"Keep the Cat Free"

17.05.2012

FELIX

The student voice of Imperial College London since 1949

Mass deception

The Vatican has a lot of serious questions to answer
Samuel Horti
Sharing
the-pope.jpg

The news that the Belgian victims of abuse at the hands of Catholic priests are attempting to sue the Vatican should not surprise any of us. There have been various attempts over the years demanding that the church tries to put right the hideous crimes performed by its members, including a high profile effort to have the Pope arrested on his trip to Britain last year, headed by prominent atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Their lack of success comes as no shock to me; the Catholic Church has, after all, built its defenses tall and strong, impenetrable to the opposition it faces.

What I do find shocking, and detestable, is the absence of support by those in power for the people who have been brave enough to stand up to the church. If you care to examine our own government, for example, you will notice that not only have they failed to provide anything resembling encouragement for those seeking justice, last year they actually rolled out the red carpet to the man at the centre of the scandal. All at the expense of the tax payer, of course.

How can we as a nation feel comfortable with this? How can we, on the one hand, send our troops to far off countries to emancipate those worse off than us from terrible tyranny, and on the other, show an unflinching solidarity with an organisation that fails to move away from its arcane beliefs in subjugation? The covering up of child rape and molestation is a heinous crime, which should be met with appropriate disgust and animosity. In this particular case, it does not seem to have elicited this response from those who could really make a difference.

What makes matters worse is that the rot in the Catholic Church that allows these crimes to continue has spread all the way to the top. It was, after all, the future Pope Benedict XVI who in 1985, whilst still a bishop, refused to defrock a Californian priest with a known history of sexually molesting children, citing “the good of the universal church” as his explanation. It was Pope Benedict XVI, this time in his current position, who offered immunity and safety in the Vatican to Cardinal Law, former head of the Archdiocese of Boston. Law resigned after it was revealed that he approved the transfer of Rev. John Geoghan to another parish under the knowledge that he had raped at least 7 boys. These are just two examples of the conniving that goes on amongst those who hold lofty positions in the Vatican.

Even if child molestation was the only issue towards which the church has displayed a loathsome attitude, the mutual friendship it has with governments of the world would surely cause us all to raise an eyebrow at the very least. The fact that these attitudes stretch across a manifold of issues make the respect it enjoys nothing short of nauseating. For example, the church preaches that people such as these disgusting paedophiles can, merely through the act of asking for forgiveness, experience an eternity of bliss in heaven after they die. The same generosity is not offered to those who experience love with someone of the same sex. This is viewed as, to quote from the famous Leviticus verse, an “abomination.” To see this as anything other than hateful babble is to surrender your own integrity as a moral human being.

The Pope, as an individual, deserves no more respect than the organisation he governs. I would ask you all to estimate how many lives you think have been ruined directly by the Pope’s stand on HIV, which as he has preached in the past “cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.” I would challenge anyone to come up with a more destructive, divisive statement. It has undoubtedly led to the deaths of thousands of people at the hands of this terrible illness. For a man who is meant to be a beacon of morality to those in need, the Pope certainly has a lot of questions to answer.

The church’s reluctance to budge from a set of archaic beliefs derived from a book written by second hand authors nearly 2000 years ago should give us pause for reflection. It has, in my opinion, become impossible for any self-respecting government to associate itself with this administration without experiencing palpable cognitive dissonance. It is not until we start to question the actions of religious leaders ruling as demagogues that we can truly start to claim we are moving in the right direction, and fighting for freedom the world over.


Update [23:30 – 12/06/2011] – The author Sam Horti has requested that the sub-headline be changed. The original sub-headline, which was chosen by the editors, read, "The Catholic Church is not a force for good in this world."

Comments (57 comments)

Post a comment

Adam Munro

Saturday June 11 2011 23:33

Absolutely disgraceful article.

Clearly your another one of Dawkins love childs who doesnt know sod all about religion, but because your "clever" you have the right to say whatever you want in the most biased way possible. If you truly believe in what you say allow me to write an article arguing against you, so I can present the facts, which you clearly haven't

Matthew Colvin - Felix Editor

Sunday June 12 2011 00:37

@Adam Munro: Please email comment.felix@imperial.ac.uk if you would like to write something in response.

Sam Horti

Sunday June 12 2011 00:57

@Adam Munro: I was a Catholic for 18 years at my life and was confirmed age 17. I believed until I started investigating both the truth of the claims that the church made and the morality of its teachings. I have done a lot of research and feel I know enough about religion to talk about it openly. The fact that I have the right to say what I like is nothing to do with my cleverness, but thanks for the compliment. If you don't think what is written in the Bible and what is preached by the church is immoral then I can only advise you to reevaluate. And it isn't biased to present irrefutable facts; the Catholic Church believes homosexuality is immoral, the Pope really did say those things about AIDS, and the paedophile sex scandal has not been dealt with sufficiently in any sense of the word. I would gladly have an open debate about it, is there any chance of organising a FOR/AGAINST article where we both answer the same questions?

Sam Horti

Sunday June 12 2011 12:40

Although the Dawkins comment was funny, fair play.

Hm

Sunday June 12 2011 14:28

Would certainly be interesting to read his arguments FOR paedophilia and AIDS.

Adam Munro

Sunday June 12 2011 16:44

A for/against article would be a good solution. However since I have exams which dont finish till after the 23rd June, it would have to be the issue of the last week of term

Alan Soltani

Sunday June 12 2011 16:55

Great article Sam. I'm glad there are brave people such as yourself willing to expose the dark side of certain organisations, while knowing that responses such as Adam's will be commonplace. Adam, although I'm sure there are countless good things you could list in a 'for catholicism' article, it is a foolish man who denies the truthful claims Sam has made.

P.S. Dawkins is SO last year. Hitchens is more this season.

Adam Munro

Sunday June 12 2011 19:40

Of course I am not going to say the Church is "perfect", there may be some truth in these claims, but then again someone point out to me an organisation that is.

The original article stated " The catholic church is not a force for good in this world", and it this which I profoundly disagree with.

Anonymous

Monday June 13 2011 00:16

@Adam Munro: In fairness, I didn't come up with the title, I just wrote the article and then I guess the editors penned the title. Having said that, I would tend to agree with it. I think that next week is the last issue, so we'll save it for next year. I'd be more than happy to do it.

Sam Horti

Monday June 13 2011 00:16

Sorry forgot to add my name to that

Anonymous

Monday June 13 2011 00:19

@Alan Soltani: Thanks very much glad to see that you appreciated it. Hitchens has always been above Dawkins for me, so sad to see him as he is now.

Aaron Berk

Monday June 13 2011 12:15

Excellent article. Hitchens - now there's a force for good in the world.

A recommended viewing (debate featuring Christopher and Stephen Fry on whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kuzYwzGoXw

Andrew Purcell

Monday June 13 2011 20:41

@Adam Munro: How on Earth is this "a disgraceful article"? One could write pages in this vain, such is the length of the list of crimes that the Catholic Church has committed. Samuel Horti's article is spot on. Great piece! Thanks.

Samuel Horti

Monday June 13 2011 21:35

@Andrew Purcell: Agreed, I can honestly say that the hardest thing about writing the article was adhering to the word limit. I hope that next year I'll be able to speak at greater length on the subject. Thanks very much for the comment!

Anonymous

Tuesday June 14 2011 13:08

This article certainly raises a lot of questions. The Catholic Church's record on dealing with paedophile priests is shameful and their views on AIDS and the spread of HIV are backward and harmful to developing nations that are crippled by the disease. However, we are also forgetting that the church has been a force for good in the world too. It's record in developing counties may be shadowed by its stance on HIV, but as an organisation it has done more than most to improve the lives of countless individuals through charities that it funds and organises. Healthcare and education in many countries owes a lot to the church, and as such I think we should be wary of dissociating ourselves, as you put it, as a country/government from an organisation that clearly has MANY things wrong with it, but many things right as well.

Anonymous

Tuesday June 14 2011 13:11

Good article I just hope you're not trying to imply that Catholicism as a religion is the root of this. There are bad people everywhere, but, in the grand scheme of things these are a small minority and must not overshadow all the good work individuals have done in the Catholic church. It's a shame that it's the bad things that people always focus on :(

Caz Parra

Tuesday June 14 2011 13:13

"The Catholic Church is not a force for good in this world"? Surely that's taking things WAY too far? I'm not a fan of the Church but I do know tons of honest people who work to make a difference from Catholic platforms.... Better to think of this church as if it was a country. Here in england we have pedophiles, drug-dealers, rapists, burglars, etc., but we also have good and honest people who care about the world and others. The criminals will need to be dealt with by the law... it's the same for the Church. There's no excuse for their negligence/criminal activity.

Anonymous

Tuesday June 14 2011 13:35

I'm just wondering, in response to your rage over Benedict XVI speaking out against condoms preventing HIV:

"It has undoubtedly led to the deaths of thousands of people at the hands of this terrible illness."

Should HIV-infected people be allowed to enjoy sex as much as the average person? I'm not trolling, by the way.

Marcus A Shepheard

Tuesday June 14 2011 13:49

@Anonymous: Yes, yes they should. Having HIV is not a sin or social evil in any sense. Spreading it recklessly or rejecting the means to protect others is however.

Nick Read

Tuesday June 14 2011 14:09

A good article, though a little shrill and hysterical at times. I've never had a high opinion of Hitchens or Dawkins. They always just come off as whiny and annoying. That said, the arguments they have are often very valid. For something a little more reserved, have a little of Stephen Fry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRpuFfGvEIc&feature=related

Use the link to skip to 2:12 if, like me, you find both Anne Widdecome's voice and opinions equivalent to nails on a chalkboard and watch Stephen Fry being Stephen Fry. This not an attack on religious belief, it's simply one of the best deconstructions of the Catholic Church's arguments for its continued existence I've ever seen.

Anon

Tuesday June 14 2011 14:26

To say that the Catholic Church is not a force for good in this world is bigoted and ignorant. Yes, the Church does have its failings, but its raison d'etre is morally sound and for the purposes of 'good'. Perhaps one should consider how one might criticise the musical works of the late Michael Jackson based on the speculation that he was sexually involved with children.

Yes, you may present several valid points (with which I do in fact agree), but surely you should be more circumspect when denigrating a faith held by others (or at least write anonymously) so that said others do not consider you a curmudgeonly philistine.

Samuel Horti

Tuesday June 14 2011 14:42

I agree there are good things done by the Catholic church. But they have under their influence millions of people in the developing world and I am slightly uncomfortable that they are spreading this type of message to the most vulnerable of people. And yes, the religion itself is the root of it. The Bible is one of the most ridiculous and hateful books that exist, and it is from this type of religious texts from which the ideas such as the ones in the article arise.

You will indeed, regardless of religion, have bad people who do bad things and good people who do good things. To make a good person do bad things, however, needs religion. It needs the fear of God. The Catholic church does indeed do a lot of charity work. And if they were reduced simply to a charity I would be extremely happy. They could do all the work they do and more without spreading immoral, irrational ideas throughout our world.

Hmm

Tuesday June 14 2011 18:59

You claim to be raised Catholic but you fail to explain the mentality which has lead to the Vatican's policy in reaction to the spread of HIV. The Catholic Church believe that life begins at conception and the use of artificial contraception of any kind is playing God. Another, very important belief is no premarital sex. The latter IS an effective defence against the spread of AIDs and HIV. However the proliferation of STDs has overwhelmed that defence to the point where the Church is seen to be wrong in not approving of contraception.
I don't understand this bashing of religions that seems to have become fashionable? I'm an atheist and feel that people should be free to think what they like about the world. If religion allows an individual to make sense of the world around them so be it.

Alan Soltani

Tuesday June 14 2011 19:21

I think many of you are missing the point. It is not a 'small minority' of Catholics who are the problem. Yes, granted, only a small minority rape children and kill doctors who perform abortions, but the root of the problem is the fundamental values of the religion itself, which all catholics adhere to.

The Pope, whose word Catholics tell us is the closest living version of God himself, tells us that homosexuality is wrong. A great majority of Catholics agree with this and, even though most do not go around killing gays, it causes great repression and suffering in the world. Look at Uganda. That's a whole country, not a 'small minority'.

The Pope tells us abortions and contraception is wrong. Yes, only a small minority go out and kill the doctors that administer the abortions, yet still, the act of denouncing these thing allows the catholic flock to 'praise' God's word and persecute accordingly.

Alan Soltani

Tuesday June 14 2011 19:22

(continued from above)

You don't need me to tell you that hugely detrimental effect that unwanted births have on the mother and society in general. For further thoughts on this topic in particular read Freakonomics and learn why legalising abortion reduces the crime rate.

To conclude, do not attack Sam for ignoring all the good things and only concentrating on the 'small minority' of bad things. It is clear that the immoral side of Catholicism is hardly, "small".

Samuel Horti

Tuesday June 14 2011 21:26

@Anon: Firstly, to write this article anonymously would be extremely cowardly and would also suggest I should in some way be ashamed of my views. At no point do I directly attack individuals who call themselves Catholics, most of whom display a purer morality than the religion they profess to follow. The views I am talking about are either part of the founding texts or statements from the religious authority. Many Catholics can see the immorality in the churches views on the issues I have discussed, but no significant action is taken. They seem unable to strike up a meaningful opposition to the Vatican or the supposed representative of God on earth. They should not shy away from condemning these views for the nonsense that they are, and should distance themselves from them immediately. I do not see why perfectly moral people would wish to associate with an organisation which has wicked teachings such as the ones I discuss.

Samuel Horti

Tuesday June 14 2011 21:30

@Anon: This is not like criticising the musical work of the late Michael Jackson because of his sexual involvement with children. This is criticising the musical work of the late Michael Jackson because his vocals are all over the place.

Samuel Horti

Tuesday June 14 2011 21:46

@Hmm: I don't deny that no sex before marriage would indeed stop the spread of HIV. However, so would condoms. Wouldn't you agree that the Pope spreading the lies that condoms actually increase HIV is both very destructive and downright ignorant? And yes, you have identified the root of these beliefs, but you haven't commented on whether you think they are right or not. I don't think it's alright to say that because the views are based on deep seated beliefs then that makes them acceptable. We should be questioning such beliefs and be trying to get people to think about whether they are actually sustainable and moral.

On your last point, of course I support everyone having their own beliefs. But this should stop at using your authority to enforce these views vulnerable people who don't know any better. Also on this subject, in the same way that someone is allowed to hold any beliefs they want, I am allowed to share my views as to why I think these beliefs may be immoral and ridiculous.

Samuel Horti

Tuesday June 14 2011 21:48

Lastly, I want to re-iterate that I DIDN'T write the title of the article. I simply wrote the article, submitted it, and it was then given that title. I agree with what it says but if I were writing to this heading then I would've addressed it very differently.

Anonymous

Tuesday June 14 2011 23:16

@Samuel Horti: lol. Seems like Shubber wanted to create some extra controversy with the title.

Samuel Horti (Author)

Tuesday June 14 2011 23:33

Title now changed, hope that clears up some of the doubts people were having.

Kadhim Shubber

Tuesday June 14 2011 23:54

@Anonymous: Not so. I didn't choose the headline or sub-headline, although I take responsibility as obviously I allowed them to go to print. I will concede that the sub-headline had a certain dissonance with the thrust of the article, which was a mistake, but I was not purposely trying to create extra controversy.

Chris Kane

Wednesday June 15 2011 00:38

@Sam Horti I'm with Adam for the most part on this. While I'm not going to sit here and say I disagree with everything you said in this article, I feel you have made some very lazy arguments and taken more than a few cheap shots with arguments that have been bashed out in the media ad nauseum over the last few years and particularly recently with the Popes visit to the UK.

For a start, I take issue with your comments over Dawkins. Everyone knows Dawkins has nothing more than a personal vendetta against any form of organised religion and with the visit of the Pope, he saw the opportunity to take a swing at the head of one of the largest religious organisations as well as garner more support for his crusade and he jumped on it. To say it was anything more than that is flawed.

Secondly on the condom issue. The "condoms spread HIV" comments aside, as you will know the church's position on condoms is based on a deep seeded belief of the sanctity of life and rightly so.

Chris Kane

Wednesday June 15 2011 00:38

Whether you agree or not, the Church believes that life is a gift from God and should be treated with the reverence a gift such as that should be given. Hence their stance on abortion, their calls for an end to war and the use of capital punishment across the world and hence their stance on condoms which they believe “impede the miracle of life.”

One thing I especially take exception to is the implication that you yourself, intentionally or otherwise, and the media at large suggest when reporting on these matters that the Catholic Church has in some way washed its hands of HIV. Some would have you believe the Pope sits in the Vatican all day simply concocting more ways to increase the numbers afflicted by this terrible condition, whilst this couldn’t be any further from the truth! The Catholic Church provides over a quarter of all HIV care in Africa and is one of the largest organisations working on the continent.

Chris Kane

Wednesday June 15 2011 00:39

The Church globally provides an enormous amount of healthcare rivalling any of the international charities, government aid programmes and United Nations organisations. Quoting from the Caritas website (the charity wing of the church), “[The Church] . . . runs 5,246 hospitals, 17,530 dispensaries, 577 leprosy clinics, 15,208 houses for the elderly, chronically ill and people with physical and learning disabilities worldwide.”

So yes whilst the use of condoms could most certainly help to slow the relentless spread of HIV, it is not the only answer and clearly as we have seen the Catholic Church is doing more than its fair share to advance this.

There is so much more I would love to put across on this and I wish I had time to write a reply article to this but unfortunately exams are looming and I don’t want to spam the reply section. Perhaps in the new year.

Chris Kane

Wednesday June 15 2011 00:40

@Alan Soltani I don’t agree with the Church’s stance on homosexuality and I won’t defend it, but I would appreciate if you got your facts straight. The Ugandan churches that so vehemently protest the evil and immorality of homosexuality are funded by right wing fundamentalist churches in the USA such as the infamous Phelps family and larger organisations who require them to spread their own message in return for the money. The Catholic Church has only ever condemned any discrimination against homosexuals and whilst yes they disagree with homosexuality they also staunchly disagree with the hateful, venomous preachings of these organisations.

E Wong

Wednesday June 15 2011 08:27

@Marcus A Shepheard The above question on whether HIV-infected should be allowed to enjoy sex was mine, and the only thing I have to say in response is that it's downright irresponsible. To just place your life and the life of your partner on the line with only a condom as insurance, well, go figure.

I'm also glad that people now reach the consensus that the Catholic Church is not completely an evil, heartless organisation, but also that there are kinks that need to be ironed out, and we can only hope for the good people inside and outside the Church to do something about it. As a Catholic myself, I can safely say one of the things we are taught is to help our fellow man keep away from sin. Perhaps by shuffling paedophile priests around parishes and not taking any punitive action, the church authority has failed in that sense.

And I'm with Chris Kane on this one, the Church doesn't endorse condoms because they go against what the Church's idea of sex is primarily: reproduction.

E Wong

Wednesday June 15 2011 08:28

Crap, ran out of space there. The official message I got from a Catholic seminar I attended about the matter was that "sex should be enjoyed, with the purpose of reproduction". I don't mean to preach, but that's why they don't like condoms very much.

Sue

Wednesday June 15 2011 09:08

I agree with Adam Munro comment on this issue except the comment that Sam horti is clever. Hmm view point makes a lot more sense than Sam. As catholic I am disappointed that Sam horti has been given a platform to propagate his bigoted views and biases . He probably will not have the guts to slag off Muslims or islam in this manner. I am not condoning any pervert or pedophile lay person or clergy, but to tarnish all Catholics and it's head in this manner is obviously wrong much in the same way to suggest that every Muslim is a suicide bomber. Yes the teachings of the church which Hmmm has eloquently stated may sound harsh but do we not have a right to affirm what we believe to it's logical conclusion? Sam do more homework read youthcat to get proper facts before sounding off. As a catholic I'll gladly follow the teachings of the church than that of sam horti my case is rested

Samuel Horti

Wednesday June 15 2011 09:14

@Chris Kane: Firstly, on Dawkins, I'm looking back at my article and I'm not sure what exactly what point you are arguing with. I mention him once and pass no judgement on him at all. Secondly, the Catholic church is the largest church in the world, with over a billion members, many of which come from Africa. Of course it is going to control a lot of the healthcare services, as you have shown. Once again, I do not doubt the church does some good in providing healthcare. And the preaching of abstinence and no sex before marriage would stop the spread of HIV. But once again, so would condoms. The church seems content to tell people to stop having sex and think that this is going to solve all the problems. It is totally irresponsible and evil to tell people that condoms INCREASE HIV when the church knows that the use of condoms will greatly reduce the problem. Again, as I said in the article, this teaching has directly led to the death of countless number of Africans.

Anonymous

Wednesday June 15 2011 09:20

@Chris Kane: The church is living in the dark ages, and so are you if you think that telling people not to have sex will stop the spread of HIV. If they reversed this ONE teaching, then they would do a whole world of good. If you think this no condom no sex before marriage type of doctrine is going to work in the 21st century, then you are simply wrong.

On your point on homosexuals, lets not pretend that the church has anything other than hostility towards homosexuals. It's official position is that it is a "moral evil." What do you expect deluded Catholics to do with this information when they meet a gay person?

Samuel Horti (Author)

Wednesday June 15 2011 09:24

@E Wong: That last comment was me by the way.

E Wong, your points are invalid for a number of reasons. Firstly, you are assuming with HIV know they have HIV, which, of course, they don't. And secondly, you are assuming that those with HIV will tell their sexual partner that they have it which, of course, they won't. I hope that clears it up for you. Even if both of these criteria fulfilled, I am not sure what your solution is. If it is simply for people to self regulate themselves into not having any sexual contact then good luck with that. I would much prefer people to use condoms when they inevitably do have sex than to risk the spread of the disease through unprotected sex.

Samuel Horti (Author)

Wednesday June 15 2011 09:32

@Sue: Please please please point out to me the incorrect facts in my article that you speak of. Secondly, please point out to me where I tarnish all Catholics with the same brush. This is an article about the Vatican. At which point do a say that all Catholics oppose homosexuality, or that all Catholics oppose the use of contraception? In fact, read the comments above and you will see I say the exact opposite.

Don't worry, my views on Islam are coming, you can be sure of that. I could only fit one religion into this article, my apologies. Also, I can tell you that my morality is a hell of a lot better than that of the Bible and the Catholic church, and so is yours. Which is why I ask in the comments why any morally good person would like to associate with this organisation, or the Bible, filled with hate as it is. As I have said, I was quite a devout Catholic for 18 years of my life, until I realised I was more moral than both the Bible and the Vatican.

Anonymous

Wednesday June 15 2011 11:38

While of course we are all entitled to question catholicisms stance on condoms and everything else, the fact of the matter is they are never going to change their mind and for a very simple reason.

If the Pope turned around tomorrow and endorsed the use of condoms in all circumstances, that would instantly call into question their views on the sanctity of life. If condoms are okay, does that mean abortion is okay too? And what if I murder someone? It will tear down one of the central pillars of Catholic doctrine and would have major ramifications for the church as a whole. What else might they decide they haven't gotten right? The sanctity of marriage? Monogoamy? The existence of God altogether?

These things aren't like government policy, open for debate and consultation to be brought into line with popular public opinnion. These are tennets that have been handed down and safeguarded for over two millenia and frankly that isn't going to change any time soon.

Christopher Kane

Wednesday June 15 2011 11:51

@Samuel Horti The Dawkins comment was in relation to your first paragraph where you imply the attempts by himself and Hitchens to have the Pope arrested on his visit was in some way meant to "put right the hideous crimes comitted by its [the churches] members". As I said, if you think that was anything more than a publicity stunt and another Dawkins ego trip then you're sadly mistaken.

On homosexuality, I expect any 'deluded' Catholic devout enough to follow the teaching that homosexuality is immoral to also follow this passage from the Catachism:

"They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." Para 2358.

Christopher Kane

Wednesday June 15 2011 11:59

(ctd . . . )

Also here http://tinyurl.com/3exkmfk the church issued a statement to the United Nations in which it "urges States to do away with criminal penalties against homosexual persons," calling it "grave violations of human rights." It opposes all forms of violence against homosexual people and believes it should be confronted at all levels, but especially at the state level.

Now, you cannot disagree that yes whilst their overall views are unacceptable, the above attitudes are a hell of a lot more moderate and accepting than some of the stuff that spouts out of the fundamentalist Christian churches in the states and elsewhere who still seem to believe homosexuality is a sin you choose to commit as much as lying or stealing, or heaven forbid the ilk of the Westboro Baptist church who picketed the funeral of a young man beaten to death over his sexuality with placards thanking God for his death and proclaiming what had happened to him was right and just.

Samuel Horti

Wednesday June 15 2011 12:25

@Christopher Kane: To be honest, it is not hard to be less moderate than the Westboro baptist church, so I can't really congratulate the church for being so. I don't think we should be comparing the Catholic church to them in order to make the church seem in some way plausible. You can quote from the Catachism all you like, but again I reiterate that the official stance of the church is that homosexuality is a moral evil. So don't go saying that because the church says you shouldn't commit violence against gays, that makes its views somehow acceptable. They are condemning people for their nature, calling them evil for who they choose to love. This view is disgraceful and I'm amazed that the sensible Catholics are not attacking it.

The idea of the Dawkins campaign was to raise awareness of the issue. Dawkins admitted himself that it was unlikely that they would be able to do anything to the Pope, but they thought it was important to raise awareness. This is my belief also, hence the article.

Samuel Horti

Wednesday June 15 2011 12:33

@Anonymous: Firstly, I would say that the church indeed does change its mind all the time. I would invite you to read the Bible and see how many of the rules in the book are actually implemented by the church. They are shown the way by the church of England, who have gravitated to less ridiculous teachings by careful thought and reflection. For example, they actually accept that women do perhaps have the right to be given positions of power. Imagine!

I do agree, however, that on this particular issue that left to its own devices the church will never change. That is why we need voices inside the church to speak out against these shameful attitudes. Or, even better, people to leave the church altogether and gather with people that actually hold the same beliefs of them, rather than pretending to agree with doctrines that they know hold no weight in today's society. The threat of a dwindling membership will no doubt make the Vatican prick up their ears.

Theresa Okafor

Wednesday June 15 2011 13:30

TO SET THE RECORDS STRAIGHT
1) SEX ABUSE IS A TERRIBLE EVIL AND IT IS FAR MORE PREVALENT ELSEWHERE THAN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

2) POPE BENEDICT WHO IS INNOCENT HAS DONE SO MUCH TO PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE ABUSE BY THE CLERGY

3) EVERY CASE OF SEX ABUSE IS INVESTIGATED IN FULL COOPERATION WITH POLICE ENQUIRY

WHAT PURPOSE WILL ALL THIS OUTPOURING OF HATRED AGAINST THE POPE SERVE AND WHY IS SAMUEL HORTI LIKE SOME OTHER PEOPLE ACTING LIKE VULTURES WHO REFUSE TO STOP FEEDING ON DEAD MEAT?

Samuel Horti

Wednesday June 15 2011 14:00

@Theresa Okafor: I suggest you do some research as to the cover up of the sex abuse scandal, which stretches across practically every single country in which the Catholic church operates. In my article I mentioned on a couple of the countless cases and accusations that the church faces, and to say that the Pope is completely innocent shows, I would suggest, that you are looking at this with rose tinted glasses.

The reason I show hostility (which I would prefer to say rather than anger) towards the Pope is because I believe these issues are important. I believe the cover up of child rape, the refusal to allow contraception to those who need it, and the view that homosexuality is immoral are all despicable things, and I don't think we should keep quiet about them. If you think we should, then fair enough. But you will excuse me for holding a different opinion.

Alan Soltani

Wednesday June 15 2011 14:33

@Theresa Okafor: STOP SHOUTING

E Wong

Wednesday June 15 2011 19:44

@Alan Soltani

I was never taught at Catechism class that homosexuality was wrong. I was taught, however, that sexual acts between members of the same gender was unnatural, which was to follow the teaching that sex- I think I'll call it love-making from now on- was for the purpose of procreation.

So maybe we only have stupid Catholics to blame for misinterpreting this and raging on homosexuals. Is it possible for a man to love another man without attempting to consummate the relationship? Ideally, yes. But well, society nowadays romanticises the idea of love as a budding sexual relationship, with probably the idea of marriage and probably children thrown into the picture as well. Thus in today's context it is most likely that man and man will not be able to love the other without having sex.

By now I hope this point is becoming clearer, it's probably the Church's stand on it's perceived "natural" order of things which is causing tension.

E Wong

Wednesday June 15 2011 19:54

Abstinence is one of the church's favourite teachings, and if I'm going to be brutally honest with you, despite being Catholic, I don't think it's quite likely to be prevalent nowadays. People must have sex. MUST. HAVE. SEX. Even some of our priests, who deserve to be flogged, really, have become so drawn in by this need that they start touching boys, or having affairs.

I hope I'm not being preachy. If this comes across as such, I apologise.

So it's two extremes we have regarding sex: You either do it purely out of enjoyment, or you make babies. I think it's definitely possible to have both, but where do the babies come from in a man-to-man relationship? Is the church then being completely douchey in saying the child born from a woman's womb is the ultimate product of love between a man and woman, and thus, homosexuals cannot experience the ultimate love for one another?

Samuel Horti (Author)

Wednesday June 15 2011 23:13

@E Wong: The official stance of the church is that homosexual acts are "sinful" and that homosexual tendencies are "disordered." In the past, the current Pope has suggested it is an "intrinsic moral evil." So this is not about the fact that the church believes that it a form of love just below heterosexuality. This could potentially get you into hell, so I think you're slightly misrepresenting the official views of the church, although I understand these are not your personal views as a sensible Catholic.

I'm glad you do not agree with the churches views on abstinence, could I tempt you further to say that the Church is outdated in its views that sex is only for procreation? If you're saying that a "child born from a woman's womb is the ultimate product of love," then does thus mean those who are infertile, or choose not to have children, cannot experience love? Surely this makes them as bad as the gays! These views may have worked in 100 A.D, but in 2011, we need to leave them behind.

Adam Munro

Friday June 17 2011 00:34

Just wanted to say thank you for changing the article title, I feel much less angry now as it was mainly this that concerned me.

Bored Person

Friday June 17 2011 15:23

Have none of you got anything better to do? This debate has been raging for a few years now and nothing has changed. And no one has changed opinion. So please just all shut up and enjoy your lives.

Samuel Horti (Author)

Friday June 17 2011 15:43

@Bored Person: Have you got nothing better to do than comment saying that people who comment should have something better to do? The irony.

Comment anonymously or log in

Anonymous comments are moderated before appearing on the website. Comments posted while logged in appear immediately and are moderated later. Read our commenting policy for more information.

Commenting Policy

Felix is fully supportive of fierce and frank discussions. We will generally allow comments that are on-topic and avoid personal attacks; criticising someone's decision is allowed, criticising their weight, for example, is not.

Comments may be deleted/rejected if they:

  • are off-topic
  • contain ad-hominem attacks
  • are potentially libellous
  • use excessively foul language
  • are obviously spam

Email article

Mass deception
(Seperate multiple address with a comma)