Slashdot Mirror

The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. Life is a test, they say, where god tests our faith in Jesus. Pass and go to heaven; fail and go to hell.

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that reason points us towards faith (para. 36). The Church doesn't teach us to have "blind faith" in Jesus, but to use reason towards establishing faith. This is the reason why carrying a geek card and being a Catholic are not mutually exclusive, contrary to the drivel that you might see here.

The Church doesn't teach that "life is a test." Instead, the Church teaches that God gave man free will, and that you are free to allow him in your life or not, as the case may be (para. 1). It's all about choice. There is no pass/fail test. If you choose to follow God, and to live a life that fulfills the greatest of the commandments (love God and your neighbor), then the kingdom of God is yours.

It's not a cult of baby rapers, headed by an evil pope who protected (and protects) them worldwide.

I realize this is sarcasm on your part, but you might be interest in knowing that the US Dept. of Education estimates between 6% and 10% of school-aged children have been molested by teachers and other school employees. Considering there are about 74 million school-aged children in the US, I'd say the child molestation epidemic in the US public school system is a vastly larger problem than that of the Catholic Church. Maybe you should devote your energy towards that cover-up.

The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. Life is a test, they say, where god tests our faith in Jesus. Pass and go to heaven; fail and go to hell.

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that reason points us towards faith (para. 36). The Church doesn't teach us to have "blind faith" in Jesus, but to use reason towards establishing faith. This is the reason why carrying a geek card and being a Catholic are not mutually exclusive, contrary to the drivel that you might see here.

The Church doesn't teach that "life is a test." Instead, the Church teaches that God gave man free will, and that you are free to allow him in your life or not, as the case may be (para. 1). It's all about choice. There is no pass/fail test. If you choose to follow God, and to live a life that fulfills the greatest of the commandments (love God and your neighbor), then the kingdom of God is yours.

It's not a cult of baby rapers, headed by an evil pope who protected (and protects) them worldwide.

I realize this is sarcasm on your part, but you might be interest in knowing that the US Dept. of Education estimates between 6% and 10% of school-aged children have been molested by teachers and other school employees. Considering there are about 74 million school-aged children in the US, I'd say the child molestation epidemic in the US public school system is a vastly larger problem than that of the Catholic Church. Maybe you should devote your energy towards that cover-up.

The Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality, but not for the reasons that many think. Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely. For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.

A summary of the position of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, according to the Mother Church: homosexuality is "objectively disordered." That is the exact same phrase (same place) used about the ills of masturbation. A higher degree of condemnation ("intrinsically evil") is reserved for such grave sins as rape and birth control.

For the geekily inclined: If g(sin) is the gravity of the sin according to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, then the following is true:

g(homosexuality) = g(masturbation) < g(rape) = g(birth control)

There is nothing wrong with the theological position of your Church, as long as it offers full disclosure. According to the RCC, the only sinless reason to have sex is for procreative purposes within a marriage sanctified by the RCC. Everybody else, whether single, unmarried, using birth control, or gay, should just not have sex. Ever.

If your Church picks on homosexuals with an argument that condemns almost everybody, it's hard to find anything but hostility against this particular group.

>>The bible doesn't actually prohibit having multiple wives. However, it does say that monogamy is a prerequisite for certain roles in the church (deacon, bishop, etc).

Right (1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6-9 address this). A lot of people don't know that.

Polygamy is never outlawed in the OT; in fact, Levirate marriage (basis for the ancient Jewish social welfare program) completely doesn't work in a monogamous society. Jesus uses Levirate marriage as an example in one of his parables on the afterlife (and doesn't say anything bad about it at all, to the contrary he treats it as a norm), and Paul said that you could be a polygamist and a Christian at the same time, even though he kind of hated sex in all forms. So people like Luther have grudgingly accepted polygamy as being Christian.

The bit about a bishop needing to be a husband to "one wife" (unius uxoris vir) appears a few times in the Pauline writings. Which the Roman Catholic Church responds to by plugging their ears and yelling loudly at the top of their lungs. (Read their convoluted explaining-away here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html)

In a nutshell, the RCC reads the requirement for a bishop to be faithful to his wife to *really* be talking about them being celibate and married to the church. Which is quite ridiculous, since those same passages talk about the bishop also needing to be a good father to his children (http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-4.htm), but I guess once you start in on a metaphor, you can ride that train as long as you want to.

St. Augustine, who is usually pretty good at theology, tried to explain why polygamy was fine *then* and not *now* with the following: "As the many wives of the ancient Fathers symbolized our future churches of all nations, subject to the one man, Christ, so the bishop, who is the husband of one wife (unius uxoris vir) signifies the union of all nations, subject to the one man, Christ." Which is certainly an interesting, though not particularly compelling explanation.

Because the issue is so controversial (and probably frowned upon by many rich backers, never mind the public at large), the church is fairly silent on the issue and leaves it up to the individual to decide whether it is sinful to buy unnecessary expensive items when you could have given the money to the poor.

Wrong. The Church is not silent on the matter, its a key part of the social doctrine of the Church. You seem to be mistaking the absence of a one-size-fits-all simple rule that lets people be lazy, look up a yes-or-no answer, and do no moral reflection for silence on the issue, but that is a mistake.

See, e.g., The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church , Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004), which addresses this at many places. A few selections follow:

At paragraph 178:

The Church's social teaching moreover calls for recognition of the social function of any form of private ownership that clearly refers to its necessary relation to the common good. Man “should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others”. The universal destination of goods entails obligations on how goods are to be used by their legitimate owners. Individual persons may not use their resources without considering the effects that this use will have, rather they must act in a way that benefits not only themselves and their family but also the common good. [...]

And at paragraph 328:

Goods, even when legitimately owned, always have a universal destination; any type of improper accumulation is immoral, because it openly contradicts the universal destination assigned to all goods by the Creator. Christian salvation is an integral liberation of man, which means being freed not only from need but also in respect to possessions. “For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith” (1 Tim 6:10). The Fathers of the Church insist more on the need for the conversion and transformation of the consciences of believers than on the need to change the social and political structures of their day. They call on those who work in the economic sphere and who possess goods to consider themselves administrators of the goods that God has entrusted to them.

And at paragraph 329:

Riches fulfil their function of service to man when they are destined to produce benefits for others and for society. “How could we ever do good to our neighbour,” asks St. Clement of Alexandria, “if none of us possessed anything?”. In the perspective of St. John Chrysostom, riches belong to some people so that they can gain merit by sharing them with others.[687] Wealth is a good that comes from God and is to be used by its owner and made to circulate so that even the needy may enjoy it. Evil is seen in the immoderate attachment to riches and the desire to hoard. [...]

And in paragraphs 358-360

358. Consumers, who in many cases have a broad range of buying power well above the mere subsistence level, exercise significant influence over economic realities by their free decisions regarding whether to put their money into consumer goods or savings. In fact, the possibility to influence the choices made within the economic sector is in the hands of those who must decide where to place their financial resources. Today more than in the past it is possible to evaluate the available options not only on the basis of the expected return and the relative risk but also by making a value judgment of the investment projects that those resources would finance, in the awareness that

Yes, because lots of people were spending their lives on Facebook and MSN messenger in 1990. You need to realise that geeks may have spent hours online twenty years ago, most people barely used the internet at all.

If you read what he actually said, rather than the usual Slashdot summary on another site, it can be summed up as do not get so obsessed with life online that it distracts you from what you should do in real life, witness your faith but do not proselytise rudely or insensitively, and, do not construct a self-indulgent fake persona.

In other news he is Catholic.

he does have the authority to remind Catholics to behave online.

I think he should have a duty to do so. The writing can be summarized into this: the pope has recognized the transformative impact of the net in the world. The meatspace still matters, so don't ignore it. Be the reflection of your meat online and not that of the meat stew your have cooked. Don't be a browny lip meatsuccer with the happy message. Respect the others as if your respected their meats. Web is cool.

Here is the whole thing:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20110124_45th-world-communications-day_en.html.

I am Catholic. When the Church speaks on scripture, it has authority. When it speaks of that which has nothing to do with the bible, as in net "neutrality" (really nothing more than Government control over private networks, there is nothing neutral about it) or "man made global warming" the Church has no authority whatsoever.

This is hopelessly confused as a statement of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the Church heirarchy is not certainly not limited to scripture (sola scriptura is common Protestant doctrine, opposed to the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church), instead, it extends to matters of faith and morals whether grounded in Scripture or Tradition or both.

Advocacy of "net neutrality" and "man made global warming" both lead to similar ends: the confiscation of private property directly (by taking it over) or indirectly (by telling you what you can't do with it via regulation), which I can argue violates one of the foudnations of Judeo Christian morality, the 10 Commandments, specifically "thou shalt not steal".

One can, of course, argue for anything, but to argue that any taking of private property for public use or restriction by public authority on the use of private property categorically contradicts Christian morals you must dissent from the teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and morals in the domain in which you are making the argument; particularly, you must dissent from the teachings on the moral aspects of private and public property articulated in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) which, recognizes the importance of private property rights but also states that they are constrained by the rights and obligations of public authority, and that "The right of private ownership, however, is not opposed to the right inherent in various forms of public property. [...] Furthermore, it is the right of public authority to prevent anyone from abusing his private property to the detriment of the common good."

What are the applications for a theory that doesn't suggest effects we can detect and verify?
Accumulation of wealth?

The message came from his words to an assembly of the catholic press.

The primary sources are necessary --> Spanish not yet in English. I know /. can work google translation.
Even better I challenge /.ers to read & speak more than 1 human language.

Really, he is urging catholics not to get sucked into false reality that technology can enable. He urges catholics not to live life as a theatre -- he was not addressing the world in his comments -- its the world that got a guilty conscience after hearing them.

Probably most here wont also read the philosophical works of Jacque Ellul (French 1912-1994) who was also a contemporary of Benedict XVI. He was a philosopher who challenged a person holding Technology for Technology's sake world views -- which many do here. Both he and Benedict XVI align on many points concerning technology.

It's actually quite good to see that Benedict is actually active in commentating on Technology (as compared to other Leaders political, or spiritual who never will) and technologies impact/change of human society.
Most here take Technology as de facto like fish take water as de facto in the fish tank. Those that do here should step away from the terminal and get a different perspective for a bit -- give it a whirl.

FWIW I think Ellul's work "La technique ou l'enjeu du siècle" ought to be required reading for those in a Engineering or Comp Sci program. Aldus Huxley is said to have "brought Ellus' work on Technology" to the English speaking world BTW... so also too did the UniBomber read it... but we get all kinds here as well -- probably more of the latter..

Thanks for posting this translation. I was going nuts trying to get the gist of the original (French Italian Spanish) from Google Translate. The linked article is highly misreprentative fodder for all the haters here.

Basically he's arguing for integrity in journalism, warning that carelessness or deliberate misuse of technology can create an unrealistic or innaccurate representation of reality, as well as watering down the reporting of important events to mere entertainment.

With all the Fox News bashing going on here, I would think this would be a welcome sentiment in the /. community.

Thanks for posting this translation. I was going nuts trying to get the gist of the original (French Italian Spanish) from Google Translate. The linked article is highly misreprentative fodder for all the haters here.

Basically he's arguing for integrity in journalism, warning that carelessness or deliberate misuse of technology can create an unrealistic or innaccurate representation of reality, as well as watering down the reporting of important events to mere entertainment.

With all the Fox News bashing going on here, I would think this would be a welcome sentiment in the /. community.

Thanks for posting this translation. I was going nuts trying to get the gist of the original (French Italian Spanish) from Google Translate. The linked article is highly misreprentative fodder for all the haters here.

Basically he's arguing for integrity in journalism, warning that carelessness or deliberate misuse of technology can create an unrealistic or innaccurate representation of reality, as well as watering down the reporting of important events to mere entertainment.

With all the Fox News bashing going on here, I would think this would be a welcome sentiment in the /. community.

The Catholic catechism says that anyone who follows the laws of their God, believes Jesus is the begotten son of their God who died for the forgiveness of sins, undergoes Baptism, and worships their God to the best of their understanding will go to their Heaven and live forever with their God.

Catholic catechism: profession of faith

A more authoritative but less well marked-up page is to be found on the Vatican website. Search for "Wounds to Unity". The Catholic church for years has accepted all Christians as saved, although they tend to believe it's a saving through their splintered brotherhood in Christianity with the Catholics than through their own churches so much.

I do not take Genesis literally, it is a creation myth. But if we take the general view that all is somehow God's creation and leave the how aside then he sure did create a lot of this thing he does not like.

It is a myth, which doesn't depend on the truth or untruth of the story for its message. So let's leave the discussion of whether creation happened in 7 24-hour periods 6000 years ago for another time, it's irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

That said, if you think God's creation can't in-part include things he does not like, you should have bigger issues with the creation story. For example, the serpent. That said, after the fall of man, there is no assumption that creation is perfect in any way (see the creation of a new Heaven and new Earth in Revelation).

Not only in humans, who are sinful, but also in animals which the catholic catechism describes as "... God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory"

How did we go from a discussion on what the Bible says, to one backed up by the Catholic Catechism? If that Catechism is fair game, then the act of homosexuality is a sin, end of discussion.

Even your reference does not say that all (or any) animal behaviors are appropriate for humans. Rather, find me something in the Bible that says (or can even be interpreted) to mean 'because some animals are gay, it's alright for a human to be gay as well'.

In the end I think the whole discussion is pretty much irrelevant. People are not here to judge (that's someone else's job), we are here to forgive each other's trespasses as best we can and help each other through this thing called life. That's the way it was taught to me at least.

That depends. Forgiveness for those who seek it, yes. However, those who pursue a sinful lifestyle are different. They should first be gently rebuked and counseled (Galatians 6:1-2), yet if they are unrepentant they should be removed from the church (1 Corinthians 5). Note the difference is pride in the actions. Galatians speaks of teaching each other to live free from sin, with an echo of the grace and forgiveness they have already received from God. In Corinthians, we are speaking of unrepentant sin (and sexual sin at that, making the determination of the sinfulness of homosexuality incredibly important) from those who refuse to acknowledge their sin. Also note that there is an exclusion for those who are not Christians, since they will already be judged for their sins, they need no additional guilt.

I do not take Genesis literally, it is a creation myth. But if we take the general view that all is somehow God's creation and leave the how aside then he sure did create a lot of this thing he does not like.

It is a myth, which doesn't depend on the truth or untruth of the story for its message. So let's leave the discussion of whether creation happened in 7 24-hour periods 6000 years ago for another time, it's irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

That said, if you think God's creation can't in-part include things he does not like, you should have bigger issues with the creation story. For example, the serpent. That said, after the fall of man, there is no assumption that creation is perfect in any way (see the creation of a new Heaven and new Earth in Revelation).

Not only in humans, who are sinful, but also in animals which the catholic catechism describes as "... God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory"

How did we go from a discussion on what the Bible says, to one backed up by the Catholic Catechism? If that Catechism is fair game, then the act of homosexuality is a sin, end of discussion.

Even your reference does not say that all (or any) animal behaviors are appropriate for humans. Rather, find me something in the Bible that says (or can even be interpreted) to mean 'because some animals are gay, it's alright for a human to be gay as well'.

In the end I think the whole discussion is pretty much irrelevant. People are not here to judge (that's someone else's job), we are here to forgive each other's trespasses as best we can and help each other through this thing called life. That's the way it was taught to me at least.

That depends. Forgiveness for those who seek it, yes. However, those who pursue a sinful lifestyle are different. They should first be gently rebuked and counseled (Galatians 6:1-2), yet if they are unrepentant they should be removed from the church (1 Corinthians 5). Note the difference is pride in the actions. Galatians speaks of teaching each other to live free from sin, with an echo of the grace and forgiveness they have already received from God. In Corinthians, we are speaking of unrepentant sin (and sexual sin at that, making the determination of the sinfulness of homosexuality incredibly important) from those who refuse to acknowledge their sin. Also note that there is an exclusion for those who are not Christians, since they will already be judged for their sins, they need no additional guilt.

I do not take Genesis literally, it is a creation myth. But if we take the general view that all is somehow God's creation and leave the how aside then he sure did create a lot of this thing he does not like. Not only in humans, who are sinful, but also in animals which the catholic catechism describes as "... God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory"

In the end I think the whole discussion is pretty much irrelevant. People are not here to judge (that's someone else's job), we are here to forgive each other's trespasses as best we can and help each other through this thing called life. That's the way it was taught to me at least.

Excellent point. I can't wait for terrible smut like the following to be forced into .xxx and out of .va:
http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Select/10select/10select_02.html

Nah, religion should be moved into the .com TLD, since it's a for-profit thing. Then tax the 'hell' out of it. :)

Here's on non-embryonic stem cell research: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/04/23/stem-cell-adult-research.html
Plus, here's the current story: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/22/vatican.synthetic.cell/index.html
And as far as genetic engineering goes, the closest thing to official statement from church is this, and you should check that out too (ch3, pnt. 90): http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html (the thing they're worried about here is the same as the theme of the movie Gattaca - http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vatican-Worried-Over-Gene-Related-Racism-110002.shtml)

So that should show you you're wrong about first few points. Secondly, Church, unlike *some* Protestants in America doesn't condemn evolution, in fact the Church sees it as "one of possible theories". If that still sounds uninlightened, understand that the Church's role isn't to confirm scientific theories (no matter how plausible they are) - but they're not teaching to the contrary of science. I don't know about the global warming, and I don't know what the Church says on the topic (actually I can remember one high ranking bishop saying we should take care of the environment) - but if you do, be sure to tell me. However, I somehow get the feeling youo're wronge about this one too. And finally, same as for evolution undoubtedly goes for the big bang too - we see the Bible as authoritative in matters of faith, not science (and this is true since st. Augustine in 6th ct.), the above mistakes of the past as you can see have been addressed. You've mistaken us for your own special breed of Christians (afaik that would be [some?] Evangelicals).

Any more slanders I should address?

You've been watching too much mainstream TV for your own good. If you actually did a bit of cursory research, you'd find that the Vatican publicly acknowledged the presence of paedophilia within the church nearly 50 YEARS AGO. http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html Can you please point to an organisation the size of the Church that is paedophile free? What you also fail to realise is that priests are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: unlike 9 to 5 secularists who can engage in their little perversions outside of office hours and where the organisation they work bears no consequences when their employee commits a crime. The way you present your opinion, you'd think 2010 was first time that Rome has been aware of this issue. It's not. You'll find that many abuse victims that populate these protest marches have already made settlements with the Church and they and their families are coming around for seconds in the compensation stakes. They see a wealthy organisation on the ropes and they're going in for another greedy swipe. This time, they won't be so lucky. There will be no double-compensation pay-outs. The Vatican's legal team will not budge on this matter. But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices and your bigotry.

Its actually quite funny, the website actually has the title "secret archives", and offers to sell you scanned copies on CD.

The formal policy now is this. I can't say how they actually behave, of course. The relevant part here is: "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed". The reason they might carry atrial of their own, in principle, is that their definition of abuse might be different from the legal, and they might have a different evidence threshold for conviction. Note that according to this they believe their definitions are wider (legal abuse falls under: "very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming"). So it might not be the way they actually act, but it is the formal policy.

John Allen, probably the best English-speaking journalist has written a few articles, trying to set the record straight:

• Keeping the Record Straight on Benedict and the Crisis
• Is Middle Ground Possible on the Pope
• Cardinal Castrillon Must Feel Trapped

John Allen, probably the best English-speaking journalist has written a few articles, trying to set the record straight:

• Keeping the Record Straight on Benedict and the Crisis
• Is Middle Ground Possible on the Pope
• Cardinal Castrillon Must Feel Trapped

I'm pretty sure there is very few Vatican citizens (the whole Swiss Papal Guard are (of course) Swiss. Other members of the High Clergy are from countries around the world, temporarily serving at the Vatican). So this lets the Pope himself, which is his own citizen, and I don't see anyone else.

By the way, the Code of Canon Law seems to say that men cannot marry before 16, and women before 14 (see Canon 1083 and that the conference of bishops can set a higher age locally (this is the assembly of bishops in a given country).

While you're reading doctrine online check out the Vatican's webpage. It actually has an aged-parchment CSS background to look more sacred, it's so cute!

His whole adult life, after failing out of college, has been in pursuit of the modern sin accumulating excessive wealth at the expense of the common good of society. The current Pope made that clear in last year's Caritas in veritate . Even the media pandering with the pseudo-philantropy does nothing to mitigate the harm. That may fool the media hacks owned by him and his political friends but at the end of the day the pseudo-philantropy is simply using the fascade of charity to further personal investments and provide political leverage to increase power and block opponents.

Abortion(or indefinite freezing generally followed by disposal once people lose interest and the money runs out) also makes the Church a sad panda; but the official position is against IVF per se.

In the Donum Vitae , issued in 1987 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(incidentally, the current Pope was the head of that body at the time), they say the following:

"But even in a situation in which every precaution were taken to avoid the death of human embryos, homologous IVF and ET dissociates from the conjugal act the actions which are directed to human fertilization. For this reason the very nature of homologous IVF and ET also must be taken into account, even abstracting from the link with procured abortion. Homologous IVF and ET is brought about outside the bodies of the couple through actions of third parties whose competence and technical activity determine the success of the procedure. Such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. "

and:

"If, on the other hand, the procedure were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit. Artificial insemination as a substitute for the conjugal act is prohibited by reason of the voluntarily achieved dissociation of the two meanings of the conjugal act."

Notably, this is Donum Vitae's most sympathetic conclusion, the consideration of IVF using gametes from a married couple unable to have children by any other means, that, hypothetically, did not generate any excess embryos. The conclusions for IVF using donor gametes or surrogate mothers are rather harsher(incidentally, this means that the practice of "embryo adoption" or "snowflake babies" quite popular in certain pro-lifer circles is also considered to be a violation of natural law by the Catholic Church), and the prospect of excess embryos really gets them frothing.

In point of fact, of course, while this technical, theological, conclusion stands(approved by the prior Pope, written or at least edited by the present one in his capacity at that time, never rescinded); it is not actually insisted upon with any great vigor. The church doesn't threaten to deny communion to IVF techs or people who undergo IVF. IVF doctors don't generally get shot. A fair few catholics aren't even aware that IVF is officially condemned.

Because it gets people what they want, and because it is hard to impugn the motives of the people undergoing it("Abortion is for selfish sluts who don't want to take responsibility for their actions" will get you a pretty sympathetic hearing in many circles. "IVF is for selfish baby-crazed poison-wombs" would get the shit kicked out of you in many of the same circles, and even those people who do think that it is illicit would probably call you an asshole for saying something like that) the practice has been de facto accepted.

Er, but what are we going to do with all the people who just don't "have" the brains? They get a free ride?

That seems to be the way it's been working so far.

Like this?

I know you're joking, but that raises some interesting questions. As long as it's direct communication between the priest and person, could that kind of stuff... like confession be done over an iPhone (or IRC, instant messaging, etc)? I wonder if something like that has ever been done over, say, videoconferencing?

The short answer is "no", it seems; this document prepared by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications indicates a very firm negative on that -- though it states it as an assumption, rather than a policy ("Virtual reality is no substitute for the ... sacraments, and shared worship in a flesh-and-blood human community. There are no sacraments on the Internet ...").

Suppose someone is dying, and is requesting last rites, and you just can't get a priest there physically in time?

My understanding is that in in extremo situations, very few rules apply. The Eucharist can be administered under the weirdest of circumstances, people of any religion (or no religion) can perform baptisms. It'd be up to the local bishop to decide, of course, but I'd guess when someone is dying just about anything goes.

Which makes me wonder...we do have works that are out of copyright and most Bible translations fall under that.

The most popular translation (I think the KJV still has that honor) might be, but given how the pace of new translations seems to increase over time, I highly doubt that most translations are out of copyright.

So, how far into the past this is legally binding? Only current symbols, current Pope?

I'm not sure where anyone gets the idea that this statement asserts any claim of legal right, rather than internal Church policy, at all.

Where in the statement do you find any indication that the Holy See intends to seek enforcement of this policy through the courts or other government organs of any country?

Why is everyone referring to this as a copyright? It sounds more like the Vatican is protecting their trademark (the Pope).

This is neither trademark nor copyright, it is a statement of Church policy, and possibly a clarification of a particular application of a provision of Canon Law that deals more with the organizational integrity of the Catholic Church than anything else.

It has nothing really to do with copyright or trademark, but this is Slashdot, so things unrelated to IP law in general and copyright in particular get shoved into those frames anyway.

Why is everyone referring to this as a copyright? It sounds more like the Vatican is protecting their trademark (the Pope).

This is neither trademark nor copyright, it is a statement of Church policy, and possibly a clarification of a particular application of a provision of Canon Law that deals more with the organizational integrity of the Catholic Church than anything else.

It has nothing really to do with copyright or trademark, but this is Slashdot, so things unrelated to IP law in general and copyright in particular get shoved into those frames anyway.

I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.

The statement is available from the Vatican web site, and doesn't appear to claim any particular kind of legal protection (at least not under any secular law), simply a policy statement. The groups it is directed at are probably largely Catholic groups that don't have any particular intent to challenge the Holy See and see what they are doing as consistent with the interests of the heirarchy, so a general statement of policy is probably as far as this is intended to go.

It might be viewed as a clarification of the way the Holy See views the applicability of the Code of Canon Law, specifically, Canon 312 Sec. 3 Para. 1, reserving the authority to erect "public associations of the Christian faithful" with "universal and international" scope to the Holy See.

I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.

The statement is available from the Vatican web site, and doesn't appear to claim any particular kind of legal protection (at least not under any secular law), simply a policy statement. The groups it is directed at are probably largely Catholic groups that don't have any particular intent to challenge the Holy See and see what they are doing as consistent with the interests of the heirarchy, so a general statement of policy is probably as far as this is intended to go.

It might be viewed as a clarification of the way the Holy See views the applicability of the Code of Canon Law, specifically, Canon 312 Sec. 3 Para. 1, reserving the authority to erect "public associations of the Christian faithful" with "universal and international" scope to the Holy See.

To “evolve” literally means “to unroll a scroll”, that is, to read a book. The imagery of nature as a book has its roots in Christianity and has been held dear by many scientists. Galileo saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author. It is a book whose history, whose evolution, whose “writing” and meaning, we “read” according to the different approaches of the sciences, while all the time presupposing the foundational presence of the author who has wished to reveal himself therein. This image also helps us to understand that the world, far from originating out of chaos, resembles an ordered book; it is a cosmos.
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR PLENARY ASSEMBLY

Clementine Hall
Friday, 31 October 2008

there you go

Jack Chick is about more than D&D. He is the poster child for everything that is wrong with _some_ Christians.

As a Christian, and as someone who plays D&D, I can see the potential for harm in the game. For instance, I think playing evil characters could be problematic and unhealthy. However, the idea of the game in and of itself is no more harmful than kids playing cops and robbers, or perhaps more appropriately, knights and dragons.

Is it a sin to read about Greek Mythology? Or to make the analogy more precise, would it be a sin to act in a play about Greek gods? If fantasy is a sin, then most everything in life that's not literal work or prayer is out of bounds. Lewis, as was mentioned above was a devout Christian who wrote about fantasy and magic. Ditto Tolkien.

It is this kind of narrow-minded thinking and rejection of reason that gave rise to the most virulent of Muslims, and we all know how screwed up those folks are. I don't understand how there are branches of Christianity which essentially deny science and reason, when Christianity was the biggest nurturer of scientific and philosophical advancement for most of the time it has existed. Who created most of the original universities? Who was responsible for gathering and passing on the wealth of knowledge from the Greeks and Romans? Who can deny the strong correlation between scientific, philosophical and civil advances with Western Civilization, which was primarily a Christian civilization? This isn't to deny the advances of other cultures, especially in the past. The Chinese were way ahead of everyone 2000 years ago. The Muslims in the Middle East had a great age of learning and development around the end of the first millennium, which was spurred in part by their discovery of the great works of the Greeks. India gave us math, etc, etc. But there's only one place that has most consistently and steadily been the source of the advancement of civilization and that has been the places where Christianity flourished.

You know everyone likes to point to Galileo as proof the Church was opposed to science. Aside of the fact that even the Church itself has admitted it was wrong in that case, and the fact that if you study the details, the issue at the time was more political than it was doctrinal, or the fact that Galileo was _also_ being an ass, even though he was right, name another example. I bet most of you can't. I don't know of any, although I can't imagine there aren't. But this only shows that that was the exception rather than the rule. The Vatican has its own observatory where real science is done. Look up the history of seismology and its relation to the Jesuits. Read about how the Industrial Revolution might have occurred in the 17th century rather than the 19th, except all the Christians (Catholics and Protestants) took a couple of centuries off to slaughter each other, more often than not over nationalism (or any of the other various reasons people war) than doctrine. The Enlightenment is seen by some as a move away from religion, but look how well that worked in France, or later in Russia and China. The Enlightenment owes as much to religious philosophy as it does to secular philosophy. See the Founding Fathers of the U.S. for a perfect example. See how Adam Smith, despite being extemely anti-Catholic, conceived of an economic philosophy that is pretty consistent with Catholic social teaching. Read "Rerum Novarum" to understand how capitalists and workers each depend upon and owe each other, and how socialism and the abolition of private property is inimical to all freedom.

The reason for this is that Christians did not abandon reason. We believe that God is omnipotent, but that He has made an ordered world, and has given us an intellect and will to use to advancement of Mankind in accordance with His Laws. We believe that God wants us to use our minds (otherwise t

Well, that is actually true...

Well that's the definition of the Catholic church...

God - "the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm#IV

And yet, great swaths of Christianity rely on Leviticus 18:22. Huge swaths of Christianity. They obviously do not think that the Old Testament was deprecated.

In fact, the Vatican itself makes reference to it!

The man who is now pope, in that letter, writes:

There can be no doubt of the moral judgment made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

Show me, again, where exactly the Old Testament is deprecated?

But when their pre-implantation diagnostic services began including the baby's eye and hair color, even the Pope objected

I'm pretty sure the Pope was objecting the entire time. Last year, they even made it official company policy that IVF=abortion.

There are certain inherent problems with the ideology commonly called socialism and communism and capitalism respectively.
But the basic problem of balancing out the individual within and against the context of the whole remains.

I only know of one organization that has really proposed a lot of well though out solutions and technology certainly can help get us there.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html [vatican.va]

For better or for worse, one can go to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister and get lessons on their branch of Christianity for free.

Why bother going anywhere? You can get a copy of all of the Church's teachings in the form of the Cathechism, which is availble on the Vatican's website.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

I am within my rights to take a picture on a public street and then upload it to the internet. I am within my rights to publish my views, on anything, freely on the internet. I am within my rights to worship or not worship freely as I please. I am free to cast my votes for representatives in the various assemblies that pass and enact the laws of the land. So is everyone else.

But rights do not, and should not scale upwards so easily as they scale across society.

Google's ultimate objective, and they're danm well able to achieve it, is to map, index and photograph the entire world and put it all online for everyone to gawk at. One company. Worldwide coverage. Of everyone, and everything. No recourse. No appeal. It's clear that in the process of inductively scaling up the rights and freedoms we all enjoy to such gargantuan proportions, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

I am free to own a newspaper or pamphlet and to use it to express my opinions. Must it then follow that I should be free, if I had the money for it, to own as many newspapers as I like in order to disseminate my opinions?

I am free to worship in any religion that I please and ask others to follow me. Does that mean that I should be free to amass as large a host of followers as I like and have my will of all of them?

I am free to vote for my political representatives. Does this mean that I should be free to vote on every single piece of legislation they propose, or to propose and vote on legislation I or others demand at a whim?

You can't inductively keep scaling rights up and up. Eventually you will end up with highly, undesirable, outcomes. Google Street View is just such an example. I don't want my house, garden, neighborhood and face plastered all over the web for everyone to gawk at. You don't want it. Nobody wants it.

Yet we are all to accept the slow inductive argument that at each camera click and image upload, Google is always well within its rights. Yet the final outcome, colossal in its arrogance is repugnant to almost everyone involved. The inductive argument is invalid. No one should be allowed to do what Google are doing. Least of all a private corporation.

Rights do not scale up. The bigger you are, the less rights you should be entitled to. And the scope of your rights should be similarly curtailed. Allowing unfettered freedoms to the richest, largest and most powerful will only lead to them becoming overmighty, and we will all suffer for it.

which religion does not claim some supernatural being that, well, has NEVER shown himself?
 
No religion I'm aware of claims that. They all have either written or oral traditional claims of a God who *did* show himself.
 
  ALL religion is opposed to rationality.
 
Incorrect- in fact, the current Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, gave a rather interesting speech on the topic right after he was elected Pope. You ought to remember, it was the one where he condemned certain sects of Islam for being irrational.
 
  if you are a religion, you have a deity (or plural). and I don't think there has been the tiniest shred of actual evidence to support ANY one's view of their god.
 
Now that depends on your definition of "actual evidence" and how irrational or rational you are in accepting evidence. I can define objective evidence so narrowly that nothing I haven't experienced personally exists, or so broadly that I actually accept eyewitness testimony, and both are correct as far as the word "actual" goes.
 
  therefore, to believe in things you can't possibly prove - by definition - is to be irrational.
 
Equally, to disbelieve in things I've experienced in my own life, would likewise be irrational, no?
 
  scientists who tend to believe in god have this weird duality to their mind. seems to be a flaw that lets them 'forgive' some bizarre unprovable things that they just won't give up.
 
Or rather, they've been presented with evidence through personal experience that you refuse to admit is evidence. I think the second, that your personal definition of "actual evidence" is too narrow, is far more likely.

How would you put a price on the Sistine Chapel

There are companies specialized in those pricing matters. The Sistine Chapel would be an absolutely awesome meeting room for an awesomely rich organization with cash to spare that already has everything it could reasonably need.

Oh, wait... Doh!

"I've never understood why religious folk have such a hard time with evolution. I mean, can't they just say "okay, fine, evolution is the process, and God is the architect". Far as I can see, that kind of solves it."

That is in fact what many Christians believe and is also a slightly different way to say what has been the Catholic Church's position on topic of evolution since the early 20th century.

Additionally, If you do want to know specifically what the Catholic Church Teaches, The bible probably isn't the best place to look. Not because it isn't there but because it isn't summerized and presented in a nice way for modern audiences to understand. For that I would recommend The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. Which does a good job explaining everything. I'm not sure why that isn't available online somewhere for free, but there is its source document available Catechisim of the Catholic Church Which is easier than the bible but a little light on the layman's explanations at points.