Monday, December 27, 2010

Pope's statement - Paedophillia was acceptable in the 1970's - outrages victims

IrishCentral  December 22, 2010

Clerical abuse victims around the world have reacted in fury to Pope Benedict’s claim yesterday that as recently as the 1970s pedophilia wasn’t considered an “absolute evil”.

During his traditional Christmas address last Monday to cardinals and other religious officials in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also said that child pornography was 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.”[...]


  1. That sounds like Catholic talk for ""nisht geferlich."

  2. and if a "teshuva" had made this kind of statement? Well, sadly, there have been callous teshuvot, on various aspects of this crime.

  3. This is definitely less outrageous than what r' Pinchas Scheinberg (who is BTW Leib Tropper's rabbi) psak that sex with children but without penetration is not abuse.

  4. I've always wanted more details about this oft-repeated story/accusation of R' Scheinberg essentially whitewashing child sexual abuse. What, precisely, was that question that was posed to him? What was the lashon of the answer he gave?

    I'm just wondering if a conversation like this is what really happened:

    Questioner: If a man fondles a male child or uses the private body parts of said child to sexually gratify himself, is the man guilty of the aveirah of mishkav zachor?
    R' Scheinberg: As long as there is no penetration, he is not guilty of mishkav zachor.

    Then, some people who heard about this conversation reacted, "OMG, a Gadol b'Torah says abusing children is OK! How terrible!"

    I'm just speculating. But, without details of what he actually said, it's impossible to tell whether he said something totally pareve or something totally outrageous. Being dan l'chaf z'chus, I'm going to assume he said something totally pareve that was horribly misinterpreted until proven to me otherwise.

  5. This is consistent with the past attempts of Nazi sympathisers to push the idea of extreme relatavism. The deconstruction theory in english literature was also a philosophy of denying reality in favor of whatever you can argue is real.

  6. I'm just speculating. But, without details of what he actually said,
    Of course you are just speculating, Scheinberg gave his psak to families of children who were abused by Kolko. The family of Rabbi Avigdor Miller is still upset at him for that.

    Rabbi Miller had a beid din ready to investigate the allegations but after Scheinberg got involved the beis din got dissolved.

    See some information here

    When r' Scheinberg was asked about, he did not deny it, he said he does not remember.

    The real questions is why anybody would listen to someone who wears 70+ pairs of Tzitzis

  7. Justin,

    I could have done without the snark and the vinegar, but thanks for the info. I'll check out the linked article.

  8. I just did a search on Google for "scheinberg kolko" and came up with a bunch of relevant hits (thanks, Justin).

  9. Let's see here, I believe that condoms were looked down upon by the church in the 70's.

    Homosexuality was definitely a cardinal sin. I guess that it is ok if one does it with someone under aged.

    I hope that Hitchens succeeds in getting that dude arrested.

  10. Rabbi Avigdor Miller: Now there was a godol! (Even if I now disagree with some of his teachings.)


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.