Most Americans Like Pope Leo Better Than Trump (Or Vance)

The chart above is from the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between April 17th and 20th of a nationwide sample of 1,707 adults, with a 3.5 point margin of error.

 

I Hope He Is A Good Influence On The World

I am an atheist (and have been for over 50 years). But I recognize that religious leaders can have a great deal of influence over their followers. That influence can be for good or evil.

The Catholic conclave has chosen a new Pope - Pope Leo the 14th. Most pundits seem to think he is much like Pope Francis, and is a strong believer in social justice. I hope they are right, since he will be a strong influence on about 1.4 billion people around the world.

We shall see.

Pope Francis Has Died - Will The Next Pope Be A Progressive Or Regressive Force?

 

Pope Francis has died. While some may have wished he had gone even further, he was definitely a progressive force in the world - always coming down on the side of the poor, disadvantaged, and those outside of societal norms. He also tried to further world peace.

The question now is what will the future bring. Will the next Pope be a progressive or regressive force in the world. Will he bring the church closer to 21st century values, or sink it back into 19th or 20th century values?

You may think it odd that I am discussing this (since I have been an avowed atheist for over 50 years). But like it or not, the Catholic Church is a force in the world.

There are over 1.4 billion Catholics in the world, and most of them follow the dictates of the Pope. And because of that, the leaders of both Catholic and non-Catholic countries pay attention to papal dictates (whether they agree with them or not).

The views of the next Pope will matter. Let's hope the Cardinals are visionary enough to choose another progressive.

Thoughts Of An Atheist On The Pope's Visit

(Cartoon is by Steve Breen in the San Diego Union Tribune.)

Regular readers of this blog will know I am an atheist. I don't just not believe there is a god -- but believe religion (of all kinds) is an evil that has caused many problems and much violence all over the world. I believe the world would be a better place if there was no religion.

Having said that, you might think I would be upset at this powerful religious leader visiting this country -- and that I would join many of my fellow atheists in denigrating or making fun of the Pope's visit. But if you did think that, then you would be wrong.

While I cannot accept the religion he represents, I have to admit that I like Pope Francis as a person. I truly believe that he is a kind person, who loves all people-- including non-believers like myself. I like that he is most comfortable around the poor, the disadvantaged, and children. And I like much of the message he is sending around the world.

Like it or not, the Pope is a world leader, and his opinions resonate with many millions of people. And it is a good thing that he is using his "bully pulpit" to spread ideas like addressing the shortcomings of capitalism, helping the poor, protecting the planet from pollution and global warming, accepting refugees and immigrants, working to stop wars, and generally treating other humans in a loving and decent manner.

Those are good things, and you don't have to be religious to know that. I welcome his bringing that message to this country, and even taking it into the belly of the beast (Congress). Perhaps his visit will have an influence on people, and help them to have the courage to press forward on these progressive policies -- and help to change things for the better in this country (putting the welfare of the people above the desire for profit).

Pope Francis is not perfect. No man is perfect. But I believe he is sincere in his desire to help the poor and underprivileged and save the planet. And that makes him worthy of respect.

A Saint For Pedophiles ?

Today the Catholic Church performed an action that should be viewed as an abomination. They officially declared Pope John Paul II to be a saint of the Catholic Church.

You probably remember this pope. He 's the one that was in power when the pedophilia scandal among the priesthood was discovered. He's also the one that refused to take action for many years, and protected those priests by refusing to defrock them (and just moved them from parish to parish, so they could have new victims).

And when the scandal became so widely known that the church could no longer try to hide it, he instructed that homosexuals be discriminated against and not allowed to become priests (even though homosexuality and pedophilia have no connection). And even after the scandal was widely known, this pope continued to protect his pedophile friend, Marcial Maciel (one of the worst of the churches pedophiles, because of his high ranking in the church), ignoring the many accusations against him (which were proven to be true).

This man knew about pedophile priests for most of his papal reign, and did nothing about it. If there were a god, I can't believe he would want this man honored as a saint. His sin is too great. Frankly, I am shocked to see such a failure as a decent person honored in any way by people who call themselves christians.

Trickle-Down Is A Stupid & Failed Policy

The Pope is talking about the economic theory that everyone will benefit from giving more to the rich -- proposed in this country and instituted by the Republicans, who called it "trickle-down". It was a silly idea to begin with. All one has to do is look back through history to know that the rich and powerful never willingly give up what they have -- neither money nor power. And it is the height of idiocy to think that giving them even more would magically transform them into altruistic beings who will shower money on the poor. Taxes, a decent minimum wage, and strong unions are the tools to achieve economic justice -- not giveaways to the rich.

Even Atheists Like This Pope

Pope Francis received a singular honor this last week when he was named as Time Magazine's Person of the Year. Although I am an atheist, I have no problem with that choice -- and evidently I'm not the only atheist who feels that way. A new YouGov Poll (taken between November 28th and December 2nd of 1,170 nationwide adults) shows that atheists have a very positive impression of Pope Francis -- and the percentage of atheists with a positive impression is surprisingly higher than the percentage of catholics or other christians.

Now don't get me wrong. These atheists, including myself, do not have a high opinion of the Pope because of his religion, or because he is a religious person. We would probably like him even more if he wasn't. He is liked because he has parted from past Popes in what he has chosen to use influence for.

While other Popes chose to use their power to protect pedophile priests and to protect the vast wealth of the church, this Pope has chosen to use his influence to highlight the plight of the poor -- and to take capitalist countries to task for making corporate greed a higher priority than taking care of the poor. And that is a stance that anyone with an ounce of common decency, even non-religious people, can appreciate and support.

More Of The Pope's Comments On Poverty

(The cartoon image above is by Bill Day at caglecartoons.com.)

Pope Francis shocked many right-wingers a few days ago by actually supporting the teachings of Jesus, and rejecting a so-called "prosperity gospel" based on capitalist philosophy rather than religious teachings. I found his views refreshing, and I included a few of them in a post on 11/27/2013. The Pope's remarks were in a 84-page exhortation (far too long to post in a blog), But Rep. Alan Grayson has published more of the Pope's compelling words -- and I post them below (since I think they are important, considering the number of catholics in this, and other, countries):

No to an economy of exclusion

Just as the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say "thou shalt not" to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a "throw-away" culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised - they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the "exploited" but the outcast, the "leftovers".

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people's pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else's responsibility, and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

No to the new idolatry of money

One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf.Exodus 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise, in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies, and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics - a non-ideological ethics - would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: "Not to share one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs". [Saint John Chrysostom, De Lazaro Concio, II, 6: PG 48, 992D.]

A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favors human beings.

No to the inequality which spawns violence . . . .

Today's economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. It serves only to offer false hopes to those clamoring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an "education" that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries - in their governments, businesses and institutions - whatever the political ideology of their leaders.

Poverty Is Violence - And Inexcusable

Both of these men are right. Poverty is violence, and it is not just incomprehensible, but inexcusable, that children still go hungry in a world with so much wealth. And Americans must shoulder a lion's share of the blame, since we live in the richest country in the world. Where is our social conscience? Why do so many U.S. politicians not even want to feed the hungry in our own country, when we should be doing so much worldwide?

Bernie Welcomes A New Ally To The Fight For Economic Justice

Here is the latest missive from that inimitable Vermont Independent, Senator Bernie Sanders:

The greatest crisis facing our country today is the obscene level of wealth and income economic inequality we now see.  This is a moral issue, an economic issue, and a political issue.
 
While the very rich get richer, the middle class continues to disappear and we now have more people living in poverty than ever before.  Despite huge increases in technology and productivity, tens of millions of workers are finding it harder to feed their families, pay for health care, send their kids to college or put aside savings for retirement.
 
While large corporations are earning record-breaking profits, real unemployment is close to 14%, and youth unemployment is at 20%.  An entire generation of young people is struggling to find a place in the economy and repay their college loans. 

In recent years, with 95% of all new income going to the top 1%, we have seen a huge increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires. One family, the Walton family of WalMart, now owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans. Meanwhile, we continue to have, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world.

While the average American is increasingly alienated from the political process, billionaire families like the Koch brothers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who support their extreme right-wing views.

During the last week a new and important ally has arisen in the struggle against unfettered capitalism and wealth and income inequality.  In his recently published Exhortation, Pope Francis warns the world against the idolatry of money and the false promise of trickle-down economics.

Clearly, not everyone shares Francis’ religion, and many of us have deep differences with a number of positions taken by the Catholic Church.  Nonetheless, we can all, I think, share his commitment to economic justice and learn from his wise assessment of how modern civilization, in its relentless pursuit of profit and its dependence on “the market” to make final valuations of what is good, has lost touch with the ethical imperatives that should guide our society.  I appeal to other religious leaders to focus on matters of economic justice and to speak out from the context of their own respective traditions.

These are tough times for our country. Let’s go forward together. Thanks for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Senator Bernie Sanders

Pope Says An Unregulated Capitalism Is Tyranny -- And He's Right

The chart above shows the rather shocking poverty situation in the United States. About 16% of the population (or 49.7 million Americans) live in poverty. And that's really an undercount, since millions are put just above the poverty line by partaking in government social programs like food stamps. If you take away the help from government, the percentage jumps up to at least 17.6% of the population.

And the Republicans would like to increase the ranks of the poor. They want to significantly reduce the social programs (food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, unemployment insurance, etc.) while refusing to raise the minimum wage (or abolishing it) and reducing benefits for Social Security and Medicare -- all of which would just make the poverty situation even worse. Remember, about half of the population are in families that make less than 150% of the poverty line (putting most of them just a paycheck or two away from dropping into poverty).

And that is just the United States -- the richest country in the world (making these figures indefensible). There are many countries who are as bad or worse off than the United States. Poverty is an international problem, and it is a growing problem in most countries (including the United States). And one reason it continues to grow is the deregulation of capitalism.

In the United States, we still follow the failed Republican-initiated economic policy called "trickle-down". This policy removes regulations from corporations & financial institutions and lowers taxes for the rich while giving huge subsidies to large corporations -- and it does this while imposing a severe austerity on everyone else. The obvious (and documented) result is that the rich get richer and the ranks of the suffering poor grow larger. And the United States is not the only country that follows this pattern of deregulating capitalism and increasing poverty.

Liberals have long decried this hard-hearted and greedy policy, and now it looks like they have an ally. Churches (especially the Catholic and evangelical churches), while mouthing a concern for the poor, have supported government policies that actually work against the poor, and swell their ranks. That may be partially changing, because there's a new Pope in the Vatican and he seems to want to strike at the roots of modern poverty -- unregulated capitalism. In his latest apostolic exhortation (an 84 page document outlining his vision for the church) Pope Francis goes right to the point, and calls unfettered capitalism a tyranny. Here are a few more of his remarks on poverty and capitalism:

"Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills."

"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?"

"I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security."

"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems."

 "I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor."

I am not a religious person (as regular readers of this blog will know), but I have to say that I am liking this Pope more all the time. He seems to have actually read, and wants to follow, Jesus' command that we should help the poor (and that greed is not a christian value). The only disagreement I would have is who must initiate the solution to the travesty of poverty. He calls on god. I think it is the people who must make this happen.

 

Is The Pope Now Fallible ?

The catholic church has created a rather interesting dilemma for itself. One of two basic doctrines of the church has to be wrong. The church has taught for more than a thousand years that a person cannot go to heaven unless they are a member of the "true" church (the catholic church), and it has also taught that the pope is infallible (since his words are deemed to have come straight from god) and cannot be wrong. This dilemma was created by words uttered by the pope on May 22nd as he spoke at a catholic mass.

The pope was trying to make a statement about good works -- and he said that it is good works that gets a person to heaven, even if they are not a member of the catholic church. Here are those words:

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!

We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.

That's a pretty clear statement. Even an atheist can get to heaven -- not by changing his/her views and joining the church, but by doing good in the world. Now this statement didn't mean much to atheists beyond being a bit amused by it. Atheists do good because it is the right and moral thing to do -- not because it might get them to a place after they die that they don't even believe exists. But it certainly upset a lot of catholics, especially high-ranking catholics whose existence depends on telling people they cannot go to heaven without paying the proper respect for the church (and its officials).

Now one of those two church beliefs is wrong. Either the pope is not fallible anymore (since he was wrong when he said atheists could get to heaven), or the church teaching that only members of the church can get to heaven is wrong. Both cannot be true now.

And it looks like the high officials in the Vatican have made their choice. Vatican spokesman Thomas Rosica the next day (May 23rd) "clarified" the issue. He said that anyone who knows of the catholic church "cannot be saved" if they "refuse to enter her or remain in her". In plain English, that means the pope was wrong and atheists cannot go to heaven. The pope, according to other high catholic officials, is no longer infallible.

Even though I'm an atheist, I find that very interesting. I'm just a bit amused that it took them over a thousand years to figure that out.

New Pope - Same As The Old Pope

The catholic cardinals had a tough decision to make. Should they choose another pope from the developed world and try to slow the disintegration of the church in that area, or should they choose the new pope from the third world, where the religion still has some vitality and relevance, and try to keep the first world problems from developing there. They chose the latter. The new pope is Jorge Mario Bergoglio (who chose to be called Pope Francis I) of Argentina -- the first pope to be chosen from the third world, or anywhere in the Americas.

The cardinals knew that choosing a pope from one of the developed nations would do them little good, because the only way that would have helped would be if they chose a young radical, who would alter church dogma and bring it in line with 21st century morality and ethics -- and the cardinals weren't about to do that. They don't want any changes to their 1st century dogma and rules, because that might lessen their own power base (something very few individuals and no groups have done of their own free will throughout history). So they chose to play to their base in the third world.

Will this mean any changes for the catholic church. Probably not. Pope Francis I has been known to speak out on behalf of the poor in the past, but not to the point of seriously calling out church and political leaders on the matter. He is generally regarded as a church conservative -- someone who will make third world catholics happy (because he is one of them), but who will not rock the boat by making significant changes.

We can expect the church to continue policies to keep women in a second-class status -- with no opportunity to enter the priesthood or the church hierarchy, a continuing attack on women having control over their own bodies, and a continuing attack on allowing women access to contraception. The patriarchy will continue to exclude women (and support the political war against women by right-wing politicians).

The church will continue to oppose same-sex marriage and equal rights for the LGBT community. Pope Francis I is an open and unrepentant homophobe. And don't expect the Vatican to admit its complicity in protecting pedophile priests, and hurting innocent children by shuffling those priests to new churches (where they had new and unsuspecting victims available). They will continue to ignore the problem, and punish any church official who tries to do anything about it.

This choice makes me think of the lyrics from The Who's song Won't Get Fooled Again, which says, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." I hope I'm wrong, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for any changes.

UPDATE -- Seems like this pope may have as sordid a past as the last one. Pope Francis I has been accused of being a tool of the brutal fascist military regime that used to rule Argentina (during the time when about 20,000 of Argentina's citizens just disappeared).

The inimitable Mrs. Betty Bowers (America's Best Christian) seems to have hit the nail on the head:

Pedophile Protector To Resign As Pope

Some of  you may think that's a rather harsh headline, but it's very true. This pope protected pedophiles by not allowing them to be reported and prosecuted, and by shuffling them from church to church while he led the church in much of Germany. Then he was brought to Rome and placed in a position where all reports of pedophile priests went directly to his office. Did he report any of them to the police? No. Did he kick any of them out of the priesthood? No. Not even after becoming pope. He did just what his predecessor did and protected those priests, because he thought the church's reputation was more important than the lives of innocent children being abused.

If you've gotten the idea that I think the pope's resignation (effective on February 28) is more a cause for celebration than sadness, then you are right. He should never have been selected as pope, or indeed given any office that supposedly has any moral authority. He is a despicable human being.

Will the next pope be any better? Probably not. By the time these old men become a cardinal (and you must be a cardinal to be chosen pope), they are so invested in the church hierarchy that none of them are likely to make any real changes. The church has been protecting pedophiles since at least the 19th century (and probably even long before that). It is not an organization that easily accepts change.

But then that is true of all religions. They are all invested in protecting what has been built up rather than changing to meet the needs of the people they are supposed to be serving -- and pedophiles and other sexual deviants exist in all christian sects and all religions. That is because religious figures are put on a pedestal, and the religion's faithful don't want to believe in their fallacy. They forget they are just humans, and have the same faults and foibles as other humans have -- including pedophilia. That is not to be taken to mean that all religious figures are this way. But too many are, and their cloak of religious authority allows them to get away with their crimes and sins against ordinary people.

----------------------------------------

If there must be a new pope chosen, then I make the following suggestion:

If some of you younger readers are not familiar with Father Guido Sarducci, I suggest you watch some of the old Saturday Night Live shows. Very funny stuff.

Most Americans Don't Share Pope's Bigotry

In this holiday season, when most people (including religious leaders), are expressing views of peace, brotherhood, and love for all humanity, Pope Benedict decided to take a different path. He chose instead to promote his own bigotry. In his christmas message, the Pope lashed out at homosexuals -- accusing them of destroying the nature of humans and even destroying world peace. It was truly a sad exhibition of hatred from a religious leader claiming to be a follower of Jesus (who preached a message of love and acceptance -- and who never condemned homosexuality).

Fortunately, it seems that most people are turning away from the kind of hate promoted by religious leaders like the Pope. According to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, a majority of Americans (52%) now support allowing same-sex marriage -- and when assured that no churches would be forced to perform those marriages that didn't want to do so, that percentage rises to 58%. And that includes 59% of catholics, 56% of mainline protestants, and 77% of those not affiliated with any religious group.

Oddly enough, the Pope's views are shared by a majority of only one religious group in the United States -- white evangelical protestants, the same people who consider the Pope to not even be christian. About 77% of white evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage.

And an even larger percentage of Americans say that any group offering adoption services that receives any government money should not be allowed to turn down gay/lesbian couples who want to adopt. About 63% agree with this.

The Pope, and his evangelical enemies, may still be determined to use their religion to push their own bigoted beliefs (just like they once used that religion to justify their racist beliefs), but the good thing is that most Americans are no longer willing to go along with that kind of hate. The religious prefer the gospel of love taught by Jesus over the message of hate from small-minded religious leaders, and those of us who are not religious simply believe in the equality guaranteed by the Constitution. And that is a good thing for the future of this country.

A Patron Saint For Pedophiles

One of the most popular catholic religious leaders of modern times was Pope John Paul II. He headed the church from 1979 until his death in 2005. His popularity was such that almost immediately upon his death there were people demanding his promotion to sainthood. And the current Pope, Benedict XVI, responded by giving a special dispensation removing any time limits on the road to sainthood.

Still, a person (even a beloved pope) can't become a saint with performing some "miracles". And supposedly the dead pope has now done that. A French nun has credited John Paul II with curing her of Parkinson's Disease. That's good enough for John Paul II's beatification (a recognition by the church that he is "blessed"), and that was what happened this last weekend in front of over 1 million catholics in the Vatican. With one more miracle John Paul II can become a full-fledged saint -- and that will happen because the church wants it to happen.

But there are some who believe there is a rush to make John Paul II a saint to protect both his reputation and the reputation of the current pope. John Paul II presided over the church during a period when many hundreds (perhaps more) priests were molesting children. Instead of exposing and turning these priests over to law enforcement, as should have been done, the church just played their own version of "musical chairs" -- shifting the pedophile priests from one church to another to protect them and the reputation of the church.

This protection of the pedophile priests was directed from the Vatican (and overseen in Germany by the current pope while he was an archbishop). It is beyond believable that John Paul II did not know what was being done to protect the pedophiles (and the church) -- even though this just set up more children to be molested rather than solving any problem.

As Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society in Great Britain said, "This sprint to sainthood is to deflect examinations into JPII's unedifying record on clerical child abuse -- and, with it, Benedict's own role." Wood is right. The enormous amount of priestly child abuse could not have gone on for so long, become so widespread, and been hidden from the public so effectively without the participation of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

So a protector of pedophiles is on the way to becoming a saint in the catholic church. I guess it was bound to happen. All kinds of groups have their catholic patron saints (who intercedes on their behalf) -- Christopher (travelers), Crispin (shoemakers), Luke (doctors), Gabriel (broadcasters), Isidore (farmers), Matthew (tax collectors), Vitus (comedians), Yves (lawyers), and many more.

Since every other group has their own patron saint, I guess it is fitting that the world's pedophiles will now have their own patron saint -- someone to intercede on their behalf with the invisible sky fairy. And who could do that better than the person who protected them in this world -- John Paul II?

Proof That Vatican Protected Pedophile Priests

Many of you will recognize the picture above as being of former Pope John Paul II.   He was a much-beloved Pope and recently the Catholic church has taken steps toward making him an official "saint".   He doesn't deserve that honor (or any other).  

Irish journalists have uncovered a letter from Pope John Paul II's diplomat to Ireland -- Archbishop Luciano Storero.   The letter orders the church in Ireland to NOT report priests found to be pedophiles to the civilian authorities (so they could be tried, convicted and punished for their dastardly crimes).   The letter threatens to punish church officials that don't follow the edict of the Vatican to keep priestly child molestation a secret.

We have known for a while now that the current Pope actively hid and protected child molesting priests while a church official in Germany.   This letter shows that he probably did it on the explicit orders of the Vatican.   After all, what was ordered by the Vatican to be done in Ireland was surely ordered in all other countries also.   And it is beyond belief to think the orders were issued without the knowledge of Pope John Paul II.

There is no doubt any more that the Catholic Church, specifically the Vatican, considered the safety of children to be secondary to saving the church from bad publicity.   That is indefensible, and so is even thinking of making a protector of child molesters a "saint".

The Pope Is A Hypocrite

After covering up for church pedophile priests for many years, the Pope is again showing himself to be a hypocrite and unworthy of respect as a religious leader.   This time it involves blasphemy laws.

In a new year address, the Pope has called upon Pakistan to repeal its "blasphemy law" -- which has serious penalties for anyone blaspheming the prophet Mohammad.   I agree that the Pakistani law is wrong and an affront to religious freedom, but I have to wonder why the Pope has confined himself to that one law forbidding blasphemy toward the muslim religion.

This is certainly not the only blasphemy law in existence.   In fact, Ireland (a Catholic country) just passed a blasphemy law of its own.   I don't remember the Pope condemning that law.   Evidently he thinks it's OK to punish people with criminal penalties if they blaspheme against his own church, but it's wrong to punish them for blaspheming another religion.

How can anyone still listen to this hypocritical fool?   ALL blasphemy laws are wrong -- no matter what country or what religion.

The Pope Is Right About This Issue

Here's something I never thought I'd say -- I agree with the Pope.   At least on one issue -- the issue of health care.

We recently had a serious debate in this country over health care.   Those of us on the left wanted decent and adequate health care to be considered a right of all citizens in this country.   Those on the right disagreed.   They believe health care should be reserved for those who can afford it.   They consider health care to be a commodity to be bought and sold like automobiles or concert tickets, and if you can't afford it you shouldn't have it.

Those of us on the left lost the argument, at least for the time being.   Although the Democrats passed a health care reform bill, only minor changes were made to the broken and unfair American health care system.   Health care is still not a right and there will still be many Americans left without health insurance of any kind.   In addition, the private insurance companies are still in charge of making patient medical decisions instead of doctors.

But while the insurance companies and others celebrate their recent victory, it looks like the Catholic Church disagrees with the outcome.   The Pope and other Catholic Church leaders held a conference on health care at the Vatican a couple of days ago.   Pope Benedict lamented the inequalities in health care around the world, and said all christians should be concerned about "The care of man, his transcendent dignity and his inalienable rights."

The Pope went on to say that each individual's health is a "precious asset" which governments should protect by "dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access."   He also said,   "Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions."

Cardinal Bertone agreed saying,   "Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care, commonly accepted as a fundamental human right."   Bertone also said the governments of richer nations (like the United States) should practice "more solidarity with their own disadvantaged citizens."

It shouldn't come as any surprise that the Catholic Church views health care as a basic and fundamental human right.   They are just following the teachings of their "savior".   What is surprising is that far too many "christians" in the United States disagree with that concept.   They seem to have somehow confused the teachings of Jesus with those of capitalist greedmongers (and become more like the temple moneychangers than Jesus).

I may be an atheist now, but I was raised in the christian church and attended two christian colleges (finishing my degree at the second).   I am not unfamiliar with christian teachings.   That's why I find it shocking that teachings such as being your "brother's keeper" are now considered "socialist" and unchristian.  

This atheist wonders how any christian could not consider health care to be a fundamental right of all men (and the same goes for all atheists, muslims, jews, or followers of any other religion).

Pope's New Guidelines Change Nothing

Once again the Pope and the Catholic Church are trying to paint a good face on the church scandal involving priests who sexually abuse children and the church hierarchy that protects them. The church has announced "new" rules which it says would make it easier to defrock priests convicted of child sexual abuse and would extend the canonical statute of limits in such crimes.

There is a slight problem with the scenario painted by the church with this announcement. It seems that these are not really new rules since the church is already operating under these "new" guidelines, and has been for a while now. This is little more than another feeble attempt at public relations. The church wants to be patted on the back for doing something it has been doing for a while (and should have been doing for many decades).

Worse still is the fact that the church's self-congratulatory new guidelines still don't include two real changes that are needed if the church is to get serious about eliminating child sexual abuse among priests. The guidelines still don't require the church to notify civil authorities of a sex abuse accusation against one of its priests. It only says notification must be made if civil law requires it. In areas where notification is not required by civil law, it is still perfectly OK for church authorities to keep the accusation a secret from the police and other civil authorities.

The guidelines also do not require that Bishops or other higher-ups in the church be punished for covering up and keeping secret the heinous crime of child sex abuse. This comes as no surprise since the Pope himself is guilty of covering for at least one German priest accused (and later convicted of) child sex abuse. Those who cover up these sort of crimes should be punished, but if they made that a policy then they would have to start the punishments with the Pope himself.

The church is trying to pass the new rules off as reform, but it isn't. It's just more of the same and falls far short of any real reform. I get the distinct feeling that the church hierarchy still doesn't think they have done anything wrong. They still think their efforts to protect the reputation of the church was more important than the children who were being sexually abused or punishing the criminals doing that abuse. That view robs them of any moral authority.

One of those left without any real moral authority is the Pope himself. If he was an honest person he would have resigned months ago.

The guidelines do one other thing. It makes the ordination of a woman as serious a crime according to canonical law as sexually abusing children. That is a slap in the face not only to Catholic women but to all women. The church is still willing to relegate over half the world's population to the status of second-class personhood.