Pope thinks child buggery isn't so bad

[Rum]

And this appears to be true. It's worth noting as well that most of the "pedophiles" were not actually sexually attracted to children, they were actually homosexuals who were attracted to young men (teenagers, who are only nominally "children" when it comes to defining the term "pedophile" accurately) and came to the priesthood as a way to gain access to teenage boys. This is not to say that there were not true pedophiles who sought out pre-pubescent children of both sexes, or simple sex maniacs who used the position of trust to sexually abuse both teenage and adult women.

But the fact remains that as these things go, sexually abusing Catholic priests are in the relative minority when it comes to adult sex abuse of children of either sex. As the Pope points out in his 2010 message, all of society, worldwide, seems to be mired in the sexualization and sexual exploitation of children as demonstrated by sex trafficking of young women and men, child and teenage pornography and graphic sexualization of young persons in advertising, media, movies and television.

I think you are quite wrong in your assertion that the percentage of sexually-deviant priests in the Catholic church is higher than in the general population. The existence and scope of internet porn alone appears to debunk that claim.

It seems as though it's just a convenient fault common to all groups (the existence of pedophiles and predatory homosexuals) that's being spotlighted against Catholics as a part of a general attack on Catholicism and theism.

I always hesitate to enter into any exchange involving you Seth, but the fact that you seem to be able to separate harm to children in the way you do in the underlined bit above reminds me why I have such contempt for many of your positions.

I shan't make the same mistake again. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

[Hermit]

According to the pope, child buggery just ain't so bad.

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

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/12/13808/

facepalm

Where are we now?

*Seraph clicks on link*

Ah, yes. I see. Quotemine Central.

Onya, wingnut.


Not that the Pope's actual intent was much better. He basically added another item to the list in defence of the paedophiles among his clergy: They only did what four intellectuals of the 1970s allegedly said to be OK.

That's ridiculous. Did you read the ACTUAL papal address that I quoted (fully and accurately)? In what way does he add a "defense?"

Yes, I read that speech (and more) last year. I cannot see any other interpretation of this: "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." (My bolding.) By "contextualising" the "fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos" within his church with what was allegedly going on outside it in the very next paragraph, Ratzinger is basically downplaying the extent to which the clergy could be held responsible for its crimes. How could the Vatican's paedophiles and rapists be held fully accountable for them if it was just the Zeitgeist at large that rubbed off on them? That, to me, is an addition to the list in defence of the paedophiles among his clergy. OK, it does not go quite as far as blaming the victim, which his Bishop of Tenerife, Bernando Álvarez had the nerve to do three years earlier, and for which an apology, or at least an official retraction is yet to come out of Ratzinger's mouth or pen, but it is fucking cheeky enough on its own merit.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Next step for them is to equate pedophilia to homosexuality, "and that's okay these days, isn't it?"

[Saoirse]

Or to equate pedophilia with celibacy. A coworker commented that if the church let priests get married, then maybe they wouldn't be pedophiles. I think my friends who were molested by married men (aka their dads) would disagree.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Or to equate pedophilia with celibacy. A coworker commented that if the church let priests get married, then maybe they wouldn't be pedophiles. I think my friends who were molested by married men (aka their dads) would disagree.

[Seth]

And this appears to be true. It's worth noting as well that most of the "pedophiles" were not actually sexually attracted to children, they were actually homosexuals who were attracted to young men (teenagers, who are only nominally "children" when it comes to defining the term "pedophile" accurately) and came to the priesthood as a way to gain access to teenage boys. This is not to say that there were not true pedophiles who sought out pre-pubescent children of both sexes, or simple sex maniacs who used the position of trust to sexually abuse both teenage and adult women.

But the fact remains that as these things go, sexually abusing Catholic priests are in the relative minority when it comes to adult sex abuse of children of either sex. As the Pope points out in his 2010 message, all of society, worldwide, seems to be mired in the sexualization and sexual exploitation of children as demonstrated by sex trafficking of young women and men, child and teenage pornography and graphic sexualization of young persons in advertising, media, movies and television.

I think you are quite wrong in your assertion that the percentage of sexually-deviant priests in the Catholic church is higher than in the general population. The existence and scope of internet porn alone appears to debunk that claim.

It seems as though it's just a convenient fault common to all groups (the existence of pedophiles and predatory homosexuals) that's being spotlighted against Catholics as a part of a general attack on Catholicism and theism.

I always hesitate to enter into any exchange involving you Seth, but the fact that you seem to be able to separate harm to children in the way you do in the underlined bit above reminds me why I have such contempt for many of your positions.

I shan't make the same mistake again. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Why? Do you object to the statements of fact? I'm pointing out the fact that many of the priests involved were homosexual sexual criminals predating on teenage boys, not strictly pedophiles predating on pre-pubescent children. This does not ameliorate the crime one little bit because the boys were still vulnerable and under the age of consent, and the priests were abusing the position of trust they had to commit heinous crimes, which included blatant violations of church doctrine and policy. But it's important to be clear and accurate about who these criminals were and why they did what they did, rather than denying the truth presumably out of some misplaced sense of political correctness.

You seem to be objecting to my mentioning the fact that homosexual sexual predators exist, as if denying the fact will change it. You also seem to be implying that I should be "ashamed" to mention that there may be homosexual sexual predators about, as if condemnation of homosexual sexual predators is some moral outrage. It's not. I said nothing negative whatever about adult homosexual consensual partners, nor would I. But to deny that criminal homosexual sexual predators exist because of some misguided notion that it's politically incorrect to mention the fact that yes, there are homosexuals who are not harmless and unthreatening to young boys is exactly as sensible as telling pretty young teenage girls that there are no heterosexual sexual predators out there looking to take advantage of positions of trust, such as public school teachers (both men and women) and sexually assault them.

I'm very sorry if you are offended by the facts, but they remain the facts. Homosexuals are just people, and criminals exist among their population just as much as they exist among the heterosexual population, and there's nothing wrong with pointing this out.

Many of the priests involved in the sex abuse scandal were opportunistic homosexual sexual predators who joined the clergy specifically to gain access to young boys. They were facilitated in this plot by extremely lax screening, training and supervision by church officials who sometimes ignored or overlooked the crimes in a misguided and sometimes criminal attempt to cover up the crimes and protect the reputation of the church. That was, and remains wrong and evil, as the Pope says in his address, and those who actually committed those crimes should be punished. Unfortunately, the crimes mostly took place so long ago that it's impossible to give the accused a fair trial, which is why statutes of limitation exist in the law. That's very unfortunate, but it speaks to why anyone who is the victim of a crime should report it immediately if they expect justice to be done. Where sufficient evidence exists, and where the statute of limitations has not run, then I fully support criminal investigation and trial.

However, the point of the OP remains a false claim, and I see no reason not to point that out. It is not a fact, and in fact is a libelous lie to state that the Pope "thinks child buggery isn't so bad." That is the polar opposite of what he actually said.

[Seth]

Or to equate pedophilia with celibacy. A coworker commented that if the church let priests get married, then maybe they wouldn't be pedophiles. I think my friends who were molested by married men (aka their dads) would disagree.

Precisely correct. Criminal sexual predators come in many flavors. No group of humans is immune to having deviant sexual criminals among them.

[DaveD]

No group of humans is immune to having deviant sexual criminals among them.

Not many of them, however, have a powerful worldwide organisation covering up for them like Catholic priests do.

[Seth]

According to the pope, child buggery just ain't so bad.

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

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/12/13808/

facepalm

Where are we now?

*Seraph clicks on link*

Ah, yes. I see. Quotemine Central.

Onya, wingnut.


Not that the Pope's actual intent was much better. He basically added another item to the list in defence of the paedophiles among his clergy: They only did what four intellectuals of the 1970s allegedly said to be OK.

That's ridiculous. Did you read the ACTUAL papal address that I quoted (fully and accurately)? In what way does he add a "defense?"

Yes, I read that speech (and more) last year. I cannot see any other interpretation of this: "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." (My bolding.) By "contextualising" the "fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos" within his church with what was allegedly going on outside it in the very next paragraph, Ratzinger is basically downplaying the extent to which the clergy could be held responsible for its crimes. How could the Vatican's paedophiles and rapists be held fully accountable for them if it was just the Zeitgeist at large that rubbed off on them? That, to me, is an addition to the list in defence of the paedophiles among his clergy. OK, it does not go quite as far as blaming the victim, which his Bishop of Tenerife, Bernando Álvarez had the nerve to do three years earlier, and for which an apology, or at least an official retraction is yet to come out of Ratzinger's mouth or pen, but it is fucking cheeky enough on its own merit.

Except that's not what he was saying. That's just your interpretation of what he was saying through the lens of your own bias. What he was actually saying, and a rational person would recognize this, is that NOT ONLY was there a failure of sexual morality, supervision and oversight in the church, but ALL OF SOCIETY has likewise fallen down it its duty to protect children. He is exhorting the Bishops to do more to bring all the world out of the morass of sexual deviancy and immorality, not trying to excuse the crimes of priests.

Speaking of the descent of society into immorality, he said,

"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."

This is a plain statement of fact and a call to action for Catholics to help to turn the tide of immorality and situational sexual ethics throughout society. It is in no way an attempt to excuse the evils of the priests who harmed children, it is an expansion of the theme that rightfully and appropriately points out that it is not just the Catholic priesthood that must be scoured and cleaned of sin and immorality, but all of society, which like Babylon, has descended into rampant sexual immorality as regards children, and which must be changed and reformed through, as he believes, strengthening of the true Christian faith through the Catholic church; a faith that does NOT include child molesting as one of its tenets, precepts, beliefs or acceptable practices.

[Seth]

No group of humans is immune to having deviant sexual criminals among them.

Not many of them, however, have a powerful worldwide organisation covering up for them like Catholic priests do.

True enough. But so what? You are implying that the entire one billion Catholics are "covering up" for priests who are sexual predators, which is obviously not the case. Not even the entire hierarchy of the church itself is responsible for any covering up that was done. The church doesn't operate that way to begin with.

The Pope is the spiritual leader of the church, not the CEO or overall manager of the church. In the US, the church is run by the Bishops and Archbishops, who operate largely autonomously when it comes to the business end of the church. The Pope has little or no control over property owned by the church in America, most of which is owned by the Diocese or the parish itself. Nor does the Pope, or anyone in Rome, have intimate personal control over how the Bishops manage their priests, which makes it easy for a complicit Bishop or Archbishop (and there are some) to knowingly conceal, cover up and fail to report sexual crimes by priests.

I agree that such acts are wrong, and those who actually commit such acts of conspiracy should be criminally prosecuted, if the crimes are brought to light within the applicable statutory period, so that a fair trial can be had.

From the civil perspective, the church has been offering huge settlements to victims of abuse, settlements which have bankrupted several Archdiocese in places like Boston. But it seems like the only thing that will satisfy SNAP is dissolution of the entire Catholic church, and that's what many Atheists seem to want as well.

That's simply not going to ever happen, because no matter what, there are still a billion people who are members of the Church who will reconstitute it as an expression of their faith.

Legitimate claims will continue to be investigated and addressed by the church, and I suspect settlements will continue for verified cases, but at the same time not every claim is legitimate, and it's easy to claim abuse 50 years ago at the hands of a priest who is now dead, but not so easy to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. And it must be noted that where there is money, there will be false claims attempting to get at that money, and not every claim of abuse made against Catholic priests is axiomatically or inevitably true. There are opportunists out there who just want the money and are perfectly willing to lie to get it.

At some point, however, the claims will end and the settlements will cease, and then the church will go on with its ministry, with much better safeguards in place to prevent such things from happening again.

Will that satisfy you, or are you so bigoted against the church and religion in general that only the utter destruction of something that a billion people care deeply about and need in their lives will satisfy you? When, and under what circumstances will you ever be willing to say "the Catholic church has done its penance and compensated the victims and may now be forgiven for those past sins and crimes?" When will you be able to be tolerant of the religious rights and needs of the billion Catholics in the world, or are you their implacable and eternal enemy?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I love it that you're on the side of the pedos here, Seth.

[Seth]

Looks like more Seth trolling to me; the linked article in the Belfast Times says exactly what's quoted in the article in question. What Herr Ratzinger said is exactly as execrable as everyone says. I had no idea he'd said it and I think it's despicable, and ignores a bunch of little kids who got raped on his fucking watch.

Seth apparently thinks little kids should watch out for themselves with priests.

Well, I'm the new kid here so I wasn't going to say it...

And yes, I do have a personal issue with the Catholic church. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school for 12 years, and drank the kool aid for way too long. I completely own up to having a chip on my shoulder about the whole mess that was my religious upbringing.

I don't have any personal issue with it. I wasn't sexually abused as a child and in fact no religion, as far as I know, has directly and deliberately done me harm. It has, however, done such harm to people around me, and I don't question the harm done to a sexually abused child, nor the extra increment of harm done by a figure supposed to be trusted. It can leave a person unable to enjoy sex for the rest of their life, and unable to trust. It is a very serious problem.

Indeed. Sexual predation on children and young people (both homosexual and heterosexual) is a serious crime, but it's a crime committed by individuals, not organizations.

It infuriates me that the ones who defend the right of people to do stuff like this are the same ones who want to spend no money helping the people who were hurt.

Who, exactly, is "defending the right of people to do stuff like this?"

And you should be aware of the fact that the Catholic church has given out (and continues to give out) hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements with 4000 or so legitimate victims of sex abuse by priests. If you're not, you're too ignorant of the facts to be opining on the subject.

As evidenced by the typical "blame the victim" rhetoric.

What "blame the victim" rhetoric, specifically? Can you provide any quotes or citations of anyone in the Catholic church, from the Pope on down, who has "blamed the victims?" Or are you just blowing it out your ass again?

How fucking sorry is it that there is rhetoric of such a nature and character? I ask you all.

First, you'd have to prove there is such rhetoric and that you're not simply lying about it, then you'd have to be specific about WHO was making those claims so we can examine the context and content of the comments. Only then could we rationally decide whether you're just making ignorant ex-recto assertions or not. I'm certainly not going to take you at your word, since your word has proven in the past to be worthless.

[Svartalf]

Isn't Seth head of a NAMBLA chapter?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Isn't Seth head of a NAMBLA chapter?

From the rigorousness of his defense I suspect deep waters lie under the surface here.

[DaveD]

When, and under what circumstances will you ever be willing to say "the Catholic church has done its penance and compensated the victims...

When the bastards put a stop to the kiddy fiddling, cooperate with secular authorities whenever child abuse is suspected and stop trying to shift the blame away from themselves.

...and may now be forgiven for those past sins and crimes?"

That you think those "past sins and crimes" are deserving of forgiveness says a lot about you, none of it good, but I'd applaud genuine contrition.

When will you be able to be tolerant of the religious rights and needs of the billion Catholics in the world, or are you their implacable and eternal enemy?

When the religious show tolerance to those that disagree with them. The Catholic church doesn't have e very admirable record in this regard.
...and I've just noticed this nugget:

And you should be aware of the fact that the Catholic church has given out (and continues to give out) hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements with 4000 or so legitimate victims of sex abuse by priests.

Given out? More like "had taken from them".