Pope says pedophilia considered normal in the 1970's - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

sfloriII · #16 12-24-2010, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I found a longer quote from the address:

"We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility. But neither can we remain silent regarding the context of these times in which these events have come to light. There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society. The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times. From Bishops of developing countries I hear again and again how sexual tourism threatens an entire generation and damages its freedom and its human dignity. The Book of Revelation includes among the great sins of Babylon – the symbol of the world’s great irreligious cities – the fact that it trades with bodies and souls and treats them as commodities (cf. Rev 18:13). In this context, the problem of drugs also rears its head, and with increasing force extends its octopus tentacles around the entire world – an eloquent expression of the tyranny of mammon which perverts mankind. No pleasure is ever enough, and the excess of deceiving intoxication becomes a violence that tears whole regions apart – and all this in the name of a fatal misunderstanding offreedom which actually undermines man’s freedom and ultimately destroys it.
In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today. Against them, Pope John Paul II, in his 1993 Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, indicated with prophetic force in the great rational tradition of Christian ethos the essential and permanent foundations of moral action. Today, attention must be focussed anew on this text as a path in the formation of conscience. It is our responsibility to make these criteria audible and intelligible once more for people today as paths of true humanity, in the context of our paramount concern for mankind."

Wow. I don't know what article you guys read, because the comments I'm reading here about the pope's statement above have completely missed what was said. It shows that through the eyes of people who really hate the Church that even obvious statements can be completely misconstrued.

Neither the pope nor the Church justifies sexual relationships between adults and children in any case/situation whatsoever. If they do, I'd like to see the documents to the case. The pope mentioned that a more liberal sexual morality in society was one of the contributing factors to the pedophilia problem within the Church. That's a reason why it happened, not a statement that the Church sanctioned such actions.

He also said that the idea that there is no "good" or "bad" in itself also contributed to the problem. He wasn't saying that the Church believed that there was no intrinsic good or bad in the world. Pedophilia is intrinsically evil. No two ways about it. Can someone find an official statement by the Church sanctioning pedophilia? I don't know how many times I've made the point on this board that every priest that molested a child did so against the teachings of the Church and sinned in doing so. Just because a priest is a Catholic doesn't make him a saint or incapable of sin. Priests are men just like the rest of us, and unfortunately some of them (a very few number!) are pretty sick. Yes, some bishops covered up the actions of those sick priests. Those bishops are men that sin just like the rest of us too. Can someone find an official document of the Church saying that covering up the problem of pedophilia in the priesthood is moral? Yes, the bishops shouldn't have done it. The reasons were political or whatever, but not due to some teaching of the Church that they were acting in an acceptably moral manner in doing so.

#17 12-24-2010, 11:42 AM

No, he is simply trying to blame society for the actions of this scum, and for the actions of the scum that covered it up. IMO, that puts him in the same category. Personally, I find his comments disgusting (but not surprising).

davidmash · #18 12-24-2010, 11:44 AM

I do not think anyone here is making that argument. It sounds to me like people are saying that the RC used their interpretation of the times to partially excuse their actions. Is sounds as if the RC is saying that the 70's were loose and "paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children." How else is one to interpret that statement? At the very least this says to me that they seriously lost their way.

Secondly, if the church was so against pedophilia, why did they not take action against those who abused children instead of sweeping it under the rug? By doing nothing that does at the very least give the appearance of being more concerned with appearance than with justice. Had someone molested your child, would the punishment given to the priests been adequate? I suspect I would have been looking for some jail time.

strelnik · #19 12-24-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'm sure a 30 yo man marrying an 8 yo girl was normal at some point in time too. Pretty much the same way they viewed a teacher boinking the student in ancient Greece. I am not totally sure about the context in which it was in but it seems to me, His Holiness is trying to mitigate the "Catholic Shuffle".

Aklim, I think you are right:

1. yes, the Greeks and a lot of non-Christian cultures did use boys for fun and women for procreation. That is still sexual exploitation of non-consenting individuals.

2. It doesn't matter what Europe does, if it's wrong, it's wrong. I believe all drug use is harmful, unless it's stuff prescribed to keep you alive. I don't believe in tranquilizers after you have had a bad day, or ritalin to keep kids quiet.

3. The Pope's explanation of "that's how Eruope was" is still no valid explanation. It's kind of like "Well, you were surrounded by druggies, so it's ok if you shoot up and end up dead in an alley"

4. Situational ethics are often more malleable than one would think, and moral relativism is usually used so that people in high places can get off with s slap on the wrist for what they did. If you or I drank and drove as much as Lindsay Lohan, we would be in jail another ten years, and no one would be bemoaning our fate and our "problems."

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Lock up up the "playful" priests. AND end the celibacy rule.

sfloriII · #20 12-24-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I do not think anyone here is making that argument. It sounds to me like people are saying that the RC used their interpretation of the times to partially excuse their actions. Is sounds as if the RC is saying that the 70's were loose and "paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children." How else is one to interpret that statement? At the very least this says to me that they seriously lost their way.

Secondly, if the church was so against pedophilia, why did they not take action against those who abused children instead of sweeping it under the rug? By doing nothing that does at the very least give the appearance of being more concerned with appearance than with justice. Had someone molested your child, would the punishment given to the priests been adequate? I suspect I would have been looking for some jail time.

I think he's saying that the interpretation of pedophilia of the times may explain why some individual priests, acting against the teachings of the Church, chose to molest children.

I agree with you that members of the Church's bishops chose to act against the moral teachings of the Church and covered up the actions of some of their priests. It's horrible what they did-- both the priests and the bishops that are equally guilty by covering it up. But what people seem to fail to recognize is that both these priests and the bishops that covered up their actions did so against the teachings of the Church. They fail to recognize the difference between individual men and their sins vs official Church teaching. That's why I wanted to know if anyone has been able to find any official Church statements sanctioning pedophilia in any case.

#21 12-24-2010, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfloriII

They fail to recognize the difference between individual men and their sins vs official Church teaching. That's why I wanted to know if anyone has been able to find any official Church statements sanctioning pedophilia in any case.

Who really cares what these hypocrites "teach"? Their actions are more than adequate to demonstrate their "value" to society.

aklim · #22 12-24-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfloriII

Can someone find an official statement by the Church sanctioning pedophilia?

I don't know how many times I've made the point on this board that every priest that molested a child did so against the teachings of the Church and sinned in doing so. Just because a priest is a Catholic doesn't make him a saint or incapable of sin. Priests are men just like the rest of us, and unfortunately some of them (a very few number!) are pretty sick. Yes, some bishops covered up the actions of those sick priests. Those bishops are men that sin just like the rest of us too. Can someone find an official document of the Church saying that covering up the problem of pedophilia in the priesthood is moral? Yes, the bishops shouldn't have done it. The reasons were political or whatever, but not due to some teaching of the Church that they were acting in an acceptably moral manner in doing so.

Absolutely not but what about unofficially?

Fair enough. What about the Cardinals that covered it up? Law, for example? Is he bad too? Can you explain his actions then? OK, he was mortal too. Fair enough. What about the Pope? When he heard about it, why didn't he fire everyone involved in the cover up? Why did he simply shuffle Law to the Vatican like Law did to the rest of the offending priests? By doing so, what message is he sending? Why doesn't the CURRENT pope fire the bad priests? What is the message now? "Hi. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."?

aklim · #23 12-24-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

No, he is simply trying to blame society for the actions of this scum, and for the actions of the scum that covered it up. IMO, that puts him in the same category. Personally, I find his comments disgusting (but not surprising).

That boat done sailed. He IS part of the "Catholic Shuffle", is he not? By not dismissing the personnel involved, he already has made him part of the group. There are no excuses for the Pope since he is the head cheese.

davidmash · #24 12-24-2010, 12:18 PM

I fail to see how the church could look at pedophilia and say it's OK because of the times. Hurting a child is never OK and if the Pope and the church are infallible (maybe I am unclear on the term and how it applies) then someone screwed up in a big way. Aside from that, where are we getting the idea that in the 70's it was OK to mess with kids?

Then you have the issue that the church was covering for the pedophiles. The fact that the pope(s) did not do a damn thing to the priests until they were exposed (and even then nothing substantial was done) shows where there concern was. As far as I am concerned, the priests should have been fired (what ever the RC equivalent was) and walked straight down to police HQ by the pope him self and said here are your perps, please prosecute them to the full extent of the law and we will be happy to provide any and all evidence in this case.

They did not and as far as I an many others are concerned, that makes him complicit in the crimes.

#25 12-24-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

That boat done sailed. He IS part of the "Catholic Shuffle", is he not? By not dismissing the personnel involved, he already has made him part of the group. There are no excuses for the Pope since he is the head cheese.

IMHO, that makes him just as bad as the sick f### that he's defending. At this point, these people have zero credibility left.

Pooka · #26 12-24-2010, 02:34 PM

Actions speak louder than words.

I once had a Prof that was big into 'situational ethics'. He would ask his classes 'If your wife were upstairs taking a bath and a stranger came to the door and asked if she were home would you say Yes or No?'

I said I would answer 'Who wants to know?' and if I did not like the answer my next statement would be something like 'Say hello to my little friend!'

I can't control what the rest of the world does, but I can sure try and do the right thing wherever I am.

The whole thing boils down to poor management on almost every level.

aklim · #27 12-24-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka

I once had a Prof that was big into 'situational ethics'. He would ask his classes 'If your wife were upstairs taking a bath and a stranger came to the door and asked if she were home would you say Yes or No?'

The whole thing boils down to poor management on almost every level.

Depends. If the stranger were a hot female and wanted to get it on with me, the answer would be "No". OTOH, same female but wanted to get it on with the three of us, well.........

I would disagree with that. If the had ignored the problem and left the priest where he was, that would be poor management. Management, in this case was very good. You may not like what they did but they were good at it. IMO, they showed that they were willing and able to do what it took to squash the issue. Poor management wouldn't have brought Cardinal Law to the Vatican. It was smart management to bring him there so he would soon be forgotten and hard to reach. You can call it poor management all day long but I call it a pattern of deceit. VASTLY different. One implies that they dropped the ball. The other says that they tried to cover it up. Further to that, they are still trying to silence the issue and hope it goes away by their effort to mitigate what they did. Of course, I could be wrong and the Pope has fired all concerned but I don't think so.

kerry · #28 12-24-2010, 02:51 PM

If my memory of Ratzinger's bio is correct, the remark goes back to an important turning point in his life. He was horrified by the student uprising in Paris in 1968 and thought it indicated a deplorable turning point in European culture. He left his teaching position at a university in a large German city and retreated to a rural school where traditional values still held some sway. This set him on a course in opposition to much of what has transpired in Western culture since them. Lots of Catholic thinkers sided with the students and tried to develop more liberating Christian theologies. When Ratzinger took over the Office for the Congregation of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition), he made it his job to silence these progressive forces within Catholic thought.
So it's not any big surprise when he attempts to pin pedophilia on the ethical changes of the 60's but who's buying the fact that pedophilia began in the Catholic Church after 1968.

aklim · #29 12-24-2010, 02:59 PM

What sort of "traditional values" are we talking about? Do those include telling the truth and doing the right thing no matter how inconvenient they are?

kerry · #30 12-24-2010, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

What sort of "traditional values" are we talking about? Do those include telling the truth and doing the right thing no matter how inconvenient they are?

The Church is infallible and its priest, bishops, cardinals and popes should always be respected and obeyed since they have divine sanction.