Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pope Rails Against the Internet and Transparency

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the lots-to-be-opaque-about dept.

The Internet 840

tcd004 writes "At a conference on digital media at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI attacked the idea of transparency in the Internet age, warning that digital transparency exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves and increases the 'dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism,' which can lead to 'multiple forms of degradation and humiliation' of the essence of a person, and to the 'pollution of the spirit.' All in all, it seemed a pretty grim view of the wide-open communication environment being demanded by the Internet age."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wagging the dog (4, Insightful)

drougie (36782) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991158)

I think that's what they call this, the Pope making an issue out of Internet transparency out of nowhere.

Re:wagging the dog (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991350)

Surprise surprise. It's hard to lie when everyone can see right through you.

Re:wagging the dog (5, Insightful)

RsG (809189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991454)

Surprise surprise. It's hard to lie when everyone can see right through you.

Perhaps more to the point, cover-ups are much harder to perpetrate when a single leak can plaster all your dirty laundry all over the net.

Gee, I can't imagine why the pope would object to that... Nope, can't think of a single reason *sigh*

Re:wagging the dog (5, Insightful)

Alphathon (1634555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991766)

Plus the whole "moral relativism" thing. Once people accept that morals are relative, the idea that there is a god who dictates morality disintegrates, along with some of the Popes power/influence.

Re:wagging the dog (3, Funny)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991438)

I'm glad we heard this important and highly relevant message... though the internet.

I wouldn't say nowhere. (3, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991578)

It's Internet transparency that has been uncovering and unraveling the abuse scandal that has brought on a crisis within the Catholic Church. Although I'd be hard-pressed to say I was "shocked" that the Pope has no apparent interest in uncovering a network of evil, horror and corruption within the Church, I can and will say that I am disappointed. This was his golden opportunity to both prove to the world the relevance of the Church (through active demonstration) and to prove that fears (inspired by books like "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", "The Da Vinci Code", etc, and by right-wing Baptist loonies) that the Church was an active participant in satanic activities was crud. Instead, he's chosen a path of reinforcing the worst paranoias of the deluded, seemingly preferring the genuine dangers and very real threat of inflating religious extremist violence over and above having the Church fulfill its actual* mission. *Ok, purported. It's hard to say that peace, kindness and charity have anything to do with any actual mission the Church has performed these past 2,000 or so years.

Re:I wouldn't say nowhere. (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991736)

He has a tough choise though...large part (and the most important one...the growing one) of his faithfull are in developing countries. Heck, they are the reason why the Catholic Church as a whole is growing, despite (as with most faiths) registering major drop in the developed world.

Nazi bastard (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991166)

Ugh, there goes my karma. But fuck it, eh. It's a downhill battle regardless.

Re:Nazi bastard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991612)

But[t] fuck it

Isn't that what started this whole mess to begin with?

Who cares? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991186)

Does anyone truly care what this guy thinks? "Pollution of the spirit?" From a Catholic priest? Please...

Re:Who cares? (5, Funny)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991262)

Does anyone truly care what this guy thinks? "Pollution of the spirit?" From a Catholic priest? Please...

Well, in all fairness, the article did leave out the Pope mentioning how the Internet will sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids...

Re:Who cares? (0, Redundant)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991282)

Sounds rather like Gen. Jack D. Ripper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9sJVJMiYM [youtube.com] Are teh Interwebs the new flouridation of the water supply?

The pope doesn't like us revealing "petty gossip" (0, Offtopic)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991684)

... like that the Vatican has actively hidden pedophiles for decades that they were WARNED IN WRITING would re-offend [transboutique.com]

The letter makes it clear that the local priests would shut their mouths if the pedo was "given another chance" in Rome because that got him out of the local community:

When Fr. Prince was first proposed for his present position
in Rome (on the recommendation of the now Archbishop F. Franck), I
explained to the then Archbishop Jose Sanchez (now Cardinal Sanchez),
in his capacity as Secretary of the Congregation for the Evangeliza-
tion of Peoples, that, while the charge against Fr. Prince was very
serious, I would not object to him being given another chance since
it would remove him from the Canadian scene. (Archbishop Ambrozic
had already informed me that Fr. Prince was no longer welcome in the
Archdiocese of Toronto unless he underwent psychiatric treatment at
the Clarke Institute.)

... and the problems when it leaks out ...

However, the knowledge and extend of Fr. Prince's previous
activity is now much more widespread among both the laity and the
clergy than previously existed. Hence, were he to be honoured in
any way it could easily trigger a reaction among the victim(s), or
others who are aware of his previous conduct, and this would prove
extremely embarrassing both to the Holy See and to the Diocese of
Pembroke, not to mention the possibility of criminal charges being
laid and a civil lawsuit ensuing.

... and check this out ...

One redeeming factor is that it would appear that the victims
involved are of Polish descent and their respect for the priesthood
and the Church has made them refrain from making these allegations
public or laying a criminal charge against a priest. Had this happened
elsewhere there would be every danger that charges would have been
laid long ago with all the resultant scandal. Unfortunately one
priest, who was talking with one of the victims who partially revealed
Fr. Prince's activity while living with him in Ottawa, has been some-
what indiscreet in his comments about Fr. Prince, and has had to be
cautioned by the Vicar General in this respect. The priest in question
is also a good friend of the mother of one of the victims so he has
been able to glean additional information to confirm his suspicions
about Fr. Prince's activity and openly confronted the Vicar General
about his suspicions and knowledge.

Translation: "good thing they're just dumb pollacks, right? And we had to threaten another priest to keep his dumb mouth shut or else ..."

But they still wanted to give the guy ANOTHER promotion ...

However, as previously mentioned, a promotion of any kind
would indicate to the victim that he is being further victimized
and hence we could anticipate that a charge would be laid and a
public trial would follow. This has been the pattern which has
been followed in recent events of a similar nature and it is a
situation which we wish to avoid at all costs.

All in writing, all documented, so it's not "petty gossip" and the Nazi Pope can go sod off!

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991710)

"pollution of the spirit" -> "porn is bad".
this isn't news, or even worth logging in for

Riiight (3, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991210)

And holding everything locked down tight as a "state secret" is so much better. Oh wait, right, there's China. Yes, I see how that is so much better.

The pope is either an idiot, or a budding tyrant with ambitions of bringing the world back to the dark ages under dominion of the vatican.

Re:Riiight (3, Funny)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991320)

The pope is either an idiot, or a budding tyrant with ambitions of bringing the world back to the dark ages under dominion of the vatican.

I thought that was supposed to go without saying (*ducks*).

Re:Riiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991382)

The pope is either an idiot, or a budding tyrant with ambitions of bringing the world back to the dark ages under dominion of the vatican.

Or maybe he thinks he can stop the spread on atheism and other non-corporation religions.
Religion makes a lot of people a lot of money even without including the wars it causes.

Re:Riiight (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991506)

and other non-corporation religions

What is a "non-corporation religion"?

Re:Riiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991774)

I think the GP means religions that people quietly practice by themselves or with small groups of peers as opposed to those, such as the Catholic church with a leadership hierarchy and religious authorities that lay down religious law and edicts for other members to follow. By a definition of the word corporation, such religions are, in fact, corporations, even if they don't fit the definition of a business corporation. In fact, being in part a real-estate holding corporation, the Catholic church would be considered a business corporation if it weren't also a church. The same sort of thing has been true of many evangelical ministries in the US. Many of them have undertaken business ventures with their congregations as investors.

Re:Riiight (1)

horai (835821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991442)

Don't forget that lack of transparency might just stop all those pesky kiddy fiddling stories getting out. That would have to be a bonus for him.

Re:Riiight (5, Informative)

yariv (1107831) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991576)

Your argument is presenting a false dichotomy, instead of handling the actual claim. I would like to point out that there are some things that are forbidden in any country in the western world (snuff films, for example), yet you won't say that anyone who claims these are dangerous (even after creating them, that is) supports "holding everything locked down tight", I hope.

In fact, all he said was that the "huge widening of the frontiers of communication" has benefits (for example - points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum) and drawbacks (for example - increases the "dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism,"). I guess however, expecting anyone on slashdot (commentators and modders) to RTFA is a bit to much.

TFA, by the way, does not give the speech (or a translation of it) but just tiny parts of it, without any context. So even after reading it, I have no idea what he said. What I do know is that he is not an idiot, there is quite some evidence for this, and so he knows he has no chance of gaining actual direct power (becoming any sort of a tyrant).

Re:Riiight (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991614)

You have to put everything he says into perspective...

First, essentially by his choosing, he is the voice of god (if he wants to). No, not "inspired by", etc., he has the self-appointed power to be infallible, to speak on behalf of their deity. "This Internet thing" is of course too silly to elicit such option soon, but...

Secondly, his power structure is that of oligarchy, cultural hegemony...one which fought with "transparency" (or whatever the equivalent in the past would be); it isn't yet adapted to the upcoming world. So it's naturally cautious, if only because it wishes to buy itself more time to adapt. At least the means at its disposal are becoming less harmfull lately - not as when, for example, Vatican preferred right-wing dictatorships in S. America, out of two evils...though I'm sure some "evil" will come out of it. Dissuasion of developing countries (where the uptake of Catholicism is the largest) from investing in their communication infrastructure seems likely to me.

You're wrong (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991636)

The pope is either an idiot, or a budding tyrant with ambitions of bringing the world back to the dark ages under dominion of the vatican.

You're wrong. It's not an either or.

Re:Riiight (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991672)

I'm sure he's just frustrated at how easy it was for everyone to learn that he and the church have been protecting pedophiles for ages. Priests may have to give up the tender young child flesh altogether at this rate. Lets say you had some favorite food... Lets say cheeseburgers. And you ate cheeseburgers happily for years and years and years. Then because of the goddamn internet outing your secret cheeseburger habit you had to stop eating them. You'd be pretty pissed off at the internet too, wouldn't you? Pope's just sad he and his friends can't have any more cheeseburgers. And by cheeseburgers, I mean children.

Re:Riiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991740)

"The Gelgamek vagina is three feet wide and filled with razor-sharp teeth."

Re:Riiight (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991756)

"The battle has left me scarred. But my resolve has never been stronger! We will reorganize the Church into the First Galactic Empire!"

Re:Riiight (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991788)

...ambitions of bringing the world back to the dark ages under dominion of the vatican.

Now's the time. Nobody would ever expect it...

Translation: (5, Insightful)

fliptw (560225) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991226)

Openly transparent communication undermines power structures that rely on the opposite

Re:Translation: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991490)

Additional translation note:
Morals are inherently relative to personal values and situational details. Anytime someone warns about moral relativism, it's because they want you to follow their values and sense of right and wrong, instead of your own.

Re:Translation: (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991622)

Really. The gist of Catholic Church is that you "access" God through them. You know, the Priesthood.

All the good work they've done cannot change this fundamental fact.

Re:Translation: (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991786)

Really. The gist of Catholic Church is that you "access" God through them. You know, the Priesthood.

In Catholic Church, pedophile Priest accesses YOU! [transboutique.com]

In Catholic Church, pedo priests ask what they can do to baby Jesus!

In Catholic Church, Ratzinger is all Rat and no zing!

Re:Translation: (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991714)

I don't know. Looking at what was reported, it looks like the pope said three things:

1) The new media gives more kinds of people a soap box. That is more egalitarian and pluralistic.

2) One side effect is to inflame the divisions between nations and people are inflamed.

3) Some people use their soapbox to promote moral relativism.

I think he's on solid ground on (1) and (2). Giving everyone a soapbox means the crazies and haters get one too. It's also the Era of Sorting. Back in the day, you had to live with people who had different opinions from you. One of the unexpected side effects of "virtual communities" is that it's never been easier to surround yourself with people who think just like you do. It's never been easier to transition from eccentric to full blown kook.

On (3), well, I don't think that statement means anything. I'm sure he's not talking about serious philosophical positions on the nature of ethics. I suspect he's talking about opinions he doesn't like.

The official Catholic position on morality is that it isn't based on divine commandment. That goes all the way back to Plato. But there's a huge loophole in this position: Human reason is inferior to Divine Wisdom, so while God's moral commandments have an objective justification, that justification isn't necessarily obvious.

That said, this is not the most opportune time to assert the Church's "magisterium". When the church can show it holds itself to at least basic, civilized standards of ethical behavior, it will be able to talk about "moral relativism" without provoking snickers.

Yeah moral relativism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991230)

Its OK if they ruin the life of many but if some one else does ruin the live of someone else it is not OK

I see their views are so absolute good thing they are to tell us rigth from wrong

DEAR POPE (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991234)

Morality is a human invention and is not by any stretch objective. Sorry to burst your bubble.

While we're on that path, god doesn't exist. Sorry.

Oh, and don't even get him started on Twitter (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991258)

That 140 character limit drives him up the wall.

Waaah! (5, Insightful)

IMightB (533307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991266)

The problem isn't the pedo priests, it's the peoples ability to find out about them!

Re:Waaah! (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991656)

That's pretty much the pope's official position, judging by his action (or lack thereof) on this matter.

Transparency, always (5, Insightful)

gibson123 (1740752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991272)

Seems to me he's saying it's a problem for Governments and Institutions, transparency is always good for the people. Oh yea, maybe transparency can be a problem for the Church as we learn more and more about what went on there....

Yeah, because absolutes work so well.. (for pedos) (4, Insightful)

moz25 (262020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991276)

So the leader of the organization with the filthiest possible secrets speaks out against transparency.

Okay, no surprise there...

The priority of the catholic church is the catholic church. Not God. Not innocent children. Not you.

The Pope (5, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991290)

I never got what the big deal was with The Pope anyways. He's just as human as you or I, so his interpretations can be just as flawed as yours or mine, yet elected by his own circle of peers, instead of by the masses that follow his orders.

I'll give him due respect as a fellow human being, one whose wisdom probably far exceeds my own in a great many things. However, I have a feeling I know a bit more on the subject of Internet Transparency than him, so I'll politely decline his advice.

Re:The Pope (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991488)

According to Catholics, he's infallible, so in their view, his interpretations are not flawed.

Sounds a lot like a cult, doesn't it?

Re:The Pope (4, Informative)

jonthegm (525546) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991552)

What the pope says is only infallible when he speaks Ex Cathedra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility [wikipedia.org]

Re:The Pope (2, Interesting)

ENIGMAwastaken (932558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991682)

Oh, well then, that makes it perfectly OK and not all ridiculous and totally and completely bullshit

It turns out only SOME of the things the Pope says are the infallible word of God.

And how do we know the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra? Because God said so? No? Because some people made it up 140 years ago? Yeah. Well I now dictate that I'm infallible when speaking "en slashdotia". Beware.

Re:The Pope (5, Informative)

jonthegm (525546) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991806)

I'm not justifying it, I'm just pointing out that the Popes have traditionally been regarded as wise but still human. Ex Cathedra has only been invoked once since the concept was invented, so it's meant to define religion redefining pronouncements. I'm only clarifying this to alleviate the misconception that "anything" the pope says is automatically viewed by the Catholic Church as 100% Awesome. Full disclosure: I'm an agnostic "recovering" Catholic.

Re:The Pope (4, Informative)

mattdm (1931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991630)

Sounds a lot like a cult, doesn't it?

No, it sounds like a religion.

The key difference is simply the scale (in time and numbers) at which the organization is generally accepted as "normal".

Re:The Pope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991652)

He's not infallible; but rather what he states about theology is"infallible" (or in other words authoritative) to Catholics as the head of the Church on Earth. A subtle but important distinction.

Re:The Pope (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991558)

The Pope's insights fall into two categories:
ex cathedra leadership of the Catholic faith (applies to a subset of carefully researched and formally announced doctrine), meant to be infallible
general respect as an important and (ideally) a learned man who seeks to make the world a better place, and moreover is supposed to be keeping attainment of the "good" as a priority.

Of course, this being the Pope, and me not analyzing the matter in detail yet, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with a few ounces of anti-Papal prejudice were stretching this and leaving out (or missed) a few key pieces of context. He might just be saying "watch out, your ugliness towards each other can no longer be hidden". Or not. I haven't checked. That said, his recommendations on both economic policy (overly socialist) and Internet policy do not carry the weight of the former, because I'm pretty sure they're ineffective at achieving his stated goals in the long run.

Re:The Pope (1)

moz25 (262020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991640)

So what are you trying to say exactly?

I am tired of the "but.. context!" excuse to make fiction look like fact, fools like wise men and horrific child molesters like victims of circumstance.

Re:The Pope (2, Insightful)

moz25 (262020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991574)

Okay, let's do a little test.

When you know that someone under your responsibility molests children, what do you do:

1. Cover everything up, do NOT report said molester to police AND make sure he can work with children again in the future.

2. Report molester to police and do everything in your power to help victims and make sure there are no more victims.

If you've picked option #2, then congratulations, you're wiser than the pope!

Re:The Pope (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991700)

I'll give him due respect as a fellow human being, one whose wisdom probably far exceeds my own in a great many things. However, I have a feeling I know a bit more on the subject of Internet Transparency than him, so I'll politely decline his advice.

His wisdom is indeed great on subjects such as covering up pedophilia, how to help spread disease by opposing contraception, how to set up an oppressive regime protected by superstition.

Basing morality on religion and myth is bad enough. Also most Popes have done varying degrees of harm. But this one seems to be the worst of the worst!

WHAT DOES THE POP NOW ABOUT INTERNET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991308)

What, not enough Kangaroo courts to support his position?

That does it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991310)

After Ruby on Rails, it's Pope on Rails??

I've heard this before... (5, Insightful)

NReitzel (77941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991312)

The words of the Bishop of Rome about the internet, freedom, and transparency, ring very familiar.

It was this very flavor of rhetoric that came from British citizens, Muslim Jihadis, who decry that freedom is the basic sin of mankind. They yearn for Sharia law to rule their lives.

Of course, I have no problem should they choose to live their lives under Sharia law. My problem comes about when they decide that I should live my life by Sharia law, whether I want to or not. It is, they explain, good for me.

So when el Papa decided that internet freedom is not for me, my immediate reaction was, "I've heard all this before."

It never fails to astound me when Men of God not only want to live their own lives by their code of conduct, but they want me to live that way, also.

When God shows up in a burning bush, and then explains how I should live, I may decide to give it some credibility. Until then, I'll go on striving for freedom of choice for myself, and for others. They can, if they choose, live by Biblical law.

Re:I've heard this before... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991520)

It was this very flavor of rhetoric that came from British citizens, Muslim Jihadis, who decry that freedom is the basic sin of mankind. They yearn for Sharia law to rule their lives.

Why do Western countries like Britain continue to allow these people to immigrate? Doesn't it make sense that you'd only want to bring in people who are going to fit into the existing society, instead of bringing in people who want to completely change society?

Re:I've heard this before... (2, Insightful)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991534)

If he doesn't like the Internet, he doesn't have to use it.

It's borderline stupid to assume that any one sect or faith can push something out of existence for everyone else, at least in this day and age.

Tomorrow, both the Pope and the Internet will still be there. Perhaps with fewer proselytizing people using the Internet. "And nothing of value was lost."

Re:I've heard this before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991562)

Really - you are ok with other people living by Biblical law?

Deuteronomy
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

And Jesus said Matthew 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

I personally really wouldn't want anyone living by Biblical law.

Re:I've heard this before... (3, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991582)

right on.

the reason they can't stand people not abiding by rules other then their own, is it poses the question that maybe their own way of life is "wrong", which for people with the belief that their dogma is the only way into heaven, is an untenable situation.

It's obvious why he's against such things... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991316)

The obvious reason he is against such transparency is because it would mean the church would actually have to own up to all the child molestation in his church. I think he needs to be worrying more about the "pollution of the spirit" of these abused kids first and foremost.

They said the same thing about the printing press (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991318)

Letting publishers put biblical texts directly in the hands of believers without going through the catholic church. And even worse spreading a view of religion that did not put the catholic hierarchy at the center of the spiritual universe.

Sorry Joe (5, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991338)

The change is coming. Transparency can lead to "degradation and humiliation", but so can secretiveness. If you want to remain relevant, then learn to deal with it instead of trying to suppress it.

Re:Sorry Joe (4, Insightful)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991372)

You forgot to tell him to stop his employees from raping children.

Pope doesn't like being criticized on the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991356)

The news of the Pope not taking action on the sexual abuse of children is discussed everywhere on the Internet.

With Catholic countries like Brazil and Italy creating bizarre Internet laws, the Pope has a good chance of limiting free speech (good old days for the church) in some parts of the world.

Pope powers activate ... ignorance activated ... intolerance activated ...

Hehehe. his ass is smoking thats why. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991366)

it was impossible to repress all the wrongdoings of him in regard to pedophile priest cases, and the issue of pedophilia in catholic church.

so the genius comes up attacking internet transparency.

The Pope's Masterful Dream (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991376)

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Pravin Lal of Alpha Centauri (1999)

I think Christianity is a pretty cool guy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991388)

The Pope touched my junk liberally. He was performing many red flag touches.

Paralelism (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991400)

Killing internet openness because could be abuses, despite all the good that could come from it, could be very similar to killing religion, because, well, existed (child) abusers. Probably the net gain of killing both would be possitive for mankind.

where religion goes to die (1, Insightful)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991406)

I suspect the Pope is only bashing the internet because he watched Thunderf00t's video "The Internet: Where religion goes to die", realized he had an excellent point, and decided that the only way to avoid having people jump ship on his ancient superstition was to ban the free-flow of information and ideas.

Religion depends on converting young minds to replace old dieing old ones
Kids spend more time online than adults
Online sources have been far harsher critics of the sex abuse scandals than broadcast media, and religious mythology get consistently pwned and rated down on online forums.
Obviously, the only way for the church to continue to exist in our modern era is to stop children from going online.

Re:where religion goes to die (3, Funny)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991762)

Obviously, the only way for the church to continue to exist in our modern era is to stop children from going online.

Well, also, there's all those pedophiles in chat rooms and on myspace, and the church doesn't appreciate the competition.

Bad Internet! (1)

dr-alves (1612081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991434)

Exposing the depravity of my "holy" institution. Damn You, all you satan's minions! How did priests of ancient times used their free time? Ahh the good old days where priests simply didn't respect celibacy....

Pope Clueless, News at 11 (1)

adbge (1693228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991440)

Intense state secrecy and lack of transparency is the sole reason the Cold War carried on for as long as it did, resulting in probably the closest the globe has ever come to nuclear holocaust.

Which is to say: go fuck yourself, Pope Benedict XVI.

Cautious (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991444)

Sure, that sounds great and all, with the moral relativism and the degradation and humiliation and such, but with all those upsides there's gotta be some catch to this "Internet" thing.

Moral Relativism (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991460)

And increases the 'dangers of... intellectual and moral relativism,' which can lead to 'multiple forms of degradation and humiliation' of the essence of a person, and to the 'pollution of the spirit.'

I actually agree with him on this one. If we understand 'intellectual relativism' to mean the ability to contrast numerous new sources of information against the reflexive dogmatism that existed before, and if we consider that exposure to new information about the clergy might actually lead to 'multiple forms of degradation and humiliation' for them, then we'd have to accept that our spirit, once pure in its certainty and unsullied by doubt, would indeed become polluted by reality.

A life without certainty in exchange for a world that constantly subverts and challenges my assumptions? A world that won't let me be at peace with centuries-old dogma? Sounds good to me.

Most of us call this process Growing Up.

Wag the Dog (2, Interesting)

CrazeeCracker (641868) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991462)

Odds are they're doing this just to get attention away from the recent sex abuse scandal.

Trolls are the devil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991470)

In hell you get a uncensored internet with all the goatse you want. The pope loves stretching little boys anuses to goatse size.

Der Papst (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991504)

Who cares what Der Papst thinks?

I'm not surprised (4, Informative)

Flavio (12072) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991526)

Back in 2001, when Ratzinger was head of the Holy Office, he implemented a policy that classified child abuse cases as pontifical secrets.

And Ratzinger is not an exception. This is business as usual for the Catholic church.

Re:I'm not surprised (1)

EldestPort (1693956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991748)

There's no such thing as the 'Holy Office'. Also, source for your claim about those 'pontifical secrets'?

I suddenly got the itch to be more open and free (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991540)

i dont know why. it came out of nowhere ...

Hmmmm ..... (3, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991542)

Of course the Pope would rail against transparency because transparency is the antithesis of power. Governments and large organizations do not want to be transparent, they want to operate in secrecy because knowledge is power. If the masses have knowledge of government activities, then they have the power to stop them and it makes propaganda that much more difficult to create.

I've got a better idea.... (1, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991560)

I've got a better idea....

How about no?

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991586)

There is nothing in the TFA stating that he's against transparency.

> "This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility. Secrecy and discretion are not values that are in fashion at the moment. We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide."

Isn't it scary this new pope use to be a nazi? (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991592)

Well, not when you look at their records side by side. The Nazis vs. the Catholic church?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlWi5NvGLpE [youtube.com]

It's totally worth it ... Doug Stanhope is the real GOD.

uhhh... sure (2, Insightful)

RelliK (4466) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991594)

All that transparency sure makes it hard to hide child rape scandals.

Pope sez (1)

ENIGMAwastaken (932558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991600)

"The Internet is making me increasingly irrelevant and, to boot, is serving as a means of propagating news about the criminal misconduct rampant in the archaic and faintly ridiculous institution I command. So it must be evil, since I, and what I stand for, is all that is good. Anyone publishing information that serves to discredit me or my organization is, by definition wicked, even if what they say is true. Pay attention to me!" I think that's what he means.

Did anyone actually read the article? (3, Insightful)

EldestPort (1693956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991642)

The Pope actually said, "This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility. Secrecy and discretion are not values that are in fashion at the moment. We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide." he did not "[attack] the idea of transparency in the Internet age". But, I mean it's the Pope, who cares what he actually *said*, right? /sarcasm

Did you actually read the article? (5, Informative)

ENIGMAwastaken (932558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991808)

"But then, the silence was broken. Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, took his turn at the microphone. "The situation in which we are living is extremely exacting, and we are asked to be absolutely truthful and credible," he said. The last couple of months have been very difficult, he went on, with so many questions being raised about things that happened long ago. But he said, "This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility. Secrecy and discretion are not values that are in fashion at the moment. We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide." The crowd applauded."

Frantic spin control from the Vatican (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991678)

The Vatican has been trying frantic spin control lately. They've tried blaming the press, gays, politicians, the previous Pope, and now the Internet. It's not working. The coverup has been coming unglued for over a decade, and the latest revelations (Ireland, Belgium, Holland) make it look even worse. There are calls from US Catholics for the Pope to resign, and pressure to prosecute him in the UK. [guardian.co.uk]

Bruy The Vatican has no experience dealing with this. They're not used to the democratic tradition that leaders who screw up badly lose their jobs. The Vatican is still an absolute monarchy. No Pope has ever been fired.

Such a low view (1)

Georules (655379) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991692)

For someone who believes us to be made in God's image, and to have free will, he clearly has little faith in the ability of humans to handle themselves.

Nothing new (2, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991698)

It doesn't take a genius to see that the catholic church hides behind a thin facade of Christianity but is in fact a self-serving money-grabbing regime and tool of the establishment.

The Vatican's actions speak for themselves, especially like now when even the Pope uses weasel words to advocate against truth, openness and honesty, which the bible clearly details as the most fundamental principles of being a Christian.

WTF transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991702)

Here you can read the complete speech without filter: http://www.zenit.org/article-29033?l=english [zenit.org] .

Hardly surprising. (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991704)

The Vatican has had centuries of practice with holding certain truths and actively deceiving people all in the name of keeping their soul pure. To bad they are filled with pedophiles. Oh wait, that's how we know there are pedophiles in their midst's from and I give them to much credit on this; transparency. No the Vatican is like any large organization.. more interested in maintaining their position than anything else. I seem to recall a certain religious icon. I don't know, the guy that got nailed to a tree for encouraging everyone to be nice to each other saying something along the lines of; in secret lies are born (or some such).

Misleading Headline and Summary.... (1)

Almonday (564768) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991716)

The full quote from TFA:

"The times in which we living knows a huge widening of the frontiers of communication," he said (according to our Italian fixer/producer) and the new media of this new age points to a more "egalitarian and pluralistic" forum. But, he went on to say, it also opens a new hole, the "digital divide" between haves and have-nots. Even more ominous, he said, it exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves. And it increases the "dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism," which can lead to "multiple forms of degradation and humiliation" of the essence of a person, and to the "pollution of the spirit." All in all, it seemed a pretty grim view of the wide open communication parameters being demanded by the Internet age.

It seems to me that His Popeliness is simply pointing out that the explosive growth of information technology over the past few decades is not automatically an unmitigated good, but that it has conferred both beneficial and deleterious effects on the lives of human beings. I personally doubt that he and I agree on precisely which effects fall into which column, but c'mon folks, this is hardly an example of the dude "Rail[ing] against the Internet and Transparency."

Its not on transparency (1)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991718)

I've read other sources and he said two things: a) The Internet has great potential, but it also could lead to relativism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism] which can be used to undermine ethics and to justify extreme egoism. And b) he talked about unifying news and public optinion. So the net might look diverse, but in real the communicated opinions are all controlled by a few companies.

Biased reporting will give biased reactions (5, Informative)

epte (949662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991730)

The reporter of that article obviously had an agenda. In lieu of finding a more unbiased source, I thought it might be worthwhile to at least include a report of the same talk from the opposite side of the camp: here [catholicnewsagency.com]

It would seem from this article that the Pope is looking for us to act with a conscience while on the internet, so that the internet as a whole can be an edifying experience. That is, how we use the internet is important. Raw power must be used to good ends.

Note that I do recognize and appreciate the difficulties with defining "good", "edifying", and even the institution which provides these definitions.

Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic (I'm Orthodox -- we're not in the habit of defending the Pope). I'm just trying to provide a little balance.

Translation: (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991734)

It's gonna blow my cover!

About moral relativism.... (0, Flamebait)

drolli (522659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991782)

The head of the biggest institution protecting child abusers with strange bending of the own laws tells something about moral realtivism? Yes, moral relativism is bad. especially if you use it to argue with strange arguments, why its not so bad that your Bishops protected the Child molesters. Get busy with to analyze the bigotry inside the church instead of mourning that now everybody can communicate - and even faster than the church.

UGH! (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991792)

Although I support the wonderful Catholic church and praise the good work that they do it is not unusual for a pope to be off track. Keeping things real does not in any way diminish the Gospel or the joy of Jesus Christ. If anything having the strength to keep faith when we know the truth about others and institutions around us is simply a test for believers. Transparency simply allows light to shine into dark corners. That is something that Christ would be proud of us doing.

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31991798)

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's just funny. ;) No doubt, he's right, the mostly open and mostly free communication made possible by the internet DOES cause conflicts, because people are waking up to the fact that the world is not as simple as we thought before the internet. Corporate and government behavior becomes increasingly transparent and since those tend to be corrupt (like any human organization that is about money and/or power), people tend to get frustrated... because now they know about them.

The conflicts are just a necessary part of a society that is becoming more aware and growing up, so to speak. That comes with growing pains, and I would have thought that every decent person would think that's a great path for humanity... but leave it to the people with undisputed, divine power, to consider this a problem.

Perhaps it's time for His Majesty, His Undisputably Wise and Holy Super Emperor, learn to spare himself and his followers the ridicule, by not speaking in public on any matter. That might leave whatever respect people still have for the Catholic Church intact, although the flow of information no doubt will be the death of this outdated, backwards and ignorant institution.

Of course he would think that (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31991812)

The Pope is head of the same organization insisted that the Bible only be published all masses only be said in Latin, a language only the priests understood, because it was dangerous for lay people to actually understand the religion they were worshiping. The biggest change that the Protestant Revolution brought about was the notion that the Bible should be translated into all languages, so that people could read and understand it on their own, and not be reliant on a priestly class to interpret it for them. He was also a member of the Nazi Youth Movement. So of course he would consider it a bad thing for people to be able to find information on their own, instead of relying on the pronouncements of the ruling class. What he should be doing is warning that most of what is said on the internet is untrue, not railing against people's search for the truth.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?