Vatican City, Jan 29, 2007 / 03:54 pm (CNA).- The Vatican newspaper, "L'Osservatore Romano," has sharply criticized an article published by a weekly Italian newspaper based on a series of false confessions throughout Italy, calling it an "attack on religious sensitivities,” and a breach of “professional ethics.”

In order "to reveal" what Italian Catholic priests teach in confessionals on certain matters of ethics and morality, reporters of the weekly "L'Espresso" acted as penitents - an act the Church considers sacrilegious given the sacred nature of the Sacrament of Penance.  

An editorial in L'Osservatore Romano denounced the act, saying it "has desecrated the sacrament...attacking the religious sensibilities of the faithful and deceiving the good faith of priests, seriously wounding the inviolability of pastoral ministry."

The Vatican newspaper called the report "shameless" and a "seriously unheard-of episode" accusing the weekly of crossing "the imposed limits of professional ethics."  

Years ago, the Italian communist newspaper L'Unitá resorted to a similar method "to uncover" the political inclinations of Italian priests.  The sacrilegious experiment, in both occasions, proved to be a useless journalistic abuse, as the results showed that an overwhelming majority of Italian priests teach in the confessional exactly what the Church preaches publicly.

If you don't understand science and instead choose to explain science with religion, then you are close-minded.

 

Religion is dangerous and has the power to influence in the wrong ways.  Religious institutions have a serious advantage over political institutions to influence the masses.

 

Natural selection explains everything's existence on this planet.  Furthermore, the scientific method can be applied to explain anything on this planet, and can even be applied to God.  God cannot have evolved through natural selection, so there must be no God.

 

It is impossible to prove with science that God exists.  It is also impossible to prove with science that God does not exist.  However, if we cannot prove that God does not exist, then we can also not prove that the tooth fairy and leprechauns do not exist.  God and the tooth fairy (and whatever other legends) then must be equally possible to exist if we cannot prove that they do not exist.  Thus, the likelihood of God's existence is equal to the likelihood of other things that cannot be proven to exist.  We don't believe in the tooth fairy, so we shouldn't believe in God.

 

Believing in God is merely a ritual act and not a scientific claim.  One can believe in God without having scientific proof of God.

 

Religion may be irrelevant since there is no consensus on it, unlike, for example, attitudes about murder, which are handled by the legal system.

 

Creationism/intelligent design theory is not testable.

 

Religion is interested in gaining power and shutting off one's thought process.  Practicing religion is like being an actor in a play, in which the stage is reality, and if you stray from the play's script, one becomes excommunicated.

 

Socializing children with religion is wrong, thus raising the question of baptism and whether or not it is morally right.  Furthermore, why is labelling a child as Christian or Hindu acceptable whereas labelling a child as Communist or Marxist is not?  The child cannot understand what it means to be Marxist, so why expect the child to understand what it means to be Christian?

 

Religion today may eventually become myth in the same manner that Greek mythology has done.

 

If we let atheists rule the world, can we be good without God?  Are we even good with God?  Does religion have a positive influence on society in such a way that it is worth keeping?

 

Many bad things such as terrorism have been brought about by religion, but so have many good things such as charity and altruism.

 

Many good things such as vaccines have been brought about by science, but so have many bad things such as nuclear bombs.

 

Atheism and science can evolve to become its own religion.  However, herding all the atheists together may prove difficult and similar to trying to herd cats, since each individual has a mind of his/her own.  People within one faith share fundamental beliefs.

 

Science is accessible to mainly the privileged academics, whereas religion is accessible to all.

 

Too many of the audience has not read the book and thus a proper debate cannot be undertaken.  Those who have not read the book yet showed up to the discussion to attack Dawkins were portrayed as incompetent.  On the other hand, why read a book you agree with?