Stop using the 60s sexual revolution as an excuse for clergy sex abuse

Bishop Sanborn has written an excellent post entitled “Ratzinger blames sex abuse by priests on the 1960s sexual revolution” in which he states what is so obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

Here are excerpts:

In a recent letter commenting on clerical sex abuse, Ratzinger said that the cause of it was the sexual revolution of the 1960s. This is a stunning statement. Why? Because it is the mission and purpose of the Church to resist moral corruption, and especially to protect the clergy from it. The clergy should practice mortification of their sexual passions, devoted as they are — and canonically obliged — to celibacy and perfect chastity. One could just as easily say: “The monks are all fat because of the eating revolution.” Are they not supposed to practice mortification? It would be the equivalent of saying that the Titanic sank because there was an iceberg in front of it. The reality is that the Titanic sank because the crew was recklessly speeding at 22 knots (at that time very fast for an ocean liner) through “Iceberg Alley” in the springtime when icebergs are most commonly seen. The crew had also committed gross negligence in ignoring the warnings of ice by other ships.

. . .

Ratzinger offers a few other reasons for the clerical abuse. One of the factors is declining devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist: “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.” It was Ratzinger, however, who told us in an encyclical that Christ is in the bread,” which is a thoroughly Protestant notion of the Eucharist, denying the Real Presence of Christ. Ratzinger also stated: “To go to church on the ground that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.” (2) And has the New Mass promoted devotion toward the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

The cherry on top of this burlesque of self-exoneration for the heinous crimes of the clergy is the final paragraph: “At the end of my reflections I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to show us, again and again, the light of God, which has not disappeared, even today. Thank you, Holy Father!”

It is not to be forgotten that the “Holy Father,” that heretical motor-mouth, is the one that has pronounced numerous heresies, and has justified receiving communion in the state of the mortal sin of adultery.

. . .

The real cause of the clerical abuse. Ratzinger said a few things which were true, but failed to assign the cause. Yes, there was a sexual revolution of the 1960’s, but was not the stated purpose of Vatican II to adapt the Church to fit the modern world? Did it not want to “open the windows of the Church,” as John XXIII said? The effect of this attitude produced in the clergy and the people an absorption of the very detestable sexual revolution which Ratzinger laments. If Vatican II had not happened, the Church would have resisted the sexual revolution. It was very successful in doing so in the 1950’s by means of the Legion of Decency, for example, which managed to control Hollywood’s penchant for sex. The Legion of Decency died after Vatican II, and so did decency in movies and in television.

Likewise the collapse of the Church’s moral theology was a direct result of Vatican II. Up to 1958, moral theology was in wonderful condition. Many moral theologians wrote treatises and textbooks in the early part of the twentieth century which were excellent, applying traditional moral principles to modern moral problems. One such example is the textbook of the Dominican Merkelbach, which we use here at the seminary. It is the most thorough moral theology textbook in my experience.

Ratzinger describes these horrors as if neither he nor his boss, “Saint” John Paul II, were responsible for them, and in any way participated in them. The reality is that Ratzinger is one of the most responsible for Vatican II as the radical, modernist, suit-and-tie theologian, together with his “buddies” Karl Rahner, the pantheist Jesuit with a mistress, and Hans Küng, the notorious denier of the divinity of Christ, Our Lady’s Assumption, and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. They were the radical threesome. I remember. It was Küng who said “We got more from Vatican II than we ever expected.”

Ratzinger refuses to see Vatican II as the cause of the problems. The Council is his baby. It is evident to anyone with a brain that the Church went into a tail-spin in every aspect of its life since the opening of that wicked meeting of Vatican II, but Ratzinger insults every thinking and decent person with these preposterous and farcical “reasons” that he gives for clerical abuse, never once saying “mea culpa” for his criminal, lawless, disgraceful, and reprehensible cooperation in these vicious acts of a corrupt clergy.

So many people allow the man who calls himself Pope Emeritus to squirm his way out of responsibility for the sorry state of the Church today. Until Vatican II is dumped and men, like Ratzinger, who are responsible for this sorry mess are held to account, not much will change.