While it is only natural that people defend their faith it is paramount that those within the Catholic Church also openly and fairly assess the faults and past wrongdoings.

Asking any Church to make amends for past wrondoings and demand accountability and justice for the victims is not being a 'phobe'. It is when talk turns to this that I feel one of those cringe shudders coming on as if someone has missed the whole point.

The Catholic Church is not about peace and justice any more than any other Church and some of its preachings are of good intent even if misguided such as preaching the evil of contraception in the third world.

Anyway, I am not going to list the misdeeds of the Catholic Church, they are already well documented. It is a mistake to believe that just because an organisation is a religious body that it can do no wrong.

The Pope's recent visit to the UK and talk of radical secularism and atheism where in some places in the world the interference of radical religion has meant a disadvantaged life for many men, women and children.

Atheism is not a movement, it is an absence of belief in the supernatural. It is the religions who have promulgated radical movements and mission work with intent to convert. Now some atheists are writing books - so what - the Church has done it for years. It is just a different point of view.

Please try and keep an open mind with some fair analysis as much as is possible within a strict religious observance.

The Pope lost all credibility when he asked atheists to say sorry for Hitler. For one, it is well known that Hitler was a Catholic but that does not make all Catholics responsible and nor should Catholics apologise. Hitler did not kill innocents in the name of Catholicism or Atheism, he was a sick indvidual who made his decisions on political and economic basis - something that many religious and non-religious polticians are apt to do, religion seems to make no difference if the antics of past US Presidents are anything to go by.

Atheism is not a cult or a religion. It is a point of view.

It is a bit rich that the Pope asks atheists to apologise for Hitler when it took years for acknowledgment of child abuse allegations and justice for victims. It reeks of hysterical overreaction and rather than self-reflect it is seems the Catholic hierarchy has opted for attack mode.

I don't know how people can still support an organization that is embedded in pedophilia.

LOL

David f take note

The 'ophobia bandwagon is well and truly rolling

Speaking of Hitler, the nazis and the Holocaust, many right-wing "catholics" were open admirers and supporters of Hitler and the nasties prior to, during and after the war (they assisted Nazi war criminals to escape)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Plus everybody knows that the Holocaust was the culmination of many centuries of church sponsored anti-semitism which manifested in wide-spread persecution of Jewish people, and even dreadful pogroms. Oft times whipped up by the christian ecclesiastical establishment.

This toxic syndrome was also enhanced by the fact that "catholics" used to say collective prayers for the conversion of the (christ-killer) Jews to the "catholic one true faith". Some ultra right-wing "catholics" probably still do so.

Plus the "catholic" religion is in no sense universal, it is a power-seeking Semitic religion which originated in the Middle East and then via Europe became a Western religion. Which is to say that it was not an Eastern religion or a religion that originated and grew in Africa, the Americas, Australia, etc etc.

The only reason it became "universal" is because it was coopted by the Roman state and thus became an integral player in the Western drive to total power and control.

I think you're missing the point, the anger is directed at the catholic church, not catholics.
the roman catholic church has always, and is still, a political entity. Their scriptures and canons are about maintaining this entity.
Those who believe in the religion are a quite different thing.

Do Catholics, like Muslims, merit their very own ‘ophobia?

Should Catholic-ophobia stand alongside Islam-ophobia as a “prejudice” that all right thinking people need to combat?

And if not, why not?

Full disclosure. I detest the Catholic Church.

With that out of the way let’s compare Catholicism and Islam.

The Church abused children on a vast scale and then covered up.

True. But at least they’re dealing with it now. And what the Catholics did probably does not compare in scale to the abuse of children in Madrassahs all across the world. Two examples:

http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/Childprotect_MuslimWeekly.html

http://www.insaf.pk/Forum/tabid/53/forumid/1/tpage/1/view/topic/postid/61478/Default.aspx#61478

These links deal with sexual abuse. But denying children a secular education and preparing them to become suicide bombers is also child abuse of a particularly vicious form.

At best it’s a draw on the child abuse front.

The Catholic Church perpetrated hatred of Jews.

Yep. Look at Chrysostom’s eight homilies against the Jews.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html

On the other hand, whatever may have been the case in the past, nothing I‘ve seen in the present-day Catholic Church matches the venomous hatred directed against Jews that permeates the Muslim world. And, yes, it’s hatred directed against Jews, not Israelis or “Zionists” and it pre-dates the establishment of Israel.

The Catholic Church has been involved in some pretty awful regimes. However nothing the present day Catholics do equals the sheer brutality, misogyny and homophobia of many Muslim regimes. Denying gays the Eucharist is not the same as executing them. Denying women the right to become priests is not the same as subjecting them to the kind of servitude they suffer in even post-Taliban Afghanistan or the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Overall if appears to me that if Islam has its own ‘ophobia then so should Catholicism.

Pelican, 579, Ho Hum and Ozymandias,

You are obviously Catholic-ophobes.

Tut, tut, naughty naughty.

I REALLY enjoyed writing that ;-)

This is a fun thread.

The question is now and always has been: Does God ,or any other supernatural phenomenon, exist outside the human brain? Thomas Aquinas once said that if God's existence could not be proved then nothing more needed to be said. Aquinas did not, could not, prove it but the empty discussion still goes on by "believers" who were taught to believe as little children and are unable to recognise that their belief is no more than an implanted imaginary image. Although I do it I do agree with Aquinas and should stop.

Surprisingly enough stevenlmeyer I agree with you on this one.

But consider this, is anyone asking for Catholics to be barred from immigration into this country on the basis that they might encourage paedophilia? No, that would be stupid.

But for the very same reason, people wish to bar a whole group of people for the very fact that they were born into a particular religion.

I detest what these religions do to people but at the end of the day, they are still people.

heh heh stevenmeyer.
As Bugsy implied, the difference is that the actions of a few should not tarnish the greater majority. Not all Muslims are terrorists nor are all Catholics pedophiles. Many even use contraception. :)

Paul

Good article, although your last line is a little contradictory with the rest of your piece. With the likes of Dawkins, Robertson and Hitchens and the blog posts you quote, it is hard not to see a wave of aggressive atheism sweeping through Britain. Not to say I agree with Cardinal Kasper's 3rd world comment.

Ho Hum, it's hard to see that you might be striving for a factual understanding of history if you are feeding your mind on the utter rubbish that you posted re Hitler and the Catholic Church. The corruption of Hitler to include Church elements in his private and public life says nothing about the Church and a lot about Hitler's corruption and hypocrisy, and seeking acceptance from the broader German society.

Church officials will always communicate with the political leaders. That does not mean they don't condemn them. Have an honest read of the history so you can be freed a little from your prejudice.

Read Pius XI's encyclical Mit Brenender Sorge (With burning anxiety), read the countless stories of people within the Church who risked their lives to save Jews, such as Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty in Italy. Read Rabbi David Dalin's work on Pius XII. The difference between the site at the link below and your one is that there are references, coherent arguments and facts, not prejudiced assumptions, photos without dates, photos of Hitler in front of a Church (what on earth does that show?!) etc.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods48.html

Thanks for contradicting yourself re universal. Yes the Catholic Church is universal in a couple of ways.
Cont…

Universal in geography. Yes it spread firstly with the aid of the Roman empire and then with the missionary work of thousands of martyrs and selfless saints that travelled over the globe to relieve poverty, bring aid and healing to a range of people. Britain received Christianity thanks to Pope Gregory the Great sending St Augustine of Canterbury late in the 6th century. This missionary work of Catholics is still ongoing in much of the developing world and anti-Christians like yourself have the hide to write that off as some sort of paternalistic brainwashing of minds; that missionaries exchange plates of food to starving people in exchange to them adopting the Catholic faith.

It is more correctly universal in the sense that the Catholic faith is distinguished from other Christian faiths in that it has the universal beliefs - the beliefs that were taught by Jesus Christ, entrusted to the apostles and passed down uncontaminated through apostolic succession to today. All schisms and breakaway groups have done so in disagreement with one or several aspects of Catholic doctrine, such as the Church of England which parted with the Church’s teaching on divorce, the primacy of the Pope and later, the real presence of the Eucharist and many other teachings. So the Catholic Church is universal in the sense of having all articles of faith.

cont...

Re praying for the Jews, why not? If you believe in Heaven, it’s a nice thing to pray that others will go there. Here is what Catholics pray on Good Friday in the service:

“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.”

Although there were earlier versions which mentioned “faithless Jews” there was no mention of Christ-killers in Church prayers. From a Catholic perspective, Jews didn’t share the true faith so it made sense to say they were faithless in respect to the divinity of Jesus Christ. Although these prayers were said in the Church and not in public, more modern versions have changed the words to water it down. The Catholic Church has done this on many occasions, so that outsiders are not offended and in a spirit of generosity and compassion. Don’t see that from many other parts these days…

I think there has been an increase of religiphobia, not just catholicophobia, along with the rise in christianophobia.

But are these really phobias? Or just some sections of the community at last refusing to accept domination by religious groups of any flavour?

Believe what you want - I don't want you to be prevented from that. Just don't try to turn your beliefs into laws for those of us who don't share them. It isn't phobic to disagree with you.

That would be right : make up things to suit the era you live in. Nothing but a heap of bunkum. Does the church get church privaledges ?
If this is what they are teaching they should be held accountable for it. You have to remember the sort of people being taught must be succeptable to fairytale and can't destinguish between reality.

IN many ways secularism is like Catholicism was. It is very intolerant of any view other than its own. Secularism ignores simple facts such as the need for children to have a loving father and mother, the destruction caused by pornography in society and the poison of radical feminism. Secularist hate the fact that their dogmas have failed and are just as slow as the Catholic church to admit they are wrong.

Most of all secularist hate the thought that one day they will be called to account to their Creator. They act as if they can make up their own morality or immorality and never have to answer for it. At least Catholicism in all its faults acknowledges they are answerable to a Creator. That is why socialist like Stalin and Mao can kill millions with little to no conscience. That is also why millions can murder their babies and use pseudo science to justify this genocide.

Many secularist are so full of pride and arrogance really believing they can bring peace to earth when most can't even hold a family together. Thankfully Christ died in order that Catholics, secularists or anyone else willing to humble themselves can receive forgiveness and pardon.

It's high time the Catholic Church is dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century where victims of previously
'unspeakable' crimes are pointing fingers and demanding action.

If the Pope is serious he must take steps to remove every last paedophile priest/teacher/layman from positions of access, power and trust and wipe out this despicable culture imbedded in the Catholic hierachy. Then keep it thus!

Do I think this likely to happen? NO! Do I think the Church is more interested in wealth & power than the welfare of it's followers? YES! Do I believe the requirement of celibacy (behind which men not sexually attracted to post-pubescent females may hide) can attract a certain undesirable element to the priesthood? YES! Could this be one reason that while other Christian denominations have had similar cases of Clergy abuse, the Catholic Church stands alone in the sheer enormity and scale of the problem? Seems likely! Is the Pope complicit in past and ongoing abuse? Mmmm ...

I feel outrage for victims who have suffered first at the hands of perverted 'Priests' then through cover-up and denial. Also sympathy for those Catholics trying to live according to their faith and follow Jesus' example. It must be difficult to believe in the leadership of the Church.

If I had 5 minutes with Joe Ratzinger I would quote from the Book of Matthew, Chapter 18 verses 1 - 7 and remind him of Jesus' promise concerning those who would harm a child whilst hiding behind the disguise of piety.

divine_msn

'If I had 5 minutes with Joe Ratzinger I would quote from the Book of Matthew, Chapter 18 verses 1 - 7 and remind him of Jesus' promise concerning those who would harm a child whilst hiding behind the disguise of piety.'

So you feel castration would be an appropriate response? If not what is your point and what do you recommend? Personally I think repeat offenders should be castrated.

No, its just another stupidophobia, possibly arrogantophobia, or more likely get-out-of-my-life-ophobia.
"Phobia" implies unconscious hatred, which is a veiled insult. I am *very* conscious of my disapproval of churches as it is a rational decision arrived at against my early social programming. The evidence sustaining this attitude is bolstered every day.
Folks don't like "holier than thou", especially from the ignorant delivered in a self-serving arrogant manner.
Nice one stevenlmeyer! :-)

Hitler an atheist, yeah right? The Christian right wing religious fanatic that slaughtered millions of Jews for Jesus. (Look up "Gott mitt uns" and catholic arrogance.org on the internet). Ask why hasn't Hitler and all the Jesuit Nazi hierarchy been excommunicated by the catholic cult? Must be to busy protecting the catholic clergy paedophile child rapists with the money you idiots donate to the cult?

If a biker gang had been hanging around town bossing people, stealing, occasionally killing and folks finally worked out that the gang is bad for the town, is this realisation "aggressive bikeyophobia"?
Of course not! It is coming to a realisation based on evidence.
Similarly religion is on the nose world-wide because it cannot hide behind it's old friends naivety and ignorance. Thanks to the internet and near-instant world wide communications, much of the world cannot be conned so easily any more. More and more people are seeing the obvious connection between religion (any type) and extreme/insane behaviour.
Implying that disliking a self-serving group is somehow a "phobia" is typical religion-speak. ie. self serving and underhanded.

HFR,

We have been through this before:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10844&page=0

Hitler, while baptised a Catholic, was an atheist, and “Gott mitt uns” on the German army’s belt buckles had nothing to do with him. This had been the situation for the regular army since before the First World War, and Hitler’s own army, the Waffen SS, had “My honour is loyalty” on theirs.

“Hitler’s hostility to Christianity reached new heights, or depths, during the war. It was a frequent theme of his mealtime monologues. After the war was over and victory assured, he said in 1942, the Concordat he had signed with the Catholic Church in 1933 would be formally abrogated and the Church would be dealt with like any other non-Nazi voluntary association [i.e,. liquidated]…Priests, he said, were ‘black bugs’, ‘abortions in cassocks ‘. …Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition…’Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure’…Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilization by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.’…’National socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.’” (The Third Reich in Power, Richard J. Evans, p. 547)

Chris C,

Whether Hitler was a Catholic or an atheist and what his intentions were to the Concordat with the Catholic Church are irrelevant. The fact is that the Pope signed the document and legitimised the Nazi regime in the eyes of the faithful.
Catholics in the Nazi war machine murdered millions of Jews, Roma and Slavs and significantly, Catholic resisters to the Nazis were rather thin on the ground. Catholic clergy also helped suspected Nazi War criminals escape through the infamous 'rat lines' after WW2.

Hitchens argues that “religion poisons everything” – but it hardly poisoned the work of Beethoven, or Bach, or Haydn, or Brahms, or Bruckner, or Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or Michelangelo or T.S. Eliot, or countless other immortal creators who shaped music or poetry or paintings or novels with the conscious intention of glorifying God. Plus, weren’t the innovators of universities and charities also Christians, even Catholics? Not to mention practicing Catholics and even clergy who were pioneers in science.

I’ve read that Oscar Wilde is a hero of Stephen Fry’s. Does he know that Oscar was a Catholic convert? So what would Fry think about this? Was Oscar also off with the pixies? One this he did have was a beautiful imagination.

We built our ‘civilized’ culture inspired by those who heard the voices of God. Now those who hear voices are more likely to be stigmatised than sanctified. Do our shifting definitions of madness say more about us than they do about those who’ve flown the cuckoo’s nest?

Heed Nietzsche's point, that the death of God also means the death of Western morality and Western values

The New Atheists embrace a belief system as intolerant, chauvinistic and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists. But you see, Catholicism is not a fundamentalist religion.

We are now on a small planet and there has to be some accommodation and reciprocation, quid pro quo or there is going to be serious strife.

Now all you post modernist trendy thinkers, exactly what sort of a so called progressive funky dystopia are you all dreaming about? Are you off with the fairies too?

Ingrates. When you are all so dismissive of Catholicism, you are also dismissive of your own inherited Western traditions. You didn’t earn it. And you would not be able to speak so freely as you are now without it.

Jürgen Habermas (German sociologist and philosopher and public intellectual)

Via Wiki:

Habermas versus Postmodernists:

Habermas offered some early criticisms in an essay, "Modernity versus Postmodernity" (1981), which has achieved wide recognition. In that essay, Habermas raises the issue of whether, in light of the failures of the twentieth century, we "should try to hold on to the intentions of the Enlightenment, feeble as they may be, or should we declare the entire project of modernity a lost cause?"[15] Habermas refuses to give up on the possibility of a rational, "scientific" understanding of the life-world.

Habermas has several main criticisms of postmodernism.
 First, the postmodernists are equivocal about whether they are producing serious theory or literature.
 Second, Habermas feels that the postmodernists are animated by normative sentiments but the nature of those sentiments is concealed from the reader.
 Third, Habermas accuses postmodernism of being a totalizing perspective that fails "to differentiate phenomena and practices that occur within modern society"[15].
 Lastly, Habermas asserts that postmodernists ignore that which Habermas finds absolutely central - namely, everyday life and its practices.

Jürgen Habermas Dialogue with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)

It has to be a two-way street, buddies! The post modernists do not reveal to the reader what there agenda is.

Via wiki:

"In early 2007, Ignatius Press published a dialogue between Habermas and Roman Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), entitled The Dialectics of Secularization.

It addresses such important contemporary questions as these:

 Is a public culture of reason and ordered liberty possible in our post-metaphysical age?
 Is philosophy permanently cut adrift from its grounding in being and anthropology?
 Does this decline of rationality signal an opportunity or a deep crisis for religion itself?

In this debate a recent shift of Habermas became evident — in particular, his rethinking of the public role of religion. Habermas writes as a “methodological atheist,” which means that when doing philosophy or social science, he presumes nothing about particular religious beliefs. Yet while writing from this perspective his evolving position towards the role of religion in society has led him to some challenging questions, and as a result conceding some ground in his dialogue with the Pope, that would seem to have consequences which further complicate the positions he holds about a communicative rational solution to the problems of modernity.

/Cont....

..../Cont. In an interview in 1999 Jürgen Habermas stated that:

"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it.

And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk."[31]

The statement was later misquoted in a number of American newspapers and magazines as: "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization,"[32] which Habermas did not say...
Habermas now talks about the emergence of "post-secular societies" and argues that tolerance is a two-way street: secular people need to tolerate the role of religious people in the public square and vice versa.[33]"

Hooray! At least one poster, Chris C, knows his onions. Hitler was no more a Catholic than I am a Presbyterian because my well-meaning parents had me baptised into that branch of Christianity. People who are not content just to ignore religion, but who feel they must attack people who believe in it and a god, often drag Adolf Hitler into their unnecessary arguments because they want to identify people who don’t believe what they believe – in this case Catholics and their Pope - with really nasty people with a public record of nastiness.

They can’t get their facts straight about a single, well-known person: how can they expect to be ‘authorities’ on anything as complex as religion and personal belief.

mac,

When HFR implies that Hitler was not an atheist but a Catholic, it is perfectly relevant to point out that he was in fact an atheist. When HFR wants to use “Gott mitt uns” as evidence that Hitler was not an atheist, it is perfectly relevant to point that the motto predated Hitler and that his own creation, the Waffen SS, did not have that motto. The correction of a misstatement in a discussion can hardly be irrelevant to the discussion.

Your other points are relevant to what the discussion has become, though not relevant to my correction of HFR. Catholic resisters to the Nazis were thin on the ground. So were non-Catholic resisters. I have never seen a statistical study of the backgrounds of those who resisted Hitler to see if they were religiously disproportionate to the general German population, and I doubt that such a study could ever be realistically done. Many Catholics supported Hitler, as did many Protestants. Some Catholics opposed him, as did some Protestants. I highly recommend the series on the Third Reich by Richard J. Evans for anyone who want s a comprehensive understanding of Hitler’s rise to and exercise of power and the German population’s various reactions to him.

Calling Hitler a Catholic is as silly as calling Stalin an adherent of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is also completely unnecessary to the case against the record of the Catholic Church during the Third Reich, just as calling Stalin a Russian Orthodox adherent is completely unnecessary to the case against the record of the Orthodox Church during the Soviet era.

Where is Pericles and his junior partner, CJ Morgan?

Why aren't they here accusing you all of Catholicophobia.

CJ Morgan, you love the "I" word? What's wrong with the "C" word?

LOL

Chris C, In 1937 Reich minister for religion Hans Kerri proclaimed Adolph Hitler the new Jesus Christ. Nazi party election posters and civilian medals had christian crosses on them the vatican was the first state to recognise the new Nazi govt. Hitler's closest allies the evil catholic fascist Mussolini created the fake vatican state in 1929, what a wretched pedigree. Hitler used the Luftwaffe to bomb democracy to death for the catholic church and the evil catholic fascist Franco in Spain. It is said that no two men knew how to use religion better than Hitler and Stalin they both are said to have modelled the Gestapo and KGB on the Jesuit orders tactics, most of the Nazi party hierarchy were Jesuits. Nazi criminals escaped justice on vatican passports they were protected just like the catholic clergy child rapists are today. If you bothered to look at the "gott mitt uns" and catholic arrogance.org, you would see the evidence clearly but like all religious fanatics your mind is closed to reality and are deluded by imaginary belief in supernatural Priestcraft (like witchcraft no different) fantasies, you surround yourself with similarly deluded people and attempt to delude all those you come into contact with. Donations to the catholic cult can and are used to defend paedophiles, billions of dollars paid in compensation to thousands and thousands of child rape victims, revolting to all of us, but you defend this cult, have you know shame?

I couldn't remember seeing any mention of Hitler in the Bible.

However it is amusing when some of these posters want more foreign students, many of whom are highly religious.

Perhaps universities should put up a sign:

"Welcome to all students who are wealthy, non-religious, and hate evil white male."

Hitler was an evolutionist through and through. The fact that he was baptized a Catholic meant nothing. With his evolutionary worldview it is no wonder he had no conscience.

'Darwin himself held that building hospitals for the insane, the disabled and the sick and passing laws for the support of the poverty-stricken were obstacles to human evolution (cf. C. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex [1871], cited in J.C. Guillebaud, Le principe d'humanité, Editions du Seuil, 2001, p. 368), because such an attitude on the part of society would prevent or delay the natural elimination of defective persons. '

Hitlers worldview was one of social Darwinism and to deny that is nothing short of deceitful. He saw the Jews less than human. That is why secularist today have no problem with eliminating the most vulnerable in society whether through abortion or euthenasia. An inconvenient truth for these 'true believers'.

"Catholicaphobia"
Basically, if that applies to people who:
-Find many of their teachings abhorent (such as castigating homosexuals, opposing contraceptives and abortions at the expense of maintaining the problems of STIs and family problems, opposition to basic rights like euthanasia)
-Threatens damnation to people who disobey the above
-Does NOT threaten (or immediately apply) excommunication to pedophiles in its ranks, but tries to cover for them
-Has a vile leader who invites himself over to countries with only a minority of Catholics, turns the place he occupies into a no-go circus for the non-catholic majority, and has the gaul to accuse atheist members of that majority of being evil genocidal mass-murderers.

Then YES, that would make me catholicaphobic. Also note the complete hypocrisy of the British House of Lords who had barred with threat of arrest Dutch Politician Geert Wilders because he claimed Islam was evil- yet roll out the carpet for former Hitler Youth Movement boyscout Ratzinger, noted for saying the exact same thing about atheists in the past, and lo and behold, accuses atheists of association with Hitler, and they don't bat an eyelid.

Personally I would not like to repeat another World Youth Day either.

Why would they do that stevenlmeyer?

Is somebody recommending that Catholic immigration be curbed because their religion will cause them to do nasty things?

Even when the IRA was planting bombs across England and killing people in Europe, I do not remember anyone wanting to stop Irish Catholic immigration anywhere because of it. And they aren't doing it now.

Why is that?

Why is it different when it's another religion?

Chris C,

Yes,my statement was really a general comment on the 'Hitler as atheist' remark that has been used too often as an evasion. I studied the Nazi Regime at university many years ago so I'm not claiming detailed knowledge now, however I haven't forgotten the early and sustained collaboration by the Church hierarchies with the Nazis.The Nazis eliminated their political enemies quickly and efficiently,but calculated that they could 'deal with' the institutional churches,which, to me, indicates the complicity of the major religious organizations of the time.

Of course Nazism itself was a quasi-religious doctrine,particularly as represented by the SS.

Dear runner. Matthew 18 verses 5 & 6 (Words of Jesus)
"And whosoever shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

This would suggest that God will judge such people harshly.
"Vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord (Romans 12/21)

I never mentioned castration nor any form of punishment or deterrent for that matter. Read my comment carefully - it is clear. The current Church Leadership of whom the Pope is head must rid the Church of the serpents in their midst. The veil is lifted, the dirty secrets at least partly uncovered. However the will to do that which is right in the sight of both God and Man seems to be missing. That, dear runner, suggests that the snakes have crawled to the very top of the dung pile.

A parting thought - since celibacy (which is conveniently interpreted by some as absence of sexual relations between man and woman leaving other possibilities like little boys open) is a requirement for the Roman Catholic priesthood, maybe it would be a good idea to just have the whole package surgically removed as part of the ordination process??

Now that would prove effective!

As a now very much lapsed catholic, with many relatives and friends still very much within the church's folds, I find this subject a little challenging.

While still attending church and taking communion, many of my catholic relatives are appalled at the apparent cover up of child sexual abuse by some catholic clergy.
I am appalled that they still feel the need to attend the church services of such a religion!

The cover-up of paedophile Priest activities by Bishops and other Priests over many years is a disgrace. The fact they were told to say a few prayers and beg the Lord to forgive their 'sins', and were then let back out among their 'flock' of children to offend again, makes me feel sick.

If that nauseous feeling is called 'Catholicophobia', then so be it.

The attacks by prominent Catholics - such as the Pope or Sydney's Anthony Fisher - on atheism, and in particular saying atheism or secularism (which is different) is responsible for Hitler, thus implying current atheists or secularists are too, is what has fuelled a lot of this.

Along with a lot of other misinformation and smoke'n'mirror responses to the paedophile crisis such as the Vatican trying to take control through the CDF, which Ratzinger headed for 20-25 yrs, with threats of excommunication to all parties, then trying to blame local clergy for not taking action. The case of Michael Teta highlights that.

The public can see through it and the internet allows discussion and sharing of information like never before.

Constance,

"[T]he death of God also means the death of Western morality and Western values". Why? Religious belief is not required for a system of morality, in fact religious texts(or their priestly interpreters) usually present a list of rules for believers to follow on fear of ghastly punishments in some afterlife. Ethical sytems are followed because they are of instrinsic value to societies and seen as such by the majority of their citizens. Sacred texts are continuously re-interpreted in the light of secular morality.

"We built our 'civilized' culture inspired by those who heard the voices of God", well perhaps some people actually believed that. However, the extent of true believers is rather difficult to measure as dissenters from Catholicism's teachings were often murdered barbarously by the Church. Have you forgotten the Inquisition?

I recommend 'Towards the Light' by AC Grayling, it's a history of our ancestors' long struggle to escape from the suffocating influence of the Catholic Church.

I'm not religious at all, and private schools irk me and I think RE and chaplains have no place in secular public schools, but I really think it's time to give the Catholic Church a break.

Just like I don't think the current government or Australian populace should constantly be harassed about the stolen generation, it's time to GET OVER IT.

Seriously, no action by the church would appease those who hold it accountable for the actions of some of it's priests, or the cover up of those actions. The church could sell the Vatican City and give each and every abuse victim 10 billion dollars, and publicly execute every priest suspected of any wrong doing, and that still would not satisfy most of the church's detractors.

Why? Because the hatred of the church comes first, and the cause of the abused comes second.

Constance, I don't get why you conflate the choice to live a life outside institutional religion with post modernism? That's a very big stretch, I would have thought.

Many, many people have profound spiritual beliefs, and choose not to associate themselves with any institutionalised "church." They are not secularists. Contrary to your beliefs, not believing in a particular church/religion does not necessarily mean being secularist.

There are many devout people who prefer to have a direct relationship with their god, because they are sickened and discouraged by religious institutions. You seem to be conflating such people with those who assert there is no god, or, in post modernist terms, there is no centre.

Constance
The freedom of speech we enjoy today was not due to the Catholic Church but came about on ideological grounds and in spite of Catholic Church dogma which continued to be burdened by the stigma of the various inquisitions. It got over that and it can get over the recent exposure of failure to act on pedophile priests.

The French Revolution and the fierce push for democracy came about despite the Catholic Church supporting the imperial structures of the time which meant great poverty for thousands of ordinary French people.

The best thing the Catholic Church could do is modernise - the Pope can bring messages of love, peace, cooperation and tolerance rather than the diatribe he came out with recently in the UK.

It is not easy to take on board criticism particularly in a powerful and wealthy organisation like the CC. But it has to if it wants to participate meaningfully in the modern world.

If we go on with the Pope attacking atheists with ridiculous statements about Hitler - can you see this won't bring about any sort of community harmony. Let the atheists alone, clean out your own house which is what I think the Church is attempting to do.

They should continue down that path and make amends to the many forgotten victims and to those priests who were threatened with excommunication for raising child abuse issues. These are the men that should be in the hierarchy, the CC does not need more of the same.

Bugsy,

Just to be clear I have never advocated banning Muslim migrants. Given Australia’s location that would in any case be suicidal. We are just south of a Muslim nation with 10 times our population that seems destined to be the regional hegemon. It is Indonesia, not Australia, that will most likely call the shots in this area.

The Muslim proportion of Australia’s population is bound to grow and with it the influence of Islam in whatever form it may take. Anyone who cannot live with this prospect would be well advised to at least tell their children to make plans to make tracks.

I shall attempt a (vastly) (over)simplified answer to your question in <350 words.

What confounds the issue in Australia is racism on BOTH sides of the debate. One side, “side 1”, would be suspicious of dusky-skinned immigrants no matter what their religion. To “side 2” it appears SELF-EVIDENT that in any conflict between white-skinned “rednecks” and dusky-skinned immigrants the former MUST be in the wrong.

You understand that this is racism on both sides?

In their attempt to show how “enlightened” and “progressive” they are side 2 has rushed to accommodate the demands of that portion of the dusky immigrants who happen to be Muslims without understanding what they are doing. And what they are doing is appeasing a Fascist ideology whose first goal is to rein in free speech.

Just ONE example of this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52P60220090326

You understand that this is tantamount to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws?

Many on side 2 will declaim that Christianity was once also, may in some respects still be, a Fascist ideology that seeks to suppress free speech.

And this is supposed to reconcile me to the Muslim brand of Fascism because?

Once blasphemy laws are reintroduced the fight against theocracy is lost for another generation.

Because of their racism, because of the baggage BOTH sides carry, neither is able to take a dispassionate look at Islam and the dangers of appeasing it.

And, I repeat, the danger is NOT Islam, the danger is APPEASING Islam.

That's fine steven, I know you never advocated banning Muslim migrants, but that doesn't mean that plenty of other people have. Those same people aren't asking for restricting the movement of Catholics.

I agree that we should fight against the supression of free speech, and that we should not 'appease' this sort of restriction. However, I think it is a mistake to label everything associated with this sort of thing due to 'Islam'. It is due to factions and idealogues within Islam.

We can see this clearly going on with the Catholic Church as well can't we? Regular Catholics do not recognise the child abuse that was committed by their clergy as a result of being Catholic, why should moderate Muslims recognise the political pressure being applied by their clergy as being a direct result of Islam?

The only way for the Catholic Church and the Islamic whatevers to move forward is for moderates within to recognise what is being done in their name and to reject it and reform themselves.

That being said, religions tend not to be about internally driven change, change ususally comes from external forces. Organisations that cannot change tend to become obsolete.

I agree, though the danger is appeasing theocrats anywhere. Including Rome.

Isn't it ironic that the Fasces is a Roman symbol and that many were Catholic?

Bugsy,

Yes, theocrats of ALL stripes should never be appeased. But in practice, in 2010, in Australia, it is mainly Islam that is being appeased.

I can call the Pope names. I can call the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. I can set up a website devoted to explaining how wrong-headed are the teachings of the Catholic Church. I can preach fiery sermons on how all Catholics are headed for hell unless they repent.

I can do all this and no one will threaten my life. No one will drag me before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal because I have contravened Victoria’s misnamed Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

And, despite the best efforts of Paul Collins, no one will call me a “Catholicophobe” or a “racist”.

I can burn copies of the bible and immerse a crucifix in urine and nothing bad will happen.

Yet subject Islam to the same treatment and all sorts of consequences follow.

Have you noticed how deeply embedded this is Bugsy? It is a rule in so-called “progressive” circles that you can only say something bad about Islam if you immediately follow it up with something worse about Christianity / America / Israel / Whatever. If you fail to do this on OLO for example a dozen posters will write all sorts of nasty things about eg the Catholic Church for you.

But it doesn’t happen in reverse. This aging atheist Jew is the only person on this thread who is saying “Hey, if the convention is that you can only slam Islam if you also slam something else then fairness demands that we offer the same courtesy to the Catholics. Only slam the Catholic Church if you also denigrate some other religion”.

It is about time we all dropped our baggage and took a good hard look at contemporary Islam, what it is, and what it teaches.

And then we need to stop appeasing.

This BS needs to stop.

I thought I'd muddy the waters a little more in regard to Hitler's atheism. A media release from the Atheist Foundation of Australia contains the following quote-

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator, by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"

Adolf Hitler-'Mein Kampf' Vol 1 Chapter 3

stevenlmeyer,

On the theme of the lack even-handedness in religion-bashing. This aging atheist noticed on one PC Pope-bashing site, the comment from admin.,"at least those people have the courage to stand up to the Pope". I pointed out that it really doesn't take any backbone to 'stand up to the Pope' these days and suggested that the Pope-bashers ridiculed and abused some Moslem clerics instead. This advice was not received at all favorably.

The woes of the Catholic Church are largely self inflicted.

If you hold yourself up as the moral standard, and then get caught not only committing, but covering up some of the most heinous crimes you are setting yourself up for disbelief and ridicule.

Doesn't anyone know Godwin's law that as soon as you mention Hitler you've lost the argument.

HFR,

I see the mere statement that Hitler was an atheist is enough for you to conclude by some obscure thought process that I must be a religious fanatic. Who said logic is dead?

That Hans Kerri said Hitler was the new Christ is not evidence that Hitler was a Catholic. It is simply the mad outpourings of another Nazi.

That Nazi posters and medals had the cross on them is not evidence that Hitler was a Catholic. It is simply astute political propaganda by a cult that wanted to fool Christians into voting for it.

That the Vatican was the first state to recognise the new Nazi government is not evidence that Hitler was a Catholic. It is in fact a meaningless statement, as other governments which recognised Germany continued to do so after the Nazi rise to power as states do not recognise governments on the basis of which party is in power. They recognise the state itself.

That Mussolini supposedly “created” the Vatican state is not evidence that Hitler was a Catholic. The Vatican existed before Mussolini recognised it, not “created” it.

That Hitler used the Luftwaffe to bomb Spain is not evidence that Hitler was a Catholic. It is simply evidence that he was an evil man.

That Hitler and Stalin “are said” to have modelled the Gestapo and the KGB is not evidence that Hitler was a Catholic.

That most of the Nazi hierarchy were supposedly Jesuits is not evidence that Hitler was a Catholic. In fact, it’s an entirely new claim, not mentioned anywhere in my study of Nazi Germany. Who were these Nazi Jesuits? Bormann? Himmler? Goering? Donitz? Frank? Heydrich? Don’t forget that you said “most”.

That Nazi criminals escaped on Vatican passports is not evidence that Hitler was a Catholic. It is evidence of evil by people inside the Vatican.

That child rapists have been protected by the Catholic Church is not evidence that Hitler was a Catholic. It is evidence of evil by Catholics.

I have already explained “gott mitt uns” – twice.

Thank God – I’ve reached the word limit.

Arguing over whether Hitler was a Christian or an atheist is pointless.

If he was a Christian then, so what? Rationally minded people don’t need to associate Christianity (or religion in general for that matter) with Hitler to tear it down and expose it for the unfounded, absurd and downright dangerous lunacy that it is. Religion provides us with more than enough to make a solid case here.

If Hitler was an atheist then, again, so what? There is nothing within atheism to support what Hitler did, so any attempts to blame his alleged atheism on what he did, or even associate him to other atheists in any way, shape of form - regardless of how loosely - are completely asinine.

HFR,

Argumentum ad hominem is the tactic of one who can’t win on logic or fact.

I have pointed out that John Howard did not change the definition of unemployment. By your logic, I must be a Liberal and surround myself with Liberals. I have pointed out the Victorian Labor’s positive record in education. By your logic, I must be a Laborite and surround myself with Laborites, even though the same logic has already made me a Liberal. I have pointed out that the Democrats went into the 1998 election promising to support a GST and thus broke no promise when they did so. By your logic, I must be a Democrat and surround myself with Democrats. I have pointed out on the Andrew Bolt Forum that the Nazi Party, despite its name, was not socialist or left-wing. By your logic, I must be a left-wing socialist and surround myself with socialists and left-wingers. Then again as I mentioned that Stalin was not an adherent of the Russian Orthodox Church, by your logic I must be an adherent of the Russian Orthodox Church and surround myself with similar Orthodox believers. Dare I menton that Chris Judd does not play for Sydney and thus by your logic become a supporter of the Swans and surround myself with Swans supporters?

I did look at the “gott mitt uns” and Catholic arrogance site. Neither proved that Hitler was a Catholic.

Now, as you are not too good with logic, my next question will be beyond you, but I will put it on the record any way. Where in this discussion or any other did I defend the Catholic Church from the charges that you make here? How in the name of reason is pointing out that someone is not a Catholic or that “Gott mitt uns” was on the Germany army’s belt buckles long before Hitler came to power defending that church?

You make accusations against me for which you have not a skerrick of evidence? You pretend that I have said things that I have never said. Have you no shame?

It saddens me to see so much venom from both sides in what is ultimately a futile debate. Too many Catholics scream "poor me, you have me so misunderstood" and too many non-Catholics scream insults in return. What does this do for anyone? If anything, it weakens our credibility.

"I don't know how people can still support an organization that is embedded in pedophilia." - 579. Vicious? Yes. Accurate? No. Useful? No way.

"Most of the Nazi party hierarchy were Jesuits." - HFR. Do you have any way at all of backing up this claim? How did these Jesuits - members of a celibate religious order - hide their wives from the Church? When did they find time for military and political careers amidst their 8 or more years of training and religious activities? Several were Lutherans - hardly ripe pickings for those sinister Jesuits. Some may have attended Jesuit schools (though I have yet to see evidence of this), others may have admired the Jesuits, but please put some effort into substantiating such an absurd assertion.

Thankfully, we also received this: "If the Pope is serious he must take steps to remove every last paedophile priest/teacher/layman from positions of access, power and trust and wipe out this despicable culture imbedded in the Catholic hierachy. Then keep it thus!" - divine_msn.

Such a valid statement. Words, excuses and accusations are pointless. Action has a purpose and, if there is a way forward for the Catholic Church (and I hope there is), it is by 'fessing up to the past and building a better future. The Catholic Church has a very glorious history; it also has a very terrible one. The reality is that the past misdeeds of the Catholic Church are also the misdeeds of humans and, most commonly, of men. To attribute their evils to their Catholicism is just a useful way of detaching ourselves from the reality that we, as human beings, have a lot of growing up to do.

mac,

As you can probably see what HFR does not, I have not justified any collaboration by the Catholic or any other church hierarchy with Hitler. All I did was to correct HFR’s claim that Hitler was a Catholic by quoting some anti-Catholic statements by him (which carry more weight than what he said on his way to gaining power) and to point out that Hitter had nothing to do with the slogan on the German army’s belt buckles - the significance of which escapes me - for which I was greeted with a torrent of guilt by association abuse.

The Catholic Church in Germany, like the other churches other than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, did not resist Hitler, apart from when he decided to kill disabled people. Of course, resisting him would have been easier in 1933 than it was in 1938. I really recommend you read the Evans series on the Nazis. It is the most impressive work of history that I have read and helped me understand what life was like under the Third Reich.

Houllebecq,

I always thought you were one of the more saner people on OLO. I
enjoy your humor and attitude, it seems very similar to mine. I'm no Pollyanna, unlike guess which female that you have collided with on quite a few posts? Your namesake seems to be a very interesting guy – have read a bit about him, only. A voice in the wilderness.

Although, I have to disagree with your negativity on private school education. That's taking away the choices. I didn’t go to any posh school, rather your generic Catholic school, which I appreciated and the nuns were fabulous.

I thought you might appreciate this article by Richard Thompson.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/my-party-was-trashed-by-the-middle-class/story-fn59niix-1225910722814


I'll respond to the others with time permitting.

Houllebecq,

Correction: article is by Michael Thompson (I must of been thinking of the musician).

Briar Rose,

I’m not proselytizing nor talking to people like you, just here to defend the crux of Paul Collin’s article. You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. I’m saying to look at history and try to understand how Western Civilization has evolved. You cannot deny it. Are you trying to say that religious institutions have been irrelevant? Like we have never needed any religious collective as a community? Art, music, et al without the Catholic Church’s influence. Tell me what then. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I’m trying to talk to the one-eyed secularists (whatever) and extreme atheists who don’t want the Catholic Church to have a voice in contemporary society. Which is wrong. Therefore, I have used Jürgen Habermas, as a significant intellectual who has something to say, and he is unbiased. Although I am raised Catholic, I hardly go to church at all, like many others, but have only in recent times, been doing some internal travelling in this increasingly (what appears to me) soul-less, Me Me and fake gestured world. I have appreciated my Catholic (which means liberal by the way) upbringing more than ever while contemplating our contemporary world. I have a curious and nervous mind and pysche. I just get rather tired of all the Catholic bam bams. That’s it pure and simple.

That’s fine and well if you can privately talk to your own God without any outside support. That’s lovely. But I’m not talking to these people.

This isn't so easy to explain but is the best I can do right now.

Pelican and mac,

I am broadly speaking, wanting people to understand the big picture per se. I’m no authority on anything so I just wish to use examples of stuff I’ve read, a la Jürgen Habermas. We never hear this stuff here because we’re not German, hey, and I have personal experience with parochialism, you know living on a little ol large isle. Why aren’t we listening to the philosophers? Philosophy is intrinsic to religion.

Pope Benedict's encyclical on Eros. He is always talking about peace and love. I don't suppose you have heard it because you are not Catholic, therefore not interested. You only read about the Catholic paedophiles in the media. By the way, there is stuff happening within our own public school system that never gets air play. Is that because the Priests are a much easier target? A lot of people who are so anti Catholic just get into hysterics therefore only wanting to dig up the dirt. And now you get all touchy about the Pope targeting the extreme atheists, and why shouldn’t he? As I said before, it’s a two-way street, buddy.

The Inquisition, you mean the Spanish one, I am not aware of the others. The anti-Catholics will always bring this up. And the Crusades of course, who were defending their already invaded lands. But you did not mention this time. In my understanding, I’m no expert here – but it happened only in Spain, didn’t it? And without the endorsement of the Vatican, in fact the pope at the time was criticizing the horrible tortures, but did not have the power over a nation. But, as I see it, it was a national thing with Ferdinand and Isabella, having problems with the faux Catholic Conversos and Islam. So defending. Have you ever heard of Bella Dodd, by the way? A Catholic convert after having worked as the Legal Counsel for the American Communist Party. Point is, the infiltration of the Church. Who knows?

Cont....

"The anti-Catholics will always bring this up."

That is the problem with this debate. As soon as one raises an issue that does not paint the Catholic Church in a positive light they are anti-Catholics. It is the same with criticism of Israel and people who are trying to see the bigger picture are painted as anti-Jew.

How does one define a radical atheist?

I can see that an atheist who calls for the eradication of religion (which is not possible) could be classed as a radical, but that zealotry is equally oppressive as a theist calling for 'death to infidels' or pushing a no-contracption line even if it means a woman's death or exhaustion through raising a large number of children (my great grandmother for example).

What we should be all fighting is the failure of responsiblity and those who break the law (failing to report and deal with child abuse is only one) by organisations and individuals.

Do we pussyfoot around these issues always for fear of offending or do we go for the jugular and say enough is enough.

Constance,

I have no problem with private schools, I just don't think they should get any funding. In my world, the state has provided schools. If one is to reject these schools, they should be happy to go it alone.

I realise those who send their kids to private schools in effect subsidise the public system, but I don't believe that is their aim in sending their kids to private schools. If all these private schools people, out of spite, decided to go back to public schools if the governmnet stopped funding them( Which I don't believe they would anyway) well, then the government would just have to pay more for schools, and I am happy for my taxes to go towards that purpose.

I'm happy for private schools to do whatever it is they wish, just not be funded by the governmnet. Public schools need to be better, and an equitable society needs a great public education system, and can still have unfunded private schools for the snobs;-)

Hey get this pelican, constance is selling me an article about the "chattering class". Preaching to the converted!

Dear constance,

The Inquisition was not confined to Spain. In the 13th century, Pope Gregory IX (reigned 1227–1241) assigned the duty of carrying out inquisitions to the Dominican Order. Inquisitors acted in the name of the Pope and with his full authority. After the end of the twelfth century, a Grand Inquisitor headed each Inquisition. Inquisitions in this form persisted in parts of the world until the 19th century.

Historians distinguish four different manifestations of the Inquisition:

1. the Medieval Inquisition (1184–1230s)
2. the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834)
3. the Portuguese Inquisition (1536–1821)
4. the Roman Inquisition (1542 – c. 1860 )

The activities of the inquisitors were not confined to the above areas but could take place in any areas under the control of the Catholic Church. These inquisitions responded to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular the Cathars in southern France and the Waldensians in both southern France and northern Italy. Other Inquisitions followed after these first inquisition movements.

One particular horrifying instance of the Roman Inquisition was the execution of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) who was burned at the stake for heresy. Bruno, an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, postulated the infinity of the universe. He went beyond the Copernican model in identifying the sun as just one of an infinite number of independently moving heavenly bodies. He is the first man to postulate that the stars are identical in nature to the Sun. Bruno also wrote extensive works on the art of memory.

Protestants also burned people at the stake. Michael Servetus, (1511-1553) was a theologian, physician, cartographer, and humanist. He was the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation. His interests included many sciences: mathematics, astronomy and meteorology, geography, human anatomy, medicine and pharmacology, as well as jurisprudence, and the scholarly study of the Bible in its original languages. He is renowned in the history of several of these fields, particularly medicine and theology. He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a nontrinitarian Christology, the heresy he was burned for.

"Hey get this pelican, constance is selling me an article about the "chattering class". Preaching to the converted!"

heh heh what was she thinking. ;)

At least there was no reference to chardonnay or lattes.

Mac,

“[T]he death of God also means the death of Western morality and Western values". Why?” Ask Friedrich Nietzsche who is probably the most renown philosopher who still resonates today. And ask Jurgen Habermas. Just read the right stuff.

Yeh, yeh; dissenters from all directions have been punished – it hasn’t only occurred with Catholicism dear fellow. Have you forgotten the Protestant Reformation? Who had the faith first? Gee, what trouble makers they were.

Re your previous post. Catholicism has permitted the secular state. It is not a Theocracy. I never got scared of Hell either. Catholics do not take their religion literally like the fundamentalist. Symbols and mysticism did it for me.

When a group of students and professors refused to hear the pope speak at their Roman university they were denying their own tradition.

A couple of excerpts.

In a lecture intended for delivery at La Sapienza University in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI undertook to address this issue and to show that faith cannot exist without reason and that reason itself cannot flourish without the faith. His whole argument is based on the concept of the Western university, whose emergence in the Middle Ages was not some sheer historical fluke, but an outgrowth of the intellectual requirements of the Christian faith itself -- a point which suggests why universities did not develop in Asia, Africa or the Middle-East.

The pope first notes that "the true, intimate origin of the university lies in man's craving for knowledge". In this sense, "the Socratic questioning is the impulse that gave birth to the Western university". He then explains that it is precisely as a response to this kind of questioning that the Christians of the first centuries embraced the faith: "They accepted their faith as a way of dissolving the cloud that was mythological religion so as to discover the God that is creative Reason as well as Reason-as-Love.

Pelican,

The French Revolution.

“The origins of the Revolution have their intellectual backings primarily in the teachings of two men, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Donatien Aphonose Francois Comte de Sade, better known as the Marquis de Sade. (You might want to read up on Sade in particular, hey). Tens of thousands were murdered in this manner, and most were tortured before their lives were ended by decapitation. Oftentimes, murder was committed for its own sake, during the Revolution. However, men like Gracchus Babeuf and Joseph Lebon (5) were not interested in building only a democratic society. They, more often than not, began to slaughter the rich and privileged as well. If it is more beneficial for a man to mind his morals, pray nightly, and work hard, then he will act in such a way. If, however, it is more beneficial to rape, glut, and steal from his brothers who happen to be more materially wealthy, then it will occur. The ideology of the Democratic State is the parent of the butchery and slaughter that took place during the French Revolution. Leftists may attempt to defend the Revolution by the numbers. Truly, the Revolutionaries did not murder nearly as many as the Nazis or Soviets, but this was because they did not have the technology to do so.” Matt Lancaster (anarchist) – and I think I may be one myself, but am disciplined somewhat.

History may look favourably at the People of the Revolutions ra ras, Me Me The People so "Lets just kill em", Actual facts can be carelessly omitted, so the people of the revolution can look Nice and Glossy. Not everything is always so black and white you know, in fact most things are grey. There are always two sides to the story. Not that I am against justice and equality at all.

David f

Still conveying your pedantic HARDCORE one bug eyed ramblings. How about all the atrocities done against the Catholics and still occuring?

Katyn - a la Stalin

The persecution of the Catholic Irish in their homeland (killed off about 50% of the population, some say). Oh yes, the Irish love Oliver Cromwell. And apparently he is considered by the English today to be one of their top two favourite English people of all time. The history of anti-Catholicism in England which still beholds. And has echoed in English speaking countries The discrimination held against earlier, like in my parents’ days growing up.

Gosh, they rant on about Bloody Mary. How about Bloody Elizabeth and what she & co did to Catholics in England? Now the only Catholic Churches that survived in that bloodshed were stolen by the Protestants. But isn’t Bloody Mary a good drink? One good thing about Catholics, they like their grog. Oh, and didn’t a lot of Catholic monks brew some good ones - like beer and champagne. In fact, wasn’t it a monk who invented champagne? No doubt, the Catholics like to enjoy themselves in life. What a bland world it would be without them.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful of your facts given - whether correct or not. But you certainly seem to have a bit of a sick bee in your bonnet and are mercilessly out there to prove all your angst.

You don’t seem to believe in anything, David? Must be tough.

About 100 million Catholics are currently persecuted today around the world -radical Muslim groups,Islamic states, radical Hindu groups and North Korea. Have also been done by atheist states such as the USSR in the past and I think still happening but not as vicious. And were also persecuted for the first four centuries by the Jews and the Roman Empire until it was legalised by Constantine. Persecution of Christians in the early and medieval Caliphates. I could go on, but what’s the point and I really don’t care to.

Dear Constance,

You tried to minimise the Inquisition. It is not hard core to point that it was horrible. The fact that Catholics have been persecuted does not make the Inquisition less horrible.

The Katyn massacre was also horrible. However, it was not just Catholics. They were officers in the Polish army and included Protestant and Jewish Polish officers.

Goodness me. I wish you wouldn't find it so offensive to be presented with facts that don't jibe with your account.

I get no pleasure from attacking you personally, and I don't appreciate your attacks on me.

I don't know where you get the idea that I don't believe in anything. I don't believe in any supernatural mumbojumbo, but I believe the scientific method is the best way of getting information. I believe that one should be kind and question authority. I believe one should treat other humans with consideration.

I believe that I should treat you with the courtesy you have failed to extend to me.

Dear Davidf

We have proof that of all the religions, Christianity is indeed the one truth, because for over 2000 years Christians have lived in complete peace with all humankind. Of course if there has been the 'rare' outburst of torture, war, abuse of children, subjugation of women, attacks on homosexuals, enforced adoption of babies from single mothers, banning of contraceptives, tax avoidance, imposed religious teaching in public schools and general discrimination against shellfish (Leviticus!) - that is not the fault of Christians - if only everyone else would become Christian we would live in happy, fuzzy land with butterflies and rainbows every day.

Constance, you are free to believe what you like and I am free to reject your proselytising - we just wish you would keep your beliefs to yourself and not try to justify mythology to anyone who has the temerity to say "I prefer to assess the world through reason".

Cheers

Constance

"There are always two sides to the story. Not that I am against justice and equality at all."

Trouble is can you tell me in the context of this article what you define as Catholicophobia. It was a term that came out of criticism of the Catholic Church's failure to stem incidents of child abuse and other practices many deem as unjust (as you said there are two sides).

It is worrying when the Catholic Church decides to adopt a martyr stance or to attack atheists rather than get down to the business of putting their own house in order.

How are people being 'ophobic' about Catholics?

Questioning and accountability should not be likened with phobias otherwise we do go back to the days of inquisitions of fear and unjust punishments merely for expressing an alternative view that may not marry with the power structures of the day.

Houellebecq,

Thanks for spreading the Chattering Classes message with Pelican, that’s what I had intended. That’s what allies are for. And it can also be a bit lonely here in the wilderness of LATTE SIPPERS – got to find someone who agrees with me for some solace. So killed two birds with the one stone, didn't I? Do your duty and go forth and spread the message and warn the people about the odious CHARDY imbibers.

Don’t ask me about all the school funding business. But I do understand your concern for more funding for a better public school system.

There has been some praise coming out lately of the Catholic school system coming from a couple of academics (can’t recall names) that the Catholic school system operates better than the public school system in terms of its efficiency and cost effectiveness, plus as an aside, its better clarity of vision. The Catholic school system does have a lot of experience after-all and has been educating all over the world for many years, including Muslim countries, for both the elites and the average person. I know some people here as such who say they sincerely benefited from having a CC education in their own homeland.

Just getting my buck’s worth here.

Dear Pelican,

Seems that Constance is constantly on her guard lest she is accosted by a sensible argument on the subject of Catholic transparency and accountability. You made some very good points - as usual your argument is balanced and reasonable.
For some reason, Constance finds it necessary to detour from the subject and label people in order to bulk out her opinion - I myself have be labelled in another post as a "Hamas Nazi".....so all in all I think you got off quite lightly being called a latte-Chardy sipping member of the chattering classes.

Houellie must be thrilled that he's got a fan.

Pelican,

You’re missing the point that Paul Collins is speaking of - the new and aggressive Atheism. You have a pompous git like Geoffrey Robertson who for goodness sake, wants the Pope arrested. You cannot ignore the history of English Anti-Catholicism that comes well into the picture here – it is well entrenched. Look at what they did to Ireland. Here you go again. Before you were saying the Pope needs to espouse love and peace (you don’t seem to try and understand what the CC is about), and now you are saying they need to get their house in order re paedophiles. How do know what they're doing? The CC is always trying to keep its house in order, otherwise it would not have survived so long. Apparently they are a lot stricter now with recruiting priests and make them undertake extensive psychology tests in response to the paedophilia debacle. I’m by no means condoning their inaction of the past. In fact, I am appalled and gobsmacked with it all.

This has now become a handy tool that the aggressive Atheists will pursue in using for their own cause. I have nothing against Atheists (not at all) – it is only the extremists (well, of any kind) that I worry about.

“martyr stance”? That’s a bit rich. Do you think the extreme atheists are delicate little petals and therefore can’t handle some criticism themselves?

I knew what I was thinking when I passed the message to my ally, Houli. You overlooked my ploy. Can I say it? Please?! Okay, I’ll say it anyway:

Chardonnay and Latte sippers AND Beaujolais Bolsheviks
of the political sporting Chatteriiiiiiing Classes are
– the Trashers, as Michael Thompson rightly points out
and has written a book about it. And...... LIBERAL FASCISTS.

Michael Thompson is saying that the Labor elites are anti-tradition, anti-Church, anti-ANZAC and anti-working class and they in fact don’t believe in anything. They are so smugly self-righteous and pretentious and gawd so painfully HYPOCRITICAL. They are very tribal.

This is the political landscape I'm struggling to endure.

Poirot,

I am not condoning the Catholic Priest Paedophlolia issue at all. It's a disgrace. What do you want me to say? All I hope is that the house does get cleaned up and there is evidence that they are attempting to do so.

You seem to have trouble with people joining forces. I may even get disparaged by my new ally, who knows. Buts that okay, I'm a big girl - I can take it and only live with hope.

I recommend you also to read Michael Thompson's article. As I said before he also alludes to stuff happening within the public school system. I know, we are well used to the CC being soft targets. But we are afterall a pretty resilient lot.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/my-party-was-trashed-by-the-middle-class/story-fn59niix-1225910722814

Ben Chifley (who was a devout Catholic by the way) must be kicking in his grave to what they have now done to his Party.

The True Believer! and now his Labor Party is full of The No Believers.

Dear Constance,

I read the article.
I didn't vote Labor in the lower (or upper) house last election because they were almost indistinguishable from the conservatives.
In my experience, it is possible to reach beyond so-called "class" boundaries intellectually. The working-class has always been in the same boat. All the histories of the world are written by the educated intellectual class and that is never going to change. These days the working-class are even more cast adrift because of the breakdown of true communal ties....they are at the mercy of the mind-numbing influence of the electronic media which in large part has taken up the role of forming the mentalities of the lower social orders - sort of a modern day equivalent to the stained-glass windows in a medieval church. Their minds, for the most part, are filled with bilge from commercial media and entertainment outlets. They do respond to dog whistling, as do we all - look at how Mr Howard managed, without too much trouble, to lure Pauline Hanson's supporters over to the Liberals. Julia Gillard tried it too with her offshore processing "solution".

Blaming intellectuals for the position and the mentality of the working-class is oversimplifying the issue...in any case, labelling people and calling them hypocrites is unhelpful to the discussion.

Btw, you are right about allies - we all need them.

Constance,

It is too easy and unfair to dismiss the Labor “elite” with the usual chardonnay/latte epithets. There are many Labor people who support the social justice traditions of the party. They don’t all drink chardonnay, lattes or Beaujolais (which I am sure must now have been renamed under the EU “don’t copy our names” rules).

You might be interested in <a href=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/give-pc-purists-someone-they-can-hate/story-e6frg6ux-1225929070036>Give PC purists something they can hate</a> (Frank Furedi, The Weekend Australian, 25-26/9/2010).

The many misinformed, bigoted atheistic and secularistic comments confirm that Catholicophobia is on the rise.

Surprisingly, these commenters are unable to prove the non-existence of God.

With regard to Cardinal Kasper's alleged remarks, it would be interesting to see how the author (or anyone else for that matter) would use politically correct language to put across the Cardinal's alleged view.

Dear Raycom,

Why is it surprising that one cannot prove the non-existence of God?

Can you prove the non-existence of Zeus? I can't. At one time many people were positive he existed. At this time many people are positive that God exists. Because a number of people believe that something is true is not a proof that it is true.

If proof is called for the one who makes the assertion should provide the proof.

I see no reason to think of God as anything else than a human invention.

david f

You show your ignorance. It should not take too much effort on your part to trace back the link to Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Raycom, would Jesus Christ be calling people "bigited" and "ignorant" if he was in your shoes right now? Of course not! It's interesting how many so called Christians behave in the way that Jesus Christ did NOT! Maybe you should revisit your Christianity and look at your own behaviour instead of abusing others.

A belief in God has nothing to do with "proof", that's why it's a "belief". That's what faith is all about. Therefore, a person without faith and belief has ZERO obligation to prove there isn't a god, simply because religious faith and belief is just that, "faith and belief". If Christianity was based on proof, there would be NO need whatsoever for faith and belief, because you'd know for certain that god exists because of the "proof".

Or are you saying you don't possess Christian faith/Christian belief, and that your Christianity is based solely on proof? Don't forget now, if you can prove god's existence then there's no need for faith and belief in god's existence, because you have the "proof".

Raycom wrote:

"You show your ignorance. It should not take too much effort on your part to trace back the link to Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

Dear Raycom,

Humanoid Gods whose mothers were impregnated by supernatural beings are a primitive form of belief that should have been discarded years ago.

Zeus went around impregnating human females and poroducing mortal children. This primitive belief has been preserving in the overgrown cult called Christianity.

GROW UP! Raycom. GROW UP!

All religions - even my paganism - deserve all the criticisms they get, as all of them are imperfect expressions of human desire and longing. For the catholics to claim they are being singled out for special treatment is nothing they don't deserve - they deserve much more approbrium than all other religions combined, having caused unspeakable suffering, now and in the past.
That it survives at all is testament to the strength of the members' longing and desire - and fear. The latter is also the main reason Islam persists.

I was baptised a Catholic. Many would say I am a lapsed Catholic, I am not. I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus; an extraordinary Jewish teacher or rabbi undoubtedly, but not G-d incarnate. I am not a Christian. However, I would like to make two comments and readers can take from these what they will.

The Catholic church carried out the practice of castrating small boys so they would sing like "angels". The last castrati died in 1911.

Certainly, for most of the 20th century, many orders accepted boys of fourteen (perhaps younger) for entry into the priesthood and brotherhood. Far too young to develop sexual maturity; in some cases to even know their sexual identity. Such boys would then undergo a regime of damaging sexual repression. It does not surprise me that tendencies to paediophilia would develop among a number. It would surprise me if it did not. This in no way absolves the Catholic church of responsibility for priests' later crimes against the vulnerable. But I think this may someway explain why paediophilia has emerged more from the Catholic church, than from other Christian denominations.

"But I think this may someway explain why paediophilia has emerged more from the Catholic church, than from other Christian denominations."
Danielle, what statistics have you got to back up your claim?
What statistics have you got to support your inference that 14 to 18 year old candidates for the priesthood are more likely to practise homosexuality involving young boys than post-school-age entrants?

Re Hitler,

Hitler was a baptised Catholic, thus a lapsed Catholic ... but a Catholic nevertheless
... deathbed confession, absolution of sin, and salvation remained available to him.

Unless he was formally excommunicated from the Catholic church, which unfortunately, he was not, the Catholic church would have to had to accept Hitler as a member of the church. He could spout all manner of heresies, and commit all manner of crimes, but without excommunication ...

Oh Gawd - we are back to the chattering classes again.

The implication that social justice can only be pursued legitimately by the poorest or most disadvantaged in society - hence the latte/chardonnay references - is a distraction from the real issues. If distraction is your weapon of choice in debate perhaps you need to revisit your own perspective and go in for some self-analysis.

Anyway Collins has failed to establish a connection between phobias and Catholicism IMO and merely seeks to push responsibility away from the Catholic hierarchy.

You might think Robertson is a git Constance, but in real life those who harbour and protect pedophiles are legally guilty. Think about why you believe some people should be protected from the legal consequences of their actions. Those asking for accountability are not the ones with the phobias but there you have it, on those grounds we will have to agree to disagree.

As a practising and believing Catholic, I understand where Paul Collins is coming from.

Reading the comments here and any where else (eg The Age blogs) there is no doubt that virulent anti-Catholicism has increased significantly in the past few years, especially amongst bitter lapsed Catholics (whatever the cause). And dare I say it, and I think this is what Pope Benedict alluded to with his references to Hitler and atheism. Hitler was a lapsed Catholic who spawned his form of totalitarianism arising out of his bitterness for Germany’s losing the WW1 and his hatred of Jews. As a person approaching my 3 score and ten, I was raised pre Vatican 2, in no way was I taught to hate Jews, on the contrary. So anti-semitism is not specifically Catholic in origin. From my reading of history, it arose out of ignorance – in many circumstances, some ‘Catholic’ countries to their shame were infected by it, as were other nations with other predominant cultures.

As a Catholic, I learnt that the Catholicism was made of ‘saints and sinners’, including a history of good popes, ineffective popes and bad popes and so on through out the ranks. Even Jesus had the same difficulties with his 12 apostles! The fact is that the way of life Christ preached was simple, but mighty hard to follow, because it means going against our basic selfish instincts which every man (and woman) has. To probably misquote Chesterton “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried.”

cont.

Sadly, this has been reflected in the lives of some priests who have gone foully against Christ’s teachings and have abused children in their crime of pedophilia. The mishandling of this crime by those in the Church’s hierarchy for whatever reason is to be decried. Yet I would also note that most of these crimes appear to have been committed in the 70s and 80s. Hesitatingly and often inadequately the hierarchy has finally acknowledged their negligence and stupidity and has tried to do something to make amends for the ‘crimes of the fathers’ and try to reduce the chances of it happening again. Whilst I understand the genuine anger of those who thirst for justice, I fear for many others it is an excuse for anti-Catholic diatribes. The failure of a few to live the lives of trust, has caused not only serious harm to victims, but has damaged the reputation of the great majority who do try to live to the standards set by Christ. Further, it has to be said that pedophilia and child abuse of all sorts, is an unfortunate society wide problem with the incidence across society affecting all callings at every bit the same if not greater than the incidence amongst the clergy.

John Launder

Severin,

You don't like butterflies? Gee, that's sad. And you're gibbering about forced adoptions - what will you think of next? And what era are you living in?

Thanks for giving permission for my freedom. Oh, I'm so relieved about that. No mythologies in your life? You're life must be dull.
Woo, another hardcore reasonable person. Funny, you don't come across as very reasonable to me, nor very happy.

You're commenting on an article about anti-Catholicism and you're telling me not to have a say because you disagree, and use the old anti-religionist's mantra of spurious usage of the proselytizing accusation defence method when it doesn't apply. Is that because you have nothing to sell and nor should the Tykes. Because we have the advantage? Therefore we'd knock you guys over. You just have to accept that life isn't always fair (I know), life is like that. Didn't anyone tell you that it doesn't work on-line? Because I think you may be afraid of the Real Conversion. You should have checked the Vatican Website first if you are that paranoid. The CC isn't that techy, you see. Not yet anyway. Give us time, we'll get there soon enough, and become the religious equivalent of Microsoft (we have high aspirations) or at least Apple. Then we'll buy MS out and really TAKE OVER THE WORLD. And then maybe even the acolytes could have a go of conversion rites on-line with the coming Papa Technology, and then maybe even the Deadly Parishioners (watch out for them!)could have a go. We're gunna get real BIG. Be prepared. The truth may seem too confronting for some, I know, I understand. I'll hold your hand if you like while you try and absorb it all. Don't be afraid, I'm not the Pope, you see. Are you like one of those poor buggers in the UK who find him so SCARY. Really, it's okay now, calm down.

/Cont...

Severin,

Really, I'll try not to convert you. Oh, wait a minute, do you think I'm a priest? Sorry, meaculpa. I know, you're confused, but I do understand how it is being a Rationalist, or was it Reasonablist? It must be tough. Really, it's just about justifying or reminding some Westerners of the intrinsic importance that Catholicism has had in the making of Western Civilisation, that I recommend you to think about. If there is something you wish to debate or deny, tell me then. We do also have the capacity of reason, you know. If you're either an ingrate or just not into Western aesthetics and traditions, I guess you're just one poor old soul who's missing out. Guess you better just stay in the office and work like a heathen on Christmas and all the other Holydays.

I know, you're confused, but I do understand what it must be like being a Rationalist, or was it Reasonablist? It must be tough. Really, it's just about justifying or reminding some Westerners of the intrinsic importance that Catholicism has had in the making of Western Civilisation that I recommend you to think about. That's it baby! It really isn't proselytizing, you know. Believe me. Have faith. If there is something you wish to debate or deny, tell me then. We do also have the capacity of reason, you know - we're not always living in the wonderland of fairies. If you're either ungracious or just not into Western aesthetics and traditions, I guess you're just one poor old soul who's missing out, or just smug dismissive of stuff you don't wish to hear. Guess you better just stay in the office and work like a heathen on Christmas and all the other Holydays.

I guess the anti-mythology people would have desires to even ban the pulling of chicken wish bones or blowing out of candles or even sending get well wishes to your aged aunts.

Glory to you mate.

.../

Severin,

Correction: It's "PAPA TECHNOLOGY", Papa Technology I know just won't do it.

WOW - Constance!

To think I once accused you of having no substance - well, now I know you're full of it...

You have me a bit curious to know if you're a church attending Catholic. I have very good friends who are, although I've never heard them mention "taking over the world" (perhaps they're not in on the secret)
That's a big responsibility, you know. I hope you're up to it.

You are wasting your breath Poirot. It appears you cannot criticise the Catholic Church without some applied label - or being seen as virulent.

That is a common psychological manipulation to direct attention away from the thrust of the article which is the rise of Catholicophobia of which noone has yet explained exactly how this phobia is presenting itself other than criticism of calling the Catholic leadership to account for its actions over pedophilia.

If that sort of criticism is taboo then I don't know how the good people in the Church can ever hope to change the entrenched culture of secrecy. But thankfully it looks like the Catholic Church is waking up to itself and getting on with changing some of those historical obstacles regardless of some of the defensive rhetoric being bandied about.

I agree that there has been no substantial evidence of Catholicophobia provided either in the article or in the forum. I also think that the article makes quite a pointless argument. Making a victim of oneself does not achieve anything, and wastes energy that could be directed towards fixing the problems that cause the criticism.

I will say, though, that the Catholic Church bears the blame for the wrongs of a much wider group of people. In this thread alone, it has been blamed for Hitler. After a fruitless debate about whether or not Hitler counts, it was concluded that Catholics under Hitler were responsible for the Holocaust - a conclusion which ignores the hefty population of Lutherans in Germany who were equally responsible. It was argued (rather absurdly) that Hitler's highest cronies were Jesuits, which they weren't. I think it is safe to say that the Holocaust was more about Germany than about religion.

Then there's the sex abuse. A terrible crime that should be dealt with severely - but, once again, we shut our eyes to all offenders who aren't Catholic. The Anglican Church is also deeply troubled by the same problems - so much so that it brought down a Governor-General (who remains a bishop) - but there is no mention of that. Presbyterian missions, Lutheran leaders, Muslims and a great number of adherents to no faith whatsoever have abused children and been protected for it. But we are positioned to see it as a uniquely Catholic issue.

I think that, if whingeing Catholics would just shut up for a bit and get on with fixing their problems, we might all get a break from the finger-pointing, name-calling and insults. I would like that - it would give Catholics like me who actively work towards creating a better world (in accordance with our beliefs but accepting of others) a bit of a break.

I can only re-iterate: WOW Constance!

Where did I say I hated butterflies for Chrissakes?

And just how many posts did you devote to assassinating my character, was it 3? 4? Simply because I disagreed with your opinion? And threw in some humour about "butterflies and rainbows" if everyone believed as you. Was that it?

There is outright condemnation of the Catholic Church attempting to cover-up abuse of children - as there should be. No-one is ordering you to stop going to mass or holy communion. Simply that criminals be brought to justice - the church has no get out of jail free card - although it likes to think so.

Now go have a nice glass or 3 of communion wine and chill out.

Otokonoko
Unlike the thrust of this article, Catholics like your good self, are in the majority and are not tainted by some of the failures of the hieararchy - that is an important point - and is why I and many others don't subscribe to this 'ophobia' perspective. If the Catholic leadership had responsed immediately to child abuse claims we would not even be having this conversation.

Too many people, no matter their ideology or faith are quick to defend the indefensible should it taint their world view. The ideology and the actions are quite distinguisable and what we should be aspiring to is more honesty and transparency in these organisations - whether they be religions, governments or corporations. None should be unaccountable.

Pelican is entirely correct.

I have not been aware of any Catholicophobia nor rise in anti-Catholicism. I have been aware of the voices of the victims of paedophilia increasingly having the courage to come forward ... and I have been aware of the voices of many Catholics outraged at this crime being committed within the Church and worse, undoubtedly, covered up. One has to wonder just how prevalent this has been. The Church has also been seen to be too slow and too waffly, in its response ... indeed if it reacted at all - WWII atroctities come to mind. But this has always been the case, hasn't it? Unless of course, someone has rejected a tenet of the faith, or raised scientific evidence contrary to the Church's teaching. Then "WHAM"!!

Priests hold a unique place of trust within the Church. Unfortunately, this trust on occasion has been abused. I recall at boarding school that we dreaded going to confession to a certain priest. He appeared the epitome of what a priest should be. However, in the confessional he asked questions of graphic enquiry quite unrelated to one's confession. Although extremely discomforted and embarrased, we thought that this was his means of flushing out hidden sins of impurity. No other priest, however, acted this way. As adults we realised that this man was getting his 'jollies' from a naive group of school girls, who saw him as a person we were to respect, honour and defer to. Any non-cleric who asked of us, and dwelt on such intimate details, would have been seen for what he was.

Catholics know that Mary McKillop was excommunicated from the Church. They had been lead to believe that this was due to her insubordination. However, the truth is now emerging. She complained about a priest who was committing paedophilia. He was sent back to Ireland, there was a coverup and the issue rebounded badly upon herself. Now an 'excuse' is being made for McKillop's excommunication. The priest who performed it is now said to have been 'gaga' (I believe the term used). Another excuse?

The Church has performed wonderful work, and produced many "saints", but unless it is prepared to protect the laity from any preditors within its ranks, act immediately on evidence, and comfort the victims, the basis on which it stands is but hollow. Compare the figure of Jesus with those purportedly carrying on his work.

And Constance, I believe the Enlightenment had a great deal to mould Western values and thought.

Incidentally, my break with Catholicism had nothing to do with priestly behaviour, bad or good. It was based on reasoned, cool appraisal and analysis of evidence supporting Christianity

Severin,

Please don't take it personally. You can't, we only met once and your comment was very short. Don't take it seriously (only a joke). Sorry I used you; I had not intended to do any personal assasination at all. But I just got carried away with your usage of butterflies as a metaphor for my own personal reaction to coldness. Not that I really saw anything sinister, and I am sure that you really do like buttlerflies. But I actually found your usage of it with David f funny. I get a lot from small details that I read or see. It's usually off with the pixies take that is more often used and butterflies was a newy.

Just having a bit of fun here for sanity.

Of course I hope they are all brought to justice too. It seems they are trying and I hope they really seriously deter it. I am utterly disgusted with it all and can't believe the ignorance, dumbness and inaction of the CC. And of course the CC contains more of us hopeless humans than other institutions in the world, and will remain a prominent focus. I'm basically reacting to the Zealots in the UK who wish to annihilate the CC. And I think their cause is more than just paedophilia.

And don't you worry - I love chilling out with a drop.

I do regret using that mate bit at the end, and it was really only two posts I sent with the other correction.

Poirot,

My name isn't substance, and what is your user name? I have no illusions of myself unlike which you seem to with your namesake. I understood the literary Poirot was an expert on discerning the reality and had wit. I don't have any need to pretend to be something I'm not, therefore have used a nominal name. Can't see your substance either. And when you play the anti-alliance policeman opposed to your own opinions.

You actually seemed to take the Papa Tech seriously. Are you serious? Or just lack humour.

I think you may be confusing intellectualis with careerists - you know, the people who focus on themselves only. Intellectuals? Where are they?. And don't mention lawyers. Like your sympathy with the working class who you arrogantly dismiss any voice they might be owed, and also seem to categorise them of the same ilk. And the poor will always be with us. Pretty patronising. You know Julia admitted she hardly reads anything outside law and never does the culture stuff. What category does she fit into? There are too many institutionalised "elite" careerists around and the uni students seem to be taught what to think and instead of how to.

People joining forces, which you had previously opposed, but gosh, you and Big Bird act like Bib and Bub.

.

Bonjour Constance,

You have caught out Poirot aligning himself with a fellow poster (ah, but since Hastings relocated to the Argentine, one is at a loss sometimes for camaraderie - thank goodness for OLO,eh).
I was merely reacting to your sustained tirade toward the honourable Severin - which made my moustaches curl (even more than usual).

What makes you think that I'm not of the working class?

Re: Papa Tech - I wuz just joining in the fun.

Pelican,

"My gawd" - I see you're a mimicker. You're defending the silly zealot and narcissistic Geoffrey Robertson - oh dear. They call themselves liberals yet are acting like the Catholic Inquisitors from the Middle Ages. Another point of the grand hypocrosy occurring these days - they will never realise this. I hear Dawkins would love to eradicate Catholicism from Ireland. Are you really with these fellows? You do not seem to have taken in English history and that the old stink of Catholicism still resonates with them. I'm not defending or diverting paedopholia as you say occuring but I think the UK reaction to the Pope is much more than that. You, yourself are diverting from the article and seem limited in seeing a broader picture here.

Poor little (extremist) atheists, don't they get a battering from Papa. Because he is a big monster. They must be so pristine and delicate little animals. Chatter chatter and sipping sipping their milky caffeine hits to get them going (berserk).

Dear Constance,

I fear you are slipping back into old habits.
You spent all that time explaining your rant to Severin - sounding quite reasonable and lucid at times, I might add. And now you have not only bagged my magnificent self, but also impugned the honour and cafe habits of Pelican.
It seems that the atheists are winning hands down in the manners department.

Monsieur Poirot,

Oh yes, Hastings and the Argentine. Bueno hombre and los commaradaries.

I know, poor Sev - I was rotten wasn't I? Meaculpa again. It wasn't him, it was the butterfly that caught my eye.

Well if you are working class, do you despise yourself then?

Dear Constance,

Despite our penchant for the "mock joust". I am warming to you.

Let me say, that recognising that the working class are led by the nose in capitalist culture is not to "despise" them.
The are purposely deluded and brainwashed by the commercial media into fulfilling their many-faceted role in the pursuit of unending growth.
All the institutions that propel this state of affairs are responsible for keeping the working class in a state of "ignorant bliss" by saturating their lives with trinkets and hollow ideals.
Our system provides them with just enough education to take part in the economy, while simultaneously teaching them how "not" to think for themselves.
Humankind develops and progresses by individuals ruminating on their circumstances and taking their deliberations out into the world to share and to act upon. Unfortunately, in our system, we prefer to imbue to overflowing the minds of the working class with the shrill trumpet blasts of the market place. Amidst the clamour of modern capitalism, there is little room for contemplation and the sharing of innate wisdom and this impoverishes the human experience of this section of the populace in particular.
As I stated earlier in the thread, blaming the intellectuals is a simplistic reaction - the problem emanates from deep within the structure of our society.

Poirot, I think we are in the presence of a troll or a flamer (I believe that is the internet term).

Constance you are guilty of nothing but stirring the pot which is demonstrated by the bitterness and personal attacks in your posts.

I will leave you to your self-imposed misery and my wish is that you find some peace and contentment in your life... and I bid you all adieu until next we meet.

This is exactly why I wish my fellow Catholics would shut up and let their actions do the talking. Good actions, preferably.

Why not stir the pot and take a different angle? If you don't like different viewpoints, you'll never learn anything. You only don't like it because you are not even trying to understand. It's like the dialogues that I see George having to endure and having to consciously repeat himself because no-one is really listening. People entrenched with their own inflexible opinions. Personal attacks? I've already picked up on your own passive aggressiveness. I'm in no misery, Pelican - not at all. I don't know how you have perceived that - and are you without humour? Just having my say, with glee.

Otonoko, hard to act here on OLO. I always thought you were one of the more saner people here. We're not all the same you know. I myself come from a more unconventional side, and act accordingly to what I have already expressed.

Dear Monsier Poirot,

Sorry I'm late, but was away for the long weekend and as I said before, have trouble with keeping up with responses due to lack of time.

Well that's nice to hear that someone maybe warming to me. I know there is lots of inanity in society overall, and I think everyone no matter what class is effected. You seem to be so black and white. But you are still disparaging of the working class as if they have no values and you don't seem to see any diversity within them. I get tired of the pseudo intellectuals. Poiret, there are many Careerists - that is the problem. Just over the weekend, I read an article by another disgruntled (elder) Labor man, Rodney Cavalier in the SMH - a prophet in the wilderness so named. That's funny, I have mentioned that too - wilderness. He talks of what the Labor Party has become over the past 20 years. It has become only an individual Laborite self-serving political machine and nothing about values or vision for the party. I'm not working class myself and I don't know what bloody class I would fall into and don't care anyway. It's not just the working class who are in ignorant bliss. All I am saying is that the people should be heard. Why is it Howard's battlers? Labor has lost it.

You still have not responded to my comment on Julia. What class is she who does no self-educating and does not have much of a sense of culture, but only politics and previously very socialist. And where did she get that voice from? I think she's ignorant - for a start she has no idea of her voice. I also have a nickname for her, but won't mention it here, as judging from my responses they do not like naughty people, which is rather disappointing, everyone seems to take things so seriously, and themselves.

Cont/....

....Cont.

Dear Poirot,

I know a so called academic who has a Uni house residency - but you know what she aspires to? Someone like the Columnist from Sex and the City with all the shoes. Is that academia?

By the way, I know you draw, so have I, and have recently been drawing nudes again, but you like drawing cathedrals. There may be our difference. But as artists, we all have a need to express, don't we? Also, if you like superficiality, Paris may be it. But of course the face of it was beautiful. Was there a couple of years ago.

Dear Constance,

The only time I've drawn nudes was in art class. Yes, I like to draw cathedrals and architecture in general, but not always the monumental buildings. I like to draw old buildings - particularly the rustic types in rural France and Britain.
I also draw the odd portrait. You might be interested to know that I drew one of Pope John Paul II (for my Catholic friend) - and enjoyed drawing it very much.
In my town (small city) they are currently constructing a new Catholic cathedral to replace one that was severely damaged five years ago by a tornado. It's been interesting to watch it go up, and it is now dominating the skyline above the town.

I'm sorry Constance. Discussions like this really frustrate me and, as far as I can tell, achieve no real purpose. You started out well, defending our faith. But, as the goading continued, you gained no ground and instead started resorting to irrational arguments and nitpicking - perhaps in response to perceived attacks on you. I'm sure you do a lot of legwork as well as talking in defence of Catholicism. I think the honour and face of our religion can be redeemed only through that 'behind the scenes', silent goodness - by loving and supporting one another, not by engaging in arguments that just give opportunities for those who despise us, our faith or our Church as an institution to attack, drag out the same old skeletons and keep us mired in discussion instead of doing the work that we as Catholics are bound by our faith to do.

I often find myself erring in the same way, but put a concerted effort into avoiding such issues. I and most of the Catholics I know prefer to do God's work rather than fight His verbal battles for him. In my opinion, that's the way to go.