³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

He wouldsn't have been my 1st choice or any for that matter. Still we live in a free society and we can express our vies for or against. There is so much more I'd like to say but I might say something I regret so I'll end it there.

What happened to the original thread of posts on 19th December?

I think the key word is "significant". So I'm glad Will you agreed with my nomination.

And used a nicer photograph of the Holy Father than usual.

It just proves, if proof were needed, that it a pointless exercise. Since there is no moral or value judgment implied by the choice, then we might as well say that Adolf Hitler was probably person of the year in 1939 since he dominated the news on the Sudenland, then over all of Czechoslovakia, then over Poland, then over the start of the war.

Who cares who or what dominates the media? Most of the media trivialise issues anyway, so ‘the conversation’ as far as it is concerned has been pretty superficial. With a few notable exceptions, there has been little real probing of Benedict’s role in the cover-up of child sex abuse cases.

As for the Pope’s part in ‘the conversation’, he certainly hasn’t done much of this himself. Yes, he has pontificated, but has he listened to others? The Vatican even effectively told the Murphy Inquiry to mind its own business by not even replying to its request and instead privately suggesting that it was offended at the failure to uphold its ‘sovereignty’.

If 2010 was the Pope's year, then there is not much hope for us.

My main criticism is that whereas much of ‘the conversation’ about the Pope in private that I have heard
has been critical of him, most of the mainstream media coverage, especially over the UK visit, has been sycophantic.

Yes, there have been probing programmes about Brady and others in Ireland, e.g. on Talkback and UTV, but they have largely stopped short of probing at the top. In other words, the media have largely let Benedict off the hook.

Poor choice - a case of style (and that is debatable) over substance.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: it would be a good thing if those who appeal to 'morality' would have the decency to hold to a philosophy in which morality actually possesses objective validity. It's one thing to criticise the Pope from a position of moral objectivity, by saying that his actions do not measure up to an established 'moral yardstick'. But it's quite another thing to attempt to offer a moral critique of someone without recourse to a yardstick at all! So to those materialists, who fashion their 'yardstick' by entirely subjective means, I would say: Get your own moral house in order before judging others (a good place to start would be some of the views expressed on one of the open threads concerning that extreme form of child abuse called 'abortion').

Here is the view of the 2006 'Person of the Year' concerning morality, as revealed in a conversation with Jaron Lanier (a computer scientist):

"JL: There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.

RD: All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth."

(emphasis added)

So the 2006 'Person of the Year' believes that truth does not contain morality, whereas the 2010 'Person of the Year' (for all his faults and possibly serious failings) believes that the truth most certainly does contain morality.

Well I know which one of those two is more worthy of my respect: I would much prefer to be in the team of someone who believes that rules exist, even if we break them, than to follow someone who doesn't break the rules, because he asserts that there are no rules to be broken!!

LSV,

At the risk of hijacking the thread (which I believe you've already attempted to do, and after which I'll post no more) I don't need my morals to be provided for me by someone else. I do good things and live to my morals based on what I think is best for myself and others, not out of fear that if I don't, some mystical sky daddy will punish me, and if I do, I'll get a nice shiny reward.

On that regard, the foundation for freely choosen, no benefit morals far surpasses any religously inspired and punishment/reward enforced rulebook.

In addition, your quote states '...a large group of people... ...what they perceive...'. Pecerption of a moral vacuum, and Dawkins stating that their perception is 'tough' is not the same as "...truth does not contain morality."

Seriously, get it right. You can't even quote mine properly.

I hope that the Holy See will cooperate fully with the NI inquiry into historic institutional child abuse.

I also hope that the two survivors of abuse who were awarded the accolade last year are not too disheartened by the news of the latest winner. The word "accolade" is French in origin (to embrace): I cannot embrace the likes of Ratzinger.

Natman (@ 7) -

"At the risk of hijacking the thread (which I believe you've already attempted to do..."

Your belief is mistaken, I'm afraid. You will notice that the Pope has been subject to moral criticism on this and similar threads, and I am therefore addressing the basis of that. So if you want to believe that debating an issue is equivalent to 'hijacking a thread' then dream on, Natman.

"I do good things and live to my morals based on what I think is best for myself and others..."

So in what way am I hijacking this thread, when you have just supported my view of the morality of materialists when I wrote that it is 'subjective'? "I do good things and live to my morals based on what I think is best..." That sounds suspiciously like subjectivism to me. And if it is not subjectivism, then what do you do when someone else follows a moral code which they think is best for them, but which conflicts with yours? Who is right??

"On that regard, the foundation for freely choosen, no benefit morals far surpasses any religously inspired and punishment/reward enforced rulebook."

And to think that you have claimed in the past to have such a great knowledge of the Bible. You clearly don't even understand the first thing about the Christian view of morality, which is not based on the kind of threat of punishment deterrent that you have deluded yourself into thinking it is. Ever heard of the grace of God? Well, of course, being an atheist, you don't believe in such a reality. Hence you will never understand beyond the simplistic reward / punishment enforcement regime so typical of the naturalistic understanding of 'religion'.

"Seriously, get it right. You can't even quote mine properly."

Oh yes, I can quote people properly (and quoting other people it is a perfectly legitimate thing to do). Dawkins was saying that these people are wrong to see the naturalistic evolutionary process as amoral, but that it was 'tough' (i.e. derogatorily saying "get used to it") that reality ("truth") is devoid of morality. Therefore my interpretation of his words is absolutely spot on.

Oh, I nearly forgot... and a Happy New Year to you.

LSV,

You've never really explained where this 'morality' particle is. I'm sure there's hundreds of scientists looking for the inherant morality in the universe, because we all know that the universe is fair, and justice reigns supreme. I doubt the loving and benevolent god that you adore would never let bad things happen to good people, afterall, morality is inherant to the universe, isn't it? Unless of course, you're Job, to whom god had no problems in allowing to be tortured, his family killed and his life ruined, all to prove a point with the devil - but it's okay! He had it all returned much greater afterwards!

"...not based on the kind of threat of punishment deterrent that you have deluded yourself into thinking it is"

where I got that idea. Gosh.

The Pope cannot talk to anyone about morality as long as he remains at the head of one of the world's primary organisations responsible for genocide, bigotry, dogmatic aherance to outdated precepts and abuse. If he was truely serious about morals and ethics, he'd concede that the church is wrong on a lot of issues and should apologise. I'm might not like the Pope or anything he stands for, but I do recognise why Will selected him as Person of the Year.

"...what do you do when someone else follows a moral code which they think is best for them, but which conflicts with yours? Who is right??

See . And I find it ironic that you, as an ardent theist with dogmatic and heavily strictured rules you must obey and believe to get your 'reward' in heaven, are asking about conflicts of morals.

Genocide? think you've over-reached again.

See and that oldie,

Don't try and handwave them away, they're proven real cases of Catholic genocide that the Church has consistently ignored since.

And I notice you didn't deny the bigotry, dogmatic aherance to outdated precepts and abuse :-)

Mass murder in the name of the lord (or by god him/herself) is rife in the OT, including slaughtering cheeky brats:

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces." (2nd Kings 2:23-24)

Or how about pure genocide:
"You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. If you do, they will trap you. Perhaps you will think to yourselves, 'How can we ever conquer these nations that are so much more powerful than we are?' But don't be afraid of them! Just remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all the land of Egypt. Remember the great terrors the LORD your God sent against them. You saw it all with your own eyes! And remember the miraculous signs and wonders, and the amazing power he used when he brought you out of Egypt. The LORD your God will use this same power against the people you fear. And then the LORD your God will send hornets to drive out the few survivors still hiding from you! "No, do not be afraid of those nations, for the LORD your God is among you, and he is a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will drive those nations out ahead of you little by little. You will not clear them away all at once, for if you did, the wild animals would multiply too quickly for you. But the LORD your God will hand them over to you. He will throw them into complete confusion until they are destroyed. He will put their kings in your power, and you will erase their names from the face of the earth. No one will be able to stand against you, and you will destroy them all." (Deuteronomy 7:16-24)

Mccamely, post 11. You obviously don't know the Vatican very well if you can't remember Vasari's mural commemorating the St Bartholemew's Day massacre in France. Does 100,000 people in a week count as genocide? Or do you prefer the word *cleansing*. Priests also took part in the killing. A century later there was a second wave of persecution , with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (which had initially been invoked to end the religious wars) Many Huguenots fled to countries like Britain. But yet, I guess there is a bright side-Many of those that made it to Britain were highly skilled. Skilled in arts, science and Industry- they were a tremendous gain to Britain and the fledgling Industrial Revolution. So I guess Catholic bigotry supplied Protestant countries with the people needed to kick-start the modern day amenities we enjoy today in the west.

I don't think Pope Benedict had any thing to do with the crusades, the Cathars or the St Bartholemew's day massacre.

And of course no one's ever tried to kill Catholics.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

mccamelyc,

Doesn't the Pope represent the Catholic Church in its entirety? Isn't he the directly appointed successor and Gods own representative on Earth? Is he not more than just a mere man but the very embodiment of the Church and everything it stands for and believes?

Or is he just an old man, tasked with running the show?

You can't have it both ways, either he's responsible for the Church and represents all it's ever done and stands for, or he's not. In which case why is he so important to catholics?

I'm not criticising the man (regardless of what he may or may not do on a personal level) but I'm criticising the Pope, who is more than just ol' Ratzmeister.

There have been countless Catholic believers who have achieved many remarkable things, who have laid down their lives for those in need and who have genuinely strived for peace and the betterment of mankind. That is unquestionable. However that does not counter the actions of the church itself, which is embodied by the pope. Like it or not, the pope holds the ultimate responisbility for the church on earth and so must be examined in the context of the 'big picture'...and the behaviour of the church has been anything but good over the centuries.
As Natman rightly says, this isn't about criticizing individuals although that can easily be done with this particular incarnation of pontiff. In fact his profile, for good or evil, is exactly why he 'won' person of the year. If the Pope is the representative of god on earth, the he is culpable for the actions of the church he leads. If not, then the esteem in which he is held in the catholic world is much harder to comprehend.

Oh dear, broke house rules! Well although I wrote nothing speculative, just fact, I'll have another try :P

Since the topic of genocide had been brought up, this may be of interest. Not that long ago (Jan 1009),the Pope lifted the excommunication "of four breakaway bishops including a Briton who has said the Nazis did not use gas chambers" (The Telegraph)

Quote from Reuters

"The pope issues a decree lifting the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops, thrown out of the Church in 1988 for being ordained without Vatican permission. The four bishops lead the ultra-conservative Society of Saint Pius X, which has rejected modernisation of Roman Catholic worship and doctrine.

-- One of the four bishops, British-born Richard Williamson, has made several statements denying the full extent of the Holocaust".

In the very same week as the lifting of the excommunication, one of the four Pius X Bishops (Richard Williamson) went on Swedens SVT channel and stated -

"There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies!"

Given the Popes own background in the events surrounding this issue in Germany at the time, it is a little surprising that the Pope wished to rehabilitate a Holocaust denier. I really don't think anything more can be said on the issue without fear of getting this post removed.

Perhaps one more point -it was an article from the thread "In the news this week"- Apostolic Visitation: Cardinal hears of arrogance in church.

"on the uses of authority and how this could lead to ‘’the engineering of a false consensus’’ that allowed Nazi officers to listen to classical music after a day’s work in a concentration camps"

My feeling is perhaps there is a false consensus and a desensitization to the issues surrounding the Holocaust within leading right wing elements of the Catholic Church and that the parallel universe this inhabits is very damaging on many levels. That we live in a modern society where devout Catholics stay partisan when issues like this remain outstanding is baffling to the mind and deeply upsetting to the soul

Another issue I feel needs raised, but may be at odds with the 2009 excommunication lift, is why no Pope has ever posthumously excommunicated Hitler. There is a president for it, with the Cadaver Synod and the posthumous excommunication of Formosus in the 9th Century. Although in that instance they had his cadaver which they'd exhumed, his body seated on a throne and the charges were read out to him