We thought we were all alone
Did you watch that selection of speeches at the anti-pope protest? It’s a good selection – Geoffrey Robertson, Johann Hari, Maryam Namazie, Dawkins, Peter Tatchell, Andrew Copson. You can see Ben Goldacre to the right of the stage, and Terry Sanderson in the background.
And Barbara Blaine speaks; she is a survivor of priestly sexual abuse. She said this:
When we were children, and the priests were raping us, and sodomizing us, and sexually abusing us, we thought we were all alone – and we felt very alone, guilty, and ashamed. And over these past years, and even more recently over these past months, many of us as victims have found each other, and we have learned that we’re not alone. And I must tell each and every one of you: thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for all the victims, because today we recognize that you too care about the victims.
That’s why the protest was not mere grandstanding, or a party, or piling on, or any of that over-fastidious bullshit. It was, among other things, a yell of rage about what the Catholic church and its priests have been doing to people – including children – for its entire history, and in particular within the living memory of millions of people. That yell of rage is music to the victims. What do you think its absence sounds like? It sounds like indifference, or worse, endorsement. It sounds like the apathetic or enthusiastic agreement of the whole society that it’s perfectly all right for priests to prey upon and torment children, and get away with it. Imagine how that adds to the misery of the whole thing. Imagine what a relief it is to know that a lot of people don’t agree and don’t endorse.
Next to that fact, finicky objections to groupthink or the joy of protest just look callous at best, and revoltingly self-indulgent at worst. Someone at Facebook (SIWOTI!) made a comment in that vein –
People are having way too much fun laying into the Pope. It’s like a party, which is parasitic on the sins of the Catholic Church. People just love the frisson of protest, and I find that rather distasteful, given that it tends to be parasitic upon the suffering of other people (precisely the sorts of people one is supposed to be protesting on behalf of).
Barbara Blaine didn’t see it that way. She saw it the opposite way. No doubt people do just love the frisson of protest, but so the fuck what? If what they are protesting needs protesting, then so the fuck what? Why is that more important than, you know, saying this evil is an evil?
That’s my considered view.
And having said that, I will add – you’re damn right. I wish I’d been there. Those people aren’t just trendy butterflies – Peter Tatchell got beaten up by Russian cops in Moscow on a gay pride parade – Maryam Namazie risked her life in Iran – Ben Goldacre does about six jobs. Yes, I damn well do feel elated listening to Johann lay into the pope. People who sneer at him and the rest of the protesters and moan about finding it all rather distasteful – well they don’t impress me so much.
They don’t impress me either. In fact, they worry me.
I watched some BBC footage (I think) of Barbara Blaine handing out literature in front of a catholic church (somewhere in Scotland, I believe). It was quite striking to see some of the people lecturing her for taking a stand against the church. At one point she hands one to a cop walking by, and says (remembering roughly), “This is about protecting children. You’re all about protecting people, aren’t you?” and he smiled, taking the paper, and said something like, “Yes we are.” It’s very troubling to hear so many people criticising the protest, as though protesting the pope is beyond reason, when, to tell the truth, given what the pope has been saying lately, and not doing, even before he arrived in Britain, I can’t think of a good reason not to protest. And I would have been very pleased to have been able to be there too, to be part of that crowd standing up for freedom and decency, and in opposition to that vile old man from the Vatican. And the slight frisson one gets from such occasions is a perfectly appropriate thing to feel. After all, it feels good to do something good. Why should one apologise for that?
Ah, that Catholic guilt gets everywhere. When my mother was a young convert to Catholicism she made a point of going to mass every day. Living in the city see got to attend the cathedral where on occasion they would do the full show with dry ice/lasers incense/chanting. The problem was, she enjoyed it too much, so she would then have to go back for a conventional boring mass, because if you enjoy it it just doesn’t count.
Religion takes the natural human tendency to feel guilt and transforms it into the ideology of puritanism – and the case of Catholicism into a maudlin self-pitying artform as well. But without a god looking over your shoulder ready to take offense if you do the right thing for the wrong reason, or in the wrong way, puritanism could never really have got off the ground. Puritanism without religion doesn’t actually make any sense. So, while we can laugh at the Catholic hatred of condoms and umbrellas if we are still internalising puritan attitudes we haven’t actually made much progress.
The biggest thing to stand out for me has been this sense of how people have been conditioned not to protest when it comes to religion. To see it as beyond the pale.
Most of my relatives have just drifted away from the RCC but do voice opinions about how taking action against the church is going too far. Reading that idiot who compared the protests to anti-Catholic riots just really took the biscuit.
A strange indicator of it all is that I often post links to daft and funny things on Facebook and get lots of feedback, comments and likes and yet when I linked to various aspects of the protest the lack of reaction was noticeable. I just don’t know whether it is just perceived as me being eccentric or strident or what.
Well said, Ophelia. I don’t hear much about the victims coming out of the “lay off the pope” crowd.
Just like the Catholic Church itself, these protest-seerers completely lose sight of the children at the heart of this scandal.
Thank you for this post, especially this:
Yes, yes indeed.
I would hazard a guess that there are people who would prefer to mind their words, than be seen to express them empathetically for child clerical and institutional abuse. They prefer, it seems, to save them for the enhancement of their careers, writing purposes and big occasions; such as the pope’s visit. There are no rewards in showing solidarity to those who need it the most. They have better things to write about every day, instead of wasting valuable time on child abuse. The gnu atheists should learn that there will also be no sympathy for them. They have completely lost sight of the children at the heart of the scandal.
It’s laughable really, but the ones trying to protect the pope, I would speculate; are also the ones who appear to have nothing to say to victims of clerical and institutional child abuse. From my perception, anyway. It pays, I think, to be seen to be with the ‘in’ crowd; one gets more noticed. Victims have too many stains and are grossly complicated ignorant creatures in comparison to highly educated philosophy professors like the pope. One must look after ones own at the end of the day.
I say, the pope can look after himself, thank you very much. He has all the power and education in the world to stick up for himself. Those protecting the pope should get their priorities/balance right. The proof of child abuse is written in black and white for all to see.
@Urmensch:
I had exactly the same experience on Facebook. Not much reaction, and actually a comment criticising me for ‘alienating’ the religious. Apparently it’s not the done thing to publicly express one’s opposition to a paedophile-protecting, woman-hating, homophobic old man.
There are some highly educated people on the other side too, however – there were even quite a few among the speech-givers at the anti-pope demo. Robertson, Goldacre and Dawkins to name three.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JoergR, Skeptic South Africa, Carl Wirth, Jim Nugent, Geoff Robert and others. Geoff Robert said: We thought we were alone. http://is.gd/fmdWi A victim of catholic abuse speaks out. #atheism […]
Yeah, there are fantastic educated people out there, like Dawkins et all, who are so in touch with the gut feelings of victims of religious abuse. The latter would be so utterly lost without them. People of Dawkins ilk have stood by them through thick and thin. They don’t think victims inferior to them, or use education as a weapon of superiority against them in media settings and places like the blogosphere. They don’t segregate themselves into higher order Ubermensch. They haven’t just reared their heads with all the pomp and circumstance of the pope’s visit. They haven’t just paid lip-service to victims. They have been a constant. Perhaps the ones mocking protesters and casting the first stone, (I hate that stone analogy) should first give account of themselves and be brave stand up for children of the past and present. They will be known by their fruits in the long run.
Johan Hari wrote this back in 2002. The guy is in no position to crticise The Pope. Indeed if you check into the backgrouns of the people you cite, you’ll soon discover levels of hypocrisy that are shocking.
Back in ’97 Tatchel wrote a letter ( or did an article in a newspaper) in which he stated that not all forms of sex with children were harmful. so why ON EARTH would someone like Barbera Blaine stand shoulder to shoulder with him?
These people are far sicker than most Catholic clergy. They have zero credibility with me, and citing their presence at an anti-Pope rally simply reinforces some of the points the Pope has been making, but to which absolutely no one is paying any attention. The irony is so deep and so rich, it’s downright unctuous.
Here’s J Hari joyfully recounting his sexual adventures with neo-nazis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/13/gayrights.thefarright
Shifter, you’ll have to document that claim about Peter Tatchell.
Oh I see what you’re saying – by “these people” you mean Johann and Peter; you’re saying you hate fags. Right then. Go away.
I am gay, as is my room-mate. Tatchel’s letter from 1997 was posted by a commentor at Harry’s Place Blog only a week or two ago. It was in a comments thread on a posting by Tatchel himself. The commenter her posted a link to that letter was, I believe, a certain Joseph K. You should be able to find it.
As per J Hari, any gay person who would suggest gay men associate with and attempt to seduce young g neo-Nazis has zero credibility. The fact you’d cite such characters in an affort to shore up your anti-pope arguments just tells me your moral anomie has reached critical levels, and that you no longer can, as a result, properly distinguish between right and wrong.
Your ‘proof’ of the Pope’s inherent evil consists of a ragtaggle collection of confused kooks, whose views and opinions are so skewed and defective, that they actually give weight and credence to what Benny is saying.
Tatchel has become a joke. He recently ( again at Harry’s Place) had a posting on the necessity of gay marriage. Nearly eveyone commenting on the thread were gay…and at best only luke-warm to the idea. This prompted Tatchel to pop in to the combox and denounce those views and opinions as “ignorant”.
Who the heck ever annointed Tatchel heir to the throne, queen of the queers?
Who the heck voted him gay “spokesman”? He doesn’t even know the views of his own ‘constituency’ but yet is in a position to pontificate about the finer points of Catholic doctrine.
Priceless.
In that case I withdraw “you’re saying you hate fags” – at least I certainly hope you don’t, if you’re telling the truth about yourself. But you must be aware that talking about “these people” is something of a red flag.
I’ve never said anything is “proof” of anything about the pope, so your sneer about “proof” is empty.
I’ve never called Peter Tatchell a “gay spokesman,” either. I agree with you that the idea is nonsense. But as for Catholic doctrine – the pope intervenes in UK politics and global politics, so people in general get to retort to papal interference.
Yep, my room-mate and I are both gay. I can assure you of that.
And by the way, I gleaned the article penned by Hari from a Cahtolic website.
I’d feel much better, not to mention more comfortable, standing should-to-shoulder with The Pope than with Hari.
Did you locate the link to Tatchel’s 1997 letter, and if so did you read it?