Pope Rails Against the Internet and Transparency 840
tcd004 writes "At a conference on digital media at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI attacked the idea of transparency in the Internet age, warning that digital transparency exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves and increases the 'dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism,' which can lead to 'multiple forms of degradation and humiliation' of the essence of a person, and to the 'pollution of the spirit.' All in all, it seemed a pretty grim view of the wide-open communication environment being demanded by the Internet age."
wagging the dog (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's what they call this, the Pope making an issue out of Internet transparency out of nowhere.
Nazi bastard (Score:2, Insightful)
Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone truly care what this guy thinks? "Pollution of the spirit?" From a Catholic priest? Please...
Riiight (Score:3, Insightful)
And holding everything locked down tight as a "state secret" is so much better. Oh wait, right, there's China. Yes, I see how that is so much better.
The pope is either an idiot, or a budding tyrant with ambitions of bringing the world back to the dark ages under dominion of the vatican.
Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Waaah! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't the pedo priests, it's the peoples ability to find out about them!
Transparency, always (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because absolutes work so well.. (for pedos) (Score:4, Insightful)
So the leader of the organization with the filthiest possible secrets speaks out against transparency.
Okay, no surprise there...
The priority of the catholic church is the catholic church. Not God. Not innocent children. Not you.
The Pope (Score:5, Insightful)
I never got what the big deal was with The Pope anyways. He's just as human as you or I, so his interpretations can be just as flawed as yours or mine, yet elected by his own circle of peers, instead of by the masses that follow his orders.
I'll give him due respect as a fellow human being, one whose wisdom probably far exceeds my own in a great many things. However, I have a feeling I know a bit more on the subject of Internet Transparency than him, so I'll politely decline his advice.
I've heard this before... (Score:5, Insightful)
The words of the Bishop of Rome about the internet, freedom, and transparency, ring very familiar.
It was this very flavor of rhetoric that came from British citizens, Muslim Jihadis, who decry that freedom is the basic sin of mankind. They yearn for Sharia law to rule their lives.
Of course, I have no problem should they choose to live their lives under Sharia law. My problem comes about when they decide that I should live my life by Sharia law, whether I want to or not. It is, they explain, good for me.
So when el Papa decided that internet freedom is not for me, my immediate reaction was, "I've heard all this before."
It never fails to astound me when Men of God not only want to live their own lives by their code of conduct, but they want me to live that way, also.
When God shows up in a burning bush, and then explains how I should live, I may decide to give it some credibility. Until then, I'll go on striving for freedom of choice for myself, and for others. They can, if they choose, live by Biblical law.
It's obvious why he's against such things... (Score:3, Insightful)
The obvious reason he is against such transparency is because it would mean the church would actually have to own up to all the child molestation in his church. I think he needs to be worrying more about the "pollution of the spirit" of these abused kids first and foremost.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry Joe (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pope's Masterful Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Pravin Lal of Alpha Centauri (1999)
Paralelism (Score:3, Insightful)
where religion goes to die (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect the Pope is only bashing the internet because he watched Thunderf00t's video "The Internet: Where religion goes to die", realized he had an excellent point, and decided that the only way to avoid having people jump ship on his ancient superstition was to ban the free-flow of information and ideas.
Religion depends on converting young minds to replace old dieing old ones
Kids spend more time online than adults
Online sources have been far harsher critics of the sex abuse scandals than broadcast media, and religious mythology get consistently pwned and rated down on online forums.
Obviously, the only way for the church to continue to exist in our modern era is to stop children from going online.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprise surprise. It's hard to lie when everyone can see right through you.
Perhaps more to the point, cover-ups are much harder to perpetrate when a single leak can plaster all your dirty laundry all over the net.
Gee, I can't imagine why the pope would object to that... Nope, can't think of a single reason *sigh*
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Additional translation note:
Morals are inherently relative to personal values and situational details. Anytime someone warns about moral relativism, it's because they want you to follow their values and sense of right and wrong, instead of your own.
Re:I've heard this before... (Score:3, Insightful)
If he doesn't like the Internet, he doesn't have to use it.
It's borderline stupid to assume that any one sect or faith can push something out of existence for everyone else, at least in this day and age.
Tomorrow, both the Pope and the Internet will still be there. Perhaps with fewer proselytizing people using the Internet. "And nothing of value was lost."
Hmmmm ..... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got a better idea.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I've got a better idea....
How about no?
Re:The Pope (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, let's do a little test.
When you know that someone under your responsibility molests children, what do you do:
1. Cover everything up, do NOT report said molester to police AND make sure he can work with children again in the future.
2. Report molester to police and do everything in your power to help victims and make sure there are no more victims.
If you've picked option #2, then congratulations, you're wiser than the pope!
uhhh... sure (Score:3, Insightful)
All that transparency sure makes it hard to hide child rape scandals.
Did anyone actually read the article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing new (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't take a genius to see that the catholic church hides behind a thin facade of Christianity but is in fact a self-serving money-grabbing regime and tool of the establishment.
The Vatican's actions speak for themselves, especially like now when even the Pope uses weasel words to advocate against truth, openness and honesty, which the bible clearly details as the most fundamental principles of being a Christian.
Re:The Pope (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll give him due respect as a fellow human being, one whose wisdom probably far exceeds my own in a great many things. However, I have a feeling I know a bit more on the subject of Internet Transparency than him, so I'll politely decline his advice.
His wisdom is indeed great on subjects such as covering up pedophilia, how to help spread disease by opposing contraception, how to set up an oppressive regime protected by superstition.
Basing morality on religion and myth is bad enough. Also most Popes have done varying degrees of harm. But this one seems to be the worst of the worst!
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know. Looking at what was reported, it looks like the pope said three things:
1) The new media gives more kinds of people a soap box. That is more egalitarian and pluralistic.
2) One side effect is to inflame the divisions between nations and people are inflamed.
3) Some people use their soapbox to promote moral relativism.
I think he's on solid ground on (1) and (2). Giving everyone a soapbox means the crazies and haters get one too. It's also the Era of Sorting. Back in the day, you had to live with people who had different opinions from you. One of the unexpected side effects of "virtual communities" is that it's never been easier to surround yourself with people who think just like you do. It's never been easier to transition from eccentric to full blown kook.
On (3), well, I don't think that statement means anything. I'm sure he's not talking about serious philosophical positions on the nature of ethics. I suspect he's talking about opinions he doesn't like.
The official Catholic position on morality is that it isn't based on divine commandment. That goes all the way back to Plato. But there's a huge loophole in this position: Human reason is inferior to Divine Wisdom, so while God's moral commandments have an objective justification, that justification isn't necessarily obvious.
That said, this is not the most opportune time to assert the Church's "magisterium". When the church can show it holds itself to at least basic, civilized standards of ethical behavior, it will be able to talk about "moral relativism" without provoking snickers.
Re:I wouldn't say nowhere. (Score:3, Insightful)
He has a tough choise though...large part (and the most important one...the growing one) of his faithfull are in developing countries. Heck, they are the reason why the Catholic Church as a whole is growing, despite (as with most faiths) registering major drop in the developed world.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That's just funny. ;) No doubt, he's right, the mostly open and mostly free communication made possible by the internet DOES cause conflicts, because people are waking up to the fact that the world is not as simple as we thought before the internet. Corporate and government behavior becomes increasingly transparent and since those tend to be corrupt (like any human organization that is about money and/or power), people tend to get frustrated... because now they know about them.
The conflicts are just a necessary part of a society that is becoming more aware and growing up, so to speak. That comes with growing pains, and I would have thought that every decent person would think that's a great path for humanity... but leave it to the people with undisputed, divine power, to consider this a problem.
Perhaps it's time for His Majesty, His Undisputably Wise and Holy Super Emperor, learn to spare himself and his followers the ridicule, by not speaking in public on any matter. That might leave whatever respect people still have for the Catholic Church intact, although the flow of information no doubt will be the death of this outdated, backwards and ignorant institution.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
See, the pope would probably drag the whole "moral relativism" angle into the debate anyway, as that's something of a fixation for Catholic dogma, for more or less the reasons you state. So I wasn't surprised to see that brought up. It's also something of a red herring.
It's transparently obvious that real issue here is the abuse scandals. You'll note that they did in fact keep a lid on the whole thing for decades - many current alleged cases of priesthood pedophilia date from the 80's and 90's, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the actual problems stretch back further than the memories of anyone alive today. This is not a new problem.
But back in the old days, shuffling the offending priests off to different diocese, and quietly denying that any wrongdoing took place was enough to keep the matter buried. They relied on the victims and their families shame, and on the rare cases where that wasn't enough, the fact that gossip rarely spread any further than the affected community. Does that last part sound like it would work today? Small wonder the pope is worried.
Re:Who cares? (Score:1, Insightful)
Unfortunately thousands of people care what that guy thinks. These same people vote.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to respond correctly when you just can't quite bring yourself to believe that great unwashed might, at some point, apply the rules to you. Even harder when you also posses the nigh-unshakable conviction that you are, in fact, the "good guys"(and where goodness is concerned, empiricism seems to run in reverse. Very few "good people" have ever said "Wait. I do bad things, I must not be a good person." Many "good people" have said "Wait. I'm a good person. The things that I do cannot be bad things.").
And that is how you get things like A senior priest saying [nytimes.com](in public) that the condemnation being suffered by the Catholic Church was like the persecution of the jews.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
They have centuries of experience.
Re:Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
Further to that:
The perpetuation of organized religion depends on 2 things: 1. ignorance; and 2. lack of critical thinking skills. The internet is the enemy of ignorance because of the openness and availability of information. Education teaches critical thinking skills.
The pope is just doing his job. They've identified that the fully open internet is a threat to the perpetuation of the church, and they have to take steps to discourage it or encourage limits on it.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:3, Insightful)
The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses. Most religions do good, many help save millions from famine, help educated countless poor children and generally bring together communities. Priests are human and did fail - there are not very many left so you might see less and less problems here.
I encourage you to listen to the speech from this link [radiovaticana.org]. I feel it is worth making the effort of getting the information from the horse's mouth so to speak.
If the Vatican had a PR department, it would surly be accused of attempting to cover-up further wrongdoings of individuals trusted by the Holy See.
Moral Relativism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nazi bastard (Score:5, Insightful)
The Catholic Church lost their moral authority a long time ago. The Pope has a lot of nerve doing a moral statement about the Internet while being a former Hilter Youth and a pedophile.
Please people, let us not drop to their standards of rhetoric filled, evidence lacking, accusatory ranting. Please take shots at the Pope for the many things that are valid to take shots at him for and not just rail randomly with repeats of less defensible sentiments.
I don't hold the Hitler Youth thing against most of the Hitler Youth, old Ratty included. My impression is that if you lived in certain areas and were of the right age at the time you either joined or you and your family were ostracised, bullied to buggery, or worse. So lets be reasonable go a little easy on that one.
There is no evidence that he himself is a pedophile. If you throw that accusation around with not good evidence you look no better than any other ranting nutter (such as his holy nutness himself). There is from what I've read plenty of good evidence that he has in the past been very influential in certain cover ups (or been very very blind and stupid while they went on around him) - there are more than enough shots we can take pertaining to that evidence without needing to resort to less substantiated rhetoric.
You can make the Cult of the Vatican look foolish (or, in fact, criminal) without stooping to their level. Please prove you are better than they by doing so.
NOTE: I have nothing against Christians with a Catholic upbringing in general, much as I may pity them. My problem is with the Catholic hierarchy (from local clergy right to the top) and it is these officials (those that have done wrong, those that have protected those that have done wrong, and those that have sat idly by and allowed wrong to be done and covered up, and those who despite all the evidence are not actively doing anything to try right the situation by getting the truth released) which I refer to as "the Cult of the Vatican". I appreciate that "the Cult of the Vatican" may be a phrase that could cause offence to those officials and I would like to point out, for the avoidance of doubt, that any such offence caused is entirely 100% intentional.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Riiight (Score:3, Insightful)
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes"
Which is, incidentally, an absolute. Lucas never did have much of a sense for irony.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Vatican had a PR department [...]
If?
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
"Priests are human and did fail"
And the Church aided, abetted, and concealed that failure, systematically, for decades (if not generations).
This is far bigger than a few flawed humans. This is about a system that has perverted itself.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that priests are human and did fail.
The problem is that the hierarchy worked hard to cover for them.
If it had stopped at the priests in question then the church as a whole would be squeeky clean but it did not.
It is the organizations actions, not the actions of the individuals, which show it as rotten to the core.
There are plenty of good people in the church but far far too many of them did nothing and we all know what happens then.
Re:Riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA, by the way, does not give the speech (or a translation of it) but just tiny parts of it, without any context. So even after reading it, I have no idea what he said.
Aside from his followers, who cares what he said? He's the Pope. That makes him an expert in exactly what real world concern?
Benedict is an expert in Catholic dogma, period. Excepting grade school, he has no education outside of Catholic doctrine and theology, and his entire professional life has revolved around promulgating Catholic doctrine. His opinion on practically anything else is at best worth no more than any randomly selected unskilled worker with access to the television and newspapers.
If I was Catholic, I would of course be interested in what he says -- I'd effectively be obligated to. Otherwise, even for other Christian denominations, there isn't the least reason to care that he exists, much less what he has to say, with the possible exception of law enforcement agencies investigating the increasingly notorious sex crimes committed by his underlings.
It's not the abuses... it's the coverups. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the abuses anyone is complaining about, it's the cover ups. Sure, every profession is going to have people who piss on the ethical standards of that profession, and there's no reason a religious profession would somehow dodge that.
The thing is, if a doctor violates the Hippocratic oath, he loses his medical license. A corrupt lawyer gets disbarred. A fraudulent scientist gets publicly shamed and unable to get money for future research. Jobs with less on the line usually just result in the offender being fired. Whatever the job is though, when someone is corrupt, they're generally removed, and when that fails to happen, the company they work for is punished instead.
With the catholic church, they covered up the pedophilia for decades, and now that they can't hide it any more, do they at least finally apologize, vow to fix it, and start making good on that promise by immediately kicking the most obvious offenders out of the clergy and turning them over the cops? Nope, they instead whine that that transparency of the internet is bad, because it makes their wrongdoing public. That isn't bad PR, that's a systemic failure of the morals they claim to uphold.
THIS is why so few still have any respect for them. Failing to discover abuse is one thing, but being fully aware of it and actively hiding it is when they very much cross the line between "good profession with the occasional douchebag" to "group that actively promotes evil behavior."
Similarly, you can look at the police in the US. Does anyone complain that there's a few evil, unethical cops? Of course not - sometimes you really can't weed them out until they majorly screw up... except they don't. They're "doing administrative work until an investigation can be thoroughly completed." Translation: We're keeping him off the street until the media focuses on something else, then pretending this never happened. Unsurprisingly, public opinion of the police is quite low - doesn't matter that the majority of cops are indeed good people, the system they work for actively promotes evil by refusing to punish the corrupt members of their organization.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:2, Insightful)
Also from the wikipedia link:
The document is primary concerned with disciplinary matters regarding the priests violating their promise of celibacy. A quick look at the details will demonstrate that it was not written to address paedophilia, as that is a criminal offence and should always be handled by the civil authorities.
Misleading Post (Score:2, Insightful)
The summary given in this post is incorrect and misleading in asserting that the Pope was attacking transparency. According to the cited article, the Pope did not address the issue of transparency. The dangers he mentioned were in regards to the "widening of the frontiers of communication" in general, i.e., the web. He also hailed modern comm tech as pointing "to a more 'egalitarian and pluralistic' forum". In fact, the Vatican spokesman specifically said "This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility...We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide" just prior to the Pope's address.
tcd004, and perhaps kdawson, might want to think about reading the featured article before summarizing/posting it.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:4, Insightful)
The argument that it's OK to do it because others are doing does not fly. It's moral relativism at its worst.
The issue is not that some priests did fail, it's that the church as an institution did its best to cover it up, in the process creating opportunities for abuse to last longer and spread.
The whole vatican is a PR operation these days.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:1, Insightful)
Plus the whole "moral relativism" thing. Once people accept that morals are relative, the idea that there is a god who dictates morality disintegrates, along with some of the Popes power/influence.
That shouldn't have anything to do with Christianity. After all, the dude said, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?"
If you look at what Jesus said (well most of it anyway, I think some of it may have been what people thought he said), he was pretty emphatic that trying to reduce morality to a rigid set of rules is a silly idea.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
There's an old aphorism from Sun Tzu Wu: "When you see your enemy making serious mistakes, do not interfere!"
As an atheist I couldn't possibly be happier with the Catholic Church and the deranged B-movie villain they elected Pope.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, what? Of course it is. It's a religion. It's entirely based on superstition and imaginary playmates. There's nothing at the core by definition. It's the purest form of PR.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
Historical atrocities like the inquisition and such is one example of morals going from absolute to relative in which a religion was involved
Uh, no, the inquisition is an example of church morals operating on status quo. It didn't happen in isolation. You may also have heard of witch-hunts. Crusades. Priests in that era were essentially just another form of aristocracy - one that held more power than the actual rulers of some nations. If you think that the atrocities which they carried out were an example of "relative morals", then you haven't read your bible, and you certainly haven't studied the history of christianity.
As for whether moral relativism is a good idea or not, it's irrelevant. Moral relativism is a reality. All morals are formed by the individual - they just tend to be influenced by the society in which the person was raised. The fact that morals are relative doesn't mean that we have to tolerate them all equally, though. I think rape is wrong - if your moral code allows rape (as many religions did, and some still do), I really don't give a damn, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you from acting on those morals. Relativity and equality are not the same thing.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the alternative. The alternative is 1) kicking them out of the church so they won't have a position of authority, presumed goodness, and unsupervised access to young children, and 2) not allowing them to be shipped off to South America when one of the victims DOES want their day in court. The idea that you'd have to force public attention on victims who do not want it is a total strawman.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that the hierarchy worked hard to cover for them.
What do you mean by "cover up?" This is Holy Mother Church, it is answerable directly to God, not to any mere secular authority! Irony aside there are historical reasons why the Church would be reluctant to recognise the authority of states over them (after all they think themselves the authority over states), much less hand their people over to them. Please note, I'm not attempting to justify the inexcusable, but explain the reluctance of this religious body, foremost among all religious bodies (excepting perhaps the Orthodox Church), to submit to secular authority.
If it had stopped at the priests in question then the church as a whole would be squeeky clean but it did not.
Again, just put yourself in the mindset of the Church. These guys genuinely believe they have a license from God to absolve the sinner of their sin. If the pervert priest in question confessed, said his Hail Marys or whatever, then it was all fixed, wasn't it?
Now while a materialist like me might explain the propensity (which anecdotally at least seems unduly high among catholic clergy) of priests to interfere which children, as the product of an ideology which posits sex as bad, thereby associating the transgressive with arousal, alloyed with an unrealistic expectation of chastity, that's not how the Church sees it. There are probably otherwise sober men who believe it is a manifestation of demonic influence. This is a church that still appoints exorcists. Perhaps they repaired the priests before sending them out for a fresh start.
After all we are, so I'm informed, all born as sinners. And Catholicism is all about forgiving sin.
Re:Riiight (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yea, the old "everyone else was doing it, too" defense. Committing heinously evil crimes, then using a global organization to cover it up, can not be excused simply because someone else who is not a part of your organization committed the same crimes. Every time a representative of the oh-so holy Church gets on the radio or on CNN to defend their criminal organization, they feel compelled to mention that Catholic priests are not the only people who rape kids, which completely misses the point. That would be very funny, if this were a topic where humor could ever be found. And if I were to rape a bunch of kids, or even one, at my job, I would not be given new job duties or shipped to a different location - I'd go to prison. My employer, and most international employers, would never even consider covering up things like this instead of immediately reporting criminals to law enforcement. The Roman Cathnolic Church did this, many times.
If the Vatican had a PR department, it would surly be accused of attempting to cover-up further wrongdoings of individuals trusted by the Holy See.
For all intents and purposes, the Vatican does have PR staff - they call them priests of local parishes, mainly - and they have done quite a bit to cover up all sorts of things, including their cover-ups.
Re:It's not the abuses... it's the coverups. (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely. But when the organization gets caught, you don't reason it away. You come down hard on them, and clean house. You certainly don't promote one of the worst offenders to chief (pope) and let him stay there.
Re:I was going to moderate this thread but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ratzinger (spelling) was born in 1927, conscription into the Hitler Youth began in 1939, he was 12. In 1942 when he joined membership was practically mandatory for 14 yr old German boys, [wikipedia.org] only 10% of Germans avoided it and joining was completely mandatory if you were Aryan. Like many Germans male teenagers at the time he really had the choice of joining or being forced to join.
Don't get me wrong, personally I think the guy is a twat and trying to prop up an ancient institution that we just don't need any more. Further more he wants to cover the bad press the church has been getting lately (paedophilia charges). I don't think we need to keep dragging this old chestnut up, I think his recent actions are enough to bash him with.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an atheist too, and I want to say for the record that the Catholic Church is not my enemy.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't that priests are human and did fail.
You know, the thing I hate most about this whole issue is the soft language used about priests' failure and their being human (amazing how die-hard right wingers in the media (not you) gleefully adopt liberal language about criminals just being human when its a religious prick in the dock). Excuse me, these aren't shoplifters or people who got caught with a joint. This is systematic child abuse over a lifetime of "ministering to their flock" (or is that a Lutheran phrase *shrug* - whatever).
And the problem IS very much that these champions of morality didn't just fail - they FELL to a standard lower than the hell they like to preach about so much. I think most moral people would say that the MOST important issue here is punishing the guilty and making damned sure that future abusers would not believe that just being a clergyman gives you free access to children without facing the consequences. THAT is the only way this pathetic little flesh trade will ever stop. The moral strength of the church is obviously impotent in doing anything about it and we might as well stop pretending that it is.
I applaud your condemnation of the organization but profess myself utterly baffled at your casual dismissal of the importance, nay - the primacy - of the actions of the individuals.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:1, Insightful)
The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses.
No, it doesn't. It does however, have a time-honored and world-renowned reputation as a safe haven for child molesters. I'm sure that reputation will help attract only the most upstanding, moral and mentally balanced people to serve as priests. What point is that worthless truism trying to explain?
Re:wagging the dog (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only an observation from the outside that the most vocal atheists in the media seem to be anti-Catholic.
I think the problem here is that there's not just "one kind" of atheist. As with ALL human beings, we're all different and all have varying different beliefs* I'm an atheist, and I DO openly mock religious faiths fairly regularly (I have a strong belief that religions in general are dangerous and detrimental to society and that by mocking them, it leads to open debate, which may cause at least some to question their beliefs). However, the majority of atheists I know are quiet types that tend to "live and let live" as far as religion goes. They don't believe what their neighbour believes, but unless it specifically comes up in conversation are unlikely to say anything.
Now, with the type of atheist that I am, it's quite easy to appear as if you're targetting a specific group, such as Catholics. This however tends to come about purely because they're the ones saying the most to you. I probably come across as fairly anti-Catholic when Catholic people bring up my atheism. I also appear as fairly anti-Buddhist when Buddhists bring it up... but in the society in which I live, I'm far more likely to encounter Catholics than Buddhists, so my opinions probably appear fairly focused on the Catholics when that's not truly the case.
There are of course many other atheists that DO specifically target individual religions, and the Abrahamic religions are a fairly easy target due to both the size (collectively) and dominance in western culture. Going even more specific than "Abrahamic", the Catholic church is yet even easier as a target (although perhaps slightly less so than Islam) due to the many atrocities it has committed and the strong "anti-science" attitude that it gives off to many people (whether they do or do not hold this position is entirely irrelevant - they're perceived as that, which is all that really matters from a human reaction perspective).
* I refer to all people as having "beliefs". This does NOT imply that I think atheism is a "religion" (I would never write "atheism" on a form that asked for religion... I'd write "none"). A belief is simply something you accept as being "true" or "almost certainly true". I believe that Canada is a country. I believe that there is a lot of work waiting for me at the office when I finally head that way in a few minutes. And I believe that there is no greater supernatural power in the universe watching over us. I hold all of these beliefs because it's simply not practical to live one's life without beliefs. If I held NO beliefs, I wouldn't do anything at all... I can't be CERTAIN that I exist even, but I believe I do and so act accordingly...
Re:wagging the dog (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah yea, the old "everyone else was doing it, too" defense. Committing heinously evil crimes, then using a global organization to cover it up, can not be excused simply because someone else who is not a part of your organization committed the same crimes. Every time a representative of the oh-so holy Church gets on the radio or on CNN to defend their criminal organization, they feel compelled to mention that Catholic priests are not the only people who rape kids, which completely misses the point. That would be very funny, if this were a topic where humor could ever be found. And if I were to rape a bunch of kids, or even one, at my job, I would not be given new job duties or shipped to a different location - I'd go to prison. My employer, and most international employers, would never even consider covering up things like this instead of immediately reporting criminals to law enforcement. The Roman Cathnolic Church did this, many times.
That's exactly my issue with this. Sure, people fail, but when that failure is criminal, then the organisation shouldn't assist in covering it up, and certainly not allow it to continue. I can accept that bad stuff happened in the '60s and '70s, and that they weren't prepared to deal with it then. But once high-ranking officials became aware that abuse occurred, they should have made absolutely sure that it wouldn't happen again. I'm not sure if (high-ranking members of) the RC Church were aware of cover-ups in the last 30 years, but if so, I'd have some trouble figuring out how not to consider it a criminal organisation.
That is really how serious it is, and I get the impression that the Vatican still doesn't realise that. They seem to think it's a PR problem. If you really think child abuse is a PR problem, then you've got not a shred of the moral authority that the Vatican claims.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, forgiving sin.
When a priest fucks children, he can be forgiven with some some Hail Maries.
When a 9 year girl gets raped, pregnant and has to terminate her pregnancy because they'll both die if they don't, the Catholic Church explodes in rage and excommunicates her, her family and all the doctors [time.com].
They're a bunch of hypocritical bastards and for all I care can rot in jail.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:3, Insightful)
The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses...
True, but without a doubt, they have perfected the institutionalization of greed and corruption, wrapped in a yummy cloak of "doing the work of the Lord". The RCC has, for centuries, used every dirty trick in the book to gain influence and spread it's power. While The Reformation saw to it that the Church's influence would never again be what it once was, the Church certainly has not given up on those ways. We hear a lot about the pedophile priests and how their crimes have been systematically hidden by the Church, but their other crimes and moral transgressions are just as foul, if nowhere near as extensive, as they ever were. The RCC's pronouncements in Africa alone, on the "sinfulness" of condoms, may be realistically attributed to the loss of thousands of lives.
Re:I've heard this before... (Score:1, Insightful)
You haven't addressed the quite stunning numbers of UK citizens who are happily making a living away from the UK. It does work both ways you know.
And we, in Scotland, are desperate for more people - we really do have a problem filling many jobs, both skilled and unskilled so it's not quite a UK-wide issue.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm an atheist too, and I want to say for the record that the Catholic Church is not my enemy.
I'm an agnostic, and any organization that systematically covers up child abuse is my enemy.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm an atheist too, and I want to say for the record that the Catholic Church is not my enemy.
That is the Catholic Church's call to make, not yours.
You may not be their enemy, but rest assured that they are most certainly yours.