Vatican Warns That Internet Promotes Satanism 585
Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that the Roman Catholic Church has warned that the internet has fueled a surge in Satanism that has led to a sharp rise in the demand for exorcists. 'The internet makes it much easier than in the past to find information about Satanism. In just a few minutes you can contact Satanist groups and research occultism,' says Carlo Climati, a member of the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome who specializes in the dangers posed to young people by Satanism. Organizers of a six-day conference that has brought together more than 60 Catholic clergy as well as doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and youth workers, co-sponsored by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments and the Congregation for Clergy, say the rise of Satanism has been dangerously underestimated in recent years."
Naturally, (Score:4, Interesting)
Well of course, demons are part of the christian cosmology. I think it would be very strange if Benedict did no believe in exorcism. It's like not believing in Jesus's resurrection.
If anyone is interested in exorcism, I recommend the books of Gabriele Amorth [wikipedia.org]. He's an Italian exorcist, and although his work is not the official doctrine, it's still very interesting to read.
Stop laughing, start confronting. (Score:5, Interesting)
While most of Slashdot it is laughing I think we should be taking this as a serious issue and find ways to confront it. We may think the religion is full of ignorants, but they can still have geek kids who get abused and treated badly because they want to play D&D or play some video games. For those who remember Columbine and how geeks got treated, keep that mentality but instead of it just being a small part of your life it becomes your entire life. Your family, friends and everyone you know is calling you a devil worshipper because you want to tell and story and roll some dice.
Stop laughing and start looking for the tears. These people are ruining children's lives and we should be supporting them not laughing at their abusers from a high horse.
Unintended Consequences (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Internet promotes Christianity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. (Score:1, Interesting)
Kids don't go columbine because their parents take away their 20 sided dice. Honestly, kids who are indoctrinated into christianity are better off. They get a support system, a proscription against suicide, a warm fuzzy feeling upon the death of a loved one, and all for the small price of being able to think rationally. That's really a bargain when you think about it.
Re:Unintended Consequences (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all in the labeling. Instead of referring to them as Anti-Gay Inc", why not refer to them as "Anti-Civil Rights", or "the Anti-Freedom of Association clowns"?
Same as the Vatican referring to themselves as "The Holy See". More and more people are referring to them as "Pedophiles International", and Vatican City as PedVille*
*no, I'm not suggesting that zanga come out with a new "kid-themed" game
Re:Internet promotes Christianity (Score:5, Interesting)
Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible.
They are now, but only because the Catholic church finally admitted that it lost a hundred-year-long fight to prevent them from doing so. During that period, people were tortured and burned for suggesting that reading the bible was a good idea for christians. They were branded heretics, and the catholic church argued that anyone other than a priest who read the bible would fail to understand it correctly and would become a heretic (whose soul could only be saved by burning them alive).
Re:Back at you. (Score:5, Interesting)
That is precisely where the church scapegoats the Internet for the church's own hideous sins. The Internet responsible for the increase in possessions, which is why these exorcists have so many more possessions to exorcise: it's the antichrist's war against the church. The church isn't the cult of baby rape and its coverup, it's the victim of a war by the antichrist.
The church embraces the scapegoat [wikipedia.org] as a fundamental practice. Why shouldn't it use it to blame someone else for its own sins, someone who doesn't exist except in the church's own propaganda?
The Slashdot reaction isn't "knee-jerk", a reflex. It's a learned behavior to see through the church's lies and nonsense to find the church's own designed benefit and escape from blame. What's knee-jerk is to ignore proof of the church's guilt even when it's shoved in your face. Not quite a reflex, but a gut reaction trained into us early. The boogeyman doesn't exist, but the church and its crimes do.
Re:Back at you. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Ye will not, if I trust
To know ye right, or if ye know yourselves
Natives and Sons of Heaven possessed before
By none, and, if not equal all yet free,
Equally free; for orders and degrees
Are not with liberty, but well consist.
Who can in reason, then, or right, assume
Monarchy over such as live by right
His equals; if in power and splendour less,
In freedom equal? or can introduce
Law and edict on us, who without law
Err not? much less for this to be our Lord,
And look for adoration to the abuse
Of those imperial titles which assert
Our being ordained to govern, not to serve!'"
In essence and in more modern terms: "God is immensely powerful, but just because he is physically capable of beating us all to a bloody pulp if we disobey him doesn't mean he has the right to do so. We deserve to run our own lives, not just to do as God decrees because he is big enough to enforce his will by violence."
Satan goes on to run the first uprising, and is promptly schooled on just what 'omnipotence' means in the form of the divine smackdown.
Re:Internet promotes Christianity (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Back at you. EU census (Score:4, Interesting)
Also - it might be an expression of their current unease about the EU-wide census, and the results of its question about religion. About how Internet is the tool to promote "satanisms" of various kind in answering to that question (one of more charming ones, at my place [zostandunadanem.pl]
Though in fairness, I prefer Vatican to many others... for example, their position in regards to evolution [newadvent.org] (or consider Mendel, a Catholic monk; generally, their contribution to progress is immense... even if with some temporary hiccups now and then; emphasis in the quote mine):
How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
Re:Back at you. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a whole bunch of people who call themselves Satanists who really don't actually believe in Christ (or even actually Satan) for that matter. If a group can appropriate the name of someone they don't believe in and use it in their religion, I would think that its certainly possible for others to follow the teachings of that same entity and call him something else, or even deny his existence entirely. That's what we call results-oriented diabolism.
Obviously, if you didn't start out as a Christian or in a Christan-influenced area, you probably wouldn't use the terminology. Still, that's like when the Native Americans called European ships "giant birds" or whatever when they first saw them. They didn't have a word for ocean-going ship and no previous way to pick one up from the Europeans, so they made something up. That doesn't mean they weren't talking about ships. If you follow certain practices, then you are following Satanist practices, even if you say that you are actually following Zamfir, Master of the Pan Flute.
Catholicism does not split things down into the line of good and evil. Having had to sit through Catholic education, I know that's more the realm of Manichaeism, which is definitely not Christianity. Catholics believe in one creation, and they do not believe in the equality of good and evil in Creation. Good is more powerful than evil and will always triumph. The only thing that gives evil the illusion of being equivalent to good is that free will allows humans the freedom to select evil if they want to, which tends to make it seem like just two equivalent choices in voting booth. Once selected, however, evil always either falls short of the promises, and sometimes, even some unintended good comes out of it because good is more powerful. So the teaching goes, in any event.
As for Satan, my understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches are as follows:
* Satan is real and a distinct entity. He was created by God and therefore subject to God's rules. Apparently, he is/was an angel, and so our understanding of his existence and his motivations are limited. He is supernatural, but limited, so he doesn't need a TV to lie to you, but he can't actually create things.
* Satan can't make you do anything. Your God-given free will must be respected by him just as much as by any one else.
* Satan can tempt you. That is to say, he's allowed to promote his way of life vigorously and by any means other than removing your free choice. This means that he's probably the world's first, and by far the best, global marketing/advertising firm.
* You can choose to let Satan into your life and in that manner, he can do the whole possession thing. Apparently, Satan and his underlings, being real and supernatural, do have the ability to manifest, but likely if very specifically allowed in. My understanding is that you generally need to have made some sort of choice to allow that to happen. Perhaps even a specific set of choices, the practices therein referred to collectively as "Satanism".
Okay, well, that's probably too much for someone who doesn't actually believe in God to bother with, but I think its important to realize that there is an entire set of logical premises out there that you accept if you are actually a Catholic. Having Satan exist may seem like an externalization of blame, but he's only an externalization if he's not actually real. If he's real, he's out there doing things, and those things are the Church's job to oppose. Either way, it seems to me that self-discipline IS what they are teaching: you have the choice to not be a Satanist, and no one can force you to be one, not even Satan himself.
Re:Back at you. (Score:2, Interesting)
from what I see its the fringe Protestant cults in the USA that are doing this - condoms and birth control id give you that.
You may be right--as far as who's been approaching me, they've all been Catholics. Either way, there's a fine irony. The illiterate Muslim clerics in places like Sudan have finally decided that polio vaccine isn't really "of the Devil" and have given a green light to immunization. Their position has now been taken up by another set of aggressively "Christian" true believers who probably hate all Muslims. As nearly as I can tell, all Gates ever said was something to the effect that a program like his would be a good way to disseminate birth control if needed.
Re:Back at you. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that's not true. Anything that Christians don't like would be "sin". Satanism, in the specific discussion of the Internet and cults does consist of sin, but it's more like the deliberate and even ritualistic practice of sin. Everyone sins, but not everyone is a Satanist.
Of course, there is "Satanism" as defined by the Church and then things like Wicca or even the Anton LaVey's Church of Satan. While certainly some of those would certainly qualify, it's not a 1:1 ratio. The "Do no harm" rule of some neo-pagan groups is much like the Golden Rule, and certainly would not be considered to be satanic. On the other hand, the practice of ritualistic "magick" might be considered satanic, even if no one is talking about Satan, because it purports to gain power from something other than God.
Bear in mind, the Catholic Church considers paganism in the same way that atheists consider Catholicism. To them, there is only one God and one Adversary. Anything other than heaven or hell is just a fiction. Since there are no other gods than God, worship and prayers to a deity other than God is at best pointless, and at worst, an innovation of Satan who may have a hand in creating false religions in much the same way that record producers synthesize boy bands. The goal of Satan is to get you to not follow the law of God and to accrue power to himself. It probably does not much matter to him if you say "Ave Satana" or "Blessed Be" as long as the result favor's Satan's goals.
Mind you, not trying to say pagans are actually secret "Satanists". After all, they do not believe in Satan any more than Catholics believe in the Goddess. But from the Church's viewpoint, some of the practices of paganism may coincide with what a Satanist might be expected to do. And if you start from the premise that the Church does, it is logical to believe this. From that standpoint, the Church would ignore the labels that the pagans choose to use for themselves and instead refer to the offending practices as Satanism.
Re:Back at you. (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell, the best promotion for Satan appears to be the Catholic church itself.
Especially since the very concept of satanism or satan-worship is inseparable from the Christian mythos.
More generally, anything related to satan or shaitan is intrinsically an offshoot of one of the "religions of the book", and ultimately descended from Angra Mainyu [wikipedia.org] who was the antagonist of Ahura Mazhda [wikipedia.org], whence those interrelated Abrahamic [wikipedia.org] monotheisms derive several of their basic attributes.