A recent letter from Pope Emiritus Benedict. Part 1.

1) The matter begins with the state-prescribed and supported introduction of children and youths into the nature of sexuality. In Germany, the then-Minister of Health, Ms. [Käte] Strobel, had a film made in which everything that had previously not been allowed to be shown publicly, including sexual intercourse, was now shown for the purpose of education. What at first was only intended for the sexual education of young people consequently was widely accepted as a feasible option.

Similar effects were achieved by the “Sexkoffer” published by the Austrian government [A controversial ‘suitcase’ of sex education materials used in Austrian schools in the late 1980s]. Sexual and pornographic movies then became a common occurrence, to the point that they were screened at newsreel theaters [Bahnhofskinos]. I still remember seeing, as I was walking through the city of Regensburg one day, crowds of people lining up in front of a large cinema, something we had previously only seen in times of war, when some special allocation was to be hoped for. I also remember arriving in the city on Good Friday in the year 1970 and seeing all the billboards plastered up with a large poster of two completely naked people in a close embrace.

Among the freedoms that the Revolution of 1968 sought to fight for was this all-out sexual freedom, one which no longer conceded any norms.

The mental collapse was also linked to a propensity for violence. That is why sex films were no longer allowed on airplanes because violence would break out among the small community of passengers. And since the clothing of that time equally provoked aggression, school principals also made attempts at introducing school uniforms with a view to facilitating a climate of learning.

Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of ’68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate.

For the young people in the Church, but not only for them, this was in many ways a very difficult time. I have always wondered how young people in this situation could approach the priesthood and accept it, with all its ramifications. The extensive collapse of the next generation of priests in those years and the very high number of laicizations were a consequence of all these developments.

(2) At the same time, independently of this development, Catholic moral theology suffered a collapse that rendered the Church defenseless against these changes in society. I will try to outline briefly the trajectory of this development.

Until the Second Vatican Council, Catholic moral theology was largely founded on natural law, while Sacred Scripture was only cited for background or substantiation. In the Council’s struggle for a new understanding of Revelation, the natural law option was largely abandoned, and a moral theology based entirely on the Bible was demanded.

As someone who lived through the 'Revolution'  I was not very well liked by those who were appointed by a dissident bishop to carry out the revolution in met parish.   I remember a meeting where at the end of a course a 'leading catechist' stood up and stated "The Church must change its teaching on divorce, abortion, and contraception"    Others agreed with her and one person turned to me and said "It is the Holy Spirit, John"   I said nothing.   That the hoy Spirit should have  turned his back on Jesus Christ was incredible to me.     But as sex outside marriage became acceptable, and even sex within marriage to another became common place, as more and more children grew up without a father and felt hurt and loneliness, and many were subject to sexual abuse by second and third fathers, I knew this was not the Kingdom planned by Jesus Christ, and only the Kingdom of Jesus Christ planned by Jesus Christ was good enough for me.   My regret is I was too young and perhaps not ready to give a more rational explanation as I quarrelled, but I know that Jesus will at least have given me some credit for being on his side.