British author blasts the new atheists, "secular inquisition"

by Carol Olson
Ignatius Insight

Yeah, yeah, yeah—yet another hyper-reactionary papal apologist whining and complaining about how the Pope is being treated:

It’s worth asking why otherwise fairly intelligent thinkers get so dementedly exercised over the pope and the Catholic Church. What exactly is their beef? What are they objecting to? Very few (if any) of the pope-hunters were raised Catholic, so this isn’t about personal vengeance for some perceived slight by a priest or nun. And despite their current lowdown, historically illiterate attempt to equate a priest fondling a child with a state’s attempt to obliterate an entire people – under the collective tag ‘crime against humanity’ – the truth is that some of these pope-hunters don’t really think child abuse is the worst crime in the world. In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.

But what do you expect from a brainwashed pope-worshiper who refuses to acknowledge The Truth about Benedict the Cover Upper and the Vile Vatican Filled With Old, Perverted Men?

The reason this crusade is so hysterical is because it is not really about the pope at all – it is about the New Atheists themselves. The contemporary pope-hunting springs from a secularist movement which feels incapable of asserting a sense of purpose or meaning in any positive, human-centred way – as the great atheists of old such as Marx or Darwin might have done – and which instead can only assert itself negatively, in contrast to the ‘evil’ of religion, by posturing against the alleged wickedness of institutionalised faith. It is the inner emptiness, directionless and soullessness of contemporary secularism – in contrast to earlier, Enlightened and more positive secular movements – which has given birth to the bizarre clamour for the pope’s head.

Secularism is in crisis. In Enlightened times, progressive secular movements, those which eschewed the guidance of God in favour of relying on mankind to work out what his problems were and how to solve them, were all about having a positive view of humanity. Their vision was both terrifying and extremely liberating: that man alone could master the complexities of life on Earth and improve it for himself and future generations. Today, however, we live in misanthropic, deeply downbeat times, where mankind is looked upon as a greedy, destructive, unreliable force whose behaviour and thoughts must be governed from without.

Well, sure, what else could you expect from an ultra-right-wing, atheist-hating Romanist?

This is what drives their war against religion: an instinct for ridiculing those who still, unlike contemporary secularists themselves, have an overarching outlook on life and a strong belief system. That is really what they find so alien about the Catholic Church in particular – its beliefs, its faith, its hierarchy. An atheism utterly alienated from the mass of humanity and from any future-oriented vision can only lash out in an extreme and intolerant way against those who still seem to have strong beliefs: the religious, or the ‘deluded ones’, as the New Atheists see it.

Pah-leaze! Stop the papal propaganda already!

No doubt some will accuse me of ‘defending paedophile priests’ in contrast to the New Atheist campaign on behalf of ‘powerless victims’. In truth, my only concern, as an atheistic libertarian—

Uh. What? What?? You're not a Catholic? You're a former Catholic? And an atheist? Really?

Yes, really, he most certainly is all of that. Brendan O’Neill, the editor of spiked, is a former Catholic and an "atheistic libertarian" who has been sticking his neck out on this subject for a while now and who deserves some kudos and thanks for good Catholics, in my estimation. There's no doubt all all that O'Neill and Catholics disagree about a whole host of very significant issues, but his analysis of the ongoing media furor—"witch-hunt", he calls it—is all the more powerful because O'Neill is not trying so much to defend the Catholic Church (although he is doing so), but because he is trying to save a form of rational, reasonable atheism, and he sees the attacks by Dawkins, Hitchens, and Co. as being anything but rational and reasonable. And he's right. Is he right about there being a viable form of rational, reasonable atheism to be lived in today's world? Well, that would be a fascinating topic for a conversation over a pint, but for the time being it is worth noting that non-Catholics—non-theists!—are capable of some excellent insights and cool reasoning about all of this. Again, bravo to Mr. O'Neill, to whom I tip my hat, once again.

La crisis de la pederastia en la Iglesia en 1.001 palabras

Y la respuesta de Benedicto XVI


ROMA, domingo 25 de abril de 2010 (ZENIT.org).- El New York Times (NYT) publica (12/3/10) que en 1980 la archidiócesis de Múnich y Freising, siendo Joseph Ratzinger obispo, acogió y finalmente reincorporó a un sacerdote acusado de abusar sexualmente de niños. El cura perpetró más tarde nuevos abusos y fue procesado. Como se ha demostrado después, quien tomó la decisión de readmisión no fue Ratzinger sino el vicario general: la reasignación tuvo lugar en septiembre de 1982, cuando Ratzinger ya estaba en Roma .

Por las mismas fechas (5/03/10) se intenta implicar al hermano de Ratzinger, pero la acusación no se sostiene.

La respuesta de Benedicto XVI

Benedicto XVI (19/03/10) escribe una carta a los católicos de Irlanda sobre los abusos a niños y jóvenes por parte de clérigos, destapados por los informes Murphy (julio 2009) y Ryan (mayo 2009). Irlanda es el segundo país tras Estados Unidos donde se investiga a fondo.

En la misiva, Benedicto XVI apunta 8 causas de este desastre: 1) inadecuada respuesta a la secularización, 2) descuido de prácticas sacramentales y devocionales (confesión frecuente, oración diaria y retiros anuales), 3) tendencia a adoptar formas de pensamiento y juicio sin referencia suficiente al Evangelio; 4) tendencia a evitar enfoques penales de las situaciones canónicamente irregulares; 5) procedimientos inadecuados para determinar la idoneidad de los candidatos al sacerdocio y a la vida religiosa; 6) insuficiente formación humana, moral, intelectual y espiritual en los seminarios y noviciados; 7) tendencia social a favorecer el clero y otras figuras de autoridad y 8 ) preocupación fuera de lugar por el buen nombre de la Iglesia y para evitar escándalos.

A las víctimas dice: "Habéis sufrido inmensamente y eso me apesadumbra en verdad. Sé que nada puede borrar el mal que habéis soportado. (...) Es comprensible que os resulte difícil perdonar o reconciliaros con la Iglesia. En su nombre, expreso abiertamente la vergüenza y el remordimiento que sentimos todos. Al mismo tiempo, os pido que no perdáis la esperanza". A los sacerdotes y religiosos que han abusado de niños: "Debéis responder de ello ante Dios todopoderoso y ante los tribunales debidamente constituidos". A los obispos: "No se puede negar que algunos de vosotros y de vuestros predecesores habéis fallado, a veces gravemente, a la hora de aplicar las normas, codificadas desde hace largo tiempo, del derecho canónico sobre los delitos de abusos de niños. Se han cometido graves errores en la respuesta a las acusaciones".

Benedicto XVI propone cinco medidas: 1) un año de penitencia, 2) redescubrir el sacramento de la Reconciliación (la confesión), 3) fomentar la adoración eucarística; 4) una Visita Apostólica (una inspección) en algunas diócesis, seminarios y congregaciones religiosas; 5) una misión para todos los obispos, sacerdotes y religiosos. En otras palabras: hacer limpieza.

Más cargos aún

El 24/03/10,NYT apunta directamente a Benedicto XVI como responsable de un caso, cuando era todavía cardenal: el de Lawrence Murphy, que abusó de niños sordos en los 70 en Milwaukee y no fue condenado ni por la justicia ordinaria ni por el arzobispado. Como se ha visto después, la falta de diligencia en el castigo del malhechor fue culpa del propio arzobispado local: el caso no llegó al Vaticano hasta los 90. El sesgo de la noticia periodística puede explicarse por errores de traducción y porque el artículo bebe de dos fuentes: los abogados que han denunciado al Arzobispado (uno de ellos, Jeffrey Anderson, tiene litigio abierto contra la Santa Sede) y el arzobispo retirado de Milwaukee Rembert Weakland, en activo cuando sucedió todo.

El 2/2/10 Associated Press lanzó otra acusación contra Benedicto XVI, cuya pruebas se demostraron falsas. El 9/4/10 volvió a la carga NYT con más acusaciones, con igual suerte.

En resumen, las acusaciones contra la Iglesia son tres: 1) algunos sacerdotes católicos abusaron de niños, 2) muchos obispos lo ocultaron, y 3) Benedicto XVI es personalmente responsable. Con datos en la mano, el n. 1 es lamentablemente cierto en una ínfima minoría del colectivo; n. 2 se afirma en determinados prelados y n. 3 es rotundamente falso.



Las consecuencias

Algunos piden juzgar al Papa por encubrimiento, y aprovechan para suspender al catolicismo en su conjunto. Otros de funesto recuerdo ya habían intentado, tiempo atrás usar los delitos de unos pocos para desacreditar a toda la institución. Algunos abogados intentan sacar provecho. No han faltado voces amigas del Papa desde el judaísmo, desde el agnosticismo y, en general, desde ambientes intelectuales.

El Vaticano ha puesto sobre la mesa la información que tiene. Tal ejercicio de transparencia ha llegado al extremo de que el fiscal del Vaticano hable sobre los casos de abusos en una documentada entrevista. La Santa Sede ha publicado los reglamentos por los cuales se juzgan estos casos y abundante documentación.

Dentro de la Iglesia, ha habido partidarios de la ruptura y partidarios de la renovación. Ruptura: 1) algunas voces reclaman una revisión del celibato y de la moral católica, aunque expertos y opinadores incluso no católicos han denunciado con datos la inexistencia de tal vinculación causa-efecto. 2) exponentes antirromanos de cierta edad han reclamado la dimisión del Papa o una reforma.

Renovación: muchos han aplaudido el posicionamiento de Benedicto XVI de tolerancia cero, petición de perdón y penitencia y conversión. Muchos católicos han salido de la perplejidad buscando la verdad de los hechos. La operación limpieza iniciada años atrás ha retomado impulso: desde la carta a Irlanda han dimitido dos obispos irlandeses, un americano, un alemán, unnoruego y un belga. El liderazgo interno de Benedicto XVI es mayor ahora: se percibe Benedicto XVI como parte de la solución, y no parte del problema.

Además de la Iglesia, pocos han priorizado la protección de las víctimas y las medidas para acabar con la pederastia. Es una lástima, tanto más cuando se constata que es un problema transversal: afecta más gravemente a muchos otros colectivos sociales. Países como Alemania, ya lo afrontan globalmente. Algunos articulistas han apuntado a la culpa que en la extensión del fenómeno haya podido tener la revolución sexualde los sesenta y su simpatía declarada hacia la pedofilia.




Zenit Link: http://www.zenit.org/article-35118?l=spanish
Por Marc Argemí, creador del blog http://bxvi.wordpress.com/

The Resurrection Puts Everything Together Again

Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | The Resurrection of the Lord | April 4, 2010

http://ignatiusinsight.com/features2010/schall_easter_apr2010.asp

The events of recent weeks—the enormous concentration of power now vested in the Executive Branch of our Government, the effective lack of checks and balances, the cost of it all—sometimes make the truths of faith seem irrelevant. This sense of helplessness is exponentially increased for many when they realize that those who call themselves Catholics have played a central role in bringing about this increasing absolute rule among us. We might be somewhat consoled if this were a system imposed upon us by some alien or demonic power. But, at bottom, it is the result of free choices of presumably otherwise normal citizens. We also might console ourselves that it may not be as bad as it looks were it not for the suspicion that it is in fact much worse. We just do not want to know.

Catholics could have prevented this radical political turning, but in fact many were and are supportive, indeed enthusiastically so. The key issues of the faith are no longer considered to be basic public issues. The teaching authority of the Church, even when it is clear, is ignored or relativized. We are encouraged to "move on." Generally, this admonition means accepting or accommodating ourselves to what are now taken to be settled facts no matter what they are.

We are becoming like Jews and Christians in Muslim lands. If we politely agree to have no effect in the public order, if we submissively pay the taxes to support this new system, we will be allowed to survive after a fashion. We can have a private, not a public presence.

Easter, the commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ, goes on, of course, no matter in what the social or political order in which we find ourselves. The teaching of Easter is needed if we would make ultimate sense of our lives. Intellectual history, in one sense, is a desperate effort to find a sensible alternative explanation to Christian revelation. The modern mind is, in a way, embarrassed that it has not come up with such an alternative that makes as much ultimate sense as the Resurrection. But, of course, this teaching is the consequence of a fact that happened not of our own making. We might, in some sense, say that it was prophesized to happen, but that does not change the astonishing fact.

Various theories are proposed to explain why the Resurrection "cannot" be true or could not have happened. We have historical analyses seeking to demonstrate that Christ did not exist. Or if He did, He was only human. The evidence of His resurrection is called unreliable. The Apostles dreamed it up after the fact.

Then we have the scientific theories, all of which strive to prove that this doctrine is incoherent, that it lacks evidence that can be repeated or tested in a laboratory.

We have psychological theories which reduce the objective order to wishes or dreams. Volumes have been filled with endeavors to "prove" that this event could not have happened, did not happen, or may not happen.

The truth of the Resurrection, however, is seen as a critique of the actual public order, which it is. The fact and teaching of the Resurrection of Christ and of our own as a result are, none the less, teachings independent of the historical time or place we now live. They belong to the order of things that will happen whether we believe it or not. Nothing—no political or social order—will be more important than the understanding of our being implied in resurrection. This reality teaches us what each of us is. The Creed says that "we believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting."

We can rightly assume that the teaching of the resurrection of the body is a minority opinion. We can also suspect that few see any relation between how we live our lives and what this doctrine is about. It has been the abiding task of the teaching Church to relate doctrine to practice. Things will not "go" rightly if we do not live rightly. We will generally not live rightly if we do not think rightly.

We are given intelligence in order that we might understand what we are. We are given freedom in order that, understanding what we are, we might choose to be what we are. This combination of reason and liberty results in the possibility of our choosing to reject what we are.

Why would we reject what we are? We would do it if we did not want to be what we are intended to be. We can only choose this rejection if we think we can come up with something better. We are inclined to think this way when we suspect that the kind of being and end that we are given interferes with something we think we want.

We will thus reject what we are in order to establish a way of life and explanation that depends on nothing but ourselves. "As man grows up and becomes emancipated, he wants to liberate himself from this submission and become free and adult, able to organize himself and make his own decisions, even thinking he can do without God," Benedict XVI recently observed. "Precisely this state is delicate and can lead to atheism, yet even this frequently conceals the need to discover God's true Face" (L'Osservatore Romano, English, March 17, 2010).

Paradoxically, the rejection of God can be, in another sense, a seeking for the Face of God. The very rejection of God implies that we search for an alternative that includes the rejection of what is said to be the Christian God. This alternative will never be complete. The celebration of Easter always implies an understanding of what we are and of what the world is that makes more sense than the alternatives when we see them spelled out and lived out. The resurrection will seem preposterous until we think about it.

We might propose an alternate "creed." Thus, "I do not believe in God; He did not 'create' the heaven and the earth. Christ did not rise again. Man will not be risen again either. He will not be judged. He will complete his life at the end of his days however it happens. Nothing will be heard of him again. His existence meant nothing to anybody including to himself or to a 'God.' His highest aspirations are to be left alone in the Cosmos for the fleeting moments of his existence."

The resurrection of the body puts things together again. It restores our face to the Face of God as we see in Christ. What strikes us about the Apostles, those curious men, was that after the Resurrection of Christ, they rushed to "see," to "hear," to "touch." They even "smelled" the fish being grilled on the seashore. They "tasted" it. They did not begin from some theory. Whatever theory they may have had ahead of time, they doubted. Their own "theory" began with what they saw and heard.

We do not know what percentage of human beings who will come into existence on this planet are already dead having been initially judged, awaiting the judgment that puts it all together. Christ will come to judge the living and the dead. He, having been crucified, died, was buried, and rose again. He told us that we were made to follow Him.

Nothing better has been proposed to us. It is not a myth. It is based on the fact that the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us. Our minds keep coming back to this fact if we would know what we are. The world is composed of those who know what they are and those who are afraid to know what they are if it involves even their own resurrection.

Yet, in nothing else is there hope. This is what Easter is about.

Terrible names for children... and my comments on them

My comments on a list of baby names that are becoming terrifyingly common, found at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-03/next-years-hot-baby-names/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL2

GIRLS

1. ABITHA – Abitha for Humanity? Forgot the T in Tabitha?
2. AMABEL – Amabel. You’re a bell, we’re all bells.
3. AMARYLLIS – No. Just no.
4. ARAMINTA. Sounds like the capital of a 3rd world country.
5. AVITA – not to be confused with “Evita”
9. CALLA – Hey ma, can you iron my calla on dis shirt?!
11. CALYPSO – great, name your daughter after the witch-whore who tried to seduce Odysseus
12. CARYS and CERYS – sound like computer software
14. CLEA – middle name “Patra”
16. CYRA and SIRI – another 3rd world capital
17. ELIZABELLA – No. You cannot do this.
18. ELODIE – I met someone named Elodie and I think it is foreign, so it is OK as it is actually a name.
19. FABLE – when you’re not sure if you had a daughter, or if it was just a dream
20. HOLLAND – no there was absolutely no marijuana involved in this decision
24. LARK – Lark? I’m gonna go on a lark here…
26. LEONIE – As in Sierra Leone? Get her some blood diamond earrings.
31. MAELLE – Another made up name which is not acceptable.
33. NOLA – New Orleans, Louisiana?
35. PERSEPHONE – better hope Hades doesn’t come up from the underworld and kidnap her
37. REMEMBER – We had a good name for our daughter, remember….?
38. RHEYA – sounds like some disease
39. ROMILLY - No
41. SAFFRON –It would be funny if she married Jerry Rice.
44. TAMSIN – Tamsin? Sounds like a name some Bombay man gives to his pet dog
45. TIERNEY – the last name of an old Irish woman.
46. VEGA – Vega… one of the badguys from Street Fighter
47. VERITY – she will never be able to tell a lie.
49. VIRTUE – wow she has a lot to live up to!
50. XANTHE – isn’t this a product used in shampoo?



BOYS

51. ACE – Sounds like his father is the kind who won’t accept that 2nd place little league trophy. I hope their insurance includes adolescent psychiatry
52. ALCOTT – last name, sorry.
53. ARCHER – like Robin Hood?
56. BEAU – I bet he won’t speak a word of French
57. BECKETT – yuck, obviously a Red Sox fan…
58. BENNETT – last name
59. BLAZE – wow, he can team up with Holland and have some fun times in Amsterdam.
60. BRECCAN – Breccan? Sounds like… either some kind of Native American snack or an old Irish village
61. CALLUM – sounds like a chemical
65. CAVAN – destined to drive a Dodge Caravan
66. CORMAC – good luck not getting made fun of
68. DHANI – name of a midly successful NFL linebacker
69. DJANGO – good luck again
71. GERMAN – well I hope he is at least German!
72. HAITIAN – $100 says this kid is white
73. HUXLEY – a brave new name
74. JAX – because
76. LAZARUS - did he crawl out from behind a stone?
78. LENNON – imagine if people gave their kids normal names
80. LONAN - Loner
82. MAGNUS – watch this kid be an effeminate, skinny ballet dancer
83. NASH - Ville
86. PHILOMON – the correct spelling is Philemon.
87. PIERS – instead of docks
88. POE – Poe child….
89. RALEIGH - Durham
91. ROAN – isn’t this an adjective for a red cow?
94. TARQUIN – great, name your child after the hated dictators of Rome
100. WYLIE - Coyote


God help us all...