PDA

View Full Version : Pope Blames Child Abuse Scandal on Society


Nyarlathotep
12-21-2010, 01:22 AM
Pope Blames Child Abuse Scandal on Society

Benedict XVI Says Mistreatment of Children Frighteningly Common in Secular Society, Child Porn Considered Normal

VATICAN CITY, Dec. 20, 2010


(AP) Pope Benedict XVI told Vatican officials Monday that they must reflect on the church's culpability in its child sex-abuse scandal, but he also blamed a secular society in which he said the mistreatment of children was frighteningly common.

In his traditional, end-of-the-year speech to Vatican cardinals and bishops, Benedict said revelations of abuse in 2010 reached "an unimaginable dimension" that required the church to accept the "humiliation" as a call for renewal.

"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," the pope said.

Benedict also said, however, 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 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."

"The effects of such theories are evident today," he said.

The traditional Christmas speech to Vatican cardinals and bishops is an eagerly anticipated address that Benedict uses to focus the church hierarchy on key issues.

Benedict has previously acknowledged that the scandal was the result of sin that the church must repent for, and make amends with victims. He repeated Monday that the church must do a better job of screening out abusers and helping victims heal.

"It is fundamentally disturbing to watch a brilliant man so conveniently misdiagnose a horrific scandal," said Barbara Blaine, president of the main U.S. victims' group Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

She said the scandal wasn't caused by the 1970s but rather by the church's culture of secrecy and fixation with self-preservation in which predator priests and the bishops who moved them around rather than turn them in were rarely disciplined.

"Whenever the pope tires of talking about abuse and starts acting on abuse, he should focus on taking immediate, pratical steps to oust those who commit, ignore and conceal clergy sex crimes first," Blaine said.

The sex abuse scandal, which first exploded in the U.S. in 2002, erupted on a global scale this year with revelations of thousands of victims in Europe and beyond, of bishops who covered up for pedophile priests and of Vatican officials who turned a blind eye to the crimes for decades.

Questions were raised about how Benedict himself handled cases both as archbishop in Munich and as head of the Vatican office that handled abuse cases.

Recently, the Vatican released documentation showing that as early as 1988 then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sought to find quicker ways to permanently remove priests who raped and molested children in a bid to get around church law that made it difficult to defrock priests against their will.

While Ratzinger was unsuccessful then, Vatican rules now allow for fast-track defrocking. But victims advocates say the Vatican still has a long way to go in terms of requiring bishops to report sex crimes to police and release information and documentation about known pedophiles.

link,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/20/world/main7168168.shtml

Grunthos
12-21-2010, 02:47 AM
...and?

Dr. L
12-21-2010, 03:30 AM
Oh, you know that Society. Odd bloke. Not like you or me. Never gets any slack that one.

Tonus
12-21-2010, 02:40 PM
I'm not sure if that's more funny than sad or vice-versa. But it's definitely both funny and sad.

Purity
12-28-2010, 11:25 AM
Religion and especially Christianity are stupid in general, from getting all the power and money they could ever need, the real truth behind what fucked up and insecure people of faith is showing through and for once society chooses to not suck the Church's cock(pun intended)

Tonus
12-28-2010, 01:06 PM
Rage has made your message partly unintelligible. I'd be interested in reading exactly what you're trying to say (and why you feel the way you do about it), but I can't completely parse what you wrote.

Edmaster
12-29-2010, 02:22 AM
Yeah, all I read was "grrr christianity is stupid and full of evil money-grubbing pedos."

I don't know what's funnier, the fact that you blame Christianity as a whole rather than the people who profess the faith, or the fact that you think religion as a whole- a source of moral code and faith for literally billions of people- is stupid.

I'd love to see what support you have for those thoughts. Hopefully something with more substance than the typical teenage atheist agnst you just displayed.

Grunthos
01-02-2011, 11:10 PM
I know what's funnier... people pretending that society at large is any better than the average people who are involved in religion.

Such people are both ignorant of statistics, and ignorant of socety in general.

But then, nothing's quite so irritating than a person who attempts to profess to being a better person, and then fails, right?

Excepting maybe one who does so, and succeeds.

Daigoji Gai
01-04-2011, 07:57 PM
Rage has made your message partly unintelligible. I'd be interested in reading exactly what you're trying to say (and why you feel the way you do about it), but I can't completely parse what you wrote.

You remain my favorite for gems like this! :cookieomnomnom:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/510523/nbabigbaby_medium.gif

CyberKing
01-06-2011, 03:11 PM
Religion can be used in a good way but then you have some crazy ass motherfuckers that have to take it to the extreme and ruin it for everyone, and I think that's where Purity is coming from. People who would rather pray for a cure for their sick child instead of getting them medical care, and then the child dies.

NervousWreck
01-06-2011, 04:56 PM
People who would rather pray for a cure for their sick child instead of getting them medical care, and then the child dies.

That's not religion, that's head-in-the-sand-sin-of-inaction-borderline-murder. In my experience religious people who refuse medical care are the ones who -- if secular -- would bury their heads in the sand and pretend that nothing was wrong. Those who believe that personal prayer helps and are not batshit insane will pray and get their kid to a f*cking doctor. Next time you're in a cardiologists waiting room (hopefully on business, not as a patient) look around and notice how many people are praying quietly while they wait.

Tonus
01-06-2011, 05:04 PM
Stupid people exist independently of religion and religious beliefs and attitudes. The misuse of religion as a way to control people (or the use of, depending on your point of view) can be used as a knock against religion, but just as easily as a knock against humanity.

I've pointed it out before, but if there is no basis for belief in any religion, then religion itself is a purely human invention. And blaming "religion" for the ills of the world then becomes an exercise in denial, an attempt to cure the symptom instead of addressing the source of illness.

CyberKing
01-06-2011, 05:25 PM
You know it wouldn't hurt you guys to dumb down your posts a little so I don't have to haul out the dictionary to try and decipher it. I'm not Grunthos.

Anyways, I was more or less saying that those people who are crazy and practice a religion crazily give the whole religion a bad rap thanks to the media these days. I was mostly responding to Purity's post and how Edmaster got buttfrustrated over it.

Dr. L
01-06-2011, 07:18 PM
The only thing I would request of these debates is a greater effort for... civility. Trading jabs pile on red herrings and make things personal, rather than a matter of calm debate where someone may learn something if they're not distracted by having to defend their intelligence rather than their point. Humility in success.

I remember being taught that way in which I used to coined term "fat cats" regularly to define big businessmen, only to have it kindly pointed out to me that they're so fat because they're so busy doing stenuous intellectually challenging paperwork that they don't really have a whole lot of time for exercise. Purity's complaint about religion is a commonly used one, yes, but he was chased off without anything that may have been really useful to him.

Tonus
01-06-2011, 07:42 PM
My posts in this topic are genuine. I wasn't wagging a finger at Purity for his rant, I wanted clarification. I don't want to shut down discussion, but encourage it. Sometimes the best way to do that is to ask someone who made an angry reply to take a step back, collect his thoughts, and explain what he was thinking.

You are correct that this isn't the place for snarky or curt replies. I am hesitant to jump in and moderate this forum because my admin privileges are mainly for site maintenance when Mike is away and because I think we already have a good mod staff here. I wouldn't really want this forum to become too rigid, with mods hovering over people's shoulders and slowly draining the life out of the place.

As for dumbing my posts down (assuming Cyberking was referring to mine) I think my posts are pretty clear and not difficult to understand. I'm happy to clarify any point that anyone isn't sure about, but I don't want to try and make them "more accessible" because then it winds up sounding smug and condescending. Most of the younger members here are of high school and college age, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not talking above anyone's head here, but if I'm making a muddle of things I don't have any problem restating my points as needed.

Edmaster
01-07-2011, 01:02 AM
Maybe I shouldn't have been so blunt with my statements. Responding to the tone never really helps, you're right.

As for mods-hanging-over-members-shoulders, I'd like to think that's close to non-existent here, seeing as we've never banned anyone for just being a dumbass, and we tend to be very lenient with the rules (we have rules?).

Daigoji Gai
01-07-2011, 04:23 AM
Stupid people exist independently of religion and religious beliefs and attitudes. The misuse of religion as a way to control people (or the use of, depending on your point of view) can be used as a knock against religion, but just as easily as a knock against humanity.

I've pointed it out before, but if there is no basis for belief in any religion, then religion itself is a purely human invention. And blaming "religion" for the ills of the world then becomes an exercise in denial, an attempt to cure the symptom instead of addressing the source of illness.

This was actually beautiful for a number of reasons (e.g. role of religion and its unique role in the enslaved african experience of colonial america, in support of jim crowe and interestingly and almost ironically years later as a driver of the civil rights movement.

:smithshotgun:

Grunthos
01-08-2011, 12:25 AM
Religion can be used in a good way but then you have some crazy ass motherfuckers that have to take it to the extreme and ruin it for everyone, and I think that's where Purity is coming from.

This is solidly true... and not just about religion. Fact is, you can insert just about any human act or invention into your statement in the place of the word "religion," and the statement remains almost invariably true.

As Tonus said, religion is not the source of the problem. The problem does and always will lie with the "crazy-ass motherfuckers that have to take it to the extreme and ruin it for everyone."

(I'm not trying to delegitimize religion by the above; though God may well exist, the ways in which people approach that fact are all human acts or inventions.)

I'm not Grunthos.

I haven't given up on you yet; we'll get you there! :P

As for mods-hanging-over-members-shoulders, I'd like to think that's close to non-existent here, seeing as we've never banned anyone for just being a dumbass, and we tend to be very lenient with the rules (we have rules?).

They're more sort of 'guidelines.'

Such is how Miller has described his desires for the forum, or at least how I understood him. People are free to respond in kind or not, as suits them and how they wish to be seen. Within very wide limits.

Throwing a brick may or may not get you one on the return; it's up to the people responding. If you don't want bricks pegged at your head, don't throw any in the first place.

I personally prefer the Churchillian approach to insult; others' mileage will vary.