In the wake of reports on child abuse by Catholic priests spanning continents, and of course the insitutionalised cover-ups perpetrated by the Church hierarchy, Andrew Brown has published an astonishingly naive and ill-considered apologia on their behalf. The general argument Brown makes just takes my breath away. I will leave it to commenters there to demolish his argument.
Share on FacebookYou are currently browsing articles tagged Catholicism.
Tags: Catholicism
The London Evening Standard (Catholics ‘forced film chiefs to scrap Dark Materials trilogy’ | News) reports that US catholic “spokesperson” Bill Donohue successfully led a campaign to prevent film makewrs from completing the Dark Materials trilogy (these thing do always seem to be trilogies). The article quotes Donohue as saying:
“I am
delighted the boycott worked. Just as the producers have a right to
make the movie, I have a right to protest.“The reason I
protested was the deceitful attempt to introduce Christian children to
the wonders of atheism in a backdoor fashion at Christmas time.
Everyone agrees the film version was not anti-Catholic, but that hardly
resolves the issue. The fact is that each volume in the trilogy becomes
increasingly anti-Catholic.”He added: “I knew if we could hurt the box office receipts here, it might put the brakes on the next movie.
“I
also knew this boycott would work because once the word got out that
the movie was bait for the books, Christian parents would take their
kids to see Alvin And The Chipmunks. Which they did, in far greater
number.”
Bill Donohue crosses my radar rather more than is strictly palatable due to the frequency with which he crosses swords with PZ Myers (Pharyngula blog). While I’m not particularly a Pullman fan, I do find it rather pathetic that a major institution like the Catholic Church feels threatened by cinema.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Share on FacebookTags: atheism, Catholicism
Damian Thompson (who blogs at the Daily Telegraph, often on matters related to the Catholic Church) seems to be in a bit of a tizz (Richard Dawkins’s latest attack on the Catholic Church is vicious and crazy. The man needs help) over some words that Richard Dawkins penned concerning the Vatican’s appeal to Anglicans to join them (Give us your misogynists and bigots). Now he’s been featured on Pharyngula, perhaps the general tenor of comments at his blog will change.
For what it’s worth, I thought that Dawkins was rather amusing and hit the nail on the head. Pharyngula also featured this spiffy cartoon relating the to Vatican’s bid to attract Anglicans:

Tags: Catholicism
The Times reports (Pope Benedict XVI clears way for Cardinal Newman to become a saint) that the Vatican is likely to create the first British saint since the 1970s. The article says that Cardinal John Henry Newman is the “most important convert from the Church of England to Catholicism”. That’s as may be, but it’s interesting to read what needs to happen to become a saint.
From the Cardinal John Henry Newman Wikipedia page, it appears that one needs a verified miracle to be beatified, and a further verified miracle to be canonised. The Times’ article says
The Pope opened the way for the beatification in 2001 when he recognised claims that Jack Sullivan, a Catholic deacon in Boston in the US, had been miraculously healed of a “serious debility of the spine” at the intercession of Newman, who died in 1890.
In 2000 Mr Sullivan, who is married with three children, prayed for the Cardinal’s help after being warned by his doctor that his back problem could result in paralysis. Next morning, he awoke to find that his pain had gone and that he was able to walk properly for the first time in months.
Essentially some bloke prayed to get better via the intercession of a dead religious figure, then woke up better. One does wonder how a serious investigation could “prove” that Mr Sullivan’s recovery was anything to do with someone who’d been dead for over a century, or indeed to “prove” that Mr Sullivan prayed only to the one dead religious figure. The Times’ article doesn’t explain further.
Apparently there’s now been a second miracle (as yet uninvestigated), though the article doesn’t go into details on that one. But I predict the miracle will have affected a strong believer, much as Mr Sullivan is reported to be a “Catholic deacon”. Newman’s Wikipedia page does offer the following:
A second miracle would need to be confirmed before Newman could be canonized as a saint. The Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints is expected to consider the case of a 17-year-old New Hampshire resident, who fully recovered from severe head injuries suffered in a car accident after invoking Cardinal Newman.
Essentially these cases represent unexpected recovery from serious medical conditions (events which can and do occur without the intercession of dead people). Over at the Wikipedia page for Congregation for the Causes of Saints (the Catholic body that investigates claimed miracles), I found this:
The miracle may go beyond the possibilities of nature either in the substance of the fact or in the subject, or only in the way it occurs. So three degrees of miracle are to be distinguished. The first degree is represented by resurrection from the dead (quoad substantiam). The second concerns the subject (quoad subiectum): the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum). There is then a third degree (quoad modum): recovery from an illness, that treatment could only have achieved after a long period, happens instantaneously.
It would be interesting to know how many claims are made for each of the three degrees of miraculous intervention, and the proportion of each that pass investigation. Also from that article, here’s the progression from dead religious person to Saint:
Stages of Canonization in the Roman Catholic Church
Servant of God → Venerable → Blessed → Saint
Apparently Cardinal Newman is at stage 2 – he’s referred to as being the Venerable – while getting to stage 3 requires the approval of a miracle (this is what’s about to happen), while advancing to full sainthood (stage 4) requires the investigation and approval of a second miracle. Presumably this is still to happen, so maybe the Times’ headline is a little premature? As a hardened atheist, the whole process looks rather mediaeval. And Newman’s not very active – two cures in over a century since he died seems a very minor intercession to me.
Share on FacebookTags: Catholicism, skepticism, Vatican
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor is on record as saying atheists are not fully human:
This is a man who some hope to have elevated to the House of Lords. Well, this should in any rational world put him way out of the frame. There’s a petition against punting him up to the Lords here.
Hat tip to Evolved and Rat/i/onal and The Freethinker.
Share on FacebookTags: atheism, Catholicism, religion
I guess one shouldn’t be surprised by this doublethink, but Catholic bishops in the US have rejected the bonkers alternative “therapy” reiki – because it’s superstition. As The Guardian (Catholic bishops in US ban Japanese reiki) reports (and I’m always cautious when reading news on April 1st, but the article is dated 31st March!), the bishops say:
“A Catholic who puts his or her trust in reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no man’s land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one’s worship of God by turning one’s religious feeling and practice in a false direction.”
Apparently the group of US bishops say that reiki is incompatible with Christian teaching and scientific evidence. Since when has scientific evidence been important to religion? And isn’t belief in an Invisible Magic Friend rather superstitious in itself? A christian Reiki master (actually mistress, I suppose) is quoted as saying:
“There is so much bad information about reiki, anti-Christian information, on the internet,” she said. “It says we channel spirits and that’s not true. Reiki balances energy in the same way as acupuncture or reflexology. I know of two nuns in the Philadelphia area, one who runs a retreat centre, who have done wonderful work. The bishops weren’t talking to women like that.”
Of course, reiki is in the same frame as other quack therapies such as acupuncture and reflexology. And it’s not that different to religion in at least one sense – it requires a complete suspension of rational thinking to take it seriously.
Update: A few bloggers beat me to it on this story – The New Humanist blog has some additional information worth looking at.
Share on FacebookTags: Catholicism, quack, skepticism, Vatican
Mediawatchwatch has a story about a loopy Catholic website that’s been taken down following complaints by MPs (BT closes Catholic website after MP complaints), complete with a link to a web archive page that has a stored copy (Catholic Voice). OK, so this page is pretty mad stuff, and quite unpleasant in a fascinating sort of way, but I’m less upset by its absence from the web that the guys over at mediawatchwatch.
I found the bonkers conspiracy theory about the 2012 Olympics logo particularly compelling. Well, OK, no it was as ridiculous as the rest of the stupidly anti-semitic site. In essence, the author of that particular diatribe claims that the 2012 logo is a concealed message:
Whether or not the Khazar cryptocrats plan a special move in 2012, the year of the next Olympic games, they certainly couldn’t resist parading their criminal hegemony in the odd-looking Olympic logo unveiled on 4 June. For £400,000 they got exactly what they wanted from Jewish brand-consultancy firm Wolff Olins: a deniable emblem of their shibboleth “ZION” masquerading as the date 2012. To do this they used a distracting, grafitti-like typeface in which “2” can be read as either “Z” or “N”. They then went on to arrange the characters in a square so that they can be read either horizontally (“2012″) or vertically (“ZION”). Those tempted to reject this interpretation should ask themselves whether a more rational explanation can be found for an otherwise inexplicably feeble logo.
I’m not sure what a cryptocrat is, and I dislike the 2012 logo (yes, I think it’s feeble), but this is a pretty pathetic conspiracy theorist who’s left his tinfoil hat off. Here’s the evidence he provides.
The 2012 logo (on the left) is in the eye of the crackpot website author quite clearly an obfuscated version of the word “zion” (see the rearranged version on the right).
Patently absurd claims pile up: the author also claims that Tony Blair’s statement”When people see the new brand, we want them to be inspired to make a positive change in their life” is key to the conspiracy, as he’s clearly wanting people to be open to “Zionist domination”, as he’s a Freemason. Well now, I found Tony Blair’s tenure in number 10 rather more disappointing than I’d hoped at the 1997 general election, but good grief, the guy’s an Anglican turned Catholic!
So, still unsure what a “cryptocrat” is (online dictionaries were no use), I retire from looking at this now-defunct website. I don’t know whether BT have blocked the site, or taken it down, but either way, I expect the authors to reinstate it on some other host.
Postcript. I wonder if the author of Catholic Voice listens to records played backwards?
Share on FacebookTags: Catholicism
There’s a report at Yahoo news (Cardinal says atheist’s theories “absurd”) with more information on the present Vatican conference I mentioned yesterday. In a bizarre but typically tortuous statement,Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said
the Catholic Church doesn’t stand in the way of scientific realities like evolution, saying there was a “wide spectrum of room” for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.
“We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things,” he said on the sidelines of the conference.
But while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as “absurd” the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God, he said.
I suspect that the phrase “creation has come about” is a bit of a giveaway, leading to the statement about a god being the creator of all things. As The Freethinker has pointed out, the cardinal misrepresents Dawkins here. Amusing, particularly with the next paragraph:
“Of course we think that’s absurd and not at all proven,” he said. “But other than that … the Vatican has recognized that it doesn’t stand in the way of scientific realities.”
This is a peculiar and irrational thing to say. Proving a negative is after all rather difficult. It seems to me that the evidence of proof lies not with those saying there is very unlikely to be any supernatural deities but with those that aver the existence of a deity. What evidence does the Catholic church (or indeed any set of religious believers) have for the existence of their deity (or deities)?
Francis Ayala, one of the speakers and described as a former priest and professor of biological sciences and philosophy at the University of California, is reported to have made a firm statement that “Intelligent Design” is blasphemous to both science and religion:
“It is not only not compatible with Christian faith, it is just blasphemous because it predicates from the creator attributes that we don’t want to have from the creator,” he said.
Perhaps he’s been mis-cited by Yahoo News, but I don’t see how something can be blasphemous against science, and I don’t see that reference in the actual quotation used in the article. And when phrased in that way, it doesn’t represent a particularly robust objection to ID.
I’ve never really wondered about the religious beliefs of scientists before starting this blog, but occasionally they are made apparent. I’ve blogged recently about Simon Conway Morris, and I noted here the reference to Ayala as a former priest. Are the other scientific speakers selected on the basis of their theist beliefs?
Share on FacebookTags: Catholicism, Darwinism, evolution, intelligent design, religion, Vatican
I see from the BBC News website (Vatican hosts Darwin conference) that the Vatican is holding a conference to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. According to the BBC
Scientists, philosophers and theologians from around the world are gathering at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome to discuss the compatibility of Darwin’s theory of evolution and Catholic teaching.
Apparently it’s one of two conferences – the other is about Galileo’s work – the intention is apparently to “to re-examine the work of scientific thinkers whose revolutionary ideas challenged religious belief: Galileo and Charles Darwin.” Amusingly, the report points out that the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin, as it condemned and silenced Galileo. I suppose that threats of burning at the stake just would’t have cut it in the 19th century.
You can read about the conference at the Pontifica Universita Gregoriana website. The theme of the conference is explained, sort of, in a typically tortuous piece of text. On the Aims page, we find that
Thanks to recent discoveries, we can reconsider the problem of evolution within a broader perspective then traditional neo-darwinism. [emphasis mine]
Well, I for one don’t perceive a “problem of evolution”, but I suppose if one’s wedded to a bizarre set of beliefs, one might regard it as a problem. The program reveals quite an interesting set of speakers – I wonder if there will be any published outcome of the conference.
Share on FacebookTags: Catholicism, Darwinism, evolution, Vatican
Just the other day, the Pope welcomed back a group of dissident bishops (apparently some breakaway bunch known as SSPX – Damian Thompson seems quite exercised about it over at Holy Smoke) back to the fold of the Catholic Church. The big fuss is being made because of the ghastly views of one of these bishops, Richard Williamson. Here’s a recent video from YouTube.
I suppose if you’re capable of denying reality in favour of bearded sky dudes and other superstitious nonsense, you can delude yourself from the reality of 20th century history and the appalling crimes of Hitler and his cronies.
Wikipedia has a page on Richard Williamson.
Share on FacebookTags: Catholicism, holocaust























Recent Comments