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.