It feels like the Pope's is opportunistic to excuse sexual crimes by downplaying sins of the flesh

[Anonymous]

Nope nothing to do with child abuse scandals. Paving the way for acceptance of the well known homosexual tendencies of the jesuits (the deep church) who are running the Vatican

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope nothing to do with child abuse scandals. Paving the way for acceptance of the well known homosexual tendencies of the jesuits (the deep church) who are running the Vatican

It is well documented that the homosexuals in the church were the ones in the majority committing the child abuse scandals. Not all but the majority of the population his not homosexual so compared to the percentage it was huge. Because of course it wasn't allowed for them to have sex with men or women. And they were immature sexually. So why not children? It's directly related. And the entire purpose of the comment was to downplay the behavior and others behavior of doing sexual things on the sly. Why then mention adultery? It's all just deceptive behavior. He didn't mention sex before marriage or using a condom anything like that. He mentioned adultery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope nothing to do with child abuse scandals. Paving the way for acceptance of the well known homosexual tendencies of the jesuits (the deep church) who are running the Vatican

It is well documented that the homosexuals in the church were the ones in the majority committing the child abuse scandals. Not all but the majority of the population his not homosexual so compared to the percentage it was huge. Because of course it wasn't allowed for them to have sex with men or women. And they were immature sexually. So why not children? It's directly related. And the entire purpose of the comment was to downplay the behavior and others behavior of doing sexual things on the sly. Why then mention adultery? It's all just deceptive behavior. He didn't mention sex before marriage or using a condom anything like that. He mentioned adultery.

Could you please provide the link for this? I believe that the John Jay study refuted this. https://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/2004_02_27_John_Jay_Main_Report_Optimized.pdf

[Anonymous]

Here is an absolutely fantastic essay by St. Alphonsus Liguori about impurity: Hell’s Widest Gate and why the “Pope’s” comments are so terribly wrong and dangerous https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/12182239/hells-widest-gate-impurity-by-st-alphonsus-one-saint

[Anonymous]

There is already a ranking of mortal and venial. This was unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope nothing to do with child abuse scandals. Paving the way for acceptance of the well known homosexual tendencies of the jesuits (the deep church) who are running the Vatican

It is well documented that the homosexuals in the church were the ones in the majority committing the child abuse scandals. Not all but the majority of the population his not homosexual so compared to the percentage it was huge. Because of course it wasn't allowed for them to have sex with men or women. And they were immature sexually. So why not children? It's directly related. And the entire purpose of the comment was to downplay the behavior and others behavior of doing sexual things on the sly. Why then mention adultery? It's all just deceptive behavior. He didn't mention sex before marriage or using a condom anything like that. He mentioned adultery.

Could you please provide the link for this? I believe that the John Jay study refuted this. https://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/2004_02_27_John_Jay_Main_Report_Optimized.pdf

I did read many however just the basic facts are enough.

81% of the victims were male and almost that many were with preteens or with teens, not younger children. Really that's all you need to know.

Similarly 93% of prisoners are male. Males commit more violent physical crimes than females. It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Adultery for a priest does not result in any actual human filing against him other than the church allowing resignation. That is the divorce decree. So it's less of an issue for a priest in the real world than it is for anyone else. Priests are not allowed to marry so they cannot commit adultery in full like someone who is married. So it's a non sin for them in some aspects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He needs to clarify asap because right now people who support/follow him will do a quick 180°

And where will that "180°" take you? To Protestanism? To atheism?

The Pope is the Pope -- you may not agree with everything a Pope says, but when he "pontificates" on religious issues, he's infallible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He needs to clarify asap because right now people who support/follow him will do a quick 180°

And where will that "180°" take you? To Protestanism? To atheism?

The Pope is the Pope -- you may not agree with everything a Pope says, but when he "pontificates" on religious issues, he's infallible.

Not true. It's called ex cathedra when he speaks in an infallible way. Apparently he is very sick so might not be making a lot of sense right now.

[Anonymous]

Popes speak many times and it is not considered infallible.

In previous announcements he was trying to welcome divorced individuals back to the church. I thought his comments were groundwork for more of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is about a foot massage right? His statement will be taken in a broad way and he should not have made it like that if he is thinking *consenual foot massage* and not sex or much much worse unwanted touches.

+1 I'm a former Catholic and not inclined to handwave away the Church's response to sex crimes, but he's specifically talking about a Cardinal who resigned after a consensual massage with his secretary 20 years ago came to light and provoked a backlash. The way it's being reported is "Pope okays sex sins" but that's theatrical. This guy committed a sin but no one was harmed, it was forever ago, and all indications are that he has not continued down that path. It must be hard for the Pope to see someone run out of the Church for that, when we are all sinners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t look for bad intentions in everything and I don’t see it here. He simply believes pride and hatred are bigger issues. I’m inclined to agree with him.

I think a priest raping a child is a bigger deal than pride, but that's just me

He’s not talking about rape he’s talking about a priest having a sexual relationship with an adult.

No he enlarged it to say all sexual sins. That would include rape.

No He is specifically talking about one case and it was not rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t look for bad intentions in everything and I don’t see it here. He simply believes pride and hatred are bigger issues. I’m inclined to agree with him.

I think a priest raping a child is a bigger deal than pride, but that's just me

He’s not talking about rape he’s talking about a priest having a sexual relationship with an adult.

If he wanted to talk about one person he should have just talked about him. Instead he opened it up to generalizations.

Not all sexual relationships with adults that are consensual have zero implications anyway to others or even to themselves. Ever hear of Aids?

He was specifically talking about Michel Aupetit, the archbishop of Paris. The question was about his resignation, that was his response to a specific situation.