Smoking Gun for Ratzinger. That's it!

[Baby Nemesis]

... This kind of thinking is not exactly unusual. You sometimes see it in very large corporations as well, I think.
...

Denning and Ratzinger are essentially utilitarians. Their position is actually my main reason for rejecting that position as a basis for moral thought, because what leads to their conclusion is a notion of "the greater good". It is somewhat startling to find that the head of the catholic church is utilitarian in his standpoint: that the judiciary or other large scale institutions are, not so much. ...

I'd be very hesitant to conclude that Ratzinger's decision was motivated by utilitarianism. After all, what evidence is there that he had concern for the mass of Catholic churchgoers in mind (over-and-above those of the individual) , rather than, say, the reputation and honour of the Catholic hierarchy?

Ironically, his motivation may have been similar to that which can apparently motivate honour killings, though of course with a completely opposite outcome. I once heard someone talking on the BBC World Service about how she'd been around the world studying honour killings, such as those of young women caught flirting with men. She said they're often motivated by fear of what people will think of the family. That can overcome natural brotherly feelings in collectivist societies where the perceived needs of the family are put above those of the individual in it, and those of the society above its members. The needs of the individual in cultures like that can be sacrificed, such as where wives beaten by their husbands are told by other family members to stay with them; but apparently the concern is often not to preserve family stability but to save the family reputation. I.e. if it becomes known there's a violent conflict in the family, what will others think?

So it may be that the Pope was motivated by an instinctual fear of what others would think of the Catholic Church, not a rationalised concern for the well-being of the mass of the Catholic public. Or maybe there was yet another reason.

Still, I agree that this kind of thing happens in totally secular institutions as well; it isn't just a Catholic thing. See my post in the Too Angry to Form a Logical Argument thread about hiding information, moving offenders on to other jobs, and some reasons for it.

 

[Fiona]

I'd be very hesitant to conclude that Ratzinger's decision was motivated by utilitarianism. After all, what evidence is there that he had concern for the mass of Catholic churchgoers in mind (over-and-above those of the individual) , rather than, say, the reputation and honour of the Catholic hierarchy?

It is my view that this kind of mindset makes no such distinction. "What is good for general motors is good for america" is a rather tongue in cheek example from another sphere.

Ironically, his motivation may have been similar to that which can apparently motivate honour killings, though of course with a completely opposite outcome. I once heard someone talking on the BBC World Service about how she'd been around the world studying honour killings, such as those of young women caught flirting with men. She said they're often motivated by fear of what people will think of the family. That can overcome natural brotherly feelings in collectivist societies where the perceived needs of the family are put above those of the individual in it, and those of the society above its members. The needs of the individual in cultures like that can be sacrificed, such as where wives beaten by their husbands are told by other family members to stay with them; but apparently the concern is often not to preserve family stability but to save the family reputation. I.e. if it becomes known there's a violent conflict in the family, what will others think?

I think that is true and I think it is also a relevant example. The question remains the same though: what is the harm they are trying to address? It is partly the honour of the family:and it might even be the stability of that particular family, though that is less obvious to me. But there is a further step: what is the basis for that particular way of weighting the questions: and again I think it comes down to the greatest good of the greatest number. What becomes of society if the basic building block falls into disrepute: if the mythology of the way it works falls? Society, as they perceive it falls as well. I do not think it is about "what will people think" as we conceive it. We say the basic building block is the individual (though that is a weighting not an absolute) and so "what will people think of us" is what we hear, perhaps. I think it is not so in collectivist societies (or rather the weighting is different) and that is related to what I was trying to say

Still, I agree that this kind of thing happens in totally secular institutions as well; it isn't just a Catholic thing. See my post in the Too Angry to Form a Logical Argument thread about hiding information, moving offenders on to other jobs, and some reasons for it.

Tension between the values we hold based on the worth of the individual and the values we hold when we are thinking as a group, maybe. Utilitarianism is essentially a group morality: it is curious to me that it is often espoused by those who value the individual very highly in other parts of the forest

 

[Baby Nemesis]

The question is whether it's a genuine concern for the greatest good of the greatest number, or whether it's an irrational fear that the good of an organisation/family will be compromised, based on little weighing up of evidence but simple emotion. It may have been the latter motivation that was the main factor in the Pope's decision. But who knows.

 

[Fiona]

We cannot know, it is true. I imagine that there is always a mix of motives anyway. And as I said, I think that the evidence from Denning and other examples is that the two are inseparable for this mindset: that is one of the many ways we reconcile our actions with our values when they threaten to conflict, perhaps

But is that fear irrational? I think not, as I said in my post.

 

[tsig]

I'd be very hesitant to conclude that Ratzinger's decision was motivated by utilitarianism. After all, what evidence is there that he had concern for the mass of Catholic churchgoers in mind (over-and-above those of the individual) , rather than, say, the reputation and honour of the Catholic hierarchy?

Ironically, his motivation may have been similar to that which can apparently motivate honour killings, though of course with a completely opposite outcome. I once heard someone talking on the BBC World Service about how she'd been around the world studying honour killings, such as those of young women caught flirting with men. She said they're often motivated by fear of what people will think of the family. That can overcome natural brotherly feelings in collectivist societies where the perceived needs of the family are put above those of the individual in it, and those of the society above its members. The needs of the individual in cultures like that can be sacrificed, such as where wives beaten by their husbands are told by other family members to stay with them; but apparently the concern is often not to preserve family stability but to save the family reputation. I.e. if it becomes known there's a violent conflict in the family, what will others think?

So it may be that the Pope was motivated by an instinctual fear of what others would think of the Catholic Church, not a rationalised concern for the well-being of the mass of the Catholic public. Or maybe there was yet another reason.

Still, I agree that this kind of thing happens in totally secular institutions as well; it isn't just a Catholic thing. See my post in the Too Angry to Form a Logical Argument thread about hiding information, moving offenders on to other jobs, and some reasons for it.

I think Ratzingers' motivation is simple.

Someone has the pictures.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

We cannot know, it is true. I imagine that there is always a mix of motives anyway. And as I said, I think that the evidence from Denning and other examples
is that the two are inseparable for this mindset: that is one of the many ways we reconcile our actions with our values when they threaten to conflict,
perhaps

But is that fear irrational? I think not, as I said in my post.

I think it's rather a sweeping generalisation to declare the two are inseparable. I expect some people are motivated by one, some the other, and some a mixture of the two. The point is that if it was primarily fear that motivated him, it can't be classified as ideological utilitarianism.

As for whether the fear would have been rational, it would only have been rational if there was evidence that publicity surrounding a child abuse scandal did in fact have a good chance of being detrimental to the well-being of a fair number of Catholics.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Put me down for my next paycheck that beyond a few more public mea culpas, nothing comes of this.

 

[Fiona]

Talking about a particular mindset, Baby Nemesis. So no, i do not think it is sweeping generalisation.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Talking about a particular mindset, Baby Nemesis. So no, i do not think it is sweeping generalisation.

In that case, what is your evidence for declaring that utilitarianism will always be a mixture of reason-based ideology and fear? (Not your precise wording, but clarify if you like.) You may be right. But unless there's wide-ranging evidence, then your post is simply a declaration of the way things definitely are based on an assumption.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Denning and Ratzinger are essentially utilitarians. Their position is actually my main reason for rejecting that position as a basis for moral thought, because what leads to their conclusion is a notion of "the greater good".

Strictly speaking to be properly described as utilitarian a philosophy must be "universalist", that is, it must take into account the good of every entity touched on by the decision, and it must treat the welfare of each of them as being equally important. (Well, equal assuming they are all normal humans. Animals make it more complicated).

I'm not sure you can fairly describe people like Denning and Ratzinger as utilitarians. They don't seem to me to be at all interested in the general good as opposed to the good to themselves and their organisation. From a utilitarian perspective, perpetuating an environment that facilitates the sexual abuse of children is very much morally wrong. They aren't utilitarians, they are just immoral people.

 

[Meadmaker]

Put me down for my next paycheck that beyond a few more public mea culpas, nothing comes of this.

Something will come of it, whether or not the Church does anything about it. A lot of people have left the church because of this already, and the actual connection of the Pope to this scandal is a big, big, deal.

I think the most likely outcome will, indeed, be that the church does nothing, and continues its decline, but I think the possibility exists that this will cause some major issues among the movers and shakers at the Vatican and we may see some huge changes. I wouldn't expect it, but it's conceivable that the church leaders may decide that in this world, the people who deliberately enter a life of celibacy are people who are generally not normal in their sexuality, and that is causing them a lot of grief. If you gave me ten to one odds on that paycheck, I think I would bet that priestly celibacy might end. (While it has been widespread since the beginning of the church, it wasn't made mandatory until some time in the middle ages. 13th century sounds familiar, but I could be wrong.)

Of course, that would be a fairly rational response, so the odds against it are pretty long.

An equally likely scenario is that they will decide this is, indeed, the final persecution of the church, and we will see the next Pope choose the name Peter II. (See post 34 by GreyArea)

 

[catsmate]

Since this is a skeptics' forum...

Who knows, maybe some of them actually buy the Prophecy of Malachy? Ratzinger is supposed to be "Gloria olivae", so here comes the Tribulation. "Others have pointed to the Olivet Discourse in the Gospel of Matthew and argued that the events described therein will come to completion during the reign of this Pope. These people argue that the Tribulation will begin during the reign of Benedict XVI."

If the prophecy says it's going to happen, you roll with it, right?

The last pope on the list is "Petrus Romanus", who is pope "During the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church". Maybe he dissolves the organization, which is why the list ends.

This is not, I'm afraid, beyond the bounds of possibility. Years ago I was acquainted with a bishop, later elevated to the red, who sincerly believed in Malachy's "vision".

 

[Elizabeth I]

Our beloved Cardinal, mentioned in abuse coverups, is being replaced by another from Texas, mentioned in abuse coverups.
And the new guy is deep into Opus Dei.
Should be a rollicking good time here.

Yes, but at least now we're rid of him. (Actually, here, he was an archbishop. Did he get a promotion when he got moved to California?)

 

[I Ratant]

I think Ratzingers' motivation is simple.

Someone has the pictures.

.
Probably not, but in this era of Photoshop, they can be made.
Whatever would be "found" will have to be judged illegitimate with the technology today that can do anything with any images.

 

[I Ratant]

I think it's rather a sweeping generalisation to declare the two are inseparable. I expect some people are motivated by one, some the other, and some a mixture of the two. The point is that if it was primarily fear that motivated him, it can't be classified as ideological utilitarianism.

As for whether the fear would have been rational, it would only have been rational if there was evidence that publicity surrounding a child abuse scandal did in fact have a good chance of being detrimental to the well-being of a fair number of Catholics.

.
To those with the Roman collar, most definitely!
It's that "family honor" thing, fer shure.

 

[geni]

If this were to happen, how many people would suspect that he was offed by some cardinals who wanted to save the Church the indignity of having the Pope arrested?

Well it would hardly be the first pope who's death resulted in conspirocy theories.

 

[geni]

It would be worth it just to see what those guys have stored away in the vaults from nearly 2000 years of pillage, er, I mean spreading the good word.

Not much. A lot has been spent over the centuries and of course napoleon grabed a lot of it. For example of the 23 papal tiaras only the Pope Gregory XIII one is much over 200 years old. Other than that the oldest is the Papier-mâché Tiara dating from the very late 18 century.

 

[Maia]

It is my view that this kind of mindset makes no such distinction. "What is good for general motors is good for america" is a rather tongue in cheek example from another sphere.

I think I do see what you are trying to say in relating the values of the RCC to utilitarian decisions, but the problem is (and I'm trying to not involve the utter and total revulsion I feel as a human being here), that the only way to do this is to draw analogies with the business world, and with the structure and function of corporations that have participated in human rights abuses. The chasms between the RCC and corporations are unbridgeable, and the analogies do not hold water for a moment.

Corporations pay taxes. Churches do not. This one fact alone invalidates any attempt at an analogy. If the RCC wants to be able to invoke any kind of utilitarian argument in order to put themselves on a "What is good for general motors is good for America" footing, then they need to start operating under the laws and regulations of a C-corporation, which they haven't done and aren't going to do. (In fact, paying taxes is only the beginning of following all of these regulations.) Is the RCC going to put itself under the same labor laws as a normal corporation, for instance? (It doesn't have to follow them now.) The same public accountability for its records? Will the shares be traded publicly so that stockholders must be permitted to attend meetings,must be informed on the issues, and must be able to vote? For anyone who owns stocks right now, you know that this is the law, because you get your updated prospectus in the mail, you get your ballots, you get your explanations of what the issues are you're voting on, and you get your invitation to the stockholders' meeting showing day, date, time, and location. If you wanted to go, you could go (one of these days, I think I actually WILL go.) Is the RCC going to do this?

And since the thalidomide scandal was mentioned-- putting aside several dozen aspects of that issue I can think of right off the top of my head which make it completely impossible to draw an analogy with the RCC sex abuse scandals-- when exactly did Janssen Pharamaceuticals, Ortho-Novum, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, and Bristol-Myers-Squibb start demanding lifelong celibacy from all of their executives and all of their employees? When did General Motors do this? When did Union Carbide do this?

So the utilitarian argument fails miserably even on those grounds. But when we get right down to it, of course, corporations do not claim that they have a charter from God. Whatever we may say about the motives of corporations, this is not what they do. They exist to make money. Their purpose is not to promise individual people that they can get each one to heaven, and they don't pretend that it is. If an organization makes this claim, then they have put themselves above a utilitarian standard. The Roman Catholic Church itself has done this, like any other Christian church. These are promises made to individuals about the salvation of individuals, not to a group, not to a society, and it's about a thousand years too late to go back now.

 

[Fiona]

I think I do see what you are trying to say in relating the values of the RCC to utilitarian decisions, but the problem is (and I'm trying to not involve the utter and total revulsion I feel as a human being here), that the only way to do this is to draw analogies with the business world, and with the structure and function of corporations that have participated in human rights abuses. The chasms between the RCC and corporations are unbridgeable, and the analogies do not hold water for a moment.

Corporations pay taxes. Churches do not. This one fact alone invalidates any attempt at an analogy. If the RCC wants to be able to invoke any kind of utilitarian argument in order to put themselves on a "What is good for general motors is good for America" footing, then they need to start operating under the laws and regulations of a C-corporation, which they haven't done and aren't going to do. (In fact, paying taxes is only the beginning of following all of these regulations.) Is the RCC going to put itself under the same labor laws as a normal corporation, for instance? (It doesn't have to follow them now.) The same public accountability for its records? Will the shares be traded publicly so that stockholders must be permitted to attend meetings,must be informed on the issues, and must be able to vote? For anyone who owns stocks right now, you know that this is the law, because you get your updated prospectus in the mail, you get your ballots, you get your explanations of what the issues are you're voting on, and you get your invitation to the stockholders' meeting showing day, date, time, and location. If you wanted to go, you could go (one of these days, I think I actually WILL go.) Is the RCC going to do this?

And since the thalidomide scandal was mentioned-- putting aside several dozen aspects of that issue I can think of right off the top of my head which make it completely impossible to draw an analogy with the RCC sex abuse scandals-- when exactly did Janssen Pharamaceuticals, Ortho-Novum, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, and Bristol-Myers-Squibb start demanding lifelong celibacy from all of their executives and all of their employees? When did General Motors do this? When did Union Carbide do this?

So the utilitarian argument fails miserably even on those grounds. But when we get right down to it, of course, corporations do not claim that they have a charter from God. Whatever we may say about the motives of corporations, this is not what they do. They exist to make money. Their purpose is not to promise individual people that they can get each one to heaven, and they don't pretend that it is. If an organization makes this claim, then they have put themselves above a utilitarian standard. The Roman Catholic Church itself has done this, like any other Christian church. These are promises made to individuals about the salvation of individuals, not to a group, not to a society, and it's about a thousand years too late to go back now.

I have read this post several times because I honestly do not understand the points you are trying to make. So if this response is off beam please believe that is not wilfull

I have the impression we are talking at cross purposes. If I have followed you correctly you seem to think that I am suggesting that the RCC wishes to make a utilitarian argument and further that this would in some way mitigate their responsibility for what has happened. If that is what you have taken from my post then I can only apologise, because neither is true.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I have read this post several times because I honestly do not understand the points you are trying to make. So if this response is off beam please believe that is not wilfull

I have the impression we are talking at cross purposes. If I have followed you correctly you seem to think that I am suggesting that the RCC wishes to make a utilitarian argument and further that this would in some way mitigate their responsibility for what has happened. If that is what you have taken from my post then I can only apologise, because neither is true.

It appears that for some strange reason, Maia is imagining you were trying to compare the Catholic Church in every single way to corporations, totally missing the point about the reason you were making a comparison, which is in fact a valid one, as I demonstrated. She's also confusing the utilitarian issue with the separate issue you cited of comparison.

Your comparisons between the Catholic Church and other organisations, when it comes to covering up the behaviour of abusers, are of course valid. From my post of a year ago I linked to earlier:

... The issue of abusers being given good references and moving on to abuse in different places has even been brought up in the UK parliament.

From an old discussion of a Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

People who did not know where to turn go to court when they are 25 or 30 years old and, quite rightly, receive massive damages, which the councils have to pay. The crux of the matter is that, when abuse has been discovered, it has been covered up. That has been the case with teachers. Teachers have told me that they are not happy with the Bill, which they regard as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They say that the number of teachers involved is very small—certainly only a few get caught and are prosecuted.

As the Utting report showed repeatedly, schools, teachers governors and councils do not want the bad publicity. Cases have been covered up. In the Evening Standard, there was, quite rightly, a big row about Islington council and the extent of child abuse there. It was hushed up, not for political reasons but because of demands by staff and headmasters who do not want other parents to take their children from the school. They do not want parents storming down to the school, protesting and telling teachers that they are not doing their job. That has gone on for years. ...

Does my hon. Friend share with me the concern felt by many that insurance companies effectively compel local authorities to keep their information hidden lest they lose their insurance cover?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. About eight years ago, I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We undertook an inquiry into criminal injuries compensation legislation. We considered various cases, one of which involved a man who had sodomised his wife and stepson, for which he had gone to prison. He was beaten up by other prisoners and then put in a claim for criminal injuries. The claim was of course kicked out because he was not entitled to compensation.

In the Select Committee, I asked who had claimed for the boy. There was no answer, only a deadly silence. No one had claimed for him—no councils were claiming for abused children. However, the case started an avalanche of claims. If I remember rightly, the insurance company Municipal Mutual ran into serious difficulties as a result. It put a great deal of pressure on local councils to get rid of the offenders and not to take them to court, because that would have saved them a lot of money. ...

There was obviously a conspiracy of silence. Paedophiles have a network. One can gain access to that on the internet and buy child pornography. They move around the country from the care of one education authority to that of another and start their practices all over again. ...