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."

Comments

wagging the dog

[drougie]

I think that's what they call this, the Pope making an issue out of Internet transparency out of nowhere.

Re:wagging the dog

[Cryacin]

Surprise surprise. It's hard to lie when everyone can see right through you.

Re:wagging the dog

[cgenman]

I'm glad we heard this important and highly relevant message... though the internet.

Re:wagging the dog

[RsG]

Surprise surprise. It's hard to lie when everyone can see right through you.

Perhaps more to the point, cover-ups are much harder to perpetrate when a single leak can plaster all your dirty laundry all over the net.

Gee, I can't imagine why the pope would object to that... Nope, can't think of a single reason *sigh*

Re:wagging the dog

[Alphathon]

Plus the whole "moral relativism" thing. Once people accept that morals are relative, the idea that there is a god who dictates morality disintegrates, along with some of the Popes power/influence.

Re:wagging the dog

[RsG]

See, the pope would probably drag the whole "moral relativism" angle into the debate anyway, as that's something of a fixation for Catholic dogma, for more or less the reasons you state. So I wasn't surprised to see that brought up. It's also something of a red herring.

It's transparently obvious that real issue here is the abuse scandals. You'll note that they did in fact keep a lid on the whole thing for decades - many current alleged cases of priesthood pedophilia date from the 80's and 90's, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the actual problems stretch back further than the memories of anyone alive today. This is not a new problem.

But back in the old days, shuffling the offending priests off to different diocese, and quietly denying that any wrongdoing took place was enough to keep the matter buried. They relied on the victims and their families shame, and on the rare cases where that wasn't enough, the fact that gossip rarely spread any further than the affected community. Does that last part sound like it would work today? Small wonder the pope is worried.

Re:wagging the dog

[Karsaroth]

Most likely no one will listen to me, but I may as well try and reach a few people.

The Pope is speaking specifically about the effect that the internet will have on individuals, as this is his primary function as the Pope. I don't think this message should be taken as some condemnation of internet transparency. It seems to me that he's primary speaking about the dangers that arise (with respect to the soul) in any "wild west" situation like the internet.

Oh, and since TFA seems primarily concerned with the child abuse scandal (obviously this is a despicable thing that has happened), it might also be worth mentioning that the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and his primacy is in matters of faith. He is *not* the CEO of the Church like you might find in an ordinary industry. If we want to find resolutions to the abuse scandal, we have to bring the local bishops to account. If somehow the Pope is removed, it will not get rid of the problem. All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.

Re:wagging the dog

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While they aren't stupid, per se(it's not as though they don't have loads of well degreed Jesuits who definitely aren't, if it comes to that), and some of their people definitely have the low, animal cunning that makes a good politician; but, deep down, I think what causes them to keep making these unbelievably tone-deaf moves is ingrained arrogance.

It's hard to respond correctly when you just can't quite bring yourself to believe that great unwashed might, at some point, apply the rules to you. Even harder when you also posses the nigh-unshakable conviction that you are, in fact, the "good guys"(and where goodness is concerned, empiricism seems to run in reverse. Very few "good people" have ever said "Wait. I do bad things, I must not be a good person." Many "good people" have said "Wait. I'm a good person. The things that I do cannot be bad things.").

And that is how you get things like A senior priest saying(in public) that the condemnation being suffered by the Catholic Church was like the persecution of the jews.

Re:wagging the dog

[dimeglio]

The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses. Most religions do good, many help save millions from famine, help educated countless poor children and generally bring together communities. Priests are human and did fail - there are not very many left so you might see less and less problems here.

I encourage you to listen to the speech from this link. I feel it is worth making the effort of getting the information from the horse's mouth so to speak.

If the Vatican had a PR department, it would surly be accused of attempting to cover-up further wrongdoings of individuals trusted by the Holy See.

Re:wagging the dog

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really? The pope doesn't set or approve the penalties for how abuse is handled by bishops? While bishops may be primary arbiters of sexual misconduct in their diocese, going back to 1962, popes have definitely had some influence on the matter in a way that implicates them. Also look at the Wikipedia summary of Crimen Sollicitationis:

Unless solicitation in connection with Confession was involved, not only the local bishop but also superiors of religious orders exempt from the jurisdiction of the local bishop could proceed, either by formal trial or non-judicially ("modo administrativo"), against members of those orders who had committed such crimes; superiors of non-exempt religious orders could also do so, but only non-judicially

Re:wagging the dog

[ignavusinfo]

If the Vatican had a PR department [...]

If?

Re:wagging the dog

[lgw]

All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.

Why would an atheist, in particular, care who the Pope is? Is there some pro-atheist papal candidate who might have a shot at the papacy if the current Pope is ousted? It seems an odd statement.

Re:wagging the dog

[Moofie]

"Priests are human and did fail"

And the Church aided, abetted, and concealed that failure, systematically, for decades (if not generations).

This is far bigger than a few flawed humans. This is about a system that has perverted itself.

Re:wagging the dog

[HungryHobo]

The problem isn't that priests are human and did fail.
The problem is that the hierarchy worked hard to cover for them.

If it had stopped at the priests in question then the church as a whole would be squeeky clean but it did not.

It is the organizations actions, not the actions of the individuals, which show it as rotten to the core.

There are plenty of good people in the church but far far too many of them did nothing and we all know what happens then.

Re:wagging the dog

[hduff]

Pedo-Pope thinks the Internet is bad? Meh.

We have BoobQuakes to worry about.

Re:wagging the dog

[Karsaroth]

Also from the wikipedia link:

Crimen sollicitationis (Latin: the crime of soliciting) was a 1962 letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (or Holy Office) codifying procedures to be followed in cases of priests or bishops of the Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents.

The document is primary concerned with disciplinary matters regarding the priests violating their promise of celibacy. A quick look at the details will demonstrate that it was not written to address paedophilia, as that is a criminal offence and should always be handled by the civil authorities.

Re:wagging the dog

[vxice]

Has anyone thought of a RICO charge against the church? I mean they organized to conceal their criminal acts.

Re:wagging the dog

[kaizokuace]

Everyone's business model has been disrupted by the advent of the internet.

Re:wagging the dog

[obarthelemy]

The argument that it's OK to do it because others are doing does not fly. It's moral relativism at its worst.

The issue is not that some priests did fail, it's that the church as an institution did its best to cover it up, in the process creating opportunities for abuse to last longer and spread.

The whole vatican is a PR operation these days.

Re:wagging the dog

[Sanat]

I have/had a book written in the 1880's describing the failures of the priests and the cover-ups by the staff up to and including the Vatican. That book is now 130 years old (it was writing about the mid 1800's) and the situation has not changed in all that time.

My ex still has the book most likely. Next time I am in Edwardsville I will get it back.

Re:wagging the dog

[jc42]

The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses.

Heh. Just this afternoon, the US's NPR (National Public Radio) had an article about the growing scandal over similar abuse in the Boy Scouts. Officially at least, that's not even a religious organization (though they do push a lot of "God and Country" ideology).

So no, the Catholic church isn't nearly the only organization with that particular problem. And they're all going to find it a lot more difficult to keep a lid on the stories.

Disclaimer: I never was a Boy Scout, so I have no personal experience in this area. I was a Cub Scout, and my aunt Evelyn, my mother's older sister, was the local Cub Scout leader. She was a great lady, and the boys all loved her. (But not in that way, y'know. ;-) I never had any interest in the Boy Scouts, though; the local chapter seemed more like a sort of paramilitary boot camp to me, so I just ignored it.

Re:wagging the dog

[aBaldrich]

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.

Re:wagging the dog

[Man On Pink Corner]

All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.

There's an old aphorism from Sun Tzu Wu: "When you see your enemy making serious mistakes, do not interfere!"

As an atheist I couldn't possibly be happier with the Catholic Church and the deranged B-movie villain they elected Pope.

Re:wagging the dog

[strack]

It exacerbates tensions within nations that bloody well need to be exacerbated. case in point, communication by twitter during the iran protests. And to accuse the internet of dividing people in the context of a discussion about the catholic freaking church is pretty bloody rich. yeah. the catholic church united people, under the fear of being burnt at the stake as a heretic for questioning its teachings.

Re:wagging the dog

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole vatican is a PR operation these days.

Er, what? Of course it is. It's a religion. It's entirely based on superstition and imaginary playmates. There's nothing at the core by definition. It's the purest form of PR.

Re:wagging the dog

[c6gunner]

Historical atrocities like the inquisition and such is one example of morals going from absolute to relative in which a religion was involved

Uh, no, the inquisition is an example of church morals operating on status quo. It didn't happen in isolation. You may also have heard of witch-hunts. Crusades. Priests in that era were essentially just another form of aristocracy - one that held more power than the actual rulers of some nations. If you think that the atrocities which they carried out were an example of "relative morals", then you haven't read your bible, and you certainly haven't studied the history of christianity.

As for whether moral relativism is a good idea or not, it's irrelevant. Moral relativism is a reality. All morals are formed by the individual - they just tend to be influenced by the society in which the person was raised. The fact that morals are relative doesn't mean that we have to tolerate them all equally, though. I think rape is wrong - if your moral code allows rape (as many religions did, and some still do), I really don't give a damn, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you from acting on those morals. Relativity and equality are not the same thing.

Re:wagging the dog

[Skreems]

I suppose the alternative - announcing the names of the victims with a trumpet - would be more compassionate? Perhaps in the effort for justice we should likewise publicize the names of rape victims, too? I mean, information wants to be free, right?

That's not the alternative. The alternative is 1) kicking them out of the church so they won't have a position of authority, presumed goodness, and unsupervised access to young children, and 2) not allowing them to be shipped off to South America when one of the victims DOES want their day in court. The idea that you'd have to force public attention on victims who do not want it is a total strawman.

Re:wagging the dog

[hairyfeet]

That reminds me of an interview with Joss Whedon concerning writing good villains. He said "The truly best villains, like in real life, don't actually see themselves as villains. They believe they have a reason, or a justification, and that they are still good. I have known truly villainous people, people who went out of their way to cause pain and suffering to their fellow human beings, and in their mind it was totally justified and therefor they were still moral".

What pisses everyone off about the church is it is pretty obvious that for decades, hell for centuries, it has been out CYA and protecting their pervert priests over the flock they were supposed to be looking out for. Add in the hypocrisy of rallying against gays and those that cheat on their wives while the priest goes and screws little kids? Oh yeah, the church is gonna catch some serious hate.

Which is why we really shouldn't be surprised at the Pope pulling this shit, as he is pretty damned desperate at this point to get the cameras and the lawsuits that go with them, away from the church coffers. He is going "Look at how bad this over here is...away from where the pedo priests are hanging out...over there...LOOK DAMMIT!" only the shit ain't gonna work no more, thanks to what? That "evil Internet" that keeps him from shuffling it under the rug like they have for generations. If he didn't want to shell out the cash and deal with the flack, he shouldn't have been passing the buck and instead demanded the scumbag priests be handed over to the police for prosecution.

Re:wagging the dog

[Capsaicin]

The problem is that the hierarchy worked hard to cover for them.

What do you mean by "cover up?" This is Holy Mother Church, it is answerable directly to God, not to any mere secular authority! Irony aside there are historical reasons why the Church would be reluctant to recognise the authority of states over them (after all they think themselves the authority over states), much less hand their people over to them. Please note, I'm not attempting to justify the inexcusable, but explain the reluctance of this religious body, foremost among all religious bodies (excepting perhaps the Orthodox Church), to submit to secular authority.

If it had stopped at the priests in question then the church as a whole would be squeeky clean but it did not.

Again, just put yourself in the mindset of the Church. These guys genuinely believe they have a license from God to absolve the sinner of their sin. If the pervert priest in question confessed, said his Hail Marys or whatever, then it was all fixed, wasn't it?

Now while a materialist like me might explain the propensity (which anecdotally at least seems unduly high among catholic clergy) of priests to interfere which children, as the product of an ideology which posits sex as bad, thereby associating the transgressive with arousal, alloyed with an unrealistic expectation of chastity, that's not how the Church sees it. There are probably otherwise sober men who believe it is a manifestation of demonic influence. This is a church that still appoints exorcists. Perhaps they repaired the priests before sending them out for a fresh start.

After all we are, so I'm informed, all born as sinners. And Catholicism is all about forgiving sin.

Re:wagging the dog

[uvajed_ekil]

The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses

Ah yea, the old "everyone else was doing it, too" defense. Committing heinously evil crimes, then using a global organization to cover it up, can not be excused simply because someone else who is not a part of your organization committed the same crimes. Every time a representative of the oh-so holy Church gets on the radio or on CNN to defend their criminal organization, they feel compelled to mention that Catholic priests are not the only people who rape kids, which completely misses the point. That would be very funny, if this were a topic where humor could ever be found. And if I were to rape a bunch of kids, or even one, at my job, I would not be given new job duties or shipped to a different location - I'd go to prison. My employer, and most international employers, would never even consider covering up things like this instead of immediately reporting criminals to law enforcement. The Roman Cathnolic Church did this, many times.

If the Vatican had a PR department, it would surly be accused of attempting to cover-up further wrongdoings of individuals trusted by the Holy See.

For all intents and purposes, the Vatican does have PR staff - they call them priests of local parishes, mainly - and they have done quite a bit to cover up all sorts of things, including their cover-ups.

Re:wagging the dog

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:wagging the dog

[Camael]

After reading TFA, I think parent poster has a point.

It was a conference on digital media. The Pope basically praised the Internet as a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum. Then he warns that some of the stuff on the Internet can pollute the spirit. Given the crap that's online, that's a fair assessment to make.

OTOH, the Vatican really needs some good PR. You ask for forgiveness with a repentant and contrite heart, not with evasions, excuses, justifications or counter-accusations. And start by apologising to the victims, individually if need be. If this is what the Vatican has been trying to do, it didn't come across clearly enough.

For the rest, I think it would be a good idea to tone down on the witch hunting. It is too easy to get emotionally involved online with causes that we do not know the facts of. Lets give both parties breathing space so that they can talk to each other.

Re:wagging the dog

[Chryana]

I'm an atheist too, and I want to say for the record that the Catholic Church is not my enemy.

Re:wagging the dog

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that priests are human and did fail.

You know, the thing I hate most about this whole issue is the soft language used about priests' failure and their being human (amazing how die-hard right wingers in the media (not you) gleefully adopt liberal language about criminals just being human when its a religious prick in the dock). Excuse me, these aren't shoplifters or people who got caught with a joint. This is systematic child abuse over a lifetime of "ministering to their flock" (or is that a Lutheran phrase *shrug* - whatever).

And the problem IS very much that these champions of morality didn't just fail - they FELL to a standard lower than the hell they like to preach about so much. I think most moral people would say that the MOST important issue here is punishing the guilty and making damned sure that future abusers would not believe that just being a clergyman gives you free access to children without facing the consequences. THAT is the only way this pathetic little flesh trade will ever stop. The moral strength of the church is obviously impotent in doing anything about it and we might as well stop pretending that it is.

I applaud your condemnation of the organization but profess myself utterly baffled at your casual dismissal of the importance, nay - the primacy - of the actions of the individuals.

Re:wagging the dog

[Moofie]

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.

Re:wagging the dog

[Dahamma]

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".

Re:wagging the dog

[Meski]

So if an organisation does some good things, that gives them the right to do bad things (to balance it, perhaps?)

Re:wagging the dog

[DrLang21]

It seems (anecdotally - stats anyone?) that the incidence is higher in the priesthood than in the general community.

I'm not convinced of this. I believe clinical pedophila is a lot more common that we think. However, for the majority of society, 100% trusted access to children is very limited and social pressures keep them in check. The priesthood lacks these barriers. It's also quite possible that the way in which men are brought into the priesthood unwittingly encourages it by stunting the development of their sexuality.

Re:wagging the dog

[rtfa-troll]

I think that if you had a PR department which could keep things hushed up for 2000 years, you wouldn't be complaining.

Re:wagging the dog

[YttriumOxide]

It's only an observation from the outside that the most vocal atheists in the media seem to be anti-Catholic.

I think the problem here is that there's not just "one kind" of atheist. As with ALL human beings, we're all different and all have varying different beliefs* I'm an atheist, and I DO openly mock religious faiths fairly regularly (I have a strong belief that religions in general are dangerous and detrimental to society and that by mocking them, it leads to open debate, which may cause at least some to question their beliefs). However, the majority of atheists I know are quiet types that tend to "live and let live" as far as religion goes. They don't believe what their neighbour believes, but unless it specifically comes up in conversation are unlikely to say anything.

Now, with the type of atheist that I am, it's quite easy to appear as if you're targetting a specific group, such as Catholics. This however tends to come about purely because they're the ones saying the most to you. I probably come across as fairly anti-Catholic when Catholic people bring up my atheism. I also appear as fairly anti-Buddhist when Buddhists bring it up... but in the society in which I live, I'm far more likely to encounter Catholics than Buddhists, so my opinions probably appear fairly focused on the Catholics when that's not truly the case.

There are of course many other atheists that DO specifically target individual religions, and the Abrahamic religions are a fairly easy target due to both the size (collectively) and dominance in western culture. Going even more specific than "Abrahamic", the Catholic church is yet even easier as a target (although perhaps slightly less so than Islam) due to the many atrocities it has committed and the strong "anti-science" attitude that it gives off to many people (whether they do or do not hold this position is entirely irrelevant - they're perceived as that, which is all that really matters from a human reaction perspective).

* I refer to all people as having "beliefs". This does NOT imply that I think atheism is a "religion" (I would never write "atheism" on a form that asked for religion... I'd write "none"). A belief is simply something you accept as being "true" or "almost certainly true". I believe that Canada is a country. I believe that there is a lot of work waiting for me at the office when I finally head that way in a few minutes. And I believe that there is no greater supernatural power in the universe watching over us. I hold all of these beliefs because it's simply not practical to live one's life without beliefs. If I held NO beliefs, I wouldn't do anything at all... I can't be CERTAIN that I exist even, but I believe I do and so act accordingly...

Re:wagging the dog

[easyTree]

..and generally bring together communities

Agreed. Churches offer the opportunity to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with community-wide neighbours whilst receiving nonsensical programming/suggestion from your lunatic of choice.

Re:wagging the dog

[mcvos]

Ah yea, the old "everyone else was doing it, too" defense. Committing heinously evil crimes, then using a global organization to cover it up, can not be excused simply because someone else who is not a part of your organization committed the same crimes. Every time a representative of the oh-so holy Church gets on the radio or on CNN to defend their criminal organization, they feel compelled to mention that Catholic priests are not the only people who rape kids, which completely misses the point. That would be very funny, if this were a topic where humor could ever be found. And if I were to rape a bunch of kids, or even one, at my job, I would not be given new job duties or shipped to a different location - I'd go to prison. My employer, and most international employers, would never even consider covering up things like this instead of immediately reporting criminals to law enforcement. The Roman Cathnolic Church did this, many times.

That's exactly my issue with this. Sure, people fail, but when that failure is criminal, then the organisation shouldn't assist in covering it up, and certainly not allow it to continue. I can accept that bad stuff happened in the '60s and '70s, and that they weren't prepared to deal with it then. But once high-ranking officials became aware that abuse occurred, they should have made absolutely sure that it wouldn't happen again. I'm not sure if (high-ranking members of) the RC Church were aware of cover-ups in the last 30 years, but if so, I'd have some trouble figuring out how not to consider it a criminal organisation.

That is really how serious it is, and I get the impression that the Vatican still doesn't realise that. They seem to think it's a PR problem. If you really think child abuse is a PR problem, then you've got not a shred of the moral authority that the Vatican claims.

Re:wagging the dog

[Chrisq]

I have/had a book written in the 1880's describing the failures of the priests

You got someone to write a book in the 1880s? Jesus Crap, you're old.

No he's The Doctor. Not sure who his ex is, but the latest episode seems to hint at it.

Re:wagging the dog

[icebraining]

Yeah, forgiving sin.

When a priest fucks children, he can be forgiven with some some Hail Maries.

When a 9 year girl gets raped, pregnant and has to terminate her pregnancy because they'll both die if they don't, the Catholic Church explodes in rage and excommunicates her, her family and all the doctors.

They're a bunch of hypocritical bastards and for all I care can rot in jail.

Re:wagging the dog

[hairyfeet]

Oh I don't think is the religion itself per se, it is getting us monkeys into large groups that leads to the troubles. I know plenty of small (50 and under congregations) churches, and those folks actually go out of their way to help their fellow man. Soup kitchens, clothes and shelter for the homeless and migrant workers, they really do decent work, who cares whether they do it to be better in the eyes of their god or not.

At the same time I have had some dealings with these huge (5000-15000+) mega churches and you know what? The ONLY thing they are doing is lining their own pockets! Marble floors, giant stadium sized TVs, these places are loaded up with glitter and gold like you wouldn't believe. At the same time only a fool would do any work for them, because good luck getting those greedy bastards to actually pay on time, if at all. They are more concerned with their bottom lines than any mega corp, and if their lawyer says they can make more interest by not paying you, even if it risks putting you out of business on a big job? Well they will do it in a heartbeat, and never feel a drop of pity.

So I would say it is sticking us humans in large groups that is the culprit more than the beliefs of those in the group. In small groups compassion and decency can win out, where in large groups you end up with the "We were only following orders" defense, and power corrupting the whole rotten mess. But I can't think of a little church that went around treating folks like shit, but I can sure think of a lot of big ones that do.

Re:wagging the dog

[Jawn98685]

The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses...

True, but without a doubt, they have perfected the institutionalization of greed and corruption, wrapped in a yummy cloak of "doing the work of the Lord". The RCC has, for centuries, used every dirty trick in the book to gain influence and spread it's power. While The Reformation saw to it that the Church's influence would never again be what it once was, the Church certainly has not given up on those ways. We hear a lot about the pedophile priests and how their crimes have been systematically hidden by the Church, but their other crimes and moral transgressions are just as foul, if nowhere near as extensive, as they ever were. The RCC's pronouncements in Africa alone, on the "sinfulness" of condoms, may be realistically attributed to the loss of thousands of lives.

Re:wagging the dog

[drinkypoo]

I'm an atheist too, and I want to say for the record that the Catholic Church is not my enemy.

I'm an agnostic, and any organization that systematically covers up child abuse is my enemy.

Re:wagging the dog

[Cederic]

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.

Re:wagging the dog

[Man On Pink Corner]

I'm an atheist too, and I want to say for the record that the Catholic Church is not my enemy.

That is the Catholic Church's call to make, not yours.

You may not be their enemy, but rest assured that they are most certainly yours.

Nazi bastard

[oldhack]

Ugh, there goes my karma. But fuck it, eh. It's a downhill battle regardless.

Re:Nazi bastard

[asdf7890]

The Catholic Church lost their moral authority a long time ago. The Pope has a lot of nerve doing a moral statement about the Internet while being a former Hilter Youth and a pedophile.

Please people, let us not drop to their standards of rhetoric filled, evidence lacking, accusatory ranting. Please take shots at the Pope for the many things that are valid to take shots at him for and not just rail randomly with repeats of less defensible sentiments.

I don't hold the Hitler Youth thing against most of the Hitler Youth, old Ratty included. My impression is that if you lived in certain areas and were of the right age at the time you either joined or you and your family were ostracised, bullied to buggery, or worse. So lets be reasonable go a little easy on that one.

There is no evidence that he himself is a pedophile. If you throw that accusation around with not good evidence you look no better than any other ranting nutter (such as his holy nutness himself). There is from what I've read plenty of good evidence that he has in the past been very influential in certain cover ups (or been very very blind and stupid while they went on around him) - there are more than enough shots we can take pertaining to that evidence without needing to resort to less substantiated rhetoric.

You can make the Cult of the Vatican look foolish (or, in fact, criminal) without stooping to their level. Please prove you are better than they by doing so.

NOTE: I have nothing against Christians with a Catholic upbringing in general, much as I may pity them. My problem is with the Catholic hierarchy (from local clergy right to the top) and it is these officials (those that have done wrong, those that have protected those that have done wrong, and those that have sat idly by and allowed wrong to be done and covered up, and those who despite all the evidence are not actively doing anything to try right the situation by getting the truth released) which I refer to as "the Cult of the Vatican". I appreciate that "the Cult of the Vatican" may be a phrase that could cause offence to those officials and I would like to point out, for the avoidance of doubt, that any such offence caused is entirely 100% intentional.

An oldie but a goodie...

[Aardpig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9sJVJMiYM

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone truly care what this guy thinks? "Pollution of the spirit?" From a Catholic priest? Please...

Re:Who cares?

[Foobar of Borg]

Does anyone truly care what this guy thinks? "Pollution of the spirit?" From a Catholic priest? Please...

Well, in all fairness, the article did leave out the Pope mentioning how the Internet will sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids...

Re:Who cares?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Hey! Be fair. The Catholic Church are fucking experts on matters of "Pollution of the spirit" and ''multiple forms of degradation and humiliation' of the essence of a person'.

They have centuries of experience.

Riiight

[kimvette]

And holding everything locked down tight as a "state secret" is so much better. Oh wait, right, there's China. Yes, I see how that is so much better.

The pope is either an idiot, or a budding tyrant with ambitions of bringing the world back to the dark ages under dominion of the vatican.

Re:Riiight

[DavidRawling]

The pope is either an idiot, or a budding tyrant with ambitions of bringing the world back to the dark ages under dominion of the vatican.

I thought that was supposed to go without saying (*ducks*).

Re:Riiight

[yariv]

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).

Re:Riiight

[joebagodonuts]

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

Re:Riiight

[Foobar of Borg]

So you're trying to say the pope is a quack?

No, I think he's trying to say that he's made of wood.

Re:Riiight

[yariv]

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.

Re:Riiight

[Chris Mattern]

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes"

Which is, incidentally, an absolute. Lucas never did have much of a sense for irony.

Re:Riiight

[Angst Badger]

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.

Aside from his followers, who cares what he said? He's the Pope. That makes him an expert in exactly what real world concern?

Benedict is an expert in Catholic dogma, period. Excepting grade school, he has no education outside of Catholic doctrine and theology, and his entire professional life has revolved around promulgating Catholic doctrine. His opinion on practically anything else is at best worth no more than any randomly selected unskilled worker with access to the television and newspapers.

If I was Catholic, I would of course be interested in what he says -- I'd effectively be obligated to. Otherwise, even for other Christian denominations, there isn't the least reason to care that he exists, much less what he has to say, with the possible exception of law enforcement agencies investigating the increasingly notorious sex crimes committed by his underlings.

Re:Riiight

[yariv]

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

Translation:

[fliptw]

Openly transparent communication undermines power structures that rely on the opposite

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

Additional translation note:
Morals are inherently relative to personal values and situational details. Anytime someone warns about moral relativism, it's because they want you to follow their values and sense of right and wrong, instead of your own.

Re:Translation:

[hey!]

I don't know. Looking at what was reported, it looks like the pope said three things:

1) The new media gives more kinds of people a soap box. That is more egalitarian and pluralistic.

2) One side effect is to inflame the divisions between nations and people are inflamed.

3) Some people use their soapbox to promote moral relativism.

I think he's on solid ground on (1) and (2). Giving everyone a soapbox means the crazies and haters get one too. It's also the Era of Sorting. Back in the day, you had to live with people who had different opinions from you. One of the unexpected side effects of "virtual communities" is that it's never been easier to surround yourself with people who think just like you do. It's never been easier to transition from eccentric to full blown kook.

On (3), well, I don't think that statement means anything. I'm sure he's not talking about serious philosophical positions on the nature of ethics. I suspect he's talking about opinions he doesn't like.

The official Catholic position on morality is that it isn't based on divine commandment. That goes all the way back to Plato. But there's a huge loophole in this position: Human reason is inferior to Divine Wisdom, so while God's moral commandments have an objective justification, that justification isn't necessarily obvious.

That said, this is not the most opportune time to assert the Church's "magisterium". When the church can show it holds itself to at least basic, civilized standards of ethical behavior, it will be able to talk about "moral relativism" without provoking snickers.

Re:Translation:

[ockers]

Further to that:

The perpetuation of organized religion depends on 2 things: 1. ignorance; and 2. lack of critical thinking skills. The internet is the enemy of ignorance because of the openness and availability of information. Education teaches critical thinking skills.

The pope is just doing his job. They've identified that the fully open internet is a threat to the perpetuation of the church, and they have to take steps to discourage it or encourage limits on it.

Re:Translation:

[argStyopa]

"Anytime someone warns about moral relativism, it's because they want you to follow their values and sense of right and wrong, instead of your own."

This is glib, but quite wrong.

Ever-increasing communications and globalization is causing us to be confronted ever more often with questions of moral relativism. In ancient times, when few people traveled more than a handful of miles from home, it was less of an issue.

Today, we have regular and constant conflicts between moral systems, held by their adherents to be equally "good".

Simple example: We (in Western Humanist societies) believe that women are equal to men in capability and opportunity. Certain societies don't believe this. Does this mean that the women there are 'oppressed' and should be 'rescued'? Would they even agree? Should we aggressively evangelize our beliefs, because we're 'certain' they're better in an absolute sense? Aside from the fact that other cultures may be JUST as certain of their superiority, how does this jibe with the (current) Western opinion frowning on the actions of 16-19th century colonialist missionaries, who were JUST as certain at the time that they needed to do what they were doing to SAVE the souls of the 'poor little ignorant fuzzy-wuzzies'?

On the other hand, from the point of a true moral relativist, would you have any right to criticize an Arab society for jailing and/or beating a woman for going out in public without a male escort? Or for an Indonesian man selling his daughter into prostitution because needs some cash and after all, she's just a girl? Or Chinese families drowning newborns because they have a vagina and not a penis?

My personal answers to these questions make people uncomfortable. What're yours?

Oh, and don't even get him started on Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

That 140 character limit drives him up the wall.

Waaah!

[IMightB]

The problem isn't the pedo priests, it's the peoples ability to find out about them!

Transparency, always

[gibson123]

Seems to me he's saying it's a problem for Governments and Institutions, transparency is always good for the people. Oh yea, maybe transparency can be a problem for the Church as we learn more and more about what went on there....

Yeah, because absolutes work so well.. (for pedos)

[moz25]

So the leader of the organization with the filthiest possible secrets speaks out against transparency.

Okay, no surprise there...

The priority of the catholic church is the catholic church. Not God. Not innocent children. Not you.

The Pope

[Monkeedude1212]

I never got what the big deal was with The Pope anyways. He's just as human as you or I, so his interpretations can be just as flawed as yours or mine, yet elected by his own circle of peers, instead of by the masses that follow his orders.

I'll give him due respect as a fellow human being, one whose wisdom probably far exceeds my own in a great many things. However, I have a feeling I know a bit more on the subject of Internet Transparency than him, so I'll politely decline his advice.

Re:The Pope

[jonthegm]

What the pope says is only infallible when he speaks Ex Cathedra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Re:The Pope

[moz25]

Okay, let's do a little test.

When you know that someone under your responsibility molests children, what do you do:

1. Cover everything up, do NOT report said molester to police AND make sure he can work with children again in the future.

2. Report molester to police and do everything in your power to help victims and make sure there are no more victims.

If you've picked option #2, then congratulations, you're wiser than the pope!

Re:The Pope

[mattdm]

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".

Re:The Pope

[ENIGMAwastaken]

Oh, well then, that makes it perfectly OK and not all ridiculous and totally and completely bullshit

It turns out only SOME of the things the Pope says are the infallible word of God.

And how do we know the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra? Because God said so? No? Because some people made it up 140 years ago? Yeah. Well I now dictate that I'm infallible when speaking "en slashdotia". Beware.

Re:The Pope

[syousef]

I'll give him due respect as a fellow human being, one whose wisdom probably far exceeds my own in a great many things. However, I have a feeling I know a bit more on the subject of Internet Transparency than him, so I'll politely decline his advice.

His wisdom is indeed great on subjects such as covering up pedophilia, how to help spread disease by opposing contraception, how to set up an oppressive regime protected by superstition.

Basing morality on religion and myth is bad enough. Also most Popes have done varying degrees of harm. But this one seems to be the worst of the worst!

Re:The Pope

[jonthegm]

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.

Re:The Pope

[glwtta]

I never got what the big deal was with The Pope anyways.

He is imbued with divine authority (passed down from Simon Peter) over the entire Church, by Jesus our Lord and Savior. He's preserved from erring in matters of faith or morality by Divine Will.

He's just as human as you or I, so his interpretations can be just as flawed as yours or mine, yet elected by his own circle of peers, instead of by the masses that follow his orders.

Heh, yeah, I'm sure the Catholic Church is downright distraught that their authority does not derive from the will of the masses. That seems to be one of the main problems with the institution these days: it's deeply, utterly, incompatible with any notions of democracy or egalitarianism. Of course, we're all lowly sinners in the eyes of The Lord, it's just that He seems to have decided to elevate some above others in the Earthly life.

According to Catholics, anyway.

Re:The Pope

[tomhudson]

And here's the transcript of a letter from a priest who cooperated with the Vatican for picking # 1.

Now the funny thing is that it's MANDATORY to report suspected cases of child abuse, and yet the priests who covered it up have never been charged. Covering it up after the fact also makes them accessories after the fact.

Maybe it's time to do like some people in Great Britain are thinking of doing, and have the Pope arrested if he comes visiting.

Any bets that he cancels the September visit?

I've heard this before...

[NReitzel]

The words of the Bishop of Rome about the internet, freedom, and transparency, ring very familiar.

It was this very flavor of rhetoric that came from British citizens, Muslim Jihadis, who decry that freedom is the basic sin of mankind. They yearn for Sharia law to rule their lives.

Of course, I have no problem should they choose to live their lives under Sharia law. My problem comes about when they decide that I should live my life by Sharia law, whether I want to or not. It is, they explain, good for me.

So when el Papa decided that internet freedom is not for me, my immediate reaction was, "I've heard all this before."

It never fails to astound me when Men of God not only want to live their own lives by their code of conduct, but they want me to live that way, also.

When God shows up in a burning bush, and then explains how I should live, I may decide to give it some credibility. Until then, I'll go on striving for freedom of choice for myself, and for others. They can, if they choose, live by Biblical law.

Re:I've heard this before...

[rufus t firefly]

If he doesn't like the Internet, he doesn't have to use it.

It's borderline stupid to assume that any one sect or faith can push something out of existence for everyone else, at least in this day and age.

Tomorrow, both the Pope and the Internet will still be there. Perhaps with fewer proselytizing people using the Internet. "And nothing of value was lost."

Re:I've heard this before...

[timmarhy]

right on.

the reason they can't stand people not abiding by rules other then their own, is it poses the question that maybe their own way of life is "wrong", which for people with the belief that their dogma is the only way into heaven, is an untenable situation.

Re:I've heard this before...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Without reference to any specific people who may or may not be coming into our country, we in the UK have a serious problem with immigration generally. This is primarily because under EU rules we can no longer turn away a citizen from any other EU nation, and the EU is expanding to include nations with vastly different economic strength to its original members. This creates a bias in the direction of population flow from the poorer nations to the richer ones that is ultimately harmful to both, because it strains the resources and capacity of the wealthier nations while draining precisely the kind of skilled/talented/experienced people who would be needed in their home countries to help rapid development of their own economies.

The UK has been particularly badly hit by this for a number of reasons, including having a relatively high population density already and having relatively poor border controls and tracking of legal vs. illegal immigrants (ironically, considering that we're the ones who actually have a clear and defensible border). The same basic economic imbalance applies, to some degree, to many of the EU member states today, but the other factors mean the UK is also an attractive destination for those who have no intention of working legitimately and those who can find an excuse to come here from outside the EU.

The final nail in the coffin is that the strongest voices against immigration in the UK today tend to come from the far right, but the political parties with those views tend to be full of dubious characters you wouldn't necessarily want to support in general even if you agreed with their stance on immigration. This tends to make immigration a taboo subject: it's the political third rail, mention it without choosing your words extremely carefully and tomorrow you're "obviously" a racist according to half the papers and most other political parties. I'm sure the Pope would be very proud of our lack of transparency, moral absolutes and absence of reasoned debate. <sigh>

It's obvious why he's against such things...

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious reason he is against such transparency is because it would mean the church would actually have to own up to all the child molestation in his church. I think he needs to be worrying more about the "pollution of the spirit" of these abused kids first and foremost.

Sorry Joe

[Sponge Bath]

The change is coming. Transparency can lead to "degradation and humiliation", but so can secretiveness. If you want to remain relevant, then learn to deal with it instead of trying to suppress it.

Re:Sorry Joe

[Aardpig]

You forgot to tell him to stop his employees from raping children.

The Pope's Masterful Dream

[VortexCortex]

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Pravin Lal of Alpha Centauri (1999)

Paralelism

[gmuslera]

Killing internet openness because could be abuses, despite all the good that could come from it, could be very similar to killing religion, because, well, existed (child) abusers. Probably the net gain of killing both would be possitive for mankind.

Wag the Dog

[CrazeeCracker]

Odds are they're doing this just to get attention away from the recent sex abuse scandal.

I'm not surprised

[Flavio]

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.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Flavio]

Source.

To see the term "pontifical secret", read the English translation.

Re:I'm not surprised

[mister_playboy]

There's no such thing as the 'Holy Office'.

Also, source for your claim about those 'pontifical secrets'?

On 25 November 1981, Pope John Paul II named Ratzinger Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Holy Office, the historical Inquisition. Consequently, he resigned his post at Munich in early 1982. He was promoted within the College of Cardinals to become Cardinal Bishop of Velletri-Segni in 1993, was made the College's vice-dean in 1998 and dean in 2002.

In office, Ratzinger fulfilled his institutional role, defending and reaffirming Catholic doctrine, including teaching on topics such as birth control, homosexuality, and inter-religious dialogue. Leonardo Boff, for example, was suspended, while others were censured. Other issues also prompted condemnations or revocations of rights to teach: for instance, some posthumous writings of Jesuit priest Anthony de Mello were the subject of a notification. Ratzinger and the Congregation viewed many of them, particularly the later works, as having an element of religious indifferentism (i.e., Christ was "one master alongside others").

The Congregation is best known for its authority over the teaching of Church doctrine, but it also has jurisdiction over other matters, including cases involving the seal of the confessional, clerical sexual misconduct and other matters, in its function as what amounts to a court. In his capacity as Prefect, Ratzinger's 2001 letter De delictis gravioribus which clarified the confidentiality of internal Church investigations, as defined in the 1962 document Crimen Sollicitationis, into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including sexual abuse, became a target of controversy during the sex abuse scandal. While bishops hold the secrecy pertained only internally, and did not preclude investigation by civil law enforcement, the letter was often seen as promoting a coverup. The Pope was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas, but sought and obtained diplomatic immunity from prosecution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_XVI

Hmmmm .....

[DaMattster]

Of course the Pope would rail against transparency because transparency is the antithesis of power. Governments and large organizations do not want to be transparent, they want to operate in secrecy because knowledge is power. If the masses have knowledge of government activities, then they have the power to stop them and it makes propaganda that much more difficult to create.

I wouldn't say nowhere.

[jd]

It's Internet transparency that has been uncovering and unraveling the abuse scandal that has brought on a crisis within the Catholic Church. Although I'd be hard-pressed to say I was "shocked" that the Pope has no apparent interest in uncovering a network of evil, horror and corruption within the Church, I can and will say that I am disappointed. This was his golden opportunity to both prove to the world the relevance of the Church (through active demonstration) and to prove that fears (inspired by books like "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", "The Da Vinci Code", etc, and by right-wing Baptist loonies) that the Church was an active participant in satanic activities was crud. Instead, he's chosen a path of reinforcing the worst paranoias of the deluded, seemingly preferring the genuine dangers and very real threat of inflating religious extremist violence over and above having the Church fulfill its actual* mission. *Ok, purported. It's hard to say that peace, kindness and charity have anything to do with any actual mission the Church has performed these past 2,000 or so years.

Re:I wouldn't say nowhere.

[sznupi]

He has a tough choise though...large part (and the most important one...the growing one) of his faithfull are in developing countries. Heck, they are the reason why the Catholic Church as a whole is growing, despite (as with most faiths) registering major drop in the developed world.

Re:I wouldn't say nowhere.

[LordLimecat]

I would simply like to point out that if you are judging their relevance on whether they are "effective" then youve missed the point. A church is relevant if its views are correct, and irrelevant otherwise.

Re:I wouldn't say nowhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the criteria for a church being relevant (that its views are correct), then nearly all churches are irrelevant because:

1. Nearly all churches claim that they are correct and other religions are incorrect
2. Only one, at most, of those churches can actually be correct about the first point

In addition, no church has followers that constitute the majority of the world population (Islam is probably the closest). So that would mean that churches are irrelevant to most or all of the world population, and that (unfortunately, IMHO) just doesn't seem to jibe with the world as I know it. In a world were genocide still happens, something doesn't have to be rational, or make any sense at all, for it to still be relevant. You don't survive long telling the people with machetes that they're not relevant.

uhhh... sure

[RelliK]

All that transparency sure makes it hard to hide child rape scandals.

Did anyone actually read the article?

[EldestPort]

The Pope actually 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." he did not "[attack] the idea of transparency in the Internet age". But, I mean it's the Pope, who cares what he actually *said*, right? /sarcasm

Re:Did anyone actually read the article?

[joebagodonuts]

The Pope did NOT say that. That quote (Time for truth) was the Vatican spokesman.

FTA:
""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 ... 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."

Nothing new

[JustNiz]

It doesn't take a genius to see that the catholic church hides behind a thin facade of Christianity but is in fact a self-serving money-grabbing regime and tool of the establishment.

The Vatican's actions speak for themselves, especially like now when even the Pope uses weasel words to advocate against truth, openness and honesty, which the bible clearly details as the most fundamental principles of being a Christian.

Biased reporting will give biased reactions

[epte]

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.

Re:where religion goes to die

[meta-monkey]

Obviously, the only way for the church to continue to exist in our modern era is to stop children from going online.

Well, also, there's all those pedophiles in chat rooms and on myspace, and the church doesn't appreciate the competition.

Did you actually read the article?

[ENIGMAwastaken]

"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."

Not transparency that he was talking about

[Art3x]

I read the article. The Pope said these risks are from the "new media," not transparency. The original text:

"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 ... 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.

I agree with him that it poses greater risks, with its greater benefits. A super-high-speed, worldwide network is a double-edged sword. It can bring good and bad, just like older forms of communication, just more of it.

Re:Yeah, because absolutes work so well.. (for ped

[tomhudson]

Not innocent children

They're working quite energetically on ending THAT particular problem ... no more innocent children - they're all guilty of being priest-tempters.

An airplane is going down with a Boy Scout troop, their leader, a lawyer, and the Pope. There are only 3 parachutes.

"What about the children?" says the troop leader.

"Screw the children!" says the lawyer.

"Do we have time?" says the Pope?

*yawn*

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

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... :)

I was going to moderate this thread but...

[mjwx]

Ugh, there goes my karma. But fuck it, eh. It's a downhill battle regardless.

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.

Re:I was going to moderate this thread but...

[mjwx]

Actually, he signed up voluntarily for both the Hitler Youth and military service. When he joined the Hitler Youth, for example, it was after mandatory conscription.

Ratzinger (spelling) was born in 1927, conscription into the Hitler Youth began in 1939, he was 12. In 1942 when he joined membership was practically mandatory for 14 yr old German boys, only 10% of Germans avoided it and joining was completely mandatory if you were Aryan. Like many Germans male teenagers at the time he really had the choice of joining or being forced to join.

Don't get me wrong, personally I think the guy is a twat and trying to prop up an ancient institution that we just don't need any more. Further more he wants to cover the bad press the church has been getting lately (paedophilia charges). I don't think we need to keep dragging this old chestnut up, I think his recent actions are enough to bash him with.

Moral Relativism

[thisnamestoolong]

It is ironic to hear a man who covered up hundreds if not thousands of cases of child rape in the name of his religion's good name talk about moral relativism. The Catholic Church can not die soon enough IMHO.

It's not the abuses... it's the coverups.

[Trerro]

It's not the abuses anyone is complaining about, it's the cover ups. Sure, every profession is going to have people who piss on the ethical standards of that profession, and there's no reason a religious profession would somehow dodge that.

The thing is, if a doctor violates the Hippocratic oath, he loses his medical license. A corrupt lawyer gets disbarred. A fraudulent scientist gets publicly shamed and unable to get money for future research. Jobs with less on the line usually just result in the offender being fired. Whatever the job is though, when someone is corrupt, they're generally removed, and when that fails to happen, the company they work for is punished instead.

With the catholic church, they covered up the pedophilia for decades, and now that they can't hide it any more, do they at least finally apologize, vow to fix it, and start making good on that promise by immediately kicking the most obvious offenders out of the clergy and turning them over the cops? Nope, they instead whine that that transparency of the internet is bad, because it makes their wrongdoing public. That isn't bad PR, that's a systemic failure of the morals they claim to uphold.

THIS is why so few still have any respect for them. Failing to discover abuse is one thing, but being fully aware of it and actively hiding it is when they very much cross the line between "good profession with the occasional douchebag" to "group that actively promotes evil behavior."

Similarly, you can look at the police in the US. Does anyone complain that there's a few evil, unethical cops? Of course not - sometimes you really can't weed them out until they majorly screw up... except they don't. They're "doing administrative work until an investigation can be thoroughly completed." Translation: We're keeping him off the street until the media focuses on something else, then pretending this never happened. Unsurprisingly, public opinion of the police is quite low - doesn't matter that the majority of cops are indeed good people, the system they work for actively promotes evil by refusing to punish the corrupt members of their organization.

Re:It's not the abuses... it's the coverups.

[CapnStank]

Coming from a person who is the offspring of two RCMP members and (currently) dating the daughter of another police officer I can tell you that its not as cut and dry as that. Internal investigations are not simple when there's clics inside of the departments you're investigating. Unfortunately there's a lot of people (officers) out there who hold friendships higher then their sworn duty.

Re:It's not the abuses... it's the coverups.

[Bengie]

It's not the abuses anyone is complaining about, it's the cover ups. Sure, every profession is going to have people who piss on the ethical standards of that profession, and there's no reason a religious profession would somehow dodge that.

[...]

With the catholic church, they covered up the pedophilia for decades, and now that they can't hide it any more, do they at least finally apologize, vow to fix it, and start making good on that promise by immediately kicking the most obvious offenders out of the clergy and turning them over the cops? Nope, they instead whine that that transparency of the internet is bad, because it makes their wrongdoing public. That isn't bad PR, that's a systemic failure of the morals they claim to uphold.

[..]

I agree. The worst kind of evil is having the power to stop evil, but doing nothing about it. When it comes to morals/ethics, you're only as "good" as your weakest link. If the Vatican sees a pedophile and does nothing of it, then the Vatican is giving it's reputation and telling people that this man/woman is of Vatican quality even though it knows what he/she actually does. They are no better than the people they willing support when knowing of their evils.

Re:It's not the abuses... it's the coverups.

[ceoyoyo]

Absolutely. But when the organization gets caught, you don't reason it away. You come down hard on them, and clean house. You certainly don't promote one of the worst offenders to chief (pope) and let him stay there.

Re:It's not the abuses... it's the coverups.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the abuses anyone is complaining about, it's the cover ups.

*cough* To be accurate, I'm sure we're at least a little pissed about the abuses themselves eh? I know what you're trying to say, but let's not forget the horrors the children had to go through just because they had faith that so-called "men of god" would not be perverted old goats. I guess the sentiment is (or should be) that the crime was vicious and deserves harsh punishment. The fly on the pile was the way their godless leaders protected these animals instead of (if they were even remotely serious about their own faith) going all Torquemada on their asses.

To my mind, the far greater sin is the original abuse and the unanswered question of why in Beelzebub's name these irredeemable sinners are not rotting in a prison for life? Has a SINGLE priest spent a single day in a jail cell over this? Is pedophilia an acceptable perk of being a clergyman these days? Are we still living in medieval times where the rule of law was nonexistent and morality defined at the whim of theocratic tyrants?

In fact, I grieve that this whole discussion of the responsibility of the Vatican is beginning to take the focus away from the actual criminals (the PRIESTS) and making the issue more abstract and vague than it is. I fear that this vagueness will ultimately result in nothing being done since the big guys are sitting all comfy on their thrones in their own little joke of a toy nation. Who gives a bunny's wedding whether some guy in a funny hat takes some metaphorical responsibility for these concrete crimes? I would be a lot more impressed by that rhetoric if the authorities in - let's take a real example - the USA (why not?) actually prosecuted and punished these miserable excuses for human beings for crimes committed in the USA instead of being all "respectful" and stuff. *retch* THEN you can go after the leaders if you want.

But why is everyone just forgetting the animals who actually did the crimes? Where are the criminal trials for this criminal issue? The saddest part of this whole debacle is that common catholics and even victims appear to be closing ranks and showing a tendency to want to treat this as "an internal matter" because their leaders have brainwashed them to believe in a global anti-catholic conspiracy that will try to use this issue to destroy their church.

Lastly, WHY in the name of satan's spawn would this institution EVER be granted the right to treat this as an internal matter? Isn't that why we have laws? Or have I mistakenly read the last few hundred years of world history from a novel and foolishly thought that the holy roman empire never actually dissolved and democratic government never arose in the western world?

Misleading Post

[bmearns]

The summary given in this post is incorrect and misleading in asserting that the Pope was attacking transparency. According to the cited article, the Pope did not address the issue of transparency. The dangers he mentioned were in regards to the "widening of the frontiers of communication" in general, i.e., the web. He also hailed modern comm tech as pointing "to a more 'egalitarian and pluralistic' forum". In fact, the Vatican spokesman specifically said "This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility...We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide" just prior to the Pope's address.

tcd004, and perhaps kdawson, might want to think about reading the featured article before summarizing/posting it.

The Pope's Actual Speech

[brpetertotleben]

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.

Re:What is moral relativism?

[Nefarious Wheel]

I find this all very confusing. Can someone explain it in terms of Neutral Good, Lawful good, Chaotic Good? And which dice do I use to determine alignment?

Things the Catholic Church fears the most...

[neowolf]

I'm sure it's already been said by others, but there are approx. 600 comments already. I just have to note that the Internet provides a means for people to educate themselves and openly communicate with others. Education and communication are two things an organization like the Catholic Church fears the most. They came into their power through fear and ignorance. They can't tell people what is right and wrong when those people have the means to make their own decisions.

I have to wonder: How many pedophile priests have been outed thanks to the Internet? How many people have left the Church because they have discovered other spiritual paths (including the many other paths of Christianity) thanks to the Internet. The bottom line is the Pope is scared. His Church may have to start selling some of their gold and property in order to survive this century.

This may hurt my Slashdot karma, but my real Karma is more important. :)