Prof. Richard Dawkins, emeritus professor of Oxford, has hit a new low by ridiculing Pope Benedict’s celibacy on the day his resignation is announced. Richard Dawkins tweeted the following:
‘I feel sorry for the Pope and all old Catholic priests. Imagine having a wasted life to look back on and no sex.’
Protect the Pope comment: I feel sorry for Richard Dawkins and all the old atheists. Imagine having wasted life by choosing ego over God, and missing the point of life
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/pope-resigns-live-reaction
I feel sorry for Dawkins, I really do. Pray for him
Yeah, Karla. But I wonder which one he needs more badly, prayer or a good exorcism. Perhaps both?
Poor dear Karla,
You should feel sorry for the Pope, a former member of the Hitler youth and a man that has wasted his life. Let’s celebrate instead the great Professor Dawkins. I really think he is the man to head the Catholic Church and instigate a clean-up.
Poor poor Richard Dawkins and all like him who live in pure darkness. If only they could get the grace of humility to see and respond to the truth.
May they ask God for his Mercy before it becomes too late for them.
oh catholics!!!, I am so proud and happy, how beautiful exibition of hate and anger by most of you. I am not surprised how similar we are, the difference is that I am allowed to hate (because I do not believe in imaginary beings with supernatural powers that taught to love, offer the other chick, etc), as I always said, the best person to debunk and ridiculize christianism is a good christian.
And do not waste your time in praying for my soul, it is just ok.
Maybe it would be best not to give a blow-by-blow account of every tweet from every twit. Just the kind of comment you would expect from Dawkins and the kind of glib statement that twitter encourages. Probably best to ignore.
Agreed, Haslam, agreed.
If Dawkins believes his atheism prepared him for marriage…er, why has he been married so many times? If only he had listened to the Church beforehand.
So remaining in an unhappy marriage would make Dawkins a better person than being a divorcee? Well if that’s true why didn’t the Catholic Church apply the same rule to Princess Diana and Prince Charles rather than offering their hand to her in a “difficult time” after her “unhappy marriage” like Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa did. Funny how Catholics seem to have different standards depending who they’re talking about, but then you can expect that from a group of people who think that Atheists are more morally wrong than a Pope who covers up paedophilia amongst his own peers and subjects the children of his own church to them.
I feel sorry for Dawkins getting to his age and looking back on his life and realising he is a nasty, sad old man.
You don’t hear them ridiculing the Dalai Lama or Ghandi, do you?
Dawkins DID give the Dalai Lama a kicking when he won the Templeton Prize a few years back. The Dalai Lama responded by suggesting that he direct his energy to something other than anger.
But was it because of the Dalai Lama’s celibacy?
No. It was because the Templeton award was for the Lama’s contribution to science. Dawkins took exception to that.
Understood.
What I intended in my comment is to show that both the Dala Lama and Ghandi lived celibate lives (the latter, though married, opted for sexual abstinence later in the course of his life) and we don’t hear people ridiculing them about it.
Have you nothing better to say Professor? Your latest comments about the Holy Father Benedict XVI and our Priests, further clarify to one and all how bitter and empty your life is without knowing God.
Kinga Grzeczynska
I feel sorry for the Dawkins and all atheistic evolutionists: imagine having a wasted eternity to look forward to (and no sex).
LOL!!!! Good one, Dominic, thanks. LOL!!
Has anyone looked at the comments at Huffington Post ? If we try to demonstrate that there are more child abusers,financial abusers and generally people of violence in secular society than in the Church we just have the vitriol thrown at us than at the Holy Father. Makes Dawkins look benign.
Huffington post is known for its anti Catholic comments. There will be people who are hateful, perhaps ignore those sources that are known for vitriol. just pray for those making those comments
Bet when Dawkins announces his retirement…no one will know…and no one will care.
But we noticed that the Pope of North Oxford…for all his lashings of the “Panzer Kardinal”…himself suddenly developed engine trouble and went into grovelling reverse gear when his infallible tweets on the conflict in Mali found no favour with 0000s of sub-Saharan Muslims.
You have never seen underpants changed so quickly.
Richard Dawkins is really a self-made man…so talented in some ways , save for one fatal flaw….he worships his creator
‘In My Father’s House, there are many rooms’. says The Lord.
If I ever get there (??), can I choose my neighbours please? (good to have somewhere to go when you have run out of milk or tonic at a late hour).
Also, can my neighbours not be too noisy, I don’t want to be listening to all sorts of nonsence through the walls.
Are you very noisy Professor?
Kinga Grzeczynska
A more balanced account here,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/benedict-placehold-pope-weakened-church
There is nothing balanced by Andrew Brown’s account of Pope Benedict’s pontificate. Classic Guardian piece of anti-papist spin
Are you the moderator of this website? Why did you allow Michael Petek’s detestable comment on Richard Dawkins to be shown? No Christian should make that sort of comment…or are you all so full of hate that those sort of comments are encouraged?
You are right to chastise me for allowing Michael’s comment. I wasn’t paying enough attention. I’ve deleted it and issued a correction to Michael. Deacon Nick
Get in there Dawkins. Can’t believe the first ten minutes of the news was taken up with this non story.
That was unworthy Michael.
John, you’re right about Michael’s comment and I have removed it. My mistake I wasn’t paying enough attention. Michael, please don’t let anger get the better of you. I must admit, and it pains me to write this, but your posts are tending to be more angry and full of violent imagery and allusions. We must always temper our passion for the truth with prudence and love. Deacon Nick
Well, of course I’m angry! Of all the people who are neither members of the Muslim Brotherhood nor Islamists of some other description, Richard Dawkins is unique in his ability to provoke me.
If my posts sound violent, I believe I am speaking out of a time-honoured Christian tradition, namely that there is a legitimate use of the sword, and that is: (1) to establish and stabilise the earthly city for the sake of the common good; and (2) the submission of the organs of the State (either of their own accord or under compulsion by their lawful superiors) to the Kingship of Jesus Christ.
What Christians ought to do under persecution will vary according to time and place and will be controlled by their judgement of what will best serve the temporal common good and the salvation of souls. In a country like Nigeria it is neither unlawful nor sinful for them to fight their enemies with deadly force. Not so yet in a country like ours, nor in most other countries.
It occurs to me, and I would submit, that Professor Dawkins as an atheist cannot avail himself of the right to religious liberty in its full extent. The reason is that an atheist cannot form a conscience which requires him to do or to abstain from doing an act. Only an ethical monotheist can do this. That said, his conduct and his expressed opinions fall outside the terms of Dignitatis Humanae (and modern human rights law) and within the scope of acts which the Popes of the 19th century declared should be repressed by the public authorities in the interests of public morality.
There is also an interesting paper by Thomas Pink on the Internet: “What is the Catholic Doctrine of Religious Liberty?” It’s worth reading. I have formed my own conclusions as to where his argument leads, and I’d rather discuss these in another posting.
Sigh! Will I ever match the wit of GK Chesterton?
Michael, I follow Pope Benedict XVI on this that violence in never justified in the cause of Faith. Belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can never justify recourse to violence. Never. Deacon Nick
I agree wholeheartedly that violence is never justified in the cause of faith, and here is the reason why. A person who dissents from an article of faith which transcends reason deserves a presumption of innocence, because it cannot be demonstrated that he has the supernatiral grace necessary for him to place an act of faith. Even if he had, the State has no jurisdiction to coerce conformity to the faith. However, see Canon 14 on Baptism of the Council of Trent.
If a person dissents from and propagandises against natural truths, such as the truth concerning the inviolability of human life, the right use of human sexuality, the truth about marriage and the family, then it is legitimate for civil laws to provide for criminal liability, coercion and punishment, because these matters go to the common good.
The same goes in relation to persons who agitate to displace the organs of civil government from factual submission to Christian morality so far as is founded upon the natural law, as public authorities do not themselves enjoy a right of religious liberty. They must therefore take official and judicial notice of the facts of history that are linked to the fundamentals of revelation (eg. the Resurrection of Jesus Christ) and which establish it as reasonable and prudent to place an act of faith.
Thomas Pink’s paper is largely about the implications of the Tridentine Canon 14 on Baptism. It informs the Church’s inherent right, asserted in canon law, to coerce the errant baptised. But my conclusion as to Professor Pink’s thesis is that it is reducible to the following proposition: the Church has the liberty of private prosecution before the civil authorities in relation to acts which are crimes in both civil and canon law and the right to insist that a prosecution not be discontinued by reason only of the fact that the civil authorities consider the prosecution to be not in the public interest.
“Well, of course I’m angry.”
Have you ever wondered why the Church considers anger to be one of the seven deadly sins?
The catechism provides an answer in CCC 2302.
But anger can also cause us to react without right reason – and so affect our ability to judge wisely.
GK Chesterton used the rapier of wit rather than the bludgeon of anger.
No prizes for guessing which he would use against the likes of Dawkins!
St Augustine said that Hope has two beautiful daughters: Anger and Courage. I hope my secondary source didn’t misquote him.
so basically you want a theocracy?
They always work out so well don’t they?
Michael, you’re a revelation to me – someone who makes many commenters on here look tolerant and balanced.
Go and have a nice cup of tea dear.
I’m not sure what the “right to religious liberty” means. Sounds like more religious mumbo-jumbo to me but maybe someone will enlighten me. I’m more concerned with your claim that an atheist ‘cannot form a moral conscience’ and that ‘only an ethical monotheist can do this’. The sheer arrogance of these statements is extraordinary. How dare you state that I (and I am proud to say that I AM an atheist) cannot form a moral conscience. How on earth do you think I have been forming judgements as to what is right and wrong for these 54 years I have been on this planet? If this is how ‘ethical monotheists’ reason then the case for atheism can only be stronger.
Don’t suppose this posting will stay on here too long. The moderators here seem to maintain the fine catholic tradition of silencing anyone who begs to differ.
I agree with you. A moral conscience pre-dates religion and is found in all humans (although we all ignore it at times). It is to my mind one of the strongest PROOFS for God.
Argument I:
1.It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists.
2.The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.
3.Therefore God exists.
Michael seems to have pulled the rug out from this arguemnt.
1 it appears to human beings that moral normative try exists
2. One explanation might be that a god or gods exist(s)
3. A better explanation is that evolutionary pressures selected for moral behaviour in a social animal
4. This can be further explained by reference to the need to conform to cultural norms
5. Therefore – well, obviously we evolved
Point 3 above does not logically flow from point 2. Both statements 2 and 3 are statements of faith dressed up in the language of rationality and logic
Argument 2
1. Religious believers have already decided that god exists
2. Their attempts at using logic invariably consist of trying to justify that belief, rather than starting with the evidence – it’s back tonfrontvreasoning
3. The religious are certain that they are correct and no amount of evidence will change their minds
4. Therefore I am wasting my time
5 But not as much as they are with their ridiculous beliefs, nonsensical rituals and ludicrous arguments
6. But that’s up to them as long as they leave the rest of us alone
At least they’ve stopped burning unbelievers now!
It’s the morning of 12 February and I’m thinking:
“Wait a moment! There is no small amount of violent imagery in the parables of Jesus. See the last line of the parable of the talents, the parable of the wicked tenants and the parable of the wedding feast.”
And when you read the book of Revelation it just never stops. Even the 42-month reign of the Beast was fulfilled in Adolf Hitler. He gave the general order for the Final Solution in December 1941 and was finally defeated in May 1945. Count those months as two complete months, add the 36 months of 3 complete years and the first 4 months of 1945 and it adds up!
The Independent this morning reports that rebel forces are advancing on Damascus and are calling their campaign “the Battle of Armageddon.”
You couldn’t make it up.
The true catholic response to Dawkins is to love him and forgive him. No one will change his mind on Christianity or any theistic religions.
Good old Dawkins.
I doubt Dawkins cares if you forgive him or not and I doubt he will be retiring ms catholic state.
Unlike the Pope he will probably work to the end.
This blog is very one sided which considering many on here are Christians comes as a disappointment. I thought Christians were meant to be all understanding and tolerant. Does make me laugh.
For hettyg
I could write precisely the same about Guardian blogs on Catholicism.
“This blog is very one-sided which considering many on here are liberal , free thinking Enlightenment types comes as a disappointment. I thought you people were meant to be all understanding and tolerant. Does make me laugh.”
Touché!
Benedict is retiring from his office of the pope, he will carry on working in prayer and as a theologian till he is too frail. Peter
You doubt Dawkins will be retiring, Hetty? Are we thinking of the same Dawkins – Professor and Fellow Emeritus?
He has already retires and is an emeritus professor.
The comments here are one-sided because it was clearly a snide comment about a man who clearly has given his life to God.
hettyg….it wouldn’t make any difference if Dawkins retires or not. History will wash over him. But the Popes will be remembered. They are Vicars of Christ……the centre of all creation through Whom all things were made.
Dawkins poor fellow is here today gone tomorrow. Irrelevant really.
What a disgusting little Man. I know I should show compassion and turn the other cheek but this Man really winds me up.
Was that the Pope?
Those who are hostile to the Kingship of Christ are, by definition, our enemies. I include both Dawkins and Hans Kung in this category. At the same time, we are called to the terribly difficult task of loving our enemies and praying for their salvation.
Above all, let us pray for the Pope.Our Lady said at Fatima that the Holy Father will have much to suffer.
I seem to have posted a reply when my post was intended as a standalone comment. I will repost at the end of the section. Apologies for that.
It might be pointed out that atheists cannot condemn anything based on atheism because atheism has no premise. When they do condemn something it is based on a lie. The lie is that they have a premise.
There is no atheist Summa because nothing can be built on nothing.
Man is a moral being that can make a moral judgement. In order to condemn say bad clergy atheists cross over to belief make the condemnation they then cross back over to atheism and pretend the criticism is based on atheism.
A moral conscience is always with us.
Pope Paul VI in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes – (Joy and Hope) wrote
16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10)
The headline should read:
“Shock news: Professor Dawkins states that all Catholic priests are faithful to their promises of celibacy.”
I have to say, in all seriousness, that I really do wonder about Dawkins – and I speak more in sorrow than in anger. He really does seem to be becoming something of a monomaniac. Pray for him.
The headline should read:
“Shock news: Professor Dawkins states that all Catholic priests are faithful to their promise of celibacy.”
Richard Dawkins at 666/1 to be next Pope!
Paddy Power have a sense of humour.
https://twitter.com/paddypower/statuses/300991820073152513
I wonder whether Prof Dawkins is not projecting on his personal feelings on the Pope and old priests. The pope is fully fulfilled by his celibacy like many other priests. The pope once reiterated that he would still go in for celibacy if he was given another opportunity of choice. Dawkins really sounds hedonistic and it is a gross existential mistake to think that is only sex that makes life meaningful.
Off topic
UK Children’s Minister Sacked For Opposing Gay Marriage
http://www.nomblog.com/33090
Better Celibacy Virginity in the Service of God the Father than an Evil
Existence of Moral Degeneracy and Iniquity
The Bible Views All Sex as Marriage as Immoral because as Matthew
Chapter 15 Verses 19 to 20 States For out of the Heart come Evil Thoughts, murders, Adulteries, Fornications, thefts, False Witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man ”
Those who Serve God Serve Good Those who Mock God Serve Evil
http://news.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/pope-benedict-resigns-new-pope-should-bring-change-of-policies-816222/
Look what Peter Tatchell is saying about the papacy
Can I ask Deacon Nick, because I am confused, does a Pope have the authority to change doctrine on IVF, contraception, marriage or not?
New Pope should not condemn contraception, says cardinal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9864370/New-Pope-should-not-condemn-contraception-says-cardinal.html
I SEEM TO RECALL AN INTERVIEW SOME TIME AGO WHERE GOOD OLD ATHIEST DAWKINS WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW HE CAVORTS FROM TIME TO TIME WITH PROSTITUTES. IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THE MAN HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF SPIRITUALITY. TO HIM THE POPES LIFE IS A WASTE. THERE ARE MANY VERY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHO LACK WISDOM AND THERE ARE MANY WITH LOW INTELLIGENCE WHO HAVE WISDOM. UNFORTUNATELY DAWKINS FALL INTO THE FORMER CATEGORY.
Dawkins is one man who really irritates me. A nasty little man, i will pray for him as i know that will annoy him
Right Rev Kieran Conry has critized the leadership of Pope Benedict