Ex-pope blames abuse scandal on 60's sex revolution

[redheadbaker]

thehill.com/homenews/438413-sexual-revolution-of-1960s-led-to-church-abuse-crisis-ex-pope-says

Ex-Pope Benedict blames church abuse scandal on sexual revolution of 1960s

Former Pope Benedict XVI penned a lengthy letter that blames the "all-out sexual freedom" of the 1960s for ongoing scandals involving sexual abuse by priests.

Benedict, who resigned as pope in 2013, argued in a column translated for the National Catholic Register that social upheaval in the 1960s led to wider acceptance of pedophilia.

He wrote that "the question of pedophilia ... did not become acute until the second half of the 1980s" and arose because of "the absence of God."

"Among the freedoms that the Revolution of 1968 sought to fight for was this all-out sexual freedom, one which no longer conceded any norms," he wrote.

"Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of ’68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate," he added later.

Benedict, who will turn 92 next week, further claimed that concurrent with the sexual revolution, Catholic theology saw a “collapse that rendered the Church defenseless against these changes in society.”

In the essay, he blames the Second Vatican Council, which introduced various reforms to Catholic theology, for a “far-reaching breakdown” of traditional priesthood culture and claims it led to the establishment of “homosexual cliques” in seminaries.

“It could be said that in the 20 years from 1960 to 1980, the previously normative standards regarding sexuality collapsed entirely, and a new normalcy arose that has by now been the subject of laborious attempts at disruption,” he wrote.

[Jalapeñomel]

Totally believable that sex abuse never happened before the 60s. Right. Sure. Whatever let's you sleep at night.

[Pom]

I read this and almost screamed. Personal responsibility is all the rage until conservatives and "religious" criminals should be held responsible. Sounds right.

Oh and one more thing, fuck you.

[ESF]

This is so fucked up on so many levels. The sexual revolution normalized child sex? Are you fucking kidding me with this shit?

I know we just had this discussion, but people, stop supporting this organization. My god.

[ESF]

Their excuse for facilitating decades of child rape is literally "the feminists made us do it."

[eclaires]

Benedict is trash and if he’d stayed Pope I would have stayed gone. Now I’m still going but it took longer. I left partially because of him but was encouraged with Pope Francis.

Anyway I remember how people like 2V loved this asshole.

Finally, shutting up is free and always an option, Pope Asshole.

[wambam]

I still want to know why he quit. It's not any of my business because I'm not even catholic - I'm just super curious.

[sugarbear]

STFU, Benny.
Go sit in the corner.

[penguingrrl]

He’s such a fucking asshole. His election is why H and I left the church and never looked back. And every time I turn around I’m further convinced that was the right move.

[5thofjuly]

Apr 11, 2019 12:22:16 GMT -5 wambam said:

I still want to know why he quit. It's not any of my business because I'm not even catholic - I'm just super curious.

Given what he wrote here, I have a pretty good guess...

[waverly]

I thought he was forced out because of the pedophilia scandals and the fact he didn't do enough to stop it/ help them. It sounds like he was not helpful, but yeah it's been going on most likely well before he was pope. Well before the 60's.

[krystee]

I really cannot stand this man.

[katieinthecity]

"rendered the Church defenseless"? And here I thought God was on their side. 

[isabel]

Apr 11, 2019 12:22:16 GMT -5 wambam said:

I still want to know why he quit. It's not any of my business because I'm not even catholic - I'm just super curious.

Based on this, I'm going to guess he is a child rapist and someone forced him out.

What a fucking monster for defending and qualifying this.

[eclaires]

I’m pretty sure he has some serious health issues but I’m also here for any terrible conspiracy theories because I despise him.

[cville]

So, not only does he look like Emperor Palpatine, he is also an aging, revolting despot entirely out of touch with reality.

[cattledogkisses]

Apr 11, 2019 12:22:16 GMT -5 wambam said:

I still want to know why he quit. It's not any of my business because I'm not even catholic - I'm just super curious.

I thought that the popular theory at the time was that he had dementia, but I guess not if he's still penning garbage like this 6 years later.

[VillainV]

Anyone who doesn't think sex about in the Catholic Church has been going on for thousands of years is seriously deluding themselves.

[cville]

Also, an extra fuck this guy for purposefully conflating homosexuality and pedophilia. NOT THE SAME, DICKWAD.

[fryjack2]

Do I care about what a 92 year old delusional pedophile apologist says? Nope.

Move along, old man.

[aurora]

He was one of my reasons for realizing I was no longer Catholic. I still feel justified.

[aliciabella]

Apr 11, 2019 12:22:16 GMT -5 wambam said:

I still want to know why he quit. It's not any of my business because I'm not even catholic - I'm just super curious.

If we are still alive 75 years after he dies we may just know, lol.

Fuck him.

[livinitup]

From Fr. James Martin, SJ Facebook page, April 11th.

m.facebook.com/FrJamesMartin/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0


Father James Martin, SJ
Dear friends: I have the greatest respect for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, especially as a theologian. However, I disagree with most of his analysis of the sex abuse crisis, which he addressed today in a letter released to Catholic News Agency and other media outlets. Blaming it on poor theology and the sexual mores of the 1960s dramatically misses the mark.

First, Pope Benedict casts the sexual abuse crisis primarily as a theological problem, blaming progressive theology after the Second Vatican Council, as if what was needed to combat abuse was an acceptance of the correct theology. Thus, it was largely a problem of orthodoxy. But that misses the mark. One of the worst offenders was Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, a priest who promoted through his religious order the most “orthodox” theology one could imagine. He was also a serial abuser and a rapist.

Second, Benedict casts abuse as essentially a problem of "morals." Now, pedophilia is obviously immoral, but it is also a disease. One reason it persisted for so long in the Catholic Church was because it seen as primarily a moral problem. Thus, after “Father” had recognized that he had done wrong, we could move on. But it is not simply immoral. It is, far more fundamentally, a serious illness, a profound psychological problem. Simply admitting one’s moral wrongdoing is insufficient.

Benedict’s suggestion that abuse was somehow acceptable by church leaders because of lax 1960s morals also strains credulity. It’s doubtful anyone "approved" of it morally. Rather, bishops responded to sex abuse in sinful and criminal ways: neglecting it, covering it up, moving around priests.

Also, the idea that the sexual mores of the 1960s were to blame (a common refrain in many of Pope Benedict’s earlier writings) neglects the fact that sex abuse happened in the church during the 1940s and 1950s, and far earlier. People had sex outside of marriage and molested children in the supposedly wholesome 40s and 50s; and many of the priests who abused did so decades before the late 60s, when presumably the cultural infection was peaking and were educated and formed as priests long before that.

Finally, it blames the sex abuse crisis largely on the culture, not the church. It focuses on the outside rather than the inside, failing to look at the deep structural flaws and sins within the church (specifically, a clericalism that privileged the word of the priest over the victim).

This was a disappointing analysis from a brilliant theologian. For a more thorough analysis, consult the John Jay Report, which still offers the most comprehensive examination of the root causes of the sex abuse crisis.

[atexan]

Apr 13, 2019 9:05:30 GMT -5 livinitup said:

From Fr. James Martin, SJ Facebook page, April 11th.

m.facebook.com/FrJamesMartin/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0


Father James Martin, SJ
Dear friends: I have the greatest respect for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, especially as a theologian. However, I disagree with most of his analysis of the sex abuse crisis, which he addressed today in a letter released to Catholic News Agency and other media outlets. Blaming it on poor theology and the sexual mores of the 1960s dramatically misses the mark.

First, Pope Benedict casts the sexual abuse crisis primarily as a theological problem, blaming progressive theology after the Second Vatican Council, as if what was needed to combat abuse was an acceptance of the correct theology. Thus, it was largely a problem of orthodoxy. But that misses the mark. One of the worst offenders was Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, a priest who promoted through his religious order the most “orthodox” theology one could imagine. He was also a serial abuser and a rapist.

Second, Benedict casts abuse as essentially a problem of "morals." Now, pedophilia is obviously immoral, but it is also a disease. One reason it persisted for so long in the Catholic Church was because it seen as primarily a moral problem. Thus, after “Father” had recognized that he had done wrong, we could move on. But it is not simply immoral. It is, far more fundamentally, a serious illness, a profound psychological problem. Simply admitting one’s moral wrongdoing is insufficient.

Benedict’s suggestion that abuse was somehow acceptable by church leaders because of lax 1960s morals also strains credulity. It’s doubtful anyone "approved" of it morally. Rather, bishops responded to sex abuse in sinful and criminal ways: neglecting it, covering it up, moving around priests.

Also, the idea that the sexual mores of the 1960s were to blame (a common refrain in many of Pope Benedict’s earlier writings) neglects the fact that sex abuse happened in the church during the 1940s and 1950s, and far earlier. People had sex outside of marriage and molested children in the supposedly wholesome 40s and 50s; and many of the priests who abused did so decades before the late 60s, when presumably the cultural infection was peaking and were educated and formed as priests long before that.

Finally, it blames the sex abuse crisis largely on the culture, not the church. It focuses on the outside rather than the inside, failing to look at the deep structural flaws and sins within the church (specifically, a clericalism that privileged the word of the priest over the victim).

This was a disappointing analysis from a brilliant theologian. For a more thorough analysis, consult the John Jay Report, which still offers the most comprehensive examination of the root causes of the sex abuse crisis.

I love Father James. Can he be Pope?

[t]

Fr. Martin is one of the only reasons I still identify as Catholic these days. I know in my heart this is what priests are supposed to be like, after reading his words and going to a Jesuit university with priests like him. I wish Jesuit parishes existed more than they do. Then maybe I’d go back to church.