Slashdot Mirror
Pope To Resign Citing Advanced Age
Hugh Pickens writes writes "BBC reports that Pope Benedict XVI is to resign at the end of this month in an unexpected development, saying he is too old to continue at the age of 85. In a statement, the pontiff said: 'After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.' Resignations from the papacy are not unknown, but this is the first in the modern era, which has been marked by pontiffs dying while in office."
Seriously? So what? I'm pretty sure that a change in the religious leadership for over 1 billion people spread across the entire globe fits in the "stuff that matters" category. The guidance of the pope strongly influences the way that a very large number of people think about important topics such as family planning, the role of government, charity, women's issues, the relationship between religions, and more.
I'm an atheist from 'Murica and even I understand the potential significance of such a change. I mean, it probably isn't as important as DRM on video games or complaining about Apple, but it merits a spot in the list.
Actually.....
Recent history shows he doesn't have to resign early to affect his succession. If you were watching in 2005 you would know that Pope John Paul II did exactly that and basically put him (the current Pope) into office as his hand-picked successor. Look at nearly any picture of the previous Pope in the last few years of his life and you're see the the man who became Benidict XVI in the same frame.
Not like this is any big scandal. - It's totally natural to be concerned about who takes over when you leave.
AND, leaders (religious, political or even corporate) selecting others who are like minded is called "Organizational Consistency" and is not a ""bad word"" in most places.
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
For a site filled with pedants, it's odd how many members forget the "stuff that matters" part of the slogan. The Catholic church has a membership of over 1 billion people, and a change in pope can affect how those people -- and especially their kids -- view certain issues, including scientific issues (albeit, the Catholics are nothing like evangelists).
People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist. The people that run the Vatican and those in the past that have stood up and protected that power structure at all costs are fallible mortals. Shut up and deal with it or I'll throw you in with Scientology.
I dunno about you, but I'm an atheist because there simply aren't any gods... but an anti-theist because of the way faith and religion makes people behave. Small difference, perhaps, but I wouldn't want people to believe that my objective interpretation of reality is merely a response to the way those pricks behave.
Please point me to some citations on this. All the information I can find says that the rate of molestations are near identical to every other profession in which exposure to children is part of it.
This number is higher then a number for the general population. I think it has to do with those who would harm the children actively seeking out avenues to be exposed to them.
While the Church is a church of forgiveness, it is not a Church of forgetfulness. The Church can decide not to punish a molesting priest, but it should realize that it has a problem with that priest and should not let that priest around children again.
For the record, policy in the USA requires any Church members (from bishops down to Religious Education teachers) are required to take a course in child abuse detection and prevention (sexual and otherwise). One of the things that they teach there is if they see signs of abuse from anybody, they are to inform both the Church and the local constabulary.
The reasons that the Catholics have been singled out on the abuse angle are roughly:
1: We are expected to be held to a higher moral standard than even other churches, as well we should be
2: There are an awful lot of priests there. Roughly a third of the US Christian population is Catholic, and no other church has a quarter as many members as the Catholic church does. Again, more reason to keep our noses (and other parts) clean.
3: The ugly reason is that the Catholic Church is organized different from other churches, and thus easier to sue for big money. Because we are an authoritarian church, ownership is by hierarchy. When the scandal started up in Boston (the archidiocese I grew up in), people weren't suing a priest, or that priest's church, but the archdiocese itself, which draws its income from every Catholic church in the Greater Boston area.
None of these should be taken as excusing things that the Church and priests, but I do note that the above reasons may explain why we don't see similar scandals rocking other churches. I highly doubt that the Catholics have cornered the market on molesting clergy.
For my money, the fact that these pedophiles exist in the Church is horrible, but in a way understandable. Any large group will have some bad apples, and it's impossible to weed them all out. The fact that the Church had been protecting these priests [em]as policy[/em] is much worse. I for one would have loved to see Cardinal Law explain himself to a grand jury, and think in retrospect that Pope John Paul II did us all a disservice by getting him out of the country before that could happen.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't walk and text.
I know this is going to kill my mod points, but I'll throw it out anyway...
What if WWII wasn't the worst thing in the web of possible 20th century events? What if there was no WWII and the Cold War started pre or early-nuke with a (mostly) demilitarized Europe and America had minimal troops and arms factories setup (as is the case in almost every "somebody went back in time and killed Hitler" story)? What if the European powers continued pointless and frequent war, treating it as a sport as they did in the 19th century and before?
If you look at WWII as the almost-inevitable epilogue to WWI due to the terms put on Germany, WWI/WWII were sort of the "War to end all wars [in Europe]" (ignoring smaller, regional conflicts). No one has invaded London, Paris, Berlin (although it was divided), Brussels, or Rome in almost 70 years.