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>