Raycom - I have sufficient knowledge of the teachings of the "catholic" church to know that there is not a smidgen of one iota of truth in any of it.

It is all lies and has nothing whatsoever to do with the universal, non-Christian, non-sectarian, Spirit-Breathing Spiritual Way of Life that Saint Jesus of Galilee taught and demonstrated while he was alive.
Nor with what Saint Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God - "where" and what it is, the Spiritual means by which each and every human being can enter into the Kingdom IN THIS LIFE-TIME, and the necessary comprehensive psycho-physical self discipline which supports and assists that Process of self-transformation and more importantly, self transcendence.

NO one goes to "heaven" when they die - wherever that could possibly be!

For many years it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations for the
mysteries of the universe, religion would have less and
less of a role to play and would even disappear, unmasked as
nothing more than superstition. But there are still gaps
in our understanding that science can never fill.
On the ultimately important questions - of the meaning and
purpose of life and the nature of morality - science is
utterly silent and, by its very nature, always will be.

Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond
the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this
fundamental sense religion is probably here to say.

As for the new Pope - people of goodwill can only hope that
Catholics will gain the genuine leadership that their
Church so desperately needs and a willingness to confront
both the difficulties and opportunities that the Church
faces. Let us trust that the new Pope is uniquely placed
to be able to do precisely that. We can only wish him well.

People who talk in absolutes often do so in order to hide their own cognitive limitations. People who talk in vitriolic absolutes in particular may be understood in this way.

If the new Pope was 'humble' in any meaningful sense of the word, he would long ago have abandoned an organization that officially believes that the universe was made for the benefit of human beings, and its CEO has a hotline to God. Like so many religious terms, 'humble' seems to mean something quite different in the mouth of a theist.

Jon J, I understand that you have a fair few bones to pick with the Catholic Church, and from some of your previous posts I understand that you have a very good reason for your stance. The Church cannot with any integrity make excuses for its transgressions.

As for the new Pope, though, and the assertions that he is 'humble' - time will tell. I have been interested to see the media beat-up of his humility - carrying his own bags, riding on buses and shunning fancy vestments. I carry my own bags and use public transport when I travel. I call that 'normal', not 'humble'. I'd like to think I'd do it even if someone else offered to do the job for me, but that has never been tested.

Two other things: you speak of Catholics 'officially' believing that the universe was made for the benefit of human beings. I'm not sure that this is the case. As a teacher in a Catholic school, we teach the 'Catholic value' of custodianship, not ownership. I don't know how exclusively 'Catholic' that value is (many non-Catholics share that position), but it suggests that we have a duty to look after - rather than own - the world around us. Secondly, you state that the Pope should - given his alleged humility - have abandoned the institution he now leads. My alternative take on that stance is that a humble person may be able to see a core of good in a thoroughly corrupt institution and strive to enhance that core rather than throwing the whole thing away.

While the Church has been responsible for many horrific things, it cannot with real honesty be denied that it does some good for the world as well. It's the duty of a Pope who professes humility and decency to atone for the wrongs and enhance the rights.

Of course, I respect your views and, like I said, I think I understand where they come from. I just thought I'd offer my alternative view as a Catholic who still holds some faith in the church.

An inspiring article, well done.

For many it is sufficient to lead a 'good life', to try to avoid harming others, to raise a family, to be materially successful by honest labour - and not at the expense of others. But for very many there needs to be more to life, some celebration of life itself and all it offers to us as individuals and as a community, a culture, a nation, and celebrate this in spirit, or in spirituality. Many and diverse are such celebrations of the spirit of being.

And, there are those who have such a strong belief in purpose that they strive to go above and beyond attending to their own needs, and reach out to help others less fortunate, less well, less capable. Certainly there are those who attend to such needs in the world without the motivation of any purpose beyond their recognition of need, and their own strong feelings of compassion; but in spite of not professing any religious purpose in their undertakings there is a spirituality exhibited in their demeanor and in their good works.

One should be thankful for these 'Samaritans' of good works, and offer praise for their efforts where so many others would not even dare to tread. But some can only criticize, while not finding it within themselves to follow a similar path, not even in small measure - save only for a donation here and there, to the Salvo's or Vinnies, and consider this sufficient, or more than sufficient contribution to aid others in need. A small gratuity to salve conscience, and perhaps guilt for not giving or doing more. But, still not recognising the far greater efforts of others.

There is something strange about those who knock a good thing - even if that thing is not perfect, but is also occasionally subject to human frailty - those who fail to see beyond the individual, or refuse to see.

And, David G, you are a sad human being.