in 2007. Where is the text of that speech? You insist the quote is out of context; the only way we can see if it is not conveying the intent of the original speech is by reading the text of that speech . . . not "later statements".

A "later statement" may be interpreted as, "Oops, I said something bad, I need to make a clarifying statement now that everyone is mad at me".

"A later statement from the Bishop's residence on Tenerife explained that the Bishop did not intend to imply that ‘an event as condemnable as the abuse of youngsters’ could be justified."

He is saying that the statement that some children would consent to sex doesn't mean that in anyway justifies the abuse of youngsters. It is the same article, just link through the article that Donati used.

In other articles he condemns priests who abuse calling it "horrible and reproachable" It is easily Googled , I don't think I got it through this link earlier but this link works.
http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000003/1000043/0…

Nowadays with the internet it is not hard to get that the truth and get the right context, it takes a little bit of digging but not a lot, in this case one only had to read the same article Donati used, so there is really no excuse. I would disagree with a lot of things that the Bishop believes especially his views on homosexuality, but I thought it was pretty ironic he would get condemned for the one thing that was actually pretty courageous to say and insightful.