Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Is Pope Benedict XVI about to resign?

Well, he is under a little pressure.

Not only because of his advancing years, but there appears to be more than a whiff of fin de siècle decay in the air over the global pandemic of priestly paedophilia: the disease has gone viral. The Independent refers to 'the lonely reign of Benedict XVI' as he is 'plagued by scandal upon scandal'.

Following hard upon the litany of appalling revelations emerging out of Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines, Richard Owen in The Times says the Roman Catholic Church has now 'been accused of a cover-up after at least 170 allegations of child abuse by German Catholic priests’.

This is evidently not just a little local difficulty.

Ruth Gledhill follows this with the observation that the latest revelations from Germany coming ‘on top of a succession of damaging revelations… can only increase the damage being done to its moral authority on the world stage’.

Fairly inoccuous stuff, you would think.

And these revelations are repeated in journals across the entire world.

Time Magazine: Germany's Priest Sex Abuse Scandal Puts the Vatican on the Defensive

Bloomberg: German Church Suspends Priest Embroiling Pope in Abuse Scandal

The Sydney Morning Herald: Pope named in new twist to German paedophile priest furore

The Australian: Pope Benedict drawn into abuse scandal

La Repubblica: A paedophile priest in Munich when Ratzinger was bishop.

Il Tempo: Germany attacks its Pope.

France24: Pope's diocese took in priest set for paedophilia therapy

Il Messaggero: Paedophilia, abuses at Munich when Ratzinger was bishop.

AGI news agency: Paedophilia: in Munich, Ratzinger accepted a priest for a cure

Reuters: A paedophile priest in the Pope's ex diocese.

Corriere della Sera: Paedophilia, a case in Munich when Ratzinger was bishop.

La Stampa: Paedophilia, new disaster for the Vatican

And even Avvenire, a journal of the Italian bishops, says: Paedophile priest was moved to Munich.

And the National Catholic Register: Pope Benedict Transferred Paedophile?

There are very many more across Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia.

But it was not only The Times in the UK which ran this story:

The Daily Mail: ‘Joseph Ratzinger of Munich – the future Pope Benedict – had approved therapy for a priest suspected of abuse’.

Sky: Pope Dragged Into Paedophile Priests Row

The Guardian: Pope is 'shocked' to hear of abuse case in Munich while he was archbishop

Classic FM: Pope Dragged Into Paedophile Priests Row

Belfast Telegraph: Pope's handling of case queried

All of which makes the odd journalist in another place who rails against the ‘anti-Catholicism’ of The Times look foolishly isolated.

Not to say more than a little irrational, crazed and quite absurd.

Only an obsessive would attempt to defend the indefensible.

Only a paranoid schizophrenic would draw attention to Christopher Hitchens’ ‘awkward questions’ about Cardinal Law and paedophilia which the Pope needs to address, and then denounce a fellow journalist for doing precisely the same.

And only a mentally-imbalanced pervert would attempt to deflect from the physical horrors and emotional traumas endured by children at the hands of paedophile priests to a full-frontal assault upon The Times as it attempts to uncover the truth and expose apparent collusion and cover-up.

There is even a bizarre Facebook page for:

Catholics Who Condemn the Times' Treatment of the Pope

One wonders why no-one has ever thought to create a page for:

Anglicans Who Condemn the Telegraph's Treatment of the Church of England

UPDATE (19.00): The Facebook page criticising The Times has been re-named: 'Catholics Who Condemn the Recent Media's Treatment of the Pope'

One wonders who threatened whom...?

But amidst the (quite literally) global outpouring of questions, criticism and condemnation, what is the rationale for singling out The Times for being ‘anti-Catholic’?

Or is it that a particular journalist at The Times is in possession of some secret knowledge and poses a particular threat and so their reputation must be destroyed?

It is beyond question that this flood of child sex abuse cases constitute a papal PR disaster of potentially apocalyptic proportions for the Vatican: it could dwarf the Richard Williamson / SSPX fiasco and the nightmare interview the Pope gave on AIDS, Africa and condoms.

Is it ‘anti-Catholic’ to allude to the utter incompetence of the Vatican communications service?

Some betting companies have now slashed the odds of the Pope resigning to just 3-1.

They say: “The dark clouds of clerical abuse scandals show no sign of abating and recent reports from Germany are surely a little too close to home for the Pope. Current betting patterns hint toward a possible papal resignation and should this happen Cardinal Arinze seems the most papabile.”

Christopher Hitchens is of the view that ‘The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it.’

He has written in the past about Pope Benedict’s decision to shelter Cardinal Bernard Law:

‘Law was not only aware of egregious sexual misconduct among his subordinates but was apparently engaged in elaborate efforts to cover up incident after incident of child rape. Worse yet, he breezily reassigned clergy known for sexually abusing children to work with more children—conduct not all that distinguishable from leaving a loaded gun in a playground.’

And yet Pope Benedict continues to protect him and deny justice to Law's victims.

Surely, if His Holiness were really prepared to do ‘everything possible’ to cleanse his Church of the stench of evil and heal this appalling wound, he would not only remove Cardinal Law from his Vatican sinecure, he would also remove his cardinal’s hat.

Perhaps the Vatican’s exorcist-in-chief is right when he says: "The Devil resides in the Vatican and you can see the consequences."

Perhaps it is not incense which wafts around His Holiness, but plumes of sulphur. Father Gabriele Amorth said the evil influence of Satan was evident in the highest ranks of the Catholic hierarchy, with ‘cardinals who do not believe in Jesus and bishops who are linked to the demon’.

So the Pope’s chief exorcist believes the Anti-Christ lurks within?


If the ever-threatened schism within the Church of England is deemed to constitute a ‘wreckage’ from which Christians must be saved by swimming the Tiber, who will rescue the saints from the purple intoxication, the scarlet deviancy and the priestly blasphemy of the reeking ruins of Rome? Who will save the children from those perverted priests, debased bishops and corrupt cardinals who have robbed them of their innocence, relieved them of their holiness and ‘interfered’ with their purity?


Anonymous Trencherbone said...

The only way to legitimise the situation is for the Church hierarchy to revert to their real spiritual home in Islam.

16 March 2010 at 08:16  
Anonymous Y Rhyfelwr Dewr said...

I'm not attempting to defend the Roman catholic church, but the sheer quantity of these allegations does stretch credulity somewhat. One would have thought there's a paedophile conspiracy going on to infiltrate the Catholic priesthood, or that teh Catholic church is actively turning its preists into paedophiles; both of which concepts would seem improbable.

Whenever a large, highly publicised class action results in a large payout in the United States, tort lawyers find plaitiffs queueing up to allege that they too were victims. Frequently, their claims prove to be superfluous. I wonder to what extent this is the same.

16 March 2010 at 08:23  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Organised religion is nothing more than a corporate powerbase and open to any and all kinds of corruption. It has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with raking in cash and controlling people. I'm surprised so many people are taken in by this junk.

16 March 2010 at 08:48  
Anonymous Mikec said...

Paedophilia is the bete-noir of the modern age, probably more because of the commercialisation of sex as 'recreation' than anything else, and it is society's last stand against 'moral relativity'.

Rationaly, if we are just 'animals' decended from apes then as long as the child 'consents' it is all OK....

But we are not, we have a built-in instinct that exploitation of children is wrong.

Celebate priests came into Roman Catholicsm from the Roman Pagan Celebine temple worship, under Constantine's rationalization of all religions into one state religion under the umbrella of 'Christianity', the pagan priests would have been made redundant - As were the Jewish Priests at the destruction of the Second Temple, so they became 'Rabbinim' instead - So the idea of a celibate 'priesthood' came into the RC tradition.

A cursory study of Roman culture will show that paedophilia was 'normal' in that society, and has probably been 'normal' in the unique world of the celibate priesthood down the ages.

There was a time, not so long ago, when sexual matters were considered by the 'church' and therefore society, to be 'impolite' and, as I know from experience, children trying to understand and discuss unwelcome sexual advances by adults were not, on the whole, welcome. Things have changed, in this case for the better.

The answer of course is not 'resignation' but to review the status of the priesthood in the light of the scriptures. It is to go 'back to the bible' rather than to Roman paganity.

"bishops must be the husband of one wife"

16 March 2010 at 08:57  
OpenID Michael said...

As far as I was aware, the anti-Times brigade came about due to the way that paper has held a particular stance toward this Pope, and Catholicism in general, for quite some time now - these stories would be the tip of the iceberg if anything. And if it's Damian Thompson you're having a pop at (and I suspect it is) then you surely can accept his point that whereas most other media outlets have not sought to implicate the Pope directly, the Times implicitly did - either through sloppy reporting or malicious intent. After all, your selection of headlines (which point out a case of paedophilia in his diocese, and the fact that he sent the paedophile for 'treatment' so to speak) are a far cry from the rather more sinister gloss that certain people have tried to put on it - yourself included. I don't think it will catch on though; it is about as sophisticated as the 'Nazi-Pope' slur, and save for the already bigoted it won't convince a soul.

16 March 2010 at 09:14  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

It must be truly distressing for anyone with long held religious convictions to have to emotionally tackle this betrayal of their trust. I am sure they would rather hark back to the blind old days when religion was shielded by illiteracy, ignorance and functioning blasphemy laws.

It is no coincidence that education and knowledge were the preserves of the priestly castes. They jealously guarded their knowledge of mass communication from the masses knowing full well, that by aligning themselves with the warlords who were later to become rulers. They, with promises of eternal forgiveness for the perpetrators of atrocious earthy transgressions absolved them and promised even higher rewards for them in the afterlife: they had a power far beyond their physical reach.

I doubt whether anything we are reading now is new in the history of the Church with regard to the abuse of children; the difference now is that religion has to contend with an ever sophisticated communication medium from which it is being globally examined.
Religions have always attached stigma and demonization to the most natural acts of humanistic behaviour.

The sexual relationship between a man and a woman is what propels the human race, yet the Catholic Church had denied this to their priests – a totally unnatural request by any means. What did they expect would result?
I think Pope Ratzinger is simply the unlucky one who happened by chance to be on watch during this technological revolution.

If nothing else religionists should consider their misconceived passion for the so-called ‘Faith Schools’ with their culture of mind controlling obedience to authority and in to which they push their vulnerable offspring.

16 March 2010 at 09:20  
Anonymous Tony B said...


"But we are not, we have a built-in instinct that exploitation of children is wrong."

Not all of us, apparently, otherwise this wouldn't be happening. If you're suggesting God "designed" us with a built-in instinct such as you describe, then what went wrong with that instinct here?

16 March 2010 at 09:22  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Good riddance to this monster who has presided over a despicable cover up of the most terrible abuse of young people over decades and across the globe. He cared more for the “reputation” of his church, now utterly sullied, than he did for his so called flock.

Those of you who continue to support this corrupt institution and espouse its “moral authority” are beneath contempt.

16 March 2010 at 09:26  
Anonymous Mikec said...

Tony B

The Fall....

16 March 2010 at 09:26  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Y Rhyfelwr Dewr said...
“I'm not attempting to defend the Roman catholic church”

Yes you are!

Your comments are shameful.

16 March 2010 at 09:29  
Anonymous Hans Wildebeeste said...

Consider the history of the papacy. The conduct of many of the medieval popes, particularly during the period of the Inquisition, was up there with that of Stalin, Pol Pot etc.

16 March 2010 at 09:31  
Anonymous Mikec said...

Somehow Graham I don't think this is limited to the RC's. I believe Mao, an atheist, had a 'thing' for little girls....

16 March 2010 at 09:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cardinal Brady, leader of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, demanded two child paedophilia victims of Fr Brendan Smyth sign an Oath of Silence.
He says he'll only resign on the word of the Pope! Some chance.

16 March 2010 at 09:37  
OpenID Michael said...

'The conduct of many of the medieval popes, particularly during the period of the Inquisition, was up there with that of Stalin, Pol Pot etc.'

That really is one of the most absurd comments I have seen written on this blog.

16 March 2010 at 09:40  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Mikec - the fall? Surely you can see that doesn't wash?

16 March 2010 at 09:48  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

The Anglicans are riddled with queers and the Catholics have an abundance of Pedos - what is it about priests and sexual deviancy?

Is it like Freud said about the super ego trying to over compensate?

16 March 2010 at 10:10  
Blogger PaulineG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

16 March 2010 at 10:15  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace

They'll be selling tickets to listen to any conversation between the Pope and HRH Duke of Edinburgh during the forthcoming Papal visit. Two elderly gentlemen, both fluent in German, quite an education.

If the Catholic Church is to survive this scandal the leadership must surely admit that it is time to abandon the policy of 'celibacy'.

In reply to your question Jared Gates, perhaps its something to do with dressing up!

16 March 2010 at 10:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


@Rationaly, if we are just 'animals' decended from apes then as long as the child 'consents' it is all OK... But we are not, we have a built-in instinct that exploitation of children is wrong

What a ridiculous load of creationist crap!

16 March 2010 at 10:20  
Anonymous Mikec said...

Tony B

It does not have to 'wash'

There will come a time when I have to account for my beliefs, and you will have to account for yours.

If there is no Creator then life just ceases and I have lost nothing. I am very happy trusting and relying on Yehovah.

If there is a Creator then you will have to give an explaination of why 'the fall' does'nt 'wash' (amongst other things) so you need to be very sure of your ground.

The theory of evolution does not come near an explaination of how life began, so you can speculate that the first cells 'formed on the back of crystals', or that earth was seeded by 'aliens' if you like.

I prefer - "In the beginning Yehovah created...."

16 March 2010 at 10:27  
Anonymous wonderfulforhisage said...

Could be the time for Rowan Williams to mount a reverse takeover.

16 March 2010 at 10:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

No Your Grace!

We must save the Pope – if he resigns then the Apocalypse will shortly be upon us!

Benedict XVI Is the Second-to-Last Pope, Says Irish Prophet Malachy

The prophecies of the Irish saint Malachy, the 12th century bishop of Armagh who predicted all the popes, have thrilled and dismayed readers for centuries. He has stated there will be only one more pope after the current one, and during his reign comes the end of the world.

"In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End."

In 1139, then-Archbishop Malachy went to Rome from Ireland to give an account of his affairs. While there, he received a strange vision about the future that included the name of every pope, 112 in all from his time, who would rule until the end of time. We are now at the second last prophecy.

His predictions are taken very seriously. As one report states, "In 1958, before the Conclave that would elect Pope John XXIII, Cardinal Spellman of New York hired a boat, filled it with sheep and sailed up and down the Tiber River, to show that he was 'pastor et nautor,' the motto attributed to the next Pope in the prophecies."

As for the prophecy concerning the 111th pope, Pope Benedict, the prophecy says of him, "Gloria Olivae," which means "the glory of the olive."

The order of Saint Benedict is also known as the Olivetans, which many claim makes Malachy's prophecies correct. The next and final pope then should be "Peter Romanus"

St. Malachy gave an account of his visions to Pope Innocent II, but the document remained unknown in the Roman archives until its discovery in 1590.

Many of the prophecies are spot on. For example, the one about Urban VIII is Lilium et Rosa (the lily and the rose); he was a native of Florence and on the arms of Florence figured a fleur-de-lis.

Pope John Paul II is De labore Solis, meaning "of the eclipse of the sun." Karol Wojtyla, who would become Pope John Paul II, was born on May 18, 1920 during a solar eclipse.
Peregrinus apostolicus (pilgrim pope), which designates Pius VI, appears to be verified by his many journeys to new lands.

So is Benedict the second last pope? The Irish seer of the 12th century has said it will be so. Time will tell.

16 March 2010 at 10:49  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Some of the comments here take my breath away. You still don’t get it!

The complacent and sometimes flippant brushing aside of this obscenity reveals the insidious nature of your catholic faith. The whole rotten edifice of the catholic church has been exposed for all to see and yet you cling to fragments of scripture or blame society or resort to nonsensical prophesies. Your church’s obsession with sex, or the denial of it, has created a monster that denies human nature. It spreads these vile notions across the globe, entrapping the ignorant and illiterate. Yet still you claim moral authority, this is the ultimate affront to all decent people who strive to be good without the venal influence of religion.

16 March 2010 at 11:17  
OpenID Michael said...

@Graham - I have never come across any Catholic that flippantly brushes these tragedies aside, but to call for sober judgment is not the same as offering an apology for the wicked. As such, the whole edifice has not been exposed as rotten, though certainly suffering a bout of sickness, because for many these stories are a million miles away from the reality of their faith lived through the Church, and the vast vast vast majority of priests and superiors have had nothing to do with this, and condemn it wholeheartedly. Equally, the Catholic Church is not obsessed with sex, and certainly doesn't deny it - rather it seeks to protect the sanctity of it, and witnesses to a society that itself is obsessed with sex, and the denigration of its beauty, as even the most casual glance at contemporary culture will testify. Lastly to say that only the ignorant and illiterate are convinced by the arguments, traditions and truth of the Church - well, it's patently untrue, and has the whiff of extreme ignorance about it, not to say a certain lack of humility.

In short, you're creating straw men, and then getting all angry when your highly distorted arguments fail to convince. Alas, such is the prerogative of the bigot.

16 March 2010 at 11:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

.....The theory of evolution does not come near an explaination of how life began.....

The theory of evolution does not, and never has, claimed to explain how life began, it attempts to explain how it has developed from what we know to exists in the simplest of life-forms.

Unlike creationists' claims to a universal answer through 'faith', it seeks to explain and explore through applied logic and replicated disciplines of scientific research.

Modern era Religions, above all the other miseries they have foisted on humanity,are man made power tools whose advocates are guilty of stifling human intellectual development to further their own corporeal interests.

We (present form Humans) will one day be able to physically prove how life as we understand the meaning of the word; began. If we leave it to religions, we never will - no more than they can prove today or tomorrow that there is a omnipotent Diety.

16 March 2010 at 11:58  
OpenID Michael said...

@Dreadnought - 'We (present form Humans) will one day be able to physically prove how life as we understand the meaning of the word; began'

Oh, you mean, you have absolute faith that science will one day be able to provide a universal answer?

16 March 2010 at 12:03  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...


Of course I do not claim that anyone here is ignorant or illiterate, dishonest and cowardly yes. But the Catholic church propagates itself like a virus eating its way into the ignorant or illiterate of the third world. It instils fear in the uneducated and feeds them lies about condoms, it promises them salvation and everlasting life, what nonsense! Your church is bereft of any real morality so it sells its own second rate prejudice and superstition.

16 March 2010 at 12:06  
OpenID Michael said...

@Graham - perhaps it would do for you to try and understand, beyond your cosily constructed caricatures, what it is you seem to think you know so much about. I for one wouldn't seek to write-off the third world as illiterate and ignorant, and all on no firmer basis than my own personal disbelief. Still, a lack of perspective is at the root of all hubris.

Thanks for the comments,


16 March 2010 at 12:17  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...


I am angry because this creep is due to visit us in the autumn. He will ponce around in his white frock and thousands will adore him without a second thought for those who have been traumatised for life by the behaviour of some of his priests. Politicians will fawn over him, the media will respect him. Well at least some of us are going to give him the welcome that he deserves, contempt and derision.

16 March 2010 at 12:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Michael said:-
...Oh, you mean, you have absolute faith that science will one day be able to provide a universal answer?...

Not quite Michael.

Faith based in unsubstantiated belief through indocrination and fear, is not faith at all - and to say it is, is falling for the big catch-all trap designed by religionists to stifle examination.

This fascist logic has to our detriment, held back human development and our understanding of our place in the nature of this world.

But if you insist on using this parallel, I would say that'faith'in this sense, if transposed and attached to scientifically tested theories, is continually being re-assessed without fear of retribution, unlike dissent within religion.

Understanding the physicalities of this world, help us create an understanding of ourselves based on facts. Facts that until disproved,IMO overrule 'faith' based on conjecture, ignorance and superstition.

16 March 2010 at 13:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis and Mr Dreadnaught

The time is near as our Lord advised:

In the past seven days there have been more than 258 recorded earthquakes of a magnitude higher than 4.5 on the Richter's scale. Chile alone has already experienced 81 aftershocks at a rate of 4 per hour since the first big earthquake of 8.8 struck on Saturday, Feb. 27.

Apart from the abundant seismic activity in Chile, moderate to strong earthquakes have occurred in several countries, among them: Ecuador (M5.3; 28/2/2010), Argentina (M6.3; 27/2/2010), Afghanistan (M5.7; 27/2/2010), Philippines (M5.7;26/02/2010), Japan/Ryukyu Islands (M7.0; 26/2/2010), Guatemala (M5.6; 23/2/2010), Haiti(M4.7; 23/2/2010), Iran(M5.1; 23/2/2010), Tonga(M5.7; 22/2/2010 with replicas of approximately higher than M5), and 2 earthquakes in Mainland China of M5.4 and M5.0 in the regions of Xizang, Yunnan on Feb. 26 and 27.

More than 700 people have been reported dead so far since Chile's devastating earthquake of 8.8 on Saturday.

Chile's earthquake was predicted by a documentary from National Geographic in 2006, but was censored by the Chilean government due to fear that the news would cause panic.

In 1960, Chile suffered the biggest earthquake ever recorded in human history, one with a magnitude of 9.5 Richter. This terrible event caused thousands of deaths, and the country's terrain was changed forever.

16 March 2010 at 13:27  
Blogger Recusant said...

One of your more foolish and intemperate posts, Cranmer. Unlike all the other newspapers you mentioned - bar Christoper Hitchens - the Times has attempted tp personally implicate the Pope. Ruth Gledhill, a good woman generally, has lost her perspective.

Don't doubt that it is Christianity in the sites of our Gramscian and secular media establishment, not just the Catholic church.

16 March 2010 at 13:31  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

The end of the world is nigh...

D. Singh has finally cracked!

Perhaps this is a way of saying, “please don’t make me defend the Pope and all his nasty deeds”.

16 March 2010 at 13:33  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...


16 March 2010 at 13:39  
Anonymous English papist said...

I greatly enjoy your blog on the whole but your gratuitous swipes at catholics do you no credit. The schism is old news: get over it for goodness sake.

16 March 2010 at 13:53  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

His Grace thanks you for your (uncharacteristic) contribution.

If you would highlight the folly or intemperate content, His Grace would be most appreciative. If you read more of the articles, there is more than a vague inference in rather more than just The Times that the Pope has been a little remiss.

Perhaps you might suggest a response to Hitchens' 'awkward questions'. Why does Pope Benedict 'indulge' Cardinal Bernard Law? Why is he denying retribution and justice?

Or is it 'foolish' and 'intemperate' (or 'bigoted') merely to enquire?

16 March 2010 at 13:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner and Mr Davis

Jesus spoke far ahead of his time relating to us what life would just prior to his coming. He says in Matt. 24:37-38: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,” (Gen.6-7). The earth being flooded? Certainly no one outside the Church believes this, since this would prove evolution is false.

16 March 2010 at 13:59  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr English Papist,

It is alarming indeed that you infer from this post a 'gratuitous swipe at Catholics'.

Perhaps you might consider the children.

Jesus did.

16 March 2010 at 14:00  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

There are a number of other reasons that nobody outside the church (and a lot of people in the church too) don't believe it.

But no point getting into any of that.

16 March 2010 at 14:03  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr Davis

I condemn any priest (or anyone else) who commits child (or any other kind of) rape and anyone who attempts to cover it up. There is no excuse period. If the Pope is shown to have done either of these things he will also be worthy of condemnation if not prison.

I also condemn anyone who equates child rape with teaching the Gospel to children.

Mr Dreadnought

I fail to see how religion is hindering your attempts to establish the origin of life on this planet. I suggest you get on with it and then you can banish all religion forever. In the meantime, I suggest that you submit to the will of God for insurance purposes.

16 March 2010 at 14:03  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

You appear to be getting criticised for 'gratuitous swipes at Catholics'.

I disagree, and please allow me to criticise you for being nowhere near 'swiping' enough.

The whore is tottering. Come out of her, my people, says the Lord, that you be not a partaker of her sins.

16 March 2010 at 14:05  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Jared Gaites (10:10)—The Anglicans are riddled with queers and the Catholics have an abundance of Pedos…

To be fair, the Catholics do well in the queer category, too, as His Grace’s favourite newspaper reports:

❛In a rare insight into the Vatican's handling of sex abuse, he [Monsignor Charles Scicluna, a Maltese cleric whose post makes him the Vatican's chief prosecutor in sex abuse cases] said that from 2001 to 2009 his office had examined 3,000 allegations of sexual offences against minors, 80 per cent of them from the United States.
‘We can say that about 60 per cent of the cases chiefly involved sexual attraction towards adolescents of the same sex, and another 30 per cent involved heterosexual relations,’ he said. Ten per cent, or 300 cases, had involved alleged abuse of pre-pubescent children, ‘paedophilia in the true sense of the word’.❜

His Grace’s carbonized right arm must be in seventh heaven.

16 March 2010 at 14:06  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

D. Singh

I thought all that Old Testament stuff was regarded with a degree of embarrassment these days!

But seeing as you bring it up here’s a few choice offerings that I am sure you will enjoy.

"When a man strikes his slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies, he shall be punished. If the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished"
Exodus 21:20-21
No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendent of his even to the tenth generation.”
Deuteronomy 23:3
“A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonours her father also, shall be burned to death.”
Leviticus 21:9
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Leviticus 20:13
Isn’t it great to have the Bible to guide us?

TheGlovner said...
Silly me!

16 March 2010 at 14:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis:
‘"When a man strikes his slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies, he shall be punished. If the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished"
Exodus 21:20-21’

This country has been obeying a very similar principle:
The definition of the actus reus (Latin for "wrongful act") of murder most usually cited is that by Edward Coke:

"When a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's Peace, . . . so as the party wounded, or hurt, et cetera, die of the wound or hurt, et cetera, within a year and a day after the same."

It should be noted it is no longer the case that the death of the victim must occur within a year and a day of the crime, according to the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.

And you too over the course of your life have been obeying Judaeo-Christian principles, unthinkingly.

16 March 2010 at 14:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr.Singh said:-

..."When a man strikes his slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies, he shall be punished. If the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished"
Exodus 21:20-21

So, therefore Christianity endorses Slavery? Hmm.

16 March 2010 at 14:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Dreadnaught

Your knowledge of the Scriptures is poor. The institution of ‘slavery’ in Old Testament times was more advanced in its legal protections that the institution of slavery in the Deep South.

16 March 2010 at 14:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Dreadnaught, here is perhaps another example of the Old testament ‘getting it right’?

Indeed, there will be many reading this blog today with a particular ache in their hearts. They may be Judaeo-Christians and divorced – longing to marry again.

Are we sure that the Church of England and the Catholic churches have got it right on this issue?

What if the old rabbis and Jesus had it right?

Jesus and Paul through the eyes of first century readers who knew about the ‘Any Cause’ divorce which Jesus was asked about ("Is it lawful to divorce for ‘Any Cause’" – Mt.19.3). Christians in following generations forgot about the ‘Any Cause’ divorce and misunderstood Jesus.

The 'Any Cause' divorce was invented by some Pharisees who divided up the phrase "a cause of indecency" (Dt.24.1) into two grounds for divorce: "indecency" (porneia which they interpreted as ‘Adultery’) and "a cause" (ie ‘Any Cause’). Jesus said the phrase could not be split up and that it meant "nothing except porneia". Although almost everyone was using this new type of divorce, Jesus told them that it was invalid, so remarriage was adulterous because they were still married.

The Old Testament allowed divorce for the breaking of marriage vows, including neglect and abuse, based on Exod.21.10f. Jesus was not asked about these biblical grounds for divorce, though Paul alluded to them in 1Cor.7 as the basis of marriage obligations. God never repealed these biblical grounds for divorce based on broken marriage vows. They were exemplified by Christ (according to Eph.5.28f) and they became the basis of Christian marriage vows (love, honour, and keep).

16 March 2010 at 14:50  
Blogger Polly "Pikie" Gorgon said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

16 March 2010 at 14:53  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

IFSS said:-

1. I fail to see how religion is hindering your attempts to establish the origin of life on this planet.

I assure you that is not my attempt at all, but neither would I stand in the way of others to do so. If you can't see that a creationists' views are not a last ditch valiant attempt to suppress knowledge and understanding - well, that's your problem Chum.

2. I suggest you get on with it and then you can banish all religion forever.

Oh that I could.

3. In the meantime, I suggest that you submit to the will of God for insurance purposes

Thank you for the suggestion but - no thanks.

16 March 2010 at 15:01  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr. Singh said:-

Your knowledge of the Scriptures is poor

Well I wouldn't argue with you on that Mr.S. But I do have serious reservations in believing the authenticity of any unsigned documents no matter what their content.

16 March 2010 at 15:07  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr. Singh said:-

So that's all right then - you mean being a slave was more of a career choice. Phew! had me going a bit there old chap, I was thinking slaves were held against their will, bought and sold as the property of another for whatever purpose the owner decreed.

16 March 2010 at 15:17  
Anonymous English papist said...

Cranmer - oh come on. You may have some serious points but suggestions (however oblique) that "the devil resides in the vatican" or that there are "plumes of sulphur" wafting around the "reeking ruins" of rome are cheap shots if ever there were. One is left with the impression that you offer the events in question as vindications of your prejudices, and dare I say with not a little Schadenfreude, rather than out of any concern for the children.

16 March 2010 at 15:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Dreadnaught

it is written: 'But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Mr Dreadnaught, when a fool keeps his mouth shut even he appears intelligent.

16 March 2010 at 15:28  
Blogger PaulineG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

16 March 2010 at 15:30  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

Well of course as a catholic you do not expect a fair crack of the whip in the secular media, especially not its anglo saxon component.

One cannot excuse it, and would not seek to, but paedophilia is no more common in the Catholic church than elsewhere.

However the reporting of it is much more extensive

16 March 2010 at 15:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Dreadnaught said:

‘If you can't see that a creationists' views are not a last ditch valiant attempt to suppress knowledge and understanding - well, that's your problem Chum.’

Prof. Anthony Flew said: ‘There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.’

16 March 2010 at 15:35  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

and as to Cardinal Law

1 has he been found guilty of any offence in any court?

2 has he been charged with any offence, in any jurisdiction whatsoever?

3 is there a warrant anywhere for his arrest?

He has a right to live wherever he wishes and do whatever he pleases if the answers to these questions are "no".

16 March 2010 at 15:41  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

English papist said...

'Cranmer - oh come on. You may have some serious points but suggestions (however oblique) that "the devil resides in the vatican"'

Not like me, but I must actually defend Cranmer here.

It was actually the pope's number 1 exorcist (how you can become number one at banishing something that doesn't exist is a whole other conversation though) that was recently quoted as saying that the anti-christ was in the church and was responsible for the actions of these priests and the priests that do not hold a belief in god.

He also went on to blame satan for Stalin and Mao, which is nice I suppose, letting us atheists off the hook as well as his own organisation. How thoughtful of him.

16 March 2010 at 15:43  
Anonymous Mikec said...


You cannot expect members of the atheistic persuasions (I have been advised that it is not a religion - could have fooled me) to think rationally, they spend their lives studiously ignoring evidence which is all around them.

Peter describes them as 'willingly ignorant' I think that sums it up quite nicely.

They have had to change the definition of the word 'science' to exclude anything but naturalistic science, this apparently adds 'strength' to their argument about Intelligent Design when they say it is 'not science', at heart, they belive that 'nothing became something' which is just not rational.

I can understand keeping an open mind about these things, but they do not, they will willingly teach theory and speculation as fact, and then complain if they are contradicted.

Of course it is always us, their critics, who are 'irrational'.

16 March 2010 at 16:27  
Anonymous Truthseeker said...

Im intruiged at your apparent facination for prophecies. Do you really think you can trust them? What makes you think that these prophecies are any different from all the wrong predictions over the centuries? http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

16 March 2010 at 16:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Mikec

I am observing a starnge paradox in the 21st century.

The more scientific knowledge advances the more it logiccal points to an intelligent Creator: discoveries now made in the complexity of the DNA structure, for example, I believe would convince Darwin: the genetic code was simply not available to him for inspection.

I am beginning to belive what these posters are saying: atheism is a faith postion in the sense that its world-view impels action and reaction.

What I find astonishing is that they have no moral basis for condemning fascism and communism.

Sartre was right (for them): 'Hell is other people.'

16 March 2010 at 16:48  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

16 March 2010 at 16:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...


I have no idea when the Second Coming will be. So don't look to me.

It is true men have said for centuries: 'Look He is here in the desert' or 'It will be on the night of 22nd December [insert year]' or 'Where is your God that you have so long insisted is coming to judge the world'.

It is that last one 'I long to hear.'

For then I shall know what I have partly guessed at (on the balance of probabilities combined with Biblical and historical knowledge).

I know you shall think it strange that a man longs to hear another voice that mocks.

Let it be.

16 March 2010 at 16:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Singh - You seem adept at employing other peoples words; from the scriptures, through to the present yet, this has not enabled you to develop a single original idea of your own.

With regard to your borrowed epithet on silence and intelligence; I would agree with the sentiments, although your use of it, is quite typically not of your own construction - you could however, try it for yourself.

16 March 2010 at 17:00  
Anonymous Mikec said...


See - Intelligent Design is dismissed as 'crackpot'. What this really means is 'We can't contradict it, so we will try to discredit it by Rhetoric'

I will restate my posit, Atheists believe 'nothing became something'

It is thus that is absurd...

16 March 2010 at 17:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Mikec

It is a true observation: they believe something came out of nothing.

Of course they dare not say that the universe has always been there: for that would breach the laws of physics.

And back would be fired the accusation: anti-science!

16 March 2010 at 17:10  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mikec said:-

....(I have been advised that it is not a religion - could have fooled me) to think rationally, they spend their lives studiously ignoring evidence which is all around them.

What evidence have you for this statement?

As for your quote on the dismissing of ID theory as just 'crackpot'- surely the burden of proof lies with the upholders ID to deliver some testable evidence of their reasons for that belief?

16 March 2010 at 17:12  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Mikec said...
“Intelligent Design is dismissed as 'crackpot'. What this really means is 'We can't contradict it, so we will try to discredit it by Rhetoric'”

Intelligent Design is simply the creation myth. There is absolutely no science involved, therefore crackpot.

16 March 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Dreadnaught

Presumably that applies to evolutionary theory.

Of course it does.

Tell us the formula so that we may produce a new species - a new amoeba. Now that shouldn't be difficult.

16 March 2010 at 17:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

You seem to have less of the 'dismal spark'.

Give us Frankenstein's formula.

16 March 2010 at 17:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

I am 'sure' that you are not involved in any superstition.

Just give us the formula; it's not a big thing for you; enlighten us; teach us.

16 March 2010 at 17:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

The biology class awaits your answer with bated breath.

16 March 2010 at 17:27  
Anonymous William Wallace said...


My contention is that media reporting of any phenomonen is not a reliable indicator of its incidence.

I would also suggest that there are significant anti catholic, indeed anti christian, elements in the media.

I am interested in your outrage though.Have you allows had a deep concern about child abuse or is it been something you have only recently felt moved upon to comment?

16 March 2010 at 17:27  
Anonymous Mikec said...

D. Singh

I think the gentleman is proving our point.

16 March 2010 at 17:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...


There is a difference between the Judaeo-Christian and the atheist that I see here.

The Judaeo-Christian smiles back at the Angel of Death.

The atheist greets him with: lowered eyes.

16 March 2010 at 17:38  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

William Wallace said...
“I am interested in your outrage about child abuse”

My outrage is based on an extreme dislike of hypocrisy and in particular how religion generally and the Catholic Church in particular masquerades as a force for virtue and morality when the truth is that it is an agent of prejudice and superstition. I was not abused myself if that’s what your getting at.

16 March 2010 at 17:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

I suggest your 'outrage' is manufactured, inconsistent: hypocritcal.

From your stand-point the priests are doing that which excludes God's commands: 'suffer the little children.'

16 March 2010 at 17:51  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Its been and entertaining if not revelatory afternoon Chaps, even though having strayed far and wide from His Graces OP it was enjoyable all the same.

Thanks YG; gentlemen -I take my leave.

16 March 2010 at 17:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Are you not entertained?

'Are you not entertained?

'Is this not why you are here?'


Adieu, Mr Dreadnaught.

16 March 2010 at 18:01  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr TheGlovner,

It is kind of you to point Mr English Papist to the source. He obviously couldn't be bothered to click the hyper-link and discover the source for himself. It was far more convenient for him to have a 'gratuitous swipe' at His Grace.

But, you may notice, having had the 'senior Vatican source' disclosed, there has been no response and no apology.

Is it simply that the Vatican's exorcist-in-chief may refer to the Devil inside the Vatican and the latent evil, but when an Anglican refers to this it is a 'gratuitious swipe at Catholics', or, dare one say, 'bigotry'?

And also note how Mr English Papist then turned ad hominem. With appalling and completely unsubstantiated judgmentalism (dare one say 'bigotry'?) , His Grace is accused of having no concern at all for the children: it is simply a matter of schadenfreude because one is Anglican.

If only he knew.

Mr English Papist, while you are very welcome here, your lack of reason and 'gratuitous swipes' indicate that you would feel more at home in another place.

16 March 2010 at 18:05  
Anonymous Thruthseeker said...

D.Singh, I appreciate your "longing to hear", but can you really trust some of the sources you are using (bar the bible) to come to the conclusions you are making?

16 March 2010 at 18:10  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

It would seem they are well and truly buggered, forgive the pun.

Establishment religions do have a whoredom of babble about them, that flies in the face of Holy Writ, despite their many well meaning followers, praise be for those adopted Church invisibles Dei Gracia.

16 March 2010 at 18:18  
Anonymous len said...

God hates religion,do not associate God with any religious SYSTEM.These religious systems do God a grave injustice. "I am sick of your sacrifices," says the LORD. "Don't bring me any more burnt offerings! I don't want the fat from your rams or other animals. I don't want to see the blood from your offerings of bulls and rams and goats. Why do you keep parading through my courts with your worthless sacrifices? The incense you bring me is a stench in my nostrils! Your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath day, and your special days for fasting — even your most pious meetings — are all sinful and false. I want nothing more to do with them. I hate all your festivals and sacrifices. I cannot stand the sight of them! From now on, when you lift up your hands in prayer, I will refuse to look. Even though you offer many prayers, I will not listen. For your hands are covered with the blood of your innocent victims. Wash yourselves and be clean! Let me no longer see your evil deeds. Give up your wicked ways. Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed. Defend the orphan. Fight for the rights of widows. (Isaiah 1:11-17 NLT)

16 March 2010 at 18:36  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Whilst perhaps the hypocracy is giving our athiest friends much to post about , and the cover up is indeed scandelous , they mustnt forget the forget the 6000 deaths in mexico since 2005 due to the drugs trade , I do hope that they see the hyprocracy in liberal athiest belief whilst musing over the revelations .

His holiness may well have much to consider and any forthcomming purge that awaits .peadophiles are not exclusive to the church ,it is more of an easy route for them to have access or it used to be .do not forget the peadophile scandles of other organisations .

The next pope may well be a more vigourous man in actions , in these times of shame and cover up .Does the whole of the Roman Catholic faith need to repent ? I dont think so but clearly some cardinals need to go and some differnet approaches to governorship .

If his holiness is not suited to to the change , his contribution to theology will still be much needed .

16 March 2010 at 18:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...


No - at the criminal law standard of belief - which is lower than the scientific standard of belief.

16 March 2010 at 19:01  
Anonymous English papist said...

Cranmer, your response (via Glovner) is not fair. (1) I was aware that the source was the chief exorcist, but you suggested that the exorcist was perhaps right – thus adopting the suggestion, albeit, as I said, obliquely – and going further by implying that the influence of the devil might even extend to the pope himself (which is your suggested explanation as to why the pope has not removed cardinal’s law’s hat) (2) I did not say that you have no concern for the children (although that was the accusation which you effectively levelled against me). I said I was left with the impression that any such concern was not the motive for your post. (3) I am not sure it is accurate to describe my response as “ad hominem” though I apologise for any offence caused. However, one might think my reaction an understandable one from a catholic to whom it has just been suggested that the pope is under the influence of the anti-christ.

16 March 2010 at 19:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


16 March 2010 at 19:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:..'

That second paragraph is interesting. St Paul uses, like the Evolutionist and Creationist, the methodology of inference.

16 March 2010 at 19:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This pope, as a cardinal in charge of the clergy worldwide, knew everything. He knew. If he has a conscience that can see beyond the corporatist interests of "the church" to humanity and human decency, he should be a tortured soul.

The Holy Spirit is telling the Catholic Church something it does not want to hear: drop your purely administrative ban on married clergy and get back into the mission of religion instead of churchiness. And stop pretending the church, republican in its early and late Roman governance, is a medieval absolutist monarchy. Drop the trappings of medieval monarchy, including the silly titles and costumes, and the illusion of papal infallibility.

Ironically this pope, who thought he could reconvert Europe, has lost Europe forever with the cover-ups of these abuses.

16 March 2010 at 19:42  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr English Papist,

1) Who is His Grace to argue with the superior learning and vast experience of the Vatican's chief exorcist?

Are you saying he is not right? On what basis do you make your judgement? Do you know more than he?

Why has the Pope not removed Cardinal Law's hat? Why has he not sacked Cardinal Brady? Both are manifestly guilty of heinous crimes, but the Pope does nothing to bring them to judgement or hasten justice for their victims.

Are you content with this? Why is it a 'gratuitous swipe at Catholics' (presumably, you mean all of them) to question this?

2) To judge the motives of His Grace in this can only be borne of your prejudice. His motives are not as you aver. You cannot know anything of his motives, and you will find the Bible replete with condemnation of your imputation.

3) Your statement was indeed ad hominem, but your apology is accepted. Thank you. But if one of the Pope's most senior and long-serving clerics ays the Devil dwells in the Vatican, your 'reaction' ought to be addressed to the source, not to an insignificant messenger.

16 March 2010 at 19:43  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...


Do you not think that Satan has infiltarted all the churches because they are all awash with filth of every liberal variety. I can't blame you getting hysterical about the Catholics because they are poaching your own priests, and probably the best ones that need to stay on also. It's a good tactic to get all pedophobic and gather all those links, they do look impressive all lined up like that.

It's a dam shame we all have to sink to this level of slime. These are sad times for the Christian faith.

16 March 2010 at 19:52  
Anonymous PJ said...

"Letter from God to Man"- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4-think this somes up some of the comments on here. Worth a watch

16 March 2010 at 20:21  
Anonymous Gladiatrix said...

The Times is being criticised particularly because it is not being even handed in its reporting of clerical child abuse. There is also a massive scandal brewing in the Jewish community in the US, plus allegations other churches, which the Catholic community is well aware of but which for some reason The Times has failed utterly to report. Despite having a sister paper in New York, as well as other publications around the world.

Personally I think Cardinal Law was summoned to Rome so he could be kept a very firm eye on, and the Pope is happy to let Cardinal Brady twist in the wind for being less than forthcoming when he had every opportunity at the recent meeting of the Irish clergy at the Vatican.

16 March 2010 at 20:26  
Blogger berenike said...

This is a silly post.

If there was a single organisation to which all stepfathers belonged, would you be writing a post about the PR disaster of the epidemic of child abuse accusations against it?

Ditto teachers. etc.

Funny you mention PR at all. As if, the scandal (in the theological sense) apart, it mattered at all.

Why are you wasting words on abusing the Pope rather than using them to deal with child abuse? Do you not think your order of indignation needs to be re-arranged a little?

16 March 2010 at 21:14  
Anonymous len said...

What is happening in a lot of our churches today is a tragedy.
The 'world' seems to have entered the church and the church in many respects seems as bad as if not worse than the 'world'.
A lot of church goers of whatever denomination must be getting disillusioned with religion and the hypocrisy within religion.
I believe God is exposing the shortfalls of religion and is calling ALL believers to relationship with Him through Christ Jesus.
Jesus said we must be born again and then receive guidance through the Holy Spirit.I think the danger is that some believers and unbelievers will drift away from religion and believe that religion was all there ever was.Jesus never came to start a new religion bur to restore the broken relationship between man and God.
Perhaps the old had to be exposed before the true goal of Christianity could be realized.

16 March 2010 at 21:23  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

Well thank you Graham and you are quite right.

The Catholic Church is full of hypocrites.

There is always room for one more, however.

16 March 2010 at 21:39  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

"Who is His Grace to argue with the superior learning and vast experience of the Vatican's chief exorcist"

This is a fair point.He is more learned and experienced than a chap who runs a blog.So do try not to put words in his mouth.

Why has the Pope not sacked Cardinals Law and Brady? Well apart from the fact that neither of these men have been found guilty , or even charged, in respect of any crime--because he does not think that justice is protestant retribution. Could that be it?

16 March 2010 at 21:52  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr William Wallace,

Put words into his mouth?

There is no need. Have you read his other comments? He has been neither misquoted nor misrepresented. Please do not impute error where there is none.

It is difficult to know if you are being purposely obtuse in your second paragraph. Are you not aware that Cardinal Law has not been found guilty because he fled Boston to avoid being tried in a court of law? Are you not aware that the Vatican and the USA have no extradition treaty? Are you not aware that Cardinal Brady coerced young children to swear oaths of silence regarding the treatment they endured at the hands of paedophile priests? Would you consider that a gross abuse of power? Do you not think it a crime that he did not report the abuse to the police?

What you term 'protestant (sic) retribution' is wholly scriptural and perfectly Christian. Pray, how does it differ from 'Catholic retribution'?

16 March 2010 at 22:06  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

bernike, I feel yours was a silly post.

Can people not get it through their thick heads that the issue with the catholic church is not that members of its clergy were involved with deplorable sexual crimes committed against innocent children.

These crimes are on the head on the criminal themselves.

Where the catholic church becomes involved and is wholly to blame is the fact that they as an institution (not to mention one that preaches moral exclusivity and superiority) knew about these crimes committed by their , after knowing about them actively covered them up to protect themselves and their clergy at the expense of their victims.

16 March 2010 at 22:14  
Anonymous John Knox said...

Dear Cranmer,

The cover-up by an authoritarian system like that of Rome made what happened very wicked indeed. What is worse, the Church failed her own (and God's) standards. And covered up, closing ranks as a system. Totalitarian evil to protect the organisation. It's good name is more important than spiritual and personal integrity or conscience.

This intrinsic evil has a long history in the Roman Church. But everywhere where religion is practiced with strong ritualistic elements, greater vulnerability ot abuse seems to exist, cf the horrendous childabuse that has come to light in high church anglicanism over the past few decades.

Also wherever children gather, pedophiles seek targets; whether it is Scouts, cadettes, youthgroups, gymnastics, swimming school or other sports. Boys choirs and RC schools are probably just the tip of the iceberg.

One should remember however that the cover-up instinct for sexual crimes was commonly shared by all segments of society. It would be unfair to condemn the Roman Church by the standards of a very different day and age. Many of the present critics of the RC are as hypocritical as their target. When 50 percent plus one decide children may engage in sexual acts on a free will basis, it will be allright all of a sudden. Our society is sick and hypocitical.

The real problem is that the Roman Church has miserably failed God's standards and covered up instead of repenting.

However this attitude is not exclusive to Romanism. Yours truly, who has also been around from the 1500rds has seen plenty in the Protestant Church and secular society as well.

Pray for this Pope while you have him, because the next one is likely to be a multireli new labour one. Backed by the present totalitarian system. Our worst nightmare is still to come.

16 March 2010 at 23:15  
Blogger srizals said...

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?

Could we use this as a basis of comparison of defining paedophilia in our so called civilised and modern world? Should them be let off the hook for being diagnosed as psychiatric disabilities? Despite the numerous victims? Have any of them married their victims and flaunt it in public for years to come?

16 March 2010 at 23:40  
Blogger Laurence England said...

Good Lord.

You really are like your namesake, aren't you?

Have you ever got off your anti-papal high horse and ever noticed that nobody in the press really goes after Archbishop Rowan Williams?

It is not because there is no sexual abuse among Anglican clergy.

It is because he is not, neither is the Church he governs a credible Church. It is because the Church of England is not the Bride of Christ and it is because he is not a threat to the Devil who wishes only to ensnare the souls of men and women and drag them into Hell.

The Devil is interested in destroying the Catholic Church and Her credibility because it is through Her that souls are saved. The primary target of the Devil and, I might add, the agents of the World who work for him, is the Holy Father, the Pope, the Successor of Peter.

The Holy Father will ride the storm.

If there is any charity in your heart, please pray for him, as many Catholics do for the Head of your Church...er, the Queen, reigning over the CoE by virtue of the murderer, adulterer and founder of the Church of England, Henry VIII, not to be confused with Our Lord Jesus Christ Who founded the Catholic Church.

16 March 2010 at 23:41  
Blogger Theresa said...

'Is Pope Benedict XVI about to resign?'

No, he's not, and neither should he. This whole story reeks of a very unsubtle attempt to make mud stick to the Pope over this priest and frankly so does this blog post. It's a poor effort, not helped by the heady language, 'stench of evil', 'purple intoxication' etc.

Hindsight is a marvellous thing. In the eighties, it was thought that you could cure someone of paedophile tendencies and that is still the case, hence sex offender rehab in jails. And as several contributors have pointed out, child abuse in institutions other than the Catholic Church were covered up and are still covered up. When are you going to do a banner headline post on the number of girls leaving local authority care who are pregant? It's running at 25% just now, but is anyone shouting about it or investigating it? No. I found that particular fact out in a two inch column on the inside of a broadsheet and if I'd blinked I'd have missed it.

As to Cardinal Law. I do agree with you over his cardinal's hat, but why did you omit to mention that he did resign as Archbishop of Boston and that that came about after the priests in the Archdiocese signed a petition to remove him? Or would that not have fitted well enough into your polemic?

I do not excuse our church and its members from the child abuse that took place and the cover up and it has deserved everything that it got in that respect. And I am glad that we have received such a scourging, because it makes it more certain that this will not happen in future. But the distorted focus on the Catholic Church in the issue of child abuse means that it has gone unchecked elsewhere. Barnados,Quarriers, Jersey, Kerelaw, are all examples of this. Child abuse either matters or it doesn't, and if you do not apply the same scourging to these institutions that you do to us, then it's questionable whether you care at all. Frankly Cranmer, I don't know whether this was a serious blog post or just an attempt at rabble rousing, but whatever it was, it was badly done.

17 March 2010 at 00:34  
Anonymous len said...

Laurence England,
Religion is a total sham,she is a whore dressed in in all the finery on the outside but full of filth and corruption inside.
Unless you ate totally brainwashed wake up and come out of her or you will suffer her judgment!
Souls are not saved by religion,religion cannot impart life only the Lord Jesus Christ can impart Life.
The catholic religion will not,and cannot save anyone quite the reverse.

17 March 2010 at 00:35  
Anonymous len said...

I think catholics( or any other denominations) defending the indefensible are living proof that these religions are corrupt.
I find it incomprehensible that these people are more concerned with their religion and the effects on it than the suffering and abuse of their victims.
To be abused by people put into a position of trust is a vile act and deserves total condemnation not the lame excuse " well other groups do it"

If the catholic church or any other is no better or even worse than the world what is its purpose?

17 March 2010 at 00:52  
Anonymous len said...

To attack His Grace for relaying important facts regarding a religious matter(Cranmer is a political/religious blog)is to belong to the same mentality that wishes to cover up and suppress these facts.

17 March 2010 at 00:59  
Blogger Theresa said...


It's important to get important facts right. His Grace has got them wrong in this case and I'm not letting him off with it. Sorry.

17 March 2010 at 01:04  
Blogger Theresa said...

Can I suggest that everyone click on PaulineG's link to get the truth of this matter, which is here;


For those of you who can't be bothered to click, the priest involved didn't belong to the Munich Archdiocese. He came from the Diocese of Essen, and was the responsibility of the Bishop of Essen (Franz Hengsbach, who is now dead). Benedict simply agreed to allow the priest to stay in a rectory in Munich while he underwent therapy. So that's your big 'Paedophile Pope Scandal' for you. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted..

17 March 2010 at 01:13  
Anonymous Oswin said...

We have a limited amount of ammunition and the enemy grows near....so it might be a wise notion to clear the ranks of the tainted, and to get back into line, shoulder to shoulder and to look to our front. Behold, a ravenning beast cometh!

17 March 2010 at 01:18  
Blogger Ivan said...

Serves the Catholic Church right for protecting the homosexuals and the incontinent, for giving the faggots time to reform. Christian charity, giving someone a second or third chance for grabbing a buttock, or allowing that a seminarian is after all just a human being applies only if the liberals were to say so, in all other cases we should hang the priests and nuns out to dry. There is not even a hint of scandal regarding Benedict XVI, his life is an open book, he is a man least likely to tolerate abuses, those who slander should enjoy their time in the sun because they'll need his prayers in the next world.

17 March 2010 at 01:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember ! The Pope is not an elected politician by the Public, he has been elected by his Peers. And he can not resign just like that, I also thin "his Grace" (you) are just simply a fraud and a bad journalist, an enticer of Evil. Agree that paedophilia is a crime and should be punished and tried... but not the way you are presenting heretic dieas.

17 March 2010 at 02:04  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Well this one's smoked them all out, hasn't it?

On the Times: "Or is it that a particular journalist at The Times is in possession of some secret knowledge and poses a particular threat and so their reputation must be destroyed?" - the question strikes me as incisive, and as a reflection of present times. Thus whether or not someone at any particular newspaper is the victim, there's also a macro- application of the principle.

Popes have often been perceived as Antichrists, as usual our commie masters (behind the media) have nothing new to say. The hidden and subversive point is surely as Oswin et al suggest: Christendom at large is the target.

Communism is the Anti-Christ; and we may know them (for they are legion) by the euSSR and all its works - to say nothing of their self-confessed hatred of Christianity.

So: Witness the subversion rife on this thread, and the attacks on Your Grace. Witness the attacks on Israel - and so on Jerusalem. And then witness, indeed, the wave of natural disasters, are they really more common than ever? Witness the mayhem and murder burgeoning from the Middle East.

Actually, there's every possibility that Mr. Singh might not be so wrong. Most of us just daren't say so.

PS: Where's Geoffrey's Eagle when you need him? Chaucer dealt handily with the ill-use of Fame. He returned from his vision - to a re-union of body and soul - after which he produced his stories of the Pilgrimage. None of his pilgrims was perfect, as I recall; all had to work their way through the alchemy of this evil world and pray to God that their base metal was sufficiently purified by the time corruption of the flesh overtook them at the Portal, at Canterbury.

Clearly all our neu secularist and atheist visitors need no such journey, and no such refining. They spring perfect into the world, knowing everything; and, untouched, they leave. Mind you, they do see it as their job to arraign, judge, and condemn, everyone else, while they're here.
According to their self-ordained righteousness, of course: forget anything about traditional, empirical, or collective wisdom. Let alone Wisdom.

17 March 2010 at 03:18  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Oh - and child abuse? I thank God that no one got to me, at that stage. Hindsight, though, let's me recognize that some would have if they could. None of them were Catholics (at my convent); several of them at another school were teachers - of what philosophies, I wot not.

I'd like to add, though, that bullies don't stop at children: they try to assert their power over anyone they think is alone, or weak, or unable to defend themselves. For I believe that, like any other form of rape, the abuse is about power and not the s thing, or gender, or even anything personal.

It goes on through every stage of life, and women, widows, and the sick, are among the favoured older victims. But so is anyone who is bright, perceptive, honest, and likely to tell the truth about, or otherwise disadvantage, evil people. Fear and inferiority spur the wicked to great 'finesse,' (I don't mind using a foreign word for something so nasty as really low cunning).

17 March 2010 at 03:45  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, I must be a bit dumb because I never detected an anti –catholic bias in the times. Some of the posters here are acting as if we are still in the 1500s. I like Lawrence England’s great ecumenical effort. In actual fact it is not 'the church' (of any denomination), which saves souls etc, it is Jesus Christ himself who does so. Only by personal repentance can one be forgiven by God .In any case as you say the Roman Catholics fighter in chief against the Devil, suggests that the Devil is working within the Catholic church, not some mad anti-catholic protestant preacher, or yourself for that matter.

The individual Priests who have committed these criminal acts should be prosecuted. I trust no-one dissents from that view?Perhaps some of the posters will want to see the inquisition back, to deal with Ruth Gledhill and the times? Or perhaps we can put away the thumb screws and watch the Catholic Church repent over its role in this affair, which as The Glovner points out, is the attempted 'cover up' of these scandals.

17 March 2010 at 07:35  
Blogger Theresa said...

Lord Lavendon,

Of course those who have been guilty of child abuse should be prosecuted and of course those involved in cover up should be named and shamed. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with, is that this story about the Pope has been run without proper checking. He has been accused of covering up child abuse in his diocese, when it is actually untrue. This priest came from another diocese and was not his responsibility and there's very little chance that he would have known him, given the size of the German Catholic church. But none of the papers checked and they have now printed a story which will stick to the Pope, regardless of its veracity. Mud does that. PiusXII is still portrayed as a useless do-nothing by the media, despite the vast body of evidence to the contrary; that is 50 years on from the play that started it all 'The Deputy'. The National Secular Society named Pius as one of their reasons for not wanting the Pope to visit. We may appear paranoid, Lord Lavendon but it doesn't mean that people aren't out to get us..

17 March 2010 at 12:06  
Blogger PaulineG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

17 March 2010 at 13:25  
Anonymous len said...

NEWS BRIEF: "Roman Catholic Church Pays Sexual Abuse Victims", Associated Press, Globe Web Center, January 31, 2002.

"Dublin — The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has agreed to a landmark $110-million (U.S) payment to Irish children sexually abused by its clergy over decades. Sex abuse campaigners and opposition lawmakers brand the offer as inadequate. The deal late Wednesday was designed to conclude a 10-year struggle by the church in this predominantly Catholic nation to overcome sex scandals going back to the 1940s. More than 20 priests, brothers and nuns have already been convicted of molesting children, with much of the abuse taking place in state-funded, church-run schools."
(These are not isolated incidents Theresa but an ongoing abuse of children
How you can even attempt to defend this is beyond me). I think people who subscribe to the catholic church should know where their money is going.

17 March 2010 at 13:30  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Miss/Mrs/Ms PaulineG,

His Grace is sorry that you are disappointed, but it was not clear that you were demanding a response from him, and neither is His Grace at all aware of why he should respond to every question posed.

His incredulity resides in the undoubted fact that if The Times is rendered 'anti-Catholic' (or 'bigoted') by virture of their headline, then a fortiori is The Telegraph anti-Anglican (or 'bigoted') by virtue of the incessant derision they express for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the institution in general. In fact, the journalist leading the shrieks of outrage is manifestly one of the most prolific in 'libelous and unconscionable' headlines in the media.

His Grace does not know what Cardinal Ratzinger knew and cannot know. But neither can you. You can choose to believe the media reports you wish, and others can infer as they wish.

However, what His Grace does know is that the Pope shields the odious Cardinal Law with a sinecure and permits him to retain a cardinal's hat, and he has not sacked Cardinal Brady.

Why not?

Are these not, at the very least, 'awkward questions' which merit a response?

17 March 2010 at 13:50  
Blogger PaulineG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

17 March 2010 at 14:39  
Anonymous Gavin Hughes said...

The Catholic posters, to summarise are saying :

1. There is nothing wrong with a molesting priest.
2. Because the times is invetigating these evil acts, they are anti catholic.
3. The pope is above criminal law.

And they wonder why they feel under seige?

17 March 2010 at 15:21  
Anonymous Anglicans are satan's church said...

I agree with the poster Lawrence England, how dare the Anglican Church not get any criticism! That so-called Church goes against the true church teachings, with its gay and (even worse) women Priests.The Catholic way of doing things- celebate priesthood for men only is more in line with church and biblical teachings.All we have in this article is an anti-catholic rant. Of course the Pope is above criticism, because he is infaliable!

17 March 2010 at 15:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the antichrist can be born anywhere, then the place is the Vatican.

Pope Papa Ratzi is the antichrist.

And twenty centuries of these popes prove that whatever they have been doing is against Christ.

They call Christ "the prince of peace," and all the popes have been going on crusades, religious wars; destroying villages, murdering people - Jews, Mohammedans; fighting continuously, burning people alive.

Thousands of people have been killed by these people who represent "the prince of peace."

And what peace have they brought to the world? You can see: the two
world wars have been fought in the Christian section of the world; and the third world war will also be fought in the Christian section of
the world.

These people are representatives not of peace but of death.

They have been teaching people to remain celibate.

And have raised celibacy into something spiritual. It is not spiritual.

Just taking a vow of celibacy does not mean you will be able to remain celibate.

You will have to find some way for your sexuality and its expression.

Celibacy is unnatural and absolutely leads to perversions.

In fact, it is a crime to preach celibacy; celibacy is absolutely
against nature.

Then putting monks into monasteries and nuns into separate places and not allowing them to meet, you created homosexuality, you created

Nobody can be celibate, unless he is impotent.

And this has to be understood, that no impotent man in the whole of history has been creative in any dimension: a great musician, a great poet, a great scientist, a great mystic, no - because sex is your energy, your creative energy.

Your greatest creative people are the most sexual people...

Osho From Darkness to Light

17 March 2010 at 15:37  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

The Catholic Church's rigid enforcement of celibacy for priests has to end.It just has not worked out.A few priests might be suited to celibate life but the majority are not.If the Catholic church focussed on sorting out its problems instead of maintaining its vast expansionist programme,it would be a better situation for Catholics.The top end of these organisations are not worth a thought.The bottom end worker bees who volunteer to feed the hungry and care for the sick are the real
Catholics.I am not defending the Church organisers but the society we live in is rotten.We are bombarded with perversion and anti christian values on all fronts now enshrined in the law.Decency is fast disappearing and the Christian churches are no better.

17 March 2010 at 15:44  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

I was just thinking that the Forward in Faith types seem to have gone very quiet as regards their plans of late.


17 March 2010 at 16:57  
Anonymous the recusant said...

There’s too many recusants on this post and he’s not me. Not last time I looked. Your Grace has been having a fine old time it someone famous said "You know that you have created God in your own image when He hates all the same people you do.", you would do well to ponder on it from time to time.

Must admit it seems black though, just how we Papists like it, nothing better to strengthen the faith than a bit of persecution, good for the soul. But really I don’t take too much notice of what the ‘meeja’ says and am a little surprised that Your Grace does; fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact which are native to the newspapers; and, if they turn out not to be facts, that is still more native to newspapers. But still there are those all too ready to believe and repeat every bit of tittle-tattle that, nursing every morsel of gossip, keeping it warm and ready at a moment’s notice to share it with anyone who will listed, really shame on you. Christian charity it would seem is still a little short after 400+ years in some departments of the separated brethrens ecclesial communities.

The problem is we don’t have a generation with the critical faculties to tell truth from fiction Compulsory Education has seen to that by depriving the common people of their commonsense.
Chesterton said it best: “The modern world will accept no dogmas upon any authority; but it will accept any dogmas on no authority. Say that a thing is so, according to the Pope or the Bible, and it will be dismissed as a superstition without examination. But preface your remark merely with "they say" or "don't you know that?" or try (and fail) to remember the name of some professor mentioned in some newspaper; and the keen rationalism of the modern mind will accept every word you say.”

But it must be true if Ms Gledhill says it, after all it is the Times!

17 March 2010 at 19:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavendon, all Your Graces here indeed, thank you. I will be at the 11 o'clock at Winchester Cathedral on Sunday with a lighter heart, thanks to all of you.

Ruth Gledhill

17 March 2010 at 19:43  
Anonymous len said...

I find it appalling and somewhat revealing that you and others consider Catholicism 'persecuted'.
You presumably are catholic by choice the abused victims had no choice, they rather than you are the persecuted.
As someone else said " the whore is tottering"

17 March 2010 at 21:49  
Blogger Theresa said...


Can I ask you a direct question? Do you want the Pope to be guilty of covering up child abuse? Because you dislike him? Isn't your chief concern as a Christian the truth, whether you like it or not? I think it has been shown quite conclusively here that this story is untrue. Are you going to persist with that myth because it suits you?

'Love takes no pleasure in the sins of others, but delights in the truth.'

Take note Len, and take care.

17 March 2010 at 22:08  
Anonymous len said...

I would add to my comments that I believe there are many God fearing upright honest believers in the Catholic faith.
It is the CATHOLIC SYSTEM not the Catholic people whom I take issue with.
I believe God loves all people in all denominations catholicism,Islam, atheists,everyone.God so loved the World that He sent His only son,so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life(John 3;16)
What are wrong are religious SYSTEMS which lead people away from Christ which confuse the simple Gospel message.

Religion seeks control.Religion binds.

Jesus came to set us free,

"He whom the Son sets free is free indeed! (John 3:16)

17 March 2010 at 22:27  
Anonymous len said...

Theresa have you heard of,

1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis

Before he was elected Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger was a cardinal in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Its function "... is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence." For the 24 years that he headed the Congregation, he enforced the document. He is alleged to have issued an updated version of Crimen Sollicitatiois in 2001. It was considered so confidential that the bishops were instructed to keep it locked in a safe. In this version, a new principle was introduced: Exclusive Competence. All child abuse allegations were to be handled by the Vatican.

18 March 2010 at 00:27  
Blogger Theresa said...


1.) Yes, I have heard of Crimen Sollicitationis. As I understand it, it is a guiding document as to how the church conducts internal investigations; equivalents would be a doctor being investigated by the GMC or a teacher being investigated by the GTC. Much has been made of its 'secrecy'; in fact this is something common to internal investigations by professional bodies; coroners' reports are an example of that. I don't know if you think child abuse allegations going through the Vatican is a bad thing; I see it as a good thing and giving this issue the importance it deserves.

2.) You have completely dodged my first question in which I asked if you wanted the Pope to be found guilty of child abuse cover up and if the actual truth of the matter was important to you. I take it the answer to that is; Yes, you do want him to be found guilty of child abuse cover up, regardless of the truth of the matter. If it's otherwise, you can tell me.

18 March 2010 at 01:11  
Anonymous len said...

Theresa, The pope as head of the Catholic church must ultimately be responsible for what goes on in the catholic church.
With his supreme and 'infallible 'knowledge are you suggesting the pope knew nothing?Are you suggesting the pope is merely a fallible man?

18 March 2010 at 07:50  
Anonymous len said...

In 2001, while he was a cardinal the pope then (then cardinal Ratzinger) issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.
The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.
If thats not a cover up Theresa what would you call it?

18 March 2010 at 08:16  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Catholics must put the name of Jesus before the name of the Pope.

If we (Christians) are being persecuted (by the media) because of righteousness then we are blessed - Jesus said so. If we are being persecuted by the media because there are serious issues at the heart of the church, then those issues need to be addressed (not the newspaper headlines).

The only mud we should be worrying about is that being thrown at Jesus.

It is clear from Jesus that harming children is a terrible evil. If there has been any attempt to put the name of the Catholic church before rectifying this terrible evil then that has contributed to a terrible evil. Newspaper headlines about the Pope are irrelevant in comparison.

18 March 2010 at 09:52  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Strange to find myself agreeing (in part) with Len and It's Faith for a change.

18 March 2010 at 10:17  

"...like a virus eating its way into the ignorant or illiterate of the third world... It instils fear in the uneducated and feeds them lies about condoms"—Graham Davis

Oh the arrogance! In reality, the Churches position on condoms is correct. It is the ideological blindness of nations such as the UK which is responsible for the continuation of the AIDS epidemic.

In reality, independent of the reliability p, repeated use of condoms with a p% failure rate is like unto a game of russian roulette with a 100/p chambered revolver. For example, a 20% failure rate would correspond to russian roulette with a five chambered revolver. The outcome of such a game is determined by:

Theorem. The risk of contracting AIDS during so-called “protected sex”approaches 100 percent as the number of episodes of sexual intercourse with an infected person increases.

18 March 2010 at 12:06  
Blogger PaulineG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

18 March 2010 at 15:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: shut yer trap.

18 March 2010 at 17:22  
Blogger Theresa said...


You listen to the BBC too much. Crimen Sollicitationis as I said is a guiding document as to procedure when the church is holding an internal inquiry. It keeps those hearings secret, as is the norm for other professions as I pointed out. It does not prevent anyone who was part of that hearing taking part in a civil case and giving the same info that they gave at that hearing in a civil court. And Benedict did not instruct priests and victims to stay quiet about sex abuse. That was the Beeb's mistaken take on it and unfortunately a lie goes three times round the world before the truth has time to get its shoes on.

18 March 2010 at 17:24  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...


It does not say "Thou shalt bear witness against those who bear false witness" either.

If people are bearing false witness against the Pope because of his righteousness we should all rejoice.

If you want to correct a newspaper headline then that is your prerogative. I suggest that there are more pressing issues that need to be tackled first.

18 March 2010 at 17:37  
Blogger Theresa said...

Here's a good summary of Crimen Sollicitationis here, Len;


Note that in cases where someone knows that a priest is abusing the confessional to solicit victims, they have to come forward and give the information under pain of excommunication. That's hardly a cover up.

18 March 2010 at 17:37  
Blogger Theresa said...

It's faith stupid,

I understand where you are coming from and I find it wearisome to correct all this nonsense. But it has to be corrected. Look at what Len said about Crimen Sollicitationis. That goes back to a Panorama programme four years ago and I have to correct it now. And this is the Pope that they are slandering. It is very important that the truth about this gets reported or it'll be a poor lookout for us.

18 March 2010 at 17:43  
Blogger PaulineG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

18 March 2010 at 17:45  
Blogger PaulineG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

18 March 2010 at 17:58  
Anonymous len said...

Right across the global Catholic Church, the only governance structure is one of individual dioceses reporting directly to the Vatican. Failures in governance within the Roman Catholic Church are Vatican failures, not those of any illusory ‘national governance structure’.

The Vatican has fought to ensure it remains unaccountable for the cover up of clerical crimes. If it admits responsibility then it exposes itself to potentially massive financial losses should any court hold it to account for its negligence and inaction.

Globally many thousands of cases have now emerged. In Ireland, the United States and Australia, there is compelling evidence of a cover up which saw offending clerics moved from parish to unsuspecting parish where they devastated countless lives, families and communities as Rome watched from a distance and failed to intervene to protect children despite its moral obligation to do so and clear responsibility as the ultimate governors of this global church.

18 March 2010 at 21:11  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Oh Len come off it, don't be so gullible, can't you recognise a feeding frenzy when you see it. The AP reports a load of old claptrap because it’s a low news week, and all the gutter press repeat it. You know I bet you wouldn’t give them the time of day in any other circumstance but because it’s the RCC and the Pope you suspend all your credibility and swallow it hook line and sinker. It’s like another bad Dan Brown novel, badly scripted, badly research yet it sell millions because its what people would like to be true, facts would get in the way of a good story, Surprised Cranmer fell for it though, I thought he had better judgement than that but if the Guardian or Gledhill’s rag the Times float his boat, so be it, no accounting for taste, as for myself report what they say, I wouldn’t hang them up in the smallest room.

18 March 2010 at 21:47  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Found this Len, you might like it
This week, a slew of articles have come through the Associated Press accusing Pope Benedict XVI of covering up the pedophilic actions of a Catholic priest.
The alleged cover-up is supposed to have happened in the Diocese of Munich when the current pope was Archbishop there some 30 years ago.
One would hope that such a grave indictment against the world’s most prominent religious figure would only be made with sufficient proof or at least some sort of evidence.
However, this is not the case. As far as I have been able to discern, the pope’s connection to any kind of sexual misconduct is tangential at best.
While the priest in question was eventually found guilty of sexual abuse, the abuse he was charged with happened after Archbishop Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) left the diocese.
Furthermore, claims that Ratzinger knew about earlier cases of abuses by the same priest and transferred him to a new diocese have been refuted by the Church.
The decision to transfer the priest instead of removing him from ministry was made by an administrative official in the Munich-Freising archdiocese, General Vicar Gerhard Gruber. Gruber has taken full responsibility for that decision and apologized to all other victims of further abuse.
He explained that with over 1,000 priests working in the diocese, Ratzinger could not have handled all matters and had to delegate some decisions.
However, the fact that Pope Benedict may have not even known about the situation has not stopped the global press from smearing his name. An intentionally misleading headline in The Scotsman read, “Pope Benedict comes under fire over sex abuse scandal.” He wasn’t at all “under fire” until that article was written. Several other divisive articles have been produced that seek to tie the Pope to this scandal without any sort of proof.
To me, these stories seem to be not only intentionally misleading, but directly intended to inspire hostility toward Pope Benedict and the institution he represents.
Additionally, reports of possible physical abuse in a choir directed by the pope’s brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, have implied culpability on Pope Benedict’s part. The logic seems to be that a man can be guilty by association if anyone in his brother’s choir was ever slapped. That makes sense.
I am all for an open investigation into physical and sexual abuse in the Church by civil authorities, but that is not what is going on right now.
Right now, an attempt is being made to disgrace the Catholic Church and its leader without any evidence that he has ever been involved in the alleged transgressions.
The current “scandal,” in which Pope Benedict’s role is questionable, is being blown out of proportion to the point of slander.
I know that papers have to sell themselves, but I would appreciate a bit more consideration for the truth when dealing with such serious matters.

18 March 2010 at 21:48  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

Could you please explain to His Grace what he has written which was so in error, instead of simply alluding to what you think he has said?

18 March 2010 at 22:15  
Anonymous Opus Dei said...

You have to be blind to be a Catholic.

If your eyes open, it becomes impossible for you to remain confined to superstitions, lies of all kinds, and to go on believing in fictions when your intelligence raises doubts.

The Catholic religion is such a poor religion; it has no arguments.

They are standing on fictitious ground. They have no argument for existing anymore; they cannot provide any reason why they are needed.

Who will be the pope when there is no God? What will be his position?

God is the central focus of the whole fiction. Remove that central idea and the whole palace made of playing cards simply falls on the ground.

All the basic foundations of the religion are so poor, indefensible.

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ... there is no way to prove it; it is so unscientific. The concept of God as a trinity: God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost... and this "holy ghost" made the poor girl Mary, Jesus' mother, pregnant - without any license - and still he is holy? Then what is unholy? And in this trinity there is no place for any woman?

The pope pretends to be infallible. He has to pretend it, because the logic is that he represents Jesus Christ: if he is fallible then Jesus Christ is fallible. Jesus Christ represents God: if he is fallible then God is fallible. To make God infallible you have to make Popes infallible, for the sheer sake of logic - it has no existential truth in it.

They are keeping people in every way retarded just so that they can exploit them.

And they have been exploiting for centuries. They have repeated their lies so often that they almost appear as truths.

Catholicism cannot live without the concept of sin, because sin is the technique of creating guilt in people.

Do you understand the whole strategy of sin and guilt. Unless you make a person feel guilty, you cannot enslave him psychologically. It is impossible to imprison him in a certain ideology, a certain belief system. But once you have created guilt in his mind, you have taken all that is courageous in him. You have destroyed all that is adventurous in him. You have repressed all possibility of his ever being an individual in his own right.

Your church demands of you, never to doubt - that is the greatest sin.

But intelligence never grows without doubting, without questioning. It is the natural growth of intelligence to question. Just to believe means the intelligence need not grow - for what and why? There is nothing to seek and nothing to search for, you simply have faith in the priest and keep your eyes closed.

Can you think that if you had been left alone by your parents and the society, without any imposition to be a Catholic, you would have been a Catholic?

All the mystics of the world, of all the ages, are agreed on one point, that truth cannot be brought down to the level of language. All the theologians are doing just the opposite. All the mystics are agreed that there is no way of organizing truth, it is a love affair between the individual and existence; you cannot organize it.

No priests are needed, no theologians are needed, no churches are needed.

Religion is absolutely personal. It does not involve anybody else but you.

The whole idea that somebody else can represent the truth, the experience of somebody else, is basically false. Either you know the truth or you don't know it. Those who know it will not represent anybody else. Those who do not know it, their representation is a lie, is a fundamental falsehood. They are pretending to be somebody they are not...

19 March 2010 at 05:37  

They are standing on fictitious ground. They have no argument for existing anymore; they cannot provide any reason why they are needed.— `Opus Dei'

"Religion" is singular, "they" is plural. Please check your grammar.

If you think the church has no arguments read St. Thomas Aquinas.

You say that "sin is the technique of creating guilt in people."

If sin is a "technique" why do people not exposed to this "technique" experience guilt?

You seem to be very confused about the Church. Please read the Catechism to see what Catholics actually believe.

19 March 2010 at 17:41  
Anonymous Theresa said...

For those who think that Pope Benedict is harbouring child abusers, you should read this;


Thanks to Auntie Johanna..

19 March 2010 at 18:38  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Well as you ask, this is what Your Grace always does when questioned about the balance of your reporting on all matters RCC. “What have I said that is not true about the Pope” you ask, “look” you say, “in the past I have said what a cleaver man the Pope is, I really like him”, “what lies have I told” you protest. Well we both know that is not what you do, what you do is condemn by association. It is the e-equivalent of “when did you stop beating your wife”? No answer can be given without implied guilt. I bet you really like Catholics too, and to prove it have some that are your friends (wouldn’t let your daughter marry one though), am I being a bit unfair do you think, how does it feel?

You sited the countries Austria …. Philippines, well I’m sure if you look you can add to that list, but when you have done that what have you said, that in a worldwide church there are perverts. What you have not said however is if this problem is only in the RCC, why the RCC merits such scrutiny, or if by degrees it is higher proportionally than any other institution. Compare the figures for abuse in the countries you list with other professions that have to deal with Children/teenagers and you will have something useful to add to the debate, but you don’t do that because you can’t, it is easier to stand on the sidelines and sling the mud.

I know of only one country where we can see such figures, the US and I know that abuse by the RCC way is below that of families, teachers, medical and social workers and Protestant churches but the RCC gets all the publicity, why do you think that is? But I suspect you already know this, what is even more strange is why you don’t allude to this in your post but that would show the tone of your piece. Instead you choose to validate your argument by listing numerous outlets of the Associated Press, as if quantity somehow equalled quality. Even, and this cracks me up, the Guardian, Lord save us when Christians have to site the Guardian and the authoritative source on Christen affairs, Oh and Sky News, what were you thinking all you needed was the Independent for the unholy trinity.

Your Grace is too shrewd to make silly errors of fact and claim them to be his own, however when you make common cause, intentionally or otherwise with the gutter press, national or global, you have to accept your share of the blame for promoting what can only be described as anti-Catholic hysteria.

This is not about the extent of the crimes because in context they are less than other professions, it is about who is committing them (worst thing that happed to the Catholic Church, George Bush left the Whitehouse). The Pope will visit England later this year; he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, he was one of yours at one time wasn’t he, even taught at Oxford. Did you note some time ago the press tried to label him as a pervert as well, the same press you use to justify your, how to put it, not claims, you don’t do that, not even accusations (explicit ones anyway), yes your concerns, you are brother Christian raising your concerns and looking out for your fellow pilgrims.

As a Catholic what I would like to know is why their priestly formation and sacraments of priest hood did not prevent these men committing these crimes in the first place, which bit of Matthew 18:6 or Mark 9:38-50 were they unclear about? Thank God for Easter.

19 March 2010 at 19:09  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

In truth, Mr Recusant, all that His Grace wants to know is why, when faced with an abundance of evidence from all over the world that children were being sexually abused, the 'hierarchy' chose to enforce a strict code of absolute secrecy?

Who was it who 'defended and enforced' the requirement that evidence be heard in strict secrecy 'under pain of excommunication'? Who decreed that children as young as 10 should be threatened with this (as if they were not already sufficiently terrified) and who decided this was 'legitimate secrecy'?

It beggars belief that those who wish to defend this 'secrecy' resort to such statements as 'child abuse was not really understood then'.

Of course child abuse occurs in other institutions. But when such evil is perpetrated by professing Christians, and the institution - the Church of Christ, no less - instead of informing the police, engages in a systematic cover-up, it is not remotely surprising that the Vatican's exorcist-in-chief is persuaded that the Devil dwells within its walls.

And those under his influence are not all liberal, Tablet-reading Vatican 2ers.

Curiously, no-one has answered His Grace's 'awkward questions':

Why is Cardinal Bernard Law being sheltered and why does he still wear a cardinal's hat?

And why is Cardinal Brady still in a job?

If, as you rightly observe, holy orders were insufficient to prevent both the pysical and subsequent emotional and psychological abuse, why should all of those involved in the 'cover-up' not be defrocked? Why does Pope Benedict not act decisively, at least against Law and Brady?

19 March 2010 at 19:38  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

If you need a pointer, please consider THIS

19 March 2010 at 19:49  
Anonymous len said...

For 24 years, Cardinal Ratzinger responded to abuse accusations by referring Bishops to the rules of Crimen Sollicitationis, in force since 1962. The instruction calls for secrecy – specifically in cases where priests are accused of abusing the Sacrament of Confession to sexually proposition penitents, and in extension, to clerics accused of homosexuality, child sexual abuse and bestiality. In effect, he used that document to insure secrecy and cover up sexual abuse by priests and Bishops. There is no doubt that Ratzinger was aware of the details of those scandals for a long, long time.

19 March 2010 at 20:04  
Anonymous Theresa said...

Excuse me your Grace,

I explained several posts back what Crimen Solicitationis was and wasn't. I also provided a link in the naive belief that you might click and understand what it was and wasn't. It does not swear people to absolute secrecy. It does not prevent proceedings in a civil court. It actually requires that those who know of abusive practices going on, to come forward under pain of excommunication. The secrecy part refers purely to the internal investigation of the church and this is common practice in other professions such as medicine and teaching. Here's the link again;


Gauny click? Please?

19 March 2010 at 22:43  
Anonymous Theresa said...


Gauny you click as well?

19 March 2010 at 22:44  
Anonymous Opus Dei said...

You seem to be very confused about the Church...

Christianity is a fiction. Jesus had never even heard the name
Christianity. It has been imposed on him, he was not the founder of
Christianity. Who exactly was the founder of Christianity? One thing
is certain, Jesus was not. He never thought about founding a religion,
he was simply telling the Jews, "I am your last prophet." He died on
the cross as a Jew.

Then who founded Christianity?

You can find Buddhism in the teachings of Gautam Buddha; he was the
founder. You can find in the teachings of Mahavira that he was the
founder of Jainism. You can find in the teachings of Lao Tzu that he
was the founder of Taoism. But it is a very strange thing about
Christianity: the founder had no idea at all, was not interested in
creating a new religion.

The man who founded it - you will not believe it - was the Emperor
Constantine. The church knows it, but does not allow the public to
know it.

Emperor Constantine of Rome, who headed the Council of Nicea, died as
a Christian, but he was baptized only on his deathbed. His whole life
he was the high priest of the Sun God religion, which was why he
changed the sabbath from Saturday, which was Jesus' sabbath day, to
Sunday. Jews still have their sabbath on Saturday, and Jesus also had
lived his whole life believing in the sabbath on Saturday. How did it
become Sunday?

It was Constantine, who was a worshipper of the Sun God. Sunday
represents the sun; the followers of the sun have always believed that
Sunday is a holy day.

It was Constantine who was actually the founder of Christianity. He
was the decisive factor in the Council of Nicea. It was under his
pressure - because he was the emperor of Rome - that the priests voted
for the divine personality of Jesus. He made Jesus a divine person. It
was his creation, his invention.

He also changed Jesus' birthday from January sixth to December
twenty-fifth, the day of the solar rebirth. The twenty-fifth of
December, which is celebrated all over the world, is not Jesus'
birthday. The whole idea of Christmas is bogus.

Jesus was born on January sixth, but under Constantine's influence and
power, it was changed to December twenty-fifth, the day of the solar
rebirth. It is thought by the sun worshippers that the sun was born on
the twenty-fifth of December. The whole of Christianity is living in
utter darkness. Their Christmas is bogus - and the church knows it
perfectly well but won't allow people to know about it.

Constantine imposed himself as the real last prophet for whom the Jews
had been waiting. Of course, the Jews could not crucify the emperor of
Rome. And the Christians wanted some royal support; otherwise they
were being crucified everywhere. They found a shelter in Constantine,
but it was a bargain, purely business. They accepted that Jesus was a
failed messiah, and that Constantine was the real messiah.

But this is not told to the public! Christians are not aware of it.
All these scriptures are hidden under the Vatican.

Constantine, killed ten thousand people in a single day. He just
called an assembly of all those who were not Catholics in a great
auditorium in Rome, and ordered the army to kill everybody: "We don't
want anybody other than Christians in Rome." He forced the whole of
Italy to become Christian... just at the point of a sword.

The whole history of Christianity is of wars and nothing else -
killing and violence.

Christianity has nothing worthwhile that can be supported by intelligence.

Unless you can provide some Philip.

Christianity is dying so fast that every effort is being made to
somehow keep it alive.

No effort is going to succeed, for the simple reason that the whole
Christian attitude, the religion and its philosophy, are so out of
date that it is impossible to convince intelligent people to have
faith in them any more...

20 March 2010 at 07:26  
Anonymous Opus Dei said...


Darkness is only an absence of light.

Light is presence, darkness is absence.

As you grow mature, you become more aware of the difference between imagination and reality.

Reality is far richer than imagination.

With awareness imagination disappears but the reality remains.

The truth is that God himself is a creation of man's imagination.

There are billions who say, "We believe in the existence of God." But your belief cannot create a God - if he does not exist your belief makes no difference.

God is the greatest lie you can ever find, because on that lie
thousands of other lies depend. Churches, religious organizations go on multiplying lies upon lies, just to protect one lie.

There exists no evidence for any God, and no theologian in the whole
of history has been able to give a single proof for the existence of God.

If God created the world, and if he is behind nuclear weapons and the people who are creating them, then no effort on man's part can prevent the destruction of the whole planet.

To give the creation of the world into the hands of a fictitious God
is very dangerous.

It makes us absolutely impotent. We cannot do anything.

God as a fiction is good for kindergarten school children – parables, fables, stories.

But very few human beings have gone beyond the kindergarten school.

God is simply the poverty of human consciousness.

God exists because you are not aware of yourself.

The moment you know yourself, there is no God and there is no need of any God.

The only authentic religion there is, is the art of changing the
unconscious mind into consciousness.

Truth is uncovering yourself from all lies...

20 March 2010 at 07:36  
Anonymous len said...

Opus Dei,
Much of what you say is true.
You are still believing a lie,

Catholicism,Islam etc,are all part of the lie,and I suspect you rejecting these have settled for another lie.
The 'new age philosophy ' there is no God but we are all God' is just another version of the lie.
True Christianity is an anomaly which is why many 'intelligent enlightened'people reject it.

Christianity cannot be integrated. It is incapable of amalgamation or ecclecticism with the selfish, sinfulness of the world. Christianity and the world-system are mutually antithetical and completely incompatible. One cannot join light and darkness, God and Satan, Christ and Belial (II Corinthians 6:14,15). Any attempt to do so will inevitably witness the withdrawal of the Spirit of God, and despite the religious facade that remains there will be but the inscription of "Ichabod" -- "the glory of the Lord has departed" (I Samuel 4:21).

20 March 2010 at 08:05  
Anonymous len said...

When the tenets of the New Age Movement are examined, they are not really new at all. The New Age is really old occultism in new linguistic garb. Many of these concepts can be found in basic form in Genesis 3. Notice these statements made to Eve in the Garden: "You will be like God" (pantheism), "You will not surely die" (reincarnation), "Your eyes will opened" (change of consciousness), and "Did God really say" (moral relativism).

20 March 2010 at 08:25  
Anonymous len said...

Getting back to the problem with abusing priests,
A recurring accusation made against the ecclesiastical hierarchy is that of not reporting to the civil authorities when crimes of paedophilia come to their attention.

If bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities.

But if they confess under the sacremental seal of confession the authorities are not informed and the abuser goes free!.
So it is possible to know the truth about these criminals but to keep silent and merely move them to another location where they are free to re -offend.

20 March 2010 at 08:54  
Anonymous len said...

Opue Dei,
I hope His Grace will excuse me from straying from the thread again but I believe the subject you have raised is one of vital importance.
All religion is a sham!I agree with you.
But there is a 'God'called Yahweh,he has a son called Yahshua.
There is an incredible website called " Yada Yahweh" if you are interested in finding the truth.

20 March 2010 at 09:21  
Blogger Theresa said...


Gauny click? Here's what they say about abusing the confessional;

That Crimen Sollicitationis was not designed to "cover up" sex abuse, canonists say, is clear in paragraph 15, which obligates anyone with knowledge of a priest abusing the confessional for that purpose to come forward, under pain of excommunication for failing to do so. This penalty is stipulated, the document says, "lest [the offense] remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls."


20 March 2010 at 11:00  
Anonymous len said...

Speaking of the investigation of accusations of the crime of solicitation, section 11 of Crimen sollicitationis said:
Quoniam vero quod in hisce causis tractandis maiorem in modum curari et observari debet illud est ut eaedem secretissime peragantur et, postquam fuerint definitae et executioni iam traditae, perpetuo silentio premantur (Instr. Sancti Officii, 20 febr. 1867, n. 14); omnes et singuli ad tribunal quomodocumque pertinentes vel propter eorum officium ad rerum notitiam admissi arctissimum secretum, quod secretum Sancti Officii communiter audit, in omnibus et cum omnibus, sub poena excommunicationis latae sententiae, ipso facto et absque alia declaratione incurrendae atque uni personae Summi Pontificis, ad exclusionem etiam Sacrae Poenitentiariae, reservatae, inviolabiliter servare tenentur.
As, assuredly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called "the secrecy of the Holy Office") in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, incurred ipso facto without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary.

20 March 2010 at 11:37  
Anonymous len said...

The oath of office to be taken by the members of the tribunal was given as Formula A:
... Spondeo, voveo ac iuro, inviolabile secretum me servaturum in omnibus et singulis quae mihi in praefato munere exercendo occurrerint, exceptis dumtaxat iis quae in fine et expeditiones [recte: expeditione] huius negotii legitime publicari contingat ... neque unquam directe vel indirecte, nutu, verbo, scriptis, aut alio quovis modo et sub quocumque colorato praetextu, etiam maioris boni aut urgentissimae et gravissimae causae, contra hanc secreti fidem quidquam commissurum, nisi peculiaris facultas aut dispensatio expresse mihi a Summo Pontifice tributa fuerit.
… I do promise, vow and swear that I will maintain inviolate secrecy about each and every thing brought to my knowledge in the performance of my aforesaid function, excepting only what may happen to be lawfully published when this process is concluded and put into effect … and that I will never directly or indirectly, by gesture, word, writing or in any other way, and under any pretext, even that of a greater good or of a highly urgent and serious reason, do anything against this fidelity to secrecy, unless special permission or dispensation is expressly granted to me by the Supreme Pontiff.
The ecclesiastical penalty for violation of secrecy by members of the tribunal was automatic excommunication. For the accused priest, it was only automatic suspension a divinis. No ecclesiastical penalty was imposed on accuser(s) and witnesses, unless violation of secrecy occurred after an explicit warning given in the course of their examination (Section 13 of the document).

20 March 2010 at 11:40  
Anonymous len said...

In the closing scenes of the film" Bridge on the river Kwai" a horrible realization,or perhaps you could call it a revelation comes to Sir Alec Guinness (as Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson.)
He realizes that all he holds dear,his integrity,his values,his energy have been hijacked, prostituted ,and used for the purposes of the enemy.

Nicholson suddenly comes to his senses and exclaims, "What have I done?
I hope and pray all who serve religion instead of Yahweh the God of Abraham,Isaac, and Jacob,come to the same realization.

20 March 2010 at 12:17  
Anonymous Opus Dei said...

Jesus proclaiming himself the only begotten son of God?

Now, if you come across somebody in the street proclaiming that he is the only begotten son of God, what are you going to think about the man?

You will think he is mad.

Then why are you thinking differently about Jesus?

In Jesus' life not a single rabbi, not a single scholar, not a single
man of intelligence, of the intelligentsia, ever became his disciple. The twelve people that became his apostles were fishermen,
woodcutters, farmers, shoemakers - or the lowest class, uneducated.

Just visualize a man sitting on a donkey. Followed by twelve
uneducated people, proclaiming himself the only begotten son of God. You cannot be a begotten son of a hypothesis. That is sheer stupidity. Hypotheses don't give birth to children!

And your so-called religious leaders - cardinals, bishops, archbishops - they are representing the only begotten son of a hypothesis. These are the most unintelligent people in the world. They are living in an

If you have an open mind, you can understand. Jesus Christ's own
contemporaries did not accept him as a religious man. He was a Jew. He was born a Jew, he lived a Jew, he died as a Jew. He had never heard the word `Christian', because in the Hebrew language there are no such words as Christ or Christian.

Christians go on believing in Jesus Christ because he walked on water,
he fed thousands of people out of two loaves of bread, he healed
thousands of people just by touch, he raised a dead man back to life.
Just think, if anybody does all these things, will his contemporaries not be impressed by him? Will his contemporaries completely ignore him? Not a Jewish scripture even mentions his name!

There is no contemporary literature relating about Jesus and his miracles - and these miracles are not ordinary miracles. And somebody who has done all these things, do you think he deserves to be
crucified? He would have been raised up as the greatest god!

And those were the days in Judea when scholarship was at the highest
peak. It had great rabbis. None of them even bothers to meet him, even
bothers to listen to him. And he is doing all these miracles which
none of their prophets have ever done before.

Only one thing is possible, that all these miracles are invented, theyhave not happened. These are just Christian inventions about which Jews were not aware at all; otherwise, contemporary sources would have related them somewhere or other, in some way or other.

Even if they were enemies to Jesus, then too there would have been some report. Buddha is reported in Hindu scriptures. Buddha is reported in Jaina scriptures, Mahavira is reported in Hindu scriptures, in Jaina scriptures. Lao Tzu is reported in Confucianscriptures. Confucius is reported in Lao-Tzuan scriptures. They were contemporaries.

And the man who did such unnatural things would have dominated the whole scene.

You will have to look not with faith, because faith is blindness.

You will have to look with a reasoning intelligence.

The Christians may have a formal belief in Christ, in the bible, but
it is a Sunday religion, a kind of sociality.

Simple psychological methods have been used: you should continuously pray.

You start praying to Christ, or you go to church, listen to the
priest, reads the bible, which all preach, "Have faith." And it is
repeated thousands of times your whole life.

That makes you gullible.

They become hypnotized with the name, with the figure.

But faith does not change you, you remain the same.

And that is the only criterion to be used - whether your knowledge is
true or your knowledge is borrowed, whether it changes you or it simply becomes accumulated in your memory...

20 March 2010 at 13:11  
Anonymous Opus Dei said...

What is faith? It is always blind.

A man who knows does not need faith.

Faith is always in the other - in Jesus, in God, in heaven, in hell.

It is always outside you, and truth is within you.

Faith is needed for exploitation.

It is faith which has kept humanity ignorant.

Christianity is one of the most fake religions of all.

Jesus has nothing to do with it.

Christianity was not founded by Jesus Christ, it has to be remembered.

It was founded eighty years after his death, by people who had not
directly known him.

Now even Christian scholars have come to the conclusion that the
Christian gospels were not written by the apostles but were written by
somebody else, because the mountains described are not in the same place where they are described in the gospels. The rivers described are not in the same place where they are described in the gospels.

Everything was written by people who had not known Jesus Christ, and
neither had they lived with Jesus Christ.

Faith simply means hiding ignorance, and it is very cheap.

Truth needs great energy, great urgency, and a total involvement in the search.

Truth is within you, faith comes from outside. Anything that comes
from outside is not going to help you. You cannot take it in.

Truth is a search, not a faith.

It is an inquiry, not a belief.

Only when the truth is not known do you carry the scripture in your
head. Theories are substitutes, dead.

Truth is always alive, eternally alive. It cannot be confined in
words; the message is wordless.

It will be a tremendous blessing to humanity when man is simply man.

God is a fiction - existence is a reality.

One humanity is enough. And one religiousness is enough.

Meditation, truth, love, authenticity, sincerity - which do not need any name… a quality,not something organized.

If authentic religiousness spreads all over the world the religions will fade away...

20 March 2010 at 13:16  
Blogger Theresa said...


I, like my co religionists, feel deeply betrayed by the abuse against children and the cover up. There is no question of me closing my eyes to that. What we are dealing with here, is a specific allegation that the Pope did this. It is patently untrue and you still haven't admitted that - you've slipped onto a whole debate about Crimen Solicitationis instead. Only if we fall, will you finally open your eyes and realise just how much good our church does, and how many battles it has fought on behalf of the good. But it will be too late by then. You will be in Pastor Niemoller's position.

'Then they came for the Catholics,
And I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant..'

20 March 2010 at 15:18  
Anonymous len said...

Quite the reverse in fact.
I believe the catholic church has done nothing but harm to christianity.

20 March 2010 at 16:17  
Blogger Theresa said...


I give up. I know you're not going to click and you're not going to admit any good on behalf of my church. Fine. But from now on, every time you say that the Pope covered up abuse, you will do so knowing that you are not telling the truth. I will have to be content with that.

20 March 2010 at 16:43  
Anonymous len said...

I believe the catholic church will and should fall because the foundations are not only faulty but they are rotten.
To take the moral high ground on the pretention that the pope knew nothing of these abuses is ridiculous.
I remain unconvinced that the pope knew nothing of these scandals and only'came out'when he found it unavoidable.The whole point of the discussion ( In case you missed it) was the vatican had a deliberate cover up policy, Crimen Sollicitationis.You seem to have a different interpretation of this document.
I don`t doubt that the catholic church does some good but so do many secular charities.

I believe catholicism like Islam to be a false religion and is a travesty of the relationship God was establishing through the Lord Jesus Christ.

As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its own authority and bind its people to “another gospel,” it is the spiritual duty of all true Christians to oppose Roman Catholic doctrine with biblical truth and to call all Catholics to true salvation. Meanwhile, evangelicals must not capitulate to the pressures for artificial unity. They cannot allow the gospel to be obscured, and they cannot make friends with false religion, lest they become partakers in their evil deeds (2 John 11).

20 March 2010 at 16:45  
Anonymous len said...

Theresa ,
I do not accept your version of the 'truth'and do not accept ,and totally refute your religion.
You are living and promoting a lie!

20 March 2010 at 16:48  
Anonymous len said...

Slightly off thread but the foundation of Catholicism was,
Constantine The corruption of the Anointed Way( the true church, the ekklesia) began in earnest in 312 CE when the Roman General Constantine claimed to have seen a sign in the sky, motivating him to aspire to the imperial throne. Thus dawns the Universal Era of church history. The vision the general claimed to have seen was a fiery cross superimposed in front of the sun. He attests to hearing a voice cry out: "In this sign, conquer." Ignorant of the symbolism, Catholics believe that this miraculous signal formed the basis of Constantine's conversion to Christianity, leading to the birth of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet history confirms an entirely different conclusion. Constantine's coinage continued to be emblazoned with crosses in honor of Mithras, the Unconquerable Sun (Sol Invictus). The voice was Satanas Diabolos .

20 March 2010 at 17:05  

Opus Dei :

Do you have any thoughts of your own or is everything you say cut and pasted from New Age websites?

It is considered an academic crime to plagiarize, i.e. to use the words of others without proper attribution. It is a form of lying.

20 March 2010 at 18:48  
Blogger Theresa said...


You just keep going don't you? Constantine did have the sign of the Sol Invictus on his coinage, but stopped putting it there @ 325/326 AD just after the council of Nicea, when he made Christianity the state religion. He didn't get baptised until he was on his deathbed and wasn't the best of Christians that way, but he did become a believer and he did put away pagan things, including Mithras. And symbols mean what they mean to that person. I think it's perfectly sensible to have a cross as a Christian symbol, as Jesus was crucified.

Right, that's enough. I've things to do and people to see and a house to clean. Heroes is on as well. Nite, nite, Len..

20 March 2010 at 21:07  
Blogger adrian said...

I'm confused, according to the EU, Paedophilia is legal.

the eu, islam and paedophilia

The EU rules IN Paedophilia

Germany declares paedophilia legal

20 March 2010 at 23:11  
Blogger adrian said...

Isn't it in the Communist manifesto that they would eventually destroy Christianity in the west.
Scandals like this would certainly do the trick, and I note

These guys are not mentioned

So is the Pope a Communist or a Zionist maybe.

20 March 2010 at 23:13  
Anonymous len said...

Theresa,once again we differ. Constantine apparently ditched Mars,apollo,and Victory after his'dream experience'but continued to worship Mithras and have mithras images on coins for at least TEN years after his 'experience'.
Interestingly the Chi Rho symbol(CRISTOS) which played such an important part in establishing Constantine as sole heir to the empire did not feature as a dominant motif on his coins.In fact only a few,somewhat rare bronze coins minted in Constantinople minted in about 327AD feature this mark.
It was only following Constantine`s death and the subsequent reign of his successors that the symbol became popular on coins minted by the Empire.
And the cross?

The first appearance of a cross in Christian artwork was on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th century. It was a Greek cross with arms of equal length and Jesus' body had no place on it. The first portrayals of crucifixion on a cross did not appear until the 7th century CE. This particular cross took the shape of a letter "T". "T", the initial of the name Tammuz. This shape is from the form of the Tau Cross. The church may have copied this symbol from the Pagan Druids who made crosses like this to represent the Thau, or god. St. Philip was allegedly crucified on a cross like this.

Later on in Christian history, the Tau Cross became the Roman Cross that most everyone is familiar with today. The Romans sometimes executed people on a Tau Cross and sometimes a Roman cross. There were times they used a simple stake and would forego the cross all together.

It is not likely that Jesus actually hung on a cross at all but instead hung on a tree, stake, or pole. The original gospels written in Greek used the word "stauros" to refer to the structure used for execution. This word means a vertical pole with no crossbar. Jesus may have been hung on a tree (Acts 5:30) (1 Peter 2:24)

21 March 2010 at 00:24  
Blogger Theresa said...

Hi Len,

I have come across these arguments before. I have no doubt that pagan symbols were adopted by the Christian church, some knowingly, some unknowingly. The fact remains that a symbol means what it means to a person. To Christians, a cross means Christ. To worshippers of Tammuz (if there are any left) it means Tammuz. And so on.

'It is not likely that Jesus actually hung on a cross at all but instead hung on a tree, stake, or pole. The original gospels written in Greek used the word "stauros" to refer to the structure used for execution. This word means a vertical pole with no crossbar. Jesus may have been hung on a tree (Acts 5:30) (1 Peter 2:24)'

I've come across this before as well. He would have been hung on a cross shape; the torture of crucifixion demanded it. It is basically a slow form of suffocation where your chest muscles are constantly expanded. The only way to breathe is to raise yourself up on your hands, which of course is agonisingly painful. And the latin 'cruceo' points to its shape as well.

21 March 2010 at 11:47  
Anonymous Opus Dei said...


Christians don't give any arguments, you simply condemn.

Your condemnations are meaningless.

It simply shows the poverty of your intelligence.

It simply shows the anger and rage that is boiling within you.

Philip, if you are not religious, how can you help others to be religious?

What truth are you defending?

What truth is Christianity defending?

First you have to have the truth, only then you can defend it.

The end result of believing, of having faith in a truth that you have not realized yourself.

It is hearsay.

The question is knowing the truth.

Anybody who creates a question, creates a doubt, creates an air of skepticism, is dangerous because he is disturbing so many people's comfortable lives of ignorance.

That's why Christians are so afraid in case science should discover anything which goes against the Bible,

That was the reasoning of the pope when he said to Galileo, "You should change in your book where you have written that the earth goes around the sun.

It should be changed because according to the Bible the sun goes around the earth."

And Galileo said, "Just a small statement: what difference does it make to you?"

And the pope said, "It is not a question of a small statement.

If one statement in the Bible is proved wrong, then suspicion arises in the believers, that if one statement is wrong then what guarantee is there about other statements?

And if God can write one statement wrong, then he is not infallible.

Perhaps, in the whole history of the popes, only one pope was honest.

This pope was Pope Leo the Tenth in the sixteenth century.

He is reported to have said, "It has served us well, this myth of Christ.'

If one brick out of your temple is taken, then the danger is that other bricks may start falling.

And once doubt arises, there is no end; and doubt has arisen.

Things are coming closer to an ultimate exposure...

21 March 2010 at 16:09  

Opus Dei:

I don't think readers need for you to keep transcribing, wholesale, comments from other web sites. We can read them for ourselves. Do you have any ideas of your own?

21 March 2010 at 17:22  
Anonymous len said...

' only way to breathe is to raise yourself up on your hands, which of course is agonisingly painful."

We disagree once again,
The only way to breath was to push yourself up by your LEGS which gained purchase by the nail through the ankles.That is why the romans broke the legs so the person being crucified cannot push themselves up enabling themselves to breathe.

I think this could go on forever so I will bow out now, thanking you for your time and His Grace for his patience!
God Bless both of you.

21 March 2010 at 19:29  
Blogger Theresa said...


Legs and hands. God bless, you're one of the few I actually like on this forum..

21 March 2010 at 21:35  
Anonymous Opus Dei said...


Philip, Do you not have anything intelligent to say, what truth have you realized? that your little finger fits perfectly in your left nostril, come on dazzle us with your truth, I challenge you to even give one intelligent argument for christianity,other wise you may think you are some big intellectual giant, but what original ideas do you have?

Religiousness simply means a challenge to grow.

It has nothing to do with your so-called religions, it has nothing to do with God, it has nothing to do with priesthood: it has something to do with you and your possibilities of growth.

Truth is always alive, eternally alive.

It cannot be confined in words; the language is wordless.(No-Mind)

You can see it only when you have seen it within yourself; otherwise
you don't know the language.

Consciousness is always of the present.

It is your innermost core.

It opens up only in deep meditation.

In the real journey of life, your own intuition is your only teacher.

You have your guide within you.

Have you looked at the word ‘intuition’? It is the same as ‘tuition’.

Tuition is given by teachers, from outside; intuition is given by your
own nature, from inside.

Intuition cannot be translated into intellect.

A bridge between the intellect and intuition will give you a
tremendous clarity, understanding, a new kind of intelligence of which
you are absolutely unaware, and the more intuition takes possession of
you, the more intellect has to function as a servant.

This is real richness. This is real power.

But you were thinking that RELIGIOUSNESS is something extraordinary, very special, is attained by very special people.

It was not your thinking; this has been told to you for centuries.

This is the way the whole of humanity has been deceived for thousands of years: Religiousness is something so extraordinary, it happens only to special people, prophets,messiahs, saviors, incarnations of God.

It is not for the ordinary and the common people.

And you have accepted that conditioning.

You have been befooled for centuries.

Naturally, humanity has remained in darkness.

The true religion has no name, it cannot have any name.

Buddha lived it, Jesus lived it – but remember, Jesus was not a
Christian and Buddha was not a Buddhist, he had never heard of the

All Authentic Religiousness is Intuitive.(No-Mind)



Wake up!

PS.Dialogue is possible between two blind men; they can discuss ad
infinitum about light without coming to any conclusion.

Dialogue is impossible between two persons who can see light: the
dialogue is unnecessary; light is the experience of both.

The third possibility is that one man may be able to see light, and
the other may be blind...

22 March 2010 at 04:46  

Opus Dei: Dialogue is also impossible with a person whose chief argument form (ad hominem excepted) is the repetition, without citation, of the incoherent ramblings of a discredited guru, who in 1988 admitted that his claim to be called God was a joke, and later confirmed this by not rising from the dead.

22 March 2010 at 12:29  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...


I think that the point is; if you repeat the circular argument often enough it becomes a mantra and, therefore, it is true.

The trouble with the truth being inside us is that the search for truth leads back to ourselves leading us into an infinite loop. This is, quite literally, a dead end.

But I suppose if you have a circular argument, you may as well repeat it.

22 March 2010 at 12:49  

It faith at 12:49
"The trouble with the truth being inside us is that the search for truth leads back to ourselves leading us into an infinite loop. This is, quite literally, a dead end."

Well said!

22 March 2010 at 13:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The trouble with the truth being inside us is that the search for truth leads back to ourselves leading us into an infinite loop. This is, quite literally, a dead end."



Philip, has it ever occurred to you that all the clarifications you seek clarify only thought?

Thought can never, ever help us to understand anything that is beyond mind, that is no mind.




The fifth gospel of Thomas was written in India.

It has not been included in the Bible, it was not available to Constantine, who was compiling, and who was deciding what was to be included and what was not to be included.

It was because of him that all these ideas and mythologies and fictions have been added to the life of Jesus.

You will be surprised to know that Indian Christianity is the oldest Christianity in the world; the Vatican comes three hundred years afterwards.

Jesus sent Thomas to south India.

Thomas, is the disciple closest to Jesus. But his sayings are not included in the Bible, because the real Jesus and his closest disciples have to be excluded - they are too dangerous.






(The Fifth Gospel of Thomas)

The kingdom of God has been preached as if it is always somewhere else: in time, in space, but always somewhere else - not here and now.

Why has this happened?

Why is the kingdom of God not here and now?

Why in the future, or why somewhere else?

It is because of the human mind.

It is not anywhere else, it is exactly where you are this moment.

Christians have completely missed Jesus, because their mind goes on

What have they interpreted?

A master is not a man who teaches you, a master is a man who awakens you.

A master is not a man who has some information to give to you, a
master is a man who is going to give you a glimpse into your own

You can only change yourself, and the moment you are changed the world starts changing, because you are a vital part in it.

Self-knowledge happens only to a wordless mind - not knowledge that
you gather through the mind, but knowledge that you come to possess
when you encounter yourself.

Self-knowledge is a transforming force, nothing else is to be done.

The moment you know, change occurs.

Knowledge itself is transforming; it is not that first you know and
then you do something to change.

Knowledge is not a method, it is not a means; knowledge is the end in itself.

Accept life as it is, and be thankful for it as it is; have a deep gratitude - that's what makes a religious man.

And once you accept the whole, you become whole.

All divisions disappear, a deep silence ascends in you...

Osho - The Mustard Seed.

Previous material used from Osho:

Christianity the deadliest poison.

Transmission of the lamp.

The Rebel.

The Greatest Challenge.

Socrates Poisoned Again After 25 Centuries.

22 March 2010 at 17:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...


You are a psycho-head.

So: shut your gob.

22 March 2010 at 21:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D. Singh: "I discovered that if one man could rise from the dead: then it is possible for another man."

How did you dicover that, it happened to you? you really sound intelligent...

They have tried for two thousand years to make Christianity a special religion, unique, far above any other religion for reasons which are all bogus.

Jesus' resurrection is completely bogus.

Jesus reached India.

His grave - it is in Kashmir in India.

And the reason for this coincidence is that Kashmiris are basically Jews.

They are one of the tribes of Jews who lost their way while Moses was
finding Israel.

And a very strange coincidence: Moses died in Kashmir, he settled with the group, and Jesus also died in Kashmir.

A Jewish family - and Jews are very rare in India - still has been
taking care of two graves.

Jesus was crucified, but the Jewish way of crucifixion is such that an
ordinary, healthy man takes at least forty-eight hours to die on the cross - because death comes only by the blood slowly leaving through your hands and your feet.

And Jesus was only thirty-three, and perfectly healthy, young.

It was a conspiracy with Pontius Pilate because Pontius Pilate was not a Jew, he was a Roman, and Judea was under the Roman Empire.

He could not see what was wrong in Jesus. He had not committed any
crime, and if he goes on his donkey saying to people, "I am the only
begotten son of God" - if you want to believe it, you can; if you
don't want to believe it, you don't have to.

But he was not a criminal type.

At the most you could think that he is a little eccentric, a crackpot;
or you can think he is just a buffoon.

He must have looked like a buffoon - riding on a donkey followed by
twelve fools, none of whom had any education, none of whom had any
idea of what religion is.

It was a joke!

People could have laughed and enjoyed it - there was nothing to be taken seriously.

Pontius Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus, so he made an
arrangement - because he felt that he was crucifying a very innocent
man - that Jesus should be put on the cross as late as possible on

So it was delayed and delayed, and when finally he was put on the
cross, he was left there for only six hours.

Nobody has ever died on the Jewish cross in six hours in the whole of history.

And then came the sabbath, and Jews stop every action.

And this was the strategy: they had to bring down Jesus' body.

Perhaps he was feeling weak - blood had gone out, but he was not dead
- and he was put in a cave.

And then it was very easy for Pontius Pilate - because Roman soldiers were guarding the cave - to allow Jesus' followers to take him out of Judea as quickly as possible.

Those wounds healed.

In India he remained silent with the group that had traveled with him.

He had learned the hard way that to say, "I am the only begotten son
of God, I am the last messiah, the one you have been waiting for" just
brings crucifixion and nothing else.

No miracle happened.

Thomas traveled with him.

He sent Thomas to south India, and made it clear: "Don't talk about
those things we were talking about in Judea."

But in India it is not a problem

So Jesus had been in India before, also, and after the crucifixion he
was back again.

He knew that in India nobody bothers about these things.

The resurrection is absolutely false; and for two thousand years these have been the pillars of Christianity, but there is nothing which can be said to be spiritual.

The people who are trying to achieve reality through the mind are simply imagining things...

Osho - The Mustard Seed

23 March 2010 at 04:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One day, Jesus wakes up in a bad mood. He is feeling depressed and lethargic. In fact, a typical Monday-morning feeling.

He wanders around heaven looking for someone to cheer him up and finally arrives at the Pearly Gates where Saint Peter is interviewing the new arrivals.

Suddenly he sees an old man with a long white beard whose face looks familiar.

He goes up to him. "Excuse me sir," says Jesus, "but your face seems familiar. I am sure we have met. What did you do on earth?" The old man smiles. "As a matter of fact," he says, "I am a carpenter and lived a full and happy life until my son left home and became world famous. I never saw him again."

Jesus looks at him with astonishment and says with delight, "Dad!" The old man opens his eyes wide and rushes forward with outstretched arms, crying, "Pinocchio!

23 March 2010 at 04:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...


If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

23 March 2010 at 08:49  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...


You have chosen the path of knowledge and intelligence. Christians have chosen the path of love and forgiveness brought by "a man who must have looked a buffoon, riding a donkey followed by twelve fools".

Now it's time to turn off your mind, relax and float downstream. Good luck in your infinite loop.

23 March 2010 at 08:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Christians have chosen the path of love and forgiveness'

The qualities of love and compassion.

Man has not experienced them, because they are above the conscious mind.

You have to go beyond your conscious mind to have some glimpse of the glorious world of real values, truth, sincerity, love, friendliness, compassion, sympathy, sensitivity, appreciation of beauty, grace.

Love means, be egoless, be centered, remain blissful, be grateful.

This is what the meaning is: live through your being, not through your acts, because acts are on the surface, being is in the depth.

The real thing is not what you do, the real thing is what you are.

Meditation is the way to know what this consciousness is.

And once you come to know what this consciousness is, you have found a master key, because the same consciousness exists all over the universe.

There is no God, but the universe is fully conscious; it is pure consciousness.

Meditation is a totally different world.

It needs no God. It is not prayer; it is not addressed to anyone. It is a search within. You are alive, you are conscious, but you are not aware what this consciousness is.

But the West, unfortunately, has missed the dimension of meditation, and it has missed because of Judaism, Christianity, Islam - which have dominated the Western sphere and forced people to pray to a fictitious god.

Meditation does not need God, meditation does not need any prayer.

Meditation is simply sitting in deep silence so that you can sink to your very center, it is sinking within yourself. It has nothing to do with anybody else. Meditation leads you to your own reality.

So anybody can practice it - whether he is a Hindu or a Christian or a Jew or a Mohammedan, it doesn't matter. What his religion is, is irrelevant; he can still meditate. He may not even believe in any religion, he may be an atheist; still he can meditate.

Once the mind is taken away, you will be surprised that behind the mind is their real treasure. And the mind was only a mirror, it was reflecting the treasure, but it had no treasure in itself. The treasure is behind the mind - that is your being.

That's what meditation is, it is a state of no-mind.

It is taking away the mind and giving you a chance to see not the reflection of the treasure of your being, but the treasure itself.

Then it is easily possible for millions of people to become undivided within themselves. And they will be the first group of humanity to become harmonious. And their harmoniousness, their beauty, their compassion, their love - all their qualities - are bound to resound around the world...

Osho - Light on the path

23 March 2010 at 12:00  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...


It's amasing to me the lengths people will go to in order to avoid God. Sending Jesus to India is a new one for me.

I do not think we inhabit the same planet. You appear to inahbit the planet of Meditation - the planet of mindless knowledge!

23 March 2010 at 13:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus was trained in one of the oldest secret schools. The school was called Essenes.

The teaching of the Essenes is pure Vedanta. That's why Christians don't have a record of what happened to Jesus before
his thirtieth year. They have a little record of his childhood, and
they have a record after his thirtieth year up to the thirty-third, when he was crucified - they know a few things.

But a phenomenon like Jesus is not an accident; it is a long preparation, it cannot happen
just any moment.

Jesus was continuously being prepared during these thirty years. He was first sent to Egypt and then he came to India. In Egypt he learned one of the oldest traditions of secret methods, then in India he came to know about the teachings of Buddha, the Vedas, the Upanishads, and he passed through a long preparation.

Those days are not known because
Jesus worked in these schools as an unknown disciple.

And Christians have knowingly dropped those records, because they would not like the son of God to also be a disciple of somebody else.

They would not like the very idea that he was prepared, taught, trained - that looks humiliating. They think the son of God comes absolutely ready.

Nobody comes absolutely ready.

But to say that Jesus was perfect when he was born, to emphasize this
fact, Christians have dropped all the records.

This training of Jesus - moving into Egypt and India, learning from
Egyptian secret societies, then Buddhist schools, then Hindu Vedanta - made him a stranger to the Jews.

Why did he become so much of a
stranger to the Jews? Why couldn't the Jews absorb him? Why couldn't
they forgive him? - they have not forgiven him yet! What was the

He was bringing something alien, something foreign; he introduced some secret which didn't belong to the race. That's why the crucifixion happened.

But Jesus is not only revolutionary, he doesn't belong either. How has it happened that he doesn't belong to the Jews?

Christians have no answer for it. From where did he bring this alien teaching?

From Egypt and from India.

India has been the source of all religions. India has been the basic
source of even those religions which are against Hinduism.

Why has it happened that India has been the basic source of all religions?

India is the oldest civilization, and the whole mind of India has been working and working and working in the dimension of religion.

It has come upon all the secrets of religion - no secret is unknown.

Just as the Greek mind is the source of science - the whole scientific development comes from the Greek mind, the logical mind, the Aristotelean mind - all mysticism comes from India.

And only two types of mind exist in the world: one is Greek, the other is Indian.

The Greek mind is mathematical, the Hindu mind is mystical.

All mysticism comes from India; just as the sun rises in the East, all mysticism rises in the East - and India is the heart...

23 March 2010 at 17:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...




The Fifth Gospel of Thomas

If you look without, the world of the many exists; if you look within, then the world is one.

If you go outside you may achieve much, but you will miss the one.

The pearl is symbolic of the one, the inner.

And that one is your very center; if you miss it you have missed all.

You may attain much but that much will not count much in the end,
because unless one attains to oneself nothing is attained.

If you are a stranger to yourself, even the whole world will not fulfill you.

If you have not got into your own being, then all the riches will make you even poorer.

The truth is so clear, but still we go on missing.

Man, if he lives with the mind, can never be innocent - and only in innocence does the divine descend, or do you ascend to the divine.

Innocence is the door.

Mind is cunning, calculating, it is clever, and because of this
cleverness you miss - you miss the reality of life.

If you are not awake, you are not here, you simply believe that you are.

This belief won't help.

You are not alert, you are not awake: you simply think that you are awake and alert.

Your sleep continues from birth to death.

If somebody came to Jesus to ask what he should do to change, Jesus would say:

You cannot do anything to change unless you become awake.

What can you do?

What can a man who is fast asleep do to change his dreams?

The deepest urge in man is to be totally free.

Freedom from mind, is the goal.


Jesus calls it the kingdom of God...

Osho - The Mustard Seed

23 March 2010 at 17:11  
Blogger Theresa said...


You can say what you like about the contributers here, but the one thing they're not is boring. All life is here. Very catholic. And I got the 200th comment - yay!

23 March 2010 at 19:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older