Friday, April 29, 2005
"Self-denial is the shining sore on the leprous body of Christianity" (Oscar Wilde)
Thursday, April 28, 2005
A new Encyclical in June?
De Respiratione et Paenitentia Catholicorum
by Joe London - Dissociated Press
Catholic Benedict XVI Joseph Ratzinger
Vatican, April 2005.
At the half-yearly meeting of bishops, the Chinese-born bishop and theologian Yu Sin has proposed that all Catholics should change the habitual way of breathing.
"The habitual act of breathing is accompanied by a state of wellbeing that is too self-indulgent and a sign of objective moral disorder" explained the bishop. In every moment of our life we ought to remember the Latin saying memento mori ("remember you have to die") which is often forgotten in our secular society in which science deceives human beings and nearly suggests that immortality is only a matter of biochemical findings".
Bishop Yu Sin has suggested that every hour Catholics should hold their breath for five seconds as a reminder of their finitude and thank God Almighty for their life.
For particularly devout Catholics, Bishop Yu Sin suggested that they could make arrangements to get whipped by a fellow Catholic, who should wear special leather attire for repentance and shout "repent and sin no more!" while striking the bare back of their partner in faith.
The majority of bishops have expressed their approval of Yu Sin ideas. According to some well informed sources, the new Pope, Benedict XXX, might issue his first Encyclical letter De Respiratione et Paenitentia Catholicorum ("On Breathing and Repentance of Catholics") as early as June. Given its subject, the Encyclical is expected to raise an interest even higher than the Theology of the Body in the Catholic flock.
De Respiratione et Paenitentia Catholicorum
by Joe London - Dissociated Press
Catholic Benedict XVI Joseph Ratzinger
Vatican, April 2005.
At the half-yearly meeting of bishops, the Chinese-born bishop and theologian Yu Sin has proposed that all Catholics should change the habitual way of breathing.
"The habitual act of breathing is accompanied by a state of wellbeing that is too self-indulgent and a sign of objective moral disorder" explained the bishop. In every moment of our life we ought to remember the Latin saying memento mori ("remember you have to die") which is often forgotten in our secular society in which science deceives human beings and nearly suggests that immortality is only a matter of biochemical findings".
Bishop Yu Sin has suggested that every hour Catholics should hold their breath for five seconds as a reminder of their finitude and thank God Almighty for their life.
For particularly devout Catholics, Bishop Yu Sin suggested that they could make arrangements to get whipped by a fellow Catholic, who should wear special leather attire for repentance and shout "repent and sin no more!" while striking the bare back of their partner in faith.
The majority of bishops have expressed their approval of Yu Sin ideas. According to some well informed sources, the new Pope, Benedict XXX, might issue his first Encyclical letter De Respiratione et Paenitentia Catholicorum ("On Breathing and Repentance of Catholics") as early as June. Given its subject, the Encyclical is expected to raise an interest even higher than the Theology of the Body in the Catholic flock.
The adventures of Rev. Dick N. Butt
Abstinence-only education is the answer!
(c) Joe London
Abstinence-only education is the answer!
(c) Joe London
"If I believe neither in Evil nor in Good, if I feel such a strong inclination to destroy, if there is nothing in the order of principles to which I can reasonably accede, the underlying reason is in my flesh.
I destroy because for me everything that proceeds from reason is untrustworthy. I believe only in the evidence of what stirs my marrow, not in the evidence of what addresses itself to my reason. I have found levels in the realm of the nerve.
I now feel capable of evaluating the evidence. There is for me an evidence in the realm of pure flesh which has nothing to do with the evidence of reason. The eternal conflict between reason and the heart is decided in my very flesh, but in my flesh irrigated by nerves.[...]"
From Manifesto in Clear Language by Antonin Artaud
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Interesting article from Scientific American.com:
The Fossil Fallacy
Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
[...]
Read the whole article here.
The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science
By Michael ShermerNineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
[...]
Read the whole article here.
Interesting article: Pope Benedict XVI’s Perplexing Logic by Thomas Riggins (read here).
Excerpt:
Nevertheless, Ratzinger’s "deep reading" of history, philosophy and theology allowed him to connect student peaceniks with the Nazis. He decided the way to fight the student movement that he saw as "an echo of the Nazi totalitarianism" (which he "loathed") was to insist upon "unquestioned obedience" to Rome (i.e., the Pope). That’s right folks – the way to fight Nazi totalitarianism was with Papal totalitarianism. It seems to me that the Nazis also had a leader what advocated "unquestioned obedience." You might think that the young Ratzinger, with all his deep reading, would have concluded that "unquestioned obedience" was probably not a good idea, but you would be wrong.
Read also New York Times' article: Turbulence on Campus in 60's Hardened Views of Future Pope (click here).
Excerpt:
"Once, about 10 years ago when I was visiting him in Rome, he [Ratzinger] told me, 'I have my personal sense of freedom, my sympathy for freedom. I have to keep it to myself. I have to obey the pope. The pope told me that it is my biggest religious obligation not to have my own opinions.'
Excerpt:
Nevertheless, Ratzinger’s "deep reading" of history, philosophy and theology allowed him to connect student peaceniks with the Nazis. He decided the way to fight the student movement that he saw as "an echo of the Nazi totalitarianism" (which he "loathed") was to insist upon "unquestioned obedience" to Rome (i.e., the Pope). That’s right folks – the way to fight Nazi totalitarianism was with Papal totalitarianism. It seems to me that the Nazis also had a leader what advocated "unquestioned obedience." You might think that the young Ratzinger, with all his deep reading, would have concluded that "unquestioned obedience" was probably not a good idea, but you would be wrong.
Read also New York Times' article: Turbulence on Campus in 60's Hardened Views of Future Pope (click here).
Excerpt:
"Once, about 10 years ago when I was visiting him in Rome, he [Ratzinger] told me, 'I have my personal sense of freedom, my sympathy for freedom. I have to keep it to myself. I have to obey the pope. The pope told me that it is my biggest religious obligation not to have my own opinions.'
That's what Nazism and certain religions are about, Catholicism included: people should not have their own opinions, but follow those of self-proclaimed leaders of the world or self-proclaimed interpreters of God's will on earth. Both Nazism and religion will tell you what to think and believe and how to behave. Both threaten consequences in case of 'disobedience' (either immanent or transcendent). Both do not recognize the right to self-determination of the individual. Both claim their words should guide others. No thanks.
Abstinence-only 'education'
contradicts the very ends of education
contradicts the very ends of education
I came across a post (read here) which tackles the problem of unwanted pregnancies amongst teenagers, which are nearly 1,000,000 every year in the US only. The post is also interesting because the writer is a teenager herself. Too often the voice and needs of teenagers are ignored. In her paper, Elizabeth provides data and facts that support her conclusion that abstinence-only education programmes (which leave teenagers in total ignorance on contraception and protection against STDs) is the wrong approach to solve the problem of unintended pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. She shows sound thinking. That which the current US administration is very short of.
But I would like to tackle here another aspect that is probably not sufficiently considered when it comes to abstinence-only education. Besides their oxymoronic nature (they are not 'educational', rather they provide wrong information) these programmes contradict those that should be the final ends of any educational system.
Education should not be indoctrination or inducing unconditioned reflexes of fear and anxiety, in a Pavlov-like fashion, in order to have masses of people behave in a given way, even against their own drives and unique personality.
Education should provide all necessary means for individuals to shape their own vision of the reality and critical capacity, and to make their own choices, responsibly, based on true facts, and in harmony with themselves.
Abstinence-only programs act in the opposite way. They are driven by a patronizing approach that considers teenagers much like incapacitated beings who must be scared and misinformed in order to have certain results in terms of behaviour.
Of course, this approach does not even work in the intended way. But what is the picture young people get? That of a system where people's intelligence and volition are humiliated, in a way that contradicts the very idea of education. A system where ideological force and indoctrination is held more important than truth, objective facts, and the very health of teenagers (vital information to protect themselves is denied to teenagers). This picture, sadly, is true.
The heinous effects of the patronizing approach of abstinence-only education programmes, in terms of psychological tensions and shaping of wrong attitudes (mental passivity and ideology rather than critical thinking) incompatible with the true ends of education, has probably not been sufficiently stressed in the abstinence-only debate.
You can read other posts of mine on the same issue here.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Slate dedicates a column (read here) on the revelations regarding the Pope's Gag Order on sexual abuses.
My yesterday's post is also quoted, as well as comments from various other bloggers.
My yesterday's post is also quoted, as well as comments from various other bloggers.
Monday, April 25, 2005
A must-read article here by Charles E. Curran.
From the Observer(my comment, in red, follows this excerpt):
Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry
Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret
Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday April 24, 2005
The Observer
Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry
Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret
Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday April 24, 2005
The Observer
Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.
It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.
The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.
It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.
The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.
'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.
[...]
Read the whole article here, some more background details here.
It would be disingenuous to think that Ratzinger's main concern was the interest of the molested victims, and not a desire of secrecy to favour his clerics. In fact, according to the letter, allegations had to remain secret for 10 years after the child had reached adulthood. I guess the intention was not to distract the priests from their 'mission'? What a morality!
However, precise instructions to deal with allegations in absolute secrecy can also be found in a secret document of 1962 (read here).
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Catholics spread ignorance and death by condemning condoms
As it is known, Catholics have a very strict teaching as regards contraception. According to Catholics any means of artificial contraception is wrong, even when, in the case of condoms, they can effectively reduce the risk of transmission of STD. For Catholics condoms are wrong even between married partners. Against any scientific evidence, they spread false information, to deter people from using condoms, claiming falsely that they are not effective. By doing go, they become co-responsible of the spreading of diseases (one of the spreaders of falsities in this respect can be read here, if you want to have an idea).
No protective device in any field is 100% effective. Seat belts, for example, will not give you absolute guarantee of no injury or death in case of car accident but they have proved effective in reducing the rates of severe injuries and death, if one drives a car. For this reason their use has become compulsory. Nobody is nowadays suggesting to not use them because they do not provide a 100% guarantee of protection. Likewise, condoms are not 100% effective but are "highly effective" (as stated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
Now, Catholics - who call themselves 'pro-life' - refuse to admit the life-protecting notion that condoms are highly effective in protecting against the transmission of STDs, and act against their use by exercising pressure on the faithful, on the media, on organizations and governments. This is simply criminal. And is even more criminal if we think that such a non-scientific approach has also contributed to the introduction of policies, like the US abstinence-only education programs, in which no information is given to the young on how to protect themselves.
The reasons for contrasting the use of condoms is theological for Catholics, that is it relates to their (human and fallible) interpretations of the Bible. The Vatican is not prepared, at least until now, to give up its objectionable positions (even if not shared by a large number of people within the Catholic flock), and chooses to privilege doctrinal rigidity over the life of people.
Yet, aware that theology alone would not be a widely accepted argument, they spread false scientific information to appear more persuasive.
Now when it comes to health, would you think the Catholic religion, which has a well-known anti-scientific background (just a name: Galileo Galilei) is more reliable than official science?
The following is an excerpt of a text that can be found in the Web site of the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (click here), which is surely an organization more reliable than the Vatican on health matters.
No protective device in any field is 100% effective. Seat belts, for example, will not give you absolute guarantee of no injury or death in case of car accident but they have proved effective in reducing the rates of severe injuries and death, if one drives a car. For this reason their use has become compulsory. Nobody is nowadays suggesting to not use them because they do not provide a 100% guarantee of protection. Likewise, condoms are not 100% effective but are "highly effective" (as stated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
Now, Catholics - who call themselves 'pro-life' - refuse to admit the life-protecting notion that condoms are highly effective in protecting against the transmission of STDs, and act against their use by exercising pressure on the faithful, on the media, on organizations and governments. This is simply criminal. And is even more criminal if we think that such a non-scientific approach has also contributed to the introduction of policies, like the US abstinence-only education programs, in which no information is given to the young on how to protect themselves.
The reasons for contrasting the use of condoms is theological for Catholics, that is it relates to their (human and fallible) interpretations of the Bible. The Vatican is not prepared, at least until now, to give up its objectionable positions (even if not shared by a large number of people within the Catholic flock), and chooses to privilege doctrinal rigidity over the life of people.
Yet, aware that theology alone would not be a widely accepted argument, they spread false scientific information to appear more persuasive.
Now when it comes to health, would you think the Catholic religion, which has a well-known anti-scientific background (just a name: Galileo Galilei) is more reliable than official science?
The following is an excerpt of a text that can be found in the Web site of the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (click here), which is surely an organization more reliable than the Vatican on health matters.
---------------
Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel:
Male Latex Condoms
and Sexually Transmitted Diseases
In June 2000, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), convened a workshop to evaluate the published evidence establishing the effectiveness of latex male condoms in preventing STDs, including HIV. A summary report from that workshop was completed in July 2001 (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf). This fact sheet is based on the NIH workshop report and additional studies that were not reviewed in that report or were published subsequent to the workshop (see “Condom Effectiveness” for additional references). Most epidemiologic studies comparing rates of STD transmission between condom users and non-users focus on penile-vaginal intercourse.
Recommendations concerning the male latex condom and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are based on information about how different STDs are transmitted, the physical properties of condoms, the anatomic coverage or protection that condoms provide, and epidemiologic studies of condom use and STD risk.
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.
For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD.
[...]
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases. While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.
In the PDF Report it is also stated the following:
The methodological strength of the studies on condoms to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission far exceeds that for other STDs.There is demonstrated exposure to HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse with a regular partner (with an absence of other HIV/AIDS risk factors). Longitudinal studies of HIV-sexual partners of HIV+infected cases allow for the estimation of HIV/AIDS incidence among condom users and condom non-users. From the two incidence estimates, consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%.These data provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV.
---------------
CONCLUSIONS: As I stated, no means of protection in any field is 100% effective. But a protection of 85% in regular partners means that condoms are effective enough ("highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV") to be promoted in order to contrast the spreading of AIDS and other STDs. A proper humanly concerned message should stress every part of the story. It should stress that, of course, abstinence and monogamous relationships with uninfected provide the best protection, but should also stress that in all other cases it is better to use a condom rather than not.
By opposing a culture of responsibility and health protection, the Roman Catholic Church serves the culture of ignorance and death. And this is criminal and unacceptable.
I would also like to add that the general opposition of proper family planning and contraceptive education (thus the adoption of unproved and ineffective abstinence-only programs) is not only a factor in the spreading of STDs but also a factor in favouring unintended pregnancies (1,000,000 in the US only amongst teenagers), which in turn favour the occurrence of abortions. Considering all this, the Catholic position is doubly criminal and hypocritical for a self-defined 'pro-life' religion.
[...]
Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Including HIV
Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIVLatex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases. While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.
In the PDF Report it is also stated the following:
The methodological strength of the studies on condoms to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission far exceeds that for other STDs.There is demonstrated exposure to HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse with a regular partner (with an absence of other HIV/AIDS risk factors). Longitudinal studies of HIV-sexual partners of HIV+infected cases allow for the estimation of HIV/AIDS incidence among condom users and condom non-users. From the two incidence estimates, consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%.These data provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV.
---------------
CONCLUSIONS: As I stated, no means of protection in any field is 100% effective. But a protection of 85% in regular partners means that condoms are effective enough ("highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV") to be promoted in order to contrast the spreading of AIDS and other STDs. A proper humanly concerned message should stress every part of the story. It should stress that, of course, abstinence and monogamous relationships with uninfected provide the best protection, but should also stress that in all other cases it is better to use a condom rather than not.
By opposing a culture of responsibility and health protection, the Roman Catholic Church serves the culture of ignorance and death. And this is criminal and unacceptable.
I would also like to add that the general opposition of proper family planning and contraceptive education (thus the adoption of unproved and ineffective abstinence-only programs) is not only a factor in the spreading of STDs but also a factor in favouring unintended pregnancies (1,000,000 in the US only amongst teenagers), which in turn favour the occurrence of abortions. Considering all this, the Catholic position is doubly criminal and hypocritical for a self-defined 'pro-life' religion.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
A five-year-old girl handcuffed by the police in her kindergarten in Florida (you can read the coverage here and see a video of when it happened, recorded by the school's close-circuit TV system. Another article here.).
When you have such things happening, one can easily understand how widespread violence of adults is. Even policemen feel themselves authorised to restrain a harmless five-year-old girl, careless of the psychological traumas this might cause (the little girl started to cry desperately after being handcuffed). And what about the school? What type of education and sensitivity do teachers show when they call the police to restrain the vivacity of a child?
The incident has raised indignation all over the world. But this incident of barbarian unconsideration for children's rights is not exceptional. A sever-year-old special education student was arrested in the state of Hawaii last year (read here).
When you have such things happening, one can easily understand how widespread violence of adults is. Even policemen feel themselves authorised to restrain a harmless five-year-old girl, careless of the psychological traumas this might cause (the little girl started to cry desperately after being handcuffed). And what about the school? What type of education and sensitivity do teachers show when they call the police to restrain the vivacity of a child?
The incident has raised indignation all over the world. But this incident of barbarian unconsideration for children's rights is not exceptional. A sever-year-old special education student was arrested in the state of Hawaii last year (read here).
Falsity in the light, truth in the dark
The world is strange, people often flaunt false beliefs in hypocrisy and complacency, while hiding in the dark what is true, their very self, body and mind.
In doing so, they transform the light into the realm of falsity, and darkness into the hiding place of a neglected truth.
They please the arbitrary authority of others, external to them, as if their self were not reliable and they had thus to blindly rely on others.
It is as if they considered their own organism rotten, its voice undependable, and thus they accepted to be taken over by other organisms who will thenceforth guide every single step and thought.
It is a scenario of expropriation of the self.
Where does all this originate? Where do humans learn to distrust themselves and to rely on others, in a vile and pavid way?
They perpetuate forgotten scenes of emotional blackmail.
"I will love you, if you are the way I say you should be". If you do not, if you follow the voice of your heart, the love will be denied.
"Abandon yourself to God". This recurrent sentence is used in much the same way: distrust the voice of your heart, follow mine who I know for sure, I offer love and salvation. Viceversa I will call you a faithless sinner. And you also will experience eternal damnation.
Follow me, not your self. Corollary: your self is not dependable. God is not in you, but in my words. What is this if not a logic of power?
The world is strange, people often flaunt false beliefs in hypocrisy and complacency, while hiding in the dark what is true, their very self, body and mind.
In doing so, they transform the light into the realm of falsity, and darkness into the hiding place of a neglected truth.
They please the arbitrary authority of others, external to them, as if their self were not reliable and they had thus to blindly rely on others.
It is as if they considered their own organism rotten, its voice undependable, and thus they accepted to be taken over by other organisms who will thenceforth guide every single step and thought.
It is a scenario of expropriation of the self.
Where does all this originate? Where do humans learn to distrust themselves and to rely on others, in a vile and pavid way?
They perpetuate forgotten scenes of emotional blackmail.
"I will love you, if you are the way I say you should be". If you do not, if you follow the voice of your heart, the love will be denied.
"Abandon yourself to God". This recurrent sentence is used in much the same way: distrust the voice of your heart, follow mine who I know for sure, I offer love and salvation. Viceversa I will call you a faithless sinner. And you also will experience eternal damnation.
Follow me, not your self. Corollary: your self is not dependable. God is not in you, but in my words. What is this if not a logic of power?
Friday, April 22, 2005
The greed of the faithful
There is something disgusting in the complacent pretension that some religious people have of possessing the absolute, ultimate, unquestionable and immutable truth. The teachings they deem as absolute are in actual facts the result of turns and changes through time, and therefore will also change in the future. But the faithful does not want to see that and wallows in the delusion of possessing a truth that does not change.
Why this is disgusting? Because one realises that that pretension does not rest on a rational certainty - healthily open to doubts, aware of the dynamic, ever-perfecting nature of human thought - but rather on the desire of possessing an absolute truth, a form of greed. In a certain sense, wishful thinking and greed sustain faith and create a 'truth' that is deemed immutable. Using a philosophical term, greed hypostatises religious certainties. Or self-delusion and will to believe turn given religious assumptions into certainties. The religious wants to believe and transforms his want into something real.
By doing so, it is as if the religious said "I am special. I have the light, while you grope in darkness" and thence stagnated with a complacent smile in the delusion of never needing again further inquiry as a final, empowering truth has been reached. Given the proclivity to narcissism of humans, how many would give up the thought of being special, of possessing the ultimate truth, and embrace, instead, Socrate's idea that the ultimate knowledge is knowing of not knowing? The dogmatic religious praises himself with his pretension of possessing the absolute truth, moreover the only truth that provides a 'salvation' against eternal damnation, a handy fabrication to further enforce his beliefs and self-given privilege.
The desire of possessing the truth, of being special, thus of having power on others (which is the actual deal), is so strong that mental habits and views inherited from the past in a given culture are accepted without questions as absolutely true.
The same desire acts as a preemptive force on legitimate doubts or rational attacks. Moreover the religious goes as far as affirming that rationality (that is the very way our thought functions) does not apply to faith and even, in the case of Catholics, that some pronouncements are infallible!
This approach, passed as natural or legitimate, becomes a comfortable territory of arbitrariness. From behind the fabricated strongholds of such a territory, however, the faithful does not renounce to fling his darts, made of querulous condemnations, grave criticisms, and complacent anathemas, expecting that those who are on the other side - the side of people who do not share the same beliefs and do not give up healthy doubts and criticism - should accept opinions claimed as absolutely true. Of course if they do not they may be charitably addressed as 'faithless' (suggesting that being faithful was a natural condition), disordered, evil or even instruments of Satan.
The power strategy is so cleverly conceived that, in the case of Catholics, one is included in the flock of God when infant, through baptism, when clearly an assent cannot be expressed. And of course parents (equally indoctrinated since birth) anxiously baptise their children because as a famous American preacher morbidly articulated "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptised babies". Then, parents, sometimes teachers, and priests, see to the final indoctrination of the little children, filling them up with their mythological images of hell and heaven, devils and angels, trinities, saints, virgin maries, and so forth, whose heinous effect on the child's mind has probably not been sufficiently studied.
Bottomline: religion satisfies the narcissistic desire of being special and possessing ultimate knowledge, absolute, unquestionable, immutable and even infallible. Such a desire is a de facto istrument of self-praise and complacency on the part of clerics and devouts alike, and an instrument of power. The despicable indoctrination of children since birth, through religious mythologies, is aimed at making sure to have fresh people to maintain the power complex of the church: it satisfies the individual narcissistic greed of clerics who can act in their churches like divas dressed in precious vestments and lacies in front of a public, and blandishes the ego of the faithful who, though captive of religious mythology, can enjoy a narcissistic return in terms of feeling special, enlightened, saved and comfortably dispensed from questioning and searching, cuddled in a deceiving cradle of arbitrary certainties, and also soothed when touched by the disturbing idea of human finitude.
Why this is disgusting? Because one realises that that pretension does not rest on a rational certainty - healthily open to doubts, aware of the dynamic, ever-perfecting nature of human thought - but rather on the desire of possessing an absolute truth, a form of greed. In a certain sense, wishful thinking and greed sustain faith and create a 'truth' that is deemed immutable. Using a philosophical term, greed hypostatises religious certainties. Or self-delusion and will to believe turn given religious assumptions into certainties. The religious wants to believe and transforms his want into something real.
By doing so, it is as if the religious said "I am special. I have the light, while you grope in darkness" and thence stagnated with a complacent smile in the delusion of never needing again further inquiry as a final, empowering truth has been reached. Given the proclivity to narcissism of humans, how many would give up the thought of being special, of possessing the ultimate truth, and embrace, instead, Socrate's idea that the ultimate knowledge is knowing of not knowing? The dogmatic religious praises himself with his pretension of possessing the absolute truth, moreover the only truth that provides a 'salvation' against eternal damnation, a handy fabrication to further enforce his beliefs and self-given privilege.
The desire of possessing the truth, of being special, thus of having power on others (which is the actual deal), is so strong that mental habits and views inherited from the past in a given culture are accepted without questions as absolutely true.
The same desire acts as a preemptive force on legitimate doubts or rational attacks. Moreover the religious goes as far as affirming that rationality (that is the very way our thought functions) does not apply to faith and even, in the case of Catholics, that some pronouncements are infallible!
This approach, passed as natural or legitimate, becomes a comfortable territory of arbitrariness. From behind the fabricated strongholds of such a territory, however, the faithful does not renounce to fling his darts, made of querulous condemnations, grave criticisms, and complacent anathemas, expecting that those who are on the other side - the side of people who do not share the same beliefs and do not give up healthy doubts and criticism - should accept opinions claimed as absolutely true. Of course if they do not they may be charitably addressed as 'faithless' (suggesting that being faithful was a natural condition), disordered, evil or even instruments of Satan.
The power strategy is so cleverly conceived that, in the case of Catholics, one is included in the flock of God when infant, through baptism, when clearly an assent cannot be expressed. And of course parents (equally indoctrinated since birth) anxiously baptise their children because as a famous American preacher morbidly articulated "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptised babies". Then, parents, sometimes teachers, and priests, see to the final indoctrination of the little children, filling them up with their mythological images of hell and heaven, devils and angels, trinities, saints, virgin maries, and so forth, whose heinous effect on the child's mind has probably not been sufficiently studied.
Bottomline: religion satisfies the narcissistic desire of being special and possessing ultimate knowledge, absolute, unquestionable, immutable and even infallible. Such a desire is a de facto istrument of self-praise and complacency on the part of clerics and devouts alike, and an instrument of power. The despicable indoctrination of children since birth, through religious mythologies, is aimed at making sure to have fresh people to maintain the power complex of the church: it satisfies the individual narcissistic greed of clerics who can act in their churches like divas dressed in precious vestments and lacies in front of a public, and blandishes the ego of the faithful who, though captive of religious mythology, can enjoy a narcissistic return in terms of feeling special, enlightened, saved and comfortably dispensed from questioning and searching, cuddled in a deceiving cradle of arbitrary certainties, and also soothed when touched by the disturbing idea of human finitude.
The loss of natural grace through upbringing and education
I had a cat, beautiful, black. When she felt something wrong had been done to her, she would immediately react, fiercely, even if the villain was a human, much bigger than her, and slash the air with her claws if only to warn, before quietly walking away gracefully.
Unlike humans, animals nearly always maintain their grace. Their fierce responses when a danger is perceived, or the natural projection towards a loved mate, are a sign of health. Rage, fear, love, all produce a tension within that is released through an immediate natural and graceful response.
Conversely, due to their upbringing, humans are often encouraged not to do the same, in fact to do exactly the opposite. To block themselves, to confine their feelings into a tenacious case, to withold the natural flow of their vital energy, to experience a quotidian defeat of the most sincere part of themselves as a toll paid to the expectations and power of adults who, more often than not, are not aware of, or ignore, the perfect mechanisms of self-regulation and the needs of children and arrogate themselves the right to impose their rules and vision into the children's mind with coercitive and abusive means.
Excessive shouting (even to vent their own tensions), physical or psychological abuses, segregation in the name of 'teaching lessons to the child' are not unfrequent, even nowadays, after decades of psychological and pedagogical studies which certainly parents are not obliged to be proficient in before having a child. Just like parents are not obliged to prove their emotional or psychological balance.
If even a single occurrence of physical or verbal abuse is committed against an adult, he or she can decide to walk away or to divorce (if a marriage is involved) or even to report the perpetrator to the authorities. A child in an abusive home remains in the same environment for years. And even his natural reactions of defense or protests are thwarted and punished because they are perceived as an attack against the untouchable and unchallengeable authority of the parents.
I would like to point out that abusive is any behaviour that tries to force the adult's will on the child against the child's needs, or that intends to teach lessons relying not on persuasion and example, but on force through slaps and/or terrorising shouts and threats, or insults, or disrespect of the child's personality. Means that are often considered normal.
Against all this a child is poweless, and yet all this is experienced with internal tensions of incredible intensity. What happens to these tensions? Alexander Lowen explains in his "The Spirituality of the Body" that all these tensions, unexpressed because of fear or, later, in the name of "honour thy father and mother" (an unfair carte blanche for any arbitrariness) contribute to forming chronic muscular tensions that represent - and symbolise - a rigid barrier between the self and the world. When this happens, the natural grace of the child is lost. Diminished becomes his capacity to interact with the environment and with people, to feel emotions, to experience pleasure and joy, and this condition, if untreated, will often last for his whole life.
* * *
Children are told that anger is bad, especially towards adults, and yet they have to put up with the violence that comes from them, not necessarily physical but not less heinous if in the guise of depreciation, humiliation, or insults. They are often told to not scream and have composure, while not unfrequently their home's walls are shaken by the shouts and cries of neurotic parents. They must not even conceive to raise their hands against parents, if only to defend themselves, yet they may be beaten and terrorised by parents 'for the sake of their learning'. It is a whole one-way regime of terror. But the many real and big mistakes of parents are never paid by the slaps of a bigger authority.
And when children naturally express something that even remotely appear sexual - more properly affection, need of physical contact, or even an innocent and natural manifestation of curiosity with peers - many adults project their well-shaped twisted mind on such behaviours, seeing sin and disease where is only innocence. The same adults who, well adjusted in a society sick to its marrow, are often no longer capable of true love, and only look for fetishes of impossible communion in dull, empty copulations. The same adults who become defensive against, and somewhat jealous of, who dares endanger their territory of affection perceived as exclusive, when the children grow and experience their first real and pure feelings of love.
* * *
The strategy of violence and control perpetrated on powerless children often avails itself of supporting ideologies, or we should say accomplices. The most powerful is religion. If brought up in pious Catholic homes (or Evangelical for that matter), by the time children have become teenagers, they have heard endless litanies that only mean: forget about yourself and your desires, learn to obey not to what your heart says but to what others say; learn to accept the opinion of others, not to shape your own; learn to be wary against your feelings and to acquiesce to the expectations of others; consider your sexual needs a disorder and a "mortal sin", not a natural drive, at least until the laws of society and the prescriptions of ancient books written in times of ignorance authorise you to feel what is natural to feel.
It is interesting and opportune to point out that, in the case of Catholicism, many of the adult 'champions of morality', who praise chastity and adore the Virgin Mary, and wear black gowns - boasting charity, but deep inside showing a sick despisement of real human beings and life - are often the first to engage in sick clandestine, often abusive, practices.
It is also opportune to point out that perversions and sexual disorders and pornography are surely a result of a society where sex is - awarely or not - associated to sin, guilt, taboos or the like. In the Western world, this situation is a direct result of the Judeo-Christian vision of reality.
* * *
This is the world of adults, who often do not have credibility nor true morality, only power, frequently misused and abusive. A world that perpetuates the original sin of violence and arbitrariness (it is well known that not unfrequently the abused will often become abusive too). A world of adults who have forgotten their own childhood and have the pretension to teach the young, while really they should learn from them, some innocence, some sincerity, some truth.
Their sins (I use this term in a lay sense) fall on their offspring. Their violence produces effects that perpetuate violence itself. The natural harmony of human beings with themselves and the world is hindered. The flow of vital energy within the body obstructed by psychological and physical barriers, formed by unexpressed and thwarted tensions. The body, considered as a complex of psyche and soma, loses grace, beauty, harmony, that is the natural features that animals have in every aspect of their life. Humans become blocked, cold, armored, defensive, insensitive. Emotions become diluted or absent. The energy of life itself diminishes.
Incredible damages are made through wrong upbringing, education and religion, and yet in a society inhabited by emotionally, spiritually and physically maimed individuals, we see normality in desolation.
Further readings:
Spirituality of the Body: Bioenergetics for Grace and harmony by Alexander Lowen
The Betrayal of the Body by Alexander Lowen
Narcissism: Denial of The True Self by Alexander Lowen
Fear of life by Alexander Lowen
Unlike humans, animals nearly always maintain their grace. Their fierce responses when a danger is perceived, or the natural projection towards a loved mate, are a sign of health. Rage, fear, love, all produce a tension within that is released through an immediate natural and graceful response.
Conversely, due to their upbringing, humans are often encouraged not to do the same, in fact to do exactly the opposite. To block themselves, to confine their feelings into a tenacious case, to withold the natural flow of their vital energy, to experience a quotidian defeat of the most sincere part of themselves as a toll paid to the expectations and power of adults who, more often than not, are not aware of, or ignore, the perfect mechanisms of self-regulation and the needs of children and arrogate themselves the right to impose their rules and vision into the children's mind with coercitive and abusive means.
Excessive shouting (even to vent their own tensions), physical or psychological abuses, segregation in the name of 'teaching lessons to the child' are not unfrequent, even nowadays, after decades of psychological and pedagogical studies which certainly parents are not obliged to be proficient in before having a child. Just like parents are not obliged to prove their emotional or psychological balance.
If even a single occurrence of physical or verbal abuse is committed against an adult, he or she can decide to walk away or to divorce (if a marriage is involved) or even to report the perpetrator to the authorities. A child in an abusive home remains in the same environment for years. And even his natural reactions of defense or protests are thwarted and punished because they are perceived as an attack against the untouchable and unchallengeable authority of the parents.
I would like to point out that abusive is any behaviour that tries to force the adult's will on the child against the child's needs, or that intends to teach lessons relying not on persuasion and example, but on force through slaps and/or terrorising shouts and threats, or insults, or disrespect of the child's personality. Means that are often considered normal.
Against all this a child is poweless, and yet all this is experienced with internal tensions of incredible intensity. What happens to these tensions? Alexander Lowen explains in his "The Spirituality of the Body" that all these tensions, unexpressed because of fear or, later, in the name of "honour thy father and mother" (an unfair carte blanche for any arbitrariness) contribute to forming chronic muscular tensions that represent - and symbolise - a rigid barrier between the self and the world. When this happens, the natural grace of the child is lost. Diminished becomes his capacity to interact with the environment and with people, to feel emotions, to experience pleasure and joy, and this condition, if untreated, will often last for his whole life.
* * *
Children are told that anger is bad, especially towards adults, and yet they have to put up with the violence that comes from them, not necessarily physical but not less heinous if in the guise of depreciation, humiliation, or insults. They are often told to not scream and have composure, while not unfrequently their home's walls are shaken by the shouts and cries of neurotic parents. They must not even conceive to raise their hands against parents, if only to defend themselves, yet they may be beaten and terrorised by parents 'for the sake of their learning'. It is a whole one-way regime of terror. But the many real and big mistakes of parents are never paid by the slaps of a bigger authority.
And when children naturally express something that even remotely appear sexual - more properly affection, need of physical contact, or even an innocent and natural manifestation of curiosity with peers - many adults project their well-shaped twisted mind on such behaviours, seeing sin and disease where is only innocence. The same adults who, well adjusted in a society sick to its marrow, are often no longer capable of true love, and only look for fetishes of impossible communion in dull, empty copulations. The same adults who become defensive against, and somewhat jealous of, who dares endanger their territory of affection perceived as exclusive, when the children grow and experience their first real and pure feelings of love.
* * *
The strategy of violence and control perpetrated on powerless children often avails itself of supporting ideologies, or we should say accomplices. The most powerful is religion. If brought up in pious Catholic homes (or Evangelical for that matter), by the time children have become teenagers, they have heard endless litanies that only mean: forget about yourself and your desires, learn to obey not to what your heart says but to what others say; learn to accept the opinion of others, not to shape your own; learn to be wary against your feelings and to acquiesce to the expectations of others; consider your sexual needs a disorder and a "mortal sin", not a natural drive, at least until the laws of society and the prescriptions of ancient books written in times of ignorance authorise you to feel what is natural to feel.
It is interesting and opportune to point out that, in the case of Catholicism, many of the adult 'champions of morality', who praise chastity and adore the Virgin Mary, and wear black gowns - boasting charity, but deep inside showing a sick despisement of real human beings and life - are often the first to engage in sick clandestine, often abusive, practices.
It is also opportune to point out that perversions and sexual disorders and pornography are surely a result of a society where sex is - awarely or not - associated to sin, guilt, taboos or the like. In the Western world, this situation is a direct result of the Judeo-Christian vision of reality.
* * *
This is the world of adults, who often do not have credibility nor true morality, only power, frequently misused and abusive. A world that perpetuates the original sin of violence and arbitrariness (it is well known that not unfrequently the abused will often become abusive too). A world of adults who have forgotten their own childhood and have the pretension to teach the young, while really they should learn from them, some innocence, some sincerity, some truth.
Their sins (I use this term in a lay sense) fall on their offspring. Their violence produces effects that perpetuate violence itself. The natural harmony of human beings with themselves and the world is hindered. The flow of vital energy within the body obstructed by psychological and physical barriers, formed by unexpressed and thwarted tensions. The body, considered as a complex of psyche and soma, loses grace, beauty, harmony, that is the natural features that animals have in every aspect of their life. Humans become blocked, cold, armored, defensive, insensitive. Emotions become diluted or absent. The energy of life itself diminishes.
Incredible damages are made through wrong upbringing, education and religion, and yet in a society inhabited by emotionally, spiritually and physically maimed individuals, we see normality in desolation.
Further readings:
Spirituality of the Body: Bioenergetics for Grace and harmony by Alexander Lowen
The Betrayal of the Body by Alexander Lowen
Narcissism: Denial of The True Self by Alexander Lowen
Fear of life by Alexander Lowen
Very interesting article (here). Excerpt:
"This coming week, the leader of the majority Republicans in the United States, Senator Bill Frist, is participating in a telecast geared towards labeling the opposition Democrats as acting 'against people of faith.' This is because the Democrats are opposing the nomination of judges with extremely conservative views. But, as columnist Frank Rich of the New York Times says, Senator Frist and his allies do not mean people of all faiths, only those of their faith.
[...]
It’s the oldest trick in the book for people of a certain political ilk to try and gain cheap points by claiming that those who disagree with them have suspect religious credentials. They try and claim the supposed higher moral ground yet at the same time preach intolerance and discrimination.
Under a supposed halo that they give to themselves, they defame others by besmirching their reputations as loyal citizens and faithful believers and call for the harshest sanctions against them. Not exactly the type of serene actions you would expect from people who believe in the peaceful possibilities of faith."
To read the whole article go here.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Some considerations on the Catholic views of sexuality
Homosexuality
The new pope, Benedict XVI, born Joseph Alois Ratzinger, in a letter to bishops in 1986, has identified homosexuality as a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil". Even if the non-acted-out homosexuality is not considered a sin, the simple tendency is considered by Ratzinger an "objective disorder".
By adopting this type of reasoning, devoid of any scientific ground, and evoking the idea of evil, the Roman Catholic Church encourages intolerance. Flaunting Christian love and piety while considering an homosexual evil or disordered is hypocritical and patronizing.
Such a position is also inconsistent from another point of view. If it is stated that the mere homosexual inclination is not a sin, then it is hardly understandable why the acting out of the inclination between consenting adults should be considered a sin. For the presence of sexual pleasure? Here again emerges the dissociative prejudice of Catholics against corporeal life and pleasure.
Or is homosexuality a sin because human beings are supposed to reproduce according to the 'plans of God' of which Catholics appoint themselves as exclusive interpreters? Well if so, then all Catholic priests should be considered disordered as they (at least officially) don't reproduce themselves.
Masturbation and premarital sex
It is opportune to remember that the Catholic catechism uses the same wording ("moral disorder") when considering masturbation. An antiscientific approach that can lead parents to all sorts of psychological abuses of the 'caught sinner'. Likewise, premarital sex between consenting adults, or between teenagers, is associated to the stigma of sin and is called fornication. Non-biased psychologists could very well explain how dangerous this obsessive tabooing of natural drives can be, how it can encourage psychological abuse and coercive behaviour in upbringing, and hinder the harmonious development of human beings.
Contraception
The position of the Roman Catholic Church does not show more reasonability in the case of contraception. Why, for instance a husband could not use a condom with his life if, say for instance, he has become HIV+ for a transfusion? Has the Catholic Church any right to create guilt and problems in this case?
And is it not utterly irresponsible and criminal to condemn the use of condoms? Even if not 100% perfect, still condoms provide a very good protection and their importance in contrasting the spreading of STDs is indubitable.
Even car seat belts are not 100% perfect. But they have reduced the occurrence of fatal car accidents and the severity of injuries. Are they condemned because they are not perfect or are they not deemed fundamental?
Catholic sexophobia is a disorder
The importance of the sexual dimension in human life is fundamental, also in the light of modern biological and psychological notions. Catholics stubbornly depreciate sexuality and associate it to sin, with an obsessiveness which appears, indeed, a real disorder.
Any sexual pleasure is a sin for Catholics, except in marriage. Teenagers or adults kissing and touching each other are considered in sin, if not married, and masturbation too is considered a sin and a 'disorder'. There views are completely non-scientific and dangerous from a psychological point of view. They contribute to creating a climate in which what is natural is perceived with guilt and conflicts and thus not experienced harmoniously. A great gift that Catholics Catechism makes to pornography and psychiatrists: also thanks to their theology they have customers.
For the Roman Catholic Church sex and pleasure are associated to sin. But if Catholics whip themselves or wear a cilice, like the members of Opus Dei, that is normal and healthy! Or if one licks the sores of lepers, or throw oneself in thorn bushes, like some 'saints' of the past. Or living in obsessive scruples like St. Therese. Or perhaps castrating oneself is fine, like the 'Father of the Church' Origen of Alexandria did. Any non-biased reader will draw his or her opinions, but cannot fail to see that the relationship of the Catholic Church with real life and sexuality is, at best, utterly problematic. Dissociation would be a more helpful word to describe it.
And shall we not mention the fact that a study commissioned by the Conference of Catholic Bishops documenting sex abuse by United States Roman Catholic clergy says that about four percent of clerics have been accused of molesting minors since 1950? (read here). And is it hard to believe that the number of actual abuses have been much higher, as many go unreported? And what about the studies that document that a large part of celibate priests are not in fact celibate and have a sexual life with consenting adults either of the same or opposite sex? This case, too, shows much hypocrisy and incapacity to understand the meaning of these facts in terms of unhealthily thwarted sexuality.
In other words, people who live in unhealthy celibacy and apparently afflicted by chronic duplicity and sexual hang-ups, if not - in some cases - depravity, have the pretension of teaching what is 'disordered' and 'sinful' or not.
Conclusion
I don't really think Jesus Christ, from what we can read on the Gospels, dedicated the same attention to sex as the Catholic Church seems to, obsessively. His words were more for the poor and the dejected of society, and in favour of love, acceptance, tolerance, humbleness. Against materialism and against the mere, alienating pursuit of power and wealth. Against all that endangers the grace of human beings and their unity, with their own self and with the rest of the creation. When Christ shows vehemence against somebody it is against the rich, and the alienation of commerce, not against the supposed sinner of the flesh which he would never treat with the patronizing attitude of modern priests.
While they have the pretension to act in the name of Christ, many representatives of the modern Catholic clergy are billions of miles away from the Christ of the Gospels. Encased in fetishised rituals, self-pleased and preening in their vestments and in handling their precious toys, moving about like histrionic actresses who feel costantly on stage, afflicted by an incurable narcissism and swelling of the ego which, paradoxically, are the more evident the more piety and charity and prayers are flaunted. The most fundamental parts of Jesus' messages are stifled under the weight of all these shows and liturgic exhibitions.
The Catholic Church cannot expect credibility and respect until they start to truly respect other people that have all right to express their being, thus their sexuality, without being insulted with words such as 'evil' or 'disordered'. They should really heed the plank in their own eye before trying to remove the speck from the eye of the fellow man, which often is not even there.
They cannot expect credibility until they grow out of their anachronistic and non-scientific positions, hypocrisy and sexophobia, and perhaps dedicate more energy to the real problems. They should talk about and practice and encourage evangelical poverty more, for instance. How about starting to call 'evil' and 'disordered' those who have a personal wealth comparable to that of entire cities or nations while billions live in poverty? Be less coward, Catholics, do not attack the weak, attack the strong who does more evil in the world. Supposedly Jesus Christ spoke his words, careless of reactions and possible consequences. Do you actually do that? Does your clergy do that? No, not at all. You condemn a condom, while you accept markets as big as cities in front of the temples.
If the Roman Catholic Church, or any other religion, want to transform people's life into a an unnatural hell of guilt and grief (as if life were not hard enough) for the sake of a fabricated afterlife or clerics' power trips and narcissism, a hell where individual conscience and self-determination do not count but only sheepish and dull obedience (while bigger powers act, unscathed, against the future of humanity), they cannot expect that any sensible individual should not react vehemently against the damages they make in our society.
Homosexuality
The new pope, Benedict XVI, born Joseph Alois Ratzinger, in a letter to bishops in 1986, has identified homosexuality as a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil". Even if the non-acted-out homosexuality is not considered a sin, the simple tendency is considered by Ratzinger an "objective disorder".
By adopting this type of reasoning, devoid of any scientific ground, and evoking the idea of evil, the Roman Catholic Church encourages intolerance. Flaunting Christian love and piety while considering an homosexual evil or disordered is hypocritical and patronizing.
Such a position is also inconsistent from another point of view. If it is stated that the mere homosexual inclination is not a sin, then it is hardly understandable why the acting out of the inclination between consenting adults should be considered a sin. For the presence of sexual pleasure? Here again emerges the dissociative prejudice of Catholics against corporeal life and pleasure.
Or is homosexuality a sin because human beings are supposed to reproduce according to the 'plans of God' of which Catholics appoint themselves as exclusive interpreters? Well if so, then all Catholic priests should be considered disordered as they (at least officially) don't reproduce themselves.
Masturbation and premarital sex
It is opportune to remember that the Catholic catechism uses the same wording ("moral disorder") when considering masturbation. An antiscientific approach that can lead parents to all sorts of psychological abuses of the 'caught sinner'. Likewise, premarital sex between consenting adults, or between teenagers, is associated to the stigma of sin and is called fornication. Non-biased psychologists could very well explain how dangerous this obsessive tabooing of natural drives can be, how it can encourage psychological abuse and coercive behaviour in upbringing, and hinder the harmonious development of human beings.
Contraception
The position of the Roman Catholic Church does not show more reasonability in the case of contraception. Why, for instance a husband could not use a condom with his life if, say for instance, he has become HIV+ for a transfusion? Has the Catholic Church any right to create guilt and problems in this case?
And is it not utterly irresponsible and criminal to condemn the use of condoms? Even if not 100% perfect, still condoms provide a very good protection and their importance in contrasting the spreading of STDs is indubitable.
Even car seat belts are not 100% perfect. But they have reduced the occurrence of fatal car accidents and the severity of injuries. Are they condemned because they are not perfect or are they not deemed fundamental?
Catholic sexophobia is a disorder
The importance of the sexual dimension in human life is fundamental, also in the light of modern biological and psychological notions. Catholics stubbornly depreciate sexuality and associate it to sin, with an obsessiveness which appears, indeed, a real disorder.
Any sexual pleasure is a sin for Catholics, except in marriage. Teenagers or adults kissing and touching each other are considered in sin, if not married, and masturbation too is considered a sin and a 'disorder'. There views are completely non-scientific and dangerous from a psychological point of view. They contribute to creating a climate in which what is natural is perceived with guilt and conflicts and thus not experienced harmoniously. A great gift that Catholics Catechism makes to pornography and psychiatrists: also thanks to their theology they have customers.
For the Roman Catholic Church sex and pleasure are associated to sin. But if Catholics whip themselves or wear a cilice, like the members of Opus Dei, that is normal and healthy! Or if one licks the sores of lepers, or throw oneself in thorn bushes, like some 'saints' of the past. Or living in obsessive scruples like St. Therese. Or perhaps castrating oneself is fine, like the 'Father of the Church' Origen of Alexandria did. Any non-biased reader will draw his or her opinions, but cannot fail to see that the relationship of the Catholic Church with real life and sexuality is, at best, utterly problematic. Dissociation would be a more helpful word to describe it.
And shall we not mention the fact that a study commissioned by the Conference of Catholic Bishops documenting sex abuse by United States Roman Catholic clergy says that about four percent of clerics have been accused of molesting minors since 1950? (read here). And is it hard to believe that the number of actual abuses have been much higher, as many go unreported? And what about the studies that document that a large part of celibate priests are not in fact celibate and have a sexual life with consenting adults either of the same or opposite sex? This case, too, shows much hypocrisy and incapacity to understand the meaning of these facts in terms of unhealthily thwarted sexuality.
In other words, people who live in unhealthy celibacy and apparently afflicted by chronic duplicity and sexual hang-ups, if not - in some cases - depravity, have the pretension of teaching what is 'disordered' and 'sinful' or not.
Conclusion
I don't really think Jesus Christ, from what we can read on the Gospels, dedicated the same attention to sex as the Catholic Church seems to, obsessively. His words were more for the poor and the dejected of society, and in favour of love, acceptance, tolerance, humbleness. Against materialism and against the mere, alienating pursuit of power and wealth. Against all that endangers the grace of human beings and their unity, with their own self and with the rest of the creation. When Christ shows vehemence against somebody it is against the rich, and the alienation of commerce, not against the supposed sinner of the flesh which he would never treat with the patronizing attitude of modern priests.
While they have the pretension to act in the name of Christ, many representatives of the modern Catholic clergy are billions of miles away from the Christ of the Gospels. Encased in fetishised rituals, self-pleased and preening in their vestments and in handling their precious toys, moving about like histrionic actresses who feel costantly on stage, afflicted by an incurable narcissism and swelling of the ego which, paradoxically, are the more evident the more piety and charity and prayers are flaunted. The most fundamental parts of Jesus' messages are stifled under the weight of all these shows and liturgic exhibitions.
The Catholic Church cannot expect credibility and respect until they start to truly respect other people that have all right to express their being, thus their sexuality, without being insulted with words such as 'evil' or 'disordered'. They should really heed the plank in their own eye before trying to remove the speck from the eye of the fellow man, which often is not even there.
They cannot expect credibility until they grow out of their anachronistic and non-scientific positions, hypocrisy and sexophobia, and perhaps dedicate more energy to the real problems. They should talk about and practice and encourage evangelical poverty more, for instance. How about starting to call 'evil' and 'disordered' those who have a personal wealth comparable to that of entire cities or nations while billions live in poverty? Be less coward, Catholics, do not attack the weak, attack the strong who does more evil in the world. Supposedly Jesus Christ spoke his words, careless of reactions and possible consequences. Do you actually do that? Does your clergy do that? No, not at all. You condemn a condom, while you accept markets as big as cities in front of the temples.
If the Roman Catholic Church, or any other religion, want to transform people's life into a an unnatural hell of guilt and grief (as if life were not hard enough) for the sake of a fabricated afterlife or clerics' power trips and narcissism, a hell where individual conscience and self-determination do not count but only sheepish and dull obedience (while bigger powers act, unscathed, against the future of humanity), they cannot expect that any sensible individual should not react vehemently against the damages they make in our society.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Ratzinger is the new pope
If you have not noticed some of the above pictures are of Anthony Hopkins and some of the new pope, Benedict XVI, born Joseph Ratzinger. The physical resemblance is impressive.
So today I said to myself "let's check if habemus papam".
And I saw it. In the centre of most online newspapers perched the picture of Joseph Ratzinger, the newly made pope under the name of Benedict XVI. The first impression was of disbelief, as if somebody played a joke that is not so funny. Joseph Ratzinger's grim and astute expression makes him look more suitable to replace Anthony Hopkins in a future movie on Hannibal Lecter than to be a pope. There's something sardonic in this somehow.
Many hardcore Catholics will be very happy: Ratzinger has a reputation of being hard-headedly orthodox and conservative on various aspects of Catholicism: liturgy, absolute superiority of Catholic Church on other religions ("the only salvation is in the Catholic Church"), limitations to religious pluralism and ecumenism, traditional views regarding women, priesthood and sexuality. He even said that rock music is an 'expression of elementary passions' and a vehicle of satanic messages, a primary Italian newspaper reports (read here, in Italian).
In short an election that appears somewhat a gowned religious rendition of that of George W. Bush.
Incidentally, he was once interviewed on the scandal of Catholic priest abuses of altar boys, and he 'estimated' that only 1% might be the percentage of priests involved. Studies have proved that the percentage of abusive Catholic priests is of at least 4%, not rarely plausibly reaching 8-9%.
If you have not noticed some of the above pictures are of Anthony Hopkins and some of the new pope, Benedict XVI, born Joseph Ratzinger. The physical resemblance is impressive.
So today I said to myself "let's check if habemus papam".
And I saw it. In the centre of most online newspapers perched the picture of Joseph Ratzinger, the newly made pope under the name of Benedict XVI. The first impression was of disbelief, as if somebody played a joke that is not so funny. Joseph Ratzinger's grim and astute expression makes him look more suitable to replace Anthony Hopkins in a future movie on Hannibal Lecter than to be a pope. There's something sardonic in this somehow.
Many hardcore Catholics will be very happy: Ratzinger has a reputation of being hard-headedly orthodox and conservative on various aspects of Catholicism: liturgy, absolute superiority of Catholic Church on other religions ("the only salvation is in the Catholic Church"), limitations to religious pluralism and ecumenism, traditional views regarding women, priesthood and sexuality. He even said that rock music is an 'expression of elementary passions' and a vehicle of satanic messages, a primary Italian newspaper reports (read here, in Italian).
In short an election that appears somewhat a gowned religious rendition of that of George W. Bush.
Incidentally, he was once interviewed on the scandal of Catholic priest abuses of altar boys, and he 'estimated' that only 1% might be the percentage of priests involved. Studies have proved that the percentage of abusive Catholic priests is of at least 4%, not rarely plausibly reaching 8-9%.
Monday, April 18, 2005
A conversation
C.: If you don't mind me asking, what is your view on birth and death?
Joe London: What do you mean?
C.: I mean, the different religions have their explanations for how the world began, and reincarnation and so on. But as you dont believe in religion, how do you think the world began and what happens after death?
Joe London: I think it is conceited to think that the destiny of humans after death is different than that of roaches, although it might be consoling to think otherwise
C.: [laughter] So we die, we just die? Nothing more to it?
Joe London: Yes, I think so.
C.: I see
Joe London: Just like any other animal. Because we happen to be animals. Simply, our brain happens to be different than that of other animals in the same way that the trunk of the elephant differs from our nose, but that does not mean anything in terms of a special after-world treatment. We think of the afterworld, simply because we can. But fabrications don't become true by virtue of their being conceived.
C.: And how do you think the world began?
Joe London: My idea is that something has always existed. It makes more sense to me to think so rather than thinking something may appear from nothing.
C.: I see
Joe London: So reality is simply a constant transformation of that something.
C.: I see what you mean.
Joe London: Hypothetically it might be that a given religion coincidentally has got it right, that there is something after. But how do they know before having been there?
C.: Yes, very true!
Joe London: Now, some will say "God told me"
C.: [Laughter]
Joe London: But some people say "I am Napoleon" and they are often put in a padded room.
C.: If you don't mind me asking, what is your view on birth and death?
Joe London: What do you mean?
C.: I mean, the different religions have their explanations for how the world began, and reincarnation and so on. But as you dont believe in religion, how do you think the world began and what happens after death?
Joe London: I think it is conceited to think that the destiny of humans after death is different than that of roaches, although it might be consoling to think otherwise
C.: [laughter] So we die, we just die? Nothing more to it?
Joe London: Yes, I think so.
C.: I see
Joe London: Just like any other animal. Because we happen to be animals. Simply, our brain happens to be different than that of other animals in the same way that the trunk of the elephant differs from our nose, but that does not mean anything in terms of a special after-world treatment. We think of the afterworld, simply because we can. But fabrications don't become true by virtue of their being conceived.
C.: And how do you think the world began?
Joe London: My idea is that something has always existed. It makes more sense to me to think so rather than thinking something may appear from nothing.
C.: I see
Joe London: So reality is simply a constant transformation of that something.
C.: I see what you mean.
Joe London: Hypothetically it might be that a given religion coincidentally has got it right, that there is something after. But how do they know before having been there?
C.: Yes, very true!
Joe London: Now, some will say "God told me"
C.: [Laughter]
Joe London: But some people say "I am Napoleon" and they are often put in a padded room.
In a sermon in the last public mass before the election of next pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has talked against the 'deceit' of humanity through ideologies.
As if Catholicism was not a human-made ideology itself! It only differs from 'secular' ideologies for its pretension of absolute, unquestionable truth.
What is a religion if not a human-made conceited ideology with built-in fabricated eschatology, sustained by poweful - if predictable - theatrical effects? An ideology which does not become truer - let alone the only truth - by virtue of rhetorical moralism, choirs, marble, silky gowns, lacies, muliebrous shuffling about, falsetto singing, solemnity and copious use of fetishes and idols.
At least 'secular' ideologies are humbler, they don't hide behind human-made idols to claim truth.
As if Catholicism was not a human-made ideology itself! It only differs from 'secular' ideologies for its pretension of absolute, unquestionable truth.
What is a religion if not a human-made conceited ideology with built-in fabricated eschatology, sustained by poweful - if predictable - theatrical effects? An ideology which does not become truer - let alone the only truth - by virtue of rhetorical moralism, choirs, marble, silky gowns, lacies, muliebrous shuffling about, falsetto singing, solemnity and copious use of fetishes and idols.
At least 'secular' ideologies are humbler, they don't hide behind human-made idols to claim truth.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
"The ultimate argument against contraceptive education is that it actually promotes early intercourse, but let’s face facts — when the human mind becomes drunk with its own chemicals in the face of wanton lust, would you rather your teenage son or daughter know how to properly use a condom, or be completely unaware in lieu of a plea for promises that are, truthfully, difficult to keep in the literal heat of the moment?"
[...]
"I can only imagine that people who have been repressed by the false belief that sex is evil and disgusting would pervert religion as an outlet for satisfying their baser desires when they find that they simply can’t stifle or remove them.
Don’t believe me? Then where did these priests in the Catholic church practicing impropriety with altar boys come from?"
[...]
"According to 'Psychology Today,' 'Open, informative and accurate communication regarding sexual issues ... may prevent children from developing anxiety or guilt about sex ... into their adulthood.'"
[...]
"I can only imagine that people who have been repressed by the false belief that sex is evil and disgusting would pervert religion as an outlet for satisfying their baser desires when they find that they simply can’t stifle or remove them.
Don’t believe me? Then where did these priests in the Catholic church practicing impropriety with altar boys come from?"
[...]
"According to 'Psychology Today,' 'Open, informative and accurate communication regarding sexual issues ... may prevent children from developing anxiety or guilt about sex ... into their adulthood.'"
[Read the whole article here]
From www.mtulode.com:
Romancing policy language
I’m getting rather sick of the reliance on flashy catchphrases to spread an image that is generally antithetical to the actual policies behind such propaganda.
While the president was not the first to use this technique effectively, he has taken it to a whole new level. In five short years we have been bombarded with “compassionate conservative,” “axis of evil,” “war on terror” and, the latest, a “culture of life.”
A look at the evidence shows very little support for such a hypothesis. Many of his policies have, quite predictably, increased the spread of disease, death and ignorance. Consider, for example, the misinformation spread by what is passed off as sexual “education.” A Congressional report found that over 80 percent of the “abstinence-only” programs funded by our money contain significantly misleading information, if not downright lies.
For instance, exposure to sweat or tears is alleged to be a risk factor for HIV transmission, while some imply that pregnancy can result from touching a person’s genitals or that half of the gay male teen population has tested positive for HIV. A common theme to all of these programs is that condom use is ineffective and that premarital sex is wrong.
[read the whole article here]
Romancing policy language
I’m getting rather sick of the reliance on flashy catchphrases to spread an image that is generally antithetical to the actual policies behind such propaganda.
While the president was not the first to use this technique effectively, he has taken it to a whole new level. In five short years we have been bombarded with “compassionate conservative,” “axis of evil,” “war on terror” and, the latest, a “culture of life.”
A look at the evidence shows very little support for such a hypothesis. Many of his policies have, quite predictably, increased the spread of disease, death and ignorance. Consider, for example, the misinformation spread by what is passed off as sexual “education.” A Congressional report found that over 80 percent of the “abstinence-only” programs funded by our money contain significantly misleading information, if not downright lies.
For instance, exposure to sweat or tears is alleged to be a risk factor for HIV transmission, while some imply that pregnancy can result from touching a person’s genitals or that half of the gay male teen population has tested positive for HIV. A common theme to all of these programs is that condom use is ineffective and that premarital sex is wrong.
[read the whole article here]
Rodents' squeaking
The louder the voice is raised inspired and eloquent to extoll love (human and divine, the former de-humanised more often than not) with complacence for one's own goodness of heart, nobility and depth, ill-concealed by simpers of false modesty and piety, the more intense is the whiff of manure of which such holy mouths are a bottomless pit.
From time immemorial, extraordinary brass neck has been shown by those who use resounding words as badges of their own greatness, as if the numinousness of those words rubbed off on them and cast unequalled qualities by virtue of their mere utterance with adequate solemnity. Love, God, destiny of the human race. The greater and more reboant the words, the greater the men. As if those men had raised to the high spheres of Platonic Forms and thencefrom could gaze at the poor humanity below, hanging on their lips with pleading and adoring eyes, parched of the water of wisdom that they - these solemn speakers only - can dispense.
But modern English could not be more helpful in defining these ministers of good-hearted feelings and spirit: they are full of shit.
While they speak of Love and God with muliebrous solemnity and complacence, too clear is the dull, rodent-like, logic behind. The animal logic of moral territories arbitrarily set, the petty pretension of marking here and there with their holy piss. "This yes, this not" they say these little men, and their pretension should sound true, above their own individual interest, only by virtue of the eminence of the words they impudently use, meant to suggest that they have touched the Forms of truth, and thus acquired the status of salvific meters of the universe.
Their speech is worth a rodent's squeak. Less than that for their disgusting narcissism.
The louder the voice is raised inspired and eloquent to extoll love (human and divine, the former de-humanised more often than not) with complacence for one's own goodness of heart, nobility and depth, ill-concealed by simpers of false modesty and piety, the more intense is the whiff of manure of which such holy mouths are a bottomless pit.
From time immemorial, extraordinary brass neck has been shown by those who use resounding words as badges of their own greatness, as if the numinousness of those words rubbed off on them and cast unequalled qualities by virtue of their mere utterance with adequate solemnity. Love, God, destiny of the human race. The greater and more reboant the words, the greater the men. As if those men had raised to the high spheres of Platonic Forms and thencefrom could gaze at the poor humanity below, hanging on their lips with pleading and adoring eyes, parched of the water of wisdom that they - these solemn speakers only - can dispense.
But modern English could not be more helpful in defining these ministers of good-hearted feelings and spirit: they are full of shit.
While they speak of Love and God with muliebrous solemnity and complacence, too clear is the dull, rodent-like, logic behind. The animal logic of moral territories arbitrarily set, the petty pretension of marking here and there with their holy piss. "This yes, this not" they say these little men, and their pretension should sound true, above their own individual interest, only by virtue of the eminence of the words they impudently use, meant to suggest that they have touched the Forms of truth, and thus acquired the status of salvific meters of the universe.
Their speech is worth a rodent's squeak. Less than that for their disgusting narcissism.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Now that John Paul the pope
deceased is it too much to hope
that with the next be spirit
clearly raised above histrionics
amongst the Roman lacy Catholics?
That black-gowned armies
of undulating priests divested
their pretty silky vestments
and grimaces of grief,
gave up their flaunted piety,
and cured their OCDs?
That shopping lists of inexistent
sins were thrown away to focus
on what matters most on earth
and not on what is bogus?
Has the time not come yet
that a clearer cut be set
between theology and mental case?
You've had your glorious shows,
and celebrated John and death,
rejoiced in television glows,
do us a favour now: turn
your puckered lips disgusted
with what's alive away,
abandon your sacred closets
that are way too packed,
the bore is utter
and ridicule is brimming.
After the show get a real life.
deceased is it too much to hope
that with the next be spirit
clearly raised above histrionics
amongst the Roman lacy Catholics?
That black-gowned armies
of undulating priests divested
their pretty silky vestments
and grimaces of grief,
gave up their flaunted piety,
and cured their OCDs?
That shopping lists of inexistent
sins were thrown away to focus
on what matters most on earth
and not on what is bogus?
Has the time not come yet
that a clearer cut be set
between theology and mental case?
You've had your glorious shows,
and celebrated John and death,
rejoiced in television glows,
do us a favour now: turn
your puckered lips disgusted
with what's alive away,
abandon your sacred closets
that are way too packed,
the bore is utter
and ridicule is brimming.
After the show get a real life.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Commento a margine della disfatta di Berlusconi
"Ma non è sceso in campo Berlusconi"
"Ma non è sceso in campo Berlusconi", qualcuno dirà per cercare di giustificare la clamorosa disfatta del centro-destra alle recenti elezioni regionali in Italia.
Ma è proprio questa idea messianica e arrogante del "faso tuto mi" (faccio tutto io) dell'imprenditore Berlusconi, abbracciata dai suoi alleati, la prima causa del crollo a peso morto della Casa della Libertà. Tra le numerose altre cause, non ultima quella che fa apparire il nome Casa delle Libertà grottesco, vista la censura nella RAI e la tendenza a proporsi come partito unico, incapace di rimanere al di qua della soglia di rispetto dovuta agli avversari politici investiti, come dice Richi Vendola, da un atteggiamento "ringhioso e astioso".
Da sempre nella Casa della Libertà sembrano aver considerato Berlusconi il Messia Mediatico che mettendo giù i dineri, inondando l'Italia di spot e di libri autocelebrativi, diffondendo le proprie smargiassate e barzellette, ed evocando en passant 'miseria, terrore e la morte' del 'pericolo' Comunista automaticamente non può che ottenere consensi dal popolo italiano, considerato alla stregua di una massa di beoti cui appioppare un detersivo.
Grosso errore.
In assenza di una politica seria e perseguendo in modo tanto palese interessi di parte e politiche ad personam, mentre chiari appaiono i segni di crisi economica, politica, istituzionale e morale, lo scotto poi si paga.
Proprio perché la politica non è un detersivo da vendere su Canale 5.
Ma è proprio questa idea messianica e arrogante del "faso tuto mi" (faccio tutto io) dell'imprenditore Berlusconi, abbracciata dai suoi alleati, la prima causa del crollo a peso morto della Casa della Libertà. Tra le numerose altre cause, non ultima quella che fa apparire il nome Casa delle Libertà grottesco, vista la censura nella RAI e la tendenza a proporsi come partito unico, incapace di rimanere al di qua della soglia di rispetto dovuta agli avversari politici investiti, come dice Richi Vendola, da un atteggiamento "ringhioso e astioso".
Da sempre nella Casa della Libertà sembrano aver considerato Berlusconi il Messia Mediatico che mettendo giù i dineri, inondando l'Italia di spot e di libri autocelebrativi, diffondendo le proprie smargiassate e barzellette, ed evocando en passant 'miseria, terrore e la morte' del 'pericolo' Comunista automaticamente non può che ottenere consensi dal popolo italiano, considerato alla stregua di una massa di beoti cui appioppare un detersivo.
Grosso errore.
In assenza di una politica seria e perseguendo in modo tanto palese interessi di parte e politiche ad personam, mentre chiari appaiono i segni di crisi economica, politica, istituzionale e morale, lo scotto poi si paga.
Proprio perché la politica non è un detersivo da vendere su Canale 5.
Partial translation of a comment by Ali Rashid ("Addio, da pecora smarrita") appeared on Italian communist paper "Liberazione". I don't know Ali Rashid, but I cannot help thinking that some left-wingers, not necessarily orthodox Christians or Christians at all, sound more Christian than those who flaunt their faith with false piety and devotion and then don't actually fight for peace, justice and against povery, misery and war.
Goodbye, by a lost sheep
by Ali Rashid
[...]
The first Christian community conceived life as a deed of charity, while awaiting the return of Christ. And repeated his evangelical words: "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's, if you have money do not lend it for interest, give it to those who cannot return it...". And so it is: Jerusalem is not compatible with temporal power camouflaged as spirit. History, after then, narrated incredible things. Now, however, after this Pope, we know that nobody will doubt that the natives did possess a soul, we know that Christ's devouts, either true or false, will not be able to waige plundering wars, unperturbed, in the name of the cross.
As a lost sheep, so far from church hierarchies, I say goodbye to the Saint Father. Goodbye in the name of new pagans, new globals, the lovers of life and happiness, those who pray in their own way, who do not give their life to dogs to let it plunge in the manure heap, and do not do it because life is sacred and pearls shall not be flung to swine, and pearls are dignity of life and social security.
Goodbye Saint father, from the women and men of the East, trod over by the iron of armies in the adventure that you called a non-return adventure: you cannot pick grapes from a briar, or figs from thorns, for they do not give fruit. Those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. These words were written and the seals have placed on them.
[...]
Goodbye, Saint Father, from my grandfather, a Sufi master who is buried in Jerusalem. He once said: "We broke the ink wells and with tears filled books. I have thought greatly over religions, to understand, and discovered that religions are the numerous branches of a single source. You, who want to know of our history. If you were able to see, you could not tell us apart from others. I am that whom I love and that whom I love is me, we are two spirits which dwell in a body. Since when we have been in close intimacy, people cite us as an example. If then you see me, you also seem him, you see us both.".
For years I have thought over the words of my grandfather, dear director [note: of the newspaper]. I have not yet understood if they were an hymn to the divine, or an hymn for life and for human beings.
Goodbye, by a lost sheep
by Ali Rashid
[...]
The first Christian community conceived life as a deed of charity, while awaiting the return of Christ. And repeated his evangelical words: "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's, if you have money do not lend it for interest, give it to those who cannot return it...". And so it is: Jerusalem is not compatible with temporal power camouflaged as spirit. History, after then, narrated incredible things. Now, however, after this Pope, we know that nobody will doubt that the natives did possess a soul, we know that Christ's devouts, either true or false, will not be able to waige plundering wars, unperturbed, in the name of the cross.
As a lost sheep, so far from church hierarchies, I say goodbye to the Saint Father. Goodbye in the name of new pagans, new globals, the lovers of life and happiness, those who pray in their own way, who do not give their life to dogs to let it plunge in the manure heap, and do not do it because life is sacred and pearls shall not be flung to swine, and pearls are dignity of life and social security.
Goodbye Saint father, from the women and men of the East, trod over by the iron of armies in the adventure that you called a non-return adventure: you cannot pick grapes from a briar, or figs from thorns, for they do not give fruit. Those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. These words were written and the seals have placed on them.
[...]
Goodbye, Saint Father, from my grandfather, a Sufi master who is buried in Jerusalem. He once said: "We broke the ink wells and with tears filled books. I have thought greatly over religions, to understand, and discovered that religions are the numerous branches of a single source. You, who want to know of our history. If you were able to see, you could not tell us apart from others. I am that whom I love and that whom I love is me, we are two spirits which dwell in a body. Since when we have been in close intimacy, people cite us as an example. If then you see me, you also seem him, you see us both.".
For years I have thought over the words of my grandfather, dear director [note: of the newspaper]. I have not yet understood if they were an hymn to the divine, or an hymn for life and for human beings.
Berlusconi: vertical fall
in Italian regional elections
in Italian regional elections
In the Italian regional elections concluded yesterday, the centre-left conquered 6 regions and will govern 11 regions as opposed to only 2 by the centre-right. The ratio used to be 6 to 8 in favour of the centre-right.
At a national level, 53% of the people voted for the centre-left as opposed to 44.2 % of Berlusconi's 'House of Liberties' (99% votes have been scrutinised so far). Indeed a very evide