Friday, November 30, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

by Reuters: Philip Pullella

Thanks to Asriel for the link.

Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, in an encyclical released on Friday, said atheism was responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history.

The 75-page "Spe Salvi", which takes its Latin title from a quote by St Paul (in hope we were saved), is an appeal to a pessimistic world to find strength in Christian hope.

In the second encyclical of his papacy, Benedict urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, wealth or political ideologies.

Atheism could be regarded by some as a "type of moralism", particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, to protest against the injustices of the world and world history, he said.

Reciting arguments made by atheists, he said: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God."

History has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist, the Pope wrote.

"It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," the Pope said. Such a concept was grounded in "intrinsic falsity".

Marxism, the Pope wrote, had left behind "a trail of appalling destruction" because it failed to realize that man could not be "merely the product of economic conditions".

ATHEISTS REACT

The encyclical is the highest form of papal writing and addresses all members of the Church. This document is written in a highly academic, professorial style in which the Pope quotes saints, philosophers and writers to make his point.

Atheism has been a hot topic recently thanks to best-selling books questioning the value of religion such as "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens.

The Pope seemed to be addressing the fresh interest in atheism in the developed world with phrases such as: "Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope."

Italy's Union of Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists (UAAR) said by taking such stands the Pope would push more people away from the Church.

"The existence of a billion non-believers in the world should be enough to make the Pope understand that man can live very well without God, but with reason," a statement said.

The Pope urged Christians to put their hope for a better future in God.

"We have all witnessed the way in which progress, in the wrong hands, can become and has indeed become a terrifying progress in evil. If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world," he said.

Christian hope also meant protecting the planet, even if people felt powerless to make changes in their lifetimes, he said.

"We can free our life and the world from the poisons and contaminations that could destroy the present and the future. We can uncover the sources of creation and keep them unsullied, and in this way we can make a right use of creation, which comes to us as a gift..." he said.

(Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, November 30, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 121 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #92309 by hungarianelephant on November 30, 2007 at 9:05 am

Marxism, the Pope wrote, had left behind "a trail of appalling destruction" because it failed to realize that man could not be "merely the product of economic conditions".

Wonder why he singled out Marxism ahead of Nazism?

Oh yes, I remember.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

2. Comment #92310 by Fedler on November 30, 2007 at 9:05 am

A bit like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? Same old stuff.

Man, I despise the RC church.

Other Comments by Fedler

3. Comment #92316 by bruce on November 30, 2007 at 9:21 am

"It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," the Pope said. Such a concept was grounded in "intrinsic falsity".

Take a look at the most progressive and free countries in the world today and most of them have a secular form of government. I think that is no accident either.

Other Comments by bruce

4. Comment #92318 by heathen2 on November 30, 2007 at 9:25 am

Reciting arguments made by atheists, he said: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God."

So how does the pope counter this sentiment? I don't get how he did this from the article. Good response from the UAAR.

This pope is several steps backward from the last guy. Probably he's just scared that the RC power structure will crumble during his tenure, so he's hanging on tight.

Other Comments by heathen2

5. Comment #92320 by room101 on November 30, 2007 at 9:29 am

Pope Benedict, in an encyclical released on Friday, said atheism was responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history.

Really? I thought teddy bears were the problem.

Other Comments by room101

6. Comment #92321 by annabanana on November 30, 2007 at 9:36 am

"We have all witnessed the way in which progress, in the wrong hands, can become and has indeed become a terrifying progress in evil. If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world,"

Although from the article it sounds like most of the encyclical is garbage, I quite agree with this statement, just not in the way that he would like. It could be counted as a secular statement since it doesn't mention God at all...

It would be quite amusing to use his own statement against him, especially since the religious have a particular knack for doing that to most atheists!

Other Comments by annabanana

7. Comment #92324 by Mark Till on November 30, 2007 at 9:43 am

I'm coming round to Sam Harris's view that the term "atheism" is becoming more of a curse than a strength to us in the cause of rationality. It has been, and is being, twisted and misrepresented as an ideology or belief system in its own right, rather than a mere lack of ridiculous belief. Worrying.

Other Comments by Mark Till

8. Comment #92326 by JanChan on November 30, 2007 at 9:47 am

And just when I thought the Catholic Church was undergoing Reformation at last, after taking a record time to accept a scientific theory that contradict dogma. It took them about 300 years to accept that the Earth goes round the Sun, while only about a century and half to accept evolution. Well, this statement certainly brings them back to the dark ages.

Other Comments by JanChan

9. Comment #92328 by jimbob on November 30, 2007 at 9:52 am

History has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist, the Pope wrote.

Never a truer thought written in ignorance?

He's right, it's ideologies that are the problem --- and religious ideologies are at the forefront.

Watch out for the atheism = marxism slur. It's going to be a common dishonest strawman strategy as rationality continues to chip away at religious power.

Other Comments by jimbob

10. Comment #92333 by petermun on November 30, 2007 at 10:03 am

So Mr Ratzinger, birth control has no part to play in helping to save humanity?

Other Comments by petermun

11. Comment #92334 by alexmzk on November 30, 2007 at 10:03 am

In the second encyclical of his papacy, Benedict urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, wealth or political ideologies.

yeah, cos technology's getting us nowhere, money's obviously just evil, and political ideologies are very unimportant. what wise words indeed.

Other Comments by alexmzk

12. Comment #92336 by Scott McMeekin on November 30, 2007 at 10:09 am

I don't think the problem is terminology. With all this crap about the "theory" of evolution going on, and "atheism" being paralleled with "marxism" or "leftism" or "liberalism" I suspect that whatever term you use will be twisted about to mean whatever a certain group wants. Religion seems to be adept at defining "out-groups", and semantic arguments and obfuscation seem to be the popular tools these days.

I'd happily refer to myself as a "free-thinker", but then you'd get all this crap from wingnuts about spilling coffee or not spilling coffee, and how they're "free-thinkers" as well.

At the end of the day, you're either a rational person, or you're not.

Scott.

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

13. Comment #92340 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 10:11 am

If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world," he said.

Indeed. Which is why need need to get rid of the oppression of women, calling homosexuality wicked, forbidding useful contraception... I could go on.

Other Comments by steve99

14. Comment #92346 by heathen2 on November 30, 2007 at 10:23 am

I agree with Scott, it seems that no matter what we label ourselves with (or don't), they will give us a label and twist it. I'm getting more and more comfortable with atheist, even though reactions seem to be shock, surprise, raised eyebrows to that term. That's okay, they can get used to it over time.

If the pope wants to demonstrate how he puts his faith in his god instead of material goods, he can give away the church wealth to charity (how about Amnesty International). That would be a powerful message to his flock, rather than issuing worthless encyclicals.

Other Comments by heathen2

15. Comment #92347 by arogop on November 30, 2007 at 10:23 am

5. Comment #92320 by room101

"Really? I thought teddy bears were the problem."

Its not the teady bear, but that fact we make a symbol out of it by giving it a name.

All kidding aside, this pope sucks compared to the last one who just sucked a little less. Of course when the Rapture comes we will get rid of all of them!!

Other Comments by arogop

16. Comment #92351 by petermun on November 30, 2007 at 10:30 am

Hungarianelephant richly deserves the number one slot in this thread.

Other Comments by petermun

17. Comment #92357 by funkyderek on November 30, 2007 at 10:42 am

"Spe Salvi", an anagram of "Evil saps". Coincidence?

Other Comments by funkyderek

18. Comment #92359 by bluebird on November 30, 2007 at 10:44 am

Pope Benedict has egg on his face... again.

Other Comments by bluebird

19. Comment #92361 by supercres on November 30, 2007 at 10:45 am

Because, you know, the atheists launched crusades and an inquisition against believers, wiping them out by the millions, and continue to cause suffering and death by giving AIDS education backed up by science instead of education backed up by a zombie carpenter and a man in Rome in a pointy hat.

Other Comments by supercres

20. Comment #92370 by Arcturus on November 30, 2007 at 11:06 am

"Benedict urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology"

Well, that's one reason why I don't want to hear about Christians any more.

And from now on, I don't want to see any catholic using any technology. They should all retreat in caves and put their hopes in God. For sure it will give them a quick ticket to heaven.

If technology makes you lose your faith, then you have two options. That is, if you are not a hypocrite.
1) renounce faith and embrace the wonders of science and technology
2) keep your faith, but renounce any product of science and technology
Can you do that, Mr. Ratzinger?

Other Comments by Arcturus

21. Comment #92376 by Matt H. on November 30, 2007 at 11:22 am

"Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope."

What a masochistic fool.

Other Comments by Matt H.

22. Comment #92377 by jimbob on November 30, 2007 at 11:25 am

It just occurred to me that it was probably reading this type of tripe that turned mother Teresa into an atheist!

Other Comments by jimbob

23. Comment #92380 by Verylee on November 30, 2007 at 11:43 am

They are on the run. They no longer have the monopoly on information technology like they used to, people are allowed to read nowadays! The Immams are doing a better job at suppressing people and information than they are, so they are losing on all fronts. On top of that they are killing off most of their congregation in the developing world with their satanic policies. No wonder they are worried!!

Other Comments by Verylee

24. Comment #92383 by icanus on November 30, 2007 at 11:47 am

"If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world,"

So let's be sure to keep our ethical discussions rooted in a two-thousand year old text, then...

Other Comments by icanus

25. Comment #92386 by JFHalsey on November 30, 2007 at 11:57 am

I'd listen to Michael Jackson give advice on child care* or OJ give marriage counseling before I'd listen to anyone in the RC church talk about "the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice."

BTW, hungarian, your new avatar made me laugh out loud!

(* I almost said "child rearing". Whoops!)

Other Comments by JFHalsey

26. Comment #92387 by padster1976 on November 30, 2007 at 12:05 pm

just put this in the debate box under 'Stalin was an atheist' - 'atheism has killed more people than religion'.

That comment about the 'wealth' - how much money has the RC got?

This quote got my attention...

'Reciting arguments made by atheists, he said: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God."'

Er, the Pope did nothing to counter this. As the world is shit, the pope must be saying there is no god.

judging what the RC did with Galileo, I'm not about to except any direction on how we should use technology.

And why isn't he questioned about where he feels his authority to tell us this? Self appointed authority? From 'on high'?

Nice comment on the mentioning of marxism only.

Other Comments by padster1976

27. Comment #92391 by padster1976 on November 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm

I've just found the encyclical on the vaticans website - i found this...

'2. Before turning our attention to these timely questions, we must listen a little more closely to the Bible's testimony on hope. "Hope", in fact, is a key word in Biblical faith�so much so that in several passages the words "faith" and "hope" seem interchangeable.'

I would say, most words terms in the bible are interchangeable - mostly there definition.

So much horse shit!

Other Comments by padster1976

28. Comment #92396 by Just Plain Cliff on November 30, 2007 at 12:19 pm

"Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope."

Isn't it the other way around?

Other Comments by Just Plain Cliff

29. Comment #92401 by cowalker on November 30, 2007 at 12:40 pm

JFHalsey:

I'd listen to Michael Jackson give advice on child care* . . . . before I'd listen to anyone in the RC church talk about "the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice. . . ."

(* I almost said "child rearing". Whoops!)

Let's not forget, there are many RC clergy whose advice on "child rearing" would be informed by years of personal experience.

Pope Rat said atheism could be regarded by some as a "type of moralism." OK, a can of beans could be regarded by some as a flowering plant. That doesn't make it so.

Other Comments by cowalker

30. Comment #92405 by Denevius on November 30, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Mark Till: "I'm coming round to Sam Harris's view that the term "atheism" is becoming more of a curse than a strength to us in the cause of rationality. It has been, and is being, twisted and misrepresented as an ideology or belief system in its own right, rather than a mere lack of ridiculous belief. Worrying."

I'm actually most concerned when I hear an atheist say atheism isn't an ideology.

The reason why atheism is an ideology isn't because of Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. It's because of all the people who are not very rational but have led themselves to believe that they are because they call themselves "atheist".

I have had many discussions with atheists who have no real understanding of the arguments they're repeating, and who live very irrational lives. Yet'll they will swear until they're blue in the face that they are rational because they are atheists.

Other Comments by Denevius

31. Comment #92413 by SilentMike on November 30, 2007 at 1:00 pm

The vatican as an establishment is probably responsible for more evil or suffering throughout history than any other institution. The inquisition, the crusades, persecutions, fighting againstscientific inquiry, Fighting against the proliferation of contraceptives. That's a very big glass house fore a stone thrower to live in.

Other Comments by SilentMike

32. Comment #92417 by Arcturus on November 30, 2007 at 1:04 pm

What's wrong with the word "ideology"? let's see the dictionary:

1. an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation [syn: political orientation]
2. imaginary or visionary theorization

or

1 : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
2 : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

So, by these definitions, atheism is an ideology. Each religion is an ideology. That does not mean that atheism is a religion.

Other Comments by Arcturus

33. Comment #92420 by Mr DArcy on November 30, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Pope Benedict is quoted as writing:

The German pope shows his appalling ignorance of what his fellow German, Karl Marx had to say. As usual in the 20th and 21st century Marx is blamed for what went on in Russia, China, Cuba and elsewhere. What happened in these places was capitalism where the main owner was the the state. The fact that Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others gave their regimes "marxist" labels in no way disguises the reality of what went on in those countries. The workers still worked for wages because they had to, the privileged class benefitted from their work and were able to live lives far removed from those supporting them.

If you don't believe me, ask yourselves what is the prevailing system in China today? It looks very like rampant capitalism to me, but the ruling party is called the Chinese Communist Party, therefore it must be "communist". The conditions in China today resemble England in the 1840's, when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, in which the statement referring to the expansion of capitalism appears: "The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls,".

The current pope clearly knows little of what Marx wrote, like so many other intellectuals who are happy to blame Marx for what happened in Russia. In his own life Marx, commenting on a French socialist group is said to have commented "If these people are marxist, then I am not a marxist." Marx died in 1883.

Incidentally Marx is on the Catholic Index.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

34. Comment #92422 by John Done on November 30, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Is the existence of atheism itself compatable with the existance of a loving God? I don't think so. If there is no God, then the religious are simply mistaken, many by psychological forces about which they'd have no knowledge of or be able to control. If there is a God, then the fact that people can live happily without God is a mystery, as atheists must therefore be either inherently evil and thus beyond the use of free will, or they are deceived by a natural world set up by a God that apparently wants people to just *guess* that he's there.

The argument that atheists are evil is as tired as the inverse, that religious people are good. Rejection of God or the Church is not inherently responsible for the rise of amoral nationalism. Perhaps we should find a more adequate explanation for Hitler's cruelty. (Remember him, Herr Ratzinger? The catholic who along with Mussolini endorsed the Church and allowed it to play a more powerful role in the post-war world? Who put "Gott mit uns" on every soldier's belt-buckle? You served in his army at one time, so while you may have been too young to be at fault for it, you should be able to remember where German catholics once put their faith.) Even Stalin's anticlerical campaigns had more to do with dogmatism than a rejection of the supernatural.

Maybe Herr Ratzinger should take at least *one look* at the Debate Points on this site. Anyone here could provide more knowledge and understanding than the entirety of the Vatican.

Other Comments by John Done

35. Comment #92428 by jdb on November 30, 2007 at 1:25 pm

"Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope."

da Pope's phallacy:
Needing god has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he actually exists.
Neither does the supposed immorality of atheists or atheism.
Neither does the failure of Marxism.

Other Comments by jdb

36. Comment #92430 by Mr DArcy on November 30, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Neither does the failure of Marxism.

Marxism has never failed. It has never been put to the test. Forget Soviet Russia, look at Marx and what he wrote. Marx would have been one of the first against the wall in Soviet Russia.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

37. Comment #92432 by Mark Till on November 30, 2007 at 1:41 pm

"So, by these definitions, atheism is an ideology. Each religion is an ideology. That does not mean that atheism is a religion."

Yeah, sorry, "ideology" was the wrong word.

By the way, I hope if the Pope is ever unfortunate enough to fall seriously ill, he will stick to his principles and merely lie down and let God do as it sees fit. I suspect, however, that he will rely on the scientific training of doctors and all the technology at their disposal.

Other Comments by Mark Till

38. Comment #92437 by robert s on November 30, 2007 at 1:47 pm

What? This isn't a 'flea' thread?

Other Comments by robert s

39. Comment #92447 by SilentMike on November 30, 2007 at 2:15 pm

The vatican's way too big to be a bug, much less a flee. It is some kind of blood sucker though.

Other Comments by SilentMike

40. Comment #92451 by NMcC on November 30, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Mr DArcy

Hear! Hear! Well said.

It was Engels who said that Marx 'disowned' the self-proclaimed French 'Marxists' and you are right, Marx would never have supported the undemocratic, minority led Leninist coup in backward Russia.

It's interesting that even Trotsky, before he became a Leninist, wrote that in Lenin's conception of the socialist revolution, the first to fall victim would be '...the lionised head of Marx'.

Marx argued for a democratically organised Socialist Party and Lenin argued that the majority of the workers were too stupid and needed to be led by the nose by people like himself.

Incidently, it's even a misnomer to describe Bolshevik Russia as 'Soviet' Russia since the Bolsheviks destroyed the original soviets which were simply democratic councils which sprang up without the help of the self-appointed dictators of the Bolshevik party.

Other Comments by NMcC

41. Comment #92456 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Atheism could be regarded by some as a "type of moralism", particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, to protest against the injustices of the world and world history, he said.

This is an incomplete, but accurate account.

It is accurate in the sense that it recognizes one of the actual reasons for cyclical rises in the number of atheists, or of atheist movements...

It is true. Atheism is a necessity only so long as religions exist... and so long as religions exist, some of their members will inevitably become disillusioned by their bullshit and corruption, and become outspoken atheists.

However, to characterize the POSITION, the metaphysical, philosophical position... as MERELY a reaction to injustice on the part of religions, is fallacious. (too narrow, and it conflates motivation (reasons for belief) with logic/truth (reasons TO believe).

Whether atheists are reacting to religious injustice or not is irrelevant... atheism is TRUE.

Other Comments by Spinoza

42. Comment #92462 by Quine on November 30, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Some believe that it would be "good" for humanity if Santa Claus did exist and did deliver toys to "good" little boys and girls. However, as has been expressed by others on this thread, even if true, it would not matter a bit about the truth of the existence of Santa. Get over it.

Other Comments by Quine

43. Comment #92475 by Mr DArcy on November 30, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Thanks to NMcC for the endorsement of what I have said re Marx.

Marx argued for a democratically organised Socialist Party and Lenin argued that the majority of the workers were too stupid and needed to be led by the nose by people like himself.

The fact that Marx's ideas were hijacked and distorted by plenty of political adventurers in no way means that Marx was wrong in his main ideas. Marx's labour theory of value, and the materialist conception of history still hold true today. Class struggle may be an unfashionable expression, but that is exactly what is going on in the world.

Pope Benedict may well be able to look upon masterpieces created by Raphael, Michaelangelo and others every time he wakes up, but still some 2 billion people in the world live on less than $2.00 a day. Research it youself. Try typing "world poverty" into google.

Would a kindly god have wanted a world like this?

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

44. Comment #92478 by PaulJ on November 30, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Pope Benny strikes again!

Christian hope also meant protecting the planet, even if people felt powerless to make changes in their lifetimes, he said.

Why bother doing anything positive, when hope in God is all you need:

The Pope urged Christians to put their hope for a better future in God.

The Roman Catholic Church is on the run. Actually this is pretty weak stuff, if accurately represented in this article. And this 'encyclical' is supposed to be some kind of pronouncement from on high?

Other Comments by PaulJ

45. Comment #92490 by room101 on November 30, 2007 at 3:56 pm

"Comment #92370 by Arcturus ..."

And from now on, I don't want to see any catholic using any technology. They should all retreat in caves and put their hopes in God. For sure it will give them a quick ticket to heaven.

Here, here. And isn't it funny how the faithful turn to science and technology when they or a loved one gets sick, or need to cook their meals or heat their homes...

Other Comments by room101

46. Comment #92491 by Diacanu on November 30, 2007 at 3:58 pm

So, is an encyclical like a fatwa?

Other Comments by Diacanu

47. Comment #92500 by redkris on November 30, 2007 at 4:14 pm

What a tit.

"The Pope urged Christians to put their hope for a better future in God."

And i imagine he has an unlimited amount of time to deliver the goods. Think i'll stick with humans and technology, thanks all the same.

Time for your nap Benny, do everyone a favour and don't wake up from it.

Other Comments by redkris

48. Comment #92522 by Duff on November 30, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Herr Doctor Ratzzzzinger hast said,
Vee vill never be beholdin zu den scientistiten, sie haben uns nothing gegeben. Nicht den guten healthly dingen, nor den really guten bioligishe thingen. Gott hat uns alles gegeben. Ich will nicht alle die different dinge describen das gott uns gegeben hast, but es ist a lot of dingen. We mussen alle trusten in got, und nicht die scientisten.

Other Comments by Duff

49. Comment #92528 by hmj on November 30, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Pope Benedict, in an encyclical released on Friday, said catholicism was responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history.

Other Comments by hmj

50. Comment #92530 by hmj on November 30, 2007 at 5:47 pm

"Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope."
In other words : "Myths are functional and as such they become at due time part of history."

Other Comments by hmj

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last