At breakfast yesterday my two-year-old daughter wanted to “read” me the Easter card she got from a relative. “One day, they went in the forest, and then they were finished. The End,” she said, looking up from the card. “Now you read it to me.” So I did. The greeting was:

Easter time is here again
That lovely time of year
When we especially think of those
We hold especially dear
So naturally you’re thought about
And wished the nicest things –
All the special happiness
A joyful Easter brings!

I’m enthusiastic about explaining things to her so I was about to drop a few sentences somehow explaining Easter was really about God, but a thought crossed my mind and stopped me. I have no tolerance left for the Church’s protection of child abusers, its silencing of victims and failure to adequately apologise or explain why it failed to act against paedophiles. Why, I asked myself, should my daughter be exposed to these men in frocks and their beliefs?

For someone raised as a Catholic this is an arresting thought. Even though its dogma is world-renowned it may still be hard to grasp, for anyone not brought up with it, the all-or-nothing way Catholicism requires you to accept, without question, the authority of the Church. Put simply, if you don’t accept the Church you’re not Catholic.

I wanted to hear directly from someone in the Church about what this meant. Fast-forward six hours and I was talking to a priest who suddenly started weeping uncontrollably during a conversation about the good work the Church has done around the world.

Some of that conversation is recounted below but the priest – an outstanding man who I’m not going to identify to spare him the wrath of his bosses – began by telling me what was unfolding was the “messy reality of the human Church”.

This “messy reality” is the human wreckage of decades of institutionalised abuse of children that is now catching up with the Church’s hierarchy. The horrific experiences of Irish children at the hands of clergy have been slowly and tortuously exposed over the past 20 years and this month the process culminated in an apology to victims from Pope Benedict.

But many victims were unhappy with the apology and the Pope himself is now facing what appear to be substantial allegations that he may have failed himself to act on reports of abusers within church ranks. America’s National Catholic Reporter this week declared that the Pope was suffering from a “credibility gap”.

Like most Catholics I know, I’m lapsed and a-la-carte. I’ll skip the main course of Sunday mass and praying, but chalk me down for a handy framework for telling right from wrong, a rule that says treat others as you’d like to be treated and, later, eternal salvation.

I have rarely given it much thought but what seems to be a non-stop flow of abuse allegations, together with the clear disappointment from some Irish victims at the Pope’s apology, suddenly have me wondering if I’m ready to walk away from it all in disgust.

This is what I raised with the priest yesterday afternoon – let’s call him Father David – and told him I had avoided explaining Easter to my daughter. What follows is a summary of our conversation and I’m trying to avoid a retrospective commentary. (I explained at the outset that I was a journalist and planned to write about our conversation.)

We went over some Catholicism 101 and it was a reminder of what a challenging belief system it is. It starts, I was told, with having a personal relationship with Christ and striving to live as He did.

Just as a child might misbehave, he explained, one of God’s children can misbehave. “I can give you this much God, I can’t quite do the rest of it today,” is one way a fairly typical relationship between a believer and God could be characterised. And God, because he loves all his children, will accept what you can manage in return.

The trouble is, I pointed out, that you might be able to have a real and personal relationship with Christ but as a Catholic you must accept the Church and everything about it.

There are some in the Church, he said, that believe all of its teaching deeply and accept it. But many others don’t and on the outer edges of the Church there are people who believe parts of it. Yet they are part of the Church too.

So the Church, Fr David explained, is everyone – with the important distinction that the minority of clergy that inflict abuse are not the Church.

Our conversation turned to the good work that the Church does and his time as a missionary in Africa. This for me is the most dispiriting element of the Church’s current predicament, that such damage has been inflicted by an organisation that has indisputably done so much good.

He had been on several missions in Africa and recalled being kidnapped and held for several days, moving between villages, by gunmen in the Congo in the early 1960s. The hostages were all missionaries – priests and nuns – and they were rescued on New Year’s Eve by mercenaries who broke in through the floorboards of the shack where they were held, surveyed the scene, and left before mounting an assault in which people were shot dead but all the hostages got out.

He wept while talking about one of the nuns who, each New Year’s Eve, spends the day looking at a communion host to give thanks for being saved. “She has done such good work,” he said. “Brought hundreds of people into the world,” he added, referring to her work as a nurse delivering babies.

Specifically on the abuse allegations, he wasn’t claiming to speak for the hierarchy but said he couldn’t see how Pope Benedict could actually have decided to sweep allegations of abuse under the carpet. “I don’t believe he is capable of making the sort of decision to ignore what facts he had in front of him, given what he has said on the matter” he said.

I listened, agonised, as he said that some of the abuse cover-ups may have been bureaucratic problems or misunderstandings of protocol.

A life in the Church was a path that my daughter could take, I explained.

“Don’t deprive her of that,” he said. It would be like never telling her who her family was. Without the Church she would not fully know herself.

My religion – I wouldn’t call it faith – is not something I will take a decision on lightly. Like I said, it has given me a sense of right and wrong, and at some points in my life, comfort.

But this Easter I don’t think I’ll be the only Catholic questioning it.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

452 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Payton L. Inkletter says:

      05:17am | 31/03/10

      Try this definition Paul: The church is invisible, it is the family of God, and comprises anyone anywhere who loves God, regardless of whether and what ‘religion’ they might be a member of.

    • Craigles says:

      10:05am | 31/03/10

      Lets hope most if not all of us recognises and loves equally the Human Family and its Natural Surrounds, regardless of whether and what ‘religion’ they might be a member of.

    • Iconoclast says:

      10:55am | 31/03/10

      The very moment a religion asks for one cent from its believers it ceases to be a religion, and becomes a business.

    • Col says:

      11:33am | 31/03/10

      Iconoclast,
      Did you know Iconoclasts have never had a reputation for intelligence?

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      12:21pm | 31/03/10

      Col, do you understand what “iconoclast” refers to?  it appears you do not, or have become confused.  Dictionary.

    • Phuong says:

      02:40pm | 31/03/10

      Well at least give the child a chance to make her own decision about the “faith”. Why believe in something a bunch of power hungry men from the Vatican say. What give them the power, after all they learn and read from the same book.

    • True Believer says:

      02:55pm | 31/03/10

      Exactly - the Church of Jesus is the body of true believers, those who know and follow Him. All the rudeness, ignorant rantings of atheists, agnostics or other unbelievers will not change that. Nor will the evil behaviour of men dressed as priests or ministers who behave as those accused have in their vile exploitation of children and their betrayal of any “vows” they may have taken. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing “by their fruits you shall know them” - come to destroy. They are not Christians. No matter what denomination Roman Catholic or the many other hundreds of Christian denominations there have crept into to carry out their evil.  The Catholic “church” is just another denomination.

      Do no judge Jesus or His true believers by the behaviour of some who pose as His people - Judas did the same but sold him for 30 pieces of silver.”  Those who lust after evil behaviours or riches (Jesus said “love of money is the root of all evil”) are imposters. 

      For those who seek proof of the Lord and His love ponder on this, “absence of proof is not proof of absence”.

    • joshn says:

      05:26pm | 31/03/10

      “For those who seek proof of the Lord and His love ponder on this, “absence of proof is not proof of absence”. ”

      Single stupidest comment I’ve read today. I’m happy for you to believe what you like, you don’t need proof to believe what you believe, otherwise it wouldnt be called faith, I accept that, but please stop shovelling this rubbish.

      And the heirachy of the church is just as complicit as the pedophiles, in silencing the victims and protecting the guilty.

    • Dwayne says:

      09:03am | 01/04/10

      @ True Believer: You’re worshipping the wrong god, because the real one is sitting here on my desk and he said so.  You can’t see him though because he’s invisible but I know he’s the real one because he told me. The other people in the room couldn’t hear it because they don’t truly believe in his awesomeness. “absence of proof is not proof of absence”.

    • True Believer says:

      09:19am | 01/04/10

      As I also said Joshn - unbelievers in their ignorance try to belittle and pour scorn on people who are believers with rudeness. The Bible says it all “the fool says in his heart there is no God”. Ps 14:1 - what are you believing in Joshn - the Easter bunny?

    • joshn says:

      09:48am | 01/04/10

      True Believer, you just did what you set out to deride. I find your comment quite rude calling those who believe somthing different to you “fools”.

    • DG says:

      10:21am | 01/04/10

      “the fool says in his heart there is no God”

      The obvious counter is that the wise man shouts it from the roof top.

    • Allan says:

      10:37am | 01/04/10

      True Believer - Actually I am more likely to believe in the Easter bunny than in god. There is no more proof for one than the other. And as a child the easter bunny did leave chocolate eggs for me. So the Bible calls me a fool for not believing - and yet you say that you need no proof at all to believe - can you not see the irony of that? Can you not see that to me, believing in something because a book written and rewritten a thousand years ago tells me I should, with out questioning it, seems rather foolish. Countless children in Ireland were told to believe it - and they trusted thier priests and what did they get? Abuse. And still you expect me to believe that your all powerful, all knowing god did nothing to stop that abuse? What is the point on having a god if he does not / cannot stop his own emmisaries from abusing small children. The whole concept is fatally flawed - and that is what I will be teaching my own son. Not thatt he must grow up as a part of a ‘family’ wether he agrees with it or not, wether he wants to or not - not that he will be deprived if he refuses to be a part of it, or that he will go to hell, but that it is his choice.

    • True Believer says:

      10:42am | 01/04/10

      Dwayne and Joshn, I think my quote “absence of proof is not proof of absence was a little two deep for you both. Ask the teacher next time you are at kindergarten to explain it to you - when you get it right I am sure the Easter bunny will bring you lots of eggs. 

      I jest, but you sadly are missing the best part. So be it. Your choice.  The good Lord gave us all choice - He said “I put before you life and death - choose life” - I have chosen life at its fullest, but you and your fellow unbelievers in your pride think you have life without Him. You have life for this time a poor reflection of what I know I have for eternity. How sad.  I wish you well. Not sure what the next few days will mean to you - Easter bunnies hopping round I guess. Cheers.

    • BBB says:

      11:27am | 01/04/10

      True Believer,

      Aren’t you pouring scorn and being rude to those who share a different opinion to you?  You are being challenged and yet you respond by suggesting that those with a different opinion have kindergarden intellects. 

      And where does the capitalisation come from (Him, His etc)?  If the Bible preaches an essential message of equality, why ignore the message by the use of a title?  If capitalisation is okay for the big G and J, why not for me?

      As for the next few days and Easter bunnies, can you please explain why the date changes each year?  Jesus died on a set day and not in accordance with the lunar cycle.  Perhaps it is all to do with ensuring that we all get a longweekend.

    • True Believer says:

      11:57am | 01/04/10

      BBB and Joshn Thank you for reading and replying to my comments. Actually Joshn you are mistaken - had you read my comment properly I was not being rude I was telling it as the God of the Bible said it. He said it not me. Take it up with Him.

      BBB I indicated I was jesting although I must say I find it tiresome that those most strident against Christians and their beliefs in the main are very ignorant of what we do believe. Most have never read the Bible so only quote bits that appeal to their prejudices.

      People of course are entitled to believe whatever they want “if you don’t believe something you will believe anything” the saying goes.

      I make no apologies for using capitals when referring to my Lord. I know Him, I respect Him and I know He loves me. He loves all of you too, but you are standing where I stood many, many years ago. I know what it is like. I too was scornful of Christians and I, like most of my detractors, was ignorant. Now I know better.

      I do hope for all that the true message of Easter will break through into the hearts of many. I would not swap what I have and know now for where I was back when I too was spiritually blind. Bless you all in His mighty Name - Jesus is Victor. Praise His Name.

    • Kevin says:

      12:08pm | 01/04/10

      How amusing to observe you, True Believer, resorting to degradation when challenged on your belief.  I become amused at the one who relies on Ps 14:1 to support his cause; it’s the instant ‘abort’ tool.  Interestingly, when was that portion of the bible written, I can assure you, with all respect deserved, that it was indeed not in the original scriptures and was an addendum in one of the many revisions of the past two millennia.

    • double up says:

      12:20pm | 01/04/10

      you ar emiguided at best my riend. you definitely should accept Christ as your saviour if you want to live..

    • True Believer says:

      12:38pm | 01/04/10

      Kevin, I do not need to defend my belief - the Truth has lasted down all the centuries despite the reviling and scorn of those who cling to the life-raft of unbelief - problem is there is no rope for them for them to anchor to so they sadly get led to and fro always searching, never finding.

      I am grateful to have found shelter in the Almighty.

      You my friend search on. Believe what you like about the Bible - it will not detract from its power and Truth one iota. I wish you all the very best and I do hope you will one day find the “Peace that passes all human understanding” - I have that Peace. Jesus hung on that Cross (regardless of calendars or dates, they are man-made of no account really, only for convenience) for you and for me. Only difference is I have said “yes” to His invitation to life in abundance.

      When you get to know Him put to Him the questions you have about why He did not intervene. I think if you read and understood the Bible you would see things more clearly. Give it a go. After all you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. I know that only too well. But for a lot of years I wasted time wandering in the wilderness. But every moment since then has been worth the wait. Bless you and yours in His Name and with His love.

    • Dwayne says:

      12:47pm | 01/04/10

      @ True Believer - I’ll be spending quality time with my family, and enjoying the big easter raffle that I just won at work smile  You might want to have a chat with your the big guy next time and asks that he stops me being so damn lucky.

      Believers in their ignorance try to belittle and pour scorn on people who are unbelievers with rudeness.

    • True Believer says:

      01:07pm | 01/04/10

      Hey Dwayne that is great that you won the Easter raffle. Good for you.  At least you will have something to share with your family over the next few days even if it is only chocolate goodies.

      But tell me, are you not stealing your employer’s time by being on here and not doing your work. MMMMMMmmm might have to talk to the big Fellow as you put Him about that. Better still - why don’t you just get on with what you are paid to do. I am doing this in my own time. How many other detractors on this are stealing employer’s time I wonder”? Is that honest do you think??  Perhaps Dwayne you had better give your employer some of your chocolates to make up for using his/her time so fraudulently. :0)

    • True Believer says:

      01:01pm | 01/04/10

      Hey Dwayne that is great that you won the Easter raffle. Good for you.  At least you will have something to share with your family over the next few days even if it is only chocolate goodies.

      But tell me, are you not stealing your employer’s time by being on here and not doing your work. MMMMMMmmm might have to talk to the big Fellow as you put Him about that. Better still - why don’t you just get on with what you are paid to do. I am doing this in my own time. How many other detractors on this are stealing employer’s time I wonder”? Is that honest do you think??  Perhaps Dwayne you had better give your employer some of your chocolates to make up for using his/her time so fraudulently. :0)

    • Frank says:

      01:09pm | 01/04/10

      Hey! Why did Cols blatant insult get published when mine never are?

    • Dwayne says:

      02:10pm | 01/04/10

      I’m on annual leave this week.

    • Craigles says:

      02:53pm | 01/04/10

      True Believer - saying “absence of proof is not proof of absence” to imply presence is a logical fallacy of two kinds - argument from ignorance (and that is not calling you ignorant), and the begging the question fallacy whereby the conclusion is implied in the proposition.

    • True Believer says:

      05:44pm | 01/04/10

      Craigles - Say what you like about the quote it is not mine, but I think if you really applied yourself you would find the logic.

      God is there, Jesus did die for your sins and mine, He overcame death, rose again and sits at the right hand of the Father. The Holy Spirit will reveal the truth if you stop trying to apply human logic.  So simple to find out the Truth, but so many trying to bring God down to human level so they can “prove Him” miss out. One day you will realise.  Could I kindly suggest you give Him a try, nothing ventured, nothing gained. If I am wrong and He is not there well you have not lost a thing. If I am right and He is there you have gained life and life eternal.  God bless you.

    • islam says:

      06:29pm | 01/04/10

      I was a devout cathoilic all my life until i started questioning the church,the bible my beliefs and i came to realise that there were alot of contradictions misunderstandings in this belief and this made me look into Islam and i found the truth and true justice in this religion.I advise everyone to question and demand answers until they are fully convinced and content in reaching out to finding God and the true teachings of the book they believe in,and i found that in the holy Quran…
      Please read and dont be biased!

    • BBB says:

      07:39pm | 01/04/10

      True Believer, you managed to not answer any of my questions.  True you did explain why you use capitals, but not why they are used per se, particularly in view of what is taught in the bible.

      As for stealing employer’s time, let’s recall that the bible says though shall not kill, yet when numerous people were murdered by the big G in the bible.  So, maybe one or two poster’s stealing a little employer’s time is pretty small fry compared to knocking people off.

    • stewart cooper says:

      05:40am | 02/04/10

      I want my children to make up their own minds. My daughter (11yrs) was given ‘My Favorite Bible Stories’ by a young friend to read. As an athiest I thought it right that she should to get a balanced view on life and form her own opinions. After finishing her book I asked her impression of it, she said, ’ A talking snake? AS IF’!  Go girl!

    • Melissa says:

      12:28pm | 02/04/10

      I abhor any abuse of children, however if we are to claim that we shouldn’t be members of a church, or allow our children to be around clergy because some of the clergy have abused, then it also follows that fathers, uncles, scout leaders & teachers should also be denied access to children. Let us not forget that statistically it is far more likely that a father or grandfather will sexually abuse a child than a member of the clergy. Doesn’t make the clergy who have committed these disgusting acts any less guilty or disgusting but some perspective, rather than jumping on a chance to rubbish each others beliefs would be perhaps more beneficial. Those that are shocked have either had nothing to do with religion or are completely stupid. Those that use it to slam other’s beliefs are bitter angry people who can’t accept anothers right to their beliefs. Priests are men, not God. They are no better or worse than anyone else. Personally I question the parents who seem to think anyone can be trusted with their child because they supposedly believe in God, my motto has always been - trust no-one with my children and educate children from a young age that this sort of thing occurs and they are more likely to be able to either defend themselves or report it when it happens, not 20 years down the track.

    • Moses Hickory says:

      01:09pm | 02/04/10

      @ True Believer,

      You think you are so enlightened, spouting out vague idioms and references from the bible. Your absence of proof quote is especially comical, for the “kindergarten kids” among us it’s the logical equivalent of saying just because you can’t see my bank balance, doesn’t mean I’m not a billionaire, eh no kidding.

      The other funny thing I notice is that when anyone challenges religion, the “true believers” among us automatically quote some passage in the bible, as if that is some kind of objective source of truth. I could just as easily quote the phone book and it would have just as much relevance.

    • True Believer says:

      05:16pm | 02/04/10

      Stewart Cooper - I hope you teach your daughter how to spell - no good being an atheist if you don’t even know how to spell it.

      I will comment just one last time to BBB and Moses Hickory - not that your continued harassment of believers based on the fact these matters are not something you know about or seem to care about is worthy of comment. All you have to fall back on are questions and insults. Sad.

      I believe the Bible because it is the written Word of God. I believe you exist - not that I have any proof - but I accept you do because I have seen your written words. What is the difference. What do you fall back on when asked the hard questions?  I wish you all the best which you have yet to find. God bless and goodbye. (Stewart Cooper you had better teach your child not to say “goodbye” because it is short for ‘God bless you’ - wouldn’t want you to teach her to be double-minded). Farewell and thanks for the discussion.

    • Peter Hawkins says:

      05:35pm | 02/04/10

      The church that Jesus commissioned upon his return to Heaven is very different to many of the main stream churches that exist today. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He did not say that the ‘church’ is the way, the truth and the life. Nor did he say that ‘it’ was the way to the Father. Faith will lead us to Jesus and eternal life with the Father. The ills of man can only be rectified through the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ. Life in Christ will lead and empower us to reject the desires of selfishness.

    • Roy says:

      08:01am | 03/04/10

      Was it Leo the 10th that said.
      This myth of Christ has served us well?
      It all really started with a schizophrenic called Abraham and “You must have faith”. How much more blood will be spilt before people wake up that it is all a false dream.
      There is no God!

    • BBB says:

      08:34am | 03/04/10

      Hey True Believer,

      I’m not harrassing you or insulting you.

      I have simply asked some questions and I have yet to receive any meaningful answers.

      Any why is ‘Word’ capitalised?

    • Maggie Ward says:

      08:07am | 04/04/10

      I have gone from being a believer in the Church to cringing at its hyprocracy. The Church was too slow to act and is still in denial. I doubt they will ever own the violation of children over protection of paedophile priests.
      I am heartbroken at my loss and that it never defended the children and seem blissfully unaware fo the permanent danage to the children, their families and the community.
      I firmly believe in God but find myself choking on the beautiful words of the Church.
      Many of us need healing.

    • Proud Infidel says:

      03:32pm | 14/04/10

      Islam@ From the frying pan into the fire, please read some books and not the dubious so called holy ones. If you change mind about this absurdity you may find yourself under a threat of death. Such a peaceful religion.

    • But religions don't like questions... says:

      05:57am | 31/03/10

      I think it’s important that we teach our children about the basis for all religions, but that certainly doesn’t mean pitching it as ‘fact’.

      As for the physical abuse that disgusts you - I am equally concerned with the emotional blackmail of religious institutions who tell us that if women have an abortion, they will be eternally cursed. Sex before marriage and sexual orientation have similar, sealed fates. I have more than one close family member who suffers from severe depression/continual ‘Catholic guilt’ because of their strict catholic upbringing & events in their life. It’s painful and definitely abusive and has turned me away from the church. Fortunately I am intelligent enough to realise that formed religions are simply a money-making and ‘society controlling’ organisations and can find my own sprirtuality without being told how. Thank God.

    • John A Neve says:

      06:01am | 31/03/10

      The Catholic church is and always has been based on lies, pain and brutality. It has always amazed me that a religion created in the middle east should become the sole perogative for many years of Italy!!

      A church/religion was, I thought, supposed to give peace and comfort to those that required it. How wrong can one man be? For centuries the Catholic church has lived on fear, both physical and spiritual.

      Let’s face it the ‘church” in all it’s forms is a money making business, nothing more and nothing less.

    • Moggy says:

      08:55am | 31/03/10

      Christianity was hi-jacked by the Romans when they feared losing control of their middle east slave states. After a while the Romans realised they could conquer the world & make massive amounts of money by claiming that they owned the only true religion. They’ve kept billions of people psychologically enslaved by playing on their fear of death. But in all honesty so have the non catholic churches. My sister was sexually abused by a methodist minister, & this church had Mum so enslaved she put the safety of the church ahead of her daughters well being when the minister was caufght red-handed. Christianity teaches us that god is perfection. So therefore this perfect god must have a perfected following…....it’s not possible for perfection to have any imperfection. But nobody’s perfect…...not even those committed to this perfect god…..so therefore there can be no such thing as a perfect god.  I no longer believe in god or the devil or spirits & think that all religion is a supersticious curse.

    • Kim says:

      09:42am | 31/03/10

      I think psychiatrists would call them “Imaginery friends” and prescribe medication.

    • Cam says:

      10:59am | 31/03/10

      Col, History doesn’t support YOUR BELIEFS. In fact, History (and studies of classic mythology) clearly indicate your “religion” was derived from stories predating any visit of “Jesus” to earth. Indefensible. That is what your stance is. Dont try and argue with people here who actually have a fully functioning logic system. You will look like the fool you are

    • Neil says:

      11:20am | 31/03/10

      Catholicism was not created in the middle east, it was created by the Romans. The head of the catholic church is in Rome. It’s incredible that the pope brushes aside the problem of child abuse within its ranks, but more so that people go along with it. The pope is all powerful and is not to be questioned. When will its followers actually question their faith, and read the bible and see what God himself says, not mere man.

    • Col says:

      12:18pm | 31/03/10

      Cam, Dan Brown was telling one and all that his stories where historically factual as when. But only the stupid actually believed him.

      Have a read of the Early Church Fathers – they date back to the apostolic times. None of them where interested in what the Pagans believed, they were only interested in what the Apostles had taught, what Jesus had taught, and what Judaism had predicted.

      What is important are historical facts, not the dodgy interpretations of some flaky academic who majored in mythology.

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      12:24pm | 31/03/10

      Col. Losing more credibility here.  A link to a catholic website in no way constitutes a “historical Fact”.  To put it forward as such shows what a poor grasp you actually have.  Moggy is actually right, research libraries and places of LEARNING to explore this, as you have already heard the stories given by the catholic organisation.  (By the way, did you realise that the basis for the vaticans’ existence is a “deed of gift” by the last Western Roman Emperor - which was found to be a fraud, written a couple of centuries AFTER he had died.)  Start a lie…......

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:16pm | 31/03/10

      So the early Christians were not interested at all in pagan mythology. Apart from the pagan festivals that they “took over” and the need to defend the story of Jesus from claims of ‘plagiarism’ due to his remarkable similarity to other religious figures.

    • Fredd says:

      06:19am | 31/03/10

      The number of ways of being engaged may be the key to being engaged - being told it starts with a “personal relationship” just gives “me”-ness an all important leg-in.  Then there’s the social dimension, and possible work or charity dimensions or both.

      And there is other pressure - “Don’t deprive her of that” he said.

      Would it really be like never telling her who her family was? Perhaps without the Church she would fully know herself.

    • Con says:

      12:19pm | 31/03/10

      Moggy, it saddens me to see people lose their faith because of the weakness of others. To say that God does not exist is crazy because it is impossible for “something” to come into being from nothing. The scientists have done great harm in brainwashing the world that the worlds, the stars, the animals etc all came out of nothing. Thats like saying if I could look at the palm of my hand for 1000 years a new animal would appear on it.
      These priests caught in these abuses are mere human with a very difficult task of bringing people to God’s family. You have to ask yourself, If you were satan would you attack a nobody or would you go for the heads of the church.
      The fact is that God exists, Jesus exists and he is written down in history and is confirmed to have existed by Judaism,Christianity and Islam. Although these religions oppose each other neither one can deny that Jesus existed. To accept Jesus is to accept unconditional love in your heart. And this is the message that God has for us, not to have wars, not kill in the name of God, not to abuse and hate your fellow man or woman but to love one another “unconditionally” even if they hate you. Just think, if everyone could do this then this life would be heaven and Jesus would not have needed to come.

    • Dwayne says:

      12:50pm | 31/03/10

      Con, please don’t confuse faith with facts. You don’t know that it is a fact that god exists, even the most respected apologists don’t claim this.

    • Chris L says:

      01:44pm | 31/03/10

      You cannot create something from nothing, this long held physical law was brought to us by modern science (good for you Con for proscribing to science in at least that respect). This “law” does get disputed by quantum theorists but I don’t understand quantum mechanics.

      Theists often try to use a strawman argument by misquoting science as saying the universe came from nothing. Ask a scientist where the matter of the big bang came from and their response will be “We don’t know, but we have some theories.”

      On the other hand theists have no trouble with a god that exists outside of time and space and whose existence is unsupported by any evidence.

    • truckle the uncivil says:

      11:05pm | 31/03/10

      Reply to Con.

      You have it backwards.  The Universe (the whole universe not just the part we see) exists and must exits because ‘nothing’ is an unstable condition.  ‘Nothing’ is no time, no space.  Nothing simply cannot exist.  And no, an animal will not appear on your arm because you have already observed (measured) that there is not one there.

      I am sorry if that is difficult for you to understand.  ‘Faith’ gets in your way.

    • Dan says:

      10:27am | 01/04/10

      “These priests caught in these abuses are mere human with a very difficult task of bringing people to God’s family.”

      ...Ah, are you sympathising with priests who sexually abuse their ‘flock’?? So your saying its the ‘devil’ that made them do it? come on! that is pathetic and disturbing that people actually think that way. to try to actually outsource the blame and responsibility on a ‘spiritual’ third party.

      “no your honour, the devil made me steal that car…”

      what a joke.

    • Claire says:

      06:28am | 31/03/10

      I’m Catholic, I attend Mass regularly (although not every week) and I don’t question my faith or my religion. What I do question is the motivation of some of the people who claim to practise it. There is nothing wrong, fundamentally, with Christianity. There’s nothing reprehensible in striving to live as Christ did and to deal with others as he taught us. Christ’s message is love. That, Paul, I suspect, is why you feel comforted. The awareness of being surrounded by love does tend to do that to you.

      Many who claim to be followers of Christ have subverted and abused that message to their own ends, and they are therefore, by definition, not Christians. That includes child-abusers, with frocks or without.

      It really is that simple. Those who try to complicate are missing the point.

      Having said that, there is no excuse for covering up known child abuse, whoever you are and whoever the abuser may be.

    • Craigles says:

      06:47am | 31/03/10

      There is the view that the current furore is being fuelled by Pope Benedict’s enemies within the church.

      There is also the view the current furore is based on abuse 25 years or more ago, so disproportionate to currrent situation, other than the seemingly widespread cover-ups.

    • Iconoclast says:

      11:22am | 31/03/10

      Are yes, the “not a true Scotsman” argument. He doesn’t like haggis, so he is not a true Scotsman.

    • Craigles says:

      01:54pm | 31/03/10

      ““Many who claim to be followers of Christ have subverted and abused that message to their own ends, and they are therefore, by definition, not Christians”“.

      Yes, Iconoclast, it should be re-named the “not-a-true-Christian” fallacy ..

    • Allan says:

      01:16pm | 01/04/10

      Claire, I refer you to Catholicone’s answer below where he says that “Condoms don’t prevent Aids, they just delay the inevitable” and has some ‘interesting’ thoughts on homosexuality - unfotunately that is the face of your religion. I agree with your right to believe what ever you want, but when your church holds those views and they seek to inflict them on the rest of us, then it has to be argued against in strong terms.

    • Nuggs says:

      10:53pm | 02/04/10

      The message of love is kinda universal through many religions. Islam, Shinto, Catholicism (not sure if I spelt that right), Judaism. They all preach love. However many also preach an eye for an eye. So is there a middle ground? Can it be justified to kill someone, yet ‘oh, I’m sorry. I really love him, for thats my religion?’ . These sorts of questions are what drove me to abandon ALL modern religions. As far as I am concerned, your beliefs may be right. They may also not be. I feel that religion should be a personal choice. Also query is the basis of many Human ways of learning, essentially, Why?

      Now, I am not attacking anything here, but blind belief does not seem, to me, to be a reasonable method of faith. For me at least, faith must be centred on some understanding. As I cannot understand a God that is capable of causing the plagues in Egypt with being the same God who stood by and watched His Son die on the cross.

      I shall finish with a quote I have found, I like it. It seems to sum up my problems with all belief systems quite nicely.

      Nuggs

      Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
      Then He is not omnipotent.
      Is He able, but not Willing?
      Then He is malevolent.
      Is He both able, and willing?
      Then whence comes evil?
      Is He neither willing, nor able?
      Then why call Him God?
              ~ Epicurus

    • Marina Go says:

      06:29am | 31/03/10

      I am the Catholic daughter of a mother who was schooled as a boarder in a Catholic convent. Her mother slept below an oil painting of Jesus which was marked by lipstick from her daily show of devotion.
      Our boys were baptised Catholic and started their education at a Catholic school where they were introduced to the religion. They loved the stories when they were little. The eldest is now 16 and the Catholic stories he is hearing have changed. He has already started to distance himself from his religion. The 12-y-o doesn’t want to be Catholic either. And like you I am no longer willing to sell-in a religion that has allowed children to be abused.

    • Elizabeth says:

      02:11pm | 01/04/10

      To all those who have lost faith due to the actions of priests in the Catholic Church, don’t lose faith altogether - try looking at the Orthodox Church. Its the original and earliest form of Christianity. 
      (The priests are actually allowed to be married and have families, same with the Anglican, Baptists etc…so no dodgy business from the priests!)

    • Ronk says:

      09:44pm | 03/04/10

      Elizabeth, most pedophiles are married or have sexual activity with other adults as well as children. Andthe rates of child abuse are at least as high among married clergy as among unmarried.

    • Dhammachuck says:

      08:20am | 04/04/10

      I too was raised a Catholic. At 17 I found that after questioning things I found to not ring true, I got sick of being told I wasn’t trying hard enough to understand the mystery of God. I left Catholicism and Christianity and haven’t looked back. I have no gripe with Jesus or his teachings, in fact I find them to be a good yardstick when taken for what they are meant to be. I refuse to raise my daughter as a Christian and have found myself to be most comfortable and spiritually satisfied as a Buddhist. I will however, allow my daughter to learn about all religions and make her own choice - as I did. I think the main problem with Christianity these days is people are too busy worshipping the church and not their God.

    • Caz says:

      06:36am | 31/03/10

      Their mission in Africa… did they promote the use of condoms? How many babies did they deliver that had AIDS?

      I’d rather teach how to be healthy, safe and loving without the use of God and old out-of-date rules that destroy lives.

    • the apologist says:

      07:57am | 31/03/10

      Caz, I think your reduction of faith to ‘rules’ shows a misunderstanding of what faith in God truly is.

      What do you base your ‘teaching’ on? (i.e. you said ‘i’d rather teach how to be…etc.’)

    • Rowdy says:

      08:05am | 31/03/10

      Actually Caz, the catholic church encourages and teaches a very effective way to avoid the spread of AIDS, out of date you might think it to be, however it does work. It’s called monogamous relationships, not sleeping around, having some self-control and self-responsibility,  where you can be healthy, safe and loving as you put it.  This works just as effectively against the spread of AIDS and all other STD’s. If the guys could keep it in their pants, so to speak, then the spread of these diseases would slow to a trickle.

      The population growth problem would still need to be addressed though, so contraceptives would have their part to play. And yes I am a “catholic” but I don’t go to mass anymore.

    • iansand says:

      08:10am | 31/03/10

      Those of us who look from outside can only judge faith by the way it is practised.  Quite frankly, this whole idea that those who abuse faith are not true practitioners is the worst kind of mealy mouthed cover up.  It purports to explain all abuses as something outside the very institution that perpetuates them as though that exonerates the institute from its failings

    • John A Neve says:

      08:44am | 31/03/10

      Rowdy,
      People like you are a worry. What makes you think that “monogamous relationships” avoid the spread of Aids?

      Unless I have read wrongly, you can get Aids from dirty needles, children can be born with Aids and as they get older marry. In some cases it has been suggested kissing can transmit Aids.

      Once again it shows, don’t put your faith in the Catholic church .

    • Craigles says:

      09:44am | 31/03/10

      The issue with so-called monogamous relationships is where one partner is cheating, as often happens in some parts of the world, and that cheating partner is not using condoms.

    • Ellie says:

      09:50am | 31/03/10

      Nice try, Rowdy.

      But monogamy is hardly going to help the children that are born to monogamous HIV positive parents. What if the couple want to have sex more than once, and continue to sprout more HIV positive children. How do you think “catholics” in western society manage to have only 2 children? Monogamy also doesn’t help women that are raped. Birth control is the only answer.

    • Rowdy says:

      09:56am | 31/03/10

      Actually John, you are the worry…you CANNOT get AIDS from kissing, yes children can be born with AIDS, if the mother or father is infected. But I say again for the simple ones like yourself, if you maintain a monogamous relationship (ie one partner and one partner only) then the risk of infection is zero if, of course, both parties are not infected to begin with.

      The problem with the spread of AIDS in Africa is not dirty needles or intravenous spread, it is about guys in particular having multiple partners and many realtionships, no self-resposibility, no self restraint. Yes condoms will help the situation (that is if these people even bother to wear them, which with the rising cases of STD’s in Sydney, a modern western society, is certainly not guaranteed), but the church preaches the alternative. Quite simple really. Nothing to do with putting faith anywhere

    • AliceC says:

      10:35am | 31/03/10

      @Rowdy

      And what about all the women who are raped by infected men? Will monogomy help them then?

      And the mis-understanding of how it is spread in many African countries? Education is paramount in these epidemic situations.

    • the apologist says:

      11:11am | 31/03/10

      @iansand:
      Surely you can observe the difference between what an idea says and then putting it into practice by someone? To ‘de-Christianise’ things for you (which is apparently where your problem seems to be); surely you can admit that there could be (for example) a member of a political party who has clearly defined policies, or a constitution/statement of the party who then acts inconsistently with what he or she is professing? It’s the same in this context, the Christian position is ultimately based upon the Bible, and like it or not, sexual abuse of children (and a lot of other things that have been done under the name of Christianity) is inconsistent with Biblical Christianity. It’s where the term ‘hypocrite’ comes into its own.

    • DG says:

      11:33am | 31/03/10

      Rowdy:

      It is one thing to refrain from recommending condoms on ideological grounds, it is quite another to lie about the efficacy of techniques based on ideological grounds. (see below re the popes comments that condoms make the matter worse).

      No one can deny that abstinence and monogamy are good ways of combating the spread of AIDS. But they are not the only ways, and if the Church is truly dedicated to solving the AIDS problem (as opposed to converting a nation to Catholicism), it would be more intellectually honest to admit that there are other techniques that could be used to minimise the risk of becoming infected from ones partner - even if, ideologically, those options should not be used.

      Monogamy also fails to deal with those born with AIDS or those who contract AIDS from an unfaithful partner.

      After all, given the Christian belief in forgiveness, wouldn’t it be better than a man wear a condom than infecting his wife with AIDS? I’m not certain where in the bible it says condoms are bad, but it’s pretty clear about murder.

      An aside: Rowdy, you could have made your point just as well without the reference to “If the guys could keep it in their pants” that line added nothing to the debate - if the women would keep their legs closed makes the same point - reference to gender, in this instance, is an unnecessary distraction.

    • MikeH says:

      12:15pm | 31/03/10

      @AliceC. So, correct me if I’m wrong… what you’re saying is that we need to teach rapists to use condoms…?

    • John A Neve says:

      01:00pm | 31/03/10

      Rowdy,
      Don’t you read well? What Isaid was “it has been suggested” and it has.
      Aids is supposedly transmitted by bodily fluids, kissing allows for the transmission of bodily fluides.

      I suggest you read more, it opens the mind. Just don’t believe all you read.

    • AliceC says:

      08:27am | 01/04/10

      @MikeH

      No, what I am saying is that the curch’s preaching of monogomy will not protect people from AIDS. Unless people understand properly how it is transmitted and are fully educated, the disease will continue to spread.

      Are you aware of the rape of virgins and babies by infected men, with the belief that sleeping with a virgin will cure theM?

      1) Meel BL (2003) 1. The myth of child rape as a cure for HIV/AIDS in Transkei: a case report. Med. Sci. Law 43, 85-88

      2) Flanagan, Jane (2001-11-11). “South African men rape babies as ‘cure’ for Aids”. Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/1362134/South-African-men-rape-babies-as-‘cure’-for-Aids.html. Retrieved 2009-03-25

      Unitl these myths are proven incorrect, with education and assistance, this horror will continue.

    • zzzzt says:

      05:53pm | 01/04/10

      John A Neve,
      On a side note, the kissing issue is a bit of a stretch. The chance of getting AIDS via kissing is incredibly minimal. Infected needles are an issue due to low standards of medical care and with correct medication, AIDS has only a 2% chance of being passed to your offspring.

      The problem with the no-contraceptive approach is that all too often if one partner is already infected, the other refuses to use contraception to protect them self.

    • Angry African says:

      04:21pm | 02/04/10

      @Rowdy says: -09:05am | 31/03/10

      If you think people will stop having sex simply because you say so, then you (and your church) have very little understanding of human behaviour.

    • Bob H says:

      07:30am | 31/03/10

      Congratulations on realising the underhand indoctrination religions use to corrupt young minds, lets hope more people will use sense to clear their minds of religion’s dirt. 
      I hope your daughter enjoys her future spiritual exploration based on her thoughts and observations and not those of grubby pedophiles..

    • Craigles says:

      07:48am | 31/03/10

      and, lets hope her thoughts are what I wish for my daughter: reflections of interactions with all the riches and realities the world has to offer - anthropology, sociology, the arts, philosophy, science, and nature.

    • Bob H says:

      08:29am | 31/03/10

      Craigles - It could be a beautiful world one day - sans religion.

    • the apologist says:

      07:53am | 31/03/10

      Thanks for your article Paul, I appreciate your unabashed honesty in this public capacity.

      I’d echo Claire’s thoughts, don’t let the sins of people leave you questioning the truth that they profess. Those who have abused children in their capacity as leaders in the Catholic church have misrepresented and discredited their profession. They have not lived consistently with it.

      You need the genuine article for there to be the possibility of hypocrites!

      But I can sympathise with your comments:
      “The trouble is, I pointed out, that you might be able to have a real and personal relationship with Christ but as a Catholic you must accept the Church and everything about it.”

      As a protestant Christian, I believe this to be a serious error in the Roman Catholic church. You won’t find a real Biblical case for the amount of authority vested in the church by Roman Catholics (IMHO). The beauty of Biblical faith in Jesus (I don’t doubt there are Catholics who experience this) is that you can have a real personal relationship with Christ, without submitting to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the ‘absolute lordship of the Church’ (certainly committing to it, and benefitting from fellowship and guidance).
      My advice? get back to Christ himself.

    • Ken Smithson says:

      08:27am | 31/03/10

      No first-hand account exists of any individual who actually met and knew Jesus.  Christianity is based on a myth and adopted over 300 years after the supposed crucifixion by a murdering Roman emperor, Constantine, who sent his mother to the so-call holy land to identify ‘holy’ sites and relics.  Among these were three wooden crosses.  She identified the ‘true’ cross by touching a sick individual with one of them making the patient miraculously healed!  Christianity and the Catholic Church has been responsible for more murders (witches, the inquisition, etc) and human suffering and misery than any war or dictator.  Religion is man’s most evil invention and the Catholic Church a magnet for paedophiles and sexual deviates.

    • Tone says:

      08:51am | 31/03/10

      Constantine’s mother’s choice spelt the end for all the other sects and cults - Arianism, Zoatrianism, Montanism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, etc, etc - that were trying to compete with Judaism and its branches.  It was personal and became political.

      The only evidence for Jesus is the gospel stories that were selected from the dozens of other stories on the basis of their popularity, which in turn was based on their alignment with Olde Testament prophecies i.e. self-fulfilling fiction.  Origen said Josephus only made reference to the Christus, showing the reference to Jesus in Josephus’ works were later fraudulent additions.

    • the apologist says:

      08:52am | 31/03/10

      Well, Ken, I was actually refering to a personal dealing with God (something you have not experienced clearly) - but yes, the Biblical accounts are a key aspect of that.
      Your claims re. Constantine are unfounded, so i’m gonna have to call your bluff. There are numerous proven examples of Christian Scripture from far before Constantine’s time (it’s got more historical integrity than any other historical document - a fact agreed by historians of all creeds), and the nature of the way it was perpetuated mean that there were copies of it all over the then world - no centralised version for Constantine to manipulate. These copies can be compared, and are remarkably consistent. Any alterations to the Biblical text would stick out like a sore thumb next to the numerous examples still existing.
      So Christianity is based upon the Biblical account.
      RE. the sufferings and evils you refer to: people are responsible. Don’t try and blame Biblical Christianity as a whole. It’s easy to see that many such evils are completely inconsistent with Christianity itself.
      Man’s religion? yes, it’s evil. God’s way, however, is not.

    • Tone says:

      09:16am | 31/03/10

      “alterations to the Biblical text(s)” and its gospel story forerunners, including the apocryphal gospels, were so common, either as mis-translation or wilful re-interpretations. at least 4 scribes, and 5 correctors, worked on Codex Sinaiticus for Eusebius who was commissioned by Constantine

    • the apologist says:

      09:26am | 31/03/10

      @ Tone:
      Actually, the Bibilical Canon was a unified agreement process between established churches in the cities across the then world.
      OT prophecies = self-fulfilling fiction? How is it fiction if they were accurate?
      I’m not well researched on Josephus, but I believe that he merely referred to Jesus ‘called Christ’ (which He was - by others). Not that J himself believed Him to be the Christ prophesied of in the Jewish Scriptures. But even if he did, that’s not an intrinsic reason in itself to believe the references were fabricated later. You’d need to convincingly establish the when how and why of such fabrication to have a real reason to doubt the work itself, not merely saying: he probably wouldn’t have said that therefore it’s a fraud.

    • Zeta says:

      09:42am | 31/03/10

      Pre Constantine, there were a myriad accounts of Christ from second hand sources, and one from what maybe a first hand source apart from the Gospels. Paul of Tarsus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus and Tacitus all make mention of him. Thallus, of the Fragments of Thallus was alive and in Judea at the time of Christ’s death and he mentions the earthquakes and darkness at Passover. 

      Then of course there is census data, impeccably collated by the Roman Empire. We know there was a man named Jesus, born in Gallilee at the turn of that century, whose father was Joseph, a carpenter, and whose brothers were James, Joses, Simon and Jude and whose sisters were not recorded.

    • Tone says:

      09:47am | 31/03/10

      No way was there ““a unified agreement process between established churches in the cities across the then world.” 

      Doctrine, such as the concept of the Trinity, was decided over a 60 day meeting “in council” at Nicea.

      Nothing in the gospels is ‘accurate’ - just aligned!

    • Me says:

      10:08am | 31/03/10

      to the Apologist: you said “These copies can be compared, and are remarkably consistent”. Actually, the bible is full of inconsistancies, you don’t even get past the accounts of Genesis before they contradict each other with the order (ie were humans created before other animals?  gen 1:125-27 vs 2:18-19).  Even the stories of the birth of jesus contradict each other.  Project Reason has a great poster in its image gallery that shows all the contradictions (and there are plenty of them).

    • Cam says:

      11:06am | 31/03/10

      @Theapologist - If you REALLY want to take your head out of the sand, i highly recommend a documentary called “who wrote the bible?”. It is presented BY a christian who wanted to learn where the book came from and how it was constructed. Even after learning how it came about he STILL believes. This is a testament to the fact that Christians, even when presented with all the facts that what they believe is rubbish, will still believe. Its the mark of a weak human being.

      PS i am REALLY surprised you guys bother trying to defend your religion. You really have no argument and i think deep down you KNOW its a crock. You just don’t want it to be so.

    • the apologist says:

      12:22pm | 31/03/10

      @Tone:
      No way was there ““a unified agreement process between established churches in the cities across the then world.”
      A reason for your statement, if you please. The Biblical Canon was agreed upon in processes similar to the Council of Nicea you describe.
      You don’t know that it’s not accurate. As well as my personal experience of walking with the Living God founded in those accounts, I also think there is a compelling case to believe that it is accurate.
      A heavily biased, but thought provoking introduction can be found in Lee Strobels ‘The Case for Christ’.
      @Me:
      You said the Bible is “full of inconsistencies”. The verses in Genesis that you refer to are two separate accounts, recording separate details of different occurrences. To be sure, the two passages broadly speaking (i.e. Gen 1 & Gen 2 and following) are separate accounts of the same thing, but from two angles as it were. Although they do cover the same chronological period, they also each cover periods that the other doesn’t. I’m not sure what point you’re attempting to make. The first verses mentioned tell us the order they came in in terms of their creation (and is explicitly chronological i.e. beasts came before man); the second verse is not an account of the creation per se (certainly not chronologically speaking), it is referring to events happening after the creation. It tells us that He made the beasts and brought them to man, the chronology of the second reference is consistent with that of the first and I’m not sure why you think they are inconsistent.
      So start giving me some real inconsistencies and then we’ll talk. It’s one thing to claim them, it’s another thing to test them.
      @Cam:
      Well Cam, if the Bible is such inconsistent rubbish, it shouldn’t be too hard for you to start to pick it apart verse by verse. If you want to do that, I’m happy to defend against your claims. There’s certainly no doubt amongst historians generally (Christian & atheist) that the Bible is the most reliable historical document in existence.
      Please don’t pretend you’ve got an unbiased view of the facts (and at this stage, I’ll reserve scepticism for the supposed veracity of the documentary you mention). It’s a fact (hehe) that everyone interprets facts through their worldview and shapes their opinions accordingly. We are all weak human beings in that sense. I’m just willing to take God at His word rather than trust to my intensely limited and supposedly rationalistic observations. Not to mention that the Bible stacks up from the rationalistic approach as well…
      Ps. I defend my beliefs because I know that the Living God is real. I have seen His work, I experience His power and His mercy. I have tasted and seen that the Lord is good, as the psalmist said.
      Tell me, what possible reason could I have for defending something that I truly believed was a crock?? What do I stand to gain?? I am a passionate seeker of truth, and if I wasn’t absolutely convinced on the truth of Jesus Christ, why would I and countless men and women through the ages be willing to die for something we didn’t believe in?? Plenty have made that sacrifice.
      I think deep down you hate the idea of being accountable for your rebellion against God, wish to live life on your own terms, and that you’ve ultimately hardened your heart to God and have become completely blind to Him (Romans 1). May God have mercy on you, He is willing, and I have experienced it.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:09pm | 31/03/10

      apologist, so your argument is bascially that it’s true because you believe in it. Please go to the back of the line with the other followers of other religions.

    • Vax says:

      01:43pm | 31/03/10

      “don’t let the sins of people leave you questioning the truth that they profe” - hello, there is a thing called “credibility”. How can I believe what those people teach is true if they have no credibility because of the “sins” they commit?

      In other words: I may beleive in God… but if the “church” folk mandates that I must accepthe them/their authority and at the same time the have no credibility whatsoever… I’ll happily keep my faith but w/out the church who has discredited itself in my eyes. Yes, they do a good job in Africa… as well as probably dozen of other charities, who do not claim to “represent” God on earth

    • Chris L says:

      01:56pm | 31/03/10

      I think good arguments are being put forward from both sides. I personally reject the bible due to the idea put forward that god is so lacking in self esteem that he demands you drop to your knees and worship him, otherwise he will torture you for the rest of eternity. If this god is real I wouldn’t want to live as a lap dog in his kingdom.

    • Tone says:

      02:10pm | 31/03/10

      apologist - the premisses for my point are in previous posts - multiple sects and cults negate the claim of a unified agreement process.In fact one of the key functions of the Council of Nicea was to see off Arianism.

      The gospels - both canonical and apocryphal - were re-mixed, re-told and re-written through those centuries with many other stories.

    • Tone says:

      02:11pm | 31/03/10

      ... to try to see off Arianism; it still persisted, as did other variations on the Christian theme.  Catholicism just grew bigger quicker because it was politicised.

    • the apologist says:

      04:23pm | 31/03/10

      @Austin:
      I presume that you’re referring to my discussion with Cam, the only argument I really engaged him with was that of challenging him to justify claims that the Bible was inconsistent. My statements of belief were touching and reflecting on the personal motivation behind why I engage in argument, not an argument per se.
      @Vax:
      I think you’re essentially attacking the Roman Catholic institution, and given I’m not a Catholic, I’d prefer not to defend it. I’ve certainly got issues with the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal authority and church authority.
      But my central point was that there is such a thing as people claiming the title of Christianity but misrepresenting it by teaching things, and acting in overt ways that are clearly inconsistent with the Christian position.
      As I said earlier, there’s got to be the genuine article to be hypocrites, and the genuine article should have the ‘credibility’ you refer to.
      @Chris L:
      Thanks for the cred! Most people refuse to acknowledge points from both sides, and if you nail them, they go silent and just reject what you say.
      Worship, as it happens, is a much broader concept than what you have painted I think (having an intimate and daily knowledge with the Bible - far from comprehensive of course!). Certainly not a lap dog relationship. More along the lines of: every natural relationship is something of a shadowy reflection of what relationship with God is (e.g. parent-child, husband-wife, friend-friend). The fullness of relationship with God is where all these relationships are derivative from. Worship (Biblically speaking) falls within that covenant paradigm, and is bigger than what can be done justice here…
      @ Tone:
      Generally, cults etc. were rejected as heretical through processes such as the Council of Nicea as you mention. i.e., there was a majority of church leaders who defended against these sorts of challenges in the development of the church. In the same way the Canon was agreed upon – the majority came to verify it all (the process I was referring to). To be sure, it was not a clear cut process, and there were contentious aspects – but it was a majority process, and the Canon was agreed upon in church history (comparatively very early in the piece). Sects and cults, and proposed scriptural documents, were rejected.
      Your point on the ‘re-telling’ of canonical documents is one of the points where their veracity is proven. There are numerous copies of them from various locations which are largely consistent with one another – refuting your re-mixing claim. Because there were so many copies in so many places (well preserved I might add), it’s easy to spot times and places where re-writes (which are surprisingly few) were attempted. Many of the supposed rejected gospels are no where near as proliferate or as early as the established Canon.
      Are we getting anywhere? I think not. Here is not the place to prove it all really.
      Certainly I don’t claim the church to be some unified neat pathway through history. As your comments reflect, it has been a dynamic and bumpy procedure. It’s a divine miracle really that it even exists. A movement started by a crucified Galilean who was apparently squelched, leaving a handful of followers? There’s been plenty of other starts apparently similar lost to the pages of history. Hmmm….

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      06:58pm | 31/03/10

      Hi Apologist,
      You want bible inconsistencies http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

      knock yourself out.

      I was initially referring to your claim that ” I defend my beliefs because I know that the Living God is real.” Based on your experiences of his power yadda, yadda, yadda. So it’s true because you believe in it.

      Pretty much the same as any adherent of any religion will tell you.

    • Tone says:

      07:20pm | 31/03/10

      @apollogist - certainly the prolific copying of works led to re-writing and re-mixing; and some of the community documents present in the times of early Christianity hardly made reference to Jesus.  Some of these epistles may have been from pre-Christian sects, too - Judaism had several competing branches (eg. Hellenistic & Pharisaic) and was losing its hold in some communities.

      These varied works probably sustained a lot of the sects until the charges of heresy were attempted, although the politicisation of Christianity after Nicea probably had more influence in suppressing them.  Some survived the changes.

      Moreover, there is now discussion that the earliest biblical description of the resurrection appearances of Jesus (Paul’s account in Corinthians 15: 3-7; 1Cor) seems to represent a pre-Pauline creedal statement derived from the first Christian community

      Many early preachers had differing views of Jesus, with suggestion that even after his crucifixion Jesus was a very strong interest of Jewish moral teachers preaching to Gentiles.  According to Daniel Boyarin, in ‘A Radical Jew’, Paul of Tarsus combined the stories of the life of Jesus with Greek philosophy to re-interpret the Hebrew Bible in terms of the Platonic theory of distinction between the ideal (which is real) and the material (which is false).

    • the apologist says:

      09:53am | 01/04/10

      @Austin:
      Well, I would be willing to discuss any and all perceived Biblical inconsistencies, but you don’t seem at all interested in any form of discussion, so I’d be wasting my time. If that’s an unfair assumption, prove me wrong.
      Re. the bit where you quoted me, you’re still missing my distinction. Yes, I know that the living God is real, and yes that’s what motivates me to defend my beliefs. Is that the argument I present to people like you? No. Obviously I’d be getting exactly your reaction if I did. As I said before, that statement was discussing my motivations, it was not put forward as any sort of argument (which you seem to be convinced of).
      But even in your observation of ‘believeing because I believe’, you’re still way of track. I don’t believe ‘just because’. No one does (unless they’re lazy). Everyone has a reason for believing what they believe, it’s just not immediately apparent, or even perceptable between various people. I believe what I believe essentially because of what God has done in my life. But as I said, obviously you and others aren’t going to pay that, thus my not putting it forward as an argument in the logical sense.
      @Tone:
      These are all interesting observations which would probably stimulate good discussion. But you’re not addressing my point. Re. the prolific writing and copying of the canonical texts (which is the main subject that I’ve been attempting to keep on track with here – as opposed to opening up the discussion to the other texts eg Gnostic gospels): the volume of original texts from the now Biblical canon are proliferate from across numerous locations (and consistent with the Bibles we have today – general observataion). The re-writing of any of these is easily identifiable. Comparison of samples from the different places in which they were written shows a lot of consistency, and variations are easily pin-pointed to locations. And even these differences are generally not substantial. The consistency and date of the numerous texts in existence shows that it was not actually possible for Constantine, or anyone else, to make central and significant changes to the now Biblical canon.
      If you wish to make further points on any of the other issues that you have raised, please do, but clarify your point and the challenge that you’re making so I can have a clear idea of where the discussion is going. Otherwise it tends to turn into a rant of words and non-sequential propositions.
      Although I will say this of your description of “Many early preachers had differing views of Jesus” – it’s one thing to put such theories (and the following ones on Paul) forward, it is another thing entirely to prove them - which I don’t believe you’ve done.
      Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate them.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:00pm | 01/04/10

      Hey apologist, yep I bet you could go through and reconcile each and every one of those ol biblical inconsistencies, oh if only I was serious. What a pity I’m not serious, my lack of seriousness is depriving us of watching the apologist reconcile hundreds of inconsistencies in the bible.

      Ahh who are we kidding, it’s a cop out.  “I could do it” says the apologist “I could do it in a second flat. It’s just that I don’t want to do it right now.”
      That’s the kind of excuse I really haven’t heard since primary school.

      And you are still saying you believe because you believe. You can only credit God for what he has done in your life if you believe in God. Simple as that.

    • Tone says:

      03:09pm | 01/04/10

      The point is out of the dozens of documents - the works that are early epistles, the apocryphal gospels, and what became the canonical gospels - the ones selected were selected on their popularity and alignment to Olde Testament prophecies, which is the case with the epistles of Paul which just rehashes, and alignment to each other.  The overlaps in the synoptic gospels shows they copied ideas from each other and probably an earlier document.  Works and passages were added and dropped after Codex Sinaiticus.  The biblical ideas were around long before Jesus’ time.

    • Nathan says:

      04:32am | 06/04/10

      So what? If the bible can be proved to be written by the tooth fairy, t doesn’t mean that the tooth fairy was ‘inspired’ by god or writing the ‘word’ of god. Just because it can be proved that the bible is a real historical document doesn’t mean it is the truth, like, i don’t know, Mein Kampf? I don’t think anyone is disputing this is a hostorical document yet we dont blindly believe its ridiculous propositions.

    • Tone says:

      10:36am | 06/04/10

      Nathan: the point is - the bible is conflated, confabulated fiction.

    • Ea says:

      08:02am | 31/03/10

      Ah!You saw the light! The treatment of children and adults has been appalling, the tolerance of paedophiles scandalous and the Pope’s example disgraceful.

    • Claire says:

      08:06am | 31/03/10

      Marina Go, schools have also allowed children to be abused, arguably on as wide a scale as any church. Are you boycotting the education system as a result?

    • SkepDadBlog says:

      08:34am | 31/03/10

      .. and they were pursued vigorously under the law, something which the church has avoided by virtue of its cloistered privilege.
      Stop defending the rapists in the church, it’s disgusting.

    • Dwayne says:

      08:39am | 31/03/10

      The difference is the systemic way in which the church (including the current pope) knowingly enabled a network of paedophiles to continue the horific abuse of innocent children by moving them from church to church (and child to child), leaving a trail of destroyed lives at every stage. Seems to me the church was more concerned with their branding and finances than the wellbeing of the innocent children.

    • LAZ says:

      08:15am | 31/03/10

      The Roman Catholic church exists to satisfy the superficial, religious nature of most people who don’t want a direct relationship with God through Jesus (after He went to all that effort to die for us all), they inwardly know that would make them accountable for their actions, so they join the catholic club which allows them to believe and do whatever they want with no accountability to God, just to the churches traditions (which have nothing to do with God or the Bible). People end up in life where they want to be….

    • Brendan says:

      08:16am | 31/03/10

      I’m always amazed when people claim to have a personal relationship with God.  Do they mean they hear a voice in their head?  Or do they mean that they feel a spirit guiding them.

      I know people who hear voices in their head urging them to do things.  I also know people who feel a spirit beyond them compels their action….but you really don’t want to be too close to them, trust me.

    • Dwayne says:

      08:28am | 31/03/10

      If you want to educate your kids instead of merely indoctrinating them, then teach them about all of the different belief structures (including religious and non-religious) throughout the ages and help instil the virtues of critical thinking and tolerance. That way, they can make their own informed decisions in the future.

    • Simon the Pieman says:

      09:00am | 31/03/10

      Do not teach them anything about religions, leave well alone and let her discover and conclude for herself - unless she has subserviant behaviour and is easily led, then any of the religious franchises will do ( when she is older there will probably be as an option “Jim’s Religious Services” ).

    • Craigles says:

      09:36am | 31/03/10

      General Religious Instruction where all relgions are presented equally is part of the NSW state school curriculum - Year 3, I think.

    • Dwayne says:

      10:19am | 31/03/10

      I disagree Simon, their ability to question things by exposing them to a variety of opinions and belief structures is an important life skill. My kids are leaning towards FSM at the moment because they get to dress up as pirates.

    • SkepDadBlog says:

      08:24am | 31/03/10

      You say your religion has given you a sense of right and wrong: how so?  Clearly it can’t be from the bible, unless you think slavery, infanticide, incest and the repression of women qualify as right.
      Clearly it can’t be from the institution of the church, unless you believe that rape, paedophilia, the repression of women, the promotion of sexually transmitted disease and the supposed emulation of Jesus’s life by hoarding of massive wealth to be right.
      You can’t cherry-pick the things you personally agree with and ignore the wider Word of God (TM) which explicitly supports these hateful and uncivilised beliefs.
      I honestly can’t understand how anyone can sanction indoctrinating their children into catholicism.  I can’t blame you though - you are clearly a victim of indoctrination abuse under this cult from a young age yourself, as are all other catholics raised catholic by catholic parents. 
      Please break the cycle of abuse and raise your daughter as a critical thinking humanist.  There’s no place for medieval mysticism in contemporary society.

    • Mick says:

      08:46am | 31/03/10

      Spot on, the worst kind of Christians are the ones you live the half hearted attempt.

      Next time you believers see a gay man, stone him to death as that’s what your bible commands you to do. Then while you’re at it stone the midgets to death, along with any of your children who don’t do as you ask.

      But none of you will do that as Society has taught you that these things are wrong. It’s society that decides what is morally repugnant or not. Not religion.

      You cannot pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to live by, pick your side and have the guts to stick to it.

    • smithsonian says:

      09:07am | 31/03/10

      ALL religious schools should be banned.  Schools are for learning.  You do not ‘learn’ religion.  It is a ‘faith’ in which children become indoctrinated.  Just like the Taliban whose ‘martyrs’ are promised 72 virgins.  Hey, Pope!  Any advance on 72??

    • Simon the Pieman says:

      09:04am | 31/03/10

      We have the law to tell us what is right or wrong - it is relevant to the time and place and based on reason.  Anything else is just silliness.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      09:33am | 31/03/10

      @Smithsonian - the pope has bettered the promise, the deal is “all the virgins you want and now”  unfortunately it is for staff only.

    • Fredd says:

      09:52am | 31/03/10

      @ Sam Chowder - a few bloggers elsewhere have alluded to the attraction to the priesthood for young gay men in the days before it was best to stay in the closet, and that the seminary doors banged all night.  Makes one wonder how long the cycle of abuse has gone on, and what proportion then became abusers as a result.

      To be fair, it is a small % of clergy, and most was at least 2 decades ago.

    • Daniel says:

      11:49am | 31/03/10

      clearly your theological view points are superior to those who actually study theology. If you actually read the Bible in its context you would find no such “disparities”. I am not sure what the point of your comment is since it seems to be a rant against catholics, christians and the Bible but here are a few facts:
      1)Catholics are not Bible believing Christians - they believe in both biblical concepts as well as earthly traditions -this is why the protestant reformation occured
      2) Christians are people and like all people subject to temptations. Christians are not any more or less moral then non-christians, the only difference is Christians know we are not moral and in need of a Saviour
      3) The Bible has proved the test of time over and over again. It is not simply Christians who cherry pick concepts it is secularists like yourself. The bible talks about how theifs, liars, murderers, sexually immoral people etc will get punished one day. I am certain you don’t have a problem with murderers getting punished but people seem to have a probelm with sexually immoral people getting punished. I agree the Bible is a take it all or leave document, otherwise you are being inconsistant. But I disagree with your meagure understanding about what exactly applies today and what doesn’t. Eg cultural norms may not be applicable today such as slavery (an economic neccesity by both slaves and masters) to alleviate poverty (no welfare available), repression of women (again a cultural norm as practiced by many cultures today not out of religious practice but out of neccessity (yes people living in dire poverty are more pragmatic about the roles of men and women). In fact Christianity gave Women equal spiritual rights independant from men (unheard of at the time). It is the bible’s very warning against sexual immorality that was designed to a) prevent STD’s b) encourage a one man one women relationship c)ensure children are seen as blessings not curses to be disposed of.
      And Yes I am sure other cricial humanists such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedung would be very proud of your recommendation to raise children as humanists that way: disabled people can be killed, children can be aborted, weak people can be trampled, poor people can be cheated, sexually immoral people (rapists, child molestors, fornicators, adulterers, beastilty practicers etc) can feel great about themselves and most importantly, self rightous people like yourself can continue to live fat dumb and happy

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:36pm | 31/03/10

      @Daniel:
      So you don’t think a little thing called “communism” had something to do with Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot’s crazy despotism? Hitler was a non-denominational Christian, by the way.

      So what is the ‘context’ of the Bible? If the ‘context’ includes the doctrine of ignoring the bad bits, then it’s a perfectly moral document! Jesus saying “be nice to people” does not negate the support of slavery, the atrocious treatment of women who have been raped or the calls to kill the non-believers.

    • SkepDadBlog says:

      09:54pm | 31/03/10

      @ Daniel:

      By “in context” I assume you mean “wearing theological blinkers” to help you maintain your cognitive partition.

      I have read quite a lot of the bible.  It contains much which is abhorrent to modern people, although these things were not so abhorrent to the people who wrote it.  The *people* who wrote it.  It’s entirely self-consistent in that context.

      I don’t want criminals to be punished “someday” maybe.  I want them punished now.  You defend your rapist clergymen by saying it is the work of the devil, absolving the actual humans of their crimes.  And you say secularists are amoral.

      You expose yourself as an apologist for criminals masquerading as moral beacons.  Your last paragraph shows only the extent to which the truly blinkered faithful will wildly distort the truth and fabricate laughable strawmen to hide their own nonsensical positions from scrutiny.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      06:29am | 01/04/10

      Hi Daniel, unless of course any of those liars, thieves et al just repent and confess their sins. Then it’s straight into paradise right? Unlike say Ghandi who despite being a truly remarkable man was a Hindu, he gets to fry for all eternity.
      It’s a charming theology. Say hi to Dahmer for me.
      As to the “one man one women” bit - well I’ll leave it to America’s Best Christian to explain
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

    • Hmmm says:

      07:10pm | 01/04/10

      In reply to smithsonian.

      I’m a Muslim and I could not agree with you more.

      I’m like some one else on this blog, the spirituality side is in my heart, i don’t need an institution led by men to tell me what to believe, The quran is their for me to intepret as I see fit!

      In which case back to banning religious schools,  what I may say will more than likely be frowned upon by fellow muslim, but i dont care.
      Islamic schools from my observance are their to brain wash the youth into submission of the views of that schools version of the quran and islam.
      Second, forcing girls to wear the hijab as part of the school uniform and enforcing strict long dress code for girls from kindy is absurd! Why arn’t the boys forced to do the same.
      Third, I learnt early on that as a muslim it is a sin to judge fellow man, as god is the only one to judge, yet kids in Islamic school are known to get kicked out if they do not achieve above 80% around the year 10 level. Is that not judging.
      Fourth,  in reference to particularly islamic schools, socially muslims are now looked down upon and have to tolerate racism, its the norm. However if a child is in islamic school from an early age, all the way through high school, which means outside of school their friends are more than likely only muslim, when do they interact with non-muslims. I dare say that when they go for job interviews, some employees might frown upon this.
      lastly, to the author teach your child the difference between wrong and right, leave religion out and allow her to decide on her own if religion is her path to follow. I know it might come as shocking my parents limited islamic teaching to their 9 children, purely out of laziness, each child has formed their own opinon, each is a moderate follower, and i daresay i can count on one hand how many have attended a mosque.
      Religion is a spiritual connection to something not tangeable a belief that something exist beyond this world, nobody wants life to end here, everyone wants to believe their is a beautiful place waiting. Most people believe that to get to this place, you must prove yourself by your good deeds, how anyone can be negative of this beggars belief.
      Having said that, as a Muslim I can seperate the evil molester from his religion, the individual committed the sin not the religion, Muslims have to fight to put this through peoples heads daily. were not all to blame for a minorities crazy evil sins.

    • Kiddo says:

      09:00am | 31/03/10

      Dont be a Catholic then, be a Christian….

    • SkepDad says:

      09:29am | 31/03/10

      Can religious folks switch allegiances that easily?  I thought faith was a deeply held experience with one’s personal saviour, not something subject to a shopping list.

      While you’re going shopping for some nonsense to hang your hat on, why not try scientology or pastafarianism?  Or for that matter, islam? 

      You people really make me laugh.

    • MikeH says:

      12:36pm | 31/03/10

      @SkepDad: You answer your own question - “I thought faith was a deeply held experience with one’s personal saviour, not something subject to a shopping list.”

      If I have a deep relationship with my Saviour (and I do) and an institution distorts the truth of that (as I believe the Catholic Church does), then of course I’ll switch churches. My “allegiance” is to Christ first (and clearly never to scientology pastafarianism or islam - that’s just silly). Fortunately, there are many Christian Churches out there that don’t ask me to compromise my faith.

    • Darren says:

      09:13am | 31/03/10

      Let’s be honest here. The number one concern is that the children were abused in what is supposed to be a house of God, by people who are supposed to have a special relationship with God that is above us mere mortals. If both of these things are not true, then the church is built upon nothing but shadows, deception and the desire for money. Please, wake up people. If it is true, then God is a child molesterer.

    • Iconoclast says:

      11:40am | 31/03/10

      That is one of the tragedies of this situation. Trust has completely been abused by a bunch of criminal thugs who are charged with the care of these children, and the authorities chose to do nothing but perpetuate their illegal and morally abhorrent behaviour. How are we to believe anything these con artists preach? How are we to believe that anything these creatures say is just another way to manipulate the weak and vulnerable into doing things against their better nature. The devil could do worse than disguise himself as the Catholic church.

    • Valk says:

      09:20am | 31/03/10

      It’s refreshing to see someone brought up with the idea that they shouldn’t question or think for themselves making the decision to use their mind and determine right and wrong on their own.


      By the way, Easter did not originate with Christianity.


      Easter is actually a Spring festival that predates Christianity.


      It originally comes from the celebration of “Eostre”, the ancient Greek goddess of Spring. Long before Christianity, people celebrated the return of light and warmth every year at the Spring equinox.


      The eggs signify fertility and all the breeding that goes on in Spring. The bunny also represents fertility too because, well, we all know about rabbits.


      In 325 A.D. the church decided, for political reasons, to eclipse the pagan festival with their own party, and made a conscious decision to tell everyone this was the day Jesus died.


      Didn’t you ever wonder how Jesus could possibly die on a different date every year?


      The reason Easter truly shifts is because the date of the Spring equinox shifts.


      Good work on thinking for yourself on this topic, now keep on doing it and keep digging further.


      The true voice of God comes loudest from within yourself, not through other mortal men and women.


      Learn to listen to God with your own ears, instead of through second hand messages, and what you hear will be much closer to the truth.

    • Caz says:

      10:05am | 31/03/10

      I totally agree with you. you asked “Didn’t you ever wonder how Jesus could possibly die on a different date every year?” He died in Nisan 14 (which I think it is the Jewish Calender) so however the date translated to ours now. Look it up it’s very interesting.

    • Proud Infidel says:

      11:17am | 31/03/10

      Hear Hear! People the truth is out there. The evident is just below the surface, question everything and read books.

    • Ronk says:

      10:04pm | 03/04/10

      No matter what anyone’s religious beliefs are, your comments are a farrago of nonsense. It’s you who needs to start “thinking for yourself”. No such goddess as Eostre was known to the Greeks. The name “Easter” in English ONLY is possibly derived from “Eostre”. In other languages the word for Easter is derived from the Hebtrew Pesach (Passover).

      The Spring equinox never shifts. The Christian celebration of CXhrist’s death and resurrection has been celebrated since the very beginning of Christianity. Nothing political about it. The bishops of the world decided in 325 AD to standardise the date of Easter which had been celebrated at various different dates in different countries. They drew up a compromise beween the 2 most common methods for determining the date, by choosing the Sunday after the full moon occurring on or after the spring equinox, which usually makes it very close to 14th of Nisan (the Jewish Passover). And no Christian has ever believed that Jesus dies on a different date every year. The date is merely a convention. Do you think the Queen was really born on a different day in June every year?

    • john says:

      10:34pm | 03/04/10

      hmmm….that’s interesting. I don’t know too much about what you’ve just said but I’m quite sure the modern dates we have for easter and christmas are purely symbolic and convention. The exact day Christ was born and crucified is not truly known as far as I’m aware. It is irrelevant what we want to call these events, but what we Christians commemorate is the birth and death/ressurection of Christ and that’s the important part. Egg and rabbit symbolism aren’t exactly Biblical either. Perhaps the dates might have overlapped with some pagan ritual, but what we celebrate now as “Easter” does in fact originate from Christianity.

    • Jacqs says:

      09:20am | 31/03/10

      Not that I agree with trial by media (seperate issue) but we talk about the Catholic Church covering up child abuses.  What about reports of the alleged cover up in the Australian Television industry in the ‘80s also?  Have you lost faith in that also and reacted accordingly?

      Obviously an institution proclaiming the truths of an eternal deity drives us to hope they would get it right, but the reality is that it is a human institution that inevitably and sadly is vulnerable to being affected by present social/cultural norms in any generation.

      How we as a society ‘handle’ and communicate around different matters constantly changes.  Twenty/thirty years later issues like this are approached differently both inside and outside the church.

      As we all learn as kids, do the wrong thing and there are consequences.  These actions of abuse without a doubt should have and could have been handled better - again, both inside and outside the church.  But they weren’t.  As a result there are a lot of broken, hurting people ... amongst both the abused and the abusers.

      Catholic or Protestant, whether or not it is from under the roof of a religious institution this Easter, perhaps it is time to pull out a bible, read and meditate on the Christian Easter story for ourselves, and explore the healing available through Christ’s offer of grace and forgiveness, both for ourselves and others. 

      Lets see if we can discover the beauty of the ‘God Particle’ in our own lives before the scientists at CERN do!

    • Ben Finney says:

      05:10pm | 04/04/10

      > the reality is that it is a human institution that inevitably and sadly is vulnerable to being affected by present social/cultural norms in any generation.

      Well and good. On this logic, then, the church, in acknowledgement of the human fallibility of its members and the human nature of the crimes committed, should have immediately reported every one of these crimes to the secular authorities and cooperated in their prosecution.

      Indeed, they should report all such crimes that they know about that have *not* been exposed yet, and cooperate in prosecution of each one, without ever hiding a single one from the light of day.

      Perhaps, since that never happened and isn’t happening now, the institution’s leaders do not want the consequences of being a fallible human institution. If so, we must make that their undoing.

    • J says:

      09:22am | 31/03/10

      Excellent point, SkepDadBlog.  I have a sense of right and wrong too, but I’m an atheist.  Where do I get my enduring sense of treating others with favour?  It’s been repeatedly said in these blog topics that certain religious individuals cannot understand why atheists want to be ‘good’.  Is it as simple as a desire to not be in gaol and the knowledge that blood is really hard to get out of clothes?

      Hmmm…

      Mick, I had a Christian friend tell me that all that poisonous stuff in Leviticus was invalidated when Jesus came to Earth.  That stuff (according to her), can be ignored, and Jesus’ message of love embraced instead.

    • Iconoclast says:

      11:41am | 31/03/10

      Do the right thing for no other reason than that it’s the right thing to do. Be good for goodness sake. The simple fact of the matter is that when I feel I’ve done something good, I get a good feeling. That is enough for me. If you are doing good in fear of some psychotic fascist deity, or in the hope of receiving some kind of reward from a sky genie, then you are doing right for the wrong reasons. If that is the only thing that is refraining people from acting out however they would like, then this world is truly heading for the apocalypse.

    • J says:

      12:37pm | 31/03/10

      Iconoclast - definitely, I get the same good feeling when I do something nice for someone.  For me, the best way is baking a batch of biscuits.  Smiles all round. :-D

      Equally true, the fact that some people are ‘good’ because of some spiritual accountability.  Whilst I feel nothing for organised religion and don’t feel there is a God - if we need religion to keep those nutjobs in check, I’m happy for it to stay.

    • loxy says:

      09:30am | 31/03/10

      Those who cover up sexual abuse are just as repulsive as the actual abusers and there is ample evidence of countless cover-ups by the Catholic Church all over the world. How anyone who calls themselves a christian can cover up abuse of a child is beyond me but I take comfort in the fact that it is the Church’s own beliefs that will issue the ultimate punishment - that is all those abusers and those involved in any sort of cover up will all burn in hell.

    • Hades says:

      10:35am | 31/03/10

      You’d have to believe in heaven or hell to accept that statement.  How about they be gaoled instead?  Or better still, let the families of the abused children inflict their own justice.

    • Jeff says:

      09:31am | 31/03/10

      Can anyone explain why we as a society are not treating all these offending clergymen with the same punishment/treatment that we have shown Dennis Ferguson?

    • Craigles says:

      10:55am | 31/03/10

      In Australia, or possibly more specifically Melbourne, George Pell set up an independent commission led by a retired Judge or QC about 2001 and 200 cases were heard.  Complainants were encouraged to go to the police.  Some convictions resulted.

      The situations have been different in other countries, especially Ireland where there seems to b a theme of cover-up aided by parents and the police - the gardai - not believing or turning a blind eye;, that may be understandable given the pervasion of the Catholic Church in that society then 1940s (or earlier) to mid-1990s.  Catholicism has collapsed in Ireland mostly because of the abuse.

    • Zeta says:

      09:27am | 31/03/10

      Easter gets such a bad rap. Modern culture is all about Christmas. But baby Jesus was boring, and at its core, Catholicism is a death cult, so it doesn’t make sense to celebrate Christ’s birth with all that pomp, ceremony and rampant consumerism.

      To me, Easter is like The Empire Strikes Back compared to Christmas’ Return of the Jedi. Better produced, more drama, more excitement, but maintains commercial appeal despite ending on such a down note. Because Jesus still leaves at the end of Easter, which is up there with disappointments like Han Solo being captured by Boba Fett. The ridiculousness of Santa Claus and his elves showing up at Christmas time is almost as stupid as the Ewoks. But Easter has it all. The lows, the highs, Peter rocking out with his sword, betrayal, foresaken love, the depth of feeling between Father and son. It’s like comparing an HBO drama to a Nickelodeon cartoon.

      The Catholic Church seems intent on stripping all that mystery and excitement from the faith, which is what I can’t forgive them for.

      How did we get from a bunch of anti-authoritarian rebels preaching love and freedom to a staid, immovable institution that covers up the sexual abuse of children in only 2000 years?

      As a Catholic, I don’t know how they can live with them selves. Because it’s not like we’re guessing what Christ would have done to an institution like the modern Catholic Church, we know from the New Testement.

      For me, as a Catholic school boy being force fed this stuff the only part of the New Testement that resonanted was Christ in the Temple, Angry Jesus, tipping over tables and belowing at the corrupt Pharisees.

      If Jesus showed up today, that’s what he’d be doing in the Vatican.

    • Barx says:

      10:00am | 31/03/10

      Zeta = WINNER!!!!!!!!

    • Simon the pieman says:

      10:50am | 31/03/10

      Zeta always wins - but Sam Chowder second

    • David says:

      12:43pm | 31/03/10

      Amen to that, brother!

      I haven’t heard the analogy before.  I like it.

      Angry Jesus, indeed!

    • Barx says:

      09:38am | 31/03/10

      It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can so blindly believe in something that has no scientific basis, nor proof, whatsoever. Amazing. I say go for it, if you want to believe in God or Allah or (yes they are the same God) Buddha or Shiva or Beelzebub I say go for it, just don’t peddle me with your beliefs, or deride me for not believing.

      What does make me mad though is the fact that these new, evangelical, happy clappy, Australian Idol type churches are so blatantly a money making enterprise, yet people still flock to them. They are nothing but a fashion show, a place for one up-manship and a fool’s paradise. Hillsong fund Mercy Ministries, a place where young girls in trouble can go for help - help being told abortions are evil, lesbianism is wrong and they will burn for it. They offer sexual reorientation therapy for those who are dealing with these issues. Dangerous.

      Yet they don’t pay a skerrick of tax, and Gloria Jean’s Coffees contribute to the funding of this madness.

      Incredible. If I heard voices telling me to do things, or saw things that I knew were not possible, and I told someone about it, I would be given medication and possibly a stay in a mental health facility. But if I give these things a name, say, God, or Jesus, and these sights ‘Miracles’ then I get tax free status and political connections.

      Wake up people.

    • Mstamus says:

      11:23am | 31/03/10

      Here, here! Couldn’t agree more. Just serves as a reminder at how bloody stupid (and gullible) the human race can be.

      And I was not brought up following any religion and was (and still am) perfectly well behaved (I knew right from wrong because its obvious!!).

    • Daniel says:

      12:16pm | 31/03/10

      “It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can so blindly believe in something that has no scientific basis, nor proof, whatsoever”
      yes it never ceases to amaze me either how people can believe that nothing exploded (big bang), primordial soup produced life, and life evolved over billions of years to what we have today…despite no scientific evidence whatsoever! In fact the famous Creationist Louis Pasteur as a direct challenge to proponants of spontaneous generation (life coming from no life) proved scientifically that is is impossible for life to simply exist without life existing in the first place. Once life is destroyed no life can arise. There has not been a single experiment to prove otherwise (and no, creating building blocks does not equal life in the same was as creating a letter produces a shakespearean play). Evolution is one of the most misued words in the english language. We can see natual selection take place all around us, this is not evolution this is change within a kind ie a terrier is a changed version of a wolf. Evidence for Evolution, the gradual change of one kind of animal into another is simply non-existant. Fossil records do not confirm the evolutionary story at all, in fact they create more problems as Darwin himself recognised. Evolution is a farce that is used as a vehicle to promote hedonsim and materialism.
      With regards to Prosperity Preaching (the common term for happy clappy/emotional churches) this is seen as just as much of a disgrace amongst Bible believing Christians. These churches lack true spirituality and effectively emotionally blackmail through the use of music, empty promises and mass marketing.
      I am sorry to have to tell you this but in the early church there was a very strict policy of who could be considered spiritually guided and those who claimed so and were proven false were punished. That is why there were many councils to decide what was real christianity and what was not. If the same councils existed today 90% of the denominations would be closed down.

    • Kiddo says:

      01:22pm | 31/03/10

      @Daniel,

      agree with you. Sad that the non-christians get to only see either the catholic church or the prosperity based-hillsongy churches, and assume that all christians are like that.

    • DG says:

      03:31pm | 31/03/10

      “Evolution is a farce that is used as a vehicle to promote hedonsim and materialism.”

      What does evolution have to do with either of those things?

      Evolution (in the context of Darwin’s Theory) explains nothing more than the basis for current biological forms and functions. It does not explain, or attempt to explain, where the first life form came from nor how people should behave.

      As for your suggestion that “the gradual change of one kind of animal into another is simply non-existant.” That’s not even what evolution claims. The claim is one of common ancestors rather than a change from one kind of modern animal to another kind of modern animal. There are various things that suggest that this is the case - most significantly, shared DNA.

      By looking at the DNA of a creature a trained professional can establish when that line separated from the line of another common ancestor. Other species that exist today are our contemporaries, not our ancestors - although some are more closely related than others.

      It is no surprise that marsupials are grouped based on geographical boundaries - this is exactly what one would expect to see if they had evolved from a common marsupial ancestor. For this reason one could determine, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, the origin of an unknown species of animal if one knew of the origin of animals with a similar genetic makeup.

      As for your rejection of evolution from the primordial soup on the basis that it hasn’t been replicated (I’m sure you must acknowledge there is some difficulty with replicating a process that has taken billions of years with a number of week long experiments in a Laboratory) on what basis do you derive proof of God? If you accept God without proof surely the same standard must apply to every matter.

      Simply put, all it takes for life to evolve is one organism that is capable of replicating itself. You’ve acknowledged that in the course of replication a thing can change (it will not be an exact replica of its ancestor, but a slight variance) and given billions of years one can expect quite a bit of variance.

      Finally, to suggest that the fact that Darwin doubted some of his own work disproves his own work, look at Einstein - as I understand it he went to his grave thinking that the cosmological constant was his biggest error. The fact that it was subsequently justified is perhaps the best example that personal doubts do not dispel a theory - evidence to the contrary does.

      It’s worth noting that a theory, in scientific terms, is a very different creature to theory in colloquial terms. Specifically it relates to the capacity to predict undiscovered phenomena, and must also be falsifiable. As yet there is no evidence that is contradictory with the theory of evolution lest it would have been set aside.

    • Dwayne says:

      05:02pm | 31/03/10

      Thanks you DG, a great reply

    • Bob H says:

      05:47pm | 31/03/10

      Here they are, the creationists in their falling apart clown cars,  oval wheels,  exploding exhausts and smokey engine trying to convince me to buy a car like theirs.  The silly car is amusing but the fact you think it is great is laughable.

    • Tone says:

      06:20pm | 31/03/10

      Evolution is just the way a population of animals - usually a species or part of a species - changes over a number of generations, mostly by natural selection, but sometimes with help from mutations, “genetic drift”, or other mechanisms.  Sometimes a lot of changes take place in a few generations or may take many generations over thousands of years.

    • Beverley Walker Guerilla Midwife says:

      09:48am | 31/03/10

      Reminds me of another institution which expects absolute obedience.  The medical Profession especially in obstetrics if you read the latest work from USA on Maternal Deaths in the USA and Amnesty International’s report on Deadly Maternity.  The health care professions orginated from the church or religious institutions. Paternalism occurs in Politics, Church schools medicine and the Law.  No all has been exposed yet by Germaine Greer.

    • Eric says:

      09:49am | 31/03/10

      Funny how it’s okay to vilify Catholicism, but anyone who criticises Islam is a raaaaacist.

    • Me says:

      10:32am | 31/03/10

      Shall we compare who’s imaginary friend is better?

    • Jon says:

      12:32pm | 31/03/10

      Eric, Islam does not have this problem. By the modern civilized standard, Mohammed’s marriage to Aysha, and his having sex with her at the age of nine, is a crime, called pedophilia. However, Muslims call it an ordinary marriage, even a Sunnah (usual practice) to be emulated by Muslims for all times. Don’t you just love Cultural Relativism.

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:53pm | 31/03/10

      Ah, the old ‘why are you only picking on me” strategy.  Catholicism and Islam are equally untenable, regardless of the skin colour of their followers.

      Happy now?

    • Iconoclast says:

      01:12pm | 31/03/10

      “Hey, look at that guy over there, he’s just as bad as me. So ignore what I’m doing and go over there and criticise him”. That solves the Catholic boy love problem.

    • Ellie says:

      03:22pm | 31/03/10

      Not me, I despise Islam and everything about it. Christianity and Islam have the same fundamentals. Both are as bad as each other. Except Christian terrorists are only just starting to come out of the wood works.

    • truckle the uncivil says:

      11:38pm | 31/03/10

      Actually, I feel sympathy for the victims of any religion.  Or any other madman for that matter.

    • Ally says:

      11:50pm | 31/03/10

      Have you forgotten the Crusades?

    • Dwayne says:

      08:15am | 01/04/10

      Ah yes, the Crusades ... how many children would you like to eat today to appease God?

    • Ellie says:

      09:56am | 31/03/10

      If you believe in Cathlocism, you must also believe every word in the bible. That includes the crap parts. Yep, i’m talking about slavery, classism, repression of women. I cannot tolerate people who pick and choose which parts of a religion that they want to follow and ignore the rest of it. “Christians” have said to me before that they don’t believe in baptism. I used to be with a guy who called himself a Christian but he was having pre-marital sex with me, and thought nothing of it. Christianity, Islam.. they both promote the same values. Love of your god and everything he does/is, hatred of those different from you, strict rules to abide by, slavery and beating of women..

    • Jacqs says:

      10:28am | 31/03/10

      Ellie, which Bible have you been reading from?  I think ‘believing’ every word in the bible also comes down to seeking understanding - not just blanket belief based on what is taught either in the pulpit or via poor examples of damaged humanity, which I’m sad to hear, it sounds like you have experienced very directly. 

      Love of my God and everything he is and does - agreed, because he is full of love;
      Hatred of those diffferent to you - nup - Jesus hung out with corrupt taxmen, prostitutes, dodgy church leaders in the ever present hope they would find truth in him to live better more fulfilled lives;

      Strict rules.. ah, no.  There are some pretty good core rules eg) 10 commandments to get us started,  but Jesus offered grace and forgiveness because in a fallen world, he knows we are destined to get things wrong in the course of life, but the opportunity to turn around and try again is offered, albeit whilst not avoiding the consequences of the error of our ways;
      Slavery, classism, repression and beating of women - again… which bible have you been reading?  Maybe a glossy women’s mag which mentally abuse us day in and out?  In the bible I have read of the honour placed on women for their inner beauty, depth of character, strength, intelligence and potential to be a remarkable influence on the world around them, and men ...  well they are exhorted to respect and care for us because we should be as valued by them as we are by God.

      I hope true love finds you this Easter…

    • SkepDad says:

      11:00am | 31/03/10

      Jacqs, you can cherry-pick all sorts of wonderfully uplifting things from the bible.  However, if you have indeed read it (rather than having had the cherry-picked highlights sermonised to you) there’s no way you could state that it is not chockers with all of the hateful barbarism that Ellie refers to.  It’s there in black and white.

      Either the bible is the word of god or it isn’t.  If it is, then all of it is the word of god, including the hateful parts.  How can you reconcile yourself to that?

    • Glen says:

      12:24pm | 31/03/10

      It is true that the bible contains very “bad” parts—such as Judges 21 (kidnapping and rape by the Benjamites) or even the eating of children during the fall of Jerusalem (in Isaiah/Jeremiah/Ezekiel).
      The bible IS a ***historical*** account of the relationship between God and his people—people who happen to be wilfully disobedient—and we all still are although we try our hardest not to be (Romans chapter 7).  Don’t blame God for the disobedience of his people, we are all human and we all make mistakes.
      Many aethist archaeologists have gone to Isreal to **prove** the Old Testament is false, only to discover that the OT is verified by Archeological digs.
      The bible (including the NT) has been verified via discoveries of ancient manuscripts (pre-Roman Catholic Church)—there is one stored at Macquarie University which I have seen with my own eyes and you can see it to on a tour of the history department.
      The historical and documentary evidence is overwhelming—much of it has been proved to be true by people who **were** aethiests out to prove Jesus doesn’t exist—they changed their mind when they couldn’t disprove the evidence they discovered.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:59pm | 31/03/10

      @Glen
      “Many aethist archaeologists have gone to Isreal to **prove** the Old Testament is false, only to discover that the OT is verified by Archeological digs.”
      What aspect of the OT? The whole thing? Archaeology does not back a six-day creation story or the flood.

    • matt stewart says:

      02:48pm | 31/03/10

      Glen, you use more ‘weasel words’ than a wikipedia article.  Which archeaologists?  Which digs?  Which aspects of the OT?  No one doubts that there are some historical aspects in the bible, though they are usually exaggerated and often on a very wrong timescale.  I also don’t know of any atheists out to prove that Jesus did not exist.  Trying to refute that there was a guy around zero BC who led a cult and had a dozen followers and got crucified by the romans is a pretty pointless task, there were probably a many people like that.  The fact is that the timeline of the bible can be refuted biologically, archeologically, geologically, chemically and physically.  No one is stupid enough to say that every word of the bible is a lie, but unfortunately many people wrongly take every word to be indisputable fact.

      Jacqs.  Have a read of Leviticus, Numbers and Deutoronomy.  Sounds like you missed a few rules.  And which ten commandmants do you mean?  The ethical decalogue or the ritual decalogue?  Also, the bible is pretty clear that you can’t add anything or leave anything out.  It’s right at the end in Revelations 22.  It’s a job lot and I’m pretty sure that if there is a god as described in the bible, he wont be taking too kindly to the very modern, “oh yeh, but we don’t take that bit literally” obfuscations.

    • Chris L says:

      06:39pm | 31/03/10

      This is why I subscribe to the Olympian gods. Not only do their fallability make the world more understandable but the Illead is an older text than the bible and the events described therein are backed by archeological evidence as well. Hail almighty Zues!

    • elcee says:

      11:41am | 02/04/10

      Ah Ellie and SkepDad, what a lovely little black and white world view you have.  Some ppl choose what they want to believe in and have their explanations and rationales for it, just like YOU do. Some ppl have the foresight to believe they are not all there is on this planet, so what? If they believe in the bible it doesn’t mean that they can’t take the view of things evolve, things change, what was accepted practice in ancient times is not now. We as ppl evolve all the time, our thoughts, opinions on things, maybe if we are made in the image of God and we are shown to evolve, maybe God does too? If ppl choose to believe in God and choose their own truth so be it. Your arguments against anyone who believes in God or religion is based on your own prejudices about religion and on your own created rules and flawed reasoning on what you think the rules of religion and/or faith are i.e unless you believe this text exactly in a literal black or white manner then you are a hypocrite otherwise if you do believe in it you are a person who supports all sorts of depravity. With this flawed logic and your own created rules to brand believers vs non believers you try and impose your thoughts onto others and pigeonhole those who believe differently…how is that different to the mind control of hard core religiousness that you criticize?

    • Stephanie says:

      08:43pm | 02/04/10

      Ellie I am not sure why you think Catholics are supposed to believe everything in the bible as the religion itself does not teach that. I was raised and educated in a Catholic school in the 1960’s and even back then the nuns used to tell us that the bible was a collection of stories and that considerable misinterpretation of the symbolic language used in the time it was written had occurred. We were encouraged to read it with due consideration to that. They also told us we should question our beliefs as a failure to do so indicated brainwashing rather than faith.  At no time were we ever told to hate those that were different - I think you are confusing prejudices that were taught at home with teachings of the religion. We were required to learn about other religions and search for the similarities. I also take with a grain of salt stories of how religion was forced onto students. I was at a function once where a woman claimed to have attended the same catholic college as me in the same era and how she was forced to attend church daily, must have been on her own as the rest of us certainly weren’t - mind you the ‘rememberences’ stopped once I revealed I was a former student, strange isn’t it?  As to slavery and other abuses - these were more to do with the brutality of the times than anything else. Alot of the comments on here by supposed catholics or christians seem more like the rants of fanatics rather than the catholics that I associate with and seem to contain very little real knowledge of the religion itself. The athiests also seem strangely fanatical and filled with hatred and intolerance, yet this is what they seem to be condemning religion for so it seems religion is not the sole area where hypocrisy is rife. As someone else posted earlier (Melissa I think) child sexual abuse is more likely to be family members than anyone else. Sadly it is a vast problem involving all sections of society neither more prominent in non-believers or one particular belief system and complex coverups exist in all areas - you only have to look at some of the abuse coverups in state run children’s homes to see that. Child abuse is not a vehicle to be used to disrespect and denigrate others beliefs, nor should it be tolerated or excused by implying you are protecting your faith. These actions have more to do with your own egos than anything else. It is too important an issue for the discussion to be turned into a slanging match as seems to be the case here. You all need to go have a good look at your motives in making your comments, is it really outrage over child abuse, or really standing up for your faith or have you all been indulging in petty point scoring? I think the latter is the obvious answer and you should all feel ashamed. Now go and grow up the lot of you.

    • dancan says:

      09:52am | 31/03/10

      Isn’t it amazing.  You can do these acts for years, scarring the lives of many in the process.  Then you sit in a box for 20 minutes and bleed your heart to a colleague who is sworn to secrecy no matter how horrible the act, you then say a prayer to the magical sky fairy and hey presto you’re absolved of all guilt, responsibility and then you happily walk out of the box as though nothing has ever happened.

    • Cazendra says:

      09:57am | 31/03/10

      Not trying to preach or anything but in Jesus times (if you read the Bible) when he was here on earth, he himself did not approve the priest back then which were called Scribes and Pharisees. They were trying to act “holy” but their actions were not approved. These days, things have not change except it’s gone worse. No wonder people lost faith and turn against God because of these priest.
      Easter should be all about remembering or celebrating Jesus death to remeind us what he has given us and the opportunity we will inherit one day. Sadly because of the pagan gods which was a sex god back then influenced people today by having eggs and bunnys instead. Sad.

    • Barry says:

      10:03am | 31/03/10

      Please dont confuse catholics with christians.
      christians believe that the final authority is God and that what he says can be found in the bible.
      catholics also believer that that final authority is God but also that authority can be understood via the pope and what the pope says it as good as the authority of God. ( e.g. praying to the saints, confession, prayer to mary, celebacy of priest) Its called a christ plus doctrine. papists or catholics

      Christianity is pretty simple there is you and God the relationship doesnt involve any one else.

    • DG says:

      10:37am | 31/03/10

      Actually, I don’t think that your description goes far enough. At the very least your definition would include the followers of Judaism.

      Christianity means that you believe that Jesus was the son of God and you follow the New Testament with Matt, Mark Luke and John and so forth (with varying degrees of reliance on the Old Testament such as Genesis).

      Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic.

    • Barry says:

      11:43am | 31/03/10

      Dont you mean not all catholics are christians.

      But thats the point it should be chirst alone not chirst plus the catholic church.

      according to the pope if I dont submit to Rome im going to hell or pugertory unless a relative can pay a substantial sum to get me out of perguatory,

    • DG says:

      01:43pm | 31/03/10

      All Catholics are Christians. They, by definition, profess a belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

      Catholics believe (i.e the dogma dictates) that the Pope is able to speak as God on earth and, as such, is infallible. They also have a number of other beliefs that are at variance with other Christian faiths such as Protestant, Anglican and the Westboro Baptists.

      The Church derives it’s significance from the Pope (as the head of the Church). Many of the ‘divisions’ in Christianity came about as a form of cession from the Pope of the day - in one notable instance there was an alternate Pope and in another a well known English monarch had a bit of a falling out with the Pope of the day and created his own version of Christianity. I think the earliest separation (or schism) was the Catholics (according to the Orthodox Church) and both who claim the same lineage (from the Apostles). The Catholics claim that Peter (the First Pope) was appointed as such by Jesus.

      This is where Christianity varies from Judaism - belief that Jesus was the son of God, sent as promised in the Old Testament (Ignoring that in the old testament “God” says his Son’s name will be Isaiah).

    • max says:

      02:20pm | 31/03/10

      interesting theory. But religion is not science. You can’t prove it. Just like superstitions, it’s completely based on rules setup by someone and have been handed down from generations to generations. No one would say their religion is wrong.

    • Belong to the little "c" not the big "C" says:

      12:34am | 02/04/10

      “Please dont confuse catholics with christians.”  Please dont confuse Catholics with catholics.  Not the same

    • Harquebus says:

      10:09am | 31/03/10

      Paul, if as a child you hadn’t been allowed to make up your own mind, then as an adult, would you choose to believe in that religious rubbish. Don’t make the same mistake your parents made by teaching religious crap to your children.
      Religious indoctrination of minors to religion is child abuse.

    • DG says:

      10:10am | 31/03/10

      Paul,

      Great piece. As you so rightly pointed out your crisis isn’t one of faith (and so I’ll leave the issue of religion aside), but one of confidence that the Catholic Church, with its infallible leader, is all that it claims to be.

      It must be hard to read about members of your faith making claims (purportedly in their role as a leader or symbol of that faith) that are inconsistent with the public view and stated goals of that organisation.

      However, before we get too far into the good and bad of the church consider this: If the church were not given tax exempt status for its religiosity but for its good deeds, how much more good would the church do? It’s incentives to do good rather that accumulate wealth would be magnified not only by their religious ideology but by a worldly motivator (wealth).

      Back to the good/bad deeds - I have no doubt that the Church helps some people. One thing that comes to mind is Youth off the streets, I’m sure there are many others.

      However I think that your suggestion as to the good work in Africa by select individuals is outweighed (in Africa) by the head of that Church lying to the population that have been taught to believe in the infallibility of the Pope, by telling them that condoms do not help in preventing AIDS* - instead insisting that only abstinence and monogamy work. I’m not denying that monogamy and abstinence are good measures, but to reject condoms and blatantly lie about their efficacy, and by doing so potentially condemning millions to a deadly illness - is possibly one of the worst things ever done in the name of a God.

      When members of that organisation choose ideology over facts they show themselves to be less interested in helping the population and more interested in their own proselytising.

      However, I digress, my point was this - as the Church seeks to increase it’s numbers (or spread the word), it is inevitable that the organisation will face situations in which it must announce its failings or hide them. Given that the current Pope seems to be less that forthcoming when it comes to condemning (demotion or ex-communication) members of the clergy that are shown to have done the wrong thing, it must undermine the Authority of his office and also the organisation.

      I am sure, you are not alone in questioning your association with the church at this time. Given that the Church believes that Easter is a time of re-birth, it may well be time for the Church to turn over a leaf, condemn those whom it has hidden for so long, refrain from obfuscating reality and instead recognise the gulf between ideology and practicality, the difference between helping and converting. By doing so, it is possible that the church (as an organisation) can return to the forefront of the community.


      * the pope is reported in various forms of media as having said of the problem of AIDS in Africa that it “cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem”.

    • Hades says:

      10:55am | 31/03/10

      You mean you expect the church to be honest?  Doesn’t that go against their religion?

    • Michelangelo says:

      01:21am | 05/04/10

      Your last paragraph is interesting - what the church is referring to there is risk compensation, i.e. “or the idea that people are more likely to engage in riskier sex and have multiple partners if they use condoms at least some of the time”
      .  There is also the issue of political correctness that may be undermining evidence based research; quoting AIDS researcher Edward Green from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html :
      “We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and—along with contraception—female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa’s generalized epidemics—nowhere else.”

    • Craig says:

      10:16am | 31/03/10

      “So the Church, Fr David explained, is everyone – with the important distinction that the minority of clergy that inflict abuse are not the Church.”

      And what of those that protect the abusers? Are they the Church? Its statements like this that illustrate a lack of understanding of what the actual problem is.

      In any society or organisation evil people will abuse power given to them, that’s a given, and no one will hold the Church responsible for the actions of a few miscreants. Its a different kettle of fish when they are indeed protected, some may even say encouraged, to continue their evil activities. This is the problem that the Church is failing to address.

      Edmund Burke said it best, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

      As for the statement that about “the good work done in Africa”, this is a clear example of having the Catholic blinkers on. Sure, the Church has saved many, and also damned many millions by denouncing the use of condoms. But hey, at least their souls were saved, if not their lives, what a twisted balance sheet.

    • John in Alice says:

      10:17am | 31/03/10

      I have long been amazed how billions of blind followers have clung to the Catholic church while it carries a history of barbaric ruthlessness to the invention of purgatory to rake in millions more from the sheep that they dominate.  Martin Luther had the guts to reveal the truth to all, but many simply refused to open their eyes to the abuse.  Pity the abused sheep.

    • Dwayne says:

      10:32am | 31/03/10

      Are you referring to Martin Luther’s book - On the Jews and their Lies?

    • Dan says:

      10:29am | 31/03/10

      “I don’t believe he is capable of making the sort of decision to ignore what facts he had in front of him, given what he has said on the matter” - How typical - despite all the evidence, this damn priest just won’t believe that Ratzinger would have covered up the abuse.  The attitude expressed by “Father David” is part of the problem.  I’m teaching my daughters to think for themselves and take a critical and logical look at the supersitions and dogma of institutional religions like the catholic church - and I won’t let a catholic priest within arms reach of them.

    • Eric says:

      11:00am | 31/03/10

      Dan, you criticised a religion!

      That makes you a raaaaacist! (according to your own stance regarding critics of Islam)

    • samuel says:

      12:47pm | 31/03/10

      But Ratzinger didn’t cover up any abuse as is becoming increasingly clear. The NY Times got it wrong.

    • phil says:

      10:43am | 31/03/10

      You state that “I have no tolerance left for the Church’s protection of child abusers…” which is understandable given the things that have gone on but also haven’t mentioned anywhere that this is not something that is only happening in the church.
      You don’t need to be catholic, of any other religion or even have ever been to church to have done these horrible things to children.

      The silence and under the carpet style of treatment this issue gets anywhere is the same, within families etc

      Why just take aim at the church given that its a wide spread problem and has been proved that majority of child abuse is done by a family member in most cases.

      What you then want to take aim at is the completely stupid sentences these criminals arent given even when they are taken to court, convicted, slapped on the wrist and let out to do it again?

      In most cases they are not able to get a conviction even knowing that something has taken place!
      Great example is a very close friend of mine who has been abused, so had his siblings and most of their cousins by the same family member. Her parents knew of it and it was “brushed under the carpet” in the same manner as the church does. She left home, pressed charges, went to court, he was charged with multiple counts of abuse\rape etc and was out of prison in a year…. a year.
      Something that went on for many years for half a dozen children who still have to live with this.

      The parents knew of it and nothing happened about that when it came to court either!

      For such a serious situation and problem even if people are caught there is no real penalty for what they do to people.

      - to all those complaining about the church, god doesn’t exist, not wanting the church or religion pushed on to them, that’s fine but don’t try stop others from believing what they want & if that’s the case you don’t believe in god or want any part of that deal then im sure you will all be happy to work Friday and Monday then wont you.

    • Allan says:

      01:42pm | 01/04/10

      Abuse within any family or school or anywhere in society is of course heinous. It is an outrage and should be outted immediately, that it is wrongly covered up in some instances is not denied.  But we’re not looking for some moral equivalancy here, what we are talking about in this discussion is the church. An organisation that has set itself up as the ultimate moral authority on earth. If you can’t trust gods emmisaries to not cover up this kind of an outrage and to protect the weak, what on earth are they for? That surely must make you doubt their motives?

    • Mikko says:

      10:44am | 31/03/10

      Paul, a well written, thought-provoking article. My comments on another blog criticizing Muslim extremists, Catholics and religion in general for many of today’s problems, may be relevant :
      ” I don’t think you can blame “Allah” or God for the atrocities, but the way fallible humans have set or abused their own extreme rules.
      Organised religions will never be perfect because of the human element, but that doesn’t necessarily mean JC, Buddha, or Mohammed got it wrong in the first place. If you want to believe you are what you are today because a couple of microbes got randy in some primordial swamp and the rest of Earth’s myriad complex life forms have evolved purely by chance, that’s fine by me. I’m not sure of what the chances of that happening are, but I think I’ve more chance of winning Lotto and I don’t buy tickets.
      That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in evolution, I do, and the Catholic Church for one, sees no problem in acknowledging that.
      I can’t prove I’m right, but until some scientist manages to create life from scratch, neither can any of you. Cloning maybe, not creating life from nothing.”
      Personally I can see no harm in acquainting little ones of the Easter message which is essentially one of hope, renewal and love. It is humans who get that wrong.

    • DG says:

      11:07am | 31/03/10

      I think your interpretation of the Bible is probably the most practical. If we take the approach that Adam and Eve were God’s play things and that their children bred with “evolved” humans, we get a much more plausible story that fits better with both Genesis (not the creation story, but God’s habit of making covenants with people and saying “You and yours are more special than the Rest” then, a few generations later, appearing to one of the descendents and saying “You, son of _____, an your descendents are special) and Revelations (the book of life and so forth) and also with the fossil record.

      I’m not certain that the above is an accurate interpretation of your (or the Catholic Church’s) opinion, but I think it’s the best way that I can see the Bible having any correlation with discoverable facts.

    • Dwayne says:

      11:26am | 31/03/10

      What are the chances of there being an almighty god just happening from nothing first?  I’d say those chances are less than big bang and evolution.

    • Iconoclast says:

      01:35pm | 31/03/10

      So, “God” is just your name for “first cause”? Which, of course begs the question, “Who created God” and so on…..

    • Traxster says:

      10:47am | 31/03/10

      What s**ts me is that the Pope didn’t actually read the letter out himself,he,apparently,wrote it and then sent one his flunkey’s out to read it .....
      Hello !!!!!
      Your Excellency/whatever…....it’s not the same as reading it out yourself….....
      it looses something in the translation.
      Next time and there will be a next time,read the ‘effing’ letter yourself Mate !!!

    • ChrisG says:

      10:53am | 31/03/10

      Paul, a protestant minister I admired summed up his feelings about ‘the church’ this way: “she may be a whore, but she is still my mother”. I think the problem is when we allow sentimental attachment to condone dysfunction, and clearly that is the issue highlighted for catholics at the moment. In terms of belief and theology, it is credulous to any longer think of ‘the church’ as ‘the body of christ’ in the way your Fr David still does - it is merely a human institution and much of its structures, culture and dogma is well past its ‘use-by’ date

    • samuel says:

      01:01pm | 31/03/10

      Child sex abuse offences involving Catholic clergy number less than 2% of the total number of such offences in the US. In the UK it’s 0.4% (according to The Guardian newspaper).  The Catholic Church can still lay credible claim to being the Body of Christ in the world. Most of its clergy are good and decent men. The Church will survive this smear campaign.

    • Craigles says:

      02:57pm | 31/03/10

      Samuel; they are likely to survive, but with less patronage, as has happened dramatically in Ireland.  The biggest aspect is the cover-ups and the hypocrisy of those involved, especially not having any empathy for the victims.  There is a view the perpetrators and their protectors cannot have believed in God.

    • Joshtree says:

      10:07am | 01/04/10

      @ ChrisG, I’d just like to underline “according to The Guardian newspaper”. Secondly, a substantial part of this problem is protection from exposure, afforded by the Church to its clergymen who have committed these crimes.

      Thats is what this argument is largely about, transparency.

    • cybacaT says:

      11:00am | 31/03/10

      I completely understand the author’s stance towards the Catholic Church, but it’s just a man-made institution.  The man-made notions of celibate priests, weird robes, large cathedrals, confession boxes, candles, etc - they have nothing to do with Christianity or God.  Nowhere in the Bible does God call for any of the guff that comes from the Catholic church.

      God and his teachings remain both good and constant and shouldn’t be dragged through the mud of the child abuse scandals of the catholic church.

      The Catholic church does a lot of good things in the world, and most of it’s adherents are good people.  But some of the man-made pollution just clouds God’s message and turns people off Christianity.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      02:20pm | 31/03/10

      “I completely understand the author’s stance towards the Catholic Church, but it’s just a man-made institution”

      Yeh, like god.

    • cybacaT says:

      03:36pm | 31/03/10

      I think my point was summed up best by Bono who famously said - “sometimes I think religion is the enemy of God”.

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • Col says:

      11:26am | 31/03/10

      Mr Colgan, this latest round of slurs and innuendo against Pope Benedict has now been going on for nearly 2 weeks. It is clear that those slurring Pope Benedict have no facts to support their attacks. Even the New York Times article you link to can really only manage the following laughable charge:

      “What part he [Benedict] played in the decision making, and how much interest he showed in the case of the troubled priest, who had molested multiple boys in his previous job, remains unclear.”

      In other words the NY Times has nothing but innuendo. But the Times has form for anti-Catholic hate mongering so there’s no surprise in that. But what about you Mr Colgan, why have you chosen not to provide links to the detailed rebuttals to the attacks on Pope Benedict? Two are provided here:

      From the National Review Online, rebutting the NY Times article of March 25th:
      http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM

      And from Sean Murphy, a response to Christopher Hitchens’ attack on Pope Benedict as well:
      http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm

      Mr Colgan, you’re probably so lapsed in your Catholicism that you’ve forgotten the “four last things”, but when your daughter is old enough to read through your past articles how will she judge your decision to continue the baseless innuendo against Pope Benedict?

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      12:36pm | 31/03/10

      Col, Col, Col ... you getting even worse.  you’ve reduced the whole thing to “he said , she said” and are pretending this is an argument.  You advertise the reasoning you are so scared of.

    • Matthew says:

      12:57pm | 31/03/10

      Col, while not denying that the Church needs to reform itself in order to protect children, its true that the NYT has unfairly maligned Pope Benedict with these latest stories.

      So much for objective journalism.

    • lidwi says:

      11:43am | 31/03/10

      If you truly believe in God, you’d understand the differences between institution and God’s love. I’m a Catholic, but I don’t believe in the Church institution. If I go to church,  I want to pray in a place that makes me feel closer to God. Even if I know that God is everywhere. The deeds of some catholic priests don’t reflect God because human being is a chaos, and we are full of sin.

    • Mary says:

      11:58am | 31/03/10

      I believe the guilt of not taken your daughter will get the better of you. and not the truth. You have been forced fed your whole life, of centuries of someone else’s truth. Only being away from the Catholic Church for many years has shown me how brainwashed I was. I have no happy memories from my childhood relating to this religion only one of fear, guilt and shame. Why do we need something outside of ourselves, everything we need is already within, teach your daughter to trust herself.

    • Julia says:

      11:59am | 31/03/10

      Fair enough, Paul. My grandfather would always say there was more Christianity outside of the church than in it.

    • Matthew says:

      12:08pm | 31/03/10

      Paul

      The Church is full of holy saints and evil sinners. This includes Priests, Bishops and Popes.

      There is precedence (for great sin by clergy) for this from the very beginning of the Catholic Church. The first 12 bishops chosen by Our Lord in the beginning included Judas the archsinner. Even Peter, the first pope, denied Our Lord.

      However, I think Benedict is being unfairly maligned in this situation (consider the source for these attacks - the New York Times - the bastion of American anti-catholicism). Pope Benedict, while not perfect as none of us are, is a very holy man who has tried hard to reform the Church.

      Keep the Faith Paul - Jesus is Risen!

       

    • Rick says:

      12:15pm | 31/03/10

      Why in any democratic societies in which the will of the people specially Australia religion is better protect than democracy itself ?????

    • SHG says:

      12:12pm | 31/03/10

      “I was about to drop a few sentences somehow explaining Easter was really about God”

      THAT would have been child abuse.

    • ben says:

      12:52pm | 31/03/10

      give it up mate, just free yourself and you’ll be happy

      easter is a hideous festival - death and torture - why do it?

    • David says:

      01:03pm | 31/03/10

      I love the way everyone refers to Wikipedia and other internet sources as ‘evidence’.

      It’s especially funny when it comes from the keyboards of atheists. 

      Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

    • J says:

      01:37pm | 31/03/10

      I suppose you think everyone should just read the Bible and take it as gospel (pun intended) and not question it at all?

      Because we got so far as a species doing that…

    • David says:

      08:34pm | 31/03/10

      No, J, you dolt!

      I suggest people refer to evidence.

      I like the way you assumed I’m a Bible basher.

      Bigot.

    • David says:

      08:36pm | 31/03/10

      P.S.  There’s no pun there because the literal and figurative meanings are identical.

    • Proud Infidel says:

      08:17am | 01/04/10

      I think information from the internet on average to more credible than the dubious evidence from Torah, Bible and Quran.

    • David says:

      04:42pm | 01/04/10

      I find people who rely on the internet as a source of evidence to have their head up their own arse most of the time.

    • Adam says:

      01:00pm | 31/03/10

      Does anyone remember why we had hundreds of yours classified “the Dark Ages”? It was the power of the so called “Church of God” that abused its power and abused mankind… nothing seems to have changed hundreds of years later

    • Colin Keenan says:

      01:04pm | 31/03/10

      Great article, Paul. But it’s not just the abuse or its cover-up, as absolutely horrific as it is, which sickens me. It’s all these ridiculous ‘teachings’ of the Church which, as you rightly point out, Catholics ‘have’ to accept. I accept your point about the work they’ve done in Africa, but at the exact same time an unquantifiable number of people in Africa have died due to the Church’s truly indefensible position on the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDS.

      They last few years have shown once and for all what an utterly rotten and morally-bankrupt institution the Catholic Church is; it truly baffles me how any reasonable person could look to it for moral or spiritual guidance.

    • Matthew says:

      01:34pm | 31/03/10

      Colin

      The Church’s position on condom use is not that indefensible:

      Harvard Aids expert says Pope ‘correct’ on condoms and spread of HIV
      The head of Harvard’s Aids Prevention Centre says condom use does not lower HIV infection rates:

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece

    • DG says:

      03:44pm | 31/03/10

      Matthew:

      That’s not completely true. If you dig a little deeper you find that the “HIV expert” concerned observed that if people had a technology that was supposed to “protect’ them they were willing to take more risks. That’s certainly not the same as saying that condoms make the problem worse.

      As I have suggested elsewhere, combined with the other techniques advertised (monogamy, abstinence) condoms can serve an important role in stemming the spread of HIV. There is certainly no factual basis for suggesting that condoms themselves are the problem.

      In fact the article that you link to is guilty of a nice little bit of cherry picking - the Harvard expert concerned advocates the “ABC” approach. In an interview on BBC Mr Green said “I believe condoms should be made available to everyone. It should be, and as you say, the ABC strategy: Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom. Condoms may well have contributed to the prevalence decline in Uganda.”... he went on to say, when questioned about the Pope’s belief that condoms should not even be used between married couples “I don’t agree with that.”.

      I agree that being told that condoms will fix everything is, quite simply, wrong. I don’t think any one is suggesting that. Like the Harvard expert to whom you referred, I think that the ABC strategy is the best way to control the spread of AIDS, and that the rejection of one of those elements on ideological grounds is grossly irresponsible.

      There is a time and a place for proselytising - the attempt to counter a epidemic is not it.

    • Colin Keenan says:

      05:46pm | 31/03/10

      Matthew

      That’s an interesting article but, like the Head of the UN Aids Prevention Unit, I completely disagree.

      The Church still holds the (in my opinion) largely outdated view that people have only one sexual partner their entire lives. This is simply not reality for many people. Regarding the argument that condom use doesn’t do anything to lower HIV infection rates, I really don’t know where to begin! As someone who worked for a HIV/AIDS charity for 3 years, to me it negates any basic common sense.

      If you had sex with a casual partner in a country you knew had a high level of population who were HIV+, would you wear a condom?

    • Adrian says:

      01:34pm | 31/03/10

      Religon will always appeal to the weak minded and those who are easily led. The Church is easily able to manipulate the un-educated masses to further their own financial cause. It is therefore no suprise they would cover up such abuses in order to protect their “Brand” at all costs….....any other money generating enterprise would do the same.

    • Kieran says:

      01:38pm | 31/03/10

      There’s a lot of hate on this blog today. There’s a lot of ignorance. These two tend to co-occur.

    • Di says:

      02:06pm | 31/03/10

      Not hate Kieran; In my opinion it is ppl writing what they feel regarding a ‘religion’ that is rife with abuses of power;personal and all pervasive…i for one have had enough of this ‘church’ and its male dominated opinion/s-it’s passed it’s useby date by about 200yrs

    • SkepDad says:

      10:11pm | 31/03/10

      I hate child abusers.  If you don’t, there’s something wrong.

      No forgiveness, no “they will be punished in the afterlife”, no parole.  No sweeping it under the mat.  No cloistered protectionism.  No exceptions.  No statute of limitations.  No tolerance.  A lifetime in prison.

      That, my friends, is real human evolved morality.

    • Joe Costello says:

      01:47pm | 31/03/10

      I was brain washed a Catholic, like hundreds of millions have been. Your parents were taught that if you were not baptised into the Catholic Church
      as a child, you would go to LIMBO , never to see God—they used fear to get a child baptised very quick after been born. There were many mothers who lost their child at birth, and not being baptised, these mothers lived a life of untold misery, believing their child was in LIMBO. But wait, the church now has done away with LIMBO - they still preach purgatory and hell exist,
      fear is still the gun they use to keep the flock, and extract money from them.
      You go to confession, and who is giving you absolution - a paedophile -
      who is up giving the sermons on the pulpit - a paedophile—who loves the alter boys—This religion is governed by demonic forces - they have made their own doctrines , and rejected the teachings of the Bible. They call themselves of Jesus Christ, where in fact they are disciples of Satan, the great deciever.

    • Smithsonian says:

      01:48pm | 31/03/10

      And to think, all this bastardry started with a lonely epileptic on the road to Damascus 30-odd years AFTER the supposed crucifixion.

    • Ally says:

      12:07am | 01/04/10

      You hit the nail on the head Smithsonian grin

    • Di says:

      02:00pm | 31/03/10

      This question should be directed to those abused…
      The RC church worldwide is an enclave of celibate men who do not practice what they preach;
      The RC church has outlived it’s usefulness; like the Monarchy
      *Religion is the opium of the Masses*

    • The Civet says:

      02:09pm | 31/03/10

      Oh the utter predictability of all the people rushing to tell other people that ‘god’ exists; that they know him personally, and that he has passed on written texts for all the believers: read credulous.

      THIS IS YOUR BIG OPPORTUNITY, ladies and gentlemen believers. The onus is on the believers to prove there is a god.

      No one is threatening you. No one is about to deliver you to the inquisition, that I know of, no one is threatening to deprive you of your heavenly beliefs-which see you going to church every Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday?

      Nor is anyone going to ask you why you don’t get enough satisfaction from communicating with him in private, or why it is necessary to ostentatiously go to a special building-church, synagogue, the mosque, town hall or whatever.

      You are the people who believe in god, therefore the onus is on you to prove he exists. It is not up to the non-believers to prove he doesn’t exist. You are the guys who are outraged by the non-believers. You are the ones   who manufacture all the cosy little superstitions and would have reason and logic take third or fourth place behind the tooth fairy.

      Please, be my guest.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      07:20pm | 31/03/10

      Oh that’s it, you’ve crossed the line.  Once you start questioning the tooth fairy, I get really angry.  I have had direct experiences with the tooth fairy.  I have placed my very own teeth in a glass beside my bed, and woken up to find money in the jar.  Surely you aren’t one of the loons who believes there is some great conspiracy of parents, teachers, book publishers and even hollywood?  That’s just not logical, it’s too complex to make sense.  It makes far more sense to believe in a simple tooth loving creature with no head for investment, than it does to believe in some ridiculous conspiracy theory.  Seriously Civet.  Are you some kind of nutter?  Pretty soon you’ll be telling my the world is 4.6 billion years old. LOL

    • Matt stewart says:

      08:18pm | 31/03/10

      Incidentally, one of the greatest philosphers of our time did develop a water tight proof that god did not exist.  But then that lousy Flanders destroyed the paper on which he had written it.

    • The Civet says:

      09:30pm | 31/03/10

      MATT STEWART: Damn it, you are right. I have gone too far!!!  Hehehehe

    • Dwayne says:

      08:40am | 01/04/10

      If you close your eyes and wish really really hard, God is the one who ignores you smile

      Here’s a thought, all of the churches should get together and and all pray to their god(s) to stop innocent children starving to death every day. Surely someone up there has to listen if they all pray really really hard.  If the next day, crops grew and the rains came ... then I’d say that was proof of a god (but which one?). And don’t say churches already run programs, because that is good people doing it, not a almighty diety.

    • JL says:

      02:20pm | 31/03/10

      I must say that I am shocked by the pure vitriol that these sorts of discussions bring out of people.

      What I don’t like is that for some reason good and wholesome people who also happen to be Christians, open themselves up to such vilification by others purely due to their beliefs and their “association” with the Catholic Church.

      Why is it that, because of a very small percentage of people (out of the hundreds of thousands) who betray the sacred duties and responsibilities of the priesthood, that every other priest now is a child molester? The only priests I have known I would count amongst some of the kindest and generous people I have ever known.

      Sure the Catholic Church is rich, but how many millions upon millions of dollars do they donate to charities or use to help the needy every year?

      You can be a Catholic without being a child molester or a self-serving indoctrinator you know….

    • Dwayne says:

      02:48pm | 31/03/10

      “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”. – Steven Weinberg

    • Jones says:

      09:10am | 04/04/10

      Love Dwayne’s reply. Interesting to note all the comments and the level of acid in them for those who share differing opinions… all religion really does is divide people and provide a nice respectible platform for people to hate others…  and religious leaders wonder why we’re all walking away from the church in droves??

    • Brendan says:

      02:24pm | 31/03/10

      People, come, listen…... “There is no God!!” 

      The whole thing has been made up by other people who had a personal interest- power, importance, money.  We all know this really, don’t we?  Even those believers know in the back of their minds, when they think long and hard that it is all crap- a fantasy, a fairy tale. 

      I am glad that this church is being exposed for what it really is.  This is an important step in the religious emancipation of human kind.

    • ryan says:

      02:41pm | 31/03/10

      I used to go to church in my school years. The older I get the more I have witnessed that religious people are the most hypocrite of all. Just like a business, at the end of the day, it’s all about money and power and I feel betrayed. My own life philosophy now is be good to your parents & treat people as you’d like to be treated.

    • zoe says:

      06:23am | 01/04/10

      Ryan I think you stole your own life philosophy from the bible.
      It’s man that is the problem not the teaching in God’s word.

    • ryan says:

      08:02am | 01/04/10

      Zoe, It’s not god’s word. I’m sure before bible was written, any good people already practiced that philosophy.

    • Joe says:

      03:21pm | 31/03/10

      I’ll be fully involved in all that is going on in my Church this Easter. I’d hate to see where Australia would be without our Judeo Christian roots. Think of things like education for the poor for example that would be so far behind without all the Catholic schools for the poor setup by people like Mary Mackilop.

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:25pm | 31/03/10

      ...or think of how much better we’d be if we’d been consistantly secular.

    • Dwayne says:

      04:31pm | 31/03/10

      Without Judeo Christian roots, we wouldn’t be waging a holy war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    • Pete says:

      03:52pm | 31/03/10

      Thank you all who have opened mine eyes by revealing my lack of intellegence and my weak mind are why I have faith! 

      This is not matter of why people believe, or what people believe.  It is a discussion on a major institution that has grossly breached trust and destroyed livelihoods.

      Collectively without blame, without prejudice the church and state need to work together developing processes to rid these family institutions of these evils. 

      Personally I think it all begins with local Parishes and their transparancy and involvment with the local community.

    • Mari says:

      04:31pm | 31/03/10

      The Holy Roman Church took the ideals of one man, corrupted them through interpretation, added a hierarchy based on the attainment of power and wealth,  that devoted itself to the destruction of any and all competition, that has in the last 2000 years caused the deaths of millions, if not billions of people, couldnt be a bad thing, now, could it?  You dont need these men in frocks who demand tithes and obedience without question to intercede between you and your god.  Religion + $$$ = big business, not faith.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      07:36pm | 31/03/10

      One man… you must mean Paul of Tarsus.  He’s pretty much the guy that gave Christianity to the world.

    • Mari says:

      10:38pm | 31/03/10

      Paul, aka Saul of Tarsis(how about that, he couldnt even use his own name..) is, IMHO, the one responsible for what the HRC became.  The man whom I refer to was the one known as Jesus.  Whether he lived or was a symbol for the ideals espoused in his name, is irrelevant, the ideals are what mattered, and those ideals were only paid lipservice while the church went on its merry way, raping, pillaging, murdering and destroying anything and anyone in its way.

    • Jay says:

      04:36pm | 31/03/10

      Trusting a child to be alone in the company of an adult man who has been emotionally suppressed/brainwashed to be chaste is just asking for trouble.
      Men are primal beings and the need to reproduce is the most basic of human requirements. Even with my dislike of organised religion, at least the Anglican church got this bit right and allowed their Priests to be wed and have families. Procreation is as natural to the human being as hunting and eating. To suppress this in a human cannot result in anything but secretive rapes and paedophilia. Then comes the emotional abuse to prevent the truth from coming out. The most insane thing here is they repent and everything’s okay. Reoffend. Repent. Reoffend. Ruin someone’s life. Repent. Go to heaven!

    • Danae says:

      05:06pm | 31/03/10

      You can raise your children to be responsible, ethical, ‘good’ adults without Christianity (or any other religion really). We celebrate easter but not because of the religious stories but because its a time for families to spend a bit of time with each other, for the kids to eat choccie before breakfast and for hubby to have some well earned days off work. Interesting what someone said about how many millions of dollars the church donates to charity- makes me wonder why there are so many fancy churches with fancy stuff in them and still homeless people on the streets, families going hungry, animals being used and abused….Surely one would prefer to give money to truly help the needy rather than build more churches and monuments to their own greatness.

    • Bezza says:

      05:10pm | 31/03/10

      The Catholic Church is hardly representative of Christ and his teachings. This organisation which historically in the last two millenia is arguably responsible for more human suffering than any other man made organisation does not represent the teachings of Jesus. It can not even adhere to the 10 commandments, the most basic of the christian gods laws. It annoys me when i see articles that refer to the Catholic Church as “The Church” let us be honest, the Catholic Church is not “The Church” it is “A Church” one of many, and it in no way represents the whole broad spectrum of Christianity. 

      Last time i read the Bible, God called his prophets, prophets who were the voice of the lord, he didn’t elect them. It should be clear to anyone with a modicum of intellect and scriptural understanding that the Catholic Church is a church of man, and as a man made orginisation is fallible. No real surprises there. Thus no real big deal if it falls.

    • Robert says:

      06:02pm | 31/03/10

      I am so over hearing ignorant people say that there is no GOD! Obviously GOD does not exist! Only that which is in the universe exists and GOD is not inside the universe! I’m a catholic who studied philosophy and science and have thought long and hard to understand the universe! Think mother nature, GOD is the father nature of the universe! Look around you - even the genius’ who explained the universe, space time, and relativity admit there must have been a creator! Just because you don’t understand or see the wonders of existence doesn’t mean there is no GOD. Just remember, GOD is not religious! Religion is just a way to celebrate the universe, and rejecting it because some morons have committed crimes is just as mad as pretending that we’re all an accident! What are the odds, this is all an accident – googolplex to the power of googolplex to one.

    • Allan says:

      10:56am | 01/04/10

      And where did God come from? Was he created, and if so who created him. was he born, and if so who was he born to? If you can answer those questions I can go along with you.

    • Danae says:

      08:13am | 02/04/10

      Perhaps Robert, it could be said that God does exist (and the Goddess) but different people refer to him/her/it as different names and put their own ideas into the interpretation. Interesting that you say you have studied science which, we all know, takes the stance that if it cannot be seen or measured then it does not exist. Can science in its purest form and religion (and i am being generic here) exist side by side? I am interested to know whether you believe in creation as in what happened in the bible or whether you believe in evolution (which yes, could have had a creator/creatorix).

    • SED says:

      06:12pm | 31/03/10

      The issue is responsibility, personal responsibility for criminal actions and institutional responsibility for the criminal actions of it’s members.  As a Catholic who is lapsed but still respects the message, I have had the same struggle.  An institution which protects it’s own members when they commit criminal acts against other members is an anachronism.  Also, a group of unmarried men run the church, with little if any input from women, who form the community and do so much work to keep the church alive.  My children are doing their Catholic Sacraments so they can understand the religion I was brought up with, and I send them to independent Christian Schools, not Catholic, because I want them to learn personal responsibility and faith, not the hypocrisy they witness in Catholic education these days.

    • Dave Sag says:

      06:18pm | 31/03/10

      Just think how much better the world would be if all the energy people wasted on defending their favourite cult (no matter what it is) were dedicated to the pursuit of joy and the celebration of reason.  All this belief in magic sky people is just ridiculous.  Get over it people, there are no gods. Just people, some good, some bad.  That they have such an inordinate amount of power over people’s lives is the terrible thing.  Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      Easter is just a handy Friday and Monday off to most Australians I am sure. It’s BBQs and Road Toll stats and the new series of V on TV.

    • David says:

      09:17pm | 31/03/10

      Great, Dave.

      The best you can come up with is, “Hey, why isn’t everyone more like me!?”

      Who has to get over themselves, truly, Dave?

    • DG says:

      08:23am | 01/04/10

      Dave, I’m shocked an appalled and the simplicity of your post. This is not simply a time for TV and BBQ’s.

      This is a very auspicious occasion - the first Friday after the 4th full moon of the year is a significant date for many. It is a unique occasion in the modern calendar and perhaps more significant than many appreciate.

      This is a time for solitude and thinking, reflection and the resurrection of spirit.

      It’s the only long weekend where you are guaranteed a full moon and, presuming the clouds and wind stay away, good fishing! There’s nothing better than 4 days of solitude, reflection, thinking and resurrection of spirit whilst sharing a few beers with mates out in a tinny, or even of the local wharf. Drag home a few Bream and Flatties, then hitti the BBQ and watch the League.

      Some people just don’t understand Easter.

    • Abe Frellman says:

      06:58pm | 31/03/10

      Amen, brother.

    • Patrick says:

      08:50pm | 31/03/10

      My family and I will be participating in all the events this Easter season in our local Catholic parish. The ‘devilish’ activities of a few depraved men do not change one iota the teachings of Christ and the Catholic church. You Paul Colgan, like so many other sad souls will use that as an excuse and take the easy option to continue your hedonistic lives. May God have mercy on your souls.

    • Beth Post says:

      09:43pm | 31/03/10

      Uh humm are you going to put the Producers of “Hey Dad” in the same box. I think you should come out of the dark and take a good look around, if you think that the Catholic Church is covering up,  Is this then the end of the matter?, now you have bought it all out into the open, and have you saved us & fixed it all?. This has to be the most narrow minded headline to reach print.  Are you just Catholic bashing? Wake up!  there is a world of this kind of cover up, and guess what you don’t have to be part of the Catholic Church.

    • DG says:

      08:08am | 01/04/10

      “Hey Dad” never claimed to be the fount of all that is good in the world.

      That aside, the fact that other people are doing it does not make it OK, or reduce the abhorrence one feels towards an organisation that would protect child sex offenders.

      Did you actually read the article or simply read the heading on its own (as opposed to being considered in the context of the article is heads)?

      The point of the article was that the Church’s record with respect to child abuse has caused him to reconsider his association with the Church. He make it clear that it is not a matter of faith, he retains his belief in the values of Catholicism but finds it difficult to maintain the association in light of his growing knowledge.

      In that light the title is completely appropriate “How much abuse can you take from the Church?” need not refer to the kiddie fiddlers, but to the abuse of trust and confidence that is driving Colgo from the Church.

      I thought it was a great piece.

    • paul says:

      10:00pm | 31/03/10

      the sooner people realise that churches are just a business and congregation just investors searching for miracles the better off we will be.

      if any one else hid criminals they would be charged as accessories but churches and pope and his cronies can get away with it, just move the culprits around until they do it again then move them on again. absolutely disgusting. catch them and throw the book at them, dont let the church intervene

    • truckle the uncivil says:

      10:56pm | 31/03/10

      You make one big mistake.  Your values don’t come from the church they come from you.  As an atheist it really pisses me off that people give credit for their own good values and deeds to the church.  Be proud of the fact that you have your values and don’t pass off your goodness to the church.

      It isn’t the church that does good deeds it is the individuals in it.

    • Beentheredonethat says:

      11:20pm | 31/03/10

      Nothing is more revolting than a pedophile, the fact that any church and congregation could support this with donations is equally revolting. The abuse of children by The Catholic Church and many other denominations should make us all pause and think. Is this really what God would want? Its certainly what most people be it beliver or not , would be disgusted with. How can any sane and moral person support these destructive and morally defunct practises? Lives are destroyed, children are robbed of childhood, most carry the burden all their lives. I know I was one of those children. I now have no faith or belief in any God, and my faith in humanity is now diminished.

    • reformed catholic says:

      11:38pm | 31/03/10

      Christ was young -  the Pope is old.  Christ was a poor nomad - the Pope lives in a palace surrounded by luxury.  Christ preached forgiveness and tolerance - the Pope Judges.  Christ handed himself over to his enemies - the Pope has an army to protect him.  This makes the Pope the opposite of Christ and the Latin for opposite is anti, literally making the Pope the antichrist.

    • Underwriter says:

      07:59am | 01/04/10

      News Flash - Easter has nothing to do with the Christian God.  It is the ancient pagan festival that celebrates renewal at the spring equinox and is actually named after the pagan God ?ostre.  It was just another pagan festival hijacked by the church to suppress and dominate the population.  So get your facts straight.  I’m also curious as to whether when Fr David was “doing all this good work” in Africa whether he was also preaching to the disadvantaged and ignorant that condoms were evil?  And one last thing, if you are really going to encourage your daughter for a career in the church then you mustn’t care much for her well being at all!!  You know that it is no coincidence that the time when the church did rule the known world that it was called The Dark Ages.

    • Danae says:

      08:22am | 02/04/10

      Its also at the wrong time of year here in Australia Underwriter;-) Try buying ‘easter’ eggs at the right time of year and you will see how much sway christian religions have in retail these days;-)

    • Jason says:

      09:15am | 01/04/10

      And yet, when you all die, or your loved ones die, you all strangely find comfort in believing they are in Heaven…. and seeing them again someday. Your problem here is that belief in heaven requires a belief in God, since it was His idea first. Or perhaps you should tell the truth of your beliefs at your funerals - “Stop mourning, your wife/child/parent ceases to exist and there is nothing beyond death. You will never see them again. There life was meaningless as it has amounted to nothing. They are simply dead and we all will suffer the same fate…” MY question for you: Why live? Why love? Why pursue peace? or happiness? When you honestly believe nothing exists outside your own heartbeat?

      Please don’t say “there is a heaven for everyone!” That typical statement requires more faith than Christians, and labels you hypocites since “imaginary friends” do not exist, neither do “imaginary places”. And who created and governs this heaven for every being? Is Hitler there too? Oh, but you may say, “everyone will go to their own version of heaven…” Well that sounds more like hell… My version will be different to everyone else’s, therefore i will spend eternity alone in some place I made up…..great.

      The only way to resolve this arguement is to face death, which we all will. Good luck with your afterlife plans…. I hope you are surprised.

    • Dwayne says:

      10:42am | 01/04/10

      Athiests make the most of the lives they have now, instead of wishing that another one exists after. When someone dies, we are greatful for the time we did have with them. The fear of mortality is one of the key fears that religions prey on. Just because you delude yourself that there is a life after death, doesn’t mean it is true.

      At funerals, I say I’m sorry for your loss. I don’t pretend that it didn’t really happen and say they’ll see the person again.

    • DG says:

      11:10am | 01/04/10

      No, I don’t believe that I’ll find my loved ones in “Heaven”. I’ll die, the final biological processes will be completed, my body will decompose and be eaten by worms. The End.

      The recent funeral for my grandfather (at which I spoke on behalf of my family), contained no mention of seeing him again, nor gods embrace nor anything of that nature - there was recognition of the man he was, the light and joy he brought to the lives of people he knew. Most importantly there was acknowledgment that he had long missed his wife and son (both of whom predeceased him by more than 20 years), and just wanted it to be over.

      It was sad, but at the same time joyous. He had the release that he wanted, there were no lies or illusions nor was there any reunion. I will admit that we took some satisfaction from the symbolism as his ashes were buried with his wife (again, despite the knowledge that there was no reunion) - mostly in the knowledge that the many we loved was no longer in mourning, no longer suffering debilitating dementia and no longer suffering in a body riddled with cancer.

    • cecile says:

      09:23am | 01/04/10

      I wish every human being belived in a Higher power, Be it God or what ever you want to call it. We need to believe in someone to be better people, unfortunately we are always going to find sick people that hide behind an institution to do harm. But the catholic church has a lot to answer for, Im catholic but I believe in my God and no one else.  since the church does not compromise or allow for people to be different than I dont have any time for IT. I know God listens to me and as long as Im a good person God will be by my side always. Thats enough for me.

    • Dwayne says:

      10:42am | 01/04/10

      Try believing in yourself if you want inspiration to be a better person.

    • DG says:

      11:13am | 01/04/10

      Cecile:

      How do you classify yourself as “Catholic” (as opposed not a non-denominational Christian) yet ignore some of the fundamental beliefs included in the definition of Catholicism?

      I have a feeling that your answer will include something in the nature of “I don’t mean Catholicism in the normal sense I mean….” I shall attempt to respond to that in advance - Why do you self report as being Catholic when you expressly reject some of the core notions of Catholicism (such as the authority of the Holy See and the lineage of the Popes from St Peter). Why not acknowledge your own personal relationship with God of the New Testament, as the Father of Jesus Christ, rather than choosing a word that announces your affiliation with a Church that you are not affiliated with?

    • Underwriter says:

      11:55am | 01/04/10

      Spot on Dwayne!  Couldn’t have said it better myself.  This is the problem with theists of all walks of life.  They put all their faith into their imaginary friends and very little or none into themselves.  I could not imagine a more hollow and empty lifestyle.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      04:08pm | 01/04/10

      “If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities”—Voltaire

    • Arthur Escamilla says:

      10:10am | 01/04/10

      As most people know but few are ready to acknowledge, sex abuse of minors is unfortunately widespread and certainly not unique to members of the Catholic Church.

      A child abuse crisis finds fertile soil in a society immersed in cultural relativism, and for this we need to thank the philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Our society (rightly) uprises at the news of child abuse, but at the same time is passive and even encouraging of a hyper-sexualised environment. Is child abuse the only kind sexual misconduct that would raise an eyebrow these days?

      The hideous crimes that have come to light in Ireland and elsewhere are being used as ammunition against the Catholic Church with the main casualty being the truth as regards the Pope’s actions, as serious journalism is showing (for example see http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/).

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      10:38am | 01/04/10

      I would just like to say that the media loves Catholic Church bashing, the Church has never endorsed the abuse of children,  it is because the homosexual perverts highjacked the seminaries that the church has had so many cases of abuse. Infact it is less than 1% worldwide within the Catholic Church that have been in this category, such a small number compared to the higher percentage of secularly trusted positions such as police, teachers, doctors, judges, lawyers ect…

    • Allan says:

      11:05am | 01/04/10

      If they covered up abuse and refused to report indiviual priests, or moved the offenders on so they would avoid it becoming public - all of which has been alleged at the highest levels of the church, then I’m afraid you are wrong - if that is the case then they have very much endorsed abuse.

    • Angus says:

      11:43am | 01/04/10

      .......umm yeah it has because it has actively sought to hide the perpetrators of sexual abuse from outside scrutiny, it has offered the perpetrators of these abuses the anonymity of its cloistered protection where many continued to commit these crimes for years on end and compounded misery after misery and destroyed countless lives. It has then told the victims of these awful abuses to keep their mouths shut about it. Reprehensible criminal behaviour. Then people like you claim to shine alight on these abuses is to vilify the Roman Catholic Church, which is not OK. But it is OK to blame the gays for all the crimes, as you clearly equate homosexuality with paedophilia.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      11:50am | 01/04/10

      Allan, Child abuse is not a Catholic Teaching, therefore it is not endorsed, it is one of the most terrible crimes,  I agree that failer to report abuse is very serious, but sometimes these things do not come to light until many years have passed. It is in this day and age that abuse is more widespread because people have no morals ie: homosexuality, acsess to porn, violence ect…..and no it is not confined to the Catholic church.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      12:29pm | 01/04/10

      Angus, I am not making excuses for the numbers of lives destroyed by abuse, I am pointing out that the media will single out the Cathoilc Church, I am disgusted that these things have happened but my Faith is not based on the wrong doings of others. And as for homosexuals, they are perverted enough to do what they do and hurt themselves, then yes they are very capable of hurting and abusing others.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      06:03am | 02/04/10

      Doctors, judges etc don’t claim to be part of a divine organisation representing God, the source of all morality. They don’t put out encyclicals and tell people how to live.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      12:33pm | 02/04/10

      Austin,  they dont tell people how to live? what do you think a law system is for? laws dont tell people how to live? news to me mate.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      01:35pm | 02/04/10

      Really there are laws that tell you if you should use contraception or not how amazing. Can you tell me what statue those laws would be found in? Or which law of parliament states that homosexuality is immoral or perverted?

    • Jason says:

      12:23pm | 04/04/10

      Typical response, lets blame everyone else. Because homosexuals are a minority, a person is more likely to be abused by a heterosexual than a homosexual. Oh an what about the male priests who abuse females, are they homosexual ?

    • Allan says:

      10:51am | 01/04/10

      I’m afraid I have to disagree with your priest, and with the arguement that it is a shame that the abuse scandals masks the good work done by the church. It misses the point on a tragic scale. Abuse happens in society because sick people can be found in any walk of life, be it the church, the police or our schools. The fact here though is that the church has habitually and carefully covered up allegations, keeping them quite, refusing to report the crimes, discouraging victims from reporting them and in many cases moving the offending priest a little further down the road to another Parish. For a religion of any kind to do that is unforgivable. To put the needs of the victims so far behind the the needs of the church is a disgrace. We don’t defend rapists by saying, oh but he does such a lot for charity. And neither can we do that for the church. Added to that it’s misguided, shameful encouragement of poor africans to abandon condoms when we know that it is the best defence against the pandemic of Aids that has killed millions in that continent and you have a belief system that is terribly flawed and I’m afraid can not allow them to claim my son as one of their own.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      12:14pm | 01/04/10

      Condoms do not prevent AID’s, they just delay the inevitable.  Aid’s happens because of infidelity, homosexuality and widespread use of sex workers as well as child abuse,  you discribed as sick people. when people learn to live a life with morals, only then will we see the eradication of this terrible disease, as well as an end to child abuse.

    • Allan says:

      01:05pm | 01/04/10

      Catholicone: “Condoms do not prevent Aids” ???? ‘They just delay the invitable” ? And you call yourself a person of God?  Your a walking PR nightmare for Catholism.

    • TrueAgnostic says:

      01:08pm | 01/04/10

      CATHOLICONE I think you might want to start by ridding the Catholic Church of pedophiles . when Jesus said “suffer the little children to come unto me” I am sure he never meant at the hands of Catholic priests and suffer they sure did. Morals consist of not supporting any organization that indulges in these practices. The buck stops with you

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      03:42pm | 01/04/10

      I have known many people who have fallen pregnant while using a condom, also many people have contracted Aids while using them, even the condom companys cover themselves legally by stating that they are not responsible for pregnancy or contraction of std while using their product.  The problem with the condom message is this, it says you can do what you like just do it “safely” bad message if you ask me, but I am grateful that I know the danger of such messages. and TrueAgnostic I do not “indulge"in such practices, it disgusts me that you assume I do because I am Catholic, which brings me back to my main point of Catholic bashing, because someones wrongdoing you say that the whole Catholic church is also wrong, a little shallow if you ask me.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      12:58pm | 03/04/10

      You know many people who’ve fallen pregnant while using a condom, that’s just weird. How on earth do you get this information ? You’re chatting to somebody about their upcoming baby and then you start asking them what kind of contraception they were using at the time ? Or do you just accost random strangers in the street and start asking what contraceptive they use and what the results of that was.

      Next time your taking one of those surveys please tell us how condoms compare to “natural” methods of birth control.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      09:03pm | 04/04/10

      Actually I was a pregnancy councellor, so my info is quite founded. Call me weird but I have helped a number of women through pregnancy when nobody else would, not the boyfriend, family or who they thought were friends. I have also helped women with post abortion syndrome, which is the regret of killing their child. so NO condoms do not always work.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      07:52am | 05/04/10

      Well that does explain it and it’s not wierd at all. You do realise though that you are taking a skewed sample and trying to extrapolate that into a normal population, which is usually quite ineffective.  Seat-belts don’t “always” work either but I’m still going to use one.

    • Mike says:

      09:32am | 05/04/10

      @ CATHOLICONE: The claim condoms do not prevent AIDs (you mean spread of HIV virus, one presumes) needs to be taken in context of what other behaviour is occurring:  whether one participant is HIV positive; promiscuity; whether a condom is used in every risky encounter, etc, etc.

      what proportion of the many people you know who fallen pregnant while supposedly using condoms have lied? i.e. were not actually using them, but lied to cover their stupidity?

      In what context were you a pregnancy councillor?

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      03:23pm | 05/04/10

      Mike, most, not all, but most women who I have councelled have said that they have fallen pregnant because of a broken condom or failed pill, they also feel like they have been lied to because they were taught the “safe sex” message that failed them. Also we have a disgustingly high abortion rate to which mostly consist of married single women, who have an abortion without the knowledge of the husband, or boyfriend. most cases of std’s including HIV is contracted because of sexual promiscuity and yes even when a condom is used. Austin, continue to use one as you will,but when you catch something remember what I have said. You play with fire you eventually will get burnt.

    • Mike says:

      07:45pm | 05/04/10

      Yes, that may be ‘what is said’, but it is likely many (if not most) have not used the contraceptive properly (eg missed Pills) or not used condoms despite saying they did.  Yes, promiscuity is a significant factor in STD spread, although studies strongly suggest proper condom use significantly reduces risk for HIV spread - to almost zero. Condoms used properly significantly reduce the rate of spread where one participant is HIV +ve (e.g. promiscuous truck drivers world-wide whether they are HIV +ve or not).  I agree abortion rates are high, although some projections suggest the rate of disadvantaged children that would have been born would lead to significant drains on society through significantly increased demands on social services including the courts and jails, especially in countries like the USA.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      08:38pm | 05/04/10

      You are projecting from skewed data again.

      Life is risk, you manage it don’t avoid it.

      (By the by I’m happily in a long term relationship and have no need for any contraception at the moment thank you. See what happens when you are projecting - you get things completely and utterly wrong. )

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      12:53am | 06/04/10

      Mike you have practically just stated that you are a Eugenisist, something to which the Nazis prided themselves. Infact you say that these little children would have burdened society with the cost of living, if you do a google search for nazi eugenics and then hit images, they too said the same thing, they even had posters stating that very idea. Maybe you should go and use a thing called charity instead of making excuses for murdering children. ps I make no excuses for the clergy who abused children. The very reason why we have so many people in jail and using the court system is because of peoples lack of respect for life. Life is a basic human right and no one has the right to take that away.
      Austin, glad to see you have come around to the idea of projecting, yes you get things wrong, a bit like people Catholic bashing, without knowing the facts, I have no need for contraception, dont like pumping my body full of chemicals and never will thanks. Oh and I am in a lifelong relationship. Also about skewed info I think I have a little bit more of an insight into this subject than you somehow, not to worry though not everyone could handle the full extent of what these women go through.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      08:57am | 06/04/10

      The reason not everyone knows what those women go through is because what those women go through is not the norm. It is not the experience of the majority of the population. If it was the experience of the majority of the population then we would not be having this discussion. For the majority of the population contraception works.

      What you are trying to do is take the extreme and make it the norm. Bit like what some critic’s do to the Church, the irony is kinda cute though.

    • CATHOLIONE says:

      10:21am | 06/04/10

      Austin ,It’s often believed that only irresponsible women fall pregnant by accident. This is not true. Studies show that between half and two thirds of all women presenting for abortion were using contraception at the time.
      An estimated 23 per cent of all known pregnancies in Australia are terminated. This makes abortion one of the most common surgical procedures in the country, with around 90,000 women undergoing abortion every year.There are 250,000 live births each year in Australia, which means that there are 2 aborted babies for every 5 born. Worldwide, there are about 46 million abortions being carried out each year. if this is not the norm then what is? As for having this discussion, it is because these fact are hushed up that not many people know. Yes it is extreme and has become the norm. so I will say it again no condoms and contraception do not always work. 98% of abortions are for convenience (these reasons do not include medical purposes, rape or foetal deformities). 3 out of 4 women felt ‘anguish’ over what they had done, also known as Post abortion syndrome which leaves huge emotional and psycological scars.

    • Mike says:

      10:46am | 06/04/10

      @ CATHOLICONE - I agreed abortion rates are too high, so implied I agree we would be better without it (not needing it); yet after adding a realistic rider about some potential benefits in this overcrowded, over-criminalised world, thought you might come back with something like well they could be adopted.

      But no, got the left field eugeneticist barb.

      I agree with Austin 3:16, contraception works for the norm*; pity you seem to deal in other than that.

      * in both preventing pregnancy and reducing STD spread.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      11:10am | 06/04/10

      Mike, glad to hear that you think abortion is not needed. Yes they can be adopted ,bravo, I thought I would let you come to that conclusion yourself,  however your statements were very eugenically based, maybe think about things indepth a bit more before stating them. we are not overcrowded in Australia, infact we are not replacing ourselves enough to sustain a funtional economy. You pity the work I do? well actually I am very satisfied with the fact that I save lives (babies) and help people with mental problems due to abortion.

    • Mike says:

      11:34am | 06/04/10

      The annual “abortion” numbers in Australia has been dropping and is now below 75,000, and that figure includes curettes for miscarriage and other gyn. procedures of around 10-12%. With an annual birth rate of 260,000, this makes abortion around 23% ... i.e. a ratio of 1 in 6 known pregnancies.

      The rate of failure of a conceptus to naturally implant is estimated to be 25-45%, making God the biggest aborter.

    • Mike says:

      12:02pm | 06/04/10

      wrong % @ 12.34pm - should be 18% (of all known pregnancies undergo medical abortion - 1 in 6)

    • Mike says:

      12:26pm | 06/04/10

      No, I don’t pity the work you do: I think it a pity there are so many problems with the way things don’t work the way they are supposed to.

      Eugenics is rubbish.  Reality rules.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      12:40pm | 06/04/10

      Mike you really are bitter, may God have pity on your soul, dont know were you got your info but 75,000 is still disgusting, thats thousands of lives taken by premeditated murder. I am pretty sure the number of abortions are still higher than 75, 000 though. I personally suffered a miscarriage, but I am not suffering from mental problems because I did not seek to kill my child, it was upsetting but because I have my faith I realized that God is in control, He gives and takes life not us. Abortion is an unatural procedure, when I last looked pregnancy was not considered a disease,anything that deliberately upsets the course of nature has consequences.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      01:06pm | 06/04/10

      Yes people with faith help others, because we value life, I have the greatest respect for policemen, soldiers and doctors etc, who preserve life and help people who are in need but I do not condemn the policeforce, army or medical board because of the occasional wrongdoing of people amoung them. Actually the Catholic church has founded hundreds of hospitals, charitys and mental health centers to pick up the mess that secular society has made, as well as provide the basic human needs and medical care.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      02:07pm | 06/04/10

      Got a source for the stats ?

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      02:37pm | 06/04/10

      NSW right to life -abortion statistics

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      02:59pm | 06/04/10

      abortion statistics   abortSa.com

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      03:22pm | 06/04/10

      In 2005 The Department of Health and Ageing estimated that there are approximately 90,000 abortions in Australia each year.[2] This number also equates to almost one abortion for every 2.8 births.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      07:06pm | 07/04/10

      Got a source at all? Any chance of posting a URL? If the stats are being based on Medicare info they are almost certainly being inflated.

      The link Mike posted identifies some of the problems with using Medicare data.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      08:56am | 08/04/10

      Dont beleive the data, maybe you should call them up and personally ask them, but I can tell you now the data is correct.  Google the info I gave you,  AbortSa is quite informative.

    • Mike says:

      11:24am | 08/04/10

      Catholicone - some of your commentary is unnecessary.  I would like to see abortion gone; and agreed the rate is too high, but you just said “glad to hear that you think abortion is ‘not needed’ “.

      You say “people with faith help others, because we value life” fallaciously implying people without faith do not value life.  Like you I have suffered miscarriages (several) and despite me generally being clinical about abortion, I mourned those early-pregnancy losses.

      The “bravos”, “bitters”, “pray for your soul” are snide and pathetic.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      12:19pm | 08/04/10

      Mike how can you value life without faith? Life Without Faith is Malevolent & Meaningless. Because if you put your values into materialism it ultimately devalues life to a meaningless anomaly. To have faith is to believe any set of firmly held principles or beliefs. So sorry about your loss due to miscarriage,to Mourn the loss of a child is quite normal, however you pathetically implied that God is the biggest Abortionist, something to which I took great offence, you seem to have a bitterness toward God and possibly blame Him for your miscarriage. sorry if you took offence to me pointing out obvious emotion, I was merely praising you on your interlect to see abortion is not needed, its murder, as well as your ability to see that these babies can be adopted by people such as yourself who has had trouble with pregnancy. I will continue to pray for you.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      06:14pm | 12/04/10

      You’re the one spruiking the data how’s about you provide a link.

      I mean you have actually investigated that the information you are relying on is accurate haven’t you?

      Otherwise you’d be just another judgemental Catholic jerk speaking through their hat.

    • Dwayne says:

      10:56am | 01/04/10

      I think everyone agrees that there are bad people, and that the vast majority of preists are not paedophiles. The real issue here is how it was dealt with by the catholic church once it came aware. Would police, doctors, judges & lawyers just move the paedophile to another area instead of reporting it?

    • Ronk says:

      12:10pm | 01/04/10

      That’s the point. Police, doctors, judges & lawyers, not to mention The Boy Scouts, sporting organistaions, Government schools and orphanages and every other type of organisation, were and often still are at least as bad as the Catholic Church was in the 1960s to 1980s in moving/covering up pedophile employees. Yet all these are virtually ignored by the media and we are told that the problem is something specifically wrong with the Catholic Church alone.

    • Mike says:

      11:48am | 08/04/10

      Ronk, it would be appropriate to back those claims with good evidence.  Besides, pointing the finger still denies the problems in the Catholic church - have a look at Broken Rites web-site, where prosecutors forego many charges to get a single confession.

    • Ronk says:

      10:37pm | 02/05/10

      Mike, nobody is denying the problems in the Catholic Church. The point is that the anti-catholics who control most of the media are pretending that the Catholic church is the only, or at least by far the worst, instituion at addressing the problem, when in fact it is one of, if not the, best.

    • gazza says:

      10:58am | 01/04/10

      Come on Paul seriously, if the kid is only 2 years old there’s no need to take the fun out of easter by getting into the fable of jesus.

    • Colin says:

      11:38am | 01/04/10

      Just when you think the Main Stream Media can’t sink any lower in their dishonesty and hate towards the Catholic Church, they prove they can. A story from the Catholic League shows just how low they can go.

      On the MSNBC’s website was an article titled,
      “Pope describes touching boys: I went too far”

      The article that readers accessed after clicking on it actually had nothing to do with the Pope. NBC later removed the story title and issued an apology (which is something the New York Times still hasn’t done for its dishonest story). But it is difficult to believe that such a thing would accidently happen.
      http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1816

    • steve, witness to the paedophilia says:

      12:09pm | 01/04/10

      The problem is that the church leaders were offered a choice as christ was offered it after 40 days in the desert.

      Power, money and prestige

      or to do the work of God.

      Most true catholics understand what was chosen.

    • Ronk says:

      12:11pm | 01/04/10

      “Even though its dogma is world-renowned it may still be hard to grasp, for anyone not brought up with it, the all-or-nothing way Catholicism requires you to accept, without question, the authority of the Church. Put simply, if you don’t accept the Church you’re not Catholic. “

      And Paul you obviously haven’t grasped this utterly basic point about the nature of Catholicism. Catholicism requires you to accept and assent to (though not ‘without question”) the TEACHING authority of the Church. i.e. the dogma. The Church has never required any Catholic to accept and assent to all of the sins, bad governance, administrative mistakes and sheer stupidity which has been sometimes displayed by the Church’s leaders.

      In fact quite a few Catholic saints have famously told Popes that they were wrong about such matters, starting with St Paul’s rebuke of St Peter as recorded in the Bible.

    • Frank says:

      01:07pm | 01/04/10

      I was a child when I figured out God didnt exist. What’s your excuse?

    • andrew says:

      02:10pm | 03/04/10

      awesome comment.  i have read a few comments here, but this one is clearly the winner.  legendary even.  i whole hearterly agree.

    • Atai says:

      01:31pm | 01/04/10

      The only worthwhile material to emerge from the committee of nicosea was the big pan of fertiliser in the little room out the back. The rest; the satan chocolate, poisons the soil as it poisons human dignity.

    • Mike says:

      01:37pm | 01/04/10

      One should always question the fabric of their belief structure, following something blindly (be it political, relgious or otherwise), especially as a parent, is about the most foolish thing a person can do. You’re good people Paul, good luck on your quest for truth, I hope you find it somewhere out there.

    • Godfrey zohn says:

      02:37pm | 01/04/10

      Atheism is a religion too…

      I’m for the FSM - I’d rather be touched by His Holy Noodleness, than touched on the Noodle by His Holiness.

      But seriously, look at the history of how this all came about (hello - Dead Sea Scrolls, anyone?) - and while you’re at it cross-reference with the Muslim and Buddhist accounts of the Jesus story as well.  Spice it up with Dan Brown’s original uncredited sources, such as Baigent, Lee and Lincoln, and you may achieve a greater understanding of what it is you’re claiming to represent.  These religions are not of a god, they came from men.

      Science will fly you to the moon, whereas religion will fly you into a building.
      Happy Ishtar all!

    • Chewbacca says:

      03:16pm | 01/04/10

      Two points.
      1) People seem to think that this abuse has only occured over the last 20 years where a simple news search will reviel this type of behaviour going back centuries.
      2) remember the Cathars.

    • Fr Tom says:

      04:45pm | 01/04/10

      Has anyone missed the number of abuse cases committed by teachers? If we are consistent, then we should just as well give up on education as religion. Statistically, you are far less responsible to leave your child with a teacher than with a Catholic priest. Just check the court statistics. Im not saying all teachers are bad; just that it is inconsistent to consider all priests bad.

    • CHA says:

      04:48pm | 01/04/10

      Join the Priesthood and gain unlimited access to children who even if they complain they will not be beleieved.
      A haven for pedophiles

    • Facts Man says:

      04:48pm | 01/04/10

      Some facts:
      Catholic Church has over 2,000,000 in religous life worldwide. Of these there are between 500-5000 suspected cases of child abusers.  Statistically you are far more likely to be a child abuser for being Australian. The vast majority of clergy are very good people.
      Talks of coverups are usually to do with rouge bishops who against the Church’s rules ordained homosexuals so as to keep in line with modern secular society. As Bishops are not allowed to ordain homosexuals they have tried to hide this fact from Rome.

    • bunny says:

      06:45am | 02/04/10

      Some more facts.

      More than a million of those “Catholics” also believe in their own local religions as part of their “Catholicism”. It was a way to bring hundreds of thousands of new believers into the fold around the world.

      In places like Africa, Catholics are killing untold children for “witchcraft”, for being albino, for being raped by adult “Catholics”, and they also put tens of thousands of young children into slavery (many priests and bishops have been investigated by the press and have been found to keep child slaves and sell child slaves… sometimes as sex slaves)... and the list goes on and on.

      Do not claim their numbers without also claiming their sins.

    • Facts Man says:

      08:33am | 02/04/10

      You are a Bunny. There are not even a million Catholic clergy in Africa. Have you ever read any of the Catholic Catechism; it condemns witchcraft, slavery, rape etc. as serious moral crimes.

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      11:14am | 02/04/10

      bunny, your “facts” are unfounded, please, if you can, back your claims.
      The Albino deaths of which you speak are actually performed by witchdoctors who harvest body parts for “magic” not Catholics.  And as for slavery, first time I have heard of it as I said before please back your claims. And no we do not “claim” the sins of others, do we claim the sins of criminals in prison because we llive in the same country?

    • Facts Man says:

      04:52pm | 01/04/10

      Another fact. Catholicism is the most popular denomination in the world.  Much the ignorant rantings is coming from those suffering from tall poppy syndrome.

    • Facts, Damn Facts, and Statistics says:

      07:55pm | 06/04/10

      In Germany’s March 1933 elections, The Nazi Party dominated the poll with 43.9% of the vote and achieved a parliamentary majority of 51.8%.  Damn Winston Churchill and his tall poppy syndrome!

    • catholicone says:

      09:12am | 07/04/10

      umm the church is worldwide and over 2,000 years old, thus comparing it to German politics does look silly. Nazi germany is no more, the Church still stands as the most popular denomination in the world. Tall poppy syndrome? Yes I think you have quite a severe case.

    • Facts, Damn Facts, and Statistics says:

      11:26am | 07/04/10

      My points, which you missed, were:
      - Just because there is a lot of people who think “X” doesn’t mean “X” is inherently true.  The truth of the church is in it’s message, not the numbers of adherents.
      - Just because I don’t like something that is popular, doesn’t mean I am jealous of it.  Lots of people like Dan Brown’s books.  I don’t like them because they are poorly written and unoriginal, not because other people really like them.  For the record, I never said I don’t like the catholic church, that was your paranoid inference.

      But seeing as you have weighed in, I’ll add two more points:
      - I was’t comparing the catholic church to nazi germany, I was applying exactly the same argument to something different.  Clearly, in both cases, there are other factors to consider in determining the merits of the respective institutions.
      - Just because something is older than something else, doesn’t make it better.  Paedophilia is far older than the catholic church.  So is disease.

      Also note that the church started quite some time after the alleged ressurection, which in turn happened about 27 years after Mary gave birth.  The church, therefore, must be less than 2000 years old.

    • Arefer. says:

      11:44am | 07/04/10

      @ Catholicone

      Points.  You miss them.

    • Catholicone says:

      12:39pm | 07/04/10

      Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people, increasing from the 1950 figure of 437 million and the 1970 figure of 654 million. In 2005, there was an 1.5% increase from 1.098 to 1.115 billion Catholics worldwide, including an increase of 3.1% in Africa and 1.18% in Asia, where the Church comprises 3% of the population. With a history spanning almost two thousand years, the Church is the western world’s oldest and largest institution, having played a prominent role in the politics and history of Western civilization since the 4th century. Even if its not over 2,000 years old it soon will be.

    • Facts, Damn Facts and Statistics says:

      02:17pm | 07/04/10

      Whooosshhh!  That’s the sound of points flying over your head.

      If you think the church is good because lots of people like it, please refer to the points about nazis and dan brown.  If you think the church is good because it’s old, refer to the points about paedophiles and disease.  If you think the church is good because it’s growing, then you’ll love the green thing on my foot.

      If however, you think the church is good because it has a good message, then you might just have a point that I haven’t addressed.  Love christ and the church because of what they are and what they say, catholicone, not because they are winning a meaningless global popularity contest.

    • Catholicone says:

      05:57pm | 07/04/10

      my my you are bitter, I do love my faith and church like you said,  just so happens I also like stats, even if you think they are meaningless.

    • Facts, Damn Facts and Statistics. says:

      01:14pm | 08/04/10

      Great debating technique - just call everyone who doesn’t agree with you ‘bitter’.  On the plus side, the fact that you resorted to it again suggests you finally understood my points and had no recourse but ad hominem.

      FYI, I’m a catholic, I just don’t like the arguments used by some people here who are on ‘my side’.  I’m sure some of the atheists feel the same about their side.

    • tim says:

      05:20pm | 01/04/10

      I have sent my kids to Catholic Schools.  It has had a wonderful effect of making them very cynical to all religions including catholicism.  So if you are worrried that your children may fall victim to wierd religions… send them to a catholic school - it will put them off religion for life….athiests, agnostics and cynics please note this!!!

    • CATHOLICONE says:

      08:29am | 02/04/10

      Prey tell me why did you send your kids to catholic schools if you loathe the religion? Let me guess better education? credentials?

    • Danae says:

      08:42am | 02/04/10

      You have a remarkably good point there.  After having the christian religion shovelled down my throat from a young age and then seeing the very teachers and the other christians acting in ways that was very far removed from the teachings I began to distrust and resent what i was being force fed. I began to question what was truly right and whether the ‘god’ i was being traught about would be happy with the way people lived. I began to question why we went to church with its fancy paintings and beautiful but costly stained glass windows but were then told about the starving and downtrodden. My children go to a state school but they still get christian indoctorination and i do not label it lies but i do ask the children whether they think it is right and good. i want them to make their own decisions in their life. Morality, ethics and love span all religions. It shouldnt boil down to a bunfight over who is right and who is deluded as how exactly will we ever know?

    • Ronk says:

      08:21pm | 02/04/10

      Sadly Tim this is quite true. Those in charge of the majority of “Catholic” schools in Australia are more concerned with teaching feelgood fuzzy-minded political correctness than teaching the doctrines of the Catholic religion, with the result that most of their ex-students are, for most or all practical purposes, ignorant agnostics/atheists.

      If an Australian today wants to find out what Catholicism teaches, he usually has to search for himself. Easy enough to do with internet links to authoritative sources, but something which most of those vilifying Catholicism here have obviously not bothered to do before pontificating on the supposed evils and errors of Catholcism. I’ve lost count of all the straw-man “arguments”.

    • sean says:

      08:17pm | 01/04/10

      God doesnt exist because we cant see it. Air doesnt exist because we cant see it. Religion is a funny thing. People ask for proof of a God or spirits etc when they dont doubt other things they cant see and still believe in them. How do we know there is an antartic when none of us have been there?

    • Charles says:

      08:51pm | 01/04/10

      Mate, if your faith is only as deep as believing some guys in robes, you’re so missing the point.

    • murph says:

      09:06pm | 01/04/10

      I went to a non-religious private school.  There were at least three incidents that I know about where teachers and students had sexual relations.  Both incidents were covered up by the school.  One led to a tragic siege/shoot out and suicide by an ex-student who was molested.  I guess, by your logic, because it was a non-religious school that all non-religious schools cannot be trusted.  Reality is that the vast majority of both clergy and lay in the Catholic Church are not molesters.  Articles like this are merely anti-Catholic bigotry.

    • Steve says:

      04:57am | 02/04/10

      Have to agree there. Although I dislike many things about the Catholic church, I think it gets a bad rap over some of the things that are reported. It’s far from the only church which has bad people in it. What religion claims to ahve perfect members. Most religions, like Jesus, prefer to take them sinners and help them to become better rather than claim it’s followers are already perfect. Granted the child abuse is terrible but it’s hardly representative of the church as a whole. An unfortunate but small minotiry. As such a big church, its problems attract a lot of attention.
      One thing that always impresses me about the catholic church and sets it apart from many other religions is their tendency to stick to their beliefs (whether I agree with them all or not), rather than watering down their teachings to try to become more ‘appealing’ to younger people as so many churches do. I find it hard to take any religion seriously if their beliefs are unimportant enough that popularity or political correctness is a higher priority.

    • Gerard says:

      11:33pm | 01/04/10

      What are you “taking”, if I may ask???  If you’re concerned about your Church, give your Pope the support he needs.  Your feelings (and mine) aren’t important in the scheme of things, mate.  We’re not going to be judged on how we felt about the sins of our fellow Catholics, you can be sure of that.

    • Nick says:

      09:27am | 02/04/10

      Congratulations, a much more thoughtful piece on a hot button topic than I was expecting, even down to the admission that you’re not actually a Catholic anymore, just another ‘I’ll pick out the bits I like and leave the rest’, soft core, do what feels good Christian these days, handing down an ever-more diluted set of values from one generation to the next. A more courageous line would be to stay in the church and fight for justice.

      On the side note, I personally, however, these days have - to paraphrase your words -  no tolerance left for the Education Industry’s protection of child abusers, its silencing of victims and failure to adequately apologise or explain why it failed to act against paedophiles. The number of such offences in schools, colleges and universities puts the Church in the shade - both historically and currently - and far more children are exposed and at risk as students than as churchgoers today. But where is the mass outrage against the Education Industry’s institutionalised abuses?

    • Scott the realist says:

      10:05am | 02/04/10

      The pope was voted in as thanks for his decision to cover up the known abuse end of story, religion is a fear based control system for the weak poor and ignorant and a great money spinner to boot, it’s cool if it helps you but not nescessary and most of the doctrines are so out of touch( sorry religion seems to do lots of touching) but they have some good messages but it’s open to interpretation just like wikipedia and the net.

    • Ronk says:

      08:40pm | 02/04/10

      To take just the first of your ludicrious assertions, the exact opposite is true. The then Cd Ratzinger was well known for his uncompromising hard line against sexual abuse, in fact this was one of the few issues on which he publicly criticised his close friend and predecessor, whom he felt was too relaxed on this. Just before entering the conclave which subsequently elected him, the future Benedict XVI gave a fiery and hard-hitting sermon against sexual abuse, demanding all possible steps be taken to rid the priestly ranks of what he referred to as “filth”.  Secular media commentators at the time “expertly” declared that he was expressing impotent rage because “he knows that he hasn’t got the numbers to become Pope”.  How clueless they are.

    • Jason says:

      10:12am | 02/04/10

      The Catholic church teaches abstinence and not safe sex in Africa which does little to prevent AIDS/HIV.

    • Ronk says:

      08:48pm | 02/04/10

      You will see if you plot on a graph the proportion of Catholics in the population in each African country versus their AIDS/HIV rates, that there is an inversely proportional relationship between the two. 

      The stats plainly show that,. at least in Africa, promoting sex between husbands and wives only (which you call “teaching abstinence”) lowers the AIDS rate and promoting condoms raises the AIDS rate.

      Following Catholic teaching on sex is the only real “safe sex”. Condoms are. at best, “somewhat less unsafe sex”.

    • dw says:

      01:44pm | 02/04/10

      There can be a distinction between the message the church gives its members and the behaviour of some of its members. Philosophies and spiritual dogma reflect the purity of the postiion - someting for members to strive for. Becasue some fall short (and this includes those that protect peadophiles) doesn’t necessarily mean the message is flawed. Most of us believe in the benefits of democracy, while recognising the shortcomings caused by the way humans implement it…

    • Alex says:

      07:34pm | 02/04/10

      What a funny bunch you all are.Since the German Fiction play called THE DEPUTY came out the catholic church has been knocked by evangelical Protestants, communist (atheist),homosexuals and abortionist.  and have been using the media as their sword ever since.As a catholic,I have to consider what type of people im dealing with and its not hard to see what a self evident group this is.They sort sympathy from the public in sometimes very violent ways .They say they want sympathy on human errors.they justify their actions in many ways.No one mentions the abuse these people commit everyday but when the media find a very human error with the church,well all hell breaks loose.Clearly UNEDUCATED CATHOLICS OUT THERE,who dont have a clue about their faith call out “oh yes it must be true all these things because the paper says so…“Are you kidding guys if your mothers were advertised in the paper in a bad light and you know most of the report was BIAS.would you say something?? of course.Thats because you know your mother.But using that same analogy with the church you dont say nothing.you know why???because you dont know the church at all.you dont know its teaching and you dont know its structure or history aswell.If we had to listen to the medias advice every time I would ended up dead..You have to wonder though that the media actually might be doing us a favour….Consider this ,why is it that out of all abuse that goes around in every faith and institution ie teachers(which statistically have more pedophile abuses)get all the headlines???Why not the Jehovah Witness??Which have huge problems of abuse.(http://www.silentlambs.org)Or the Muslims who marry there wives at a very young age(9 years and up)no its the catholic church who get the spot light.how interesting..You have to wonder why???Yeah guys dont bother if your comeback is on my spelling.that doesnt work.  PAX

    • Zane Shearer says:

      08:16pm | 02/04/10

      I was very young when I first questioned faith. However, it was forced upon me. At the age of 7 I was involved in Sunday school. My parents were not particularly religious, but still wanted me and my sister to experience life in many facets for ourselves and make our own minds up.
      At the age of 7 I was, like many kids, a dinosaur nut. Now faith and science might be able to co-exist, but not when ignorance is involved.
      I had been going to the class for many months when the topic of dinosaurs was brought up. As an interested and knowledgable child I became involve in the “debate”. I can’t remember much, just that I said I believed in them, had proof(a fossilised trilobite), and would bring it in the next week to show everyone. I never returned. My parents were told that I was no longer welcome as long as I upheld my belief in something that goes against the churches teachings. 
      If these useless windbags can’t handle the opinion of an educated child then what hope is there for intelligent debate?
      Creationism is their latest crime against humanity. The only true future for this planet is one where we are not scared of the boogyman and begin to take responsibility for all of our actions.

    • Ronk says:

      09:22pm | 03/04/10

      1. The theory of biological evolution is not and never has been against the Church’s teachings. Like every other purely scientific theory, the wave theory of light, the atomic theory of matter etc, the Church has no official opinion either for or against it. If you look up the history of science you will find that the Catholic Church has done far more to foster and encourage the natural sciences than any other institution in history.

      2. A trilobite is not a dinosaur. Not even a reptile. Not even big. It was a small crusacean like creature which lived in the sea and became extinct before the first dinosaur ex isted. Before boasting of how educated you are, learn the basic facts otherwise you just show how foolish and emptily boastful you are and what a lot of codswallop is your purported “reason” why you reject the Church.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      11:23am | 07/04/10

      Ooh, aren’t you clever, Ronk.  You debunked the reasoning of a seven year old.  Bravo.

    • Matt says:

      11:32pm | 02/04/10

      I find it ironic that Christian leaders in the church seek to berate Atheism for things such as Nazism and Stalinism (both of which did not do the horrible things they did in the name of atheism, funnily enough, not one person has done something evil in the name of Atheism), yet they turn their eyes aside when a child’s trust has been betrayed.

      It’s sickening.

      Rational thought and logic are under assault again, especially from young-earth creationists who refuse to see any sort of reason.

    • Ronk says:

      09:30pm | 03/04/10

      Nazi and Communist leaders have stated innumerable times that their primary motivation is atheism. If you claim they were lying about this, please provide evidence of re some hidden “other” reason which they didn’t admit to. Look at Communist China today - capitalism is rampant but religion and especially Christianity and most of all Catholicism is still brutally and bloodily suppressed.  Marxism isn’t primarily about opposing capitalism - its essential philosophical foundation is atheist materialism -something which pure unfettered “free-market” capitalists agree with them about.

    • Ally says:

      10:58pm | 04/04/10

      Ronk , that is absolute rubbish and you know it! Nobody has ever been motivated to go to war by a lack of belief in a god. That’s laughable!

    • Mike says:

      06:59pm | 05/04/10

      Ronk; when and where have Nazi leaders stated their primary motivation is or was atheism?  Nazism was closely aligned with the Catholic church with Hitler make many pro-Christian pronouncements and using much Christian symbolism.  He painted a blond baby Jesus, too.

    • Mike says:

      07:05pm | 05/04/10

      Yes, that may be ‘what is said’, but it is likely many (if not most) have not used the contraceptive properly (eg missed Pills) or not used condoms despite saying they did.  Yes, promiscuity is a significant factor in STD spread, although studies strongly suggest proper condom use significantly reduces risk for HIV spread - to almost zero. Condoms used properly significantly reduce the rate of spread where one participant is HIV +ve (e.g. promiscuous truck drivers world-wide whether they are HIV +ve or not).  I agree abortion rates are high, although some projections suggest the rate of disadvantaged children that would have been born would lead to significant drains on society through significantly increased demands on social services including the courts and jails, especially in countries like the USA.

    • Ronk says:

      10:55pm | 07/04/10

      Ally, going to war was not the worst thing that Nazis and Communists did. Their genocide of the religious believers (Catholics above all) among own populations was the worst.

      Mike, you are tragically hilarious. I suppose the Nazis murdered thousands of bishops, priests, monks and nuns and millions of Catholic lay activists to show how much they loved Catholicism? Hitler said that “Christianity is a mental disease” and that Christianity, especially Catholicism had poisoned the pure Aryan race by injecting Judaism into it.  Nobody who lived in Germany in the 1930s could be in any doubt of the fact that the Catholic Church was the Nazis’ most implacable enemy. indeed the only institution in Europe which totally opposed Nazism from beginning to end.

    • Craigles says:

      10:57am | 08/04/10

      Ronk; Hitler and Nazism courted and used the Catholic church to gain support, and significant aspects of the church did support them.  They only did away with those who didn’t support them.

      http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

    • Ronk says:

      10:53pm | 02/05/10

      Craigles, if you compare the map showing the proportion of voters in each constituency who voted for the Nazis, with the map showing the proportion of Catholics in each constituency, you will see an almost perfect negative correlation. Yes, the Nazis managed by threats and inducements to get a few priests and even one bishop to say that Nazism or at least some aspects of it were acceptable. Just as today you will find a few priests saying that abortion, contraception, homosexual sex etc are OK. That doesn’t mean the Catholic Church endorses them. To claim that any significant proportion of the Catholic Church supported Nazism is historically ludicrous. The Catholic Church was the ONLY group which opposed the Nazis from start to finish. Many others in Western countries right across the political spectrum thought Hitler and the Nazis were doing a great job in the 1930s.  Even Winston Churchill wrote warmly in praise of Hitler and the Nazis as late as 1937. And even the Communists were allied with the Nazis from 1939 to 1941 (the alliance ended only when the Nazis foolishly invaded the USSR’s occupied territory). But aside from a few misfits, the Catholic Church stood firm.

    • sean says:

      02:09am | 03/04/10

      Religion is the biggest business in the world. Next is weapons, Oil, illegal drugs then legal drugs/ pharmaceuticals .. Isnt this a bit strange to anyone but me?

    • B Proletariat says:

      09:28am | 03/04/10

      I would like to comment on one thing. I have read recently other comments about the Church not paying tax. I do not wish to stop anybodies belief in a God system, but why should others subsidise those beliefs? 
      I think the Church has done some good, as have many Charities. But why should both these institutions be exempt from contributing to the cost of roads, police, nurses and all the other services the rest of us pay for? It is very easy to say you are non profit. As a small business man I could delete my profits too by increasing my salary, buying a few more company cars, a new building here and there, maybe even a company house paid for like some of the big charities do. That;s right some heads of charities and church get a house as part of their salary package, and not just a normal one either, they are million dollar mansions. So why no tax then?

    • Stefano says:

      09:31am | 03/04/10

      I am a practicing Catholic, and I don’t have a problem with my faith.  It is personal and I don’t push it onto anybody.  What I do have a problem with is atheists who believe that it is acceptable to chastise someone for their dogmatic beliefs.  You read their snide remarks at almost daily intervals.  Saying that we talk to an “imaginary friend” etc.  I don’t go around saying “atheists believe in and stand for nothing”  For people expecting us of the faithful to defend the clergy who have abused children, we wont.  However, by the same token, what about abuses by lay people.  Fathers, mothers, men and women who abuse children inside their homes, men who rape young teenagers, women who push their children into prostituton and a life of so called “recreational drugs”.  Are they not also answerable for their crimes?  Or is it because these abuses have occured within a religious institution that those against the Church have some legitimate reason to cast the institution as being at fault?  As for the Paul Colgan (the write ) asking why he should defend his Catholic belief because of these abuses, the real answer might be found on why he turned away from his faith.  I bet it has more to do with not being bothered to turn up for mass on Sundays, giving a small tiding for the upkeep of the church, saying daily prayers, etc.  It is too easy to blame the sins of other men that for one to recognise their own frailties.

    • Robin says:

      03:37pm | 03/04/10

      It’s good that you are thinking, rationalising what has been brainwashed into you as a child. This is the first step to realising the truth.

      Please consider letting your daughter find her own truths rather than implanting yours and thanks for an interesting article, very open and honest.

    • Will says:

      05:34pm | 03/04/10

      Stefano you have a point, abuse occurs everywhere. But organised abuse that is implicitly and explicitly sanctioned by a powerful insitution is painfully wrong. When I read about this story, I thought about how Christianity has abused gay people for Centuries. And threatened people. The message has always been clear: “If you are gay you are wrong, a sinner, so you should marry a woman, to avoid going to hell”. To me, this is a threat. Im angry that Christianity has forced gay people like me to live in misery for Centuries. Imagine if an athiest group denied you access to healthcare, welfare etc if you chose to live a heterosexual lifestyle, and refused to have sex and live with another man?

    • Ronk says:

      09:37pm | 03/04/10

      Wow, you’ve managed to squeeze into one paragraph at least seven blatant lies about Christianity, for which you have zero evidence.

    • David Aquilina says:

      07:00pm | 03/04/10

      For those of you who do not believe in God, google the words, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Guadalupe. Read and hopefully absorb.

      For me, my faith is enough!!!!!

    • gary says:

      09:06pm | 03/04/10

      If there is a loving God, he/she/it would prefer that no-one believed in him/her/it rather than 1 single child be abused by a single priest,
      The evil that religion has brought upon the world over the past so many thousand years is enough of a reason to wrap it up in a museum as a curiosity of a bygone age when we didn’t k now better.

    • Tony says:

      06:33am | 04/04/10

      I gave up the Catholic Church 40 years ago and have never regretted it.

    • Aaron says:

      08:05am | 04/04/10

      Dear Paul,
      According to your priest, being in God’s good books is all about doing good works. But that would be completely opposite to the actual message in the bible. I suggest a browse through the book of Romans (- Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts then Romans). Good works are great, but they are the response to God’s salvation not the means of salvation.

      As for child abuse, it is a wicked thing (and should be an immediate police matter not just a church matter), but with the RC church maintaining throughout the ages that it has higher authority (given to the RC by God although where’s the evidence for that???) than any government, it is destined to attract perverts because it is an inherently protective regime. In a theological sense, the RC do not recognise the authority of any other man made institution above themselves. And this explains why they have shown reluctance to hand abusing priests over to the civil authorities.

      As to your question about whether or not your daughter should be brought up attending church: No church is perfect and as they say, the minute you or I walk into it, it definitely ceases to have any chance of being perfect (not that it ever did in this world of sin). The church is full of hypocrites in a sense but this should not stop you coming along. You should come along and marvel at God’s salvation.

      Closing thoughts from Titus 3:5:
      “...He saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy”.

      Happy to chat further, if you would like to…

      Aaron
      PS. I have an Anglican, Presbyterian Church background.

    • Jon says:

      08:25am | 04/04/10

      anything that humans touch is sinful.. including the church.

    • Matt Dee says:

      08:38am | 04/04/10

      Religion has been at the very heart of just about every major conflict throughout human history. It has and still is responsible for some of the most horrendous human suffering and deprivation.

      Religion like any other brand of politics vies for members who will subscribe to their way of thinking without thinking. Blind believers. No I’m afraid religion is the root of evil based on spreading fear amongst it’s faithful. The world would be a much better place without religious brands, instead sharing a global spirituality. Now that would take divine intervention!

    • Dave says:

      12:22am | 05/04/10

      “Religion has been at the very heart of just about every major conflict throughout human history.”
      Really?
      The Encyclopedia of Wars lists a total of 123 wars which were fought for religious reasons. (Phillips, Charles and Alan Axelrod. Encyclopedia of Wars. New York: Facts on File, 2005.) Yet the list of wars fought totals 1,763. This means that only 6% of all wars have been fought for religious reasons. The other interesting thing to note is that over 1/2 of these “religious” wars were waged by Islamic nations. So by removing that single religion from the equation we have only 3 percent of the wars waged by all other religions combined! And even some of these are questionable as to whether the motive was really religious or secular. In the U.S. a country dominated by Christians, only 1% of all wars have been fought for religious reasons. Certainly, in light of the facts of history, religion can be held accountable for very few wars by percentage.
      So is there any truth to the claim that organised religion has caused more suffering, wars and violence than any other cause?
      Which religion is responsible for the most suffering, violence and death? Actually, the ideology responsible for the most suffering, violence and deaths of innocents is that of atheism in the last Century. Some 40 million are attributed to Mao and another 20 million to Stalin. Tthese are conservative estimates.

    • Jason says:

      12:05pm | 04/04/10

      Stefano - I don’t know about you but Im sick of the Catholic Chuch covering up child abuse, enough is enough - its been going on for years and years. When is it going to end Stefano ?

    • Alex says:

      03:06pm | 04/04/10

      If you believe atheism hasn’t done any wrong then i suggest you read a book called THE FORGOTTEN… About the church in Russia

    • Ally says:

      10:42pm | 04/04/10

      Stalin acted in the name of communism (and not the pure Marxist version either)... not atheism! One of the ways he controlled his people was by removing their religion (although he temporarily gave it back to them during WWII to suit his political purposes).

    • Ronk says:

      11:11pm | 07/04/10

      Ally, the founders of Marxism, Marx, Engels and Lenin, all stated that atheistic materialism is THE basis of Marxism. Eliminating religion is not an optional extra for a Marxist, it’s the sine qua non of Marxism.

    • peace says:

      12:56pm | 12/04/10

      Marxist philosophy,  is famously atheistic. All Communist governments have several things in common, tyranny, reppression, totalitarianism, and a suppression of religion. Each Communist government in existence has proclaimed atheism. Karl Marx, the founder of Communism himself, called religion an opiate of the masses.

    • wayneiz says:

      03:16pm | 04/04/10

      To be able to cling to a remnant of faith it looks like the catholic people are going to have to do the unthinkable .. and that is to separate the organised church from the word of God.  If nothing else these unfortunate events must bring to our realisation that the organisation of the catholic church is human like the rest of us and as liable to corruption as we all are (anyone want to argue?).  The solution?  Do what Martin Luther (and many others) did . . Read the bible for yourself!  Start with Ephesians.  You will be shocked and pleasantly surprised at what it has to say and how easy it is to read!!  It will cast the character of God in a light that is NOT represented by the teachings of the Catholic church!  Try it and see .

    • chrisozman says:

      03:54pm | 04/04/10

      Paul, what I find disturbing about your article, and something I find common in Catholics, is that you say a lot about the Catholic Church but very little about a belief in God. When you step back, doesn’t that ring alarm bells with you? Surely you should first have a relationship with God, then choose which earthly institution actually represents him by carefully observing if they follow the bible, much like the Bereans in the New Testament.  To say: ” but I was about to drop a few sentences somehow explaining Easter was really about God, but a thought crossed my mind and stopped me” because of your (valid) concerns about your own Church, should surely tell you to stop promoting your misguided Church, not God himself! Or do you believe that the Pope IS God? Sorry but I find it odd.

      As a Christian, but definitely no longer a Catholic, I am all too aware that the mass media has people in it who would want to smear Christianity by the actions of one its parts (although we could have a long discussion on whether Catholicism is actually Christian anyway)

      That is why I am wary of weighing into these debates as the mud sticks even though most of Christianity (excluding the RCs) actually follows what Christ taught.

      These Vatican people just don’t get it do they? When you treat the victims of crime with less compassion than does secular society how can you say you are representing Christ in any way, shape or form? Any other organization would just say, ok there’s a serious problem here let’s seriously investigate, seriously get rid of the perpetrators, seriously punish them and put serious systems in place to stop others doing it again. For the Catholic Church that should have happened a Century ago, instead they continue to feed the new Devil-driven religion of Atheism by seriously misrepresenting Christ.

      The Catholic “Church” needs to follow scripture like true Christian Churches do, and get rid of the decidedly non scriptural elements like worshiping Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, forgiveness of sins by fellow humans and most importantly the stupid, non-biblical mandatory law of celibacy. Selling some of your billions of dollars worth of investment properties to help the world’s oppressed might help too! If this “Church ” doesn’t start acting like one, I think we need to start considering whether it is the “babylon ” of the Book of Revelation that we must get out of before Christ’s return.

    • Ronk says:

      03:33pm | 04/05/10

      Funny how the Catholic Church gave the world Scripture (and in the case of the New Testament, wrote it), yet you think that among all the mutually contradictory non-Catholic denominations, Catholics are the only Christians who don’t follow the Scripture they produced.

    • Jack says:

      04:45pm | 04/04/10

      How much abuse can you take from the Church?
      Well apparently, quite a lot. People are still going, People are still Donating.
      And if it’s not this Church, It’s another.

    • Garagemahal says:

      07:18pm | 04/04/10

      I like how Richard Dawkins puts it, “We are all atheists. Some of us just go one god further. ”

    • B Proletariat says:

      10:19pm | 04/04/10

      Unbelievable blind belief. So many people under the influence of something not proven, no evidence, and of so many variations. All following for fear of fear. It was a control technique supported by monarchy and ruling governments of the day. But this is now 2010, super communication, freedom of speech, human rights and democracy.  We are somewhat free, at least free from an unknown power. The most powerful influence on a person is their own thoughts and determination.

    • Michelangelo says:

      01:12am | 05/04/10

      What I like about the institutional part of the church (pope, holy see, vatican, clergy) is they represent the custodians/gaurdianship of values and spiritual teaching, a collective wisdom borne from experience and mistakes that has been passed down the ages.  That constancy and the absolutes it represents (in contrast to the myriad of relativism that we find ourselves in today) is something that is comforting, even though it may grate against the social movements of the ages.

      I think John Allen (catholic reporter and author of biography of Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Bendict XVI) has summed up the issues surrounding the church today succintly of which there are 2:
      (1) The issue of pedofile priests;
      (2) The issue of bishops that covered up the abuse.

      Re (1), the zero tolerence policy instituted by the pope in 2001/2002 seems to have resolved this issue and the pope should at least get some credit as being the first in the church to tackle this issue head on.

      Re (2), the jury is still out and I believe that the Pope is trying to clean out the dead wood right now, but like in any other institution he has to play politics to achieve that outcome.  I think that issue 2 is where celibacy may play a role in shrinking the talent pool the church is able to draw from.  I don’t know what the answer is but I certainly think the church would be weakended as an institution and a church if it stepped away from celibacy.  How can a priest tend to his flock when his priority will be his own children - their is no greater act of selflessness than giving up the opportunity to have children and a life partner other than god. 

      I think that alot of the criticism is a cynical attempt to get the church to loosen it’s teaching and spiritual doctrines in order to apply the church’s imprimatur on social movements that are at odds with standard church doctrine.

      What we need to know is what mechanisms exist to hold bishops accountable and what processes are available for aggrieved lay-people - perhaps a canonical tribunal at a a state/national level headed by a cardinal, Roman Catholic academic and a representative from the lay community may be the answer to providing some transparency? 

      The irony is that the problems where caused by bishops in diocese that are semi-autonomous from Rome, and Pope Benedict is being criticised for his role, even though he is the one trying to clean-out the church hierarchy and is the one that can be credited with the change in church approach to these issues to date.

    • Stoka says:

      04:35am | 05/04/10

      I was raised as a Catholic and at the age of 12 or 13 aspired to the priesthood. Unfortunately there were too many theological and philosophical black holes for me to persevere. I became interested in Eastern religions, eventually settling on the sublime Bhagavad Gita, and later joined the Hare Krishna movement.
      It was in the tradition of Vedic knowledge where I found the answers to the absolute questions which Catholicism failed to address - the real identity of the soul, the nature of karma and reincarnation, the description of the actual form of God, the Holy Name of God and the process of self realization. Catholicism has become tired and institutional. There is little understanding of the absolute truth and the whole culture is suffering because of it. Atheists are fundamentally wrong. The very instrument (their intelligence) they use to establish their various mental speculations and conclusions has been awarded to them by the Lord and is flawed and quite incapable of understanding the Supreme Lord. In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna confirms “Whatever a person aspires to receive from Me, I offer them as they desire.” The process of forgetting our relationship with God or remembering our relationship with Him is facilitated by the Lord himself according to our desire.

    • Paul says:

      05:22am | 05/04/10

      Until the members of the Catholic Church who perpetrated AND covered up are brought before Legal courts, the world will not forgive or forget. Apologies and comments about “gossip” do nothing for me. I was devoted Catholic for 49 years. Now 3 years later i am agnostic. I cannot believe that God is with this Church. The good deeds Fr David spoke of were acts of humanity, not acts of God. To convert people, then abuse them??

    • Smithsonian says:

      08:39am | 05/04/10

      When are we humans going to come down from our pedestals and acknowledge we are animals just like the elephant, the dolphin, the parrot, etc, etc.  Whereas our brains are more highly developed in certain areas, our primal sexual instinct - particularly in the male of the species -  remains animalistic.  That said, does anyone know if there are ‘gay’ gorillas?  Mans conceit created ‘gods’ in his own image.  Religion in all its many forms is his most evil invention.  It’s now time to ‘unfrock, de dogcollar and convert every religious structure into social meeting places and accommodation for the poor.

    • spider says:

      09:38am | 05/04/10

      No one should elect to belong to an organisation that takes part in something they can’t ethically or morally tolerate.

      But as for belief in God or the bible, shouldn’t that come down to the truth of its claims?  Truth is not always convenient or comforting or nice or even told by nice people.  Everyone seems to focus on arguments around belief that don’t actually affect its validity. 

      I frankly think that God belief and the claims of the bible are far-fetched and irrational.  But what do you think?  Do you still believe that God exists, no matter what crimes the church has committed?  Do you still believe in the Bible, no matter what sort of wretched person has been reading out of it lately?  And do you need to have your 2 year old daughter believe the same as you in this regard right now in her life?  Or can you teach her the values you want her to have and then let her decide when she’s got a mind of her own how those values fit in with god and Christianity or any other religion?

    • Mark says:

      06:21pm | 05/04/10

      “Do you still believe in the Bible, no matter what sort of wretched person has been reading out of it lately?”

      So Spider, if someone wretched reads the constitution, do we do away with that? What the heck is your logic? So your logic would apparently apply to other areas. If one member of a race commits a crime, you would believe all members of that race are criminals? There is no difference between that and saying all Christians are to blame for the crimes of some.  Back to the Dark Ages Spider, you may find some people who share your backward beliefs there.

    • Put your faith in the Righteous One. says:

      11:17am | 05/04/10

      The answer for the OP question is really simple. For those of us who believe the Church they’ll leave when they realize that priests are humans and as such will commit crimes too…their disappointment will be enomous and they’ll probably become atheists or agnostics….
      For those of us who believe G-d and Jesus the crimes of the Church will remind us of Jesus ministry and reinforce our Faith in the one true Lord.
      So in the end….it all boils down to where you put your faith. Put it in men and you will be disappointed. Put it in G-d and you will never know disappointment. Ever.

    • Ryan says:

      11:20am | 05/04/10

      Once catholics realise they can worship Christ without the dogmatic rituals and disillusions of the catholic church then they will be truly free from the bonds of the shakels that bind them.

    • Former Catholic says:

      12:54pm | 05/04/10

      The problem with “the Church” is that it seeks for followers to believe in the Church and not in God. Do not place your faith in people or the church but aim to seek for an intimate relationship with GOD. I too questioned the church and I found my identity in God and not in the church. Follow Jesus and read the bible to get you closer to Him. Religion has become tradition and culture, which has completely missed the point that God wants you to personally follow Him. I am a Christian, a Christ-follower not a hierarchy follower.

    • Mark says:

      03:32pm | 05/04/10

      Another week, another bashing of Christianity by news.com.au. Another blogger who pulls bits and pieces from the Church and then claims he is telling the whole story. Another person who looks at a negative and ignores the amazing good work Christian churches are doing worldwide. Of course abuse is wrong, but to denigrate everyone who follows is just illogical. But hey, when did fact get in the way of a news.com.au story?

    • True believer says:

      03:40pm | 05/04/10

      I believe in God, but have no faith in religions that are run by ordinary men and women who let’s face it are only in it for the money and power. As Billy Connelly rightly said “religion is just crowd control”, also crimes comitted in the name of religion seem to be ever increasing. Pray by all means but do it at home in your own way.

    • RK says:

      04:31pm | 05/04/10

      I’ve found your story a good one Paul. I have absolutly no faith in the Bible or the Koran but I’m not gonna say the church is right or wrong because I’m not one to throw my believes onto someone else.
      As a former UN- worker and somebody who worked closely with Médecins Sans Frontières and the Red Cross I can see some of the points the good priest makes to you.
      I would defenitely tell your daughter about God, the bible/koran. But just keep her away from ‘organisations’ like religions. And most defenit keep her away from their ‘representives’.
      So if she wants to believe….fine, let her believe in a God who doesn’t label and doen’t judge others!
      Unlike most of the narrowminded people who posted here.

    • Margaret says:

      08:23pm | 05/04/10

      The bible says a Bishop should be the husband of 1 wife, honest, chaste, no wine bibber if my memory serves me well. 
      So for me, the church needs to accept those early teachings and throw away the decision 300 or 400 years later that said clergy should be celibate.  God married Adam and Eve, that’s what he intended.
      Where you take away that natural part of life, supported by reams of scripture, then you risk the problems the Catholic church is having.
      Join the real world.  Excommunicate every sexually sinning priest.  Allow them to marry like the bible says. 
      My Great Aunt is a Nun is a cloistered order, my sister in law a Member of the Legion of Mary and my brother in law a member of the marist brothers family ministry. 
      I don’t practice catholicism - after my legion of mary sister in law was assaulted by a priest I began reading the bible in a variety of versions and found the differences to what the bible and the church say.

    • Duck says:

      10:16pm | 05/04/10

      A philosophy should never be judged by its abuse. Thats a big mistake to not tell your daughter about Jesus. Ok, so take God out of the picture and ask Russia or Germany what happens to society if you do that….Remember a guy called Hitler, or Stalin? The church cops too much flack considering how much pain the opposite view has caused.

    • Ally says:

      07:18pm | 07/04/10

      Hitler was a Catholic and acted in the name of God (you need to read his many speeches and Mein Kampf).

    • duck says:

      10:15pm | 05/04/10

      Oh yeh, and i know not one ‘evil’ thing has been done in the name of atheism as to an athiest, ‘evil’ or ‘good’ does not exist apart from a human built reaction to chemicals in the brain. But moral relativism is a whole new blog topic. I plead with you all to read and educate yourselves before passing such huge judgements on each other. We live in a day when so much good info is out there yet so few search past a personal hurt or experience against the church.

    • jmac says:

      10:56pm | 05/04/10

      Too much religion in God and not enough God in religion if you ask me…

    • Julian Thomas says:

      11:06pm | 05/04/10

      “you might be able to have a real and personal relationship with Christ”, thats called a protestant

    • Romeo says:

      01:04am | 06/04/10

      Does anyone believe in Blessed Mary Mackillop?

    • Craigles says:

      12:00pm | 06/04/10

      Depends on what you mean by believe “in”.  She was a nun excommunicated at some stage for railing against the strict doctrine.  Otherwise, seems a bit of a beat-up as far as invoking miracles.

    • Ronk says:

      03:39pm | 04/05/10

      Saint-elect Mary MacKillop never “railed against”, or even publicly demurred from in the slightest, any Church doctrine.

    • Syd Bourne says:

      01:26am | 06/04/10

      The Catholic church is doing what is has always done - Look after the interests of the church first. Its apologies, statements and payments will be carried out to further that aim.
      With press exposure and US court cases, it would still be hushing up and transferring problem priests.
      So many doctrines of the church are self serving e.g. clergy celibacy originated in about 1400-1450. The reason is believed to be related to church fears about potential claims on church property by the children of priests. Solution; no more normal men.
      No Contraception; results in more members.
      So OK for members to make more members, but not ok for clergy.
      Makes sense dosent it?
      There is no biblical justification for celibacy - otherwise its 1400 years too late.
      There is no biblical justification for preventative contraception where conception does not occur. NOT getting into abortion debate here.
      Using the pitiful defence of the Pope during Easter Mass was self serving to the extreme.
      The most important day in the Christian calendar was hijacked by politics.  The message is not about the church, but the church has lost sight of that.

    • Greg H says:

      03:05am | 06/04/10

      The Catholic church has been and should be an important force in society, but if its leadership is failing maybe it is time for another reformation.  It is almost 500 years since the last one.  The church needs to take a serious look at its place in modern western society.  Its not good enough to rely only on a rich cultural tradition.  The church leadership needs to be part of the society it serves, not set apart on a pedestal of its own making.

    • Nola says:

      03:45am | 06/04/10

      12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner;  38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church,

      • 41.8 % of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behavior;
      • 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed.
      Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia
      So Paul Facts speak for themselves…..and Please try to be Humble, not write a “Sensational Gossip” Column.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      07:34pm | 06/04/10

      Provide details of the reference please.  I find the assertion “1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia” highly questionable.

    • Matt Stewart says:

      01:19pm | 14/04/10

      8 days later… didn’t think so.

    • Nola says:

      03:50am | 06/04/10

      Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States,namely the Catholic Church?

      Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at the cost to your Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand tothe American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars.

      Your graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%, all at a cost to you. To the rest of the Americans it’s free.

      The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. With an enrollment of 700,000 students.

      The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people - not just Catholics - in the United States today.

      But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every way the Catholic Church in this country.

      • They have blamed the disease of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the institution of marriage.

      Let me give you some figures that you as Catholics should know and remember. For example,

      • 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner;  38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church,

      • 41.8 % of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behavior;
      • 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed.

      Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia. This is not a Catholic Problem.
      A study of American priests showed that most are happy in the priesthood and find it even better than they had expected, and that most, if given the choice, would choose to be priests again in face of all this obnoxious PR the church has been receiving.

      The Catholic Church is bleeding from selfinflicted wounds. The agony that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the Fault of the Church. You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests that have probably been totally weeded out by now.

      Walk with your shoulders high and you head higher. Be a proud member of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States.

      Then remember what Jeremiah said: ‘Stand by the roads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls’.

      Be proud to speak up for your faith with pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions.
      Be proud that you’re a Catholic.

      By Sam Miller, prominent Cleveland Jewish businessman – (NOT Catholic)

    • SkepDad says:

      04:43pm | 07/04/10

      Uh, you may not have noticed Nola, but this is an Australian website not an American one.

      Also, only 25% of Australia is Catholic. 

      All the good deeds in the world don’t make up for a single child raped by a priest.  Especially when that crime is concealed by the church and the offender relocated to rape again.

    • Ronk says:

      03:29pm | 04/05/10

      skepdad, are you seriously suggesting that the relative figures for Auustralia would be significantly different? Why?
      Also, Catholics comprise 28% of Australians but only 23% of Americans.

    • Rob Pollock says:

      07:07am | 13/05/10

      Sam Miller has his numbers wrong…

      Mr. Miller’s statement, “10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia” has no basis in fact!  It was refuted by the named source in 2002 and remains refuted today.
      In his original 2003 speech Mr. Miller cites a July/August 2002 Sojourners article by Rose Marie Berger in which she misinterprets statements from Penn. State Prof. Philip Jenkins regarding sexual abuse by Protestant ministers.
      In the original article Berger writes…
      “Philip Jenkins concludes in his book “Pedophiles and Priests” that while 1.7 percent of Catholic clergy have been found guilty of pedophilia (specifically of boys), 10 percent of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.” (This quote is used in Miller’s speech)
      To which Philip Jenkins responds (Sept/Oct 2002)...
      “I regret to say that the statement is baloney. I never said it, and it’s not true!... Every time this ten percent statement appears attributed to me, I try to debunk it, but these things have a life of their own. I have no idea what the actual proportion of pedophile protestant clergy is, but I would be amazed if it was more than a fraction of one percent.”
      Sojourner Article… http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0207&article=020741d
      Sojourners apologized to its readers for passing on erroneous information and revised the article, removing the incorrect and defamatory information.  But not before Sam Miller got a hold of it!
      Be proud that you are Catholic.  But bear not false witness! 
      Check your facts!
      Rev. Rob Pollock
      Vancouver, BC
      CANADA

    • Helen G says:

      08:05am | 06/04/10

      You can’t just say “Oh, well Those Guys aren’t part of the Church.”  Are adulterers and murderers and people who steal for drugs and people who steal for food and people who hit their wives and people who park in handicapped spots part of the Church?  Just because you disagree with their actions doesn’t suddenly make them not part of the Church.  That’s a complete hand-washing of responsibility, if you’ll excuse the allusion.

    • Common Sense says:

      11:57am | 06/04/10

      Condemn the person not the religion!

    • Matt stewart says:

      11:27am | 07/04/10

      Condemn bad messages, not the people that mistakenly accept them.

    • John S says:

      09:17am | 07/04/10

      I think anything that is built by man will have its shortcomings.We should follow the example set by Jesus and this world would be a much better place. The problem with the Catholic priest i always maintained was the fact that they were promised to be protected by the top guy instead of protecting the poor child and that is the heinous crime, just imagine how ugly this is.
      As you state that the protestant are abusing to such a high rate but how many are children? That is the issue here.
      John S.

    • Tim says:

      03:26pm | 09/04/10

      @ True Believer - Just thought I’d point out one thing here… “The Holy Spirit will reveal the truth if you stop trying to apply human logic.” This is the single most stupid thing I’ve ever seen in a comments section on a religious article! No wonder people look at religions and think they are stupid! Do you really think the same god that supposedly gave us “human logic” intended us to forgo its use? I’m sorry, but its people like you (and the fact that I have actually read the bible and taken it for the book of olden day stories that it is i.e. it was largely pertinent back then, not so much now) that make me sure in my decision not to accept any of the tripe that the modern church pedals. I really hope you look at your book a little closer and consider what it is really trying to tell you.

    • Ally says:

      05:26pm | 10/04/10

      Ah Tronk, now I get it… you’re a troll! Why else would you be trying to re-write recent history. I’m so sorry I wasted your time (and mine).

    • noel says:

      10:38pm | 13/04/10

      dose anyone really think the church didn’t sanction this rape of our children?
      it has happened all over the world
      why?
      I am sure the church say it was ok for priests to rape our children
        it is not only in 1 country but every where all round the world
      it is not 1 or 2 bad priests
      it is 1000’s
      anyway who can trust the church to do the right thing

    • Ronk says:

      11:01pm | 02/05/10

      Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of the Church sanctioning it, and a mountain of evidence of the Church condemning it, what possible motive would the Church have to sanction it?

    • Daddio D says:

      08:05am | 03/05/10

      @ noel - I dare not accuse you of ignorance but if you are, you might bother to find out what all churches of God do. You might be the kind of person that will need a church. By yr comment, you do need a church and I won’t apologise for yr parents’ mistakes in being Daddio or Mammio to you, neither should you. Look for Christ. Within Jesus, you’ll find all yr needs, not your wants.

    • Misha says:

      02:33pm | 14/04/10

      Do you really think your sense of right and wrong come from the church? If you found out tomorrow that God does not exist - would your sense of morality disappear?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter