The odour of sanctimony
David Aaronovitch murmurs a quiet word in the ear of the bishop of Durham.
Sermon continues: “This secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people…” Now, this is as close to a lie as makes no difference. Dr Wright may reply directly to the Times letters page, which, even in this fallen age, generally prints the words of high clergymen, to tell me which significant secularist body, or scientific group, or gaggle of atheists is it that believes “we” have the right “to kill surplus old people”?
Ah, you see, we must allow for episcopal hyperbole, and we must respect the beliefs which prompt them to indulge in such hyperbole. We’re not allowed to tell whoppers like that about them, but when they do it about us, why, they’re…um…following their consciences. Or something.
This almost wanton disregard of fairness was being deployed for the specific purpose of attacking the proposals to allow the creation and use of hybrid embryo tissue in scientific and medical research…[T]he argument about what is actually in the Bill has been sidetracked by the mass complaints about the decision by the Government to put a three-line whip on Labour MPs. This has led, among other miracles, to the call by the Catholic hierarchy for there to be a free vote – a “conscience” vote – on the entirely contradictory basis that, according to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor: “Catholics have got to act according to their Catholic convictions.” But these are not personal convictions, they’re matters of doctrine. Churches constantly change their collective minds about what God says, so what is being asked is that MPs put their Church – not their conscience – above everything else.
Not personal convictions? Matters of doctrine?! That’s blasphemy! It’s insulting! Of course the embryo nonsense is a matter of personal conviction; it’s totally a coincidence that it’s Catholics who have it and who keep saying that as Catholic MPs they – um – well let’s talk about something else now.
Naturally, despite this, just about every editorial in every newspaper lined up, almost languidly, behind the free-vote demand…It is an easy concession to make to the religious lobby…providing that you don’t believe they’ll win. That way the churchy can go back to their bishops and say they’ve done their bit, and the rest of us can have our Bills to ameliorate or improve the human condition. Then, when the Bill becomes law and, over time, the advances save lives, the bishops and their flocks can quietly benefit from the measures they so denigrated, have the operation, swig the medicine and move on, sanctimoniously, to the next bit of opposition.
Sanctimoniously. Just so. That’s what’s so irritating: the preening, self-admiring parade of ‘conscience’ superior to everyone else’s – when they’re putting a handful of cells ahead of the well-being of real humans.
Thanks Ophelia, for spotlighting the sanctimonious Bishop of Durham — one of the most glorious cathedrals in all of England, to my mind. But that it is ruled by a twit like NT Wright, of ill evangelical fame, is beyond reason. He’s the one whose ‘proof’ of the resurrection (you caught that word, didn’t you?) Antony Flew is so captivated by.
I find it hard to believe it, but this is a man who writes and publishes long scholarly (or ‘scholarly’) tomes, a two volume work, as I recall, on the resurrection of Jesus. And here he stands revealed as a duplicitous old fool.
It does remind one, however, of the importance of freedom and the separation of powers. It also reminds one, I think, that that beautiful pile of stone on the banks of the Wear, for all its beauty, is an expression of the arrogance and power that makes people like Wright think they can get away with it.
I did catch that word, Eric – another sign of Flew’s, er, inattention.
Presumably he’s ‘scholarly’ in much the same sort of way as the archbish of Canterbury is.
I’d love to get a look at the cathedral some time though. I’ve seen quite a few – Norwich, Salisbury, Ely, Canterbury, Peterborough – but not Durham.
None of them holds a candle to Durham, in my view. Peterborough has a beautiful facade, amongst other things, Salisbury is too cold, Norwich is very fine, and Canterbury sort of grew like Topsy, but the interior of nave at Durham — catch it in the summer as the sun is setting — is enchanting, magical. It looks very imposing too from the other side of the river.
No, Wright is not scholarly in the same sense as Williams. Wright is very clear and thorough, but shallow. Williams is so contorted that he sometimes (I am convinced) doesn’t really know what he thinks.
Eric,
ahhh, but what about the small-yet-perfectly-formed charms of Hexham Abbey? Durham, after all, doesn’t have a C7th Frith stool, does it? :-)
http://www.hexhamabbey.org.uk/guide/index.htm
Or the wonderful York Minster, where the original Roman drainage system can still be viewed, working away merrily…?
Back on topic…
I’d love to know which secularists they’re canvassing who keep coming up with the answer “Yes, I’d love to bump off lots of spare old folk and babies in the womb, just wait there a second and I’ll show you my oldie-and-foetus-bashing-bat…”
??
Andy,
Hexham Abbey, yeah, I can see it from my window as I type. You’re right, it’s a gem. Maket Place and Shambles to the front, Moot Hall providing solid balance, the elegant sweep of Beaumont Street to take the eye upwards and the congenial victorian park and play fields behind. Damn, I love living here.
Now I’m going to have to read the article over again to get sufficiently annoyed by the clowns in gowns to comment. Damn you, Andy.
Wo, Don, that sounds cool!
Hexham Abbey’s beauty can be seen more readily here:
http://www.hexhamabbey.org.uk/
It shows shifting pictures of the abbey church.
I’ll grant, it has some charm. I still prefer Durham, with its heavy, deeply incised piers that seem almost to float.
Now I’ve forgotten what I wanted to say about the bishops.
Ophelia, if you’re reading, you’ve disappeared from the philosophers mag blog again!
I would sell the cathedrals to the Americans (they seem to like that sort of stuff)and use the money to build Las Veagas style super casino,s in their place at least people would visit them.
Durham cathedral gets 600,000 visitors per annum.
Hexham abbey c. 120,000
York Minster scores 895,000, despite charging (it was £9 at the time) for adult entry.
Figures from tourismtrade.org.uk. 2006 visitor attractions survey (most recent)
More available here:
http://www.tourismtrade.org.uk/MarketIntelligenceResearch/DomesticTourismStatistics/VisitorAttractions/default.asp
Just in case anyone was interested in the facts…
How dare you admire an Abbey, Religion ruins everything. Even the view.
I know the clergy are lazy, but recycling the myths about ‘murdering secularists’ they used to stop the assisted dying bill is downright bone idle!
Have they NO conscience?
For anyone interested, the BHA did an excellent report on that issue early last year which not only rips apart the lies but also traces how much cash the clergy spent perpetuating them – still available on the BHA site I’d think.
Sure, do not the cathedrals and the casino’s have one thing in common? Namely that of geld, geld geld.
No posting under someone else’s name; that’s not allowed.
Marie-Therese
I know that cathedral choirs used to use castrati but I wasn’t aware it was a job requirement in casinos.
Chris, you should listen here. Powerful suff indeed. You can bet your bottom dollars there was a lot of bets/geld made in having gelded this Farinelli lily!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWMOmBohlTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8t_WySo414 –
Noun: geld 1. money; tribute; compensation; ransom.
Verb: to geld:
1922, Virginia Woolf, Jacob’s Room, page 16-17 “Poor old Topaz,” said Mrs Flanders, as he stretched himself out in the sun, and she smiled, thinking how she had had him gelded, and how she did not like red hair in men.
The movie about Farinelli showed his brother castrating him because they were poor orphans and The Voice was their living. A decent welfare system would have saved/prevented The Last Castrato… but I thought that long before then it was held to be a completely unconscionable act.
ChrisPer: Have you (bac) seen the film? If so, would you recommend it to others? I read in the link comments section that the Castrati voice in the film was computerised. The piece of music that I listened to sounded so utterly beautiful/emotional. Absolutely to die for!
Desperation sought out desperate measures indeed! Farinelli’s parts were relieved of him in order to survive poverty. This deficit made him rich. Whereas the same -parts intact with some others can be used as a powerful weapon to destroy other human beings.
To look on the positive side that is not to say that one man’s loss is also not another man’s gain. :-)!