The sex abuse scandal has increasingly entangled Pope Benedict XVI and Vatican in allegations of the cover-up of molesting priests. Now, one case has directly implicated the Pope after it was learned that in the 1990s then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger effectively spared an American molesting hundreds of deaf boys. The then Cardinal received letters from Wisconsin priests asking him to move against the Reverend Lawrence Murphy, who worked at the St John’s School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin. He appears to have blocked efforts to defrock Murphy.
The disclosure came as part of litigation against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In 1996 Murphy’s case was forwarded to the the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger, who declined to act on the case even after the Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, asked him to defrocked the priest.
Notably, the Pope’s right hand man, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (now his Vatican’s secretary of state) had ordered a canonical trial but that was stopped by the Pope after Murphy wrote to the Pope asking for mercy. He wrote to the Pope that he was in bad health and “I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood . . . I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” He appears to have gotten the assistance that he sought. He was able to live out his days as a priest.
This is the second major abuse case tied directly to the Pontiff this month, here.
UPDATE: The Vatican has issued a statement denying the allegations vis-a-vis Murphy, here.
For the full story, click here.
Buddha,
Your last post was polite. Thanks for that.
Buddha,
And the assumption that those repeated results apply to every other condition like those tested. Probable? Yes. Impossible to be absolutely sure? Yes.
And the assumption that the various criteria for testing don’t work symbiotically.
And the assumption that observable results are the same here as they are everywhere.
Etc. Etc. Science requires at least a LITTLE faith. Science seems airtight. But the way it can be practically applied makes it impossible to be so.
Regardless of whether it’s perfect or not, you have failed to address whether you feel mocking the basics of other religion is justified, save for a few posts yesterday that claim you know better than they do because you have science. Again, I submit even if science IS flawless, you do NO good by making fun of the basic tenets of other cultures. That was the foundation of our dispute in the beginning and you’ve failed to address it still. Stop setting up strawmen, attacking me, and diverting the issue.
Buddha,
And the assumptions that those repeated results apply to EVERYTHING
Science requires no faith at all.
No matter how much you believe it, Jake.
Science requires only three things: a theory, a test and a repeatable result.
I should requalify the above (for I realize now how the discussion changed): disagreeing with religion is fine, as long as it’s done appropriately, but MOCKING religion is stupid. That’s what the discussion was at the beginning and what I’ve been trying to assert. I still stand by the fact that trying to convince anybody is stupid, but MOCKING is what is counter-productive and destructive.
Elaine,
I agree. Scientists are generally more open to validating their experiences. This does not imply scientists do not require faith in their methods, though.
All,
I think you missed the point: Science requires faith. Because science requires faith, even a speck of it, science is incapable of refuting religion. This is because science is, in fact, an imperfect method of isolating truth. I never said we CAN’T know anything. I said that because science is imperfect, we don’t know anything YET. When you come back with a perfect science, I’d be happy to hear your criticisms on religion because you’ll be able to show everybody why their cultural truths suck.
Most of you have set up straw men. Science is imperfect. This makes it cultural. To attack a peaceful culture because you think your culture is better–even if it IS better–makes you a HORRIBLE person and contributes nothing to either society. In fact, it does far more harm than good. But maybe that’s not what this is about at all….
Maybe I have this all wrong. Maybe this isn’t a discussion of why we shouldn’t assert “we” have the truth. Maybe those posting just need to hear how awesome they are. Buddha has already proved he’s here just for that. Should I give you what you want or do you want a genuine discussion? Stop the insults or this could get uglier than you’ve already made it.
He he.
I’ll let The King of All the Gods take offense and make just and terrible retribution as he deems fit. The Harryhausen “Clash” was just on last night – do we need any more proof of the Supremacy of Zeus – he was played by no less than Olivier himself!
😀
Polls show that self-identified atheists, agnostics, and those with no religious preferences are WAY up in the past decade. Curiously, this is the same time frame as the rise of outspoken atheism.
The hills are alive with the sounds of deconverted Christians ‘testifying’ about their newly found freedom on freethinker’s forums.
You use the word “fundamental” as if belief in God is a ‘necessary’ component in one’s life. Clearly this is not true, although, religion may be ‘fundamental’ merely because it is inculcated at a young age. (As it must be, because it is very difficult to convince a rational adult of such clap-trap). This does make it more difficult to deprogram people out of the cult – your own thought processes here in this thread give good evidence of this. Challenging the closely-held initial premises of people will always seem divisive. Tough.
Gingerbaker,
As a worshiper of Zeus, I was curious as to if you were offended by Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightening Thief? And do you plan to protest the remake of the Harryhausen classic Clash of the Titans?
😀
Why do people with such a profound misunderstanding of science, such as Jake, insist on demonstrating their ignorance so profoundly in their tortured defenses of religion? It’s like watching a deer in the headlights – they are somehow compelled to commit rhetorical suicide. Jake – take some intro biology classes, for Zeus’s sake.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-priests27-2010mar27,0,325493.story
From the LA Times . . .
Catholic abuse scandal edges closer to pope
The problem is no longer an American aberration, and Catholics want to know what Pope Benedict knew when he was archbishop of Munich.
By Mitchell Landsberg and Henry Chu
March 27, 2010
Reporting from Los Angeles and London – First, it was an American problem. Then, an Irish problem. But as the scandal of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests has rocked continental Europe in recent weeks, observers inside and outside the church have begun to recognize that it is now very much a Vatican problem, one that is creeping ever closer to Pope Benedict XVI.
“The focus now is on Benedict,” the U.S.-based National Catholic Reporter wrote Friday in a strongly worded editorial on the scandal. “What did he know? When did he know it? How did he act once he knew?”
Jake–
“Science places much faith with several assumptions. The first of these assumptions is that man can understand everything in the universe.”
I’d say that people who have faith in science observe carefully, read, experiment, reflect, ponder, theorize in an attempt to understand everything they possibly can about the universe. They don’t close their minds to science and to new discoveries as the believers of some religious groups do. If every person were as close-minded as said religious folks throughout history, we’d still think we lived in an Earth-centric solar system, believe the Earth was flat, and would probably never have made the technological, medical, engineering, and other advances that humankind has made over the centuries.
Buddha–
I watched that Bill Maher video clip this morning.
Christoper Hitchens on Real Time w/ Bill Mahr: The only worry [the Pope] had was ‘Would this damage the church?’ Would it hurt the church–not the children. Now what I want to know is this: what is the attorney general of the state of Wisconsin now going to do? Are we going to say these people are above our law. I appeal to people. I mean, that’s what’s being asked for. If you’re a clergyman, you’re not liable to the laws…. Don’t let’s call it child abuse. It’s the rape and torture of children.
From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/christopher-hitchens-cath_n_515657.html
Mespo pretty much hits the ball square there, Jake.
Don’t feel bad though.
Deepak Chopra tries that tack all the time. And while it may sell books to some unwilling to throughly examine the illogic of that assertion, it gets ol’ D chewed up by critical thinkers every time.
Do you think a mob was required to dispense with you?
I have some bad news.
If I hadn’t disarmed your disingenuous tactic, there are plenty here who could have done just as well or better. All by their lonesome too, sport. Be glad Bob didn’t get a hold of your dog and pony distraction show. He leaves nastier bite marks than I do.
Gödel was correct in that for any given system there must be facts that are true but unprovable. He is correct because his numbers check out, i.e. they withstand mathematical proofing. He proved that not everything is knowable. The logical corollary of this is than some things are knowable. This is not a proof of the existence of God either. What it really means is that while we can know a lot about the universe, we cannot ever model all of it with certainty. Although he was addressing number theory, what Gödel had found was also a reflection of quantum mechanics. While the macroscopic world behaves in patterns that are discoverable the sub-atomic world is governed by probability. Probability is the very language of certainty. If you think perfect certainty is possible, I suggest looking into the term “absolute precision” as well. You’ll find quantum mechanics makes this impossible as well.
Everything is not understandable nor indeed discoverable. And being creatures of the physical world, within the system, we will never be able to “proof the universe”. However, you posit a “supreme being” based on your belief. A being that made and has a hands on role in the universe. To prove this, you need to know everything about how He/She/It accomplished this feat. To prove the existence of God requires one to proof the universe.
This is not mathematically possible. We have proof of at least that much.
What we can do is maximize our knowledge of the universe. What we cannot do is perfect that knowledge. If we could, we would be Gods ourselves. Unconstrained by the Incompleteness Theorems and all other physical laws because we would have a perfect model and know how to manipulate it like any other equation or system.
Consider that the universe is a container in motion. Like a car. It is moving in the direction of the arrow of time, it has internal moving parts and we have access to the cabin. We can turn on the air. We can tune the radio. We can logically deduce some of the functions under the hood. We may know some well enough to manipulate them, like changing the fuel ratio in the engine by pressing the accelerator. However, we cannot know the systems under the hood with certainty as we cannot look under the hood while the car is in motion or from inside the cabin. As a consequence, some of our models about the engine will be correct, some will not, but none will be perfect because we can’t access the internal parts directly and see for ourselves – like a being outside the car, the physical universe, could perhaps do.
You suppose “belief” is true not because it’s verifiable but because of “conviction”. A belief by definition is not a fact by being an absence of proof. And while an absence of proof is not a proof of absence, a belief is not a natural law by the mere power of your conviction. If this were so, psychotics would really be able to fly without mechanical assistance. They believe they can fly (or any other number of insane and/or irrational beliefs). They may believe it with more conviction than your faith could ever muster because their minds are broken.
Their belief will not trump gravity nor will yours.
Just like your conviction can never overcome your lack of proof.
While science cannot disprove God, neither your belief nor your conviction can prove the existence of God either. It is, in the end, an assumption in addition to being a belief. Psychotics believe they can fly. Science and logic can prove that they can’t. Gravity. Power to lift ratios. Aerodynamics.
Science? Religion?
I think I’d prefer the rule book that has verifiable rules with some degree of predictability over the rule book that requires no proof, only belief. Belief can get you killed a lot easier and for much dumber reasons. If you doubt this, ask the dead soldiers created by Bush the Incurious being “told by Jesus” to invade Iraq.
Oh, that’s right. You can’t. Because some slow-witted rich boy’s belief got them killed.
You can stamp your feet about your belief all you want and trumpet your conviction all you like. At best, it’s an unprovable assumption. And unprovable assumptions are nothing more and nothing less than unprovable. You expect others to “take your word” and to do so “based upon your conviction” instead of “your proof” – of which you have none. That’s hardly persuasive speech. “Trust me.” Uh huh. Some is better than none when it comes to proof. Even if that some is imperfect.
Or feel free to test out that flying belief for yourself. Muster up some conviction and take to the air like bird. And like I said earlier, be sure to give us a ring once they take off the body cast. If you want to be smart about it and avoid the cast? I suggest try taking off from the ground for your maiden voyage.
Safety first.
None of this detracts of the crimes of the Pederast Pimping & Protecting Pope.
From Huffington Post, 3/26/2010
How Could It Happen? Tracing the Causes of Sexual Abuse by the Clergy
by Rev. James Martin, S.J.
Catholic priest and author of The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything
Excerpt:
The terrible revelations of sexual abuse in Ireland and Germany have confirmed the reality that the abuse of children by clergy is not a phenomenon confined to the United States. Nor, as Kieran Conroy, the bishop of Arundel and Brighton in the U.K., stated recently, is the crisis a media creation. “It is real,” he said. “It is a reality.” Outrage among the Irish and German public is the predominant, natural and justified response. But buried beneath the shock and anger, especially for Catholics, however, is a searing question: How could this happen?
There is an important resource that may begin to answer this question: the detailed analysis of the roots of clerical abuse in this country, which was conducted by The National Review Board, the group of lay people who researched and reported to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2003. Some questioned the independence of the board, but I think that their situational analysis, carried out by committed and highly qualified lay Catholics, is accurate.
Looking at what the National Review Board viewed as the root causes of the crisis in this country may shed light on what happened in Ireland and Germany and elsewhere. On the whole, the board’s analysis is about the most accurate and insightful that we have about the American situation. Of course, these are presented by the board as reasons, not excuses. There are no excuses for these crimes.
The board asked two main questions. First, Why did so many priests abuse minors in the U.S.? Second, how could the U.S. bishops have dealt with the issue so poorly, or not at all? Regarding the first question, as I far as I understand, roughly 4% of U.S. priests from 1950 to 2000 were accused of abuse. This is slightly higher than that in other professions, including those who deal with children, like schoolteachers. (Most abuse of course takes place within families). But any number is too high and leads to the question of how, especially in a religious organization committed to helping others and living out what Christians call Gospel values, this could happen.
The board answers how so many priests could have been abusive by looking at two causes. (Their responses are in boldface. My own comments follow their points.)
Read the rest here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/how-could-it-happen-traci_b_514965.html
Jake:
“So you feel confident engaging in the conversation only after the mob has formed? Nice try.”
*****************
Crowds typically form when people observe something so stupefying that their collective curiosity compels the formation – like a man teetering on a building ledge about to jump. That’s a fair metaphor for the rationale you’ve employed in postulating that because we don’t know everything, we can’t know anything. You can hardly blame the crowd for commenting on the madness that it is witnessing.
Elaine,
I agree.
Mespo and Buddha,
So you feel confident engaging in the conversation only after the mob has formed? Nice try. Thumb your nose as much as you want against a “softened” version of the world, but it doesn’t change the fact that an asshole is still an asshole at the end of the day. My point was that an attack on FUNDAMENTAL belief systems is counter-productive and a contributor to division. I have yet to see a “deconstruction” on that idea.
Further, your and Buddha’s analysis of science is largely unbalanced. Here is a portion of a paper I wrote years ago. It’s bad. But I think it applies:
Science places much faith with several assumptions. The first of these assumptions is that man can understand everything in the universe. We are under the impression that man can solve everything based on our own abilities to observe everything accurately, and then discern correct working models and theories based on what we’ve seen. Well what if there is more to what we can actually perceive? To me, there is more evidence to suggest that our own faculties are something that we cannot rely on for absolute truth. Let me draw an example. When Aristotle created his composite ‘world-view’ of physics he created a theory (which eventually was proven ‘fact’), which was based only his observations. To modern eyes, his theories are ludicrous. Yet based on the tools and observations he made at the time, his theory became ‘truth’. Many argue that as our capability to observe has progressed from Aristotle’s time, it will progress from our time hence. I say that reliance on such an idea does not only help prove my point that scientists rely on faith, but it does not prove that we will be capable of observing everything in the future.
Another example of an assumption used in the scientific method is reductionism. This states that the whole of one process is equal to the sum of its parts. We assume that because we can make one observation, that that process has a quantitive affect on the whole functionality of some greater process. But I call up another example: What of the old adage “Two oxen pull more than twice the strength of one”? I consider that there are synergetic forces at work in nature that we cannot directly measure…easily. This throws off our whole system of scientific production. There are forces behind the forces we measure that we cannot measure. There are several other assumptions that I could list, though I find the time I have for this brief synopsis limited. We rely on such assumptions, proving our own faith in science.
Next, science relies heavily on the acceptance of theories as ‘true’. Since science uses a sort of inductive reasoning introduced by Aristotle, we come to theories and declarations for general principles based on a limited number of observations. We simply have to have faith that these observations are enough to ‘prove’ the theory as enough, though it can never fully justify us considering any theory as truth. Darwin and his theory of evolution comes to mind. Based on a limited number of observations, Darwin suggested that organisms can evolve. This idea was taken farther by consequent scientists who suggested that all species evolved in time into the present plethora of life we observe in the biosphere. What evidence do we have that suggest this general principle is true? We have observations, which create a powerful argument, but we must assume that these observations can be applied ‘universally’ to all species and all life (this is also known as uniformitarianism, another assumption made). Also, we have to accept other theories that scientists produce as ‘true’ so that we can progress further in science. We rely on it, until it breaks. This requires faith.
Gents, walk with confidence now that this society agrees, but know it’s a cowards way of looking at the world to tear others down by your “obvious” superior intellect.
Buddha,
Try a bread machine!
Buddah…..
If it’s good home baking that you’re looking for I know a gal who is often referred to as ” Martha ” by her friends…I think I might be able to set you up 🙂