Sunday, 31st May 2009
A church of saints and sinners
A number of shocking stories hit the Catholic Church in recent days. Scandalous and shocking stories are frequent fare in an organisation of one billion or so members; but perhaps the reports published in the last couple of weeks were more serious than the usual dose published from time to time. These stories which must have hurt and scandalised many Catholics as well as many men and women of good faith.
2600 pages of abuse
The worst one, in my opinion, was the report published in Ireland, which revealed that abuse of minors was endemic in several institutes run by religious orders in Ireland.
A 2600 page report documented the physical and sexual abuse that was endemic in Irish institutions for children run by religious between 1940 and the late 1970s.
The Report of the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse said that children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from. In addition to being hit and beaten, witnesses described other forms of abuse such as being flogged, kicked and otherwise physically assaulted, scalded, burned and held under water. Witnesses reported being beaten in front of other staff, residents, patients and pupils as well as in private. High Court Justice Sean Ryan chaired the commission of inquiry, established in 2000.
Cardinal Sean Brady of Armagh, Northern Ireland, president of the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference said, "The publication of this comprehensive report and analysis is a welcome and important step in establishing the truth, giving justice to victims and ensuring such abuse does not happen again."
"This report makes it clear that great wrong and hurt were caused to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It documents a shameful catalogue of cruelty -- neglect, physical, sexual and emotional abuse -- perpetrated against children."
"I am profoundly sorry and deeply ashamed that children suffered in such awful ways in these institutions," Cardinal Brady said. "Children deserved better, and especially from those caring for them in the name of Jesus Christ."
Priests go on strike
The following unsavoury incident has not had the coverage that the Irish scandal had. The priest in the Central African Republic went on strike for a day on May 29 to protest the resignation of the nation's leading prelate, Archbishop Paulin Pomodimo of Bangui, and the appointment of a new apostolic administrator. Pomodimo's departure follows the equally unexplained resignation of the bishop of the northwestern town of Bossangoa, Xavier Yombaindje.
Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the resignation of a 54-year-old archbishop following an investigation into priests of his diocese who live more or less openly with women and the children they have fathered.
Passionist Father Ciro Benedettini, vice director of the Vatican press office, said Archbishop Pomodimo resigned because of "insurmountable difficulties in running the diocese."
The news agency Africa News had reported May 25 that Archbishop Pomodimo and several priests in his archdiocese would be sanctioned "for adopting a moral attitude which is not always in conformity with their commitments to follow Christ in chastity, poverty and obedience."
The agency said Guinean Archbishop Robert Sarah, secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, had visited the Central African Republic and "concluded that many local priests have official homes, children and have accumulated private properties."
Africa News also reported that priests from nine of the country's dioceses met May 22-24 in Bangui expressing their opposition to the removal of the archbishop and accusing the Vatican of being "discriminatory, partial and selective in the assessment of the situation since white priests and bishops are also guilty of the same practices."
The priests of the diocese went back to work following the one-day strike but promised that the battle continues.
A few years ago, I remember meeting a Maltese female missionary in another part of Africa who told me that celibacy was hardly ever practiced by the priests and bishop of that part of the world she was serving in. Celibacy, she told me, was foreign to the African culture.
Of saints and sinners
One could react to such stories in different ways.
One could be angry with me for referring to such stories. Dirty linen should be washed inside one's home, a friend of mine told me. This is the attitude of those who prefer to attack the messenger when the message is not liked. This is a shortsighted position. These stories have been splashed on the news pages or bulletins of so many different media around the world and are easily available on the Internet. We should not run away from the truth. This is never a healthy or recommended option.
One can react by mentioning "success" stories to counter these scandalous events. This is a more intelligent position as it is true that every story has to be seen in a context. The good that is done by the Catholic Church around the world is by far greater that the harm done by those who from time to time abuse their position. Priests or bishops who abuse - whatever the abuse - are in the absolute minority.
There is another attitude which I propose. We have to realise that we are a church of saints and sinners. This does not mean that in the Church there are some who are saints and some others who are sinner. We are all saints in some respects and in some circumstances but we are also sinners in other respects and in other circumstances. Each and everyone of us has to look himself or herself in the face, warts and all. It is only after doing such a thing that we can start walking along the path which leads to healing and forgiveness.
The belief that the Lord is merciful is the crutch on which we all rest. The mercy of the rest of the community is the other crutch. We carry the treasure we received at baptism in earthen vessels which are fragile.
However, we all have to face the consequences of our actions. The story about the bishops and priests in the Central African Republic is a story which first and foremost touches the inner life of the Church. The issue has to be tackled mainly within the Church. It is to be expected that the secular community and adherents of other religions will also be interested as well. But such an interest is on the periphery of the issue.
Criminal behaviour
The Irish scandal is a very different matter as it probably includes criminal behaviour. In such cases, different authorities and different competencies are involved. All of them have to shoulder their respective responsibilities. This has not always happened. Now there is even the danger of a rift between the hierarchy and the religious orders.
The hierarchy is insisting that the religious should shoulder all their responsibilities - moral as well as legal. Among some of the religious there is the tendency that they hide behind a deal they struck with government in 2002. According to that deal, they accepted to pay half the amount that according to estimates by government negotiators would have to be paid to the victims of abuse.
In return, the orders' negotiators secured a full indemnity against any future claims arising, entered into the agreement "in good faith", and later secured a commitment that the Ryan commission would not name any religious directly implicated in abuse. However the investigation found out that abuse was more widespread that anyone ever dreamt that it was and the compensation that has to be paid is much larger that that originally estimated by the government negotiators.
It would be disastrous for the Church if the religious orders in Ireland would not shoulder their moral responsibilities beside their legal ones.
RSS
Comments
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3335354490744010763
If I am understanding you correctly you have 2 arguments for the existence of God:
Everything that exists is definable.
God is not definable.
Therefore God exists
and
I know God exists because I feel good when I see his work.
God can behave in a capricious if not evil manner destroying hundreds of thousands of beings.
Therefore God exists.
Maybe. Or maybe it is just "blind faith".
Organisms per se do not evolve; species do. For example, you (or I) as a person constitutes an organism, but it is the species you belong to (the human race) which is evolving.
@ Arthur Soler
I never said, or meant to imply, that you are "preoccupied". In spite of all the examples that you gave, Ebola and the rest of it, the creation of planet earth (which occurred some 5 BY ago) remains -- at least to my mind -- an astounding piece of work. I am only a mere spec passing through over a split of a second, and surely not in a position or competent to question not even some of its mechanics such as tsunamis, earthquakes and so on which, in themselves, are immensely beautiful. Whether thousands of people (and animals and plants) die from a tsunami, for example, is besides the point. What is given to us is likewise taken from us by the Giver, and I would rather die from a tsunami than from cancer. Some human diseases, if not most, are also known to have been caused by human behaviour over the course of evolution.
created. The deal is the substitution of a largely unmanageable act of humility for the ultimate arrogance, life everlasting (there's a paradox if ever there was one!). I am not a scientist. I do not do science. I do pragmatism (I trust I used the word organism appropriately). The dispassionate, cool school of reasoning is where I come from. It is a British tradition that works for me. I have tried others, and one in particular, that failed on many fronts. This one delivered.
I am not preoccupied with the existence of God, just with seeking the truth. You state that we cannot define God but you then add that the source (he) must be "good" .The evidence,for example, is in organic material and celestial bodies,
There is no doubt that organic material is awsome in complexity, but it is not always "good". The Spanish flu virus that killed 60 million people in 1918 was not "good", nor is the ebola virus, not is cancer, not is arthritis, nor are thousands of other diseases caused by organic material gone "bad". The same applies to celestial bodies. These are truly awsome when viewed through a telescope. But our own celestial body (earth) is not all "good", surely? How about earthquakes, and tsunamis, and hurricanes, and floods....and how about being hit by another celestial body (an asteriod) that 65 million years ago caused the extinction of about 95% of all life forms? That is not "good", surely?
The fact is is that people do believe that God is good, loving, caring, listens to our prayers, protects us etc. But the evidence indictates otherwise. Nature is just too cruel and violent, and that is "bad".
Such Measures include:
>The formation of a special unit within the police force to deal exclusively with cases of child abuse. Policewomen tend to predominate. All members are trained and acquire precious experience to skillfully deal with cases of alleged abuse.
>The compulsory reporting of SUSPECTED cases of child abuse by those entrusted with the caring of children including teachers, medical practitioners, etc. The reports are made to the relevant Government Dept which then has the duty of investigating the allegations professionally and sensitively. The primary aim is early detection of abuse to minimise damage.
>Dedicating a whole new government department to the welfare of children that strives to promote, not just guard, children's welfare. A Children's Ombudsman may leave children feeling somewhat enpowered with a means of getting out of difficult and distressing situations.
>Admitting videotaped evidence in courts to spare the child the trauma of being cross examined in a court room, a process that even adults find distressing, on which defence lawyers often capitalise.
The list is not exhaustive. The question is how pertinent such measures are to our country and what other measures should we consider?
It has been mostly a lively and stimulating debate. I believe it correct to state that all who participated agree that abuse of children is a heinous act, irrespective of whether the perpetrator is a layman or a priest, but especially if it is a priest given the trust and respect they command, the ideals they represent and the duty of care they have towards the community in general and more so to those in their care.
The question that remains to be addressed is what can be done to ensure such crimes do not happen in our country. Legislation needs to be enacted that does not distinguish between priest and laity, though, given the high preponderance among the clergy, the Church needs to be "encouraged" to take definite steps to minimise the risk within its institutions, through further legislation if necesssary, as has been done elsewhere.
It might be instructive to look at measures adopted by other countries to guard against child abuse, countries that consider their young as their most precious asset. /cont...
The fact is that nobody knows how the universe came into existence...and neither do you. You conclude however that it must be God, while science acknowledges that we just don't know, but may one day find out . Your conclusion is simply a" God of the Gaps" solution which mankind has used throughout history. When we do not understand some mysterious natural phenomenon, we simply attribute it to God.
Before the discovery of Evolution, virtually everyone believed that all life on earth was designed by a designer. We now know that this incredibly complex process was driven , for four billion years, by natural forces.Thus, no supernatural being is necessary to explain it.
No one, anywhere, has one iota of proof that forces or elements outside those of nature,( i.e. supernatural) do exist. But, most people conveniently use this " God of the Gaps" logic to explain what we don't understand, creating in the process an even bigger mystery. And that is precisely what you have done throughout your various posts.
You keep claiming that you don't have blind faith. Anyone reading your posts who understands English would surely conclude differently....except yourself of course.
Carl Sagan, a highly respected scientist who passed away some ten years ago said" Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The existence of God is a most extraordinary claim and you most certainly have not provided extraordinary proof.....just blind baseless faith.
You claim that I pontificate, which coming from you, is laughable. You try to come across as a "know it all", a preacher, a physicist, an evolutionary scientist, a philosopher ...and a doctor . In your last post, you cite a not so novel argument that God is the prime mover, the designer of the universe, because it is very complex and finely tuned. But, you conveniently ignore the obvious question that would follow, i.e. " Who created the creator?" or, "Does a non-created creator make sense"? He certainly does not if you use common sense, and logic and reason. But God certainly does exist if you use blind faith...as too would angels and demons, and fairies exist.
Humans are an accident that evolved into an accident. The accident in its turn, through its evolved awareness, evolved into a most wretched and catastrophic accident. Religion and its promises assuaged the gaping wound. This is called the Human Condition. This and its implication has to be understood and processed if Man is not to destroy himself and others. This would be survival of a sort but not permanent. The human species has to change and eventually die out. It is how a mindless 'nature' operates. The least we can do is continue dismissing the implausible. And the search for truth goes on. It never will be found at the bottom of the garden, under the potted plant with the pretty blue flowers.
a) failed to show where I had ever mentioned “blind faith” and that
b) apart from himself, and a fellow side kick, there is no host of readers who attribute to me the advocacy of “blind faith” when, all along I have been insisting that I invoke faith, not blindly, but to supplement reason in matters that are beyond the limits of experimental science.
Sadly, had you maturely admitted your blunder, you would have given yourself an opportunity to define, through further discussion, a position you could have found defensible, or even diverged into a discussion of objectivity vs subjectivity and we would all have been the richer for it. But admitting you are wrong is not your style doctor, is it? Your blatant denials are counterproductive and you are only digging a deeper hole for yourself. If you find yourself in a tight spot, it is because you positioned yourself there. You are the one who is denying and projecting his blunder onto others, not your critics. Deny all you like. Let the interested reader go back to earlier postings to satisfy him/herself where credibility and truth lie.
I should think most readers would agree that given the emotional, as opposed to rational, nature of this thread, there is little point in wasting further time and effort attempting to reach some agreement. The time has come to move on. I invite other readers to resume another thread, perhaps with cognizance that the main topic of this blog is the sexual abuse of children by the clergy.
"All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer"? What does it matter if a hundred or more readers understood you as talking about "blind faith"? You have "foiled" us all. Mature adults, when challenged, reexamine the facts and reply with reason and logic not empty rhethoric, like a child having a temper tantrum. All you have done so far is huff and puff, attempt to project a facade of indignation and allege dastardly conspiracies against you.
Nobody is accusing you of anything doctor. It is merely an analysis of your position. I, and others too, have quoted you ad nauseam and referred you back to previous postings. Your repeated statements, in so many postings, that people with faith "do not need proof of God's existence" and that "faith is necessary to supplement reason" clearly indicate that, what you are talking about, is neither a logical process nor factual in nature. Call it what you like, intuition, gut feeling, instinct, impression, whatever. It amounts to "blind faith". The onus is on you to clarify in what ways your position differs from instinct, intuition, etc, i.e "blind faith".
I do not know of any reason why you should not take anybody’s word, not just mine, with a pinch of salt – in fact I expect you to be constructively critical. And after you take your “pinch of salt” I would be happy to read your solid arguments, for and against but not unsubstantiated opinions or vague innuendoes.
Your trouble is that you do not admit any other source of knowledge except your version of science that you acquired from God knows where. You dismiss philosophy and man’s ability to scrutinize any aspect of nature even if it cannot be subjected to experimental science.
The theory of a big bang of colliding primitive subatomic particles and the subsequent purposeful evolution to a complex unified universe, as we know it today are not incompatible with the belief of millions of believers who reason that this complex harmonious process suggests the existence of an outside planner, law-giver and prime mover. They find this much more reasonable than the atheists’ theory that our magnificently beautiful and complex universe is the result of a haphazard chance collision between subatomic particles that created themselves ex nihilo.
So, please, do a favour to everyone, including you, and do not pontificate glibly that believers are “adding their faith to absolutely nothing, to nada, to niente” and that atheists are the sole depository of all knowledge.
You keep insisting that you don't have "blind faith" but you horribly contradict yourself when in your very own words you state, and I quote, "The proof of the existence of an underlying prime mover is beyond science and the addition of faith, not “blind faith”, becomes necessary".
Well, if science cannot prove the existence of God, it follows that there is no evidence based on observation, or on logic , or on reason. So, you then say that we need the addition of faith. But, what are you adding this faith to? Surely not to logic and reason. The answer is that you are adding your faith to absolutely nothing, to nada, to niente . It follows logically, that your belief in God is therefore based purely on "blind faith", because there is no evidence otherwise of his existence...just blind faith.
It is immaterial if there are just two of you or a hundred more. The important thing is that I have foiled your attempt to taint me with the notion of my "blind faith" . You have failed to identify those words anywhere in my comments because I never wrote them and deny that my faith is blind. It is your objectionable modus operandi to accuse me falsely of writing things that I have not written assuming correctly that few readers would bother to check up on you. You draw illogical and false conclusions from what I do write and then criticise your own handwork as if it was I, not you, who typed the nonsense.
Please, do not ask me to prove what I am saying because I have already given you five instances in a previous comment and I have already drafted a few more instances in case you rashly ask for them.
You needed to tell us that Nietzsche died in 1900, and he was "buried". You also tried to have us believe that you had known that the philosophy student was only expressing a "witticism", and this witticism turns out to be "factually correct" and was not authored by God. Can you please give us one reason why we shouldn't regard what you say with a pinch of salt?
The good doctor knows very well Nietzsche was only refering to the “belief of a god” that is dead. On the other hand, the genuine Atheist knows very well that either people with vested interest are keen to keep God alive or people like Dr Saliba, who in his own words choose to “Any prudent person would err on the side of caution.” That is, believing in a God, just in case there is one, like some kind of insurance policy or a two-way bet.
“Of course I know that Nietzsche meant that it was the belief in God was dead (in his opinion)”
Now that we got that out of the way, there is no doubt that Nietzsche died and was buried in 1900, as you and I will, sooner than we think. Only Nietzsche's thinking lingers on, as much as your idea of your god will linger on, for a while until the next god is fabricated!
With regards to the proof of the existence of God, perhaps it would be a good idea if you Dr Saliba, would let the contributors of this blog know what God is. What do you mean by God? Do you mean an old man in a beard in Heaven, knowing what each one and everyone of us is up to? A God that is willing to punish the prostitutes (but not the paedophile priest), divorcees, abortionists and the gay community? A carrot and stick god?
Perhaps you mean God as in Nature, and natural laws. If that is the case perhaps we are closer to our thinking than we know. After all GOD is only a word, hence let us have your meaning of it. Please do not keep coming back to Atheists having to prove the existence of a God, the onus is on you to proof that Father Christmas comes around on the 25th of December each year and fills up the socks of gullible little kiddies.
I have never used the word castigate, I suppose you mean reprimand or make my point across to Christians. I believe that irrespective of whether the Muslim world allows Christians to practice their religion, Christians should give the Muslims the right to practice their religion of choice, as endorsed by the Malta Constitution, and indeed by all first world countries. It is after all only in true Christian spirit that you would allow that to happen.
My view of Islam is as my view of Catholicism; I have every respect for anyone that chooses to practice either religions, or indeed any other. Being brought up and influenced by Catholicism, posting comments on a newspaper that is published for a Catholic audience, I admit that I tend to voice my anti-Catholic sentiments more than my anti-Islamic ones. In my opinion they are much of a muchness.
1. Mr Soler and I are not the only ones who understood what you said as indicating reliance on "blind faith". A lot of other contributors have too. Congratulations doctor. You have successfully fooled us all. So long as you refrain from explicitly stating what you are basing the faith with which you supplement reason you will continue to be understood as saying you rely on blind, baseless faith. As for justification please reread what you have written.
2. There is much to be learned from the postings on this blog from those on both sides of the argument. Rereading them should prove profitable. Some have spoken with scholarship others with touching sincerity.
3. Those who deny others their right to freedom of worship are called bigots, irrespective of whether they come in a Christian, Muslim or Jewish flavour and of whether they live in Malta or overseas.
Of course I know that Nietzsche meant that it was the belief in God was dead (in his opinion) – and I also know that he was absolutely wrong because the on-going widespread belief in God’s existence is the cause of a controversy that is still very much alive today, a century later.
I know also that the philosophy student who wrote “Nietzsche is dead – God” was only expressing a witticism whose author was not God. But there could never be any doubt that he was factually correct because Nietzsche died and was buried in 1900.
I have never said anywhere “… one must have faith, blindly …”. That is a blatant lie cooked up by atheist contributors to this blog. They have never accepted my challenge to point out where I said so but they keep on repeating that lie hoping that if enough mud is thrown some is bound to stick. Evidently, they have succeeded in your case.
The scientific method involves the interplay between observations, postulation of explanatory theories, confirmatory experiments that are replicated by other independent scientists and modified by any subsequent experiments utilizing newly discovered advanced technologies. God cannot be scrutinized under a microscope and genuine scientists do not pretend that their scientific methods could prove/disprove his existence.
Man’s reasoning powers may lead him to conclude that nature’s marvelously co-ordinated manifestations in a purposive universe could not be a haphazard accumulation of chance concurrencies. The proof of the existence of an underlying prime mover is beyond science and the addition of faith, not “blind faith”, becomes necessary. You may have faith or you may not have it. You may have it originally but later you may choose to reject it. That is where our free will kicks in.
Science does not set out to prove or disprove the existence of anything at all. It is up to believers like you to postulate evidence in support of your contention. Science can then test the reliability and validity of the proposed hypothesis. So far noone has come up with any argument that has either not been discredited, as you admitted yourself, or for which an alternative more credible (more probable) explanation does not exist. So we can confidently conclude that the probability of a god in the sky directing the universe is extremely low. Even the existence of a distant habitable planet has a higer probability!
And science does not sing any swan songs either. Its allure stems from its humble insistence on considering itself wrong until proven otherwise, unlike those relying on "Blind Faith" who haughtily think they can see things others can not and narcissistically insist they require no proof!
As argued in other postings by myself and others, it would seem that everyone and everything, gods and philosophers alike are destined to perish sooner and later. Some may leave their mark on humanity. More philosophers than gods.
Let me first of all assure you that I do not know George Sant other than through this blog. I do however share his views, and have a great deal of respect for his reasoning, his knowledge and his eloquence.
Your suggestion that there is a "conspiracy" or an "unbelievable coincidence" is comical, and reinforces my earlier stetement that you are now cornered. You have already played the "blind faith" card and now you are now pushing the "panic" button.
Your faith is absolutely "blind" as is evident in all your various posts. You do claim that your belief in God is based on "reason and faith", but you have not provided one shred of evidence "based on reason" that God exists. I have challenged you three times to provide these various proofs, and in your usual slippery style, you have done a great job evading and avoiding the challenge. Your best defense seems to be that " for those who believe in God no proof is necessary". You might as well add that for those who believe Fairy Godmothers, or in Santa Claus or in Witches etc. "no proof is necessary" either. Come on !!!!!!!
An atheist is a one man band. An atheist does not do props. That said, an atheist is not immune to the devastation that is the human condition. An atheist wants the usefulness that is human contact, not always easy to find in a zombified, anaesthesised world. Ameeting at Cafe` Premier is not likely in the foreseeable future but not to be ruled out. I can be found roaming the streets and square of half a dozen European capitals. And famously, Speakers' Corner, Marble Arch, London UK where I received most if not all of my so-called education.
Meetings can be arranged by pre-arrangement. Easy in an age of e.mail and mobiles 'cep telefonlari' (that is Turkish for 'pocket telephones). Blind meetings (dates?) like blind faith/anything are impractical. I am not exceptionally recognisable. I do not have rainbow hair - I'll be lucky! - and I certainly do not have homosexual tattooed, whatever, all over me.
To all 'men' of good will - guzexuereb@hotmail.com OR vendriz2004@yahoo.co.uk
Take care - I might even respond.
You equate the search for God with "enlightenment". I view it differently. Committ yourself to a god and you will blinker yourself. Anyone holding a different view is at best misguided. God was and still is the justification for so many wars, crusades and ethnic cleansings and persecutions. Look at the Middle East, Rwanda, Chad and the Sudan and Kosovo.
A frightening illustration is the experiment of an Israeli psychologist who asked 8 year old primary school children what they thought of the story of Joshua. Most considered Joshua was justified to slaughter all the men, women and children (and their beasts too!) so as to avoid contamination of his race (chilling). Two weeks later they were read an identical story but placed in modern times and about a modern non-Jewish leader. Even more children insisted that leader stood condemned. That is what religion does. What hope for peaceful coexistence with Palestinians when those children grow up?
Self restraint does not come from religious beliefs. "Morality" is inprinted in our genetic code. With or without God and religion we will continue to behave the way we always have, perhaps even better.
It is good to see we share a virtually identical vision for the next generation.
Other religions dominated thinking in other eras and elsewhere. Polytheism ruled for over 4000 years enbraced by some of the finest human minds that ever lived. Now it is mythology. Hinduism too is over 4000 years old and Buddhism over 3000. Both gave us quite a few of our basic Judeo-Christian concepts. Many read the Bible. Many read the Qu'ran, the Vedas and the teachings of Buddha. There is beauty and wisdom in all, though, if you ask me, the Vedas and Buddhism have a much more accurate and deeper understanding of human nature than the Bible. There is something to criticise in all too. The point is why should we narrow our thinking to one particular belief when we can be so much enriched by all.
Why is a morality based on reason, tolerance and good will "extreme"? Why the insistence on "proof" when "understanding" is that much more important and rewarding. We will never get to know everything; mercifully as it is doubt and uncertainty that keep us searching for the truth. Mistakes will help us find the path.
Your latest comment gives your game away. You have searched and failed to find any place where I had mentioned any "blind" faith on my part .
As to your recommendation that I plod through your comments for the second time - perish the thought.
Forgive me doctor, but they teach us that science does not and can not disprove the non-existence of something, as that is absurd. We are told that science merely tests ideas to see if they are correct or not. I find it hard to understand what you are saying that one simply must have faith, blindly, as surely that faith must be based on some observation or experience or other. Isn't science then able to study those observations to determine whether they in fact do lead to God or not? If we require faith to supplement reason, then what is faith?
This in response to evolved human awareness that is the human condition more popularly known as fear of death, oblivion, in whatever manner it was percieved. Religion took care of this and it worked. Did it not? The track-record shows that it succeeded in comforting people in a big way but with a horrendous legacy along the way. An invention with ramifications over millenniums involving billions has, like any strong medicine, tremendous side-effects. It has taken responsibilities the consequences of which it could not have foreseen. How extricate oneself from all this? Difficult question, embarrassing. Because it is impossible to. Maybe the time has come to ponder the feasibility of finding a non-existent solution to an inescapable problem that is the human condtiion. Quod erat dimostrandum. Or, as we say in my neck of the woods, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'.
Neither you nor Mr Soler have any justification for your "understanding" that I was referring to any "blind" faith when I did not use that word and when I have categorically stated, more than once, that my belief is based on my reason supplemented by faith where reason by itself is insufficient. This is another proof of your perverse habit of twisting my written word.
Anyone who castigates those Maltese who have reservations about the Muslim public practice of their religion in Malta - when no Muslim country accords Christians that facility – evokes a much more convincing image of a biased anti-Catholic sentiment rather than an image of an atheistic denial of the existence of the God of Jews, Christianity and Islam.
If you deny that Moslems, Jews and Christians have any proof of God’s existence, much more so do atheists lack any “proof” of his inexistence. The fallacious reasoning of atheism is that if they are not presented with proofs acceptable to them that God really exists, then God does not exist at all. They do not feel that they are under any obligation to present any corresponding “proof” of their contention that God does not exist. They satisfy themselves with proofs that man’s primitive concept of God’s intervention in human affairs has often been proved scientifically to be wrong. That is not the same as proving that He does not exist.
What do you mean by "blind faith"? How can faith be blind if faith transcends rather than depends on sensory input? Given the definition for faith, namely, a strong belief in God based on spiritual understanding, then the term "blind faith" has to be regarded as pejorative.
Since you attach so much importance to my opinion I answer that the philosophy student who wrote "Nietzsche is dead - God" was factually correct because Nietzsche inubitably lived but is now dead and buried.
Whether God had died or not (according to the followers of Nietzsche) is at least arguable because it would imply unequivocally their acceptance that God had existed, and that admission is a "No No" to the genuine atheist.
I do not see where "arrogance" comes in so I must leave that decision in your hands.
A phrase used to signal that a proof has just been completed. From Latin, meaning “that which was to be demonstrated.”
Did I miss something?
I am a declared Atheist, and I have never attempted to hide it.
However you do not need to apologise, because yes I have stood up for Muslim rights in Malta, in previous contributions, as irrespective of my beliefs, I feel that Maltese Muslims have got every right to practice their religion of choice, as much as Catholics in Malta do. Hence the stand I took in Fr Borg’s blog, “Should there be more mosques in Malta”.
As an Atheist I have respect for people’s choices, without being judgemental.
Incidentally in answer to your question, yes Muslims, Jews and indeed any believers in a God or gods very much lack proof of any existence of a Supreme Being.
2
Hopefully Catholicism will continue to strife towards bridging the gap between tradition and progress, as it is bridging the gap between itself and other religions; however I do not expect it to do so at the expense of certain beliefs/morals which are the pillars and foundations of its very teachings, in order to become tailor made to each individual. I also acknowledge that religion presents one with a set of rules...but what institution doesn't?? Even a toddler's playschool comes with a set of rules and disclaimers nowadays.
Bertrand Russell said:
“I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.”
Which I think is a sort of witty disclaimer.
But I disagree that rules are there to promises punishment. Just caution, for those who want to benefit to the fullest (although at times punishment is a necessary evil). Regarding self restraint due to religion (or otherwise), in fairness, perhaps we need to have more of it, in today's world to keep our vision focused.
It is up to the individual, whether he wants to seek or shun God and enlightenment.
1
Incidentally I should have said that I agree with most of the rest, only the last line was a bit ...let's say tough to chew :) Even in your latest post I agree with most of it.
Enlightenment has already come and gone in another era and religion and faith remained steadfast for those who saw its positive aspects (again unfortunately like many other human related activities had its faults). There was even, I dare remind you a 'counter attack' on the Age of Reason by the reintroduction of emotion and religion because many will always feel the need for the spiritual and the metaphysical. You tell me how many you think read the Bible and how many read Voltaire. To swing the pendulum all the way from one extreme to another is in my opinion missing the shades of grey in between and just seeing only black or only white.
Indeed reason, rationality and enlightenment may well replace the established God and could become just as 'extreme'. We both seem to concede that it is impossible to prove everything, at least not in our lifetime, so there is always room for error.
cont...
When both you yourself and Mr Soler simultaneously accuse me falsely of defending “blind faith” when I had never done so, that does not point to any shared similar views between you two. It would suggest either complicity/proclivity to distort my written comments or to an unbelievable coincidence.
Four days ago I listed for your benefit five instances where you distorted what I had written or where you made illogical assumptions and inferences - and then I ran out of space. You are still persisting in this sophistry and cheap trick. After reading your latest comments I could easily furnish you with a much longer list - but as on the previous occasion you would not reply. My preferred course is to ignore similar comments from you or those with "similar views".
" “Nietzsche is dead – God”. Anyone, even atheists who quote Nietzsche, must agree with that."
No Dr Saliba, not anyone. You seem to agree because you think it's OK to quote God without proper and prudent reference to Scripture. Is that so or not?
I appreciate the advances of science that have provided rational and natural explanations to what had been erroneously assumed to be supernatural miraculous interventions. I have never said anything that could be interpreted as an objection on my part to the continued search for this kind of truth.
What I object to, most strongly, is the distortion and the pretence that science has also proven that God does not exist. Science has not done so and any responsible scientist would acknowledge that such quest is completely outside the accepted methods of scientific enquiry.
I have never advocated “blind faith” as a substitute for reason. I have always insisted that “faith” is necessary to supplement “reason” because of our brains’ obvious limitations to achieve universal wisdom about everything and especially about the supernatural. This is proven by the widespread on-going discord even concerning mundane scientific ”facts” and “theories” that are being continuously updated.
I could not agree with you more about not using fear to influence a developing mind. At best it will not work. The conscious mind finds it threatening and rejects the message. At worst it will produce an inhibited, timid individual, fearful of the world around him. If we are to produce a generation of responsible adults we need to equip them with the ability to think for themselves in a positive and constructive manner and to be assertive. To teach them to collect and evaluate evidence through observation and logic. To be aware of their emotional leanings but at the same time be able to dissociate from those leanings to arrive at the objective truth - based on neither fear nor idealisation and as factual as possible. Again you may well disagree, but this is another major criticism of religion. It presents you with a set of rules that you must follow if you are to retain membership, and to please the almighty who will punish you no end if you do not. Now that to me is an approach based on fear not enlightenment.
My reply extended over 3-postings and you had to pick the very last sentence that may well had been edited at the last minute to meet the 200-word limit. Sorry if it came across awkwardly. I view this as an honest exchange of ideas and feelings from which hopefully both parties can benefit, through a clearer understanding of the other and of themselves. There are issues on which we disagree, but it would be interesting nonetheless to look at what lies behind those ideas.
My thesis was that change, like anything human, brings a lot of good with it but also a few problems. Some may focus exclusively on the latter and cope by clinging tenaciously to the past missing on all the enlightnment of the modern era. Others adapt to varying degrees, develop new skills and insights while viewing problems as challenges which, when overcome, can only lead to further progress. You will probably disagree with me but I consider retrogressiveness a major flaw in all religions who use God as their justification for oppression. Buddhism is the only exception, being atheistic and asking nothing of its followers apart from self enlightenment.
You say that to those with faith no proof is necessary. But is does not faith have to be based on some observation or reasoning and if so why do you consider it unreasonable to test those observations or reasoning? If science has dispelled miracles in the past why stop it from attempting to do so again? Is not the search for truth important above all else.
I thank you for allowing me to stick to my faith even though you misconstrue my belief in God based both on my reason and also on my faith, to “blind faith” only. Rest assured that I would not dream to interfere with your own freedom to stick to your own brand of reason, logic and science. My comments are not aimed at the authors themselves but at those genuinely interested readers (who usually remain silent) but who may be seduced by the siren song of pseudo-scientific bombast.
God is not dead. Because he was never alive. Quod Erat Demonstrandum (or Q.E.D to the hoi polloi). Moi.
Blind faith. On a good day, yes. And a not so good day, variously, it becomes blind gullibility, terminal infantilism at Stazione Termini (mainline railway station to the hoil polloi - they are everywhere), end of the line, going nowhere.
Why is it so important for some of us to believe that they will live on in some form or another?
Abrahamic religions even go one further, where the resurrection of all mankind will take place at the end of the world. What will happen to all those disintegrated and cremated bodies, will they come back together again, like Humpty Dumpty perhaps?
If we did not have our cultural belief in a god, why can’t we cope with life’s troughs and crests? Why do we need a religion and god as therapy?
Atheists do not have the “need” a god or an afterlife as long as they have the self-belief and understand and come to terms with nature’s impermanency.
I'm not sure if you are the same John Falzon from other posts, who to me seems to practice the Muslim religion, if you are not I apologise beforehand.
But if you are..kindly help me to understand something re your comment to Dr Saliba:
"For something to die it needs to exist first, to be alive. Unfortunately, the shared superstitious cultural belief in various gods has not died yet, as is shown by Dr Saliba’s “enlightened” contributions. "
Do Muslims not have the same lack of proof of the existence of (incidentally more or less the same) God (ie Allah)? If the latter is not the case can you please enlighten us Catholics too?
Thank you
Who would you say was the more arrogant philosopher, Nietzsche or the other philosopher who presumed to speak for God. Noone remembers his name. A few more quotations for entertainment:
>Religion is regarded by the common people as true; by the wise as false; and by the rulers as useful.(Seneca)
>Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them.(Mark Twain)
>Faith is believing what you know ain't so.(Mark Twain)
>Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. (Nietzsche - again)
>God help me find the truth. God protect me from those who already know it. (Anonymous)
>Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. (Anon)
>The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. (Arthur C. Clarke)
>Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
(Douglas Adams)
There are more....
No doctor, your 3-liner has not dealt "conclusively" with the matter of probability. You have not even grasped the concept and how crucially important it is. No one can be sure of anything (save death and taxes). We operate on the basis of our assessment of the probability that people and nature will behave as they have done so far, assessing intuitively that some things are more probable than others.
The problem with gods is that there have been and there are so many. None of them ever required proof of their existence. So saying we should have faith in one of them is tantamount to saying we should have faith in all of them. All carry equal probability of being valid. It rapidly becomes one big mess. Just look around you. Then help us determine which is the one true version of God - Jahweh, Yehovah or Allah? Let us not bother with Eastern gods. If all gods have been dismissed in the past what do you think is the probability of current ones surviving the annals of time? To paraphrase Dawkins, we are all atheists; some have progressively gone one god further.
Just what exactly are you saying? You admit that science (and reason) has dispelled as myths, events that had been relied on as proof of a "supernatural divinity". Then you go on to say that this same science is not equipped to question the existence of that same divinity. By your admission it has done so very effectively in the past.
Your statement that to those with faith "no proof is necessary" is confusing. All of our ideas, religious or otherwise, represent our attempt to make sense of reality and must have a basis in that reality to germinate in the first place. It is therefore legitimate to question what the basis of faith is in reality. In other words, what is the evidence? That is a matter of scientific enquiry. Even if we concede that such evidence is elusive, evident only to the gifted, the act of believing is a very human activity and that activity is itself a matter for scientific scrutiny. The psychology of belief and superstition is very well defined. The explanation is rooted in operant conditioning. (No prizes for guessing which defence you are going to invoke here!)
For one who proclaims to have an absolutely free will, you are incredibly predictable. Whenever you manoeuver yourself into a tight corner you try to wriggle out by (1)feigning indignation (2)rephrasing your gaffe to make it more acceptable or (3)dodging the issue, insisting you have dealt with the matter "conclusively" when you have not even grasped its significance. And when caught out deficient, you (4)point to being a medical practitioner as though somehow that guarantees the veracity and soundness of your arguments.
There is no conspiracy doctor. Mr Soler and I evidently share similar views but we do not know one another.
Forgive my limited grasp of English, but I have difficulty distinguishing your repeated statement that those "with the gift of faith do not need and do not demand scientific proof of God’s existence" from "blind faith" meaning total reliance on faith irrespective of evidence. And why is "blind faith" pejorative?
Rest assured that neither I, nor others of similar views, reject faith. We reject gullibility. Give us the evidence and I for one will gladly and readily change my views. All we seek is the truth.
Joe you have my full support. There is no need to experience the slightest bit of guilt for being what you are. Consider it a gift even. Being different gives you a different perspective on life that can generate insights the rest of us will never have. There are many homosexuals who have made a valuable contribution to society, though sadly several had to keep their sexual orientation hidden for the reasons you mention.
Let those who consider homosexuality a sin explain why their God would create homosexuals but then, all love and benevolence, insist they are not to find fulfillment in the way he made them and if they succumb He will send them to burn in hell for ever and ever. One can think of much worse crimes, as the subject of this blog suggests.
For those who may be wondering, I am not homosexual and am happily married with children. I insist, however, on treating homosexuals with respect, on supporting their struggle (and that of any other oppressed group) for equal rights and judge them on their qualities as human beings not their sexual orientation.
All through human history, "reasonable men" have believed in all sorts of Gods. The Romans for example believed in Apollo,Bacchus, Bellona, Ceres, Cupid, Juno, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Vulcan, Menerva etc. And these were just Roman Gods. There were literally thousands of other Gods over the eons that have now been relegated to mythology. However, "reasonable people" obviously believed in these Gods despite the fact that there was no proof. They,like you, relied on faith ( blind faith) , and many fought and died for their faith.
We are fortunate today that through science and reason we have been able to distinguish fact from ficton. However, many of us still believe in heaven, and hell, and in angels, and archangels, and in Satan and Lucifer, and in Adam and Eve, and in Original Sin, and in Virgin Births etc. and In God. .....much like children who believe in Father Christmas, in Easter Bunnies and in Fairy Godmothers. I prefer to stick to logic and reason and science....you can stick to your faith.
"I have no problem with those who rely on Him for self-development and fulfillment as long as they leave others alone."
I only augur that this may be a two way street. Because only if it is, it can bring about harmony, respect towards others and peace. Having said that I think that the best way to teach future adults is by instilling positive encouragement, not by force fear or negative condemnation. Then it is up to them as adults whether they embrace the thought or not (be it religious, cultural, social etc).eg if I do not want a child to fall in the sea, and drown I do not say that it contains sharks, hoping to scare him from going too close to the shore, (although it works but he will fear the sea for the rest of his life). Instead I need to teach him/her to swim properly, but still make him/her aware that it may indeed contain sharks. Teach him/her not to fear the unknown nonetheless, approach with caution. Also indicate lines beyond which laws are broken (but then again this is relative!).
There is much to learn from Swift's Big-Endians and Little-Endians' dispute.
“God is dead – Nietzsche”
The good doctor is intelligent enough to know what Nietzche meant. For something to die it needs to exist first, to be alive.
Unfortunately, the shared superstitious cultural belief in various gods has not died yet, as is shown by Dr Saliba’s “enlightened” contributions.
Both Mr Soler and yourself attribute to me the pejorative phrase “blind faith” that I never use. Is this a coincidence or have you been coordinating your efforts to distort my comments? My contention is that reasonable men who buttress their intellect with the gift of faith do not need and do not demand scientific proof of God’s existence. For those who rely exclusively on their enlightenment and who have repudiated their faith, no proof is possible.
When in a philosophy class someone wrote on the blackboard “God is dead – Nietzsche” another philosopher corrected that by “Nietzsche is dead – God”. Anyone, even atheists
who quote Nietzsche, must agree with that.
I never said that scientific evidence is not necessary. I said that the method of scientific enquiry is inappropriate to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is not I who, "once again", is being “deceitful” or presenting "terribly flawed arguments".
That change is challenging is not a reason for slowing it down, but a responsibility to adapt and acquire the skills we need to traffic with the modern world. You were so right in an earlier posting that we need to equip our children well. We need to help them develop self respect and assertiveness, to teach them how to think for themselves, how to gather evidence and evaluate it and how then to act responsibly. To look at those who may be different with understanding, tolerance and compassion, to ask "how can be help" instead of saying "what an affront to our beliefs". This is already happening and we can look forward with optimism to the future of humanity. It will rise to nobility, though it will not happen overnight or painlessly. God can be a point of reference, constant and a source of comfort to some. Unfortunately He is also a very good and common excuse to justify oppression, discrimination and at best, retard progress. It is up to us to use God responsibly. I have no problem with those who rely on Him for self-development and fulfillment as long as they leave others alone.
Much has changed since WWII. Understandably some find it bewildering and overwhelming. But what a lot of progress has been achieved, not only in the standard of living but in the way we think and behave. Look for instance at how the status of women has changed from virtually a slave to her family to an equal partner with her husband, entitled to seek self-development as she chooses. In every walk of life people have become enpowered, able to think for themselves, to question and seek answers, to pressure for change and above all to respect themselves. Look at how a social conscience is developing with people of all nations uniting in their demand for democracy and social justice. I suspect that even those who complain the most about the ever changing pace of life, given a choice, will not contemplate going back in time to the lives of their grandparents.
Tension is in the essence of human nature, indeed of all living things. Everything human can be used creatively or destructively. Stress is an inherent part of life. It can be overwhelming and even destruction. But it is also the means by which we, and all living systems, progress and mature. Once we have confronted a challenge and resolved it we will be better equipped to resolve similar challenges in the future. We can resolve a problem by either modifying our approach or by neutralising the threat. If we are unable to do either then we start to suffer; it is nature's way of telling us all is not well. That is when we develop anxiety disorders, depressions or, as you suggested, psychosomatic disorders. When you reach that stage professional help may be needed; unfortunately prayer will not help much and may prove counter productive leaving one disenpowered, relying on supernatural sources instead of seeing what needs to be done to resolve matters.
"The established methods of scientific enquiry into natural phenomena are totally inadequate and not suited to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural divinity that is over and above the natural laws of physics, chemistry etc. That is why to those who have faith no "scientific" proof is necessary."
The only reason why scientific proof is not necessary is because we have already established that scientific investigation is inadequate for proving God's existence. It has nothing to do with whether one has faith or does not have faith, as you are claiming. Once more, Dr Saliba, your argument is terribly flawed and deceitful.
I must say that I am most amused with your last post, and I am sure that other readers would be too. George Sant has very eloquently, logically and patiently refuted all your points about God's existence through his various posts. Your last response is that "the established methods of scientific enquiry into natural phenomena are totally inadequate and not suited to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural divinity that is over and above the natural laws of physics, chemistry etc." So what you are saying is that reason, logic and science cannot prove God's existence, implying that only through faith ( i.e. blind faith ) can one believe that God exists. I contrast this conclusion with one of your earlier posts that in which you referred to "those... who accept the proofs of God's existence". Indeed, I challenged you twice to submit those proofs , and true to form, you have evaded and avoided same. No surprise however, you have finally been put into a corner by George Sant and your only way out was to play the "blind faith"card. Well done, I must say !!!!!!!
You are right in saying that what appeared miraculous yesterday today is well understood and commonplace. But then you add that "scientific enquiry...(is) totally inadequate..to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural divinity over and above natural laws". That begs the question of what is supernatural. By your arguments if nothing is supernatural then there is no God.
As for blind faith, Nietzsche put it quite succintly as "Not wanting to know what is true". Blind faith is not a virtue. It is the cause of oppression, division and conflict. Blaise Pascal reflected how "men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction".
So many religions, some lasting more than twice as long as Christianity, have come and gone, with the deeds of so many colorful and wilful gods now belonging to myths, religions in which one no longer believes. All believers, past and present, insisted their god(s) was the one and only. Believe in nothing if you want to. Just do not inflict it on your fellow man.
I think that as long as humans' consciousness is a mixture of 'good/bad' 'positive/negative' call it what you like, and as long as this said good/bad varies according to different social order, culture, society, religion there will always be a cost/price to pay. You know full well that the 'abject inclined other' within humans indicates that although the conscious 'accepts' certain things the subconscious rebels, and this may result in various bodily functions, showing the body in revolt, (for instance wretching). Some are able to listen to the inner voice of their system and heed the warning signs, but others harbour an affinity with this 'other'. I think the price is always there, and it is always high, only the currency changes.
It is felt more in the postmodern millenium, because humans are continuously challenging more than ever the established stucture and order (not saying it is right or wrong, just stating a fact). In addittion to the fact that boundaries are less rigid and cutures conflate more 'easily' (so to speak). Information is immediately outdated/replaced and science is continuously evolving. For some God is the sole unchanging existence. For many He is a source of goodness.
Probably you know how hurtful it is to discriminate, so how can you yourself discriminate against others in this case theists?
One cannot 'assume' (with all its implications) that only one knows what one knows and the rest is laughing stock material.
We all run the risk of being proved otherwise.
Then you declare that: "All atheists I know are astoundingly Christian, paradoxically. They just happen to not invest in the popular imagery that is a bearded old man in the sky."
You know full well that modern Christians/Catholics do not believe there's a bearded man in the sky just as much as there's no china teapot. It was a 'convenient' way of representing God, possibly the Jews and Muslims are the wiser in this respect because if one cannot see the image of God it is presumptous to try to represent Him. But then again you know well that we wouldn’t have the great masters' operas had it not been the case, (and Neoplatonist thought). Buddhists/Hindus also seem to have a good idea of what their God looks like. I favour the thought that God is a presence, an absolute Idea/first spark, a primeval source of life.
My previous three-line comment about your diversion into the probability/possibility of life on other planets dealt conclusively with that topic as far as I am concerned.
Regarding the role of the natural sciences in proving/disproving the existence of a supernatural God, I consider that such a quest is completely outside the accepted methods of scientific enquiry because these are applicable to natural phenomena only. Science is invaluable to give rational explanations to natural phenomena previously attributed, quite wrongly, to ad hoc specific miraculous divine interventions and suspensions of the ordinary laws of nature.
The established methods of scientific enquiry into natural phenomena are totally inadequate and not suited to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural divinity that is over and above the natural laws of physics, chemistry etc. That is why to those who have faith no "scientific" proof is necessary. To those others who confine their wisdom within the narrow confine of their superlative enlightenment and who reject faith, no proof is possible.
And it is futile to taunt me to attempt the impossible.
An “angry retort” is when you accused me of intellectual inadequacy – I avoid anger like the plague because I consider it a sign of weakness.
You are the only person mentioning mutations and alterations of the genetic code. You do not differentiate between the genetic code itself and the human behaviour (“condition”) resulting from that genetic code and other factors. I discuss the case of normal mature human beings making good use of their acquired intellectual faculties to over-ride (synonym: to modify, to correct) their primitive instinctive BEHAVIOUR - not their genetic CODE. That is your diversionary distortion of my comments. I apologize for the need to resort to upper case.
Your excellent observation that ideology, when coupled with "increasing popularity and fervour", inevitably leads to the emergence of leadership and thence to territoriality and power struggles, hits the nail on the head. Churches formalise ideologies thereby becoming political entities. Rituals are formulated which followers might find comforting and of some use in aspiring to their ideology. Attached comes a long list of proscriptions, most of which have nothing to do with ideology and a lot to do with the psychopathology of the guardians of the faith.
Many, living within the politics of religion, but with a clear vision, were inspired to greatness, creativity and altruism though a terrible price has been exacted from some acts of altruism (e.g missions). Others were brutally oppressed, tortured and ostracised for thinking differently or being different, thereby posing a challenge to the authority of power that had to be eliminated. And also consider that other eras, other continents with other gods and other religions, produced just as much altruism and destruction.
Idealism is fine but do we need gods and religion to aspire to it? And if we do, what price are we willing to pay?
Rereading your original posting to myself I realise I only addressed one of the 3 premises you postulated. Allow me to make amends. Your 2 other premises were: (1)Christ's teaching is beyond ideology and (2)Religion serves a thousandfold towards the good of mankind.
There is little to criticise about Christ's teachings, irrespective of whether one accepts Christ's divinity or not. It is rigid insistence on Christ's divinity and the gospels' account of miracles, virgin birth, etc, that has been at the root of so much conflict over the past 2 millenia. If we crystallise Christ's teachings, however, we find it echoed in all major religions, Eastern or Western, some originating thousands of years before the birth of Christ and others, like Humanism, fairly new. All, including atheists, see a duty to constantly better ourselves. Problems arise when Churches start dictating how you should think and behave, under threat of punishment. Then religion becomes destructive, concerned only with preserving its seat of power not the enhancement of humanity. This current blog is a case in point - years of deceit completely oblivious of the victims' suffering to protect the Church's image.
On the other hand there is no evidence and virtually no probability of the god hypothesis being correct. Every observation put forward in substantiation of that hypothesis has either been completely discredited or can be a lot more credibly explained in other ways which carry much greater probability of being correct. The probability of a god in the sky conducting the traffic of the universe is virtually zilch.
Some may still wish to conduct their lives on the assumption such a being exists. Fine, but let them beware they are on dubious grounds and are in no position to impose their highly improbable convictions on the whole of society. Even less to go about threatening retribution to those who disagree. In any democratic and civilised society, freedom of worship should be guaranteed, however improbable the belief of the worshippers is, but so should that of those who prefer to keep their feet planted firmly in reality, be they a majority or a minority. Neither group should be preferred by the law of the land and the chosen lifestyle of either facilitated not inhibited.
Wrong again doctor. Probability is everything. You were the one to refer to distant planets, not I, and argued that not being able to disprove the existence of another planet with life on it "does not entitle us to conclude that no such life exists out there". Your analogy was meant to translate into "Not being able to find proof that God exists does not entitle us to conclude no such god exists". The argument can be evaluated by determining how credible (probable) each hypothesis is. Scientists do that by weighing up the evidence in support of and, more importantly, against the hypothesis. Having done that it is possible to determine the probability of a hypothesis having merit that makes it worth pursuing further. Applying that to our hypotheses, we find that it is not unreasonable to consider there may be life on another distant planet ("The probability is not zilch", see earlier posting). That is different from saying there is. We do not know. We reserve judgment. We do not accept that view as fact. We do not go about insisting the whole of society has to behave as though there is such a planet.
Please kindly refrain and do not "retort angrily", Dr Saliba. I can only hope that you can muster enough "free will" to help you "override" your unfavourable propensity so one can feel safe in your presence. "retort angrily", "free will" and "override" -- these are all your own terms, Dr Saliba, very hard to find in the scientific literature, if at all. I like to wish you good luck in your capacity for argument and logic.
Human consciousness evolved and man learned to fear death and felt the pain. He started looking at the skies. Some bright spark conjured up the idea of a rewardiing god. He sold it and they bought it. It is variously marketed under all the addictions going. Their delivery is illusory. And we've been trying to prove or disprove the matter ever since.
Once more! When your genetically determined reaction is “treated” (as you quaintly put it and to stick to your choice of word) the intention behind that treatment could only be to modify it to alter it, to set it aside and to over-ride it by a deliberate exercise of the free will. If you are unwilling to accept that simple fact, explained to you twice already, please relieve me from the need of having to re-word and to rephrase it indefinitely for your sole benefit.
After reading your comment I am faced with several choices e.g. to ignore it, to keep on trying to simplify my argument patiently, or to retort angrily that you lack the cerebral equipment to reason logically (as you did a few hours ago). I am not genetically programmed to adopt unconsciously any of these different alternatives against my better judgment - so much so that I can exercise my free will to choose one course of action now and a completely different one half an hour later. And if that does not convince you that in doing so I am exercising my free will it is useless to reply to you any more.
There can be no such thing as "overriding" a genetic condition, as you are claiming. All one can do is try to treat the symptoms of a genetic condition, typically in an animal or a plant. The condition itself remains unchanged until further mutations occur, either in the individual or in the population. Sometimes these occur as a result of stress, but mostly randomly.
You are going to need far better equipment, Dr Saliba, if you are ever going to be able to justify your untenable notions of "free will". Using vague terms, such as "overriding", will get you nowhere.
I knew that this will probably not go past you, I will try my best to explain my view..do not try to crucify me after:)
With the help of the dictionary.com:
Ideology is:
1 the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3. Philosophy:
a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
Now Christ’s teachings (taking as a premise Christ's existence is acknowledged by atheists) are so universal and so selfless that they cannot possibly fit under only ONE particular set of ideas. That is why I said beyond ideology. He neither imposes nor enforces. He does not cater for or gives privileges to a particular class or race. One follows him if one wants to. The choice is there, no punishment, just reward for those who seek it. Positive attitude. Respect is earned. No fire and brimstone :)
I gave you five concrete examples of your incorrect assumptions in my regard and then I ran out of my 200 word quota. Evidently you failed to understand them because you have diverged into a dissertation about a song of The Beatles, about comparative anthropology, forensics and psychiatry. Seeing that my degrees are in medicine and biology who are you trying to hoodwink?
John Falzon. What does it avail a man to gain all riches and lose his soul. And somebody or some camel going through the eye of a needle. Same argument as something attainng seventeen doctorate and another one in the pipeline but naive enough to publicly declare his
belief in talking parrots and enticing carrots.
Christine. Proof of God not necessary as long as he's felt. Are you sure you meant this?
Err on the side of caution otherwise when the time comes it will be too late. Too late for what exactly? Non-belief equates illegal anti-social behaviour? Says who? Many believers live irresponsibly wreaking havoc. All atheists I know are astoundingly christian, paradoxically. They just happen to not invest in the popular imagery that is a bearded old man in the sky.
Re: Life on another planet
Please reread my posting carefully. Life on another planet somewhere in the universe is a probability not a certainty. The probability can and has been mathematically expressed. It is definable. Still the intelligent person would reserve judgment on the matter. "It is possible but then it may not be".
Certainly no sane person would go about insisting everyone has to believe in such a planet and use punitive measures against those who rationally do not accept the matter and are not prepared to modify their lives accordingly.
The existence of a god is an improbability.
How humans will behave without God and Religion can be intelligently inferred from a study of the history of religion, and the various gods man came up with, how their form and nature reflected the society that created them and how religion has always been used to exert political control of the masses. Evidence also comes from comparative anthropology, and from what we know of the roots and basis of "moral behaviour". John Lennon gives a good account of life without religion in his song "Imagine". This is not offered as proof of anything, but as an artistic appreciation of the good and evil of religion.
You are perfectly entitled to "behave according to my conviction". Just keep in mind that they are your own personal convictions and nothing more. Others have a lot of justification to disagree with you and are more than entitled to conduct their lives differently.
I have no idea what you are talking about and getting all indignant about "wrong assumptions/personal inferences".
If you want to find out how predictable human behaviour is talk to any psychologist or psychiatrist or consult basic textbooks in the disciplines. Crime has nothing to do with unpredictable behaviour. Most is predictable and certainly understandable. Ask any forensic psychiatrist worth his salt. So are psychiatric patients, so much so that they can be treated predictably. You are still having difficulty moving away from equating psychiatric disorders with unpredictability.
My mentioning of "robotic" was in reply to your notion that without "free will", man would be a "slavish robotic automaton". Your concept is wrong. You seem unable or unwilling to understand the concept of man as a constantly adapting creature constantly interacting with his environment. Behavioural scientists find no use for "free will" and concentrate instead of problem solving behaviour - predictable but not entirely as it is constantly subject to self change. That is different from your capricious and willful "free will".
If, according to you, there is no credible evidence that God exists neither is there any proof that there is life anywhere else. But, incongruously, you accept the latter but not the former! That is the essence of your "logic".
I said much more than “we cannot conclude anything”. The gist of my comment clearly is that we cannot deny the existence of life in some distant universe simply because we cannot prove such existence!
I am under no obligation to reply to your wrong assumptions/personal inferences about my comments but please note that
a) human behaviour is often demonstrably far from being either “orderly” or “predictable” as you claim. That is why there are laws, law enforcement agencies and hospitals for treating psychiatric patients.
b) I never implied that man was robotic. I clearly insist on the exact opposite, maintaining that, except during sickness, he is endowed with the free will to do good or evil in identical situations.
c) I am not competent to speculate about how God would behave in fanciful circumstances conjured up by you. I simply try to behave according to my conviction, shared by many others, that He exists and that he expects that we observe his law.
d) It is useless to speculate what would happen if, hypothetically, God and Religion did not exist or how God reacts to any person’s hidden motive for denying his existence.
e) Your admission that man is “capable for self-modification” is only a circumlocution for what I call man’s free will and his potential for overriding genetic and environmental adverse conditions.
Try resubmitting your posting Kenneth. I for one would like to share your thoughts. I too had some difficulties with submissions. I wonder if there were problems with the servers as many blogs were not updated for several hours and then all of a sudden caught up. Can only speculate that it could be related to the power outages.
I could not agree more with you. Anything human has its good aspects and its bad ones. That includes God and Religion.
We may not be able to prove the existence of a planet in a distant galaxy far far away, but on the basis of solid knowledge about the structure and evolution of the universe and knowing the conditions that must be in place for life to exist, we can at least make a good guess as to the probability of its existence. That is not speculation but a mathematical calculation. That probability is not zilch. The vastness of the universe makes it quite probable that such a planet does exist and equally improbable that we will ever find it. Until we find it the prudent thing to do is to reserve judgment, not insist it does exist.
In the case of God there is no credible evidence to suggest such a being exists. All the traditional "proofs" based on philosophical speculation are at best shaky and most have been refuted. Even allowing for the benefit of the doubt and insisting that technically speaking God is not disprovable, the probability is infinitely low. Definitely no justification for imposing God on society and an affront if believers are given a priviledged position by the law of the land.
I agree on many points. However in so far as the word of God through Christ, was/is being observed, religion serves a thousandfold towards the good of mankind. Christ's teaching is beyond ideology. Humans tend to, as you well said, form "ideologies [which ] are behind any conflict, setting the context of the conflict and justifying aggression". Football hooliganism is a good non religious (sporting ??) example. I think it is a vicious circle of a mixture of genuine fervour, increasing popularity, and emerging power. The need to manifest that power results in the formulation of ideologies and the strict adherence to. In the process mistakes are made, and this is not only in religion. Communism and Marxist theory had good aspects before they were taken to their limits (abused if you will). What about Capitalism and democracy? Almost every status of freedoom (excess of)has some sort of repercussion on others. Like anything else (including love.. because it too can become harmful if it becomes obsessive) exess could impliy a violation of others' wellbeing.
Yes I am very sceptical of false prophets and certain 'miracles'. That is why I believe that reason and faith need to coexist.
Thanks for your reply to the suggestion that "we should err on the side of caution" - referring to belief in God.
I thank you because somehow, my approximately 200 word post in answer to Dr Saliba, where I asked (among other things) whether he realizes that an omniscient God would see through one's feigning belief (just in case), "somehow" did not make it through.
In the case of the distant planet you state that "we cannot conclude anything", which is fair enough. But then why should we, in the case of God, conclude that He definitely does exist when, as you put it, it is not possible to prove God's existence satisfactorily.
You are absolutely right. Man is territorial and acquisitive by nature and conflict therefore inevitable. Would you not agree though, that ideologies are behind any conflict, setting the context of the conflict and justifying aggression. Is not religion (not just Christian or Catholic) part of that ideology. It would be interesting to catalogue the good and the evil committed in the name of religion over the annals of history. I suspect in the end it would break even.
By the way there are quite a few people to whom God and the Virgin appear on a regular basis in all parts of the world. Even more have regular conversations with Them. Some, not many, actually feel God directing their movements and behaviour. Others see, hear, feel their neighbours, the devil, the CIA or aliens talking to or controlling them. Most phenomena rapidly cease once anti psychotics are administered, sometimes to the chagrin of the subjects
Human behaviour is orderly and predictable but not robotic. The issue of accountability has been discussed in an earlier posting. Society has to deal with destructive behaviour. The current enlightened approach is to attempt to modify that behaviour and improve the offender's adaptation to society much more than punish.
It could be interesting to consider what constitutes anti-social behaviour. In some countries, speaking up against the injustices of those in power, lay or religious, is considered antisocial. In more democratic countries it is such oppression of those in power that is considered anti-social. One can only speculate how God would view such matters.
"Any prudent person would err on the side of caution". I take that to mean it is safer to believe in God, just in case. But if God can see into our hearts and is just, and therefore appreciates truth, would He not see that one's "faith" in Him is motivated by fear not conviction. And would He not be able to appreciate the honesty of an Atheist who can claim to have used God's gift of intelligence to draw his conclusions and to live in the service of his fellow men?
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to suggest that if God and Religion were eliminated, the human race would degenerate into an army of irresponsible sociopaths. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is in nature's interest that members of a species behave altruistically to other members, so as to ensure the survival of the species. Such "morally correct" behaviour is observed in virtually all animal species. Behaviour is controlled by the nervous system with its excitatory and inhibitory circuits. The development of the nervous system in turn is controlled by the genetic code. Experience provides the programming of the system, one that is capable of self-modification. Classifying people along a bipolar axis of inhibition (conformity) vs disinhibition (anti-social) will produce a bell shaped curve with the vast majority around the middle, neither too inhibited nor too disinhibited. Only the few at either tail exhibit aberrant behaviour. That will remain the case with or without God and Religion. Very few will "go through life irresponsibly, doing his own thing". Most atheists I know are highly ethical and compassionate people. Among the most psychopathic people I have met were bible quoting Christians.
The simplest way to answer to your question would be to give an astronomical example. At the moment we are unable to prove that many, many light years away there is some other planet similar to planet Earth in some yet undiscovered galaxy. That does not entitle us to conclude that no such life exists out there - in fact mankind is continuously searching for evidence of such life and to speculate about it but with the means at our disposal we cannot conclude anything. The total absence of this proof must not be twisted to mean that we have proof that such life on some distant planet does not exist!
It is foolishly arrogant to restrict truth only to what any individual is able to understand himself. No sane person would pretend to know everything and the wiser a person is the more he realizes how much he still has to learn.
You seem to distinguish between "prove that God exists" and "whether God really exists", but the distinction is not immediately apparent. Could you please explain further. Is not the ultimate goal of debate to determine the truth - whether there is a God at all. And why is it foolish to "rely blindly on his own personal enlightenment"? Is that not what every believer should do?
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that had you been given the opportunity to give me (or anyone) a taste of my own medicine you would have instantly risen to the challenge. I bet that given the chance you would have grabbed the bull by the horns and definitely tried to break its neck :) Even if it meant leaving you to face a full firing squad let alone the possibility that it might backfire:) But I may stand corrected.
NB I did look up various Persaud sites. I prefer to widen my perspective even on what I disagree with.
@Arthur Soler
There is religion and there is religion. There is religion which is fundamentalist and yes unfortunately atrocities are committed in the name of God..wrong!..unfortunately these misunderstand the true meaning of God. These people become but mere pawns in the hands of politicians with an agenda. Many others perished in eg the American civil war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Gulf and more. Wars which were wagered for non religious freedom/conquest issues. Could have been avoided (?) ......and very sad to say the least.
Whether or not it is possible to prove that God exists to everyone’s satisfaction is an academic question that should not disturb harmonious living as long as one refrains from mocking the other person’s honestly held belief.
Whether God really exists or whether he only comes into existence as a result of an individual’s belief or unbelief is a different question altogether. Anyone desiring to go through life irresponsibly, doing his own thing, would find an incredibly neat and a self-serving solution in postulating that God is only a delusion of the unenlightened masses, that there is no “free will” and that man is only a slavish robotic automaton programmed to act in a fixed way pre-determined by his genes and his environment and without the freedom to choose to act in one way or another.
Any prudent person would err on the side of caution. It would be foolish indeed to rely blindly on his own personal enlightenment and expect immunity for his antisocial behaviour before the law courts and before a God whose existence he very conveniently denies. By the time he receives a clear answer to his theories it could be much too late to mend matters.
Life as short prelude to eternal reward? A new-born drowned tidal wave and then rewarded? A 'medal' that is and never can be proven? Rotten deal. A rotten non-life and then, nothing. What a waste!!
Ms. Abela. Point taken (re: Message/Messenger). Of many Persauds on Internet, why pick the one re: plagiarism charge? To trip me up? It backfired by your very words. Heal thyself
Christine Galea. Raj Persaud is valid. Look up on Internet (including plagiarism charge).
Also, Reith Lectures vis-a-vis THIS Persaud doctor. What you make of what he says is up to you of course.
What motivates an intelligent person to override reason - with a slight sopping nod towards the human resource - by investing more in a preference for 'talking snakes'? A commitment is a commitment. It needs a payoff. Lending one's ear-lobe (I hope that's not too medical) to a 'talking snake' brings home the medal, the bacon. By definition. Reason, and nodding sops, do not stand a snowball's chance in hell as was said by some luminous spark.
You state that "At the end of the day, is proof of God's existence soooooo important?"
Do you realize how many atrocities have been committed in the name of God,? Do you realize how many millions of people have died in two millenia as a result of religious wars, with all religions claiming that theirs is the only true God?
The Jews have suffered persecution for two thousand years by Christians . Wars between Islam and Christianity , between Hindus and Muslims, and Catholics and Protestants, have caused innumerable deaths and untold suffering..... and there are countless other examples.
On a more personal level, if you, as a woman, were born in Saudi Arabia, you would have no right to vote, nor to go out on your own, and you must cover yourself from head to toe. And if you should decide to renounce Islam, the penalty is death. All this is written in the Kuran, supposedly the word of God. The last words of the 9/11 terrorists who killed 3000 innocent people in New York were "Allah U Akbar".
So, is proof of God's existence important ? You bet it is !!!!!! Veeeeeeeeerry important, indeed essential.
As we grow up we seamlessly move into membership of a larger family, encouraged by the teachings and example of our parents and the society we live in. That leaves us secure in the belief that we are well looked after and loved. From that angle Churches and Religion serve a useful role, satisfying our psychological needs, albeit at a price that can be costly - intolerance and rigidity of thinking that inhibits personal growth. A lot of grief has befallen mankind through disagreements on what constitutes "sound moral fibre".
It is then up to the individual to determine whether to stay within the family, enjoying the emotional security and gratification that offers, or to move on and be free to experience life and develop psychologically, unfettered by unwarranted inhibitions and feelings of guilt, able to assume responsibility for himself.
One thing is certain, that even without gods and religion, humans will continue to behave ethically. Morality is coded in our genetic make up. It is not in nature's interst that the species behaves in any manner other than ethical, for we would soon become extinct otherwise.
Some very interesting comments have been posted. A lot of thought has evidently gone into the matter:
It can be "safely concluded that God does not fall within the realms of evidence. He cannot be known apart from faith".
The "'imaginary' proof of God's existence, and the happiness it generates".
Essentially we know that God exists because we can feel His presence. He is however, intangible. What this suggests is that the correct question to ask is not whether God exists or not. God is real, experientially, for those who feel His presence. The pertinent question perhaps is "What is God"?
Is it possible, that the contentment associated with contemplating His presence is a memory, as indeed has been suggested. A memory going back to our infancy and childhood of the contentment we felt, secure in our parents' love, never doubting we will be taken care of, kissed better when hurt and believing our parents omnipotent? An intriguing thought and thanks to Christine and Sharon.
@Kenneth Cassar
True. But there is always the need/necessity for some 'thing' which in some way or other controls humans. Be it the law, state/big brother, parents and (for some) religion. So if there is a law which tells humans that drugs are harmful, or that killing, stealing etc are crimes against human beings what is wrong with having a religion substantiating that? There are laws which we observe and to which all as citizens are subject to, and which are not necessarily included in the religious canons, such as speeding for instance (I know it sounds silly but it is there)...no one goes to confess speeding (I hope not at least :))! )..but we all have to pay the fine if we do, even if it is not appicable to all the extant roads.
"because there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that he does not exist is there?)..."
Look up Russell's Teapot (or for a funnier version, the Flying Spaghetti Monster).
2
As mature adults we have to consciously reach a decision that allows us all to live in harmony. We are not brainwashed but are merely applying our reasoning which results in different judgement. Now I'm sure that some are already about to rebel by saying 'but if morality is imposed by the church' and so on..I can only retort with this statement....most of the church's morality is a universal one and applies to all humanity. (I am not pardoning any wrongdoing). As for disagreements (such as contraception, divorce, homosexuality, termination of offspring and other practices condemned by the church) I think that education is the key (something which is already happening just in case anyone is out of touch with what is happening in schools). We must train our young to build a strong character when it comes to loving others EQUALLY and love and respect themselves and be able to handle responsibilities with a sound moral fibre based on love itself. Children should be taught to acknowledge responsibilities rather than find an escape route in whichever sphere. Then the rest follows automatically.
1
I totally agree with Christine's last comment. I think that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If for believers eating implies the 'imaginary' presence or 'imaginary' proof of God's existence, and the happiness it generates so be it. Because in the end every said proof will be under attack, and discredited be it in the form of writings of the Bible, theologians’ views, miracles or apparitions etc. The postmodern new millenium, is an era of doubt and of questioning established canons and traditional values (not being cheeky – merely stating a fact). That is how discoveries are made after all! If for the non-believers the eating implies the lack of proof that God does exist, (because there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that he does not exist is there?), likewise so be it. I think that for the non believers even if God were to appear to them this very minute they will probably attribute some rational scientific theory to explain and reason that it is logical result of some natural phenomenon. So I think that once an individual makes a choice, that choice is retained until another is made to replace it.
cont....
"What are the proofs of God's existence, whether through reason or faith, or both?"
I hope I get this in before Dr Saliba attempts to take up your challenge! I have no doubt that "you have a genuine desire to seek the truth". Try and see it this way...
I too was brought up within a staunch Catholic family. As one grows, it becomes entirely up to one whether to remain within the faith or not. I chose to live according to what I recieved from tradition - unquestioningly at first, I must admit. In recent years I have felt more challenged. I took the opportunity to 'reason' my faith. The extent to which every believer finds it necessary/useful to articulate the rational grounds of credibility varies enormously from case to case.
Personally, I think I have safely concluded that God does not fall within the realms of evidence. He cannot be known apart from faith, although faith is entirely consistent with human reason. The foundation of faith is memory: recalling God's presence in one's life. Experience not intellect is the prime way of knowing God.
We don't have to agree on this- we can still dialogue.
"At the end of the day, is proof of God's existence soooooo important?
If one has had the joy to experience God's presence in one's life, then surely that is proof enough?".
Well, when people start telling you "God wants you to do this" or "God does not want you to do that" or worse still "God tells you that you should do this to people who do this, or don't do that", then proof of a demanding God becomes very important.
As for my "diagnosis" of delusions, you should know that delusions are not an illness to be diagnosed but a symptom. Two of the three criteria of a delusion capture the essence of zealous religious fervour perfectly - a false belief not amenable to persuasion or argument. It fits all fundamentalists - Christian, Jewish or Muslim. For sure there are many believers who, having looked at opposing arguments consciously decide to retain their beliefs, respecting those of others. Good luck and best wishes to them. But those convinced only they know the truth and narcissistically insist the rest of society has to comply, stand condemned by their attitude as fascist bigots and dangerous, be they lay people or clerics of any rank.
My happy day, doctor, will come when continuing medical education will be enforced in our country, as it is in most other parts of the world, beyond the current arrangements of some Colleges. Then the general public will have some assurance that when members of the medical profession give advice, it is based on up to date knowledge and modern concepts and they are not merely resting on their laureats.
As for your allegation that I have misrepresented what you said, under pretext of indignation, I merely questioned your comment. Your exact statement was "the trick of confusing the question of “free will” by treating it not in its proper context of the normal adult person but in the hardly relevant context of sick persons suffering from mental abnormalities". Why is it a "trick" to study free will in psychiatric patients? And why are psychiatric patients "hardly relevant". If free will is a "gift of God" in "normal people", are you not thereby stating that that gift is taken away from those with psychiatric disorders? We have come a long way from the days when madness was considered the consequence of "moral degeneracy", would you not say? And how valid is it to lump all psychiatric patients together and dismiss all as out of touch with reality, when most are not? Once again you fail to appreciate the principle behind the argument. Disturbances of the will in psychiatric disorders like obsessive compulsive disorders, Tourette syndrome and schizophrenia, have long been a major argument against the notion of free-will.
Your other tack has been to assert free-will is "common knowledge" and therefore requires no proof. Again doctor you should not be so sure. Most people have heard of the subconscious mind and its importance in directing behaviour. Furthermore, most authorities in the scientific and medical worlds nowadays consider the issue of free-will vs determinism outdated and simplistic. They look upon man as a bio-psycho-social entity, a complex open system that is constantly interacting with its environment, the two evolving together and impacting further on one another. People may have the illusion of free will when they exercise choice, but their response is often predictable and understandable. There is plenty of evidence from experimental psychology that people keep on making the same choice even when proven wrong. Conversely even highly intelligent people can be led into repeatedly making patently false decisions under very ordinary social conditions. Yes free will does have an organic basis and there is nothing ethereal or spiritual about it. Arguments from neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology and psychiatry abound. You just have to keep abreast of developments in the professional literature after getting up to scratch by studying basic textbooks.
The only one who needs to recognise "claptrap", doctor is you. So far you have produced no factual arguments. Well your writing indicates that you have very little understanding of the behavioural sciences, of neurology and of psychiatry. The arguments I presented were supported by well established scientific and medical facts (check any basic textbook in the disciplines), in sufficient detail for any intelligent reader to be able to understand and research further if they wanted to. True to form, you dodged the issues presented by attempting to dismiss established facts as "claptrap" or "funny notions", inciting the reader to accept your stance because you are medically qualified and therefore know better than those you assume are not. You may wish to consider that qualifications, knowledge, authority and credibility are distinct and separate things. You might also wish to consider the foolishness of making assumptions about people you do not know. They might well be better qualified than you. And better read too. If you want to be taken seriously doctor, argue on the basis of established facts, not personal opinion and with scholarship, not pomposity.
"I would embark on the task of submitting proof of the existence of God only to those who convince me that they have a genuine desire to acquire that knowledge through a mixture of faith and reason."
In other words the good doctor is only prepared to share his wisdom by preaching to the converted, which is what the Catholic Church has been doing, losing its members in the process. Most so called Catholics, particularly in Europe, are only prepared to pick and choose what rules to follow.
The outdated thinking of Rome and some orthodox conservative supporters like Dr Saliba, will only hasten the demise of the Catholic Church. Perhaps humanity will be better for it.
But of course, one could always indulge in "playground speech" and exclaim that he would submit proof "if only you had a genuine desire for it".
I have read literally dozens of books and articles over decades, both for and against God's existence. I have also debated this matter with a number of very religious and well educated people including Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu. I very much used to believe in God given that , like you, I was brought up in a very staunch Catholic family and country ( Malta).
However, despite the faith of my early years, which I had in abundance, reason and logic eventually made me conclude that God probably does not exist.. I had challenged you in an earlier posting to outine the "proofs of His existence" to use your own words.You have not done so. In your last posting you noted that you " would embark on the task of submitting proof of the existence of God only to those who convince me that they have a genuine desire to acquire that knowledge through a mixture of faith and reason."
I hope that I have convinced you that I have a genuine desire to seek the truth...so I challenge you again...What are the proofs of God's existence, whether through reason or faith, or both?
Your assertion that two siblings -- who have both parents in common -- are different as a result of "free will", while overlooking the fact that genetic material is inherited from the two parents through a random process, will have to be by any measure the most fallacious among your several assertions in this thread.
Would it be at all possible that other contributors to this blog, have got more university degrees and knowledge than the condescending patronising doctor-contributor, but choose not to flaunt it?
During mitosis or during meiosis amounts to an attempt to nitpick on your part, Dr Saliba, since the two are concurrent -- a clear sign of desperation in your train of arguments. Your idea of "monster" is as astonishing as your idea of how a "donkey" behaves. The worst part is your insistence of this "proof" of God's existence that you claim to have which would amount to nothing less that an affront to God Himself.
At the end of the day, is proof of God's existence soooooo important?
If one has had the joy to experience God's presence in one's life, then surely that is proof enough?
From the way this discussion has progressed I feel that it's pretty obvious that most of us have considered our options intelligently and made our choices freely.
George seems to have understood that and respects our position (see his comments addressed to Sharon and myself).
Yet it would certainly be a pleasure to discuss further. I hope that Fr Joe will soon provide us with another opportunity. As for the party................. maybe we should ask Fr Joe to host it!!!!!!! I'm sure we'll all have a lot to say to one another!!!
Xi tghid Fr?? :)
I would embark on the task of submitting proof of the existence of God only to those who convince me that they have a genuine desire to acquire that knowledge through a mixture of faith and reason. I would not waste my time on blog commentators with a mind-set that refuses "a priori" to consider the possibility that God will still exist inspite of their inability/unwillingness to reason out that possibility. To them I will only say "Meet you at Philippi!"
It was you yourself, Sir, who wrote only one day ago, and I quote you, that siblings "inherited genetic information from mother and father randomly during mitosis". If that were true the reulting zygote would have, inevitably, twice the normal number of chromosomes and that, Sir, would result in a monster.
Thank you very much but, frankly, I do not attach any importance to your "vigorous defense" of my right to believe in Christ and his message – certainly not after you stoop to insult my religious belief as a “fairy tale” and not after you question my sanity by diagnosing, without having any medical qualification that I suffer from delusions.
I should cross words with you when, in spite of your pretended magnanimity, you accuse me falsely of having said things that I never did. But on mature consideration it would be better to ignore your comments until that happy day when you will show evidence that you can recognize claptrap when you encounter it.
That is fine Christine if it works for you. You have looked at the other side of the argument and you have made your choice. Should you ever wish to discuss matters further it would be a pleasure to debate further with you.
Perhaps we should throw a party to celebrate our achievement. I shall certainly drink to it.
Regarding reasoning and ‘faith in’.
An example. I have ‘faith in’ myself that I am an excellent swimmer. I see someone drowning. My rational side tells me that I do not have to do anything other than call the rescue team and wait for them to do their job (nothing to do with religion). My faith in myself and my training/ability as a good swimmer and human compassion toward the drowning victim (not even love because I do not l know the person, ahsebuara if love is added) prompts me to try to save the victim.
Now there is a possibility that I was right and ‘faith in’ my abilities, leads me to save a life. On the other hand I could have been wrong all along and drown together with the victim.
In romances this is the stuff that heroes are made of; in real life it is ‘faith in’ and determination to follow your spirit, heart and whatever makes one’s life meaningful, which goes beyond rational thinking, because like many things in life: rationality and ‘faith in’ may both be subject to some error. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that ‘eppur esiste’.
I assure you doctor you are the one who is in need of enlightenment. Rest assured I know very well what I am talking about, much more so than you may imagine. Disappointingly you seem unable to grasp a very basic fact. Thinking, problem solving and judgment are a function of the brain not some ethereal gift of some supernatural being. Your understanding of human nature and human psychology, I regret to note, leaves a lot to be desired. No one goes to "deliberately choose to do good or to do evil". There is always a series of steps, many taken subconsciously, leading progressively to a final act. Consult any textbook of psychiatry for a more detailed discussion of the analysis of causation. And talking of psychiatric patients perhaps you could explain how a patient with an obsessive compulsive disorder cannot exercise his free will to stop his hand washing and why you regard such a patient as "immune from culpable responsibility for making a wrong choice". I am not trying to impress you. You are beyond that. I am merely talking at a level that a medically qualified person would understand.
I fear you misunderstand my comment. You most certainly do have the right to choose your beliefs and your ethics. I believe I have indicated that in an earlier posting. Please understand however that not everyone is like you. You are intelligent, educated, have considered your options and made your choice. That is more than fine. I do respect your decision and once again I wish you the very best of luck.
Bear in mind however that there are lots of people in the world who are a lot more simple, unsophisticated and therefore suggestible and vulnerable. The Church exerts a moral authority on them and it is imposing a way of life that goes against their best interest. That I am afraid I do object to. And I believe we all have a duty towards those less fortunate than us to defend them and help them achieve a better standard of living here and now in this world.
I believe we share similar sentiments about the wrong doings of the Church in the developed world.
I trust we understand one another better.
From the way you rave about Christ, Dr Saliba, we can tell exactly what is it that switches you on and off.
No-one ever said that mitosis plays a role (at least one which is direct) in the formation of gametes. Mitosis and meiosis are two concurrent processes during cell division. Meiosis produces gametes which, through recombination allow the new born child to inherit attributes from both parents randomly. Your assertion on this commonly known aspect of genetics was clearly unnecessary.
And as to your other assertion about the donkey; what makes you assert that a donkey "chooses" between one bale or the other in a rational way and not in a random way?
If religion is imposed in my opinion it is wrong..it should be a choice that is when one considers adults (because children as you know are subject to what the parents know to be the best for them)..but I for one (and am sure that many others share my sentiment) religion is a choice and a way of life which I (they)chose to follow and not an imposition. No one is forcing me to follow the teaching of Christ..and no one will stop me either from saying that something is wrong even within that which I hold dear ie the church..hence my earlier comment on the possibility/need for reform..you can look it up if you like further down.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Two weights two measures always.
Regarding earilier posts and the issue of the existence of God as I said I have chosen to live with reason and faith, and apply accordingly so I respect you and others and hope that you/others do the same.
:)
Please realize that it is you, not I, who are trying to “dazzle” by your incessant name-dropping of medical terms. You may cherish some hope for some success with those who have to look up medical dictionaries to decipher your comment but you do not have any chance at all of impressing any medically qualified person. Your circumlocutions prove one thing only, namely, that the function of a normal brain can be destroyed by disease or by human agency. That is irrelevant to the question of a normal person’s ability to exercise his free will by deliberately choosing to do good or to do evil.
I have never said anything that could be honestly twisted into any assertion
that “... psychiatric patients are somehow not human …” What I did say was that psychiatric patients could very well be immune from culpable responsibility for making a wrong choice when they exercise their free will.
As to your accusation that I am confused about the motor area of the brain that controls your typing fingers please consult some knowledgeable person so as to convince yourself that the confusion is all on your part.
I will defend vigorously your right to believe in whatever fairy tale you choose and find comfort in any delusion that takes your fancy. I prefer to keep my feet planted firmly in reality and be guided by established facts and certainty, but I insist you have the right to do otherwise.
Where we would cross swords is when you start to adopt the high moral ground, insisting you are right and everyone else is wrong and that the whole world has to live by your delusions. When you start to insist that the law of the land cannot uphold the right to contraceptions, terminations, divorce, homosexuality, etc because you think they are wrong. When you defend from prosecution wrong doers who have caused suffering and destroyed lives, so as to preserve the "good name" of the organisation to which you choose to belong, thereby faithfully following Christ's message and example! In my books that is fascism and has no place in a democratic society. I have few problems with the message of Christ but I daresay a lot of the administrators of his church would be well advised to listen to that message.
Reason is indeed a precious faculty but speaking for myself, my life and my perspective on many things would be greatly reduced if I did not also see with the eyes of faith :)
BTW Fr Joe and everyone else........ we've made it to the top of the Most Commented List!!!
With all due respect doctor, the only claptrap I hear is coming from you. Your knowledge and understanding of human nature, psychology and sociology and the disciplines of neurology and psychiatry and the interface between them is superficial at best and erroneous in a lot of ways.
Atheists consciously deprive themselves of this consolation by their free choice to eschew faith from their “wise” argument that since the existence of God cannot be proven by scientific methods to their complete satisfaction then he does not exist. So, there!
"Need to go beyond reason"? The most precious faculty man has? Seriously though Christine, heroes do exist and they are an inspiration to us all, especially those who triumph through horrendous personal adversity to emerge unscarred and still positive. Unfortunately, the harsh reality of life is that invariably there is price to be paid. Victims of major trauma and their relatives, even those who make a good recovery, will tell you that despite external appearances, they are not the same - touchy, irritable, insomniac, mistrustful, etc.
The question you raise, though is whether "divine love" comes into it at all? In any situation the outcome will be determined by three main factors - the personality of the person in question, the context in which the calamity occurs and the environment through the support (tangible or psychological) it provides or other adversity it poses. The interaction between those three factors, once understood, can usually more than adequately explain the actions of heroes - and of villains too (e.g. Adolf Hitler). Can you see a place for "divine love" in the case of the latter? His background though sheds much light on his madness.
Everyone is entitled to make a mistake once, perhaps even twice. But when an authoritarian organisation persists in its efforts to pervert the course of justice and to impose its distorted view on humanity when it is costing lives, it cannot be ragarded as "human error" and one would be very ill advised to turn a blind eye. Then both the message and the messenger become very suspect.
How typical of you to attempt to condescend and dazzle by pompously pointing to your title when you are defeated. It seems to have been some time since you have read your neuroanatomy as you confuse the motor cortex with the prefrontal cortex, that part of the brain that lies on the underside of the frontal lobes above the orbital cavities. As a doctor you would be familiar with neurosurgery and aware that prefrontal tractomy is still performed for cases of intractable depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders. You would no doubt also be familiar with the disciplines of neuropsychiatry and neuropsychology, devoted to the study of the neurological basis of human behaviour, normal or pathological. And of the powerful scanners available today that enable us to visualise the brain in action, including thinking and problem solving. You may recall how in medical schools they teach that the study of pathology is often the best way of understanding normal functioning. Your comments about "sick persons suffering from mental abnormalities" is somewhat puzzling. I am sure I misunderstood you as you cannot be implying that psychiatric patients are somehow not human exempt from "free will". Are you doctor?
For the moment I refuse to be diverted into a discussion of how society should “encourage” or “punish” the exercise of this free will not because this is not an important subject but because it is extraneous to the problem of the existence or otherwise of free will.
P.S. Mitosis has no place at all in the production of gametes - it would inevitably create monsters with twice the number of chromosomes in the zygote.
I appreciate your line of thinking but sometimes I think we need to go beyond reason.
Many times Joe Xuereb has posted comments where he differentiated between the airy-fairy kind of love and the 'real' kind of love. I hope I'm not stirring up a hornet's nest by misquoting him or anything. If I have misinterpreted Joe in any way then I apologise up front.
But this is one point on which I really agree with him.
Having said that, let me try and apply the same line of reasoning to this question of suffering to which sometimes it really seems as if there is no rational solution. There are people who have suffered the most horrendous rejections and have been subject to all sort of cruel torture (eg Viktor Frankl, Dietrich Bonhoeffer) but they remained open to love, thus becoming witnesses not only to enormous human resiliency but also to the divine love that transcends all human loves.
These are the people who offer true hope to our world. They have risen above their suffering and transformed their pain into love.
Do you really think that its possible to do this only through the rationalizing process?
Mitosis and meiosis are two parallel processes during cell division. You are right in the sense that meiosis is the one that leads to the formation of gametes. Be rest assured that nothing was being "thrown" at you. It's a light discussion, which I am sure we all enjoy -- thanks to The Times -- and where most is typed in from memory; contrary to what you are suggesting. As to your use of the word "layman", I would neither assume the other person to be less knowledgeable, nor I would expect them to be perfect.
I was hoping and waiting for you to react in this manner. It is specifically my point. Just because the messenger is 'faulty' it does not mean the message is wrong. Everyone keeps trying to kill the messenger especially when it comes to he who carries the word of God and His church, but in other mundane activities we tend to turn a blind eye and pardon the messenger. They are equally human.
ps love Quo Vadis..Peter Ustinov's Nero is the best ever .. watched it many times:)
Given all this, how accountable are we "before the law of the land and before God". That depends on what you mean by accountability. You seem to use the term judgmentally. Those who do not obey the law (civil, ecclesiastical or divine) will be held accountable and punished. A more enlightened approach would be to understand aberrant behaviour in terms of its evolution. Shifting the focus from meting out punishment towards understanding, enables justice to be dished out with compassion and fairness. Offenders are still held accountable and encouraged, through punishment, to not repeat their errant behaviour. Yes, society needs to be protected from wrong-doers and incarceration is sometimes necessary. If anything can be done in the meantime, to help the offender heal some of the scars from the past, that alienated him from society in the first place, the risk of further offending is reduced. Both offender and society will benefit. This is not a ploy but a civilised approach. Of course healing is not always easy or possible, especially when dealing with individuals that were born crooked (created that way), unless their creator were to deign correct his mistakes.
You attribute the impact of the environment to "choices" a child makes "freely" as it is growing up. Does a child have a choice on the type of environment it is brought up in? Does a child choose the models in his life, his parents, teachers and priests? Does he have a choice on whether he is loved and nurtured, able to grow up securely, or whether he is abused and left with scars that will impair his adjustment to society and inevitably land him in further trouble with added scarring.
Given choices, a psychopathic personality will always choose selfishly and impulsively with no caring for consequences. It is his nature (the way God made him?). Equally an inhibited personality will invariably choose altruistically. Take any bit of behaviour (e.g. murder), spend time with the perpetrator understanding his motives and you should have no difficulty defining a chain of causation that may extend beyond birth. How free is free will and how determined is determinism? Does it not make more sense to consider an individual of a particular make up constantly interacting with his environment, the two impacting on each other and evolving together?
No disrespect, but you state "those who believe in Him or who accept the proofs of his existence". Can you outline what specific proofs point to His existence? I see a lot more evidence of his non-existense as I outlined in my various responses below.
We seem to agree on the importance of genetics in personality development. Genetics determine the development of the central nervous system and the relative dominance of the inhibitory/disinhibitory circuits. That in turn determines where we lie on the spectrum of inhibition (conformity) and disinhibition (sociopathy) in our behaviour. The mechanisms are multifactorial which ensure that most of us fall in the middle, not too inhibited nor too disinhibited, but veering to varying extent towards either pole. And leaving a lot of room for the programming of the nervous system through upbringing and experience. The leaning is there and unmistakeable though.
Things can still change, even after programming is complete. Lesions in the prefrontal cortex can transform the most conforming, inhibited individual into an egocentric, hedonistic and callous individual. Likewise amygdalectomy can transform one, whose aggression is uncontrollable, into the most quiet, subservient and obsequious person, whether this is what he wants or not.
If "not even reason can solve some riddles" can it be that some riddles are outside reason? Can it be that it is not our reason that is limited but that we are trying to prove logical what may be irrational. Like the emperor's new clothes everyone admired and would swear they were his best ever. Noone could question the evidence that was plain to see and all assumed there must have been something wrong with their eyes. They looked through the eyes of faith. It took an innocent child, his logic unencumbered by the emotional need to conform, to see the truth.
No disrespect felt and none intended Christine. Noone is trying to persuade anyone else either. We are merely debating an argument to test its internal consistency. The problem of evil has always been a thorny one for theologians. Your comment that "another perspective" can only be "seen through the eyes of faith" says it all and fits with the earlier debate about faith distorting reason and judgment. First you make an act of faith first and then you will understand.
A more enlightened approach is to gather all the facts and then examine that evidence dispassionately and objectively, before coming up with a conclusion that fits ALL the evidence, not just the facts favouring our thinking. That is why science strives to prove a hypothesis (e.g. God exists) WRONG. If we set out to prove anything correct, evidence favouring our thinking will mushroom around us, while other equally weighty evidence to the contrary is ignored. The emotion and pride we have invested in our thinking will blind us to facts. Divest yourself from that emotional baggage, by striving to prove your assumption wrong, and you will find it easier to see the truth.
As regards the funny notion of human behaviour being “controlled” by specific area of the brain it should be obvious that, for example, the silly content of some comments is to be attributed to the unwise use by the commentator of the motor (and other) areas of his brain and not vice-versa.
Under the constraint of a 200 word comment aimed at some pompous specimens of a lay audience I am left with no other course of action but to smile and ignore such presumption.
Incessantly evolving, man-made laws based on a common sense of decency and a common code of conduct embraced by all rational people will not “allow adults to shirk responsibility and act criminally or antisocially”. Hence God is made redundant, except for superstitious, cultural and other fuzzy reasons, such as the need for man to live for eternity, when Natural Law dictates otherwise.
What takes individual responsibility away is any religion denying people the freedom to choose.
Brilliantly put, solid persuasive arguments George!!
Ms. Abela, I knew all along that the doctor was charged with plagiarism. I wouldn't discredit him for a silly faux pas (I do not know the full details). I went to his lecture and was impressed. Your Church has been discredited many times over and seriously. You wouldn't discredit it would you dear?
While we're here, I did not coin the words 'fishy symbols in the dirt'. They were from Henryk Adam Alexander Pius Sienkiewicz 's (can get my tongue round most things but not that one) - Nobel Prize winner - Quo Vadis via Hollywood. I remember seeing it as a malleable, impressionable little boy. Then I grew up. You will have watched it on TV one Easter. In the film all I remember is the said fishy symbol, a very lascivious female dancer, coloured eye-glasses to bedazzle. And Robert Taylor of course. He got the girl finally. The demure Kerr.
No disrespect meant but maybe if you weren't so skeptical it might make sense :)
I'm not trying to prove anything or to persuade you to agree with me.
I'm merely trying to put forward another perspective to suffering as seen through the eyes of faith.
Sharon is right in saying that not even reason can solve some riddles.
I am not sure I understand. If I am getting you right God is loving and omnipotent and if he does nothing to relieve sufferring it is not that he is not omnipotent but merely incomprehensible! Is this not saying it is not what you would expect? Incomprehensibility is such a useful cloak for theologians to hide under when faced with contradictory observations.
A "God who suffers with..his people" who in turn "transform" their pain by "suffering with God"? Does that not suggest a sado-masochistic relationship? God deriving gratification from the suffering of His people while the latter rejoice in suffering for their God? Why the emphasis on suffering underlying the relationship?
How will enduring pain (physical or psychological) or "giving it up to Christ" benefit the sufferer, humanity or even God? Why does taking a pill to relieve pain reduce us to the level of a machine? If pain is nature's way of indicating something is wrong, is not the intelligent way of responding that of determining what is wrong and then deal with it? A lot of women in labour prefer epidurals to joyous anticipation, no?
Denying free will is a convenient ploy for the normal adult to shirk responsibility before God and man for criminal and selfishly abominable antisocial behaviour.
George Orwell pointed out, I think it was in "1984", that when one is in pain, one can wish for nothing else but for the pain to go away. He was not referring to pain that a woman often endures during labour, or the pain one can eliminate promptly with aspirin. Imagine for a moment oneself being under torture. A WWII German prisoner, for example, in a documentary he described how he tried to infect himself by pushing a rusted nail into one of his veins to no avail. Under such conditions, notions such as "one suffers with God" or "pain is transformed" are simply nonsensical.
She substantiates her claim by portraying a God who is not “robotic” – “who will send joy again after pain and sun after rain”, but a God who “suffers with” – is present for his people. The answer of the consumer culture to pain would be ‘take a pill and get rid of it’. But in Solle’s view, by this attitude, the human is reduced to the level of a machine - keep it as long as it functions and discard it if it doesn’t work. If one suffers with God, then the pain is transformed - similarly to the way the pain of a woman in labour is transformed into joy on the sight of her baby. From the perspective of the believer, therefore, there are two attitudes to suffering:
1. either go around grim, frustrated and despairing or simply ‘offer it up to Christ’, or
2. ‘give it up to Christ’ and let it work to the benefit for all.
In this way suffering is not only endured, it is appropriated.
I’ve tried to explain it as best as I can given the limited amount of words. For more: Dorothee Solle,Theology for Skeptics, Mowbray, London 1992
Part One
I’ll go back to Solle. She suggests three positions:
1. either God is omnipotent and comprehensible, in so far as omnipotence can be comprehended by those subject to it (the one who is actually responsible and can step in to end human torment)
2. God is indeed omnipotent and all-loving, but at the same time incomprehensible (belief in this God becomes absurd or at best a paradox)
3. God is conceived as love, but not as omnipotent (this vision is embraced by many Jewish thinkers – Elie Wiesel, Harold Kushner and Christians – Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Solle herself).
That children born of the same parents are not carbon copies of each other is not attributed to "free will". They are different, including in their decision making processes, because they inherited genetic information from mother and father randomly during mitosis.
Ironically, it is only through free will that they may choose to become the same, even if that may prove to be very hard. Chances are, however, that one will go on to become a saint, while the other will remain a sinner -- thus proving Father Borg's original theory.
The "contrasting characters" of children reflects the interaction between their genetic makeup and the experiences they go through in life. It has nothing to do with free will. Monozygotic twins, sharing identical heredity, even if brought up in very different environments, will be closer together in physical, psychological and personality attributes than dizygotic twins brought up together.
That man strives to improve his lot and conquer disease if anything demonstrates an innate striving to which we respond not free will.
Neurologists will tell you that behaviour is controlled by the brain - inhibition (conscience) in the prefrontal cortex and disinhibition (aggression) in the amygdala and limbic system. Psychologists will tell you how behaviour can be systematically modified through reinforcement. Hypnotherapists will relate how appropriate post hypnotic suggestions are acted upon, without any understanding, by the subject. Patients with Obsessive-Compulsive-Disorder and Tourette syndrome will tell you how useless free will is.
Both free will and determinism are wrong. Complex open systems are constantly interacting with their environment, each modifying the other. We may have the illusion of freedom to chose from options but how we choose is often fairly predictable.
A few reflections:
If God is so anguished by the suffering of the innocent why does He not prevent it from happening in the first place?
If God is unable to "prevent each and every calamity", then surely he is not omnipotent and cannot claim to be God?
"we are sharing in a suffering we dont understand". That implies God is living a life of suffering into which we are all dragged. If someone on earth was suffering to that extent, would we not normally suggest s/he seeks professional help? Surely God can do better.
"in the face of tragedy we can give suffering either a positive or negative meaning". Indeed we can. That is what psychotherapists do - help you work through your grief, bolster your defences, reframe your perception to hopefully recover, ideally emerge an even better integrated personality. Antidepressants also help. That process does not require divine assistance.
An alternative explanation: God is a fantasy, a projection of our needs fashioned by growing up in a paternalistic society where dad cared. Maternalistic societies tend to have female gods.
Any individual may revise his response to any situation, even capriciously, by adopting a different course of action. A determinism that eliminates free will would mean that even a donkey, faced with the choice between two identical bales of hay, would die of starvation as a result of his inability to choose between one bale and another.
Man does not accept that he submits blindly to the vagaries of our immune system. He demonstrates his free will by his quest for new remedies to suppress undesirable natural adverse immune reactions.
The same parents produce offspring that are not carbon copies of each other even when growing in the same environment. These children often grow up into adults with very contrasting characters. This is because each one exercises his/her free will to respond in his/her own way, sometimes sensibly and sometimes foolishly, to the same situation.
Allow me to share some thoughts from one of my favourite female theologians Dorothee Solle.
According to Solle, the suffering of the innocent reflects God's anguish even if his way of feeling pain is different from ours. He is the source of our being able to feel sympathy and outrage towards those who are suffering. God loves us so inordinately that perhaps the reason why we are sharing in a suffering we dont understand is because we are subjects of a love which we dont understand. Ultimately, God may not be able to prevent each and every calamity that befalls us, yet from him we are able to recieve strength and perseverance to overcome them.
Solle suggests that in the face of tragedy we can give suffering either a positive or negative meaning. If our suffering leads us to explore the limits of our human capacity for strength, love and cheerfulness, if it leads us to discover sources of consolation we never knew before, then we become a witness for the affirmation of life, rather than its rejection.
@ Joe Xuereb
The Persaud site is unavailable :( Pity - it sounds interesting
Arthur Soler's question follows on - Why does a loving God, if he exists, permit evil? Natural Disasters are not evolutionary in nature, but manifestations of physical phenomena (movements of teutonic plates, solar flares, etc). Our immune system determines our resistance to pathogens and our sensitivity to allergens. Our physical attributes are genetically determined.
Parents' differential feelings for children, despite their best efforts, also has an explanation, rooted in their subconscious mind. A child may have a trait that reflects an endearing quality in the spouse. Or a child may remind in some ways of qualities resented in its parents' parents. A mother may subconsciously resent a daughter getting her father's affection. All these phenomena have a scientific explanation that is perfectly rational.
The subconscious mind, out of our awareness, largely determines how we feel and behave. Free will is a myth. For the will to be free, we need to be consciously aware of all the ramifications, all the options available for dealing with a situation and to be able to make completely logical choices. If there is no free will can there be sin? And did we ever need redemption?
I understand how you feel about termination of pregnancy. Believe it or not I too was once (not that long ago) a hard liner against abortion, until I came across a number of heart wrenching situations, similar to that poor girl in Brazil recently. Not to terminate would have been sadistic and not only for the woman. I could not understand then and I still cannot understand now, how any compassionate God who landed that poor woman in her predicament in the first place, could possibly take offence at doing whatever was necessary to help her pick up the pieces of her life. Getting to know those involved in termination and reading the literature convinced me that most terminations are carried out in a very responsible manner, for very justifiable reasons (way beyond "self-freedom") and that opposition to termination is based on misinformed sentiment. It is hard to understand how that right can be denied to those holding differing views who are in desperate need of that help. It seems best to ensure termination is allowable but tightly controlled, with each case to be deliberated and justified individually by those qualified and responsible for the woman's care.
It would seem we agree on a lot. I certainly share your view that children need to be protected at any cost from whoever is irresponsible enough to betray trust and take advantage of their helplessness. It is sad but true that most children who suffer abuse do so at the hands of persons well known to them, including family members. This article is about abuse of children by the clergy, where betrayal of trust has particular impact, because of education, trust and committment to ideals. The impact on the children is severe, long lasting and can be life threatening.
An interesting suggestion that may enable a shred of compassion for abusing clergy was made by Fr JA Loftus, a Jesuit priest who is also a professor of Psychology. He considers the perpetrators are themselves victims - of a process that arrests their psychosexual development without preparing them psychologically, emotionally and practically, for the difficulties of celibate life. Alas it is hard to see the Church implementing the necessary reforms in a hurry.
With all due respect I am having great difficulty firstly comprehending your train of thought and secondly understanding your quotes from the Corinthians. I realise these epistles were written some 2000 years ago, but if perhaps you could put your message in simpler English we stand a better chance of exchanging arguments.
Most importantly, what would have been St Paul’s view on celibacy and priesthood? Would you agree with St Paul’s view on slavery and the social status of women? What would St Paul’s view be on embryonic stem cell research? What is St Paul's view on Catholic women priests? Was St Paul in favour of condom use to reduce the spread of AIDS? Would there be anything that St Paul was adamant about in 50 AD, that in 2009 is generally viewed as fallacious?
By the way my aggressiveness towards Catholicism is as great as that for any other religion that judges and impedes upon its members’ freedom to choose.
I would dearly love to believe that there is a personal God in heaven who listens to me and protects me, and will one day grant me eternal life in heaven. But, this notion is based purely on blind faith. Logic and reason suggest that this is wishful thinking.
Is it the same Dr. Persaud featured on this link?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7452877.stm
No Joe I was not at that seminar. Pity as it sounds interesting and I am glad you enjoyed it.
I am sure my words are not original and many another would have at least thought of what I said, if not actually said it.
Having an open and critical attitude allows me to aaccept many practices with which I/my religious beliefs do not concur, however certain practices I cannot bargain on I'm afraid. We need not go into another debate regarding abortion we argued enough I suppose. I will not judge or condemn those who resort to terminating their offspring, however if there is a referendum I will definitely cast my pro life vote. This is not merely a question of religion either. Freedom always comes at an expense however when there is collateral damage, when it involves lives (especially those of whom we are set to protect), it is a very high price to pay for attaining self freedom.
Regarding the rest (and i can actually add more to your list) I do not have a problem with the practices per se..I guess as long as no one (especially minors) are being harmed and/or scandalised by irrisponsible behaviour I can easily live with that. I have many friends who do not share my religious beliefs and are indeed very very valid individuals, and I respect and value their friendship equally as much.
I wish you all the best too:)
I attended an all-day seminar recently. Four speakers. The last one was Dr. Persaud's one-hour lecture. He touched on just two main themes. Containing all the wisdom a man needs. The first item he spoke about was the two different individuals. One, the inward-looking man who takes responsibility for his life. The other, the outward-going man, the one who sees himself always as the suffering victim, blaming his misfortunes on everyone and everything else.
The second theme was about miracles (are you sure you weren't there George?). Raj spoke about how quickly miracles are claimed by people who have enough of a vested interest in them. He suggested one should wait for, what appears an extraordinary phenomenon today will, or could, have a very simple explanation tomorrow (your words exactly George). The Church knows this and is reluctant to be too jubilant too soon. Very astute. Except we hardly ever get to know the outcome of 'false alarms'.
Link:
http://www.rajpersaud.com/
Sure, I can tell you what I think about Pope John Paul II.
John Paul II was one of the most conservative popes in the history of the Catholic Church, winding back the clock towards an outdated Catholicism. He was politically aligned with violent terror against liberationists around the world. John Paul II's preferred saintly role model was the Spanish fascist Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei, one of the retrograde and bizarre Catholic secret societies that the pope was willing to use against progressives.
In 1997, 2.5 million German and Austrian Catholics petitioned the pope to admit women priests and married priests and abandon the church's hostility to homosexuality; John Paul II was unyielding.
In the developed first world, Catholicism continues to lose membership as Catholics become sick of the ridiculous restrictions on their sexuality and democratic rights within the church. In the Catholic third world, thanks to restrictions on contraceptives, AIDS threatens millions, and impoverished families suffer hunger and malnutrition, as a consequence of having dozens of off spring.
Thank Pope John Paul II for having made a difference to humanity, not!
Reason and faith do NOT mix. Faith clouds reason. Reason dispels faith. That is why there exists a strongly negative correlation between high intelligence and achievement on the one hand and religious beliefs. That is why in our enlightened age, people are flocking away from formal religion in droves.
Opinions are not facts. One opinion hardly dispels an argument.
A few disjointed reflections on your postings:
You do not have to renounce your religion. In fact I strongly urge you and others with similar sentiments to yours, not to. I do hope, however, you will keep an open mind and cultivate a questioning and critical attitude. It is the only way to progress and mature. I definitely expect all believers to let others practice what they believe and to lead the lives they know is right for them. That includes acknowledging the rights of homosexuals, contraception, termination of pregnancy and divorce.
Try to distinguish between faith and trust. In everyday language we may use the two words interchangeably but they refer to distinct human sentiments. Here we are talking about Religious Faith.
Science does not hope. It examines. Medicine is not science but an art based on science. It therefore works on probabilities not certainties. Hence the need for disclaimers especially in a litigious world.
Peace is a universal goal that can be reached through various means besides God. He can be a great hindrance.
All the best.
Frankly I see a lot of parallelisms between putting faith in a pilot/machine whom one does not know or may be faulty, and a God whose existence for some is intangible due to lack of proof. Christ told Thomas 'you believed because you saw, blessed are those who believe without seeing'.
Science cannot always guarantee results yet we all try to put our faith in the best doctors etc. Believers trust in God and the existence of an afterlife. Science can only hope for the best based on past scientific results eg that a heart transplant has a very good chance of success, that poeple wake up from anasthesia. Believe me one of the worst decisisons my husband and I had to make was to sign and give permission for our son to be operated, especially when one of the disclaimers was the event of not recovering from anesthesia. We reasoned, weighed the pros and cons the hospital/doctor's reputation and yes prayed a lot. Thank God an the brilliant surgeon all was well:))
Faith is not superstition that is where you are wrong.
I guess one has to experience the peace of God in order to understand it.
I am all for reason so that we are clear BUT it does not mean that just because I (general I) am a rational and an intelligent person ergo I renounce my religion! Faith in God does not need to be blind. Blind faith is what Abraham was about to do to Isaac..I admit I do not think that I am ever capeable of having such strong faith. I will cross that bridge when I come to it. I cannot stand in the middle of the road and say that God will save me, however I can console myself if I end up in some similar peril that God is there to protect me so I need not fear as much.
cont...
I beg to differ. Suffice it to read back a bit into church history. St Anselm of Canterbury spoke of 'faith seeking understanding'. In the Scholastic period there was a lot of intellectual activity going on in the realm of theology. The later Scholastic period in particular sees the organic cooperation between faith and reason which is referred to as 'virtual revelation'.
The culmination of this synthesis between faith and reason is to be found in the person of St Thomas Aquinas who insisted on the intelligentia fidei - understanding the faith intelligently.
Of course with the Enlightenment came the disintegration of faith and reason, with the agnostics and the philosophers stating that what could not be empirically proven could not be accepted.
However in a most recent statement addressed to the audience at Regensburg in Sept 06, the current Pope stated that a theology grounded in biblical faith needs not deny the "grandeur" of reason.
That's a brief summary - lots of ifs and buts in between. But basically it shows that ours is not just a question of "blind faith", although granted, the contents of the Christian message cannot be proved by strict rational argument.
I do not agree with your statement that “faith....(has) nothing helpful to offer humanity except the admonishment ot stay on the good side of God.” Refer to Magdi Cristiano Allam.
Magdi Cristiano Allam, La mia conversione e il rapporto con l’Islam , Corriere della sera.
Sai bene, e lo sanno anche i lettori del Corriere, che da musulmano sono stato uno spirito libero ed è proprio questa libertà intellettuale, a cui fa da sponda una radicata rigorosità etica, ciò che ha gradualmente fatto maturare in me il convincimento che la religione cattolica corrisponda pienamente al contesto ideale al cui interno possono naturalmente convivere dei valori inalienabili e inviolabili che per me sono da sempre irrinunciabili in quanto rappresentano l'essenza della nostra umanità, a cominciare dalla fede nella sacralità della vita dal concepimento alla morte naturale, dal riconoscimento della dignità della persona quale fondamento della civile convivenza, dal rispetto della libertà di scelta tra cui spicca l'esercizio incondizionato della libertà religiosa. Ebbene voglio rassicurare tutti che continuerò ad essere ancor di più uno spirito libero da cattolico.
No more comments are needed on my part.
Part 1. “It is urgent, therefore, to rediscover anew human rationality opens to the light of the divine Logos and his perfect revelation which is Jesus Christ, Son of God made man.
When Christian faith is authentic, it does not diminish freedom and human reason; so, why should faith and reason fear one another if the best way for them to express themselves is by meeting and entering into dialogue? Faith presupposes reason and perfects it, and reason, enlightened by faith, finds the strength to rise to knowledge of God and spiritual realities. Human reason loses nothing by opening itself to the content of faith, which, indeed, requires its free and conscious adherence.” BENEDICT XVI, ANGELUS, St Peter's Square, Sunday, 28 January 2007
If I were to give you an answer according to Faith you will not accept it as you need scientific proof to accept a fact. Therefore I am giving you a very pragmatic answer. John Paul II was a priest, a celibate Catholic priest. Can we agree that he brought about great reverberating change in the world? You might come up with another married person who had far reaching influence in the world. But then we will go on and on. As to how celibacy is a gift this time I am addressing you to an encyclical of Pope Paul VI. I hope you will not find fault with his credentials.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_pvi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis_en.html
Religion may give comfort to some while assuming responsibility for our decisions may be hard for others. True. And those who find religion useful should go for it, but without insisting upon imposing their views on others. A lot more others find religion oppressive and stultifying.
"The more successful were those who struck a balance (between faith and reason)". Most eminent people throughout history conquered their emotions and biases. Many, in the past 200 yrs at least, were atheists.
Reason never caused anyone to commit suicide. Suicide is a complex phenomenon. It is commonly associated with Major Depression, a serious but common psychiatric disorder that still carries a mortality rate of around 15%, but social factors are also prominent. There is some evidence that the incidence of suicide is smaller in Catholic countries but the advantage is lost upon migration to non-Catholic countries. The reason is the stigma attached to suicide in Catholic communities - mortal sin, eternal damnation, refusal of burial in consecrated ground (till recently). Conclusion: catholicism does not protect against suicide; it merely inhibits suicidal behaviour. A neat illustration of the different results obtained from applying the scientific and the religious method.
Will mistakes be made on the way? No doubt. That is not a reason to stay rigidly tied to tradition. It is a reason to progress with prudence and to maintain constant monitoring, to be flexible and ever ready to modify our views.
"Si muove..eppur Dio esiste"! Why? What is the connection? The scientist will not jump to conclusions, but will carefully look at all possible explanations and test them out systematically before deciding. In the process other possible explanations may come to light.
Does current knowledge and evidence point to the existence of supernatural beings? No. It makes a lot more sense to construe God(s) as a creation of man (in man's own image) rather than a creator. The history of religion is most instructive in this respect. Will the buzzword change in the future? Unlikely but if it does then one will reconsider. In the meantime it makes sense to live according to reason and logic, based on fact not superstition.
"Religion and faith can bring tranquillity/happiness/peace of mind". So can meditation and yoga, in a much more tangible fashion without having to relinquish your will to a supreme being.
A huge body of established knowledge has been accumulated through scientific endeavour. At the forefront of science, however, controversy reigns. That is how science grows. Challenge views and formulate new ones and all the time useful knowledge is being accumulated and put to good use. That is why opinions change at the forefront of science. When evidence is not clear scientists will merely reserve judgment until more evidence comes to light. They will not rush to attribute their observations to a supernatural power. What was not clear 20yrs ago is common knowledge today and what is unclear today will be well understood tomorrow, a tomorrow that will bring with it new challenges (hurry the day).
Science is motivated solely by the search for truth. Industry capitalises on scientific findings to manufacture products that hopefully will enhance our lives. It is business and motivated by profits. Do not confuse the two. You mentioned the thalidomide disaster but failed to note that it was scientists who noted that things were amiss and pressed for action. Just as it was scientists who found the link between smoking and lung cancer, not to mention global warming.
"Not all is explainable" and thank heavens (or whatever) for that. How boring it would be to be omniscent, never able to experience the thrill of doubt or the anguish of finding yourself wrong that will prompt you to reassess, find alternative options and become a richer person for it.
That is the difference between religion and science. Religion insists it is correct, remains rigid in the face of evidence to the contrary and will punish those who challenge its authority. The result is stunted personal growth with a blinkered view of the world that keeps its adherents going round in circles, repeating the same mistakes, unable to learn from the suffering they are causing themselves and others. "It is God's will", though the exact version will vary from one religion to another.
Science on the other hand assumes it is wrong and sets out to prove itself wrong, not right. When efforts fail one can safely assume that the hypothesis being tested is correct, subject always to fresh evidence appearing to the contrary. As a result science progresses and grows. It enriches and liberates, enpowering us to doubt and question, to be certain of our beliefs.
In religion however, faith is generally "blind faith". The Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammed, with the Archangel Gabriel, soared to Heaven on a horse with wings, and met people in all the seven levels, before coming back down to earth. One billion Muslims believe this based on faith...although reason would suggest this is fantasy. Similarily, Christians believe that Christ is the son of God and that he rose from the dead. Two billion Christians believe this based on faith.....although reason would suggest that this too is fantasy. The Jews believe that the creator of the universe gave then a bit of desert as their promised land, and that they are the chosen people of God. Surely, this is based on faith...not reason.
Cont.......
That was a long time ago and humanity was not educated and advanced as it is today. Right?
Wrong: In November 2004 a poll conducted by CBS found that more than 55% of US citizens believed in creationism. More than half of the United States, the most advanced, most powerful and richest country on earth today, “believe” that we should not be wasting our time with actual laboratory or field experiments, as all the answers are in the Bible, and the Bible should be taken literally.
Perhaps we too would have this irrational “belief”, had we been brought up in the Bible Belt of the USA today.
When science is proved otherwise, the scientific world, with very few exceptions, changes its opinion instantly and proof and reason prevail. Not so with religions and their “belief systems”, as is evident by the fact that it took 400 years for the Catholic Church to apologise to Galileo.
When “beliefs” hinder reason and deliberately ignore proof, then you have to ask the question of whether one should hold on to “beliefs” at all cost. The Incas were the most advanced society in their time. Their “belief” was that in order to get a bumper harvest, they had to sacrifice a young virgin to the Sun God, when they plant their crops. Of course you and me now know that that was a superstitious “belief”.
How would John Falzon and Sharon Abela have felt about this illogical conviction had we been living in the same era within the same culture?
cont.........
cont...
Reason does not make you paranoid, but lack of proof or explanation can.
Regarding faith, in my books faith is faith, and reason is reason, be it relating to religion, humans, science nature etc. The noun provides the same attributes to the various subjects/predicates. Otherwise you have to concede that they mix in certain contexts, meaning that they can coexist. Faith in God can likewise be a conclusion on observation; the difference is that the result is seen on investigating the effect on the subject (which is also the case in science no?), but without seeing the source. It is empirical, not scientific proof. Religion and faith can bring tranquillity/happiness/peace of mind in the same manner that reason does to a non religious person, they are both used as a means to an end. They are both serving the same function of 'believing in'.
People can be as indoctrinated through non- religious means, and they can be equally as extreme/fundamentalist/brainwashed/ extremist in their non-religious thought. Culture, media, peer pressure, idols and more all play an important part.
Finally religion (ieChristianity/Catholicism) and the supernatural are not the same thing. They relate to the otherworldly in different ways.
What happens when science is proved otherwise? Let me give you two examples: the unfortunate cases of 1950's thalidomide children; and another rather silly example - the movement from glass to plastic bottles to glass again. Pros and cons of almost everything change every day. What was valid yesterday is likely to be invalid tomorrow and viceversa. Soon humans will feel the need to go back to nature, as had been the case with the early 1900's after the industrial revolution. History moves in circles. The Hegelian beginning/maturity /end. Restart. There is a period of excess, followed by deprevation and viceversa. Faith followed by reason, romanticism vs stoicism, classicism vs baroque etc. The people who were the more successful were those who struck a balance. Reason has its many advantages but one cannot rely solely on it, because not all is explainable/proved. Not all will ever be, at least not in our lifetime. Many have found this hard to deal with and contemplated/commited suicide. Christians/Catholics have rightfully acknowledged the truth behind 'Eppur si muove' why won't rational thought at least allow the possibility/chance that perhaps in the future the buzzword will be 'Eppur Dio esiste' !
cont..
The official policy of the Church on how it should handle cases of sexual abuse was ratified by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001, before he was elected Pope and still stands. It still stands. Reading it might prove an eye opener. Universally it has been decried as "a blueprint for deceipt" and a denial of basic rights. Mary Raftery's documentaries amongst others, the account of numerous victims from all over the world as well as several studies on the victims of abuse by the clergy, should leave you in no doubt as to who is bullying whom.
Your second paragraph gives some examples in regard to my last sentence. On the other hand, your first paragraph reflects strongly on your opinion of the Church. I happen to hold a somewhat different conviction. I think I am more likely to "bully" the Church rather than the other way around if it ever came to that.
Faith and reason do not make good bed fellows. Faith distorts reason while facts and reason easily dispel faith, at least in those who can remain objective. Incidentally we are talking about religious faith. Faith in natural occurrences, in the reputation of a doctor or one's parents is a different thing altogether. Those are conclusions we draw from repeated observations. That is rational. It is the fruit of reason. And yes conclusions can be proven wrong occassionally. Faith in the supernatural is mere superstition. By the way do not ever have faith in a vaccine that is still under trial.
Reason does not make you paranoid. Faith does. Living your life believing there is a policeman in the sky, aware of every thought and every move you make and who will weigh everything up on judgment day. Reason liberates you from such self imposed oppression and helps you rely on yourself and your faculties to find fulfillment.
Intelligence and religion are negatively correlated. Religious fervour does not depend solely on intelligence, however. Neurotic needs like dependency traits and of course, indoctrination from the moment of conception, also come into the equation.
Regarding "faith and reason do not mix".
Many use both. Faith feeds the soul/spirit, while reason feeds the mind. They make up the two sides of the same coin, in the manner of geist if you will. Granted not everyone has faith in God (or the same one). Faith includes: in a loved one (albeit not necessarily) without the need for rational/material proof of their whereabouts; faith (even blind) in a reputed doctor/tutor/athlete's future success, or faith in one's parents. Also there is faith in natural occurences, such as the calm after the storm and numerous other things including some cure or vaccene which is still in its trial period and yet there is hope/faith that it might be the one. If we lose all forms of faith and rely only on reason (and that which can be proved) then we be become too paranoid to apply reason properly since not everything has scientific proof, the two have to be balanced.
"The more educated and sophisticated one is the less inclinded towards religion."
I find the above statement as sweeping and rather insulting.
Leon Foucault, Gaudi, Goya, Nasser, Pierre Duhem, Degas and many more were religious.
"It should be reasonable to assume that the Church would do its utmost to ensure a reasonable outcome" - for whom? Itself or the victim? The Church's policy has been and remains one of maintaining secrecy, defend its interests and bully victims into giving up their pursuit of justice.
"If the abuse is serious enough...then the Church is duty bound, like any other organization, to inform the authorities". You bet. All the Church did was to hide crimes and shelter criminals (even here in our Islands) and keep atrocities from coming to public knowledge, indefinitely if possible. Look at the USA and Ireland. It was in 1999, 10 years ago, that Mary Raftery wrote, produced and directed the internationally acclaimed three-part documentary "States of Fear", winner of so many international awards, followed the same year by "Suffer the Little Children". Both deal with the atrocities taking place in religious institutions in Ireland. Ten years of deceit and cover up before the Church finally conceded.
"There is a limit to how far one can reason things out". Faith comes into its own where there are gaps in knowledge. The trouble is that knowledge is expanding exponentially. And as it expands the need to invoke supernatural powers to make sense of the universe shrinks. We now understand how man and the universe evolved. We know Adam and Eve never existed. We understand how man thinks and why he behaves the way he does. We know that earthquakes and plagues are not manifestations of the wrath of God, but merely the movement of teutonic plates which can be predicted and of germs spreading under unhygienic conditions, to be fought with antibiotics not prayers. Faith on the other hand remains in the middle ages full of proscriptions with nothing helpful to offer humanity except the admonishment to stay on the good side of God (as interpreted by that same faith) so as to gain eternal glory. And noone stands a chance of finding out whether that is true or not. Where is the logic in that? Reason can and has and does determine the content of faith. Just look at the past 50yrs.
I have no doubt that “Christian tradition has always held the interplay of faith and reason”, that is precisely why Christian tradition and John Falzon had to go their separate ways. Every hole in Christianity and indeed in other religions is plugged with “god” or “faith”.
Soren Kiekegaard could have jolly well been speaking about the “faith in oneself” which is completely different from the “faith” as is commonly used in the Catholic Church, for example to have the faith that a god exists or the faith that there are such places as a heaven and a hell.
Perhaps the following Soren Kiekegaard quote is more appropriate in this case:
“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”
“In no way am I trying to persuade you to agree with me on this’ is a very Atheist way of thinking, we never try to convert anyone to anything. You are on the right track, Christine.
You are interpreting my sentence very strictly. I am saying that the Church does not "abscond" responsibility, even if it may appear to be doing so to some outsiders. Like all other institutions, the Church has its own financial systems, and these systems understandably try to prevent liability. Of course, this does not mean that the requirements of the affected financial system would override the need for justice and compensation. In the end, it should be reasonable to assume that the Church would do its utmost to ensure a reasonable outcome.
In regard to your allegation that abuse "becomes public not through the agency of the Church's action" -- it is always going to be arguable as to whether the impartial outsider would want to take sides. The Church is within Her rights to try and resolve the matter internally. However, if the abuse is serious enough (such as sexual abuse) to warrant police investigation, then the Church is duty bound, like any other organization, to inform the authorities. When such action is not taken, it becomes a community concern and the affected diocese will eventually attract a great deal of undesirable attention (my view).
'The Church, however, does not "abscond" responsibility. It may appear to be so to avoid liability. '
Are you saying that 'avoiding liability 'is morally and ethically justified in these instances ? I don't think so. That is simply a case of a puerile damage limitation excercise overriding Catholic universal principle. Re the church informing the authorities I also beg to differ especially in places like Malta, it is usually a case of hoping it will go away and when it doesn't, it becomes public not through the agency of the Church's action but through the courage of the victim or investigative journalism.The church's courage here is rather like that of the lion who lacks courage in the WIzard of Oz. It is also a case where Thomistic reasoning is not employed for the purposes of Faith and Truth.
Sexual abuse will forever be more problematic for the Church than for any other organisation, because the Church assumes moral authority. How can the Church cling on to the title of moral arbiter and the champion of social justice if it loses the moral high ground? That is what Catholics find the most painful and confusing.
Faith and reason do not mix. Believers may consider celibacy a gift. Facts attest otherwise. The calling to the priesthood is a biopsychosocial phenomenon as much as the calling to marriage is. There is little that is spiritual about it. Aspirants are responding to deep, mostly subconscious needs they do not themselves understand. Some may find fulfillment in their chosen life. Some struggle with ambivalence all their lives. Some feel trapped but are unable to exit.
The statement that the spiritual person can judge everything but is not subject to judgement does not make sense. The more limited one is intellectually and in personality resources, the more likely one is to rely on religion, as he lacks insight into his psychological make up and drives and needs to rely on external sources, real or fantasised, to make sense of the world around him. The more educated and sophisticated one is the less inclinded towards religion.
Truth can only be ascertained by analysing facts (as determined by our senses) with logic and reason. Faith distorts that process and will have you call white what is black and believe the unbelievable.
Soren Kierkegaard, a leading Lutheran scholar of the 19th century speaks about the 'leap of faith'. What he means is the there is a limit to how far one can reason things out rationally. At any given point in time one must make a quantitive leap - but not necessarily into the dark.
Faith is not only something to believe in without proof. The Christian tradition has always held the interplay of faith and reason. Of course reason, by its powers cannot determine the content of faith, but it can to some extent, motivate a person to believe. Reason confirms faith. Pope John Paul II in the opening lines of his encyclical letter Fides et Ratio described faith and reason as 'the two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of the truth".
In no way am I trying to persuade you to agree with me on this. I'm just sharing :)
In answer to your question: “Are you ready to use both reason and faith in your search for the truth?” My answer is, since faith is “to believe in something without proof”, I am only prepared to use reason and proof, in search of truth.
Now how about you answering my previous two questions:
1) How is “Priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church a gift”?
2) Celibate “priests that are ready to make this gift to their brothers,” how do you see this so called self-sacrifice adding value to humanity?
Back to my previous comments: “Prior to the declaration in 1123 that priests were to be celibate, Roman Catholic priests were allowed to marry and have families. How could God's Word, which the Bible declares to be eternal, change so much over a period of time?”
Agreed. The Church, however, does not "abscond" responsibility. It may appear to be so to avoid liability. I personally to do not believe that is the case. When sexual abuse occurs, it will always be problematic for the Church, as in other entities such schools, work places, the army, and so on. In most cases, if not all, the Church will have no alternative but to inform the competent authorities. The clergy are not trained to deal with criminal behaviour, very much like headmasters, nurses and the like. It is not their realm. But they know what universal Catholic practices entail, and they can be trained on early detection and reporting of deviations from these practices. That's where, ultimately, the day to day responsibility lies, at least in my view.
The Church is not, and can never be expected to be, equipped to deal with criminal behaviour (such as, for example, "sexual abuse"). The latter is a matter solely for the State authorities.
The responsibility of the Church lies solely in the proaction against deviation from "universal Catholic practices".
I beg to differ. How can the church abscond responsibility and proaction when it comes to sexual abuse? Concern for Justice and care for those in need always was part of the Catholic world view. Sexual abuse by the clergy is a morally corrosive problem, it betrays the basic tenants of Catholic ethics and morality .In the local and universal Catholic context, failing to grasp the opportunity to put things right for victims of the abuse also betrays the principle of social justice. That at best is cognitive dissonance and more equivocation.If the Church isn't proactive in the field of social justice in this regard than God help us all.
John Falzon
I and many other believers can understand what the gift of celibacy means since our reason is enlightened by faith.
“We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone. For "who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?" But we have the mind of Christ. “ 1 Corinthians 2
Are you ready to use both reason and faith in your search for the truth?
We stand enlightened.
I have read the article very carefully. One needs to make the distinction between "deviation" and "abuse". These two are not the same.
In the case of the Irish issue, the possibility of "abuse" is clear. As Father Borg says, "it probably includes criminal behaviour". In fact, if it is abuse, then it is criminal behaviour, and not merely deviation. The Church is not, and can never be expected to be, equipped to deal with criminal behaviour (such as, for example, "sexual abuse"). The latter is a matter solely for the State authorities.
The responsibility of the Church lies solely in the proaction against deviation from "universal Catholic practices". Here lies the difference between abuse and deviation. The former is the realm of the State, the latter of the Church. Father Borg fails in is article to articulate this important difference. If the Church could deal proactively with deviation -- as in the Brisbane case, regardless of what the deviation was -- there would never be the need for the State to be involved. This is the point which I believe Father Borg has missed altogether.
Might I suggest you re-read the above article - carefully.
What you have said about Father Peter Kennedy is already known in the media and is totally irrelevant. Father Joe Borg's article is not about "sexual abuse" within the church. It is about deviations from "universal Catholic practices" within the church, of which "sexual abuse" is only one. My contention with Father Joe Borg is solely on how the Church deals (or should deal) with deviations from these universal Catholic practices. I singled out the case of Father Peter Kennedy because it illustrates clearly the effectiveness of dealing with deviations in a timely and pro-active way, something which I feel Father Joe Borg has overlooked altogether in his article. His simplification of "saints" and "sinners" is unacceptable and counterproductive in my view.
Father Peter Kennedy, the parish priest of St Mary in Exile in Brisbane, Australia, was sacked by his archbishop for "unorthodox practices" that included allowing women to preach and blessing gay couples which made him "out of communion" with universal Catholic practices. Many of his parishoners expressed strong support for him.
Father Kennedy was NOT involved in any way or ever with sexual abuse of children or young adults.
Yes pharmaceutical companies do make a profit on their contraceptives. These are old medicines, however. Cheap generic are available and the margins of profits not that high. Pharmaceutical companies nowadays make their profits from the newer generation of drugs in various specialities like cardiology and psychiatry, that work wonders but understandably cost the earth. If pharmaceutical and mechanical methods of birth control are consistently preferred it is because they are effective, safe and cheap and not out of vested interest. Can the same be said of the Church and its methods?
If Catholicism has the reputation of being synonymous with ineffective birth control it is because it deserves it. "Natural" methods may work for couples living harmoniously together in relative confort who agree that maybe it would be better not to start a family just yet but it would not be the end of the world if a child came along. That is a luxury not affordable in the underpriviledged world. Or even in the developed world among the underpriviledged (there are 1000's even in our country).
Advocates of the method (male celibate priests living in palaces?) are fond of quoting studies with high succes rates but fail to notice the corollaries that success is limited to "perfect users" and only if "the method is used consistently and...followed correctly". They also fail to note that there are more studies showing high failure rates of 15 to 20% and a high drop out rate of about 10%.
On a more theoretical level, given the aim is that not having children, why is it so important what method you use to achieve that aim?
"Thus, the derision of the Catholic Church and her teachings continues”. Let us sympathise with the Church and take no notice of how it distorts evidence to make itself look right.
I concede you do try to keep an open mind. That is evident in your postings and for that you have my respect and esteem. Unfortunately however, you keep making the same mistake most human beings make, that of being too uncritical in accepting opinion that fits in with our scheme of things.
The symptom-thermal method requires a woman to religiously monitor her basal body temperature and the viscosity of her cervical secretions on a daily basis, over a number of cycles to determine the likeliest period in the cycle of ovulation and then establish a pattern of refraining from intercourse for several days around ovulation as determined by ongoing observations. It requires intelligence, some sophistication and motivation as well as the cooperation of the spouse. That is why it is not suited for underdeveloped countries. Can you really see women in the slums of Calcutta or a shanti town in Africa reliably applying this method and their spouses complying?
Hear Hear to both of you.
The vital question we have to address is what legislative changes we need to see in our Islands to adequately deal with any atrocities that have already been committed and ensure that the risk of further abuses being committed is minimised. It has to be legislation, not so called Church enquiries and investigations, which, history instructs us, will only serve to minimise the extent of the problem and ensure the Church's comfortable position is retained, as happened in Gozo.
Similarly the comment about contraception leading to an increase in abortion is attributed in the GINL to the Director of Family & Youth Concern (a conservative voluntary, not scientific, UK organisation). It is immediately countered by research comparing abortion rates in countries with inadequate contraceptive policies to those which promote contraception. Abortion is commoner in the former by a factor of 5, the conclusion being that there is "incontrovertible evidence that good family planning PREVENTS abortions’’.
The other comments I made in my earlier submission still stand.
I have finally managed to locate the Galton Institute Newsletter you referred to. Perhaps their server was down earlier.
You may not have read the article carefully enough. The quotation about Oxfam "watering down" its budget for contraceptive aid on account of "birth control is too controversial" is not fact but a personal view of a Dr John Guillebaud, one of the original signatories to Oxfam's policies. He is obviously disillusioned that not more is being done. His charge, however, is immediately countered, in the same GINL, by the view of the current director of Oxfam who argued that Oxfam allocates a significant enough portion of its health budget to contraception. He wisely goes on to comment on the importance of awareness of and sensitivity to cultural factors in order to ensure success of family planning programs, commenting that it may prove counterproductive to push programs beyond the preparedness of the society. Quite a different slant from the one you attempted to convey. Both men agree contraception is essential. The argument (if any) is the pace at which contraceptive programs can progress.
Please also note that all the organisations I mentioned offer comprehensive assistance to underdeveloped countries, way beyond contraception, including education, agricultural projects etc.
As for the fear mongering allegation that liberal contraception leads to an increase in abortions, where is the evidence? The statement goes in the same basket as the equally baseless allegation that contraceptives increase the risk of AIDS by promoting sexual promiscuity. There are several exhaustive reviews of scientific studies that between them cover 100's of thousands of cohorts to show this is simply not true. The subject has been debated in another blog (Are Abortionists murderers) and I will not repeat the details.
In any case one also has to ask What if it does? The Church's opposition to abortion is not shared by any major Health Organisation world wide, nor by the Medical Profession at large, nor by most governments in the Western World, including the Catholic governments of Italy, France, Belgium and Portugal with Spain about to follow suit. The Chuch simply has no business imposing its idiosyncratic and erroneous views on the rest of humanity.
I am afraid the website you quoted returns Error 404. Did you check the site yourself or were you quoting it second hand from some other publication eager to shore up support for its biased views?
Even if we accept the quotation verbatim, it is hard to evaluate out of context. What does it mean? Is the author lauding or lamenting the observation that organisations like Oxfam have to modify their policies in response to political pressure from blinkered organisations who consider themselves authorised to impose their views on the rest of the world, never mind the suffering inflicted.
The quotation is certainly at odds with a recent Oxfam newsletter describing the increasing demand for contraceptives in underdeveloped countries with long queues outside NHS clinics, seeing this as a major breakthrough in the fight against hunger, poverty and AIDS.
The WHO retains its Millenium Development Goals, endorsed by 189 countries, representing "commitments to reduce poverty and hunger, and to tackle ill-health, gender inequality, lack of education, lack of access to clean water and environmental degradation", seeing contraception as an integral part of the strategy towards that aim.
You are absolutely right in your comments.
Does anyone seriously believe the Catholic Church will ever change? Rome is full of tokenistic talk, but no significant action, we can go back centuries, why would it change now?
If Christ was around today he will beat the Pharisees out of the temple again. Christ strongly condemned the Pharisees for the hypocrisy of their practice (Matt 23: 27-28) “they were concerned with cleaning the outside of a dish but not what is inside ........concerned with washing the hands but not the hearts”
It seems that the organisations that you mention are not all as efficient as you would have me believe. Browsing through the internet, trying to get further information, I came across the following website: www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL9105/Third_World_Aid.
Extracts from the article are worth noting: “Oxfam had in recent years devoted too small a proportion of its resources to the funding of contraceptive programmes and thus to helping to keep population levels down. This was despite a decision of more than 25 years ago that a proportion of its income was to be so used. That policy ‘‘has been progressively watered down by Oxfam in the apparent belief that birth control is too controversial.’’ Oxfam had interpreted its medical advisory panel’s call for more family planning as well as other aid to imply ‘‘family planning instead’’”
Further down, the article goes on to say that “…. the provision of contraception leads to an increase in abortions, presumably because, once family limitation has become accepted, people resort to it if there is insufficient or inefficient availability or use of contraception.”
Celebacy and virginity are totally unnatural states. We need the closeness and the physical touch of other humans , as much as we need sexual intercourse. Depravation of these very powerful natural drives often leads to unbalanced personalities . The child abuses that we have witnessed all over the world in Catholic institutions is clear evidence.
On the other hand, the earth is facing a potentially catastrophic situation ...a population explosion that is undermining the very existence of our species. Every single year a NET INCREACE of 80 million humans require food , shelter, space, water, education and health care. We are currently 6.7 BILLION humans and by 2030 we will have 9 BILLION people on this planet of finite size and limited resources. The massive enviornmental degradation that we are witnessing is the direct result of our ever increasing numbers and need for resources.
Notwithstanding, the Catholic Church still condemns condom use/ family planning. I hope it will wake up to today's realities, and very very soon.
Max Thurian was an orthodox French Protestant who only became a Catholic in 1988, just another opinion from another theologian. At this time in history such theologians as Max Thurian are a millennium behind in their way of thinking, and you might as well compare them to the orthodox Jews or the Islamic fundamentalists. Max Thurian conversion to Catholicism was just another win by the Catholic conservatives, much to the disappointment of the liberals in Rome.
You have asked me to respect your opinion, help me here to move toward to your request by kindly explaining to me how “Priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church is a gift”.
I have respect for the Catholic priest who out of his own free will chooses celibacy, as much as I have respect for a gay priest should he wishes to be so. I will have respect for celibate priests, as long as celibacy was not forced upon them by an outdated decision made in Rome a millennium ago.
As to “priests that are ready to make this gift to their brothers,” how do you see this so called self- sacrifice adding value to humanity?
I agree with you that no amount of legislation will eradicate abuses completely. Comprehensive legislation however is essential to render abuses unlikely and punishable. Legislation is a civil matter and the Church should certainly not be trusted to formulate legislation that will regulate it.
I agree that words come cheap and actions speak louder than words. The Church has always been forward in expressing sorrow, solidarity, etc but so far has done absolutely nothing to change its official policy on handling cases of sexual abuse as formulated by John XXIII in 1962 and endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. Read the relevant documents and perhaps you will understand why they have been decried as "a blueprint for deceipt" and a denial of basic rights.
I am not sure what your point about Christ's suffering on the cross is. I would identify that with the sufferring of the victims at the hands of the Church and not the perpetrators.
I strongly disagree with you that celibacy is a gift. It is only tradition, initially politically motivated and currently believed to be at the root of a lot of ills.
I cant agree with you more.
For sure the whole exposition by Thuran is much much more than your succint rendition. Please respect our intelligence and be faithful to the truth which we are all seeking and while re-reading make space for it in your heart. Priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church is a gift and you have to respect all the priests who are ready to make this gift to their brothers.
It is when words are accompanied by deeds that change happens.
The cost of effective contraceptives is miniscule compared to the cost of bringing up another child - in any society. There are numerous volunteer organisations world wide like the Red Cross, Oxfam, World Vision, Medecins sans Frontiers, etc that run excellent programs of assistance (comprehensive not just contraceptives) aiming to enpower and improve the lot of those less fortunate than us. We all owe them assistance. All Western governments, including the USA and Europe, have foreign aid programs and invest billions of dollars, as they should. Such splendid efforts are undermined by irresponsible comments from Church leaders imposing proscriptions on contraceptives even when they are life saving.
IVF programs are not only costly but highly specialised and require a lot of technical resources, unlikely to be available in underdeveloped countries. If they were, however, then each case will have to be considered on its own merits as in the West. If, in all probability, the benefits of offering IVF to the couple and to their society outweigh the drawbacks, then yes. Social and cultural factors however may well ensure that IVF is not priority number one.
@ George M. Sant: “Balancing effective contraception and IVF will ensure that both ultra-fertile and infertile couples stay as close to the projected regression line as possible.”
Who would fund (regularly) the contraceptives to the ultra-fertile couples in third world countries?
Would you propose IVF to infertile couples in underdeveloped countries?
And who would fund these interventions?
I was not discussing extreme cases at no point in time. Even a well to do business man in the west can face a situation of not knowing when the next meal will come, if something goes wrong, we're seeing it happening all around us.
I never had in mind the extreme cases of famine. I'm neither an extremist fanatic nor a heartless person :)
I guess I'll have to agree to strongly disagree. As for whose method is best, you only have to see a child painfully dying of forseeable hunger or disease to know.
I share your view that doing away with celibacy, by itself, is unlikely to eradicate paedophilia (I presume you mean from the priesthood obviously). The picture that is emerging points to a complex of causes that seem to centre around the Church's hang ups about sexuality in general. Its inhibition of all sexual activity outside marriage makes the seminary attractive to young men who have difficulty confronting their emerging sexuality and in turn inhibits their sexual maturation, leaving some neurotically ambivalent like Wolpe's cats. Celibacy keeps everything going in a maladaptive manner.
At the very least a review of the outdated prohibition of solitary sex seems necessary to minimise guilt about a normal and healthy activity. That and eliminating celibacy might go some way to attract to the seminary men with healthier and more robust attitudes. The ongoing prohibition of solitary sex is quite ridiculous, even for those who later choose marriage, given the realisation that it plays such an important role in the psychosexual development of adolescents and given that guilt about it at that age is the major cause of sexual dysfunction later in married life.
I am not sure what you are trying to say. If what happened pains you, then you should be striving to ensure the causes are addressed and reforms implemented to ensure such vile atrocities will not happen again. Especially the deliberate cover up by the Church authorities that has been going on for decades. From where I am standing the Church has an awful lot to learn from the teachings of Christ.
IVF deals with the other extreme - couples who do not have any children but are distressed because they do not. The primary aim of medicine is to relieve suffering where it exists here and now, as well as promote well being - physical and psychological. This is in contrast to religion which makes a virtue out of suffering, promising intangible rewards in return, and imposes guilt on top of your suffering if you do not remain disenpowered (resigned to the will of some supernatural and intangible force).
All IVF programs have strict guidelines as to who can be admitted, taking medical, social and of course political factors into account. The results are extremely rewarding and joyous, as any couple who have benefited will attest.
Balancing effective contraception and IVF will ensure that both ultra-fertile and infertile couples stay as close to the projected regression line as possible.
Might I end by expressing sympathy with the plight of your relatives which must have caused you personal distress too.
Re:IVF "Shouldn’t we let nature follow its course and not temper with it?". KC has already accurately and succintly replied but if I may expand, it all centres around a statistical phenomenon referred to as regression towards the mean. Knowing the size of our essential consumable resources, the rate at which they are being consumed and the rate at which they can be replenished, it is possible to fairly accurately determine the threshold for the fertility rate (population growth = increasing demand) to ensure the resources will not collapse. We should be reasonably all right if families limit themselves to not more than 2 children. People who already have 2 children and those at risk of having more (e.g. underdeveloped countries - also most famished for resources) should ensure effective contraception for their sake and the sake of humanity. Effective contraception excludes abstinence and the so called rhythm method. Neither is effective and both introduce quite a few problems that render them worse than useless, especially where they are needed most.
Man's dilemma/s, in his evolved consciousness is about managing his all pervading natural sexual drive, a drive that sweepingly iand very strongly involves all his five senses. Believe me, I've been there, I've done that. It has to be strong. For us to be here and the species to survive. The drive can be very destructive, often fatal. But it is the motor of life. A stallion that can NEVER be harnessed. Thence emerges the human condition. Religions have triedd by subterfuge, strict rules, prohibition, guilt-enducing admonishments, etc. They fail miserably.
A good thing, an essentially essential one, can not be kept down (pun intended) without dire consequences. Ask the great psychoanalysts. Most neurosis has sexual deprivation at its source. This brings me to Man's second but very much connected to, the sexual drive. Death.
Religions address this too. Deny your sexuality, do it ONLY as I tell you to, heap on the guilt.
Learn to endure suffering. Pray. Alone or as a duo, never trio. Eternal life promised.
Q.E.D.(?) Conclude.
One thing there is an agreement on, is that paedophilia is a cowardly criminal act, with long term psychological damage to its innocent victims.
Over the centuries the Catholic Church has invaded countries in the name of Jesus Christ, excommunicated its faithful, interdicted any clergy who had the backbone to stand up for what they thought is right, yet the bottom line is:
Catholic Church was and still is spineless to act against the perpetrators of this horrendous act, the criminal paedophile priests.
There is no excuse for inaction and cover-up. Shame, shame, shame!
I think that in some cases a 10% chance is still worth hanging on to, I am a mother so I know what it is like to be given a meagre chance for something happening right, ( I have been there) however the response should depend on the risks involved. However this is where I think we have to agree to disagree :) because the believer in God would put his/her faith and trust in God for that 10% positive chance. And the believer in God would also put their faith in God and rest assured that somehow that next meal will come. However as I said it is up to the couple to decide what is best for them, some choose to put their fath in God, others reason, some do a bit of both. I will not judge whose method is best. Probably the believer will call it a miracle or fate and the free thinker will call it chance, in the end the result is the same.
Off to do some gardening now :)
Are you basing your argument for celibacy in the priesthood on the assumption that Christ was never married? Firstly this is very debatable, depending on which gospel you read. Secondly, would the message of Christ be any different whether he was married or not? Are we saying here that Christ’s message when heard from a married Anglican priest or a Lutheran pastor is less valid? To complicate matters, the Mormons are polygamist and they believe that their Jesus Christ was also a polygamist.
Prior to the declaration in 1123 that priests were to be celibate, Roman Catholic priests were allowed to marry and have families. How could God's Word, which the Bible declares to be eternal, change so much over a period of time?
By the way, Christianity is not a monopoly of the Catholic Church.
Welcome back - I take it you've finished your major exam. How was it?
It will take some time to do a round-up - we seem to be going all over the place. But it's proving to be a very interesting discussion but very distracting.... I need to study!
"It might be deemed irresponsible for some to jeopardise the well being of their offspring however the keyword is 'likely to' and possibly 'likely not'".
What if I included a percentage...let's say 90% likely. Would they be morally entitled to take the risk. I wouldn't play dice with children.
Regarding material well-being, that would depend on its extremity. It is one thing not to afford cable TV, quite another not to afford the next meal.
As to who is to decide who can and cannot enjoy this gift/prerogative/privilege/right, of course that would be the parents (I already hinted that it would be a bad idea to legislate in this respect). However, while I would not condemn (usually people in such dire situations cannot think clearly about the consequences), I certainly would not condone.
To George M Sant's comment that "But then perhaps we are also opposed to IVF programs." you replied: "If you so adamantly declare that we should slow down population growth how is it that with the same breath you seem to support IVF programs?".
Nothing surprising or contradictory in Mr Sant's comment. Let me simplify matters this way:
Suppose the world has room (or resources) for 20 children. Suppose there were 3 fertile couples and one infertile couple who could be treated by IVF. If the 3 fertile couples each have 20 children and the infertile couple doesn't have any, the world woud be overpopulated (60 children). However, if the infertile couple is treated with IVF and all the couples have 5 children each (20 in all), that would be a sustainable number.
Sometimes it is helpful to use extreme examples to illustrate one's point of view.
Consider the case of a married couple who both have AIDS, making it highly likely that their offspring would also get the AIDS virus. Would you still say that every married couple have the right to have children?
Having children is not a right...it is a priviledge which should be used (if at all) responsibly and with caution.
As for the unfairness in all this, first of all, life itself isn't fair. Some are born healthy and into wealth, others weak and into poverty. Secondly, one doesn't address this inequality by some claim to an equal "right" to have children, but by working towards eradicating poverty and giving everyone access to education, thus addressing the source of the problem. Of course, this is easier said than done.
“Christ never married. His life is valid justification for the vocation to celibacy. Jesus Christ calls the laws of creation and of nature into question; he calls into question the law of the Old Covenant which sought to re-establish order in creation and in nature which had been disturbed by sin.”He does not, of course, abolish the order of creation, the laws of nature and the law of Moses but completes them all, conferring on these laws their deep, original meaning, a demanding, absolute sign, i.e., the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. That description of life in the kingdom, unrealizable on earth, is, you might say, a summons to perfection. “ It is HIS Church and not our Church
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_theol_en.html
We are not “blind calling white what is obviously black”. If this were the case we would not have declared our pain at the crimes committed against children. And our pain is greater because we know that these were perpetrated by persons who had vowed to follow Christ. Christ who dedicated his short life on earth looking out for the poor, the lowly, the needy, the emarginated. He healed, wiped out tears and yet who at the end suffered the most atrocious death. Which death was the fruit of betrayal, anger, envy, lies. Conversion means turning to Christ, allowing him to teach us his ways, to turn our heart of stone into a heart of flesh. Reform has to be closely linked to conversion in the sense I have just described. Otherwise our reform might turn out to be according to our ideologies, our likes, our dislikes. And again the Church is Christ’s Church not ours.
"however the statement 'It is my opinion that people who do not have the means to raise children relatively well, should not have children.' I feel is rather discriminatory..etc"
Just to be clear, I'm not judging anyone. We all know our own means and our own standards. However, when one is overconfident on "providence", it is the children who suffer.
As for any supposed "right to parenthood", I believe that there is no such right. One must always keep in mind that children are not possessions or property, and their interests when considering whether to procreate, trump all other considerations.
As for what happens if humanity sees it necessary to decide to stop procreating altogether, I already alluded to the near impossibility of this scenario. The urge to procreate is genetically ingrained in most people.
But just in case anyone thinks I am evading the question, what will happen if humanity stops procreating is that humans will cease to exist (like millions of other species did before us). It will happen sometime anyway, either through extinction (we're neither that special, nor eternal) or through the destruction of the earth (which will happen, naturally or through human causes).
There was no need for an apology. Voicing out a misunderstanding gives one the opportunity to explain oneself. If you had kept your thoughts to yourself, you would not have given me that opportunity. So I actually thank you for it.
I believe that in adult discussions, we should have few if any inhibitions on speaking out our minds. Keeping our thoughts secret only serves to cement any prejudices or misconceptions. For that reason, I'd rather have honest criticism than dishonest praise.
I agree with most of what you re saying however the statement "It is my opinion that people who do not have the means to raise children relatively well, should not have children." I feel is rather discriminatory. I do not think anyone is able to judge another's 'wealth', because what may be below average to one is above average to another. Moreover, how can one deny the right to partenthood on the basis of 'material' well being be it whatever quantity? Especially if nature takes care of these cases automatically.
Also it is true that "Ultimately, it's all up to us conscious and rational agents to choose the way we conduct our lives" but what if humanity sees it necessary to decide to stop procreating altogether..what then? How will the 'rational' speces survive? Here I agree with Jessica that there is some sort of innate obligation to produce offspring..otherwise why is the mechanism still there, would'nt it evolve itself into extinction if it is not needed anymore, like other features which were part of early man and disappeared? Could infertility be the onset of a natural process?if so should it be tempered with?
Yes John several experts in the field suggest a correlation between celibacy and paedophilia but in a complex way with other factors contributing. Might I refer you to an earlier submission addressed I think to Christine Galea.
Will be back later
If priests may be allowed to marry, no, this does not mean that paedophilia (for instance) will be eradicated. The pathological (strictly speaking, the real) form of paedophilia can only be controlled, and is not subjective to environment or circumstance. However, some of the people who abuse (sexually, for instance) children, do so only because children are comparatively a weak target. So no, instances of child abuse will still occur, but I am confident that they would occur less frequently (there will be much less abusers).
@SharonAbela
There you go, I did say I stand to be corrected, and I am absolutely amazed that the ratio of paedophile priests is that much higher than the general population.
I guess the question is, although celibacy is a fallacy, unnatural and unsustainable, is there a correlation between celibacy and paedophilia?
As for not specifically mentioning single parents (by choice), this was certainly implied. It is my opinion that people who do not have the means to raise children relatively well, should not have children. Of course, suggesting making this legally obligatory is not a good idea, for more complex reasons.
"Couples who fail to have children could be nature’s way to balance out population increase"
Actually, "nature's way" is much worse. It actually allows for more than sufficient individuals (of all species) to come on the scene (by being born), and allows millions to starve or otherwise die. If all fertile couples never practiced any means of birth-control (including abstinence), there would still be a huge overpopulation problem, much greater than what we face today.
But of course, "nature's way" is only a figure of speech. "Nature" is not a conscious agent, so it really has no "ways" of doing things. Ultimately, its all up to us conscious and rational agents to choose the way we conduct our lives.
Infertility has a biological explanation. It is not "nature's way" of doing anything at all.
"If married couples do not have a duty to 'create' children than who does?".
Nobody. A duty is something that is morally, legally or contractually obligatory. Childbearing does not fit in this category.
So no, married couples should not feel morally bound to contribute children to society? That decision is both private and optional. Of course, the urge to have offspring is widely disseminated throughout all animal species (otherwise, we and all members of other species would not be here).
I don't consider all believers who use the Bible as guidance, to be fundamentalists. That would make all Christians fundamentalists, and make the term "fundamentalists" at best useless.
My definition of fundamentalist would describe people who consider scripture as completely literal, unerring historical truth from which no part can be rivised, and which cannot be interpreted other than literally. I don't believe you are such a person, so you need not worry about that.
Of course, regarding being created in God's image, I believe in the reverse: People create their Gods in their own image (hardly surprising, since it is self-serving). We'll have to agree to disagree here ;)
Regarding the Church "forcing anyone to bear children", I would like to point out that I did not say so. All I implied is that the Church pressures married couples to have children (as anyone who takes a Cana course will attest).
I would also like to make clear that I also did not imply that the Church, consciously or unconsciously, sends the message that childless families are failures, even though the feeling is felt when one believes that childbearing is the reason for marriage.
Nature has also endowed us with intelligence and reason and the ability to control ourselves and our environment. The human race has overpopulated and more than filled the world. Resources are stretched to the limit and projections are dire. The responsible thing to do is to slow down population growth.
Children of single parents are indeed a burden on society and disadvantaged to boot. That is why it is essential to preach sound sex education and to make available effective contraception. It is a shame on our country the incidence of single parenthood is so high despite our religiousness and piety. Countries without such religiosity and much more liberal in their attitude to sexual matters have a fraction of the incidence.
Nature's way to balance out population indeed! A little bit of thought would show that there are not enough such couples to balance anything out. And shouldn't we, as Christians, have a little charity and spare a thought for the heartache and suffering that childless couples go through. But then perhaps we are also opposed to IVF programs.
Paedophilia is rare in the general population, less than 1:250000. It is on the other hand common among priests in the order of 4% to 10% with indications it could be much higher. That begs an explanation. It is not just a few rotten apples "snapping" and "yielding to temptation".
The relationship between celibacy and paedophilia is complex and has already been commented upon. Essentially the training of priests and the emphasis on celibacy leads to a state of arrested psychosexual development with psychodynamics identical to that of paedophiles, only in the priest this is an imposed condition and avoidable. Please read earlier submissions.
As for generalisations, the Church has known what had been happenning and, as a matter of policy, set out to hide, conceal and protect the perpetrators, anxious only to protect its interests and minimise damage, totally uncaring for the suffering of victims. It is hard to understand how anyone, however blinded by the dazzle of the Church, cannot see that reform is sorely required on this attitude and a host of other issues.
Luther's reformation had a lot of justification.
If Catholic priests are allowed to marry, that would not solve the paedophilia that is rampant in the Catholic Church.
As much as gay men are not paedophiles not all catholic priests are paedophiles, some are, some are gay, some are heterosexual, and very, very few are really celibate. I believe, and I stand to be corrected, that the ratio would be very similar to that of laymen.
As much as celibacy is unnatural it would not solve the problem of the abuse of children in the Catholic Church. What would solve the problem would be for the Church, local and Rome, to denounce the criminal abusers, stop covering up for them, stop transferring them from parish to parish and assist, in every possible and overt way, the police to prosecute them.
If their nature has, unfortunately, already been warped due to unnatural restrictions, it is doubtful whether they can, all of a sudden, revert to a natural behaviour. But the point is that it is not the “particular ones” you mention, who would benefit from a reform but the fresh aspirants to the priesthood, and the ones who struggle to conform to the rules of the Order, who would. Besides, I envisage an increase in the number of vocations because it is the vow of celibacy that deters some youths from entering the priesthood.
Temptation will always be a problem but it would have to be dealt with the same way any other person would. There is no clear-cut solution in anything in life. One just has to do one’s best. Obviously if perverse practices are committed they have to be dealt with accordingly.
I am very disappointed with your statement: "Ultimately I feel it is up to the couple, in conscience (an informed conscience) and after referring to the advice of their doctors/spiritual advisors/etc who need to decide what is best for them".
Could you please elaborate what you mean by “an informed conscience”? If conscience is the ability of deciding what is right or wrong, who will determine if that conscience is “an informed” one or not? Will it be their spiritual advisor, what if the spiritual advisor is a Muslim or Hindu, would that change how well informed the conscience is?
Why can’t we allow people to decide what is best for them without judging them?
What matters is that if couples choose to seek advice, they need to ensure that the person advising them is informed and trained, such as a practicing psychiatrist/psychologist specialising in such matters.
I have two questions...
1. Let us hypothetically say that priests may be allowed to marry..will these particular ones, still refrain from committing these crimes, I mean in the same manner that some married Catholics commit adultery, or some Catholic men/women commit child abuse? Is it a qusetion of celibacy ...or something else?
The church (not just priests but also lay people) is made up of an array of diverse individuals. Some are bound to 'snap' and yield to temptation while others are not. The ones who succumb to temptation have to be brought to justice! BUT we need not go by the dictum of 'mal hazin jehel it -tajjeb' (sorry but I cannot think of the english counterpart to this).
The other qusetion is..
2. Was the reformation (at least some of it) brought about by Luther worth opposing in the end? If the answer is no then should the church consider reforming itself? and if the answer is yes can the church afford to risk another schism?
Part 2.
Obviously I would agree with you “that couples, who have loads of children who are then raised through social benefits,” are irresponsible (a situation that is getting to be rare, however). I would go further and say that children born out of wedlock and raised by a single parent are an even bigger burden on society (and becoming more frequent unfortunately). But you do not mention this fact, which I am sure you realize is more alarming. Some children are being born, to young teens, with father unknown. How much more irresponsible is that?
As to your observation that childless couples would feel that they are “failures”, one could look at it from a different angle, which might not go down well with childless couples, and might even seem heartless, but since this is a discussion, one can voice an opinion. Couples who fail to have children could be nature’s way to balance out population increase. (???)
Part 1.
If married couples do not have a duty to “create’ children than who does? Shall we just accept the fact that nature has endowed us with the physical ability to procreate and then left it up to us whether to have children or not. Setting aside the religious aspect, shouldn’t married couples feel morally bound to contribute children to society?
Continued….
I know my reply will lead to a barrage of comments but I'll say it anyway - at the risk of sounding 'fundamentalist' or whatever names we believers are called. I don't consider myself fundamentalist but these are my beliefs - which were originally handed down to me, true. But which, as I grew up, I assimilated, learnt more about and hence try to live accordingly.
Human beings are created by God in his image and after his likeness Gen 1,26. which means that we are called to be co-creators with him. Just as God's love is creative and fruitful, so too married love is called to be creative and fruitful. This is the logic behind the Church's teaching. They are not forcing anyone to bear children. Nor does it imply in any of Church's teaching that are married couples who are unable to bear children are failures. LIke we've said many times the Church bears a responsibility to guide.
I understand that your beliefs are not the same as mine Kenneth so it's not important that we agree on this! Let's just continue to show respect towards each other's beliefs like we have do so far :)
"Ultimately I feel it is up to the couple, in conscience (an informed conscience) and after referring to the advice of their doctors/spiritual advisors/etc who need to decide what is best for them".
I would leave out the "spiritual advisors". They don't have the expertise (unless they are qualified counsellors) and its none of their business. I am stating this as a matter of fact, and not out of any disrespect.
"I rather feel that by its teaching, the Church is calling parents to shoulder the responsibility entailed by their vocation".
And here is where they are very wrong. No married couple has any duty (to whom?) to "create" children. Not to mention the fact that by calling childbearing a "responsibility" of married couples, one would indirectly send the message to those who cannot have children that they are "failures".
Married couples do not owe children to anyone. In fact, it certainly seems that couples who have no children out of choice act more responsibly than couples who have loads of children who are then raised through social benefits, and who are disadvantaged because the meagre means of subsistence have to be shared by their multiple siblings.
I am grateful for the appearance of my latest comments. Ever so grateful. I write as I think so it is not a big deal (hence the typos, mistakes, and so on. But hopefully, no lapsuses(?) lapsusae(?) - whatever). But it is not exactly effortless. The letter only appears on screen at the push of arthritic fingers. Thankfully, I touch-type, painfully).
The second part of my comment of 3 hours 31minutes ago (Starting, John Falzon) will, I am afraid have to wait till later. I have a meeting at the 'Coven of Heathens' soon and further discussion aftwards in the pub - soda water for me please barman. I am poor and I do not believe in taking mood/mind-altering substances. Kenneth Cassar has promised me a Kinnie if ever we meet. Have a good evening all. Be good and careful always. I love you all. I really do. Now where's that hankie? The one with the broderie anglaise? Yeah, that's the one. Still damp from the last session. Un bel di` from Madama Butterfly always has that effect on me.
Is the reputation of the church and of paedophile priests more important than the protection of children, the most vulnerable members of our society?
Good to hear you are so enlightened. A lot of people are not. A lot of priests still preach fire and brimstone. A lot of people are sufferring unnecessarily.
The Church's teachings on virtually all aspects of sexual morality, including celibacy, is archaic and in conflict with our current knowledge of human nature. The sexual act is primarily a form of communication between two people. In the modern world that has to be kept distinct from procreation if marriage is to be fulfilling. Do not just consider the Western World. The Church's prohibition of contraception is doing untold damage in the underdeveloped world and literally costing lives. It deserves the harsh criticism that it has copped from Health Organisations world wide as well as from Catholic governments.
The fundamental issue is the power-centric, monarchical, feudal structure of the Church in a world where accountability is paramount, its mesogenism in a world where women have fought hard to be regarded as equal humans, its rigidity of thought in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary and its haughtiness and punitiveness when criticised, while proclaiming to serve a merciful, loving, forgiving God.
While I cant deny that historically, there has been some emphasis on guilt in the Catholic mentality/teaching (I am old enough to remember one of my nannas speaking very much in terms of 'God's punishment'' with a strong emphasis on hell), I daresay that the accent today is more on a merciful,loving, forgiving God. At least that's they way I see Him.
Re the church's teaching on contraception. I feel that here a strong pastoral approach is recommended. While the Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically wrong because it violates one of the 'goods' of marriage, ie that the spousal act should be open to procreation, again I daresay that each case merits its own consideration. Ultimately I feel it is up to the couple, in conscience (an informed conscience) and after referring to the advice of their doctors/spiritual advisors/etc who need to decide what is best for them. But to refer to this teaching as "irresponsibility" on the part of the Church is an exaggeration at most. I rather feel that by its teaching, the Church is calling parents to shoulder the responsibility entailed by their vocation.
I too wish you well :)
You are clear. You are denying that you are in denial! (Only joking).
"The Church...should not be seen only as an organisation...but rather..it should reflect his (Christ's) teachings". Here we have a yardstick. Is the Church's conduct consonant with that teaching?
You are trying to dissociate the "rotten few" from the Church. Unfortunately the rest of the Church, the hierarchy, ignored what was happening, turned a blind eye to the suffering of the victims acting only to preserve its image and prevent scandal. Is that what Christ would have done? And beyond this issue, the irresponsibility of the Church's teachings on contraception, its mesogenism and homophobia, the emphasis on guilt (a very effective means of controlling minds). Christ as I remember defended and consoled the sinner telling him not to worry "and by the way you are healed as well". Is the Church following suit?
I am sorry but where you see beauty I see oppression. Perhaps because I had to nurse too many people whose lives and relationships have been twisted and ruined by their Catholic guilt.
I wish you well.
Religion and homosexuality are incompatible. Religion overloads the baggage. The homosexual walks. Away. If he is wise. Leaving himself free to explore and quote. Himself.
I never said people should not quote. But there is quote,. And there is quote.
Tradition is strong (eg hunting in Malta) and overrules reason. It is in the grip of non-reason so it persists. The Church cannot recognise this or won't. The Church is mainly about sugaring the pill popularly known as the Human Condition. This, and given Man's evolved consciousness, revolved round Man's painful experience of his very painful, ever-present
conflict with his sexual urges - the motor of life which can never go away nor ever be resolved, by definition - and his awareness of his own demise. All religions address this.
And fail. cont./
I am still waiting for the second half of my comment centring round sexuality to appear. The first does not make any sense without the second part. If this appears I will send again. If not, I will not bother at all any more on this tread.
" You can and you should be critical of something you love."
I don't know what you understood by my contribution but what I tried to say is that the Church (which yes, I do love and stand in awe of but not to the point that I don't criticise it, if I feel, in my opinion, that something is amiss) should not be seen only as an organisation or a structural institution, but rather it is the living presence of Jesus Christ and hence it should reflect his teachings; and the believers should live the values transmitted by the gospel.
I am certainly not in denial. In my opinion, the abuses which Fr Joe has written about are tragical crimes against human dignity and I feel that the perpetrators should be called upon to bear the consequences of their actions. I hope I'm clear on this.
Upon reading your fervent submissions I was at first bewildered then nearly moved to tears. How can people who are obviously intelligent and sensitive, insist on remaining blind and calling white what is obviously black. Then I remembered that denial is the primary psychological defence mechanism against shock and trauma. If someone close to us, a spouse or a child, were to be accused and convicted of a serious crime, our instinctive reaction is disbelief. "No..It cannot be..He is not like that..They have it in for him". It helps to ease the pain and perhaps it would otherwise be very hard to cope with such tragedies. But keep it up for long enough and it becomes a delusion that hinders adjustment. It would be that much better to confront reality, see what needs to be done and do what we can.
Nobody is asking you to relinquish your beloved Church or beliefs. But in the end you would serve your beloved Church that much better by being active members contributing to its direction and not just stand in awe of its authority. You can and you should be critical of something you love.
I can only wish I had your articulate and knowledgeable way of putting the message across. Thank you for your contributions.
Indeed why would an altar boy, abused by his peer and protector, stay within the church? Why does a prostitute go back to her pimp, only to be repeatedly beaten all over again?
Catholics in Malta, like Muslims in Iraq, like Jews in Israel, and Hindus in India are nurtured to follow their religion, culture and tradition; it is all a matter of geography! Had I been born (god forbid!!!!) in the U.S. Bible belt, I would have been a Creationist Christian Fundamentalist!
The hungry in Africa, are happy to stop believing in the Witch Doctor and change to any religion that “saves” them by feeding them, and so we would all. Very few have the courage to cut the cultural umbilical cord, unless, like me, they see the “light on the way to Damascus”.
Thanks for your views on Marriage, love and sex. I could have written them myself, except that I, perhaps lazily, said that it would take me several pages...so I backed out.
You managed to give a very good general idea in three posts. So thanks again.
Having said all that why we are discussing marriage and romance when we should be discussing celibacy? The two have been connected together by the notion of temptation and sin. And more importantly the notion that with grace one can go through anything. But why should one feel condemned to a life of misery for no good reason other than observe rigid archaic mores that we know today are based on false premises. Why should an institution presume to tell you how to conduct your life? That is the evil of religion. The indoctrination that makes us see as shining what is in effect rotten, to turn a blind eye to abominable crimes.
Point taken :)
Having to make love to someone you do not love is soul destroying not just "annoying". No it is not a duty. A woman owns her body and her mind. The duty is to examine the causes, share concerns with the spouse and attempt to resolve the situation one way or another, with external help if necessary.
Extramarital relations are often a symptom of problems within the relationship. The cause needs to be addressed honestly. Confessing transgressions and doing penance will not achieve much.
Much can be done for an ailing relationship. At times breakdowns are irretrievable and then the best thing a couple can do is separate. Staying together for the sake of morals or the children, is destructive, especially for the children, many of whom will then grow up to have problems in their relationships later on.
"Does love justify sex? Or does marriage justify sex?". Perhaps they are a trinity, three aspects of the same thing. But why talk of sin? Isn't it more illuminating to talk of causes and consequences? Knowledge about the psychology of human relationships has mushroomed over the past 50 years. It supports your contention that sex is most fulfilling within the context of a sound personal relationship. Casual sex rapidly becomes dull and can affect the ability to bond.
A good sexual relationship is essential for any relationship to thrive. Without it resentment builds up rapidly and becomes destructive. An excellent sexual relationship can cover up a multitude of deficiencies in a relationship that may reappear later in life when the sex drive dwindles. Late middle age is a dangerous time for marriages, also because a couple have more face to face contact and fewer outside interests.
Falling out of love is dead easy, especially once children arrive, altering the dynamics between husband and wife, unless the couple work on it consciously and deliberately. They must continue to court each other. Freedom of sexual expression becomes a must. Usually this means effective birth control.
@MG. Buttigieg
"It is only the Church that gives out light, by giving us Jesus Christ, making him alive and present in the world making him come to life through the faith and prayer of men, sustaining and giving a criterion without which the world will not make sense. "
How can a church that is sullied by immoral and criminal collusion be Christ's church ? A church that proclaims to be the beacon of social justice and moral authority cannot at the same time justify oppressive occlusion of immoral action, that becomes collusion. How can one view such a church as reflecting the beacon of Christ's light ?Naive and puerile statements from Church dignitaries about the suffering of the weak have not helped the Church's cause in this case. It is painful and confusing for Catholics. It works against the spirit of Catholic reconciliation with Christ and the members of his church.
The church needs renewal, conversion , but it needs to embrace this faith through reason too not cling on to frustrating equivocation.
If I say something it is because I believe it, know it, whatever. If another disagrees with me because of faulty lead-up....then yes, I respect his/her expression but not the contents. 'Faulty' being the operative word. Until such times of course when I can change the 'faulty' to 'correct'. Then I will change my mind unconditionally. So, to recap, there is a vast difference between respecting the teapot and respecting the spout. I do not do euphemism. I do atheism. It is ground-breakingly simple. One must try everything once. And not repeat if found to be wanting. It is so simple it is banal. Now you do not have to respect any of this. How carefully you read it is up to you entirely. After all you read everything carefully. Constraints on one's time and all that. If, when, how your read it is up to you. As is what you make of it. All yours.
Thank you for your much appreciated comment. With our limited view, and seen through distorted lenses we are so eager to point fingers and throw mud at the Church. But your comment has rekindled the flames that were threatened to be extinguished by some sad situations within the Church.
Your comment has revived my hopes and re-established my faith in the Church – the Church I have always loved and respected.
"We cannot view the Church as an institution in need of reform"!!?? Forgive me, but are you for real? I am afraid your waxing lyrical only shows how blinded you are by your infatuation with the Church. Do not consider that you are championing its cause. Nor are you doing yourself any service by being so blinkered in the face of the massive problems that have been unearthed.
Your Church will be best served by those who can take a hard objective look and see the Church as it really is, warts and all. Once the warts are acknowledged then perhaps a remedy can be found for the benefit of all. So long as the Church continues to insist only it is right, no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, and to impose its will on its faithful to their detriment, it will continue to dig an ever deeper hole for itself. Catholicism, remember, is the fastest shrinking religion - and for good reasons.
The exact prevalence of the problem is difficult to measure accurately for reasons ranging from censorship to reluctance to report. The figure of 25% (should be 24%) comes from an article by Prof Richard Sipe on The Myth of Celibacy. Numerous findings and statistics are quoted one of which is that 24% of priests in a particular diocese in Arizona were "accused of abuse". Sipe himself has carried out 3 surveys using different methodologies and came up with 6%, 7% and 9% respectively. The last study (Murray and Sipe 2007) seems persuasive as it relies on documented cases not surveys. The figure of 9% must be considered conservative, given that some dioceses witheld some data and allowing for underreporting. An assumption of 12 to 20% would not seem unreasonable.
Other studies by other authors have given figures varying from 4% to 10%. These are all USA studies and need not necessarily apply to other countries.
Prof Sipe is a retired Benedictine monk and a respected forensic psychiatrist with extensive experience in child sexual abuse by the clergy. His website address is http://www.richardsipe.com.
Trust this proves of interest.
Thank you for sharing that with us. It reminded me of something I read in Catholic Outlook Jan08 which I’ve unearthed for study purposes. I hope the author (Fr Rene Camilleri) won’t mind my quoting it to shed light on what you’ve written.
“For the past 40 years particularly in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, we have been talking perhaps too much about reform and renewal in the Church. But experience and the reality around us show that the Church actually needs to be refounded”.
Pope Benedict rightly claims “we cannot view the Church as an institution in need of reform”. Christ remains alive through his Church – his people. It’s up to the believers to keep the defining features of Christianity alive. The priorities that should be established in the building of the Christian community should be those of the Gospel.
If I may link this with Fr Joe’s topic, then I would say - yes, such events shock us because they are so far from the true spirit of Christ’s vision of the Church. We are humans and humans err but ultimately, everyone must face up to the ramifications of their actions.
I'm not surprised. I actually had to read it 3 times myself to make sure it "made sense" :P
Regarding that celibate people are not faithful to anyone, yes, the issue does arise if the person breaks the vow. But then, he wouldn't be celibate anymore, would he?
Don't put too much thought on this...it's the kind of mind game that is supposed to be confusing and in a sense contradictory ;)
______________________________________
@ Jessica DeBattista:
Interesting (even though I don't believe in sin, but would perhaps replace it with "moral wrong"). I won't attempt a reply, though. It would take several pages ;)
We cannot view the Church as an institution in need of reform. Reform in its original meaning refers to a spiritual process akin to conversion. It is only through conversion that one becomes a Christian. This is valid throughout the life of the individual and through the history of the Church.
Joseph Ratzinger Papa Benedetto XVI Perche siamo ancora nella Chiesa, Rizzoli
I. I have sat back to appreciate the debate in Fr. Joe’s last blog. Thank you all. Fr. Joe’s present contribution has been the cause of pain for those who love the Church. Not least to Fr. Joe himself. Faced with such sad facts one might ask “Why do we still remain in the Church?” This question is the title of a book by Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI. Please allow me to share with you his answer to this question, hereby freely translated and greatly compressed.
In our attempt do understand the Church, we have come so close as to loose sight of the city which is beyond and above the houses. We have lost sight of the forest while wandering among the trees. In looking through the microscope at a small part of the tree we have lost sight of the whole tree. What we see in the microscope is true but we must not forget that this truth forms part of a greater truth which is the whole tree The tree cannot be viewed in its entirety under the microscope, yet it is real, more real than that small part which lies within it.
Goodness me, I had to read it about three times...you have a way with words :P
Regarding your argument that the celibate don't need to be sexually faithful to anyone... if this person took a vow to remain celibate, the issue does arise ifif he or she breaks the vow. Sometimes these people go through anguish even by just feeling attracted sexually to someone.
Kenneth, since you seem to like to do these mind convolutions, here’s some food for thought:
(Others are welcome)
Sex outside marriage is a sin;
Sex in marriage with somebody you love is the most wonderful thing imaginable;
Sex in marriage with somebody you have fallen out of love with is "annoying" but a duty;
Sex with somebody you have fallen in love with outside marriage (unfaithful) although also wonderful, is a sin;
When does sex become a sin? Does love justify sex? Or does marriage justify sex? :-))
This won't prove anything...just a logic "mind game" if you wish, regarding what's most difficult: being sexually faithful or celibate.
Someone who chooses celibacy might find celibacy hard, but must find being faithful easy (since the issue does not even arise). On the otherhand, one who is unfaithful (and therefore finds being faithful difficult) must find celibacy more difficult because he finds it impossible to be celibate if he is to be unfaithful.
But then again, the whole logic comes crashing down when one notes that the celibate person can be said to be sexually faithful to no one, so, for the celibate, being sexually faithful is not only hard - it is actually impossible ;)
Just a play on words...though it might be funny ;)
I agree with you. In my earlier comment, I mentioned that throughout the millenia, God chose many married and rich people to carry out the plan of Salvation. Not just celibate and poor people.
"Re your last point: I'll skip commenting 'bl-addocc' if you don't mind - I need to form an opinion on it first :)"
Fair enough...that's the right attitude. Just a clarification: When I wrote "A homosexual would have to change religion", I perhaps should have written "religious denomination" instead of "religion". There probably are Christian denominations that accept homosexual relationships that include sex.
This applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Homosexuals fall in love like everybody else. cont./
You've given much food for discussion, thank you. Just a small observation: I was not advising, but merely expressing a personal view. I really don't feel qualifed to continue with a full-scale discussion on this topic I'm afraid.
You've expressed some valid points but some I don't agree with (as a matter of opinion).
It really is far too complex for me to express my views seeing that I am not properly informed on the subject.
At this stage, I shall just continue following the discussion inkella nkun pruzuntuza :)
"Science is not a religion"
Actually there's no mistake - I did intend to write that way, but now that you've pointed it out, you are right - science is not a religion.
Re your comment that celibacy may be harder than fidelity - I'm sorry I don't agree. I think it's relative - what is hard for some could not be so hard for another. (I don't know if I've expressed myself clearly).
Re your last point: I'll skip commenting 'bl-addocc' if you don't mind - I need to form an opinion on it first :)
Advising aspirants to not become priests if they cannot be celibate is logical but, unfortunately, superficial. When young men choose the seminary they can hardly be called mature. Furthermore they make their choice at a time in life when their sexuality is emerging. Adolescence, as you know, is a period of turbulence, anxiety and confusion about one's identity and sexuality. Research has shown how the vast majority of men entering the seminary are resonding principally to their fear of sexuality, seeking refuge behind its walls. Another substantial proportion, are responding to their covert homosexuality and a small minority are psychopathic but submissive, seeking power and influence and seeing the priesthood as a means to that end. From then on they are indoctrinated into the evil that is sex outside of marriage, the futile need to suppress normal, healthy, biological drives. The result is they never develop psychosexually and retain infantile objectives for their psychosexual drives. Exactly the same as paedophiles, only in the priest it is an imposed and avoidable condition. Add the absence of counselling about and preparation for the difficulties of celibate life and you have the recipe for the massive disaster we are witnessing.
"...science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion".
I would remove the "other" before religion...I will take it that it was a mistake, and was not put there intentionally. Science is not a religion.
I happen to agree that when one approaches science with an unscientific attitude, one might also be subject to dogmatism...but then, it would not be science. Organised religion, on the otherhand, is inherently dogmatic - hence its ongoing and recurring trouble with new scientific knowledge, only because most dogmas were written at a time of primitive knowledge. This makes it "necessary" for any religion to "take its time" to "adapt" to new knowledge and the knowledge's relevance to morals.
Regarding fidelity to one's spouse being a struggle for some, I agree that it could. However, I trust you understand that celibacy (imposed on priests and demanded with the threat of hellfire on homosexual people) is much harder (as well as an unreasonable demand with no benefits).
And consider this: A heterosexual may freely decide not to become a priest (to avoid celibacy). A homosexual would have to change religion. I would love to read your comments on this.
I trust you understand none of my comments were meant to be taken personal. I admire your honesty, open mindedness and flexibility. I most sincerely hope that neither you nor any other mother in the world will have to face that hell. Regrettably however, the incidence of abuse being what it is (some surveys reported an incidence as high as 25% with another 20% of the clergy engaging in illicit and non-consensual homosexual relations with older teenagers) a lot of mothers and sons are going to be hurt until effective measures, not just words, are put into effect by the Church.
They are indeed sad stories and I understand the point you are trying to make. But re:
"Celibacy can be good for some but can be a difficulty for others". I agree completely: but by that same yardstick so is fidelty towards one's spouse a struggle for some. Maybe the wisest solution would be if people with these difficulties (celibacy/fidelity) are mature enough to recognise that they are not capable of living celibately or faithfully (whatever the context) and not choose a vocation (consecrated life/marriage) where they are required to exercise it.
"Please note I quote my commonsensical self. I don't do Vatican. Or Catholic Perspective. I do clarity of vision.Very hard work. Onus on moi. Join the club. Up to you."
I very much appreciate that you like to quote yourself and I always read what you write very carefully, same as I do with the other readers' comments:) However, I hope that you can at least appreciate that everyone has his or her own style of acquiring knowledge and sharing it. I find reliable and well informed sources - mostly books - very helpful when it comes to topics on which I am not as knowledgable as I wish to be. I read, and then form an opinion. When I quote or refer to these books (or sites) I cite my sources. It's legitimate.
Just because you dont "do Vatican or Catholic perspective" doesn't mean that others can't. Each to his own. At the end of the day, M. Scott Peck (I often like to quote him as a source - great stuff) says that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion.
Let's please listen to one another with and respond with respect.
I know that you said "I don't think so", and I appreciate your honesty. It's just that, perhaps because I sometimes think about such stuff (and read on similar ethical issues), I feel I am prepared to make the right decision if I were faced with such a situation. I trust that you would too, particularly now that you have the opportunity to think it through.
I also appreciate your recognition that the analogy (Bishop/mother) is not a very good one.
But hopefully, none of us would be in that predicament.
Stoicism (Vicky-Pedia)
V
Stoic doctrine was a popular and durable philosophy, with a following throughout Greece and the Roman Empire, from its founding until the closing of all philosophy schools in 529 AD by order of the Emperor Justinian I, who perceived their pagan character to be at odds with his Christian faith.[4][5]
Footnote: Never went to Uni. PhD what? Achieved all I ever needed for an ongoing clear vision. It's called the university of life, gingerly stepping over the debris and keeping to the road less travelled.
I had no intention of preserving the good image of the Church when I wrote my comment. I was only trying to understand why the Church did not take steps to act against the abusers, by putting myself in a similar situation – something that I often find myself doing before I make up my mind one way or the other. However, your comment has touched me deeply and, God forbid I find myself in the situation as you describe it, I would definitely not be ready to preserve the image of the Church.
@Malcolm Tortell: “Hushing things up leads to repeat abuse and further traumatisation of the victim. This is my opinion based on ten years of clinical experience”….’
It goes to show how out of touch I am with this reality.
Any institution or individual covering up crime, is “aiding and abetting” and can be an accessory when that individual or institution has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support.
If the Catholic Church and its followers believe that trying “to preserve the integrity of the family by hushing up the scandal because I am in duty bound to protect the good name of the rest of my family” the Catholic Church is one very sick and criminal institution.
Galea. Beware intellectualisation of the motor of life.
Confessional. One confesses, one forgives. Penance? And back to sin. Like a toilet, convenient. Need, insight into fallout of sin (envy, hatred, etc.). < psychological savvy. > sin no more. Too empowering, too subversive. Therefore haram (forbidden). Thence, criminal clergy need due legal process, like lawyers, policemen, politicians. But to the church, this too subversive (to it). Solution - transfer to outpost. And pastures new.
Understanding human sexuality equals harnessing it to manageability. Celibacy as a vocation Christine. Malfunctions. OK to say homosexual. Saves one precious word of measly 200.
Jessica, this is 'world'- shattering discussion. One either reports or one doesn't. Dilution of values no option. Protection of wayward offspring, siblings, spouses, cousins four times removed is primitive. Feral. It is 2009. We are neither primitive nor feral. Aren't we?
Christine. Please note I quote my commonsensical self. I don't do Vatican. Or Catholic Perspective. I do clarity of vision. Hard work. Very hard work. Onus on moi. Join the club. Up to you.
It might help you to reconsider if you were to look at the situation from a different angle. If someone close to you were the victim of clerical abuse and if the ecclesiastical authorities were to turn a blind eye, if not attempt to put the blame on him and you, what would you do? Would you still be so keen on preserving the good image of the Church?
You have no idea what victims of abuse by the clergy go through. Many will end up psychiatric casualties. Many will never recover. Others will end up dead. When they grow up they will almost certainly have difficulty entering into a close trusting relationship. Is the image of the Church worth all this?
The Church's approach leaves a lot to be desired. Intimidate the victims and hush them up. Dispatch the perpetrator to another parish where he is not known and where he can start afresh. That is collusion and it is inexcusable.
Hushing things up leads to repeat abuse and further traumatisation of the victim. This is my opinion based on ten years of clinical experience so yes I am pulling rank :)
And with all due respect I find the idea of hushing things up to protect the good name of the family misguided at best at utterly despicable at worst, besides which it doesn't work, ever. What usually happens is that the perpetrator goes on to strike again....and again, and again. Just like what happens in the Church in fact....
I have really put my foot in it with my last comment! What a tirade! Allow me some breathing space please - this is only a discussion after all :-)
Kenneth, If you re-read my comment you will find that to the question I asked myself “Would I report my child to the police?” my answer was “I don’t think so”, an answer which leaves room for re-consideration. It is not as if I said “I definitely would not”. See the difference?
As to the analogy I put forward, I agree with you that “Bishops are neither real fathers, nor mothers, so they don't have a natural urge, developed evolutionarily, to protect their priest "sons"”
I mean where do you draw the line?
The victims are sons/daughters odf parents too.
I agree with you totally with regards to what you see aas the root of the problem though.
Some would argue that confidentiality in confession is based on history and tradition and is not sacrosant. The issue of legally compelling priests to breach confidentiality in cases of paedophilia has been considered by some governments believing that the safety of children overrides tradition. Just as medical practitioners are legally bound to breach patient confidentiality and report cases where public safety is suspected to be at risk. In one instance Churches (Protestant and Catholic) narrowly averted the passing of legislation by indicating they will refuse absolution to penitent paedophiles before they turn themselves in to the police.
Incidentally, that is one of the reasons why I believe the Christian confessional is actually harmful. If I know that a particular priest is the only witness to my crime, all I need to do is confess to that priest in the confessional.
Another harmful effect of the confessional would be that it possibly exposes weak individuals to abusive priests.
In any case, I believe that if a God exists, He wouldn't need a priest to forgive sins...He wouldn't even need anyone to even ask for forgiveness...but anyway, I'm going slightly off-topic.
However, since the confessional is a reality, I can understand cases where priests cannot breach confidentiality (same applies to lawyers, doctors etc.).
That said, usually abusive priests are not found out in the confessional...and I'm glad you agree on what should be done in this case.
"Bishops are morally duty bound to report paedophiles".
I agree with you on this. Unless of course, the person (be it the perpetrator or the victim) reveals his/her actions to the bishop within the sacrament of Confession. Then confidentiality must be held paramount as with other sins (even crimes) that may be admitted to during confession.
Looking at it from another perspective, the lesson learned by the son/priest would be: It does not matter what I do...I have protection. Does that really help anyone?
"But he would still remain my son whom I love".
I too am a mother. I agree that as mothers, we remain loving our children whatever they do. But I feel that in some situations even the most loving mother is called upon to practise "tough love" with respect to her children.
You correctly suspect that many of us will disagree with you.
Would I report any family member to the police if he rapes or otherwise physically abuses someone (especially minors)? - I certainly would. Of course, I would also seek to provide professional psychiatric help (usually this is also assigned by the court if found necessary - there are professionals assigned by the courts to decide on such matters).
I would also keep in mind that my primary duty is to the victim and to justice, and not to the "good name of my family". I find thinking otherwise quite egoistic, but hey, we each have our own morals.
Of course, I wouldn't judge a mother who tries to protect her son (although I would not condone her actions). That said, Bishops are neither real fathers, nor mothers, so they don't have a natural urge, developed evolutionarily, to protect their priest "sons". Priests are not the sons of Bishops. The relationship between Bishop and priest is no different to that of employer and employee. And one does not usually seek to justify employers who protect a rapist employee.
Bishops are morally duty bound to report paedophiles.
Last point: although it is not proper for celibates to express their love genitally, this in no way implies that they cannot love (or express love): it takes a great deal of maturity to love another person deeply and at the same time without sexual intimacy and exclusivity (I won’t say ‘of the opposite gender’ lest I be lambasted by some for being discriminatory towards people who are not heterosexual). Granted, this might not be an easy thing to achieve; but one might also add that neither is the level of fidelity, that is required in marriage, easy for some people to live up to. My opinion: either we are prepared to live within the limits of our vocation or not.
The other major human love is ‘freeing’ love, the kind of love which loves without expecting anything in return (both married and celibate love needs to be freeing). In marriage, the mutual love is more stressed whereas in celibates there is more emphasis on the freeing love which makes their life-style so distinctive.
The life of a celibate person (priest, nun, consecrated layman) is a style of prophetic witness that calls for a different lifestyle than say, that of spouses. In my opinion, after reading all the comments I feel that a person (celibate or married or even single) needs to give witness within the ambit of the vocation to which he or she is called. Vatican II made the point that the call to holiness is universal and this norm must guide our theology of the states of life.
For those wishing to read more I have found this book extremely insightful: “Sexual Morality: a Catholic Perspective, Philip S Keane, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin 1980)
@ Jessica.
“The root of all this evil can thus be traced to the imposition of celibacy when human nature is not meant to suppress its sexual inclination".
I don’t have too much time on my hands (pity - interesting debate!) but allow me to make one observation which everyone seems to have missed, ie. human sexuality – for celibates, as for everyone else – is a great good and gift of God. Celibates are called to serve God and their fellow men as sexed persons, not as people whose sexuality has somehow been neutralized and taken away. The love which celibates bring the world is profoundly qualified by sexuality.
The difference with celibates lies in that (as sexed persons) they are called on to love in a different way to say, a married couple who express their love genitally. Having said that, at core, in every human life, two major kinds of love function: one of these is the love of ‘mutuality’, the love that is given in anticipation of a return from the beloved (just as married love involves mutuality, so does celibate love, because even celibates very much need human caring and support).
I deplore the sadistic acts categorically and it hurts to even hear about them happening. But the Church is composed of imperfect human beings same as the whole lot of us and we all make mistakes which are not easy to rectify once they have been committed.
As a mother, and taking the nucleus of the family as an analogy in relation to the institution of the Church, I would like to reflect on what I would do, if a member of my family were to degrade the integrity of the family in such a way.
Would I report my child to the police? - I don’t think so. I would most certainly constrain him to have psychiatric help and I would ostracize him from any contact with the object of his base acts. But he would still remain my son whom I love.
I would also try to preserve the integrity of the family by hushing up the scandal because I am in duty bound to protect the good name of the rest of my family.
That is the way I see it, but I’m sure you won’t agree.
As for the situation in parts of Africa where "many local priests have official homes, children and have accumulated private properties." and where "celibacy is foreign to African culture" I say not only to African culture! One male missionary told me the exact same comment about the behaviour of priests in Brazil and other parts of South America.
It is time for a reform.
Good point about celibacy and homosexuality Kenneth.
Most experts would agree with you that the sacred cow of celibacy is the root of a lot of the evil we are becoming aware of. With most of the young men entering the seminary being motivated primarily by a fear of their emerging sexuality, seeking comfort and safety within its walls, and having it drilled into their heads from day 1 than any form of sexual activity outside of marriage is a mortal sin, it is hardly surprising they suffer what Prof J A Loftus, a Jesuit priest and a psychologist, calls "arrested psychosexual development". The theme is echoed by Prof Richard Sipe, a well respected forensic psychiatrist with tremendous experience in cases of abuse by the clergy, having been hired as an expert witness by both the Church and Attornies General. Based on his research he describes how the Church "freezes people in an immature stage of psychosexual development".
The object of the sexual drive remains infantile, as it is in the paedophile, only in the priest it is imposed and can be avoided. Can we hope that the Church will listen?
"The Church covered up sadistic practices within its institution, not to protect the abusers but to preserve Its image the least untainted possible"
How on earth can you come up with such a naive assumption? If you cover up a crime, you are in collusion there is no other interpretation. ! Collusion with the abuser is criminal. The abuse was prolific, the Irish church chose to ignore and hide it for decades if it weren't for a very brave victim. The Maltese church has not done that much more. It is not a case of anti clerical sentiments but disillusionment with the institution that should be moral arbiter. If you cannot set your house in order don't assume you have the moral high ground. That is one of the dichotomies in ecclesiastical behaviour and policy. I agree with Malcolm Torltell, perpetrators need to be brought to Justice whether they are ordained priests or not , victims need redress from the law otherwise we speak of untouchables. Where is the social and moral justice in that ? And we keep asking the rhetorical question of why people are willing to embrace Christ but not Christ's Church !
Does it make it any easier for victims to realise that the motives of the Church for covering up the abuse it had known was happenning in its institutions for decades, was more noble than Macchiavellian and merely intended to preserve its image?
"The root of all this evil can thus be traced to the imposition of celibacy when human nature is not meant to suppress its sexual inclination".
Completely agree...although one should logically extend this statement and question the reasonableness of imposing celibacy on homosexual people when homosexuality is their human nature.
What is your opinion on paedophile priests in Malta? Do you believe that when there is suspicion of one, the Curia should report him to the police? If not, why not?
The other bad practice within the Church in Africa, looks tame in comparison with the above for although priests are bound by the vow of celibacy, yet human nature being what it is, consensual sexual relationship between man and woman does not qualify as scandalous as the above.
In a culture where celibacy is alien to its people, the natural course would automatically be to seek a sexual partner. In a culture such as Ireland where tradition is strong on the adherence of celibacy, sexual frustration takes another direction – the venting of anger and sexual abuse on weaker individuals.
The root of all this evil can thus be traced to the imposition of celibacy when human nature is not meant to suppress its sexual inclination
In my opinion the main reason for sexual relationships, paedophilia and physical abuse by priests in the Catholic Church is the requirement of celibacy. As to priests having accumulated undeclared properties and money, the reason, in my opinion is the requirement of poverty.
My opinion is formed from the Word of God. I know that there are many who disagree with my opinion, but as for myself I believe that making celibacy and poverty a REUIREMENT to serve God, is unscriptural.
If one just looks at the people God chose and used throughout the history of Salvation, we find many married and rich personalities. All of us who are born again are priests, that is, we have all been anointed with the Holy Spirit. We are a race of priests and we await the return of our High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, God doesn't require us to be celibate and poor!
Much better than the other contributor on Campus FM, who, whilst codemning the incidents tried to play them down by commenting that even the British parliment, in view of the recent scandal,committed mistakes[sic] and not just the RCC.
These comments angered and dissappointed me.
As for the church doing more good than harm, debatable at best, especially if looked at historically. My guess is they break even...
Finally the only thing that will make a difference is when priests are taken to court and subject to criminal proceedings. Might I suggest that there be a similar clause to when, for example, policemen commit a crime that they are "duty bound" to prevent.
@ TG Curmi. And your point is?
Congratulations on your courage to confront what must be a painful subject and for a splendid effort to present a balanced view. The important question is will the church ever introduce reforms needed to minimise the chance of such abuse ever happenning again? There is nothing new or particularly shocking about these "recent revelations". Books have been written and films made about abuse of children by the clergy in institutions. News of sexual abuse of women and children by the clergy in Africa have been filtering out with monotonous regularity for years. The official policy of the Church remained one of "utmost secrecy", as formulated by John XXIII in 1962 and endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001, documents circulated to every bishop round the globe.
And are "priests and bishops who abuse..in the absolute minority"? Several surveys of child abuse by the clergy are now available, some commissioned by the Church itself, reporting an incidence between 6% and 25% with another equal proportion engaging in homosexual relations with older adolescents and young adults. Maybe there are saints in the Church but it is very successful in generating an awful lot of sinners.
If there is no admission that the problem exists it can never be fixed. Unfortunately paedophilia within the Catholic Church is not just an "Irish or African disease", it is a pandemic.
We now need Rome and the local Curia to have the courage to act, and stop covering up criminal activities.
Obviously, this is in no way intended to minimise the wrong done (for example in Ireland), and the tremendous hurt of the victims.