The Pope: 'It was the seventies.'

[pokerfan]

Everyone was doing it....

The Pope had a Christmas message for the world this year: we should forgive Catholic priests for raping children because everyone else was doing it. He invented a peculiar history that bears no resemblance to the late 20th century I lived in.

"In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children," the Pope said.

"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."

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/bbc_gives_child_rape_apologist.php

[Joanne98]

1. That's a LIE. It's been well documented that Priests were molesting children WAY before the 70's

The most dramatic and explicit condemnation of forbidden clergy sexual activity was the Book of Gomorrah of St. Peter Damian, completed in 1051. The author had been a Benedictine monk and was appointed archbishop and later cardinal by the reigning pope. Peter Damian was also a dedicated Church reformer who lived in a society wherein clerical decadence was not only widespread and publicly known, but generally accepted as the norm. His work, the circumstances that prompted it and the reaction of the reigning pope (Leo IX) are a prophetic reflection of the contemporary situation. He begins by singling out superiors who, prompted by excessive and misplaced piety, fail to exclude sodomites (chap. 2). He asserts that those given to “unclean acts” not be ordained or, if they are already ordained, be dismissed from Holy Orders (chap. 3). He holds special contempt for those who defile men or boys who come to them for confession (chap. 6). Likewise he condemns clerics who administer the sacrament of penance (confession) to their victims (chap. 7). The author also provides a refutation of the canonical sources used by offending clerics to justify their proclivities (chap. 11, 12). He also provides chapters which assess the damage done to the church by offending clerics (chap. 19, 20, 21). His final chapter is an appeal to the reigning pope (Leo IX) to take action.


The pope’s response, included in the cited edition, is an example of inaction similar to that of contemporary church leaders. Pope Leo praised Peter Damian and verified the truth of his findings and recommendations. Yet he considerably softened the reformer’s urging that decisive action be taken to root offenders from the ranks of the clergy. The pope decided to exclude only those who had offended repeatedly and over a long period of time. Although Peter Damian had paid significant attention to the impact of the offending clerics on their victims, the Pope made no mention of this but focused only on the sinfulness of the clerics and their need to repent.


The repeated violations of clerical celibacy were amply documented in the canonical collections of the medieval period. The most authoritative source is the Decree of Gratian already mentioned. Though mandatory celibacy had been decreed by the 2nd Lateran Council in 1139, this law was received with neither universal acceptance nor obedience. Medieval scholars attest that clerical concubinage was commonplace. Adultery, casual sex with unmarried women and homosexual relationships were rampant. Gratian devoted entire sections to disciplinary legislation which attempted to curb all of these vices. He demanded that the punishment for sexual transgressions be more severe for clerics than for lay men. His treatment of same-sex activities was less extensive than that of other celibacy violations, yet his attitude is evident because he cited the ancient Roman law opinion that stuprum pueri, the sexual violation of young boys, be punished by death.


From the 4th century to the end of the medieval period it is clear that violations of clerical celibacy were commonplace, expected by the laity and highly resistant to official disciplinary attempts to curb and eliminate them. Referring to concubinage for example, one noted scholar said:From the repeated strictures against clerical incontinence by provincial synods of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, one may surmise that celibacy remained a remote and only defectively realized ideal in the Latin West. In England, particularly in the north, concubinage continued to be customary; it was frequent in France, Spain and Norway.
Clerical sodomy continued to be a known problem though it did not attract as much legislative attention as clerical concubinage and this quite possibly because of the ongoing attempts to eliminate clergy marriages. The 4th Lateran Council (1215) repeated the previous council’s condemnation of celibacy violations. It added however a specific mention of homosexual sex by clerics and decreed that those found guilty of this transgression were either to be dismissed from the clerical state or confined to a monastery for life. The former amounted to social exile and the latter to imprisonment.


The documentation from the medieval period indicates that although homosexual liaisons were not uncommon among the secular or diocesan clergy, most celibacy violations involved heterosexual forms of abuse. Illicit sexual activity by the monks was another matter. Although concubinage and even illicit marriages occurred among the monks, the fact that they took vows of chastity precluding marriage and lived a common life theoretically isolated from women meant that their sexual outlets would be considerably restricted. The monks became known for the frequency of homosexual activity especially with young boys. Many monasteries passed local regulations in attempts to curb the rampant abuses. In his Rule, Benedict commanded that no two monks were to sleep in the same bed. Night lights were to be kept burning and the monks were to sleep clothed. Many monasteries enacted their own rules forbidding various kinds of sexual behavior and added punishments that were often more severe than those meted out to the secular clerics.


So common was clerical same-sex activity that some scholars have concluded that homosexual relationships were commonly associated with the clergy.


http://www.crusadeagainstclergyabuse.com/htm/AShortHistory.htm

[tekisui]

2. What a sick apologist fuck he is.

[hlthe2b]

5. +++

Good gawd... If there is a God, he needs a new representative on earth, IMO. This one is as foul as his early Nazi youth affiliation might have suggested.

[Kurovski]

17. I suggest the nuns and brothers who run hospitals and teach orphans.

I'm so goddam sick of the power elite heads of religions.

[Goblinmonger]

3. I am now leaning more to the pope being a pedophile

What he said in that speech sounds like the bullshit you would hear from NAMBLA.

What a fucking dickhead he is. How anyone gives him ANY fucking respect is beyond me.

[laconicsax]

38. It really does sound like he's making excuses for his own behavior.

Didn't Ratzinger become an Archbishop in the 70s?

[virgogal]

4. I had my 6 kids in the 60's and we were all aware of the sickos

out there.

The Pope must be losing his mind.

[Paper Roses]

6. Strange comment. Sick, actually. n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

7. There's gotta be some dirt on Pope Ratzo

Something tells me that he gave in to some rather worldly urges back in the '70s. I eagerly await the day that it gets revealed.

[liberal N proud]

8. Everyone else was doing it?

:wtf:

[backscatter712]

9. Kiddie-fiddling priests get a pass, yet a nun that saves a woman's life with an abortion...

gets excommunicated.

MAKES SENSE TO ME!!! :wtf:

[kanrok]

10. Did anybody bother to actually read his comments in context?

Or are you all just jumping on a comment made by a blogger?

I highly recommend reading the address itself.

For those interested: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20101220_curia-auguri_en.html

Somehow, I feel it won't make a whit of difference.

[backscatter712]

11. Took a look. Didn't make a difference.

Pope Maladict's at best in la-la land.

[kanrok]

14. At best you had 6 minutes to do so

Evelyn Wood graduate, I presume?

[backscatter712]

18. I'm a fast reader.

But I'll take another look...

Nope, still no difference. The Pope is still a douche.

[pokerfan]

12. I did

Somehow, I feel it won't make a whit of difference.

You're right. It didn't.

[kanrok]

13. Shocking.

n/t

[pokerfan]

16. I was alive during the seventies

and the sixties for that matter and despite the Pope's characterizations, believe it or not, child-rape has always been frowned upon.

Yeah, I know, Shocking.

[kanrok]

21. You're missing the point.

The theme of this thread is that Pope Benedict claims that "everyone was doing it" hence it was excusable for priest to do so.

I challenge anyone to point out where he said this.

[pokerfan]

25. It's society's fault

The Pope is deflecting.

“The Pope insists on talking about a vague ‘broader context' he can't control, while ignoring the clear ‘broader context' he can influence — the long-standing and unhealthy culture of a rigid, secretive, all-male Church hierarchy fixated on self-preservation at all costs. This is the ‘context’ that matters.”
- Barbara Blaine, the head of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests,

[kanrok]

26. Honestly, I fail to see how this answers my question

I am supportive of groups like SNAP since I believe all offenders, especially those in a position of power over their victims, be punished.

But this quote has absolutely nothing to do with my question to you.

Whether you consider the Pope's address to Vatican diplomats "deflecting" or not is not the issue.

The issue is that this thread presupposes that the Pope claims that priest committing these heinous acts did so "because everyone was doing it."

That is blatantly wrong.

And he happens to be right about what was going on in the 70's (at least in Germany, and across western Europe as well, with many so-called "intellectuals" supporting a ban on criminal penalties for pedophiles).

See this op-ed piece from the Independent:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-pope-is-right-on-views-of-paedophilia-in-1970s-2473118.html

[pokerfan]

29. No

"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."

He's saying that society was somehow more accepting of child rape in the 1970s. And to that, I call BS.

[kanrok]

49. I suggest you look into what Western Europe was doing

vis-a-vis child rape laws in the 70's.

Perhaps you will be the first to actually read this op-ed:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-pope-is-right-on-views-of-paedophilia-in-1970s-2473118.html

It is only your opinion that the Pope was "saying that society was somehow more accepting of child rape in the 1970s."

[pokerfan]

76. Sorry

but putting everything into some vague “broader context” of the 1970s makes any apology begrudging at best or a non-apology at worst. Since you seem to be a fan of handing out reading assignments, here are some for you:

http://www.livescience.com/culture/catholic-pope-blames-society-for-pedophile-priests-101221.html">Pope Blames 1970s Society for Pedophile Priests (LiveScience)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8214796/Pope-sex-abuse-scandal-humiliating-but-society-must-share-the-blame.html">Pope: sex abuse scandal 'humiliating' but society must share the blame (Telegraph)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/20/pope-catholic-church-child-abuse-scandal">Benedict XVI blames child abuse scandal on child pornography, sexual tourism and moral relativism of 1970s (Guardian)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/pope-spreads-blame-for-churchs-humiliating-record-on-child-abuse-by-priests-20101221-194fy.html?from=smh_sb">Pope spreads blame for church's humiliating record on child abuse by priests (Sydney Morning Herald)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/pope-links-sex-abuse-to-v_n_799369.html">Pope Links Sex Abuse To Vices (Huffington Post)

http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/pope-blames-secular-society-for-clergy-sexually-abusing-children">Pope blames secular society for clergy sexually abusing children (Examiner)

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/pope-muddies-waters-on-abuse-2468297.html">Pope muddies waters on abuse (Irish Independent)

[skepticscott]

30. Uh, no

This thread is claiming that the Pope is trying to excuse and minimize (not explain, that's YOUR presupposition) the crimes of priests against children by saying that pedophilia was widespread and widely accepted.

[kanrok]

32. I suggest you read the OP

Then tell me what this thread is trying to say.

In case you missed it, which certainly seems to be the case: "The Pope had a Christmas message for the world this year: we should forgive Catholic priests for raping children because everyone else was doing it. He invented a peculiar history that bears no resemblance to the late 20th century I lived in."

Followed by a dozen or so "me too" posts.

[skepticscott]

36. Which contention is fully borne out

by Ratzi's own words, which I posted. I missed nothing.

[LeftishBrit]

85. He isn't saying it's OK, you're right there...

BUT he is basically saying that it's really all the fault of these dreadful 70s liberal moral relativists corrupting society, and nothing to do with the church any more than anyone else.

And while there may have been individuals who defended paedophilia in the 70s as at any time, it was certainly NOT generally accepted. There are some types of sex offence (notably workplace sexual harrassment of women) that may have been treated more lightly then than now - but certainly not paedophilia.

[kanrok]

69. I don't know why I bother

But let's give it a whirl.

You agree with the basic premise of this thread, i.e., "we should forgive Catholic priests for raping children because everyone else was doing it."

Those are not my words. They are yours. More importantly, the Pope never uttered those words, nor can that theme be detected by any other than those who read it into his words.

So let's actually read what the Pope has to say about the child sex crisis:

"We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime."

Hmm...sounds like he's asking us all to forgive priests for raping children. But only if English is a second or third language.

Then, this line:

"And Christ’s wounds remain open because of the sins of priests. They tear my robe, since they are violators of the Law, the Gospel and their own priesthood; they darken my cloak by neglecting, in every way, the precepts which they are meant to uphold; my shoes too are blackened, since priests do not keep to the straight paths of justice, which are hard and rugged, or set good examples to those beneath them."

Yep, that sure sounds the same!

And here:

"We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again."

Wow. He's really trying to sweep this under the rug!

THEN, and only then, does he discuss the underpinnings of the crisis from his perspective. He talks about the factors that led to great numbers of priests being involved in these despicable acts. Not asking to ignore the problem, but to understand how it was that it could happen in his Church.

"In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations."

And on this point, he is absolutely correct.

Perhaps now you will take the time to read the op-ed piece I posted three other times in this thread: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-pope-is-right-on-views-of-paedophilia-in-1970s-2473118.html

[skepticscott]

73. Explain to me, please

how the "underpinnings" of the crisis matter one damn bit. Why does the scandal (i.e. the rape and sexual abuse of thousands of children by priests and the cover-ups and abetting of those crimes the church hierarchy) have to be put in any "context" AT ALL, if not to try to excuse and minimize those crimes? Why does Ratzi need to pretend that pedophilia was acceptable behavior in the 70's AT ALL? He could have stopped with just saying that the church and its representatives committed terrible evils, and are deeply sorry for them, and will do everything necessary to help the victims and keep this from every happening again, but he didn't. Why?

The rest of his speech is just a forced and fancy apology, made ONLY after the church could not longer cover up and deny its crimes. Of course he's not trying to sweep the scandal under the rug any more, but only because he can't, not because he wouldn't like to. He and his ilk tried for a long time to cover this up and silence victims, and ultimately failed, so now carefully crafted but insincere apologies are all they have left, along with despicable attempts to put child rape "in context".

And you're right..I don't know why you bother to defend such a contemptible human being as the pope, either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. Where does "in this year...we came to know of the abuse of minors" come from?

The widespread abuse of children by Catholic priests has been known about for years, and covered up by bishops such as Ratzinger for years before that too. He's denying basic facts.

If Ratzinger was saying that the Catholic church in the 70s took its moral direction from Cohn-Bendit, or others on the far left like him, then not only is he full of shit, he thinks we're so gullible we'll believe any old crap he spews. And neither does it explain, in any way, the child rape by Catholic priests in the 60s, 50 etc. It would be more believable that the few European lefties in the 70s who sought to legitimise child sexual abuse did so taking their cue from the Catholic church. You know, because the church was doing it before the 70s. Unless there's a time machine involved.

Trying to put the blame for generations of priestly abuse on a few European leftists in the 70s is so fucking outrageous, it should encourage good Catholics to leave the church until it chucks out rape apologists like Benedict.

[skepticscott]

88. You shouldn't hold your breath

waiting for a substantive response from our friend here. He's already showing a rare talent for avoiding such things, worthy of the best apologism the board has to offer.

[laconicsax]

39. "Broader context" Now where have I heard that excuse before?

[Goblinmonger]

20. So you are happier with the overarching message that secular society

is why there are so many shitheads in the world?

The pope can fuck himself for his apologist and, imho, pedophilic "normality" statements.
The pope can also fuck himself for daring to say that this is a crime that reflects on secular society and for not taking any real responsibility.

What do you think was so compelling in that shit stew of a speech? I'm interested.

[kanrok]

24. What I find compelling

Is the sheep mentality in this thread.

The theme of this thread is that Pope Benedict claims that "everyone was doing it" in relation to pedophilia, hence it was excusable for priest to do so.

I challenge anyone to point out where he said this.

[Angry Dragon]

22. I did read it

He was a prime hider of pedophiles when he was the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: 1981–2005
Where he threatened to excommunicate anyone that gave information on pedophiles within the church

He talks about nothing is all good or all bad, yet he condemns gays as evil and immoral.
Does this mean that the Devil is okay at times??
Birth control is not all evil??

No time for the man...sorry

[kanrok]

23. Again, let's try to stay on topic

The theme of this thread is that Pope Benedict claims that "everyone was doing it" hence it was excusable for priest to do so.

I challenge anyone to point out where he said this.

[skepticscott]

27. Well if you read the following

that's pretty much the theme that's being communicated. An attempt to excuse and defend pedophilia and child rape by priests on account of it being widespread and accepted as normal and not something to be condemned or judged harshly. If you going to quibble about an exact quote, fine, but that's clearly the idea.


Benedict said that the scandal must be seen in a broader social context, in which child pornography is seemingly considered normal by society and drug use and sexual tourism are on the rise.

"The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times," Benedict said.
He said that as recently as as the 1970s, pedophilia wasn't considered an absolute evil but rather part of a spectrum of behaviors that people refused to judge in the name of tolerance and relativism.

As an avalanche of cases of pedophile priests came to light, church officials frequently defended their previous practice of putting abusers in therapy, not jail, by saying that was the norm in society at the time. Only this year did the Vatican post on its website unofficial guidelines for bishops to report pedophile priests to police if local laws require it.

"In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children," the pope said. "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."

[kanrok]

33. You cannot seriously contend

that the Pope was attempting to defend and excuse child rape by priests.

That is absurd.

I recommend you read the op-ed I posted above.

[skepticscott]

34. You mean the same Ratzinger

that helped support the movement of rapist priests to new parishes where they could rape more children, and who encouraged the coverup of sex crimes by priests, so that they would never come to light?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5392338.stm (and MANY, MANY others...don't make me embarrass you).

Yes, that is exactly what I'm contending, and the evidence for it is overwhelming. It is you, it seems, who is unconcerned about being taken seriously.

Perhaps you'd care to give your own rational interpretation of the statements I quoted above?

[kanrok]

48. You seem adamantly opposed to staying on topic

Let me make it easy for you.

Do you agree or disagree with the OP when he said the following:

"The Pope had a Christmas message for the world this year: we should forgive Catholic priests for raping children because everyone else was doing it. He invented a peculiar history that bears no resemblance to the late 20th century I lived in."

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[skepticscott]

52. I was responding directly and specifically to your post 33

If YOU were off topic and trying to deflect things with that post, fess up.

As far as your question, the answer is yes. For reasons I and others have laid out at length, and which you have done nothing to refute but engage in lame hand-waving.

[kanrok]

55. That's all I need to know about your opinion

You know, hate is rarely rational.

[skepticscott]

71. Hate and contempt for child rapists

and those who abet and protect them so that they can rape more children is, however. Except in your world, apparently, where excusing and apologizing for child rapists is the rational position.

Nice try.

[kanrok]

74. You seem to be filled with hatred

Must be tough to be you.

I'm an ex-prosecutor, and I prosecuted many child sex offenders.

Even some who killed children.

Based upon your obvious hatred of these crimes, I suspect you spend a great deal of your time helping victims, or doing something constructive in helping catch their offenders?

Or do you just like to bitch and moan about it on a goofy political site?

Are you just as vehemently opposed to those who commit these crimes in say, the NYC school system, where they average one assault a day, or do you just save your contempt for the Catholic faith?

Enquiring minds need to know!

[skepticscott]

75. What were you saying over and over and over

about staying on topic? Nice try at trying to make this about me, and not the Catholic Church. But fail. Again.

And tell me, do teachers and administrators rape a child every day in the NYC school system? And when they do, does the school administration cover up the crimes, silence the victims, and shield the perpetrators from punishment by sending them to therapy run by the school system, instead of to the police, and then to other schools where they can victimize someone else? And does the NYC school system do all this while at the same time trying to claim the moral authority to dictate to the whole world how they should behave?. Please, I'm sure the whole board would love to see your documentation for all of this. If you don't have it, toss your POS analogy in the toilet where it belongs.

[kanrok]

77. You answered my question

I get it now.

All you do is bitch and moan.

You should get another hobby.

One that doesn't cause you agita.

Perhaps something that actually helps the victims of these crimes.

[skepticscott]

81. And as expected

you ducked mine again, and tried to make this about me and not the RCC. You're going to fit in well here, as long as you don't mind getting your ass handed to you on a daily basis. Can't imagine how you lasted in court floating this kind of BS, though.

But please don't delude yourself that you know me or anything about what I do away from this board. I know you'd like to attribute things to me that you have no idea about, since you certainly can't find any measure of satisfaction in your factual arguments here, but you'll just have to live without that.

[kanrok]

82. Yawn

You are projecting.

If your logic in this thread is any indication of the status quo, I have better things to do with my life than listen to your faux moral indignation.

Have a great life.

I guess I'll just have to live without knowing all that you do to help the victims of child sexual abuse.

But, significantly, your response here speaks volumes.

Enough said.

[skepticscott]

87. It is your lack of responses that speaks loudest

You've conspicuously avoided answering direct questions that I posed in posts 73 and 75 above, and consistently tried to direct the discussion into other channels, including my personal life (which could hardly be more irrelevant to the OP, the topic you've ragged on everyone to stick to).

And yes, you are becoming tiresome.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

89. "Faux moral indignation" ????

Are. You. Fucking. Kidding. Me???

We're talking about child RAPE here, and you want to accuse others of fake indignation as if we don't care about what's happened to these poor kids? If you want to shovel apologetics shit around the R&T forum, be my guest. You'll get your ass handed to you early and often. But DON'T come here accusing posters of faking outrage when it is real and intense. If you don't like the outrage, tough shit.

When priests stop diddling little kids and the catholic church stops covering it up, our outrage will be quelled. Until then, YES, we will be indignant with the acts of horrific child abuse perpetrated by catholic priests and the cover-up/rationalizations from assholes like ratzinger. THAT'S what this thread is about.

[skepticscott]

90. Thank you

Our friend was getting too tiresome for me to respond to every bit of nonsense he was spewing, but I'm glad someone else picked up the ball.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Explain Cardinal Law to me.

Then, if you can somehow do a song-and-dance about why that fucker was able to get away with what he did and now have a position of even greater power in the Vatican, we'll move on to the next son-of-a-bitch pedophile that Ratzy protected. It's a long list, so get ready.

[kanrok]

47. No need to explain Law to you

You seem to have all the answers.

I don't apologize for rape.

You seem to be stuck on it though.

Read the John Jay Study so you can understand what the Bishops are doing in the US (and have done) to address this scourge.

Now, perhaps we can get back to the topic at hand?

[laconicsax]

61. You're right--child rape is no big deal. Goblinmonger is just stuck on it for some reason.

Come into a thread, defend evil, then insist that anyone who disagrees is getting off-topic.

Carry on, I'm enjoying this.

[kanrok]

63. Of course you are

You have an agenda, and you're sticking to it.

Keep up the good work.

I particularly love the "defending evil" line.

ROFL.

[laconicsax]

64. Now who's off topic? n/t

[kanrok]

65. You are, of course.

I am merely responding to one of your useless posts in this thread.

[laconicsax]

67. And in turn, staying off-topic yourself. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

84. Nice dodge of the issue

You tell me that Ratzy hasn't been a part of this and when I ask for the first, most obvious, explanation of his actions, you tell me it isn't the point.

[Angry Dragon]

28. What skepticscott said

[cleanhippie]

51. So what IS that context, then? PLease explain what he was trying to say.

[Odin2005]

15. The Polanski excuse?

:eyes:

[MichiganVote]

19. That is such bullshit and he knows it. Another lie they tell themselves.

[rug]

31. This thread is a carnival.

"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."

Here is the complete text.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm

[skepticscott]

35. So what exactly was Ratzi's purpose

in giving this speech, if NOT to try to minimize and excuse the rape of children by priests and the protection and enabling of those priests by the Catholic hierarchy?

[rug]

37. He is far from minimizing or excusing it.

To the contrary, he condemns it while acknowledging the Church is no less immune to it and no less responsible than society at large.

"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 of freedom which actually undermines man’s freedom and ultimately destroys it."

This statement is a continuation of the moral theology regarding the objectification of sex that Paul VI enunciated in Humanae Vitae.

Agree or disagree with the theology, it's intellectually dishonest to misstate it as Myers has, once again.

[laconicsax]

40. It's the same old excuse.

He's just repeating the tired old 'everyone else was doing it, why are you focusing on us?' bullshit.

[rug]

41. Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying.

[laconicsax]

42. I'm glad you agree. n/t

[trotsky]

43. "neither can we remain silent...

...regarding the context of these times in which these events have come to light"

What a total bullshit weasel thing to say. The "times in which these events have come to light"? How about the times in which your priests were raping children? That goes way, way back PAST the 70s, PAST the 20th century, PAST who knows when the fuck with YOUR CHURCH protecting the pedophiles every single time, ol' Ratzi.

"The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times."

Sign of the times? What the fuck alternate reality does this old idiot inhabit? How about we go back to the turn of the 20th century and earlier when child labor laws were non-existent? Talk about articles of merchandise! Keep going back in time - you won't find an era where most children were as treasured and protected as they are today.

He is making excuses and shifting the blame, just as the church has ALWAYS done, as they throw out a "Oh what these lone bad apples did was terrible" non-apology.

The Catholic Church has absolutely NO moral authority. It is so sad that many caring people continue to support such a rotten, destructive, anti-progressive institution with their time and money.

[rug]

44. "you won't find an era where most children were as treasured and protected as they are today."

Step back and look at what's happening around the world. Lip service aside, I don't think that's true.

As to "the context of these times", it's a matter of cold objectivity, not histrionics. If there was a marked increase in abuse during those times, he might have a point. If there wasn't, he doesn't.

BTW, if you keep stating "your" priests and "YOUR" church, you and I are going to have an entirely personal conversation.

[trotsky]

45. No, I suggest you step back and look at the world today as compared to the past.

All the WORST of today - the child soldiers, laborers, etc. - was not only around since society began but was also far more the rule than the exception. And to top it off, it was often sanctioned by the same church decrying the "evil" secular world now - the same secular world that brought us things like enlistment ages and child labor laws. Fuck the pope.

As to "the context of these times", it's a matter of cold objectivity, not histrionics.

No, he is expressly referring to "these times" in which the child rapists were outed and their protectors shamed. Or are you denying that priests were raping children long, long before "these times" began?

BTW, if you keep stating "your" priests and "YOUR" church, you and I are going to have an entirely personal conversation.

Then perhaps you should learn to read a bit more carefully, as it is clear from the end of that paragraph I am "speaking" to Joseph Ratzinger. "Ratzi." I know better than to expect an apology from you for your misunderstanding, but I'd still LOVE to have a personal conversation about your support of the institution that enables all these corrupt old morally bankrupt bastards.

[kanrok]

50. Well stated

Rational and logical.

[darkstar3]

53. Really?

"no less immune to it and no less responsible than society at large."

Sounds like "why are you focusing on us" to me.

[trotsky]

54. Yep - that's what a lot of the apologists seem to forget.

This organization promotes itself as morally superior to the rest of us. They enjoy privileges well above and beyond that of other religions (diplomatic status, etc.) and meddle in the governments of countries around the world to promote THEIR morality over everyone else's.

The best the pope and his defenders can do is say, "Well, we were no worse than society in general." A fine stance indeed for the global institution trying to forcibly apply their morality to the world.

[rug]

56. What it sounds like to you, for whatever subjective reason, is not what it says.

[darkstar3]

57. You're the one who said

"no less immune to it and no less responsible than society at large."

That says nothing more than "don't focus on us." Would you like to revise your opinion of what the Poke said now?

[rug]

58. Correct. And you translated it to "don't focus on us."

Happy New Year. I think I'll start my resolution now.

[darkstar3]

59. Would you have preferred this:

"It's not my fault that I'm so evil. It's society. Society!"

How would you expect people to take your deflection of blame to society at large?

[rug]

60. Spin it in your own time. The words are perfectly clear.

BTW, my New Year's resolution is to heed the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes:

"Controversy equalizes fools and wise men - and the fools know it."

[darkstar3]

62. Then here's hoping for a refreshing change from this pattern of controversy...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x265792
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x265441
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x264223

[kanrok]

66. You might want to visit other topic forums if you want to avoid theology

Considering this is the Religion/Theology fourm.

Just a suggestion.

[darkstar3]

68. You might want to understand the conversations of other people before jumping in yourself.

Of course that's just a suggestion.

[kanrok]

70. Given the tenor of your posts

I think I understand completely!

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Have a great day!

[darkstar3]

72. If you think I want to avoid theological discussions, you understand nothing of what happened here.

[kanrok]

78. I don't think you avoid theological discussions

I think you are pathologically incapable of avoiding them.

[darkstar3]

79. A change of your tone from #66.

I don't think you are interested in actually involving yourself in these discussions. Rather, I think you are interested in defending a single myopic point of view, and you read only what is necessary to help you do so. That would explain quite well why you thought originally that I would wish to avoid theological discussions, and why you defend to the hilt the idea that the Pope wasn't deflecting when he said what he did on Christmas.

[kanrok]

80. The theory you espouse

is patently absurd.

And quite defensive.

Fascinating.

[darkstar3]

83. Your word choice would benefit from higher understanding.

Specifically I'm talking about your usage of the words "theory", "patently", and "absurd".

Also, your usage of "defensive" is quite projective.

Now, seeing as how this conversation has devolved into nothingness and rug himself is nowhere to be found, goodbye.