What People Are Commenting
The Talmud, Pedophilia & "Catholic" Nudism
Pedophilia in the Talmud
I am part of a group of studies that came across these texts of the Talmud in which pedophilia is defended. That is to say, the Jewish book tells its priests that they can
"marry" a 3-year-old girl and have sexual relations with her.
I believe that we are right to blame the Catholic Hierarchy and the Vatican for their covering up of pedophile priests and bishops. But why should we not also blame Judaism that preaches pedophilia in its sacred books?
You may judge by yourself whether I am objective or not in attributing pedophilia to the Jews, and inform your readers of it.
Keep up the good work. J.M.J.
Texts of the Talmud
1. "It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phinehas surely was with them. And the Rabbis? 1 "[These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. If so, a proselyte whose age is three years and one day should also be permitted! "[The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.
"It was also taught likewise: And every woman that hath known man; Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. You say, 'Of one who is fit for cohabitation'; perhaps it is not so but of one who had actual intercourse? "As Scripture stated, But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.
(Treatise Yebamoth 60 b; read it here)
2. "Mishnah. A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; if the yabam had intercourse with her, he acquires her thereby; the guilt of adultery may be incurred through her, and she causes uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to that upon which he lies, as to a garment which has lain upon [a zab]. if she was married to a priest, she may eat terumah. If any of the ineligible persons cohabited with her he disqualifies her from the priesthood. if any of the forbidden degrees enumerated in the torah cohabited with her he is to be executed on her account, but she is exempt [from the penalty]. If one was younger than this age intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye."
Treatise Niddah 44; read it here)
Is Benedict Pope?
I'm simply interested in your position. Do you hold that the current Pope, Benedict XVI, is the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ?
Yes, we do.
TIA correspondence desk
When Is Viewing Nudity Permissible?
Hello to all of you at TIA,
My question refers to the situations, if any, when looking at naked people is permissible.
I'm not talking about pornography or any type of sexual nudity ... that of course being a serious crime against God. I'm thinking more along the lines of documentaries on people of different countries who live in the forest or a show about medical diseases that may show a naked body.
I know that viewing them might not be the most prudent thing to do but from time to time I find them interesting and informing. Would this be a venial sin?
If so, would it be a venial sin to visit a Church where there may be naked angels in the Church? My wife and I went to Rome for our honeymoon and even though there were no actual pictures of real naked people, there were definitely naked paintings and statues in the Vatican Museum, naked angels in St. Peter's, Adam in the Sistine Chapel, etc.
There is also a devotion to Our Lady called Our Lady of La Leche. I don't know the history behind this devotion but I have seen pictures of it and it shows Our Lady feeding Our Lord with one breast and the other is exposed.
Now, I don't know if I saw a Modernist perversion or not. If so, I would gladly consider it trash. However if this was a devotion that existed before Vatican 2, then the Church must be saying that viewing nudity is okay under certain circumstances. Is this correct?
What is your opinion on the guidelines on viewing nudity? I'm trying to better understand the nudity that the Church has used and the nudity that the media currently uses ... again apart from the widespread sexual filth.
Thank you for your time and all the work you do for Holy Mother Church.
Let us establish some principles as moral presuppositions in order to offer you an overview on this topic.
Before Vatican II, it was the common teaching of the Church that we should always avoid looking at naked persons, be it in daily life, in artistic reproductions or in advertisements. The reason is simple: Since we are conceived in original sin and of all the bad tendencies we have the most explosive is the sexual one, in order to control it, we must avoid fixing our eyes on naked people.
Exceptions were mentioned, and it was taught that a special grace was given to help those who - by "an obligation of profession" - had to face such situations. Examples were given of doctors who need to examine or treat their patients, or policemen, lawyers and judges who had to investigate crime scenes that included naked bodies in order to study the circumstances that could lead to solving the crime.
Those exceptions also included missionaries who were sent to catechize tribes that practiced some sort of nudism. They were told to tolerate nudism in a first phase of their missionary work, and then try to civilize the natives as soon as they could. Missionaries to those areas were normally chosen from a type of person that was called viri probati, experienced men who had already passed through many other battles in this field and had not fallen.
These were the universally accepted principles.
Two problematic kinds of depictions
When students would ask about the paintings with naked figures on the walls and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, religion professors would explain that it was something wrong permitted by the Renaissance Popes. For example, the Last Judgment with many nude figures that Michelangelo painted caused violent reactions among the Cardinals. The controversies, which continued for years, led in 1564 to the decision by the Congregation of the Council of Trent to cover the partes pudendae (shameful parts) of those figures. The decision, however, was only partially applied.
In general it was explained that while paintings such as these were not desirable, until better times should come, we had to uncomfortably tolerate them for the sake of art.
In some medieval cathedrals, one also finds artistics presentations depicting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Final Judgment or Hell where the personages are naked. In these cases, the figures were supposed to represent various dogmas of our Faith in a style that avoided any sexual appeal or insinuations.
This was the general approach of the Church until the winds of Vatican II turned everything up-side-down in the Church.
Vatican II & theology of the body
With the adaptation of the Church to the modern world, one of the main points assimilated by the new conciliar teaching was the Freudian obsession with sex, as well as its integration into the modern morality as something "scientific" and normal. In the Catholic Church the dikes of morality that used to constrain the river of bad customs and obscenity fed by the media, Hollywood, the Secret Forces and other enemies of the Church, were destroyed and Catholics were flooded by the same deluge that was devastating the rest of the world.
Countless Prelates and clergymen changed their attitudes and came to approve beach clothing, mini-skirts, close-fitting pants and blouses for women and other questionable apparel exposing or revealing the parts of the body that should be concealed.
To confirm these attitudes and consecrate their bad teaching came the Theology of the Body by John Paul II, which clearly teaches that nudity is something normal and good. According to this new moral approach, the evil - instead of being considered in the one who appeared naked and provoked others to sin - was in the ones who looked at her with bad intentions.
JPII put this theory into practice by receiving many semi-naked or immorally-dressed women throughout his long pontificate. With this teaching and practice, that Pope virtually exterminated the morality of the Church previous to Vatican II.
How to restore Catholic morality
The deluge of immorality and nudism has reached such a paroxysm that we believe it is difficult to reverse its course without a chastisement from Heaven. Until that should come, we think that Catholics have the obligation to denounce the scandalous Vatican II immorality, explain correct Catholic Morals and call for Catholics to return to it.
Our Lady of the Milk
- As we denounce the scandals, however, an apparent contradiction takes place. In order to vaccinate Catholics against the main promoters of those errors, we have to show the conciliar Popes receiving semi-naked or immoral women. It is indispensable to do so in order to prevent Catholics to accept the evil coming from the Papacy. Some of our readers question whether by doing this we are promoting nudism. We reply that we are not. We are exposing the guilty ones to avoid the evil from spreading. It is what the lawyer in a court room does by showing the naked body of a victim in order to convict the one who committed the crime. The primary goal is to stop the criminal from continuing his crimes. The exposure of the scandal to stop it is not another scandal; it is an action that favors the common good.
- When we promote correct Catholic morals as we are trying to do (click here,) questions like yours arise.
- Therefore, we are responding to your questions in order to help you apply the answers to your own life.
It seems that the only question left regards the naive devotion of Our Lady feeding the Infant God.
We are perfectly aware of the arguments favoring this devotion, and we understand that some people can view it innocently. However, given how evil our times have become, we would not promote that devotion. We believe that in the future Reign of Mary, it is a representation that should be very exceptional.
We hope it will be of some help to you.
TIA correspondence desk
Posted June 17, 2010
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting -
do not necessarily express those of TIA
Related Topics of Interest
Controversy over the Jewish Conspiracy against Christendom
JPII Blessed by the Rabbis
Benedict's Visit to the Synagogue of Cologne
Nudity at a Mass of JPII
Card. Karol Wojtyla Defends Nudism
Papal Poetry on the Human Body
The Canonization of Wojtyla, the Moral-Free Pope
John Paul II Greets a Group of Semi-nude Women
Bare-legged Young Women Perform Dances for the Pope
|Related Works of Interest|
Comments | Questions | Objections | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
©2002-2014 Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved