(CNN) -- The Vatican will embark on a sweeping new legal strategy Monday in responding to allegations of sex abuse in the United States, CNN has learned.
Responding to a Louisville, Kentucky, lawsuit that seeks to depose top Vatican officials -- including Pope Benedict XVI -- the Holy See plans to file a motion Monday denying that the church issued a document mandating secrecy in the face of abuse allegations, as many victims allege, according to a Vatican attorney.
The Vatican's motion also will argue that bishops are not employees of the Holy See, exempting the Vatican from legal culpability in cases of alleged abuse in the U.S., said Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican's U.S.-based attorney.
Talk about people that just don't get it! It now seems that the Vatican, that's who runs the Catholic church, now tells us that never mind all that money flowing to Rome, never mind that the Vatican appoints local Bishops, never mind that the Vatican exercises direct supervision of those bishops, and never mind any of the other numerous ways in which the Vatican has tried to interfere in the various legal proceedings around the ongoing sex scandal - we, the Vatican, aren't culpable!
What really offends about this latest move is that it says quite clearly that the Catholic church sees this scandal not as a moral issue, which it most certainly is, but purely as a legal issue. Now it's not that the scandal isn't a legal issue, it is, but from a religious perspective it is more importantly a moral issue. The current position says that the Catholic church is about legality not morality. That is at the root of what's wrong with the church's position. That's why the sucking sound the Vatican hears are Catholics turning and walking away from an increasingly out of touch and corrupt organization.
Common sense suggests that we need only wait a bit longer and the Catholic church, certainly in the United States, will become completely irrelevant. Perhaps it's time for that for clearly the Catholic church is no longer focused on morality and the care of it's members!
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Voter anger, Republicans, Democrats, and Congress
That special Congressional primary season is much in the news today, as well it should be.
Various commentators, Republican, Democrat, and Provocateurs (listening to them gives on to quickly conclude that they are about generating controversy and pumping ratings) have much to say. Republicans say "the country is feed up with the Democrats and their liberal spending ways. We'll take back congress!" The Democrats say "the country is not as mad at us as the Republicans think. We'll do OK." The provocateurs simply go about baiting both the Republicans and Democrats in the hope of starting a televised food fight on their show.
All of this, however, seems to me to miss the mark. It seems to me as you might gather from earlier posts that the real issue is incumbents. It is simply no longer possible to believe that congress is not completely dysfunctional, particularly the senate. To change it can only be accomplished by changing your congressman. That's just common sense. That you might regard your existing congressman as the lesser of two evils, as one surveyed voter remarked, while rational in the short term, insures that congress remains broken in the long term. Such not now decisions are part of how we allowed problems that might have been resolved with much less difficulty when they first arose to now become crisis. It is, common sense suggest, long past time to stop the cycle and replace congress in its entirety.
Various commentators, Republican, Democrat, and Provocateurs (listening to them gives on to quickly conclude that they are about generating controversy and pumping ratings) have much to say. Republicans say "the country is feed up with the Democrats and their liberal spending ways. We'll take back congress!" The Democrats say "the country is not as mad at us as the Republicans think. We'll do OK." The provocateurs simply go about baiting both the Republicans and Democrats in the hope of starting a televised food fight on their show.
All of this, however, seems to me to miss the mark. It seems to me as you might gather from earlier posts that the real issue is incumbents. It is simply no longer possible to believe that congress is not completely dysfunctional, particularly the senate. To change it can only be accomplished by changing your congressman. That's just common sense. That you might regard your existing congressman as the lesser of two evils, as one surveyed voter remarked, while rational in the short term, insures that congress remains broken in the long term. Such not now decisions are part of how we allowed problems that might have been resolved with much less difficulty when they first arose to now become crisis. It is, common sense suggest, long past time to stop the cycle and replace congress in its entirety.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Common Sense, Safety, Consequences, and Payout - Gulf Oil Disaster
The current events in the Gulf of Mexico oil leak has reminded me of something I've long known to be true about technology and consequences. There is a certain tendency to regard technology as somehow inherently safe.
There's a sort of "If we can do it once or twice safely then it's safe."
We see this notion frequently. For example, oil tankers move oil all over the world every day without serious incident. Therefore, moving oil by tanker is safe. But is it? We know about the Exxon Valdez who's accident destroyed a fishery. We still don't know how long it might take the fishery to recover. So are oil tankers safe? Really safe?
The notion of safety is inexorably linked to consequences and payout.
Suppose that you engage in an activity that is reasonably safe. Suppose that the chance of accident is one in a thousand. Would you view the activity as safe? So far it's not really possible to say. If the consequence of failure is small, say the loss of a $10 entrance fee then you might well regard the activity as safe since you are easily able to bear the consequence. But suppose the consequence is that you and your family die. Now is the activity safe? Loosing your life and the lives of your family is a severe consequence. One that few would risk unless the payout is very large. Now suppose that the payout for success is that you and your family can live safely in a free society while the consequence of doing noting is that you and your family must live out your lives in an oppressive society. Now is the activity safe, at least in the sense that you might rationally undertake it?
What does this have to do with the Gulf oil spill? Consider. Can oil wells be successfully drilled in deep water? The answer, demonstrated by many such successful wells is clearly yes. Can these wells be successfully operated without incident? Again, based on experience, the answer is clearly yes. Are they therefore safe? Now we must deal with consequences and payout. If the well operates successfully without incident we get oil to fuel our cars, power our homes, and drive our economy. That's a very significant payout. But if even one of these wells fails the consequence are an Exxon Valdez oil spill twice a week into the indefinite future and the destruction of a very productive fishery in the Gulf. That's a very significant consequence. Moreover, it's a consequence that may last for a very long time, certainly many 10s of years, likely many hundreds of years.
Is the benefit from oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico that will produce oil for a few tens of years worth the risk of the destruction of a major fishery for many hundreds of years? Common sense suggest that it probably isn't. While the risk may be small, the consequence of failure is so large as to outweigh the benefits.
There's a sort of "If we can do it once or twice safely then it's safe."
We see this notion frequently. For example, oil tankers move oil all over the world every day without serious incident. Therefore, moving oil by tanker is safe. But is it? We know about the Exxon Valdez who's accident destroyed a fishery. We still don't know how long it might take the fishery to recover. So are oil tankers safe? Really safe?
The notion of safety is inexorably linked to consequences and payout.
Suppose that you engage in an activity that is reasonably safe. Suppose that the chance of accident is one in a thousand. Would you view the activity as safe? So far it's not really possible to say. If the consequence of failure is small, say the loss of a $10 entrance fee then you might well regard the activity as safe since you are easily able to bear the consequence. But suppose the consequence is that you and your family die. Now is the activity safe? Loosing your life and the lives of your family is a severe consequence. One that few would risk unless the payout is very large. Now suppose that the payout for success is that you and your family can live safely in a free society while the consequence of doing noting is that you and your family must live out your lives in an oppressive society. Now is the activity safe, at least in the sense that you might rationally undertake it?
What does this have to do with the Gulf oil spill? Consider. Can oil wells be successfully drilled in deep water? The answer, demonstrated by many such successful wells is clearly yes. Can these wells be successfully operated without incident? Again, based on experience, the answer is clearly yes. Are they therefore safe? Now we must deal with consequences and payout. If the well operates successfully without incident we get oil to fuel our cars, power our homes, and drive our economy. That's a very significant payout. But if even one of these wells fails the consequence are an Exxon Valdez oil spill twice a week into the indefinite future and the destruction of a very productive fishery in the Gulf. That's a very significant consequence. Moreover, it's a consequence that may last for a very long time, certainly many 10s of years, likely many hundreds of years.
Is the benefit from oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico that will produce oil for a few tens of years worth the risk of the destruction of a major fishery for many hundreds of years? Common sense suggest that it probably isn't. While the risk may be small, the consequence of failure is so large as to outweigh the benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)