The Pope Criminalizes Leaks

PolygamousRanchKid writes "Pope Francis overhauled the laws that govern the Vatican City State on Thursday, criminalizing leaks of Vatican information and specifically listing sexual violence, prostitution and possession of child pornography as crimes against children that can be punished by up to 12 years in prison. But without the leaks, how would we find out about those crimes against children? Many of the new provisions were necessary to bring the city state's legal system up to date after the Holy See signed international treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Others were necessary to comply with international norms to fight money-laundering, part of the Vatican's push toward financial transparency. One new crime stands out, though, as an obvious response to the leaks of papal documents last year that represented one of the gravest Vatican security breaches in recent times. Paolo Gabriele, the butler for then-Pope Benedict XVI, was tried and convicted by a Vatican court of stealing Benedict's personal papers and giving them to an Italian journalist, Gianluigi Nuzzi. Using the documents, Nuzzi published a blockbuster book on the petty turf wars, bureaucratic dysfunction and allegations of corruption and homosexual liaisons that afflict the highest levels of Catholic Church governance. Gabriele, who said he wanted to expose the 'evil and corruption' that plagued the Holy See, was convicted of aggravated theft and sentenced to 18 months in the Vatican's police barracks."

Comments

So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how long until the Church devolves into an organization that takes people into dank cells someplace and tortures them. Oh... umm... nevermind.

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how long until the Church devolves into an organization that takes people into dank cells someplace and tortures them.

You want that sort of treatment for FREE?! Dream on buddy.

And what's your personal preference, monks or nuns?

Re:So, how long

[fellip_nectar]

Nobody expects that though...

Re:So, how long

[cold fjord]

Interesting article. After 1483 the Spanish Inquisition was at the command of the King of Spain.

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition

Because it was both professional and efficient, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records.

These documents are a goldmine for modern historians who have plunged greedily into them. Thus far, the fruits of that research have made one thing abundantly clear – the myth of the Spanish Inquisition has nothing at all to do with the real thing. . . .

In 1483 Ferdinand appointed Tomás de Torquemada as inquistor-general for most of Spain. It was Torquemada's job to establish rules of evidence and procedure for the Inquisition as well as to set up branches in major cities. Sixtus confirmed the appointment, hoping that it would bring some order to the situation.

Unfortunately, the problem only snowballed. This was a direct result of the methods employed by the early Spanish Inquisition, which strayed significantly from Church standards. When the inquisitors arrived in a particular area, they would announce an Edict of Grace. This was a 30-day period in which secret Jews could voluntarily come forward, confess their sin, and do penance. This was also a time for others with information about Christians practicing Judaism in secret to make it known to the tribunal. Those found guilty after the 30 days elapsed could be burned at the stake.

For conversos, then, the arrival of the Inquisition certainly focused the mind. They generally had plenty of enemies, any one of whom might decide to bear false witness. Or perhaps their cultural practices were sufficient for condemnation? Who knew? Most conversos, therefore, either fled or lined up to confess. Those who did neither risked an inquiry in which any kind of hearsay or evidence, no matter how old or suspicious, was acceptable.

Opposition in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to the Spanish Inquisition only increased. Many churchmen pointed out that it was contrary to all accepted practices for heretics to be burned without instruction in the Faith. If the conversos were guilty at all, it was merely of ignorance, not willful heresy. Numerous clergy at the highest levels complained to Ferdinand. Opposition to the Spanish Inquisition also continued in Rome. Sixtus's successor, Innocent VIII, wrote twice to the king asking for greater compassion, mercy, and leniency for the conversos – but to no avail. --- more

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

If you punish ordinary opposing views in debate you aren't committed to free speech. Prove me wrong.

So if you dismiss someone's opposing views as not being 'ordinary' - and then punish them - you're in the clear, right?

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

In your case, probably not. Why that is so is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:So, how long

[gl4ss]

I think you should somehow establish what the "myth" is, since the article despite being pro-catholic, clearly establishes a persecution and burning documentedly 2000+ persons for nothing while majority of spaniards approved the action - yet right after that the article tries to pin the bad reputation of the inquisition on protestant propaganda - and that the church's scribes records are the true word on the matter and 100% factual, honest and leaving nothing out.

what a load of crock. what's the popular myth then if not spanish officials killing people based on hearsay? that torquemada ate still beating hearts??

Re:So, how long

[RaceProUK]

The weird thing is the Spanish Inquisition always gave 30 days notice.

Apologies for spoiling the joke.

Re:So, how long

[swalve]

I think the popular myth was that it was the Catholic church who was behind the killings, when, apparently, it was the Spanish government.

Re:So, how long

[khallow]

So why wasn't the King of Spain threatened with excommunication for this grievous abuse of power in the name of the Church? Why didn't the Church just nip that in the bud and refuse his requests for an Inquisition. Because his military support was necessary to keep Rome from being overrun by the Ottomans. They also had centuries to reverse that mistake and yet the Inquisition lingered until the mid-19th century.

Just because the Spanish Inquisition was run by the King of Spain doesn't absolve the Roman Catholic Church of its role in creating, legitimizing, and maintaining that odious organization.

Also, wouldn't you think that an actual Catholic education service would have better things to do than act as apologists for tyranny and terrible mistakes of the past?

Re:So, how long

[Trepidity]

Kind of a tangent, but fwiw the Vatican no longer handles its own prosecutions or imprisonments. Under the Lateran Treaty of 1929, the Vatican has autonomy in policing, but prosecution is handled by the Vatican handing the prisoner over to the Italian court system and requesting them to be prosecuted:

At the request of the Holy See, or by its delegate who may be appointed in single cases or permanently, Italy shall provide within her for the punishment of offences committed within the Vatican City, save and except when the author of the offence shall have taken refuge in Italian territory, in which event he shall immediately be proceeded against according to the provisions of the Italian laws.

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

The other AC already spoiled it by explicitly stating what everyone knew was being talked about, you just made it funny again.

Re:So, how long

[jellomizer]

Yes the catholic church hasn't change one bit since the dark ages. I expect you are probably of European descent so you must be still trying to kill those other guys of European descent.

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

They apparently had no issues with it since the King of Spain received no punishment from the Church despite the quote saying:

This was a direct result of the methods employed by the early Spanish Inquisition, which strayed significantly from Church standards.

The Church excommunicated people for far less than what happened during the Spanish Inquisition yet they did nothing. *shrug*

Re: So, how long

[nospam007]

"I think you should somehow establish what the "myth" is, since the article despite being pro-catholic, clearly establishes a persecution and burning documentedly 2000..."

It has already been made abundantly clear on these pages, these people had, besides their almost fanatical devotion to the pope, 3 weapons, no, 4, let me rephrase ...,

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

Abuse of power is a Magna Carta inspired concept. Although this is time before "absolutism", the kings power over non-nobility was absolute.

Re:So, how long

[CrimsonAvenger]

So why wasn't the King of Spain threatened with excommunication for this grievous abuse of power in the name of the Church?

Because the Popes knew perfectly well that excommunicating the Spanish King would just case said Spanish King to send an Armmy over to Rome to replace the Pope with someone more...amenable to reason.

Like, oh, the Spanish King's son the Cardinal, for instance. Yes, a lot of the spare Spanish Princes found themselves in the Church, there was usually at least one Cardinal among the lot, and it's not hard to get your son the Cardinal elected Pope if you have enough troops in Rome.

Re:So, how long

[tnk1]

That is an unfortunate result of politics, and does represent a failing of the Church. Because of the politics of having to play nice with the Spanish (who were mostly allies during the Reformation), the Spanish Government got to use the Inquisition as a tool, and the Church had to shut up about it.

On the other hand, burning people for heresy, or witchcraft, was something everyone did at the time. Excommunication would have been unusual for what was common practice in the period. Our views on that practice are certainly better, but our judgement of how a reasonable person would view them in that time are anachronistic.

Also, when you talk about the Church excommunicating people for less, we need to remember that the Catholic Church in its 2000 year history has had high and low points in its power. In the 13th Century, a pope could put England or France under Interdict and bring kings to their knees. In the 15th Century, after the start of the Reformation, not so much. The Church was no longer universal and needed kings as allies, and those allies demanded concessions.

That said, many of the more baroque excesses attributed to the Inquisition were indeed mostly propaganda. The thing to consider is that the Inquisition itself was set up to at least bring some sort of due process to what might otherwise be settled by virulently anti-Jewish or anti-"heretic" mobs (frequently encouraged by the governments). To someone today, that seems like putting a safety placard on a torture device, but we need to remember that we didn't just spring all enlightened from the ground. The progress for human rights today springs from the same sources that would have tried to moderate religious violence though due process in a more brutal time. That this impulse was not sufficient to step in front of these abuses is unfortunate, but we've hardly stopped making compromises with certain ideals, even today.

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably for the same reason Nancy polosi and Joe Biden ( two of many 'catholic' politicians who open flaunt catholic teaching today) haven't been excommunicated. It is really a combination of forces. Some practical, money, influence ect. Some cultural, bishops are members of the society where they live and some of them sometimes sympathize with the popular opinion of the day , because they are sinners like anyone else, rather then stay with the truth. Some spiritual, like the desire not to alienate many who hold the same "sinful" opinions and are guilty of the same sins. It is better to continue to help someone become more holy then it is to give up on them
and reject them from the community? At what point does the bishop, who is obligated to think of these people with the same love as father has for his children, make the decision that some of his children need to be cut off for the sake of others?
Which would Jesus do, reject or embrace the sinner? Why is it we except, politicians , kings, even bishops not to be sinners or commit sin?
And for the record, according to catholic teaching, Polosi, Biden and the like are responsible for upholding, encouraging and creating policies that
are responsible for many millions more deaths then the inquisition ever was, because they support legalized abortion, which to date has killed 75million people in this country alone since the 70's, So they certainly deserve excommunication more than the king of Spain could.

Re:So, how long

[khallow]

The concept greatly predates the Magna Carta. For example, the first known code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi addresses abuse of power in the first paragraph of its preamble:

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

Abuse of power is not a recent concept, but a fundamental concept driving the very formation of law to the point that it is one of the three justifications given in the very first known written system of law.

If somehow we could hop in a time machine and go back to the first stories uttered by men, I think we would find that the idea of abuse of power is that old.

Re:So, how long

[khallow]

And for the record, according to catholic teaching, Polosi, Biden and the like are responsible for upholding, encouraging and creating policies that are responsible for many millions more deaths then the inquisition ever was, because they support legalized abortion, which to date has killed 75million people in this country alone since the 70's, So they certainly deserve excommunication more than the king of Spain could.

How many of those deaths are they personally responsible for? I could similarly state that the kings of Spain supported tyranny, which probably has a body count well north of a billion deaths these days.

Re:So, how long

[blackanvil]

Money. Spain had control of most of the silver and gold mines, the logwood, cocoa, and other natural resources that came from the recently-discovered Americas, and the Church knew better than to push too hard on the ones controlling its purse. Also, Spain was the gateway to the new world, with it's millions of souls, though I doubt that had nearly as much influence as the gold, silver, and related tithes.

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, burning people for heresy, or witchcraft, was something everyone did at the time.

[citation needed]

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been watching QI again...

Re:So, how long

[Anonymous Coward]

I think ultimately separation of Church and State means not only should the churches not be involved in state matters, but I want the state out of my church. No using religion for politics, thank you.

Re:So, how long

[tom arnall]

if these people ever recover the means of violence, they will again act like monsters. i was a catholic monk for 7 years and know the thing from the inside. look at the stuff they're still running in Ireland. look at what they're trying to do in the states around abortion. if they cd manage it, they'd have jackboots killing people just like in their good old days. the catholic propagandist does a maneuver which is standard for all bullies once you get them on the ground: blame someone else. read at his link. in the world of weasily crap, it's a masterpiece. the sneaky little creep pretends to present just the facts, with no bias towards anyone, and in so doing makes the best possible case in favor of the monster. if he isn't a jesuit, he's one of their pupils.

Re:So, how long

[tnk1]

Read a history book, or heck even Wikipedia.

Catholics and Protestants were burning people up to the mid-18th Century for things like witchcraft. The Salem witch trials were in 1692-1693. The Pendle Witch Trials were in 1612. And all of that was completely Protestant work. The Catholics, of course, were burning people for heresy and sometimes witchcraft.

Although I wouldn't say that they were having burnings every weekend, it was certainly common and laws were enacted well into the 18th Century which prescribed burning as a penalty for witchcraft and heresy.

Re:So, how long

[imanism]

Because no one would expect them...

"intellectual property" and "personal data"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yer capitalists go for the IP thing.

Yer social democrats go for the Data Protection thing.

So, fact is, data leaks are going to be regulated.

And modern anti-money-laundering laws are mostly about making it hard to transact except via the mainstream corporate-welfare banks (just like a lot of the banking regulation designed to stop a repeat of 2007 in fact is about eliminating mutual societies, but everyone in the UK is sleepwalking through that too, because they're simple and dumb..).

And UNCRC is a joke, because countries kept in Third World status by a mixture of Western exploitation, local government corruption and inequitable trade regulations are going to guarantee that kids need to work to support their families.

without the leaks

[Antiocheian]

"But without the leaks, how would we find out about those crimes against children?" -- these are not relevant. Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

Re:without the leaks

[YukariHirai]

Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

I wouldn't bet against it ever happening, but the more likely problem is people reporting abuse internally and the people who are supposed to be responsible for dealing with it doing nothing about it. That's something that leaking official documents could bring to light.

Re:without the leaks

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

Re: without the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catholic church documents EVERYTHING. One of the saddest stories I've ever read was one about a man who won a court case in California and was handed the internal records of that diocese that proved it after years of being told he was lying, AND that many others in the church knew that it was true, and then finding his younger brother's name on the list of molested children as well.

Re:without the leaks

[SuricouRaven]

"Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents."

This is the catholic church we are talking about. They've done exactly that before.

Re:without the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

"But without the leaks, how would we find out about those crimes against children?" -- these are not relevant. Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

They did do something about it. They covered it up. Officially. There was a whole department responsible for it. The former pope was in charge of it.

Re:without the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

And this, if I recall correctly, is exactly what has happened to publicize certain individuals doing these things.

Re:without the leaks

[flimflammer]

It is relevant and has happened a number of times before. It might not be the only means of exposure but there have been a number of high profile cases regarding this sort of leak proving abuses have happened.

Re:without the leaks

[cold fjord]

You might be overlooking the existence of victim protection laws similar to this guideline:

GUIDELINES ON THE PROTECTION OF CHILD VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING

2.6 Right to Confidentiality
All necessary measures shall be taken to protect the privacy and identity of child victims to ensure the safety and security of the victim and his or her family. The name, address and all other information that could lead to the identification of the child victim or his or her family members shall not be revealed to the public or media. Exceptions may be made in circumstances such as to facilitate the tracing of family members or otherwise secure the well-being and protection of the child, with the informed consent of the child. Information about a child victim that could endanger the child or the child’s family members shall not be disclosed in any case.20

Note what is in the fine article:

The bulk of the Vatican's penal code is based on the 1889 Italian code. Many of the new provisions were necessary to bring the city state's legal system up to date after the Holy See signed international treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Re:without the leaks

[xelah]

Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

Hmm, are you sure it requires that? I thought it was fairly widespread common law thing that employers could be sued for things their employees did whilst doing their job, even if there was nothing the employer could have known or done about it. (Which is something it can occasionally be rather important to know, especially if you're an employer). Of course, hiding it might make the church guilty of a crime, too.

Presumably lawyers have lots of fun making up puns on vicarious liability, too. Except that vicar and vicarious really do seem to have the same root.

Re:without the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

On what basis would you say that? Of course leaks will reveal crimes and corruption, and of course evidence may be documentet but not used because of making leaking a crime in itself, which is a crime against humanity. Beware of unfounded pseudoskepticism.

Re:without the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I now consider all catholics supporters of sexual offense against children. Your religion makes me sick.

Re:without the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just the US, but the UK, Germany and France have all had cases where catholic pedophiles have been condoned by the church and merely moved to new areas, allowing them to repeat their disgusting criminal behaviour against children. This is nothing new, it's being going on for decades in the media, and probably forever in the church itself.

Believing in a super space being should not exempt a sick individual from prosecution. The laws need to change, when the church moves a pedophile elsewhere, a person signs off on that knowing exactly why they're being moved, that person should be charged with organizing a child abuse ring at the very minimum.

Re:without the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

They did, that's how we found out about the documents. "Classified" being apart of their hidden documentation structure. A retired priest told a reporter "theres no search or dewey decimal system, you just have to know what to ask for and they will just hand it to anyone. ask for these documents" and it uncovered a bunch of the child abuse and priest hopping.

Re:without the leaks

[Desler]

There's a huge difference between protecting the identity and privacy of a child and willfully lying and hiding information about your priests diddling said children. Oh and when those abused children who did speak out later in life they were repeatedly called liars by the church hierarchy until being forced to admit otherwise.

Re:without the leaks

[Dcnjoe60]

Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

In the 1960s and 1970s when the majority of the cases occurred in the US, there were not mandatory reporting laws like there are now. Those laws came about because of the rampant cases of incest and sexual misconduct in the public schools that were occurring at the time. If there is one correlation that stands out, in the 1960s and 70s, a lot of kids were being sexually abused by a lot of people, not just priests.

Re:without the leaks

[m1ndcrash]

They probably keep pictures.. fucking perverts.

Re:without the leaks

[HornWumpus]

The majority of proven cases may have happened in the 60s and 70s. But the problem in the Catholic church is thousands of years old.

St. Francis of Assisi wrote harshly about priests buggering alter boys. Don't pretend the problem started with Vatican II, the solution (hopefully) started with Vatican II.

Re:without the leaks

[Dcnjoe60]

The majority of proven cases may have happened in the 60s and 70s. But the problem in the Catholic church is thousands of years old.

St. Francis of Assisi wrote harshly about priests buggering alter boys. Don't pretend the problem started with Vatican II, the solution (hopefully) started with Vatican II.

I didn't mean to imply the problem started with Vatican II or even with other events of the 60s. It is a systemic problem throughout human history and is not unique to the catholic church.

Re: without the leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I am just going to call you out and state that you are being irrational here. Allow me to explain: saying that "some S are P" doesn't mean that "all S are P." Would you now assume that all Americans now support done strikes, gun control, and a host of other topics just because our current government does? Should I assume your whole community is a bunch of drunks because someone was arrested for drunk driving where you live? Should I assume that your whole family has anger issues because your dad yelled at you once when you were a child?

No? Why would you hold any other entity to that standard then? Don't be a fool. The Churh fucks up sometimes, even at a systemic level, but what matters is if what She believes Is true. Like any good member of a community should do, those that care try to fix the problems they see.

Re:without the leaks

[YukariHirai]

Indeed. The Vatican is opposed to leaks to protect someone, but it's not child victims.

Re:without the leaks

[dfghjk]

But you did imply that. What reason was there to believe that rates of abuse had changed at all in the 60s and 70s? People started talking about it, that is all.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to do the right thing and you will be convicted of a crime.

Re:No Good Deed Goes Unpunished...

[Black Parrot]

Other than the boy-bonking thing, I suspect they're trying to preemptively avoid the embarrassment of having someone ask them for political asylum after leaking some government's secrets.

Re: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished...

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd never give someone like Snowden asylum. He's too old for their particular tastes.

Re: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished...

[king neckbeard]

You are operating under the assumption that the choices of priests are the result of their sexuality, not practicality. It's easier to convince children to keep quiet on the matter by virtue of being an authority (especially since going through puberty is often awkward and confusing), and males can't get pregnant, which tends to be significant evidence of wrongdoing.

Re: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone - doesn't have to be a priest - who preys on young boys or girls is a pedophile. The ages of their victims is not chosen to help cover up their crimes, nor to help facilitate them. They have a predilection for young boys or girls.

If it was just about pregnancy, or willingly discrete partners, they could get a vasectomy, use a condom, etc and choose other members of the priesthood (indications are that they'd have a selection to choose from just as the rest of society does).

Re:No Good Deed Goes Unpunished...

[Dcnjoe60]

Try to do the right thing and you will be convicted of a crime.

Try to do the right thing, like publish norms about how to handle crimes and you will be accused on slashdot.

Re:No Good Deed Goes Unpunished...

[Anonymous Coward]

"... and you will be accused on slashdot."

Oh No! The horror! Those poor poor souls who have been accused of things here on slashdot - no one should have to endure such a fate. Its a clear violation of their human rights - not being able to post an opinion without having to read others opinions

Suspicious

[AmiMoJo]

I wonder if there is something about the last Pope they don't want leaked. Could it be he stepped down to avoid a standing pope being shown to have committed some horrible crime against children?

Re:Suspicious

[sg_oneill]

Its not even neccesarily the case for it to be the sort of thing that topples popes. It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.

In many ways you can abuse a child simply by refusing to intervene when a child is being abused. As adults we have a responsibility to *all* children. I truly believe that.

Re:Suspicious

[crutchy]

I wonder if there is something about the last Pope they don't want leaked

he was probably a muslim extremist

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows, perhaps the Vatican should take a page from the White House playbook and use Syria or Middle Eastern countries to misdirect attention somewhere else so that no attention is paid to domestic scandals. Prosecuting whistleblowers and expanding state secrecy while having claimed to be more "transparent" is an opaqueness unfit for the American people.

Re:Suspicious

[g1nG3Rj0urNAl157]

I wonder if there is something about the last Pope they don't want leaked. Could it be he stepped down to avoid a standing pope being shown to have committed some horrible crime against children?

It's possible. Also likely that Benedict XIV was shown to be too dovish about going after the predator-priests. Cardinal Law of Boston was given a prominent place in the Vatican hierarchy after he hushed allegations of sexual abuse in his archdiocese (and shuttled the priest to another parish to protect him). The Vatican hierarchy acts no differently than any other politicians abusing authority and hiding their mistakes.

Re:Suspicious

[shentino]

Since the Holy See is recognized as a nation at the UN it could be argued that the pope possesses sovereign and diplomatic immunity.

Re: Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

Crimes against children barely stand out as bad compared to some of the historical popes... Running prostitution rings out of the Vatican, murdering popes to take his place, even one who was actually a woman.

Re:Suspicious

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.

I'm too lazy to hunt down a citation but my understanding is that the previous pope was put in charge of the committee to handle all of the internal allegations of pedo-priestiality long before he was made pope. So, basically all of the foot-dragging and cover-ups on that front leading up to the public lawsuits is on his head. I don't think his involvement was a secret though.

FWIW, it seems like this new pope is actually pretty saintly - avoiding much of the ostentatiousness of the office, washing the feet of a poor muslim woman instead of a priest on Maundy Thursday (a triple break with tradition) and being conciliatory to atheists (immediately disclaimed by the church PR office but not by the pope himself). All of the good stuff he's been doing makes me wonder if there is more to the story of this change in the laws, I am inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt pending better reporting.

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

"This ranks with one of the stupidest remarks ever posted to /."

What? Either your browser has a stupidity filter which is incredibly efficient, or your own remark is even more stupid then his.

Let's be honest, with the number of child abuse within the catholic church and the way the Vatican always tried to hide it, it's not hard to guess that the "tumultuous reality" is not the main reason for criminalizing leaking information.

Re:Suspicious

[Belial6]

Yes, when you know that a child is being molested, and you cover up for the molester, there is a name for you... Accomplice.

Re:Suspicious

[Xest]

Well he was already complicit in working for the nazi regime and has told a number of lies about his association which is always going to raise suspicion that he was more than just a passive participant but this didn't seem to matter.

No, the rumour is that it's something far more serious to the Catholic Church than something as innocent as being a Nazi, the rumour is that he might have *gasp* been a closet gay *shock horror*. Of course, only in an organisation as backwards as the Vatican could such a harmless natural trait be a potential vector for major scandal.

Re:Suspicious

[cold fjord]

I wonder if there is something about the last Pope they don't want leaked. Could it be he stepped down to avoid a standing pope being shown to have committed some horrible crime against children?

There are several innocent reasons why this could be occurring now.

New bosses often like to put their stamp on an organization. The new Pope has been updating a lot of policies.
The old Pope wasn't well, so he probably had a limited work schedule. There has probably been a backlog of business to catch up on.
It is often easier to do multiple updates at once instead of piecemeal.

Then there is the information in the fine article :

The bulk of the Vatican's penal code is based on the 1889 Italian code. Many of the new provisions were necessary to bring the city state's legal system up to date after the Holy See signed international treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Others were necessary to comply with international norms to fight money-laundering, part of the Vatican's push toward financial transparency.

One new crime stands out, though, as an obvious response to the leaks of papal documents last year that represented one of the gravest Vatican security breaches in recent times.

Now I'm suspicious. Since this information is pretty close to the beginning of the article, I have to wonder if your post isn't just a clever way to libel not just a priest, but a Pope, without evidence and without being quite so obvious?

Re: Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a woman is comparable to running prostitution rings, murdering popes, and molesting children?...

Re:Suspicious

[inasity_rules]

Because Emphasis.

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, if you like, motherfucker.

Re:Suspicious

[cffrost]

Since the Holy See is recognized as a nation at the UN it could be argued that the pope possesses sovereign and diplomatic immunity.

In other words, the sovereignty and diplomatic immunity of the Holy See may shield against prosecution for the Holy Feel.

Re:Suspicious

[Xest]

"I have to wonder if your post isn't just a clever way to libel not just a priest, but a Pope"

Why is libelling a Pope any more bad than libelling a priest or anyone else for that matter?

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN does not recognise the Holy See as a nation. Vatican City is recognised as a nation (but is not a UN state). The Holy See has UN observer status, the same as Palestine or indeed CERN. CERN's director doesn't have sovereign immunity, and nor do the leadership of the PLO.

The Pope's sovereign immunity derives from his status as head of Vatican City, a sovereign state with a population of a few hundred people.

Re:Suspicious

[gbjbaanb]

which suggests one of 2 things will happen in the future:

a) he'll accidentally fall down the steps of the Vatican as his reforms start to really change things.
b) nothing, its all PR.

I hope the new Pope goes in there and cleans it all up, seems the Catholic church is pretty damn corrupt all the way through at the moment from paedophilia and coverups to financial fraud.

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

The citation necessary is available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Pope-Vatican-Accountability-Rights/dp/0241953847

Re:Suspicious

[gl4ss]

which suggests one of 2 things will happen in the future:

a) he'll accidentally fall down the steps of the Vatican as his reforms start to really change things.
b) nothing, its all PR.

I hope the new Pope goes in there and cleans it all up, seems the Catholic church is pretty damn corrupt all the way through at the moment from paedophilia and coverups to financial fraud.

Or his enemies simply disappear and then appear naked and drugged somewhere in Sicily 5 months later! or dropped out of a plane into mediterranean.

Re:Suspicious

[denzacar]

Why is libelling a Pope any more bad than libelling a priest or anyone else for that matter?

I am not sure, but I think that it has something to do with the size of the hats. The bigger the hat, the more serious the libel.
Which would also explain many a gunfight in the Wild West as stemming from libel aimed at people who wore big hats.

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have to wonder if your post isn't just a clever way to libel not just a priest, but a Pope"

yes, I read this as:

"I have to wonder if your post isn't just a clever way to libel not just a person with a job, but a person with a more senior job in the same organisation"

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, it seems like this new pope is actually pretty saintly - avoiding much of the ostentatiousness of the office, washing the feet of a poor muslim woman instead of a priest on Maundy Thursday (a triple break with tradition) and being conciliatory to atheists (immediately disclaimed by the church PR office but not by the pope himself).

Exaggerated humbleness is its own form of ostentatiousness. You're not really humble if you are trying to out-humble the people around you. That's the opposite of being humble.

Re:Suspicious

[drinkypoo]

Its not even neccesarily the case for it to be the sort of thing that topples popes. It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.

It's not going to happen. Ratzinger has already been shown to have willfully relocated child molesters.

Re:Suspicious

[drinkypoo]

I hope the new Pope goes in there and cleans it all up, seems the Catholic church is pretty damn corrupt all the way through at the moment

If you can seriously sit there and type that with a straight face, you are utterly unfamiliar with the history of the catholic church. As far as anyone can tell from what we know of history, it has always been corrupt. And that's without even getting into the issue of whether the pope is in the bible, which he isn't. Much of the point of Christianity is that there is no middleman, it's about a personal relationship with god. Catholocism is the precise opposite, and that's why they aren't Christians. They worship not god, but themselves, and their followers may claim to worship god, but they truly venerate the pope.

It's sad to see the results of brainwashing that begins before even leaving the womb.

Re:Suspicious

[Xest]

Interesting theory Mr denzacar. I think this possibility deserves government funding and further investigation.

Re:Suspicious

[Xest]

Really? I read it as:

"How dare you defy the whims and rulings of not just one of my masters, but my highest master whom I serve and gift my life to defending without question!"

Re:Suspicious

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Given that he was "out-humbling" everybody back in Brazil long before he was pope, I think its genuine.

Re:Suspicious

[BForrester]

When you initiate an argument with "everyone knows that..." or by redefining the position of the group that you want to attack, it's usually a signal to the reader that what is about to follow is rhetoric and/or horseshit.

Now try that again, maybe even give an authoritative reference or two, and you'll notice that your response will sound significantly less like you've been brainwashed.

Re:Suspicious

[dgatwood]

Almost completely untrue at every level.

The notion of a "personal relationship with God" is largely a post-Enlightenment concept, formed in the past three or four centuries. It is not "much of the point of Christianity", but rather, a modern protestant interpretation. The point of Christianity was defined many, many centuries before that, and to claim that Catholicism—the church from which all Christian denominations were ultimately derived—is not Christian is the height of absurdity, not to mention arrogance.

Catholicism (note the spelling) is, in part, a belief that there is wisdom in the masses (lowercase, meaning the body of the church proper, not the celebration) that cannot be gleaned purely through individual contemplation. For this reason, we worship together as a community. This does not preclude the personal relationship that you speak of, but rather strengthens it.

Veneration is not worship. The difference is subtle but crucial. No Catholic sees the pope as a god. Heck, the last one (Benedict) was downright unpopular among many Catholics. To even suggest that Catholics "worship themselves" or worship the pope is an appallingly inaccurate statement, even by Slashdot standards.

Finally, it is not true that the Church has always been corrupt. It, like all organizations of that size, may never have been 100% free of corruption, but there's a big difference between pervasive corruption and a handful of rogue elements acting improperly. The recent scandals are horrifying precisely because coverups of such actions by corrupt individuals are not the usual situation.

Re:Suspicious

[Dcnjoe60]

Since the Holy See is recognized as a nation at the UN it could be argued that the pope possesses sovereign and diplomatic immunity.

In other words, the sovereignty and diplomatic immunity of the Holy See may shield against prosecution for the Holy Feel.

I see you got modded up for being funny. Only on /. would making a joke about child abuse be considered funny.

Re:Suspicious

[Dcnjoe60]

Its not even neccesarily the case for it to be the sort of thing that topples popes. It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.

It's not going to happen. Ratzinger has already been shown to have willfully relocated child molesters.

Citation please, because unless he was their bishop, he had no authority to relocate child molesters. That had to happen on the local level. What he did do, while prefect was centralize where all of the information was coming in to one place instead of the ten different offices so there was once single office responsible for it (much like the US did with its intelligence operations after 9/11).

But the only priests that Vatican assigns are those that are actually priests of the Diocese of Rome and those assignments are made by the Bishop of Rome who is called the Pope.

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

The recent scandals are horrifying precisely because coverups of such actions by corrupt individuals are not the usual situation.

It's only "not the usual situation" if you willfully ignore the last 1000+ years of the Catholic Church's existence. The Church has been a power-hungry, money-grubbing, corrupt organization for most of its existence.

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, innuendo is also a way of "bearing false witness" and against the Commandments.

Oh no! Is Sky Faery going to get me??!

Re:Suspicious

[Dcnjoe60]

Yes, when you know that a child is being molested, and you cover up for the molester, there is a name for you... Accomplice.

If you have evidence that he committed some crime then present it, other wise, you should keep your mouth shut. Contrary to popular belief, the Vatican doesn't control what happens in the local dioceses. The Vatican did refuse to let US bishops resign so that they had to clean up the mess they created and it also issued instructions to cooperate with the authorities on the investigations (at the time various US bishops were hiding behind "church law"). The pope assigns bishops, he doesn't assign priests under that bishop, nor does he run the diocese under that bishop.

So again, if you have evidence of a crime, then present it, other wise, quit bearing false witness.

Re:Suspicious

[Dcnjoe60]

I hope the new Pope goes in there and cleans it all up, seems the Catholic church is pretty damn corrupt all the way through at the moment

If you can seriously sit there and type that with a straight face, you are utterly unfamiliar with the history of the catholic church. As far as anyone can tell from what we know of history, it has always been corrupt. And that's without even getting into the issue of whether the pope is in the bible, which he isn't. Much of the point of Christianity is that there is no middleman, it's about a personal relationship with god. Catholocism is the precise opposite, and that's why they aren't Christians. They worship not god, but themselves, and their followers may claim to worship god, but they truly venerate the pope.

It's sad to see the results of brainwashing that begins before even leaving the womb.

I think you are confusing Catholicism with something else. The Catholic Church does not profess the need for a middleman or intermediary and never has. They also don't venerate the pope. Do you even know what that word means? It sounds like you have been reading some of those anti-catholic tracts. Maybe to undo your own brainwashing, you should actually read what the catholic church does profess.

Re:Suspicious

[Bucc5062]

Really? Your retort is just a variation of "yo Mama". This is /. for crying out loud, use some part of your brain cell to come back with a more sardonic or rapier response. "Go kill yourself" is just...childish, like your initial comment. You went beyond hyperbole (it has always been corrupt) as if each and every monk, priest, and nun are in on the crime. No fan of the Church here, but it has done good works over the centuries, done by good caring people so how about canning the over generalizations a bit.

Not to nitpick, but even Christianity has somewhat of a "middleman" in the form of Jesus such that "Christians" feel the only way to God is through Christ. Sure, the Holy Trinity can cover up that loop hole, but many of the major beliefs (even Islam) have a middle man, living or dead that represent the way to God. Christianity talks about a personal relationship with Christ (first, not God the Father), a slight but clear difference in semantics. The Church does not declare the Pope God, but God's representative on Earth. Big difference. Catholics do not pray to the Pope, they pray to God, or to God and the supporting characters and while they do have this quirky notion that only a priest (which by extension includes the Pope) can give absolution and entrance to Heaven, many Christians feel that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you will burn in hell. Corrupt? How about James Bakker or these types of churches that use Christianity as a drug and they are the pushers. The Catholic Church is not the only Religion with its dark side.

You opened the door to comment with the "everyone knows" and irrelevant statements like "the pope is not in the bible" without really making a valid point. So "Go kill yourself", instead of adding to your machismo, only diluted your initial weak thoughts. Perhaps you'd like to try again.

Re:Suspicious

[mcmonkey]

Contrary to popular belief, the Vatican doesn't control what happens in the local dioceses. The Vatican did refuse to let US bishops resign so that they had to clean up the mess they created and it also issued instructions to cooperate with the authorities on the investigations (at the time various US bishops were hiding behind "church law").

I gotta call B.S. on that. Who controls what in the Catholic Church seems very fluid and based on what is in the best interest of the Church at that moment.

A few years ago areas around Boston, MA went through a period of church closure and consolidation. When neighborhood churches closed, folks wanted donation returned. They had donated to their local church with the intention of those donations being used in the neighborhood. Those requests were refused on the basis of those donations being made to the larger Church, even if they were made through the local organization, and all church property ultimately belonging to the parent organization.

At the same time, the Church had lost a civil suit in Oregon over covering up the little kiddie rape problem. The Archdiocese claimed it didn't have any way to pay the judgement because the resources of the Church are actually owned and controlled by the local churches.

Re:Suspicious

[drinkypoo]

Really? Your retort is just a variation of "yo Mama".

The whole point of my comment is so was what I was replying to. Why wasn't that comment as informative as this comment? I don't know, but I do know that comment sucked and that this one you just left is pretty good.

Re:Suspicious

[Dcnjoe60]

Contrary to popular belief, the Vatican doesn't control what happens in the local dioceses. The Vatican did refuse to let US bishops resign so that they had to clean up the mess they created and it also issued instructions to cooperate with the authorities on the investigations (at the time various US bishops were hiding behind "church law").

I gotta call B.S. on that. Who controls what in the Catholic Church seems very fluid and based on what is in the best interest of the Church at that moment.

A few years ago areas around Boston, MA went through a period of church closure and consolidation. When neighborhood churches closed, folks wanted donation returned. They had donated to their local church with the intention of those donations being used in the neighborhood. Those requests were refused on the basis of those donations being made to the larger Church, even if they were made through the local organization, and all church property ultimately belonging to the parent organization.

At the same time, the Church had lost a civil suit in Oregon over covering up the little kiddie rape problem. The Archdiocese claimed it didn't have any way to pay the judgement because the resources of the Church are actually owned and controlled by the local churches.

I don't dispute anything you say, however, I don't see where, in anything you say, it points to the Vatican being in charge of the local church in Boston or in Oregon. I am using the term local the way the catholic church does to mean the actual diocese, not the physical parish, which is the way you use it in your last sentence.

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the point of Christianity is that there is no middleman, it's about a personal relationship with god.

No middleman, eh?

Hebrews 5:1 "For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins."

The high priest chosen among men of course is Jesus, who is true God and true Man. And the term "high priest" implies the existence and necessity of lesser priests. Otherwise, He would be the sole priest, rather than the high priest.

Re:Suspicious

[scot4875]

Maybe he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? Maybe he's the "Real Killer" of Nicole Simpson?

Seriously, are you channeling Glenn Beck or something? I'm no fan of the Catholic church but idle speculation is NOT +5 worthy.

--Jeremy

Re:Suspicious

[camperdave]

I think you are confusing Catholicism with something else. The Catholic Church does not profess the need for a middleman or intermediary and never has.

Of course it does. The whole clergy is the middlemen. You confess to the priest, and the priest absolves you. Rubbish. The bible says that christians themselves are the priests, and that we are to confess our sins to each other.

Re:Suspicious

[scot4875]

I think you are confusing Catholicism with something else. The Catholic Church does not profess the need for a middleman or intermediary and never has. They also don't venerate the pope. Do you even know what that word means? It sounds like you have been reading some of those anti-catholic tracts. Maybe to undo your own brainwashing, you should actually read what the catholic church does profess.

This entire discussion is roughly equivalent to an argument about which timeline is 'correct' in The Legend of Zelda. The difference is, fans of Zelda know that they're splitting hairs over fantasy stories.

--Jeremy

Re:Suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former Catholic from a very large Catholic family, who attended Catholic schools, I disagree with you characterizing this incident as being unusual, or the isolated actions of corrupt individuals.

What's "usual" is irrelevant. The Catholic Church is systemically flawed, meaning that the problems with abuse, while severe, are isolated examples of an underlying problem deriving from the institutional structure of the Church.

Think about it this way: what happens when you give a small group of a historically privileged demographic class (e.g., white males) complete authority over a worldwide institution, ostensibly with significant implications for members of that institution (e.g., salvation or otherwise), without any accountability or consequences? E.g., there is no voting process from the Church laity other than to leave the Church.

It's a recipe for corruption. The responses of the Church generally demonstrate that the institution could care less about child sexual abuse, and has been pressured into this only by the fact that its traditional demographic base (those of European ancestry) has essentially been abandoning the Church in droves.

In many ways my impression of the situation is the exact opposite of yours: that corruption is encouraged due to the inherent structure of the instutition, and that, while there are very good people of integrity in the Church, they tend to be small in number, or occupy lower positions in the hierarchy (e.g., nuns, lay clergy).

Re:Suspicious

[uniquename72]

The notion of a "personal relationship with God" is largely a post-Enlightenment concept

Post-Enlightenment? It was at the core of Enlightenment religious thinking.

Re:Suspicious

[mcmonkey]

I don't dispute anything you say, however, I don't see where, in anything you say, it points to the Vatican being in charge of the local church in Boston or in Oregon. I am using the term local the way the catholic church does to mean the actual diocese, not the physical parish, which is the way you use it in your last sentence.

My point is not that those example show the Vatican is in charge in Boston or Oregon, but that those examples show the Vatican will freely change its interpretation of what it controls based on the situation and expediency of the institution, not needs of the people.

The Vatican did refuse to let US bishops resign so that they had to clean up the mess they created

Right. Just like with Bernard Law.

The goal of power is power. There is no underlying philosophy or system of beliefs. Just like Republicans and the "southern strategy." It's not that a majority of Republicans were racists, but that they recognized rather than fight with the Dems over the minority vote, they could win pandering to whites who felt threatened by the civil rights movement.

I don't think the Vatican is made up of a large number of pedophiles or that covering up past crimes is based on some interpretation of the bible. At any point those in power will do what they think will maintain and grow that power.

If it fits their narrative to say the pope appoints bishops but has no direct authority over priests, then that is their story and they'll stick to it.

I guaranty if it ever fit the pope's purpose to have direct control over priests, he'll find an excuse to make it so. For example, does the pope have direct control over nuns?

Re:Suspicious

[Dcnjoe60]

But the pope appointing bishops and not the priests is not just their story. It is codified in their 1983 code of canon law, it is codified in their 1917 code of canon law and it is codified in earlier versions, too. This isn't some example of them changing things to save face, it's been that way since before the Council of Trent. Now, I'm not catholic and I don't subscribe to their whole infallibility thing, but I'm darn sure they aren't clairvoyant so as to predict hundreds of years in the future that they should write this stuff down because in 2002 there is going to be some scandal and they are going to need it.

Like it or not, the position the Vatican has taken with regards to their clergy on the abuse scandal was all following very well documented and public procedures. They were consistent to a fault, if nothing else.

Re:Suspicious

[Dcnjoe60]

I think you are confusing Catholicism with something else. The Catholic Church does not profess the need for a middleman or intermediary and never has.

Of course it does. The whole clergy is the middlemen. You confess to the priest, and the priest absolves you. Rubbish. The bible says that christians themselves are the priests, and that we are to confess our sins to each other.

Maybe your bible does. But, then if you must confess your sins to each other, wouldn't that make each other the middle man? I though the whole point of your argument was that you didn't need an intermediary. However, I will confess, that although I wrote a dissertation on the Catholic Church, that not being Catholic, maybe I missed something. That said, in none of the research was there anything like what you put forth, except by non-Catholic tracts that were for the purpose of discrediting the Catholic Church. Like I said, I'm not Catholic but, I do know this, there is an awful more disinformation floating around about the catholic church than actual information.

Re:Suspicious

[Belial6]

The fact that the Catholic Church uses the same tactics as every other large scale criminal organization to protect those at the top doesn't mean those at the top are not criminals. Yes, the Catholic Church is compartmentalized into cells, so the Pope himself cannot be brought to trial for his crimes, that doesn't mean that we all have to play dumb and pretend that he isn't the head of an international child molestation ring.

It has been known for generations that Catholic priests molest children. It has been known for generations that the church covers it up. It is only with the lessening of their influence that their crimes have started getting charged. An influence that derived it's power from the Catholic Church and the Pope himself.

Re:Suspicious

[AthanasiusKircher]

It's only "not the usual situation" if you willfully ignore the last 1000+ years of the Catholic Church's existence. The Church has been a power-hungry, money-grubbing, corrupt organization for most of its existence.

I'm not going to defend the Catholic Church here, but I'd like you to please name for me some organizations that have existed for the past 1000+ years -- or even the past 200 years -- that have NOT been "power-hungry, money-grubbing, corrupt" organizations for significant parts of their lifespans.

Just about every national government, old bank, old corporation, etc. has participated in numerous atrocities over the centuries, from genocide to slavery. From a historical standpoint, the Catholic Church is hardly unusual.

And from a modern standpoint, the recent child abuse scandals mostly stand out because the Catholic Church is one huge hierarchical organization that can be blamed for the abuse as a whole. Lots of child abuse has been perpetrated by teachers, ministers of other religions, scout masters, just about anyone in authority as well -- and they're probably about as likely overall to have been fired or asked to resign and sent on their way in the past rather than having suspicions reported to the police. But there's no overall hierarchy collecting this information in public schools or in many other churches, so it's harder to find a single organization to blame. And we likely haven't seen the same sort of mass lawsuits against other organizations for the same reasons. It doesn't mean abuse wasn't going on elsewhere as well... and much of it was also ignored.

Re:Suspicious

[Raenex]

Genuinely disgusting. Washing and kissing feet is fetish cult behavior. Might as well add in literal ass-kissing to the mix.

Re:Suspicious

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Don't be a prick, all religions have weird fetishistic rituals. A quick peck on a freshly washed foot is not unhygienic.

Re:Suspicious

[dfghjk]

"No fan of the Church here, but it has done good works over the centuries, done by good caring people..."

Curious that you would attribute good works to the church when you recognize they are done by people. It's all about the nature of people, churches are a creation of people and are part of the nature of people. Attributing anything to "the church" is meaningless.

"Not to nitpick, but even Christianity has somewhat of a "middleman" in the form of Jesus..."

Of course there's the Holy Trinity thing which you mention but it's an interesting discussion when you consider the evolution of the myth. Jesus WAS the middleman until the story evolved to include the "loophole" as you say. This is core evidence of the lie, of course, but cognitive dissonance is part of being a believer.

Catholics pray to far more than just God. and it seems you make that point while arguing against it. Christians argue that Catholics aren't christian because they corrupt that fundamental concept. But yes, corruption exists beyond the Catholic church because people are people and churches exist to do man's bidding. They are a center of power, nothing more.

Re:Suspicious

[dfghjk]

"Finally, it is not true that the Church has always been corrupt."

You were doing quite well until this. Without corruption the church would not exist at all.

Making up, and evolving, a myth so as to control the beliefs of others is inherently corrupt.

Re:Suspicious

[drinkypoo]

The notion of a "personal relationship with God" is largely a post-Enlightenment concept, formed in the past three or four centuries

You're talking about the interpretation of the bible pushed upon converts by church functionaries doing their best to establish relevance. But the book itself says that god is everywhere, look and you'll find me, et cetera — even in the editions pounded by the patriarchy! It never commands you to congregate in a big building and obey the words of a man in a dress and possibly a funny hat. And in fact, the original Christian gatherings were held in homes and often officiated over by women, as the head of the household. They couldn't have churches because they were a persecuted religion at that point.

Finally, it is not true that the Church has always been corrupt.

Throughout most of its history the Catholic church has been a vehicle for organized crime and among the world's ultimate hypocrites as they amass wealth to themselves for their own glorification while preaching from a book that demands the opposite. It's sickening to see a church practically dripping with gold while people of the surrounding community go hungry. The poorer the community, the bloodier and more agonized the Christ they hang, to provide appropriate contrast to the people's lives in the context of the church.

There's nothing new about endemic corruption in the catholic church. And the fact is that the pope is the conduit to the revelations of god, when the bible says there will be no more prophets, placing God in the hands of the people rather than one child molester relocator with a very tall hat.

Re:Suspicious

[drinkypoo]

I'm not going to defend the Catholic Church here, but I'd like you to please name for me some organizations that have existed for the past 1000+ years -- or even the past 200 years -- that have NOT been "power-hungry, money-grubbing, corrupt" organizations for significant parts of their lifespans.

Why, because you want to engage in prevarication? "Everyone else is doing it" is not and has never been a valid excuse for any kind of behavior.

Just about every national government, old bank, old corporation, etc. has participated in numerous atrocities over the centuries, from genocide to slavery. From a historical standpoint, the Catholic Church is hardly unusual.

Right, this is why institutions can not be permitted to persist for so long. They must be torn down periodically and replaced with those suitable to the new age.

And from a modern standpoint, the recent child abuse scandals mostly stand out because the Catholic Church is one huge hierarchical organization that can be blamed for the abuse as a whole.

It's a big deal because what we have here is a massive institution which tells you how to live your life, which is in a position of the greatest trust, which systematically betrays its members and its stated ideals without the slightest remorse engaging in a criminal coverup in an effort both to avoid punishment and to prevent their brainwashed legions from rising up against their rampant hypocrisy. If it can happen to them, it can happen to any organization. And in many cases, it should.

Re:Suspicious

[Dcnjoe60]

If "it" had been known for generations that all of this had been going on, then it wouldn't have been much of a scandal now would it? If "it" had been known for generations that all of this had been going on, why are we not going after those in civil power that were complicit? If "it" had been known for generations that all of this had been going on, then why, even in those countries where the catholic church doesn't wield a lot of influence was it tolerated?

To follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. Sexual abuse of minors by catholic clergy has been going on for generations and the public was totally acceptable of it.

Re:Suspicious

[Bucc5062]

A Church is a collection of people with similar beliefs, faiths, and actions. Just as one says "The Corporation did this or that" even though clearly it is the people within, the same cane be said regarding the/a Church. You pick out semantics for in this case, the reference to the Church is the same as if I referenced individual people within. There are people who do good works, they are affiliated and represent the Church so the Church does good works. We can take the low route and apply the same for all the crap they do, but that was not my position in this case.

To be clear, I did not say Catholics only prayed to God, I made the point that they do not pray to the Pope. Praying to a Sait may be just a different path to God as a lay Christian praying to Jesus is another path to God. I'm not Catholic so I leave it to them to explain the difference.

You last thought was the most intriguing for there is a nuance in the words I can't quite place. Churches do not exist to just do man's bidding. If you talked to some Christians they might say that Churches exist to do God's bidding, but even that is not accurate. A Church is a community of like minded people, coming together to share their faith and use the power of a community to carry out what they feel is "God's Will". That will defined by the Bible (sticking with Christianity in this case), but shaped by man.

What is the difference between Religion and Faith? If humanity took time to answer that question we would all be in a better place. Religion is about external power and control, Faith is about inner peace and how We fit into the world around us. In today's world we sadly have too much of the former and ridiculing of the latter.

Re:Suspicious

[dgatwood]

Sorry, that was poorly worded on my part. What I meant was that the concept was basically introduced during that period of time, and was not a commonly held Christian belief prior to that period.

Re:Suspicious

[camperdave]

http://biblehub.com/1_peter/2-9.htm

http://biblehub.com/james/5-16.htm

Dirty Laundry

[GeekWithAKnife]

Like all rich and powerful institutions with a long history the Vatican has a list of dirty laundry it would rather not expose.
They may be trying to correct things going forward with a strong stance on some pain points but it is obvious that the Vatican as an organization does not feel comfortable to risk transparency.

I'm with the NSA on this one, what do they have to hide? surely men of the cloth would be much more noble, moral and ethical than the norm.

I believe this move will only further damage the Vatican's reputation. I also believe that the decision makers know this better than I do and they are actually choosing the lesser of two evils. The greater evil being if the public ever finds out what really happens behind closed doors.

While millions still flock to the guidance of a pope and Vatican I for one do not see this institution as any better than a powerful political entity.

If you really do believe in god, as described in Christianity why do you need the Vatican? *shrugs*

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

They may be trying to correct things going forward with a strong stance on some pain points but it is obvious that the Vatican as an organization does not feel comfortable to risk transparency.

To be fair, the media and our society are not interested in the big picture, or the full truth. The church could be as transparent as glass, and we'd just point a microscope at the dirt and make a giant fuss over it, and anyone who had the slightest conflict with the church would raise these items up at every opportunity.

We might say we want transparency and truth, but we'll collectively crucify (forgive the incidental allusion) anyone who gives it to us.

I don't want to be transparent in a world where the hint of suspicion of a crime can be front page news, and can destroy someones life, while the follow up story that one is completely innocent is a half inch on page E11 after the obituaries, if it makes the news at all, because someone elses live is busily being ruined on the front page.

No in that world, which sadly is this world, I'd rather it not get out at all. Because I know it won't be treated fairly or objectively, or with an eye to the whole story. Just sensationalist nonsense and then move on.

Only a fool would really want transparency.

surely men of the cloth would be much more noble, moral and ethical than the norm.

Because why?

If you really do believe in god, as described in Christianity why do you need the Vatican?

If you truly believe in science why do you need universities? What possible benefit could there be to gained from people who dedicate their lives to research and teaching? Surely one does not need teachers. Full knowledge springs into the minds of those who want it. Or not.

Just as your average layperson has pretty poor grasp of advanced physics they have an equally naive grasp of religion.

Sure we can argue that the Vatican's role has been corrupted perhaps, that it has been subverted by greed and politics, that its purpose is to collect and secure power, rather than enlighten followers with the teachings of their scriptures... sure we can have that conversation. And there'd be plenty of legitimacy to it.

But likewise we can argue that the university is more interested in securing grant money, generating prestige, and enticing ever more profitable foreign students than in imparting any knowlege or skills to the student body which it views largely as an inconvenient necessity in the pursuit of its aforementioned primary purposes.

The church, like the university may not be perfect, but its not as entirely ridiculous as you imply.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[shentino]

...it IS a powerful political entity.

Coincidentally enough, in history it HAS been.

Re: Dirty Laundry

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the exact same question hundreds of millions of non-Catholic Christians ask of the Catholic church. The very bible they preach out of tells us that when Jesus died, the temple shroud was ripped open which kept all but the holiest of priests outside of the alter of God, signaling that no priests were needed in post-Jesus religion*.

The continual assertion that the Pope and his Bishops are the only ones who can commune directly with God on our behalf is just one of many reasons non-Catholic Christians have serious problems with the Vatican and it's historical inhabitants.

*Judeo-Christian religion specifically.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[GeekWithAKnife]

While I agree with many of the points you raise I'm not with you on the university analogy or transparency.

If one is to follow religion in it's rather black and white conception of how people should act then priests in general should practically be model citizens, free of sin and so on. Sure the media slanders and accuses but if you are that perfect image of integrity, honesty, caring and compassion would you not shine under scrutiny? -or is it that priests are just as humane as any average Joe and thus are not deserving of any special treatment, even by the church. Let alone the lavish protection and secrecy of the wrong doing of some priests, cardinals etc.

If I claim to live in a certain way, to serve the public, church etc I would welcome transparency. It's not me that vowed not to lie, be celibate and so on. Most people cannot live by those rules...but let those to claim so prove it. It is in the public's interest to have that insight. Even more so due to those few that have ruined the image of the Vatican or other institutions...

I don't believe the word of god needs to be "explained" - one might be lead to believe god wrote it wrong. Or the person that wrote it was not divinely inspired as to write it correctly.

There might be something terribly wrong with the perfection of god, which is supposedly beyond comprehension of man and thus contesting, if we need more people to explain or teach what is divinely written.

I believe the only reason people need to explain the word of god is because any literal interpretation would be impossible to live by in today's society...so my point was more than just the Vatican. The pope, Vatican, religion are relics of the past that try to stay relevant by applying a little spin to what is written in some holy book. It's sad that so many still empower such notions.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Black Parrot]

I believe this move will only further damage the Vatican's reputation.

Anyone who hasn't already kicked them to the curb, after what we know about endemic child molestation and the hierarchy's attempts to cover it up and limit liability, isn't going to be fazed in the least by this.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[inasity_rules]

Uh.. It isn't quite like that. The reason the bible needs explanation is quite simple and obvious, though christians and non christians alike miss this completely. It was written in a different context to the modern world. In order to understand the intent of the author, a scholar is required to have at least a partial understanding of the social, political and historic context of the work, not to mention the cultural and belief systems of the time. Paul of Tarsus did exactly the same thing, explaining/adapting the Jewish worldview to non-jewish christians.

Literal interpretations tend to thoroughly ignore the context above, and therefore miss the intent of the authors. Whether you believe religion is a relic of the past or not, you need to understand it's context to understand it. And that requires plenty of explanation to your average person.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

If one is to follow religion in it's rather black and white conception of how people should act

Very little is black and white. Morality is not simple.

then priests in general should practically be model citizens, free of sin and so on [...]

Um. No. Priests are not 'better'. They have merely dedicated their lives to religious teaching and study instead of farming or designing CPUs. They are not 'free from sin'.

It's not me that vowed not to lie

All followers of Christianity are presumably equally bound by the commandments, not just priests.

be celibate

That is a Catholic tradition and is in place as an essentially symbolic sacrifice to show their dedication to the calling; it doesn't make them more 'holy'. If they violate their vow of celibacy... then yes there should be consequences. But the point is that, yes, we should expect that some of them will fail to live up to their vow. They are just people.

They will make mistakes. And some of them will be criminals.

or is it that priests are just as humane as any average Joe

Would you argue that they are less human? Or more? I'd think they are exactly as human as the rest of us.

and thus are not deserving of any special treatment, even by the church

Define "special treatment". If you mean should their criminals be exposed and punished, then yes, absolutely, but I can understand why they would simultaneously seek to mitigate the harm to the church. If prominent executives at a major corporation were to be criminals, the corporation would surely wish to deal with it as discreetly as possible as well.

If I claim to live in a certain way, to serve the public, church etc

Forget the church a moment, and just consider public life in politics. Where your opponents take every thing you say, take it out of context, and twist it around, and then spend more money than you'll make in a lifetime telling everyone else that twisted out of context lie. Eventually, you too will start being gaurded about what you say in public, and will seek to keep large parts of your life private, not because there is anything wrong with what you say or do but simply because your opponents will have that much more to use against you.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

I would welcome transparency.

And you would be hung. Go you!

I don't believe the word of god needs to be "explained" - one might be lead to believe god wrote it wrong. Or the person that wrote it was not divinely inspired as to write it correctly.

Now you are just being hopelessly naive. The texts of the bible are hundreds to thousands of years old. Languages have changed and died. Few today are familiar with the societies that they were written for, or the historical contexts.

Who wrote what, when, where and why they wrote it, who they were writing it for, who they were, why is it in the bible vs other things that are not. The meanings of various names. Right on down to why a particular english word chosen; and which of the english words several definitions aligns best with the original sense of the original text.

Its just plain silly to seriously argue that a guy with a standard modern American high school education is going to have even half a clue about half of what's going on in there.

I believe the only reason people need to explain the word of god is because any literal interpretation would be impossible to live by in today's society.

It would have been impossible to live by literally in any society. It -never- was all neatly wrapped up for a particular point in time.

Anyone who can read can read shakespeare, but its absurd to suggest that everyone who reads it gets as much from it. Cole's notes, and a good teacher can bring more from it than the average person could even imagine. And one could spend and some have

Re:Dirty Laundry

[gl4ss]

most catholics believe in the teachings of the saints and not just in jesus christ and the god, the rules and things to study come from extra things beyond the basic beliefs and instructions.

you don't really need outside guidance to just being a believer and acting accordingly. it's remarkably simple. but most look for extra rules and clarifications, because those are fun and remove responsibility of thinking yourself, even if it could be fairly easily argued that exactly that was what jesus's character was against - "against money changers in the church? well fuck we're catholics let's absolve some sins for cash and sell candles for cash in the church - directly exchanging money for spiritual offerings! it's ok because we're true believers!". thing is, with that kind of activity going on you're going to need some pretty complex mental gymnastics to justify it in regards to the original text, that is why catholic church was shitting bricks about Luther, because it was pretty hard to justify a lot of the activity to people who had actually read the texts and understood what was in them and didn't personally have a stake in the profits...

Re: Dirty Laundry

[swalve]

The continual assertion that the Pope and his Bishops are the only ones who can commune directly with God on our behalf is just one of many reasons non-Catholic Christians have serious problems with the Vatican and it's historical inhabitants.

I've never heard anyone from the Catholic Church make that claim.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[dmbasso]

[...] And that requires plenty of explanation to your average person.

Too bad this 'explanation' usually comes from somebody's ass. You don't find in churches the people with the broad knowledge you've mentioned. That made me remember a recent survey which found atheists to have better biblical knowledge than most religious folks.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[inasity_rules]

Extra rules is the exact opposite of what comes from studying (the new testament at least) in context. When you start to realise the amazingly basic concept that for example, while we have Paul's letters to Timothy, we do not have Timothy's letters to Paul, therefore to take those as standalone instructions and 'rules' is just missing the point. And that is just literary context, not cultural. Cultural changes things even more. Christian history is filled with misunderstandings and people taking things way out of context, not just the catholics, but the modern tele-evangelist as well.

Guidance is a different concept from the rigid "that is the way things are and if you don't like it you're gonna burn!" Guidance is more like "Why don't you explore this avenue of inquiry?" The gospel is a fairly simple concept, but doctrine is not, and doctrine defines your view of God and therefore view of the world. Doctrine is both highly complex and controversial. I would certainly not encourage anyone to take anyone else's word on these matters without examining them as deeply as they are able, but if you are not a expert on the culture of 0BC Jerusalem, there is no harm in consulting one. As a result, one might say, GGGP is incorrect - the reason we need to explain the bible is that we lack the context to take it as it was written to be taken. Sadly your average person either lacks the motivation or the resources to do so for themselves. Thus they consult experts. Not all so called experts are scrupulous, and there is a lot of misinformation going around.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[GeekWithAKnife]

Very little is black and white. Morality is not simple.

Morality in the bible is black and white in a rather extreme way. The fact this differs from reality is something that escapes many people it seems.

Um. No. Priests are not 'better'. They have merely dedicated their lives to religious teaching and study instead of farming or designing CPUs. They are not 'free from sin'.

If a priest is to take part in confession, oversee ceremony, help us as moral guides then they should definitely be more humane than most humans. they should at least manage to be above average. They should aspire to be free of sin as they profess. Farmers and hardware designers make no such bold claims, vows or even inclinations.

All followers of Christianity are presumably equally bound by the commandments, not just priests.

Yet it is the members of the clergy that are their to explain, guide etc. Arguably more educated they should, in theory know better than to behave as those they would educate.

That is a Catholic tradition and is in place as an essentially symbolic sacrifice to show their dedication to the calling; it doesn't make them more 'holy'. If they violate their vow of celibacy... then yes there should be consequences. But the point is that, yes, we should expect that some of them will fail to live up to their vow. They are just people.

Nice to apply a little modern leeway and explanation to what was not argued in the past by religious people. In any case, your explanation sounds reasonable but do priests take vows optionally? "til failure do us part"? life as I understand it is not so rigid but the church historically has not been flexible in such matters.

They will make mistakes. And some of them will be criminals.

Some of them are criminals and the percentages of abuse amongst priests is disturbingly high compared to other professions. Not only that but the extent of the cover-ups of their wrong doings is especially damning.

Would you argue that they are less human? Or more? I'd think they are exactly as human as the rest of us.

Divinely inspired and guided humans...human+1 or at least so is the convenient association. How many look up to their local priest, how many associate more positively just because the person is a priest. they start of "human as the rest of us" and then they become men of god, more than 'regular human' in the eyes of the church. The fact they are the same decaying organic matter escapes the faithful.

Define "special treatment". If you mean should their criminals be exposed and punished, then yes, absolutely, but I can understand why they would simultaneously seek to mitigate the harm to the church. If prominent executives at a major corporation were to be criminals, the corporation would surely wish to deal with it as discreetly as possible as well.

Special Treatment as in their crimes are hushed, they are given legal leeway beyond what Joe Average gets. Special Treatment as in the association of trust and honesty, a privileged position in society etc. Corporations are not people, do not claim to follow god, follow commandments and so on.
It is twice the pride and double the fall for a man of god to expose the frail human and ordinary nature of every single "man of the cloth".

Forget the church a moment, and just consider public life in politics. Where your opponents take every thing you say, take it out of context, and twist it around, and then spend more money than you'll make in a lifetime telling everyone else that twisted out of context lie. Eventually, you too will start being gaurded about what you say in public, and will seek to keep large parts of your life private, not because there is anything wrong with what you say or do but simply because your opponents will have that much more to use against you.

That is a problem for society to solve. The Church, being an institution sanctioned by god, above

Re:Dirty Laundry

[inasity_rules]

I would ask for a citation on that survey, but in my experience, you are probably correct, so I'll just use it as a nebulous data point to confirm my own biases and prejudices... :P

And yes, sadly, a large proportion of the people providing these explanations are less than honest - or to be quite frank, less than sane.

Re: Dirty Laundry

[Dcnjoe60]

The continual assertion that the Pope and his Bishops are the only ones who can commune directly with God on our behalf is just one of many reasons non-Catholic Christians have serious problems with the Vatican and it's historical inhabitants.

I've never heard anyone from the Catholic Church make that claim.

You would be correct, the Catholic Church does not hold to that position. Then again,the original poster doesn't mention who makes that assertion. Probably the same types of people who asserted that blacks and women were inferior. But, then, being anti-catholic is the only socially acceptable bigotry that is allowed these days.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Dcnjoe60]

I don't believe the word of god needs to be "explained" - one might be lead to believe god wrote it wrong. Or the person that wrote it was not divinely inspired as to write it correctly.

Don't tell Jesus that. Very often the Gospels say how he had to explain things to the disciples. It could be that god got it write, and man just twisted it all around. I mean look at our civil laws, they are written out black and white in modern language, why do we need a court system? Or look at textbooks in schools or information on the internet, do we even need schools or teachers? Why does anything need to be explained?

Maybe, just maybe, in calling people to a different way of life, it really does take a little explanation of what is involved, a little encouragement along the way and a little guidance to help with the journey.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[dmbasso]

Wow, time flies, the survey was not as recent as I remembered. But here it goes: http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

About dishonesty and insanity, I think the former may help lead to the latter. If you suspend belief in reality to allow belief in the supernatural, you may as well allow other contradictory and inconsistent beliefs. That doesn't seem healthy, imho.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Bucc5062]

This has been a fasinating discussion. You both have thoughtful, obviously differing points which I wont get to much into, but this exchange got my attention...

I don't believe the word of god needs to be "explained" - one might be lead to believe god wrote it wrong. Or the person that wrote it was not divinely inspired as to write it correctly.

Now you are just being hopelessly naive. The texts of the bible are hundreds to thousands of years old. Languages have changed and died. Few today are familiar with the societies that they were written for, or the historical contexts.

Who wrote what, when, where and why they wrote it, who they were writing it for, who they were, why is it in the bible vs other things that are not. The meanings of various names. Right on down to why a particular english word chosen; and which of the english words several definitions aligns best with the original sense of the original text.

Its just plain silly to seriously argue that a guy with a standard modern American high school education is going to have even half a clue about half of what's going on in there.

I will grant that some Christians feel the Bible is the literal "Word of God" requiring knowledgable teachers to interpret and represent that Word to the masses. However, my anecdotal experience is such that most people see the Bible as written by Man in an attempt to explain Mans relationship with something Greater then themselves. The Old Testament is mainly a historical novel with portions dedicated to showing Man's relationship to God (and back), portions on how to live a safe life, and portions on how to carry ones's self through life. Rather simple reading in fact.

The New Testament, specifically the Gospels (as they are the foundation of Christian belief) are not complex in their messages and it seems that so called "Teachers" tend to not use Christ's words (as written by others) to help understand how to live, but are used to control others. This is why you both are right and wrong. The Bible is a collected works of writings that can be read without all the trappings of Religion and provide guidance for one's soul, or can be presented as an educational aid to understand the greater context of how, when, why, and to whom it was written. I'll add that it is not the only source of Moral living as purportedly coming from "God", just one of the more popular.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[inasity_rules]

Full disclosure: You might be surprised to learn I am a christian, and therefore by your definition insane. :P

I'm fine with that, and it is somewhat off-topic - I am not here to push my beliefs. I do believe (and I will push this one) that context is very important whichever side of the fence you fall upon, and that there are a lot of really weird up people out there pushing christianity, who quite frankly should be locked up in a padded room. Thanks for that link - depressing as it is. People everywhere are sadly quite willing to believe without thought or question. Possibly because it is easier. I will say this about atheists - with one or two exceptions - they appear to be quite sane and rational. Even generally more polite than their religious counterparts. In light of that, I suppose the results are hardly surprising.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of them are criminals and the percentages of abuse amongst priests is disturbingly high compared to other professions.

You have some numbers to back that up? The comparison should be with professions who have the same level of access to children, of course.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Anonymous Coward]

If you truly believe in science why do you need universities? What possible benefit could there be to gained from people who dedicate their lives to research and teaching? Surely one does not need teachers. Full knowledge springs into the minds of those who want it. Or not.

The hell? The point of the former (that one does not need the vatican to believe in God / the Bible / Catholicism) is completely off base with your rebuttal in the latter (that one does not need universities for scientific progression). You are basically saying that Christians need the Vatican like Science needs Universities, but you are confusing terminology and are making a poor comparison.

Christian(s) - person or people having faith that subscribes to some form of Christianity
Vatican - an institution of the religious leaders of the Christian (Roman Catholic, specifically) faith.
Science - a field of study or methodology that subscribes to the belief of logical consequence, that phenomena can be explained, and that these explanations should be repeatable and testable both in situ and ex situ. If these explanations are not repeatable or testable, then new explanations should arise to account for new information.
University - an institution devoted to higher

I should first point out that science, and by extension, the scientific method both work without the existence of universities, as seen by scientists that pre-date the era where universities were common and primarily consist of labs that perform scientific research (note, that universities also perform research / higher learning in non-scientific fields of study). In fact, many scientists such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler were actually scientists that worked for the church. That said, I think it's safe to say that universities are not necessary for one to study science, but it can be concluded that with universities as we know them today, research is accelerated and learning how to apply science (or the scientific method) to the natural world is much easier. The problem you make here is that you distinguish science as an organization, which it is not. It is merely a way of observing things.

Now, given that I've succinctly proven that science does not need universities to exist or operate, I can apply basic logic and (using your statement as premise) say that:

Catholics need the Vatican as Science needs Universities
Science does not need Universities **Informally proven above

It should follow that if both statements are true then Catholics do not need the Vatican. I'll leave the details of the proof to you, if you wish to challenge it (Hint: AS does not mean AND). But, given that you may not agree with the argument in the first place, allow me this conjecture: personal faith, of any kind, does not require an organization to validate. Given that faith is very much a personal thing, it really does not require a governing body to tell you how to interpret the text. The Vatican may make statements that many people will follow, simply because they believe that the Vatican has some authority over the subject matter of God and the Bible. But that doesn't mean that the Vatican is necessary for the faith to exist. Many people believed in God and Jesus and were "Christian" in the sense that they held the same faith system (albeit probably not in exactly the same form, times do change) before the Vatican existed. Eventually this faith ended up forming the Vatican, but still, the Vatican was not necessary for many people beforehand. I could also point out the fact that many other religions exist that don't require a formulating institution, but I feel this post has gone on long enough as is.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Tom]

"surely men of the cloth would be much more noble, moral and ethical than the norm."
Because why?

Because those who claim to be the masters of moral need to demonstrate so through their own actions, or else all their claims about knowing right from wrong are in doubt.

If you truly believe in science why do you need universities? What possible benefit could there be to gained from people who dedicate their lives to research and teaching? Surely one does not need teachers. Full knowledge springs into the minds of those who want it. Or not.

What is this? It is neither an argument, nor even coherent. Meaningless rambling does not make a point, you know?

The necessity of the Vatican is a valid question, given that it didn't exist before 1929 and that there were times in history when Rome wasn't the (or not the only) seat of the pope.

The church, like the university may not be perfect, but its not as entirely ridiculous as you imply.

The church is not identical to the Vatican. You are not addressing the GPs point but a similar one you invented yourself.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[El Rey]

percentages of abuse amongst priests is disturbingly high compared to other professions

Source? Studies? Numbers?

It's actually lower from what I've read. Kids are much more likely to be abused by family members or teachers.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

What is this?

In small words it says "whether one wishes to know about science or religion, there is a place for teachers."

It is neither an argument, nor even coherent. Meaningless rambling does not make a point, you know?

Yet other people figured it out.

The church is not identical to the Vatican. You are not addressing the GPs point but a similar one you invented yourself.

I beleive he was taking a more inclusive view about the abstract hierarchy of church leadership and the preisthood in general rather than the very narrow view of the Vatican specifically.

Really, If the GP only meant the Vatican specifically then his point would have been specious. I'm sure nobody thinks the "Vatican" is itself necessary for anything. I don't think that, I seriously doubt the GP does. Catholicism would not end if the Vatican and everyone in it were destroyed by a meteor tomorrow.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

Now, given that I've succinctly proven that science does not need universities to exist or operate

No but science does benefit greatly from teachers. Whether they are institutionalized in a particular way or not.

The existence of people who figured out the scientific method on their own in the dark ages all on their own doesn't make it a 'good' way to further science.

Religion is the same. People can be self taught, but who has the time? You'll get a lot further a lot faster in your study of anything with good teachers.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[david_thornley]

If you really do believe in god, as described in Christianity why do you need the Vatican?

If you truly believe in science why do you need universities?

I'm disturbed by the mixup of two different sorts of beliefs.

Somebody who believes in God as described in the battle specifically believes certain facts, including the existence of a triune deity. There isn't any objective evidence for these, and no amount of objective evidence will displace that belief.

My belief in science is that there is a process of learning and discovery that is extremely useful. There are facts that are supported by large amounts of evidence, as well as conjectures that aren't. I believe them in a conditional sort of way. For example, I believe there were dinosaurs because I've been told by people I mostly trust that the evidence is there, I've seen some of the evidence myself, and nobody's given me a good argument why they didn't exist. I can't verify everything myself, or even learn more than a fraction of what's been scientifically discovered. If we found fossils showing T. rexes playing Gameboys alongside cavemen, and ancient copies of Pokemon and Zelda games, and verified their authenticity, a lot of people would be changing their beliefs in what happened. So far, nothing like this has happened, and I think it exceedingly unlikely that it will.

A corresponding belief in God would be, say, a belief that we could understand a certain aspect of the Universe by carefully reading and comparing religious literature and practices from all over*. We'd find a great many common elements, although no consensus on any particular doctrine. We'd find a lot of support for a single source of divinity, and that would likely turn into a belief in God, although the details would not be similar to the Christian Trinity.

"Belief" has many meanings. "I believe in God." "I believe in Joe's honesty." "I believe you'll find something by Huxley about combining religions in the library." "I believe I'll have another drink." Let's not mix them up too badly.

*The big problem here is that we're only collecting religious beliefs from one species. There are common religious elements in humanity, but no way to tell whether this is a more or less dim perception of God or an artifact of the evolution of the brain. If we find extraterrestrial intelligent beings, I want to know about their religion, if any.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

I'm disturbed by the mixup of two different sorts of beliefs.

I'm not sure why; it isn't really germane to the point. The point was simply to illustrate the value in teachers. A person can learn the scientific method and explore science without one. Similarly he can pursue his religious study without one, but in either case there is clear benefit to having access to teachers, and even institutions dedicated to study to draw upon.

Your delving into their being different aspects of 'belief' is accurate but misses the point. Whether I want to study the effect of radiation on seeds or the letters from Paul to Timothy I can benefit a lot from access to people and resources who have studied these things before me. They will save me a great deal of time, and provide a great deal of enlightenment in either case.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a family member is not a profession. Compared to builders, hardware designers and guitarists...child abusers tend to choose jobs that involve working with children...

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Tom]

In small words it says "whether one wishes to know about science or religion, there is a place for teachers."

Religious indoctrination is not teaching. There is a very important difference between science and religion: One is evidence-based, and the other isn't. In one a teacher shows you things you can then do for yourself, and build upon. In the other, you are asked to believe with no evidence or proof. In one, if you can show your teacher was wrong and a different answer is better, you are a hero. In the other... well, fortunately the times where you'd be burnt at the stake are past.

Religion and science could not be further apart. The fact that people talk about them, including teaching and "teaching", is about the only thing they have in common. Don't confuse them because of a random correlation.

I beleive he was taking a more inclusive view about the abstract hierarchy of church leadership and the preisthood in general rather than the very narrow view of the Vatican specifically.

He said "Vatican", not church. He certainly meant the institution and not the plot of land, I'll grant you that. From the way he consistently spoke about the Vatican, not the church, I would not assume he means something he doesn't say. Even within the catholic church, the Vatican is a special case.

Really, If the GP only meant the Vatican specifically then his point would have been specious.

Would it? I'm pretty sure the old men who enjoy the pleasures of having their own tiny state would disagree violently. There have been a few power-struggles within the catholic church regarding the position of the Vatican over the past decade or two. I don't think that would happen if it doesn't matter.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

Religious indoctrination is not teaching.

Not all religious teaching is "indoctrination".

There is a very important difference between science and religion: One is evidence-based, and the other isn't.

And that's entirely beside the point. History isn't Science either, nor is Flower Arranging, but they can all be studied, and students benefit from teachers.

In the other, you are asked to believe with no evidence or proof. In one, if you can show your teacher was wrong and a different answer is better, you are a hero.

Believe it or not, a great deal of religious study is very much like any other historical science combining linguistics, archaeology, history, etc.

I don't dispute there are frothing at the mouth raving lunatics claiming to be religious authority - usually at the front of causes, on TV, etc -- Pat Robertson springs to mind as an example. But that's the vocal minority.

And yes, there are tenets of all faiths that are doctrinal.

But I've found most priests are remarkably unlike the stereotype you are applying. They don't pretend they have "the answers", and they aren't trying to tell people what to do. They tend to largely be more interested in guiding people to find their own answers.

If ones ask an average priest "is it ok to do X"; they may remind one of the relevant doctrine and the lessons of the bible, they'll suggest passages of scripture they believe are relevant, and they'll practically always suggest prayer.

In the other... well, fortunately the times where you'd be burnt at the stake are past.

Yeah, because there is no ego or politics in science, right? There are plenty of scientists in history who would have burnt their rivals at the stake if they'd had the authority. The biggest difference there is that the church had the authority.

Religion isn't about indoctrination but sometimes its used that way. Usually by the corrupted vs the least educated. But most good religious leaders are very much in favor of higher education, independent thought, and even of questioning their faith.

I don't think that would happen if it doesn't matter.

It matters in the sense that it is the center of the Catholic Church, but even if it were removed (along with the all the people currently occupying it) the religion would cope just fine. New leadership would emerge, a new headquarters would be established. Catholics don't actually require a city state. They have one, and I'm sure they'd never willingly let it go at this point, but its not in anyway necessary to the religion.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Tom]

Not all religious teaching is "indoctrination".

All religious teaching is indoctrination. However, there is usually a lot of non-religious teaching mixed into the religious part. Yes, a lot of the teaching you get from religious people is basically just stuff about life. That is also the part that isn't actually religious, it's just being painted that way.

And that's entirely beside the point. History isn't Science either, nor is Flower Arranging, but they can all be studied, and students benefit from teachers.

There is a lot more science in these than you seem to think. Like art and music, they share the basic approach that you can try doing stuff in a different way if you want (without being stoned to death or burnt, or kicked out), and if it turns out that yours works better, it will be adopted.

And also the inverse: You can't just claim yours is better, you need to prove it. That's not always possible by numbers and hard facts, but people will ask the "why?" question if you make a claim in any of these fields.

Believe it or not, a great deal of religious study is very much like any other historical science combining linguistics, archaeology, history, etc.

I know enough people who studied theology to know that a) yes, it does include a lot of excursions into other fields and b) it's still a huge bag of lies, just one with 2 millenia of experience that tells it that sprinkling your lies with some truth makes them more believable, so it helps knowing a bit about those thruths.

I don't claim every religious person is evil, nor every priest is corrupted. However, I do claim that those who aren't, are good people despite and not because of religion. Even a priest, after all, is still a human, with human values and senses.

Basically, especially in the west, religious indoctrination has evolved (intentional choice of words, not as a pun) to be not too radical and not too esoteric and not too stupid, because otherwise we'd all have laughed it out of the room.
But it has also become a lot less religious.

I actually do believe a community benefits from people like(!) a priest - people who can give general advise on questions of daily life, of minor or major importance. Because the materialistic approach common in the west doesn't have a place for something like that. We have doctors to treat us when we're ill, but no one to keep us healthy (except stupid health tips in stupid magazines).

But that is a cultural thing, and it may well be that we don't because the priests occupy that position. In some asian countries, for example, doctors are paid a monthly rate if (and only if) their patients remain healthy. The mindset is not "doctor are there to fixing me when I'm broken", but "doctors are there to make sure I remain healthy".

There are plenty of scientists in history who would have burnt their rivals at the stake if they'd had the authority.

There are plenty of personal rivalries in all walks of human life. But please, show evidence for your claim and name a few whose anger was not on a particular other person, but on supporters of a rival theory in general. To the point of wanting to kill them.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

All religious teaching is indoctrination.

The difference between education and indoctrination is what EXACTLY?

Wikipedia cites Wilson, J., 1964. "Education and indoctrination", in T.H.B. Hollins, ed. Aims in Education: the philosophic approach(Manchester University Press); and I think its reasonable:

"It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

If that's all it is, then a great deal of religious teaching is not indoctrination. Its true that a 'critical examination' of a lot of religious belief yields the conclusion that they are untestable and unverifiable and must be taken on faith or not at all.

But then that isn't a surprise it's sort of the entire point. There is no reason to discourage critical examination, because all you'll find is that it comes down to a question of faith.

Basically, especially in the west, religious indoctrination has evolved (intentional choice of words, not as a pun) to be not too radical and not too esoteric and not too stupid, because otherwise we'd all have laughed it out of the room.
But it has also become a lot less religious.

Fair comment. I think that as we learn that more questions can be answered competently and directly by science that it makes little sense to attempt to answer those questions with religion, and religion has rightly receded to the areas that remain unaddressable with science for most reasonable religious people.

Historically religion was the domain of the questions that didn't have answers. Its clear that a great deal that what was historically in the religious domain has over time been addressed by science, and its clear that as science advanced there was absolutely a sometimes violent power struggle as the people in the authority power structure in religion resisted the erosion of its domain of authority.

But please, show evidence for your claim and name a few whose anger was not on a particular other person, but on supporters of a rival theory in general. To the point of wanting to kill them.

Groups that prosecuted people on charges of heresy were primarily interested in maintaining a power structure, and it really didn't have much to do with the religion itself. If we lived in a technocracy with scientists in charge I'd fully expect them to perpetrate violence in the same way to protect their positions of power vs perceived threats to their authority.

I concede I doubt there are good examples of it. If we ever see a real technocracy we can revisit the argument.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Tom]

The difference between education and indoctrination is what EXACTLY?

The Wilson quote is pretty good. In my own words I would say that education teaches you how to think (often by example), while indoctrination teaches you what to think, without giving you the tools to get outside the box.

There is no reason to discourage critical examination, because all you'll find is that it comes down to a question of faith.

But that, exactly, is the point. In religion and in other forms of indoctrination (there are many examples in politics), you always reach a point where you have to "just believe". These are the core assumptions of the entire system.

Real education never stops looking for more "why?" questions and trying to answer them. That is why science is so unsatisfying to religiously indoctrinated people - because you always reach a point where you have to answer "we don't yet know".

it makes little sense to attempt to answer those questions with religion, and religion has rightly receded to the areas that remain unaddressable with science for most reasonable religious people.

Correct. But to the intelligent man, this is the most solid proof that all of religion is made-up bullshit. Every time science answers a question previously reserved for religion, the modern form of religion simply retreats further, to the next "unknowable" - rinse, repeat.

Groups that prosecuted people on charges of heresy were primarily interested in maintaining a power structure, and it really didn't have much to do with the religion itself. If we lived in a technocracy with scientists in charge I'd fully expect them to perpetrate violence in the same way to protect their positions of power vs perceived threats to their authority.

That is another assumption, not evidence.

I do, however, grant that many, many religious prosecutions actually had political power reasons hiding inside of them. However, I also maintain two closely related points: One, not all of them do. Especially in the muslim world today, there are many examples where either power has already been obtained and is being held solidly so that explanation falls short. Two, even with political reasons behind them, the religious agenda was the part that convinced people to actually engage in these activities. The crusades may have been motivated by political reasons, but they wouldn't have worked without religion. Can you imagine a "climate change crusade" today where people would sign up to make war on, say, China because they pollute so much and we must stop them? Doesn't pass the giggle test, does it? The worst that "eco-terrorism" has come up with was an RPG attack on an under-construction nuclear plant. Basically, the entire history of eco-terrorism is outdone by a single day in Iraq.

No, without the absolute certainty of having the only valid and correct answer to questions of life, death and beyond that religion provides, people don't blow themselves up in any considerable numbers.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

Correct. But to the intelligent man, this is the most solid proof that all of religion is made-up bullshit.

I sympathize with the sentiment, but if that's the most solid proof we have, then its pretty weak sauce as "solid proof".

Its like "proving" something isn't an uncountable set by enumerating subsets of it. And then as your enumerated subsets get ever larger you point at it as solid evidence, if not solid proof that these so-called "uncountable" things are just forever retreating into the distance as we can keep enumerating forever, and therefore nothing is uncountable.

Yet there are uncountable sets. (An uncountable set is an infinite set that cannot be put into a 1:1 correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers. Thus it cannot be enumerated, or "counted".)

The upshot is that I'm not convinced that even a grand unified theory would answer all our questions. Not that I'm saying the answer is "God did it", but there may well be things that science cannot answer.

Can you imagine a "climate change crusade" today where people would sign up to make war on, say, China because they pollute so much and we must stop them? Doesn't pass the giggle test, does it?

Its not as implausible as we'd like. I'll leave you with this:

"I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you and discuss the threat posed by eco-terrorism, as well as the measures being taken by the FBI and our law enforcement partners to address this threat."

[...]

"During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat... "

[...]

"The FBI and all of our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners will continue to strive to address the difficult and unique challenges posed by eco-terrorists. Despite the recent focus on international terrorism, we remain fully cognizant of the full range of threats that confront the United States."

Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

http://web.archive.org/web/20080311231725/http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Tom]

Its like "proving" something isn't an uncountable set by enumerating subsets of it.

I don't get how you got there from my argument, which has nothing to do with enumeration. The point I was making is that this strategy of modern religion clearly demonstrates that there are very likely no truths in it anywhere. Because every truth seems to be given up so easily as soon as science produces the real answer, and then the same argument is made about the next deeper layer.

Basically, when you argue against religion, the opponent keeps claiming that A, B and C are absolute truths that religion knows thanks to divine messages and science can never know. Then science produces a definite answer A. The next morning, you have a 1984 moment with religion claiming that B, C and D are absolute truths that religion... uh, ok? Then science answers B and the next morning, religion claims that C, D and E are absolute truths that religion... uh, what? Deja vu moment?

If you've gone through this iteration a couple times, it stops being a stretch to simply extrapolate and say that L, M and N are almost certainly as true and absolute as A, B, C, ... K were.

Its not as implausible as we'd like. I'll leave you with this:

You are quoting from a source that has a vital interest in making the label "terrorism" as broad and threatening as possible.

I'm looking at actual, past events. Sure, some extremist eco groups have a couple dead on their list, and quite a bit of damage. But, as I said, the entire history of eco-terrorism sums up to less than what happens on an average day in Iraq.

There are no absolutes in this world. I wouldn't ever claim that there will never be an eco-motivated suicide bomber. But all evidence we have points to that guy being a lone lunatic, not a trend. And that's quite an important difference.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

I don't get how you got there from my argument, which has nothing to do with enumeration.

You are effectively enumerating the truths that fall to science, and extrapolating that because we keep enumerating more truths all of them will eventually fall to science.

There is no basis in logic for this extrapolation being valid. It only valid if we assume its true that everything can be explained by science, and that is a circular argument. The set of things that can be explained by science may or may not be complete. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that an analog of Godel's Incompleteness theorem applies to the physical world... that there are true statements that can not be proven.

Basically, when you argue against religion, the opponent keeps claiming that A, B and C are absolute truths that religion knows thanks to divine messages and science can never know. [...]

Can you give an example from the last 50 years? We've had massive scientific advances over the last couple generations, and I don't recall there being anything that contradicted any modern religion. Sure 2000 years ago religion explained thunder, and 500 years ago religion still held sway over the motions of the stellar bodies. 150 years ago religion explained the origin of man, and came up against Darwin.

The catholic church for example accepted evolution under Pope Pius XII, the recent Pope Benedict refused to endorse Intelligent Design.

But recently? What absolute statement about anything does the modern church make that is disprovable with science? Religion has retreated pretty much entirely to the metaphysical and the philosophical rather than the physical.

And everybody, including educated religious people think people who believe "literal interpretations" of the bible are backwards and ignorant.

That's not to say that there aren't big piles of backwards ignorant religious people, because there are. But its not accurate to paint it all with that brush.

You are quoting from a source that has a vital interest in making the label "terrorism" as broad and threatening as possible.

Exactly.

But, as I said, the entire history of eco-terrorism sums up to less than what happens on an average day in Iraq.

We went to war in Iraq because of "sources that had a vital interest in making the "Iraq threat" as broad and threatening as possible. Result: Between 150,000 and 1,000,000 dead in Iraq. Over a threat that wasn't anywhere near as dire as those that needed a threat to justify the war.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Tom]

There is no basis in logic for this extrapolation being valid.

Of course there is. It's right there in the word: Extrapolation.

The set of things that can be explained by science may or may not be complete.

Yes, but, in the words of Tim Minchin: "Ever mystery ever solved has turned out to be... not magic".

My argument is precisely that even if we assume that there is a limit to what science can explain, religion is not holding that line. Instead, religion is holding whatever line the limit of science is at right now, and once that has fallen it retreats to the next one.

Here's a metaphor for you: I claim that somewhere in my house there is a room that is larger on the inside. I stand in front of the first one and claim that this one is. You open the door, measure it, and find out I'm full of shit. But instead of admitting that I lied, I have moved to the next door and claim that this one is it.

How many doors will you open and how many rooms will you measure before you conclude that I'm simply too stubborn and too much of an asshole to admit that I was wrong all the time, and that even if such a room exists, I don't have the faintest idea where it is, either ?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that an analog of Godel's Incompleteness theorem applies to the physical world... that there are true statements that can not be proven.

I'm afraid that you've misunderstood both Goedel and science. First, Goedel's argument is an argument about levels of abstraction, where physical reality by definition is all on the same level. Second, science doesn't bother with proving anything as true (outside of mathematics and logic), but with falsifying as many theories as possible so that we get ever closer to a best fit. It's a lot more like numeric math than logic.

But - and that is my point again - even if we assume just for the sake of the argument that you are correct, then all the evidence we have indicates that all the current religions combined have no more clue about what lies beyond than my pet does.

But recently? What absolute statement about anything does the modern church make that is disprovable with science?

As I said: They have a lot of experience in retreating into the areas where they are not easily falsified, so there is no such simple answer to your question. But the small history you provided pretty much proves the point I'm making all the time.

We went to war in Iraq because

Yes, but that's an entirely different topic. I didn't bring up Iraq to bash Bush, I brought it up to contrast the tabloid-exaggeration of "eco-terrorism" with real violence. You can exchange Iraq for anything else - Afghanistan, Ireland during the IRA times, Spain during the ETA times, Israel, parts of Africa - any place where actual terrorism is taking place.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

Of course there is. It's right there in the word: Extrapolation.

Extrapolation doesn't prove that the data outside the set follow the the data inside the set. It only indicates what the data would look like if it is.

First, Goedel's argument is an argument about levels of abstraction

That's one way of looking at it. In any case I alluded to the possible existence of an 'analog of Godel's theory' in the physical world rather than a direct application of it.

Second, science doesn't bother with proving anything as true (outside of mathematics and logic), but with falsifying as many theories as possible so that we get ever closer to a best fit. It's a lot more like numeric math than logic.

In math and logic we start with axioms and then build up from there; while in the physical world we only have observations and are working out the 'axioms' by trial and error. And we have found very strong and useful ways of modelling the physical world with math.

Presumably if we "extrapolate" scientific progress to its logical conclusion in much the same way you have been then perhaps we will have the rules, and science and math converge. And if we can't, its just as interesting a question to ask why not.

As I said: They have a lot of experience in retreating into the areas where they are not easily falsified, so there is no such simple answer to your question.

You describe it as if it were a calculated approach. I don't see it that way.

But the small history you provided pretty much proves the point I'm making all the time.

We both agree religion has historically been used to explain the unexplainable; but that doesn't mean that there isn't stuff that eludes science. And modern religion isn't currently in any conflict or even forseeable conflict with it.

But - and that is my point again - even if we assume just for the sake of the argument that you are correct, then all the evidence we have indicates that all the current religions combined have no more clue about what lies beyond than my pet does.

Lol. I don't disagree with that. I guess that's where faith comes in. That Jesus had divine genesis or that Buddha's awakening was true enlightenment or whatever. Still your pet argument has merit, my cat appears thoroughly content with its life and maybe it knows something we don't. :)

I didn't bring up Iraq to bash Bush, I brought it up to contrast the tabloid-exaggeration of "eco-terrorism" with real violence.

I know, and I use it to bash Bush either. My argument there is that we can be motivated to war without religion. If religion were eliminated we'd stop using it as an excuse to kill people, but I'm doubtful we'd fight less. We'll just find other excuses.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Tom]

This is about to fall off the end of my comments list, so I'd like to sum up a bit:

I don't think we disagree on the science/unknowable bit. There may or may not be parts of reality that science will never explain. I personally doubt it, because science is very flexible, but I am sure that there are parts that science as we know it today won't explain.

We also agree that religion does not know the answers that science doesn't. At best, they pretend to, and so far each and every one of their pseudo-explanations has been found to be hogwash. With that track record, it's a pretty safe bet to assume the remaining ones are just more of the same.

So, in summary, religion is bullshit and teaching it to young children as if it were fact is indoctrination. In fact, I think child abuse would be a better term and yes, many people suffer for life from the crap they were told as children.

My argument there is that we can be motivated to war without religion. If religion were eliminated we'd stop using it as an excuse to kill people, but I'm doubtful we'd fight less. We'll just find other excuses.

I'm pretty sure there would still be war, yes.

I am also pretty sure that there would be less violence. Modern islamic terrorism, for example, is unthinkable without islam. On the christian side, both the crusades and the prosecution of Jews can not be imagined without the religious component. There is still plenty of violence in the middle ages if you substract these, so it's not like I'm claiming religion is the root of all evil. Sometimes it is the cause of evil and sometimes it is just a tool. I think seing it as only one or the other is too simplistic a view.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[vux984]

Fair enough on all points, the only item I'd want to challenge:

So, in summary, religion is bullshit

Its a proposition of taking something on faith without proof. I agree that there is a lot of bullshit, but I don't think the idea of taking something on faith without proof is inherently utterly without merit.

If nothing else I take it on faith that my experience of the world is real; that you are real, and that when I die the world will go on without me. That this all isn't some elaborate figment of my imagination or dream. I have no proof of this, and no way to prove it.

and teaching it to young children as if it were fact is indoctrination.

Agreed. But one can also teach it to children without presenting it as fact, but merely as system of beliefs as a faith they can choose to accept or reject. And that is not indoctrination. Its how I was raised, and as a result I'm pretty agnostic. But I see some interesting stuff in religion too, and don't reject it all out of hand. And its worth noting that atheism is itself a faith proposition. Its rational and consistent with science... but there's no real proof.

Re:Dirty Laundry

[Tom]

I don't think the idea of taking something on faith without proof is inherently utterly without merit.

Why not?

If you accept that, then how do you seperate the scammers you tell you hogwash for their personal profit from those that (your assumption) have something valuable to say?

If nothing else I take it on faith that my experience of the world is real;

I don't. However, for all practical purposes, acting as if it were real until I know for sure (if ever) is the reasonable thing to do, because acting as if it weren't has all kinds of interesting consequences.

Basically, in situations where evidence is not available, it is perfectly rational to go with whatever the best and most reasonable path appears to be. But that still isn't a faith-based approach. The difference between an evidence-based approach and a faith-based approach is that in the former you keep your mind open to evidence to the contrary, and in the later you don't.

And its worth noting that atheism is itself a faith proposition

No, it isn't, and that this sentence has become popular is merely a strategy of the religious people fighting against atheism. It's a bold lie, just like the phrase about christians being persecuted.

There is literally tons of proof, just visit the nearest university library. What you are looking for is the one "big" piece of proof that proves everything. But the very core of science is that such a thing doesn't exist, that understanding the world does not come from a "root cause" approach (that is the faith-based "everything flows from god" way), but from looking at the small parts and how they interact with each other.

The proof is there. It's just not the kind of proof that people brought up in a "one ring to rule them all" ... errr... wrong meme... "one answer to end all questions" culture are satisfied with.

Precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

This sets a dangerous precedent. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, and Julius Rosenberg should watch out lest the United States decides to follow this lead. Imagine, they could even face jail time for their whistleblowing activities!

Re:Precedent

[FooAtWFU]

The main thing that the USA today piece gets at is this:

But his crime devastated the Vatican, shattering the confidentiality that typically governs correspondence with the pope.

Let's consider a similar privilege in the US: attorney-client privilege. It's really important that people can trust their communications with their lawyers are confidential, at least if there is any hope to maintain a semblance of justice in the justice system instead of federal prosecutors running roughshod over everyone. Likewise, it's really important for the Vatican that people trust their priests enough to actually go to confession for forgiveness of sins (important to Catholics, you may have heard) and to receive moral guidance - at least so long as people remain imperfect, which means more or less 'forever'.

There have been some big scandals recently which have compromised that sort of trust.

Casting stones

[EzInKy]

The proverb goes "He who is without sin cast the first stone." The simple fact is there is not one adult person who follows a religion on this world who hasn't broken one of the tenants in which they profess to believe. Yet they are most often the very ones who condemn those who view their faith as superstitius nonesense the most vehemently. I do have to give this to the Catholic Church though, they have become much more maleable when confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs than the sects that spun of from it.

Re:Casting stones

[LordLucless]

And most adults would agree that being deceitful, mean, vindictive, or heartless is wrong, and yet everyone has done something of the kind.

The fact that you can't live up to moral perfection isn't an indication that your moral code is false; it's an indication that you're not perfect.

Re:Casting stones

[SalafranceUnderhill]

The word is 'tenet'. Unless you're talking about someone who occupies land or property rented by a landlord.

Re:Casting stones

[pipatron]

Or telnet if you're an old nostalgic computer geek.

Re:Casting stones

[Anonymous Coward]

You just partially echoed what the parent post said, but you don't seem to have grasped the point that that post has made. There's this rampant mentality that is common among the religious that says "we strive for perfection, for perfection brings us closer to the particular god that we worship, but we can never be perfect because we are human. But because we simply believe in this perfect entity, we're closer to its perfection, so damned be anyone else who doesn't follow our particular superstition. My god will forgive me for any wrongdoing I do in my life, but not the wrongdoings of a nonbeliever."

I'd say that people generally understand that they're not "perfect" and accept that they have various shortcomings, but the religious mindset offers many people a substitution for genuine perfection (which is a problematic concept and a standard that can never exist), so commonly, we see believers act as if they are above others.

Re:Casting stones

[Anonymous Coward]

Paging all men whose appellations end in Roman numerals.

William Henry Gates III?

Re:Casting stones

[Tom]

There's a difference between being a common man with common sense and being someone who claims he holds the keys to heaven, knows right and wrong and is entitled to teach everyone else.

I'm surprised that needs to be explained.

Re:Casting stones

[SalafranceUnderhill]

The fact that you attempt to live according to some moral code doesn't guarantee the truth of that code. I suspect that people often forget this in the excitement of the belief that they are morally superior to people with different moral codes.

Note that I'm not making an argument for moral relativism here, I just think that some people's codes are laughably primitive and based on certain bronze age prejudices.

Some of us...

[Vintermann]

Some of us want to make money. Some of us want to get people universal health care. Some want to spread the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations. Some want our nations to have glory, and be important actors on the stage of the world. Some want international justice, some trade agreements. Some want nuns to drive old cars to set a good example.

We don't agree on all of this. But one thing we the powerful can agree on is that we can't have the public come in and mess up everything!

Now that is tech news!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, is htis technology related news???????

  or has slashdot become that desperate to post any type of news that can bring in viewers?

Re:Now that is tech news!!!

[Alain Williams]

In case you have not noticed there has recently been much discussion here about Edward Snowden, also Bradley Manning & others before. I will let you work out the links between these stories.

To put the punishments in perspective...

[stepdown]

Anyone who reveals or receives confidential information or documentation risks six months to two years in prison and a €2,000 euro ($2,500) fine; the penalty goes up to eight years in prison if the material concerns the "fundamental interests" of the Holy See or its diplomatic relations with other countries.

Never mind the treatment of Bradley Manning, these punishments are tame even when you compare them to the 50 years faced by Aaron Swartz.

There's a verse for that!

[Gravis Zero]

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. - John 3:20

just sayin'

Re:There's a verse for that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering this basically says "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear," I cannot agree with this verse.

Especially considering recent events around the world.

If only they read their Bible...

[John Allsup]

Let's not forget that the Gospel account clearly illustrates Jesus teaching _against_ formalised self-serving religious elites, and Jesus being executed for doing so.  Can anyone think of an appropriate long word beginning with H?

Re:If only they read their Bible...

[game kid]

I say we petition Jesus to get back down here and flip some tables, for this and other things.

Re:If only they read their Bible...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone think of an appropriate long word beginning with H?

hatersgonnahate

Re:If only they read their Bible...

[Dcnjoe60]

Let's not forget that the Gospel account clearly illustrates Jesus teaching _against_ formalised self-serving religious elites, and Jesus being executed for doing so. Can anyone think of an appropriate long word beginning with H?

Let's not forget that it was the catholic church that compiled what we know today as the bible, so if you are going to use it against them, you should also recognize their contribution to your argument. I noticed in your sig that you are a doctor, so you can thank that same catholic church for the university system they created and all sorts of other things that we, today, take for granted.

I may not be catholic, but to deny the contribution that they made to western civilization doesn't require a long word beginning with H, a short one will do, it's call Hate.

Re:If only they read their Bible...

[aristotle-dude]

Let's not forget that the Gospel account clearly illustrates Jesus teaching _against_ formalised self-serving religious elites, and Jesus being executed for doing so. Can anyone think of an appropriate long word beginning with H?

Let us not forget that the bible preaches against moral relativism. For example, some people support gays regardless their actions or behavior but oppose heterosexual adultery and other acts. That is hypocrisy. If you are going to promote morality then it has to apply to all. There are no greater or lesser sins. All sin separates us from god until we repent.

Many liberal Christians preach heresy.

Interest / usury

[Errol backfiring]

Maybe they want to hide that they were against usury (the term was later rebranded to "interest" to make it sound less evil) and they officially stated that "their opinion about it has not changed"?

Re:Interest / usury

[aristotle-dude]

Maybe they want to hide that they were against usury (the term was later rebranded to "interest" to make it sound less evil) and they officially stated that "their opinion about it has not changed"?

So you don't think the mortgage interest rates charged by banks in the 80's (30%) was not usury? Do you consider that to be moral? I consider that to be legalized loan sharking.

Re:Achieving Immortality

[cold fjord]

That's not achieving "immortality," that is achieving immorality. Big difference.

Sexual Violence Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I at least hope their sexual violence laws are gender neutral.
Too many jurisdictions around the world have laws that only consider a sexual offence to be "rape" if it's committed against a woman.

See the recent incident of the under-age father here in New Zealand. From the article:

If the woman is proven guilty, the organization Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse urged legislators that it is about time to revise the country's prevailing rape statute. Under New Zealand law, rape only applies to men, with a maximum jail sentence of 20 years.

But for women found guilty of forcing a male to have sex, they are only slapped with a charge of sexual violation, the maximum sentence of which is 14 years.

The law around Australia is much the same
* sexually violate a female = sexual assault
* sexually violate a male = indecent assault (much lesser crime)

This story is repeated in the US, UK, Europe, etc.

Then again, this discrimination is against males and so it's not on any national agenda. Let's instead focus more on how we can help women.

Re:Sexual Violence Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is repeated in the US, UK, Europe, etc.

Last I checked, the UK was part of Europe.

Re:Sexual Violence Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, wise ass, but it's not universally accepted.

Unlike (e.g) France, enough people consider the UK to be distinct from the "continent" to permit referring to them as "UK" and "Europe".

Jesuits know their stuff

[Jason Lind]

The church is finally in good hands. Thank fucking God!

did Jesus ever give a crap about leaks?

[Anonymous Coward]

they had one last chance to become relative to the modern world. this pope had a chance, because he was supposedly concerned with the same things Jesus was, like some kind of social justice stuff, universal love, etc. However i dont remember Jesus giving a shit about leaks. In fact I'm pretty sure he advocated the speaking of truth to power.

With this ruling, this Pope has proved that they just do not get it, at all.

Enlighten up...

[Anonymous Coward]

Francis

they were being non-transparent about raping kids

[Anonymous Coward]

you stupid fucking asshole, how the fuck could you conflate "media hysteria" and what was basically an organized enabling bureaucracy that protected pedophilia?

I wasn't expecting that.

[Anonymous Coward]

~lol~

totalitarian state

[stenvar]

The Vatican is a totalitarian state guilty of numerous human rights violations. I suppose it's a small improvement that instead of just judging and locking up people, they at least try to write down their policies as "laws".

That's why I've always said..

[houbou]

Religion = Organized Crime = Mafia..

Re:That's why I've always said..

[dbarron]

I agree totally..and I also want to use a quote from Mary Poppins, (the church believes) 'A spoonfull of sugar makes the medicine go down'.

Relevance ?

[vikingpower]

Who is the pope, in the world of 2013 ? A quaint old man with a funny hat and a funny stick in white clothes, wielding no power and a waning influence. As Inglehart put it already in 1997: the importance of religion dwindles with rising degrees of industrialization, and disappears with the transition from materialism to post-materialism. 'Nuff said.

Re:Relevance ?

[umafuckit]

In theory you're right, but in practice the man in the funny hat has a lot of power. His stance on sexual abstinence and contraception, to name but one thing, is taken seriously by millions of people and causes untold harm. There are millions of Catholics around the world, and the Pope's opinions politics influence them via their local Church. Dismissing him because it's 2013 is, unfortunately, not going to work.

Re:Relevance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Protestants and atheists may like to believe that the Pope is nothing, but that's wishful thinking.

The Pope is still the head of the Roman Catholic Church, which is still one of the largest and most wealthy organizations in the world. While the current Pope does not enjoy all of the power his predecessors from hundreds of years ago had, he is still highly adored and influential amongst Catholics worldwide. While it seems that many U.S. Catholics do not take the position of Pope as seriously as they used to, overall Catholics globally seem to still take the whole "Vicar of Christ" thing literally and take heed to what he says and does. For example, the Catholic Church has been one of the largest barriers in preventing people worldwide from receiving proper sex education and contraceptives, often in places where it is needed the most.

Definitely the influence of the Pope and the Catholic Church as a whole are slowly waning, with fewer and fewer young people attending services. However it will probably be at least a century before the Pope has zero power and influence.

Re:Relevance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind "local church" - in the US many hospitals and other healthcare facilities are being taken over by Catholics, who then decide that they will not offer contraception and abortion to their patients, whether they are Catholics or not.

The current influence of the Catholic Church is not healthy. (No pun intended).

the fucker helped nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

he helped nazis , allowed opis dei a cult to become part of the church ...thats all we know so far.....
ya
its the that this guy wanted this current one makes you wonder.
perhaps snowden and a new vatican guy can hang out and exchange stories

Re:the fucker helped nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way is Opis Dei a cult and Catholicism not?

Pope Pedobear

[Anonymous Coward]

"convicted of aggravated theft and sentenced to 18 months in the Vatican's police barracks." Not a real law. Not a real trial. Not a real police force.Not a real country either.

Wow

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I mean how out of touch is the Vatican today.

Lets get something clear.

I have no problems with people's individual beliefs. If you believe in God, Jesus, whatever, go right ahead. I will defend people's rights to believe in whatever religions they choose, and even claim that the fringe beliefs like scientology are part of what it means to live in a free society, so go right ahead. Feel free to assemble, but also feel free to discuss, argue, and debate the merits of your beliefs and not just assume someone else has all the answers for you.

HOWEVER

I think that the Catholic Church as an organization is completely out to lunch.

There is no point to defend anything the Pope or Vatican does these days just because you are Catholic and believe in God and Jesus.

You can believe in God, you DON'T have to believe in the corrupted state that is called the Vatican. The Vatican is not acting on behalf of any God these days, only their own self interests and preservation as an antiquated entity.

Once people separate their beliefs from an organization that attempts to form your opinions and beliefs, only then will there be any real reform.

Re:Wow

[drinkypoo]

The Vatican is not acting on behalf of any God these days,

What is it with these "these days" crap? I keep seeing this, as if Il Vaticano had ever been anything other than a political organization designed to commit malfeasance. Read up on the Borgias' control of the Vatican, and then realize that they were only able to gain power there because it was corrupt to begin with.

That aside, the papacy clearly conflicts directly with the bible in which Jesus speaks out against gatekeepers to god, in a way which leaves little doubt that it is not and has never been godly.

Re:Wow

[Dcnjoe60]

The Vatican is not acting on behalf of any God these days,

What is it with these "these days" crap? I keep seeing this, as if Il Vaticano had ever been anything other than a political organization designed to commit malfeasance. Read up on the Borgias' control of the Vatican, and then realize that they were only able to gain power there because it was corrupt to begin with.

That aside, the papacy clearly conflicts directly with the bible in which Jesus speaks out against gatekeepers to god, in a way which leaves little doubt that it is not and has never been godly.

That would be your interpretation from the very bible that the catholic church put together, would it not be? Do you see the irony?

Re:Wow

[Dcnjoe60]

I mean how out of touch is the Vatican today.

Lets get something clear.

I have no problems with people's individual beliefs. If you believe in God, Jesus, whatever, go right ahead. I will defend people's rights to believe in whatever religions they choose, and even claim that the fringe beliefs like scientology are part of what it means to live in a free society, so go right ahead. Feel free to assemble, but also feel free to discuss, argue, and debate the merits of your beliefs and not just assume someone else has all the answers for you.

HOWEVER

I think that the Catholic Church as an organization is completely out to lunch.

There is no point to defend anything the Pope or Vatican does these days just because you are Catholic and believe in God and Jesus.

You can believe in God, you DON'T have to believe in the corrupted state that is called the Vatican. The Vatican is not acting on behalf of any God these days, only their own self interests and preservation as an antiquated entity.

Once people separate their beliefs from an organization that attempts to form your opinions and beliefs, only then will there be any real reform.

If you truly had no problem with people's individual beliefs, then you would not have posted what you posted. In fact, you seem very troubled that individuals do put faith in the catholic church and the pope and whatever. You may believe that "you" don't have to believe in the the catholic church or organized religion, but evidently because billions of people on the planet do, you are seem quite upset. OTOH, if you truly had no problems with what other people believed, then why make this post? Or put differently, what is really eating at you?

Re:Wow

[drinkypoo]

That would be your interpretation from the very bible that the catholic church put together, would it not be?

Which bible?

Re:Wow

[stenvar]

I think that the Catholic Church as an organization is completely out to lunch.

The Vatican seems to be very much in touch with children.

Re:Wow

[Dcnjoe60]

That would be your interpretation from the very bible that the catholic church put together, would it not be?

Which bible?

Any bible with what is commonly referred to as the new testament is a compilation made by the catholic church. After the reformation other translations were offered but they were still translations from the sources that were officially approved by the catholic church. You don't find any bibles, for instance with the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Judas included.

Re:Wow

[drinkypoo]

You don't find any bibles, for instance with the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Judas included.

Pretty much my point, I guess. But even in the bible that the catholics put together, ironically, there's nothing to support their existence. If even they couldn't manage to hack something in there, that says something too.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Which bible?

The Orange Catholic Bible of course.

commandment #14: embrace transparency

[epine]

And most adults would agree that being deceitful, mean, vindictive, or heartless is wrong, and yet everyone has done something of the kind.

Funny how you're using the language of original sin rather than treating lapses of personal conduct as lapses. Your verb "has done" makes transgression binary. I recently watched a video about violence among children which informed me that the rate of violent acts towards others peeks somewhere around the age of two, and declines from there pretty much for the rest of your life. The difference with teenage males is that one violent act a week can do significant harm (as opposed to multiple violent acts per hour by toddlers left to fend for themselves among their peers).

Human maturity is a long arc of succumbing to our base emotions less often. Not all adults are on the program: for some, lapses of conduct turn into overt strategies or become defining traits. On the one side you have most telemarketers, in the middle you have Jeff Gillooly, and on the far side Jimmy the Gent.

Transgressions that boil up from a potent brew of fatigue and frustration, or from the EMP of sexual instinct in abrupt transition are a different matter (9 Tesla emotional fields do not collapse gracefully, no matter what anyone has ever said about right and wrong) .

Except for the massive wealth commanded by the Vatican bank, and the peculiar tendency of so many people to trust their children to celibate men in frocks, this would be just another bunch of secretive guys no different than any other rat-hating Masonic cabal or KKK fraternity.

A Humanist Hexadecalogue: Improving the Ten Commandments

He's a dreary narrator, but you have to give props for adopting base sixteen. His list is actually pretty good. I take issue with #14 "pursue education". That's not commandment material. I would roll that into #15 "pursue virtue" by enlarging it to "pursue virtue and self-development". I can handle the Buddhist influence up to a point.

I'd replace #14 with Embrace transparency: Do not embroil others in concealing your defects, misdeeds, and misdemeanours. Paging all men whose appellations end in Roman numerals.

Concerning #7, it's surprising he lumped plural marriage (when consensual, if such a thing exists) in with child marriage and forced marriage (rape with benefits).

Sam Harris- Improving the 10 Commandments

"Consider the second commandment: Thou shall not erect any graven images. Is this really the second most important thing?" So we have this commandment, and nothing at all about transparency. I smell room for improvement.

Re:commandment #14: embrace transparency

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that this commandment is extremely important. It basically says that any church or religion is not allowed to be build around God and Jezus. Sadly all churches have broken this commandment by idolising and in fact erect images of Jezus and kneeling in front of it.

The bible is pretty clear in this regard that Jezus thought that organised religion is evil.

Re:commandment #14: embrace transparency

[dfghjk]

No amount of upmodding is enough for this post.

plumber

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad day to be a Catholic plumber

The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes on

[FreeUser]

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

The same thing happened in the United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland, Germany, and a whole host of other countries. This is not a US problem, it's a world problem. The timing of the last pope stepping down was quite interesting...a week after an HBO documentary "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God" was released for general consumption, linking both the current Pope and his soon-to-be-sainted predecisor directly to the pedophile coverups and worse. In fact, Pope John-Paul II covered for his good pedophile friend up until he died and passed the mantle on to Ratzinger. I wonder if they'll make St. Pedo, I mean John-Paul II, the patron saint of children and knock the other guy aside?

One thing is sure, mothers will still be carting their kids off to the churches, never mind the danger to their offspring. That, more than anything, illustrates the power of indoctrination and denial.

http://www.hbo.com/#/schedule/detail/Mea+Maxima+Culpa%3A+Silence+in+the+House+of+God/562415

we?

[superwiz]

How would "we" know? I'll preface this with saying that I am an atheist. But that doesn't mean that I can't entertain abstract notions such as a legal system of a theocracy. In such a system "we" are not entitled to transparency. The legal system of Vatican does not make Vatican or the Pope accountable to anyone. What it considers crimes become crimes against god or the church or even the supreme leader "on earth". The establishment doesn't exist to accommodate "we the people". It exists to accommodate the Pope (yes, the claim is that he is to accommodate god). This is premised on Vatican functioning to enable functioning of the church, but that doesn't matter. As a legal system, it exists solely to fulfill the wishes of the Pope.

Some people might dislike that. I don't really care. Some people dislike families set up with overbearing father-figure influence reducing everyone else in the family to second class because that's how they chose their gender roles. Belonging to this Vatican city state is (at this point in time) completely voluntary. If they sign up for this type of patronage arrangement, why should I care? Why would a non-Catholic care? And why would a catholic expect accountability from the church? Catholicism expect accountability only in the other direction -- to the church (Ok, to "The Church"). The choice to be Catholic is completely voluntary though

Re:we?

[Dcnjoe60]

How would "we" know? I'll preface this with saying that I am an atheist. But that doesn't mean that I can't entertain abstract notions such as a legal system of a theocracy. In such a system "we" are not entitled to transparency. The legal system of Vatican does not make Vatican or the Pope accountable to anyone. What it considers crimes become crimes against god or the church or even the supreme leader "on earth". The establishment doesn't exist to accommodate "we the people". It exists to accommodate the Pope (yes, the claim is that he is to accommodate god). This is premised on Vatican functioning to enable functioning of the church, but that doesn't matter. As a legal system, it exists solely to fulfill the wishes of the Pope.

Some people might dislike that. I don't really care. Some people dislike families set up with overbearing father-figure influence reducing everyone else in the family to second class because that's how they chose their gender roles. Belonging to this Vatican city state is (at this point in time) completely voluntary. If they sign up for this type of patronage arrangement, why should I care? Why would a non-Catholic care? And why would a catholic expect accountability from the church? Catholicism expect accountability only in the other direction -- to the church (Ok, to "The Church"). The choice to be Catholic is completely voluntary though

The Vatican is an independent state, and the Pope is the head of that state. Leave the religion aspects out of it and view it that way, they have their laws, Britain has their laws, the US has their laws and it is up to each how they want to hold their leaders accountable. For the record, their pope has to follow their own laws and can actually be removed from office, but like a Pope resigning from office, it is a rarity. But their laws allow for it.

Re:we?

[superwiz]

Who said that leaders are accountable or have to be accountable? That is only the case under specific systems of government. Theocracy is not one of those systems. That's just not part of the definition of "government". Government being accountable to laws is a specific aspect of a government system (this is what makes a government a "republic"). Government accountable to people is another specific aspect of a government system. Vatican is probably best described as a theocratic republic. In no way does that imply any kind of obligation or responsibility to "the people".

Re:we?

[Dcnjoe60]

Who said that leaders are accountable or have to be accountable? That is only the case under specific systems of government. Theocracy is not one of those systems. That's just not part of the definition of "government". Government being accountable to laws is a specific aspect of a government system (this is what makes a government a "republic"). Government accountable to people is another specific aspect of a government system. Vatican is probably best described as a theocratic republic. In no way does that imply any kind of obligation or responsibility to "the people".

But the Vatican is an independent state with it's own form of government and laws. It's leader is accountable to the citizens of that state. The citizens of the Vatican are not those who profess the catholic religion the two are not the same thing. People need to separate the functioning of the religious aspect of the catholic church from the independent state called the Vatican. Think of it like Israel. There is the Israeli government, the Israeli people and the Jewish religion, they are not one and the same.

Re:we?

[superwiz]

But the Vatican is an independent state with it's own form of government and laws. It's leader is accountable to the citizens of that state.

Why? That's only the case under certain systems of government. It need not be the case under all systems of government. By all accounts, the state of Vatican exists to serve the Pope. Clearly, the citizenship of the state of Vatican is entirely voluntary, so it's not as if such self-subjugation could be deemed a humanitarian problem in that regard. But the legal arrangement of obligations seems to be that the citizens of Vatican have responsibilities to the Pope who has no obligations to the citizens of Vatican.

Notice that religion was not mentioned in the previous paragraph at all -- only law.

Think of it like Israel. There is the Israeli government, the Israeli people and the Jewish religion, they are not one and the same.

Yes, Israel has an entirely different system of government. It's clearly a democracy with general public voting in all levels of leadership.

Re:we?

[Dcnjoe60]

But the Vatican is an independent state with it's own form of government and laws. It's leader is accountable to the citizens of that state.

Why? That's only the case under certain systems of government. It need not be the case under all systems of government. By all accounts, the state of Vatican exists to serve the Pope. Clearly, the citizenship of the state of Vatican is entirely voluntary, so it's not as if such self-subjugation could be deemed a humanitarian problem in that regard. But the legal arrangement of obligations seems to be that the citizens of Vatican have responsibilities to the Pope who has no obligations to the citizens of Vatican.

Notice that religion was not mentioned in the previous paragraph at all -- only law.

Think of it like Israel. There is the Israeli government, the Israeli people and the Jewish religion, they are not one and the same.

Yes, Israel has an entirely different system of government. It's clearly a democracy with general public voting in all levels of leadership.

The Vatican is a sovereign state, we may agree or disagree with how it is organized and run, but that doesn't change it. It's leader is elected, although his rule is more of a monarchy. He does not have supreme authority over secular matters, just non-secular ones.

As for citizens being free to leave, aren't citizens of any free society free to renounce their citizenship? Surely that is not unique to the Vatican state. What is relatively unique in this modern day is that the Vatican still allows dual citizenship. While once common in many countries, the practice has be declining. Of course, given the nature of the catholic church, it makes sense in their case.

The point about Israel was that the religion of the state is not the same as the government of the state.

Re:we?

[superwiz]

The Vatican is a sovereign state, we may agree or disagree with how it is organized and run, but that doesn't change it. It's leader is elected, although his rule is more of a monarchy. He does not have supreme authority over secular matters, just non-secular ones.

Says who? Sovereignty means ability to impose any power structure of your choosing.

You keep trying to impose power paradigms which are true in American on all power structures which exist. For example, leadership being accountable to the people. That's not always the case. Usually, in fact, it is not. Think of a corporation, for example. It's leadership is only accountable to its owners -- not to its employees. That's one type of power arrangement. You assume that in some way all countries have an implicit understanding that leadership is accountable to the citizenry. That's just not the case.

The other distinction you try to draw is between Vatican, the state, and Vatican, the religious institution. Separation of church and state is also a fairly American concept that you seem to take for granted. But it's does not have to be present in every government. By definition, it is not present in a theocracy. And I don't mean that it doesn't exist de facto. I mean it doesn't exist de jure.

Yet another concept that you try to impose on all states is that law is supreme. That's only true in republics. In fact, that is what makes a government a republic. In any monarchy, that is not the case. The supreme leader is above the law in every sense of the word de jure. No one is above the will of the people de facto, but a person can be the supreme leader de jure (think of North Korea for another example of a non-religious supreme leader).

As for citizens being free to leave, aren't citizens of any free society free to renounce their citizenship?

First of all, no, not even by law (Turkey, for example, does not recognize renouncement of citizenship). But the legal ability to renounce citizenship is besides the point. All Vatican citizens can leave as a matter of fact -- not just as a matter of law. There is plenty of countries which have legal structure for leaving, but don't offer such an ability to most citizens. Citizens of those countries are free to leave de jure but not de facto. Vatican citizenship is something one has to opt-in -- not something one has to beg to opt-out.

The point about Israel was that the religion of the state is not the same as the government of the state.

Israel does not have an official religion. It's a secular state. It was founded by Zionists and Zionism was a secular (largely socialist) movement. In the Zionist view (a view that, to make matters more confusing, steams from Judaism) being a Jew is an ethnic delineation rather than a religious one.

Re:The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes

[FreeUser]

*sigh*

Fucking slashdot won't let me post this in a timely manner. We really need an edit function, or a better preview mode.

"linking the current pope" should read:

"linking the then-current pope", i.e. the Pope who stepped down, not the one who replaced him.

Robot Santa

[Jason Levine]

For some reason, I'm reminded of Futurama's Robot Santa reviewing his Naughty list:

"Mobsters beating up a shopkeeper for protection money: Naughty! Shopkeeper not paying his protection money: Equally as naughty!"

New World Order

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws of "sovereign" states will be dictated by the UN Masters and Bilderbergs that control everything from secret meetings.

"We must criminalize leaks to protect children." My ass. We must criminalize leaks to protect the molesters and sodomizers, many of whom are members of the elite ruling class.

Makes sense...

[Dcnjoe60]

While /. is obviously anti-catholic, it is important to remember that the Vatican is an independent state with its own laws. So, while the bashing of all things catholic will undoubtedly continue, this is really a non-news item that should have never made it to /. in the first place, unless Nerds (as in Slashdot: News for Nerds) really care that much about what goes on in the catholic church.

Media...

[danbuter]

It seems the media is far more concerned about press releases that they can splash all over the front page than they are with pedos getting 12 years in jail. I love how the gist of the summary is all about the punishment being secret, not that they are getting punished. They really only want the gossip, not justice.

You're not a citizen of the Vatican

[eggstasy]

Vatican being a sovereign state, it's really none of your business. The Vatican has an astounding total of 450 citizens, i.e. public servants, cardinals, diplomats, and the Swiss Guard. It's also not a Democracy, so even in the unlikely event that you happen to be a concerned Vatican citizen on top of being a slashdotter, it's really none of your business either.

Faith in Christ does not require you to be catholic, there are lots of protestant people. And being catholic only requires faith in God, Christ, whatever doctrine they have in their religion. As is my understanding, Christianity is essentially based on the premise that this is not the "real life", but rather a temporary earthly life, where you must prove yourself before God before being allowed into Heaven or whatever. Humanity is generally portrayed as being essentially sinful, and only God has the power to judge people according to whether or not they can control said nature and atone for their sins.

If the fact that Bishop X or Cardinal Y are fucking children lessens your Faith, then you're not a true Christian with an appreciation for Christ's essential message and a context of 2000 years of worship vs. X people and Y years of pedophilia. If you wish to become a Protestant or an Atheist, well, it's certainly your right to do so, but you should probably realize that it's not the PEOPLE you should be concerned about, but rather the Catholic doctrine or the Bible, or whatever separates believers from non-believers.

(I'm Agnostic, from a Catholic country, but never baptized or otherwise raised by religious people)

It is not the pope, but the King of Vatican City

[Anonymous Coward]

which happens to be the same person :)
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/vatican-city-explained

hypocrits

[Anonymous Coward]

The vatican... pfft.... for how long can you hold on? You ranks are filled with child molesting perverts. You preach so many bold things from your cathedrals that are festooned with gold. You hypocrits, you have had your day. You once had power, but with every day it escapes you further. Be gone, and free the world of your hyprocrisy.

Lets excommunicate the Inquisition

[buntsai]

The Kings of Spain were threatened with excommunication on multiple occasions.

There was a huge tussle between the various catholic monarchs of Europe, including the English, French and Spanish Kings and the Holy Roman Emperor over who should decide things in the Catholic Church. There was a power grab at the time, and much of the particular viciousness of the Spanish Inquisition can be attributed to the pride, paranoia and desire for independence of the Spanish King.

Parallels can perhaps be drawn with the USA where the scale of slaughter of the native populations also increased rapidly with independence.
At one point, for example, even the Primate (head bishop) of Spain, the Archbishop of Toledo, fell out with Philip the II (King of Spain) and was arrested by the Spanish Inquisition in 1558. He was accused of heresy mainly on the basis of his book (Commentary on the Christian Catechism). However, this same book had been presented to and approved by the (counter-reformation / anti-Protestant) Council of Trent to which he had been the official Spanish envoy... The pope sent an ambassador ("nuncio extraordinary") with powers of excommunication for everyone involved and orders to physically extract the Archbishop. This didn't work. The king demanded a trial in Spain so the pope sent four bishops as the judges (each of whom later became popes themselves), but they were not accepted. The Spanish Inquisition were desperate for the bishop of Toledo to die, and he only survived because he was accompanied night and day by at least two members of his loyal staff (i.e different ones went at different times, on rotation).

After 7 years, the pope managed to extricate him following more threats, this time to excommunicate the whole of Spain. His trial was reconvened in Rome with the pope expecting a quick exoneration. However, important papers kept getting lost in Spain. Eventually Philip outlasted the trial, with the suspicious death of Pope Paul IV. There is no proof as such that the Spaniards killed the pope only conjecture: i.e. letters have been found in the historical archives in Valladolid, Spain explaining the great dishonour the pope had brought upon the Spanish Inquisition and how convenient it would be for the pope to die, etc...

Unfortunately for the Spanish Inquisition, the next pope lost patience and the Spanish Primate won his case.

Dubious justice but still better than Guantanamo...

Re:Lets excommunicate the Inquisition

[khallow]

The Kings of Spain were threatened with excommunication on multiple occasions.

But were those threats conditioned on the ending of the Spanish Inquisition or mere power plays? You give an example of a power play and it ended with the next pope.

Dubious justice but still better than Guantanamo...

Yea right. Guantanamo is still a few centuries shy of the Spanish Inquisition and fundamentally, it's a POW camp. Indefinite imprisonment legally goes with that territory. The war which it's associated with is some nebulous affair that might drag on for generations or it might be ended in a legal sense in a few years. I think the Guantanamo Bay prison is unjust, but it's not at the level of the Spanish Inquisition.

There's also the matter of number of prisoners and punishments meted out. Current number of prisoners in Guantanamo is less than two hundred. They have yet to execute any prisoners (though apparently the wheels are turning) while the Spanish Inquisition executed people from its founding all the way through to 1826.

Re:Lets excommunicate the Inquisition

[Qzukk]

how convenient it would be for the pope to die

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome pope?

Re:Achieving Immortality

[Hillgiant]

He's so famous, he's IN-famous.

Re:The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes

[Dcnjoe60]

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

The same thing happened in the United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland, Germany, and a whole host of other countries. This is not a US problem, it's a world problem. The timing of the last pope stepping down was quite interesting...a week after an HBO documentary "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God" was released for general consumption, linking both the current Pope and his soon-to-be-sainted predecisor directly to the pedophile coverups and worse. In fact, Pope John-Paul II covered for his good pedophile friend up until he died and passed the mantle on to Ratzinger. I wonder if they'll make St. Pedo, I mean John-Paul II, the patron saint of children and knock the other guy aside?

One thing is sure, mothers will still be carting their kids off to the churches, never mind the danger to their offspring. That, more than anything, illustrates the power of indoctrination and denial.

http://www.hbo.com/#/schedule/detail/Mea+Maxima+Culpa%3A+Silence+in+the+House+of+God/562415

It's also a problem in public schools, boy scouts, universities and just about every church and institution. It's not specific to the catholic church. Pope John Paul II didn't cover for the priests, he actually instructed the US bishops to quit using canon law (church law) as a defense for their actions and to cooperate with the civil authorities.

You also leave out of your synopsis that up until the late 1980s, pedophilia was considered curable and many of these priests that were transferred were done so after they had been pronounced cured. It turns out that they were situational abusers and only appeared safe until some stressor or trigger presented itself.

None of this excuses what happened in the catholic church, but perpetuating the myth that it is just a catholic church issue is dangerous as the sexual abuse of minors is rampant and widespread in western culture.

If documents leak then god wanted them to

[Murdoch5]

The great thing about the catholic faith is the amount of hole that cover it in every direction. The reason the vatican doesn't want leaks is because it knows that the leaks damage the already frayed appearance of the church. Every leak that goes again church doctrine is yet another hole that high level members of the church have to rush and fill in.

The other truth that the church should accept is that if the documents leak then God wanted them to leak. You can't have a religion that answers to a massive power who doesn't have limits and then claim that it never steps in to protect the high powers who worship it, the logic is flawed from the very get go. Everytime something bad happens the church calls it freewill and moves on but that is so much bullshit I can smell it from here.

If there really is a God and he really wants people to listen to him and seek his truth then don't you think he would occasionally step in and do something about these issues. For instance if a document left the vatican and between the inner walls and the outer walls the writing in it changed then I would believe that God at least tried to do something. In the same aspect why doesn't God punish child abusers? You would think a loving and powerful God would want to protect the innocent but time after time he doesn't do jack shit as members of the church abuse little boys and girls.

I grew up catholic, I went to a catholic school and I went to church every Sunday and I'm proud to say I'm glad I did. I went to church and heard the bullshit, I went to school and heard the bullshit. After everything that I've studied, read and been force to praise, I've finally noticed that if a God does exist and I'm not saying he / she doesn't, the catholic faith has it wrong.

If you're offended by what I've said or if you truly think you can you defend your religion then go for it but in the last 26 years of my life I've found no saving facts. The Bible is full of BS, The facts and accounts don't line up, no one can answer questions when you ask them and finally we have mortal men setting laws for a system that is meant to worship a divine power! If a God does exist then how about it gets off it's lazy ass and hands down the law, how about it punishes those who don't listen and how about it finally shows us that it exists. I'm sick of religion, the absence of proof doesn't not instill faith, it instills doubt and any powerful being would know that and rectify it!

The vatican has laws because it stops with the pope, no one should be held accountable to a force which until now has been unable or unwilling to prove it exists. So if the vatican has some secret documents that have this proof lets see them. You wouldn't punish people who leaked those documents because you know that every knee would bend in fear of God. You would only punish those who leak documents that you know would bring your party to an end and cause the hole to blow open. The church is dead and this is just one more example of it's problems.

Re:If documents leak then god wanted them to

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should have complained about your obviously bad teachers/priests instead.

We have been told that the texts in the bible are made by humans. We have been told the context in which e.g. the first chapter of the Genesis was written (much later than the second, BTW), why it was written that way, and we were even explicitly told about the contradictions between the first and the second chapter. We learned that the way the Jews took according to the bible when fleeing from Egypt makes no sense whatsoever, and that this is the case because three different texts describing different routes were spliced together to form it. We were also completely aware that Jonah never actually was inside a whale.

Who was telling us all that? Well, it was a catholic priest, no less.

So if you got taught that the bible is the literal word of god, and everything happened exactly the way it is described there (or, in some cases, even remotely happened the way described there), don't blame the catholic church as a whole for that. Blame the specific priests and teachers.

BTW, I've got trouble interpreting this:

I've finally noticed that if a God does exist and I'm not saying he / she doesn't, the catholic faith has it wrong./blockquote
So you say God wants you to say that he doesn't exist? I don't remember that being part of the catholic faith.

Re:The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes

[camperdave]

You want an edit function? Slashcode is open source. Write one, or have one written.

Shocking...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is really shocking to me the the COUNTRY called the vatican didn't already have a law against leaking infomration. Given how people seem to think the catholic church is secrative, but the Vatican and the Catholic church are NOT the same thing. The vatican is a country with a government like the United States, I wonder how different a world we would have if the United States did not have any laws restricting people from leaking government informationa and communications.

The Catholic Church Adopts Omerta

[MarkvW]

What a surprise! The Catholic Church adopts omerta as an institutional value.

First rule of Catholic Club: You don't talk about Catholic Club.

How I Imagine headlines.

[m1ndcrash]

Bishop says God doesn't exist, crucified.

Re:The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes

[Anonymous Coward]

That is retarded. Even if he were to write one, there's no reason the site itself would pick it up. Your retort to his statement is simply asinine and counter-productive.

Is the submitter a priest that likes kids too much

[aristotle-dude]

I noticed that they criminalized a bunch of different things that should be lauded but the submitter chose to focus on leaks. If you steal a document that does not belong to you and then proceed to "sell" it then you are a thief.

I hate seeing this moral relativism that abounds today.

For example, Snowden did commit a crime, however he should possibly be exonerated because he did what he did to do the "right thing". His motives should matter but what he did was still technically a crime against his employer and country. In the same way, leaks from the Vatican by vatican employees should be viewed in a similar matter. If their actions lead to uncovering of corruption then leniency or even forgiveness should be given.

Here is the problem that we have, some people who are wiling to leak information that is not in the public interest to an interested public for financial gain. That should be a crime.

You ask the question,

[LifesABeach]

"But without the leaks, how would we find out about those crimes against children? "

How about listening from the victims?

Re:The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes

[Anonymous Coward]

So the real reason why slashdot's posting system is crap is because open source developers are so lazy that they can't be bothered to actually improve something tens of thousands of them use?

Re:The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes

[Anonymous Coward]

The timing of the last pope stepping down was quite interesting...a week after an HBO documentary "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God" was released for general consumption

That shows how little you understand Vatican politics. It isn't like American politics or most other Western politics. Not only does the Church move on a time scale too slow and deliberate for that HBO show to have been a significant factor, but even if it had, the response wouldn't have been the Pope resigning.

mothers will still be carting their kids off to the churches, never mind the danger to their offspring.

Students are orders of magnitude more likely to be abused by public school teachers than by priests(*).

(*) Over a 52 year period, it is estimated that 10,667 young people were abused by priests. While over only a 9 year period, 290,000 students were abused by public school employees. Source (Apologies for linking blog spam, but you can find plenty of other source that back this up.)

The Catholic Corporation must be raided...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only corporation in the world with it's own country.
Only corporation in the world that prints it's own money.
Only corporation in the world that gets away with money laundering (billions stolen from other countries under the guise of tithing).
Only corporation in the world that pays no taxes anywhere - even when billing their customers (members of the church) on a weekly basis without providing any product.
Only corporation in the world that promotes vampirism and cannibalism, and hasn't been raided / attacked by governments worldwide.

Only corporation that believes a single man, elevated by other corrupt and petty men is a holy symbol to lead the rest of the Catholic Corporation and all of it's brainwashed customers.

How many billions in treasures were stolen from other countries by the Catholic Corporation?
How many boys were castrated by the Catholic Corporation?

Isn't it about time

[kilodelta]

That we finally break away from the religious doctrines and dogma? It's all based on only so much woo after all.

Pope Peadophile strikes

[Archfeld]

Been expecting somthing similar for a while. Can't have the truth getting out now can we ? That might interfere with their plans to try and rule the world.

Slashdot is not anti-catholic

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of slashdot is pro-human rights. Children have a right to not be sexually abused. Religions do not have the right to allow its clergy to molest children, then shield them for prosecution, nor fail to report it to law enforcement. The majority of slashdot also recognizes that LGBTs have the right to live their lives without being discriminated against, and yes that includes the right to marriage.

If any of the above is considered anti-catholic, it is because the catholic church is opposing human rights.

The slashcode available...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dates from like maybe 2003, and hasn't been updated since.

Additionally it's all in perl requiring perl modules that required third party libs that have either broken APIs in the interim, or simply fallen into disuse and broken due to changes in headers in the intervening years.

I actually tried setting slashcode up a year or two back and it was a HORRIBLE experience.

Another FOSS hypocrisy post

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the 2nd one I've found this evening. Telling the end user to go recompile the kernel is why Linux will never beat the big boys, and similarly telling this sites users to go make our own (with blackjack and hookers!!) version will never allow FOSS to take off. Someone has to fix shit when it is broken and that's what the assholes at Microsoft get paid to do. When my Mint Linux bugs the fuck out who do I call? Ask on a message board is not the correct answer. I let a mod point expire yesterday waiting for some asshat like you to come along. I'll catch ya next time Dave.

Re:The UK, Italiy, Ireland, Germany; the list goes

[dfghjk]

"Students are orders of magnitude more likely to be abused by public school teachers than by priests(*)."

Your source doesn't support your claim. The article claims that there are more victims on public schools though it appears that it defines "sexual mistreatment", physical sexual abuse", and "sexual comments" as the same thing. It does not in any way discuss the *likelihood" of sexual abuse in either environment. Their data is also US-only.

It would be hard to imagine these comparisons being fair considering the nature of the topic, the heavily extrapolated nature of the resulting data, and the different groups responsible for generating it. Considering that all the pictures in that article are of sexually mature young women, it seems as though they are talking about pedophilia AT ALL.

The article suggests there are two orders of magnitude more victims in public schools than in churches, barely supporting your claim of "orders of magnitude", yet there are no numbers of student populations in either environment. Annual enrollment in US public schools is about 20 times greater than in Catholic schools so the rate is reduced to about 5x already, BUT sexual abuse in the church doesn't just occur in the school, in fact that's probably rare. It's far more likely that sexual abuse occurs in the church outside the school where child populations are far smaller. There may be 2.5 million catholic school kids but there aren't 2.5 million alter boys. If you use the alter boy population, the rate of abuse would be 10x greater in the church than in public schools and far greater than that once you eliminate teenage sexual behavior from the statistics.

You need to consider what about public schools, and the church, either attracts pedophiles or encourages those involved to engage in pedophile acts. It's very hard to imagine any such thing with public schools. With the church it's not hard at all. Regardless, it's unlikely differences in rates of abuse are important. People are people, church or no church.

Sorry, but you are wrong and the article you quote is garbage meant to further an agenda.

As an ex- Catholic

[Ol Olsoc]

This doesn't surprise me a bit. This is not a religion, but very much akin to Scientology, only worse, because the leaders like to stick their penises in little boys rectums. And then hides the child rapists from the law?

So is the church of the hoily pedophile going to come and arrest us ex Catholics because we call them out for their evil ways?

Exactly WHY does a church have to have secrets anyhow? The answer is because they perform evil that must be hidden, because the secrets prove their evil.

So with all due respect, Fuck you Catholic church, you are evil, and are going way out of your way to hide your evil. There is no God, if there was, he'd cause those pedophiles peckers to fall off. And if there was a God, I'd declare the Catholic church to be his main workforce on earth.