Christianity has been in the news for two completely different reasons these past few weeks. The first was due to a letter by Lord Carey (and co-signed signed by a few others.) who you may know better as the bloke who played Ace Ventura.. Only joking, Dr. George Carey the rather low rent former Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to have gotten a second wind in him since they shoved him into ermine clad retirement in the Lords. It seems that the former archbish thinks that Christians get a rough deal in the UK in relation to how minority faiths are (IHO) pandered to. He has come to this conclusion in large, due to several cases of Christians not being able to wear crosses at work (in a hospital in this case) whilst headscarves are allowed. The kind of thing that gets the "martyr" a photosplash in the paper of them looking wounded in a cardie, whilst fondling their necklace. The letter then connects this to other "attacks" on Christianity such as civil partnerships, and the usual stuff:
"In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country. We believe that the major parties need to address this issue in the coming general election."
(That end bit loosely translates in to a memo for Dave or Gordon. "Can we be excused on being subject to rules and discourse everyone else has to follow**. Because our set of opinions are more specialler than others, God says so, well we says he says so, so he says so.")
**I'd like to see a racist shop assistant try and use the excuse "I can't serve black people, it goes against what I believe in." on his boss and keep his job. It's a bit of a straw man, but that is the gist of what these people are saying.
there's a footnote condemning proposals to broaden sex education (that has a Muslim signatory as well as the president of a highly conservative family focus group.) The contents of this letter are less of a surprise than seeing a freezer full of lollys in an ice cream van. As the superb stand up Marcus Brigstoke said, the [Abrahamic Religions] are a lot like Scousers, they all like to claim they have it harder than everyone else, and it's an observation that like all good ones has a lot of truth in it.
Now I'm not belittling the fact that people have (and continue) to suffer for their beliefs (and we're talking WAY more than just being told not to wear some jewellery) From monks in Burma to Christians in Sudan to the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. Nobody should be singled out for persecution (on pain of death even.) on the basis of what they are and believe in. To Careys credit he does highlight the difference between these examples and the ones he brings up (as disrespect) Now it's hard to say these lesser "martyr" cases around stuff like crucifixes, actually constitute "persecution". Everyone has to cede some autonomy in a work place when they sign those contracts. This letter (and the "call to arms") really strike me more as a widespread social belief that religious opinions (which is what revelatory based beliefs are) are somehow different to other opinions, and need to be ringfenced in a way no others do. Also the increasing backlash from more vocal strains of belief, and the "new athiest" movement is causing a counter assertion in response. Lastly the genuine decline of faith in Europe means traditional religious authority has lost the clout it once had, and that aint no fun to the ecclesiastical big wigs with chips on their shoulders. What is surprising about this letter, and all the sympathetic popular press coverage it got from some quarters, was how it contrasted with a much more serious story from the Church of Rome, which didn't quite have the same level of coverage.
It is almost churlish to compare these two cases. The first is really little more than a few clerics throwing their toys out the pram at the horrid old secular world, the second is way, way more serious. But they merge on the issue of "respect" for religion in greater society, so linking them at the hip.
What has come to light from a Panarama programme is that Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) has been accused of directly covering up one of many instances of child rape committed by priests on vulnerable children. Ratzinger was the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith" which amongst other things meant he would have overseen any responses to child abuse from his priests. A priest by the name of Friar Lawrence Murphay was accused by several testimonials of abusing 200 deaf boys at a special school in Wisconsin. Despite the wishes of Ratzingers deputy for a clerical trial (not in a "proper" court BTW), Murphay was effectively censured to a remote school after he wrote to Ratzinger saying "he was ill, and wanted to live out his priestly days in dignity." after this heartfelt stuff; in the same state, over 5 new accusations have been made. Things look even murkier when we learn that Cardinal Sean Brady has admitted he was present when children were told to stay silent about their complaints about the child abuser Friar Brendon Smyth. (Do we have the horrible feeling that the childrens silence was conditional on pain of eternal damnation??) Yes Sean Brady, whose only the highest ranking priest in Eire after 35 years, has decided after prayer and reflection to own up to not investigating multiple complaints against what turned out to be a serial child rapist. Then we get this incredible official statement by the Popes PA:
"The Pope's official spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the Murphy case had only reached the Vatican in 1996 - two decades after the Milwaukee diocese in Wisconsin first learned of the allegations, and two years before the priest died.
The diocese had been asked to take action by "restricting Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts", Fr Lombardi said"
So by the PA,s own admission, the diocese had been ordered by another arm of the church to keep schtum, and that no one in 20 years considered 200 accusations of child abuse that big a deal to report to the guy supposed to fucking sort this stuff out!
I really don't need to continue with this sorry story. Chances are more will inevitably come out in due process, and what more can be said really? When it takes one of the emerald isles chief clergyman 35 years to come clean about covering up accusations of CHILD RAPE for gods sake! It's the children I feel desperately, heartbreakingly sorry for. They were told that this organisation was their only way to happiness and salvation and then it betrayed and ignored them in the worst way imaginable. And to top it off the very people they were supposed to revere stood by and did nothing, because in the end all they all they really gave a shit about was keeping up the incense fuelled appearances. So I'm sorry Dr Carey, yeah while I might feel a bit sorry for some spinster who got suspended for wearing a religious chain, it rings a bit hollow saying that the secular west picks on Christians, when in this part of the world even today, high ranking religious officials can be so heavily implicated in covering up child abuse and not even face immediate questioning from the police forces (who really thinks there's any chance the Pope will be brought in for questioning?). It's hard to conclude that religion is heavily discriminated against, when no other organisation would have got off as lightly. If this level of cover up had happened in the royal family, we'd be facing a constitutional crisis. If the government was implicated in this way; at the very least we'd be having the election next week. The red tops usually are on stories like this, like bluebottles round a dog turd. Senior social workers were vilified by the Sun and received death threats for the Baby Peter case, but there's virtually even a squeak here? Because the strange way religion seems to play by a parallel set of rules in our society. If these insinuations are 100% true, this means that the senior authorities not only sheltered recidivist paedophiles from prosecution, but failed to warn anyone else about their natures. This meant more childrens innocence taken, and youngsters that should have been safe, under the influence of dangerous men. At the very least the police should LOOK in to all the relevant papers to this case to obtain names. It is perhaps too much to hope for that the Pope and Cardinal Murphay show up at the local police station to explain themselves in this affair, but perhaps organisations like One in Four might be able to put the pressure on. But I know the victims certainly need more than the damage limitation PR we are getting from the Vatican.
"In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country. We believe that the major parties need to address this issue in the coming general election."
(That end bit loosely translates in to a memo for Dave or Gordon. "Can we be excused on being subject to rules and discourse everyone else has to follow**. Because our set of opinions are more specialler than others, God says so, well we says he says so, so he says so.")
**I'd like to see a racist shop assistant try and use the excuse "I can't serve black people, it goes against what I believe in." on his boss and keep his job. It's a bit of a straw man, but that is the gist of what these people are saying.
there's a footnote condemning proposals to broaden sex education (that has a Muslim signatory as well as the president of a highly conservative family focus group.) The contents of this letter are less of a surprise than seeing a freezer full of lollys in an ice cream van. As the superb stand up Marcus Brigstoke said, the [Abrahamic Religions] are a lot like Scousers, they all like to claim they have it harder than everyone else, and it's an observation that like all good ones has a lot of truth in it.
Now I'm not belittling the fact that people have (and continue) to suffer for their beliefs (and we're talking WAY more than just being told not to wear some jewellery) From monks in Burma to Christians in Sudan to the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. Nobody should be singled out for persecution (on pain of death even.) on the basis of what they are and believe in. To Careys credit he does highlight the difference between these examples and the ones he brings up (as disrespect) Now it's hard to say these lesser "martyr" cases around stuff like crucifixes, actually constitute "persecution". Everyone has to cede some autonomy in a work place when they sign those contracts. This letter (and the "call to arms") really strike me more as a widespread social belief that religious opinions (which is what revelatory based beliefs are) are somehow different to other opinions, and need to be ringfenced in a way no others do. Also the increasing backlash from more vocal strains of belief, and the "new athiest" movement is causing a counter assertion in response. Lastly the genuine decline of faith in Europe means traditional religious authority has lost the clout it once had, and that aint no fun to the ecclesiastical big wigs with chips on their shoulders. What is surprising about this letter, and all the sympathetic popular press coverage it got from some quarters, was how it contrasted with a much more serious story from the Church of Rome, which didn't quite have the same level of coverage.
It is almost churlish to compare these two cases. The first is really little more than a few clerics throwing their toys out the pram at the horrid old secular world, the second is way, way more serious. But they merge on the issue of "respect" for religion in greater society, so linking them at the hip.
What has come to light from a Panarama programme is that Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) has been accused of directly covering up one of many instances of child rape committed by priests on vulnerable children. Ratzinger was the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith" which amongst other things meant he would have overseen any responses to child abuse from his priests. A priest by the name of Friar Lawrence Murphay was accused by several testimonials of abusing 200 deaf boys at a special school in Wisconsin. Despite the wishes of Ratzingers deputy for a clerical trial (not in a "proper" court BTW), Murphay was effectively censured to a remote school after he wrote to Ratzinger saying "he was ill, and wanted to live out his priestly days in dignity." after this heartfelt stuff; in the same state, over 5 new accusations have been made. Things look even murkier when we learn that Cardinal Sean Brady has admitted he was present when children were told to stay silent about their complaints about the child abuser Friar Brendon Smyth. (Do we have the horrible feeling that the childrens silence was conditional on pain of eternal damnation??) Yes Sean Brady, whose only the highest ranking priest in Eire after 35 years, has decided after prayer and reflection to own up to not investigating multiple complaints against what turned out to be a serial child rapist. Then we get this incredible official statement by the Popes PA:
"The Pope's official spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the Murphy case had only reached the Vatican in 1996 - two decades after the Milwaukee diocese in Wisconsin first learned of the allegations, and two years before the priest died.
The diocese had been asked to take action by "restricting Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts", Fr Lombardi said"
So by the PA,s own admission, the diocese had been ordered by another arm of the church to keep schtum, and that no one in 20 years considered 200 accusations of child abuse that big a deal to report to the guy supposed to fucking sort this stuff out!
I really don't need to continue with this sorry story. Chances are more will inevitably come out in due process, and what more can be said really? When it takes one of the emerald isles chief clergyman 35 years to come clean about covering up accusations of CHILD RAPE for gods sake! It's the children I feel desperately, heartbreakingly sorry for. They were told that this organisation was their only way to happiness and salvation and then it betrayed and ignored them in the worst way imaginable. And to top it off the very people they were supposed to revere stood by and did nothing, because in the end all they all they really gave a shit about was keeping up the incense fuelled appearances. So I'm sorry Dr Carey, yeah while I might feel a bit sorry for some spinster who got suspended for wearing a religious chain, it rings a bit hollow saying that the secular west picks on Christians, when in this part of the world even today, high ranking religious officials can be so heavily implicated in covering up child abuse and not even face immediate questioning from the police forces (who really thinks there's any chance the Pope will be brought in for questioning?). It's hard to conclude that religion is heavily discriminated against, when no other organisation would have got off as lightly. If this level of cover up had happened in the royal family, we'd be facing a constitutional crisis. If the government was implicated in this way; at the very least we'd be having the election next week. The red tops usually are on stories like this, like bluebottles round a dog turd. Senior social workers were vilified by the Sun and received death threats for the Baby Peter case, but there's virtually even a squeak here? Because the strange way religion seems to play by a parallel set of rules in our society. If these insinuations are 100% true, this means that the senior authorities not only sheltered recidivist paedophiles from prosecution, but failed to warn anyone else about their natures. This meant more childrens innocence taken, and youngsters that should have been safe, under the influence of dangerous men. At the very least the police should LOOK in to all the relevant papers to this case to obtain names. It is perhaps too much to hope for that the Pope and Cardinal Murphay show up at the local police station to explain themselves in this affair, but perhaps organisations like One in Four might be able to put the pressure on. But I know the victims certainly need more than the damage limitation PR we are getting from the Vatican.
No comments:
Post a Comment