One talk too many
Hmm. Paul Sims at the New Humanist is still enthusiastic about the possibilities of dialogue between believers and non-believers. I agree that that can be a fine thing, or an anodyne thing, much of the time…but there are limits. I’m not sure Paul is sufficiently aware of what the limits ought to be.
Last night, I attended a meeting between representatives of Catholic Voices and members of the Central London Humanist Group (CLHG), which took place in the hall of St Saviour’s Church in Pimlico. It was the second such event, the first having taken place in central London last October – the point, as I explained in a piece in the current issue of New Humanist, is to experiment with the idea of humanists and Catholics sitting down and engaging with each other on contentious issues in a cordial manner.
But as I mentioned last December, the humanists weren’t sitting down with “Catholics,” they were sitting down with Catholic Voices –
a bureau of Catholic speakers able to articulate with conviction the Church’s positions on major contentious issues in the media.
Shills. PR reps. Propagandists. Apologists. They’re not just random Catholics, they’re people who have appointed themselves to defend whatever the church decides is its “position.” No, I don’t think there is any merit in having a nice chin-wag with people who are in the business of not changing their minds.
And then there is the substance.
They talked about the bishop of Phoenix. Discussion was somewhat heated, but…
it never quite spilled over into an outright argument. This, I think, was helped by the nature of the meeting – the fact that it consisted of just 21 people sat around a table provided a check on it descending into a shouting match, and encouraged people to listen to the points being made. There was, of course, no prospect of full agreement on this most contentious of issues, but I do think we reached a degree of understanding in certain respects…
Fuck that. There is a limit, and the bishop of Phoenix is way beyond it. I don’t want to reach “a degree of understanding” with people who think it’s all right to try to force hospitals to let women die because saving them requires ending a pregnancy of 11 weeks. I don’t want to reach “a degree of understanding” with people who think a woman and a fetus should die instead of a fetus only. I want to say they’re supporting a terrible, evil, immoral policy, and if they can’t see that there’s something wrong with their thinking.
I don’t want to have a “dialogue” with the Taliban. I don’t want to have a “dialogue” with al-Shabab. I don’t want to have a “dialogue” with anyone who defends the bishop of Phoenix’s actions.
Damn right! Don’t want dialogue with these turkeys at all! Just want them out of the way! The time has come, not to “dialogue” with idiots like this, but just point out that they don’t speak for reason: they speak for power. Past time, way past time, that these people are told that they do not have reason on their side. There is not one conceivable reason why that woman in Phoenix should have been made to die, not one. And anyone who thinks otherwise no more deserves a hearing than a murderer.
Quite. That’s where the limit is. One doesn’t discuss the merits of genocide with Hitler and his friends, and one doesn’t discuss the merits of the bishop of Phoenix’s interventions.
And we already know they wouldn’t listen anyway. Ronald Conte – whatever the cost, whatever the cost, whatever the cost.
So, you discuss a man who has been extremely assertive about his authority to cause the unnecessary death of a woman (and is very angry that said authority was flouted and that she’s still alive so she can know how pissed off he is at her survival) and “it never quite spilled over into an outright argument.” And they’re proud of that?! What will it take to make them at least have an argument?
These sorts of events do two things: disperse the energy of motivated non-believers, and get the Catholic position statements into the newspapers. Why should anyone do this?
Yes that’s it – Paul seems to be proud of the not spilling part. Dear oh dear.
Kumbaya, anyone?
Agreed. This makes humanists look like a bunch of naive wishy-washy fools.
Reason is the starting point of discussion and argument, and believers are not interested in being reasonable. This is the very heart of the problem with religion. There is no rational discussion fall stop. Their compartmentalised brains prevents them from questioning their beliefs.
In our modern liberal democratic world, we are so politicised as individuals with our opinions and political views, that many naively approach religion as if it exists in the same context. Religion is not a self-critical liberal democratic political entity but a non-thinking one based on authority.
But… But… But…
You didn’t even tell us what that “degree” of understanding was? Or is it Simms perhaps, who is unable or unwilling to articulate it? Was it mutual understanding? Perhaps a mutual understanding that the entire concept of dialog, to apply a phrase, dies a-borning when one discusses the Bishop of Anysee?
And what of the “degrees” of understanding that were *not* reached? Were they big degrees, many degrees, important degrees, even life-saving (or life destroying) degrees?
One is reminded of the Christmas truce during the 1918 war. After reaching a “degree” of understanding, after someone pulled the almond out of the figgy pudding, did everyone simply go back to shooting each other? (Or in this case, perhaps, gassing one another?)
Did the “degree” of understanding lead anyone anywhere positive?
And the sectarian Catholic education system is busy churning out the next generation of apologists for Catholic Voices and sundry organizations.
One would love to know how the representatives of Catholic Voices convey these proceedings. I suspect that it’s along the lines of We’ve actually been able to get atheists to listen to us. If you’re impressed, please remember that Catholic Voices is a registered charity, number 1137274.
I guess I’ll be pitching my tent in the “strident” camp—because I, too, don’t want to reach any understanding with these people. You reason with those who are reasonable. Those who are not can buzz off.
So no-one changed their mind about anything. Bit of a pointless waste of time and energy except it allows the catholics to go back to their warren and claim that there’s no reasoning with those godless humanists. See, we tried!! We really did; but those humanists are lost to all reason!
On the bright side today, in this part of rural eastern VA it was a sunny 70 degrees. I turned off the heat and opened windows, sat outside with a glass of wine. It was just fucking numinous don’tcha know! ineffable really….
When describing whether or not it is ever okay to go to war to my then 8-year old nephew, I thought for a minute. I said that if someone who can’t help defend themselves is being hurt by another person, sometimes if you can help, you should. And that it’s like that with countries. If someone is being hurt so bad, there may not be a way to talk about it, you have to push them. This is like that. There’s no time to sit down around a table and discuss. They need to be pushed (not literally).
Degree of understanding? Defending ass-raping, pedophile priests disqualifies you from being ‘understood’ in any degree as far as I’m concerned.
Sure, I can imagine I could start with something easy to find some common ground for understanding and work forward. Something pretty uncontroversial for example, like bunnies… You might Belgian Giants, which I don’t particularly, while I like the Lionhead rabbit which you may think is silly. But we could have common ground, perhaps, because we both like the Giant Chinchilla and, frankly, think bunnies are pretty cool (if a bit silly).
But the fact that you’re still out there defending ass-raping priests, or a priest calling for the death of woman because she needs an abortion to save her life… Sorry, you’ve forfeited your humanity and we will never bridge to any understanding about anything, even bunnies, because you so revolt me I can’t be around you.
And that, for me, is the fundamental problem. I can’t abide to reach consensus with people who have thrown away their humanity for rigid morality and authoritarianism. Not because I can’t, theoretically, reach consensus. But because they’re so revolting that I really cant’ stand to be around them long enough to reach consensus.
Ken Pidcock wrote:
Doesn’t seem to be anything about it on their website, nor did any googling elicit Catholic blogs reporting that this meeting took place. Should we be drawing any inferences from the fact that only one side seems to be talking about this?
The ecumenical/multicultural worship of civility(/”tolerance”/respect, it’s all one in the end) never ceases to depress me.
There are many, many things in this world that are more important than being nice or getting along with others or avoiding(/disparaging) conflict.
Dialogue is valuable, but one must be wary of the manipulation of the terms of the debate. The way that extremists work is to try to push moderate voices on their own side out of the picture, so that any negotiation that happens is on their terms. An unreasonable compromise then becomes the best that can be achieved. Extremists are therefore also more interested in talking with their opposite extremists rather than moderate opponents, who must also be marginalised to distort reality in the way they want. Imagine the joy in the theist camp if they could find an atheist who actually did believe the weird things that they ascribe to us. One interesting question to ask Catholic Voices would be “which Catholics should we not be talking to”? They’re probably the ones you should be talking to.
May I ask what the goal of these ‘conversations’ are? I mean, it’s not like we don’t already know everyone’s position and it’s not like there are going to be any new arguments presented. Why then have this kind of talk where all you do is, basically, reiterate the party line? Seems like an excuse to say ‘look how civil and foreward minded we are!’ I’ve nothing against engaging theists, or anyone for that matter, but how exactly are we supposed to advance this or that social change when people like Mr. Sims consider talking to be the most important thing and frown (goodness no!) on any kind of argument?
Have just read Sims’ piece, and the ensuing comments, of which the only worthwhile ones are those by the usual suspects, you, Ophelia, and Ken Pidcock, and perhaps somebody else (I’m not going back to look). But what an anodyne little piece about what seems to have been a very consciously anodyne event whose results – which is little more than we all somehow got on despite a few little disagreements – were equally anodyne. I really do not see what serious purpose is served by this sort of tea party.
This sounds a lot like the old church trick which goes something like this: “As long as we are ‘in dialogue’, then we are dealing with it. It’s when we stop talking that we have come to the point of irresolvable differences.” Catholics are “True Believers”TM and there’s no way they’re going to reach agreement on issues like abortion, euthanasia, or anything else having to do with the so-called “dignity of the human person”© God. In fact, this kind of “dialogue” just plays into the hands of the guys in dresses, that effete bunch of pedophiles or pedophile protectors that need to treated with the contempt they deserve.
It is simply outrageous that these idiots should be given a platform by humanists to spew their constipated nonsense, especially when the terms of the “dialogue” can be known in advance. There is no way to argue with these people. Their minds are simply made up. They do not think in terms of human welfare. They think in terms of following God’s law. Thus, for example, the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care in the US has these two statements:
(i)The medical expertise offered through Catholic health care is combined with other forms of care to promote health and relieve human suffering. — and
(ii) Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.
Nuff said. Time to get these guys out of making decisions that affect other people. Let them suffer. Given the suffering they impose on others, it’s the least they can do. But dialogue with them?! You’ve got to be kidding!
So now we need some “dialogue” with the new humanists!
Paul replied to my comment on the NH blog, to say that the issue of the impossibility of the fetus’s survival was indeed central to the discussion and that “how can you want two people to die instead of one?” was indeed the question the humanists pushed. That’s a relief, at least.
In the annals of human suffering, which are voluminous and written or dictated in all languages, has there ever appeared a more despicable, evil statement than (ii) in Eric’s post above?
To be honest, I’m pretty sure not. Although that might be and probably is hyperbole.
But that shouldn’t take away from the reality that the concept of “redemptive suffering” is an absurdly dangerous idea in that it allows people to justify evil acts (or inaction) in the service of a greater good.
The Catholic church is, as most people know, past and present, an immoral entity. It makes you wonder about the type of people who still adhere to it, claiming moral superiority. Sometimes I have to just question whether twisted beliefs makes good people bad, or bad people are attracted to the church.
It’s interesting in a macabre way, that Solzenitzen developed what might be termed a ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ with his gulag experience, saying at one point that that sort of suffering, mind-bending and excruciating as it might be, was ‘good for the soul’. For his ‘soul’, maybe, but no thanks. If I were a cruel sorcerer, I might wish upon RCC bishops, cardinals and popes a terminal bout of pancreatic cancer, with the disease eating its way into the spine and retroperitoneal tissue, to give them a chance to truly understand ‘redemptive suffering’.
@22: could we specify that the question is not “why should two people die instead of one?” but “why should the woman die?” There are no other people involved. Allowing these people to pretend that they believe fetuses are people is already a step too far in their direction.
Perhaps humanists should meet with Catholics who are ready to oppose their leadership, either from within the church or by leaving it. Meeting with officials charged with upholding the official position seems pointless.
The two points Eric references contain an omission by the authorities, that “helping to understand” involves a refusal to relieve suffering even to the point of causing death by this refusal.
Sheesh, they’ve only had 2000 years. I wonder did Catholic Voices start off with “Have you heard about Jesus”.
“I don’t think there is any merit in having a nice chin-wag with people who are in the business of not changing their minds.”
So what do you do then ? (And supposing “the opposition” feel the same way about you ?) Doesn’t it just come down then to naked power – ‘who’s to be Master’? Or is that what all relations come down to, even with people you will talk with ? Just asking – I hate to see people cutting other people off.
Catholic Voices is just a small group of people. I don’t see why I need to have a policy of what to do about them. The whole point is that I’m not talking about lay Catholics in general, I’m talking about a Catholic group whose avowed mission is to defend Vatican policy. I don’t plan to have chats with lobbyists, either; they’re not thinkers or inquirers, they’re paid advocates.
So your question seems to have missed the point entirely.
Comments have been disabled for the video. Why is that I wonder? We are told that the team was drawn up from a broad spectrum of the Church who make themselves available to the media. Yet when all is said and done they themselves freeze out certain sections of the media, the Internet media. So hypocritical and contradictory to say the least.
It quite reminds me of bloggers who put up posts which they know are going to be contentious, then disallow comments. They too really get up my nose. Dissension is all they create. They obviously have a lot to hide. Catholic Voices be damned. Catholic Stifling Voices is more like it. They ought to articulate the truth and allow free speech. With all the expert briefings and media skills they learn in the work-shops, one would think that they were well capable of handling the Internet media, et al.
The religious are so adept at getting their side of things across in the media. The Sisters of Mercy allegedly paid 10,000 k to get Sr. Xaveria of Goldenbridge controversy all dolled up for a TV Programme. Carr communications went as far as doing a Maggie Thatcher and Miss Manners in getting her to tone down her voice and appear gentle-mannered. She was attired in soft pastel lavender clothing with pretty flowers all behind her. Subliminally – so clever. No images of the black-robed fiery religious woman with long leather strap around her thick waist.
The Catholic Voice who defend Vatican policy are in all probability devout members of Opus Dei.
The talk took place in the hall of St Saviour’s Church in Pimlico.
The talks should definitely take place in a neutral setting if they are to take place at all. Under no circumstances should they take place on religious territory.
New Humanists – if they are to experiment with the idea of Humanists and Catholics sitting down and engaging with each other on contentious issues in a cordial manner, should really know the limitations of their cordiality and not try to cosy up too much too soon to the religious. Hypothetically – what if it all goes haywire? You can be sure that the New Humanists will be shown the Church door. Honeymoons don’t last forever. The stark reality of differences will shine forth and it would be far better to feel safe on neutral territory.
The RCC as we speak, is bringing out changes to the missal that are allegedly taken directly from the Latin transcripts. There are elements of the language allegedly that are very sexist and anti-women. The point I’m trying to make is that the Church has enormous difficulties trying to please its own flock, so the New Humanists have another thing coming if they think they are going to change, via dialogue, the antediluvian mindset of the Roman Catholic Church. Remember it’s not all that long ago when Catholics were asked to pray for heathens and the conversion of Russia. They will be in the background waiting for your conversion too. Catholics don’t think like Jews when it comes to joining in services and allowing you to be secular members. Make haste – repent at leisure.
“I’m not talking about lay Catholics in general, I’m talking about a Catholic group whose avowed mission is to defend Vatican policy”
Couldn’t you say that (in general) ALL Catholics defend Vatican policy ? If I understand their website correctly, they’re people who’ve volunteered to do what they do – and to pass on media training to others. That doesn’t seem an unreasonable thing to do.
As for ‘paid advocates’, are you saying they make a living out of this ? I haven’t asked, but I imagine they get expenses – as they all seem to have jobs. It’s not really fair to compare them with PR people, let alone Hitler.
PR people and media offices always have the potential to be professional liars, because they’re paid full time to present Acme Widgets in the best light – and one job move will see them defending Acme Financials. Don’t see Catholic Voices as people like that – indeed a good deal less so than many quangocrats who make a decent living moving between academia, NGOs and state-funded charities, and are paid to care deeply about Probation Services one week and children’s rights the next.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Marie-Therese – don’t Catholics still pray for the conversion of the heathen (a term covering all non-Christians AFAIK), even if that isn’t the word used? I’m pretty sure I’ve been asked not so long ago to do just that.
In relation to the conversion of heathens, the following quote was the Vatican mindset that I also had to contend with as a child during the fifties and sixties.
The conversion of the heathen to the true Faith be added, for example, to the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Venerable Brothers, to make a special point of inviting and encouraging children and the religious orders of women to take up this holy practice. We are particularly desirous that in all institutions, orphan asylums, parochial schools, colleges, and convents of Sisters there should daily arise to heaven the prayer that the Divine Mercy may descend upon so many unhappy beings, inhabitants of the densely populated pagan countries. Can the Heavenly Father refuse anything to the innocent and chaste who ask it of Him? On the other hand, such a pious practice leads to the hope that these children, who have been trained to pray for the conversion of the heathen from the first moment when the flower of charity begins to bud in their young and tender hearts, may, with the help of God, themselves receive a vocation for the apostolate, a vocation which if it is nurtured with care may perhaps in time supply capable workers for the mission field.
Albeit this
Rerum Ecclesiae
Encyclical of Pope Pius XI was promulgated on February 8, 1926; and aimed at the mission-field, nothing much has really changed within Catholicism; as we will see in the foreseeable future with the missal language updates?
They’re people who’ve volunteered to do what they do –
The Catholic Voices, if not them, personally, their parents generation, would have come from the above kind of Catholic thinking. Undoubtedly it would have rubbed off on to them and be presented in a modern media format. Prostylization is alive and kicking under the modern media Catholic Banner banner.
They’re people who’ve volunteered to do what they do –
Oops, blimey, it proselytization,should have read. Also sorry, OB, for the comment mess.
Marie-Therese – that seems like an eminently reasonable thing to request – always remembering that England is probably the most densely-populated pagan country of all.
Well of course that depends on what you mean by “reasonable.” I don’t see anything at all “reasonable” about defending Vatican dogma, since Vatican dogma itself is not “reasonable.”
[…] but (I’ve said this before, I’m sorry for the repetition) Catholic Voices are not just “Catholics” – […]