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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
They should not be entitled to phone and internet service.
if you really think that these things should be entitlements, then have the government take over the entire telecom industry. Dont be half-assed about it.
I guess they shouldn't be entitled to roads and bridges, either. In the modern age, isn't communication capabilities (phone and internet) considered part of the infrastructure? Then again, maybe they should quit building the power plants out in the country and make the city dwellers generate their own electricity in their own local. Same for water, sewage and trash. After all, aren't those entitlements, too, by your definition?
BTW, if the subsidy is going to the carrier, wouldn't that be a corporate entitlement? I guess it is okay to give tax breaks to bring a business in to a city, but not give them breaks to extend their services to less populated areas? Remember, the entire federal highway system is an entitlement paid for with tax dollars to break the railroads stranglehold on the economy at the time by subsidizing the trucking industry, or are you only opposed to certain types of entitlements?
In the early 90s, an older couple in Eastern Kentucky decided to break down and pay for a landline telephone. GTE offered to drag them a line for $5000 or so (I forget the exact amount). Outraged, they appealed to the Kentucky Service Commission. The Commission discovered that GTE was going to have to pay almost $25k to get the line to them, and was already eating much more of the cost than could be demanded under the law. The couple chose not to get their phone line.
A friend of my father ran a lucrative contracting business that bid on GTE contracts. He kept mule drivers under contract, because they were often the only way to drag poles around certain parts of the Appalachians.
These days, this exact same couple would be able to pay $40 to $80 a month to get a cell phone. The tower will be a couple of hills over, with a microwave feed back to the home network and a small diesel generator on-site. For the cost of one phone line, an entire area can get phone and internet service.
The same economics are working in India and Africa. Excluding possibly power, there will be significant portions of the world that will never, ever be wired.
Cell phones towers are pretty much line of site. So, maybe KY is flatter than MO, but in the rural parts of MO, coverage is spotty at best. But, yes, if you are going to run miles of copper to get to one house, that isn't going to be efficient. Then again, not cell company is going to put up a tower to serve one customer, either. In the midwest, even in the cities, you can't get 4G. In the towns, you can get 3G and wireless on the farms and roads, your lucky to get voice at all. So, unless you are going to put up a lot more towers, which means the subsidy will be going to the cell companies to pay for towers, the same dynamic is going to be at work.
Better yet, the pipes that carry water, electricity, sewage etc (one or all of those) can easily support getting a fiber blown through it. You can literally run 10km of fiber anywhere without any supporting equipment, longer even with better quality fiber and optics and it's probably cheaper than using copper (I think multimode fiber may soon be cheaper than shielded copper wire). The notion that you have to have a -48V POTS twisted copper line everywhere has long been surpassed by superior technology and in many cities, the copper is no longer available. My apartment (built about 10 years ago) doesn't have twisted copper running through it, only coaxial cable and ethernet.
Pipes won't work, because believe it or not,t here are shutoff valves that have to be able to close. A cable going through the pipe would keep that from happening. In addition, for water pipes, there is a lot of scale and corrosion which is why they routinely get replaced. The internet over power lines has actually been used in several communities. It delivered 10MB speeds an that was five or six years ago. However, the cable and phone companies heavily lobbied against it and pretty much shut it down. Yes, fiber would be better if we were talking about restringing cables, but pretty much everywhere you are going to use a computer needs electricity and has or would be connected to the power grid.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
They should not be entitled to phone and internet service.
if you really think that these things should be entitlements, then have the government take over the entire telecom industry. Dont be half-assed about it.
I guess they shouldn't be entitled to roads and bridges, either. In the modern age, isn't communication capabilities (phone and internet) considered part of the infrastructure? Then again, maybe they should quit building the power plants out in the country and make the city dwellers generate their own electricity in their own local. Same for water, sewage and trash. After all, aren't those entitlements, too, by your definition?
BTW, if the subsidy is going to the carrier, wouldn't that be a corporate entitlement? I guess it is okay to give tax breaks to bring a business in to a city, but not give them breaks to extend their services to less populated areas? Remember, the entire federal highway system is an entitlement paid for with tax dollars to break the railroads stranglehold on the economy at the time by subsidizing the trucking industry, or are you only opposed to certain types of entitlements?
In the early 90s, an older couple in Eastern Kentucky decided to break down and pay for a landline telephone. GTE offered to drag them a line for $5000 or so (I forget the exact amount). Outraged, they appealed to the Kentucky Service Commission. The Commission discovered that GTE was going to have to pay almost $25k to get the line to them, and was already eating much more of the cost than could be demanded under the law. The couple chose not to get their phone line.
A friend of my father ran a lucrative contracting business that bid on GTE contracts. He kept mule drivers under contract, because they were often the only way to drag poles around certain parts of the Appalachians.
These days, this exact same couple would be able to pay $40 to $80 a month to get a cell phone. The tower will be a couple of hills over, with a microwave feed back to the home network and a small diesel generator on-site. For the cost of one phone line, an entire area can get phone and internet service.
The same economics are working in India and Africa. Excluding possibly power, there will be significant portions of the world that will never, ever be wired.
Cell phones towers are pretty much line of site. So, maybe KY is flatter than MO, but in the rural parts of MO, coverage is spotty at best. But, yes, if you are going to run miles of copper to get to one house, that isn't going to be efficient. Then again, not cell company is going to put up a tower to serve one customer, either. In the midwest, even in the cities, you can't get 4G. In the towns, you can get 3G and wireless on the farms and roads, your lucky to get voice at all. So, unless you are going to put up a lot more towers, which means the subsidy will be going to the cell companies to pay for towers, the same dynamic is going to be at work.
Better yet, the pipes that carry water, electricity, sewage etc (one or all of those) can easily support getting a fiber blown through it. You can literally run 10km of fiber anywhere without any supporting equipment, longer even with better quality fiber and optics and it's probably cheaper than using copper (I think multimode fiber may soon be cheaper than shielded copper wire). The notion that you have to have a -48V POTS twisted copper line everywhere has long been surpassed by superior technology and in many cities, the copper is no longer available. My apartment (built about 10 years ago) doesn't have twisted copper running through it, only coaxial cable and ethernet.
Pipes won't work, because believe it or not,t here are shutoff valves that have to be able to close. A cable going through the pipe would keep that from happening. In addition, for water pipes, there is a lot of scale and corrosion which is why they routinely get replaced. The internet over power lines has actually been used in several communities. It delivered 10MB speeds an that was five or six years ago. However, the cable and phone companies heavily lobbied against it and pretty much shut it down. Yes, fiber would be better if we were talking about restringing cables, but pretty much everywhere you are going to use a computer needs electricity and has or would be connected to the power grid.