Slashdot Mirror
Pope Rails Against the Internet and Transparency
tcd004 writes "At a conference on digital media at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI attacked the idea of transparency in the Internet age, warning that digital transparency exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves and increases the 'dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism,' which can lead to 'multiple forms of degradation and humiliation' of the essence of a person, and to the 'pollution of the spirit.' All in all, it seemed a pretty grim view of the wide-open communication environment being demanded by the Internet age."
Back in 2001, when Ratzinger was head of the Holy Office, he implemented a policy that classified child abuse cases as pontifical secrets.
And Ratzinger is not an exception. This is business as usual for the Catholic church.
What the pope says is only infallible when he speaks Ex Cathedra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
Your argument is presenting a false dichotomy, instead of handling the actual claim. I would like to point out that there are some things that are forbidden in any country in the western world (snuff films, for example), yet you won't say that anyone who claims these are dangerous (even after creating them, that is) supports "holding everything locked down tight", I hope.
In fact, all he said was that the "huge widening of the frontiers of communication" has benefits (for example - points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum) and drawbacks (for example - increases the "dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism,"). I guess however, expecting anyone on slashdot (commentators and modders) to RTFA is a bit to much.
TFA, by the way, does not give the speech (or a translation of it) but just tiny parts of it, without any context. So even after reading it, I have no idea what he said. What I do know is that he is not an idiot, there is quite some evidence for this, and so he knows he has no chance of gaining actual direct power (becoming any sort of a tyrant).
Sounds a lot like a cult, doesn't it?
No, it sounds like a religion.
The key difference is simply the scale (in time and numbers) at which the organization is generally accepted as "normal".
The reporter of that article obviously had an agenda. In lieu of finding a more unbiased source, I thought it might be worthwhile to at least include a report of the same talk from the opposite side of the camp: here
It would seem from this article that the Pope is looking for us to act with a conscience while on the internet, so that the internet as a whole can be an edifying experience. That is, how we use the internet is important. Raw power must be used to good ends.
Note that I do recognize and appreciate the difficulties with defining "good", "edifying", and even the institution which provides these definitions.
Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic (I'm Orthodox -- we're not in the habit of defending the Pope). I'm just trying to provide a little balance.
I'm not justifying it, I'm just pointing out that the Popes have traditionally been regarded as wise but still human. Ex Cathedra has only been invoked once since the concept was invented, so it's meant to define religion redefining pronouncements. I'm only clarifying this to alleviate the misconception that "anything" the pope says is automatically viewed by the Catholic Church as 100% Awesome. Full disclosure: I'm an agnostic "recovering" Catholic.
"But then, the silence was broken. Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, took his turn at the microphone. "The situation in which we are living is extremely exacting, and we are asked to be absolutely truthful and credible," he said. The last couple of months have been very difficult, he went on, with so many questions being raised about things that happened long ago. But he said, "This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility. Secrecy and discretion are not values that are in fashion at the moment. We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide." The crowd applauded."
Well, the source is somewhat ironic, considering the discussion, but here's an answer to your question. Not necessarily the 'right' answer, just one I like;
"He has showed you, O man, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" - Micah 6:8
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Hey, preacher. Leave them kids alone. All in all it's just another dick in a funny hat.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Historically, the church has always frowned upon the unwashed masses being able to communicate and think for themselves. Hell, it was only a few decades ago that they allowed masses to be performed in languages other than Latin...effectively making 99% of their flock reliant entirely upon their interpretation of the very documents they use to "shepherd" their flock.
*yawn*
The more things change, the more they stay the same....
OK, burn me at the stake. I double dog dare ya... :)
The Pope did NOT say that. That quote (Time for truth) was the Vatican spokesman.
FTA: ... intellectual and moral relativism," which can lead to "multiple forms of degradation and humiliation" of the essence of a person, and to the "pollution of the spirit." All in all, it seemed a pretty grim view of the wide open communication parameters being demanded by the Internet age."
""The times in which we living knows a huge widening of the frontiers of communication," he said (according to our Italian fixer/producer) and the new media of this new age points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum. But, he went on to say, it also opens a new hole, the "digital divide" between haves and have-nots. Even more ominous, he said, it exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves. And it increases the "dangers of
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
First off, I get the joke. Technically he was in the Luftwaffe as part of an AA crew, members of the Luftwaffe, Wermacht and Kreigsmarine were absolved of involvement with the Nazi government (with exceptions for those who personally committed war crimes) by the allies as most of them were ordinary Germans unlike the Waffen SS (one had to be a Nazi in order to join the SS). Being a member of the Hitler Youth was something that was kind of mandatory after 1939.
I dislike the Church but I insist on being accurate. If anything, people should bash him for being a deserter but then again that would not have been uncommon at the time. I'm sure there is a Hitler parody for this out there though.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
First of all, this is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is the claim that moral principles are relative to the society. This is clearly not the case here.
Furthermore, you should back your claims with some data. It seems like you refer to the case of Peter Hullermann in the 70s, simply since I found nothing else about his subordinates. This case was definitely not ignored, as Hullermann was removed from his position and sent to a psychiatric therapy in Munich. It wasn't handled properly, of course, as he was then allowed to work with children there. It also wasn't reported to the police, as was the standard in the church then. However, Ratzinger (the man who's the Pope today) didn't give this order and it's unclear if he knew about it (a memo was sent to his office...).
What is known is that in 2000-2005, when handling those cases was his responsibility (before he became Pope), he attempted to handle those cases properly, in many cases apparently held back by the Pope then, John Paul II. I would suggest looking into the case of Marcial Maciel, and the way it was handled. Since he became Pope he changed, for example, the policy referred to above, instructing that “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes... should always be followed”. In general, it seems he's mostly blamed for the faults of his predecessor (John Paul II) in this area.
Most of the discussion on this thread is way off base. Here [zenit.org] is the text of the speech that the Pope actually gave. It wasn't exactly a major address. He gave the closing speech at a conference entitled "Digital Witnesses: Faces and Languages in the Cross-Media Age," sponsored by the Italian bishops. So, he is giving a polite little address to a conference with a particular theme.
<summary>
It's actually pretty boiler-plate non-controversial stuff (at least coming from a Catholic prelate). Media outlets are rapidly expanding. The Internet has an "open vocation, with an egalitarian and pluralistic tendency." But, due to the "digital divide," which creates new categories of inclusion and exclusion and new sources of division, not all can participate. Moreover, disembodied and impersonal communication presents a new outlet for dehumanization in the culture. Often, one can observe on the Internet a dynamic "that can make us lose the perception of the depth of persons and remain at the surface: When that happens, they are bodies without souls, objects of trade and consumption."
What is needed in such a situation? The Pope suggests (in a nod to the theme of the conference) "a return to faces." New media, when used rightly, can actually become a humanizing force in the culture. In order to do this, people involved in media work need to proceed from a more profound vision. Media workers should see their profession as something more than communicating information. They should see it as communicating humane values based on thoughtful reflection on the nature of the human person and the common good. This means that they should "focus on promoting the dignity of persons and peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and placed at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and supernatural fraternity."
If media workers do this, then far from being a dehumanizing venture, the "epochal journey" that we have begun will be "rich and fertile with new opportunities." "Without fear we want to set out upon the digital sea embracing the unrestricted navigation with the same passion that for 2,000 years has steered the barque of the Church. More than with technical resources, although necessary, we want to qualify ourselves dwelling in this universe too with a believing heart, that contributes to giving a soul to the uninterrupted communicational flow of the Internet."
This should especially be the task of Christians. "The task of every believer who works in the media is that of 'opening the door to new forms of encounter, maintaining the quality of human interaction, and showing concern for individuals and their genuine spiritual needs. They can thus help the men and women of our digital age to sense the Lord's presence.'"
</summary>
There have been a lot of particularly clueless reporters covering the Church over the last month, and this one is no exception. She breathlessly reports that the Pope did not talk about clerical sex abuse at a conference on the role of Christians on the Internet. Why is that surprising? Note also that the Pope's speech did not mention anything about transparency one way or the other. For the very simple reason that it wasn't a speech on that topic! What is so difficult about this to understand? The mention of "transparency" came up when the Vatican press secretary made some off-the-cuff remarks about how we need more of it, not less! Which brings me to the summary by tcd004. He misread the headline. (Did he read the article?) The Pope didn't talk about transparency. The press secretary did, and he didn't attack it--he called for more of it.
Hmm I don't see a link to the actual speech. Why? Because he quoted a letter from a jew friend, who did the comparison. He later said: "I inserted the letter from [my] Jewish friend only because it seemed to me a witness of solidarity with the Pope so harshly attacked in recent weeks, (..) My intention therefore was a friendly one, not at all hostile." (source.
This happened before, in Regensburg. Clearly clerics should not use quotes when they speak.
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
Here's the actual speech, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the PBS article or the discussion thread.
For a good breakdown of the history of abuse and cover up and the scale of it check out http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/beast-file-catholic-church-sex-scandal
Well worth a quick look, only takes 3 minutes
IANAL, but as I understand it, RICO charges would not apply unless you can show that the church obstructed justice somehow. AFAIK, there is no evidence that they covered anything up or were anything less than open in cooperating with any police investigations. If there were, we would already have seen OoJ charges against somebody.
AFAIK, the church did not cover anything up, at least from a legal perspective. To my knowledge, when they moved a priest, there was no attempt to conceal that priest's location from authorities. They did not harbor fugitives from justice. They merely did not tell the new church what their new pastor had been accused of (and may not have told the old church where they moved the priest). While such behavior certainly isn't very ethical, it is probably not sufficient to rise to the level of obstruction.
Failing that, the only other RICO-qualifying charge you could come up with is the actual sexual assault, which would require you proving somehow that the church as an organization ordered priests to molest kids. Good luck with that.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
It's worse than that.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do
he seems to have threatened the victims with (in his view) eternal damnation and hellfire if they repeated their allegations.
I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some sort of reason that isn't wrong or evil, but I'll be over here with a couple moral absolute:
Concealing the abuse of children is evil.
Abetting the abuse of children is evil.
Making sure that people who abuse children get to keep abusing children is evil.
Threatening children with excommunication for speaking the truth is evil.
People who do those things are evil people.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_pope_church_abuse
I don't think people are arguing that he covered up the abuse, just that he ignored and/or delayed something that was VERY obviously a case of child molestation (the priest pled no contest and asked to be defrocked, THAT REQUEST WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL DIOCESE, and Ratzinger intentionally sat on it!) Sounds like a direct link to me.
Is he criminally liable? I would say not. Did he make a really big mistake, even an error in moral judgement? I think many would say yes. Not promising for the leader of a church with an official doctrine of "papal infallibility".
Most religions do good
Most religions do evil. The Vatican is more evil than most.
PR? They didn't even both for centuries, it was easier to use fear, torture and money.