Pope Urges Priests To Go Forth and Blog

Hugh Pickens writes "Pope Benedict XV, whose own presence on the Web has grown in recent years, is urging priests to use all multimedia tools at their disposal to preach the Gospel and to engage in dialogue with people of other religions and cultures. 'The spread of multimedia communications and its rich "menu of options" might make us think it sufficient simply to be present on the Web,' but priests are 'challenged to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources,' says the Pope. The message from the Pope, prepared for the World Day of Communications, suggests such possibilities as images, videos, animated features, blogs, and Web sites and adds that young priests should become familiar with new media while still in seminary, though the Pope stresses that the use of new technologies must reflect theological and spiritual principles. Many priests and top prelates already interact with the faithful online, and one of Benedict's advisers has his own Facebook profile. So does the archbishop of Los Angeles. The Pope adds, 'I renew the invitation to make astute use of the unique possibilities offered by modern communications. May the Lord make all of you enthusiastic heralds of the Gospel in the new "agorà" which the current media are opening up.'"

Comments

Religion

[sopssa]

Please, just please make it be one domain, like religiousblogs.com. Nothing worse than all the spam and pushed things and messages on the internet is such religious ones.

I do not think there is any god anyway. It's as likely possibility than that we would be living in a computer simulation. In fact, I suspect the later one is more likely possible.

Religion is something that was used in old times to control people and have them do "moral" actions (moral here being what the government considered good). It also was used to slay millions of people in crusades to other regions. The real reason most likely even wasn't about believing in god, it was the same power game that there is today. This doesn't apply just to Christians, it applies to every religion. Just see what a freaking mess the middle-east and areas around Israel is. All of that just because you believe in an imaginary person while the other person believes in an another imaginary person.

But since we are already talking about the god vs. computer simulation, is there any reason why we couldn't be living in someones simulation? Every year our own computer technology goes leaps forwards. It might seem simulating our whole world would be too much for a computer, but who really knows what the limits are? And if we are living in a simulation, how could we know we aren't? The system would prevent us from doing so.

And I do not mean this as the typical Matrix like system, which would be kind of stupid. I mean it as something where we don't exist at all outside of the simulation, other than maybe as some processes running in a data center (or someones bedroom closet). While I dont spend my days thinking about that, I think its a lot more likely thing than there being some invisible, everything knowing, a man who created everything somewhere in the space who listens to everyones wishes and tricks around with them.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the Catholic--bashing in 3.. 2.. 1...

Re:Religion

[WED Fan]

Well, could bring a new definition to "flame war" when the comments section of the blog turns ugly.

Re:Religion

[Henry V .009]

I don't know. I'm not Catholic, but I read Fr. Z's blog at wdtprs.com fairly frequently. It's not spam by any stretch. It's interesting to peep into another world.

Re:Religion

[sznupi]

While contemplating how irritating this might be, remember that...they don't really have any other choice but try to shift their methods towards new reality. And it's not so bad; might a bit messy for a time, but ultimately those are convulsions of the old ways - which simply won't fit to that new reality.

Whether that will result in human consciousness at large being, finally, freed from those ideas (extremely doubtful) or new variant of them taking hold (more likely; and you might try to influence it) - it doesn't matter. Since it should end up, again, more tolerable generally. Until next step...

Re:Religion

[DesScorp]

Please, just please make it be one domain, like religiousblogs.com

What a wonderful time and space saving idea. Hey, while we're at it, lets limit and compact all thought on the Internet. We'll start by forcing all geeks into one domain... something like geekblogs.com, and why stop there? We'll put political people into one domain and... by the way, who do we put in charge of forcing all this to happen?

Re:Religion

[ral8158]

Jeeze, learn to take a joke, man.

Re:Religion

[sopssa]

by the way, who do we put in charge of forcing all this to happen?

CowboyNeal. He is our last hope.

Re:Religion

[DesScorp]

Jeeze, learn to take a joke, man.

He made it pretty clear that he wasn't joking.

Re:Religion

[Gonoff]

used in old times to control people

I cannot think of any type of philosophy that has not been misused in this way. They have all been used as ways of dealing with, or resisting, that control as well.

Just because some ideas are used to control people, it does not mean the ideas are bad or untrue.

In a few hundred years, how do you know that people won't look back on us and feel sorry for us being oppressed?/p?

Re:Religion

[obarthelemy]

I object to religion and general, and churches in particular, but I don't think segregating by religiosity (let alone by religion) would be a good think. I disagree with them, but I like knowing WHAT I'm disagreeing with. And sometimes I don't disagree quite as much as other times. Also, there a bunch of stuff/lifestyles that not only don't interest me, but bother or irk me... should we segregate everything and everyone, like those sad people who live in a very small peer group of like-minded people ?

Also, generally speaking, you don't want segregation:
- it breeds intolerance. If we are not regularly exposed to different people, way of thoughts, philosophies, sexualities... we become bigots. Religion is one lifestyle choice, one culture... it's nothing so special that it should be treated differently.
- it narrows the mind: some people are fascinated by things I don't care about, in favour of things I dislike, or the converse... occasional exposure to these gives me a chance to update my thoughts/feelings/attitude... or to keep them, but with good reason
- segregation works both ways: if those idiots bigoted holier-than-thou religious types start to engage other people, may be THEY will also get something out of the ensuing discussion.

Re:Religion

[sznupi]

I know. Formally I'm still Catholic (can't be bothered to do a long travel just for apostasy). Your example is hardly a "peep into another world"...it's just how one representative of that world wants to be seen.

Unleash more of them, and it will get "funny" :)

Re:Religion

[jc42]

Well, could bring a new definition to "flame war" when the comments section of the blog turns ugly.

We already have a term for such discussions: "religious".

(I was tempted to add a "smiley", but decided it would be inappropriate. What we need is more like an "evil grinney", but I don't know if there's an ASCII symbol for that.)

Re:Religion

[sznupi]

Nihilism. There you go, at least one.

Just because some ideas are used to control people, it does not mean the ideas are bad or untrue.

No, if some idea is consistently and reliably thorough history used for nefarious purposes, that is what this idea represents and not what it claims to represent.

Re:Religion

[jc42]

Since it should end up, again, more tolerable generally.

I wouldn't bet on that. To many religious people, one of the main points of having a religion is that it gives you an excuse to be intolerant of other people.

It has always seemed to me that if there is a God, He (or She or It) must be rather frustrated by this. After all, if we were created by such a being, it's pretty clear that we were designed to be highly variably in pretty much everything. So this purported God must find it rather annoying to be used to justify all the nasty stuff that His (Her/Its) followers routinely try to inflict on the world of complex and varied people.

OTOH, there are a few religious people around who are interesting to talk or listen to. Maybe the rest of us just need to learn to not answer the intolerant ones. We can just close the window and ignore them. So far, at least, there's not really much the religious intolerant types can actually do to us across the Net, except "flame" us in the sense that term's used on the Net. And the tolerant ones might be able to engage us in some interesting conversations.

Re:Religion

[PopeRatzo]

Cue the Catholic--bashing in 3.. 2.. 1...

At least while the priests are blogging we know they aren't buggering little boys.

Re:Religion

[sznupi]

That's why I said "should" - there's no guarantee, of course. But two things suggest it will end up slightly better this time, IMHO; not only the general trend in recent times, associated with similar kind of civilizational advances, but also, somewhat unexpectedly, "reverting" to a state when people regularly came into contact with other faiths. Necessitating greater tolerance among other things.

Re:Religion

[Kell Bengal]

Clerical multitasking has been supported since Win95.

Re:Religion

[MadFarmAnimalz]

by the way, who do we put in charge of forcing all this to happen

Al Gore?

Re:Religion

[Nathrael]

(I was tempted to add a "smiley", but decided it would be inappropriate. What we need is more like an "evil grinney", but I don't know if there's an ASCII symbol for that.)

>:D

Re:Religion

[pclminion]

Cue the Catholic--bashing in 3.. 2.. 1...

Ok, I'll begin. I was Catholic. Then our priest was caught banging boys, and what did the church do? They sent him to California. I guess that sort of behavior is more acceptable down there. Since then, I'm atheist. Is that clear enough for you?

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice though... No porn unless you went to .pornland. No spam unless you went to .spamland/spamblogland - assuming there are those people who want to waste their lives shopping for "V1AGRA". And no stupid conservative fake news unless you went to .foxmegacorporatenewsland

It'd be nice, until you realize everyone would just be exposed to their own driple of self-lies, vices, and self-righteousness. But then again, you just get all that these days with all the normal sites unless you make an effort to learn day to day

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Nihilism. There you go, at least one.

Did you forget about World War 2 and the Nazi party? The core belief of the Nazi party was that each member should have a will to power. They fostered nihilism, and used their members drives for their own aim.

Not that nihilism is inherently evil, or anything silly like that.

Re:Religion

[CanadianRealist]

Maybe the next time the Pope is online he could do a bit of reading on the effectiveness of condoms in stopping the spread of AIDS. He might learn something and then he would have something better to say to people in Africa.

Does that count as Catholic-bashing?

Re:Religion

[sznupi]

You either mighty confused or think that playing stupid as AC is fine...

Re:Religion

[hey!]

In order to do this, you have to get people to self-identify their religious thoughts (or what you would consider their religious thoughts) as "religious thoughts". Likewise with "political thought".

Good luck doing that.

Re:Religion

[PopeRatzo]

Hey! He cued me!

Just like catholic priests are queuing up behind altar boys.

Re:Religion

[Thinboy00]

In order to do this, you have to get people to self-identify their religious thoughts (or what you would consider their religious thoughts) as "religious thoughts". Likewise with "political thought".

Good luck doing that.

This is worse than the proposed .sex TLD.

Re:Religion

[Corporate Drone]

Can you provide a URL that documents your assertion? In fact, the research bears out the Pope's observation out, but since the Pope was the one making the observation, all hell broke loose when he said this.

What do I have to support this claim?

"In a 2008 article in Science called Reassessing HIV Prevention, 10 AIDS experts concluded that 'consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.' "

(from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html, a column written by a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health.)

Re:Religion

[Corporate Drone]

Let me understand: for some portion of your life (presumably, for some portion of your adult life), you believed in the tenets of the Catholic Church. That is to say, that among other things, you believed in God.

Then, evidence that priests, and to an extent, bishops, are human, and have failings, and sin (sometimes, criminally), somehow changed your belief -- not in a given person, or persons, or even, the Church -- but in the existence of God?

Umm... that's not terribly logical, ya know...

Re:Religion

[Master Moose]

I agree wholly with you. But on the flip. I do not object to religion or churches, I do disagree with segregation. Ask me to justify beliefs and I will try. I am never going to state that I, Rome or any other church, book, theology has all the answers. When being interviewed I can and will be questioned/nitpicked to the point where I have no answer. Often this is because I was unaware, unsure or had not previously thought about that aspect of theology. Do not see my inability to justify every aspect of faith (which we all know boils down to the belief in the unknown/unprovable/improbable)as a victory for the side of atheists/skeptics as I see no sides - Just people with different belief systems. I am usually worried whenever spirituality of any sort is brought up on slashdot for the reason above. It appears that many of the /. are the bigoted holier-than-thou atheist types. Question the religions and the religious. But please stay tolerant of them and show respect. You are never going to prove yourself better than others by pointing out other peoples misgivings. The only way to show you are a better person is by being a better person and trying to live a better life. This philosophy can work within a religious or secular context.

Re:Religion

[mdwh2]

It appears that many of the /. are the bigoted holier-than-thou atheist types. Question the religions and the religious. But please stay tolerant of them and show respect.

Can you give me an example, on Slashdot, of a comment that's evidence of a bigoted, intolerant, disrespectful atheist?

Re:Religion

[telomerewhythere]

Religion is something that was used in old times to control people and have them do "moral" actions (moral here being what the government considered good)

While technically true, I think that a more accurate statement is that governments use religion to control people. Take Christianity for instance. Even a secular look at it will tell you that Christians avoided secular power until after Constantine, that's 300 years. Even then He and those after him were only able to do so much and had to fuse Christianity and paganism (see Christmas and Saturnalia or Sun worship) to get the populace behind him. However after that, the pope was only too glad to get involved in politics.

Religion has power. That power can be used for evil, or for awesome. Very little of the latter is found in the wild though.

we don't exist at all outside of the simulation, other than maybe as some processes running in a data center (or someones bedroom closet).

That sounds like the Greek Fates. Please be original.

Re:Religion

[Shin-LaC]

Thanks for the link. I had never heard of Fr. Z, but his blog seems quite interesting. I especially enjoyed his critique of the translation of a prayer from Latin. I hope that's the correct link to the post, at least: the site isn't loading any more... slashdotted?

Re:Religion

[pclminion]

God? Who's that? My mom took me to a big pretty building once a week. Then I found out the guy standing in front was having sex with kids my age. So I decided to not go to the big pretty building any more.

Re:Religion

[pclminion]

My previous reply was too terse, I think. What on Earth did you expect to happen? Here I am, a young kid, and I found out this person I was supposed to trust was doing terrible things to other people my age. And I, a 10 year old, was supposed to think spiritually at that moment? It's my fault? You people are fucking sick, and I'm glad I left. Thanks a lot for all the support you gave me back when this occurred, i.e. none at all. At the time, I figured nobody came to talk to us because they were all too busy fucking boys in the ass. Fuck the Catholic Church.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bible teaches that humans are sinful. But when a teaching (celibacy) that is not even in the Bible causes local and regional leaders of a religion actively to act against the 'universal' ideals of morality, and the worldwide leader (supposedly infallible) says nothing for centuries... one could conclude that something is not quite right.

See also 2 Peter 2:1-3:But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach their destructive heresies about God and even turn against their Master who bought them. Theirs will be a swift and terrible end. Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of them, Christ and his true way will be slandered. In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction is on the way.

Re:Religion

[dimeglio]

Unfortunately, there are many non-priests queueing up all kinds of boys. Kind of proves we are all sinners after all.
I know priests are extremely well educated which is going to certainly make for some interesting blogging.

Re:Religion

[shutdown -p now]

"In a 2008 article in Science called Reassessing HIV Prevention, 10 AIDS experts concluded that 'consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.' "

What this says is that Africans don't use condoms often enough for them to be effective against the spread of AIDS. Whereas the Catholic church claims that use of condoms "increases sexual promiscuity", thereby leading to spread of AIDS, which is an altogether different thing.

What's even worse is that Catholic priests have been disseminating information that use of condoms is ineffective against AIDS (the usual bullshit about "viruses being so tiny they can go through the pores", etc, also used by Christian Evangelical camp).

Re:Religion

[PopeRatzo]

Unfortunately, there are many non-priests queueing up all kinds of boys

Did you know the rate of child molestation among priests is at least more than 400% of that of the overall population? Even the Church's own Archbishop Tomasi puts the rate of sexual abusers among priests at 5% "over the past 50 years" although he does assure us that "this figure was comparable with that of other groups and denominations". Remember, Tomasi represents a group that worked to cover up this abuse for half a century and does so still today. The highest rate ever alleged by the overall population (according to civilian statistics, not the church's) is about 0.4%. Most researchers put the overall number at closer to 0.2%. Most lay researchers put the rate of abuse among priests at closer to 7.5% which would be more than 10 times the overall rate.

You can call it trolling or flamebaiting all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that priests bugger children a lot more than the rest of us.

Re:Religion

[drinkypoo]

What's even worse is that Catholic priests have been disseminating information that use of condoms is ineffective against AIDS

But these governments they don't mind the procrastination
They say we'll kill them off, take their land, and go there for vacation

And what is the catholic church but a metagovernment? In the past they've taken over nations, and been taken over by Medicis.

Re:Religion

[azgard]

Yeah, what was the name of that Monty Python sketch?

Re:Religion

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

This isn't insightful. It's generalised BS that only looks at one part of a complex topic. But hey, it seems to be fashionable to criticise religion these days, even if you don't have single rational thought about the topic in your head.

Re:Religion

[ultranova]

But since we are already talking about the god vs. computer simulation,

We aren't. We are talking about pope urging priests to go forth and blog. You simply went off on a tangent to deliver your anti-religious speech. Or was it a clever demonstration on the necessity of your suggested domain ?-)

Anyway, I'm all for it, as long as all religious-related rants go there, including atheist ones. Now have fun convincing people who view each other as godless heathens, stone-age fairy tale believers, and various other nasty things to coexist in a single domain. It should be entertaining to watch, at the least :).

Re:Religion

[ultranova]

Unfortunately, there are many non-priests queueing up all kinds of boys. Kind of proves we are all sinners after all.

Yes. However, most organizations don't protect such people, hide their activities and try to silence the victims. That was the real point of the scandal: there are sickos everywhere, but Catholic church sided with them against the victims.

Re:Religion

[sp3d2orbit]

Nihilism

The Dude would beg to differ.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, just please make it be one domain, like religiousblogs.com. Nothing worse than all the spam and pushed things and messages on the internet is such religious ones.

Actually, wouldn't this be one instance where a new top-level domain would actually be sensible? .religion, or .reli if that's too long... or perhaps the Bahamas could be persuaded to give up .bs for the right amount of jink.

who really knows what the limits are? And if we are living in a simulation, how could we know we aren't? The system would prevent us from doing so.

You do, of course, realize that this is precisely the kind of argument that theists use, too, right? "God is unknowable", "God deliberately doesn't prove he eixsts because he wants to test our faith", and all that...

I think you might need a .bs domain, too. :)

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that figure would be impossible to substantiate. Consider that 30 percent of abused children are done so at the hands of their own immediate family (a figure I got from the wikipedia entry "Child Sexual Abuse" - not definitive by any means, but I have much agreement with these figures in general statitistcs on child sexual abuse) . Only a very small minority of the "immediate family - meaning siblings, fathers or mothers) would be priests, and so if priests modelsted 400 percent more than the overall population, they would have molested (30 * 4) = 120 percent of the actual number of kids who were molested. If you add the 30 percent figure to that, it means that 150 percent of children who are abused are actually being abused.

Of course, the same article says that 60 percent (on top of the original 30 percent mentioned above) are close friends of the family. Let's assume that half of them are priests (which is also patently absurd, but sufficient for the purposes of this demonstration). That leaves 30 percent non-priests, plus almost 30 percent from the original group. That means that priests would need to molest ((30+30) x 4) = 240 percent of the actual children who are really being molested ... and adding on to that the original 60 percent makes 300 percent of the children who are being molested who are actually being molested (which is a fallacy - like saying that 2 equals 5). If only a tenth of that "60 percent" were priests, of course, that means they would need to molest ((30+54) * 4) = 336 percent... and that is not even talking about the remaining 10 percent.

Alternatively, we can look at it another way. If the population of America is 300 million, and priests sexually abuse 400 percent more than the rest of the population, amd only 1 percent of the population was abused (the figures of abuse are much higher, of course), that means that (3 million / 5 * 4) children were sexually abused by priests, which is 2.4 million abused. There are approximately 40,000 priests in America, which means that each priest would need to molest 60 children in order to meet their quota. Is that seriously even possible? That also assumes that all priests molested children, which is also clearly ludicrous. Now, if only one tenth of them molested, that means that each one of their quota is now 600 children.

Further, if we consider the number of cases actually reported, which numbers in the thousands over the last 50 years, and we further restrict ourselves to the current population, this means that child abuse by priests is under-reported by a staggering 10,000 percent!!!

If you are going to make up a figure, don't make it too unbelievable or only fools will believe it.

Re:Religion

[JAlexoi]

A wonderful idea.... You would actually know what you are reading about :-D

Re:Religion

[Dan541]

Anyone else see the irony of the anti-science and reason mob using technology?

Re:Religion

[Curtman]

Then, evidence that priests, and to an extent, bishops, are human, and have failings, and sin (sometimes, criminally), somehow changed your belief

You might come to realize that the people who are filling your head with this crap, don't believe it themselves.

Re:Religion

[meringuoid]

I mean it as something where we don't exist at all outside of the simulation, other than maybe as some processes running in a data center (or someones bedroom closet). While I dont spend my days thinking about that, I think its a lot more likely thing than there being some invisible, everything knowing, a man who created everything somewhere in the space who listens to everyones wishes and tricks around with them.

I don't know about you but if I were running a universe simulation I'd be pretty tempted to fuck with people in it too. I mean, you've played The Sims, right? Doesn't the Old Testament god sound just like some kid who takes away the exit from the swimming pool just to watch the fun?

Re:Religion

[AliasMarlowe]

holier-than-thou atheist

It might be better to stay silent on topics which confuse you so much.

Re:Religion

[azav]

And I know Catholic Brothers who have been proven guilty of molestation in a court of law. Looks like some sin more than others. Also check on in the thousands of molestation cases covered up in Ireland and the vast number covered up by the Boston Archdiocese and Cardinal Bernard Law.

Re:Religion

[azav]

When the Church tells you that your priests are men of God and then you find them doing the one of the most frowned on activities of society and one that is punishable by death by the Church, and they are not killed, simply moved elsewhere, wouldn't that make you think the system is corrupt and cause you to question the teachings and the God they represent?

Seems very logical to me.

Re:Religion

[azav]

Awesome reply.

I found out that Cardinal Law and the Boston Archdiocese, the moral compass of the Catholic society in Boston was covering up molestation cases for years. Also, that thousand cases of molestation in Ireland went unreported for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_of_Christian_Brothers#Scandals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_by_priests_in_Roman_Catholic_orders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_Congregation_of_Christian_Brothers
http://tinyurl.com/pc3zeg

Bastards.

Re:Religion

[dfenstrate]

Maybe the next time the Pope is online he could do a bit of reading on the effectiveness of condoms in stopping the spread of AIDS. He might learn something and then he would have something better to say to people in Africa.

Not fucking everything in sight is also effective in stopping the spread of AIDS, but that requires self-restraint we can't expect of Africans, eh? (NOTE THAT I AM BEING SARCASTIC)

Self-restraint is also key to stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS by any method, with a single exception: the poor bastard who got HIV from a blood transfusion that originated from someone with no self restraint.

I'm thinking the Catholic church is much more in the 'Teach Self-Restraint' camp than the "Cover your wiener whilst you go fuck everything in sight" camp.

Teaching useful personal values is something that religions are generally good at, and something that atheists haven't demonstrated an adequate wide-spread replacement for.

Re:Religion

[Reziac]

I particularly noticed that section too. This guy's perspective is interesting all along -- he's both practical in the real world and a purist about religion and its background.

Re:Religion

[CanadianRealist]

Actually, the Catholic Church is in the "our interpretation of our 2000 year old book says that using condoms is a sin - so don't use them!" camp.
By the way, that includes the case when your spouse has cheated on you and contracted AIDS - your choices are no more sex, or accept contracting AIDS.

As for useful personal values, I'd say atheists have those. I've never heard of any atheists protecting child molesters.
But given that is seems that your view is that the alternative to the Catholic Church is atheism I think I see where you're coming from and I'd say you seem a bit biased.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

You can call it trolling or flamebaiting all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that priests bugger children a lot more than the rest of us.

Actually, that depends on what you mean by "more." Sexual abuse is awful, and these priests you mention have done horrible things, but we need to make fair comparisons about the problem. You seem to mean that a larger percentage of priests molest children than the percentage of child molesters in the general population. That is probably true, if only for the fact that all Catholic priests are male, and the vast majority of child molesters are male. Automatically, then, we'd expect close to double the percentage of the "general population" (which would presumably include women).

Also, an appropriate point of comparison might be to compare priests to other professions where people interact with children on a regular basis. If you're not around children, it's unlikely you'll have the opportunity to molest them. And, honestly, the studies on other such professions -- teachers, coaches, scoutmasters, clergy in other denominations, etc. -- seem to indicate that the number of molesters isn't that different from priests. Some studies have even suggested higher rates of molestation from teachers than priests, particularly if you include all the heterosexual teacher/student relationships that often tend to get swept under the rug, the teacher is asked to resign, and the teacher goes on to teach somewhere else. I emphasize "heterosexual" because in many of these cases, particularly when the perpetrator is a woman, it's often not even judged to be "abuse" by many people.

How is that better than the Catholic situation? -- at least in the church the administrators knew about abuse and sometimes took action... and sometimes deplorably not... but in schools, bad teachers and coaches often go on to a new unsuspecting school where no one knows about their past.

But, lastly, and most importantly -- is the result of the Catholic situation so much, much worse than other similar abuse problems such that we need to bring it up every time someone mentions the word "Catholic" or "priest"? Do they deserve the media attention, or are there worse problems?

Well, here's where your argument completely fails. Because priests don't "bugger children a lot more than the rest of us" if you take actual numbers. As some posters have already mentioned, the majority of abuse cases are perpetrated by relatives or close family friends -- most of whom are NOT priests.

And even among teachers, most conservative estimates seem to indicate that at least 10 times as many children are abused by teachers than by priests. (Actually, even by reported cases, it's at least 10 times.) Some studies suggest that teachers abuse 100 times as many children as priests.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't worry about abuse by priests or any other adults our children interact with. But where are the posts that show up complaining about teacher abuse every time schools are mentioned on Slashdot? Regardless of what percentage of priests or teachers abuse, if my child is 10 times (or even 100 times) more likely to get abused by a teacher than a priest, which should I be worried about? Which should I rant about?

You must be one of those people who wants to spend trillions of dollars preventing the next terrorist attack when it's hundreds of times more likely you'll be killed driving in your morning commute. Either that, or you enjoy spreading anti-Catholic propaganda.

In contrast, I prefer worrying about and bitching about problems that are actually more likely to affect my life, rather than a bunch of clergy who have done many wrongs, but constitute a very small percentage of the real problem.

Re:Religion

[pclminion]

Whoever rated me Flamebait, are you a Catholic? Do you seriously consider my response to be a flame? I was close to this scandal. Too close. Instead of talking to me and trying to explain how such a terrible thing could happen within a good Church, and trying to restore my faith, you call me a flamer, or a troll? You are the lowest scum of this universe. Burn eternally in the Hell you believe in, fuckwad.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Not fucking everything in sight is also effective in stopping the spread of AIDS, but that requires self-restraint we can't expect of Africans, eh? (NOTE THAT I AM BEING SARCASTIC)

You might be being sarcastic, but I wouldn't rely on self-restraint for any significant population of humans when it comes to sex, African or not. We have evolved to enjoy sex because it is how we procreate and pass on our genes, so the more promiscuous people (at least before effective contraception was invented) were more likely to have more offspring thus increasing the number of people with this trait in the general population. Therefore it is in our nature (for most people at least) to want to do this.

Consider this, if we could rely on people to have self-restraint and be monogamous then we would already have virtually no sexually transmitted diseases, since this isn't the case, suggesting this as a viable way for controlling an STD is unrealistic, so you have to provide an alternative for people who will be promiscuous regardless of the risks, and that is to use condoms.

Re:Religion

[Corporate Drone]

Punishable by death by the Church? Where'd that one come from? Last time I checked, the Church hadn't put people to death... at least, not since medieval understandings of power and the exercise thereof...

Re:Religion

[Corporate Drone]

Your fault? Nope ... I made the assumption that you were an active Catholic -- and an adult, at that -- when you left.

So, let me get this straight: you found out, when you were 10, that your priest was molesting boys. So you, on your own, decided to leave? Hmm... that can't be the whole story. Perhaps your parents decided not to keep you in a situation that was perceived as dangerous (a reasonable response). Perhaps later in life, as an adult, you decided that you couldn't get your head around a situation in which a member of a group doesn't act in concert with the tenets of the group (not terribly logical, but reasonable, if you were right in the middle of a scandal, and had that visceral response). Perhaps, though, you had your own negative experiences, and taking all these things into consideration, you decided to bail. Again, that's a conclusion that fails to distinguish between the principles at hand, and the failures of individuals who claim to hold to the principles.

When Bush did all the things that made Dems scream, did it make sense to abandon America? When Obama pushes through his agendas, does it likewise make sense for conservatives to abandon America? No. Somehow, though, the Church is held to a different standard: when its members, especially its leaders, fail (and in criminal ways, at that), the whole organization and/or its tenets are to blame. NOT logical (although understandable, if one is making an emotional or visceral decision, based on unrealistic expectations of humans who act as leaders...

Your insistence that all Catholics, or all priests are butt bandits is laughable, of course: the rates of incidence of abuse, around 2% over the past 50 years or so, is in the same range as other populations in Western society (teachers, male parents, volunteers in youth groups). Now, a real question is: should we hold clergy to higher standards? Yes -- but finding out that they're human doesn't imply that their actions reflect on the whole institution...

Re:Religion

[pclminion]

Your insistence that all Catholics, or all priests are butt bandits is laughable, of course

Anybody who does not actively and vehemently denounce the legitimacy of those priests who engaged in that behavior, is complicit in that behavior. All you've done is make some lukewarm statement about how a few bad people shouldn't influence my feelings on the matter. I have never, not a single time, heard a Catholic apologize to me for what happened, and try to restore my faith. Instead, I get people just like you, who blame ME for what happened and try to tell me I'm some sort of idiot for losing faith. It's clear you don't WANT me back, and I'm happy to oblige.

Re:Religion

[Corporate Drone]

Anybody who does not actively and vehemently denounce the legitimacy of those priests who engaged in that behavior, is complicit in that behavior.

Absolutely -- and that's been the response of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Although they can't change the wrongs that have been done in the past, they've instituted policies that require diocesan officials to immediately remove the accused priest from ministry, and report the accusation to the authorities.

All you've done is make some lukewarm statement about how a few bad people shouldn't influence my feelings on the matter.

Well, isn't that a logical response? Of course, as you point out, it's not the only response, as the Church is responsible for the pastoral care of its members.

I have never, not a single time, heard a Catholic apologize to me for what happened

I'm confused. Earlier, you stated that you heard that your parish priest was found to be molesting children. You implied that it was not you, but "other people your age". So, you're asking for an apology not for something that had been done to you, but for putting you at potential risk, depending on how close you were to the situation, which you haven't established? OK -- in your case, clearly, he was removed from parish ministry.

(You've provided no information about what "California" implied in your description. Was he placed in a parish? Given your description, it seems he was part of an order, and not a diocesan priest. Was he placed in ministry that kept him away from young boys?)

and try to restore my faith.

Your faith in that one man? In the diocese (or his order), who removed him from service? Or in the Church, who is now taking measures to make sure this does not happen again?

Instead, I get people just like you, who blame ME for what happened

put that straw man to bed already -- I've not blamed you, nor faulted you for the events you describe. However, I am asking you to logically defend your stance against the Church as a whole, given its recent actions.

and try to tell me I'm some sort of idiot for losing faith.

Not at all. But, please help me understand how, in the face of the action taken against your parish priest, and the actions that the USCCB is taking, it is logical to blame the entirety of the organization, and even its current members, as you are doing.

It's clear you don't WANT me back

Not at all true. However, my intuition tells me that there's more to your story than you're presenting here. Given the public nature of Slashdot, it's your right not to expose yourself publicly regarding a matter that you're presenting as clearly still deep wound today. If I were your local parish priest, would I come to you and attempt to offer the pastoral care you've mentioned here, if I knew who you were and how to get in touch with you? Absolutely.

Re:Religion

[Corporate Drone]

"In a 2008 article in Science called Reassessing HIV Prevention, 10 AIDS experts concluded that 'consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.' "

What this says is that Africans don't use condoms often enough for them to be effective against the spread of AIDS.

Nice job cherry-picking a quote to make it say something it isn't trying to say. The article continues:

When most transmission occurs within more regular and, typically, concurrent partnerships, consistent condom use is exceedingly difficult to maintain

In other words, the article isn't saying that "Africans don't use condoms enough"; it's saying that people don't use condoms in the context of stable relationships. It's about people with risky sexual habits being dishonest with their partners. And, in this case, the Pope is right: given this dynamic, condoms aren't gonna bring HIV under control in Africa.

It's amazing how people have made the Pope's statement into something it never said: he was asked about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. He responded that you can't just throw money at the problem, or distribute condoms, and expect the problem (remember -- in Africa) to go away. As you affirm by your quote from the article, the Pope is correct on this count.

Note that he's not saying anything about pores in condoms, or effectiveness in stopping AIDS in a given use, or increased promiscuity: he simply stated a defensible fact: in Africa, the AIDS problem is not going to go away by throwing money at it, or by throwing condoms at Africans. Period.

Any other assertions are trying to put words in the Pope's mouth ... just as you've done.

What's even worse is that Catholic priests have been disseminating information that use of condoms is ineffective against AIDS (the usual bullshit about "viruses being so tiny they can go through the pores", etc, also used by Christian Evangelical camp).

Apples and oranges, and anecdotal ones at that. Even if we were to start a discussion on these allegations, they would have nothing to do with the Pope's statement during his trip to Africa the other year.

Re:Religion

[shutdown -p now]

Note that he's not saying anything about pores in condoms, or effectiveness in stopping AIDS in a given use, or increased promiscuity: he simply stated a defensible fact: in Africa, the AIDS problem is not going to go away by throwing money at it, or by throwing condoms at Africans. Period.

Any other assertions are trying to put words in the Pope's mouth ... just as you've done.

Actually, you're now putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that Pope said anything about pores in condoms etc; just that various Catholic priests have said such things in the past with persistent regularity.

Also, last I checked, the Church never said they were wrong on this, so this is the context in which Pope's statements will be taken - and they were, in this case. The Church has no-one to blame but themselves. Until they actually come out and clearly say, "oh yes, we were wrong about those things". Which Pope didn't, by the way - he pretty much weaseled out by focusing on the different part of the problem, thus avoiding the need to definitely state whether he (and the Church) considers condoms themselves to be good protection against AIDS when they're used, or not. So the FUD spread by Church on the topic in Africa still stands, and it should be treated accordingly.

Of course, the very policy of "no artificial contraceptives whatsoever in any circumstances", which is still part of the official dogma, is at odds with that, so color me unsurprised.

Re:Religion

[Corporate Drone]

Actually, you're now putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that Pope said anything about pores in condoms etc; just that various Catholic priests have said such things in the past with persistent regularity.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. Your response to the assertion that the Pope was right in his statement was (1) cherry picking a quote from the article, (2) bringing up an unrelated assertion about promiscuity, and (3) throwing in a non sequitur about condom porousness.

However, I see that you're talking about the Church's general stance about artificial birth control. You raise an interesting point about historical statements providing context to a given quote. It raises the question, though, of whether anyone can make a comment about anything, if all statements made by persons or groups with whom they're affiliated provide the context for their upcoming statements.

Nonetheless, what you've done is to fail to hear what the Pope said, in a given context, in a response to a distinct, directed question, and instead responded to something else altogether.

To your point about "no artificial contraceptives", that's besides the point: if the NFL comes out against steroid use, and then makes a valid, logical point about a specific incidence of steroid use, you don't judge that comment against their general stance, do you? No, you judge the comment on its own merits. Unfortunately, that approach doesn't apply when the Church or the subject of birth control is in play. Nice.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to church every week doesn't make you Catholic. Based on your reply, I'm infering that you never believed in the tenets of Catholicism, so you really weren't Catholic now, were you. Don't know why you were modded insightful.

Re:Religion

[azav]

The Church tells you that the Bible is the word of the Lord and that word is to be obeyed and is sacred. And Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man has intercourse with another man in the same manner as with a woman, both of them have committed a disgusting perversion. They shall be put to death by stoning."

Church sanctioned death, not death performed by the Church. Guess I was unclear on that one.

Bad decision

[sznupi]

Evens the playing field, makes what they preach much more vulnerable if it's not restricted to small community or closed channel of information.

I love it.

Re:Bad decision

[DesScorp]

Evens the playing field, makes what they preach much more vulnerable if it's not restricted to small community or closed channel of information.

I love it.

That's the silliest thing I've read this week. There are hundreds of millions... if not more... copies of Bibles in the world. There are thousands of churches and parishes. There are televsion and radio networks. You make it sound like they've been trying to hide, to keep what they teach to a small circle. Are you kidding? It's their job to go forth and preach. It's their job to interact with the public. "Closed channel of information"? Do you honestly think some nasty comments at a priest's blog is somehow going to usher in a glorious new era of atheism? Seriously?

Re:Bad decision

[Ethanol-fueled]

Oh, man. The misanthropes on 4chan's /b/ are going to have a lot of fun with it.

Re:Bad decision

[DesScorp]

"you really haven't ever noticed that the thought of religious communities lives almost exclusivity in controlled (not in "Orwellian" meaning of control, ffs, in which you seem to interpret it) environments?"

Show me someone that's advocating a position... on anything... that isn't "controlling" the message. That's what makes it a message. It's a point of view. Doesn't matter if it's coming from a church or club or political party or business. Everyone from the GNU people to the Pope "control" their message.

"Heck, even such overboard things as infiltrating those communities become bearable and easily done."

Again, you're falsely assuming some kind of conspiritorial security system here. Infiltrate? The whole point is to bring people into the church. Why would you need to infiltrate it? Unlike something like Scientology, Catholics are pretty open about their beliefs, practices, and methods. You're seeing conspiracy activity where there is none. Go to any Catholic church, walk up to the priest and tell him "I'm an atheist, and I want to see how and why you do things here". As long as you're not there to be an ass and disrupt the service, he'll invite you right in. He sees it as both a duty and a spiritual opportunity to bring you to mass, not some kind of invasion. So again, why would you think that flaming a priest's blog is going to make much of a difference?

Re:Bad decision

[sznupi]

Since you don't seem to want to get it...

The cute thing is that, contrary to what you claim, the level of oversight will change drastically. Currently not only the message is controlled but also the channels of information; if such loose organisation goes into a medium such open as the internet, they loose the latter. Which might jeopardize the former.

Please, and don't try to insult intelligence of Slashdotters insinuating that I suggested some kind of infiltration-based, secret system in place, I did no such thing; as anyone who can read can tell. It was just pointing out the hypothetical possibility of such thing once the channel is not controlled anymore (and it is controlled, contrary to what you claim; as you gave an example, you'll be kicked out of the church if not behaving "appropriately"...and also when asking uneasy questions, I can assure you that (I live in a country that's formally 90+ % Catholic)) - in such informal, loosely knit place as the net, how do you even know you're dealing with converts? Heard about /b/?

BTW, Catholics are far from open at this point (which admittedly wasn't the case at the beginning) Why there is a need for secret documents? (notably regarding "revelations" of one kind or another; meantime the faithful are allowed to worship them...) Can you show me any reliable research about content of confessions?

Re:Bad decision

[Aurisor]

You chose a pretty poor example. In the english-speaking world, priests originally used latin versions of the bible. A version of the bible that could be read and understood by the common man was viewed as a threat by the religious institutions and *violently* repressed. I believe, and it's reasonable to argue, that the fall of the bible from a carefully-guarded source to something that the entire internet can pick apart contributed to the rise of atheism.

Currently, the *contents* of sermons and services are not available for that same scrutiny. If religious indoctrination and propaganda starts to move online, that is a huge win for skeptics.

Re:Bad decision

[couchslug]

"that the fall of the bible from a carefully-guarded source to something that the entire internet can pick apart contributed to the rise of atheism."

Easy to see why Scientologists want to restrict access to THEIR doctrine...

Re:Bad decision

[sznupi]

Currently, the *contents* of sermons and services are not available for that same scrutiny. If religious indoctrination and propaganda starts to move online, that is a huge win for skeptics.

That's somewhat changing, too...in my country (90+ % Catholic officially) there were cases of, simply put, embarrassing sermons which were recorded. Of course those willing to record sermons and make a big deal out of ridiculous ones aren't very happy to force themselves regularly through mass.

Net, as we pointed out, changes this.

Re:Bad decision

[Anonymous Coward]

How many self thinkers providing smug remarks and enlightenment do you find in a church during mess?
Answer: zero. It's kind of social suicide to stand up and yell, liar! You'd get lynched pretty fast.

The more they chose to preach in public where anyone can hide behind a cloak of invisibility, the more provoked and mocked they'll be. And naturally more people will be manipulated into changing their views... for better or worse? I don't care enough to care about those that can't think for themselves, but I guess majority here would think for the better.

Re:Bad decision

[elocinanna]

What sznupi said in the original post is completely correct, this is a very bad idea for the church. It's not because of any conspiracy, or nasty comments on a priest's blog, but this is going to give them huge exposure.

Every slip-up from a member of clergy that's posted online will be number one on digg immediately. Even if they take it down, a simple screencap will emerge to resurrect the story into immortality. The possibility for PR disaster is huge. Right now the main audience of anything a clergyman says is of course the faithful. The internet will not be so forgiving!

Some priest is going to discover spam (which fits completely with the quote from His Holyness.) Some priest is going to get caught talking dirty to a 4chan prankster posing as a young boy. Someone's going to try using jesus as a password on a priest's blog to write something blasphemous or immoral... You don't need faith to know that one or all of the above are coming!

Re:Bad decision

[Anonymous Coward]

You're veering into a bad position here by bringing "content of confessions" into the discussion. This thread is not talking about things that are (rightfully) kept private between a believer and a priest. We're talking about scriptures and doctrines, the materials that make the religion what it is. Why on earth should someone's potentially life-damaging secrets, told in confidence to a man of the cloth, become public knowledge?

By the way, you should step back and re-read your comments before you click that "submit" button. You're starting to sound irritatingly condescending by using phrases like "The cute thing is that, contrary to what you claim..."

Re:Bad decision

[mdwh2]

Of course religions have long been preaching. But religion has power even when many people haven't read most of the Bible and don't go to church regularly. What they actually say is often filtered by the media, sometimes to their advantage, and sometimes not. It would be useful to see better what they are actually saying.

Do you honestly think some nasty comments at a priest's blog is somehow going to usher in a glorious new era of atheism? Seriously?

No, it's quite clear that reason (who said anything about nasty comments?) rarely works to persuade theists. But equally, what do they think they're going to get out of it?

I also interpreted his statement not just as meaning atheists, but for the religious too. If someone reads the Bible, they can't question it. If a priest preaches, the followers don't have a say. I do think it may be a better thing if, even without any input from atheists, there is more discussion between religious people on an equal level, rather than just a few who tell others what they should believe.

I have no idea if discussions online with atheists ever help persuade theists. But it's not like before atheists ever could rush into churches and start pointing out the flaws.

Re:Bad decision

[obarthelemy]

if you can't see the difference between a bible, a mass, and a blog, I can't help you.

Re:Bad decision

[obarthelemy]

nasty comments probably not... some may want to try irony, in Socrates' sense: pretend you're interested but naive, and lead the guy into deeper discussion, until he realizes by himself what's wrong about his thinking/beliefs.

that approach is both very optimistic, and very arrogant. it requires that you be able to control and orient the conversation in a completely underhanded way, and it requires the natural result of the discussion to be the one you want.

Re:Bad decision

[0xdeadbeef]

> Do you honestly think some nasty comments at a priest's blog is somehow going to usher in a glorious new era of atheism? Seriously?

All the religious people whining about the so-called "new atheist movement" seem to think so. A few prominent atheists publish books at the same time, and suddenly we're on the warpath. What has actually changed is the internet, which isn't controlled by television producers and newspaper editors. Religion has no leverage where people aren't afraid of offending customers or voters.

Re:Bad decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in a blog post someone can ask whatever happened to Arius, his writings, and pretty much the writings of anyone who disagreed with the common line since the 4th century.

Re:Bad decision

[sznupi]

Secrecy of confessions doesn't stem from any basic "truths of faith", seems contradictory to few important ideas in New Testament actually. But since it is the moment when priests have the highest level of influence on the faithful, an act the form of which is accepted for a long time - leaving it to their discretion influences the doctrine hugely (have you ever been to a confession in a place where Catholic priests feel comfortable? Do you realize how big of an impact they are trying it to have?)

Which was actually the "idea" behind it - communities discussing, thinking about their life instead of following the clergy were at odds with ideas of feudalism.

BTW, why do you think I don't want to irk brainwahsed ones?

Re:Bad decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reaction is much the same as my initial reaction: I was like "yeah lets, so all of the world can witness the birth of a new type of contentless blogger". But I'm going to resist the urge to write a "there's bound to be someone intelligent somewhere" type of comment.

The Internet is the most open type of communication medium ever. Open in terms of both the audience (anyone can access it) and the performer (anything can be said -- virtually no exceptions). Just that someone bases his attitude towards life on scripture does not disqualify him/her from having a valuable opinion, what matters more is whether the opinion can be defended without resorting to dogma. And the and more diverse and more direct nature of the Internet makes dogma much less powerful. It's wishful thinking of course, but this could force ecclesiasts to find more rational justifications for their convictions.

So to me, this is not about cannon fodder. At least not automatically. It might become that way anyway, but if it's more of the same then non-followers will get bored with it quickly and won't affect the already-followers.

Then again, this might also be the birth of a new kind of forum troll: the NCAA (neo-christian...)

Re:Bad decision

[sznupi]

It's more easy then you think. When played repeatedly, the only alternative to that "realization" is...shifting towards more extreme views, which already won't fly in many places throughout the world; with their proponents self-containing themselves, effectively.

(actually, from the "failures" on my part, I can see that self-containment is the first thing such "stubborn" people do, without much of an attitude change or external pressure; especially if you aren't hypocritical about making your place a slightly better one to live in, if you really represent "virtues")

Re:Bad decision

[Thinboy00]

Easy to see why Scientologists want to restrict access to THEIR doctrine...

Quite unsuccessfully.

Re:Bad decision

[nomadic]

The cute thing is that, contrary to what you claim, the level of oversight will change drastically. Currently not only the message is controlled but also the channels of information; if such loose organisation goes into a medium such open as the internet, they loose the latter. Which might jeopardize the former.

You're really not making too much sense here, you're sort of speaking in incredibly vague generalities regarding power structures and messages, etc., but it's sort of like the kind of things freshmen come up with in late night dorm room chats after they take that first cultural studies class. Due to the decentralized nature of the Catholic Church, priests already had a pretty extensive freedom to preach what they wanted. How does this change something? Why would Father Bob's blog somehow change things that Father Bob's homily didn't?

Re:Bad decision

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe, and it's reasonable to argue, that the fall of the bible from a carefully-guarded source to something that the entire internet can pick apart contributed to the rise of atheism.

I'm not sure what type of atheism you're referring to here. For the sake of argument, are we talking dictionary-atheism (antitheism) or just non-religious here (agnosticism)?

It doesn't really matter: there are many factors that contribute(d) to the decline of Christianity in western Europe; chronologically, the first English Bible (1000CE), the reformation (rise of protestantism), the inquisition (and backlash), the Renaissance, colonialism (slave trade), and in the 20th century an influx of migrant workers (mostly muslim). Overall, all factors raised the level of awareness of different world views in the general public. That a mono-culture like catholicism loses influence due to such changes is not surprising. So if you intended to argue about agnosticism, you may have a point, but considering that before 1500 (or so?) only scholars were literate, I don't think the existence of an English Bible made much of an impact.

If you're arguing about pure atheism (i.e. the belief that there is no God), then the timeline does not speak in your favor. Most Greek scholars (500BCE) were atheists, and the religion did not reappear in western Europe until after the Renaissance (1800CE), and possibly originated somewhat as a "fashion statement" among intellectuals. During the time of the Inquisition and Reformation, "atheist" was simply a slanderous synonym for a heretic.

So if you want to argue that being able to read the bible increases the chance that someone will turn atheist, please answer first this question: how many self-proclaimed atheists have actually read the Bible?

Re:Bad decision

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't the act of translating that was the problem, much of the bible had already been translated into old English as well as other contemporary languages in full in the past, it was unapproved translations that were the trouble. They had been restricted in the past, not to keep secrets as you are trying to imply, but because people had started putting what they wanted to into them and starting heresy movements instead of faithfully translating from the originals. It was only after this had occured multiple times starting various heresies that translations were restricted in 1199. It is no coicidence that Wyclif and Tyndale had both opposed the Vatican's stance on other matters prior to translating the bible and in fact Tyndale set about making his translation confirm his stances against Catholic teachings, for example translating what was traditionally translated into priest as elder.

There are already countless Vatican documents on the web to scrutinize, and thousands upon thousands of Catholic churches with open doors around the world. This isn't giving any new ammunition to critics.

Re:Bad decision

[Attila Dimedici]

(and it is controlled, contrary to what you claim; as you gave an example, you'll be kicked out of the church if not behaving "appropriately"...and also when asking uneasy questions, I can assure you that (I live in a country that's formally 90+ % Catholic)) - in such informal, loosely knit place as the net, how do you even know you're dealing with converts? Heard about /b/?

BTW, Catholics are far from open at this point (which admittedly wasn't the case at the beginning) Why there is a need for secret documents? (notably regarding "revelations" of one kind or another; meantime the faithful are allowed to worship them...) Can you show me any reliable research about content of confessions?

Yes, you would be kicked out of church if not behaving appropriately, please list one public meeting that you won't get kicked out of if you behave inappropriately.
What "secret documents" are you talking about?
The priest is sworn/obligated to keep what he is told in confession a secret, the lay person is quite free to tell anyone anything s/he wants about what happened/is said in confession, so that really doesn't say anything about "controlling the message".
BTW I am not a Catholic.

Re:Bad decision

[sznupi]

...decentralized nature of the Catholic Church...

You are very wrong right there (which influences how you perceive what I wrote). Catholic Church might be somewhat loose organisation, but is in no way decentralized. I could write why, give obvious examples (ever heard about papal infallibility?)...but I'll just say that I live in such place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Poland , and. apart from usual customs. I was indoctrinated by a "schooling" system for at least an hour a week, and for at least 13 years (excluding holidays). I know it very good from the inside.

There is hardly any ambiguity as to what you should speak in this community. Well, now "how" is starting to include a place where...they don't really have much clout. Where anybody can see with little effort some ridiculous claims on a blog (whereas they wouldn't bother wasting time in case of homily)

Re:Bad decision

[Nazlfrag]

I'm an athiest who reads a Catholic priests blog, listens to their podcast and their nationally syndicated talk show. He's been doing these for years. He even played around in Second Life for a while. Amazingly, he hasn't imploded yet due to spinning out of control.

Sure, the Vatican has an internal library they don't let just anyone into, and they respect the privacy of their parishoners who come to confession. Well good for them. You are imagining a vast conspiracy of secrecy where there is none.

Re:Bad decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The rise of atheism has as much to do with the telephone as it does english bibles or the internet. Once we stopped talking to our neigbours we also stopped congregating at the local parish. Athiesm was rampant while church attendance was high, but there were plenty of reasons to attend church outside the spiritual. We still celebrate Christmas even though we know Santas not real right? Well, that and everyone else does too, if more and more people stop bothering with Christmas there's a high chance I would follow, as I can barely be bothered with it now.

Re:Bad decision

[Shin-LaC]

You're missing two things. One, people who use the internet are already exposed to all sorts of voices and opinions. Using this medium can only increase the strength with which the church's message reaches them, compared to not using it.

Two, you're singling out religion for no reason. Whenever people group around an idea, you will see a tendency to toe the party line. It can be a political party, a philosophy, a sports team, a lifestyle, a music genre, a franchise... Very high profile groups, such as political parties, have always had their own channels (eg newspapers that support their political views), but on the internet, every group can have its own fora, from Linux users to Twilight fans.

Re:Bad decision

[paxswill]

Maybe my church is an outlier, but the sermons are all posted online, and we record every service to CD, so those who missed it can listen later if they want.

Re:Bad decision

[telomerewhythere]

Reminds me of Matthew 10:27: What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.

Or even more interesting, Luke 8:17: For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

I am not defending Christendom, but Jesus (both quotes above from JC) was pretty different than what you see from most 'Christians.'

Re:Bad decision

[sumdumass]

You can look around the internet and see religious blogs all over the place. It isn't like this is some radical new thing here that will corrupt any message. The core of the catholic church is the bible and their "interpretation" of it. It isn't like a priest who goes to school to study this crap is not going to be faithful to the core.

Just like with any other technology, it's probably going to be the younger more adept priests who tackle this chore. Either way, the catholic church is more of a well run organization so I doubt their troubles would be much more then what we already see with corporations and/or charitable organization who are already on the plate.

Priests are not back woods bumpkins with no knowledge of anything outside the church. I think a lot of people, including you seem to be under the wrong impressions here. Especially when you consider the catholic church is an organization that has it's own country, operates on every continent, and has an establishment in almost every country in the world. This move is more akin to Exxon Mobile or Toyota encouraging management to blog.

Re:Bad decision

[pydev]

That's what makes it a message. It's a point of view.

Catholic moral relativism at its best: "it's all just a point of view". But, in fact, messages are not necessarily advocacy. There are many forms of messages that are based on logic, reason, and fact. It just happens to be that the Catholic theological messages are none of those.

Go to any Catholic church, walk up to the priest and tell him "I'm an atheist, and I want to see how and why you do things here". As long as you're not there to be an ass and disrupt the service

In different words, the priest will jump at the opportunity to try his manipulative techniques on you personally, but he'll absolutely refuse to have a rational discussion in front of the congregation.

So again, why would you think that flaming a priest's blog is going to make much of a difference?

No, but with a blog, the priest can't tailor his messages and his lies to the audience. With a blog, we can quote him and show his message for what it is.

Re:Bad decision

[Arthur Grumbine]

You are imagining a vast conspiracy of secrecy where there is none.

To be fair, sznupi is a huge Dan Brown fan.

Re:Bad decision

[ajlisows]

I actually think it can make things worse for them. Here is why I believe this. Not all Catholic Priests have precisely the same beliefs. You have some of the more liberal ones who are willing to amend interpretations of religious texts to align with new scientific evidence that pops up. On the other hand you have the rather closed minded and conservative "Bible is literal, Earth was created in 2000 BC, Evolution is not real, etc."

Obviously these differences will become readily apparent in their blogs. For the most part unique views of unique Priests aren't going to make it into the typical Mass. A typical mass leaves very little time for the priest to express his individual ideas. You have a general outline of what the priest says, what the followers say in return, what prayers are said, when it is time for communion, etc. The only real differences are in the three readings (which of course, eventually repeat themselves as the Bible has finite passages....some much more popular and better in a church setting than others) and finally...the preachers 5 minute homily where he may be able to bring his own unique views into things. The masses I have attended (unfortunately a reasonably high number) have never had the preacher spouting off about how Evolution is Bullshit or anything like that.

A blog changes everything. Suddenly the priest has as much time as he wants to spout off his crazy (or sane) ideas. Eventually people are going to notice the drastic differences between the ideas of Priests. I can't see this leading to anything other than the splintering of the Catholic faith into groups of people who belong to the "Faith in God and Faith in Reality" types and the "Faith in God, to hell with Reality" groups. Those with moderate opinions will be treated suspiciously by both sides. The Church ends up having another Schism which weakens it as a whole.

Re:Bad decision

[eewanco]

Can you elaborate? A Catholic English version of the Bible predates the King James Version (1611), which is pretty much the earliest Protestant bible in use today. It was called the Douay-Rheims bible (1582 New Testament, 1609 Old Testament). A cardinal helped translate it, which should dispel notions that it was done in secret outside the good graces of the Church. Later (1750) a related version, the Challoner (now typically known as the Douay-Rheims or Douay-Rheims-Challoner version) was published by a bishop (Richard Challoner) and is still popular today.

It was certainly true that for a long time Latin was preferred, if not exclusively used before the Douay-Rheims, but keep in mind that for much of the history of the West, anyone who was literate read and wrote Latin, so that even scientific works were composed in Latin. So having only Latin bibles wasn't that big a problem as anyone who could read, could read them. It was the English of the world.

You say, "If religious indoctrination and propaganda starts to move online, that is a huge win for skeptics." I think you're off by at least 20 years. Religious "indoctrination and propaganda" has been around the Internet since long before the web existed. I know, I was one who "indoctrinated" and "propagandized". We have nothing to fear from the light of truth, since the Author of Truth is the One we proclaim. Swords cut both ways.

Re:Bad decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonesense. There were over dozen English translations of the Bible before the advent of the printing press and the Church has only discouraged the reading of unauthorized translations. A literate population has been the limiting factor (along with publishing technology) in putting the Bible into the hands of the people.

This notion of the Church suppressing the Bible is a common myth projected onto it. The role of the Church is to interpret the Scripture and to maintain unity of the faith. That she pronounced judgments against some faulty translations (such as Wycliff) doesn't mean that all reading of the Bible is suspect or prohibited.

Re:Bad decision

[rac44]

While religion has never occupied as much bandwidth on the internet as, say, saucy photos (what topic does?), it's been here for a long time. The newsgroups system of the 1980s ("Usenet", "alt.", etc.) included several forums on religion: Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and atheistic. At the time, the TCP/IP-based net hadn't been implemented much, and the average internet link may have consisted of two tin cans connected by a string, but those newsgroups circulated to most systems participating in the internet. Google's partial archive of just one newsgroup, "soc.religion.christian", has 41,000 discussion threads. So, if you're under the impression that religious dialogue on the net happens within a "small community or closed channel", you're living a bit of a sheltered life.

Re:Bad decision

[elocinanna]

I mean not to make any generalisations. I'm sure there are plenty of very computer-literate priests. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that some priests even contribute to development of open source projects etc. Also I know catholic clergymen have had a reputation of being true polymaths.

That said, I'm not generalising, and there are going to be some that aren't going to be too tech-savvy. The church-bloggers currently are the ones who have by their own initiative chosen to blog. The pope is encouraging all priests to use technology, and not all priests will, but it's very likely that some will go on and try it out, and over time someone will make a mistake. I believe this will be a very high profile mistake due to the nature of the medium.

I doubt this will convert anyone to atheism, but people in general are prone to making generalisations and it will hurt credibility. The difference between Toyota and the Catholic Church is that if you were to look at it as a business, the church sells faith. Credibility is pretty important to all business, but if your product is faith it's absolutely essential.

Re:Bad decision

[sumdumass]

The roman Catholic church has more mid level management in one country then Toyota probably does world wide. I forget the structure but in a large city, you can have two or three people that oversee the churches in those cities before getting to someone that oversees more then the city (like the state or territory or whatever).

While I'm sure that someone might screw something up at some point in time, I do not see it as a problem seeing how they are all managed. It's more like a corporation in that rules will be in place, warnings about what not to do (like a password of "God" or "Jesus" or "Mary" or something). The tech savy people will already probably be doing this stuff, those who aren't, will most likely look for instruction or direction from higher up the chain. I'm confident that policies and access and all that will be taken care of for these people. It's just how organized the catholic church is.

As for selling faith verses a product, I see your point but I don't see it as a problem. The issues will be so far and in between that when they are pointed out and ridiculed, it will appear much like elitists evangelical atheist bashing once again and most no one will pay attention except for those already of the belief. Let me demonstrate what I mean here. Most atheist move into a conversation about religion with, isn't it more logical or probable that this happened or that this doesn't exist seeing how there is no proof. Then as soon as someone mentions the bible or some personal experience or something else that probably could be explained away relatively easily, the atheist jumps to attempts at insulting the person by calling them ignorant, stupid, or referring to their deity as fairy-tales and so on. That never hurts anyone's beliefs as it's just seen as the wicked attempting to corrupt- something already foretold in the bible and church teachings. The problems if any, will be totally ignored as soon as it becomes ridiculed by anyone with any faith. in fact, it might even increase people's faith who are borderline because of how childish it seems. Putting people down because they didn't something stupid is so third grade and bullyish that people end up rooting for the little guy to punch the bully out. SO in the end, it will only end up being cheerleaders rooting for the home team with outsiders ignoring it and the visiting team rallying behind their players. It's not going to be a wide spread problem and most likely not a problem at all.

Just be careful

[Tony]

I hope he warns them about FBI posing as 13-year-old choirboys.

Re:Just be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

"And on this day the lord did provide unto me an entire box of candy bars,,,, Chiorboy69 are you here"

"Hi I'm Chris Hanson from Dateline NBC!"

The ratings for that show would be out the roof.....

Re:Just be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope he warns them about FBI posing as 13-year-old choirboys.

They should know better than to surf sites like hornypriests.gov

Re:Just be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope he warns them about FBI posing as 13-year-old choirboys.

Are you kidding? I hope he doesn't warn them. Let the sick freaks get busted!

(The captcha for this was "conjugal." LOL!)

Re:Just be careful

[couchslug]

"I hope he warns them about FBI posing as 13-year-old choirboys."

With current priestly pedo payoffs worldwide at roughly a (B)illion dollars (hundred of millions in the US alone) he would be wise to do so.

Re:Just be careful

[The FBI]

I hope he warns them about FBI posing as 13-year-old choirboys.

Hello, there, Tony AKA "Padre" Antonio di Montesilvano @ christianteenforums.com

Re:Just be careful

[AliasMarlowe]

I hope he warns them about FBI posing as 13-year-old choirboys.

No need, and no point. Some priests might be dumb enough to post videos featuring their 13-year-old altarboys performing biblical acts. "But your honor, we were just re-enacting the parable of Sodom and Gomorrah, as it is told in the Book of Genesis..."

Hmm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I thought that there had been an effort to keep sex offenders away from social networking technology...

Re:Hmm...

[sopssa]

I could be wrong, but I come to slashdot thinking I will not be sexually abused. Maybe it's different now a days, /. having girls and all.

Re:Hmm...

[Chris Mattern]

I could be wrong, but I come to slashdot thinking I will not be sexually abused. Maybe it's different now a days, /. having girls and all.

You can get sexually abused by a girl on slashdot now? Why don't people *tell* me these things?

Re:Hmm...

[el3mentary]

Because its a lie, there are no girls on t3h interwebz.

Re:Hmm...

[couchslug]

Roughly a BILLION dollars in pedo payoffs worldwide make that post a candidate for Funny, not Flamebait.

From rescuing Nazis (not to mention largely ignoring the Holocaust, if THAT wasn't worthy of excommunication what is?) in Operation Ratline after WWII to playing hide-the-pedo across international borders, the Vatican has forfeited any respect except by its own brainwashed flock.

Enjoy!

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

Justice, courtesy of another inmate:
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/geoghan/

Some fangirl support:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/23/coakley_details_her_role_in_1995_probation_deal_for_geoghan/?page=3

The Pope is right

[CrazyJim1]

The Internet is a great place to let people know God is real. Before people had to travel to meet people. The Internet is less disturbing than a face to face meeting.

Re:The Pope is right

[sunderland56]

The Internet is a great place to let people know God is real.

True. Before the Internet, how many people had even heard of the one true supreme being?

Re:The Pope is right

[DesScorp]

The Internet is a great place to let people know God is real. Before people had to travel to meet people. The Internet is less disturbing than a face to face meeting.

Ultimately, it's just another line of communication. It's important, but getting priests to blog is not exactly a revolutionary idea. Some are doing it already, and have been for years.

Re:The Pope is right

[MightyMartian]

The Internet is a great place to let people know God is real. Before people had to travel to meet people. The Internet is less disturbing than a face to face meeting.

What does God need with a LAMP server?

Re:The Pope is right

[sznupi]

If preaching ended up being a disturbing experience, the preachers should had noticed something right at this point...

Re:The Pope is right

[knarf]

The Internet is a great place to let people know God is real.

Nah, any god worth a capitalised name does not need something as primitive as the internet. They just, you know, appeae out of nothing in burning bushes or goat entrails or burned toast. Internet is for wannabe-gods.

Re:The Pope is right

[maxwell demon]

After all, his first words were: "Let there be light." And a lamp is a light-making device.

Re:The Pope is right

[Aurisor]

I totally agree! One minor point, though. You misspelled 'Zeus.' From looking at my keyboard, though, it's quite easy to see how those d's and g's got in there.

Re:The Pope is right

[Anonymous Coward]

My huge cock in your ass is real. Well, now you know. The Internet: it changes the radius of your anus.

Re:The Pope is right

[CrazyJim1]

LOL. I did a drive by posting and I knew someone would say this! Thats why I came back.

When I say disturbing, I mean: If I knock at your door, you have to drop what you're doing and answer it and give me attention. This is a disturbance to your life. If I call you on your phone, you have to answer it and then likely you'll respond to me as a telemarketer which is an unhappy disturbance. That is what I mean by disturbance.

I use the Internet as much as I can to get the word out. God is good and he is real, so be good yourself and love everyone even if they are evil to you. I send out bulk email typically known as spam. I frequent message boards with Slashdot being my favorite. I talk to anyone who wants to talk. I also have a website at www.fatherspiritson.com

I like science boards because there is a mistake in knowing Christianity by some scientists and a mistake in knowing science by some Christians. The mistake is: Some people think Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive, but they can both exist. Creationism is how things started, Evolution is how things change. There is no scriptural problems if you look at a day for God being any length of time which is in scripture a few places.

My email is James_Sager_PA@yahoo.com if anyone wants to talk.

Re:The Pope is right

[Anonymous Coward]

surrogates mentality - dangerous!

Re:The Pope is right

[pete-classic]

Disturbing? To the contrary! I've been trying to corroborate stories of these "gods" most of my life. A face-to-face meeting would be a most welcome way to finally establish the existence of one or more of them! Could you make an introduction?

Thanks,
Peter

Re:The Pope is right

[Maestro485]

I was thinking the same thing. Although I was raised Catholic and received the relevant sacraments, I'm not religious and haven't even stepped foot in a church for a number of years. I've considered checking it out again for no real reason, but it feels awkward to me to just show up on Sunday (and I'm not that committed to the idea anyway).

If I were able to sort of "check it out" by reading the priest's blog or whatever, it would make my decision to show up and participate much easier. Either I'll decide that it's just not my thing, or my somewhat renewed interest leads me to actually go.

Seems like a good idea to me. And why stop at just Catholicism? There are at least 5 different churches of varying denominations within a few miles of my house and I don't really know the differences between them. I could hit up a few of the sites and see what they're all about. If nothing else, at least I'll learn something. (And to be honest, they might have a web presence right now and I never thought about it. Time for some googling...)

Re:The Pope is right

[sumdumass]

What makes you think any god needs this? It sounds more like the church (roman catholic church to be more exact) which in no way tells god what to do, is going to need it.

A lot of people seem to confuse what men do in the name of god with what god wants man to do. In order to believe that, you would have to believe that some of the horrors that come from the churches over the years was justified. Simply not believing in a god would not erase that. But knowing that men (who have free will) do things for their own justifications and sometimes they are deranged enough to believe some god wanted it that way or they at least pretend to make the claim.

This has nothing to do with what god wants or needs outside of an ancillary connection to the men doing it as well as the message they are attempting to give.

Re:The Pope is right

[ajlisows]

I really have no right to judge you or your ideas on your own faith....but if you've received the relevant sacraments you probably should have a pretty good idea if it is your "thing" or not. You must know at least the foundation of beliefs. Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, Moses and the 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule, Christ Dying for our Sins, that sort of thing. Do you believe in these things? If you aren't sure, I find it unlikely that monotonous Catholic masses are suddenly going to make you have faith in them.

I think if you have prior knowledge of the basic tenets of Catholicism...you are probably better off sitting down and giving yourself some time to think (or feel) your way through them than you are just starting to go to church or reading a Priest's blog.

Re:The Pope is right

[Jedi Alec]

Disturbing? To the contrary! I've been trying to corroborate stories of these "gods" most of my life. A face-to-face meeting would be a most welcome way to finally establish the existence of one or more of them! Could you make an introduction?

Thanks,
Peter

In your particular case that might be a bad idea, unless you're really fond of heavy lifting. See also Matthew 16:18 ;-)

Re:The Pope is right

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is a great place to let people know God is real.

True. Before the Internet, how many people had even heard of the one true supreme being?

The internet is a fantastic place to demonstrate that Jesus never existed and that hell and paradise are immaginary places.
Most religious psicotics are Blaise Pascal thinking folks. The world would be so much better without various religious bibles advocating antisemitism, homosexuality hate, woman degradation, and the "world is flat" and other absurd theories and beliefs.

Let's start here:
hell is make believe. If you take a look into the gospels you'll find "The Valley of Gehenna"
Read up folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna
Its a phisical location near Jeruselemme in which "bad people's" bodies were thrown into (Jeruselemme's burning garbage dump). This place was instrumentalized during midevil era for the fabrication of the immaginary place they now call hell.

Have a beautiful day,
dr. who

Re:The Pope is right

[Thundarr Trollgrim]

Perhaps they could share details of local choirboys that will 'put out'.

Re:The Pope is right

[hierofalcon]

Don't bother reading a Catholic priest's blog or a Protestant pastor's blog to decide where you should go. If you do that, you will only be attending a place that sounds like it would be good in your opinion based on hopefully carefully chosen words they choose to post.

Pray. Ask God Himself where he wants you to go and then go. He has a place for you and a plan for your life. You might not be comfortable where He directs you at first, but He has a purpose for you there. Perhaps you'll find your dormant faith awakened and refreshed by the changes that have gone on in the Catholic church since you last attended. Maybe you'll meet a great Christian friend that you would never have considered before if you select a Protestant denomination - and that's just offered as a counterpoint and not to say you might not find a great friend at a Catholic church as well. Perhaps you will help to build a bridge between belief systems that strengthens His church in your local community of churches.

Find your place of ministry and start participating. There is more that is in common between Christian churches (both Catholic and Protestant) than there is that is different. Both sides have emphasized that which sets us apart for far too long. The lack of identity of His church in today's culture is huge. Instead there are tens or hundreds of churches and denominations in many cities of any size. It is one of Satan's greatest triumphs and greatest weapons against those who would seek to find Christianity. The old worry of "Which is the right one?" and "What if I make a wrong choice?" It is time to emphasize what binds us together in these last days. Step up and get involved.

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Re:The Pope is right

[Joey Vegetables]

Oh, I don't know . . umm . . maybe anyone with a toddler?

Re:The Pope is right

[pete-classic]

Uh, I think you have the wrong Peter. People don't even have me hold their spare keys, no one would build a church on me. And that which I loose on Earth surely wouldn't go over in Heaven.

-Peter

Re:The Pope is right

[Reziac]

"The Internet is less disturbing than a face to face meeting."

Considering some of the people I've met on the internet, I daresay you're correct. ;)

Re:The Pope is right

[Anonymous Coward]

And why stop at just Catholicism?

Hey, why stop at Christianity, if you've got the whole internet at your fingertips you can check out all the other religions that are around.

He also cautioned against file sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

He also stated concern for the rampant sharing of unauthorized scripture on file sharing networks and torrent sites that was having a noticeable effect on publishers and that faithful catholics should not share their bibles with friends and neighbors. He also stated that public performances of the stations of the cross and masses without the expressed written permission of the copyright holders was expressly forbidden.

sweet virtual confession

[atarione]

virtual confession app

want to be forgiven for your sins

there's an app for that

Re:sweet virtual confession

[DesScorp]

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

Re:sweet virtual confession

[sznupi]

It is believed that if somebody can't obtain confession, but will express sorrow and wish to confess mortal sins, they should be "saved".

Re:sweet virtual confession

[mdwh2]

Well, the phone was invented over 100 years before the Almighty Iphone came and revolutionised the world, so I presume they've already had time to think things through.

Re:sweet virtual confession

[Anonymous Coward]

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

A black shirt, a piece of cardboard and a script aren't that hard to come by.

Re:sweet virtual confession

[Petrushka]

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.

Re:sweet virtual confession

[Petrushka]

Clarification: that doesn't stop lots of places putting audio/video recordings of masses, etc., online, of course; apparently it's a popular thing for people to join in the prayers online. It's just the sacraments themselves that have to be in person.

Re:sweet virtual confession

[IICV]

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.

I love that. Our most sacred rules apply always, except when it's inconvenient or bad PR to enforce them.

Re:sweet virtual confession

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, they probably don't call it the Jesus Phone for nothing. It has to be different.

-mobby_6kl

Re:sweet virtual confession

[Anonymous Coward]

What gets me is why Catholics have to confess through a priest at all, surely you should be asking God himself for forgiveness instead.

Well I do know why, it is (or at least was) about poer and control, the same reason why services and the Bible used to always be in Latin, the Church used it as a way to control the common people. These days, I think it is just tradition more than anything.

God is real?

[argent]

God is transcendental. The real number line can not contain Him.

Re:God is real?

[DesScorp]

Heh, this should be modded funny, but some people will go "Eh?"

Re:God is real?

[DJRumpy]

"God is transcendental. The real number line can not contain Him."

Apparently Comcast can however. Go over your cap, and he's history...

Re:God is real?

[maxwell demon]

The real numbers contain the transcendental numbers. However, everything transcendental is irrational.

Re:God is real?

[JohnFluxx]

Huh? Transcendental numbers can be real. In fact, almost all real numbers are transcendental. It just means that it can't be a solution of a polynomial (e.g. PI can't be written as the solution to 0 = ax^1 + bx^2 + cx^3 ... )

Re:God is real?

[JohnFluxx]

Indeed, I'm going "eh" because almost all real numbers are transcendental.

Re:God is real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, this should be modded funny, but some people will go "Eh?"

And mathematicians will go "But that's not what transcendental mean..."

Re:God is real?

[Nazlfrag]

God actually lies halfway between 0.999... and 1.

Re:God is real?

[DanielHast]

That would have been a great joke if it worked. Unfortunately, transcendental numbers are on the real line.

Re:God is real?

[argent]

Obviously my sense of humor is imaginary.

Explode?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does no one think this is going to explode? Now the whole internet can play the statements of priest A against those of priest B, and those of priest C at t_0 against those of priest C at t_1, and so on.

Off-by-one error

[Old Man Kensey]

You guys mean Pope Benedict XVI, right?

Re:Off-by-one error

[fucket]

Is the Space Pope reptilian?

Re:Off-by-one error

[peslick]

No, they did mean Pope Benedict XV. He was a very progressive pope. He was one of the earliest advocates of blogging - the early 20th century in fact.

Re:Off-by-one error

[Balibaloodestroyme]

It really is Benedict XV, aka The Dancing Zombi Pope, or the Pope of the Living Dead, or the Pope From Outer Space.

Once again - copycats

[Anonymous Coward]

This is another 'idea' stolen from another religion (namely the Church of FSM, which spreads its message primarily through the tubes)...
-RAmen

Version Up

[WED Fan]

I'm waiting for Pope Benedict XVII, a.k.a. Pope Benedict Forever. They've been talking about it since the 16th century. But, they better watch out, I've heard they might go the Catholic Wars Galaxies route.

It's a miracle!

[ProfessorDoom]

The poster is missing the real miracle here. Pope Benedict XV died in 1922.

As in:Thou shalt not...foot yourself in the shoot?

[D4C5CE]

Or wait a minute, probably he didn't mean that kind of Forth: http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~comp03a/misc/humour/shootfoot.html

Cant wait for priest to go on /b/...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cant wait for priest to go on /b/, a lot of weirdo could use some help there...
Wait, i think it might be preists that keep asking for CP.

Re:Cant wait for priest to go on /b/...

[el3mentary]

Silly AC, who do you think makes up most of Anon, after all who stands to lose the most from CoS.

Re:Cant wait for priest to go on /b/...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh crap - /b/ has sprunk a leak and it has trickled into /. nerdfags ahoy!

Oh, God, Not Again!

[__aaclcg7560]

If the Pope was serious about using new communication technology, he should make the entire Vatican Secret Archives searchable on the Internet.

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[DesScorp]

If the Pope was serious about using new communication technology, he should make the entire Vatican Secret Archives searchable on the Internet.

That's not a bad idea, but people need to realize that "Secret" doesn't mean what they think it does in this case. From the same Wikipedia link:

"The word "secret" in the title "Vatican Secret Archives" does not have the modern meaning: it indicates instead that the archives are the Pope's own, not those of a department of the Roman Curia. The word "secret" was used in this sense also in phrases such as "secret servants", "secret cupbearer", "secret carver""

The article also notes that the archive has been open to scholars since 1881, and about a thousand a year access it for study. So let's nip any DaVinci Code-ish conspiracy theories about the archive in the bud here.

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[sznupi]

Though what you say doesn't change the fact that many really interesting documents are kept secret in "proper" meaning of the word.

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[lawpoop]

The article also notes that the archive has been open to scholars since 1881, and about a thousand a year access it for study. So let's nip any DaVinci Code-ish conspiracy theories about the archive in the bud here.

That's fine, but the wikipedia page says that "[t]here is no generic browsing, and researchers must ask for the precise document they wish to see, identifying it either by consulting the indices or from some other source."

So if you want to find outwhat the Vatican knows about, say, UFOs, Bigfoot, and Nessie, and none of the documents in the secret archive are referenced in the indices or any outside material, you are SOL.

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this?

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most research libraries and archives won't let you browse through the stacks. You browse through a catalog and ask for what you want, they bring it to you, you work on it and then give it back.

Well, unless you're that Ohio State art professor who was removing priceless drawings from the holdings of the world's great libraries. He didn't give _all_ the stuff back, which is the sort of thing that happens every once in a while. Some archivists therefore tend to give researchers the hairy eyeball and get snotty about giving them pencils.

The advantage of "closed stacks" is not just security, but less space needing to be wasted on broad aisles or always-on lights. The old Vatican Library stacks were so stuffed they were a fire hazard, and probably still are, by all accounts. You could also get lost very easily, since the building layouts were not designed to be a library annex.

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[introspekt.i]

How do you know about them, then?

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[pydev]

That's not a bad idea, but people need to realize that "Secret" doesn't mean what they think it does in this case.

Although the usage has a somewhat different origin in this case, for practical purposes the Vatican archives are "secret" in the modern sense of the word as well.

The article also notes that the archive has been open to scholars since 1881, and about a thousand a year access it for study.

There is an enormous amount of material, no index, and any inconvenient material can simply be claimed not to exist. Until the archives have been cataloged, indexed, and digitized, and until those steps have been verified by independent sources without a Catholic political agenda, the archives have to be presumed to exist mainly to serve the propaganda needs of the Catholic church.

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[Anonymous Coward]

The word 'secret' in these terms is related to the word 'secretary' - it means they are private, that's all.

John Thayer Jensen "Anonymous Coward Who Can't Be Bothered Creating An Account"

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[RadioElectric]

"consulting the indices"

Looks to me like they just don't want the documents ruined by loads of people browsing through them aimlessly.

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[lawpoop]

Yes, but having a closed library also intersect nicely with more nefarious interests:

Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse:
" The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

"The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

"The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.' "Texan lawyer Daniel Shea ... said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.' "

I understand the value of not having old works destroyed by centuries of even careful use. I also see some value in a researcher or lawyer saying "I'd like to see any and all documents you have relating to an instance of child abuse that happened in 1962 in Madison Wisconsin at Saint Mary's of the Springs involving..." without having to know the names of specific documents. Or should researchers consult the index titled "Child abuse documents"?

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[AthanasiusKircher]

There is an enormous amount of material, no index, and any inconvenient material can simply be claimed not to exist.

Yes, like a whole bunch of European archives. You sound like someone who has never done significant archival research. There are hundreds and probably thousands of archives spread around Europe that have a large amount of material (often not as large as the Vatican's but too large for one scholar or even a team to go through it in a short amount of time), no catalogue (sometimes only a catalogue prepared a century or even centuries ago, or in smaller archives, often only the knowledge of the main archivist), and most of these archives are run by finicky archivists with a God-complex when it comes to dealing with the materials in their collection. If you're a foreigner, many things "don't exist" or "were lost in the war." Or if you're too inquisitive, too annoying, not committed enough, too famous, not famous enough, or the archivist simply doesn't like you, things "don't exist." Or perhaps they're "too fragile," or they don't accept your credentials, or "those things never come out of the vault."

If you're very nice and polite, show up every day, don't make a fuss or ask to see anything too outrageous at the beginning, and particularly if you make a friend with some junior member of the staff... then, maybe one day someone will show you the interesting stuff.

Really -- while there's lots of great stuff in the Vatican, and probably quite a bit that few people know about, the same could be said of many such archives in Europe.

Until the archives have been cataloged, indexed, and digitized, and until those steps have been verified by independent sources without a Catholic political agenda, the archives have to be presumed to exist mainly to serve the propaganda needs of the Catholic church.

Are you serious?? No European archive will submit to that sort thing! Well, maybe a few of the smaller ones who don't actually have anything interesting and are sure of it, or they have some crazy archivist who understands and believes in modern free information ideals. Many European archives, even major ones, still don't have internet access or allow computers or have other random restrictions on technology.

Not to mention that your tin-foil hat is showing. If the Catholic church were hiding a bunch of documents that they didn't want people to get access to, well... they could just destroy them. Why not? If they're really as corrupt as you seem to think, there are simpler solutions than having a place called the "Secret Archives" where nuts like yourself can dream about what's in there... and where some errant scholar could accidentally request something, or some archivist could dig something out that wasn't classified correctly as "secret" or whatever.

Are there some things there that could potentially be embarrassing to the Catholic Church? Sure. Like any documents owned by any organization or even any individual person. If they are that dangerous, they are probably destroyed, and if they're simply embarrassing, who cares?

If there is anything being hidden, it's probably much less interesting than what you might imagine. That's generally the case in any conspiracy theory.

Re:Oh, God, Not Again!

[pydev]

If they're really as corrupt as you seem to think, there are simpler solutions than having a place called the "Secret Archives" where nuts like yourself can dream about what's in there...

I'm not "dreaming" about anything. If you think that I expect any smoking guns from the Vatican archives, you're mistaken. I mean, how much worse than the well-documented historical record of crimes and corruption could it possibly get?

No, a complete disclosure of the Vatican archives would simply help with getting an objective assessment of the evolution of the theology and philosophy of the Catholic church.

No European archive will submit to that sort thing!

No European archive has the kind of despicable history that the Vatican has. And no European archive claims that it represents the one true religion or that it is the ultimate arbiter in moral questions.

The Vatican owes the world a complete disclosure of all of its archives, including, but not limited to, its "Secret Archives".

SOAP

[symes]

He gave a sermon on iptables in linux and simple object access protocols. It was call "Pope on a SOAP on a ROPE"... I'll get my coat

This could be alot of fun, unless your Irish.

[3seas]

Irelands Blasphemy law will extend to the internet if given a chance.

I recently started a blog Abstract Beliefs that some may find interesting.

Wanna know where god came from? How about what should be obvious contradictions in religion that require as much effort to apply suspension of disbelief as what you use when you see a fictional movie?

To have religious leaders communicating in the openness of the internet, can be a very good thing, so long as they don't censor what they might oppose (The catholic church exonerated Galileo in the early 1990's - lots of good it did him).

Its time to properly address the issues and errors of our philosophies..... Imagine open source religion.

Re:This could be alot of fun, unless your Irish.

[Anonymous Coward]

Irelands Blasphemy law will extend to the internet if given a chance.

I recently started a blog Abstract Beliefs that some may find interesting.

Wanna know where god came from? How about what should be obvious contradictions in religion that require as much effort to apply suspension of disbelief as what you use when you see a fictional movie?

To have religious leaders communicating in the openness of the internet, can be a very good thing, so long as they don't censor what they might oppose (The catholic church exonerated Galileo in the early 1990's - lots of good it did him).

Its time to properly address the issues and errors of our philosophies..... Imagine open source religion.

There is open source religion, its called a bunch of arrogant atheists, grouped together on electronic machines spewing their hatred for something they don't care about, just wanting to destroy it for their own selfish pleasure.

Re:This could be alot of fun, unless your Irish.

[0xdeadbeef]

> There is open source religion, its called a bunch of arrogant atheists, grouped together on electronic machines spewing their hatred for something they don't care about, just wanting to destroy it for their own selfish pleasure.

The idea that doing something for the greater good should feel like a sacrifice is a particularly stupid religious delusion.

Re:This could be alot of fun, unless your Irish.

[mdwh2]

Yeah, those hateful arrogant atheists! Just look at what they get up to!: http://www.cianboland.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/militancy.jpg

Re:This could be alot of fun, unless your Irish.

[jc42]

Its time to properly address the issues and errors of our philosophies..... Imagine open source religion.

It's far too late for that; all the world's religions have been "open source" for centuries. It's true that as recently as 7 or 8 centuries back, the religious leaders did team up with the political leaders to introduce this new "copyright" concept, whose purpose was to limit the copying (by scribes mostly) of religious texts to a small number of carefully-controlled publishing houses. But then some interfering tech geeks developed printing presses, and pretty soon it was out of control.

Some of the first printed texts (and the topic of the first copyright trials and executions) were the major religious texts of the day. This eventually led to near-universal literacy in several parts of the world, and the leaders found it impossible to keep cheap copies of their religious texts out of the hands of people who could read the scriptures themselves. Life has been tough for the religious leaders ever since then, as the local monopolies over religious thought were lost.

Fact is, printed copies of all the world's religious texts have been widely available for going on half a millennium now. As with open-source software, it has led to both widespread forking of the religions and widespread understanding of how religions work. Or, more often, how they fail to work. (Just ask a few Catholics about their ban on priestly sex.) Nowadays, you can rapidly download most of the holy texts for free from somewhere on the Internet. And it's not hard to find online discussions of many of them. If not, you can easily start your own discussion (or religion).

Of course, most religious organizations probably haven't profited from this open publication. The story with software isn't quite as clear yet.

Re:This could be alot of fun, unless your Irish.

[Hairy1]

There is open source religion, its called a bunch of arrogant atheists, grouped together on electronic machines spewing their hatred for something they don't care about, just wanting to destroy it for their own selfish pleasure.

Hang on a tick while I hang my broom up and take the cauldron off the boil...

By "spewing hatred" you mean what exactly? Seems to me the simple statement that there is no god is a statement of hate; that the mere disagreement with religious opinion is a crime. That's the point of the Irish situation; that simple disagreement with religion is considered a criminal offence.

The "militant" atheists do no more than talk. They don't fly planes into buildings, stone people to death, throw acid into the faces of young ladies, vandalise churches (that is reserved for the religious it appears), flay the skin off living people or any of the other atrocities performed against people who dare disagree with the predominant religion.

If you accuse me of hating a entity capable of such hideous crimes as genocide; killing men women and children without mercy and destroying the life on an entire planet, then yeah I guess I'm guilty as charged.

You may believe as you wish, no matter how repugnant and repulsive the tyrant you worship. I won't stop or harm you. Unlike your religious brethren who are prepared to kill others for their beliefs.

Re:This could be alot of fun, unless your Irish.

[3seas]

It's far too late for that; all the world's religions have been "open source" for centuries.

Perhaps you are right! Ultimately seek and you will find.
And who's looking on the internet that wouldn't look elsewhere?

What I was thinking was that the internet does provide a world wide (more or less) collaboration system where the people of the world have the opportunity to develop a cross platform philosophy where there is effort towards integrity of the one god or common consciousness ...etc..

By calling it philosophy rather than religion (its really the same) might reduce friction.

And how might such a project come to be?

I think the more active various religions become on the internet the more likely it is for the general internet population to summarize what all they come across and into a single common picture, or philosophy.

Re:This could be alot of fun, unless your Irish.

[jc42]

What I was thinking was that the internet does provide a world wide (more or less) collaboration system where the people of the world have the opportunity to develop a cross platform philosophy where there is effort towards integrity of the one god or common consciousness ...etc..

Well, good luck with that! History says that the opposite is more likely.

Consider that here in New England, the Unitarian Church came into existence as one of the factions in the breakup of the Puritan Church. Now, most people who hear this are baffled. How could the ultra-liberal Unitarian Church have formed from the Puritans? It's actually easy to explain.

The Puritans were anti-clerical. Part of their doctrine was that every man was supposed to read the Bible for himself. (We don't much know what women were supposed to do, other than obey their husbands. ;-) The idea was that everyone who read the bible would come to the same ultra-authoritarian conclusions as the Puritan founders did. What actually happened was that everyone who read the Bible came to very different conclusions about what God was telling them. Eventually, this resulted in a total fracturing of Puritan society, as the various factions formed their own congregations based on their own beliefs.

An interesting part of this is that in much of New England, the main church in the town center is a Unitarian-Universalist church, and is usually labelled the "First Parish Church in <town>". When the parish was created, it was a Puritan church, of course, but the Unitarians were usually the richest and most powerful in the congregation, so they won the battle for control of the church. In most other cases, it was the Congregationalists who won the church, and of course they're now the second most liberal split-off from the Puritan Church.

There's a serious problem with expecting any sort of agreement on religious issues. Religion is based on "faith", i.e., acceptance of ideas without critical thinking or (more importantly) testing of their validity. This means that beliefs are based on what are essentially random decisions on what to pay attention to and how to interpret ambiguous wording. It's not possible for different people reading a large, dense text in a foreign language or a distant dialect of their own language to come to the same conclusions about the meaning of that text. When you have discussions, most people will also pick up pieces of what different authority figures say, and make their own (mis)interpretations of that as their beliefs.

So in areas of faith, reading the texts and having open discussions can't lead to any sort of general agreement. It always leads to the factionalism that we see in all religions not dominated by a very small group of authority figures (often just one person). A powerful central authority can impose faith in common beliefs; a distributed, open and free discussion never can. For that to happen requires the rejection of "faith", and instead depending on observation and reasoning. That's not religion at all; it's called science. The religious folks will never accept it (though they may accept some of the benefits it brings to society.)

Re:This could be alot of fun, unless your Irish.

[3seas]

You have pointed out issues that need to be addressed.

The merging of religions will happen, none the less.

So many argued against open source software, even today it goes on, but less and less as teh arguements are all failing.

There is that which is consistent between the religions in basic day to day living, so there is already a base of agreement.
Where disagreement come in is in the use of higher level abstraction, analogies and metaphors.

What will drive this merging is population growth. And this is happening faster and faster, as we have doubled teh population since about 1971.

Population growth forces mankind to deal with human need issues, to resolve them.

I've identified where god came from, and no religion will go against it, as a house fighting against its foundation will fall, expose itself for its deceptions. And even our science more so support this origin than not.

I mentioned a blog I have "Abstract beliefs" in my first post in this thread.

The more we know about how things really are, the more control we have over what can be.
There is also a matter of exposing the tool of abstraction for what it is, good and bad, so that we can easily see its bad use and stop its effect.
If you can't hide the truth, by lying, then lying has no value.

Galileo was exonerated because the church could no longer uphold their lie against him. Nobody was believing the lie anymore.

The internet allows open discussion and communication as is here.

Of course there is mans most powerful tool, that of denial. But here on the internet one can be exposed to others, for their denial.

Science doesn't know everything and religions not all on the same page and when it gets down to what really is, errors in both get exposed.

LAMP/.NET

[starglider29a]

"Thy word is a LAMP unto my feet, and a light unto my path."

Who knew that verse would end up being so literal. OTOH, "the kingdom of heaven is like a net" -- Matt 13:47. Whether an 'internet' or .NET is not clear in the Greek.

I realize that posting Bible verses on /. is like unto casting PERLs before swine.

The pedophile priest problem

[Animats]

I thought that there had been an effort to keep sex offenders away from social networking technology...

That's a real problem. Catholic priests should be monitored to make sure they're not communicating with minors. The Catholic Church, after all, is the only organization to have a slush fund to pay off victims of their pedophiles.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the society that you subscribe to (and pay taxes towards) never abused a child.

By logical extension of your "Catholic priests should be monitored", you must surely be in favour of monitoring married men (the most likely group of people to abuse children).

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[couchslug]

Accountability is an uphill battle.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

Religion should be scorned and ridiculed, since the only way to free the world from the oppression of superstition is to weaken it.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Corporate Drone]

That's a real problem. Catholic priests should be monitored to make sure they're not communicating with minors. The Catholic Church, after all, is the only organization to have a slush fund to pay off victims of their pedophiles.

Somewhere on the order of 2% of Catholic priests in the U.S., over the past 50 years, have been proven (or accused) of sexual abuse of minors. Your call for monitoring a population who, by and large, does not commit crimes, for the sake of an extreme minority who does, is chilling. I bet you're all for Patriot Act intrusions of privacy, aren't ya? Or is this simply a straw man -- it's just the Church you don't like, and this is a convenient way to harass its representatives?

btw -- your summary of the Wiki article is blatantly misleading: if there were such a "slush fund", why are there so many diocesan bankruptcies documented? "4, Informative", in this case, reads more like "-5, Politically Correct Troll".

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[JohnFluxx]

The problem isn't just that a few bad apples do bad things. That happens in every organisation.

The problem is that the rest of them tried to cover it up, were complacent about it, and wanted the 'punishment' to just be a bit of counselling by other priests. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases for a pretty chilling summary.

They also used the whole thing to ban gay men from becoming priests. Funny that.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Phrogman]

How does this differ from cops covering up incidents involving their fellow officers, or the military "solving its own problems"? I would say its endemic to any closely knit organization that it chooses to defend itself by closing ranks and dealing with things internally, whatever the offense.
I am not justifying it, just saying that I think its unfair to blame the Catholic church for this without condemning it elsewhere as well.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Nazlfrag]

You know who else abuses kids? Teachers, doctors and internet users. I guess by your logic none of these people should come in contact with kids, ever, including you. Oh and why is paying compensation to victims of crime a bad thing?

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[JohnFluxx]

Sure, I do condemn it everywhere else as well.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[couchslug]

The rest of the Church aided and abetted them by shuffling them around, and there is no telling how many escaped being outed.

When the Church instantly feeds their pedos to the cops, in public, and assists law enforcement personnel in busting pedos then it might
not merit the label of pedo farm it currently deserves.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[couchslug]

The massive and sustained effort by the Church to conceal pedos until they are outed by others is noteworthy. The Church promotes pedophilia by requiring celibate priests, then hides the outcomes, and finally pays off to cut the publicity.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[sumdumass]

How is requiring Celibacy promoting pedophilia?

Last I heard, celibacy was the lack of all sexual activity which would preclude pedophilia. The hiding of the outcomes or payoffs are completely separate and detached from this. It's like anything that would be damaging to any organization or person, they attempt to hide it or pay off the offended too.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[drinkypoo]

How is requiring Celibacy promoting pedophilia?

Humans have sexual urges, it is not realistic to expect them to be celibate. Deprive humans of sex and put them in control of a ton of people who look up to them as the hand of god, a situation very much deliberately created by the catholic church, and you will have abuse in a significant percentage of cases. It's particularly telling that the Greek Orthodox church is not having these problems; they're basically Catholics with marriage for priests and without a pope.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we should do the same for teachers. They more likely to abuse children.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[zaft]

How is requiring Celibacy promoting pedophilia?

Humans have sexual urges, it is not realistic to expect them to be celibate. Deprive humans of sex and put them in control of a ton of people who look up to them as the hand of god, a situation very much deliberately created by the catholic church, and you will have abuse in a significant percentage of cases. It's particularly telling that the Greek Orthodox church is not having these problems; they're basically Catholics with marriage for priests and without a pope.

This is dumb on so many levels -- 1) rate of pedophilia (actually it's not pedophilia since most victims were teenagers, but that's a nit) in the Catholic priesthood is not been shown to be higher than in other populations like teachers and Protestant ministers. 2) Orthodox (not just Greek) have their set of problems no less than Catholics. They don't get the press because a) there are so few of them in the US and b) they don't have the (comparatively) deep pockets the Catholic Church does so suing them isn't very productive. Yes, all healthy people have sexual urges, but most of us don't act on them inappropriately, priests included.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[the_one(2)]

Dude... I seriously hope those numbers are wrong... 2% of all catholic priests in the US? That sounds way to high.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[drinkypoo]

rate of pedophilia (actually it's not pedophilia since most victims were teenagers, but that's a nit) in the Catholic priesthood is not been shown to be higher than in other populations like teachers and Protestant ministers.

The Catholic church has, however, been shown to bury complaints and to relocate priests about who they have had complaints. At best this perverted shell game makes the church appear to be an anonymous boy-rape operation. If the church had feigned ignorance and instituted a purge when the scandal came to light, instead of continuing to defend those who they had collected in some cases hundreds of complaints against, perhaps they would not be in the position of having to defend themselves against accusations of being far above the average.

It's virtually impossible to prove anything like this without a surveillance society in which we all have cameras embedded into our foreheads. But there are indications that more abuse occurs in the church; further, the church has been proven to protect priests and to deliberately put them into situations where they can abuse again — and they do. To be fair, I am slightly prejudiced; I have long believed that the catholic church is evil and should be destroyed. Convent whorehouses, indulgences, the boy-rape machine... It's difficult to come to any other conclusion. The abject lack of morality robs them of all credibility among the non-brainwashed.

Orthodox (not just Greek) have their set of problems no less than Catholics.

Citation?

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Evtim]

Oh come on...you cannot suppress the human urges, if you do they will "burst" in (most probably) undesirable direction. I never understood why deliberate abuse of human nature (celibacy) is considered a virtue. Face it, they failed in this. Miserably.

"Yes, all healthy people have sexual urges, but most of us don't act on them inappropriately, priests included." - here you are touching the truth but you do not go further. The emphasis is "healthy"! If you suppress the urges, that is not healthy and produces unhealthy people, both in mind and body. Not everyone succumbs, naturally, but the chances that some individuals will be perverted is much higher than if you did not have the celibacy on board.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Critical Facilities]

Humans have sexual urges, it is not realistic to expect them to be celibate..... you will have abuse in a significant percentage of cases.

Not neccesarily. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not defending anyone's abuse of children (priest or otherwise), however the implication that celibacy automatically creates an environment where the chances of sexual abuse are higher is distorted.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

rate of pedophilia (actually it's not pedophilia since most victims were teenagers, but that's a nit) in the Catholic priesthood is not been shown to be higher than in other populations like teachers and Protestant ministers.

The Catholic church has, however, been shown to bury complaints and to relocate priests about who they have had complaints. At best this perverted shell game makes the church appear to be an anonymous boy-rape operation.

Ah yes, and this is completely unlike many school districts, who prefer to force a teacher to resign and let them go on to another school, rather than deal with the problem or bother to get the teacher's license revoked? (Same problem with coaches, except they often don't have to answer to a licensing board.)

Or, perhaps even worse, the number of apologies for teacher-student relationships, particularly when heterosexual. There's clearly a homophobia playing into the coverage of the Catholic situation. If a teenage boy is raped by a female teacher, and there's evidence of "consent" (even if the kid is below the age of consent), it's often assumed that boys will be precocious. The same boy is groped by a priest, and people would want to send the priest to prison. The reality is that both should go to prison, but homosexual relationships between teenagers and teachers are often tolerated a lot more. (And let's be honest, most of the priests were not pedophiles who attacked prepubescent children -- they groped or molested teenagers. Still an awful thing and not to be excused, but no worse than these teachers.)

The main difference here is that the Catholic Church had a clear hierarchy which made it easy to assess blame. Most school districts are roughly autonomous, so if a teacher leaves one and goes to another, no paper trail needs to go through a higher office explaining what happened. Without coordination between districts, it's difficult to locate chronic offenders... or even to track single cases of abuse, since often no record of the problem is made -- the teacher just leaves.

The priests who did this should be punished, and the officials who covered it up should be as well.

But if you want to shout about something that actually matters and affects a lot more people, be concerned about the majority of abusers... and the vast majority of them are NOT priests.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone succumbs, naturally, but the chances that some individuals will be perverted is much higher than if you did not have the celibacy on board.

[citation needed]

Honestly, look into the stats. Not the propaganda ones from the Catholic Church, and not the propaganda from anti-Catholic groups. If you look at the percentage of child molestation and sexual harassment of children across all major professions that interact with children on a regular basis (teachers, coaches, ministers of other denominations, etc.), you'll find that the numbers are about the same, if not more, than the percentage of priests... particularly if you restrict the stats to men, who tend to be much more likely to abuse than women. There is NO correlation with celibacy requirements.

Or, for that matter, look into the largest group of child molesters -- married men.

Celibacy may be an unusual choice, but that doesn't mean that it creates perverts. Not all males are crazy nymphomaniacs who will attack random defenseless people (women, kids, whatever) if they don't "release their urges." I would argue that anyone who thinks that most men are actually like that has a rather warped view of the world himself.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[sumdumass]

Humans also have the ability of cognitive reasoning and this allows us to control our actions and urges and society expects us to do so. There are other options if Celibacy restrains someone to the point they can't fight urges, one of which is to leave the priesthood or completely ignore the celibacy with themselves or a consenting adult in secret.

You know, I'm almost tempted to go to an area which is just as reprehensible as molesting children and teenagers. This are would be rape, you seem to be thinking that women not wanting to screw a certain person is why the person decided to rape a women. It's all of their faults then right? Of course not and I don't suspect you were attempting to say that. But the same logic of requiring celibacy stands here if we are to believe you. If no woman will screw a guy, then his urges build up until he rapes one of them, so it's all the women who wouldn't give him some fault.

You mention that the Greek Orthodox doesn't have this problem. Have you ever googled that info?

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Corporate Drone]

The rest of the Church aided and abetted them by shuffling them around, and there is no telling how many escaped being outed.

When some of the hierarchy aided and abetted them...

(fixed that for ya).

When the Church instantly feeds their pedos to the cops, in public, and assists law enforcement personnel in busting pedos then it might not merit the label of pedo farm it currently deserves.

Which is, if you've been paying attention to the actions of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' response, exactly what they're doing -- there's a no tolerance policy that requires dioceses to notify the authorities. Funny how that never gets mentioned...

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[Corporate Drone]

Dude... I seriously hope those numbers are wrong... 2% of all catholic priests in the US? That sounds way to high.

Sorry -- was going from memory, and used the "number of allegations" number incorrectly. The statistics include all priests from 1950 to 2002, with the majority of the incidents in the 70's, and in decline since the 80's. From the Wiki article:

The report determined that, during the period from 1950–2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. After investigating the remaining 7700 allegations, the dioceses were able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time period covered by the study.[19] The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[20]

Of the 4,392 priests against whom the accusations were deemed to be credible, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. Police were contacted regarding 1,021 of the remaining 1092 priests. 384 of these priests were prosecuted resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date.[3][21]

Now, the Wiki article needs a little work: it double-counts the 3300 cases that weren't investigated "because the priest accused had died". If I have time, I'll go check out the Jay report, and see if this was just a simple mistake: chances are, the 4392 number came from the study.

The statistics worth noting -- in 2002, among all priests who served in the U.S. from 1950 to 2002:

only 4% had allegations leveled against them.

Only 0.35% were prosecuted for alleged crimes

Only 0.23% were convicted.

That is, out of 7000 allegations, only 4000 were found credible; only 1000 of these could be investigated (the rest have already been adjudicated by their maker...). Less than 400 of these were brought to trial; 252 convictions resulted. Not quite the "den of pederasty" that some allege; nonetheless, the Church should have none of this activity in its ranks.

Re:The pedophile priest problem

[drinkypoo]

Ah yes, and this is completely unlike many school districts,

I'm talking about religion right now. I have many problems with schools, but that's a whole separate conversation. Ever heard a saying about two wrongs not making a right? Your entire comment is thus entirely irrelevant. I want back the two seconds I spent skimming it.

Zardoz...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"The Son is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the Son defeats death, and purifies Souls of the filth of sin. Go forth . . . and Blog!"

Re:And: who cares?

[3seas]

Well considering that the stone image of the beast is.....

The beast is man and the stone is computers, what they are made of.
And of course the image of the beast is the image of mans thought process...... as in programs, computer programs.

And I don't need to post Anonymous either.

And hey, even you are using the stone image of the beast.
Now be sure to bow down to the beast. for you are not anonymous as you think.

Youtube Atheist Movement participation?

[Zombie Ryushu]

I wonder how this will affect the Youtube Atheist movement? I wonder if it will mean that Youtube Atheists can refute the Pope immediately and in real time.

electronic speed may cause sloppy messages

[peter303]

We all know examples where we sent an email or posted a comment quickly and had regrets later. I encourage any person in a position of influence- minister, politician, teacher, etc. - either have a second pair of eyes review what they have just written, or sit on the post 12-24 hours before pressing the send key. Haste, emotion of the moment, fatigue can all lead to poor replies.

Things the Church needs with a LAMP server.

[FooAtWFU]

What does God need with a LAMP server?

You know what the Catholic Church needs with a LAMP server (or similar)? It some unified website, administered by regional authorities or the Vatican itself, which will provide a good way to find parish locations and mass times for each and every parish in a first-world country where Internet access is common. Then, when I'm on a trip to White Plains and three hours jet-lagged, I can get some idea of when and where I can attend church on a Sunday. Or when I'm back in Silicon Valley and it's a random Holy Day of Obligation in the middle of the week, I can know where to go after work (or possibly before work or over a lunch break). Right now, it's a crapshoot as to whether the church even has a website.

Calendering. Please. Inter-parish calendaring, ideally; I'd love to know everything going on in the Diocese of San Jose at a glance. Bulletins would be nice too, even if they're just .pdfs. Maybe they could coordinate those with what'stheirface, LPI? those liturgical-publishers who seem to put out a lot of those. If you're looking for gravy, throw in a quick podcast (and computerized transcription) of the homilies. If they can standardize on something, it would be pretty easy to plug into most existing parish sound systems, and reasonably cheap.

Next step out: Get the church behind some sort of free-content/Creative Commons angle with its liturgical music -- not necessarily to the exclusion of all else, mind you, but choir directors shouldn't have to jump through copyright hoops to legally express praise and worship. That, of all things, should be Free.

Re:Things the Church needs with a LAMP server.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this won't mean much as I'm an AC, but I can't agree more with your post. +1

I'm a fairly frequent traveller, and it's an enormous pain to try to figure out church schedules in advance of trips. Some parishes have lovely websites, some don't. Some, and these are most annoying of all, have websites they haven't tended to in years, which have incorrect schedules and other outdated information.

The Church has a nearly-two millenium history of centralisation. Can't we get this right, please?

All in One Place

[Hittman]

Sounds like a way all the priests can keep their kiddy porn in one place.

I did

[Anonymous Coward]

I once talked to a priest about my inability to believe in God. I point blank asked him why is God real but not Santa Claus, Zeus, Apollo, Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. He was cool, as in nice, about it.

Oh, the answer is, in a nutshell, it's all about faith.

The funny thing is, I think many Catholics are really atheists but they practice out of duty and routine - meaning the routine give them comfort in their lives. And if you say the rosary everyday you get into meditation. Whether you're saying "Hail Mary's" and "Our Fathers" or "Om Mani Padme Hum", you're pretty much accomplishing the same thing.

Now, the fire and brimstone and "give a dollar and get a hundred back" Born Again Christians are a bit creepy. Actually, they're not religious; they're superstitious.

Facebook fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the Cardinale Crescenzio Sepe you were looking for? Search more

Spanish Inquisition would be less disturbing?

[VampireByte]

The Internet is less disturbing than a face to face meeting.

Makes me wonder if the Spanish Inquisition would be less disturbing if it were conducted over the internet. Spanish Inquisition 2.0

Don't say it couldn't happen. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Now lets talk about the "which parish" problem

[RobertLTux]

If the current Pope is telling priests to go forth and blog
how would the situation of a Church in SecondLife be handled??
(bonus round question are there any real cross and steeple churches with SL locations??)

Personally i would challenge churches to extend their reach into this wilderness

This is a actually a really good idea

[PaganRitual]

Posting your crap online makes it that much easier to ignore than if you bother people in the streets or coming knocking on their doors bothering them in the name of your chosen mythology.

This invitation should extend to all religious institutions and their constituents.

Matthew 5:37

[klapaucjusz]

"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

(Saint Matthew about digital media.)

Re:Matthew 5:37

[Reziac]

St.Matthew invented binary??!

Terrific....

[azakem]

So now I can look forward to being aggressively proselytized on the web as well as by obnoxious yokels in the real world. Wonderful.

Re:Terrific....

[R2.0]

"So now I can look forward to being aggressively proselytized on the web as well as by obnoxious yokels in the real world. Wonderful."

Really? As far as I can tell, Roman Catholic priests are the least likely to proselytize, at least in the 7th Day/Mormon Missionary sense. For that matter, there is extremely little RC "televangelism".

Do you have any particular instance in mind?

Re:Terrific....

[Reziac]

You're not forced to read their blogs. I'd say it's a good deal LESS invasive than the traditional door-to-door ministry.

[disclaimer: I'm an atheist, but when I read the article, my reaction was "Good for Pope Benedict! There's a man with a foreward-thinking brain." It cannot possibly hurt for religious professionals to become more aware of Real World Stuff than if they stayed in their medieval cloisters.]

To say it with Blackadder

[Anonymous Coward]

"Baldrick, go forth into the streets and let it be known that Lord Blackadder wishes to sell his house. Percy... just go forth into the street."

Amazing visionary

[leromarinvit]

Wow - this Benedict XV must have been an amazing visionary to tell priests to blog, given that he died in 1922!

Catholics on Star Wars

[Nok]

If you want to see what some of these young priests are upto online with new Catholic media check out sqpn.com. They even have Catholic podcasts on Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.

Rage Monkey

[adamziegler]

http://ragemonkey.blogspot.com/

Oh, I get it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Currently, the *contents* of sermons and services are not available for that same scrutiny. If religious indoctrination and propaganda starts to move online, that is a huge win for skeptics.

So, you're hoping to quote random people out of context in order to flame them? Figures. Enjoy your 5 minute hates.

Already there.

[gillbates]

http://www.masstimes.org/

Podestent Spam Bots

[Master Moose]

I have been using as a research tool http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ for years. There are even a few Ask a Priest websites that are a quick google away. I have partaken in Catholic Channels on IRC and Yahoo chat - This is where I discovered Protestant Spam bots trying to save my heathen RC soul.

Re:Podestent Spam Bots

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post reminded me of this bit on bash.org.

http://www.bash.org/?178890

Muslim mission

[Elektroschock]

So now the catholic priests will twitter to convert the muslims?

History of the church from the 14th century.

[Exception Duck]

14th Century: The Papacy Moves to France

15th Century: The Great Western Schism
16th Century: The Protestant Revolt
17th Century: The Thirty Year War and The Enlightenment
18th Century: The French Revolution and Catholicism in America
19th Century: Vatican I and The Rise of the Church in America
20th Century: Vatican II, Pope John Paul II and the New Evangelization
21th Century: Pope Urges Priests To Go Forth and Blog

Re:History of the church from the 14th century.

[Exception Duck]

21st century... damn keyboard.

What about the USAF Academy ?

[OldEarthResident]

For normal religious activity, I am inclined to agree with you.

However, there are cases, especially in the US military, when religious activities could indeed be described as infiltration and even coercion.

A well documented example is the Christian Evangelical takeover of the USAF Academy.

There's an official USAF report into the events which took place floating around somewhere on the net.

That's much catchier

[sharkey]

"Go Forth and Sodomize" just doesn't have the same appeal.

As long as it's not a one-way conversation

[Anonymous Coward]

Bishops with blogs are great, as long as they enable comments.

yes, please do

[pydev]

The Catholic church presumes to tell everybody else that their spirituality is wrong and how immoral they are. Why shouldn't other people tell the Catholic church in no uncertain terms that Catholic spirituality is wrong and that Catholicism is immoral?

Catholics like to hide their own intolerance and hatred of others behind notions of "freedom of religion" and by presenting themselves as victims. They are so brainwashed into believing that they are "the good guys" that they find excuses for everything bad that they do.

But what matters is not what Catholics say, it's what they and their churches do. Catholics killed many of my ancestors and caused the rest to have to flee their homes and disperse all across Europe. The Catholic church burned people in my profession at the stake merely for speaking the truth about nature. Catholic Bishops and the Vatican call people like me "not fully human" and "objectively disordered". And the Catholic church lies about established, basic facts of biology to promote its own gender and sexual ideology. All the while, the Catholic church hierarchy covers up the fact that thousands of Catholic priests have been abusing hundreds of thousands of children, both through violence and sexually.

Yes, inded: "cue the Catholic bashing", because people need to speak out about the hypocrisy of the Catholic church, people need to speak about against its lies, and people need to remind the world of the crimes that the Catholic church has committed against humanity. There is no reason to forgive or forget this until the theology and moral philosophy of Catholicism has fundamentally changed, and it has not done that.

I do believe in your right to worship whatever gods or devils you choose. But I and others have the right to speak out and to criticize you for your religious preferences and choices, even if that makes you uncomfortable.

Re:yes, please do

[SenseiLeNoir]

I think we should try and move away from actions in the past. Sure we should forget some of the horrors, but considering most of the ills in this world is caused by people living in intolerance of a bygone age.

Yes the roman Catholic Church did a lot of wrong in the past, but they ARE changing. Remember, current believers who still swear by the 6000 year old earth are NOT catholics (it was a catholic priest who indeed first theorized the Big Bang) .

I am not a catholic myself, I am a Hindu Humanist. But my wife is Roman Catholic. I do occasionally visit a church, and she visits a temple. We have our own beliefs, yet we share ours with each other. We are both scientists, and do rationalize beliefs based on science, and need for humanity, and common sense. Yet we do have a faith.

When we go to church/temple, we are not looked down upon.. never. In fact, we receive a lot of respect for our attitude and reasoned thinking.

And more important we get along JUST fine.

Re:yes, please do

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually get both. My aunt is a staunch Catholic, and she firmly believes the 6,000 year old Earth BS. I imagine it is the same for a lot of the very devout members of my family. Personally, I would identify myself as Catholic, as I do believe that most of the tenets of the Church are well-meaning, and that there is a god out there, but I don't believe in Creationism or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

It's easier for a lot of people though, to think that all Catholics all believe the exact same thing and to typecast them in that way.

preaching != interacting

[pydev]

It's their job to go forth and preach. It's their job to interact with the public.

They aren't "interacting with the public", they are preaching and carefully choosing their messages depending on the audience they are speaking to.

Do you honestly think some nasty comments at a priest's blog is somehow going to usher in a glorious new era of atheism? Seriously?

Probably not, since the priests will just attempt to suppress any dissent and delete comments they don't like.

But there's still something good when they start blogging: priests can't tailor their lies to different audiences on a blog; they can be quoted and held responsible for their statements in ways that they can't easily be when they are standing in a church and preaching to their congregations.

Nor is atheism the only alternative to Catholicism. You can be a Christian and reject the lies and corruption of the Vatican, like the protestants have. Or you can find religion without the Christian God.

Catholicism is deeply entrenched and it won't just go away. However, hopefully, through reasoned discussions, people may start to realize the errors of their ways.

You consider dying "inconvenient"?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I love that. Our most sacred rules apply always, except when it's inconvenient or bad PR to enforce them.

Dying is a wee bit worse than "inconvenient," isn't it? They're willing to suspend the rules because those people might not get another chance.

But I guess you don't care if someone has a bit of peace when they're dying as long as you can bash religion, huh?

Your last name...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Wouldn't happen to be Jones, right?

Catholicism

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright 32 Simon Peter

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this religion except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, dogmas distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.

Faithbook ;-)

[egghat]

Sorry, German only, but rather funny ...

Titanic: Papst 16.0

Wait...

[DeBeuk]

The pope is telling people to engage in dialogue with people of different cultures and religions? The same pope that blamed atheists for global warming and "the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" known to mankind?

That pope?

trolling and flamebaiting

[Anonymous Coward]

From:
https://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3497

4,392 priests (4 percent of the clergy) were accused of sexual abuse. Is this better or worse than other professions—teachers, social workers, scout leaders, doctors, lawyers, psychologists—or the total male population? No one knows, because comparable studies have not been done.

Re:trolling and flamebaiting

[Anonymous Coward]

Also from the same link:

In the period 1992-2000, the number of substantiated sexual abuse cases in American society as a whole has been between 89,355 and 149,800 annually. At a minimum, this number for one year is eight times the total number of alleged abuses in the church over a period of 52 years.

Re:trolling and flamebaiting

[PopeRatzo]

4,392 priests (4 percent of the clergy) were accused of sexual abuse.

Don't forget, most of those 4,392 priests were accused of molesting more than 1 child. In one case, a priest in the diocese of Boston was accused of having raped nearly 40 children over the course of his career.

So don't pretend that the number of priests accused of sexually abusing children = the number of cases of abuse by priests.

Don't listen to Dead Popes!

[fygment]

What the heck does a dead pope know about the Internet? Benedict XV's been dead since 1922.

Wait until we get word from Benedict XVII !

GAYS are NINE times more prone to pedophilia...

[viraltus]

So, will you campaign against homosexual now? Will you monitor homosexuals so that they do not communicate with minors?

In fact, even the vast majority or pedophiles in the church are gay (they attack boys) and that is why the Pope sentence a few years ago a ban to any homosexual to be able to become a priest.

Ah, by the way, even considering all gay priests, the likelihood of a priest to commit an act of pedophilia is still slightly lower that the average population, and, again, around 9 times LESS than that those belonging to the gay community.

Re:GAYS are NINE times more prone to pedophilia...

[lessthan]

Ah, by the way, even considering all gay priests, the likelihood of a priest to commit an act of pedophilia is still slightly lower that the average population, and, again, around 9 times LESS than that those belonging to the gay community.

Citation? I think you just made those numbers up.

No thanks...

[DarthVain]

...we have enough idiots on the internet.

Don't care if any God exists, BUT...

[piotru]

Just thinking of the saints, even if their stories are not true, gives me the hope that universal tropisms of a human race do exist indeed: The gravity towards the ideas of justice, good, quest for truth, or... you name it the Slashdot crowd who keep writing comments deeply Christian in spirit while your upmodded words whip the Catholic Church together with any religion except of perhaps a few postmodern dillusions, the like Global Warming or Vegetarianist variety.
So to finish - I'm looking forward to finding a priest committed to his struggle for saithood and love of the human race on the Internet. The more of them, the better, like those of you, Slashdotties and quite unlike the Big Pharma/Secura/Intproperta/Ratraca disgusting specimens.

Where the numbers come from....

[viraltus]

Easy. This is the kind of stats that a government would never give you, but you can calculate them.

You only need the % of gays in you country, the % of underage girls abused and the % of underage boys abused.

Since this is /. I am sure you can do the math yourself and hey... don't believe me, believe yourself.