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."
DEAR POPE (Score:1, Interesting)
Morality is a human invention and is not by any stretch objective. Sorry to burst your bubble.
While we're on that path, god doesn't exist. Sorry.
Sorry Joe (Score:5, Interesting)
Wag the Dog (Score:2, Interesting)
Odds are they're doing this just to get attention away from the recent sex abuse scandal.
I wouldn't say nowhere. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's Internet transparency that has been uncovering and unraveling the abuse scandal that has brought on a crisis within the Catholic Church. Although I'd be hard-pressed to say I was "shocked" that the Pope has no apparent interest in uncovering a network of evil, horror and corruption within the Church, I can and will say that I am disappointed. This was his golden opportunity to both prove to the world the relevance of the Church (through active demonstration) and to prove that fears (inspired by books like "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", "The Da Vinci Code", etc, and by right-wing Baptist loonies) that the Church was an active participant in satanic activities was crud. Instead, he's chosen a path of reinforcing the worst paranoias of the deluded, seemingly preferring the genuine dangers and very real threat of inflating religious extremist violence over and above having the Church fulfill its actual* mission. *Ok, purported. It's hard to say that peace, kindness and charity have anything to do with any actual mission the Church has performed these past 2,000 or so years.
Re:I've heard this before... (Score:4, Interesting)
the reason they can't stand people not abiding by rules other then their own, is it poses the question that maybe their own way of life is "wrong", which for people with the belief that their dogma is the only way into heaven, is an untenable situation.
Re:The Pope (Score:2, Interesting)
It turns out only SOME of the things the Pope says are the infallible word of God.
And how do we know the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra? Because God said so? No? Because some people made it up 140 years ago? Yeah. Well I now dictate that I'm infallible when speaking "en slashdotia". Beware.
Not transparency that he was talking about (Score:2, Interesting)
I read the article. The Pope said these risks are from the "new media," not transparency. The original text:
I agree with him that it poses greater risks, with its greater benefits. A super-high-speed, worldwide network is a double-edged sword. It can bring good and bad, just like older forms of communication, just more of it.
Re:I wouldn't say nowhere. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Interesting)
Most likely no one will listen to me, but I may as well try and reach a few people.
The Pope is speaking specifically about the effect that the internet will have on individuals, as this is his primary function as the Pope. I don't think this message should be taken as some condemnation of internet transparency. It seems to me that he's primary speaking about the dangers that arise (with respect to the soul) in any "wild west" situation like the internet.
Oh, and since TFA seems primarily concerned with the child abuse scandal (obviously this is a despicable thing that has happened), it might also be worth mentioning that the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and his primacy is in matters of faith. He is *not* the CEO of the Church like you might find in an ordinary industry. If we want to find resolutions to the abuse scandal, we have to bring the local bishops to account. If somehow the Pope is removed, it will not get rid of the problem. All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
Re:The Pope (Score:3, Interesting)
He is imbued with divine authority (passed down from Simon Peter) over the entire Church, by Jesus our Lord and Savior. He's preserved from erring in matters of faith or morality by Divine Will.
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.
Heh, yeah, I'm sure the Catholic Church is downright distraught that their authority does not derive from the will of the masses. That seems to be one of the main problems with the institution these days: it's deeply, utterly, incompatible with any notions of democracy or egalitarianism. Of course, we're all lowly sinners in the eyes of The Lord, it's just that He seems to have decided to elevate some above others in the Earthly life.
According to Catholics, anyway.
Re:I've heard this before... (Score:4, Interesting)
Without reference to any specific people who may or may not be coming into our country, we in the UK have a serious problem with immigration generally. This is primarily because under EU rules we can no longer turn away a citizen from any other EU nation, and the EU is expanding to include nations with vastly different economic strength to its original members. This creates a bias in the direction of population flow from the poorer nations to the richer ones that is ultimately harmful to both, because it strains the resources and capacity of the wealthier nations while draining precisely the kind of skilled/talented/experienced people who would be needed in their home countries to help rapid development of their own economies.
The UK has been particularly badly hit by this for a number of reasons, including having a relatively high population density already and having relatively poor border controls and tracking of legal vs. illegal immigrants (ironically, considering that we're the ones who actually have a clear and defensible border). The same basic economic imbalance applies, to some degree, to many of the EU member states today, but the other factors mean the UK is also an attractive destination for those who have no intention of working legitimately and those who can find an excuse to come here from outside the EU.
The final nail in the coffin is that the strongest voices against immigration in the UK today tend to come from the far right, but the political parties with those views tend to be full of dubious characters you wouldn't necessarily want to support in general even if you agreed with their stance on immigration. This tends to make immigration a taboo subject: it's the political third rail, mention it without choosing your words extremely carefully and tomorrow you're "obviously" a racist according to half the papers and most other political parties. I'm sure the Pope would be very proud of our lack of transparency, moral absolutes and absence of reasoned debate. <sigh>
Re:The Pope (Score:3, Interesting)
And here's the transcript of a letter from a priest who cooperated with the Vatican for picking # 1 [transboutique.com].
Now the funny thing is that it's MANDATORY [hrsdc.gc.ca] to report [justice.gc.ca] suspected cases of child abuse, and yet the priests who covered it up have never been charged. Covering it up after the fact also makes them accessories after the fact.
Maybe it's time to do like some people in Great Britain are thinking of doing, and have the Pope arrested if he comes visiting. [dailymail.co.uk]
Any bets that he cancels the September visit?
Re:I wouldn't say nowhere. (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, no church has followers that constitute the majority of the world population (Islam is probably the closest). So that would mean that churches are irrelevant to most or all of the world population, and that (unfortunately, IMHO) just doesn't seem to jibe with the world as I know it. In a world were genocide still happens, something doesn't have to be rational, or make any sense at all, for it to still be relevant. You don't survive long telling the people with machetes that they're not relevant.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Interesting)
All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
Why would an atheist, in particular, care who the Pope is? Is there some pro-atheist papal candidate who might have a shot at the papacy if the current Pope is ousted? It seems an odd statement.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:5, Interesting)
I have/had a book written in the 1880's describing the failures of the priests and the cover-ups by the staff up to and including the Vatican. That book is now 130 years old (it was writing about the mid 1800's) and the situation has not changed in all that time.
My ex still has the book most likely. Next time I am in Edwardsville I will get it back.
Re:It's not the abuses... it's the coverups. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wagging the dog (Score:1, Interesting)
History has shown us why moral relativism is not particularly a good idea. It really has nothing to do with the existence of any god or their followers. Historical atrocities like the inquisition and such is one example of morals going from absolute to relative in which a religion was involved. It's basis was in killing someone because they didn't believe in or worship their god while giving them a chance to convert even though their god said killing was bad. An absolute moral would be that they couldn't murder these people but the relativism turned it into some sort of justifiable work of the lord.
This, as anyone can see, is not something specific to any religion nor is it isolated from one. Pope Benedict was actually a Nazi Youth during WWII and saw first hand how moral relativism made it possible for the internment of the Jews and other such crap.
I'm not sticking up for the pope, nor am I sticking up for any religion. It may very well be something along the lines of what you say but moral relativism is not something that we should want. Already we have people taking this path that say kiddie porn or pedophilia is ok if it doesn't harm the kids or that the punishment for it is too harsh because there isn't any harm to the kids. That's the relativism of the argument, the absolute of it is that it's bad and shouldn't happen. Don't confuse morals with the so called source and don't confuse absolute/relative with the morals. And especially, do not be ignorant enough to think some religion or god separates the two.
Absolutes say something is always right or wrong, relativism attempts to justify why it isn't right or wrong in that instance. DO you want to get raped in the mouth in front of 10,000 people and have the attacker justify his actions as not immoral somehow?
Re:wagging the dog (Score:4, Interesting)
The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses.
Heh. Just this afternoon, the US's NPR (National Public Radio) had an article about the growing scandal over similar abuse in the Boy Scouts. Officially at least, that's not even a religious organization (though they do push a lot of "God and Country" ideology).
So no, the Catholic church isn't nearly the only organization with that particular problem. And they're all going to find it a lot more difficult to keep a lid on the stories.
Disclaimer: I never was a Boy Scout, so I have no personal experience in this area. I was a Cub Scout, and my aunt Evelyn, my mother's older sister, was the local Cub Scout leader. She was a great lady, and the boys all loved her. (But not in that way, y'know. ;-) I never had any interest in the Boy Scouts, though; the local chapter seemed more like a sort of paramilitary boot camp to me, so I just ignored it.
Re:It's not the abuses... it's the coverups. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
[...]
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.
[..]
I agree. The worst kind of evil is having the power to stop evil, but doing nothing about it. When it comes to morals/ethics, you're only as "good" as your weakest link. If the Vatican sees a pedophile and does nothing of it, then the Vatican is giving it's reputation and telling people that this man/woman is of Vatican quality even though it knows what he/she actually does. They are no better than the people they willing support when knowing of their evils.
Re:I've heard this before... (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not entirely clear why the EU popped up...
The UK, like here in Ireland, saw a large influx of EU citizens from eastern Europe after they joined because, along with Sweden, Malta and Cyprus, they chose not to put temporary limits on this migration, as they were entitled to. They did this for a good reason: with a frothy economy, additional workers were welcome to keep a lid on inflation (of course, nobody's going to tell the voters this). Which it did, although it may have driven the rents up. These migrants are not a problem. There was a lack of qualified jobs in their home countries, and a lack of qualified applicants here, problem solved. Of course everybody heard a story of some PhD who was working on a farm, but these by and large were exception. And I know we were (and still are) glad to be able to hire competent engineers instead of DailyWTF local clowns like some I had to interview [shudder]. Note that more than a few have gone back (or somewhere else), which in the business oriented view of the EU defended by the UK, with which I largely agree, is exactly as it should: you want a workforce that's mobile enough to go where it's needed.
As for non-EU migration, I'm afraid this is largely of the various countries own doing. Some opened their borders to all refugees (the nordics, Netherlands), some as a consequence of their imperial past (i.e colonies: Germany has Turks, France, Moroccans and Algerians, the UK has Indians and Pakistanis), others actually imported, and the word is only too accurate, workers to feed their industry (France until the 70s, Spain until recently, kinda). Illegal migration patterns follow historic legal ones. Can you spot many Algerians in the UK? Likewise there's few Indians in France. Note that the EU never had any part in this whatsoever, at least as far as the UK is concerned. France might complain that lax attitude in Spain means migrants end up in France with no way of knowing, due to both countries being in the Schengen area (no control at the borders), but the UK, and Ireland, aren't.
What does make the UK a preferred destination for extremists of all stripes is its extraordinary tolerance of free speech (if you take care to void libel, that is ;-)
The "final nail in the coffin" is that this "immigration problem", such as it may be, is like 40 years old. The migrants who are now "too numerous" are second or third generation, that is their parents never "came from" anywhere, they were always *here* (Germany is a bit of a specific case in that most Turks there were never granted citizenship).
Re:wagging the dog (Score:3, Interesting)
It was a conference on digital media. The Pope basically praised the Internet as a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum. Then he warns that some of the stuff on the Internet can pollute the spirit. Given the crap that's online, that's a fair assessment to make.
OTOH, the Vatican really needs some good PR. You ask for forgiveness with a repentant and contrite heart, not with evasions, excuses, justifications or counter-accusations. And start by apologising to the victims, individually if need be. If this is what the Vatican has been trying to do, it didn't come across clearly enough.
For the rest, I think it would be a good idea to tone down on the witch hunting. It is too easy to get emotionally involved online with causes that we do not know the facts of. Lets give both parties breathing space so that they can talk to each other.
Re:wagging the dog (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems (anecdotally - stats anyone?) that the incidence is higher in the priesthood than in the general community.
I'm not convinced of this. I believe clinical pedophila is a lot more common that we think. However, for the majority of society, 100% trusted access to children is very limited and social pressures keep them in check. The priesthood lacks these barriers. It's also quite possible that the way in which men are brought into the priesthood unwittingly encourages it by stunting the development of their sexuality.
Re:Translation: (Score:3, Interesting)
"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."
This is glib, but quite wrong.
Ever-increasing communications and globalization is causing us to be confronted ever more often with questions of moral relativism. In ancient times, when few people traveled more than a handful of miles from home, it was less of an issue.
Today, we have regular and constant conflicts between moral systems, held by their adherents to be equally "good".
Simple example: We (in Western Humanist societies) believe that women are equal to men in capability and opportunity. Certain societies don't believe this. Does this mean that the women there are 'oppressed' and should be 'rescued'? Would they even agree? Should we aggressively evangelize our beliefs, because we're 'certain' they're better in an absolute sense? Aside from the fact that other cultures may be JUST as certain of their superiority, how does this jibe with the (current) Western opinion frowning on the actions of 16-19th century colonialist missionaries, who were JUST as certain at the time that they needed to do what they were doing to SAVE the souls of the 'poor little ignorant fuzzy-wuzzies'?
On the other hand, from the point of a true moral relativist, would you have any right to criticize an Arab society for jailing and/or beating a woman for going out in public without a male escort? Or for an Indonesian man selling his daughter into prostitution because needs some cash and after all, she's just a girl? Or Chinese families drowning newborns because they have a vagina and not a penis?
My personal answers to these questions make people uncomfortable. What're yours?
Things the Catholic Church fears the most... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to wonder: How many pedophile priests have been outed thanks to the Internet? How many people have left the Church because they have discovered other spiritual paths (including the many other paths of Christianity) thanks to the Internet. The bottom line is the Pope is scared. His Church may have to start selling some of their gold and property in order to survive this century.
This may hurt my Slashdot karma, but my real Karma is more important.