So why is spirituality contrary to secularism? Couldn’t both coexist as they have for the past several millennia? Why not? What’s changed so much that would make the proposition unviable? This is something of a provocative problem, but all of us already know the answer to it, don’t we? The answer is “yes”.
Hang on a minute, if the answer is quite simply “yes, secularism and spirituality can coexist”, then why is it that there is so much conflict between the two in modern society? The answer to that question is twofold:
The first element is this: Spirituality is source of comfort and self-sufficient fulfilment to most spiritual/religious people. It is more times than not independent from one’s financial status and it requires little or nothing in the way of monetary investment (some even preach against awarding wealth too much stock). It simultaneously gives a person a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself and it distinguishes you quite individually before one’s faith in the sense that it is a personal experience. It entices an individual to seek to better himself in terms of what he is. It prompts you toward valour, charity and understanding. It requires dedication and altruism. It rewards with consolation, self awareness and connection to a community. Happiness becomes a function of this reward.
The other element is this: Secular Western Society has grown away from its traditional values to embrace a newer and different set. Whereas a man was once defined by origin, commitment and achievement, today a man is defined mostly by appearance and financial achievement alone. Per the current social requirement, we are expected to seek wealth as a means to achieve happiness. We work to prove our worth and to seek the means to procure contentment. In our present capitalist society, gratification is sought through consumerism. The concept is simple: we make money to spend money rewarding ourselves in a cyclic pattern of satisfaction and longing. The more money we make, the better we are before the eyes of our peers. It matters more that we have money than how we’ve made it. That’s because we are judged by how we appear in public. With more money, we can present ourselves better; with better garments and with posh cars and stamped passports. This is an ingenious social system insofar as economics are concerned.
So, if you don’t yet grasp the conflict, I’ll make it plain for you: The concept of self-sufficient fulfilment present in spiritualism is in stark contrast to the concept of renewable gratification proposed by consumerism. It makes sense, if you think of it.
While spiritualism is a personal search that beckons the shedding of material attachment in exchange for timeless bliss, consumerism is a socioeconomic order that is dependent on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase commodities in ever greater amounts. It isn’t meant to be fulfilling as much as it is purposefully meant not to be. It generates only temporary gratification whereby it becomes economically renewable. If that gratification were ever to become perpetual contentment, the entire system proposed by consumerism would collapse, as there would be no renewal on consumption. In other words, at the same time as spiritualism is more an internal search for happiness, consumerism proposes an external source of gratification dependent on social acceptance through material wealth.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if I were a greedy tycoon whose power and recognition came from the maintenance of consumerism, I might feel threatened by any alternative system of fulfilment; especially one that proved viable.
Hereby do we find the source of the conflict. While genuine spiritualism is happy to coexist with other systems, rampant capitalism, which we call consumerism, isn’t. Yet, consumerism doesn’t offer strong enough arguments against spiritualism on its own. You can’t just tell people they have to let go of God just for the sake of a new car or a new trip (or the wealth of the industrialist behind these desirable items). Where does consumerism seek support then? In relativism and in secular radicalism.
By blaming the ills of Humanity on spiritualism (or rather the mistakes and values of different religious sects), and by breaking with religious aspirations and codes of conduct, the promotion of secularist thinking offers only consumerism as a replacement source of fulfilment; thereby triggering the consumption cycle that fuels consumerism.
Make no mistake: radical capitalism is using secular relativism to fight spiritualism. It is competing with religion because its promoters know that spiritual fulfilment can outdo the fleeting gratifications offered by consumerism.
Hence, radical secularists are actually the priests of consumerism preaching against spiritualism to promote ephemeral happiness and the decay of modern society.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Ed Koch: "Catholics ARE Under Persecution"
If you are Catholic and have of late felt that it is open season on us, you are not alone. Though if your read my diary you know that I feel as you do, we are joined also by Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York, who has declared that "continuing attacks" by the media on the Church and Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism. The Jewish former mayor, who also served as a U.S. Congressman from 1969 to 1977 and is presently a political commentator, published his very objective statement in blog belonging to the Jerusalem Post.
He said: "The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate." He further asserted that "many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the Pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice."
If you've been reading my blog these latter years, then you known how I stand before the scrutiny of Western Society over the precepts of the Catholic Faith. You already know that I believe in our taking responsibility over the choices we make and their consequences; even though most individuals try to shun the latter whilst retaining the former. You already know that I think we - as a Society of arrogant hedonists - have sought to make religion a convenience, but we neglected the fact that it is not so. Though we are not obliged to follow a particular religion, the religious precepts that guide it are not ours to change or modify to suit our own economies, conveniences, urges and desires. In this, Edward Koch seems to agree with me.
He added: "The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce." Who can dispute those claims? Not I, for this is indeed the very same comments I have been making here for the past years.
We live in a Society that has degraded its values of honour, family and charity into greed, corruption and consumerism. To that end, we - as a Society - found the need to attack and destroy that which impeded the progress of our conveniences. We dismantled values and beliefs to make them suitable to our socioeconomic ends. Yet, in our collective blindness, we have forgotten that the Catholic Faith is not the Church's property to meddle with. Our Faith was entrusted to the Church to be guarded and proclaimed with fielty, not liberalism. Hence, the Church is most assuredly not a democracy. It cannot be.
Though the politician offered evidence that he does not personally agree with the Catholic position on these issues, Ed Koch seems to agree with this assessment when he mentions that the Church "has a right to hold these views in accordance with its religious beliefs." He went further to declare: "Orthodox Jews, like the Roman Catholic Church, can demand absolute obedience to religious rules. Those declining to adhere are free to leave." He went on to deliver: "My good friend, Cardinal John O'Connor, once said, 'The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you.' The Church has the right to demand fulfillment of all of its religious obligations by its parishioners, and indeed a right to espouse its beliefs generally."
Koch offered his belief that "the Roman Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, not evil." As well, he said, "the existence of 1 billion, 130 million Catholics worldwide is important to the peace and prosperity of the planet. (...) Of course, the media should report to the public any new facts bearing upon the issue of child molestation," held Koch, "but its objectivity and credibility are damaged when the New York Times declines to publish an op-ed offered by New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the issue of anti-Catholicism and offers instead to publish a letter to the editor, which is much shorter and less prominent than an op-ed.(...)Enough is enough," he affirmed. Koch continued: "Yes, terrible acts were committed by members of the Catholic clergy. The Church has paid billions to victims in the United States and will pay millions, perhaps billions, more to other such victims around the world. It is trying desperately to atone for its past by its admissions and changes in procedures for dealing with pedophile priests." What more can be expected by a Society that is itself also guilty of the same offenses?
I could go on, but I fear it is painful to feel that so much antagonism could be aimed at this, that is my Church and simultaneously the largest humanitarian and charitable organisation in the planet. Inconvenient as we may be to consumerism, I can say that - at least for my part - we will continue to uphold our Faith in all its beauty and in defence of life, ethics and moral values that make us freer persons than the supposed liberalism that is preeched by radical captalists and their consumerism.
If you are interested, the full text of former mayor Ed Koch can be found here: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin
He said: "The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate." He further asserted that "many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the Pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice."
If you've been reading my blog these latter years, then you known how I stand before the scrutiny of Western Society over the precepts of the Catholic Faith. You already know that I believe in our taking responsibility over the choices we make and their consequences; even though most individuals try to shun the latter whilst retaining the former. You already know that I think we - as a Society of arrogant hedonists - have sought to make religion a convenience, but we neglected the fact that it is not so. Though we are not obliged to follow a particular religion, the religious precepts that guide it are not ours to change or modify to suit our own economies, conveniences, urges and desires. In this, Edward Koch seems to agree with me.
He added: "The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce." Who can dispute those claims? Not I, for this is indeed the very same comments I have been making here for the past years.
We live in a Society that has degraded its values of honour, family and charity into greed, corruption and consumerism. To that end, we - as a Society - found the need to attack and destroy that which impeded the progress of our conveniences. We dismantled values and beliefs to make them suitable to our socioeconomic ends. Yet, in our collective blindness, we have forgotten that the Catholic Faith is not the Church's property to meddle with. Our Faith was entrusted to the Church to be guarded and proclaimed with fielty, not liberalism. Hence, the Church is most assuredly not a democracy. It cannot be.
Though the politician offered evidence that he does not personally agree with the Catholic position on these issues, Ed Koch seems to agree with this assessment when he mentions that the Church "has a right to hold these views in accordance with its religious beliefs." He went further to declare: "Orthodox Jews, like the Roman Catholic Church, can demand absolute obedience to religious rules. Those declining to adhere are free to leave." He went on to deliver: "My good friend, Cardinal John O'Connor, once said, 'The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you.' The Church has the right to demand fulfillment of all of its religious obligations by its parishioners, and indeed a right to espouse its beliefs generally."
Koch offered his belief that "the Roman Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, not evil." As well, he said, "the existence of 1 billion, 130 million Catholics worldwide is important to the peace and prosperity of the planet. (...) Of course, the media should report to the public any new facts bearing upon the issue of child molestation," held Koch, "but its objectivity and credibility are damaged when the New York Times declines to publish an op-ed offered by New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the issue of anti-Catholicism and offers instead to publish a letter to the editor, which is much shorter and less prominent than an op-ed.(...)Enough is enough," he affirmed. Koch continued: "Yes, terrible acts were committed by members of the Catholic clergy. The Church has paid billions to victims in the United States and will pay millions, perhaps billions, more to other such victims around the world. It is trying desperately to atone for its past by its admissions and changes in procedures for dealing with pedophile priests." What more can be expected by a Society that is itself also guilty of the same offenses?
I could go on, but I fear it is painful to feel that so much antagonism could be aimed at this, that is my Church and simultaneously the largest humanitarian and charitable organisation in the planet. Inconvenient as we may be to consumerism, I can say that - at least for my part - we will continue to uphold our Faith in all its beauty and in defence of life, ethics and moral values that make us freer persons than the supposed liberalism that is preeched by radical captalists and their consumerism.
If you are interested, the full text of former mayor Ed Koch can be found here: http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin
Friday, 2 April 2010
Arriving Upon Easter With My Penance Done
This week the universe seemed to be conspiring to keep me off my usual chores. While I was preparing myself for an introspective Good Friday and joyous Easter Sunday – striving to dodge the consumerism that has been permeating every aspect of the season – even the simplest of daily tasks turned suddenly impossible.
The first thing that seemed worst than usual was the infamous Sao Paulo traffic. I don`t know how many of the readers have ever been to Sao Paulo, but the first thing one learns upon venturing into the grey vastness of this metropolis is the hardship of traffic. Disobedience to traffic laws abounds and one is constantly assailed by motor-bikers flashing by in between the cars; often nicking your paint job or knocking off your side-view mirrors. One takes up to 4 hours to complete a 30Km route.
Along the road to my office there is a section where 6 lanes turn into just 2. This is where bikers exit their lane altogether and take to piloting in the wrong way of the street; shouting insults at whoever is prudently driving in the correct direction. Needless to say, this practice often results in disaster. This week saw a sudden increase in the hostilities between bikers and drivers. Now, they kick-in your car’s doors as they pass you by coming the wrong way. Mine was kicked-in this Monday.
The next disruption to my working week came in the form telecommunications troubles. The local infrastructure is extensive and very modern, but interruptions are commonplace. Our company website was down for a full day on Monday and the e-mail servers on our host were “updated” over the weekend with protocols that simply interrupted the flow of e-mails from Monday to Wednesday afternoon. If that wasn’t enough, my office was left without phone lines for 4 hours on Tuesday because the phone cables were quite literally stolen from the public poles. Again, this was nothing out of the ordinary, but it didn’t make me a happy businessman.
Wednesday started with the unexpected arrival of a good friend from South Africa. He dropped in just as I was leaving to go to the office, only lacking of 6:15AM. I was surprised to see him that early in the day and even more surprised to learn he would actually be crashing at my apartment. Seeing as I had no telecom at the office, I decided to work from home to keep him company. It turns out he needed advice to sort out personal issues motivating his trip, and I was glad to be there to provide him with some insights. Yet, to my discredit, I must confess I was just as happy to see him arrive as I was glad to see him off to a hotel on Thursday morning. It's just that given my present scenario, I had no time at all to entertain.
Thursday saw the return of our e-mails to working order and I actually managed to arrive at the office unscathed and within a decent time-frame. I was happy at the perspective of getting some work done. Yet, to my surprise, I had to work out of the netbook because my brand new Hewlett Packard workstation has been acting out and finally collapsed. No hope of tech support from HP...
It’s as if nothing works properly in Sao Paulo, but the bright side of all this was that I was left with extra time and motivation to philosophise on my blog; so at least in this sense the week was productive. Nevertheless, I`ve very few times looked forward to devoting my Good Friday to some quiet soul searching as much as after this week. It seems I'll arrive into Easter with my penance well under way.
The first thing that seemed worst than usual was the infamous Sao Paulo traffic. I don`t know how many of the readers have ever been to Sao Paulo, but the first thing one learns upon venturing into the grey vastness of this metropolis is the hardship of traffic. Disobedience to traffic laws abounds and one is constantly assailed by motor-bikers flashing by in between the cars; often nicking your paint job or knocking off your side-view mirrors. One takes up to 4 hours to complete a 30Km route.
Along the road to my office there is a section where 6 lanes turn into just 2. This is where bikers exit their lane altogether and take to piloting in the wrong way of the street; shouting insults at whoever is prudently driving in the correct direction. Needless to say, this practice often results in disaster. This week saw a sudden increase in the hostilities between bikers and drivers. Now, they kick-in your car’s doors as they pass you by coming the wrong way. Mine was kicked-in this Monday.
The next disruption to my working week came in the form telecommunications troubles. The local infrastructure is extensive and very modern, but interruptions are commonplace. Our company website was down for a full day on Monday and the e-mail servers on our host were “updated” over the weekend with protocols that simply interrupted the flow of e-mails from Monday to Wednesday afternoon. If that wasn’t enough, my office was left without phone lines for 4 hours on Tuesday because the phone cables were quite literally stolen from the public poles. Again, this was nothing out of the ordinary, but it didn’t make me a happy businessman.
Wednesday started with the unexpected arrival of a good friend from South Africa. He dropped in just as I was leaving to go to the office, only lacking of 6:15AM. I was surprised to see him that early in the day and even more surprised to learn he would actually be crashing at my apartment. Seeing as I had no telecom at the office, I decided to work from home to keep him company. It turns out he needed advice to sort out personal issues motivating his trip, and I was glad to be there to provide him with some insights. Yet, to my discredit, I must confess I was just as happy to see him arrive as I was glad to see him off to a hotel on Thursday morning. It's just that given my present scenario, I had no time at all to entertain.
Thursday saw the return of our e-mails to working order and I actually managed to arrive at the office unscathed and within a decent time-frame. I was happy at the perspective of getting some work done. Yet, to my surprise, I had to work out of the netbook because my brand new Hewlett Packard workstation has been acting out and finally collapsed. No hope of tech support from HP...
It’s as if nothing works properly in Sao Paulo, but the bright side of all this was that I was left with extra time and motivation to philosophise on my blog; so at least in this sense the week was productive. Nevertheless, I`ve very few times looked forward to devoting my Good Friday to some quiet soul searching as much as after this week. It seems I'll arrive into Easter with my penance well under way.
Monday, 29 March 2010
The Nardonis: Reality or Fiction?
I've been witnessing with distress the phenomenon of certain parties in the Brazilian news media turning tragic events into literal soap-operas for TV.
For them, events like floods, street violence and tragic traffic accidents have been covered in such a way as to turn them into some manner of eerie "reality show". Recently, the sad case of a young girl assassinated by her father and step mother in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil, has resurfaced in the local news media as just such a dysfunctional piece of entertainment.
The entire event was exploited by the local media into painstaking detail. Things like reports of what it was that the accused had eaten for lunch and dinner would pop up between reports speculating on the proceedings themselves.
I have observed with concern the media manipulating public opinion by carefully selecting and incisively divulging those facts that would provoke the public. I was surprised to see the public's response of crowding the facade of the courts to accompany the progress of the trials on site. It was distressing to see reporters interviewing the public, on an hourly basis, about their wagers on what the verdict would be. I was appalled to see a girl who had been trying to gain access to the courtroom confirming she was not a student of law, but that she was there for a life experience she could identify with. What experience would that be? Was she planning on assassinating her own daughter?
It seems that the people following the trial forgot the fact that this was a real life situation. They seemed to have forgotten that a real girl had died cruelly and that her assassins, her very parents, were about to be judged and sentenced for that heinous and most unnatural crime. This was no fictional show constructed for the public's enjoyment.
In the end, when the verdict was announced, the general gender gathered at the courts commemorated the result with enthusiasm and - to my distaste - with fireworks. Fireworks?!?! What were they celebrating? A girl assassinated cruelly? Her two siblings left without parents because they were convicted on charges of killing their sister? Was it the conviction of two deranged felons who were insane or wicked enough to kill their own daughter? There was NOTHING worth celebrating in this entire ordeal.
Nevertheless, given that the news media had presented this sad tale in the same fashion as an entertainment channel would present a mini-series, the tragic account of the assassination of one Isabela Nardoni became just that: "entertainment for the masses". The Simpsons at 17:00h, the Tudors at 19:00h and the Nardonis marathon in between. Don't miss it!
For them, events like floods, street violence and tragic traffic accidents have been covered in such a way as to turn them into some manner of eerie "reality show". Recently, the sad case of a young girl assassinated by her father and step mother in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil, has resurfaced in the local news media as just such a dysfunctional piece of entertainment.
The entire event was exploited by the local media into painstaking detail. Things like reports of what it was that the accused had eaten for lunch and dinner would pop up between reports speculating on the proceedings themselves.
I have observed with concern the media manipulating public opinion by carefully selecting and incisively divulging those facts that would provoke the public. I was surprised to see the public's response of crowding the facade of the courts to accompany the progress of the trials on site. It was distressing to see reporters interviewing the public, on an hourly basis, about their wagers on what the verdict would be. I was appalled to see a girl who had been trying to gain access to the courtroom confirming she was not a student of law, but that she was there for a life experience she could identify with. What experience would that be? Was she planning on assassinating her own daughter?
It seems that the people following the trial forgot the fact that this was a real life situation. They seemed to have forgotten that a real girl had died cruelly and that her assassins, her very parents, were about to be judged and sentenced for that heinous and most unnatural crime. This was no fictional show constructed for the public's enjoyment.
In the end, when the verdict was announced, the general gender gathered at the courts commemorated the result with enthusiasm and - to my distaste - with fireworks. Fireworks?!?! What were they celebrating? A girl assassinated cruelly? Her two siblings left without parents because they were convicted on charges of killing their sister? Was it the conviction of two deranged felons who were insane or wicked enough to kill their own daughter? There was NOTHING worth celebrating in this entire ordeal.
Nevertheless, given that the news media had presented this sad tale in the same fashion as an entertainment channel would present a mini-series, the tragic account of the assassination of one Isabela Nardoni became just that: "entertainment for the masses". The Simpsons at 17:00h, the Tudors at 19:00h and the Nardonis marathon in between. Don't miss it!
Thursday, 25 March 2010
On the NYT's Piece About a Cleric Abuser from Winsconsin
Contatcted today by the BBC on account of an article published by the New York Times, I was baffled to see an enduring enimity towards the present Catholic Pontiff. The BBC producer asked me to express an opinion on the said article, so here it is:
I think that, horrible as the facts involving children in Wisconsin may have been, the article published in the NY Times concerns facts that took place between 1950 and 1974. It added nothing new to the present discussion.
All it did was to attempt to smear the reputation of the Church a little further on a “dark past” that’s already been amply commented and that is already being addressed at the present, after Pope Benedict’s pastoral letter of last week.
The attempt to link this story to the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is, to my view, incomplete and unsuccessful. The fact that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was notified only some 20 years after the fact, in 1996, and that by then the civil authorities of Wisconsin had dropped any charges against the supposed malefector, should be clear enough evidence that the Pope was not involved in any "cover up" of the Wisconsin accusations.
However, there's more that points to the integrity of the Pope: for by the time the Congregation received news of the accusations in 1996, the accused, who was actually in his deathbead and died 4 months latter, was indeed submitted to a canonical investigation authorised by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against him. Had he not died, I'm sure it would have followed through to its bitter end.
More to the point, as I understand it, in US soil, particularly at the present, the Constitution takes precedence over any other institution’s internal rules, however cherished they may be. It must then follow as a surprise that this felon hasn’t been prosecuted by the authorities of the State of Wisconsin, even in the face of a report to the authorities in 1973. Where were they? Why haven't the media pointed fingers at the deputy of police, the xeriff and the like?
Hence, in view of the copious amount of evidence pointing to the honesty of purpose of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith whilst under Joseph Ratzinger, and in view that no other authority has been even questioned as to why things turned out the way they did, this latest media effort reeks of malice and seems to use the reputation of the Pope lightly and irresponsibly.
After the Pope’s unprecedented letter of last week, the standing instruction of the Pontiff is that such cases must be dealt with in conjunction with properly constituted authorities and in accordance to the civil authorities and the laws of a sovereign state.
The odd thing to me is that I have seen very little about Bishop Magee’s resignation in Ireland in the news. This is an event, which was a direct result of affirmative action by the Pope and Vatican, but I saw next to nothing about it in the media.
What I do see is another derogative story dug up in Wisconsin. I can't help but think that some institutions in the media are engaged on a witch-hunt against the Catholic clergy. If you are looking for all the facts, have a look here:
http://www.zenit.org/article-28750?l=english
I think that, horrible as the facts involving children in Wisconsin may have been, the article published in the NY Times concerns facts that took place between 1950 and 1974. It added nothing new to the present discussion.
All it did was to attempt to smear the reputation of the Church a little further on a “dark past” that’s already been amply commented and that is already being addressed at the present, after Pope Benedict’s pastoral letter of last week.
The attempt to link this story to the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is, to my view, incomplete and unsuccessful. The fact that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was notified only some 20 years after the fact, in 1996, and that by then the civil authorities of Wisconsin had dropped any charges against the supposed malefector, should be clear enough evidence that the Pope was not involved in any "cover up" of the Wisconsin accusations.
However, there's more that points to the integrity of the Pope: for by the time the Congregation received news of the accusations in 1996, the accused, who was actually in his deathbead and died 4 months latter, was indeed submitted to a canonical investigation authorised by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith against him. Had he not died, I'm sure it would have followed through to its bitter end.
More to the point, as I understand it, in US soil, particularly at the present, the Constitution takes precedence over any other institution’s internal rules, however cherished they may be. It must then follow as a surprise that this felon hasn’t been prosecuted by the authorities of the State of Wisconsin, even in the face of a report to the authorities in 1973. Where were they? Why haven't the media pointed fingers at the deputy of police, the xeriff and the like?
Hence, in view of the copious amount of evidence pointing to the honesty of purpose of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith whilst under Joseph Ratzinger, and in view that no other authority has been even questioned as to why things turned out the way they did, this latest media effort reeks of malice and seems to use the reputation of the Pope lightly and irresponsibly.
After the Pope’s unprecedented letter of last week, the standing instruction of the Pontiff is that such cases must be dealt with in conjunction with properly constituted authorities and in accordance to the civil authorities and the laws of a sovereign state.
The odd thing to me is that I have seen very little about Bishop Magee’s resignation in Ireland in the news. This is an event, which was a direct result of affirmative action by the Pope and Vatican, but I saw next to nothing about it in the media.
What I do see is another derogative story dug up in Wisconsin. I can't help but think that some institutions in the media are engaged on a witch-hunt against the Catholic clergy. If you are looking for all the facts, have a look here:
http://www.zenit.org/article-28750?l=english
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
On the BBC's "Has the Pope’s apology gone far enough?"
When producer Paul Vassalo from the BBC's World Have Your Say programme asked me to join in the debate about Pope Benedict XVI's pastoral letter to the Irish, I immediately recalled the document and I commented that I was aware of the BBC's own articles on the subject. It was my impression that most people who commented on the Pope's ground-breaking document had not read it, but simply formatted an opinion based on the media's own comments of it.
I knew the above was true because chiefly among the persistent grievances of the public commenting on the letter were terms like “lack of accountability” and “lack of practical action”. They regarded the letter as a mere apology, which is of course an incomplete assessment.
I did read the Pope’s heartfelt manifest and I see in his letter the words of a man committed to resolving a problem. He courageously admitted to the problem and publically pledged himself, personally and as Pontiff, to correcting these wrongs not only for the present generation and not just for Ireland, but for the future and for all nations where the Catholic Church is inserted. This is so because the Catholic Church is a Universal Church. Canon Law and Doctrine are to be applied equally everywhere that the Church is present; hence, whatever is decided in Ireland will guide the decisions made elsewhere that similar problems arise.
The letter did have an apology. However, there was much more than solidarity in it, there was a commitment to implementing practical action. Here are the points I learned from the Pope’s message:
1. The Pontiff has officially and unequivocally expressed regret and shame about the fact itself and the about the mishandling of it.
2. He reaffirmed that both the crimes and the way they were handled were not coherent with the precepts of the Church (both in Canon Law and Doctrine). He called the attention of the perpetrators of this erroneous policy and the abusers to the fact that they compromised the Church's moral credibility; calling them traitors to the Faith.
3. He has urged the abusers to repent and submit to divine and secular authority, and he has made recommendations that any such offence be treated lawfully per the laws of the Church and of the respective sovereign nation.
4. He has admonished the bishops who have mishandled the matter and has set teams to scrutinise their actions and to look over their shoulders on this and in other matters.
5. He has initiated a revision of seminaries and the processes of indoctrination of priests to prevent reoccurrence. This is all very practical and very affirmative action.
6. He announced that these actions would continue to be updated in an ongoing process.
Therefore we can conclude that all this was just the beginning, for the Pope has not limited his actions to what’s in the letter, but reaffirmed that he is engaged in the continuity of investigations and in studying means of correcting the wrongs of the past to promote a better future for Catholic institutions; a future more consistent with the precepts of our Faith. There's no mistake: This is all very practical and very assertive action.
Whereas there were many commentators wishing to capitalise on the moment to pursue changes to the precepts of celibacy and ordination of women, threatening defection from the Church and other such silly approaches, I still think that the present problem is but two-fold:
1. Paedophilic individuals are deranged and they’ll go to great lengths to perpetrate their abominations. They are not inherent of the Catholic Church and are present everywhere in our Western Society. The root of paedophilic behaviour is not celibacy nor is it religion, as proven by statistics on child abuse. We need to find out what the root is, so that we may better screen these predators from our institutions. For the Catholic Church the Pope has already manifested his will that this is done by ordering the revision of screening processes, seminaries and moral formation policy. The Church is also promoting training for parents that they may be better prepared to detect problems.
2. An erroneous policy of cover-ups was implemented that was not coherent with Canon Law nor with the Catholic Doctrine. This is being addressed as well and the Pope has commanded the villains to repent and to submit to the civil authorities. He has also commanded that full cooperation is extended to the authorities of each sovereign nation, according to the law of the land.
As I see it, the abuse of minors is indeed a great injustice and it needs to and shall be addressed. However, we cannot correct this injustice by perpetrating another one: The injustice of calling the whole of the Catholic Church a disappointment.
I grew up going to Catholic institutions; having studied many, many years in Catholic schools. I’ve also partaken in activities and visits to Catholic Healthcare, Homing, Charity and Humanitarian efforts and institutions. I can tell you this from personal experience: There are always rotten apples – as this is part of the human experience and we are all imperfect – but for every one rotten apple I have encountered, there were basketfuls of good priests, nuns and volunteers.
So, if you haven't read the letter for yourself, I reccommend that you do: http://www.vatican.va/resources/index_en.htm
I knew the above was true because chiefly among the persistent grievances of the public commenting on the letter were terms like “lack of accountability” and “lack of practical action”. They regarded the letter as a mere apology, which is of course an incomplete assessment.
I did read the Pope’s heartfelt manifest and I see in his letter the words of a man committed to resolving a problem. He courageously admitted to the problem and publically pledged himself, personally and as Pontiff, to correcting these wrongs not only for the present generation and not just for Ireland, but for the future and for all nations where the Catholic Church is inserted. This is so because the Catholic Church is a Universal Church. Canon Law and Doctrine are to be applied equally everywhere that the Church is present; hence, whatever is decided in Ireland will guide the decisions made elsewhere that similar problems arise.
The letter did have an apology. However, there was much more than solidarity in it, there was a commitment to implementing practical action. Here are the points I learned from the Pope’s message:
1. The Pontiff has officially and unequivocally expressed regret and shame about the fact itself and the about the mishandling of it.
2. He reaffirmed that both the crimes and the way they were handled were not coherent with the precepts of the Church (both in Canon Law and Doctrine). He called the attention of the perpetrators of this erroneous policy and the abusers to the fact that they compromised the Church's moral credibility; calling them traitors to the Faith.
3. He has urged the abusers to repent and submit to divine and secular authority, and he has made recommendations that any such offence be treated lawfully per the laws of the Church and of the respective sovereign nation.
4. He has admonished the bishops who have mishandled the matter and has set teams to scrutinise their actions and to look over their shoulders on this and in other matters.
5. He has initiated a revision of seminaries and the processes of indoctrination of priests to prevent reoccurrence. This is all very practical and very affirmative action.
6. He announced that these actions would continue to be updated in an ongoing process.
Therefore we can conclude that all this was just the beginning, for the Pope has not limited his actions to what’s in the letter, but reaffirmed that he is engaged in the continuity of investigations and in studying means of correcting the wrongs of the past to promote a better future for Catholic institutions; a future more consistent with the precepts of our Faith. There's no mistake: This is all very practical and very assertive action.
Whereas there were many commentators wishing to capitalise on the moment to pursue changes to the precepts of celibacy and ordination of women, threatening defection from the Church and other such silly approaches, I still think that the present problem is but two-fold:
1. Paedophilic individuals are deranged and they’ll go to great lengths to perpetrate their abominations. They are not inherent of the Catholic Church and are present everywhere in our Western Society. The root of paedophilic behaviour is not celibacy nor is it religion, as proven by statistics on child abuse. We need to find out what the root is, so that we may better screen these predators from our institutions. For the Catholic Church the Pope has already manifested his will that this is done by ordering the revision of screening processes, seminaries and moral formation policy. The Church is also promoting training for parents that they may be better prepared to detect problems.
2. An erroneous policy of cover-ups was implemented that was not coherent with Canon Law nor with the Catholic Doctrine. This is being addressed as well and the Pope has commanded the villains to repent and to submit to the civil authorities. He has also commanded that full cooperation is extended to the authorities of each sovereign nation, according to the law of the land.
As I see it, the abuse of minors is indeed a great injustice and it needs to and shall be addressed. However, we cannot correct this injustice by perpetrating another one: The injustice of calling the whole of the Catholic Church a disappointment.
I grew up going to Catholic institutions; having studied many, many years in Catholic schools. I’ve also partaken in activities and visits to Catholic Healthcare, Homing, Charity and Humanitarian efforts and institutions. I can tell you this from personal experience: There are always rotten apples – as this is part of the human experience and we are all imperfect – but for every one rotten apple I have encountered, there were basketfuls of good priests, nuns and volunteers.
So, if you haven't read the letter for yourself, I reccommend that you do: http://www.vatican.va/resources/index_en.htm
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Is Modern Democracy Really Democratic?
This is a question that often vexes me. The very concept of modern democracy as a “rule of the people” would require that “the people” be well educated and well informed about what goes on in the world and what goes on about their elected leaders. Yet, this is not so.
Here’s the point that compromises most modern democracies: DISINFORMATION. There are so many lies and half-truths going around about situations and about world leaders that it is utterly confusing to “the people”. We “the people” are baffled by an inexorable daily flow of conflicting news and contradictory public affirmations. We are bombarded by lies and half-truths mingled cunningly with what’s real and proven fact.
When it is not about the lies that are publicized all around us by a media that displays little concern for the veracity of the bombastic material they bring to the public, it is about the secrecy that is kept on certain public circles. National security and the safeguarding of individual politician’s rights have more often than not signified that “the people” must be kept ignorant of important facts.
How can we call ourselves democratic when the ability of “the people” to make an educated choice is so compromised by disinformation and secrecy that we are faced with nothing but lies and half-truths upon which to base our decisions?
We will only have TRUE DEMOCRACY on the day that “the people” are given all the facts by transparent public institutions and the REAL power to format and convey an opinion.
Here’s the point that compromises most modern democracies: DISINFORMATION. There are so many lies and half-truths going around about situations and about world leaders that it is utterly confusing to “the people”. We “the people” are baffled by an inexorable daily flow of conflicting news and contradictory public affirmations. We are bombarded by lies and half-truths mingled cunningly with what’s real and proven fact.
When it is not about the lies that are publicized all around us by a media that displays little concern for the veracity of the bombastic material they bring to the public, it is about the secrecy that is kept on certain public circles. National security and the safeguarding of individual politician’s rights have more often than not signified that “the people” must be kept ignorant of important facts.
How can we call ourselves democratic when the ability of “the people” to make an educated choice is so compromised by disinformation and secrecy that we are faced with nothing but lies and half-truths upon which to base our decisions?
We will only have TRUE DEMOCRACY on the day that “the people” are given all the facts by transparent public institutions and the REAL power to format and convey an opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)