I think the first question is trivial. A question meant to incite and inflame without any true intellectual purpose. The fact that Hitchens brings up the 20s and 30s in a lopsided fashion lays bare his cowardly, malicious intent. Distortions of the relationship between the Vatican and the evil regimes of that era are frequent and shameful.

The Church maintains their current and recent presence in even the most horrible of situations so that it can maintain its ministry to Catholics in those countries. Its not like the Vatican is selling WMDs to Saddam like the USA in the 80s. Also, as a sovereign nation, the Vatican should have a foreign policy, based on Benedict XVI's writings and speeches this foreign policy has a lot to do with advancing human rights and dignity (Hitchens never mentions what he met with Muslims about - namely cooperating in alleviating human suffering).

The Bernard Law question is much more poignant, and an article focused on that alone could maintain its merit. Law should, by most accounts, be exiled or in jail, not in a prestigious job in Rome. However, the theme of forgiveness is a major element in Catholic Christianity. Not only does Christ forgive us, but the Scriptures call on us to forgive our brothers on several occasions. So, theoretically, Law probably asked for forgiveness, just as I do in the Confessional, and received forgiveness. Unfortunately, Penance is also supposed to be a part of that, and it seems Law's Penance does not fit the crime (the decade of the Rosary that I usually get just doesn’t seem to fit here). This may seem unfair to us on earth, but I am confident that Law's punishment in the afterlife will fit his crimes. It is better to have a millstone round one's neck and cast into the sea than injure a child. Also, remember – Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself.

Not a great choice for a subject line Nate.

Freudian slip?

nate415:

The Bernard Law question is much more poignant, and an article focused on that alone could maintain its merit. Law should, by most accounts, be exiled or in jail, not in a prestigious job in Rome. However, the theme of forgiveness is a major element in Catholic Christianity. Not only does Christ forgive us, but the Scriptures call on us to forgive our brothers on several occasions. So, theoretically, Law probably asked for forgiveness, just as I do in the Confessional, and received forgiveness. Unfortunately, Penance is also supposed to be a part of that, and it seems Law's Penance does not fit the crime (the decade of the Rosary that I usually get just doesn’t seem to fit here).

Perhaps a fitting penance should be to go to some wretchedly poor community and serve them - not as a Cardinal, but as a simple parish priest. Get him back to the reason he presumably became a priest in the first place - to minister to God's people and bring His word to them.

What an evil concept! To be guilty of the most vile crimes and think you can shrug off your responsibility by "confessing". And why is this? Oh because about 2,000 years ago god sent his own son to be brutally sacrificed for the good of humanity! What exactly has changed since then? Nothing at all. People still kill each other in the most barbaric ways. People still suffer and are poor.

Of course that's because Jesus' first coming was just to redeem our souls. A trial run of sorts. How convenient!

Now are we supposed to believe this because it "happened" such a long time ago, or because the so-called "holy book" is so absurd and so ludicrous that it must have taken a very powerful being indeed to write such absolute rubbish and still have it be taken seriously millenia after its original publication? The Iliad and The Odyssey are much better stories and far better written. Why don't people still believe in Zeus and his crew?

Your ignorance of Christian philosophy relating to how Christ's sacrifice works for the good of humanity is sad. To paraphrase Archbishop Fulton Sheen : people don't hate the Catholic Church, they hate what they think the Catholic Church is. I suggest you read The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn. This may give you a better insight into how Christ's sacrifice works in today's world. Reasons To Believe by Scott Hahn is also an excellent book for those doubting Christian teaching.

Forgiveness of sins is not evil, and confession, even with a good penance, does not eliminate the potential for punishment (heard of purgatory?). To forgive anyone, any sin against you is humbling, gracious and good; likewise to ask forgiveness from those you've harmed is humbling, gracious and good. What Law did was an affront to God, the Church and the families under his pastoral care. That he hasn't had to go from door to door of the families he harmed and kneel and ask for forgiveness is scandalous, but certainly does not entirely discredit the Catholic Church.

The basis for the Catholic Church is not just the Bible, though that is a good source, written by contemporaries of the main subject of the New Testament(comparing historical works in the Bible to The Odyssey and The Iliad makes no logical sense as there is actual archeological evidence of the events in the Bible and there are secular histories that tell some of the same tales).

The Catholic Church was founded by those contemporaries and has continued to shepard the message of Christ through the ages. Its not as if someone picked up a book and decided they should start teaching it. The Bible did not even exist until the third or fourth century.

Nate, I would be very interested to hear what archaeological evidence for Biblical claims you are aware of. Please cite specific articles or sources; I read far and wide in this field, and I have come across absolutely nothing in archeology that even comes close to verifying any but the most prosaic events in the Bible. (In other words: did the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea flood at some point in history and destroy a few shepherds' villages? Yes. The Great Flood, covering all the world? No.)

I would be very interested to know what "archeological evidence" you're claiming. I have been searching for sixteen years and I haven't found any - or at least, none that hasn't been thoroughly debunked.

I realize that I sound like a simple skeptic, but if it's out there I really would like to see it.

Thanks.

<link>

I know, I know - its a christian resource so how could it possibly be reliable!

The fact that the Catholic Church still exists in an unbroken chain of succession from the contemporaries of Jesus is pretty good anechdotal evidence that the events of the New Testament occured.

Also, there are other historical writings that reference Jesus. The Jewish historian Josephus springs to mind.

http://www.bib-arch.org/

Another Bible-archeology link, from a less obviously religious source.

I think we should all recall that this is the Pope who revived the Vatican college to train exorcists as one of his first Popetic acts. Apparently, he feels the need for more exorcisms is important to the early 21st Century.

I think we should all recall that this man was elected Pope because everybody else in the room thought he (no she) should be Pope and since he (not she) could not win, the best each of them individually could do was vote for the oldest man in the room and thereby provide for a another papal election at the earliest possible time where the might win.

Alas, even the holders of high religious offices are mere mortals.....just as silly as the rest of us. Let's not get on any high horses here. Churches, like all other human institutions are run by humans.

There ain't a one of 'em that ain't done some pretty dumb things.

The question we ought to be asking this eighty two year old man is, "Are you comfortable, Sir?"

Papal acts, not popetic. Why do people think words like that bring down the subject and not themselves?

Papal elections are guided by the Holy Spirit, just as the Magisterium and the Pope are guided infallibly by the Spirit in areas of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra.

No one has ever claimed the Pope or any Cardinals or Bishops are perfect. We are all sinners in need of God's mercy (see previous posts). The Pope goes to confession regularly.

As to why they are all he, lookup the Theology of the Body. John Paul II explained it much better than I can.

Josephus DID NOT "speak of Jesus". IN his writtings he MENTIONED early CHRISTIANS. He would not have been able to tell us anything about Jesus in any event since he would have only been born, about the time jesus was dying.

and NO the catholic church was not "founded" by any contemporary of Jesus. The church has consistently made this claim and consistently been unable to backup that claim since its inception.

And no nate, I am not an anti-catholic bigot, I was just educated at a catholic university.

my $.10

p.s. saying that the pope and the college of cardinals is "guided by the holy spirit" (aside from being ridiculous, most catholics don't believe that shit), is a matter of faith. trying to use it as an arguement that Ratzinger wasn't elected under the most cynical of circumstances is only going to convince the "true believers" as it were; its not an arguement.

I'd go a bit further and say that anybody claiming to be "guided by the "holy spirit" is committing an arrogation that cannot but be a sin in the eyes of God.

I personally have no doubt that there is a "holy spirit" through which the Almighty affects worldly affairs, but I think the hand on the tiller is so subtle and our limits so profound that claiming guidance from the "holy spirit" for any particular human activity is blasphemy--to use an archaic religious term.

To take the claim of guidance from the holy spirit and attach it to a whole human enterprise--like a religious institution, is to compound the vanity exponentially--with proportionally consequent evils. History and current affairs record the results: religious war, persecutions and suspension of the power of human reason in favor of resort to self-serving authoritative religious texts. If you know God's will, all that science, secular law and democracy are kind of frivolous.

Keeping religion personal seems to be a lesson we keep getting taught and keep right on ignoring.

Mixing religion with human institutions, is like mixing salt and water; you loose the former and ruin the latter.

So.....was the holy spirit guiding this Pope when he re-instituted the training of exorcists at the Vatican?

I apologize for my pejorative adjective, if indeed that's what it was. I sought only to undress the man a little.

Was John Paul II acting under guidance of the holy spirit when he transferred the Cardinal of Boston out of the jurisdiction so that he'd not be available to testify in child sexual abuse litigation?

Excuse my skepticism about any particular church having the inside line on God's will. If popes ain't perfect how can they be infallible--which is, in fact, a current doctrine of the Church is it not?

I know that if one were going to pick a class of people to share an erudite and thoughtful evening there is no more likely selection than a group of Catholic priests, but I can't help balking at the notion that their chosen institution is any more chosen by God than any other institution.

What do you think? Or is it just one of those matter governed by faith and therefore beyond any skeptical analysis?

nate415 wrote the following post at 04/15/2008 7:34 AM:

Papal elections are guided by the Holy Spirit, just as the Magisterium and the Pope are guided infallibly by the Spirit in areas of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra.

If Papal elections are guided by the Holy Spirit then why are there multiple votes? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit guide everybody to vote the same way the first time? Shouldn't all papal elections, so guided by the Holy Spirit, be unanimous on the first vote?

Just asking?