In my opinion the Catholic Chuch should be held accountable and judged accordingly, I don't see why they should be above the law, including the Pope.

Yes the CC should be held accountable. personally, as a lapsed catholic, i think the church still has a lot to offer the world. but mio dio it has to do the mother of all spring cleaning first. the church needs to get back to basics: the 'lay people' have to take responsibility for their own intellectual lives, less public genuflection and more personal reflection on the golden rule wouldn't hurt (treat others as you would wish to be treated).

it's obvious (and correct) to call for the arrest of leading members of the hierarchy but it's also a futile, impotent gesture unless one simultaneously demands that the church be turned upside down, that the poorest members of the church should become its princes. i've met too many amazing people whose natural instinct to help others has been validated by their catholic faith to be cynical about catholicism's usefulness as a humanitarian philosophy. but the pro-child rape bureaucracy of the church is a huge wobbly tumor obfuscating the beautiful face of the church of the people. cut it off.

All the child abuse is a symptom of the real problem: people have become servile to mere men dressed in ridiculous clothes. The New Testament preaches against servility and the catholics of this world would do well to reflect on the Bible of John which rejects servility and advocates friendship and love.

(Jesus said) 'I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.  This is my command: Love each other.'

manics I recall the vague outlines and morals behind all the readings, gospels, sermons and RC education I received as a child and adolescent but your memory for the correct source etc. outshines mine by miles!

Reading Bertrand Russel's 'Why I am Not a Christian' at about 15 planted a seed in my brain such that by 17 I could no longer believe and stopped going to church. However I maintain a fond memory of priests, sermons, my father doing the readings almost every Sunday (even now up to his 80th, the wonderful service at my brother's funeral years back, church activities etc.  And I believe that the church is the people (parishioners) and not as many construe, the institutions.

I find myself often posting at the cbc.ca website defending religion in general and Catholicism sometimes in particular against the so-called purely rational scientific view of life and the universe.  Too often I hear religion should be abolished and is responsible for all the past and present woes of the world.  I try to remind people that the Church gives much sustenance and support to countless individuals through baptism, communion, confirmation, marriage, funerals, visitation and blessing of the ill at home or in hospitals etc., not to mention the social aspect and sense of community.  One could write books on Liberation theologists in the developing world, Caritas etc.

I remind them too that science is a belief system as well as everything springs from axioms.

I think everyone in the church, layperson or clergy should be held accountable before civil law and punished and/or forgiven as appropriate.  I also am quite aware (and convinced?) that despite declining church attendance (membership?) terrible wars and crimes continue to plague the world so ending religion and belief are no panacea (and would be impossible - you can't stop people thinking and holding dear in their hearts, that which they do).

I find myself in total agreement with Christopher Hedges when he speaks of the dangerous atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris (to which one could add Dawkins, who though a scientist I don't think has the foggiest clue what science is): http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/

The sceptics might thnk that "christianity" was a simple "business" created in order to raise easy money by preying on peoples inherant fears of death.

For sure many good people have entered this "business" with the right intentions of creating a better world, however as with all "businesses", there are bad eggs within who take advantage of it all.

Too many people have died for the sake of "religeon"... whether its christianty, buddism, judaism, muslim or worship of the "Sun" god. As humans we misinterpret what the origins of religeon were for, (to create rules and harmony) and it is the leaders of all these churches that are to blame for the millions of deaths.

If we cant explain things as humans, we revert to religeon. Frankly its a cop out.

Time will tell the reality of this whole thing,

Without wanting to annoy anyone, I am not saying that belief is something you shouldnt do, especially if it brings you peace and harmony in your life, that is your free choioce ...but just open your eyes to the history of religeon, and the hypocracy that is inherant around it.

@markist: well to be honest i am indulging in some serious cherry picking with regards to my choice of bible quote. there is some pretty nasty stuff in there too which is why i, like yourself, just can't sign up as a fully fledged believer. 

yes, hitchens, dawkins et al do seem to miss the point when it comes to talking to anyone else with a different world view - even though i agree with so much of what they..'preach'?! the old line 'the territory is not the map' is as applicable, ultimately, to science, as it is to religion because we depend, as you point out, upon axioms to get started in the first place. though i'd much rather live in world of scientific humanism than say, religious extremism, i think science is in danger of replacing religion in a lot of poeple's mind as mysterious god with it's own articles of faith. chomsky also spoke on this idea, he pointed out that all experiments involve selection of evidence and even discounting of evidence in the belief that future scientists will come along later to explain the anomolies exposed by such data. there's is nothing wrong with this selection and dismissal of evidence as long as we all remember that the method is corrupt (in the sense that it is not angelically perfect and never can be) and that all our theories of the world are, by definition, based upon a limited amount of degenerate experience.