Surely the previous two posts display a degree of "venom" with which the late Pope would disapprove? Is it not possible to defend his record without using such language... you might even understand what each other is talking about!

As far as I can tell, "Reality Check" is defending the late Pope's abysmal rulings with respect to condoms. That said, her/his reference to "oversexed and unfaithful husbands and rapists" and "those scumbag excuses for manhood" seems a very extreme position for even a Christian to take. What is s/he saying? That the only men who use condoms (or would if their beliefs allowed them) are oversexed, unfaithful, or rapists?

Isn't "scumbag" a slang term for condom anyway? What an odd turn of phrase.

The intemperance of the language used by "Arjay" is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that he has the wrong end of the stick firmly between his bared teeth. Dear oh dear.

JPII & the Church teach that sex is a marriage thing, and involves fidelity and other such outdated notions as loyalty, procreation etc.

These teachings have no impact on people that are sexually active for non-matrimonial reasons. Condoms are neither here nor there in the saving of lives unless you can tell me that people so subject to the rule of passion are going to use condoms when they rape people or force their wives to have sex when they are involved in high risk activities.

If you can explain to me (and future popes) how condoms increase marital fidelity and can reduce excessive western consumerism (and arms dealers) depriving third world states of resources, then we can start to have a debate.

George Pell chooses his own self-serving interpretation of others’ opinions when attempting to denigrate radical secularists. He says their view is “that suffering is meaningless, that a life of suffering is without value,” and he concludes that that view is no longer enough. Indeed if there are people who have that uncompassionate attitude I too would recoil.

My own view, whether secular humanist or not, is that all suffering has a cause and it is one of the great endeavours of human beings to search out those causes and find cures. I understand the proposition that belief in the supernatural is a product of the brain and consequently the efficacy of that belief is confined to the brain and what bodily actions flow from it. There has not been, nor can there be, any evidence that the images of gods and ghosts, angels or elves which are held in the brain have any other physical effect on the world around us. If those images can soften the pain of suffering they are welcome but they are not the source for finding the causes or effecting cures.

Poverty is the cause of enormous suffering and death. Disease is the cause of pain, death or blighted lives. The people who deserve the appellation “great” are those who have identified the causes and cures of these blights on humanity.

Words about the magnificent dignity of suffering are no substitute for the earthly task of understanding the causes and applying the known cures for that suffering.

I agree with John Warren and would also take issue with Pell's quite ridiculous characterisation of 'radical secularists' (and i'm not sure what they are apart from straw men) as believing suffering to be 'meaningless' and that 'a life of suffering is without value'. Since suffering is part and parcel of every human life, the clear inference is that secularists don't value human life. What a cheap shot in a piece supposedly dedicated to a loyal servant of his deity.

Brought up in the bosom of his church since infancy, Pell clearly has no idea of what secularists think, and his guesses are singularly inept.

The vast majority of Christians and non-Christians agree that we should do all in our power to alleviate unnecessary human suffering, which blights human lives and stunts human potential. Most suffering is caused by poverty, cruelty and neglect, and can be reduced though never eliminated. To proclaim the glory of suffering is very easy to do from Pell's comfortable position.

The likes of Peter Singer, under the guise of the philosophy of utilitarinism, are probably the radical secularists that Pell has in mind. We should note that Singer couldn't pursue his 'faith' in utility -"Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it's your mother"?

As we in the west kid ourselves about deprivations & suffering, in equating the worth of human (or other sentient beings) life in relation to the concept of pleasure and the absence of pain - within the context of resources needed to care for the sick & lame - we are likely to see most of the third world open to socio-economic euthanasia, for their own well being of course.

Suffering is naturally inflicted - earthquakes, viruses etc - but a great deal of suffering is due to human vice, or dare I say it, sin.

Unless we are to reject radical consumerism and adopt a more radical culture of life, one that accepts concepts of natural law and the protection of beings from conception to grave (regardless of economic/social power) then we will continue to see science & profit, pleasure & individual 'rights' triumph over faith & reason, solidarity & responsibility.

Mind you, one large asteroid or super volcano could make this all academic...

George Pell accuses secular humanists like me of not valuing suffering, of seeing it as meaningless. Nothing could be further from the truth. All human growth is achieved through suffering. On that, perhaps, we agree. The difference is in whether the suffering we are talking about is going to result in some kind of growth. Pointless suffering that can be avoided and was not freely accepted by the sufferer but imposed on them by people who feel they know better (like Cardinal Pell, perhaps) should, it seems to me, be avoided.
I am prepared to suffer, have suffered and will no doubt suffer again. But, as a secular humanist, I reserve the right to decide on my own response to such suffering. Whether I wish to submit to it, or not should be my decision, not someone elses, no matter how much supernatural authority they may claim.
I celebrate your right to practice your religion, Mr Pell, and make your own moral choices accordingly. Do you accord me the same rights, I wonder?