Did you even read the original (biased) article? The Pope agrees that this is the age of transparency. That this is the age in which to be blameless. His words are a reproach to his own flock:

"This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility. Secrecy and discretion are not values that are in fashion at the moment. We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide."

Just as the legitimacy of science is not in danger from the work of a few bad scientists, the legitimacy of my faith is not in danger from a few bad apples. Neither is effectively transmitted by its worst adherents -- if you can't do it, obviously you can't very well teach it. Rebuttals must be leveled against its good examples, not its bad ones. Otherwise you're attacking a straw man.

The reporter of that article obviously had an agenda. In lieu of finding a more unbiased source, I thought it might be worthwhile to at least include a report of the same talk from the opposite side of the camp: here

It would seem from this article that the Pope is looking for us to act with a conscience while on the internet, so that the internet as a whole can be an edifying experience. That is, how we use the internet is important. Raw power must be used to good ends.

Note that I do recognize and appreciate the difficulties with defining "good", "edifying", and even the institution which provides these definitions.

Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic (I'm Orthodox -- we're not in the habit of defending the Pope). I'm just trying to provide a little balance.

We arrive at meanings through the words we use, and choice of words is very important. That our vocabularies don't line up points to a difference in understanding what in reality is going on.

Orthodox will reject that icon veneration is idolatry, or that icons are gods to be worshipped, not just out of choice of words, but out of a difference in theological stance and orientation. We don't think it's just semantics.

BTW, I wasn't trying to say that everyone talks to their grandmothers through photos. But it's an example that people can relate to. When you say, "I miss you grandma" looking at her photo, you're definitely not talking to the photo itself.

I recognize you were trying to be fair to Orthodox, and I appreciate that.

However, Orthodox would tend to disagree with your portrayal of us.

For Orthodox, the split was about the power structure of Rome only isasmuch as it was an innovation upon the faith, and therefore extra-Christian. Other innovations, such as changing the Nicene Creed itself, contributed. The sacking of Constantinople in the fourth crusade, along with the desecration of our churches and putting out our priests and bishops (not recognizing their jurisdiction) certainly didn't help. But the main thing for Orthodox was that the Roman Catholics had deviated from the faith. They added things.

Therefore, we don't claim that it was an even split. We claim that Roman Catholicism left, and we're still waiting for them to return, in repentance.

Incidentally, some Orthodox also claim that Rome continued when it was moved to Constantinople (New Rome), and that the Latin movement was more Frankish than Roman in character, thus "Roman" Catholic is a misnomer.

They think so. So do Eastern Orthodox. So do many Protestants. So do many Anglicans. Which one is the early Church grown up? You'll have to read up on Church history and form your own conclusions.

The primary iconoclast argument, within Christendom, was the claim that you cannot depict Jesus Christ, since He is God, and therefore undepictable. The iconodule (pro icon) position instead held that Jesus became human, and that to deny making icons of Christ was to deny His humanity. The iconodule position was upheld by the 7th Oecumenical Council (worldwide council across Christendom).

While Orthodox do venerate icons, we don't worship them. What's the difference? Ask any Orthodox whether the icon is God. The answer will be a firm, "No!" There is no confusion -- these are not gods to be worshiped. Sometimes God might work a miracle through an icon, healings for instance, and people pray focused on an icon, but we're not talking to the icon as if it has power of itself. We're asking someone for help, similar to talking to your grandmother's photo and addressing your thoughts toward her. It's not worshipping objects. It's recognizing that God works through all aspects of our life, the material world included.

...are not Catholic. Neither Eastern Orthodox nor Catholics say this. Eastern Orthodox churches aren't in communion with Rome (though there are some Byzantine Rite Catholic churches that are, such as Melkites) and don't recognize papal authority, regarding modern day papalism as innovation (and therefore extra and external) on the Christian faith. Eastern Orthodox assert that Rome was one of the Christian cities that, regrettably, split off and went its own way.

This is not a modern idea - the 6 day creation theory was already controversial in the early church, and many church fathers discounted it on the grounds that the days referred to time in the "authors" world rather than our world. For instance, Augustine suggested that the six 'days' refer to stages in the angelic knowledge of creation.

Perhaps in the Western Fathers (of which Augustine is one).

The Eastern Fathers (and perhaps the Western ones -- I don't know) were less concerned with nailing down the scientific fine points of creation than with the original relationship of (hu)mankind with God. This is vital theologically, because of the role of Christ as the new Adam, restoring creation to union with God.

That's a large part of the problem of the whole religion/science antagonism. The Bible wasn't meant as a science primer, just as geneologies in the Bible are not exact historically speaking (often conspicuous omissions related elsewhere, by archeology or even other Bible verses) because being an accurate historical record with all t's crossed and i's dotted was not the intention of geneologies until Western thought hit.

I'm one of those rare breeds who sees the creationism/scientism debate as unnecessarily polarized.. who says, "Why not both?" I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in classrooms -- theology and science are for the most part orthogonal to each other -- though at times one may inform the other. I have few qualms with evolutionary theory, and whatever Big Bang theory is in vogue this year.

I wonder what would have happened had the (Western) Roman Catholic Church not tried to make specific pronouncements about anything scientifically early on, and had rather been content to say, "I don't know about that one," as the Eastern Church tends to do (we don't even try to nail down the specific points of transubstantiation because we simply don't know as to the details of how it works). Science and Christianity could have been friends rather than enemies had history played out differently, IMHO.

Hm... an additional wondering that may help illustrate my method of reasoning. The whole pro-life vs. pro-choice debate is also artificially polarized, IMHO. Both sides will tend to agree that abortions aren't a good thing to be pursued. In fact, the majority on both sides agree that fewer abortions is better. There was a study I read once that stated that over 80% of women that had abortions would have preferred to have the baby and would have done it had they had someone who would stand by them. The polarization sadly obscures the societal isolation that, IMHO, should be at least a focus, if not the primary one.

We know in our American bipartisan system that extreme polarization results in less getting done. *sigh*