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 @ 07:44 PM
“at 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?”
What has that to do with condoms?
“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? “
Are you incapable of reading? Really?
“Of course, to play Devil’s Advocate for a second, “
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:46 AM“I think you’re still missing the import of the reference to a dead empire..”
At the rate of growth of the Church in Africa and South America, it’ll hardly be dead by the time Benedict goes. Women priests and other nonsense hasn’t helped Anglicanism much. Still nothing new.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:48 AMJoe
I’m not sure how you could miss my point
You said
So the pope persuades some unelightened leader of a poor African country that the use of condoms is sinful and they are banned.
I asked for an example of that. You can introduce any other criticisms of the Church you like. I may even agree with you. But on the specific point do you know of such a country?
mickhall
Imagine the cheek of the Catholic Bishops to offer an opinion on the future of Catholic schools. Don’t worry. those political decisions should be made by elected and accountable representatives of the people
Are we all happy with that? If the people vote for parties who want choice in education is that what should happen?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:50 AMHenry
“My concern was to draw attention to the proposal at the end of Halliday’s article to suppress the Vatican by force.”
I have indicated that Halliday was being provocative.. I would like to think the readership can understand that point.
As for..
“That is outside the range of democratic views.”
And attempting to exert the influence of a dead empire is…
Kensei
“The confusion of Science with secular humanism is appalling and it’s ultimate result is to harm Science.”
And that is something that the Vatican should note.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:51 AMPete
Provocative?
turns the Vatican, its wealth and buildings, over to an international, secular, distributive society.
The Soviet Union which made similar claims for itself tried to murder the last Pope. That was indeed provocative. It is now gone but not before it killed millions. It is sad to see that people still share the illusions it was founded on.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:03 AM“And that is something that the Vatican should note.”
I think the people who are pushing this line should really note it more, though.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:07 AMHenry
Don’t tell me you’ve reduced your argument to an accusation that I’m a communist?
Once again…
“And attempting to exert the influence of a dead empire is…”
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:08 AMKensei
As I’m sure you’re aware, that particular reference relates to the pontiff’s Speech to the Representatives of Science
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:11 AMfair enough Henry seeing that you can’t wait until tomorrow.
Extracts from HRW.org (Human Rights Worldwide):
NigeriaAn estimated 5.4 percent of adults aged fifteen to forty-nine are HIV-positive in Nigeria, the majority of them having been infected through sex. Condoms remain inaccessible or unaffordable for many Nigerians. In a 2002 survey, 75 percent of health service facilities visited by Deliver, a program run in Nigeria by the U.S.-based John Snow International, were missing condoms or contraceptive supplies. One health advocate reported that there had been an absence of condoms in rural communities. Another reported a lack of information about HIV and HIV transmission in rural communities.
Efforts to improve condom access in Nigeria have sometimes been hindered by restrictions on condom promotion. For example, Population Services International (PSI), a social marketing group that sells condoms in the private sector at subsidized prices, sold a record number of condoms in the first quarter of 2001. However, PSI’s radio advertisements promoting condoms were suspended for four months in 2001 by the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria, a Nigerian government organization, (emphasis added) on the unsubstantiated grounds that the messages were “seductive” because they encouraged condom use in premarital sexual relationships.
Condom promotion in Nigerian schools is similarly limited. While the national approved curriculum for HIV prevention education includes comprehensive education and condom promotion messages, at this writing only three of Nigeria’s fifty state governments have adopted and implemented it in their schools. The reproductive health expert quoted above told Human Rights Watch that this delay results, in part, from state governments bending to religious pressure. (emphasis added.)
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:14 AM“As I’m sure you’re aware, that particular reference relates to the pontiff’s Speech to the Representatives of Science”
Oh, probably blindly on a rant on a pet huge annoyance. He has limited call to be making speeches to Scientists either, but it isn’t really the Church pushing the confusion. I’d lay the blame on that one on Dawkins and the like.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:17 AM“probably blindly on a rant on a pet huge annoyance. He has limited call to be making speeches to Scientists either”
probably.. you have read that reasoned speech, haven’t you?.. and, even though he has the title of Supreme Pontiff..
“but it isn’t really the Church pushing the confusion”
Of course it isn’t…
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:26 AMPete
Don’t tell me you’ve reduced your argument to an accusation that I’m a communist?
I was addressing a quote form the article you posted. I don’t know your views.
joe
So you don’t know of any country in Africa where condoms are banned then? I didn’t think there was. Thanks for checking.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 02:33 AMI am truly sorry for your tunnel vision Henry.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 02:43 AMYour church’s priests have banned them and they certainly have more contact with the the peasants and probably more influence on them than remote politicians who conspire with these corrupts stooges of the vatican; just the same as pertained in many catholic countries a generation ago.
As you sow the wind, so you shall reap the whirlwind.Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 02:50 AMIt seems a bit of a jump from Benedict trying to reach out to Greek Orthodox church, to a conspiracy theory that Benedict is trying to engage a pan-religious alliance to act against the evils of secularism (whatever they are: homosexuality, women outdoors, evolution, condoms, abortion, working on the sabbath, taxation of churches, cartoons of prophets - take your pick). What would this alliance do that the elements of it aren’t already doing? Or is the aim to concentrate on one particular secular “evil” and by concerted action get it sorted out first.
In which case, which one could Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and Islam agree on? My best guess would be abortion which is suitably emotive and has a good chance of success. Look forward to a UN resolution on the rights of the unborn????
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 10:19 AMLike Lizzie in London, “Papa” is a good earner, and I imagine the Italian tourist board would be alongside the Swiss Guards to repel the abovementioned attack.
But my oh my how times change: I don’t think that with eight out of ten people in the Republic supporting civil rights for same-sex relationships the current Pope will be in a position to quote his predecessor by announcing “People of Ireland, I love you!”
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 11:11 AM“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.”
Do religions really believe they are the same as everyone else though?
I can’t think of any other group or organisation that gets to play that “do exactly what we say or you’ll burn forever in hell” card, though.
A pressure group, a union, a corporation - their members have the opportunity to study the available information and draw a conclusion. Members of a religion have to simply accept what they are told to do or else. Not much point having a religion otherwise.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 11:23 AMAre we all happy with that? If the people vote for parties who want choice in education is that what should happen?
Posted by Henry94
Henry
What you write seems very democratic, however if the church wishes to run schools, I cannot see why the tax payer should finance them. For example if Osama’s boys want to set up a school, should Catholics be asked to finance it out of the taxes they play.
You may say this is an extreme example but many people regard the church as being just as reactionary, if not as violent as Bin Laden’s outfit and in truth has a history which is not that dissimilar.
The wealthy have set up their own schools in the UK, to which the children of the upper middle class and aristocracy go. But these schools are not state funded, although they do get a kick back via the charities commission. So I see no reason why the church should get special preference, after all they have a disgraceful record of child abuse in many schools they have run, especially in Ireland.
So no, even if people vote for choice in education, the state should not provide it in the manner you suggest, I believe it is imperative for the State to be secular and I support the French model for State education with all its imperfections. I say this as someone, who fool that I was, sent his own daughter to a Catholic school, although thankfully she did not repeat the same mistake with her own child.
The State’s duty is to offer every child a first class secular education, religion must be a private matter, otherwise you end up with a grubby little statelet like that which exists in the north east of ireland or that which did exist in the Free State, that is they are neither foul nor fish.
In a multi cultural world religious schools also restricts the child’s development so much. For example a child who goes to a catholic school, not only would not meet anyone in a school environment from the other Protestant community, but also would not meet any Muslims, Hindus etc, etc. Thus being unable to make a judgement based on real human contact about people from a different background to there own, they become prey for all the b i g o t e d prejudice that is pumped into our ears day and night.
I would just pose this question to you Henry, do you keel it is a good idea for youngsters to be educated in the madrassa schools that are in Pakistan and many middle east counties? I am not suggesting either Protestant or Catholic schools are on a par with these schools, but underneath all the froth imo they have the same purpose.
I would also say you are over egging the pudding when you accuse Fred of threatening the Vatican with violence, or some such.
Best regards.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:23 PM-
“We commit ourselves
to seek agreement with one another on the substance and goals of our social responsibility, and to represent in concert, as far as possible, the concerns and visions of the churches vis-Ă -vis the secular European institutions
to defend basic values against infringements of every kind
to resist any attempt to misuse religion and the church for ethnic or nationalist purposes.”
There’s a token mention of European Muslims.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:25 PM “And attempting to exert the influence of a dead empire is…”
Hmmm ... MI5? or is it MI6?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:35 PM7m, some faith group are more equal than others. The Church of England has clerical members in the House of Lords and the Vatican papal nuncios have diplomatic immunity, as do members of SMOM.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:48 PMRe joeCanuck post34
I believe HEnry asked for an example of a non-Islamic government banning condoms, last time I checked Nigeria had an ISlamic government
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:54 PMFrom an atheist point of view this is a selfdefeating rant. Sure religion is in decline in Western Europe but it is increasingly powerful in other parts of the world, not least in it’s educational role.
We’re going to see the Churches go through the same sort of contortions as the more temporal powers as they learn to accept the need for democracy. It’s far too optimistic to think that we will all find a universally accepted truth - scientific or otherwise.
One thing I do agree with. The reactionary and anti-democratic forces in society seem to be combining at the moment. Opus Dei runs the US Supreme Court and there’s still, amazingly, a state church in England which is approaching ever closer to Rome.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 12:56 PMBenedict’s long-running “campaign against the evils of secularism and Enlightenment.”
Again, an ignorant pundit who doesn’t bother reading or understanding. The Pope has nothing against the Enlightenment. In fact, by putting such emphasis on Reason, he is very much a fan of the Enlightenment. The enemies of Reason and the Enlightenment today are those ignorant people, ranging from pundits to lazy members of the public, who ranted about his lecture without having a clue what he said or what he meant. If it wasn’t so serious, the irony of it would be funny: “unEnlightened people attack Enlightened Pope on the (false) grounds that he isn’t a fan of the Enlightenment”.
His claim is that religious beliefs can be justified based on Reason (meaning that secularism might be opposed to the Enlightenment and Reason, not in agreement with them). I happen to have a different opinion than him on this, but at least he’s engaging in debate based on reason and discussion. I won’t stoop to telling lies about him just because he came to a different conclusion than I did.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:18 PM“...As long as they are treated in the same manner as any other interested lobby group, kensei” Pete Baker.
In which manner would that be, Pete? In the manner of Standard Oil or ITT or in the manner of a trade union group seeking protection from such groups in a third world country or the mothers of children whose health had been ruined by polltion from mining and other extraction industries?
Presumably those who recognise that the more powerful must have their lobbying rewarded more than the merely importunate would have the Vatican’s lobbying given great respect because of the power it represents (the secular power of its adherents that is. I would not dream to speculate on Divine power).
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:20 PM
