Ö÷²¥´óÐã

William,
the following is a link to an article which appeared in The Indie. Afterwards in the comments section there is a post by someone who I guess is possibly a Canon Lawyer. (Scroll down to the long post by MacK.)

He sets out the actual oath of secrecy which children like the victims of Brendan Smyth were forced to sign. It is the first time I have seen the oath. It makes nauseating reading.

Ratzinger not only assented to this oath when he took office as head of the CDF, he further reinforced it by his letter Crimens Solicitationis which went to all Bishops.

On reading it you realise that Brady has to go and that it is no wonder the author of the article states that Ratzinger should be greeted with, "An empty, repulsed silence, broken only by the cries for justice -and the low approaching wail of a police siren."

Because this is the UK? And anything to do with the Pope and Catholicism has been controversial since Henry the VIII decided he didn't want to be married to this woman anymore, and by Jove, I'll show those silly Europeans who's in charge here!

I mean, Catholics were barred from voting and legally discriminated against for centuries, especially on the mainland here.

Besides, the Pope and all things Papal are supposed to be 'Most Holy' and infalliable, along with all the cabbage that comes with an ancient and powerful organisation run on dogmatic religous lines. It's good to point out that, despite the claims otherwise, we're all just humans.

Why is the pope so controversial?

- His role in the cover-up of the priest sex abuse scandal

- Bringing a holocaust denier back into the fold

- Ranking ordaining women alongside pedophilia

- Making bogus claims about condom use in AIDS-ridden countries, then denying it

- Insulting various other religions, including other christian ones

etc.

I think 4 things make this controversial,

1) Money/timing - the £15M that this will cost to bring a religious leader (of relatively few Britons) seems obscene when all sorts of people are losing their jobs. That could keep 400 teachers or police in their posts. The fact that we are paying for not just the state visit but for the pastoral parts as well is particularly controversial.

2) Ratzinger - He is himself controversial from his past in the Hitler Youth, his involvement with the cover up of clerical abuse (both as cardinal and now pope), his insulting and vitriolic attacks on homosexuals, women and reproductive rights and even his own sexuality is subject to question. He is also not open to question, and in a democracy that is unacceptable even our Queen has had to change things under pressure from the country.

3) Vatican - The state itself is controversial from its inception under Mussolini to its current form. A state which interferes in the affairs and democracy of other states, the only religion to claim state privileges at the UN.

4) Secularism - Britain is not a religious state any more and religious leaders do not get deference because of their position only because of their actions. They do not get believed on any subject just because they are religious but only when they show evidence. The pope is seen as out of touch with the way most people want to live and as a result is basically irrelevant and is more of an irritant for many. I think most religious leaders are viewed this way.

Not comprehensive but enough to engage apathy in the visit and outrage at the social stance of the pope and the cost to the UK.

A case is alleged here that Mr Tatchell has himself made some points of interest about adult-child sex.

OT,

Yawn, you already rolled out that url on the 'Being gay and African today' thread. Honestly, a link to an article about Tatchell on a thread that deals with the controversies surrounding the current pope?! You seem more than just a little obsessed.
And Dave already told you why the story behind that url is sensationalist and out of context and that you seem more interesting in attacking Peter Tatchell than in debate that is relevant to the thread. So quoting some of his responses should suffice here:

"OT,

A bit of care is need here in putting what Tatchell says out of context, you would not want to be accused of sensationalising or misrepresenting the way the Mail and Sun did.
Here is the complete text of his article "

"My concern here is why OT is raising this in this way, it is almost like an attack on Tatchell in order to discredit him for some reason."

Peter

What would you say if the Pope made the following argument;-

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers."

"The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

"While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."


-----------------------------------------------------------------


Anyone feel any righteous indignation rising within them?



Now Peter.

What would you think if Peter Tatchell made the same argument?

Interesting mind game isnt it?

Why the inner conflict Peter?

Nobody has been quoted out of context.

Mr Tatchell's letter has been printed in full on the link I gave above.

Mr Tatchell says the aim of his documentary is to fully explore the life and journey of the Pope.

Is Mr Tatchell beyond the same scrutiny?

Why?

OT

At the forefront of my mind is the way in which the Catholic Church has dealt with its paedophile priests. Before Ratzinger became Pope he headed a Vatican congregation which had an important role in how suspected paedophile priests should be dealt with. It seems that the interests of the Church have consistently been put before the welfare of children.

Also, the visit is costing hard-working taxpayers millions of pounds. The Pope should be putting his hand in his own pocket instead of leaving others to pick up the tab.

OT,


Why are you feeling indignation about the results of research and peoples own experiences. Is it because it does not fit with your 'morals'

Is Prof Gilbert Herdt telling lies or is that the reality of what he found.

Is Peter Tatchell telling lies about the people he knows or is that the reality of what he has found in discussion with them.

I seem to remember a research paper discussed on here which was attacked when it found that not all post pubescent/adult sex had a harmful effect (even they were surprised at that) but as it was the findings of the research it had to be accepted.

The last statement you quote is simply a reflection of the evidence.

Tatchells argument is that criminalising children is pointless, what he is not arguing for, and you seem to be suggesting he is, is open season on kids. What he is arguing for is an adult, rational debate on criminalisation of children, age of consent, protection of children and education.

Just so you get some relevance to this thread, the age of consent in the Vatican is the same as Italy and is as follows.

The age of consent in Italy is 14 years, with a close-in-age exception that allows those aged 13 to engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 3 years older. The age of consent rises to 16 if one of the participants has some kind of influence on the other (e.g. teacher, tutor, adoptive parent).

This is actually more lenient that Peter Tatchell has advocated.

RJB -thanks for the link - took an age to find the article by MAck but it is very illuminating. If this was any other institution with that sort of oath of secrecy around abuse to be taken by the abusers and the abused, I would imagine there would be no hesitation in arresting those responsible.

OT, your post 7 does nothing to take away the fact that it was another jump from you to something you obsess about, something that was not at all relevant for this thread.

"What would you say if the Pope made the following argument"

The pope didn't. There's plenty of discussion about what the pope did or did not say or do. Or what the implications of those statements or actions are. That is what the thread is about. Stick to the script please rather than your usual badly founded talking points.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The article written by Johann Hari contained many gross blunders. All the points in the article have been refuted by Catholic Voices in a letter you can read by following this link:

Pope Benedict never covered up child abuse - he has actually been extremely harsh (as he should be) in rooting it out of the Church. The link has all the facts and I suggest you all read it.

Hi Eunice, what was the link for the oath please, couldn't find the Mack comment

Anna

The article you ask us all to read does what it says on the tin, "Protect the Pope."

Johann Hari's article in the Independent is to be criticised, not because it contained falsehoods about the Pope, but because it didnt contain enough of the unpallatable truths about him. Hari's article let Ratzinger off far too lightly!

"Protect the Pope" is the usual anti-Press, anti-Truth nonsense. It was the Press who exposed the evil of paedophile priests, the Press which continues to give a voice to the abused and it is the Press who will continue to expose and embarrass Ratzinger and his cronies.

RJB,

"It was the Press who exposed the evil of paedophile priests, the Press which continues to give a voice to the abused and it is the Press who will continue to expose and embarrass Ratzinger and his cronies."

But the press has lost a good part of its interest in the abuse scandal. A CNN report recently described it as that the Vatican was taking solace in the fact that the scandal is now mostly out of the headlines:

Jelly bean wrote "Ratzinger not only assented to this oath when he took office as head of the CDF, he further reinforced it by his letter Crimens Solicitationis which went to all Bishops."

Funny that, since the letter issued in 1962 when Ratzinger was still a professor and had nothing to do with it.

The Pope is "controversial" because he's German which in British speak means Nazi, don't mention the war, Basil Fawlty. The Pope is controversial because he's a Catholic and there remains a lot of anti-catholicism in Britain, including in law. He's contoversial because he is intelligent and doesn't rely on spin - you remember all those years of complaining about Labour spin - turns out that's what people want after all. He's controversial because people know nothing about history and don't appreciate that the Holy See is the oldest existing entity in international law. He's controversial because people don't understand that host States pay for State visits so that when the Queen goes on a State visit to France or the US or Canada they have to bear the costs. He's controversial because odious little creeps like Tatchell are given free reign to make programmes about him. He's controversial because the vast majority of people who have opinions on him have never, ever, read anything written by him.

PK

In many respects the Press has done its job. (The Boston Globe's reportage and investigative journalism on the issue was relentless at the time, thankfully, and really forced the world to sit up and take notice.)

However, if you take a look at sites like 'abusetracker' and 'Bishopaccountability' you'll find dozens of reports from newspapers every single day breaking new stories on the subject of abuse within the Catholic Church.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

What the Vatican takes real solace in and what it counts on, is information being localised. (eg Brendan Smyth's victims in one area being unaware that he already had victims in another area - however, the Church knew this information!)

Victims' organisations will continue to network and attempt to bring this information together to expose Ratzinger and the guilty hierarchy. However, you are right, we do need the help of the Press.

mccamleyc,

He's not above blame, however, and he's nothing more than a human being who has a fancy job title and a modicum of power.

Also, whilst I have no problems entertaining heads of state and our state paying for their visit, I do have a problem with that 'head of state' then expecting us to pay for religious services for a minority group.

I don't give a flying monkeys poop that the Holy See is the 'oldest existing entity in international law'. Means nothing.

If the president of France came to the UK on a state visit, fair enough, pay up. But if he then wanted to preach to all the French people in Britain in a big park event, I'd tell him to stuff it, that's not why he's here.

mccamleyc,

I was going to make a reasoned reply to your post but why engage with a person who regards another as an odious little creep and brands the rest of the people who disagree with him in order as

Racist
Sectarian
Stupid
Ignorant
Ungrateful
Incapable of understanding finance
Arrogance in disagreeing with him and
Unread

I guess the pope must really be infallible.

Oh Dear, I seem to always find myself commenting on mccamley! Whatever you think about Peter Tatchell,the world needs people like that, not many would have the strength to fight against bigotry and injustice alone when it takes them far out of their comfort zone and security. Tatchell would be alot more like Jesus than the current Pope would, if you really think about it.If there is such a thing as a grand plan for everything, maybe the slow unpicking of the catholic church and all the events exposed just go to show Catholicism doesn't bring out the best in people, or is a credible spiritual or moral code for a better future.

Thanks Dave - an excellent summary of the types who hate the Pope, written in a way I wouldn't have dared. I would add Begrudgers to cover those who complain about his shoes.

Natman, the reason I mention the Holy See being the oldest entity in international law is that people like you put Head of State in inverted commas as if he's not a real head of State, and pretend the Holy See was set up Mussolini.

MCC

In 2001 Ratzinger and Bertone sent a letter to every Catholic Bishop on the planet reinforcing the oath of secrecy contained in Crimens Solicitanionis. You know this as you were on here trying to defend it.

And if you want to talk about 'spin' you need look no further than Ratzinger's "hermeneutic of continuity." He doesnt even have the basic honesty to call it what it is - a declaration that he knows better than all the Cardinals, Bishops, theologians and the Sensus Fidelium which was Vatican II Council.

No wonder your posts are full of arrogance and triumphalism - you have a good teacher.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Jelly bean - you know the oath was about matters concerning the seal of the confession. Or maybe you don't since you keep mixing up basic things like who wrote what and when.

Hermeneutic of continuity is critical in understand how doctrine develops - it's classic Newman.

I'm over and out.

In NI the police, RC church and social services struck a deal so that only summaries of the church's abuse files would be handed over to police.

That was right after Ferns, because the authorities in NI got spooked.

Trouble was, there was not enough evidence to prosecute the suspects.

I wonder how different it would have been if the police had insisted on inspecting the churches archives for itself?

I suspect it is only a matter of time until the political tide turns.

OT

romejellybeen (and other like minded people):
you show your true nature when you dismiss a factual article purely because it is written by Catholics in defence of the Pope. So you are not interested in facts and/or in the truth, you just want to slander the Pope and the whole of the Catholic Church with it. Your attitude is irrational to say the least I am afraid. If you wish to read facts and not fiction I suggest you read the refutation of Hari's shallow points here:
You can also read a whole book about Pope Benedict and his work to root out paedophilia and corruption in the Church:

Ol folks, we can argue about the rights and wrongs of Ratzinger all day, but how about we draw a line under it? Let's live and let live, and see if we can all help make the visit of this, the most despised pope on centuries, a success, eh? Show a little charity. What say ye?

"First there were rumours -- that's all the were -- that a visit might be on the cards."

FWIW Double spaced dashes are generally considered bad form in digital text. They're a carry over from the typewriter which didn't have an em dash[1]; however, digital fonts do have an em dash (and many other things typewriters do not) so consider using an em dash. Also, there are generally no spaces around an em dash.

In OS X, an em dash is shift–alt-minus.

"First there were rumours—that's all the were—that a visit might be on the cards."

[1]

Ryan: the link is RJB post 1 but I had to scroll for ages and ages to find Mack post. I have copied it but don't think can paste to here -too long and prob not allowed.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Brian McLinton

I always have the utmost respect for you given your posts on here but you are wrong in your argument in this case (although argued well.)

Something special happened to Catholics across the world at Vat II. We moved away from all that you describe. We, for the first time in 2000 years, perceived something different from the hierarchical structure you rightly criticize.

We learned humbly from Protestant scripture scholars, from centuries of philosophers and from the widow's mite.

Your post concerns itself with a tiny - but powerful - minority of small minded, foolish Pharisees. The Catholic Church is SO much bigger than that.

I will never forget one Midnight Mass when the congregation lit their candles and the church lights were turned off. I was a curate in the parish at the time. The parish priest, an old man from Ireland (now deceased) told the altar boys and girls to turn around and look down the church.

"Look", he said, "That is the good and holy people of God!" I looked too. I have never forgotten it. Here were a magnificent crowd of ordinary people, sometimes broken, sometimes fragile, sometimes incredibly brilliant but never reported.

Ratzinger is not who they are. MCC is certainly not who they are.

They are there, Catholic, Protestant or unlabelled. They quietly help the poor and, without trumpet blasts, love their neighbour. Very few of them will turn out for Ratzinger next week but neither will they criticize him.

They are why I remain a priest and a catholic. God bless them, the great, the good.

RJB, I am always very impressed by what you say, but do you not feel that the very real personal and social needs that people have are the laundered diesel by which these charlatans in the Roman Catholic Church (which is just one among many churches) run their jalopy, and indeed breed the sort of dependence culture that perpetuates the problems? Those "good and holy people of god" are merely fodder for this racket - a great and hideous popemobile chuntering through the slums and crushing all in its fell path. Of course other denominations cynically use people's biological religious susceptibilities for their own ends too, but forget Vat2 - surely it is time to take this filthy and unsafe rustbucket off the roads, and prosecute some people for dangerous driving?

What I'm saying is that you should not use (I don't think you are!) the many good and decent people in the path of this vehicle as the justification for the vehicle itself. Catholics have been abused en masse by this organisation. They *could* leave, and one of the great tragedies is that this fantasy fairy-tale nonsense is so ingrained in people's psyches that they simply can't imagine life without it. Indeed it is just that - a failure of imagination. Being an atheist is not that hard; I think more people should give it a try. Continue to be a Christian if they wish, go to church, sing the hymns, read the bible if they wish. But give up *belief*. That's the best way to stay safe on the roads.

RJB:

No offence intended to you personally. You mention Vatican 11. John XXIII was that rare phenomenon - a liberal Pope - and I agree that his pontificate signalled a wind of change in the years 1958-63. In his two major encyclicals Mater et Magistra (1961) and Pacem in Terris (1963) he accepted democracy, liberty of conscience, the principle of national sovereignty and peaceful co-existence with communism and unequivocally condemned racialism. To bring the Church up to date, he set up the Second Vatican Council in 1962. It was intended as a Parliament of which he was a constitutional monarch.

However, this crucial aim of allowing greater independence of action to the national episcopates was not implemented. John XXIII died in 1963 and although his successor Paul VI allowed the Council to continue until its work was completed in 1965, he weakened its authority by vetoing topics like clerical celibacy and stalling on matters like contraception. His conservatism was fully exposed in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which completely ruled out artificial methods of birth control. The ‘benign revolution’ of John XXIII had clearly failed.

The rollback gathered momentum with the election of Karol Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II in 1978. His informal, populist style did not disguise his fundamentalism. He wasted little time in condemning all the main liberalising forces within the Church. This unyielding autocrat was hardly the man to drag the Catholic Church into the modern age. He was one of the chief enemies of Enlightenment values.

Ratzinger is, if anything even worse.

So, RJB, how do you get back to Vatican II?

Helio

Good points (as always.) I recently saw a lecture in which a socialist told the story (to a very educated university audience) of a landowner who rode up to a poor couple working his land, told the woman he was going to rape her and, since it was muddy, ordered the husband to hold his testicles in his hands to stop them getting muddied.

After the rape and the landowner had gone, the husband was laughing loudly. When his brutalised wife asked why he could find it so funny the man said, "I kept taking my hands away as he was raping you. He's away and he's covered in mud!!"

The audience burst out laughing, but the lecturer didnt. He then turned on his audience and stated that their laughter was the problem. Our response to oppression is often to laugh at and take the micky out of the oppressor. The appropriate response should be to take out a rusty blade and separate the rapist landowner from his organs.

The response of the Catholic people to these hierarchs whom THEY have given such a privileged position should be something similar. Out with all of them - these people who have sacked or silenced those who would have educated us and brought us out of the dark ages of clericalism, superstition and feudal subservience.

For the millions who have walked away or been chased away from the Catholic Church (30 million in America alone), I cannot see them dumping their belief in God. Its his self appointed spokesmen they object to. I think you have your work cut out offering them the delights of atheism, but good luck.

Really enjoyed reading your posts mcclinton. Royaljellybeen, You're right -people walk away from the Catholic Church but many still hold religious beliefs- whether those beliefs find another church or become a patchwork quilt of different ideas that are personal to them. Not to get too philosphical Helio, but atheism is still belief. Belief in nothing is just as abstract as belief in God

The problem is that there are so many people whose beliefs have become shaken because of the scandals involving church leadership. If faith is dependant on the actions of those in authority then it is no faith at all. Just because they have been given authority doesn't mean they stop sinning...they will be every bit as accountable to God for it as anyone else will.

Ryan,

You're getting confused with someone saying that they believe there is no God and someone saying they don't believe in God.

The first is an active form of belief, in which the person possibly had some belief, or retains some residual belief, and denies it as they prefer the thought that there is no God.

The second is a lack of any belief, someone who has considered the existance of gods, but discarded it as a waste of mental time. This form of atheism is not belief, its the equivalent of a 'belief' in the non-existance of Santa, or the tooth fairy. You would not consider the disbelief in those entities as some form of belief, would you?

Well i guess it just reminded me of the Hindu belief in the state of nothingness. Just as in the belief that 0 is also a number. I Guess when someone feels so strongly to continually reiterate the non existence of something, it just shows humans are preconditioned/preprogrammed to still preach to one another, even if its to refute the existence of God or religion- people are still preoccupied by talking about it.Maybe for some atheists robustly defending their position in some small corner of the world, they think about and use the word God more than someone, who is agnostic/religious/spiritual

Indeed Ryan - I found it quite interesting when I first joined this blog to find that there were quite a lot of atheists contributing as I rather naively/ignorantly presupposed it would be mostly those who did 'believe' in or know God. Of course that is just because when I was an atheist - the last place you would have found me was on a blog writing about God so you could say I just tarred all atheists with the same brush!!!! Thankfully - that is not the case and it certainly makes for richer debate, discussion and craic and I'm certainly glad it's not all 'believers' so to speak. That's the funny thing about labels and why I generally try to not use them too much - as I find my views are often very far removed from some of the 'believers' and at times in agreement with the views of the atheist esp re human rights/equality matters (rather than subject of God of course! ). Helio tries to tell me I'm an atheist but don't know it and I say the opposite - he knows God but doesn't know it! haha
So long live (or God bless ?? ;-) ) the atheist!! :-)))

Ryan,

Are you a Santa-atheist? Surely if you don't believe in his existance, then you must have some belief in him? You talk and think about him more than Santa-believers? Do you feel so strongly to continually reiterate the non existence of Santa?

Is having faith a good thing or a bad thing? If it's a good thing, then how is your assertion that atheists have faith in something a grand revelation? If it's a bad thing, then you're riding a very dodgy horse.

I don't believe gods exist and I find the assumption that you think, because of that, I have some kind of belief in your highly specific monotheistic god and not the millions of other supernatural entities that have been claimed to have existed in the long years of human history, a little insulting.

Natman: do you hold beliefs about the Gods that you don't believe in??

Eunice,

It's the assumption that atheism implies some form of 'belief', even if that's belief that gods don't exist.

To me, gods don't exist, it's very simple. I consider their existance as plausible and as rational as belief in faeries, or Santa or even the almighty FSM. To imply this requires some form of belief is plain wrong.

Returning to the subject of the thread, Geoffrey Robertson's book, 'The Case of the Pope', received a very sympathetic review by Terry Eagleton in today's Guardian. He concludes: "It is one of the most formidable demolition jobs one could imagine on a man who has done more to discredit the cause of religion than Rasputin and Pat Robertson put together".

I also liked this quote from the book: "Tens of thousands of children were bewitched, buggered and bewildered
by Catholic priests whist [Ratzinger's] attention was fixated on 'evil' homosexuals, sinful divorcees, deviate liberation theologians, planners of families and wearers of condoms".

The book that the possibility of convicting Benedict of aiding and abetting the international crime of systemic child abuse is not out of the question.

lol Natman I'll just let you go off on your own tangeant. If you'd read what I wrote in Hawking post #84 that sums up briefly how I view things, but I really don't have the fervour or the passion for preaching as you do, so i'll let you carry on about santa x

Ryan,

Yes, I found your comment "no-one has a monopoly on the truth" quite amusing.

That's the kind of comment I'd expect of the 'God of the gaps' line of thinking. As if science and religion have seperate mandates and ne'er the twain shall mix.

Simple fact: atheism is no belief.

Brian (34)

Thanks for the very concise and accurate summary of the recent Papacies, all of which I guess you knew I knew. I'd also add a mention of the brief shining star which was the allegedly murdered JP I.

Vatican II is alive and well. Its authenticity lies in the very fact that it has been attacked by the conservatives (Pharisees.)

The present set up is doomed. The third world cant pay for its future upkeep and the West wont pay for it, or at least not for much longer.
It is dependent on its wealth, its political clout (sovereign state etc..), to sustain itself. The very things that Jesus warned his followers not to cling to. (Secularism!!)

Vatican II saw this and tried to move us away from that nonsense and get back to the gospel finding our security in God alone. That is why I believe it will prevail and why Benny and Co will fade into obscurity.

Well natman, for someone who only believes in one life and knowing how short it is an all, you waste an awful lot of talkin on here. You might as well go bang your head on a brick wall- you're as likely to convert someone to atheism as they are to convert you to religion.I guess thats why sometimes the extremes are so similar,both views entrenched, both with a sense of smug self satisfaction thinking they know all the answers, when really none of us do. Most do the best we can, without hurting anyone else and trying to get a modicom of enjoyment out of life.

The only thing i deduce from you is that no matter what people believe- the act of believing is enough to make someone fervent and dogmatic. Im happier to suspend belief and be openminded and accept I dont have all the answers or the energy or the passion or the fervour

Natman: thanks for your reply. It was just that I was thinking you (and other atheists) probably have some ideas or 'beliefs' about the God(s) that other people believe in - in order to say you don't believe in God or any Gods do you not need some sort of ideas/beliefs/framework that you can then say "i don't believe in that, or I don't beleive that" ? For example, it may be what you/others were told about God as a child -like some sort of external judge and you then decide you don't believe in that. Where I'm going with this is that there are many 'beliefs' about God - many of which are in my view false. So is it possible that you and others are just not believing in a God that does not exist, without knowing the God that does???

RJB:

Your faith is admirable, but what are the signs of change? Are there any indications that when Benny ascends from the papal to the celestial throne, there is likely to be a more liberal leader?

We have had two recent popes, neither of whom was Italian, yet they still sat in St Peter's in imperial splendour and made no attempt to strip off the pomp of the papacy.

In any case, why should it all depend on the type of person at the top of the pyramid? If the present system is doomed, then that must include the whole concept of the pope as descendant of St Peter and the autocracy that goes along with it. To have a truly democratic church would imply a DIFFERENT church altogether.

Eunice,

You're not getting the core concept here; I don't consider the existance of divine beings plausible, nor consistent with any evidence provided by anyone.

Whilst you might consider 'god' to be some form of metaphysical entity that resides inside everyones consciousness, I don't.

Brian

They will change or they will die. The chances of getting a more liberal Pope - given that JPII and Ratz have appointed their guys for the last thirty years - are slim and none.

But I also remember them appointing as Bishop, a Fr Oscar Annulfo Romero. He was supposed to be a 'yes man', a diplomat, someone who wouldnt rock the boat. He turned out to be one of the greatest, most compassionate, most coutageous Catholic figures of the last century.

More and more, Catholic people are realising that it really doesnt depend on who is at the top of the pyramid. As the gathering of theologians at Trent recently concluded, we are now a global church and we must start to think and act like one. WE shall listen to the wisdom from the East, hear the cries for liberation from Latin America and listen to the sound of African drums beating.

THEY will dress in lace, eat spaghetti and disappear into museums where we shall visit them and smile.

RJB:

Yes, Romero was another exception, like Angelo Roncalli. But they are so few and far between, in a sea of reactionary and scheming old celibates.

Which reminds me: I ought to have said earlier that the funniest thing I read on this thread was McC telling us that Ratzi doesn't believe in spin, the very thing he has been doing on priestly child sex abuse for 30 years!

When you have leaders like him and followers like McC to defend him, irrespective of what he does, then I suggest that the Catholic Church as an institution is beyond redemption.

Brian

Yeh, I smiled in disbelief at the spin one too.

Sure, on here we have MCC's anti-Kingdom rants and OT's cruelty to gay people. And my God how depressing was the sheer hatred and bile which filled the air during the Whitewell threads?

But there is also Dave's love, emanating I suspect from the very real pain of persecution, Peter's such obvious goodness and charity, your own consistent ability to identify correctly and define eloquently the truths of Christ's teachings, Parhassios's, at times difficult to swallow, but salient reminders that forgiveness is essential. There is Eunice's very fluffy, but endearing love and Helio's magnificent humanity - to name but a few.

Who is this guy Ratzi anyway?

RJB - Love your little synopsis of the crew!
Funny how people can have very different perceptions - for me, the love that I write about is not fluffy - far from it. It is very real, practical, tangible and comes into all spheres of life. It is perhaps our ignorance of the true nature of love exemplified by people's difficulty in talking about it without reference to fluff or hippy 60's and flower power and confusing it with emotional love that we end up with the mess we have today. How many people live in complete ignorance that their true nature is love?? How many people were told as children that they ARE love??? I suspect the answer to the first is a huge number and to the second a miniscule number. Part of the reason being that religion has hammered them/us with being fallen and being sinners for aeons - that even when mention what their true nature is - they deny it, resist it, fight it and defend that they are sinners and not love and that those who say such things are just full of fluff - albeit endearing fluff!! :-) . Is it not crazy that many people prefer to 'believe' what they are told by others that they are sinners than to know for themselves that they are love???

Eunice

I stand corrected. Please accept a big cuddly-wuddly as an apology.

RJB and Eunice:

Sorry to spoil your love-in, but love is not all you need. We also need critical insights into the unloving nature of so much current reality. Killing a million plus Iraqis in an illegal war was not love, killing thousands of Afghans is not love, stoning women in Iran is not love, preventing women's control over their own bodies is not love, ripping off the entire Third World is not love, trying to prevent contraception and thus permitting the spread of AIDS is not love, persecuting gays is not love, exploiting the poor is not love, evading taxes while punishing benefit holders is not love, and so on and so on...ad infinitum.

For the vast majority of the human race, love is a luxury they can little afford. We need strategies to deal with these cruelties and injustices. I accept that many good Catholics try their best to help people all over the world, but alas, the organisation to which they belong vitiates much of this work by its unloving attitude to so many matters. That is the glaring contradiction in the Catholic Church.

Brian

You didnt spoil any 'love in.'

From the moment I started on this blog site you will find copious amounts of posts from me concerning every sentence in your last post. A breather from the relentless sadness and tragedy and wickedness of our world to remind us that there is hope and that there are fine human beings out there, is'nt to be confused with me descending into a Daffy Duck view of reality.

I dont think there is any other poster on here who has written more on the evil of Ratzinger and his cronies.

Jelly-Brian - just recovering from your little anti-Catholic love-in which contained, as usual the odd accidental truth - "to have a truly democratic church would be a different church altogether".

And that's why it will never happen. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, in between his poverty filled wanderings. From the start there were apostles with a mission different from the other disciples. Those who don't like it, well nobody makes you stay - plenty of democratic protestant christian communions where you can go. Or join the protestant humanist association of northern ireland

But really, you think Pope Benedict does spin well? Must be the only ones who think that.

Brian, your vitriol is now so unpleasant even Jellybean's on the defensive. "Love is a luxury they can ill afford" - what a wonderful summary of the humanist analysis.

RJB: apology and big cuddly-wuddly accepted. :-)

BrianMcC
I agree insights are needed and those insights for me would be based on the wisdom of love. How come you and many others recognise all the cruelities you mention and yet they persist and are perpetrated by other members of the same species? Why do some people understand/know these things are unloving and cruel and others do not, or they do and continue anyway??

For me the root of all of man's inhumanity to man stems from his ignorance of his own true nature which is love. It is the false beliefs and misperceptions that people hold about themselves and others combined with the lack of love for oneself that is projected out onto the world and all others in acts of cruelty - it is the complete lack of love for oneself that facilitates the manifestation of evil through the person who is empty of love.

We cannot force people to love themselves -it's a DIY job! Whilst it sounds simple it is amazing how difficult many people (incl self) find it to be truly self-loving. So ingrained are we in ways of being that are not self-loving. It comes into all spheres of life. However, whilst we cannot force or command, we can be the example we want to see and endeavour to show a consistent way of being and living that is true based on the wisdom of love and that may help or inspire others to do likewise. We are units of expression - and that expression can be with the energy of love or not love and it is that which will make the difference. Not just what we do but how we do it.

So I would propose that love is all you need - providing it is the true nature of love and not the false emotional needy love. We need to know what love is and is not, what it really means to be self-loving and what are the ways and teachings/wisdom of love. Mankind's intelligence is not enough - we have great technological advances, fly to the moon, this gadget and that gadget and yet the human body is deteriorating in terms of illness and disease and vitality. Most people need some form of stimulant (caffeine etc) to get them through the day because they are so exhausted! We need more than intelligence - and that more is love.

Love is not a luxury - it is the very fibre and essence of one's being and it cannot be harmed by anything or any cruelity or any evil. It is by connecting to that love that many men and women down through the ages have been able to do great things for humanity and withstand many cruelties as exemplified by Jesus. It is only when people start connecting to that love for themselves and living from there that man's inhumanity to man will change - for it is IMPOSSIBLE to harm another if one is truly self-loving. THere is much more to it than I have said here of course and that strategies etc are required. But I am talking about the root cause and the root healing solution - all of which starts with self. We can only change ourselves and from there others may be inspired to do likewise.

Mccamley I hardly think the Catholic church is what Christ envisioned. Bejeweled and living in a Palace was hardly his style- Perhaps he would have equated the vatican and the pope, to Rome and Caesar Tiberius rather than anything resembling his life or teaching.
I think you could argue Catholicism is nothing more than a vestige of the Roman Empire

The Catholic Church probably bears as much resemblance to his vision as the Peoples Republic of North Korea does to karl Marx

Back to the question:

I think it is self-evident why this pope is controversial. The bigger question is whether the evidence for this is as damning as his critics assert or as feeble as his supporters believe.

I think it is also clear from a number of opinion polls that his visit is not controversial. Only his fans and detractors are interested - the rest of the population, myself included, are not that fussed.

"The Catholic Church was founded by Christ." Lol. Your version of the Catholic Church was acually founded by the Emperor Constantine, MCC.

"Nobody makes you stay." What?!! You want me to leave something as precious as my church in the hands of narrow minded, "scheming, old celibates" and their silly followers?

No thanks. I'll stay.

Hi Eunice, I agree with alot of what you say, and the statement that its impossible to harm another if one is truely self loving is correct. I think somehow the issue of *differentness* plays into it.A church like Catholism, if it was truely great , truely humane would encompass all the points made by brianmcclintion in post#54. But it doesn't so it must imply some human weakness, some human error , an inablilty to empathasise and love properly. That its clear to so many people, but not the catholic church, or many other church's/religions implies the people in it, once in it- replace their inner world with a collective outer reality where fears and predjudices are spread-there's the institutionalising effect of collective religion where people on the inside, who are treated well by it and accepted within their group feel no commonality to those outside it or to those who are different

McC:

I said that for the vast majority of the human race love is a luxury they can little afford. That's true. They may get the love of their family and give it back in return, or even, if they are lucky, give and receive it to friends in a neighbourhood, but the struggle to survive probably gives them little chance to extend it much further than that.

They could love more if the world around them was more loving and kind, but all too often it isn't. "Man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn". And that's the point. The Catholic Church should be increasing the potential for love, but many of its policies do the opposite. The result is that, despite the best efforts of thousands of individual Catholics, the Church to which they belong gives Christianity a bad name.

I think that Ryan's comparison hits the nail on the head: the Catholic Church bears as much resemblance to the vision of Jesus as Stalin or Kim Jong does to the teachings of Karl Marx. George Bernard Shaw argued that religions were founded by laymen and administered by priests. Each new faith represents a breakaway from an older creed. Its founders first appear in the eyes of their converts as innovators, even heretics or iconoclasts. But as soon as it becomes a going concern the priests, who are the official custodians of the faith, step in and take charge. Under their leadership the philosophy then sheds its original, radical and heretical character and becomes a new orthodoxy. The radical layman has given way to the conservative priest, who interprets the creed in ways that strengthen his hold over the faithful. Strong doses of myth, mysticism and mumbo jumbo all add to priestly power and authority, and the Catholic Church possesses them in superabundance (I accept, RJB, that a minority of priests opt out of this control mechanism).

McC, I see that you are still adopting the usual ad hominem riposte to any criticism of the Catholic Church that it must come from a misguided Protestant. I am not a Protestant and I favour a united, SECULAR Ireland, free of the poisonous influence of institutionalised religion of ANY denomination.

BTW:

There was a good article by Nick Cohen in yesterday's 'Observer'. He argued that societies without God are more benevolent. Read it at:

Brian: I agree with your presentation re how faiths develop and lose sight of their original impulse - as has occurred with Christianity. It would be preferable I feel to empower people to come to know their own inner wisdom and to know the equality of humanity based on understanding one's true nature. By empowering them they are not dependent on others and can recognise the falsity behind such hierarchical systems and do not listen to the priest who wants to have power over them.

BTW: Love is free, it costs nothing, for each person is love. The tragedy being that most do not know that.

Eunice:

Free love won't feed a starving man or cure someone of AIDS. I am not denying that love is important - of course it is - but I am saying that it is not ENOUGH. We need intelligence, knowledge, moral courage, kindness (which is not identical to love), determination and a whole range of other qualities as well.

I think we are both agreed that a Church which promotes a misogynistic and homophobic god and covers up the abuse of children is not promoting love but obstructing it by denying the rights of women, gays and children (in other words, the majority of the human race).

McC mocks his own misconceived notion of Humanism, but at least we stand firmly for the rights of women, gays and children. That is showing true love, not that which says: "I love you, therefore I must be cruel to you for who you are". That's a twisted notion of love, if ever there was one.

Brian: I agree with the second two paragraphs of your post.
I suspect however that our understandings of love are different albeit overlapping to some degree. The intelligence, knowledge, moral courage, kindness, determination etc that you mention for me can be borne out of a true understanding of the human person and knowing without doubt that one's essence is love that is not affected by any illness/disease/abuse/suffering of any kind.

For me, it is the foundation upon which all those other things rest and come out of - for if you have all those things and not love - it will not make any real or true difference. So I would say none of those things you mention are enough - if there is no love. Love is a much bigger subject than I can say here and the understandings and implications are vast eg love heals BTW: This is not some soppy sentimental fluffy c**p!! :-). The power of love is the greatest power there is in my view....even if it appears otherwise on earth at present. I know I was very ignorant re love and I now know a bit more - and the more I know, the more I know there is to know!!

So yes - strategies etc as you say are required - my point is that if they are carried out because of pity, sympathy, guilt, needing to feel better about oneself or other emotional reasons they will not truly help. To my understanding to be truly of help we have to do what we do with love, with gentleness - whatever it is. Again - this is something that is easier to write than live on a daily basis and takes lots of practice!! :-)

RJB - # 64

One of the most encouraging (and courageous) comments I've read on the blog. Many people will derive a lot of hope from it. Hope you are enjoying your new position.

Going back to the question at the end of Williams blog post, about the pope and controversy....

/news/uk-11309357

Hi Parr

Its incredible here. I dont know if it was to you or to Peter that I posted in the past when I mentioned that I hope you find the community you seek. Completely out of the blue, I found it. I can throw consecrated hosts overboard here and the people say, "That man did a good thing there."

I absolutely remember Peter, two years ago, telling me that, for the moment, this online group of waifs, strays, footpads, vagabonds and the one eyed, were my community - for the moment. (He didnt quite put it like that!)

And I absolutely remember your good self exhorting me to forgive when I couldnt. I did, and suddenly my world changed.

You have my email address, there's a room at the Inn any time you have the inclination. (And Helio, its big cycle country if you're ever doing your bit for charity again.)