Pope Benedict XVI in Assisi
Photo: Franco Origlia/Getty Images
On the one hand the Vatican can be treated like a state with all the benefits and privileges that come with such a status. On the other hand, the Vatican also represents as religion with adherents all over the world, which makes it harder to criticize and challenge the Vatican like one might any other government. The Vatican is a "state" that presumes to speak for people in all other states, claiming to acting for the good of all humanity rather than particular nationalistic, religious, or philosophical interests.
Formally, the pope's diplomats represent the Holy See—not the Vatican state which, under a 1929 accord with Italy, is the sovereign power in part of Rome. But in years past, some states (such as America in the 19th century) would deal with the pope only as head of a sovereign state. The fact that pontiffs wear two hats, temporal and spiritual, gives them, and their interlocutors, a certain flexibility. In 2001, when Greece's Orthodox clergy grumbled over a visit by Pope John Paul II, the government in Athens could retort that it was merely receiving him as a head of state.
But more and more governments have in recent years seemed happy to deal with the Holy See on its own terms, especially after John Paul II boosted its global profile. For any state, an embassy to the See offers attractions. For poor ones, it is a chance to garner information from one of the world's best-informed chancelleries. For powerful ones, it offers a way to influence the Vatican and seek papal approval. Napoleon told his man in Rome: “Deal with the pope as if he had 200,000 men at his command.” After some years in Rome, the envoy said 500,000 was nearer the mark.
The real extent of the Vatican's power is hard to compute. One in every six human beings was baptised into the pope's church. Of course, many quit the faith, but he remains a global opinion-former. His views can sway Catholic votes—a point not lost on American presidents, who rarely miss a chance to visit the Vatican.
Source: The Economist
Given the strong hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church, it has far more power in terms of influence and opinion-formation than any other Christian church or indeed any other single religion. No other religious organization has one person who claims to speak for as many people as the pope. Moreover, many non-Catholics respect what the pope says, even agreeing with him, thus increasing the amount of perceived influence. Not many political leaders want to be seen or portrayed as openly, consciously, and deliberately dismissing pronouncements of the pope.
What are we to make of the Vatican's dual status, however? Political and religious deference to pronouncements of the pope are based on his religious status, not his political position. At the same time, though, Vatican officials benefit extensively from the political position of the Vatican. Why should the Vatican and its officials be able to benefit from both religious and political positions while avoiding many of the drawbacks of either? Why should the Catholic Church alone be singled out for such advantages over all other religions, and even other Christian denominations?
Vatican officials say this paradox is both defensible and beneficial: unlike diplomats who act for a state, and whose first duty is to promote and protect its interests, papal envoys strive for the good of humanity. A former Vatican “foreign minister”, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, said recently the Holy See “tries not only to promote and defend, if necessary, the freedom and rights of the Catholic communities around the world, but also to promote certain principles without which there is no civilisation.” But it also has a specific political agenda. It wants international status for Jerusalem. It recognises Taiwan as China. Listing the keystones of foreign policy, Cardinal Tauran stressed the “right to life at all stages of biological development”.
Statements like that make the Vatican respected in some quarters, mistrusted in others. Some activities, such as taking lethal risks for peace in Burundi, are almost universally admired. But in an age when the power of independent agencies (including Catholic ones) is growing by the day, mightn't the Vatican enhance its authority by clarifying its own status? Instead of claiming to practise a form of inter-governmental diplomacy, it could renounce its special diplomatic status and call itself what it is—the biggest non-governmental organisation in the world.
The paradox may be beneficial for the Vatican, but not necessarily for everyone else. One of the strongest forms of power is that which can successfully deny that it is power in the first place. Power that is recognized as such can be questioned, challenged, denied, and perhaps even torn down; power that is not recognized as such will never be challenged and can continue to be exercised at will. That is what Vatican officials are trying to achieve by arguing that their efforts are aimed not at fulfilling a political agenda, but rather at achieving the "good of humanity."
America also tries to do something very similar when it frames its foreign policies as efforts to promote "democracy" and "liberty" rather than America's own particular interests. One can challenge the legitimacy of Vatican or American political interests, but it's harder to challenge those who have successfully portrayed themselves as only seeking the good of others and nothing for themselves personally. Thus the first step in challenging the Vatican's agenda is to deny that what they call the "good of humanity" is, indeed, necessarily for the good of humanity. We must reveal the sectarian agenda and assumptions behind Vatican proposals, making it easier to challenge what they are doing and the power they are seeking to exercise over the rest of us.
Regardless, the current pope, Adolph the Nazi Youth, still wears a dress with shiny shoes and beads. How gay must one be before you laugh out loud.
The Vatican has no right to any power. All they’ve done throughout history is the exact opposite of what’s “good for humanity” and instead caused war, ignorance, loss of freedoms, death, etc. in order to try to “keep the faith.” They’re still doing it today with things like abortion. For example, the Vatican recently urged Catholics not to support Amnesty International because Amnesty has encouraged the decriminalization of abortion.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6750887.stm
The Vatican is disgusting and, as it has done so many times in the past, it is willing to promote removing the rights of others if those rights don’t fit in with their irrational dogma.
i don’t think the article or the comments here are objective. they sound hateful of a religious tradition that has brought meaning, comfort, and peace to millions of people for over 2,000 years. and so to dismiss it outright betrays an unwillingness to look at the good that the Church has accomplished.
I don’t think anyone claimed they were. Not being objective is not, however, the same as being wrong. Can you identify any errors?
1. Can you identify anything that is “hateful”?
2. Just because people like a tradition, does that mean that no one else should criticize it?
You assume that I have dismissed it outright rather than have dismissed it after looking at it for an extended period of time. Please demonstrate how you can claim to know that about me.
when i commented that the article is not objective, it means that its message must be viewed with extreme guardedness because the article is biased and contains an agenda: an agenda that is negative towards all relgions and not just the Church. therefore, this article is indeed wrong in its analysis, precisely because it is not objective.
it is the responsibility of the writer of this article (not the commentators) to supply the arguments behind his assertions: especially his assertion that the Church’s message is not for the “good of humanity.” that is an irresponsible cursory dismissal against an institution that has, for all practical purposes, stood the test of time and whose contributions to the formation of western civilization are more than widely documented and analyzed. look up any objective and well-researched history book.
the question then becomes: has this writer really done adequate justice to the topic of this article and to the institution he is supposedly writing about? reading this unobjective article, one can safely say, “no.”
anyone who wishes to learn more about the vatican’s diplomatic role in a more accurate and objective way should instead look into the book edited by paul manuel and lawrence reardon entitled “the catholic church and the nation-state.”
Prove that any analysis which is not objective is also therefore necessarily wrong.
I need but one example for that: the Vatican’s opposition to condoms is directly responsible for the deaths of countless people around the world from AIDS.
Of course, if you read closely you’ll notice that my actual assertion is that people who wish to challenge the Vatican must challenge the Vatican’s assertion that its actions are necessarily actions that are for the good of humanity rather than actions that serve a particular sectarian and/or political agenda. So you were demanding that I supply arguments for an assertion that I didn’t actually make (and despite your own completely failure to ever supply arguments for any of your own assertions or accusations).
So, because it’s old, it’s necessarily right and good?
In an article this length and of this type, how much more “justice” would you see done?
I asked you some very specific questions which you refused to answer. After almost seven months, the best you could do is simply to make more unsupported assertions and accusations.
That doesn’t merely demonstrate a lack of objectivity (which, in your language, means you’re necessarily wrong), but it also indicates an indifference to the basics of anything like a serious discussion. I don’t consider such behavior to be especially intellectually honest. You simply shouldn’t go around making accusations if you are unable or unwilling to support them.
If this is the best that so-called defenders of the Vatican can muster, I must say I’m disappointed.
The writer’s statement that the Vatican wields a “power they are seeking to exercise over the rest of us,” does indeed betray a biased, fear-mongering, and negative regard for the institution: sentiments that verge on something akin to “hatred,” though not with the same strength as the words of the earlier commentators.
If the writer means that the “power” that the institution wields is a spiritual and religious one among its members, then that is perfectly true, as the Church professes and claims to speak spiritual and moral truths, truths that inevitably touch on social issues worldwide.
However, since the article is on diplomacy, is the writer then claiming that the Holy See wields political and diplomatic “power” in the international scene? If so, then what kind of power and on which issues? Does the Vatican wield power on the pressing issues of the day such as the violence in India, the situation in Iraq, in Zimbabwe, the global war on terrorism, the global financial crisis, the recent conflict in the Caucuses, the political uncertainties in Thailand, and others? Does the Holy See have the same “power” diplomatically as the US, the EU, or Russia? If so, how?
If the writer is claiming thus, then he needs to educate himself on the realities of 21st century geopolitics and diplomacy. Otherwise, the article fails to clarify the sense in which it uses the term “power.”
Because the article fails to clarify this, it therefore has not adequately learned from a point that The Economist is making, which the writer himself quotes: The Economist’s point being that the institution, through the papacy, “wears two hats”: spiritual and temporal.
The Holy See does indeed have influence on the global scene and does indeed speak with a moral voice on global issues. The argument stands, and remains undisputed, that rather than being “sectarian,” the positions that the Holy See articulates with regards to global humanitarian issues such as AIDS, marriage, the family, war, abortion, life, immigration, human dignity and rights, and others are positions that spring from universal human principles, readily understood and accessible to people of goodwill. For instance, it is a universal, human principle that murder, injustice against the poor and the oppressed, maltreatment of refugees, war, torture, and genocide are wrong. To these issues for decades the Holy See has articulated clear moral principles and positions: positions that other nation-states have adopted and supported. This gives proof of the universality (not the sectarianism) of the Holy See’s positions: that other cultures and religious traditions recognize and support the validity of its position on many of these issues.
The writer supplied one support for his assertion: that “the Vatican’s opposition to condoms is directly responsible for the deaths of countless people around the world from AIDS.”
This “support” for his argument fails. A recent study conducted by UNAIDS has found that “Prevention campaigns relying primarily on the use of condoms have not been responsible for turning around any generalized epidemic.”
What has been helping turn around the fight against AIDS in Africa for instance has been a more comprehensive response to the crisis, with individual behavioral changes such as abstinence, and cultural shifts and re-education, as the key factors: positions that the Holy See espouses.
As a result, the fact remains that in the well-known case of Uganda, where the prevalence rate dropped from 15% in 1991 to a little over 5% in 2001, behavior change was so thorough that by the mid-1990s, 95% of adults in that country said they had only one partner or none at all. Recent HIV declines observed in several other countries, such as Kenya, Zimbabwe and Haiti has been due to an increase in fidelity or “partner reduction”: again, positions that the Holy See supports.
However, researchers have noted that in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV transmission rates have remained high despite a considerable increase in condom use. For example, condom sales in Botswana increased from 1 million in 1993 to 3 million in 2001, while HIV prevalence among pregnant urban women increased from 27% to 45%. In Cameroon, during the same period, condom sales rose from 6 million to 15 million, while HIV prevalence increased from 3% to 9%.
THEREFORE, the writer’s supporting lone fact does not buttress his argument, and has erroneously mischaracterized the effect of the Holy See’s influence globally. Why? Because of the unobjective and biased slant of the article in the face of the facts such as the ones on AIDS prevention in Africa just mentioned above.
If the writer would just speak to any official of UNAIDS, he will be informed to the untiring work that many Catholic agencies and volunteers are giving for the assistance of the AIDS-striken countries worldwide.
The writer claims that he has looked at the issue “for an extended period of time” and therefore challenges the accusation that he has summarily dismissed the important role of the Holy See in the global scene. Quoting at length one article from The Economist, which offers the news and data in “filtered” form and heavily edited, is hardly if at all “looking at an issue” for an extended period of time with the benefit of a wider research and sources.
The truth is that the Holy See and the Church through its many agencies and religious groups and associates aid in alleviating many of the global challenges worldwide. That global agencies such as UNAIDS, UNESCO, the Red Cross, the UN, and many others continue to support and derive help from the Church is a testament of the need to work together in fighting many global problems.
Therefore, extremist, biased, unobjective, misinformed positions such as the ones articulated by this article which seeks to castigate and alienate an institution that is at the forefront of the struggle for the “good of humanity” remains irresponsible. Ultimately no international organization can ever take it seriously.
It is very disappointing to hear from the writer of this article ask the question, “Prove that any analysis which is not objective is also therefore necessarily wrong.” If objectivity and therefore, the truth, do not guarantee a kind of protection from erroneousness and wrongful analysis, then all sense and logic have escaped him. It is a fundamental axiom in the study of logic that an argument supported by facts and proofs that are truthful and objective is therefore valid. The opposite quality is still the reality with respect not only to the article, but also to the writer’s subsequent responses.
In addition, the writer in his latest comment is being disingenuous by intimating that he has not made the implicit assertion that the diplomatic position of the Vatican is not necessarily for “the good of humanity.” By issuing the “challenge” he has stated in the article and by reiterating later on that “We must reveal the sectarian agenda and assumptions behind Vatican proposals,” he has in effect made that assertion, albeit implicitly and obliquely. It is actually through a careful reading of the article that any reader can detect this implicit assertion.
Lastly, the writer asks, “In an article this length and of this type, how much more “justice” would you see done?”
In an article of this length and this type, on an issue that is immensely global as this, concerning an institution that has a history that spans millennia, about a topic as complex and subtle as diplomacy, this writer has not done justice.
By asking this question, the writer has effectively implied that the article perhaps should not have been written. On that, I wholeheartedly agree.
Feel free to show how. You originally accused me of writing an article that sounds “hateful” and when challenged to support this, you refused. When pushed again, you modify the accusation to something slightly different without admitting the implicit retraction or apologizing for the original claim — then you proceed to do exactly what you did wrong the first time, which is not support the assertion. So as bad as this original error was, you actually found a couple of ways to exacerbate it and make it worse the second time around.
No, the Vatican seeks to exercise power over non-members as well.
Issues: Sexuality. Marriage. Abortion. Kind: the ability to define the nature and terms of debate.
Oh, fine, then provide that argument that is so “undisputed.”
Except that the Vatican not only doesn’t object to injustice against and oppression of gays, it actively opposes efforts to object to that.
So, if others agree with the Vatican, this entails that the Vatican’s position is universal? Feel free to support this argument. Also do explain how, if this is the case in some issues, it must be the case with all issues.
1. Cite your sources. Was this publish in a peer reviewed journal?
2. The effectiveness of condoms in preventing AIDS means that anyone opposing the use of condoms is guilty of murder.
You have no business talking about “facts” when you offer a quote without citations and sources. I really get the impression that you don’t have any idea about the difference between making unsupported assertions and formulating a well-constructed, well-supported argument.
Feel free to demonstrate how quoting one article in one blog post indicates a lack of any other reading and research.
Feel free to point to a single “position” in the article that is extremist, biased, unobjective, or misinformed. I’ll have to make this very, very, very plain to you: persistence in making accusations without support will cause you to lose your posting privileges.
Shall I take it, then, that you are unable to prove that a lack of objectivity guarantees error? Since you are unable to prove this, will you retract your accusation or will you insist on continuing with it?
Oh, and passive-aggressive laments about being “disappointed” while simply repeating the original unsupported claim in new words won’t get you anywhere.
If you had been carefully reading, you would have recognized the difference between saying that “the church’s message is not for the good of humanity” and “challenging the Vatican’s agenda to deny that it is necessarily for the good of humanity.”
Feel free to show how.
Of course you agree with your own straw man — that’s part of the purpose of a straw man, to create a false and disingenuous impression in others. Such use of rhetorical slights of hand is not honest and, most interestingly, not objective — which in your language means that your entire comment was wrong. Again.
My question was designed to point out that this was just a short post, not an academic book, and to challenge you to bring out the standards by which you judged pieces like this in order to show how and why it failed to measure up. Instead, you failed to measure up because instead of answering the question directly, you seemed to recognize what it meant and so instead employed a disingenuous logical fallacy in order to draw attention away from the point.
Once again, just so you can’t pretend to miss it: if you persist in avoiding direct questions and refusing to support specific accusations, don’t bother posting anymore because your posts will be deleted.
To the sole evidence that the writer presented (i.e., that “the Vatican’s opposition to condoms is directly responsible for the deaths of countless people around the world from AIDS”) in support of his argument (i.e., that the Vatican’s positions on certain issues is not for the good of humanity and that it is “seeking to exercise over the rest of us” a “power”), I have presented the counter-proof from a study by UNAIDS. Although anyone serious on the subject would readily visit UNAIDS’ website and find there the study I referenced, the writer has nonetheless seemed to refuse to do so or to recognize my proffered evidence and has instead demanded pointed documentation.
Very well, to satisfy this demand, I direct the writer to the report commissioned by UNAIDS entitled “Condoms for AIDS Prevention In The Developing World” written by Hearst Norman and Chen Sanny in January 2003.
I also direct him to the UNAIDS report from June 2004 entitled “Making condoms work for HIV prevention.”
In addition to that, I will refer to the UNAIDS report “A Communications Framework for HIV/AIDS” from 1999.
Moreover, I will offer the PANOS piece entitled “Missing the Message: 20 Years of Learning from HIV/AIDS” from 2003.
These objective studies will show that a condoms-only and a condoms-mostly remedy to address the global AIDS problem, rather than a more comprehensive and multi-faceted approach which the Holy See endorses, do not adequately provide the needed solution.
In addition to the documentations above, I again re-direct the writer to the numbers, and the nation-states identified from the last comment I posted, showing that a rise in the use of condoms has a direct relation to the rise in HIV sero-conversion. Those numbers can be corroborated from the health ministries of these nation-states. If the writer should demand specific documentation, I must say he must do his own legwork and research as I have done mine.
If more facts are needed, it is well-known that 25% of the world’s AIDS patients are cared for in 12,000 hospitals and clinics run by the Church which the Holy See represents in the international community. In case the writer would need documentation for that, let him look at the Spring 2007 Habiger Lecture by Leo Cushley for the Univ. of St. Thomas in California.
In light of these, I again therefore reiterate the error of the writer’s position that on the issue of HIV/AIDS, the Holy See’s position does not serve the “good of humanity.”
If the writer seeks more facts and proofs for my argument that the Holy See’s positions on certain moral issues come from universal human principles and therefore enjoy support and recognition from many nation-states in the international community, I cite the Holy See’s success in assembling the support from Latin American and Muslim countries to support its position concerning the final document of the UN’s Third International Conference on Population and Development in 1994. If the Holy See’s position on this topic which touches on abortion and the family did not enjoy recognition from a wide-ranging group of cultures and nations, it could not have garnered such support.
In addition to this, the Holy See’s continued pressure on China on its human-rights record and on religious freedom enjoys support worldwide. The Holy See, as heavily-edited publications like The Economist would also attest, is one of the few states that currently stands up to Communist China by recognizing Taiwan.
Another fact is the recent dialogue opened by the Holy See with leading Muslim scholars and clerics in early November of this year at the Vatican. Issues discussed there included how God’s love works to help people overcome self-centeredness; the diverse Christian and Muslim understanding of their respective Scriptures; divine rights and human rights; the relationship of religion and state; violence in the name of religion.
It is for the good of humanity at this point in world history (with terrorist threats abounding) that there should be greater understanding between the religious cultures of the West and the Muslim nations. The Holy See has spearheaded this latest dialogue with Muslim clerics.
Moreover, the relationship between the Church and the people of Angola has proved to be salutary in that nation’s journey towards stability. This is well documented in Washington Post’s 2001 article entitled “In Angola Church Is A Surrogate State.”
On a purely diplomatic front, which is after all the supposed topic of this article, the Holy See’s successful intervention in the Beagle Conflict of 1999 between Chile and Argentina is hardly proof that the Holy See’s policies and influence on the global front are not for “the good of humanity.” What is more for the service of humanity’s good than to work for peace?
In addition to the cases above, if the Holy See’s position on certain moral issues is not universally recognizable but rather merely seeks to attain power over other nation-states, how come on June 2004 the UN General Assembly not only reaffirmed the Holy See’s Permanent Observer Status, but also granted more rights to it by allowing the Holy See to engage in debates and to speak before the General Assembly? One should think, if the writer’s argument is true and valid, that the worldwide community would not only bar the Holy See from speaking before the General Assembly, but also eliminate its rights! This evidence points to the erroneousness of the writer’s position. It is a position that no government in the world has ever acknowledged. Another proof?
Well, the latest attempt to eliminate the Holy See’s special status in the UN (for reasons akin to the writer’s stated argument here) was in 1999 by Frances Kissling’s efforts joined by other non-governmental pro-life organizations hostile to the message of the Church. The fact is, NO government supported their efforts: a damning judgment revealing the invalidity and ridiculousness of Kissling’s position.
Perhaps the most widely-seen and televised demonstration of the universal appeal of the position of the Holy See in the world is the funeral of the late Pope John Paul II in 2005, easily the biggest funeral in recent history, attended by many world leaders and viewed by millions worldwide. Now, if the Holy See’s policies merely seek to expand its power, and is not for the “good of humanity,” why the global outpouring of support for a man whom The Economist itself has said has expanded the Holy See’s diplomatic activities worldwide? The writer’s stated position is not proved by this event seen by millions live and on TV.
The writer has now offered a second assertion in support for his argument: that the Vatican “not only doesn’t object to injustice against and oppression of gays, it actively opposes efforts to object to that.”
I think at this point, given the evidence I have supplied above in support of my argument, it is now incumbent upon the writer to prove this latest assertion he is making. Let him prove this. Give us the facts please. Step up to the demands you yourself have presented to anyone who would comment contrary to your position. Show us how the Holy See’s position on gays/lesbians support your argument: that its position on this issue is not for the good of humanity, that its position does not enjoy universal recognition, that its position here seeks to exert power over other nation-states.
It is interesting to note that with the last two comments of mine, it is I who has supplied more facts, numbers, examples, data, compared to the writer of this piece; whereas the writer who has demanded proofs and evidence, has neglected to buttress his own argument with data. Pitiful.
There are two final issues I wish to address. First, I am bemused by the writer’s over-defensiveness to the accusation of hatefulness. In my first comment, I stated that “i don’t think the article OR the comments here are objective. they sound hateful…” On a subsequent comment I further clarified that the writer’s sentiments “verge on something akin to “hatred,” though not with the same strength as the words of the earlier commentators.”
If those two comments did not clarify to the mind of the writer that the strength of my initial charge of hatefulness, subsequently clarified, pertained to the earlier commentators, then that is indeed over-defensiveness on his part. However, what is VERY TELLING is the writer’s failure to call upon the two commentators to provide proof and evidence for their hateful sentiments. This, along with his over-defensiveness, perhaps betrays his own personal interior culpability to the charge of hatefulness. One should now further say that his continued failure to provide any kind of substantial proofs to his arguments makes this charge of mine remain upon him even more.
And secondly, as to objectivity and validity and truth in making arguments, if I must provide proof that objectivity and truth are important in logic and argumentation, then I must. I refer to writer to the many books on logic, including Monroe C. Beardsley’s “Thinking Straight.” It might prove helpful to you. From the start I have said that there is a lack of objectivity in the article. The continued lack of evidence on his part, save for rhetoric, reveals that there is no objective and truthful ground to his arguments, and therefore makes it invalid.
I have proven with the assertions and data above how the Holy See’s position globally is welcomed by other nation-states which recognize its positive influence on the world stage. If its intentions are indeed self-seeking and power-hungry, the Holy See would have lost its special status diplomatically a long time ago. As I have shown above, the reality is it has not lost its special place.
Unless the writer is willing to supply adequate, substantial data to prove his arguments, as I have, I refrain from commenting further.
There is a significant difference between posting claims and posting facts that support claims. I asked, for example, for peer-reviewed scientific studies and you haven’t provided any. What you did provide doesn’t support your claims.
I’ll just cite one and let you do the work of finding real scientific work with real data that really supports what you allege.
This is the most recent, and I quote:
And:
Finally:
I won’t waste my time quoting the rest, both because this is the most recent and because it appears to offer the most scientific references.
No one has advocated a condom-only remedy, so that is a straw man. What people recommend are remedies that include condoms, which the Vatican opposes. Because the Vatican opposes the inclusion of condoms, the Vatican opposes a multi-faceted approach that uses one of the most effective tools available. The Vatican is therefore complicit in murder.
Opposing the use of condoms in AIDS prevention is not for the good of humanity.
If doing your own leg work means finding material that supports my position and contradicts your own, I think you need to reconsider how you do research.
I’m curious: did you actually read any of this yourself, or did you find it listed in the bibliography of some Catholic anti-condom article and simply assumed that these pieces said what you wanted? If you read them and cited them anyway, then you cited them in the full knowledge that they contradict you. If you didn’t read them and simply quoted them from some other source, what does this say about your research skills?
You can reiterate it all you want, but the material you claimed supports your position actually makes it clear that condoms are necessary component in the prevention of AIDS. By opposing condom use, the Vatican is complicit in the wider spread of AIDS than is necessary. That does not serve the good of humanity, it only serves a religious ideology that harms humanity.
Once again, you are treating the popularity of some position with evidence for that position having a basis in some universal source. You can’t make your argument by explaining the various ways in which the Vatican endorses positions that are popular with other nations.
1. I didn’t say anything about seeking “power over other nation-states.” I didn’t say anything even close to that. You have changed my words and, I think, you did so deliberately in order to create a straw man.
2. Your question presumes that the Vatican’s position in the UN is somehow dependent on not seeking power over others, which is just absurd. Every government seeks to obtain and/or exercise power but that doesn’t cause them to be expelled from the UN.
Once again, you confuse popularity with promoting “universal human principles.” The presence of the former does not logically entail the latter. If the best argument you have for the Vatican’s positions being based on “universal human principles” is mere popularity, then you really need to do some more work. A serious Catholic apologist would have whipped out natural law a long time ago.
1. The claim of yours wasn’t that the Vatican’s position enjoys “universal recognition,” but rather is based on “universal human principles.” You’re deliberately changing your own position in order to make it easier to support.
2. I never said anything about seeking to “exert power over other nation-states,” and once again you’re deliberately changing my words.
3. As for gays, the Vatican opposes a UN resolution calling for an end to criminal laws against homosexuality — laws which cause gays to be jailed or even executed in many nations around the world. So, either it’s for the good of humanity that gays be imprisoned or killed, or it’s for the good for humanity that gays be left alone. The Vatican doesn’t want the former to end; which do you support?
There is no defensiveness. I simply know that you can’t support your accusation and I refuse to allow you to get away with making accusations then moving on without admitting error. There can be no serious, substantive discussion when one person feels free to make all sorts of personal accusations without having to support or retract them. I think that I can point to your own comments here as a perfect example of what can be expected from someone who has no compunction of making accusations they can’t support.
Comments exist for atheists to express their feelings about religion and religious institutions, not for you to make personal accusations that you can’t and won’t support. Can you comprehend the difference between the two?
You’re being disingenous again. I never asked you to provide proof that objectivity and truth are important. That isn’t what you claimed. You claimed something much stronger: that an absence of objectivity guarantees error. This is what you have to prove, not some weaker claim that you think sounds similar enough that no one will notice how different it really is.
I should have mentioned this above but I suppose I can do so now: simply citing the title of a book isn’t “proof” of anything. To prove a point you are making, you need to construct a logical argument in which the conclusion is the point in question.
It’s curious that someone who claims to care about logic makes so many obvious and unambiguous logical fallacies.
Given the fact that the only data you “provided” (and in reality, you merely cited titles of works rather than genuinely provide anything) contradicts your claims, and given how regularly you change both your own assertions and mine in order to construct straw men, I think it would have been wiser for you to refrain from commenting further much sooner. If you had stopped sooner, you might have left people with the impression that you might have had a defensible point. Now, it’s demonstrated that you have no facts, you have constructed no arguments, and you have been furiously changing assertions and positions to mask all this.
Paixx12 I don’t blame you for not responding further here. I was looking for a blog that explains atheism, but instead I found a blog that only spews venom against Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. I challenge him to spew as much contempt at other believers and religions like Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Taoists. Sad to say Paixx, but Catholics are targeted here because it’s “safe” to castigate them. Anti-Catholicism is sadly part of American history. The Church is bigger, and he’d less likely to get accused of insensitivity or bigotry if he limits his venom against the largest Church in the world. I’m not Catholic, but know enough about it to leave a few comments here and there.
There is a great deal here about atheism. Are you telling me that you are unable to find it?
There is criticism here of Christianity and Catholicism. Are you unable to handle such criticism?
There is. If you really cared about whether it existed, a simple search would reveal it. The fact that you didn’t do the search proves, I think, that you’re just being rhetorical and just don’t care about the truth.
No, Catholicism is critiqued here because it’s a religious ideology which deserves a great deal of criticism.
Yes, it is, but that doesn’t invalidate all criticism of Catholicism.
Sadly, you don’t seem to know enough about it to address substantive criticism of it.
Curious how someone who claims to not be a Catholic keeps referring to the Catholic Church as “the Church,” a label only used by Catholics. You aren’t lying, are you?
So you don’t deny your anti-Catholicism, which leaves the growing impression that you are bigoted and hateful eminently valid. Sad sad sad.
Oh and your excuse doesn’t really fly. There is an overwhelming number of posts here that is more negative towards the Catholic Church than towards any other religious body. Why not have a critique of Judaism as much as Catholicism if you’re really a serious atheist?
Indeed, your seeming “obsession” about Catholicism given the overwhelming negative coverage it gets here should lead anyone to believe that IN YOUR MIND the only “church” out there “worthy” of criticism is the Catholic Church. If I chose to call the Catholic Church, “Church” its because it is the only Christian group here that you have focused on with regularity.
I hope to find a serious critique of a non-European religion in the next blog post. But perhaps that is too much to ask.
I acknowledged that there is criticism here of Catholicism. Criticism of Catholicism is not the same as anti-Catholicism. Is this a difficult concept for you to comprehend?
If you think you can support your contention that I have expressed bigotry here, I challenge you to do so.
Prove it.
Feel free to demonstrate that being a “serious atheist” requires criticizing every religion equally.
Prove it.
Except that I haven’t, so in your own words your reasoning here is specious.
You’d find it easily if you performed a fairly simple task called a “search.” The fact that you still haven’t, even after it’s been pointed out to you, demonstrates quite clearly that finding such information isn’t something you “hope” to do at all. It wouldn’t serve your indignation, would it?
Your denials do not stack up to what I have found in your blog. You have posted more critiques about this one particular denomination, and no amount of denial here can dispute the evidence found in the body of your writing here. The negative over-coverage on Catholicism only leads me to think that you have a bone to pick with Catholicism. THAT is anti-Catholic, not just a “criticism of Catholicism.” It would not matter much if your critiques were spot on, but they are lacking in any rigorous intellectual honestly!
I mean, I was just reading the comments above! The guy (Paixx12) looked to you for facts and where are yours??
About.com has an ethics policy that states “At About.com, we provide advice and information that are not only practical but trustworthy. In order to maintain credibility, we adhere to two guiding principles: Objectivity….Full-disclosure.”
I am not far from the truth by saying that your blog here lacks objectivity. Can anyone really rely on your bringing facts about atheism in an objective way here?
Then you should be able to provide evidence of what you claim you have found.
Where is this “evidence”?
I have multiple bones to pick with religion, religious institutions, and religious beliefs generally. And I do so.
Having a “bone to pick” with an institution is not the same as being anti-anything. If I have a bone to pick with the American government, that isn’t the same as being anti-American. If I have a bone to pick with a mosque, that doesn’t make me anti-Muslim.
That’s a serious accusation. I look forward to seeing you support it.
Lacks objectivity, as opposed to having both objective and subjective elements? You’re welcome to support this claim if you can.
If you think that I don’t provide any objective facts about atheism, you’re more than welcome to try to support this.
I find it interesting that I have to keep repeating invitations to you to support your claims and accusations but you only respond with further invective, indignation, and unsupported assertions.
Do you even know how to support a claim or accusation? I’d like to think so, but unless you demonstrate this ability — more specifically, unless you start actually responding to requests for support and evidence — then you simply have no business posting here. These comments simply do not exist for people like you to post random accusations, assertions, and claims without any support and evidence — or even the intention to offer support and evidence.
To put it simply: if you’re not going to back up what you say, don’t say anything, and if you aren’t going to back up what you’ve already said, then don’t say anything more. There will be no point because I’ll delete further comments from you that don’t do exactly this.
Quakers used to refer to priests and ministers as “soul catchers”.
@Paixx12 – I just have to respond to your first comment, “they sound hateful of a religious tradition that has brought meaning, comfort, and peace to millions of people for over 2,000 years. and so to dismiss it outright betrays an unwillingness to look at the good that the Church has accomplished.”
First, you confuse greatly criticism with being hateful. Second, how about adding all of the misery, persecution and death the catholic church has inflicted on the world to the balance. See which way the balance tilts!
I hope to find a serious critique of a non-European religion in the next blog post. But perhaps that is too much to ask. — jon on March 21, 2009 at 1:30 am
Um, exactly what part of Europe is Jerusalem in?
Shorter Jon/Paixx12 (not that I’m suggesting they’re the same person, or anything):
I’m sure that’s a terrible analogy. After all, what connection was there between Nazism and Catholicism?
What connection between Nazis and Catholics?
Well for starters the dominant religion of the Germans in the 1930s and forties was Roman Catholicism the church to which Adolf Hitler belonged.
As for similarities. The Pope and the Fuhrer.
Were all powerful. Absolutists. Infallible.
Loved dressing up in fancy costumes. Brooked no counter arguments. The Third Reich emulated the past atrocities of the R C Inquisition. Perpetuated the myths of racial purity and ideological correctness. Practiced indoctrination from the cradle knowing they would be successful if they captured the minds before they learned to think independently.Inculcate salutations to the leader until it became automatic. (Sign of the cross or the extended arm). Oh Yes there are many similarities.Denigration of Jews, Gypsies, Unbelievers. The overwhelming obsession with expansion of the empire.
Heck I could fill the web.