Gerard, #2.

Point 2 you make, that abortion is murder and intrinsically evil. Well, thats your opinion but there are many arguments as to why it is often the better option.

Point 6 you make, that red shift studies in quasars indicating that the earth may be the centre of the universe. Wrong. I've studied physics and seen that red shift studies actually show that earth is NOT the centre of the universe. I suppose this study would have come from the CSC or some equally ridiculous organisation.

Mark (#16) Paragraphs are not against god. Hey, the Bible has paragraphs. Use them and save us pain.

while not surprised at the lack of respect for others religious faith, I am wondering where the editor gets his info from. The world is not short of food - just crap at fairly distributing resources. A thousand years ago there were a lot less people - yet the poor still starved - will this ever change? The earth could support a lot more people easily, numerous studies ave shown this however since we are talking about Africa I think you will find the short life span of the population due to war famine and disease means they actually need to keep having babies just to survive and birth control is not in their interests religious beliefs or not!

Mark #16 says that if the editorial had been critical of a gay lobby or a womens right organisation it would have been seen as hate speech. Doh no, criticism is not evidence of hate - but of disagreement. The attempt of all too many Catholics to accuse anyone who dares criticise the Church of being guilty of hate speech bigotry is suggestive of an agenda to ban criticism of the Church because such annoys obsequious Catholics.

As to the issues raised - the point of raising Galileo vs flat earth infallible word of religion is metaphorical not literal. It speaks to the issue of those who impose moral absolutes on humanity - ideological tyrants. Where there is tyranny, free speech and debate is banned because the dictate is beyond accountability in this world. It has traditionally included a ban on dissent via blasphemy laws supporting unquestioning indoctrination into the lie of the bible as the word of God from God.

As to the issue of what is pro human "life" - the subplot of the editorial - well one presumes any real God behind the creation of man is on our side and that love of God and God's love for us is found amongst us in our love for fellow man.

A certain man said that we should not judge one another and that those who did were not acting with love for fellow man (thus were the ones bringing judgment on themselves). Yet the Church would judge a mother for protecting her daughter and doctors for acting to save her life. The better judge of whether a 9 year old could carry a pair of twins long enough (over 7 months) for them to survive in an incubator is a trained medical professional, not the church of a theologian. If there is only one life that can be saved and continuing with that pregnancy puts it at risk there is only one moral option. As for the other issue of AIDS.

I will state the obvious - there are only three choices of behaviour which reduce the risk. Monogomy (risk partner betrayal and infection by blood not a sex partner), abstinence (infection by blood) and the use of condoms. The fact is, as AIDS rates amongst US priests indicated clearly enough back in the 80's, no single option covers everyone. Thus the only sensible approach was to inform the people of the risk, so that they knew of it and could then choose which option worked best for them. The Church's ideological objection to one of the options was thus unhelpful and counter-productive. Ideological positions are best declared and not imposed - so that the moral value does not harm the living. Where ideology/idealism causes harm to one human being it loses its moral authority.

Toni #3 - I am a homosexual and the Church denounces me. I am a member of the human family and The Church does not respect my dignity. Shame on me?

For those that struggle to read the wall of text that is comment #16 here is the TLDR version: 1+1=3

Yet another example where religion has not worked out that correlation =/= causation

Dear Andrew, Thanks for providing the informative sites: one from Harvard Square and the other on the UNAids questionable handling of research data contratry to the much vaunted condom HIV-prevention efficacy claim. I have always presumed the Pope/Vatican to be very responsible, unless proven otherwise. Papal statements are highly nuanced. Considering that this is Pope Benedict XVI making the statement, I am confident he has sufficient bases for making his claim. Now, unbiased, fair and objective scientific work do support the Pope. How I wish those who disagree with the Church will get their acts together and consider seriously the scientific evidence supporting the Pope and not persist in their biased, anti-Catholic and anti-Papal tendencies, and acknowledge that they too are as human, and as fallible as the Pope, on this matter. It pays to learn from the example of Pope Benedict XVI who acknowledges his shortcomings. Finally, the Church or any Pope for that matter does not work to win media approval. The Church as a moral teacher is bound to encounter oppositions. It is normal and expected. For indeed, the Church is the salt of the earth.

Looks like "Dr Science" has written the only comment here that does not seek to support the church of mumbo-jumbo! You are to be congratulated on your editorial - mildly critical tho' it is in the circumstances! (IMHO).

It would be nice to see some of the lower level servants of the Papist church actually stand up and say something back to their ridiculous leadership. I guess this is what is known as "Papal Bull". As for that gibberish from Father James Lyon, "[to enter]...the doorway of the mystery of suffering...", I have nothing polite to say. He is a typical hand-wringing mincing apologist for that vicious old man in Rome - and all his mindless followers. I'd be impressed if they could make it to the 19th century, far less the 21st.

Editorial: The flat earth church The Dominion Post It is amusing to me that the editorial team of such an internationally respected paper as the Wellington Dominion Post would see fit to defy logic and deny the findings of science in the ongoing liberal media war against the Catholic Church and its teachings. I am enthusiastic about any chance to have a critical review of Catholic teaching, but such reviews should be honest and the claims made should be verifiable. Your editorial, if it had been directed to the proponents of the gay lobby or a women’s rights organisation would have been criticised for its bias and perhaps even been accused of containing hate speech, but as the target is just the Catholics, then its OK. 1. “the Catholic Church is stuck in the Middle Ages” This is your first factual error, as the Catholic Church currently has 1.14 billion adherents globally; it is verifiably not “stuck in the middle ages.” If your claim is based on a belief that the teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed substantially on serious issues such as human life and sexuality since the Middle Ages, then you would be right. In fact it would be more accurate to say that the core of Catholic teaching on these issues has not changed since the first century A.D. But the consistency of Catholic is somehow scorned as though there is something wrong with it. If the quest of science and philosophy is to find truth, then we can assume that truth is a constant upon which we all can depend. If Catholics believe that it is a constant truth that human life and sexuality are sacred gifts from God, then it would be hypocrisy to change that belief, even to placate their critics who may have contrary beliefs and practices. 2. Benedict XVI and the holocaust denier Bishop Williamson Bishop Williamson was not excommunicated because he is a holocaust denier, but because he was unlawfully consecrated a bishop by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. This act was an attack on the unity of the Catholic Church, that carries an automatic (Latae sententiae) imposition of excommunication. Bishop Williamson was one of four Bishops who received both an illicit Episcopal consecration and automatic excommunication. They have hundreds of thousands of followers throughout the world who followed them out of the Catholic Church and into the schismatic Society of St Pius X. The pope outlined that the quest for Church unity would be one of the primary goals of his pontificate, and in order to facilitate this he lifted the excommunication of these Bishops, in the hope that this action would encourage dialogue and mutual understanding. Bishop Williamson is a holocaust denier, but denying the holocaust, while incredibly stupid, is not reason to exclude someone from the Church. He will have to account for his stupid beliefs before God, not the Church. Any claim that the Pope should not have lifted the excommunication of Bishop Williamson because of his views on the holocaust is disingenuous and lacks good will. 3. The excommunication of the mother of a nine-year-old Brazilian girl who had an abortion after being raped by her stepfather and the excommunication of the doctors who performed the abortion. The unfortunate case of the Brazilian nine-year-old is truly tragic. The girl was violated by her stepfather, she was then taken by her mother and given over to the care of doctors who performed a surgical abortion of her twin unborn children. This is not a pretty procedure; it involves the administration of drugs to open the cervix, and then the vaginal insertion of tools that are then used to dismember and suction out the remains of the developing child or in this case children. This is a horrific procedure as is testified by those many hundreds of thousands of women globally who have lived to regret their decision to have an abortion (see http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/). As for the excommunication of the girl’s mother and the doctors who performed the abortion, they were reminded, as Catholics, before the abortion occurred that the Church has an automatic (Latae sententiae) excommunication for any Catholic who procures or directly assists in an abortion, the circumstances, no matter how tragic, do not mitigate the consequences of the deliberate taking of innocent human life. Once that action had taken place, the Bishop in question had no choice but to explain to the mother and medical staff that they had incurred an automatic excommunication. What would you have him do, keep it a secret? 4. “Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho … decreed that a nine-year-old girl should bear her rapist's children. There is no evidence he made any attempt to understand the physical or psychological damage that giving birth would do to an already damaged child.” In the Archbishop’s mind, one girl was raped and would have to carry two babies to term when they would more than likely be delivered by caesarean and could be given up for adoption by parents who desperately want children. Your editorial team, however, would condemn two innocent children to death because of the manner in which they were conceived. You make no attempt to understand the deep psychological and potential physiological damage that abortion could do to such a young child. The procedure itself has a significant risk of rendering such any woman sterile, let alone a little girl. It will also significantly increase the risk of breast cancer as it does in all women. If abortion is traumatic, even psychologically disturbing for many mature women, what damage could potentially be done to a nine-year-old girl who is unable to choose this for herself, let alone understand the consequences and repercussions of the procedure. It could be argued that the poor girl has been raped twice, once by her stepfather and a second time surgically with the full consent of her mother. To top it all, she will have to live with the knowledge that two her two innocent children who were not responsible for circumstances of their own conception, were brutally torn apart and deliberately killed. She will have to find a way to come to terms with the knowledge that there is no way she can ever give those children back their lives. 5. The Pope, condoms and HIV\Aids in Africa For over 25 years the primary weapon in the fight against HIV\Aids in Africa has been the humble condom. Yet over 25 years the percentage of the adult population that is infected with HIV or Aids has continued to increase to completely unacceptable numbers. Scientifically, this is what is called a failure. Aids activists (as opposed to genuine Aids researchers) like to blame the Catholic Church for this failure. They claim that the Catholic stance against the poor condom is costing lives. They seem to have the fanciful belief that those Africans who ignore the pope when he tells them that they should not engage in sexual intercourse before or outside marriage, will adhere to his teaching against condoms. This, like Bishop Williamson’s position on the holocaust, is an insane belief and is not worthy of support in any credible publication. Aids researchers from Harvard University and other prestigious establishments around the world have come to the defence of Pope Benedict XVI after the officials of several governments, Aids campaigners and publications such as the Dominion Post chose to attack him for his researched and well considered comments. Dr Edward Green, director of the Aids prevention research project at the Harvard Centre for Population and Development Studies says that 25 years of promoting condoms in the prevention of Aids should have shown some significant reduction in infection rates if it were truly a preventative in contracting HIV\Aids. In 25 years the rate of infection in countries such as Botswana has risen to over 30% of the adult population. At what percentage will the ideologues who swear by the effectiveness of the dear old condom admit that it may not be working as well as they had hoped after all. The only country in Africa that has significantly reduced its rate of HIV\Aids infection is Uganda. Seven years ago Uganda’s infection rate mirrored those of neighbouring countries at between 25-30% of the adult population. The government, with the material support of the Church implemented a national program which promoted sexual abstinence before marriage as well as marital fidelity. The rate of infection in Uganda has dropped to around 8%. This is not the doing of the condom, but of difficult choices, hard work and meaningful education. 6. “Individually, the church's pronouncements show a lack of judgment and decency.” I would strongly disagree. Considering the support they have among the scientific community, they tender care they have for the afflicted individuals themselves and the wealth of experience and knowledge that very few modern organisations have today, I would say that they show a lot more judgement and decency than the Church’s critics do. 7. “Collectively they demonstrate the antediluvian mindset of an organisation that still harbours the hope that Galileo will be proved wrong and the Earth will be shown to be the centre of the universe” One must question the mindset of your editorial team that assumes that an organisation that does not divorce itself from its beliefs just because they are “ancient” is somehow wrong. You criticise the Church and particularly the Pope, assuming that they are wrong, but you offer no substantive rebuttal of their positions. You appear to take for granted that your readers will accept your assumptions and agree with you. For a publication that alleges to report the news, your editorial is dripping with bias and assumption, and is extremely light on facts. Your dig at the Church in reference to Galileo is factually and historically wrong. The Church did not object to Galileo’s theory, after all it was based on the earlier work of Catholic Priest and Astronomer Nicholas Copernicus. I’m not going to present a defence of the Church’s treatment of Galileo but I would encourage your editorial team to look at the factually verifiable article at Catholic Answers dot com http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp 8. “people are not rational.” If this ludicrous assertion is correct, then why do humans engage in debates? Such a statement is demonstrably false and is not worthy of anyone who claims to be a professional wordsmith. You should be ashamed of such a statement. 9. “The planet is overpopulated.” This is an old and tired myth. The world’s population growth peaked at 2.08% in 1970. The world’s population is expected to keep growing until it reaches a maximum of about 9 billion about 2050 and then it will go into a sharp decline. People who take our propensity to murder each other and kill our young into account claim that the population will peak in 2040 at about 7.5 billion before it starts the downward movement. That being said even now when the world’s population has topped 6 billion, 97% of the Earth’s land surface is still uninhabited. 10. There is not enough food to feed those who already live on Earth Your grasp of market economies is underwhelming. Every year millions of tonnes of produce and grain stocks is destroyed all around the world in order to honour trade agreements and protect markets. If these excesses were to be given or even sold to those poor and needy nations that need it, then the prices would be driven down and profits would be reduced. There is more than enough food to feed us all, but if it comes to a choice between starvation and profits, the global economy chooses profit every time. 11. “we are devouring scarce resources.” We are devouring scarce resources. We are raping the landscape and environment in pursuit of wealth and profits. Business does exploit labour for its own end. People are treated as commodities in the pursuit of wealth. We are doing a bad job looking after the planet, but rather than looking seriously at the attitudes that case us to behave in such a totally unacceptable way, you use this as an excuse to attack the one institution that has consistently been reminding us that we have an obligation of responsible stewardship in our management of the environment and those resources entrusted to us. You go on the attack against the organisation that has been championing the rights of the worker, the poor, the hungry, the sick, the marginalised for millennia before Karl Marx was born. 12. “The church's leaders should enter the 21st century” While the technology and our understanding of the world and the universe has developed significantly, human nature is the same in the 21st century as it was in the 1st. The Church and her leaders are firmly in the 21st century, and we got here without cutting ourselves off from the wisdom of the past. The Church is not perfect, we are a Church of sinners, for sinners. We are just trying to live better lives and use our vast experience to help make a better world.

#13

"The Church has always resepcted the dignity of each and every member of the human family from conception until natural end, and the importance of marital fidelity."

I think this should read at the end "..as long as they are Christians". You might remember hearing of a thing called the Crusades? Or the fact that the Pius XII(pope at the time of the Holocast) never actually denounced the actions of the Nazis as they seeked to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth - forgetting of course that your Saviour was in fact a Jew and you share the same God.

You and #12 calling all this PC - where do you get that from? The majority of people in most countries are stil religious, Atheists/agnostics are a minority who have only recently been allowed to speak out.

I am an agnostic, I don't know if there is a God or not but I believe that evolution occurs, that Humans and Apes share a common ancestor, and that alot more suffering and death has been caused under the banner of religion than under any other banner in history - a FACT that no one can deny

#12 Tit Tatle

I'm sorry fighting the arguement with what was before the big bang by saying God was there defies logic. Who created God, I know, I know God was always there. That sound like a logical arguement?

Science says we do not know what happened before the big bang, but we will adjust depending on the evidence. Religion says it was God, doesn't matter you discover it was God.

Now to the most disgusting comment you make, "some weakling, naive nine year old girl" to even suggest that this girl is weak, she has probaby experienced something I would not wish upon anyone, but a kind, considerate, pillar of virtue, christian like yourself can judge the decision made. Just because there may not be a God does not imply life is worthless, if anything it means that you should make the most of your short time here because that is it. No repenting on your death bed for eternal life, no flying planes into buildings, no blowing yourself up in a market.