What Did Theologians Teach About Pedophilia?

SOUL SCIENCE #26—Clip

The Return of Common Sense

On last week’s episode of SOUL SCIENCE, I asked whether the pope was Catholic. I wasn’t joking either.  I pointed out that, to be Catholic, a person is required to affirm and profess the teachings contained in the Nicene Creed. This is a condition of baptism, the gateway sacrament to Church membership.  In fact, we recite the Creed at every celebration of Sunday Mass.

Apostolic Teaching

One of the essential teachings of the Creed concerns the role of the Apostles.  The Apostolic mark of the Church means that we adhere to Apostolic teaching. And so, included in this essential Apostolic teaching are the very unpopular doctrines concerning sexual morality. Two of the most hated teachings on sexuality can be found in St. Paul’s letters:

• Homosexuality is “unnatural” and disordered, (Rom. 1: 24–27).
  

• All sexual immorality condemns a person to hell, (1Cor. 6: 9–10).

The Apostolic mark of the Church enunciated in the Nicene Creed establishes these teachings as immutable and nonnegotiable.  And Pope John Paul II defended the Church’s Apostolic sexual morality in his writings.  (See the Catechism and Veritatis Splendor for details.)

Pope Francis Rejects Apostolic Teaching

So what are we to make of the constant pronouncements of the many Church shepherds who publicly reject these Apostolic doctrines? As I have documented many times, since the publication of Amoris Laetitia, there has been a very public movement by some Church leaders to reject Apostolic teaching on sexual morality. These leaders claim—falsely—that new “scientific” research refutes the traditional Apostolic teaching on homosexuality.  Who are these leaders? One of them is Pope Francis.  The Nicene Creed establishes that anyone who rejects Apostolic teaching and authority is not Catholic. And not Christian either. Therefore, Pope Francis and his followers are not Catholic.

My Critics Respond

That was my argument. And I got a lot of pushback in the comments section. But interestingly, none of my  critics offered even a single rebuttal to my argument. None of the points of my argument were addressed at all. Instead, criticism was

aimed at me personally.  “You’re not a professional theologian.” “You don’t have a doctorate in theology.”  

I have two responses to my critics. First, it was observed on Twitter-X by a Dominican priest that Francis supporters have no arguments or offer any justification for the pope’s controversial statements.  

You will notice that there is very little exposition of Francis’ arguments . . . or an explanation or defense of Francis’ position with arguments.  —Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P.

Francis Supporters Have No Defense.

So this is a pattern with the Francis camp that others have observed as well. It’s not difficult to understand why.  Francis supporters offer no substantive defense of Francis, because, frankly, there is no defense of Pope Francis.

Now I come to my second response.  My critics insist on having the right credentials. What I showed in my book Confronting the Pope of Suspicion was that professional theologians from the 1970s were responsible for the most vile ideas ever printed on paper. See what I mean:

“What Did Theologians Teach?”

The great tragedy in the Catholic Church was that too many agreed with the “scientists” that a theologically-informed morality was obsolete. New theology textbooks like Human Sexuality, from the Catholic Theological Society of America, were arguing for a scientific approach to sexual morality (pp.53–56). They agreed with psychologists that the absolute and universal morality of the Bible was invalid (HS p. 97), and they rejected divine revelation as an authentic source of sexual morality (HS. p. 54). The morality of homosexuality should come—they insisted— not from divine revelation, but from science. And scientists were saying that homosexuality was a “natural variant” of human sexuality (HS p. 59).

—https://newwalden.org/archives/9183 [HUMAN SEXUALITY—NEW DIRECTIONS IN AMERICAN CATHOLIC THOUGHT]

The “Scientific” Conclusions of Human Sexuality

Cultural anthropology was the source for much of the reasoning in Human Sexuality. The argument reduces all cultures and values to mere subjective opinion. Because all cultural values are subjective, to prefer your culture to another is mere cultural prejudice and bigotry.  Thus, a “scientific” study of human sexuality ought to objectively look at all human societies and cultures. And we should not be dismissive of other cultural values, lest we succumb to prejudice and bigotry.  

That was the setup.  The reader of the diabolical text was gaslit into believing that he has to be open to any sexual practice that was ever approved of in any human society.  So which sexual practices did the text mention which required an unprejudiced reevaluation? Quite predictably, homosexuality was at the top of the list. Here are some of the others:

• Mate-swapping
• incest 
• bestiality

What Did Theologians Teach About Pedophilia?

One theology text used in some seminaries in the seventies was The Sexual Language by Andre Guindon. It specifically addressed the question of pedophilia. According to Guindon, scientific research revealed that pedophilia was not harmful to children and that the real victim was “the defenceless pedophile” who is “scapegoated” by “parents and citizens who pose as do-gooders” (p. 374). One book reported that The Sexual Language was used at the seminary where Rudy Kos studied, a priest who was later convicted of pedophilia. That very same seminary hosted Fr. Paul Shanley to give a guest lecture. What was his topic? Shanley was a public advocate for the legalization of pederasty. After the Boston Globe report came out in 2002, Shanley was arrested and convicted of child molestation. (—https://newwalden.org/archives/8260 )

Human Sexuality, Again

Human Sexuality, asked the ominous question about what to do if your particular desires are not approved by society. Here is its disturbing answer:

“[E]nlightened and well integrated individuals might well free themselves of conflict by . . . reflecting on the relativity of their society’s sexual ethic and proceed discreetly with their own sexual project.” —HUMAN SEXUALITY—NEW DIRECTIONS IN AMERICAN CATHOLIC THOUGHT, P. 56

Did you get that? If your desires are ILLEGAL, PROCEED ANYWAY! BUT DISCREETLY! On the same page, it explains its answer. The denial of one’s sexual desires is harmful to one’s “personal growth.”

A THEOLOGY TEXTBOOK ENCOURAGED SEMINARIANS TO PURSUE THEIR ILLEGAL SEXUAL DESIRES!!!!!!!!  (—https://newwalden.org/archives/8260 )

Now you know exactly where the sex abuse scandal came from.  From professional theologians. Common sense and moral decency are more important than a theology degree. But the greatest tragedy? That Pope Francis promotes “the most vile ideas ever printed on paper.”