Some Pope Related Stuff.

I was in two minds as to whether to comment on the Popes visit to the UK. I mean what more can really be said? Obviously Richard Dawkins is going to have something to say on the matter. Obviously a lot of the right wing press are going to get in a lather about a bloke who openly espouses the evils of secularism, permissiveness and gay rights. I imagine there was a run of collective pant wetting going on when "Papa Ratzi" attacked multiculturalism and the fact that you can't call Christmas Christmas in case it offends other faiths. All the stuff they say that the liberal elite ban anyone from discussing, by discussing it at every opportunity; every fucking day in their columns(hmmm). In short the whole debate had more straw men being tossed about the room, than a boozy row at the Gummidge household. Oh and the Pope compared atheists to the Nazis. In short the whole thing has been pretty depressing reading. I won't repeat verbatim any of the specific charges levelled at the "militant atheists" and "anti Christian bigots", but let us look at some of the general charges condensed down here:

THE COST OF THE VISIT.
The total cost of the papal visit is estimated in the range of £12 million. There have been concerns about the Pope being treated as a head of state for his trip, and that the Vatican doesn't behave like one. It is immune from UN human rights charters for one instance. That was the point in the letter signed by 50 people, including Richard Dawkins; Stephen Fry; Johann Hari etc. They agreed that they didn't want the pope banned,(undemocratic) but could the Vatican have stumped up some of the cash. (they're hardly having to patch their boots up are they?) It's a legitimate question and was not asked in a particularly rude manner. In fact it is hard to see why the Mail accused Stephen Fry of being "shrill" (though I can see the context for that connotation.) I couldn't see him mouthing off incoherently in anything I saw him mentioning the visit. It's a free country. People have a right to ask whether their taxes are being spent [as they see it] fairly. Catholics do make up only 9% of the UK's population**

MILITANT ATHEISTS.
The militant atheist charge is as old as the hills. It would be much easier for the Church of Rome (and all the other faiths) if atheists were good atheists. That is they were of the "I don't believe, but do respect belief variety. Even now religious criticism is still considered a bit "bad mannered". Of course this leads to the secondary charge of militant atheists "picking on" Christians. In a way I feel that some Christians do see what is legitimate criticism about the veracity of their faith, and leeway their religion receives -as being picked on or persecution. No idea should be considered off limits for sceptical analysis in a free country. Indeed secular humanism and atheism itself are subject to some of the most unpleasant abuse from critics of these. The pope himself said that an atheistic world view leads to the fricking Nazis, who tried to erase God, which they didn't. That secular values will lead to anarchy as religion and morality are intertwined. He has a right to say that of course. I mean what else is he going to say about secularism and atheism, which are the two single most threats to a faith based system. It is no wonder they rattle the devout so much. As I said free speech means that they should be allowed to voice their concerns. It is a stretch to say that the "militant atheists" had that much of an affect on the whole thing. Dawkins gave a speech. No citizens arrest was made. The red tops barely mentioned the protests at all. The BBC of course covered all sides (and got flack off the conservatives in the press for doing so.) and certainly did not privilege the "Catholic haters" over the Pope. In fact the "New Atheist" movement as a whole isn't as widely known as the religious would imply, how much influence they have outside the dining rooms of the Guardianistas is unknown. The atheist bus thing smacked of trying a bit too hard. And has anyone ever seen someone wearing those atheist T-shirts on the Richard Dawkins site, cause I never have!

I also got a bit fed up hearing right wing pundits banging on about how liberals /the left / cultural Marxists or whatever were out of line or "sneery" at the Pope. I mean how else where they going to think about him. He's called gay marriage a "great evil", all the stuff about contraceptives and AIDS in Africa. His unfettered conservatism, to name a few. They are going to be a bit pissed off with him. There would be something wrong if they weren't. It is no good moaning about people moaning about someone with controversial views. Yeah they are going to want to counter them. It is .... free speech remember. (I'm not supporting spouting a load of straw men and crude abuse passed of as "debate." If you want to fully embrace the spirit of free speech be prepared to stick some really good points in there.)

THE POPES ROLE IN THE CHILD ABUSE.
This is really the smoking gun. The ecclesiastical elephant in the room. Probably the main point of contention for both the secular humanists and the greater public at large, vis a vis the popes visit. The child abuse scandals of the Church of Rome are disgraceful., and the response from the Vatican is as well. I think it is hard to exonerate Ratzinger of any wrong doing in the whole affair. He held the head position of the title of the dodgy sounding "Congregation of the Doctrine Faith." which meant he was the head honcho for implementing Catholic law throughout the church, and was thus put into the orbit of the crisis. We have heard that he was warned of pedarest priests and resorted to censuring them, or subjecting them to ecclesiastical (not criminal) hearings (see post here.), and in 2001, writing letters to every bishop saying that on no accounts should they go outside the church to deal with this (he called this communications blackout "the goods of the church" in 1985.). It is not hard to conclude that because of who he is, he has evaded any criminal scrutiny for the role in abetting the cover up of child abuse, and putting the doctrines and pomp of the church before the welfare of living; feeling children. I really cannot say that I know of anyone else in a Western democracy who could have evaded any form of criminal investigation as easily as the Pope. I don't consider it impertinent of the likes of say - Johann Hari of the Indy, to question the legality of the Popes actions. As it happens another (now former) high ranking member of an organisation that has been heavily involved in the case around the abuse and death of a youngster; Peter Connely or baby P, has been reported in the papers, running concurrent with the Popes visit. Sharon Shoesmith the former director of Harringey children's services has been testifying before an education select committee, defending her role in the whole tragic affair. It is interesting to highlight the very hostile press she receives from the Sun newspaper in comparison to the generally favourable coverage the same paper gave to the Pope.

As for myself. I don't think the protests against his visit were out of line, and even if I did, as I said before it is a country with free speech so it would be tough if i did think so. The Pope should really hand over all the documents the church has on the abuse over to the police, should tell the practitioners of Catholicism in Sub Saharan Africa that God came to him in a dream and told him that condoms were OK with him. But I'm guessing neither will actually happen. Nor did I think that David Cameron would have stopped the visit, or that a citizens arrest would occur. I don't believe that; apart from practicing Catholics of course -most people were that interested. I think a load of kids and nuns were bussed around to bolster numbers though. His embrace of the Archbish of Canterbury was quite nice though. Showing that even religious divides can be bridged with time. I actually don't think Ratzinger is all that popular anyway in the UK. Certainly less so than his predecessor The reader comments in the papers are much less positive than the editorials. There is quite a lot of contempt for the way the church has carried on, and some of Ratzingers views on contraception and homosexuality. He is largely seen as an archaic figure in an archaic institution. A bit like Christianity in general in this country.

**And another thing. The Tax Payers Alliance who get about five bajillian huffy soundbites in the press every time something a bit left wing gets even a few quid of tax payers money, were mysteriously silent about the 12 million of tax their "allies" forked out for a minority faith. I'm sure they just forgot or something. But I bet they would have somehow remembered if another religion had received that much for a visit to the UK.

There's Persecution, and there's PERSECUTION Dr Carey.,

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.