Dubitator, a blog reader, has politely drawn my attention to an error in my posting on September 13th about the Emperor Aurelius. He is right. Aurelius was a famous Stoic, not an Epicurean. (One maybe shouldn’t resume posting so quickly after a hospital operation!) In any case the words of Aurelius are wise, regardless of labels. Thank you, Dubitator!
Non- Disparagement Agreements
Some of the people who appear on American TV, or who are quoted in articles about President Trump, have signed non-disclosure agreements that oblige signers not to disparage Trump personally, or members of his family. Some versions provide for financial penalties, others are comprehensive in terms of Trump’s political, social and financial affairs. So the question is: when these people appear on TV are they being honest, or are they lauding Trump because they cannot legally do otherwise?
In the interests of transparency shouldn’t all media organisations now preface every broadcast by a Trump operative by stating that they have signed an NDA, where appropriate? Then the reader or the audience would be better informed as to where the interviewee is coming from. (Fear being one emotion).
We have no idea how many people there are who have signed these NDAs, (although the anonymous critic in the New York Times may have signed one, which explains his anonymity). NDAs have been described as “common” and “very normal” for this administration.
The NDA chills free speech and in all probability contravenes the First Amendment. It is what you expect in a tin-pot dictatorship. A robust, self-confident man with nothing much to hide wouldn’t feel the need for it. Is the President’s amour propre so fragile that he cannot bear criticism of the mildest kind? What precisely is he concealing, and how much of it should be public knowledge? (Information obtained from article by Paul Farhi, Washington Post, 12 September 2018)
Lying
“Injustice is a kind of blasphemy. Nature designed rational beings for each other’s sake: to help, not harm, one another, as they deserve. To lie is to blaspheme, too. Because “nature” means the nature of what is. And that which is and that which is the case are closely linked, so that nature is synonymous with truth – the source of all true things.
“To lie deliberately is to blaspheme – the liar commits deceit, and thus injustice. And likewise to lie without realizing it, because the involuntary liar disrupts the harmony of nature. Nature gave him the means to distinguish between the true and false, and he neglected them and now can’t tell the difference”.
(9.1) “The Decent Life” (9.1) from the philosopher Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, the Epicurean Roman Emperor
What Britain’s pro-Europeans are getting wrong
Brexit seems to be going from bad to worse. The governing Conservative Party can’t agree on a plan for leaving the European Union- the Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed plan is opposed by a significant chunk of Conservative MPs and the vast majority of Conservative members. Negotiations have been slow and fraught, with each side accusing the other of intransigence and wishful thinking. Businesses, particularly banks and manufacturers such as Airbus and Jaguar Land Rover, are beginning to panic at the prospect of leaving. The public are increasingly pessimistic about Brexit, yet so far show little sign of getting behind the pro-European cause. Given how badly Brexit is going, Britain’s pro-EU movement ought to be asking itself why this is.
There are several reasons for the persistence of support for Brexit. The first is the lack of enthusiasm for the European Union as an institution, however unpopular its critics may also be. The EU is seen as a vast, nightmarishly complex bureaucracy, which exists only to serve global elites and not the common man. It is perceived as undemocratic, out of touch and irrelevant to everyday life. Unlike in most of continental Europe, the EU is not seen as a builder of peace after WW2. Unlike in the Eastern states, it is not seen as a facilitator of democracy. Nor are the economic benefits of the EU as widely acknowledged- many Britons would rather have control over our regulations than be part of a single regulatory regime, however convenient it may be for trade.
The second reason is that the structural cause of Brexit- a low-wage, low-skilled economy which has endured lethargic growth outside the South East and the university cities- has not been addressed. Most of Britain feels left behind by globalisation, deprived of investment and attention from central government, and not cared about. Remainers, a group too ideologically diverse to have a coherent economic policy programme, cannot resolve the discontent that led to Brexit.
A significant component of British Euroscepticism is opposition to the EU’s free movement of labour. Were Britain to remain in the EU, or even simply in the Single Market, unregulated European migration would continue. Remainers have failed to make the case for free movement, instead arguing in vain the benefits of EU membership are worth enduring immigration to maintain. This is a terrible mistake: free movement is one of the best things about the EU. It makes us all freer and more prosperous. British people can live and worth wherever they want in the EU, so long as they don’t claim welfare. Equally, EU migrants use fewer public services than Brits, and thus are a net economic benefit.
The fourth and presently most important cause of the pro-Europeans’ unpopularity, is that Brexit is seen as a democratic choice that must be respected, however undesirable it may be. Unlike nearly any other policy, Brexit was endorsed via a high-turnout referendum. Thus, it can’t be reversed by a change of government or a shift in the public mood. Most British people believe the government has a duty to leave the EU- not doing so would be violating the people’s wishes. The notion of a second referendum on the terms of the government’s deal is gaining currency, yet lacks the overwhelming levels of support it would need for Parliament to vote for it.
My overall point is that for all of the mentioned reasons, Britain is a fundamentally Eurosceptic country for the time being. It is futile for the country’s pro-Europeans to pretend otherwise. Those who would rather Brexit had never happened, which includes myself, should play the long game. Begin by making the positive case for the EU, without endorsing any specific course of action which isn’t presently realistic. Then if Brexit goes as badly as its opponents say it will, the public mood will have genuinely changed and a chance to re-join will be possible. But simply waiving EU flags at the Proms and decrying the opportunistic demagoguery of the Brexiteers won’t be effective. It took a long time for Eurosceptics to persuade Britain to leave the EU. It will take at least awhile to persuade them to come back.
The benefits of gentle police work
Inequality, poverty, corruption – Nicaragua has many of the characteristic problems that afflict Central American nations. Yet there is one way in which it stands out from its neighbours: its relative lack of violence. Its homicide rate, according to the latest regional report from InSight Crime, is a mere seven per 100,000. This compares with 12.1 per 100,000 in the much richer Costa Rica, 42.8 per 100,000 in Honduras and a “staggering” 60 per 100,000 in El Salvador.
Why this disparity? In large part it’s a legacy of Nicaragua’s 1970s Sandinista revolution against the US-backed General Somoza dictatorship, and the nation’s subsequent rejection of all things American. Whereas its neighbours, under US pressure, implemented very heavy-handed policing methods in the early 1990s (former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani secured lucrative consultancy contracts), Nicaragua pursued community-based policing, with officers working closely with NGOs to prevent crime. The model was in keeping with the ideals of the revolution, which championed social programmes and progressive ideas such as gender equality. It’s this approach that has enabled Nicaragua to defy “the near-universal correlation between poverty, inequality and violence”. (Roberto Lovato, The Nation, New York, 17 Feb 2018).
Contrast the above with the trigger-happy behaviour of many American policemen, frightened to death, poorly trained, and many of them none too keen on teenage blacks. Republicans always reach for over-reach when contemplating crime. Huge numbers are arrested on specious grounds for “loitering” or holding something in their hands. Huge numbers are incarcerated, ensuring that previously harmless young people become hardened criminals. This is not the way to battle crime and not the way to to get the help and cooperation of local communities. What it does do is get votes from fearful Republican voters, whose fearfulness. is stoked up, often with bogus crime figures. With the posxible exception of Chicago, crime is gradually going down, believe it or not. No thanks to the hordes of John Waynes in policemen’s costumes.
The biggest threat to democracy that no one is talking about
That threat is a constitutional convention called by the states. The last time such a thing happened was in 1787. So messy was that affair that it hasn’t been carried out since. But a renewed effort is underway.
Conservatives are pushing for an Article V convention to add a balanced-budget amendment and other ideas, to the Constitution. All they need is the approval of 34 state legislatures (no governor’s signature needed) to compel Congress to call such a gathering. Right now, 28 states have passed resolutions calling for an Article V convention. That number would be 32 had not pro- democracy groups not gotten Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico and Nevada to rescind their resolutions. Still, once the 34-state hurdle is cleared, despite pledges of a discrete, narrow focus, no one knows what could happen.
Once a convention were convened, it could take up any topic it wanted to. There is nothing in Article V of the Constitution, no jurisprudence or anything in statute that says the convention needs to be limited. So they could take up anything they want. There are no rules for such conventions nor does the Constitution discuss constitutionzl conventions, their membership, funding, etc
Groups pushing these conventions are seeking to undo woman’s right to choose and marriage equality. They want to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, roll back the power of the Federal government, abolishing things most peoplw take fof granted, and overturning the idea of the the established role of the modern, enlightened government.
ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, kicked the process off by advocating a balanced-budget amendment a few years ago, along with Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action, whose handbook specifically says, “We want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,”reversing 115 years of progressivism?
We are talking about reining in corporations with antitrust measures. We’re talking about the women’s suffrage movements d the right to abortion. We’re talking about consumer protections. We’re talking about Brown v. Board of Education. We are talking about education, environmental rights, civil rights, voting rights, social security, Medicare, unemployment benefit – all of those kinds of things.”. (Adapted from a podcast by Jonathan on Twitter: @Capehart Cape Up, September 4 at 6:01 AM)
This is precisely the Agenda of the the right-wingers in the British Tory Party. They want to consolidate the rule of the rich (the “deserving”) and, privatize the National Health Service, extend the retirement age, the reduce money spent on education and help for the poor and working class (the “undeserving”. Dpicurus, who was a kind, ari g and cari g and inc.sive man, would have. been surprised at the extensive activities of Wester governments, but I be.ieve he wluld have suppotdd them
Weirder and weirder
Students in the US who have a type of brain parasite carried by cats are more likely to be majoring in business studies. The pets are hosts for the protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii. It can infect people through contact with cat faeces, poorly cooked meat from infected livestock, or contaminated water, and A many as one-third of the world’s population may have it.The parasite doesn’t usually make us feel sick, but it forms cysts in the brain where it can remain for the rest of a person’s life. Some studies have linked infection with slower reaction times, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, suicidal behaviour and explosive anger.
Now an analysis of almost 1300 US students has found that those who had been exposed to the parasite were 1.7 times more likely to be majoring in business. In particular, they were more likely to be focusing on management and entrepreneurship than other business-related areas. The study also found that professionals attending business events were almost twice as likely to have started their own business if they were T. gondii positive, and that countries with a higher prevalence of the infection show more entrepreneurial activity.
The team behind the study say their results suggests that the parasite may be involved in reducing a person’s fear of failure and high-risk, high-reward ventures. Rodents infected with T.gondii are known to become less fearful of encountering cats (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, doi.org/csh7) published in New Scientist, Aug 2018
If this article did not have the imprimature of the Royal Society I would be tempted to think it was a practical joke. Nowhere is getting rich, control over others, or greed (and a hos t of other motivations) mentioned or discussed.
Brief thoughts on the upcoming Swedish election
Sweden is viewed very favourably in Britain. It’s seen as tolerant, liberal and friendly country, committed to modernity yet proud of its traditions. Sweden seems to get the balance right between supporting free markets and free trade on the one hand, and having a compassionate approach to the poor and refugees on the other.
Yet for those following the Swedish election, due to take place on the 9 September, it is increasingly clear the Swedish utopia popular in the British imagination bears little resemblance to reality. Crime, particularly violent crime, has increased notably. The economy, while not stagnant, isn’t roaring ahead either. While the number of refugees and asylum seekers entering Sweden has fallen since the height of 2015, the effect of integrating more newcomers per capita than any other European nation remains an immense challenge. The unemployment and poverty rates amongst migrants are considerably higher than for native Swedes- the disparity between foreigners and the general population is far greater in Sweden than in the US or the UK. The impact of high migration has increased the prominence of the right-wing Sweden Democrats, although the most recent opinion polls suggest they won’t be as successful as it was once feared.
To make matters worse, the country is divided as to what the future of Sweden’s famously generous welfare state should be. The incumbent government, a coalition of the Social Democrats and the Greens, believes maintaining high welfare spending is the key to ensuring the working class receive a fair share of the benefits of globalisation. Without welfare, Sweden could experience the sort of populist uprisings that have affected more free-market countries like the UK, the US or even New Zealand. They argue a key cause of popular dissatisfaction is the increasing gap between rich and poor, and the continued prosperity of the finance sector, even when decisions made by reckless bankers caused the financial crisis.
I’m very sceptical of those arguments, which is why if I were Swedish, I would vote for the centre-right Moderate Party. Sweden is more economically equal than almost any other country on earth. It has a relatively small financial sector compared with EU competitors like the UK or Ireland. It also has one of the world’s most generous welfare states, including a vast array of universal benefits for families, students and pensioners. So insufficient state spending cannot explain the popularity of the Sweden Democrats, nor can it address issues like a lack of economic growth, dissatisfaction with migration, or Euroscepticism.
Sweden needs to ensure its existing public provisions, such as the police or the pension system, have the trust of the Swedish people, before embarking on any more expensive long-term commitments. The country must demonstrate an ability to enforce the law, and not shy away from convicting migrant criminals for fear of political correctness. While Sweden should be proud of a culture that treats refugees kindly, it cannot be the world’s safe haven. This means pushing for EU-wide policies to distribute refugees equitably, rather than allowing excessive migration into Sweden under the pretence of upholding liberalism. Equally, the Swedes’ willingness to pay high taxes must not be mistaken for enthusiasm for a redistributive EU; a Moderate-led government should stand against proposed increases to international wealth transfers.
None of this is to argue the past four years of Social Democratic rule have been a disaster. The Nordic combination of flexible labour markets with generous social insurance schemes was maintained to the country’s benefit. Taking in too many refugees may have been a mistake. But taking in too few, as Britain has done, shows a basic lack of humanity. Sweden’s environmental record is stellar, as is its progress on gender equality and gay rights. The country’s childcare policies, while expensive, are the envy of the world.
However, Sweden needs a change of course. The Social Democrats have been committed to liberal ideals, but have drifted too far into left-wing utopianism and wishful thinking. A Moderate-led government would maintain a belief in the essential principles of the Swedish welfare system, while reforming it and other public institutions to restore the public’s trust. It would work within the EU, but be more aggressive in advancing Sweden’s interests in the European sphere. And by joining NATO and increasing defence spending, it would show leadership on the world stage against an increasingly isolationist America which cannot be relied upon to defend Sweden, and an increasingly aggressive Russia. Sweden has been a beacon to the rest of the world in good governance and intelligent policymaking. With a new government, it can be so again.
A nation based on fear cannot be “great”.
It has not been a good year for gun makers. Remington filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after its sales fell 27.5% in the first nine months of Donald Trump’s presidency. (Its officials had expected a 2016 Hillary Clinton victory and a burst of gun purchases). Sales have been ragged across the industry. Gun company stocks have slipped, profits have fallen, price wars are breaking out, and corporate debt is on the rise. January 2018 was the worst January for gun purchases since 2012. (A mere 2,030,530(!)firearm background checks were logged that month, down by 500,000 from the same month in 2016). It was the “Trump slump” in action.
“Fear-based” gun buying is no longer buoying the industry. After each shooting atrocity there have been spikes in gun sales. But after last October’s Las Vegas slaughter in which 58 died and hundreds were wounded, they sank by 13% compared to October 2016. Recent atrocities, such as at Parkland school, Florida, haven’t helped sales.
Fear and and guns. Gun sales have been driven by white men who are “anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears”. A gun feels to them like “a force for order in a chaotic world,” though such owners are significantly more likely to use a gun in their home to kill or wound themselves or a family member than a burglar, intruder, or anyone else. They are also more likely than non-gun-owners to take an active part in politics. (heavily edited version of an article in Tom Dispatch 4/15/2018)
America is filled with guns that have the power to rend flesh in ways that fit war, not the home. Fear is the driver. To be “great” requires a nation that is confident, secure, well- informed and reasonably united. The United States has had its century as a Great lPower, and has wasted its resources on the military and endless wars, instead of education and socisl cohesion. There are parallels with ancient Greece and Rome. Epicurus would recognise it – the decline of social cohesion and democracy and futile, destructive war that partly drove his desire for moderation.
The sorry state of British education, part 3, universities
The conclusion of a three-part series on British education. You can read the first part on GCSEs here, and the second part on A-levels here.
British universities are amongst the best in the world, beaten only by the United States, a country with five times the population. They attract high numbers of students from virtually every country. Even with America, the British system compares favourably. Fees are much lower- for UK and EU students they are capped at £9250 ($11905) per year, and for non-EU students they are around £18000 ($23169) per year. Most undergraduate courses only last for three years, lowering costs further. The relatively small size of British universities mean that students enjoy regular contact hours with a lecturer or tutor they know personally. And the recent surge of investment means things like sports facilities and on-campus shopping no longer compare as unfavourably to their American counterparts as they once did.
However, British universities are currently the subject of severe criticism, from students, staff and wider society. To an outsider, this may seem odd. The recent surge in student numbers and investment surely points to a successful model. International student numbers haven’t dipped by anywhere near the amount it was predicted following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. Record numbers of working class students are attending, despite recent increases in fees.
But it is this financialisation of higher education- seeing it as a business rather than an aspect of public provision- that is at the root of student discontent. The government recently lifted the cap on student numbers, allowing universities to admit as many people as they wanted, provided the students could afford the fees. This had the effect of universities aggressively expanding to fit as many students as possible. The result was increasing overcrowding of campus facilities, a shortage of accommodation and therefore higher rents, a decline in academic standards as students with lower grades were admitted in higher numbers, overwhelmed staff, and a general feeling that students were being treated simply as customers, rather than valued members of the academic community. To make matters worse, senior university figures have awarded themselves six-figure salaries, when the value of a higher education is increasingly questioned.
The financialisation of higher education has not just affected universities, it has had an impact on the wider economy. Since more people are getting degrees, each degree is worth less. Employers are raising their requirements. It is no longer good enough simply to have a degree. In many cases, only students from the elite universities will be considered. In some cases, you can only be an employee if you have a very high degree classification. Students are paying more in fees and accumulating more debt, only to face a more competitive graduate job market.
For the Left, the answer to all this is a government takeover of higher education. Fees should be abolished, reducing the amount of debt students have to go into. The cap on student numbers should be reintroduced, to prioritise the quality over the quantity of the student intake. Universities should be subject to regular audits, and penalised if they are found to be wasting money. For most students, this is a very appealing policy programme. It’s no surprise that in last year’s general election, Labour won the overwhelming majority of the student vote, despite the Labour leader Corbyn’s radicalism and past Euroscepticism. Labour also find favour with a significant proportion of university staff, who are seeing their pensions reduced and are often underpaid.
But the Left needs to be honest in its higher education proposals. Maintaining the current level of higher education participation, while abolishing fees and increasing staff salaries and pensions would be immensely expensive. In most countries with free or heavily subsidised higher education such as Germany, the proportion of people attending university is much lower. Taxes would have to rise. And since Labour has ruled out higher taxes on 95% of the population, the consequence would be a clobbering of business owners and investors, at a time when Britain desperately needs the confidence of both.
Britain needs to accept some of the Left’s critiques of the higher education system, while maintaining the parts that work well. The financialisation of universities post-2010 has been a disaster. The government needs to properly regulate and oversee universities, to prevent waste and unsustainable expansion, and to maintain standards. More money ought to be given to low-income students who struggle to fund their education- the now-scrapped Education Maintenance Allowance should be restored. Pay ratios should be introduced to ensure the vice-chancellors do not earn excessive salaries relative to the cleaners and junior academics.
Having said that, the country cannot afford to provide a free education to everyone that wants one. Students from middle to high income families should pay at least as much as they currently do. To pay for assistance to lower income students, overall student numbers should fall. The cap on student numbers should be reintroduced, and the cap on fees should be extended to non-EU students to prevent them from being used as a cash cow. The overall aim should be a sustainable, properly regulated system which a decent proportion of the population can enjoy, regardless of circumstances.
Thought for the day
A year after Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico, the official death toll has been raised to 2,975 people – compared with the previous official figure of 64.
The Adminstration, meanwhile, has done little or nothing to help Puerto Ricans. If the hurricane had occurred in Kansas, also full of American citizens, and not in a Latino island, would the reaction have been different? Just wondering.
Our ( British) ancesters were all probably dark brown
The first modern Britons probably had blue eyes, dark hair and dark brown skin, according to a new DNA analysis of the oldest complete skeleton ever found in the UK. Cheddar Man, dug up in Somerset in 1903, lived some 10,000 years ago, not long after settlers began crossing over from Europe at the end of the last ice age. Britons of white ancestry are descended from this population.
The discovery, based on analysis (by the Natural History Museum and University College London) of DNA extracted from Cheddar Man’s skull, underlines the fact that lighter skin tones are a relatively recent phenomenon in Europe. They may have become predominant only as recently as 6,000 years ago. With the advent of farming, people may have started to eat more cereal and eat less oily fish, leading to vitamin D deficiencies. At that point, those with fairer skin, which absorbs more vitamin D from sunlight, may have gained a genetic advantage. (The Week 17 Feb 2018)
Message to immigrant haters and racists generally: if you can wait about 6000 years all the dark skinned immigrants you now want to send home will have become white. All will be well. In terms of the age of the planet this is just a twinkling of an eye. Just be patient.
(Makes it all seem rather silly, doesn’t it?).
Edgy Shakespeare
“Shakespeare strikes fear into the hearts of many theatregoers because no one wants to leave one of his plays feeling stupid. And yet, so often, that point is not grasped by those who make theatre: they want to be seen as edgy and creative, and so play around with the plays until they resemble a disastrous mud pie-and-glitter experiment. This enrages me.
Shakespeare wrote mainly for us, the audience. Surely he provides enough intrigue without adding drag queens, cannabis farms, black plastic sheeting, grunge clothing, bungee-jumping stunts – not to mention endless dancing to hip-hop, grime, garage, trance, whatever-is-hip-now.”. (Ann Treneman in The Times)
I do so agree! But Ms. Treneman missed out one pet peeve of mine: muttering on stage. I used to do a lot of amateur acting. One venue was the Wimbledon Theatre in London, a massive barn of a place. Our fearsome director told us, “The audience has paid good money to see you and deserves to hear you clearly, every word you say or sing”. We would have to project and articulate every syllable until she could hear clearly at the very back of the gods that seemed a hundred yards away. Good training.
Nowadays actors mumble. Half their words are indistinct, especially on television. It’s as if they are in some live 19th Century impressionistic painting – you get the general idea – and the rest is up to your imagination. I hope this inexcusable fashion (for that is what it is) will pass, because Shakespearian audiences deserve to hear every word that is spoken or sung.. And this applies to workaday crime and other shows. Articulation, please! What do they teach you in acting school?
Letter to the Washington Post, 30 August 2018
“The answer for me to E. J. Dionne’s rhetorical question about why people stay Catholic is simple: I attend Mass to deepen my relationship with the Lord. It matters not who wears the miter and carries the crosier. I don’t care if my priest is gay. The hierarchy and politics of the church offends me so I ignore them.
I am a Catholic in daily conversation with God in prayer and am strenthened by the Eucharist. No one can take that from me, and I’ll never give it up”. (Brian M. Mulholland, Washington).
What immediately came to mind reading this was a parallel attitude now rampant in a section of society. It goes something like this:
The answer for me to why people stay Republican is simple: I love money and the Party can be relied upon to put more of it in my pocket. It matters not who is in the White House, whether he is a crude, serial philanderer, liar, unethical businessman, childish or incompetent. Yes, the hierarchy, the politics, divisiveness and craven behavior of the present Republican party offends me so I ignore them.
I am a Republican in daily conversation with the God of Higher Income and am strenthened by the recent bonanza given me by Congress. No one can take that from me, and I’ll never give the Party up”.
Top to bottom reform needed
A highly placed Vatican source claims that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, together with three experienced CDF priests, was dismissed by Pope Francis because they all had tried to follow loyally the Church’s standing rules concerning abusive clergymen. In one specific case, Müller opposed the Pope’s re-instatement of Don Mauro Inzoli, an unmistakably cruel abuser of many boys; but the Pope would not listen. In another case, the Pope decided not to give a Vatican apartment to one of Müller’s own secretaries, but to the now-infamous Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, in spite of the fact that someone had warned the Pope about Capozzi’s grave problems. The Vatican source also said that it was known to several people in the Vatican that some restrictions were put on Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, and he thereby confirms Viganò’s own claim that Francis knew about Carrick.
A well-informed Vatican source, asked about Pope Francis and McCarrick’s habitual abuse, answered: “Cardinal Müller [as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)] had always …followed up on these abuse cases, and that is why he was dismissed, just as his three good collaborators [the three CDF priests] were also dismissed.”
The source explained that Cardinal Müller, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had always been loyally following the Church’s laws with regard to abuse cases, for the handling of which the CDF is responsible. According to the source, Müller also “resisted” Pope Francis in 2014 when he wanted to re-instate the serial molester of boys, the Italian priest Don Inzoli, allowing him to perform some functions of the priesthood. “The Pope decided differently,” the source continued. That is to say, Pope Francis did not follow Cardinal Müller’s advice.(Edited, LifeSiteNews item,August 29, 2018)
How can anyone have respect for an institution like the Catholic Church as it is currently constituted. How do we know that all this horrendous abuse hasn’t been going on since the Middle Ages? How many scores of people have been harmed over the years? Why does the church seem to attract predators? The celibacy rule must be part of the problem. In my opinion it is outdated and contrary to human nature.
The early christians were responsible for misrepresenting and unfairly ridiculing Epicurus and his rational teachings, so much so that Epicureanism became equated with gluttony, greed and hedonism. These charges were unfounded then, and now. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. The current charges against the Catholic Church are well founded, and the hierarchy attempts to cover it all up. Hopefully, the financial cost of all this will lead to reform.