Benedict sees that secularism itself can be challenged
Andrew Brown, for some opaque and never-explained reason, devotes himself to explaining what the pope meant in his “atheists=Nazis” speech. He does a kind of ventriloquist’s dummy act, saying “the pope believes” or “according to the pope” throughout, while in fact saying things that he clearly enjoys saying.
For him, a nation that turns away from God entirely has nothing to keep it from treating people as disposable means, rather than ends in themselves. The liberal appeal to reason, to choice, and to human rights doesn’t go far enough. He believes in all three, but he thinks they must be derived from something else. That something else was once generally understood to be Christianity. If that is no longer true, Benedict believes we are all shrunken and impoverished.
Yes, we know. We know he believes that. That is what we object to – along with the stunning amount of deference that is paid to the guy and to his vicious illiberal beliefs. We know he believes that reason and human rights “must be derived from something else” and that that something else is “God” and that “God” is “God” as understood by the Catholic church, which means one that thinks women should die rather than have abortions, that people should die of Aids rather than use condoms, that child rape by priests is church business only, and that women must never ever be priests on pain of excommunication. We think that’s an imbecilic thing to believe, and also harmful and authoritarian and reactionary. We know the pope believes that “we are all shrunken and impoverished” if we believe that; that’s exactly why we hate him and his church.
The astonishing variety and force of invective thrown at the pope and his church in much of the media over the last week must certainly, some of it, come from people who would like to drive religious faith out of public life. At the same time, it’s hard not to suppose that in some of this the Roman Catholic church is standing as a proxy for Islam, which is certainly a great deal more unpopular.
So…on the one hand it’s the product of evil secularists who don’t want bishops making laws, and on the other hand it’s the product of evil Islamophobes who are just pretending to be Catholocismophobes. Seriously?
Where secularists see religion as a divisive force, and their own beliefs as the self-evident and true base on which a healthy society can be built, Benedict sees that secularism itself can be challenged.
Here Brown takes the mask off and speaks for himself – and he apparently thinks that a country governed by the Catholic church would be more “healthy” than a secular one. He apparently would prefer 1950s Ireland to contemporary Britian. Of course he’s not a woman, or an impoverished child, but still –
Seriously?
I see Julian Baggini is joining in now with the accommodationists cry of, hold on there don’t lets be too beastly to believers, as apparently we ( he speaks for us all you see ) need to make common cause with all those nice religious people who are just itching to stand up to the Pope and tell him what’s what. it seems that the only thing holding them back from this is thoughtless atheists ‘ganging up’ and making rude noises, it’s always nice to be told what to do by ones betters isn’t it ? Thanks for that Jules.
I hear this sort of sentiment from time to time here in Ireland. It’s usually said by people who think they’re being nice and pious and virtuous. Then I ask them which part of 1950s Ireland they think is better to today’s Ireland. They never have an answer. In fact usually their eyes widen and you can almost hear the brain cogs turning for the first time.
From the Guardian some lovely insights from the Pope:
But he said science could not satisfy the “fundamental” question about why we exist.
No explanation of why or how religion can answer these questions.
He can’t see a contradiction between these two paragraphs? if you want people to be equal then you need to act against his Christianity. From before birth until death, his religion is just another means of enforcing inequality. All one needs to do is look at the RCC hierarchy’s crushing of liberation theology in South and Central American to see what happens if priests and lay people act their consciences in an attempt to eliminate discrimination.
“He apparently would prefer 1950s Ireland to contemporary Britain. Of course he’s not a woman, or an impoverished child,”
I was recently looking at Holy Communion photos of working class impoverished Irish children; taken in the 50’s. Seated in the centre of said snapshots were big, burly, well-built and well-fed priests; maybe, bishops. The photos spoke volumes about the powerful Irish church and the strong reins it had on the most poorest of Irish people. Undoubtedly the pope would apparently prefer 50’s Ireland. It must be unbearable having to steer the uncontrollable secular, democratic reins of modern Britain and seeing them slip from his holy ringed fingers.
Julian? Is he? Where?
That’s why I got semi-fired from The Philosophers’ Magazine – all this pesky new atheism. I thought that was a pretty stupid reason, frankly.
Then there is this:
But More burned protestants while working under Henry VIII and Henry’s daughter Mary Tudor burned hundreds during her short reign. If More thought he was serving his God, didn’t the protestants he and Mary burn also think they were serving their God? Were there different gods or was the one god sending mixed signals?
Oh I see where.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/17/pope-benedict-visit-protest-ugly
No wonder I got semi-fired!
Hmm. On the one hand the protest against the pope is way too nasty to attract most Catholics and we could have had a way bigger coalition to persuade the pope to do better, on the other hand the protest against the pope has way too many people in it and party lines are the death of rational, free-thought movements and divided we stand, united we fall. Well which is it?
. . . is apparently some old guy in a costume telling you what his invisible friend wants you to do.
Andrew Brown gives this a shot, too – one more step removed – and tells you what he thinks the old guy in the toga thinks his invisible friend wants you to do.
And what, exactly, is the authority of the RCC based on? Is this organization made up of shining examples of humanity? Individuals with the highest standards because they are divinely led by the supreme creator of the universe?
Hardly. The best assessment of the RCC to arise out of the multitude of child rape and abuse revelations seems to be that they are no more depraved than the general population. They just had more opportunity. A glowing recommendation for relying on the RCC to keep us “from treating people as disposable means”.
Speaking of Andrew Brown. This is a reasoned piece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/sep/17/atheism-faith-totalitarianism-evil
I’m just wondering, and not for the first time I’ll add, what planet Messr. Brown is living on because it certainly can’t be the same one as me. Invective? In the British Media? I could go on an internet fishing exhibition but really I only need to point to BBC Radio 4’s Today program, last I checked a supposedly serious news program on the most serious BBC Radio station. AC Grayling does a very good job but note that it’s him against two religious commentators, a hostile presenter and a blatantly biased introductory piece. Words indeed fail me.
Yep, looks to me like that Nazi goat is going to have a real tough time with the British media.
Speaking of 1950’s Ireland, my mother often tells the story of how her mother was once refused confession by the priest. The reason he gave was that after her fourth child it was a number of years and she still wasn’t pregnant. He accused her of refusing to have sex with her husband, and as that was her duty as a woman, she was willfully disobedient. As this was one of the worst sins a woman could commit he felt justified in refusing her confession, which also meant she couldn’t take communion.
My gran had always been very staunch and was so upset by all this she cried all the way home. When she told my grandfather this he went crazy. He stormed down to the priest and roared at him for the way he treated his wife. Basically he said that his wife was not refusing him but because he could barely feed the four children they already had they had no chioce but to be abstinent. He said to the priest that he had been raised Protestant till the age of 12 and on the death of his father his mother had had all the children baptised into her own Catholic faith.
He then threatened the priest that if he didn’t immediately go and give my gran confession that first thing he would take all his children to the Protestant minister and have himself and them convert to Protestantism. And that he would also do so if he ever heard that the priest was prying into his marital affairs ever again.
This put the wind up the priest so much that he shot up and gave my gran confession.
I have any number of horror stories about rural Ireland of the time and can only be grateful that my grandfather had been a Protestant, as it meant he wasn’t cowed by the priests as the usual Catholic then. It really was a tyranny.
God that’s quite a story.
Urban Ireland wasn’t a lot better, apparently, judging by Goldenbridge.
I wish Andrew Brown joy of either one.
Baggini:
Suddenly, the vast majority of accommodationists seem to represent the voice of reason. If the more we engage in polarizing disputes (understanding that all disputes are necessarily polarizing), the more likely it is that such dire consequences will occur, it follows that the less we engage in any disputes whatsoever, the better. In other words, if we would all just shut the fuck up, everything would be fine.
Surely, he doesn’t really mean this. He really means that everybody should be like him.
The bold was just supposed to be on “less”. Sorry about that.
Re Irish Catholicism, do read the ‘Martha Blake’ poems of that under-rated Irish poet Austin Clarke, as well as the poem he wrote in response to an Irish bishop’s response to a fire at a Catholic orphanage run by nuns (and a deathtrap) in which most of the little orphans were burned to death or asphyxiated. The bishop’s response was along the lines of ‘We can take comfort in the fact that these little ones have been spared a life of sinning.’ Clarke’s response is incandescent with anger and devastating in its sarcasm.
The poem Tim refers to is ‘Three Poems for Children’
Here is part III
Martyr and hereticHave been the shrieking wick!But smoke of faith on fireCan hide us from enquiryAnd trust in ProvidenceRid us of vain expense.So why should pity uncageA burning orphanage,Bar flight to little soulsThat set no church bell tolling?Cast-iron step and railCould but prolong the wailing:Has not a Bishop declaredThat flame-wrapped babes are sparedOur life-time of temptation?Leap, mind, in consolationFor heart can only lodgeItself, plucked out by logic.Those children, charred in Cavan,Passed straight through Hell to Heaven.
I once lived just a mere 14 miles from said town, where the fire broke out.
“An Inquiry finding was disputed by many, including in a piece of verse written by the secretary to the Inquiry Brian O’Nolan, better known as the author Flann O’Brien.”
“The grave containing the remains of the 36 victim
In Cavan there was a great fire,
Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire,
It would be a shame, if the nuns were to blame,
So it had to be caused by a wire.”
http://glangevlin.com/index.php?view=article&catid=34%3Ahistory&id=44%3Acavan-orphanage&option=com_content&Itemid=54
————————————————————–
I secretly picked up a secondhand book in the town on the subject by Mavis Arnold. It was an unspoken subject. Little did I know that a decade later contents of book would be aired at a commission to inquire into institutional child abuse, that I partook in, and that I too would encounter the husband, Bruce Arnold, journalist and author of “Irish Gulags”. Notwithstanding meeting actual victims and relatives at Aislinn Centre in Dublin.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0530/1224247719200.html
The victims have a facebook http://gl-es.facebook.com/group.php?gid=307673506180
I shall look up the poem, “Three Poems for Children”. Thanks, Sigmund.
There was a story doing its round; that entailed children not being allowed to escape, due to the fact that they should not be seen by men in their night-dresses?!
Thanks also to Tim Harris1 Incidentally, the same judge mentioned in above link incarcerated me into Goldenbridge Industrial School.
To do the Beeb justice, on this morning’s Today there was a very good interview with a lucid woman who had been abused by a priest some 50 years ago. It was fairly graphic – ie she described a fat man smelling of whisky and sweat climbing over her 13 year old self, and that’s probably the image that would be left in the hearers’ minds. No, she didn’t want to meet the Pope, and thought that those who did wanted to stay within the church, and not reject it.
All one needs to do is look at the RCC hierarchy’s crushing of liberation theology in South and Central American to see what happens if priests and lay people act their consciences in an attempt to eliminate discrimination.
It was wrong to denounce ‘liberation theology’?
Liberation theology was an afront to the Catholic religion because it mixed politics ( vulgar marxism) with theology. Were The Church to mix itself up with conservative regimes and promote that ideology, you can bet leftists would be demanding clergy give up the politics and limit themselves to theology.
I was recently looking at Holy Communion photos of working class impoverished Irish children; taken in the 50′s. Seated in the centre of said snapshots were big, burly, well-built and well-fed priests; maybe, bishops. The photos spoke volumes about the powerful Irish church and the strong reins it had on the most poorest of Irish people.
I often hear similar statements from Irish people, but Ireland is far from being the entire Catholic church, and the Irish need to take at least part of the responsability for their own impoverishment during those times.
Levels of personnal wealth are certainly much higher in Ireland these days, but I’m not so sure the same can be said about general levels of happiness and personnal satisfaction.
In 50’s Ireland the Catholic Church WAS Ireland.
Oh heavens no – the church has never engaged in politics. How could I even suggest it. Surely not when they withheld communion from politicians who voted against restrictions on abortion, but didn’t withhold it from those who voted for the death penalty or the Iraq invasion.
The church wants people to think of themselves as sheep in need of a shepherd. This is less likely in a democracy. Of course they opposed liberation theology because it would empower the working class and the working class might get ideas. Ideas like, if we can lead ourselves in politics, then maybe we don’t the big “benevolent” dictator in the sky either.
Look at the Pope’s message: democracy is maybe ok, but only so long as everyone keeps going to church. You can’t really give the unwashed the power to make their own decisions; they might not make the ones that benefit the church.
I’d be interested in knowing in what sense the poor were responsible for there impoverishment that isn’t based on blaming the victims.
I’d be interested in knowing in what sense the poor were responsible for their impoverishment that isn’t based on blaming the victims.
That’s why I got semi-fired from The Philosophers’ Magazine – all this pesky new atheism
wait, did you get… EXPELLED?
Not so much EXPELLED as EXPUNGED. From the record.
In 50′s Ireland the Catholic Church WAS Ireland.
But Ireland wasn’t The Church.
And in 50s Brazil The Church was Brazil, but Bazilian women still went topless during the Mardi Gras parade.
French Canada blamed all its problems on The Church, and so in the 60s they abandonned her.
French Canada has never been so vulnerable. For the first time in in its history francophones have become a minority in Montreal. And in only 30 years, they’ll cease to have any meaningful presence at all.
The few Catholic nuns still teaching in the secular school system cannot wear either their half veils ( which show part of their hair) and must remove the tiny crucifix they susually wear on a lapel, so offensive the two religious symbols have become.
On the other hand, though, our diverse and joyous secular school system has no probleme with female Muslim teachers wearing the full hijab, talking up Ramadan…and fielding endless questions about their faith.
I hear it’s called progress.
And we gays here are just overjoyed.
Similar trends are now occuring in Ireland
Shifter,
Do you just want to revel in the past or do you have a point?
“But Ireland wasn’t The Church”
For three decades, 1940-72, as Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland, John Charles McQuaid imposed his iron will on Irish politicians.
“I hear it’s called progress.”
Aye, Shifter, here’s a wee snippet of progress, Irish ‘Murphy Report’ style.
Irish Church accused of abuse cover-upA damning report into child abuse in the Dublin archdiocese has criticised the Catholic Church hierarchy for covering up the abuse.The report investigated how Church and state authorities handled allegations of child abuse against 46 priests.It found that the Church placed its own reputation above the protection of children in its care.It also said that state authorities facilitated the cover-up by allowing the Church to operate outside the law.
It is also interesting that when Britain was supposedly a Christian nation in the 19th c, they had no qualms about starving the population of Ireland during the potato blight. Do you really think the Irish are worse off now than they were 25, 50, 100, 200 years ago? Do you really think the RCC is a force for good?
@Michael Fugate ‘To hell or Connaught’ was a form of Ethnic Cleansing of the Irish.
I remember working in Tysley Museum, Birmingham, during the early eighties and going to local schools to show vintage railway historical videos to children. The description of Irish navvies; who helped enormously to build the railways, in the literature, left very much to be desired. They were considered to be nothing more than mere savages, whose dietary needs were basically animalistic. This was long after the ‘No Irish need apply’ business. The caricatures too depicted of the Irish were that of a peoples (evolutionary-wise0 less developed. Ironically, the English, I found, in saying all of this, were absolutely the best people to work for indeed. They have always been kept in the dark about the true nature of the Irish. Nevertheless, they claim the Irish as their own when they achieve things in life.
I think the Irish have come on in leaps and bounds. When a Nation has suffered as much as it has over the centuries, it takes an awful lot for it to have confidence. Ireland has had a decade or so of a good economical life and it fell all over itself, as it were, because it was not used to it and tried to copy a pathetic pseudo- international celebrity image, Nonetheless, at the end of the day, it wore thin, as it does not sit well with the Irish psyche. The balance is very slowly emerging.
“Do you really think the RCC is a force for good?”
Definitely not. The RCC does the good work, that should be the remit of respective governments. It sickens me to hear people say, ‘oh, but we mustn’t say anything negative against the Catholic church because our children were very well educated by the religious.’ They feel so beholden to the religious. When in fact the religious mostly dominate the schools in order to find and keep souls in their flock. Catch them when they are young. It should be the responsibility of the governments to provide education and not left to religious organisations who use them to retain power. Irish schools are basically controlled by the religious, nonetheless, people are slowly copping on and wanting rid of them, they are beginning to see the light. No, I don’t think the church is a force for the good , but it is as force to reckon.
The pope has Britain in his hands momentarily. He is a philosopher after all. Well trained in the art of hoodwinking people. Conversion to Catholicism will be one of the main hidden agendas behind his visit. ‘Conversion’ will hopefully have the last word as he leaves British soil. He’ll even have the most cleverest of doubters eating out of his hands. Think Baggini! He will win the day with the Birmingham beatification of Newman. Look at the British, from Betsy at the top down to Maggie, bless her Protestant socks, to Blair, to the recent convert Anne Widdicombe all crawling to Westminister Cathedral to embrace him. Britain can’t get enough of the pope who can’t properly say say sorry to children, who were abused by priests with philosophy and theology degrees.
Should have been > ‘thriving economy'<
Do you just want to revel in the past or do you have a point?
Pointing out the present predicament here is hardly revelling in the past.
French Canada didn’t just survive against all the odds, she thrived just so long as she stuck to the Catholic recipe.
But hey, it was 1960 and everybody all of a sudden became very, very clever and insightful, and therefore no longer had any use for the outdated institution known as The Church.
This society has been on a downward spiral ever since. Suicide rates, the best yardstick by which to measure hapiness, are right through the roof, as are the school dropout rates amongst the young. The birth-rate has flat-lined, and some fifty years on what was once always considered a young and effervescent society has now become aged and stagnant.
The collapse of the Catholic faith has done little else than trigger a collapse of French Canada itself. And as for religion, French Canada has become home for many of kooky and dangerous cults, such as the raliens who have a growing presence in Québec. People run around willy-nilly looking for something to believe in, and in the process become the vulnerable prey of religious nuts, be they raliens, wahabbists or moonies.
An entire culture and language, established back in the late 1500s, and which survived and thrived for four centuries has, within the space of only a few decades, nearly popped its clogs, and you’ve the temerity to ask me if I have a point?
French Canada’s history of the past 45 years should be an object lesson for any western/european soceity in what not to do when it comes to managing religion.
But it oviously isn’t.
@Shifter
I can empathise with what you say about your culture as I too regret much of what we seem to be losing as Ireland modernises. It is the way of the world and we can only try to identify and hold on to what was valuable. Catholicism is a system, and no systems can survive without having some benefits. Even parasites can confer benefits on the host. But there can be a heavy price to pay.
Catholicism can act as a bulwark against change and that aspect aids the maintainance of cultures where the Church has suceeded in making-over the culture, interpenetrating it on all levels till it you can’t say where one ends and the other begins.
You would prefer to keep Catholicism because you see that the niche it occupied is now being taken by other superstitions. It is the human condition. Critical thinking is hard. It is easier to stick with what has worked than risk trying for something better. Humans fall victim to all kinds of woo-woo.
That is a false dilemma though. As much as we fight to get out from under the power of the RCC and other religions we must eqally fight not to fall victim to their alternatives.
You aren’t arguing for the truth of Catholic doctrine here. You can’t. So you are arguing that it is better to stick with what you know for fear the alternatives might be worse.
Just because you personally may not have overly suffered under Catholicism doesn’t mean that is the same for everyone. Many people’s experience of religion is of something pernicious. Better consigned to the dustbin of history. I wouldn’t mind so much if it knew its place. Those who want it as an anodyne have a right to their delusions. The reality, though, is that the RCC and religions like it are not satisfied with that. They seek to insinuate themselves into every aspect of life, dictating, wanting to set the terms.
For those of us who reject their claims to a privileged access to ‘Truth’, that isn’t acceptable. Better to fall flat on your face while striving to know reality than the comfort of illusions.
Perhaps your time would be better spent trying to save what you cherish of your culture by finding ways to remake it so it can stand its ground in the modern world. Holding on to the past at the cost of submission to organised religion is too high a price to pay.
Change is inevitable for better or worse.
Cultures like species and languages have gone extinct for millenia. Ask women, noncatholics, gays, nonwhites, nonfrench-speakers etc. whether it was better 100 years ago.
Do you lament the loss of the indigenous cultures in Quebec that were in place for 10,000 years before displacement by the French?
<blockquote>Change is inevitable for better or worse.
Cultures like species and languages have gone extinct for millenia.</blockquote>
Those sixteen words encapsulate what this Pope and JPII call Europe’s “Culture of Death”?
We have the power to control change and to control our destinies, if we so wish. Nothing is inevitable, nothing is determined, provided you’ve got the will to fight and to survive.
“Better to fall flat on your face while striving for know reality rather than comfortin illusions…”
Well, it was only when French Canada abandoned reality in order to embrace comforting illusions ( an immanantised christian eschaton know as nationalism) that it fell flat on its face.
Religion wasn’t just the culture’s backbone, it was its entire skeleton giving shape, form and function to the whole enterprise.
So no lament for the cultures yours destroyed, eh?
How many languages did the european conquest of the world render extinct?
How much ecological knowledge was annihilated in the rush to christianize the heathens?
How many individuals were enslaved because they were thought inferior to the gloriously arrogant european mind?
The change that took place in the 15th and 16th centuries was enormous. Talk about a culture of death – the europeans perfected it on the indigenous peoples they subjugated.
You are living in a dream world that doesn’t exist. There is no past to go back to and the one you have created for yourself never was.
Nothing is inevitable? Really? I can think of some things that are. I bet you can too if you really try.
Shifter.
“We have the power to control change and to control our destinies, if we so wish”. are you sure that’s an orthodox catholic ( or even Christian ) position ? It looks very rationalist and modern to me.