Pope Emeritus Benedict - The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In various seminaries homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in the seminaries. In one seminary in southern Germany, candidates for the priesthood and candidates for the lay ministry of the pastoral specialist [Pastoralreferent] lived together. At the common meals, seminarians and pastoral specialists ate together, the married among the laymen sometimes accompanied by their wives and children, and on occasion by their girlfriends. The climate in this seminary could not provide support for preparation to the priestly vocation. The Holy See knew of such problems, without being informed precisely. As a first step, an Apostolic Visitation was arranged of seminaries in the United States.

As the criteria for the selection and appointment of bishops had also been changed after the Second Vatican Council, the relationship of bishops to their seminaries was very different, too. Above all, a criterion for the appointment of new bishops was now their “conciliarity,” which of course could be understood to mean rather different things.

Indeed, in many parts of the Church, conciliar attitudes were understood to mean having a critical or negative attitude towards the hitherto existing tradition, which was now to be replaced by a new, radically open relationship with the world. One bishop, who had previously been seminary rector, had arranged for the seminarians to be shown pornographic films, allegedly with the intention of thus making them resistant to behavior contrary to the faith.

There were — not only in the United States of America — individual bishops who rejected the Catholic tradition as a whole and sought to bring about a kind of new, modern “Catholicity” in their dioceses. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in not a few seminaries, students caught reading my books were considered unsuitable for the priesthood. My books were hidden away, like bad literature, and only read under the desk.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict has affirmed everything in the book “Goodbye, Good Men” by Michael S. Rose.
 
I have not read the letter, just the register’s summary. Lots to take in. I hope it is taken seriously. I think the Holy Father was wise in giving his blessing to it’s publication. I am sure that the msm will attempt to use it to show discord between the two men. But I suspect it’s publication is part of the Holy Father’s strategy, as Pope Emeritus can say things he would be strongly criticized for saying, yet the clergy of the Church and the laity will take it seriously.

Reading the string criticism of the article on The National Catholic Reporter is distressing, but confirms my hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that book was taken as either a) traditionalist propaganda or b) too alarming to accept as true for years. I admittedlly fell into the latter category. I was so wrong.
 
I’m having a hard time believing that His Holiness wrote this but I may be wrong. Regardless, to me the issue isn’t the Sexual Abuse that happened. Truth is that there is documented historical fact that there has been been sexual abuse and abuse in general (even though the definition has changed through out the years). My issue has always been how the Church handled the scandal. The reality is that anywhere there are children, there are going to be people trying to take advantage. It happens in schools, athletic and other youth oriented activities. While they aren’t always handled correctly by those organisations, there isn’t what appears to be a major cover up by the highest level of leadership. Of course it’s hard to compare the “Harper Valley School District” to the Holy Roman Church when it it comes to area of influence. I know what my reaction would be if I found my peewee football league hid even 1 “credible incidence of sexual abuse of a minor” by a coach let alone 100’s of “credible incidences”.
 
Do you mind elaborating? Not looking for an argument, just genuinely curious about what you are concerned about.
 
Last edited:
Simple answer: He has done a very good job at staying out of the spotlight…I just find it out of character for him to make such an “exclusive” statement. If it has been though common channels (Vatican Press Office) then it would be a different story for me. Again, not saying it not official, just taking it with a grain of salt considering what I’ve seen in the past.
 
That would be very hard to envision. If he did not write it, a denial would come really quick from both him and the Vatican. So why would one produce a forgery that is for certain to be denied by the alleged author almost immediately?
 
I think everyone should do themselves a favor and read the full text. After reading it, I have absolutely no doubt that Benedict wrote it. It’s got his signature style all over it.

There is so much to reflect on in this statement of his. I was particularly struck by his succinct encapsulation of the sex-abuse crisis:
Only where Faith no longer determines the actions of man are such offenses possible.
Click to expand...
Also this line:
we run the risk of becoming masters of faith instead of being renewed and mastered by the Faith.
Click to expand...
I’m going to be repeating this line many times.
 
Haven’t read the whole thing but did a search of the text and don’t find the word ‘clericalism’.
 
yankeesouth said:
Haven’t read the whole thing but did a search of the text and don’t find the word ‘clericalism’.
Click to expand...
😝 You are correct, that word is not in there. And he does mention the homosexual sub-cultures that cropped up in many seminaries in the decades following Vatican II. I imagine certain Catholic outlets are going to get a lot of mileage out of that.

His main point, though, seems to be about the loss of faith in God and in morality based on truth that has dominated the culture and even influenced priests and bishops.
 
tafan2 said:
Yes, that book was taken as either a) traditionalist propaganda or b) too alarming to accept as true for years.
Click to expand...
Really? I never heard of the book till I started reading this forum, but I had talked to various people who were in seminary in the 1970s and they said all the same stuff. This was years before Pope Francis was in the picture, they had no reason to lie. I am surprised anyone would not believe the crazy things that went on in seminaries in USA.
 
Reading some liberal sources today it seems criticizing popes is okay again. 🙂
 
The book was widely criticized when it was published on those exact lines. I actually started reading it at the time, do not believe I finished it. I thought the claims had to be highly exaggerated. I knew there were serious problems, but that devout men were actually being turned away for that reason, that homosexuality was actually encouraged in the seminaries, that theology was being taught that was so far off base, (a few of the types of things I remember from the book) I did not accept as widespread problems. Now, it was not until about 5 or 6 years later that I actually talked to a priest who had been a seminarian in the 80s about his experiences. So I had no personal knowledge.
 
yankeesouth said:
Haven’t read the whole thing but did a search of the text and don’t find the word ‘clericalism’.
Click to expand...
Yes, Pope Benedict thanks Pope Francis at the end, but he seems to contradict much of the company line that Pope Francis and his people have been using the last several years. Not only does he not blame the problem on clericalism anywhere in his letter, which is the go-to boogeyman from the Vatican these days, but he even brings up the topic of homosexuality in the seminaries, which was a forbidden topic at the recent abuse summit.

He also specifically talks about the recent trend, encouraged by Pope Francis, to give out the Eucharist like candy to everyone who wants it:
Let us consider this with regard to a central issue, the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Our handling of the Eucharist can only arouse concern. The Second Vatican Council was rightly focused on returning this sacrament of the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the Presence of His Person, of His Passion, Death and Resurrection, to the center of Christian life and the very existence of the Church. In part, this really has come about, and we should be most grateful to the Lord for it.

And yet a rather different attitude is prevalent. What predominates is not a new reverence for the presence of Christ’s death and resurrection, but a way of dealing with Him that destroys the greatness of the Mystery. The declining participation in the Sunday Eucharistic celebration shows how little we Christians of today still know about appreciating the greatness of the gift that consists in His Real Presence. The Eucharist is devalued into a mere ceremonial gesture when it is taken for granted that courtesy requires Him to be offered at family celebrations or on occasions such as weddings and funerals to all those invited for family reasons.

The way people often simply receive the Holy Sacrament in communion as a matter of course shows that many see communion as a purely ceremonial gesture. Therefore, when thinking about what action is required first and foremost, it is rather obvious that we do not need another Church of our own design. Rather, what is required first and foremost is the renewal of the Faith in the Reality of Jesus Christ given to us in the Blessed Sacrament.
Click to expand...
This is the exact opposite of what has occurred since Pope Francis’ election - there has been every attempt to loosen the guidelines on who can receive communion, from divorced and remarried Catholics, to Protestants in Germany who were given Vatican approval to proceed with their plans to give communion to mixed Catholic and Protestant couples.

This was a very interesting letter; I wonder if Pope Francis felt he couldn’t stymie Pope Benedict and allowed its publication even though it goes against so much of his philosophy.
 
I have great respect for Pope Benedict, but I find this letter profoundly disappointing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top