Q: Holy Father, I’ll ask my question in English. I know you will speak principally in Italian, but we would be grateful for at least a few words in English. The Catholic church in the United States is large and dynamic, but also suffering, above all because of the recent sexual abuse crisis. The American people are waiting to hear what you have to say on this subject. What will your message be?

Benedict XVI: It is a great suffering for the church in the United States, for the church in general, and for me personally that this could happen. If I read the histories of these victims, it’s difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way their mission to give healing and to give the love of God to these children. We are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible that this cannot happen in the future.

I think we have to act on three levels.

The first is the level of justice, the juridical level. We now have also norms to react in a just way. I would not speak in this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia, [which] is another thing. We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry, this is absolutely incompatible. And who is really guilty of being a pedophile cannot be a priest. So the first level is, as we can do justice and help clearly the victims, because they are deeply touched. So [there are] two sides of justice, on the one hand that pedophiles cannot be priests; on the other hand, to help in all the possible ways to the victims.

The second level is the pastoral level, the level of healing and help of assistance and of reconciliation. This is a big pastoral engagement, and I know that the bishops and the priests and all the Catholic people in the United States will do all possible to help assist and to heal, and to help that in the future these things cannot happen.

The third point [is that] we have made a visitation in the seminaries to also do what is possible in the education of seminarians for a deep, spiritual, human and intellectual formation –with discernment so that only sound persons can be admitted to the priesthood, only persons with a deep personal love for Christ and a deep sacramental love, to exclude that this can happen [again]. I know that the bishops and the rectors of seminarians will do all that is possible so that we have a strong discernment, because it’s more important to have good priests than to have many priests. This is also our third level, and we hope that we can do, and we have done, and we will do in the future, all that is possible to heal this wound.

We are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible that this cannot happen in the future.

while i appreciate this sentiment, wouldn't 'doing all that is possible' include allowing priests to marry, allowing female priests, and ceasing the religious indoctrination of children, which is arguably child abuse?

i am anxious to find out what "doing all that is possible" means. hopefully we will get a clarification this week, but if not, i am certain that we will get one. You know, the celibacy of the priesthood is not doctrine, so it could conceivably change. although i personally think that would be a watering down of the faith and a practical nightmare for the priesthood.

also, i really applaud the "it’s more important to have good priests than to have many priests" comment.

i may be wrong but i assumed his 'doing all that is possible' meant the three 'levels' he went on to explain, i.e. kick out the pedophiles, counsel the victims, and educate the clergy that touching kids is a no-no.

do justice and help clearly the victims, because they are deeply touched.

true. you would just like to see it further?

i suspect my notion of doing all possible differs from the pope's, as mine would likely conflict with catholic belief, but anyway. is this the first response there has been to this from the vatican, because didn't this all come out years ago? i remember as a kid my mum sitting me down and asking if the priest was ever inappropriate with us kids and saying if he is you must tell me. i hope it hasn't really taken until now for something to be done.... i'm not that well versed in the scandal but weren't these priests just shuffled to another parish? or can we blame this on JPII?

well, no. this is not the first response from the vatican, but it seems significant to catholics for two reasons: 1. This is the current pope's first trip to America, it is on everyone's mind and he has addressed it before even landing, which i would think sets the tone for his visit. 2. the words are very characteristic of Benedicts hard-lined papacy. they are harsh and decisive. before this, i personally have never come across a "plan" from the vatican with this sort of language.

well, fair enough. i still stand by my initial comment. the church's response plan will be inadequate if they do not address the deeper issues of their dogma which helped create the kinds of conditions which allowed this problem to happen in the first place.

what are these deeper dogmatic issues, as you see them?

basically the ones i listed in my first post. chief among them, not allowing priests to marry. i don't know if dogma is the right word for that.

yeah, that's what threw me. you said dogmatic issues, so i thought you meant something else. as i stated in my response to that, it is NOT a dogma that priests aren't allowed to be married. the church could conceivably change that, and there would be no contradiction in dogmatic principles.

nevertheless, i would disagree that the bachelorhood of the priests are the issue in the scandal. a good priest, in my opinion, takes that vocation and vow of celibacy out of faith and extreme devotion to a life serving christ. i would think that this devotion would leave no room, practically or emotionally, for a spouse. and i think that is part of the church's traditional rule that to be a priest you cannot marry.

the scandals, on the other hand, suffer primarily from pedophilia. i would think that cases of pedophilia occur in marriages, just as they do the priesthood. i'm not clear on how benedict would plan on sorting out the pedophiles other than looking at their sex-offense records, though. this seems frightening, what if latent pedophilia doesn't manifest itself until the priest is ordained? i really hope this gets addressed further.

well, i'm not trying to suggest that not allowing marriage is responsible for pedophilia, just that if one is truly serious about doing all possible to prevent this than it is something which needs to be explored.

as is the point about indoctrination. what are these kids doing kickin' back with a priest anyway? children shouldn't be exposed to religion on this level imo, because they will generally believe what they are told and that's intellectually abusive.

this is the kind of thing i will admit i really don't understand. what is so intellectually abusive about being exposed to religion at an early age? you were, and you denounced it. CB was, and he denounced it. PJ10alive41 gave a great testimony to how he came to reject religion in his life in that logic thread. i'm pretty sure that buffalohed said that he was raised Universal Unitarianism. you all have one thing in common, you overcame what you perceived as an intellectual stumbling block in your life.

besides, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, if i may use one of kevin's phrases. having a (good) priest in your life can serve as a very positive influence in someone's self-esteem or maybe even provide a sort of parental figure if, say, you lost yours. you can't honestly tell me that a priest should not have contact with a child at all.

btw, it doesn't have to be just a change to the no marriage rule- let them have sex, masturbate, what the fuck ever. the point of it is to give them an outlet for their normal human urges elsewhere.

children are very susceptible to indoctrination. you tell a kid santa claus is real, and they believe it. you tell a kid they'll go to hell if they don't obey the ten commandments, and that jesus turned water into wine, and they will believe it. i think that is potentially vastly damaging.

further, do you think johnny terrorist wouldn't have tried to blow up johnny usa's world trade building if he hadn't been exposed to religious dogma as a child? odds are he would have not.

i think that myself, cb, pjalive etc are exceptions to the rule. the vast majority of people hold the same religion as their parents. i think i read a stat recently that only 1 in 12 kids in the UK has a different religion to their parents.