Pope's moral authority destroyed

As an atheist, what the Roman Catholic Church does or does not do or say amongst its own flock is of peripheral interest to me. What is of interest is when those working for it commit serious criminal offences, and the Church and by implication the Vatican State seeks to cover it up.

There can be little doubt that many people in the Roman Catholic Church are deeply concerned about the litany of cases of child abuse committed by priests. Furthermore, the extended efforts by many in the church to cover up the cases, to demand silence from the victims and then to shepherd the abusers to new flock, which naturally they abused -given the sanction for abuse was simply to be sent somewhere fresh.

To some Christians it appears a new crusade is being fought, primarily by atheists, to destroy the Church. They will see it as unfair, in that there are clergy in all churches who are abusers. Nobody suggests for a moment that the Church has a monopoly on child abusers. However, it is never a defence to a crime to point out that your neighbour commits the same crimes. Particularly when you hold yourself up as a source of moral authority, guidance and trust.

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken strongly about the incidence of child abuse, and many Catholics will have seen his recent statements as showing some contrition and interest in remedying the situation.

However, the basis upon which he can do this now looks wanting. The New York Times has found a letter signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. The letter is about a 38 year old priest, who tied up and abused two young. The Cardinal said that "the case needed more time and that “the good of the Universal Church” had to be considered in the final decision. In other words, he put the good of the church above prosecuting and expelling this sadistically abusive priest.

The New York Times continues...

"John S. Cummins, the former bishop of Oakland who repeatedly wrote his superiors in Rome urging that the priest be defrocked, said the Vatican in that era, after the Second Vatican Council, was especially reluctant to dismiss priests because so many were abandoning the priesthood."

Now the priest concerned had already been convicted of child abuse a few years beforehand, apparently not enough for the Church to judge someone unfit to be a priest. The Pope to be considered it a bigger priority to think of the good of the church, that it retain a recidivist sadistic child abuser as one of its own, that to remove him.

Despite the efforts of Bishop Cummins who wrote to the Cardinal in February 1982: “It is my conviction that there would be no scandal if this petition were granted and that as a matter of fact, given the nature of the case, there might be greater scandal to the community if Father Kiesle were allowed to return to the active ministry.”

"Cardinal Ratzinger requested more information, which officials in the Oakland Diocese supplied in February 1982. They did not hear back from Cardinal Ratzinger until 1985, when he sent the letter in Latin suggesting that his office needed more time to evaluate the case."

More time? He already had THREE years, he had been convicted in 1978. In 1985 he started volunteering at a youth ministry.

The Pope should explain himself, explain why he thought the interests of the church itself were greater than the interests of children or indeed their parents, who trusted the church.

Given the Pope is now implicated quite seriously in engaging in the same sort of suppress and deflect behaviour that has been highlighted most recently in Ireland, does he not have some sort of moral obligation to confess his own failings?

How can anyone, objectively looking at the Roman Catholic Church, seriously believe that its leader can hold moral authority in damning those who have done what he himself has done?

How can people venerate a man who has preferred to protect the reputation of his employer than the safety of children?

Will the UK contribute to South Africa's energy crisis?

For the past two years South Africa has faced a serious electricity crisis. Demand has been exceeding supply, with the reasons for this being multi-faceted:

- Electricity generation remains dominated by a state owned company (Eskom), which has been severely undercapitalised (so not investing in new capacity) as the Government refused to inject capital into a company it was seeking to privatise. State ownership without the state seeking to invest;

- Electricity tariffs have been generously subsidised (described by the Chairman here), so that the price of electricity is around a third of the cost of generating it. The reason being the political desire to supply cheap electricity to the population Eskom makes a substantial loss, so cannot finance expansion from its own revenue. Socialism is crippling electricity generation (although tariffs are increasing by 30% to start to address this);

- Privatisation of Eskom has been stalled for political reasons and because no new owner would want to buy a company that loses money without the power to increase tariffs to address this;

- The government deregulated the electricity market, but there is no foreign interest in building new capacity whilst the state continues to bear Eskom's huge losses as it continues to price electricity well below cost.

So South Africa has been stuck, with ample coal reserves, but without the capital investment to translate this into electricity generation, and pricing a scarce resource so cheap, it gets rationed through blackouts.

Now the appropriate answer to all this is to split Eskom into three or more companies, privatise them one by one, letting each privatised one set its own tariffs. This would effectively allow new entrants to decide how to invest in new capacity and match price and demand.

In the meantime, South Africa has sought a World Bank loan to help pay for a new power plant for Eskom. Setting aside whether this should happen at all (it should not), the UK government is apparently considering vetoing it at the World Bank. Why?

Not for economic or financial reasons, but because Greenwar, Foes of the Humans and Christian Aid oppose it as the new power station would be coal fired.

They want money into so-called renewable energy, even though the cost would be twice as much per unit. Not that these organisations are planning to build and fund power stations themselves. No, they would rather South Africans endure blackouts and keep their economy crippled than to let some coal be burnt.

Why is the UK interested? According to the Times, Gordon Brown is looking for a way to capture the "Green" vote, though it is interesting to see how this clashes with the interests of some of the poorest on the planet.

So if the UK vetoes the World Bank loan, it will be about pandering to a Green agenda - it wont be about incentivising South Africa to engage in serious reform of its electricity policy.

After all, even if South Africa did privatise and reform electricity, the anti-human environmentalists would no doubt continue to oppose new coal fired power plants, also oppose more nuclear power, and want to force taxpayers in wealthier countries to subsidise "renewable" energy.

Five more years? Not likely

Gordon Brown has threatened that if Labour is elected again he will serve out another full FIVE year term.

I don't think saying that will have the effect he wishes.

Look at the comments under the Times article about this, find any POSITIVE ones...

Gordon Brown is not a true Keynesian

A budget deficit of 12% of GDP is apparently "right" so says Gordon Brown. This is a Keynesian view apparently.

Well setting aside whether Keynesian is right or wrong (it's wrong, but that's for another day), Allister Heath in City AM has written today about how this was never Keynes's view:

John Maynard Keynes, whose work is often cited as justifying our fiscal incontinence, would in fact have been horrified at the scale of the deficit and our over-sized state sector, which the OECD puts at 52 per cent of GDP. Keynesians argued that governments should allow the budget to go into the red in a recession by a few percentage points of GDP, with 3 per cent usually the maximum – perhaps 4 per cent if things were truly desperate. Nobody ever claimed one could prudently rack up three or four times that level – and crucially, proper Keynesians supported budget surpluses in the good years. Brown’s constant structural deficits even at the height of the bubble would have been anathema to them.

So even if you believe in big spend ups during recessions, what Brown has done is THREE TIMES the scale of deficit spending that Keynes himself argued, and that during times of growth, budget surpluses should be run (which would then pay down debt). Gordon Brown only ran budget surpluses twice as Chancellor of the Exchequer, primarily due to inheriting a prudent Tory budget in 1997 and windfalls from selling mobile phone radio spectrum.

Furthermore, cutting budget deficits is positive because it:
- Reduces transfers from taxpayers to foreign sovereign debt holders;
- Reduces the crowd out of the state in the debt markets, reducing the cost of debt to the private sector.

In addition, the best way to do this is to reduce consumption, not increase taxes and not reduce spending on the few areas of positive economic expenditure like roads (which in the UK are grossly underfunded).

One European Commission survey of 49 countries that cut their deficits found that 24 of these fiscal consolidations promoted growth even in the short term – even when deficits were considerably lower than 12 per cent of GDP. The higher the deficit, the more likely that cutting it will boost growth immediately – a conclusion implied in a February 2010 study from the European Central Bank which found that the crisis has caused markets to punish irresponsible fiscal behaviour even more severely than before.

It’s quite simple: we need to cut the budget deficit as fast as possible by reducing spending. That, rather than messing around printing yet more money, would provide the best, most effective stimulus for the UK economy.

So in short, Gordon Brown has screwed up big time, the UK is only avoiding Greek like concern because UK governments don't default, UK savers have had their cash assets devalued as the pound drops, and the UK government hasn't lied like the Greeks.

To treat Labour as if it has been a profound saviour of the British economy is a joke - it has wasted money, running deficits during the good years and is now running up public debt that will hold down the UK economy for many many years.

It is a good enough reason to kick Gordon Brown out in utter disgrace.

Gordon can't have it both ways

Now if you believe in Keynesian economics, and think that the government pouring money into the economy is “good” for it in prime pumping demand, and consequent economic activity, you think that when the government spends more it is a good thing.

Presumably, you would argue that reducing taxation would similarly be good, as it would leave more money in the hands of private citizens to spend or save (the latter typically in banks or repaying debt).

Well according to Gordon Brown the answer is no.

You see he constantly accuses the Conservatives of wanting to “wreck the economy” by cutting spending more quickly than Labour. Yet when the Conservatives promise to NOT increase tax (a form of income tax labelled National Insurance) as MUCH as Labour, it is doom and gloom because it means the budget deficit will be a problem?

Who is right Gordon?

If the economy should have more money in it, then the state taking less makes sense right? If the budget deficit is a bigger concern, then the state spending less makes sense too?

The ONLY reason you can support more state spending, and more tax is nothing to do with economics, but everything about what you think the role of the state is – to do ever more.

Tony Blair’s “New Labour” which long ago promised to contain spending, following on from Thatcher’s modest degree of fiscal prudence, has clearly disappeared. Labour is now the party of ever bigger government.