Vatican seeks to rebrand its relationship with science

54

Dropping to his knees before the 10 cardinals of the Inquisition, dressed in the white shirt of penitence, Galileo Galilei was forced to retract his "heretic" theory that the Earth moved around the Sun. Threatened with torture and interrogated for 18 days, the scientist, who was imprisoned in the 17th century, promised to never again teach the theory and spent the rest of his life under house arrest in his small farmhouse outside of Florence.


Galileo's fate was very different from that of other scientists at the time of the Inquisition. Some were executed for threatening the church's teachings. Italian astronomer Giordano Bruno, an Italian philosopher who argued that the universe was infinite, was burned at the stake.

Now in 2013, as Pope Francis settles into his new role as leader of the Catholic Church, the Vatican's head of science is urging a re-think of the "mischaracterization" of the relationship between the church and science.

The Vatican would like the world to see how much this relationship has changed.

With the new pope being himself a trained scientist — Francis graduated as a chemical technician before moving on to study philosophy, psychology and theology — the timing could be right for a new era of cooperation between the Vatican and science, building on the work of the STOQ Project — Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest — which was created by Pope John Paul II in 2003.

Since his election as pontiff, Vatican-watchers have been searching for signals about the direction in which Francis will take the church. Even in his inaugural speech, he referenced the importance of environmental stewardship and an appreciation of the natural world.

Written By: Florence Davey-Attlee
continue to source article at edition.cnn.com

54 COMMENTS

  1. How about they start by publishing a list of all the scientists, free-thinkers, and others they persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Specify the charges, the evidence and the sentence. Then prominently publish the list along with an apology for their crimes against humanity. Even more, trace the descendants of their victims to identify any living heirs. Make individual apologies and pay substantial reparations to the descendants of their victims.

    Then apologize to humanity for more than a millennium of driving civilization in reverse and the untold millions who might have lived if not for the cultivation of superstition, imposed ignorance, rejection and destruction of the haard-won knowledge of classical antiquity, and anti-scientific regime of cruelly repressive authoritarianism.

    Do what’s morally right, get your own house in order and can the bullshit about “mischaracterization”. Don’t look for expiation for your sins from Science because you don’t deserve it and Science owes you nothing. Chances are pretty good that Science doesn’t need you for anything.

    • You nailed it good start.

      In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

      How about they start by publishing a list of all the scientists, free-thinkers, and others they persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Specify the charges, the evidence and the sentence. Then prominently publish the list along with an apology for their crimes against humanity. Even more, trace the descendants of their victims to identify any living heirs. Make individual apologies and pay substantial reparations to the descendants of their victims.

      Do what’s morally right, get your own house in order and can the bullshit about “mischaracterization”. Don’t look for expiation for your sins from Science because you don’t deserve it and Science owes you nothing. Chances are pretty good that Science doesn’t need you for anything.

    • In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

      How about they start by publishing a list of all the scientists, free-thinkers, and others they persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Specify the charges, the evidence and the sentence. Then prominently publish the list along with an apology for their crimes against humanity. Even more, trace the descendants of their victims to identify any living heirs. Make individual apologies and pay substantial reparations to the descendants of their victims.

      You do not understand this criminal organization. Like the Nazis did it – everything by the book, their book.
      The inquisition was a highly organized and well documented body of the church, and was abiding by their laws, so by their definition murder did not occur, it was all justified in the name of dogma.
      Do not expect anything of the kind you would like to see, this gang has managed to sweep under the carpet several hundred years of systematic child abuse – you really think they would apologize for what they think still was the right approach, right because it ensured their grip on worldly power?
      No, this organization has to be systematically taken down, by all legal means possible. This however will not happen, because of the loyal and blind support by hundreds of millions of catholic believers in all countries, preventing any decent secular government to take action against this rotten and foul institution.

      • In reply to #3 by kraut:

        In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

        How about they start by publishing a list of all the scientists, free-thinkers, and others they persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Specify the charges, the evidence and the sentence. Then prominently publish the list along with an apology for their crimes against humanity. Even more, trace the descendants of their victims to identify any living heirs. Make individual apologies and pay substantial reparations to the descendants of their victims.

        You do not understand this criminal organization. Like the Nazis did it – everything by the book, their book. The inquisition was a highly organized and well documented body of the church, and was abiding by their laws, so by their definition murder did not occur, it was all justified in the name of dogma. Do not expect anything of the kind you would like to see, this gang has managed to sweep under the carpet several hundred years of systematic child abuse – you really think they would apologize for what they think still was the right approach, right because it ensured their grip on worldly power? No, this organization has to be systematically taken down, by all legal means possible. This however will not happen, because of the loyal and blind support by hundreds of millions of catholic believers in all countries, preventing any decent secular government to take action against this rotten and foul institution.

        “I’ve got no expectations …” – Mick Jagger / Keith Richards

        “All we want are the facts.” – Sgt. Joe Friday, “Dragnet”

        “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore” – Howard Beale, “Network”
        ( watch all 5 minutes of it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q )

        :)

        • In reply to #43 by whiteraven:

          “All we want are the facts.” – Sgt. Joe Friday, “Dragnet”

          Reminds me of this:

          **Majikthise: I am Majikthise.

          Vroomfondle: And I demand that I am Vroomfondle.

          Majikthise: It’s all right, you don’t need to demand that.

          Vroomfondle: All right. I am Vroomfondle. And that is not a demand. That is a solid fact. What we demand is solid facts!

          Majikthise: No, we don’t, that is precisely what we don’t demand.

          Vroomfondle: We don’t demand solid facts. What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel. **

    • In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

      How about they start by publishing a list of all the scientists, free-thinkers, and others they persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Specify the charges, the evidence and the sentence. Then prominently publish the list along with an apology for their crimes against humanity. Even more, trace the descendants of their victims to identify any living heirs. Make individual apologies and pay substantial reparations to the descendants of their victims.

      I’m not being funny, but what will this actually achieve? Also, asking for reparations to be paid for something that was done centuries ago by people who aren’t alive to people who aren’t alive is pointless. Most of us on these forums responded with gales of derisive laughter when campaigners wanted Richard to pay reparations for his ancestor owning slaves – so I’m surprised to see that flipped back onto the Church.

      By all means we should remember the hideous things the Church has done in the past but it’s a bit of a stretch to blame the current crop of god botherers for that. They have their own horrors they’re perpetrating that we need to take them to task for, anyway. Let’s not get carried away whacking the Church with a stick when we could be doing something more constructive. The more science that makes it anywhere near the Church, the better, because the Church’s teachings cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny and all it takes is for people, when presented with a mish mash of half baked science (like evolution being compatible with Adam and Eve), to say “That doesn’t sound right.” and go and look it up.

      By all means let the Church try to reconcile itself with science; it’s just letting the ‘enemy’ in through the door. The scientific method is the antithesis of blind faith and anyone with just a slightly open mind will eventually use the former to dismantle the latter. Any acceptance of science by the church simply weakens their position. Good.

      “There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.” – Isaac Asimov

      • In reply to #9 by BenS:

        I’m not being funny, but what will this actually achieve?

        It will lay bear the actual calumny of the RCC with regards to their traditional, present, and ongoing antipathy to science, which they have always had and always will because of one simple fact, it blows their trash out of the water, and they know it and always have!

        This latest wheeze is just the church trying to get access to the big boys and girls table, it is meant to be a way in to regulating what science does, nothing more they are fighting a rear guard action,
        trying to limit the damage which is a dawning realization by a substantial proportion of the population that in the game of life and survival science is the better bet.

        You seem to think the church is all of a sudden a great believer in science…they are not, it is their death knell.

        Also, asking for reparations to be paid for something that was done centuries ago by people who aren’t alive to people who aren’t alive is pointless.

        I believe the same ‘argument ‘ was hoisted when slavery and our attitude towards it was raised just a few years back.
        Almost every major bank and financial institution in Europe over a few centuries old had their grubby little profit from that endeavour and the loudest voices from their present day management advanced just that POV.
        Funny how the religious organizations were absolutely silent at that time , a few renegades but nothing from the hierarchy, strange they were the main beneficiaries and encouraged the trade willingly, even used the bible to justify it.
        I call this so called ‘argument’ an apologist stance based on guilt and fear, and certainly not on the practicality points they tried to advance.

        Most of us on these forums responded with gales of derisive laughter when campaigners wanted Richard to pay reparations for his ancestor owning slaves – so I’m surprised to see that flipped back onto the Church.

        Richard does not own slaves and as far as I am aware never has…although what his students might report may cast another light on that question ;-) the church on the other hand has never admitted its full culpability based on their dogma and their tacky book of instruction, and they still insist that their instruction book is faultless that is the difference.

        By all means we should remember the hideous things the Church has done in the past but it’s a bit of a stretch to blame the current crop of god botherers for that.

        They are exactly the people that must be cornered because they are simply trying to slip out of the subject by silence on one hand and muttering about the world being a different place on the other, which does not answer the charges that they deliberately tried to choke science whenever or where ever it occurred, and they still have that instinct.

        You are aware that they never formally offered a apology to Galileo, they actually blamed him for what occurred by his ‘intransigence’ and that the church tried to help him at the time….blah de blah…!

        Most folks think what JP2 said was a formal ‘sorry about that’ it was no where near.
        He just acknowledged it happened but no ones fault…later an ecclesiastical edict concluded actually Galileo was the transgressor in reality and was wrong anyway!
        The council set up to examine that debacle concluded after a decade that the church was not responsible, and that was in the 80′s, so they have not quite got the idea yet I think.

        They have their own horrors they’re perpetrating that we need to take them to task for, anyway. Let’s not get carried away whacking the Church with a stick when we could be doing something more constructive.

        I think whacking them with a long and heavy stick is the best policy actually, other approaches fail to illicit a response.

        The more science that makes it anywhere near the Church, the better, because the Church’s teachings cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny and all it takes is for people, when presented with a mish mash of half baked science (like evolution being compatible with Adam and Eve), to say “That doesn’t sound right.” and go and look it up.

        Exactly the way to go and the one thing the church is determined to undermine.

        By all means let the Church try to reconcile itself with science; it’s just letting the ‘enemy’ in through the door.

        Or it is pretending humility in the face of knowledge to instigate another agenda, for example think of the dynamics of the scam versus the discipline.
        The discipline changes its ‘dogma’ when observation or evidence fail to uphold the theory whereas the scam has no intention of doing anything so draconian and has had none for 2000 yrs!
        They have no intention of working WITH science and every intention of replacing it, they always have, this siren song would hilarious if it were not quite so pathetically obvious.

        The scientific method is the antithesis of blind faith and anyone with just a slightly open mind will eventually use the former to dismantle the latter. Any acceptance of science by the church simply weakens their position. Good.

        That would be true if they accept it, they have shown no such willingness, not have they ever!

        This is a desperation and fear of being sidelined, which is happening every where.

        They want to be involved simply to slow the erosion of their authority down, not to advance humanity and certainly not to advance science.

        • Well, I’m not sure about the point of visiting the iniquities of the predecessors upon the inheritors, even in an organization. We’re not blaming the current pope for committing the acts done by someone upon Galileo. What I think is more relevant is that, given the chance to make their own pro-Galileo statement on the issue, given the chance to stop the anti-science they promote elsewhere, given the chance to condemn the immoral practices that go on in their church, and given the chance to turn over a new leaf, they make a hack job of it that reveals their untrustworthiness on the issue. They don’t condemn their own failings, past or present. They just try to make it look as though they do while still enjoying the advantages of not actually doing anything: to have their wafer and eat it at the same time.

          In reply to #12 by Jon Snow:

          In reply to #9 by BenS:

          I’m not being funny, but what will this actually achieve?

          It will lay bear the actual calumny of the RCC with regards to their traditional, present, and ongoing antipathy to science, which they have always had and always will because of one simple fact, it blows their trash out of the water, and they know it and always have!

          This latest wheeze is just the church trying to get access to the big boys and girls table, it is meant to be a way in to regulating what science does, nothing more they are fighting a rear guard action,
          trying to limit the damage which is a dawning realization by a substantial proportion of the population that in the game of life and survival science is the better bet.

          You seem to think the church is all of a sudden a great believer in science…they are not, it is their death knell.

          Also, asking for reparations to be paid for something that was done centuries ago by people who aren’t alive to people who aren’t alive is pointless.

          I believe the same ‘argument ‘ was hoisted when slavery and our attitude towards it was raised just a few years back.
          Almost every major bank and financial institution in Europe over a few centuries old had their grubby little profit from that endeavour and the loudest voices from their present day management advanced just that POV.
          Funny how the religious organizations were absolutely silent at that time , a few renegades but nothing from the hierarchy, strange they were the main beneficiaries and encouraged the trade willingly, even used the bible to justify it.
          I call this so called ‘argument’ an apologist stance based on guilt and fear, and certainly not on the practicality points they tried to advance.

          Most of us on these forums responded with gales of derisive laughter when campaigners wanted Richard to pay reparations for his ancestor owning slaves – so I’m surprised to see that flipped back onto the Church.

          Richard does not own slaves and as far as I am aware never has…although what his students might report may cast another light on that question ;-) the church on the other hand has never admitted its full culpability based on their dogma and their tacky book of instruction, and they still insist that their instruction book is faultless that is the difference.

          By all means we should remember the hideous things the Church has done in the past but it’s a bit of a stretch to blame the current crop of god botherers for that.

          They are exactly the people that must be cornered because they are simply trying to slip out of the subject by silence on one hand and muttering about the world being a different place on the other, which does not answer the charges that they deliberately tried to choke science whenever or where ever it occurred, and they still have that instinct.

          You are aware that they never formally offered a apology to Galileo, they actually blamed him for what occurred by his ‘intransigence’ and that the church tried to help him at the time….blah de blah…!

          Most folks think what JP2 said was a formal ‘sorry about that’ it was no where near.
          He just acknowledged it happened but no ones fault…later an ecclesiastical edict concluded actually Galileo was the transgressor in reality and was wrong anyway!
          The council set up to examine that debacle concluded after a decade that the church was not responsible, and that was in the 80′s, so they have not quite got the idea yet I think.

          They have their own horrors they’re perpetrating that we need to take them to task for, anyway. Let’s not get carried away whacking the Church with a stick when we could be doing something more constructive.

          I think whacking them with a long and heavy stick is the best policy actually, other approaches fail to illicit a response.

          The more science that makes it anywhere near the Church, the better, because the Church’s teachings cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny and all it takes is for people, when presented with a mish mash of half baked science (like evolution being compatible with Adam and Eve), to say “That doesn’t sound right.” and go and look it up.

          Exactly the way to go and the one thing the church is determined to undermine.

          By all means let the Church try to reconcile itself with science; it’s just letting the ‘enemy’ in through the door.

          Or it is pretending humility in the face of knowledge to instigate another agenda, for example think of the dynamics of the scam versus the discipline.
          The discipline changes its ‘dogma’ when observation or evidence fail to uphold the theory whereas the scam has no intention of doing anything so draconian and has had none for 2000 yrs!
          They have no intention of working WITH science and every intention of replacing it, they always have, this siren song would hilarious if it were not quite so pathetically obvious.

          The scientific method is the antithesis of blind faith and anyone with just a slightly open mind will eventually use the former to dismantle the latter. Any acceptance of science by the church simply weakens their position. Good.

          That would be true if they accept it, they have shown no such willingness, not have they ever!

          This is a desperation and fear of being sidelined, which is happening every where.

          They want to be involved simply to slow the erosion of their authority down, not to advance humanity and certainly not to advance science.

      • In reply to #9 by BenS:

        In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

        How about they start by publishing a list of all the scientists, free-thinkers, and others they persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Specify the charges, the evidence and the sentence. Then prominently publish the list along with an apology for their crimes against humanity. Even more, trace the descendants of their victims to identify any living heirs. Make individual apologies and pay substantial reparations to the descendants of their victims.

        I’m not being funny, but what will this actually achieve? Also, asking for reparations to be paid for something that was done centuries ago by people who aren’t alive to people who aren’t alive is pointless. Most of us on these forums responded with gales of derisive laughter when campaigners wanted Richard to pay reparations for his ancestor owning slaves – so I’m surprised to see that flipped back onto the Church.

        By all means we should remember the hideous things the Church has done in the past but it’s a bit of a stretch to blame the current crop of god botherers for that. They have their own horrors they’re perpetrating that we need to take them to task for, anyway. Let’s not get carried away whacking the Church with a stick when we could be doing something more constructive. The more science that makes it anywhere near the Church, the better, because the Church’s teachings cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny and all it takes is for people, when presented with a mish mash of half baked science (like evolution being compatible with Adam and Eve), to say “That doesn’t sound right.” and go and look it up.

        By all means let the Church try to reconcile itself with science; it’s just letting the ‘enemy’ in through the door. The scientific method is the antithesis of blind faith and anyone with just a slightly open mind will eventually use the former to dismantle the latter. Any acceptance of science by the church simply weakens their position. Good.

        “There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.” – Isaac Asimov

        In reply to #9 by BenS:

        In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

        How about they start by publishing a list of all the scientists, free-thinkers, and others they persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Specify the charges, the evidence and the sentence. Then prominently publish the list along with an apology for their crimes against humanity. Even more, trace the descendants of their victims to identify any living heirs. Make individual apologies and pay substantial reparations to the descendants of their victims.

        I’m not being funny, but what will this actually achieve? Also, asking for reparations to be paid for something that was done centuries ago by people who aren’t alive to people who aren’t alive is pointless. Most of us on these forums responded with gales of derisive laughter when campaigners wanted Richard to pay reparations for his ancestor owning slaves – so I’m surprised to see that flipped back onto the Church.

        The institution that perpetrated these crimes has been in business continuously for coming on 2000 years. It has accumulated unaccountable treasures, wealth, property, tribute and tax exemptions, power to interfere in the internal affairs of nations and recognition as a state. There is no statute of limitations on murder. I don’t see why an immortal entity such as the Church of Rome, or any corporation, should ever be beyond the reach of moral, civil or criminal law.

        Note: from USA Today “Reagan first appointed Wm. Wilson as presidential envoy to Rome in 1981, when the United States did not have full diplomatic relations with the Vatican because of an 1867 U.S. law that prohibited establishing such ties to maintain separation of church and state. In 1984, after the law was repealed, Reagan appointed Wilson as the first ambassador…” (There, take that Mr. Jefferson.)

        By all means we should remember the hideous things the Church has done in the past but it’s a bit of a stretch to blame the current crop of god botherers for that. They have their own horrors they’re perpetrating that we need to take them to task for, anyway. Let’s not get carried away whacking the Church with a stick when we could be doing something more constructive. The more science that makes it anywhere near the Church, the better, because the Church’s teachings cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny and all it takes is for people, when presented with a mish mash of half baked science (like evolution being compatible with Adam and Eve), to say “That doesn’t sound right.” and go and look it up.

        By all means let the Church try to reconcile itself with science; it’s just letting the ‘enemy’ in through the door. The scientific method is the antithesis of blind faith and anyone with just a slightly open mind will eventually use the former to dismantle the latter. Any acceptance of science by the church simply weakens their position. Good.

        “There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.” – Isaac Asimov

        Whack them? I’m not calling for a slap on the wrist for a bunch of over-glorified bureaucrats, I’d so far as to suggest that it be stripped of all assets (just think what secrets are hidden in their archives) and that these be distributed to their victims and to public institutions such as the great museums of the world, maintenance of great architectural works would need to be endowed or be partially self-supporting. It would do them good to start over again from scratch.

        As for reparations, the church teaches that you will be condemned to punishment for your sins for eternity. Taking the church into receivership is letting it off easy. Anyway, reparations only get paid by the losers. I think if the Jews have a claim on Israel, then Native Americans have just as good a claim on North America (and more) – maybe far better, because these crimes are less than 400 years old – but the US is giving them nada.

    • In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

      How about they start by publishing a list of all the scientists, free-thinkers, and others they persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Specify the charges, the evidence and the sentence. Then prominently publish the list along with an apology for their crimes against humanity. Even more, trace the descendants of their victims to identify any living heirs. Make individual apologies and pay substantial reparations to the descendants of their victims.

      Then apologize to humanity for more than a millennium of driving civilization in reverse and the untold millions who might have lived if not for the cultivation of superstition, imposed ignorance, rejection and destruction of the haard-won knowledge of classical antiquity, and anti-scientific regime of cruelly repressive authoritarianism.

      Do what’s morally right, get your own house in order and can the bullshit about “mischaracterization”. Don’t look for expiation for your sins from Science because you don’t deserve it and Science owes you nothing. Chances are pretty good that Science doesn’t need you for anything.

      That must be the sanctity of life that they defend.

    • In reply to #4 by mmurray:

      With the new pope being himself a trained scientist — Francis graduated as a chemical technicianMargaret Thatcher had a chemistry degree. Look how well that worked out.Michael

      She invented an ice cream, which I think was called “Mr Whippy”, most of which I’m led to believe was water; how’s that for putting a science education to good use.

      So, not only did she deprive children of their free school milk when she was Secretary of State for Education, but also cheated them out of value for their pocket money.

      She really was a charmer.

    • In reply to #4 by mmurray:

      With the new pope being himself a trained scientist — Francis graduated as a chemical technician

      Margaret Thatcher had a chemistry degree. Look how well that worked out.

      Michael

      very well imo. she invented whippy ice cream

  2. This whole pope thing is so ridiculous a charade that a child can see through it. One day he is an ordinary cardinal kicking a can down the isle, the next day (having changed into the previous pope’s clothes) he is supposed to be sitting at the Right Hand of God. WTF.

    That such a joke can be elevated to the status of news, complete with throngs of followers, expert commentary and academic journals about it, is an indictment on our society. This pompous cross-dresser and his troop should be treated with all the same seriousness we reserve for druid communities or historical reenactment groups (apologies to both) — i.e. not seriously at all.

    In decades to come, hopefully, our successors will wonder why (in the 21st C) we paid any attention at all to these pre-medieval cults.

  3. “Science and Faith Foundation.”? As always, I stand to be corrected, but aren’t science and faith antithetical? What about an oil and water foundation; there must surely be some way to make the two mix; you know, sort of get along together. It would appear that he dipped his toe into the foot bath of science, but things didn’t quite chime with his preconceptions, so he quickly withdrew his tootsie. But now, having had a whiff of reality, he wants to claim it for the church; I hope he doesn’t imagine that no one’s cottoned on to this trickery. It’s all been tried before Popie pants!
    • In reply to #7 by Stafford Gordon:

      “Science and Faith Foundation.”? As always, I stand to be corrected, but aren’t science and faith antithetical? What about an oil and water foundation; there must surely be some way to make the two mix; you know, sort of get along together.

      That’s called an emulsion, as I suspect the new pope could tell you. It’s more like the difference between wine and water and oil and water, perhaps? Then again, who would get upset over such a distinction?

      • In reply to #28 by PERSON:

        In reply to #7 by Stafford Gordon:”Science and Faith Foundation.”? As always, I stand to be corrected, but aren’t science and faith antithetical? What about an oil and water foundation; there must surely be some way to make the two mix; you know, sort of get along together.That’s called an emulsion, as I suspect the new pope could tell you. It’s more like the difference between wine and water and oil and water, perhaps? Then again, who would get upset over such a distinction?

        Thanks for the link.

        S G

    • Reply doesn’t seem to work today… I was just noting how funny “Popie Pants” is, laughed so hard I farted! I’m using that one for sure.

      Also, my two cents, or rather Lawrence Krauss’ two cents: Religion has to listen to science; Science doesn’t have to listen to religion. A darn good arrangement.

  4. When I hear of the RCC, “Theistic Evolution”, and their “compatibility of faith-thinking with science”, I am reminded of this Monty Python Sketch! ( Even if they have a pope with a new name!)

    http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode29.htm

    CAPTION: ‘ONE DEAD UNJUGGED RABBIT FISH LATER’

    • Man Well that was really horrible.
    • Woman You’re always complaining.
    • Man What’s for afters?
    • Woman Well there’s rat cake … rat sorbet … rat pudding … or strawberry tart.
    • Man Strawberry tart?!
    • Woman Well, it’s got some rat in it.
    • Man How much?
    • Woman Three (rather a lot really).
    • Man … well, I’ll have a slice without so much rat in it.
  5. splended

    so lets stop demonising embryologists, encourage condom use, put some of that wealth to stem cell research, encourage an enlightened view of homosexuality, stop talling about stories of virgin births and dead people getting better like they ever actually happened and maybe send all those old bits of bone and cloth you keep revering to museums to authenticate their origin.

    it’s been a while but welcome aboard…

  6. who cares what relationship the church wants with science. it would be like santa claus saying the he and his elves want a relationship with science – complete and utter nonsense – they can have any legitimacy, and certainly not a legitimacy that they’d get with having a “relationship” with science…

  7. Galileo had his spat with the RCC 500 years ago. Get over it. There are thousands of scientist around the world who profess a faith of one sort or another, so the idea of the RCC wanting to forge closer links with science is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged. Yes the church committed appalling crimes in its history, but what about the number of scientists, freethinkers and budding Galileos slaughtered by the atheist death cults of communism and Marxism. You seriously think you can ever have a rational reasoned debate with the howling marxist mobs “celebrating” Thatchers death.

    • In reply to #20 by JeffVader67:

      Galileo had his spat with the RCC 500 years ago. Get over it. There are thousands of scientist around the world who profess a faith of one sort or another, so the idea of the RCC wanting to forge closer links with science is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged. Yes the church committed appalling crimes in its history, but what about the number of scientists, freethinkers and budding Galileos slaughtered by the atheist death cults of communism and Marxism. You seriously think you can ever have a rational reasoned debate with the howling marxist mobs “celebrating” Thatchers death.

      Or the wailing hagiographic sycophants with their new-found sensitivity to offence, for that matter. It’s hypocritical correctness gone mad.

      So the church should get a free pass because other forces had the technology to do what they did on a bigger scale?

    • In reply to #20 by JeffVader67:

      Galileo had his spat with the RCC 500 years ago. Get over it. There are thousands of scientist around the world who profess a faith of one sort or another, so the idea of the RCC wanting to forge closer links with science is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged.

      No no no no no, a thousand times NO.
      Whether or not there was persecution in the past is NOT RELEVANT to the question of whether a faith-based organization has any business whatsoever pretending to be scientific. The answer is a resounding NO.

      There is ONE way to get good science and that is to avoid faith at all costs. Yes, there are religious scientists but the fact needs to be hammered home again and again that they way they accomplish this is to temporarily STOP behaving religiously while they are performing the job of scientist. Someone who goes to work in a lab doing good science from 9-5 and then goes home and prays is engaging in cognitive dissonance and wearing two different hats at two different times. The two methods of thought are absolutely NOT compatible, and we need to stop fueling any attempt of theologians to pretend otherwise.

      NO, getting religion in the way of science is NOT the right direction.

      Had the church during the enlightenment had any foreknowledge of where the enlightenment would lead they wouldn’t have been nearly so keen on it as they were. They only liked the idea because they lived under the delusion that more science knowledge would reveal the godly nature of the universe and that they couldn’t possibly be wrong. It was only later on when the gathered evidence challenged the church’s story of how the universe formed and where life came from that the church started having problems with science. Yeah, they supported science at first. Until it got in their way and didn’t give the results they expected.

      Is it a good thing to get religion mixed in with science? NO, absolutely not.

    • In reply to #20 by JeffVader67:

      Galileo had his spat with the RCC 500 years ago. Get over it. There are thousands of scientist around the world who profess a faith of one sort or another, so the idea of the RCC wanting to forge closer links with science is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged.

      Why? The church is not doing anything to benefit anything but the church. There’s a lot of very clever people in and around it, they know now that the church has to walk with science, not against it. If the RCC wanted to benefit the sick and poor, they could start a long term yard sale and auction in front of St.Peters and use the proceeds to feed millions, eradicate malaria, fund research into HIV/Aids and cancer, etc.
      >
      Yes the church committed appalling crimes in its history, but what about the number of scientists, freethinkers and budding Galileos slaughtered by the atheist death cults of communism and Marxism. You seriously think you can ever have a rational reasoned debate with the howling marxist mobs “celebrating” Thatchers death.
      >

      What about them? Call them to account. The new Kremlin is the same as the old Kremlin. Throw the Windsors off the dole, return the wealth to the British people and the victims of that empire.

    • In reply to #20 by JeffVader67:

      Galileo had his spat with the RCC 500 years ago. Get over it. There are thousands of scientist around the world who profess a faith of one sort or another, so the idea of the RCC wanting to forge closer links with science is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged. Yes the church committed appalling crimes in its history, but what about the number of scientists, freethinkers and budding Galileos slaughtered by the atheist death cults of communism and Marxism. You seriously think you can ever have a rational reasoned debate with the howling marxist mobs “celebrating” Thatchers death.

      It irritates me every time some religious apologist mentions Stalin or Mao.
      I may hold atheistic beliefs; Stalin and Mao may have held atheistic beliefs. But that doesn’t implicate me in their crimes, which I furthermore condemn and do not try to deny or obfuscate.
      On the other hand, the RCC-past and RCC-present are connected by more than beliefs in common.
      RCC-present inherits its present day “legitimacy”, passed down in an unbroken chain through the centuries, from the RCC-past. The present day members of the hierarchy enjoy the privileges and perquisites of wealth and power directly inherited from those days. It is disingenuous to suggest that there is no need to acknowledge and condemn the crimes of the organisation’s past. It is also naive to accept that the motives are pure, in forging closer links with science, from a body whose very existence revolves around accepting irrational beliefs, with a track record of persecuting scientists as yet fully acknowledged.

  8. So instead of opportunisticly claiming discoveries which allegedly support their dogma, covertly pro-ignorance, and openly opposed to an evidence based understanding of the universe, and they are going to be openly pro-ignorance and covertly opposed to an evidence based understanding of the universe?

    Honestly I don’t understand how they can improve the public perception of their relationship with science without admitting that they were wrong about almost everything and the scientists were right. They can’t do that without destroying their parasitic lifestyle and losing all their victims.

  9. No doubt the scientific research department at the Vatican will come forward with the scientific explanation of how a man came back from the dead and then floated off to heaven to join himself and sit on his on own right side? That among other mysteries of course !

  10. In reply to #20 by JeffVader67:

    Galileo had his spat with the RCC 500 years ago. Get over it.

    That depends entirely upon whether the RCC will actually say that it was a bad thing and that their predecessors were responsible for it – in other words, this is about whether or not they’ll stop whitewashing history to protect their credibility. Your argument could be made against anyone who criticized a Holocaust-denier: that they should simply stop making a fuss and get over it because it happened long ago in history.

    There are thousands of scientist around the world who profess a faith of one sort or another,

    And when you look at their justifications, none of them hold up, which increases the suspicion that this is simply a face-saving gesture. I think we would do better to point out the problems with such attempts at reconciliation than to pretend everything is hunky-dory between the two.

    so the idea of the RCC wanting to forge closer links with science is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged.

    It is, as far as I’m concerned, only going to be a superficial appeasement policy until the church’s raison d’etre is substantially revamped. This might well reduce a lot of real world problems, but that’s a matter of practical policy, and one can reasonably question whether it’ll accomplish even that. This is before we get to the fact that it’ll inevitably be an attempt to reconcile contradictory ideas. An institution can’t publicly support science on one platform, and then insist on a virgin birth or on the evil of condoms on another without being a hypocrite.

    Yes the church committed appalling crimes in its history,

    You should’ve stopped there.

    but what about the number of scientists, freethinkers and budding Galileos slaughtered by the atheist death cults of communism and Marxism.

    Firstly, this is a logical fallacy: Tu Quoque (“You too!”), the accusation of hypocrisy in order to criticize or invalidate an opponent’s argument or case. The obvious point to be made here is that pointing to the shortcomings of your opponent does not erase or categorically reduce the shortcomings of the perpetrator he or she is criticizing. If you want to compare the RCC to Stalinist Russia or the Great Leap Forward – two contenders for the worst atrocities of the 20th century – be my guest, but it’s about as impressive as trying to exonerate Ted Bundy by pointing to Jack the Ripper.

    Secondly, those regimes were political, not religious, in character. Marxism was focused on class struggle and on the glorification of war and conflict in the service of a utopian future for the morally deserving proletariat, and its adherents felt that it could achieve this through revolution – seizing political power and forcibly redistributing wealth. The fact that they were atheistic is about as relevant as the fact that they didn’t believe in shamanistic spirit worlds, ancestor worship, or guardian angels.

    Thirdly, and I think more importantly, if the communistic regimes were anything related to what current atheists are, they were anti-religious, and not in the weak sense of simply criticizing religious doctrines or the basis of religion in general. They called for the murder of religious people and for the destruction and vandalism of churches. If this view is held by any atheist today, it is almost certainly a minority view.

    Fourthly, they might not have believed in the existence of a god, but they certainly fell afoul of the same religious tropes as theistic rulers did and do: an infallible moral authority who is free to exercise power to suppress critics; belief in patently daft or outright unevidenced ideas; “revelation” as and when it suited them; demonization of science, of intellectuals, and of unwanted groups of people who got in the way of their utopian vision; an unrealistically optimistic utopian vision of the future that justified any amount of violence; and a desire to control almost every aspect of their citizenry’s life, up to and including thought crimes.

    Nowhere is this more obvious than in the agricultural policies adopted by Stalin and Mao. Stalin hired a pseudoscientific crank called Lysenko not on his credentials but on how his genetic theories fitted into Stalin’s ideology. Belayev, a genuine geneticist whose work on fox breeding Richard refers to in The Greatest Show on Earth, was sacked because his genetics contradicted Lysenko’s doctrines. As a result of this, Stalin starved huge numbers of soviet citizens. Mao reported a “revelation” that gave him an unworkable agricultural policy, which he justified on the grounds that it would increase food production and relied on the seeds relying on each other. Its agreement with his ideological and moralistic prejudices prompted him to brutally enforce it on his populace, silencing any criticism of the idea, which resulted in millions of Chinese people dying of malnutrition when the crops inevitably failed. In neither case did they invoke atheism as a motivation for their idiocy.

    Lastly, the two cases are different in many respects. The RCC has not collapsed into historical oblivion, but is still alive and well and committing many other crimes such as enabling the spread of AIDs and conducting child abuse. Modern anti-religionists can criticize anti-religious political regimes without being cornered for hypocrisy because they don’t fund, remain silent over, or advocate anti-religious crimes such as those committed by muslims against jews, and so forth. Catholics who criticize the church’s actions, and yet still finance it and affiliate with it, paint themselves into a corner because they either compromise their own critiques or reveal themselves as unethical. Moreover, “atheism” is an intellectual position and is neither an institution nor a group united by any creed, though the term is often adopted to show affiliation with other ideas such as humanism and freethinking.

    You seriously think you can ever have a rational reasoned debate with the howling marxist mobs “celebrating” Thatchers death.

    This is veering off topic, and in any case I’ve already discussed the lazy confusion of marxism with atheism, so I’ll just add that if you think atheists are colluding with marxists and all celebrating the death of Thatcher, your real-world understanding of the two positions is incredibly poor at best.

    • In reply to #23 by Zeuglodon:

      In reply to #20 by JeffVader67:

      Galileo had his spat with the RCC 500 years ago. Get over it.

      That depends entirely upon whether the RCC will actually say that it was a bad thing and that their predecessors were responsible for it – in other words, this is about whether or not they’ll stop whitewashing history to protect their credibility. Your argument could be made against anyone who criticized a Holocaust-denier: that they should simply stop making a fuss and get over it because it happened long ago in history.

      There are thousands of scientist around the world who profess a faith of one sort or another,

      And when you look at their justifications, none of them hold up, which increases the suspicion that this is simply a face-saving gesture. I think we would do better to point out the problems with such attempts at reconciliation than to pretend everything is hunky-dory between the two.

      so the idea of the RCC wanting to forge closer links with science is a step in the right direction and should be encouraged.

      It is, as far as I’m concerned, only going to be a superficial appeasement policy until the church’s raison d’etre is substantially revamped. This might well reduce a lot of real world problems, but that’s a matter of practical policy, and one can reasonably question whether it’ll accomplish even that. This is before we get to the fact that it’ll inevitably be an attempt to reconcile contradictory ideas. An institution can’t publicly support science on one platform, and then insist on a virgin birth or on the evil of condoms on another without being a hypocrite.

      Yes the church committed appalling crimes in its history,

      You should’ve stopped there.

      but what about the number of scientists, freethinkers and budding Galileos slaughtered by the atheist death cults of communism and Marxism.

      Firstly, this is a logical fallacy: Tu Quoque (“You too!”), the accusation of hypocrisy in order to criticize or invalidate an opponent’s argument or case. The obvious point to be made here is that pointing to the shortcomings of your opponent does not erase or categorically reduce the shortcomings of the perpetrator he or she is criticizing. If you want to compare the RCC to Stalinist Russia or the Great Leap Forward – two contenders for the worst atrocities of the 20th century – be my guest, but it’s about as impressive as trying to exonerate Ted Bundy by pointing to Jack the Ripper.

      Secondly, those regimes were political, not religious, in character. Marxism was focused on class struggle and on the glorification of war and conflict in the service of a utopian future for the morally deserving proletariat, and its adherents felt that it could achieve this through revolution – seizing political power and forcibly redistributing wealth. The fact that they were atheistic is about as relevant as the fact that they didn’t believe in shamanistic spirit worlds, ancestor worship, or guardian angels.

      Thirdly, and I think more importantly, if the communistic regimes were anything related to what current atheists are, they were anti-religious, and not in the weak sense of simply criticizing religious doctrines or the basis of religion in general. They called for the murder of religious people and for the destruction and vandalism of churches. If this view is held by any atheist today, it is almost certainly a minority view.

      Fourthly, they might not have believed in the existence of a god, but they certainly fell afoul of the same religious tropes as theistic rulers did and do: an infallible moral authority who is free to exercise power to suppress critics; belief in patently daft or outright unevidenced ideas; “revelation” as and when it suited them; demonization of science, of intellectuals, and of unwanted groups of people who got in the way of their utopian vision; an unrealistically optimistic utopian vision of the future that justified any amount of violence; and a desire to control almost every aspect of their citizenry’s life, up to and including thought crimes.

      Nowhere is this more obvious than in the agricultural policies adopted by Stalin and Mao. Stalin hired a pseudoscientific crank called Lysenko not on his credentials but on how his genetic theories fitted into Stalin’s ideology. Belayev, a genuine geneticist whose work on fox breeding Richard refers to in The Greatest Show on Earth, was sacked because his genetics contradicted Lysenko’s doctrines. As a result of this, Stalin starved huge numbers of soviet citizens. Mao reported a “revelation” that gave him an unworkable agricultural policy, which he justified on the grounds that it would increase food production and relied on the seeds relying on each other. Its agreement with his ideological and moralistic prejudices prompted him to brutally enforce it on his populace, silencing any criticism of the idea, which resulted in millions of Chinese people dying of malnutrition when the crops inevitably failed. In neither case did they invoke atheism as a motivation for their idiocy.

      Lastly, the two cases are different in many respects. The RCC has not collapsed into historical oblivion, but is still alive and well and committing many other crimes such as enabling the spread of AIDs and conducting child abuse. Modern anti-religionists can criticize anti-religious political regimes without being cornered for hypocrisy because they don’t fund, remain silent over, or advocate anti-religious crimes such as those committed by muslims against jews, and so forth. Catholics who criticize the church’s actions, and yet still finance it and affiliate with it, paint themselves into a corner because they either compromise their own critiques or reveal themselves as unethical. Moreover, “atheism” is an intellectual position and is neither an institution nor a group united by any creed, though the term is often adopted to show affiliation with other ideas such as humanism and freethinking.

      You seriously think you can ever have a rational reasoned debate with the howling marxist mobs “celebrating” Thatchers death.

      This is veering off topic, and in any case I’ve already discussed the lazy confusion of marxism with atheism, so I’ll just add that if you think atheists are colluding with marxists and all celebrating the death of Thatcher, your real-world understanding of the two positions is incredibly poor at best.

      Thanks for the wealth of material I can use when confronted with this argument ( which happens all the time , I might add). I’ve just returned after seeing the doco “Mea Culpa.Silence in the House of God”, so I’m thinking that the RCC have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. This organisation will be lucky to escape unscathed if Geoffrey Robinson et al have their way.

      Perhaps an attempt to have a benevolent , scientific relationship is seen as a plus, to obfuscate the faithful to the horrors that have been perpetrated by their clergy.

    • In reply to #24 by old-toy-boy:

      Get them to highlight every bit in the bible that is currently unscientific.

      It would be easier to highlight the parts that ARE currently scientifically accepted. Which won’t take very long…

  11. C’mon everyone. I mean, him and his buddies have been playing wizards for centuries. I think this is a clear case of…….. (dramatic music……..)

    “Are you a Doctor?”

    “No, but I play one on TV.”

  12. In reply to point 23 by Zeuglodon
    It was only a simple point really. That an ideology that crushed belief in God, religion and Church/ temple/ mosque etc such as Soviet Communism was as capable of barbarism as religious extremists. I for one am please with the RCC’s more positive attitude to science.

    • In reply to #26 by JeffVader67:

      In reply to point 23 by Zeuglodon
      It was only a simple point really. That an ideology that crushed belief in God, religion and Church/ temple/ mosque etc such as Soviet Communism was as capable of barbarism as religious extremists.

      And what has this got to do with anything in the OP? Unless someone here has actually said evil is exclusively done by religion, it looks like you’re just making assumptions about other users. Moreover, it was not a “simple point” you were making, but as close to an accusation of moral hypocrisy as you could make to other atheists, which does not warrant breezily dismissing it as “only a simple point, really”, especially when your tone wasn’t particularly breezy in your original post when you were telling other users to “get over it”.

      I for one am please with the RCC’s more positive attitude to science.

      Good for you, but like I said, I don’t see it as anything other than a superficial and doomed policy, at best.

  13. @OP – Vatican seeks to rebrand its relationship with science

    I think the headline is right this time.

    Same fake product – new wrapper and advertising campaign!

    The only Vatican “relationship with science “, is, and has been, what proportion of lies about science will the sheeples swallow, and how much distortion can they get away without severely damaging what credibility they have!

  14. The idea of moving religion closer to science is ludicrous! Imagination versus evidence based knowledege? I think its getting to the stage when we should reframe religious institutions as ‘CLUBS’ eg the Catholic club, Anglican Club etc so they become viewed in the same way as a car club, chess club, yoga or meditation club, book club etc etc. They would then begin to lose their special status in society and hopefully gain the credibility of the ‘flat earth’ society and other such clubs. If we could achieve that, we would not even notice that they want to study non embryonic stem cell research any more than we would care if they studied astrology.
    Atheism would then cease to exist unless one wanted to have definitions for every ‘non club’ eg a club for people who do not collect stamps or who do not belong to book clubs!

  15. Acknowledging that the Galileo era was a dark period for the church…

    The founding of the Catholic church. was a far darker period for most of humanity.

    I want to know if his scientific literacy stretches to accepting condoms will save millions in Africa. If not then he will be as big a murderer as Ratzo.

  16. Given their rabid antipathy towards science since antiquity I think they have a damned cheek to be honest!

    It was only a couple years back when Bennie’s oppo Schönborn was shilling and pimping for the discovery institute.

    Nah…I really do not buy this revelation and desire to embrace science one iota!

    This is just another theistic attempt to scramble up on to the same seat as science, to enjoy the gravitas and respect that science has…that is all it is about, pretending they are down and groovy with the discipline, is just trying to pretend they are a grown up and respectable cult and worthy of attention..

    Talk about keeping a reticulated python in a crèche and expecting no drama, I expect science has seen this coming anyway, may they deal with it as usual, do not trust one syllable or one promise, religion needs science so much more then science needs religion…and ever will it be so…well Franny…wot ya gonna do?

    • In reply to #38 by poseyjt:

      So god likes science now? I wonder what changed his mind. :)

      Bums on pews, and a plunging trust factor in general, but irrelevance mainly and a dogma that is so terminal it is turning green and black and stinking the place out with its toxic sickly miasma.

      They are doing what most Western religions do and have done, adapt to the climate!
      It served the Neanderthals not much joy, but the theistically challenged never really learn much history in those terms.

      Camouflage and distract then when the victims get all happy cos the church seems a modern institution reintroduce the bronze age mysticism under cover of dog’s will! that despite such knowledge it is because!

      This latest scam does go a lot further then usual because the RCC has never been so hated and distrusted, so a major misdirection is required to attempt to move the focus away from their criminality, and to give the ambience of modernity, and hopefully attract the modern yoof’…so a twofold gambit!

      They have given up on the oldsters, what they have they have but now it is imperative they fish other waters for fresh blood cos the cult is facing extinction in a generation maybe two!

      It won’t work of course, far to little far to late, and their time is up, they just are unwilling to accept it at the moment, and the inta’tubes are crushing their ecclesiastic’s at every turn so they cannot employ the tactic of prevaricate, or yell oppression and untrue quite as easily as before, so neither run nor hide gambits help these days.

      Bennie’s abdication was a shock to the system for the legions but and that kindda gives the clue to something is so devastating in the pipeline that they had to let Benny go…health be bollixed this was a tactical withdrawal to get him, and by default themselves, out of the firing line. whatever it is must be insuring the Vatican laundry is in full employment and 24/7 operation these days.

      This was a delousing exercise, a new broom and a swept higher magisteria, what is the betting that come charges of corruption or aiding and abetting paedophilia, there will be no one in those higher echelons that were directly involved, it is so blatant, a ‘no one in here but uz chooks! ‘ tactic.

      They might even throw Bernard Law to the wolves to distance themselves, it depends on circumstances and desperate hysteria in Vatican corridors.

      Folk are well aware now the truth is indeed out there and not necessarily is it the ‘trooff of the RCC.

      Their pronouncements are challenged directly and given that traditional communities are a thing of the past the RCC has lost the advantage of being the only game in town and thereby controlling the flow of relevant and usually contradictory evidence.

      In other words they is stuffed!…well and truly, watching them wiggle and spasmodically jerk will become an ongoing entertainment.

      They will nor disappoint methinks, they are to predictable.

  17. As long as the Roman Catholic Church maintains the conceit of being privy to supernatural truths and thus invested with supernatural authority to overrule the findings of natural truths where it sees fit, I cannot see how any attempt to improve the said church’s relations with science and the scientific community can amount to anything more than rhetoric. Actions speak louder than words. Much more than rhetoric is needed to outweigh the church’s actions over the centuries with regard to science and to the quest for knowledge on which human wellbeing has always depended. Of course the church will not renounce its supernatural conceit; so all representatives of science approached by the church for cosier relations should keep their distance.

  18. I think they might have some difficulty reconciling a relationship of this with science!

    In Roman Catholicism exorcism is sacramental[1][2] but not a sacrament, unlike baptism or confession. Unlike a sacrament, exorcism’s “integrity and efficacy do not depend … on the rigid use of an unchanging formula or on the ordered sequence of prescribed actions.

    Its efficacy depends on two elements: authorization from valid and licit Church authorities, and the faith of the exorcist.”[3] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism.”[2]

    The Catholic Church revised the Rite of Exorcism in January 1999, though the traditional Rite of Exorcism in Latin is allowed as an option.

    The ritual assumes that possessed persons retain their free will, though the demon may hold control over their physical body, and involves prayers, blessings, and invocations with the use of the document Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications.

    Solemn exorcisms, according to the Canon law of the church, can be exercised only by an ordained priest (or higher prelate), with the express permission of the local bishop, and only after a careful medical examination to exclude the possibility of mental illness.[4]

    The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) enjoined: “Superstition ought not to be confounded with religion, however much their history may be interwoven, nor magic, however white it may be, with a legitimate religious rite.”

    This bit is really ironic!

    Things listed in the Roman Ritual as being indicators of possible demonic possession include: speaking foreign or ancient languages of which the possessed has no prior knowledge; supernatural abilities and strength; knowledge of hidden or remote things which the possessed has no way of knowing;Exorcism in the Catholic Church-From Wikipedia

    Exorcism squads

    An announcement attributed to Father Amorth to the online Catholic news service Petrus hailed the formation of adjuristine-exorcism squads by Pope Benedict XVI. The report, which was picked up by the UK newspaper the Daily Mail[21] on December 29, 2007, originally appeared on Petrus and claimed the squads were being dispatched worldwide to “tackle the rise of Satanism”. Vatican officials immediately dismissed the reports but it was an unusual instance where the existence of adjurist and adjuristine activity was acknowledged in the press. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele-Amorth

    Gabriele Amorth (born 1 May 1925) is an Italian Roman Catholic priest and an exorcist of the Diocese of Rome who claims to have cleansed tens of thousands of demonic possessions.

    Amorth was born in Modena, Emilia. He was ordained a Roman Catholic Priest in 1954 and became an official exorcist in June 1986, under the tutelage of Candido Amantini.[1] He is a member of the Society of St. Paul, the Congregation founded by James Alberione in 1914.[2]

    In 1990, he founded the International Association of Exorcists and was president until he retired, at 75, in the year 2000. He is now honorary president for life of the association

Leave a Reply