On page 20 of the April 7, 2013 Sunday Mail was an item headed 'Pope speaks out against sex abuse'. Unfortunately all that the pope said was to tell Monsignor Gerhard Ludwig Muller, head of the Vatican Department that disciplines predator priests, to act "with determination in cases of sexual abuse". That is not enough. Sexual abuse is a crime. If one knows of a crime one must tell the police. Anything short of that is obstruction of justice and a continuation of the coverup.

The beasts of pray may continue their predations free of public scrutiny. Francis is Francis, not frank and open.

Dear David,

In Matthew 5:29-30, Jesus said:

"If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Suppose the Pope follows those very instructions and, through his agent, Monsignor Gerhard Ludwig Muller, instructs all fallen priests to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and castrate themselves (or even cut it off altogether).

Would that be harsh and adequate enough?

I suspect that for an anti-religious humanist, it would never be sufficient, not even if those priests would immolate themselves to death, because as much as a humanist possibly cares about abused children, they care even more about the success of the secular authorities and the demise of religion.

>>Suppose the Pope follows those very instructions and, through his agent, Monsignor Gerhard Ludwig Muller, instructs all fallen priests to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and castrate themselves (or even cut it off altogether).<<

Why would the Pope do that Yuyutsu? It doesn't make any sense: it isn't their testicles that has caused these priests to stumble - it is their brain. Castration is really only going eliminate or reduce a man's libido - it might reduce their impulses but it won't do anything to make them any healthier and it won't improve their decision making.

The Pope is unlikely to tell all his priests to cut out their own brain because... do I really need to spell it out for you? It would be nearly as ridiculous as all the tripe you post around here.

>>I suspect that for an anti-religious humanist, it would never be sufficient, not even if those priests would immolate themselves to death<<

I don't know about anti-religious humanists but for the anti-pedophile atheists it would be quite sufficient if the proper legal process involved self-immolation as the punishment for these crimes. We just happen to think that priests should obey the law just like everybody else. You can't have one set of laws for priests and another set for everyone else: that's not fair. You can't no laws because it doesn't work: I've yet to meet an anarchist who can explain how you stop the strong preying on the weak and prevent life from becoming 'nasty, brutish and short' in their fantasy utopias.

Cheers,

Tony

Pursue the perpetrators not their logo.

While I have no liking for the Catholic Church, maybe shared by David f?
The man/Pope would indeed be a great one if he had many any real improvements in this in the short time he has been Pope.
I think we should both give him time, and watch closely for improvements and reform.
The thought in some non Catholic Christians minds, that the Church is the anti Christ,needs some action to disprove that must come.
I am forced to wounder are some offending Priests believers in the God they serve.
If so do they think forgiveness can be received for the crimes they have done?

Dear david f,

>>Unfortunately all that the pope said was to tell Monsignor … to act "with determination in cases of sexual abuse”.<<

What else did you expect him to tell the Prefect of the CDF (whom he has not yet confirmed in his position) this early in his pontificate than to repeat the rather obvious exhortation given by his predecessor?

>>That is not enough. Sexual abuse is a crime. If one knows of a crime one must tell the police.<<

There are Catholics not only in Australia or US, but also e.g. in China, and many Muslim dominated, far from democratic, countries for whom the pope is an authority. Do you think also in these countries people suspected (one seldom “knows” for sure) of sexual abuse should be reported to that country's police?

I think it depends on the country, hence it is for the bishops (Bishops Conferences) in the particular countries to take the proper initiative. The Vatican can only instruct them “to draft voluntary ‘guidelines’ on preventing abuse, caring for victims, disciplining abusive priests, and reporting suspected abuse to local police”, as they did e.g. in May 2011 (http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-02/cardinal-says-bishops-must-cooperate-police-abuse).

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: “Suppose the Pope follows those very instructions and, through his agent, Monsignor Gerhard Ludwig Muller, instructs all fallen priests to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and castrate themselves (or even cut it off altogether).”

I don’t want the Pope to follow the teachings of Jesus which in this case as in other cases are nutty. I want him to instruct Muller and his other clergy to call the cops if they know of a crime. He should have weighed his words carefully and then said the right thing. He didn’t. It is more important to stop the crimes than to punish the perpetrators.

You also wrote: “I suspect that for an anti-religious humanist, it would never be sufficient, not even if those priests would immolate themselves to death, because as much as a humanist possibly cares about abused children, they care even more about the success of the secular authorities and the demise of religion.”

The above merely shows your prejudices. I can’t speak for other humanists, but I am against capital punishment. I am also against persecuting people for their religion. I am for separation of religion and state which means, in part, that people’s religious beliefs are no business of the state.

Dear George,

You wrote: “I think it depends on the country, hence it is for the bishops (Bishops Conferences) in the particular countries to take the proper initiative.”

It does depend on the country, and some countries would use this as a cudgel to persecute the church. However, the bishops have had their opportunity, and many have participated in various cover-ups. It apparently is not enough to leave it to the bishops. Since, as you mention, the Vatican in May 2011 recommended reporting suspected abuse to local police I wonder why Francis didn’t repeat that injunction. He seems to be overriding the previous instruction.

Dear David F.,

I hope that the new pope will make changes.

As Paul Collins tells us in his book,
"Believers: Does Australian Catholicism Have
A Future?" :-

"The cover-ups, the protection of abusive
clergy, and the refusal to admit egregious mistakes
are unjustifiable. We haven't even begun to calculate
the damage these crimes have done to people's trust
and to the reputation of the church. Law had simply
moved abusive priests from parish to parish, thus
giving them access to new victims. There is no doubt that
the clerical profession has taken a severe battering
and that respect for the priesthood is, understandably,
at an all time low."

Young people - and their elders - are rightly sceptical
about everything the church says about sexuality.
And this flow-on effect with the church's entire
message, will be dismissed. Trust is going to have to be
built from the top down - before the church's pronouncements
on morality will be taken seriously again.

It's high time that the Pope was made to realise the
responsibility that is his.

Dear David,

<<I don’t want the Pope to follow the teachings of Jesus which in this case as in other cases are nutty.>>

Point taken. You probably wouldn't want to have any Pope in the first place and I cannot argue with your personal-preferences.

By definition, the role of the Pope is to lead his flock towards God in the footsteps of Jesus. It's your right to believe that those teachings are nutty, so long as you do not interfere with the religious lives of those who either believe differently or consciously choose to be nut-cases.

<<I want him to instruct Muller and his other clergy to call the cops if they know of a crime.>>

Again, I cannot argue with your private desire.

<<It is more important to stop the crimes than to punish the perpetrators.>>

It is indeed the duty (and only justifiable duty) of the state to protect its citizens, including the young ones: that's what the state is for.

If protecting children takes killing the perpetrators, then so be it, but what the state has no authority to do (nor anybody else for that matter, including churches) is to punish those who do not accept its authority. When someone who doesn't accept your authority harms you, they are NOT a criminal, but an enemy - and enemies of the state must be treated differently than criminals. Killing an enemy is not a capital-punishment.

A religious person CANNOT accept the state's authority, no matter what they tell you, because the supreme authority lays with God. Generally, religious people have higher, not lower, level of morality than states expect, but when you disagree, go ahead, draw your sword and fight them if you can.

<<I am for separation of religion and state which means, in part, that people’s religious beliefs are no business of the state.>>

Sticks and stones, easy said - of course beliefs cannot hurt you, but while belief may be (and often is) used as a religious technique, one among many, religion is so much more than that! Still against persecuting people for their religion?

Dear Yuyutsu,

"A religious person CANNOT accept the state's authority, no matter what they tell you, because the supreme authority lays with God. Generally, religious people have higher, not lower, level of morality than states expect, but when you disagree, go ahead, draw your sword and fight them if you can."

no matter what they tell you? I assume that some religious people are honest in what they say. In fact, some religions such as Bahai'i specifically tell their communicants that they should accept the authority of the state.

When you mention that religion has a higher level of morality than the state I disagree. I think the world would have have better without religious wars. The British Empire spread through wars of conquest. However, the British were mainly interested in taking the wealth from their conquests. The Spanish conquests wanted more than that. They were intolerant of other religions including the indigenous ones and subjected their subjects to the Inquisition. The British Empire was less oppressive than the Spanish Empire. I think your statement about the high morality of religion is rubbish. When religion uses the state to enforce morality the result can be oppression, misery and corruption. One example of that in the US was Prohibition.

as disgusting and sickening the actions of the clergy (mainly homosexual perversions) one would have to be totally blind not to acknowledge the dramatic increase in child abuse of every form as a result of the breakdown of the faimily and the introduction of godless secular doctrines such as pornography which gives the paedophiles an appetite fro their crimes. It is also clear that step fathers are far more likely to abuse kids than natural families. I am amazed how quite the secularist are about the Saville case whereby many girls were molested in front of audiences. Oh well I suppose he belonged to the national broadcating family so his crimes don't deserve the same scruntity as others in the eyes of those who hate the catholic church so much.

A somewhat self-defeating analogy, runner.

>>I am amazed how quite the secularist are about the Saville case whereby many girls were molested in front of audiences.<<

It may not have made many headlines here, but I can assure you that in the UK the Jimmy Savile case has caused massive outrage. To the point where even an "83 year-old Australian entertainer living in Berkshire" was recently arrested as part of Operation Yewtree.

I'm not sure you can paint that particular operation, which has already made over a dozen arrests, as being "quite", as you so quaintly describe it.

Pericles

'I'm not sure you can paint that particular operation, which has already made over a dozen arrests, as being "quite", as you so quaintly describe it. '

what after 40, 50 years? you mean their was no cover up or just simply an acceptance of a common practice?

Dear David,

<<When you mention that religion has a higher level of morality than the state I disagree.>>

What I said is that RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, in general, have higher, not lower, level of morality than states expect.

I would be lying had I claimed that religious institutions have a similar level of morality as individual religious people do.

<<I assume that some religious people are honest in what they say.>>

While some, as we know from history, have been lying, pledging allegiance to the state in order to survive (just as many non-religious others did as well), without meaning a word, others, I presume, are merely careless or thoughtless, failing to note the implication that if they submit to the state, they may later find themselves in conflict with serving God.

<<In fact, some religions such as Bahai'i specifically tell their communicants that they should accept the authority of the state.>>

I would have to see the exact context. Perhaps it was mentioned under duress in Muslim countries, or perhaps it only relates to trifling issues such as speed limits. I can't see for example Bahai people stopping to pray because state-legislation made it illegal, but I could quite possibly see them continuing to pray in secret.

<<I think the world would have have better without religious wars.>>

But there HAVEN'T EVER BEEN any religious wars!

What you mistakenly refer to as "religious" wars, were wars between institutions which CLAIMED to be religious, PRETENDING to be acting on relgion's behalf!

Ask yourself: would Jesus Christ ever support the crusades?

<<When religion uses the state to enforce morality the result can be oppression, misery and corruption.>>

Right on - there's nothing worse and those who such collude with the devil to abuse the name of God, should be hanged!

<<One example of that in the US was Prohibition.>>

Remember that the only way to do any good and follow God's ways, is by free choice, even at the face of temptation. Those who forcibly deny the option of sin, at the same stroke deny the possibility of virtue.

Runner this question is not to you, it would be a waste.
But it is not to stirr, but to truely ask a question that has lived in me all my life.
Including my total, lost now, commitment to Christ.
Question?
*Why is it so, why are so many telling us about God, any God, the very worst type for that job*.
I was not thinking about the offending Priests but they offer a reason, besides runners posts, for me to say my question needs an answer.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: “What I said is that RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, in general, have higher, not lower, level of morality than states expect.”

People’s morality should be no business of the state. All that the state should require is that people obey its laws. If one thinks the law is grossly immoral than one should not obey it. That has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Morality does not depend on religion. However, much of what is called religious morality is pretty pointless. Singing praises to an imaginary being who apparently is emotionally insecure and in need of praise. Worrying about what one consenting adult is poking into the orifice of another consenting adult. Worrying about eating the wrong food at the wrong time. Worrying about the difficulty in believing a bit of nonsense mumbojumbo. Much of religious morality is utterly trivial. Morality is one thing, and religion is another. They should not be confused. If one is moral because one thinks some supernatural superdaddy is looking over one’s shoulder I think that is not as good as doing the right thing simply because that is what a good person does.

I have been involved in various actions I thought of as moral. Protesting the slaughter of people in war. Protesting racism. Other people have done far more. Both religious and non-religious people have been involved in these actions, and I noticed no particular difference in the morality of religious and non-religious people.

You asked if Jesus Christ would have supported the Crusades. Jesus is largely a creature of myth with the myth taking on accounts of other wonder workers of the time. Whether a legendary entity would have supported a war in his name is a pointless question.

I would rather not concern myself with serving a non-existent entity such as a god but would try to live the best life I can for myself and others. Be kind and question authority.

I see no reason to believe in a devil, god or other supernatural mumbojumbo.

I just love marketing,

Each time a new Pope is announced they are straight into the new “brand image”. It’s not as though the new Pope had time or foreknowledge to lay out his policy platform, it was already there for him to annunciate.

The greatest brand image problem that Catholics have to deal with is sexual abuse. So why is it surprising that the first policy proclamation is aimed in that direction?

What I don’t get is why Catholics don’t get it?

My sister is a devout Catholic and told me recently just how much Pope Francis has “done” to repair that brand damage. Hello, “done”? What has been done? Oh, I forgot, Pope Francis has identified with those in peril from the “shirt lifting brigade”.

Silly me, I thought the foundation of the Catholic faith was based upon the rock of St. Peter. “Give away all thy worldly goods and serve the poor”, unless of course it means giving up the enormous wealth of the Vatican State, the privilege of a selected and unelected few, the international political Statehood, the wealth of the individual, the power to influence world events, the modern crucifixion of those who oppose the faith, men wearing dresses, embezzling international banking markets, investing in condom manufacturers and the weapons industry, the hanging whistleblowers like Aldo Morrow under Tower Bridge in London, mounting a Legal challenge against the jailing of the Bishop of Chicago for money laundering, and trying to subvert common/national law with Cannon Law.

It is instructive that following the discovery of vast energy resources in the South Georgia and the Falklands, the yet to be Pope Francis declared that these territories should be ceded by the British government to Argentina. No self promotion, political favors, fear or favor in such comments of course, just free thinking independent, non political comment?

I would never say these things to my sister because I love her dearly and respect her faith.

The nice thing about being a recovering Catholic from the age of 19 is, that I am now free to think for myself.

Dear David,

<<People’s morality should be no business of the state.>>

We are certainly in agreement here!

<<All that the state should require is that people obey its laws.>>

On what grounds?

<<If one thinks the law is grossly immoral than one should not obey it.>>

So what about when the law is only subtly immoral, or when the law as written is OK most of the time, but not under special circumstances that it doesn't recognise (or cannot recognise because it would violate "political-correctness")?

People who are naturally moral and/or strive to be moral, should stick with morality and not hid the law of the state.

<<Morality is one thing, and religion is another.>>

Certainly so, but morality is practically a requisite for religious success. A religious person tries to practice morality as best they can because immorality would hinder their spiritual progress.

Anyone who practices morality, even with no conscious reference to God, or anything supernatural, is well ahead on their religious path and that rare person who can truly and consistently be "doing the right thing simply because that is what a good person does", is only one step away from God.

<<and I noticed no particular difference in the morality of religious and non-religious people.>>

It may well be that those people claiming to be religious whom you met were only superficially following some religious teachings.

<<I would rather not concern myself with serving a non-existent entity>>

No problem: if you can serve God without concern, so much the better!

<<I see no reason to believe in a devil, god or other supernatural mumbojumbo.>>

These are merely techniques that can help most people so long as it is not yet in their habitual nature to be moral at all times. If you are able to practice morality under all circumstances, even under all hardships and tribulations, then I would say that these techniques are not for you.

Dear david f,

>>I wonder why Francis didn’t repeat that injunction. He seems to be overriding the previous instruction.<<

Sorry but I really do not see why a newly elected pope should explicitly repeat all the “injunctions” or “instruction” (in distinction to moral exhortations) issued by Vatican during the rule of his predecessor.

The link I gave was just randomly chosen from a number of similar news Google will give you. For instance, in http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0216/Pope-Benedict-scolds-Ireland-s-bishops-over-sex-abuse-scandal you can see that Benedict XVI condemned not only the pedophiles but also the bishops for the cover-ups, a scolding explicitly praised by the Cardinal who later became Pope Francis (http://www.irishcatholic.ie/20130321/blogs/pope-francis-praised-benedict-xvi-on-irish-abuse-stance-S31779.html).

Besides - as I quoted here a number of times - although nobody can deny the guilt of some (you might say many) Catholic bishops, they never boasted about pedophilia or campaigned for its decriminalisation (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358#247576).

Dear George,

This is an important issue in the Catholic Church. Certainly the pope does not have repeat all the injunctions. The fact that he chose not to repeat the injunction about reporting it to the police is ignoring a key reason why many are outraged. He apparently did not consider that injunction important enough to repeat. As far as I am concerned that condemns him.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "Anyone who practices morality, even with no conscious reference to God, or anything supernatural, is well ahead on their religious path and that rare person who can truly and consistently be "doing the right thing simply because that is what a good person does", is only one step away from God."

The above is nonsense. One cannot be one step away from an entity that does not exist.

Dear David,

<<The above is nonsense. One cannot be one step away from an entity that does not exist.>>

That's very true, but God is not an entity.

But since the concept of God as entity is sadly so common in our society, let me rephrase what I wrote, saying the same but in a way that hopefully does not unintentionally suggest (by irrelevant mental associations) a false idea of entities and a physical proximity to them:

That rare person who can truly and consistently be "doing the right thing simply because that is what a good person does", thus foregoing his/her natural/human tendency to identify with and serve the interests of their false egotistic viewpoint, pretending that one was just a limited body separate from others and otherness, such a person having no investment in or addiction to such a limited identity, is already very close to discover and directly experience their true and unlimited nature.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: That's very true, but God is not an entity.

Any object that exists or that one can conceive of is an entity.

You also wrote: That rare person who can truly and consistently be "doing the right thing simply because that is what a good person does", thus foregoing his/her natural/human tendency to identify with and serve the interests of their false egotistic viewpoint, pretending that one was just a limited body separate from others and otherness, such a person having no investment in or addiction to such a limited identity, is already very close to discover and directly experience their true and unlimited nature.

If one forgoes a natural human tendency then one is not expressing one's true nature. Our true nature expresses our natural human tendencies. An egotistic viewpoint is true not false since we all have an ego. Hillel, a wise man said:

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"

We all are for ourselves, but we should not be for ourselves alone.

‘Unlimited nature’ is completely meaningless to me.

You simply do not make sense to me.

Dear david f,

>>The fact that he chose not to repeat<<
How can you know that somebody “chose not to repeat” (sometimes something you would like him/her to repeat) unless he/she explicitly announced his/her intention?

>> As far as I am concerned that condemns him.<<

Of course, you are entitled to condemn him for whatever reasons, and I appreciate that you present this as your personal view.

Another question is, how many people condemn him (or are outraged), for what he did or failed to do, this early into his pontificate. For instance, I do not think rabbi Abraham Skorka - who coauthored a book with him (http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Francis-Twenty-First-Century/dp/0770435068/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365414457&sr=1-2&keywords=bergoglio) - would be among them. The same for rabbi David Rosen or Israel Singer, the former head of the World Jewish Congress (c.f. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/13/3121966/new-pope-francis-i-is-argentinian-cardinal-jorge-maria-bergoglio).

Of course, there will always be people - including those baptized as Catholics - who will condemn the Pope, whoever he is and whatever he does.

Dear George,

When you know of a crime you call the cops. That is what they are there for. Whether it is Jimmy Savile or a respected cleric you should call the cops if you know of sexual abuse. It is that simple. Pope Francis is intelligent enough to understand that. Vatican sources have already recommended that as you pointed out. There are sins of omission and sins of commission. This is a sin of omission.

When the Nazis were rounding Jews in Rome for extermination the war time pope kept silent. It was more important to preserve the interests of the church than to speak out against evil. I felt Pope John XXIII was a man who tried to change the Catholic church for the better. It didn't work. Pope Benedict actually participated in a coverup for sexual abuse before he became pope. Pope John Paul failed to do anything about the problem which became public while he was pope.

Pope Francis had a chance to speak against the criminals and order clergy to call the cops when they knew of a crime. The abusers themselves may be in a grip of some compulsion. However, those who coverup the crimes have clearly put the preservation of the church above the interests of the children and society. Pope Francis and others who put the interests of the church above the children and society are worse than the abusers. Pope Francis prefers the church to keep silent in the face of evil. He follows the tradition of the wartime pope.

Of course he may still tell those who know of crimes to call the cops, but I don't think he will.

Dear David,

<<Any object that exists or that one can conceive of is an entity.>>

Correct, but God is not an object and does not exist.

The modern emphasis, giving over-importance to, or should I say obsession with, existence, blinds us to the truth. There is nothing in existence and all its science that can provide us with a moral compass.

The concept of God's objective existence (a logical contradiction in itself) can be religiously useful for weak-minded people (as most are) who feel the need for having something more tangible to worship and concentrate on. Such concept can help to break people's immoral habits and egotistic tendencies to some degree, taking them a mile or two along the road, but once concentration is achieved, the image and/or concept of God as object needs to be dropped.

In truth, there is nothing but God, including ourselves - we are not humans. The false perception of oneself as a limited human-being or an 'ego' is a bad habit, an addiction if you like. It is not easy to overcome, but is possible if we are willing and committed to work towards giving it up.

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
- nobody else will do the job for me. Nobody else will take away my addiction.

And when I am for myself, what am 'I'?
- One should keep asking this question in order to purify out one's wrong concept of self: "What am I for myself, when taking the body and mind out of the equation".

And if not now, when?
- Most people declare their intention to quit their addiction... tomorrow...

No wonder that 'unlimited nature' makes no sense to you within this limited existence. To find out who you truly are, you must step out beyond existence, yet it takes immense courage to step out of this comfort-zone and leave our 'ego', our limited selves, behind. Being absorbed in yourself, your true self, is not in contradiction with living for others, because they too are God!

>>God is not an object and does not exist.<<

>>In truth, there is nothing but God, including ourselves<<

If there is nothing but God and God does not exist then nothing exists which is obviously not right. At the very least I exist: cogito ergo sum.

The conclusion which follows from your premises is false and so at least one of your premises must be false: I'd say it's first one, others will say it is the second. Either way they cannot both be right.

>>The false perception of oneself as a limited human-being or an 'ego' is a bad habit, an addiction if you like. It is not easy to overcome, but is possible if we are willing and committed to work towards giving it up.<<

Why would anyone want to work towards becoming delusional? Wouldn't it be easier to just take some mescaline and hallucinate?

>>To find out who you truly are, you must step out beyond existence<<

I'm not due to cease existing for a good many years yet and I've no intention of making a headstart.

Cheers,

Tony

David f,

You say you are a moral person, yet you condemn Pope Francis without a proper hearing, on a charge of 'omission' simply because he failed to explicitly reiterate a standing injunction on all Church clergy and members to notify the legal authorities of any suspicion of misconduct - sexual or otherwise.
Such scant circumstantial 'evidence' (if one can even call it that) is hardly justification for your obvious vindictiveness.

You further accuse, on no evidence but mere supposition (or pure prejudice) that Pope Francis won't repeat the call for that injunction to be fully and conscientiously applied in all corners of the Church.
So, with no justification whatever you accuse him of hypocrisy?
Yet, you are a moral person? (I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him?)

You say prevention is more important than punishment, yet you are against Capital Punishment? Why so?
I imagine that the risk of condemning on insufficient or inconclusive evidence dissuades you from inflicting the ultimate punishment?
So, multiple murderers get to sit in jail, as do murderers who have confessed to this crime, along with the possibly doubtful cases, simply because you, and others, are 'against' Capital Punishment.
You say you are not religious, so this cannot be part of your reasoning.
A proven murderer will never re-offend if s/he is given like treatment - hence, prevention.
Yet you can condemn Pope Francis for 'omission' in clear conscience?
(So your 'morality' has its limitations?) TBC>

Cont'd> David f,

Your hatred of the Catholic Church has been made clear in many posts, over many threads, including your constant referral to historical malfeasance (Inquisition, etc) as 'proof' that the Church, and religion generally, is evil - and will ever be so.
So, you convict the present on the basis of the past.
On such a basis perhaps no human now living or who has ever lived would be truly innocent in your eyes - by association.

Paedophilia or any form of child abuse is heinous and deserves harsh punishment, as does non-disclosure of evidence of this, but such crimes are far from being confined to religious movements, let alone to the Catholic Church.
It is of course worse for a member of the clergy, or anyone in authority, to use their position to commit and/or to conceal such crimes, and they, and their organisation, deserve due condemnation.
However, all should not be tarred with the same accusation simply by association.

I am truly sorry David f for whatever experience invoked your hatred of the Catholic Church, and wish you well.

Yuyutsu, out of mind and body nothing exists, God is everywhere and nowhere, ...
and nothing makes sense anymore - if it ever did.

Dear saltpetre,

Thanks for wishing me well. I wish you well, too.

You wrote: "So, you convict the present on the basis of the past."

Yes, I do. The past is the only record we have. We don't know what will happen in the future. It would be unreasonable to find fault because of an imagined future. However, institutions and people establish patterns. It is fair to assume that there is a great probability that they will repeat what they have done in the past.

Trials or other judgments always concern what has happened in the past.

If Pope Francis tells those with knowledge of a crime in the Catholic Church to tell the police I will happily admit I was wrong and appreciate the change in behaviour. However, it is like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charley Brown. I really thought Pope John XXIII would bring anew openness to the Catholic, and I sincerely hoped that he would. Since his papacy the Vatican has been trying to restore things to what they were before Vatican 2. To a great extent they have succeeded, and what they have done in the past is in my opinion the best guide to what they will do in the future. I think popes like John XXIII don't come around very often. Maybe Francis will be one, but, as far as I am concerned, he has already goofed up.

Dear david f,

I am sorry but the only rational response I could offer would be to repeat what I wrote in my previous posts, especially the last sentence, namely, that there will always be people who will condemn the Pope, whoever he is and whatever he does, which you illlustrated by bringing into play two other Popes (as for Pius XII you certainly know of Isreal Zolli, Chief Rabbi of Rome, 1939-1945, who would disagree with you).

I have always appreciated your rationality even on topics we did not agree on, however I have to agree with saltpetre that on the topic of Popes you are more driven by emotions, perhaps rooted in some negative personal experience.

So let us just agree that we two have obviously different expectations of Pope Francis (at this early stage stage one can speak only of expectations).

Dear George,

I have had no negative personal experience with any pope. As far as being driven by emotion I agree with David Hume that reason is the slave of passion. We do what we feel compelled to do, and our rationality is used to justify it.

I do not condemn all popes. I think John XXIII was a fine individual. I think the problem lies in the hierarchical structure itself. In general many of those who rise in a hierarchical structure rise by being a toady and being subservient to those above rather than being a creative individual who would change the structure for the better. By the time one rises to the top of such a structure one may be thoroughly compromised.

There are exceptions such as John XXIII and Gorbachov who as far as I can see was also a decent individual. It seems to me that the implosion of the USSR could have been accompanied by great violence and probably war. However, Gorbachov was an extraordinary individual who managed to see that the transition was without the great conflict that could have been expected.

Such individuals have managed to satisfy the demands of the hierarchy sufficiently to rise and yet still be decent and have vision that would transform the structure.

It is not just the Catholic Church or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union but all hierarchical organizations in which advancement is solely based on the feelings of those within the hierarchy that are flawed in more or less the same way. They in general avoid input from the outside and those who rise to the top generally do not have to account to outside criticism but only satisfy the demands of the hierarchy.

Those outside of the Vatican in general simply want those in the church who know of or suspect sexual abuse to call the cops who are equipped to investigate the matter. The Vatican apparently wants to continue to sweep the matter under the rug. Francis spoke for the Vatican.

The Catholic Church could be transformed by allowing lay input.

Dear david f,

Thank you for expressing your views. They are more or less standard, as are alternative views, both based on different interpretations of facts.

In my opinion, if there is no God (as understood by the Abrahamic religions), then the Catholic Church, and many other religious institutions of the West, are long past their use-by date. As you know, we two differ on the point of this premise, hence we necessarily must also differ in views about the purpose, functioning and usefulness of religious institutions, especially the Catholic Church.

I think we have been through all this a couple of times before.

I know that some people compare (if not equate) Communism with 20th century Catholicism, others compare the Nazi praxis with that of Israel. Though I have become used to that, I can understand people who find this offensive in both cases, for obvious reasons. I suppose that a Catholic or a Jew, could understand the use of such comparisons only as an emotional reaction to a negative experience (direct or indirect, actual or imagined) at the hands of some Catholics or some Jews, respectively.

You started this thread on what Pope Francis did or did not do, should or should not have done, so - may I repeat - let us just close this debate by agreeing to disagree on that.

Dear George,

I don't care for the phrase 'agree to disagree' as I prefer just plain disagreement without a pretense of disagreement.

I was not equating Catholicism with Communism. They are very different institutions with very different purposes. However, one thing they do share in common is a hierarchy in which advancement is solely a function of approval by those within the hierarchy.

As far as I can see Pope Francis speaks for the hierarchy not even Catholics who are not part of the hierarchy. I had hopes for Francis as he had a history of reaching outward to others before he became pope. He also kept to a simpler life style than many other clerics. However, when it comes to sweeping things under the rug he seems in tune with the others.

It's a simple obvious thing to call the cops when you know of a crime. Corporations and other institutions routinely try to coverup, and the powers that be in the Catholic church as well as those in many other institutions act in the same way.

As far as ending the thread you don't have to post if you feel there is no point. Others may feel differently.

Dear George,

I apologise for writing about ending the thread. You merely wrote about ending our debate. We can and should do that.

I don't even know if we would be any better off without the Catholic Church. People set up devils and imagine they would be better without them. However, if we eliminate a 'devil' something will replace it. I find many faults with capitalism, but, considering what the societies which tried to eliminate capitalism were like, I prefer capitalism to them.

As the song goes, "We'll meet again..."

Dear George,

It seems that you and David agree that:

<<In my opinion, if there is no God (as understood by the Abrahamic religions), then the Catholic Church, and many other religious institutions of the West, are long past their use-by date .>>

I see no logical connection why:

A. There is no God (as understood by the Abrahamic religions)

should imply

B. The Catholic Church, and many other religious institutions of the West, are long past their use-by date.

Unless one believes (presumably as Nietzsche) that the Abrahamic god once lived but is now dead, such an inference would mean that the Catholic Church and many other religious institutions of the West were long past their use-by-date already the moment they began.

Please explain why you think that A implies B.

David f,

The following is perplexing:

> he (Pope Francis) had a history of reaching outward to others before he became pope. He also kept to a simpler life style than many other clerics. However, when it comes to sweeping things under the rug he seems in tune with the others.<

Your conclusion of Francis appears at odds with his prior history, and with his general demeanor, and as yet we have scant indication of how his papacy may evolve.
My inclination is at least to give him the benefit of the doubt - or at least not to convict in undue haste.
Still, it was perhaps an error not to have taken immediate opportunity to spell out his full intentions with respect to the important and highly vexatious issue of child abuse; or regarding any form of sexual misconduct within the Church at large.

Though there appears no doubt that the Church hierarchy, including through its ranks, has acted to sweep much under the rug (including by relocating 'suspects', and even proven offenders, from one parish or post to another), I don't think there should be a headlong rush to convict without trial all and sundry who may be merely 'suspected' of some misdeed.
Whether in church, school, sports or other occupation, many have had their reputation tarnished beyond repair by undue haste in making accusations which later proved unfounded, ill-conceived, erroneous or even deliberately mischievous and fallacious.
Due care has to be taken to review actual evidence without jumping to conclusions, for everyone's best interests to be properly served.

I think Pope Francis at least deserves a fair go at this early stage. TBC>

Cont'd>
We cannot roll back to clock, nor can the Church be 'reformed' overnight, but it must be certain that the Church has to undertake comprehensive reform without delay - or risk very real possibility of diminishing into obscurity and irrelevance.
Of course, some would contend that religion should have no real relevance anyway, and perhaps should never have. A conundrum.

'Luck' is something many have faith in (or at least believe in), yet is it real? Can some really be lucky and others unlucky; is there really such a thing as karma; is fate a reality; can everything be predestined?
I think none of this is 'real'; just wishful thinking or superstition.
Yet, some burn money as sacrifice to some elusive entity to entreat 'luck'; and some revere cows or monkeys or rats.
Belief in God should not be placed in such odd Earthly category, but it is clear that we are a strange and almost incomprehensible species.
Perhaps imagination, inventiveness, curiosity and questioning induce many (even most) to contemplate and even conjure possibilities of non-Earthly or ethereal forces or influences on life's direction.

Only one thing may be certain: Man's Hierarchies can only ever be far less perfect than the best of possible conceptions.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>such an inference would mean that the Catholic Church and many other religious institutions of the West were long past their use-by-date already the moment they began<<

No, such an inference would only mean that if God did not exist the Church would have long ceased to be an essential and unavoidable component of Western (I concede, I did not make this explicit) culture. Something like: although my father (not a mathematician) was “an essential and unavoidable component” of my mathematical education, he ceased to be that as soon as I started to become a professional mathematician.

This does not imply that ALL those who do not believe in God admit that the Church was necessary for the rise of what now we know as the post-Enlightenment, West with its human rights, scientific and technological achievements (medieval universities, hospitals, philosophers etc) but I presume that SOME, especially historians, nevertheless do - as, of course, practically all Christians.

And, of course, this inference says nothing about how the Church, is, could or should be seen by those who believe in God.

Dear George,

Thank you very much for your explanation.

I think that diminishing the importance of the church to some harbinger of the Western post-Enlightenment, or any other social role for that matter, is lamentable.

A church should call itself successful to the extent it brings as many people as closer to God as possible - that it can do whether or not God, as understood by the Abrahamic religions, exists: even if he doesn't, still teachings of the church can (and I believe do) inspire people to seek God and stay away from sin.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>I think that diminishing the importance of the church to some harbinger of the Western post-Enlightenment, or any other social role for that matter, is lamentable.<<
I agree, although my post was not about what is or is not lamentable, or about when “a Church” should call itself successful, but about how I thought some atheists could view the role of the Catholic Church.

>> even if (God) doesn't (exist), still teachings of the church can (and I believe do) inspire people to seek God and stay away from sin.<<
I concede this, namely that the Church could also play a merely placebo role, and perhaps some atheists will agree with this. However, I am afraid, not all, otherwise we would not have many of these controversies.

Dear George,

While some atheists may view the religious process as placebo, I consider it real and appreciate the role of the church in promoting religion.

Existence, including of God or gods, is the realm of science, but is irrelevant to religion: while many atheists are obsessed about it, existence (thus science) says nothing about neither morality and values nor about the ultimate reality, thus the question whether God exists (either as understood by the Abrahamic religions or otherwise) should be of no interest to religious people and we should not allow ourselves to be side-tracked by it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>Existence, including of God or gods, is the realm of science<<
Well, as mentioned in another post, we have apparently different understandings of the word “existence” (unless you want to endorse Richard Dawkins, who, I think, would agree with this statement).

>>Existence, including of God or gods, is the realm of science<<

Well, as mentioned in another post, we have apparently different understandings of the word “existence” (unless you want to endorse Richard Dawkins, who, I think, would agree with this statement).

Dear George,

Science takes no position on the existence of God or gods. There is simply no evidence for the existence of a God. There is only religious belief. Likewise there is no evidence with which one can disprove the existence of a God. I think there is no God, but I cannot prove it. Science deals with the realm of observable phenomena and of hypotheses based on thought experiments which are inspired by observable phenomena.

In writing of God as a delusion Dawkins was not in general writing as a scientist as it is not a matter for science. He is a lay person regarding the existence of supernatural entities.

However, if we relate theistic belief to the activity of specific parts of the brain or specific physical stimuli, then it becomes a matter for scientific investigation. I looked through "The God Delusion" by Dawkins, and he does not do this. He deals with the effects of religious belief and its justification. I agreed with his view. However, he was not writing as a scientist except when he was bothered by the conflict of literal, biblical belief with biological knowledge. In that I agree with him. However, it is possible to get inspiration from the Bible without literal belief. It is also possible to be religious without belief in God or any sort of supernatural entities.

Science deals with observable phenomena not existence. Mathematics deals with logical structures based on non-provable axioms.

Religion is more than belief in God. Buddhism and Unitarianism, which are religions as far as I can see, do not require a belief in a God. We tend to define religion in terms of the religion we are most familiar with and ignore the numbers of people who do not subscribe to the religion we think we know.

Dear George,

<<Well, as mentioned in another post, we have apparently different understandings of the word “existence”>>

Very interesting!

So according to your understanding of 'existence', God exists?
Wouldn't that render Him an object?

<<(unless you want to endorse Richard Dawkins, who, I think, would agree with this statement).>>

I cannot answer you on that because I haven't read Dawkins. I prefer reading a holy scripture over materialistic trash (though I must also admit my weakness for fiction).

Dear david f,

Thanks for your post. I agree with most of what you wrote.

>> if we relate theistic belief to the activity of specific parts of the brain or specific physical stimuli, then it becomes a matter for scientific investigation.<<
You are probably referring to the experiments of Andrew B. Newberg and his followers with meditating Tibetan Buddhists or Franciscan nuns (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/ or www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1043104430).

This only marginally relates to “theistic belief”. Besides, I would not mind if some neuroscientist informed me about what was happening in my brain while I was doing my research in mathematics, as long as he/she would not want to draw conclusions from his findings about logical correctness and relation to “reality” of the mathematics I was "doing".

As for Dawkins, I only wrote that I thought he would agree that all that exists belongs to the “realm of science” (a basic world-view assumption I referred to as Sagan’s maxim, c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358#248265.)

>> Science deals with observable phenomena not existence. <<
I think it is more complicated than that. It depends again not only on what you accept as existing but also on what you mean by “dealing with”. I would agree that neither science nor mathematics “deals with existence”, although we accept that electrons exist and phlogiston does not, or that a solution of the equation x^2+1=0 does or does not exist (depending on whether we look for it among real or complex numbers).

>>We tend to define religion in terms of the religion we are most familiar with<<
It depends on who is the "we" but for the philosophically unsophisticated this is certainly true. As you might remember, my favourite definition is the anthropological of Clifford Geertz (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645).

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>So according to your understanding of 'existence', God exists?
Wouldn't that render Him an object?<<

According to my understanding of ‘existence’ you exist, however I do not think you are an object. You are a God’s creation (so are all "objects) which He obviously cannot be, but that is a different matter.

Perhaps Paul Tillich's understandings of "God's existence", might be closer to yours, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#157122 and the sequel.

Dear George,

<<According to my understanding of ‘existence’ you exist, however I do not think you are an object.>>

Good, so you are not referring to my body, my mind, my feelings or any such faculty of mine that can be manipulated by others and by time.
An object can be acted upon and is subject to change, so I am very glad that you recognise me not as one of those.

Same for God - what kind of God would He be if He could be manipulated and subject to change?

<<You are a God’s creation (so are all "objects)>>

But you just agreed that I am not an object, so why that clause comparing me with objects? Is this perhaps an attempt to define 'existence' inclusively as "what God created", objects and non-objects alike?

Had you considered me an object, thus subject to time and separate from God, that would also impose a limitation on God, for if I am not He, then He is also limited by not being me! I am glad that's not the case.

Further, if God is my creator, then He had to change - then at some point in time He was only my yet-to-be creator, later to become my actual creator (note that I am not excluding the possibility that this universe had a creator - but if that's the case, then that creator is not worthy of being worshipped in place of God).

I also occasionally call God "my Creator", but I know that this is just a pet-name, a show of gratitude and love, like lovers calling each other "Honey-Bunny" knowing well that it has nothing to do with bees and rabbits.

Or perhaps you may be referring to Genesis 1: as I read it, I believe that it has long been misunderstood as a creation-story, where in fact it was written as a hymn in praise of the Sabbath!

Yuyutsu,

The following is somewhat imponderable:

> I am not excluding the possibility that this universe had a creator - but if that's the case, then that creator is not worthy of being worshipped in place of God<

And yet perhaps I begin to see: Your God appears to be a concept of an ideal; an essence perhaps, which is of and within all things, living and inanimate, all things moving, flexing and immobile; and yet not so, but separate, aloof, eluding all construct, eluding even imagination, and truly beyond human comprehension; totally transcendent, universal, infinite, and yet as a pin-dot in the infinity of space, time, and beyond.

Still, a Creator capable of creating the universe and all things (as is believed faithfully to be the case by so many) is yet not God, but is left wanting, falling short by some measure? Yet you surmise it possible that such a Creator may have created you yourself (at least in spirit) and yet such is not God, but perhaps rather a conjurer? A trickster perhaps, but, certainly not God?

A unique view perhaps, yet not less intangible than so many other concepts of the essence of being.

Pray perhaps, but why worship? Surely simply being and acknowledging is sufficient?
And, what of the Creator? Not worthy of acknowledgment, even for the air we breathe and the world we inhabit - and without which we too could only be a construct, only one possibility amongst an infinity of possibilities?

And to such an infinity we shall return?

Dear Saltpetre,

IF there is such a creator, and that's a big IF which theoretically science may one day discover, or not, then s/he could only have created our objective physical universe, including our bodies - but not me and you.

Let us imagine for example some mad scientist from another universe who created this universe in his cyclotron and watches it using equipment that humankind will only have in the 4567's century, such equipment that sees and controls everything here at once, past present and future, faster than our speed of light.

From a material point of view, such scientist is by far bigger, stronger, more knowledgeable and more intelligent than us, but from a spiritual point of view he is no more than any of us, but indeed equivalent to us.

Praying to such a scientist may therefore be a practical mundane occupation, but has no spiritual impact. One may possibly want to acknowledge such a scientist and say 'thank-you for this world', but Worshipping such a scientist would simply be idolatry.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Sorry, if I upset you. When you wrote

“So according to your understanding of 'existence', God exists?
Wouldn't that render Him an object?”,

I simply understood that you meant to say that what exists is necessarily an object. For this implication I offered a counter-example (you) who existed without being an object. This is simple logic, irrespective of what we mean by “exists” and “object”. And since we agree that you are not an object, and presumably also that you exist, this is a valid counter-example.

If you did not mean to say that what exists must be an object, then I misunderstood you, and I apologize.

As for God, I agree with you. I did not make any statement about Him, certainly not the ones you seem to attribute to me. I also apologize for calling you (and other persons and things) God’s creation, since I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you did not object to this Christian terminology. I would certainly not tell an atheist he/she was God’s creation because I would not expect him/her to understand, whatever, if any, would be his/her reaction.

Dear George,

There is nothing you should apologise for: I have no objections to Christian terminology and sometimes even use it myself. I consider Christianity a valid spiritual path and at times take part in Christian services myself. The fact that I have personally chosen a different path for myself does not negate the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The demise of Christianity in the modern world, I believe, is mainly a result of the introduction by some churches of impurity into the teachings of Jesus, who taught spiritual principles, rather than physical/biological science. Religion and science do not mix - or mix badly creating an impure substance which is neither.

Science tells us nothing about values and religion tells us nothing about the physical universe. It is wrong, I believe, to attempt reading the bible as a science text-book. It was written well before the scientific era by people who had no concept of chronology (which was introduced and arranged later, probably by Ezra). There is a Jewish principle stating: "There is no early or late in the Torah (Pentateuch)". When I read the bible without scientific glasses, what I see in Genesis chapter 1, is an important spiritual teaching, then reflected in the fourth of the ten-commandments, that even if one created the most wonderful things and could go on and on, one should carve out a regular time to rest, hence the first commandment in the bible is "Thou shalt not become a workaholic", place a cap on creation!

<<I simply understood that you meant to say that what exists is necessarily an object.>>

You understood correctly.

<<And since we agree that you are not an object, and presumably also that you exist, this is a valid counter-example.>>

My body exists and is an object - I just AM, but that has no objective meaning and cannot be verified scientifically.
So long as I subjectively identify myself with my body, I mistakenly believe that I exist.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>I mistakenly believe that I exist.<<

OK, so my counter-example was not valid. This confirms that your understanding of what it means “to exist” is rather unusual, since most of the people trying to communicate with you - believers or unbelievers - assume you exist.

Dear George,

I am approaching a crisis of faith. I am beginning to doubt that Yuyutsu exists.

Dear George,

I don't deny the common feeling that we seem to exist, but this is, just as the earth seems to be flat, an illusion caused by the limitations of the human senses and mind.

You do not exist because nobody else can ever find your 'self', no scientific experiment can ever detect 'you' and nobody, not even time itself can touch 'you'. You once seemed to be a baby, later a child and now you seem to be an adult, yet all along you are exactly the same you.

No doubt that you ARE and I AM, but we do not exist.

If you think it through, this leads to the inevitable conclusion that what we truly are (as opposed to what we currently feel and may believe we are), is God!

My brain hurts...

The dilemma is that the entity identifying as Yuyutsu tells us that there is nothing but God... so if this is true, what if this Yuyutsu is not everything, but nothing?

'If you think it through, this leads to the inevitable conclusion that what we truly are (as opposed to what we currently feel and may believe we are), is' not God but 'an illusion caused by the limitations of the human senses and mind.'

Heard about the Zen/Buddhist hamburger shop?

Customer enters and plonks down a fifty dollar note and says, "Make me one with everything..."

A minute later the cook gives him a burger and nothing else. "Where's my change?" says the customer.

"Ah." says the cook, "Change comes from within."