Pope’s child porn 'normal' claim sparks outrage among victims

[Noir]

Totally unbelievable. Just stupidity beyond words.


Victims of clerical sex abuse have reacted furiously to Pope Benedict's claim yesterday that paedophilia wasn't considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered “normal” by society.

“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.”

“We cannot remain silent about the context of these times in which these events have come to light,” he said, citing the growth of child pornography “that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society” he said.
But outraged Dublin victim Andrew Madden last night insisted that child abuse was not considered normal in the company he kept.

Mr Madden accused the Pope of not knowing that child pornography was the viewing of images of children being sexually abused, and should be named as such. He said: “That is not normal. I don't know what company the Pope has been keeping for the past 50 years.”

Read the rest: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html#ixzz1ddA5Mh5F

T (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html#ixzz1ddA5Mh5F)here are no words.

[Gunny]

Totally unbelievable. Just stupidity beyond words.



Read the rest: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html#ixzz1ddA5Mh5F

T (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html#ixzz1ddA5Mh5F)here are no words.

Uh huh. You Euro-goobers have enabled this crap. Stop acting all weirded out when YOU are the one that ignores the shit til it hits the fan.

[jimnyc]

Totally unbelievable. Just stupidity beyond words.



Read the rest: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html#ixzz1ddA5Mh5F

T (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html#ixzz1ddA5Mh5F)here are no words.

Your source blows.


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.

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

[revelarts]

This Pope is one of the Catholic leaders that lead/handle the priest sexual abuse coverups and pedophiles moves to new feeding grounds for years before becoming Pope.
This guy is a sick SOB and the Catholic church is in deep stink with this guy as the head.

Look up his name and the child sex scandal you won't like what you find.

:puke:

[jimnyc]

This Pope is one of the Catholic leaders that lead/handle the priest sexual abuse coverups and pedophiles moves to new feeding grounds for years before becoming Pope.
This guy is a sick SOB and the Catholic church is in deep funk with this guy as the head.

Look up his name and the child sex scandal you won't like what you find.

:puke::puke3:

Looks like both of you like to believe anything without regard for facts and backup sources. This "story" was debunked quite a time back, just another shitty paper trying to change and have it appear as if the Pope stated the opposite of what he really said.

[Noir]

Your source blows.



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

The source does not 'blow' what the pope said (which is ridiculous beyond belief) was that at the time (40 years ago lol) it was considered somewhat normal but *now* we see it as more perverse. And that we should not look beyond the context of the time.

Now i obviously wasn't alive during the 1970's and earlier, but i have a funny feeling that those who where would not consider pedophile to of been any more normal and culturally accept that it is today, unless i'm under a great misapprehension.

[jimnyc]

The source does not 'blow' what the pope said (which is ridiculous beyond belief) was that at the time (40 years ago lol) it was considered somewhat normal but *now* we see it as more perverse. And that we should not look beyond the context of the time.

Now i obviously wasn't alive during the 1970's and earlier, but i have a funny feeling that those who where would not consider pedophile to of been any more normal and culturally accept that it is today, unless i'm under a great misapprehension.

I think you really need to click the link I provided and read it in it's appropriate context. It's not saying what you are stating. He said "theorized", and is explaining that this theory of others was wrong, and should be resisted. He's speaking out against it.

[jimnyc]

Btw - if the source is so solid, can you find the same coverage and interpretations from other mainstream outlets? All I've ever found on this was from that site as the originator, and the rest is on blogs.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">BBC news and ABC news, Court Docs obtained from the Church show...


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tpZz8Ps6u6M?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UK9b2O_Wdnc?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>


And if you can stand to see listen to this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyb-pV61zk&feature=related
and here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Byt3QSDlw&feature=related
with its disgusting admissions, and the policies Ratzinger lead and the amount of cover-up to the point of using Vatican ambassadorial status to obstruct legal prosecutions.


Sorry Jim this S#$! is hellish.

[revelarts]

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm
National Catholic Reporter
The Independent Newsweekly

Rome
A 1962 Vatican document ordering secrecy in cases of sexual misconduct by priests is not, according to canon lawyers, a "smoking gun" providing evidence of a cover-up of sex abuse orchestrated by Rome.
Civil attorneys handling lawsuits against the Catholic church have pointed to the document as evidence of obstruction of justice.
For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.
The 39-page document, titled in Latin Crimen Sollicitationis, was issued in March 1962 by the Holy Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). It established a procedure for canonical cases in which priests were accused of abusing the confessional to sexually proposition penitents. Four concluding paragraphs extend the procedure to the crimen pessimum, or "worst crime," meaning homosexual acts contrary to a priest's celibate commitment. The document was not designed to address sexual abuse of minors, but would include many such violations.
Paragraph 11 of the document stipulates that such cases are covered by the "secret of the Holy Office," today known as pontifical secrecy, the strictest form of secrecy in church law. Excommunication is prescribed for anyone who violates this secrecy.
The document was itself to be kept secret. Instructions on Page One direct that it be stored in the secret archives of each diocese, and that it not be published or commented upon. Msgr. Thomas Green, canon law expert at The Catholic University of America, told NCR Aug. 4 that unlike most church legislation, Crimen Sollicitationis was never published in the official Vatican bulletin Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
The document recently came to light because it was referenced in a footnote to a May 18, 2002, letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, to the bishops of the world regarding new procedures for sex abuse cases.
Boston attorney Carmen L. Durso sent a copy of the document July 28 to U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, arguing that it may prove the Catholic church has been obstructing justice....

[Abbey Marie]

There is nothing in the Pope's address cited in the OP that says the Pope condones or agrees with the "theory" that pedophilia is normal. To try to say so is to misconstrue his words to sensationalize.

[Noir]

There is nothing in the Pope's address cited in the OP that says the Pope condones or agrees with the "theory" that pedophilia is normal. To try to say so is to misconstrue his words to sensationalize.

What he said is it *was* more normal at the time.

The dumb founding quote is "“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said."

Tell me, during the 1970s did you -or your elders- theorize that pedophilia was something fully in conformity with man and children?

[jimnyc]

What he said is it *was* more normal at the time.

The dumb founding quote is "“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said."

Tell me, during the 1970s did you -or your elders- theorize that pedophilia was something fully in conformity with man and children?

WHO was he referring to when he said "theorized"? And secondly, WHAT did he state in the very next sentence - you know, the sentence that is omitted from the article you posted?

[ConHog]

So, do I have this right? Noir is trying to get us to believe that His Holiness (and I'm not Catholic, but respect to the Pope) has stated that he believes pedophilia is normal? Or that the Catholic Church at ANY time believed it was normal?

How ridiculous. And if true, then why has the Church been "hiding" pedophiles for years? IF the Church ever believed pedophilia was normal behavior, they certainly would have issued a decree of such and sicko priests wouldn't have had to have been raping little boys back behind the alter. They could have been doing it in front of the alter.

The Church certainly deserves criticism, or worse, for those cases where they protected such sickos (and I think we all agree that some of that DID happen?) but to say they allowed it because they thought it was normal behavior? I'm so sure.

[revelarts]

Concerning Noirs news Post, It seems Jim has a point. But my point is that Ratzingers ACTIONS make lie of whatever he writes or says against the issue. He has aided and abetted pedophilia by knowingly moving predator priest from parish to parish and covering up their crimes. Whether or not he SAYS he thinks child porn is normal or abnormal is neither here nor there compared to his actions. He's probably helped to create child porn.

[Abbey Marie]

What he said is it *was* more normal at the time.

The dumb founding quote is "“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said."

Tell me, during the 1970s did you -or your elders- theorize that pedophilia was something fully in conformity with man and children?

It's called context. Read the paragraph again, and see what it says.

[avatar4321]

Talk about the hack job. The quotes in context show that.

Seriously, is it really so difficult to look at what people are actually saying and trying to understand them before you accuse them of something incorrectly?

[revelarts]

The quotes does seem to be out of context but why would Catholics disregard, in this conversation, Pope Ratzinggers past and defend him on this point, where his words are taken out of context by an atheist, but not rise up in defense of the victims of serial pedophilia in the church condoned for years by Ratzingger?
This seems to me a classic mote in the eye compared to a beam.
Am I missing something?