Apparently. I read about this in the paper. He claims that vatican papers are being taken out of context and rulings designed to defend confessionals are being used misleadingly. But the Church has a bad record when it comes to covering up for 'RockSpiders'.

Probably best I don't comment any further but I will. I see all religions as essentially evil and responsible for most of the wars throughout history. Any person who claims to know the will of super intelligent and infinitely more advanced beings is either on drugs, mad or a con artist. The wealth of the Vatican tells me they aren't mad but I don't know about the drugs.

They are definitely con artists though.

Wane I don't agree with you that all religions are evil.

sorry for wrong spell of your name: wayne :)

Wayne,

I don't find your argument compelling when there has been a much more extensive track record of media sensationalism and a recent track record of the BBC misrepresenting the Pope.

I don't criticise people for having religious beliefs, only for trying to force those beliefs onto others. And I don't criticise people for having strong feelings of spirituality.

But there is so much substantiated evidence of paedophile activity and systematic cover ups within the Catholic Church, over long periods of time and in various parts of the world, that it cannot just be passed off as media sensationalism. [I realise that paedophile activity is not limited to the Catholic or to any other church, but it's the Catholic Church which is being discussed here.]

One of my friends a while ago was a well known WA investigative journalist who did a series of in depth articles on Catholic Church related paedophilia. I asked him how people who professed to have a strong belief that their actions were seen by their God and that they would eventually be called to account for those actions, could possibly prey on children in such a depraved manner. He told me they believed that, as long as they confessed, then that put them in the clear.

"I don't criticise people ..."

Do you mind if I ask why you mentioned that? I'm just curious.

"But there is so much substantiated evidence of paedophile activity and systematic cover ups within the Catholic Church..."

Actually there is sweet b a evidence of paedophile activity and coverup of same but that is being pedantic considering the point you are making. I can explain if you want.

"...it cannot just be passed off as media sensationalism."

Subject to what was actually covered up as hinted at above I agree. The molestation / coverup crisis was definitely not media sensationalism. It was a problem about priests. It was a blessing that the media brought it to attention to ensure it was widely known to help prevent further problems.

I was just referring to the BBC, who recently created a whole heap of strife after misrepresenting the Pope's comment, now hinting that the Pope might be misrepresenting a Vatican document. Wayne essentially said that because so much cover up etc. has been revealed BBC must be right. My response intended to say that that is not a good argument given media's history of sensationalism being more extensive than Church history of molestation coverup and anything about the Pope coming from BBC in particular should be viewed with particular suspicion.

"...He told me they believed that, as long as they confessed, then that put them in the clear."

They probably do and that doesn't even raise the more salient issue of relying on psychologists to deal with it and to have priests sent out just because psychologists say they are cured. One can't seriously think that a priest who conducts sexual misconduct, where he is doing the molesting, has the right mindset to follow the vocation or even understanding of his vocation. There are a host of issues that have nothing to do with psychologists and should have been addressed by the rogue Bishops that created the further problems with their coverups etc.

I'm happy to say why I don't criticise people merely for having a religious belief. As far as I am concerned, both having, or not having religious or spiritual beliefs is an act of faith. Neither side can offer any proof, one way or the other. I believe that some particular beliefs can be disproved by various branches of science, such as archeology, astronomy or paleontology, but that's something else altogether. Many things which we now know to be true were once regarded as most unlikely and vice versa. And I don't like unnecessary and unwarranted name calling and belittling of others.

In regard to Catholic Church paedophile activity, I typed Catholic Church paedophilia into Google and got 182,000 responses. [I realise of course that this does not amount to 182,000 items of proof of guilt.] I chose to have a look at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

There's far too much there to ignore, or pretend that there are just a handful of isolated, unrepresentative situations.

I'm not having a go at you if you are Catholic. Many of my friends are Catholic and I know that they are good people. I sometimes wonder how they can handle being part of a church which has had so many scandals, but I don't want to embarrass them by asking.

I am a freedom of choice person, when one's personal choice does not adversely affect others. But I bitterly resent the influence some religions have in so-called secular Australia on those of us who have different belief systems or perhaps no particular spiritual belief at all.

that is disgusting and i'm not suprised to hear it

"happy to say..."

Good to hear. So many people do these days.

I'd suggest the google result primarily shows enthusiasm for the label not that it is an accurate label. It not only suits atheists , unlike yourself, who do like to insult Christians but also misguided Protestants who think that Catholic priests are more likely to be paedophiles than their priests and who want to convert Catholics or point score. The 'newsworthiness' is actually a reason to be cautious of the BBC as it gives them a motive to engage in mischief.

"I chose to have a look at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

There's far too much there to ignore, or pretend that there are just a handful of isolated, unrepresentative situations."

The encyclopaedia article gives a number of examples. However in a large group of priests (I don't know how many but I think there are about 1 billion Catholics) over a period of about 20 years, yes there is more than a handful of incidents but that doesn't mean it isn't unrepresentative. How many examples of media sensationalism do you think would have happened in that period?

As I said the molestation / coverup crisis was definitely actual events not media sensationalism (although using the word "paedophile" was mainly sensationalism) but that doesn't mean that BBC's recent track history shouldn't be taken into account particularly when the Pope is involved.

"I sometimes wonder how they can handle being part of a church which has had so many scandals, but I don't want to embarrass them by asking."

People choose to attend a particular church for different reasons. For centuries after Christ people were so keen they used to be willing to die to be a part of the early Christian Church. I'd expect that some people would have left the Catholic church to avoid being part of a church that had a scandal.