Wednesday, December 06, 2006
“this overrated medieval entity”
At the OpenDemocracy site, Fred Halliday argues that the recent visit to Turkey by Pope Benedict XVI “was as redolent with dangerous (if unstated) meaning as it was overblown in media coverage.” In a provocative and wide-ranging argument Halliday places the contentious speech to the Representatives of Science in September in the context of Benedict’s long-running “campaign against the evils of secularism and Enlightenment.” and goes on to round the article off with a hard-hitting criticism of “the acceptance and use by the world as a whole of another extraordinary imposture” before calling for an end to the Vatican’s influence in global politics.
Halliday begins his article with a criticism of the management of a complacent media
The concealment starts with media management. Against expectations, there were no massive demonstrations against the visit, far less an attempted assassination: instead, the 12 million people of Istanbul, who evinced little or no interest in the pope, were forced by their compliant state to walk hours to their places of work, while the world was treated by a complacent media to the message of peace and understanding supposedly promoted by his presence on their soil. That the Vatican refused any requests for interviews with the pope by Turkish papers indicates where its priorities lay.
And he identifies and criticises a much wider political project behind the visit, all but obscured by the mananged media message
The flexibility of principle is notable, and much of the outside world has failed to register it. The pope’s real interest is not reconciliation with the Muslim world but the reinvigorated unity of Christians and the long-declared war against secularism and the legacy of the Enlightenment. At the same time he wants to recruit official Islam, be it senior clerics or moderate Islamist leaderships like the current Turkish government, in his campaign against the evils of secularism and Enlightenment.
Such tactical concerns underpin the choice of source in the notorious Regensburg speech, which quoted the Byzantine ruler Manuel II Palaeologus (1350-1425) denouncing Mohammed as bringing to the world only “the evil and the inhuman”. A similar citation could easily have been drawn from a Christian writer of the period: Francis of Assisi, Nicolas de Cusa or the Catalan scholar of Islam, Raimon Llull. What is significant is the political nature of the choice: a crude appeal to the hurt memory of Orthodox Christians about the late days of their empire, before the Ottoman Turks overran Constantinople in 1453.
But the ideological twists and turns involved in the papal visit to Turkey are less important than the Vatican’s wider political project. Few, after all, ask: on what democratically or legally constituted authority do such potentates traverse the world at great public expense and inconvenience, to hold forth on matters of contemporary international politics? After all, the many issues in play these days between the Muslim world and the west - from oil prices to migration, from Iraq to Palestine - are not matters of theology, of faith, of the divine but of politics. Clerical figures have no more qualification to sermonise on these issues than politicians would to rule on the oneness of God, or where to hold hands in prayer.
The claim by clergy on politics, in short, is a fraud. What Joseph Ratzinger is engaged in, abetted by the complicity of those promoting a United Nations-sponsored “dialogue of civilisations”, is a form of ideological land-grab. Nowhere is this clearer than in relations between Europe and the middle east.
In the final section he focuses again on that fraudulent claim and challenges the Vatican’s influence itself
In recent years, under Ratzinger, and for years under his predecessor Karol Wojtyla, this overrated medieval entity has been allowed to play a role in formulating UN policy on matters of major import, notably birth control and use of condoms; it has also, in league with a peculiar and sexually repressive coalition of states (including the United States, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar) promoted policies that, if carried through, will lead to the unnecessary deaths of millions of people. For those looking for such an entity, this is indeed an “axis of evil”.
The only solution to the pernicious and devious antics of Benedict XVI, his acolytes and allies, is to do even more than to challenge the claim of clergy and their leaders to take up political and social positions - it is to place in question the very legitimacy of the Vatican itself. The time has long past when this carbuncle had any right to be treated as a state and given the protection, for its diplomatic, ideological and money-laundering activities that it still enjoys. It would indeed be an excellent goal for reformers of global governance, and for proponents of global civil society, to set the eradication of the Vatican as one of their goals for their years to come.
If this cannot be done by international agreement between states, then other means of attaining this most desirable goal may be considered. The time may come when a mass mobilisation of secular and anti-clerical forces, drawn from across the world, is brought to Rome and simply occupies this anachronistic and pernicious entity; and in doing so abolishes the political and diplomatic authority of popes and cardinals, and turns the Vatican, its wealth and buildings, over to an international, secular, distributive society. It might be a change from demonstrating against the World Trade Organisation, and would target an organisation that has done far more harm on the global stage.
What’s perhaps most fascinating, to me at any rate, is a familiar theme, invoked back on 5th April 2005 by Fintan O’Toole, of the legacy of the long-dead Emperor Constantine
Then, though, Fintan O’Toole asked the question of the church
The question now is whether the church can finally ditch Constantine and get back to Christ. Can it lay the ghost of the Roman imperium and become something other than a male gerontocracy?
Or will the next Pope continue to sit enthroned, with a beautiful crown and gorgeous robes, on the grave of a dead empire?
Interestingly that legacy marks the opening lines of this BBC report
Ceremonial soldiers in white helmets marched into place beside a red carpet at Ankara airport as Pope Benedict’s plane arrived from Rome.
But what Fintan O’Toole didn’t know then, and no-one could have known for certain, when he stated..
The great resonance of John Paul’s death beyond the Catholic world is precisely because it brings a historical era to a close.
He is the last global figure to be shaped by that awful time when much of Europe responded to the loss of familiar empires by attempting to construct new ones, viler and more savage.
..was that the successor to John Paul, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, would have been shaped during that very same awful time.
Pete Baker @ 08:44 PM
The Vatican is still troubled by memories of that awful time.
Posted by on Dec 06, 2006 @ 10:26 PMThe fact that secularists are no unwilling to accept any opposition at all in a sure sign that they are badly in need of it.
The time may come when a mass mobilisation of secular and anti-clerical forces, drawn from across the world, is brought to Rome and simply occupies this anachronistic and pernicious entity
How many divisions has Fred Halliday?
Posted by on Dec 06, 2006 @ 11:17 PMIndeed a very thought provoking essay Pete.
But I don’t expect a revolution in the Catholic church anytime soon. Since the dawn of the Enlightenment, their influence has been in steady decline in (most) countries where people have a good education. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. It will take a long time indeed, however, before the dust settles. We have been, afterall, fighting the wars of the Ottoman succession for 176 years with no clear end in sight. USA politicians, especially, seem woefully ignorant of the grand sweep of historyPosted by on Dec 06, 2006 @ 11:55 PMHenry
Halliday, while undoubtedly provocative, surely makes a valid point in that those political decisions should be made by elected and accountable representatives of the people rather than being influenced by, as Fintan O’Toole described it, someone sitting “enthroned, with a beautiful crown and gorgeous robes, on the grave of a dead empire” who is “proof of one of the great political paradoxes - that people are formed in large part by that which they oppose.”
Posted by on Dec 06, 2006 @ 11:56 PM“Halliday, while undoubtedly provocative, surely makes a valid point in that those political decisions should be made by elected and accountable representatives of the people rather than being influenced by, as Fintan O’Toole described it, someone sitting “enthroned, with a beautiful crown and gorgeous robes, on the grave of a dead empire” who is “proof of one of the great political paradoxes - that people are formed in large part by that which they oppose.””
The Church has as much right as any other non elected group - be it a Union, a Corporation, Pressure Groups, the Orange Order or whatever, and as much right to attempt global initiatives as any large organisation that crosses borders and to attempt to suppress it is anti everything a free democracy should be about. The Church should have the same right but no more, and the ultimate arbitration must fall with elected representatives.
So, that’d be what happens now then.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:12 AMAs long as they are treated in the same manner as any other interested lobby group, kensei.
Which goes to the core of Halliday’s and, previously, O’Toole’s argument for the need to “lay the ghost of the Roman imperium.”
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:16 AMReally? Because what it sounded like was another tedious anti religious rant.
I fail to see how the Church is treated any differently than any other group with large membership or influence in the West.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:32 AMAs a quick example kensei..
“the opening lines of this BBC report
Ceremonial soldiers in white helmets marched into place beside a red carpet at Ankara airport as Pope Benedict’s plane arrived from Rome.”
I realise this is a sensitive topic.. but there are very valid issues raised in both Halliday’s and O’Toole’s articles.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:37 AMSo Kensei,
The Vatican’s tedious, not to say tendentious, rant against the use of condoms, especially in Africa, thus condemning thousands of people to horrible disease and death should be given due consideration in the elected councils of the world?Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:39 AM“Ceremonial soldiers in white helmets marched into place beside a red carpet at Ankara airport as Pope Benedict’s plane arrived from Rome.”
Remove the ceremonial soldiers in white helmets and replace them with modern uniformed soldiers. Effective change: none.
“The Vatican’s tedious, not to say tendentious, rant against the use of condoms, especially in Africa, thus condemning thousands of people to horrible disease and death should be given due consideration in the elected councils of the world?”
Policy on condoms and their use are decided by government of a particular country. Various other influences and factors matter. Of course, to play Devil’s Advocate for a second, if everyone followed the Church line, then people would only be involved in monogamous relationships after a major commitment and AIDS wouldn’t spread.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:49 AM“Remove the ceremonial soldiers in white helmets and replace them with modern uniformed soldiers. Effective change: none.”
Kensei, you seem to be missing the point about the question posed by Fintan O’Toole back in April 2005
Or will the next Pope continue to sit enthroned, with a beautiful crown and gorgeous robes, on the grave of a dead empire?[added emphasis]
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:54 AMPete
I think what happened here is that you came across an attack on the Church and the Pope which was in itself ignorant but contained enough rhetoric to cause a flutter in receptive hearts.
The primary purpose of the Pope’s visit was to facilitate continued dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox with a view to reconciling the oldest rift in Christianity. That is no business of any politician. The Pope has also met with the Anglican leader. One wonders what the reaction would be if he had refused to have such meetings.
The second leg of Halliday’s claim is that the Pope seeks an alliance with moderate elements in Islam
At the same time he wants to recruit official Islam, be it senior clerics or moderate Islamist leaderships like the current Turkish government, in his campaign against the evils of secularism and Enlightenment.
This is the same Pope has expressed the view that Turkey should not join the EU. If he sought such an alliance then he would support the application.
The Pope does challenge secularism and he is entitled to do so without secularists indulging in bombastic threats to occupy the Vatican.
This you find “undoubtedly provocative” while claiming his real point is that political decisions should be made by elected and accountable representatives of the people.
No, that’s what we all think. What he thinks is that the Church should be silenced by force. That is not a liberal position or a secular one. It is a totalitarian one.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:00 AM“Kensei, you seem to be missing the point about the question posed by Fintan O’Toole back in April 2005”
Apparently I am, because the point:
“The question now is whether the church can finally ditch Constantine and get back to Christ.”
Could be lazily made by any Protestant theologian in the past 500 years.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:07 AMSo the pope persuades some unelightened leader of a poor African country that the use of condoms is sinful and they are banned. It’s now the reponsibility of that leader, not papa.
jeez, at least Pontious Pilate only washed his hands of one death.
Hypocrisy at its most ugly.Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:10 AM“So the pope persuades some unelightened leader of a poor African country that the use of condoms is sinful and they are banned. It’s now the reponsibility of that leader, not papa.
jeez, at least Pontious Pilate only washed his hands of one death.
Hypocrisy at its most ugly.”So, the elected leader with ultimate authority has no responsibility? And the elected that obviously voted in such a weak spined idiot and refuse to remove him has no responsibility?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:15 AMjoe
Can you name an non-Islamic African country where condoms are banned?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:16 AMHenry… and latterly kensei
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t begin your argument with an assumption on motives but, instead, play the ball.
“The primary purpose of the Pope’s visit was to facilitate continued dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox with a view to reconciling the oldest rift in Christianity.”
That’s your interpretation, it’s not one shared by Halliday - or by me.
“This is the same Pope has expressed the view that Turkey should not join the EU.”
As Pope, according to what I can discern, Benedict hasn’t actually repeated what he had stated as a Cardinal.
“What he thinks is that the Church should be silenced by force.”
I assume you’ve missed a ‘not’ in that line. And far from that being my argument, my argument, as stated in-thread, is that the church, any church, should be accorded the same status as any other interested lobby group.
Which brings us back to Fintan O’Toole’s question to the church.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:19 AMAm not sure of your point Henry94.
Will you deny that bishops in Catholic Africa have ranted about the use of condoms and tried to terrify people in Nigeria and neighbouring contries from using them on the deliberate misinformation that the condoms were deliberately infected to cause them disease?
If you are to lazy to do the research, i’ll do it for you tomorrow.Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:22 AMInteresting thread Pete,
Well even with Blairs help most business organizations, let alone Trade unions etc, do not demand the god given right to have a major say, if not control the education of our children and demand a kick back from the public purse when doing so. Nor do they despite all their faults tell their customers/members that they will rot in hell or what ever the latest frightener is when their flock refuse to bow to the popes authority.The Vatican and other religious factions put its tanks on our lawns without being invited to do so by the electorate, so I am all for Fred’s suggestion that it should get a bit of its own medicine if that is what people decide to do.
Did I not read some statement from the Catholic church today against the governments proposed changes in education, surly these matters should be for elected politicians not god botherers. Still we seem to be moving towards an elected dictatorship these days, so i suppose the church will get a bit of the pie, being greedy so and so.’s who are not content with the massive slice they have already nicked down the years. After all its leadership are not called Princes for nothing.
regards
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:33 AM“Henry… and latterly kensei”
Leave me out of it if you are not going to answer my points.
There is nothing new here at all; the article you link quotes a 17th Century philosopher. The King James Bible used slightly antiquated language, even when ti was written, to give it more gravitas and authority. So the Church uses some of the tricks it picked up from the Roman Empire almost two millennia ago for almost the same reasons. So it’s essentially PR - the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church in a way that doesn’t really have parallel in the Protestant Churches, so it is probably appropriate. But there is scope within the system for other approaches, and really what the attack on the pomp is, is an attack on the Papacy and its right to lead the Church itself. Whether that is done by a Protestant theologian or a secular humanist is irrelevant; there is absolutely nothing new here.
“Will you deny that bishops in Catholic Africa have ranted about the use of condoms and tried to terrify people in Nigeria and neighbouring contries from using them on the deliberate misinformation that the condoms were deliberately infected to cause them disease?”
No. Outright lies probably cross the line even in a free society, but they have the right to push any views they wish. You or anyone else have the right to oppose them.
“If you are to lazy to do the research, i’ll do it for you tomorrow.”
Could you research the Churches views on sex outside of wedlock while you are at it?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:34 AMat the risk of playing the ball, is priests having sex with other priests and young children fall inside these guidelines you want me to research?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:41 AMPete
I take it as some progress that you would rather defend O’Toole’s childish questions than Halliday’s vicious propositions. I’m not interested enough in O’Toole’s view to debate it. I think it is manifestly childish and if it impresses you then I doubt I could change your mind.
My concern was to draw attention to the proposal at the end of Halliday’s article to suppress the Vatican by force. That is outside the range of democratic views.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:42 AMKENSEI
Are you unable to discern the distinction between preaching in favour of abstinence from sex before marriage, and engaging in disinformation (by telling congregations that condoms are pre-infected with AIDS)? (i.e. former acceptable, latter unacceptable)
Really?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:43 AMAlso, while I’m at it. A speech to the Representatives of Science? Science is essentially amoral and apolitical. It states what the based conclusion are based on results derived form the scientific method. So it may say stem cell research could help a variety of ailments, but it doesn’t say anything on the rightness of otherwise of that research. Those are questions for ethicists, politicians, priests, poets and everyone else. Scientists can get involved sure, but they have taken off their scientist hat.
The confusion of Science with secular humanism is appalling and it’s ultimate result is to harm Science.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:44 AMkensei
“So the Church uses some of the tricks it picked up from the Roman Empire almost two millennia ago for almost the same reasons”
I think you’re still missing the import of the reference to a dead empire..
MickH
I thought it was an interesting and provocative article, and an echo of Fintan’s earlier piece, in it’s own right without trying to expand the topic. ;o)
And yes, you did see that statement.. in fact, I blogged it here as well.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:46 AM
