The Uncertainty Principle
The Bishop of Motherwell is a funny guy.
The Bishop of Motherwell last night called on the Catholic Church in Scotland to stop “cowering” before the government. The Rt Rev Joseph Devine warned Christians against the “creeping political correctness” that was stifling religious expression. In an address to a Motherwell audience, the bishop said: “The Church needs to rediscover a political voice and stop cowering before the apparatus of government and its politically approved doctrines.”
That’s interesting, don’t you think? The Catholic Church had oughta stop ‘cowering’ before the government – and do what? Set up a rival government? Make the government do the cowering instead? Break the law? Whither religion’s famous humility and uncertainty now, eh?
And there’s ‘to dare to assert that Scotland in a faith context has to be seen as a Christian country’ – that’s a slightly coercive announcement, wouldn’t you say? To ‘assert’ that Scotland ‘has to be seen’ as a Christian country? Or you’ll – what? Punish refuseniks? Expel them? Forcibly convert them, in the manner of Ferdinand and Isabella? Very humble, very uncertain. And people wonder why I’m a little critical of religion. Because it throws its weight around, that’s why; because it demands acquiescence to its demands and respect for its evidence-free beliefs, that’s why. Because Bishops think the ‘politically approved doctrines’ of the government (what the flock else should they be? why shouldn’t government ‘doctrines’ be ‘politically approved’? that beats theocratically approved anyway) should be defied by The Church. Because bishops take failure to agree with their airless retrograde views to amount to ‘stifling religious expression.’ Because, as I keep saying, no amount of ‘respect’ and groveling is ever enough for godbotherers, they’ll always demand more. And they’ll do it in no uncertain terms.
OB, are you plotting to take all the joy out of a priest’s life? First there is the no sex rule. Now there is the no sneaking around and having gay sex rule. And now you want to crush the Torquemada fantasy!
That is sort of cruel. Can’t you give a priest an even break once in a while? Maybe let them play auto de fe with a mannequin or something. It’s hard, being a priest – uh, and I’m on the verge of making a pun about how hard it is, so I’ll quit now…
Next thing you know there will be a no sneaking around and having sex with a gay horse rule. There’s just no end to the pettifogging rules, is there!
But there there. There there. I quite agree, roger, and I’m perfectly happy for priests to play auto da fé with an inflatable doll, or even several. I simply expect them to do it in private, that’s all. (No, I’m not going to make a pun about private.)
My uncertain memory brings forth a previous Bishop of motherwell, remembered (and not just by me) as Bishop Roddy. I think it was in the late 70s that he dissappeared. Eventually it was found that he had deserted his mistress and ran off with another woman.
“The Church needs to rediscover a political voice” claims the newer incumbent. Which one? There are the Christian Democrats of Italy, founded by the Vatican originally to oppose democracy as people were told this was the only party to vote for. There were the dedicated christians of 1920’s and 30’s and 40’s known as the Fascists.
There was the Wiemar republic’s Central Party, which did make a stand against Hitler in the 1933 elections and then was ordered to disband by the Vatican.
I think the only overtly Catholic political party in western Europe of any significance is the Christian Social Union with a powerbase in southern Germany, but that is all I knwo of them.
Bish also wants to see schoolchildren wearing symbols of their faith. Just like in Northern Ireland, I assume. It worked miracles there – all those people living in peace and harmony, no one thinking themselves superior to anyone else because they belonged to the other religion.
Besides, in the western part of Scotland, schoolchildren (and adults)often do wear religious symbols, or in other words, shell suits in Rangers or Celtic colours.
Note to non-Brits: the above two are football (soccer) teams associated with Potestantism and Catholicism and both have a disgusting record of sectarianism. They do sometimes try to change, to be fair.
Mike Rogers has reminded me of a story which my late geography professor, George Tatham, who was born in Hamilton, not far from Motherwell, used to tell:
A sassenach was wathcing a Rangers – Celtic match. The excellence of the play delighted him indifferently: whether a Celtic player scored a goal, or a Ranger confounded a Celtic opponent, He would cry out,”Well played, that man!”
Eventually, a large, knobby fist landed on his shoulder, and a large, red face was thrust into his own. “Are ye for Celtic?” asked the face.
“Well, not exacty,” replied the Englishman.
“Then are ye for Rangers?” asked the large red face.
“Well, not really . . .”
“Then mind y’r own bloody business!”
Elliott – also – my old man, a Comprehensive lower-school Head, once interviewed a newly qualified teacher from Belfast for a post. He got the job, and they went for a pint after work. While chatting in the pub Dad enquired casually, out of interest was the new guy RC or Prot. The young teacher replied ‘I’m an atheist!’.
Dad asked mischevously ‘which colour?’
‘Orange!!!’ came the grinning reply…
I’ve heard a lot of versions of that story. Which is not surprising – it must happen all the time. ‘Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?’ sort of thing.