Its never about me, believe me. Nor do I pretend it to be. Nor would I ever force my way into the ideas or consciousness someone of either. I might get angry at the pricks that force themselves upon another or warn you of your possible misgivings, but its never about me.
Dictators, who tend not to die peacefully in their beds, are among the few on this planet who can claim a job for life.
And then there’s the pope.
No challenge to his authority, no Catholic Spring, no curia putsch allowed there; can’t be dislodged for reasons of poor health, psychological trauma or colossally bad judgment in ministering to the world’s nearly 2 billion faithful.
Pontiffs are sitting pretty once elected by conclave. The last pope to resign was Gregory XII in 1415, a strategic maneuver to end the battle for the papacy (three vying) that was known as the Western schism. The Code of Canon Law contains no apparatus for yanking a Bishop of Rome who’s botched it.
While popes are not technically “infallible’’ — a misconception of nuance; they’re only “error-free’’ when performing in their official capacity to promulgate dogma on faith and morals — they can’t be given the sack for getting it spectacularly wrong because, in those matters that most directly affect us, they’re unimpeachably right. Got it?
Understanding arcane intricacies of canon law is as challenging as that whole Father-Son-Holy Ghost trinity thing, which is why most Catholics simply take it on faith. Faith, however, has never in modern memory been so fragile, so at risk, as under Benedict XVI, with alarming numbers abandoning the Church, at least in the West.
Benedict may be indubitably pious and unmatched as a scholar-pope but, on his watch, the Catholic Church has sunk into a morass of unprecedented scandal. The latest crisis — explosive documents obtained by an Italian investigative TV show in what’s been dubbed “Vatileaks’’ — arises from a three-way private correspondence, which included the pope, with an archbishop who blew the whistle on what he saw as a web of corruption, nepotism and cronyism at the Vatican, an alert that got the poor man transferred, from deputy governor of Vatican City to Vatican ambassador in Washington. The rippling accusations encompass everything from awarding of tenders for work to inside-connected contractors at ridiculously inflated prices to yet more questions being asked about the Vatican bank, 30 years after its predecessor (Banco Ambrosiano) collapsed amidst lurid allegations about money-laundering, freemasons, the Mafia and the mysterious death of its chairman — “God’s banker,” Roberto Calvi.
At its most suspect core, however, the Vatican has been unable to contain or adequately address the ever-expanding grotesquerie of predator priests and lay practitioners sexually abusing children.
To be fair, most of the tawdry abuse that has come to light in recent years occurred during the papacy of Pope John Paul II. For all his charisma and political courage, John Paul never confronted the pedophilia rot among his clergy, the Church more concerned with protecting its reputation than protecting children. But, in his quarter-century as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — disciplinarian-in-chief — Benedict, or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as he then was — was directly responsible for dealing with priests who violated their oaths. Instead, known perpetrators were quietly moved around parishes and, on too many occasions, continued to commit sordid crimes.
The most notorious sexual abuse scandals erupted in the U.S. — Kansas City (lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs settled to the tune of $10 million), Philadelphia (a grand jury in 2005 found credible accusations of abuse by 63 priests whose activities had been covered up by the church), Boston (Cardinal Bernard Law forced to resign after a judge-ordered release of diocesan documents revealed a priest accused of molesting more than 130 boys over 30 years had been transferred among half a dozen parishes) – Ireland, Austria, the Netherlands and, most damaging to the current pontiff, his native Germany.
As Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Ratzinger approved the transfer of a priest, Rev. Peter Hullerman, who’d sexually abused boys. Hullerman received psychiatric treatment, returned quickly to pastoral work with children and continued ministering to youth even after being convicted of molesting boys in 1982. Not until 2010, after new accusations of sexual abuse emerged, was Hullerman suspended from his priestly duties.
Pope Benedict’s hands are dirty. And it doesn’t count for much that, belatedly, he issued an apology to all victims of abuse by priests, or that, in 2010, the Vatican posted guidelines on its website directing officials to follow civil laws compelling the reporting of crimes to authorities if required by local laws.
Grand juries, district attorneys and government commissions (as in Ireland) have done all the heavy lifting for the Church, with some national associations of bishops (the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, France, Australia and others) unilaterally adopting strong anti-abuse policies. Left to its own devices, the Vatican would probably have dithered for, oh, another couple of centuries.
The Vatican has formulated “guidelines’’ for the reporting of abuse by clerics, noting that the phenomenon is not only an offence punishable by church law but also “a crime prosecuted by civil law.” Procedures described as “clear and coordinated,” entailing coordination with law enforcement authorities, are to be released later this year.
Last week, the Jesuit Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome hosted a landmark international symposium on clerical sex abuse, with attendance by representatives of 110 bishops’ conferences and 30 religious orders. Canada’s Cardinal Marc Ouellet, who heads the Vatican’s office for bishops, presided over a vigil service of repentance in which he and several other bishops pleaded for forgiveness for what Ouellet called the “evil” in the church.
That “evil” has reportedly cost the church $2 billion in lawsuit settlements.
At the conference, “Toward Healing and Renewal,” the Vatican’s top sex abuse investigator — Monsignor Charles Scicluna, promoter of justice for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — said in his formal address: “The Catholic Church knows well that whenever one of its ministers, whether bishop, priest or deacon, or lay pastoral agent, sexually abuses a minor, a tragic wound is inflicted on the community; subordinated as it is by the indescribably repugnant damage done to a child.”
Stunningly, Scicluna warned against the culture of “omerta” — the Italian word for the Mafia’s code of silence — in handling sexual abuse claims of minors by clergy.
“Other enemies of the truth are the deliberate denial of known facts and the misplaced concern that the good name of the institution should somehow enjoy absolute priority to the detriment of disclosure.”
Speaking to reporters afterwards, Scicluna added: “It is a crime in canon law to show malicious or fraudulent negligence in the exercise of one’s duty.”
But canon law has not been changed to reflect the scourge of abuse by clergy, and there’s no indication it will be.
And only one actual victim was invited to speak at the symposium. Little wonder victims’ groups dismissed the symposium as window dressing. They’ve demanded genuine accountability, want the Vatican to release the names and open up the files on all known molesters. One group last September even filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court, urging it to investigate and prosecute Pope Benedict, as well as three top Vatican officials, for crimes against humanity — abetting and covering up the sexual assault of children by priests. There’s zero chance of the Court taking up that cause.
I’ll say it again: Benedict’s hands are dirty.
Can’t even slide him out of the picture gracefully as a pope emeritus, no matter how doddering he gets, no matter how complicit he might be proven to have been in the concealing of predator priests.
Benedict turns 85 in April. He’ll die a pope. But, for many of us, he will have been predeceased by his church.
The Pope informs me he is very please and impressed by the collaboration efforts "by the many" of different people from different walks of life from around the globe.
I always just say, "oh, no thank you. I'm a practicing atheist (true)", and they NEVER keep trying with a proud atheist. We are lost causes I guess. And no unpleasantness ensues.
side note: I recently read that this study found that Americans trust atheists less than convicted sex offenders. And the religious right complains that THEY are being discriminated against. That is so f'd up! :evil:
:shock:
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to be atheist. And if you look upon the theories of atheism they actually can be spiritual in nature. The understanding of "God" does not necessarily have to come directly from religion. I know an extreme environmentalist (an atheist) who feels the passion and oneness with the planet and thus his crusade to save it. His being deep seated within the Creation of the planet Earth itself, is it not the same? Though he is not directly expressing a vow to any prophet or religion he does commune and understand the importance of brotherhood, peace and expresses viable love for the planet. So tell me if he is not sitting down talking to a member of clergy about God does it mean he is Godless? Maybe his expression or feeling is different than yours.
You must respect that.
Absolutely! ... I'm pretty sure that this absence of trust comes from religious people's belief that without God and religious dogma it is impossible to have morals... as though without God and the Bible we're all just immoral hedonists who can't understand the difference between right and wrong. Which makes me wonder just what kind of people THEY are, to feel they need that crazy, hypocritical, upside-down outside influence of religion, and the idea of a God, and a church dictating right and wrong to be good people and to feel that sense of connection with the world. Especially when they sometimes dictate that what's wrong is right and what's right is wrong... Ummmm ... no offense to religious people, of course. :roll:
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Ummmm ... no offense to religious people, of course. :roll:
made me chuckle ...
I was shocked at the comparison though and wish I knew more about the
study and who did it and who replied cause I just can not draw that conclusion
from my life experiences nor the people I know that could possibly even compare the two...
leaving me :shock:
Ummmm ... no offense to religious people, of course. :roll:
made me chuckle ...
I was shocked at the comparison though and wish I knew more about the
study and who did it and who replied cause I just can not draw that conclusion
from my life experiences nor the people I know that could possibly even compare the two...
leaving me :shock:
Well, here is something. This isn't what I read, which was even more American-centric if memory serves (can't find that... can't remember where I read it anymore unfortunately; seems likely it was based on this same study or a similar one). But this article lays it out there all the same. Gosh... we're even worse than "African American, Jewish and female candidates"... errrr... :shock:
Ummmm ... no offense to religious people, of course. :roll:
made me chuckle ...
I was shocked at the comparison though and wish I knew more about the
study and who did it and who replied cause I just can not draw that conclusion
from my life experiences nor the people I know that could possibly even compare the two...
leaving me :shock:
Well, here is something. This isn't what I read, which was even more American-centric if memory serves (can't find that... can't remember where I read it anymore unfortunately; seems likely it was based on this same study or a similar one). But this article lays it out there all the same. Gosh... we're even worse than "African American, Jewish and female candidates"... errrr... :shock:
might explain the fury some atheists feel towards religion ... a touche' effect
wouldn't blame them with that judgment call
Well that's where it gets interesting... Atheists being righteous about thinking religious people are unjustifiably righteous. But sometimes righteousness is, well, right! I.e. I have no problem at all being righteous in despising the Catholic Church for its hypocrisy (blessed are the meek vs political power; serving through poverty and charity vs Versace uniforms and golden cathedrals; teaching Jesus' message of love and acceptance vs homophobia; preaching the value of "God's Truth" vs writing up new footnotes at will to add to the Catholic Bible; etc etc etc etc etc etc etc!).... When you get into these things, and start thinking about who actually practices what they preach, righteous indignation in Atheism feels more and more like the right way to feel, as opposed to being all PC and "accepting of everyone's view points." But then we get mad at the religious right for not being accepting of other people's opposing view points, and around and around we go. But hey, sometimes there just really is a good side and a bad side, a right and a wrong... and I don't know how useful it is to just let wrong run rampant just because one doesn't want to look like a hypocrite in their line of thinking! ... and this is why it's so fun to discuss religion.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well that's where it gets interesting... Atheists being righteous about thinking religious people are unjustifiably righteous. But sometimes righteousness is, well, right! I.e. I have no problem at all being righteous in despising the Catholic Church for its hypocrisy (blessed are the meek vs political power; serving through poverty and charity vs Versace uniforms and golden cathedrals; teaching Jesus' message of love and acceptance vs homophobia; preaching the value of "God's Truth" vs writing up new footnotes at will to add to the Catholic Bible; etc etc etc etc etc etc etc!).... When you get into these things, and start thinking about who actually practices what they preach, righteous indignation in Atheism feels more and more like the right way to feel, as opposed to being all PC and "accepting of everyone's view points." But then we get mad at the religious right for not being accepting of other people's opposing view points, and around and around we go. But hey, sometimes there just really is a good side and a bad side, a right and a wrong... and I don't know how useful it is to just let wrong run rampant just because one doesn't want to look like a hypocrite in their line of thinking! ... and this is why it's so fun to discuss religion.
I like discussing religion ... I like learning more about it and more about people
and the individual
It's exceptionally nice when it comes with understanding and individual belief
not just what 'category' a person considers themselves.
This what I have found
no individual falls into a generalization we are all unique from our life experiences
to DNA and although some will choose to call themselves a general term
their heart of hearts is unique.... therefore choosing just what to believe or agree with
and what not to embrace.
Comments
which hopefully is a good thing for us!
Dictators, who tend not to die peacefully in their beds, are among the few on this planet who can claim a job for life.
And then there’s the pope.
No challenge to his authority, no Catholic Spring, no curia putsch allowed there; can’t be dislodged for reasons of poor health, psychological trauma or colossally bad judgment in ministering to the world’s nearly 2 billion faithful.
Pontiffs are sitting pretty once elected by conclave. The last pope to resign was Gregory XII in 1415, a strategic maneuver to end the battle for the papacy (three vying) that was known as the Western schism. The Code of Canon Law contains no apparatus for yanking a Bishop of Rome who’s botched it.
While popes are not technically “infallible’’ — a misconception of nuance; they’re only “error-free’’ when performing in their official capacity to promulgate dogma on faith and morals — they can’t be given the sack for getting it spectacularly wrong because, in those matters that most directly affect us, they’re unimpeachably right. Got it?
Understanding arcane intricacies of canon law is as challenging as that whole Father-Son-Holy Ghost trinity thing, which is why most Catholics simply take it on faith. Faith, however, has never in modern memory been so fragile, so at risk, as under Benedict XVI, with alarming numbers abandoning the Church, at least in the West.
Benedict may be indubitably pious and unmatched as a scholar-pope but, on his watch, the Catholic Church has sunk into a morass of unprecedented scandal. The latest crisis — explosive documents obtained by an Italian investigative TV show in what’s been dubbed “Vatileaks’’ — arises from a three-way private correspondence, which included the pope, with an archbishop who blew the whistle on what he saw as a web of corruption, nepotism and cronyism at the Vatican, an alert that got the poor man transferred, from deputy governor of Vatican City to Vatican ambassador in Washington. The rippling accusations encompass everything from awarding of tenders for work to inside-connected contractors at ridiculously inflated prices to yet more questions being asked about the Vatican bank, 30 years after its predecessor (Banco Ambrosiano) collapsed amidst lurid allegations about money-laundering, freemasons, the Mafia and the mysterious death of its chairman — “God’s banker,” Roberto Calvi.
At its most suspect core, however, the Vatican has been unable to contain or adequately address the ever-expanding grotesquerie of predator priests and lay practitioners sexually abusing children.
To be fair, most of the tawdry abuse that has come to light in recent years occurred during the papacy of Pope John Paul II. For all his charisma and political courage, John Paul never confronted the pedophilia rot among his clergy, the Church more concerned with protecting its reputation than protecting children. But, in his quarter-century as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — disciplinarian-in-chief — Benedict, or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as he then was — was directly responsible for dealing with priests who violated their oaths. Instead, known perpetrators were quietly moved around parishes and, on too many occasions, continued to commit sordid crimes.
The most notorious sexual abuse scandals erupted in the U.S. — Kansas City (lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs settled to the tune of $10 million), Philadelphia (a grand jury in 2005 found credible accusations of abuse by 63 priests whose activities had been covered up by the church), Boston (Cardinal Bernard Law forced to resign after a judge-ordered release of diocesan documents revealed a priest accused of molesting more than 130 boys over 30 years had been transferred among half a dozen parishes) – Ireland, Austria, the Netherlands and, most damaging to the current pontiff, his native Germany.
As Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Ratzinger approved the transfer of a priest, Rev. Peter Hullerman, who’d sexually abused boys. Hullerman received psychiatric treatment, returned quickly to pastoral work with children and continued ministering to youth even after being convicted of molesting boys in 1982. Not until 2010, after new accusations of sexual abuse emerged, was Hullerman suspended from his priestly duties.
Pope Benedict’s hands are dirty. And it doesn’t count for much that, belatedly, he issued an apology to all victims of abuse by priests, or that, in 2010, the Vatican posted guidelines on its website directing officials to follow civil laws compelling the reporting of crimes to authorities if required by local laws.
Grand juries, district attorneys and government commissions (as in Ireland) have done all the heavy lifting for the Church, with some national associations of bishops (the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, France, Australia and others) unilaterally adopting strong anti-abuse policies. Left to its own devices, the Vatican would probably have dithered for, oh, another couple of centuries.
The Vatican has formulated “guidelines’’ for the reporting of abuse by clerics, noting that the phenomenon is not only an offence punishable by church law but also “a crime prosecuted by civil law.” Procedures described as “clear and coordinated,” entailing coordination with law enforcement authorities, are to be released later this year.
Last week, the Jesuit Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome hosted a landmark international symposium on clerical sex abuse, with attendance by representatives of 110 bishops’ conferences and 30 religious orders. Canada’s Cardinal Marc Ouellet, who heads the Vatican’s office for bishops, presided over a vigil service of repentance in which he and several other bishops pleaded for forgiveness for what Ouellet called the “evil” in the church.
That “evil” has reportedly cost the church $2 billion in lawsuit settlements.
At the conference, “Toward Healing and Renewal,” the Vatican’s top sex abuse investigator — Monsignor Charles Scicluna, promoter of justice for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — said in his formal address: “The Catholic Church knows well that whenever one of its ministers, whether bishop, priest or deacon, or lay pastoral agent, sexually abuses a minor, a tragic wound is inflicted on the community; subordinated as it is by the indescribably repugnant damage done to a child.”
Stunningly, Scicluna warned against the culture of “omerta” — the Italian word for the Mafia’s code of silence — in handling sexual abuse claims of minors by clergy.
“Other enemies of the truth are the deliberate denial of known facts and the misplaced concern that the good name of the institution should somehow enjoy absolute priority to the detriment of disclosure.”
Speaking to reporters afterwards, Scicluna added: “It is a crime in canon law to show malicious or fraudulent negligence in the exercise of one’s duty.”
But canon law has not been changed to reflect the scourge of abuse by clergy, and there’s no indication it will be.
And only one actual victim was invited to speak at the symposium. Little wonder victims’ groups dismissed the symposium as window dressing. They’ve demanded genuine accountability, want the Vatican to release the names and open up the files on all known molesters. One group last September even filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court, urging it to investigate and prosecute Pope Benedict, as well as three top Vatican officials, for crimes against humanity — abetting and covering up the sexual assault of children by priests. There’s zero chance of the Court taking up that cause.
I’ll say it again: Benedict’s hands are dirty.
Can’t even slide him out of the picture gracefully as a pope emeritus, no matter how doddering he gets, no matter how complicit he might be proven to have been in the concealing of predator priests.
Benedict turns 85 in April. He’ll die a pope. But, for many of us, he will have been predeceased by his church.
pssstt... so are a lot of people.
but when that person is gone so goes the hate
back to reaming on The Pope
Absolutely! ... I'm pretty sure that this absence of trust comes from religious people's belief that without God and religious dogma it is impossible to have morals... as though without God and the Bible we're all just immoral hedonists who can't understand the difference between right and wrong. Which makes me wonder just what kind of people THEY are, to feel they need that crazy, hypocritical, upside-down outside influence of religion, and the idea of a God, and a church dictating right and wrong to be good people and to feel that sense of connection with the world. Especially when they sometimes dictate that what's wrong is right and what's right is wrong... Ummmm ... no offense to religious people, of course. :roll:
I was shocked at the comparison though and wish I knew more about the
study and who did it and who replied cause I just can not draw that conclusion
from my life experiences nor the people I know that could possibly even compare the two...
leaving me :shock:
Well, here is something. This isn't what I read, which was even more American-centric if memory serves (can't find that... can't remember where I read it anymore unfortunately; seems likely it was based on this same study or a similar one). But this article lays it out there all the same. Gosh... we're even worse than "African American, Jewish and female candidates"... errrr... :shock:
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30 ... sts-study/
"a moral wild card"
might explain the fury some atheists feel towards religion ... a touche' effect
wouldn't blame them with that judgment call
interesting article thanks for posting...
"a moral wild card"
might explain the fury some atheists feel towards religion ... a touche' effect
wouldn't blame them with that judgment call
Well that's where it gets interesting... Atheists being righteous about thinking religious people are unjustifiably righteous. But sometimes righteousness is, well, right! I.e. I have no problem at all being righteous in despising the Catholic Church for its hypocrisy (blessed are the meek vs political power; serving through poverty and charity vs Versace uniforms and golden cathedrals; teaching Jesus' message of love and acceptance vs homophobia; preaching the value of "God's Truth" vs writing up new footnotes at will to add to the Catholic Bible; etc etc etc etc etc etc etc!).... When you get into these things, and start thinking about who actually practices what they preach, righteous indignation in Atheism feels more and more like the right way to feel, as opposed to being all PC and "accepting of everyone's view points." But then we get mad at the religious right for not being accepting of other people's opposing view points, and around and around we go. But hey, sometimes there just really is a good side and a bad side, a right and a wrong... and I don't know how useful it is to just let wrong run rampant just because one doesn't want to look like a hypocrite in their line of thinking! ... and this is why it's so fun to discuss religion.
and the individual
It's exceptionally nice when it comes with understanding and individual belief
not just what 'category' a person considers themselves.
This what I have found
no individual falls into a generalization we are all unique from our life experiences
to DNA and although some will choose to call themselves a general term
their heart of hearts is unique.... therefore choosing just what to believe or agree with
and what not to embrace.
Hey thanks for sharing