Squeers,

Your last six lines. The current pope invariable does critize about the extremes of capitalism and the disparities of wealth in society, materialism, etc and concern for the dispiritualisation in secular societies and its extreme atheists. Sounds like you have never heard or read anything that the Pope has been espousing.

Forgot to say Hi George!

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

“I agree that there are many things I could have mentioned but did not. I know Lenin‘s teachings about changing the whole (Western) world. I do not know of Castro’s or Allende’s comparable ambitions.”

Communism, like Catholicism, posits its doctrine as having universal application for the benefit of mankind. Castro and Allende were as much inspired by Marxist philosophy as Lenin and implemented communism in their respective countries, though Allende was not a member of the Chilean communist party.

You went on to explain:

“Fundamentalists within the West (e.g. USA), that I was talking about as demolishing it, are mostly Christians who take the Bible literally and attack those whom they think - rightly or wrongly - that they have to defend it from. And vice versa, militant atheists I had in mind are those who think that they can defend reason and a peaceful coexistence of many opinions and cultures in a secular society by attacking Christianity as such, (or Islam as such although, here they are often outdone by Christian fundamentalists) or even religion as such, thus a priori alienating many, mostly peaceful and decent, members of the society. “

Perhaps it could be considered that proselytism as well as militant protest and advocacy are expressions of religiosity. Paradoxically, this phenomenon is particularly noticeable in the anti-religious domains of communism and atheism.

Extremism is the cancer of society. The neoplasm has its roots in what I call convictions and what you, George, prefer to name “worldview presuppositions”. Beliefs, particularly firm beliefs or convictions, are socially carcinogenic and as such, should be endorsed only after critical analysis and the serious consideration of possible alternatives.

Regrettably, the risk management practice of nations does not include measures curtailing the proselytism of minors and other vulnerable members of society incapable of discernment. Despite the ardent duty of the State to reduce the carcinogenic social risks generated by beliefs and convictions resulting in extremism.

Such measures would have the added advantage of eliminating the risk of endemic paedophilia which currently gangrenes the Catholic Church.

.

.

An irresponsible Pope ?

.

The Roman Catholic Church must surely be one of the largest multinational organisations in the world.

Some say it was founded by Jesus. Others say it was not, that Jesus lived and died a Jew.

The former insist that Jesus designated his apostle, Simon, as Peter, the "Rock", and on this rock He would build His Church. The authority conferred by Jesus on Peter is known as the "power of the keys", full, supreme and universal authority.

They say there has been an unbroken succession of popes from Peter to Benedict XVI, the 265th successor.

The Pope appoints bishops and cardinals, who elect his successor. He is the final arbiter of both administrative and doctrinal disputes.
While doctrinal matters are normally resolved by an ecumenical council (a meeting of all of the bishops of the Church), such a council can only be called by the Pope, and its decisions are not official until confirmed by the Pope.

It does not seem unreasonable to consider that the Pope is invested in moral and legal obligations concomitant with his post like the head of any other multinational organisation.

This, however, has never been tested under any domestic or international law for the simple reason that, unlike any other corporate magnate, the Pope benefits from diplomatic immunity as head of the Vatican State.

It is not without a certain cynicism that Benedict XVI recently declared that he preferred divine justice to human justice (cf the homily he pronounced last Palm Sunday).

This is a radical departure from the example set by Jesus who, so we are told, willingly assumed full heavenly and earthly responsibility for the sins of mankind by suffering an atrocious death on the cross, despite the fact that he could in no way be held personally liable for any of it.

Benedict XVI has a number of lawyers hot on his heels over the worldwide paedophilia scandal but it is more than evident that he does not envisage following Jesus' example.

.

Dear Squeers,

>>I'm talking about the trans-historical influence of the church<<
Any institution that lasted and evolved (and is still evolving) over two millennia would have necessarily exerted some “trans-historical influence“, its nature and intensity changing in time.

>>There are plenty of countries where Catholicism … (is) "pseudo-established"; where … the institution is ideologically and ethically influential.<<
If you define “pseudo-established” as being influential, then also IT, science, arts, and many other things are “pseudo-established”, though not “ideologically and ethically”. In case of Christianity in the West, notably Catholicism, this influence has been diminishing, which is OK provided the goal is pluralistic and not eliminative secularism (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10799#179660) for the difference). I cannot see what is wrong with that in a democratic society.

>>How is the decadent Catholic church representative of the actually radical teachings of Jesus?<<
If you ask “How is the decadent Mr XY representative of this or that“ do you really expect XY to reply?

Do you really think the Pope calling this (Westminster) system (that the West has arrived at after centuries of trying many alternatives, often totalitarian) “a system of barbarous exploitation, destructiveness and disparities“ would meet wider approval than when he keeps to his criticism of the moral shortcomings of a system that certainly needs improvement?

Can you quote the Pope (or Dawkins for that matter) “arguing … for … (a) vicious devotion to the universal profit motive, and the ideal of maximal wealth“ ?

One thing is to disagree with this or that policy or teaching of the Catholic Church or the Pope - you are certainly not alone on this - another things is to use emotionally loaded (to say the least) language to express your disagreement, thus challenging the other side to respond in the same way. I think by now you know I do not play that game.

I think our exchange of opinions was more constructive when we stuck to (abstract) philosophy.

Dear Banjo,

It is a well know fact that Lenin copied a lot from the organisation of the Catholic Church. You are right that Castro and Allende implemented, whatever they implemented “in their respective countries” only; this is all I was claiming.

I do not know what is your personal experience with life in a country where the power was solely in the hands of the Catholic Church or the Communist Party respectively. As for myself, I never lived in Vatican but grew up in a Stalinist country.

>> Beliefs, particularly firm beliefs or convictions, are socially carcinogenic and as such, should be endorsed only after critical analysis and the serious consideration of possible alternatives.<<
I have “critically analysed and seriously considered possible alternatives” of e.g. Dawkins’ beliefs and do not endorse them. Nevertheless, I maintain he has the right to hold them, and do not regard them as socially carcinogenic. Is it too much to require that also those who do not endorse my - and other Christians’ - beliefs tolerate them similarly?

>> curtailing proselytism of minors and other vulnerable members of society incapable of discernment<<
What in particular would you like to curtail? I think that such a minor is equally “incapable of discernment“ irrespective of whether he/she is being taught that there is a loving God or that there is no such God.

I agree no child should be educated to do anything harmful to others, or to deny facts endorsed by science, but that is a different story, unrelated to “beliefs”.

The abuse of minors by many educators is a fact. Another sad fact is that Christian, especially Catholic, educators are not an exemption. And a third fact is the abuse of this abuse in the form of many non-sequiturs.

As for your list of standard beliefs about the Catholic Church and the Pope, there are those among us who see them as oversimplifications or worse. I think you know that. So please excuse me if I do not see any point in commenting on them again, or even attempting to change your mind.