Liberals are stitching up the pope
Damian Thompson is still at it – still insisting that it’s all a diabolical plot against that nice man Joe Ratzinger.
There is still no good evidence that Pope Benedict XVI is seriously implicated in the atrocious child abuse scandals that are – rightly – blackening the reputation of the institutions of the Catholic Church. But still the attempts to join the dots continue.
But even if it were true – and there is apparently a lot of evidence that it isn’t – that Ratzinger wasn’t personally ‘seriously implicated’ (what would non-seriously implicated be?) in the church’s furtive way with crimes against children, he still wouldn’t be radiantly blameless, because he is the head of the organization, and one who worked his way up over a period of decades. He’s not a new head brought in from the outside to clean up the rot, he’s someone who has been part of the church machinery for a long time.
I have to ask myself: if a liberal, liturgically wet Pope was castiagted unfairly in this way, would I stick up for him? I can’t be sure, but how shameful if I did not. If I was Benedict XVI, I’d be asking myself if I even wanted to visit Britain this autumn.
Tangential point – what is it with the British and the subjunctive? Two refusals to use it in that short passage; what’s that about? If I were his editor I wouldn’t let him get away with that. If a liberal pope were castigated; if I were Ben 16. Could do better.
According to the Guardian:
Just what will it take to convince people that the Catholic Chuch may not be entirely benign?
Watch the rcc spin machine ramp up the rhetoric.
It’s not that the pope might not be welcome in Britain, it’s that Britain is not deserving of a papal visit.
If the real world impact wasn’t so horrifying it would be non stop entertainment watching the evil boys in mens bodies in the Vatican day care center squabble over their toys.
If I were the pope, I’d be asking myself how to look myself in the eyes every morning in the bathroom mirror.
Then again, I don’t have the type of ego that make me want to be the head of the Catholic Church.
They’re sawing the heads off the horses even as we speak.
“Intimidated”! “Petty gossip”!
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
Google gives 16 500 000 hits for ‘If I were’ and 1 370 000 000 for ‘If I was’. Since there’s no loss of meaning with the long-established, more popular version, I see no point in fighting a losing battle on behalf of tradition. Personally, I’m entirely relaxed with both forms; as an ESL teacher of students with very limited command of English, despite 8 years instruction in it, I wish the ‘I were’ form would go away.
Tempted to get out my old linguistics degree certificate and wave it around but…
Language is defined by its usage. “If I were” is not ambiguous or unclear, and sounds better to my ears than “If I was”. Though that might be because I’m northern British.
Now, if I *were* Pope Ben… there’s a thought… It’s a role I could have come fun with. And the Catholic church could do worse…
“what is it with the British and the subjunctive?”
It sounds archaic and (with apologies) pretentious to estuary English ears.
According to the Real Grammarians over at Language Log, ‘if I were’ is a fossil.
Yeah, but what if fossils were planted by god to test our faith?
Yeah, well, I’ve known people to claim that not using the intrusive ‘r’ sounds pretentious to estuary English ears. Estuary English ears are (with apologies) solid tin.
And there is some loss of meaning, even if it’s subtle. The subjunctive in both of those examples marks off the contrary-to-fact aspect. Of course, ‘to be’ is the only verb that even has that subjunctive, so maybe there is no real loss, even subtle…And yet ‘to be’ is quite an important verb, so maybe there is.
Or maybe it’s just a matter of rule-following and Laura Norder. (Intrusive ‘r’ joke.)
Finally, an excuse to proclaim my undying love for the subjunctive! It’s my favorite mood; always has been. Yes, I am aware there may be something questionable about a person who has preferred linguistic moods. But I can’t help it.
That suggests, Josh, that delayed or postponed, and therefore uncertain gratification, is a preferred state of mind. Interesting, if true. Or do you just wish that you possessed this man’s art or that man’s scope? But the subjunctive has nothing to do with Estuary English as defined by Rosewarne, who coined the term. Perhaps if celibate priests preferred the subjunctive we would be dealing with anticipated but not real abuse, because they could then more easily have entertained grammatically the structure of thought and action. Surely, one thinks, by this time, Ratzinger is thinking in subjunctive terms: Wenn wäre ich nicht nur einen ehrgeizigen Mann!
Ah, I’m not thinking about it nearly so deeply as that, Eric. There’s just something about the subjunctive construction that appeals to me aesthetically. If it were a person, I’d describe it as “dashing.” Totally weird, subjective thing, I know.
You are right – would that the priesthood preferred the subjunctive :)
I was taught in very traditional British schools in the 70s and 80s, and we never learnt about the subjunctive in English, only in Latin (and a brief mention in French). I think hardly any British people under 50 will have been taught about moods in English. You either pick it up from usage without an explicit mention of what it is, or you have a pedantic family who discuss such things (my route).
I too am fond of the subjunctive. I had a good time learning it in German. Even now, decades on, I remember an infantile feeling of triumph when we were learning some complicated combination of mood and tense and our dashing albeit incurably Murkan-accented teacher went around the room and no one could do it, until he got to me. Ahhhhhh
cackle
Talk about art and scope…
Yes I’m not sure I learned the subjunctive in English either. But I think when we learned it in French and then Latin, we learned at the same time how it was different from the English subjunctive. But I always used it because it was a family thing. Long line of teachers, editors, scribblers. Well not all that long. From Mennonite farmers to lawyer/editor/lecturer/political candidate in one generation. Interesting guy, my grandfather.
Anyway – not so sure about the priesthood and the subjunctive. “I would take my pants off if I were you.” I don’t think so.
‘Maior scriba uisus dum scriba Bauarianus fuit et omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset.’
Reckoned bigger than a pen-pusher when he was a Bavarian pen-pusher and by common consent worthy to rule – had he not ruled.