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
Rory
In the context of the articles by both Fintan O’Toole and Fred Halliday it means removing the trappings associated with the legacy of the long-dead Emperor Constantine.
O’Toole, in effect, argued that the church should begin that process itself.. Halliday argues that elected governments should do it for them.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:48 PMmickhall
CND members had to pay taxes that were spent on nuclear weapons. We all pay into the pot and elect people to spend it for us and decide the size of the pot.
That is democracy. The alternative is directed taxation where we all pick what we want our money spent on.
Under that system Catholic schools would do just fine.
What is not democratic is for a cabal of fanatical secularists to make themselves the arbiters of how state money is spent in keeping with their ideology.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 01:56 PMAaron, the Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, is clearly opposed to what he terms Enlightenment culture.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 02:28 PMHere are links to the four part translation of the Ratzinger speech:
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 02:56 PMIf the catholic church is primarily responsible for the spread of aids in Africa why has Ireland not suffered in the same way? We have a higher proportion of catholics than many African nations.
Regarding Halliday’s article. Would he pen a similar article on the Muslim faith? No mention of the Church’s stance against the Iraq war and it’s key role in support of human rights throughout the world. On the latter point if anything I would like the church to become more involved in global politics in situations where human rights are being threatend.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 04:09 PMI didn’t hear anyone claim that the catholic church is primarily responsible,Gram.
Ireland has not suffered as much becuse the majority of the young people stopped listening to the priesthood on matters like these a long time ago. Because of the illiteracy rate in many African countries, people cannot read the printed health advice and many rely on the priest or village elder for guidance.Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 05:14 PMis there *ANY* country other than Ireland (and even than only part of it), where the pope is welcome.
We are living in a new millenium, and the CC is a dinosaur from the dark ages, the sooner the world is rid of this religion and all others the better it will be.
In centuries to come people will look back upon our current time, and all the religious strife around the world, and i imagine they will look at it the way we look at people being persecuted for witchcraft centuries ago.
The pope is (usually) just a frail old man, do people *actually* believe he is ANY better than me, you or anyone else ?????????
I believe humans are all just intelligent (debatable) mammals and thats it. When we die, thats it, game over, all this heaven and hell is bullshit imho.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 05:52 PMJoecanuck
“Because of the illiteracy rate in many African countries, people cannot read the printed health advice and many rely on the priest or village elder for guidance.”
what advice is this Joe, advice that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids ??????????
Or is it the equally enlightening advice that
a Catholic nun advises her HIV-infected choirmaster not to use condoms with his wife because “the virus can pass through.”
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=3197
A truly dangerous organisation if there ever was one.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 05:58 PMI did mention that much earlier on this thread wtf.
Although the Catholic Church obviously cannot be held primarily reponsible for the spread of this scourge, the degree of infection would certainly be a lot, a very lot, less, had they not spread those vicious, deliberate, lies.
[Let’s keep to the ball that’s on the pitch - edited moderator]Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 06:04 PMDear Moderator
I thought that it was fair comment to point out the hypocrisy between what is being preached to poor africans compared to what goes on in practice by some of the people doing the preaching.
Feel free to delete this latest comment but I’d appreciate an e-mail saying why you think my comment was off the ball. I did not play any identified individual.Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 06:16 PMNevin,
‘Enlightenment culture’ is not the same as ‘the Enlightenment’. The Pope seems to have carefully used the first term only in the article you linked to. I’m not entirely sure what he’s at there, I must go read it fully. I think what I’m saying is that the Pope does (try to) follow reason and logic et cetera (as per the Enlightenment). This attempt is a fact that I don’t think can really be doubted.Anyway, another example from the article: The only solution to the pernicious and devious antics of Benedict XVI
Halliday doesn’t give us any clue what he means by this. He previously mentioned something about condoms and AIDS, but that doesn’t mean that Pope is evil. Maybe he’s really stupid, but that’s not the same as evil! The reasons behind the Pope’s rules are not something I would agree with but I won’t pretend he is being devious or pernicious. I’d say we can quickly state as a matter of fact that the Pope isn’t being devious or pernicious here. Unless somebody can prove that he is deliberately stating something he doesn’t believe.
The above is simple proof of the prejudices many pundits have before they tackle issues like the Pope’s recent troubles and travels.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 06:17 PMAnyway, I’m off to the pub, then I plan to read those links from Nevin (I’ve already read the Regensurg lecture). Apologies in advance for not being able to see responses to my comments.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 06:21 PMLib2016
“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.”Any evidence of this, or is it just christianity that is in decline.
JoeCannuck
Try looking towards south america if you want sleaze on the church, a wealth of kickbacks, and every -ism you could imagine, and not so long ago a member of the same church labelled England, Germany and Holland as ‘evil’ countries, you could’nt make it up.Pete Baker
Excellent thread, you alway have the most thought provoking stuff.Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 08:02 PMAaron, perhaps Benedict is more a fan of Thomas Aquinas and the Logos than the ‘godless’ Enlightenment?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2006 @ 10:08 PMNevin,
You mention Aquinas and the Enlightenment as if they represent opposing viewpoints; but perhaps Thomas Aquinas would have been a fan of the Enlightenment.If one comes to the conclusion that Reason can justify religious belief, then the Enlightenment is ‘godful’ not ‘godless’.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2006 @ 12:17 AM“If one comes to the conclusion that Reason can justify religious belief, then the Enlightenment is ‘godful’ not ‘godless’. “
Makes sense to me Aaron.
My worry about secularism is that it misleads people into assuming enlightenment necessarily means no god by default.
I personally think it uses a very narrow view of science and history to perpetuate it.
That’s not to invalidate a reasoned view that comes to the ‘no god’ conclusion, but the preponderance of a large number of people to not even consider that a reasoned view can come to a God conclusion is very worrying and naïve.
I think reason, as the Pope has said, should be the basis of these types of discussions.
Everyone is free to look at logic and science or whatever else and make their own mind up, or they should be.
There are many different scientific theories as to the REAL nature of reality.
For me, it’s the created theories that make the most logical sense, but I’d be happy to sit back and digest other peoples CONSTRUCTIVE ideas.
http://www.bottomlayer.com/myst_vid/double_slit_06.htm
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/RealityFrame1.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/scientists.html
Posted by on Dec 08, 2006 @ 09:14 AMAaron, it’s my understanding that Aquinas put forward or identified with the proposition that God was a god of reason whereas the Age of Enlightenment/Reason highlighted man’s ability to reason without the need for God and/or the Churches.
My own mind is my own church .... Thomas Paine
Posted by on Dec 08, 2006 @ 12:16 PMMustapha Mond,
The seminaries are full everywhere but Western Europe and North America, Islam is expanding especially in Africa but also elsewhere, and religion is staging a comeback in China, admittedly from a very low base.
I don’t approve of organised religion but let’s not allow wishful thinking to change the facts. Humanists, secularists, atheists and whatever you’re having yourself haven’t won the debate - yet.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2006 @ 12:30 PMMustapha
Well, you may say that.. I couldn’t possibly comment.. ;o)
But we seem to have wandered somewhat from the thrust of the original argument - that the privileges granted to the Vatican in global politics, the legacy of that long-dead Emperor, are neither justified nor desirable.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2006 @ 10:07 PMPete, for the line you wish to discuss, aren’t these simply subjective viewpoints.
For example, why does the British family get recieved by certain people in certain ways.
Why does Britney Spears, George Bush, The Armagh football team, Rock groups, the latest fitness and diet guru, previously Princess Diana and Mother Theresa, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan, the Harlem Globe Trotters etc etc.Why do these people get recognition, why do they get influence, why do they get media coverage, why are they on the Late Show, why to Prime Ministers meet them, why are some Prime Ministers afforded time ?
Bono and Geldof are talking about Africa, Gore about climate, the Pope about spirituality and reason, all from their own viewpoints.
Isn’t it simply how the world goes round. Some people are interested in them, some people listen to them and some people are fans or adherants and some people don’t really take notice.
What exactly is the arguement ? The Pope gets too much media coverage, the wrong type of coverage, he is listened to by certain people, he is recieved respectfully at a state level ?
When people say that this medieval entity should be brought to an end, isn’t it simply certain people just having a personal rant about something they don’t like ?
But sure, go ahead, start a serious movement for the British government to not recognise the Vatican and treat it like Taiwan. It will be all very amusing.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2006 @ 06:35 AMThe participation of the Vatican in international forums comes from it’s position as an independent state. Fred Halliday proposes resolving that by 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
That is at least a consistent position. You shy away from supporting that so what is your plan? Are you calling on your government to propose the expulsion of the Vatican from the UN for example?
The Holy See has been a member of the United Nations since its inception, In fact, they even had the option to adopt Member-State status the Vatican chose to remain an observer member with no vote at the General Assembly.
Switzerland is the only other state with the same status.
The UN was founded on basic rules. One of them is that a member state that “persistently violates” the principles of the UN Charter can be expelled. By threatening to destroy a fellow member state, for example Ahmadinejad’s Iran violates Article 2 of the Charter—and mocks everything the UN claims to stand for. Of course when it comes to bravely challenging theocracies, secularists have their priorities. Who wants to take on Iran when there are much softer targets?
Posted by on Dec 09, 2006 @ 06:42 AMWhy not distribute the wealth of Halliday and other loud mouthed secularists? John O’Shea has a nice pension plan for himself, all from the donations that would be better used by the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Halliday thinks people like him should be jetted to Turkey. When you hear him, it is hard not to see the good in the Inquisition. Ex malo bonum.Posted by on Dec 09, 2006 @ 10:53 AMFred Halliday proposes (that) a mass mobilisation of secular and anti-clerical forces...turns the Vatican, its wealth and buildings, over to an international, secular, distributive society.
In the absence of any such society would he propose turning it over to an organisation aiming to build such a society do you think, the Communist Party for example?
Posted by on Dec 09, 2006 @ 01:25 PMThe current pope and especially his predecessor clearly expect(s)(ed) and claim(s)(ed) for himself the right to interfere in secular politics at will. Karol Wytola diverted Vatican millions to his home constituency (Healy-Rae style) and actively worked to break the Soviet Union in Poland. Even a card-carrying fully committed RC would have to question the morality of that “priviliged” treatment while (less worthy?) disciples in South America and Africa suffered and continue to suffer.
And surely by any morality, humanist or christian or whatever you’re having yourself, if you preach against the use of condoms, espciallly in areas where the church has enormous (overweaning, perhaps) influence, you must take responsibility for the consequences when AIDS continues to spread and plague exactly these societies at least partly because they follow your teaching.
Ratzinger has often enough declared his opposition to secular humanism and the enlightenment and his intention to use his influence to reverse them.
Therefore, as a secular humanist, I take up the challenge and agree with Halliday that secular humanism must fight to protect itself and is justified in aiming to reduce, if not remove the Pope’s meddling in what is properly secular politics.
Using legitimate secular powers to claim political territory back from the Vatican by removing it’s (misused) special privileges (including peaceful mass deomnstrations) is surely at least as legitimate as deliberately (mis-)using your spiritual influence to shape the constitutional structures everyone else must live under.Posted by on Dec 09, 2006 @ 07:27 PMNic
Glad to see you are rallying to the flag. I am sure the bag ladies of Rome wioll enjoy your company. Now, if oyu could only take osme FPCs with you, Ireland would be all the better for it.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2006 @ 07:59 PM
