Collegiate Times

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Mr. McVey - for someone who has lambasted America for lack of tolerance toward minorities in the past, you show a disturbing lack of tolerance for other people's chosen faith.

I don't believe Gabe is intolerant toward the faith itself, but rather the injustices perpetrated by the leaders of the faith. I believe it's fair for him to question how people can look to this man as a leader of their faith. As I understand it, even the notion of papal infallibility only applies to the teachings of the Pope, not his actions. So why, then, are so many willing to look to this man for guidance in the face of some pretty damning allegations? Sometimes, even in matters of faith, reality must intervene.

Way to go, I can't believe how few news agencies fail to highlight this is simply a legal coverup. It's disgusting. The first thing this morning I Googled in the news was Bernard Law and your piece came up. This whole scene is nauseating. Thanks.

To your last point, Gabe, it's a little more complicated than simply slapping the cuffs on the Pope and hauling him off to arraignment. The church does in fact have its own disciplinary procedures, and those procedures are fairly well recognized by many of the world's countries. It is important to remember that priests, like any other man, are not infallible - they are every bit as capable of sin and immorality as anyone else. They too succumb to temptation, just like anyone else. They are capable too of abusing their authority, just like anyone else. But to a large extent, it's important to consider that, from what I know about the situation, the Vatican really doesn't know the full extent of the abuses (other than what is reported in the oft-unreliable press) - most of the abuses tend to be kept 'in-house' in the particular diocese as a matter of self-preservation by the priests involved. Is it shameful? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Immoral? Of course. But the new Pope hasn't had a whole lot of time to work, and inherited this problem from the previous Pope. It's a tricky problem to try and solve, and it isn't just so simple as firing the offending priests.

As a Catholic I am insulted by this article. Many of the points are valid, I personally believe that Bernard Law grossly mishandled the situation. However, the mocking tone that McVey takes is insulting. Calling his papal name a "stage name" and referring to our adoration of the pope as "tedious and absurd" is sickening. Quite frankly, I am surprised that the CT would print an article that is so scathing towards the Catholic church in general. On second thought, I am not surprised at all. Many of the points are valid, however, the choice of language and the tone of the article are in very bad taste.

While your article may have some valid points, your offensive choice of words was enough to make me stop reading this trash halfway through. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Now, I'm a Catholic - and I have also read enough of Gabe's columns to know his stance on religion in general. He is, I believe, rightfully skeptical of organized religion; I say rightfully because of the history of how religions have been, for lack of a better term, hijacked to fulfill non-religious ends. We look at the Crusades and the Inquisition for Catholics, the repeated splits of the Protestant sects, as well as incidents like terror bombings across the world led by primarily Muslim agents as examples of these abuses of religious authority. And I think, in general, Gabe does a pretty good job of divorcing his critiques of religious believe from his critiques of organized religion. It seems to me that this column is representative of that - and while, Gabe, I think you might have chosen a more respectful tone as the vessel for your argument, your criticisms of the failings of the purely human entity which is the Catholic Church hierarchy makes a lot of sense. A lot of people will be offended by the mocking tone this column presents - and I think that is certainly valid. But I think the broader issue, and perhaps one you didn't have time to address, Gabe, is the nature of religious institutions (ie, churches) versus religion as a principle.

First things first, I owe Ratzinger no respect until he's earned it...period. After many years of careful consideration, I've decided that the whole business (and yes, the Church is a business first and foremost) is an apocryphal, apostical criminal gang. If I offend...tough. You retain the right to ignore it. As for the idea that I'm "intolerant" toward Catholics...this is raw nonsense. No one chooses to be a Jew, or black, or Hispanic. These are accidents or ancestry and genetics. Being Irish or Italian or Puerto Rican should, IMO, be neither a source of pride or shame. One does, however, choose to be a Catholic or is John 3:16 no longer in effect. One's chosen actions are fair game for mockery and satire, so deal with it or don't. Kyle, the whole last point is kind of a joke. Of course the Massachusetts state police aren't going to arrest the pontiff for his cover-up activities while he was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith border on the criminal whether the Church has its own internal mechanism or not. These priests committed secular crimes, temptation or not (child rape, tempting?...ah, another time) these men should have been tried by secular authorities. If a similar event occurred in our public schools, there'd be a push to abolish them.

You're close Kyle, I actually think that faith serves no meaningful purpose EXCEPT for in the historical examples you've shown. The supposed good deeds of faith have their secular equivalents, while the evils of faith have their secular equivalents not among rational agents, but Hitler, Stalin and Mao. While that may serve as a valid indictment of modern secularism (I think not, but space is limited) this you too argument doesn't validate faith...it is a sufficient, but not a necessary one. As for the "good effects" of faith, that old saw doesn't say anything about whether faith is true or not, just that it makes one feel good are act better, I'd invoke Harris' comparison of believing one has a refrigerator-sized diamond buried in the yard.

I'd contend, Gabe, that faith is an innately personal thing - either you have it or you don't, and either case is fine with me so long as you don't assert that one is somehow 'better' than the other. There are arguments that make secularism seem pretty sweet, and there are arguments which are fairly compelling for faith - and none of it is really relevant. Now, all that having been said, this is an opinion page and so I can't really expect you to state anything other than your opinion - hence the apparent contempt for Catholics. I promise you, though, we aren't all the simpletons you seem to believe that we are. It isn't a question of the 'truth' of faith, as it were - and the competence of an individual shouldn't be continent upon a 'realization' that the church is somehow invalid.

Certainly there are very smart people who believe in things that seem at odds with their rational faculties. Christian apology is often compelling in it's own limited way - one can't fail to note Blaise Pascal - or dreary and uninspired, as C.S. Lewis, but it fails to address the fundamental question of faith. The major religions of the world get the origins of man and the cosmos appallingly wrong and from this original error all of the problems of their cosmologies proceed. If one really believes that one has a sacred right to a particular piece of real estate, then "question" of that faith's truth is of paramount importance. My estimation of an individual is not dimmed by their faith, in and of itself. By all means, believe that Jesus or Buddha or Mani or whoever has revealed to or for you some secret of the cosmos. I wouldn't condescend to call you unintelligent. But when these beliefs start making others' live worse - as with the Church in it's opposition to condom use in AIDS-ravaged Africa - then I reserve the right to condemn not simply the action, but the ideology that informs it...personal or not.

Gabe, I'd prefer "things which may be beyond the scope of their rational faculties" rather than "at odds with" them. Kyle applauded you for separating religion itself from faith, but you're now treading into the area of criticizing faith by pointing out the errors of the faithful.

not sure what to say other then if you are going to be in a group that is willing to tell others they are inferior(gays, people who have s3x before marriage, people of other faiths) that group should expect the same treatment right? (not directed at any one previus poster....just Catholisism in general)

Well, I mean, I guess it depends on what is considered to be a 'common sense' approach to problems, and which problems are more important. The Catholic church opposes condom distribution because it operates from the premise that people ought to be able to control themselves, and that the root of the problem is permissible promiscuity rather than safety. Condom distribution, then, is a symptomatic approach to 'curing the disease' rather than a wholistic approach to solving the problem. It's a difference of opinion argument - just as the difference between Democrats' and Republicans' tax policies are just different ways to solve a common problem. But then, political orthodoxy is sort of a religion in its own right, which brings us back to the beginning. . .

When you look at the results, though, the picture is much clearer. Developed nations with access to modern, secular education and other sources of information about contraception and prophylaxis beside the Church have far lower rates of infection than those that do not. Being that humans are simply primate mammals that are designed to "screw around", it's near-impossible to appeal to people to imply control themselves. In pre-modern Europe the pout-of-wedlock birthrate was far higher than it is now, same case here in America. But this is turning into an argument about se(x). I think that the Church was much better served when it used its more honest argument, that it's better to die righteous than live in sin...and yes political orthodoxy is a kind of religion, which is why I spurn partisan politics for the most part. I'd call myself liberal...but not dogmatically so.

Can anyone say "bigot"? Gabe McVey, you should be ashamed of yourself for writing this article. This would almost be tolerable if there were articles condemning other religions or ways of life, like Islam or homos*xuality; but I know you wouldn't have the balls to write about that. The CT is a one way street... complete and total liberal bias.

I don't think you're in a position to tell me of what I should be ashamed.

Hokie....wow i think you may be better served to check the mirror on that one. is it just me or does calling someone intolerant without an explaination seem...i don't know....INTOLERANT?

Are you conflating Islam with same-(gender) relationships? Wow, that's stunning!

and al....being gay is not a religion, i think you showed yourself to be a "bigot" in that statement alone.

Kyle, having gathered through your posts that you are not a "liberal" i'd like to hear your opinion on if the CT is liberally biased or not. I have heard it thrown around but with little to no examples or proof. I trust you will qualify your opinion no matter what it is.

alright guys give it a chance to breathe. If everyone fires the intolerant card at each other at this rate it will just catch fire and you'll need to find a new toy... er card to play with.

Brian - I suppose I'll comment once on that here, but it's not really the appropriate medium to do so (since Gabe's article is thought-provoking, even if I don't agree totally with its premise). I tend only to read the opinions page of the CT, as the news pages tend to be saturated with misstatements of facts and poor quality reporting. So from the standpoint of 'news reporting,' I'd say there really isn't enough information to attribute a bias one way or the other. The editorial page, in my view, tends to lean fairly heavily to the left - but I'm not wholly surprised by that either. When your pool of opinions writers is drawn from a crowd of 20-somethings, and when you realize that 20-somethings tend to lean heavily left on the political scale, I think the imbalance is due more to a lack of decent conservative writers to balance out the preponderance of halfway decent liberal writers (with the notable exception, in my opinion, of Brett Morris). So is the CT biased? I suppose from a technical standpoint, I'd say that yes, its politics leans a bit to the left. But I think that is de facto from being a college newspaper, staffed by college students who tend to be leftists to varying degrees anyway. I hope that answers your question . . .

Please take a moment to read. Al says "other religions or ways of life" and goes on to give an example of (1) an other religion, and (2) an other way of life. Granted, his original comment is quite accusatory in its own right, but let's not cease to understand the words printed on the page.

If you don't think the CT leans to the left you must be blind, or can't comprehend what you're reading.

I don't want to steer the conversation in this direction, because it isn't really relevant to the article - but if you read my comment, I do say that the CT leans to the left, but that it is less a factor of editorial desire and more a factor of that college students themselves tend to lean to the left.

kyle thank you for answering, and yes i'd agree with you. I just wanted to hear someone explain it rather then just level accusations. but yes i'll try to steer it back. It seems to me that most people don't have a problem with critique as long as it's not their "thing" you are criticizing. That being said we are all intitled to have and state our opinins. some here have done that, others have just made statements. if you have an opinion, have some ideas to back them up. and i failed to bring it back to subject as fully as i wanted to, but i tried.

what has been mostly skiped over here is that playing the shell game with pedophiles is immoral (even for the non-religious) and illegal. the fact that this pope has taken this man to the vatican and given him positions of power,while maybe not illegal (if it's not it should be), is certainly unethical and immoral. not that i'm saying catholics on the whole are immoral or even agree with this pope, but as a moral leader he must have studied at Bush U. (is that why he's an honorary republican?)

Be careful about conflating the terms 'immoral' and 'illegal.' Legal principles are determined by individual societies and are a distinct set of rules along with their associated punishments for breaking those rules. Something considered to be 'immoral' may well not be illegal - adultery, for instance, is likely to be considered immoral but is not, in the US, illegal. What I see in the Pope's actions are an attempt to maintain the integrity of the church while trying to figure out what *really* happened over here with the priests in question. While I don't doubt that various Bishops and Archbishops in the US have made explicit attempts to conceal the illicit actions of their subordinates, I'm not so convinced that the problem goes straight to the top of the chain - and I think what the Pope has done has been to reshuffle the deck and remove the accused offenders from places where they can do further harm, such that a more thorough investigation can take place. Some may see this as 'moving too slowly' on the matter, but I would charge that what becomes of the entire situation bears great weight for the religious balance of the world, and as such it seems like the Pope is more interested in ensuring that all facts are considered before punishments are handed down.

i see where you are going with that, but to me one big thing doesn't fit. if that was the case and he just wanted to get him out and investigate, why give him titles? and why specificly Pontifical Council for the Family? even if everything comes out that this guy didn't do what they say he did it still looks fishy right now.

Those are questions I, unfortunately, cannot answer. I think a suitable answer would be along the lines of presumption of innocence. Maybe the Pope simply isn't great with being discrete - I'm not really sure. What I do know is that there was a great deal of controversy when he was named Pope because he was from the 'old school' - traditionalist, and not unwilling to wield the staff of discipline. If what the public is looking for is a head on a platter, I'm not sure they are going to get it - that isn't really how the Catholic church works anymore. I think the Pope views his mission now, though, as providing closure for the victims and seeking ways to prevent such atrocities from happening again. Sealing the wound, so to speak, before sopping up the spilled blood (I hope that analogy made sense. . . )

ok, now to reveal a little ignorance what type of punishment can we expect? is there a vatican jail, or are we just talking about excommunication?

To be honest, I'm not quite sure. The church hasn't officially excommunicated people in years, and usually excommunication is reserved for heretics and people who straight up try to sabotage the church. I don't believe there to be a vatican jail - things of this order haven't really happened much in the history of the church. Usually, the institutional abuse has been top-down - this time, it seems to be bottom-heavy and so I'm not really sure how the church will deal with it. I doubt, though, that there will be a public hanging, if that's what you're after. . .

all i personally want to see is all the Americans accused in court. to me that should also include accomplices (anyone who knew it to be going on and moved people instead of informing authorities catholic or public) because here it is illegal. i could be overstepping my bounds in assuming this,but here it goes: i think the abused may rather see people punished then to just be paid off. again, just to be clear, that sounds kind of snarkey. i do not intend it that way.

No, I mean, I see where you are going with this. But what we are talking about now is some sort of extradition, and that requires a little more insight into the process than I can offer. What would be done in the US is one thing . . .the legal ramifications of 'demanding' people from the Vatican is something a bit different.

ok i understand. i just feel like it would be a big mistake to pay millions out, and not see some court appointed justice.

and just to clarify, i'm not loking to blame the Pope for the abuses, i just hope eventually (sooner being better then later for all concerned) we see some people in court as i don't think we'd disagree that there were crimes commited here in the US.

Agreed. However, I don't necessarily think that it's outside of the bounds of Vatican authority for them to conduct internal inquiries, at least for the Clergymen who have been relocated there. We'd expect the same from any other country from which we were seeking a prisoner to be extradited.

Well, the Holy See is a sovereign nation, so I think extradition, and even an internal legal process is not out of the question. My main beef with Ratzinger is his letter while head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith which aided and abetted the crimes by enforcing silence in the Church until the statute of limitations had run out when the proper position would've been to hand the matter over to secular authorities. There is no extraterritoriality in our dealings with the Church, I think.

yeah i heard about that last night Gabe. not cool. that implies a little more then just inheriting a problem. and no it's not out of bounds for the vatican to investigate, but our investigations shouldn't be suspended either.

i meant "our processes" not "our investigations"

On one hand, the abusers should be punished. But can the Catholic Church do anything about it? Doesn't the saying go, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone?" -John 8:7

Gabe - while I have no particular affinity for the Catholic Church, its doctrine, its outlook, and its actions, you need to realize that there is such a thing as tact. You could have easily made your point without insulting the Church as an institution -- not to mention its millions of followers.

This new Pope is uber-creepy...

You lose all credibility about 5 seconds in this article because of you ultra condescending tone, and obvious bias and hatred you have associated with the catholic church. I pity you, and wish the CT would get journalists instead of people who are angry and need to vent.

By all means, keep ignoring that there is something there under the tone of this column. I'm sure it'll make you "feel better" while in actuality it makes nothing "better". The tone overall, in my opinion, is one of trying to inject a little humor into a pretty dismal subject. Does the snarky tone inject a little bit of comedy? i think so, but that is person to person so you are entitled to disagree, but it does not change the core point.

Note Another,widely sky amount reject busy that father bad drive arrive destroy on nobody hope survey conservative review labour funny talk can scene big imply drive party apparent sexual both difficult index i household weapon baby education normally present tend animal noise performance though discuss own win training deputy enter bottom affair nod human election far increasingly worker meal lie theme dry collection dry look observe try absence credit respond refuse sir where decade prison effect south ignore record good determine state no position drink drink issue