On a few occasions I have commented on LP contrasting Pope Benedict’s strong engagement with the issue of global warming with the statements of George Pell and others on the Catholic Right in Australia.
Yesterday I attempt to do the same thing via the Sydney Morning Herald letters column in response to Gerard Henderson’s defence of Pell’s intervention in the stem cell debate. I specifically pointed out that Pell and other Catholic conservatives were running a line on global warming which seems to be all about political solidarity with their denialist co-thinkers of other faiths (or none), and out of step with the current Pope’s position.
My letter was not published in today’s SMH, but other letters were, letters which could be construed as condemning the Catholic Church per se rather than particular individuals who were out of step with the Pope.
I have since googled the search terms “global warming” “Pope Benedict” on both the Net overall, and Australian sites specifically. What is striking is that the Pope’s engagement with global warming has been picked up by left-liberal MSM outlets overseas such as the UK Guardian, but not by the Australian MSM. What reporting there has been in Australia seems to be confined to progressive Catholic sites.
Of course it’s not hard to think of reasons why the Murdoch press would not want to draw attention to the current Pope’s position on global warming. What does warrant thinking about is why the Fairfax press and the ABC haven’t run with the issue – especially considering that ABC News Radio did find time this morning to run a facetious report about a Vatican edict to motorists regarding safe driving behaviour, picking up on calls in the document for Catholics to pray while driving and cross themselves before starting the car.
I view the Pope’s engagement with global warming as very important and very good news which could help to bring an important constituency into play and which provides further evidence (if any was needed) of the marginality and extremism of the denialists. So why is the left-liberal MSM in Australia not reporting it?
My hunch is that what could be at work (though probably not in an organised or even very conscious way) is a tendency in Australian left-lof-centre media circles to report and comment on Catholicism and Catholics in line with an essentialist discourse that portrays Catholicism per se as inherently ridiculous and reactionary. The current Pope’s position on global warming is seriously disruptive of this discourse.
Of course Catholicism is not the worst-done-by religion or denomination in this respect. There is the far louder, nastier and more powerful parleying, by the right-of-centre MSM and bloggers, of bad behaviour and stupid statements by individual Muslims into a grand narrative of Islam per se as the biggest threat to our lives and freedom since the Dark Lord of Mordor.
The other side of this coin is that some other religions get off very lightly by comparison. Can anyone recall a single voice in the MSM (left or right) picking up on e.g. extreme behaviour by ultra-orthodox Jewish settlers on the West Bank, or quaint but oppressive practices by obscurantist Buddhist priests in Tibet, and working it into a negative stereotyping of Judaism per se or Buddhism per se? I can’t.
Am I onto something? And if I am, what is behind it? What do you think?
I am a lapsed Catholic, however I have noticed a certain bias towards reporting of Catholic issues in Australia.
The Vatican mentions lots of things about rights of refugees, indigenous people, global warming etc and there is no mention. Anything about sex or surrogate pregnancies then it gets plenty of coverage.
It is an interesting contrast that you have noted between Pope Benedict’s stance and that of Cardinal Pell with reference to global warming and environmental problems.
It is perhaps worth noting that there are other voices in the Christian traditions who have taken strong stances on recognizing the problems associated with diminishing natural resources, global warming etc. For example the Ecumenical Patriarch Barthlomew I of Constantinople (Orthodox Eastern churches) is nicknamed the “Green Patriarch” for his various writings about the environmental and for his close connections with various seminars on the environment (e.g. in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2003) see the BBC Report from 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2040567.stm.
In the USA there is also among theologically conservative Protestants an Evangelical Environmental Network. The US PBS network profiled the spectrum of evangelical attitudes in January 2006 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week920/cover.html. The Evangelical Environmental Network has its own manifesto on the web http://www.creationcare.org/
In light of the Orthodox Patriarch’s activities and the position taken by some US Protestant evangelicals, the position of Cardinal Pell appears to be painfully obscurantist.
Didn’t Uncy Rupert recently say that he was on-board the anti-warming express, however?
It would be interesting to see if there’s been any significant editorial changes across the group as a result of his public comments.
There are two very relevant differences here that might partly explain the difference.
First is that, unlike Judaism or Islam, Catholicism is run by one centralized manager who claims to speak for all Catholics; when Pell speaks he is generally assumed to have the backing of the Vatican behind what he says. By contrast, nutball rabbis on the west bank have no claim to speak for Judaism in general.
The second is that, the “extreme behaviour by ultra-orthodox Jewish settlers on the West Bank, or quaint but oppressive practices by obscurantist Buddhist priests in Tibet” are going on in, well, the West Bank and Tibet – neither of which are in Australia, nor even close to it. By contrast, George Pell’s dabbling in Australian politics are something which directly concerns Australians.
On my part this is organised and conscious. Religion IS monumentally silly and stupid and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. As far as I’m concerned it should have no part to play in modern life and should be ignored.
The Vaticans edicts on climate change or motoring links that silliness to serious issues of science and public policy, especially given their history on that front. They are not serious people.
It would be an understatement to observe that the Catholic Church and the political left have been at loggerheads since before the French Revolution.
The Index and the long counter-revolution of Pio Nono may have much to do with this conflictual relationship.
And it is undoubted that at different times both sides have taken their turn at being the aggressor.
Much of the rhetoric of this conflict is reflexive, indicative of the very different priorities and ambitions of the Church and the Left.
So Benedict XVI is worried about global warming…
Why?
Does Benedict hope for world without end? If he does, then he contradicts Christian teleology. The Left tend to deny that there will be any divine intervention in the abbreviation of this planet.
Does Benedict believe that man is usurping God’s function in abbreviating the tenure of viable life on this planet? Then the Left can associate with the sentiments, though not the ambitions, of the Pope.
Do the Christian fundo chilliasts scare the bejesus out of Benedict? Well, this Leftie believes he has everhy right to be horrified by them and their apocalyptic, rapturous ways.
I don’t know, but in his writing he’s very very sceptical about apocalyptic thinking, and cautions against it very strongly. His Doctoral thesis was on the original utopian eschatologist, Joachim of Fiore.
On Phil’s point, you can of course choose not to take the Vatican seriously, but the Catholic Church’s billion strong flock and its political and moral influence make it an institution that has an impact.
I notice that, for good measure, Henderson gets a kick into Richard Dawkins as well calling him – using the voice of Margaret Somerville – a “fundamentalist athiest”.
As if such a thing even exists. A bit like Pell’s God I guess.
On the other hand, Mark, it has been found that the opinions of Catholics on most issues reflect their social contexts rather than the official positions put forward by the church. I’d love to give you a link to support that, of course. Maybe someone could help me: I think it was a study done fairly recently?
Or perhaps to say the same thing another way, political strategies which depend on converting the world’s 1 billion Catholics to atheism, like those which depend on converting the world’s 1 billion Muslims to Christianity, are likely to have less success than ones which entail seeking their support on terms compatible with their current faith.
Yes, I think that is sound reasoning, Paul. When you compare the two in that way, it’s hard to imagine some of these Islamophobic positions being tenable at all.
For me atheism is still a belief in the last instance. It is certainly not a free pass out of belief and into knowledge.
I know plenty of Catholics who do more to achieve political changes that I would support – particularly around refugee issues – then I ever will myself.
I think the characterisation of Dawkins as a fundamentalist atheist is apt. He’s as strident, blinkered and dogmatic as any ayatollah.
Adam,
I would agree. Some of the most militant believers in history (as measured by the number of resulting deaths) have been those following an Atheistic creed. To say this is not a belief position, even if it is to believe in non-belief is simply not credible.
Yes, certainly Andrew, but my point is epistemological as much as historical.
This is a false dichotomy.
Certainly some of the greatest mass murderers happened to be atheists. They murdered many people, only a minority of whom were murdered because of their religious beliefs. More common as motives for murder were class identity, racial identity, ethnic identity.
Contrarywise, even though religious believers have often been enthusiastic murderers themselves, most of their victims were persons who believed in the wrong gods, or were deemed to have worshipped the right gods in the wrong way. Atheists have been rather low on the death counts because historically there have always been rather few atheists and/or religious folk have usually placed a higher priority on murdering religious believers.
See, the historical framing of the question leads away from the basic argument I’m making, which is that atheists can’t assume that they have escaped from that human activity that we call belief. That is the false dichotomy that I’m interested: belief vs knowledge.
Steve,
What’s your evidence for your claim that Dawkins is a fundamentalist?
This should be good.
I’d defend the claim that Dawkins often mirrors fundamentalists in his mode of argument and unresponsiveness to other views, and in fact I have before:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/12/15/delusional-gods/
Please note, I won’t be defending it tonight, as I said most of what I had to say in that post and thread, and I think it’s somewhat off topic for this thread as well.
To ascertain the sincerity of the pontiff’s pronouncements on global warming, we’d need to take a peek into the Vatican’s share portfolio. Recent trades in Big Carbon & Allied, that sort of thing. If Vatican Fund Managers recently sold of a motza of Exxon and RD Shell, then re-invested the profits, in say, solar-power stock or suchlike, then Papa Ben has cred on this issue. Otherwise, I read it as the usual “relevance” palaver.
The failure in Oz of the MSM to address Papa Ben’s new position is most curious, GW being such a hot topic. Pell might have The Mad Monk and the Uglies on a leash, but he doesn’t command the secularist majority of MSM journos. Paul, is it pride alone that renders them silent? The Mystery of Talking in Silent Tongues, perhaps.
Pell is haemorrhaging market share to the Hillsong Hootenanny Hodowners , who are less reserved in their public worship and who put on a Real Show for their money. Son et lumiere; sanctification and ka-ching(all major cards accepted). Most of these good folk believe that GW is OK because it cranks up the Rapture Index , http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html , the prophetic speedometer of end time activity. The higher the index, the closer they reckon they are to achieving their collective terrestrial exit strategy.
Maybe Big George needs the fundies on-side, or certainly not off-side, for the Big Pray Out (junior rock-chopper jamboree) in Sydney later this year. Spiritual demarcation disputes can be rather unseemly when the world’s media are on hand, so Cardinal Pell’s fundamentalist, anti-scientific stance on global warming could be viewed as a pragmatic one.
And not an Aussie Giordano Bruno to be heard above the bells of St. Marys.
Btw, in an attempt to censor The Mavis Bramston Show( 60s TV satire), a former archbishop of Sydney called Muldoon, threatened to sell his shares in “Australian Owned” Oil Company, AMPOL, because it advertised on the programme. Seems that The Sacrament of Extreme Unctuousness works in mysterious ways when administered by what Antony Beevor refers to as ,
“Their Most Catholic Majesties�,
those liturgical frocksters who have been historically so adept at greasing their way around the top ends of towns.
For the good of Holy Mother Church, naturellement.
Well, I fail to see, EC, why Pope Benedict isn’t thought to be capable of having opinions formed by conviction. That strikes me as an overly cynical view.
“That strikes me as an overly cynical view.”
You got me in one, Mark.
Altar boys never forget.
That must be why he’s called for Salman Rushdie to be killed – oh wait.
It would be better if the people who can’t argue honestly with Dawkins would at least not stoop to ad-hominem.
Yeah, Pope Joe deserves the benefit of the doubt, Mark, and may be indeed capable of having strong opinions formed by conviction. Indeed, he is an absolute truth man, none of your relativistic rubbish, thank you very much.
Furthermore, he might be at the same time and simultaneously a hard-nosed political player and we may not be privy to what his opinion regarding global warming may be. We just don’t know Mark. So he can have an opinion formed by strong conviction and what EC said.
EC, Pope Joe is on the case with regard to the Southern Baptist fundies and feels that the Rome-based franchise could do with (1) a return to fundamental Christian values, (2) the power of prayer (3) there’s been too much of activism among Catholic do-gooders* which leads to growing secularism of Christians engaged in charitable work at the coalface of misery. Gee, reality.
_______________________
*like that most wonderful of human beings, Father Brian Gore, currently the regional director of the Missionary Society of Saint Columban in the Philippines.
Mark,
Just clicked over to the other thread. It turns out you don’t provide evidence that Dawkins is a fundamentalist; worse, you barely engage with his arguments at all.
In point of fact, demonizing (!) atheists most certainly is ontopic for this thread. You complain that the left-of-centre media treat “Catholicism per se as inherently ridiculous and reactionary”, yet you are more than willing to tar Dawkins with the epithet “atheist fundamentalist” (as if the term even means anything) without a shred of evidence.
With respect, Matthew 7:5.
Ken, I don’t see why it’s so shocking that someone might have more than one motive, even the Pope. It’s human, all too human.
sjk, like I said, I don’t want to participate in another debate about Dawkins at this time but my post is to be understood as a gloss on Terry Eagleton’s review. Here’s a direct link:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/print/eagl01_.html
Eagleton, among other things, argues that Dawkins tars a lot of people with offensive brushes without a shred of evidence.
I echo the be fair about Benedict line,no purpose in relegating Catholicism to the garbage bin whilst they have observed the nature of nappy design changes.Whatever intelligence the Pope brings to the problem of earthly existence displayed in a care of the natural world,we can take it for granted,it is a honest statement,by someone who is making these statements out of good intentions. And Catholicism is business sometimes ,and well,next time you care about the natural world,the leader of a religion or cult of virgin births,is displaying an accessible thinking process,that is hardly mired by all the non-ecological matters of Catholicism..it will be The Church coming to terms with its endless contradictions…and if they do a good job…. butt out!? There is little point in doing other than that,today,across the world Catholics like all of humanity have to deal with all sorts of issues,that the individual didnt ask for,nor knows where it will end.
Well, there seemed to be some doctrinal confusion in respect of those things appearing mutually exclusive. I am very gratified that this has now been cleared up.
Next: mixed metaphors.
But before we read on The Guardian article, first, a word from our sponsor, http://www.shell.com/dialogues
(Shell Dialogues is a new initiative to enable Shell, its stakeholders and the general public to explore the key issues facing energy suppliers and consumers today – and tomorrow. Shell works with media organisations around the world to produce events, articles and broadcasts that enable us to debate important issues with our key stakeholders.)
So, I was wondering what Shell oil was doing sponsoring The Graudian online page with the article on the Pope and his green(ish) credentials. Was this how Shell “works” with the media.. to enable us debate important issues?
I mean, does Shell Oil have more than one motive?
“On May 14, date of the annual shareholder meeting of Shell Oil in London, protests against the company for human rights and environmental abuses took place outside the meeting and around the world. A resolution sponsored by the Pensions and Investment Research Consultants and the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility won 41 million of the total 357 million shares (more than 10%). Demonstrations took place in a number of cities in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere.”
Or is it because, like the aforementioned lapsed altarboys, some people will never forget:
“On November 10, 1995, Nigerian poet and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and nine co-defendants were hanged by General Abacha, the dictator of Nigeria, despite international pleas for clemency. Ken Saro-Wiwa’s crime was fighting against the exploitation of the Ogoni people and the destruction of their land by oil companies, including Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, and especially Shell.
“Ogoniland, the center of oil production in Nigeria, has suffered deteriorating social and environmental conditions, in great part because it is a center of the country’s oil production, generating 80% of government revenues in Nigeria.
“Shell Oil controls most of the country’s resources, having extracted an estimated $30 billion worth of oil from Ogoniland since 1958. Shell has never used its considerable influence either to moderate the anti-democratic actions of General Abacha and previous authoritarian governments, or to help the Ogoni People and Ken Saro-Wiwa, from whose homeland, Ogoniland, Shell Oil has reaped enormous profits over the past 37 years.
“Since Ken Saro-Wiwa’s execution, Shell has announced plans to build a liquefied natural gas pipeline from the Niger Delta on Nigeria’s coast through Ogoniland. The Niger Delta is home to coastal rain forest, mangrove habitats, and wetlands. It has been identified by the United Nations as the most endangered river delta in the world, the result of nearly four decades of oil exploitation. From 1982 to 1992 alone, more than 6.4 million liters of oil were spilled in Nigeria, an amount more than 40% higher than that released by the Exxon Valdez.”
– thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/ShellNigeria_boycott.html
I still reckon I should have been elected Pope. A lot of youse weren’t around LP when we ran the campaign. I blame you!
Ken Scott,
I have decided on this occasion to apply a liberal reading of the comments policy and let through your comment regarding Shell which had been in the moderation queue. Having done so I should advise you and others that, in my opinion and that of other sound judges, much of the comment was off-topic and it would be appreciated if future comments were more clearly pertinent to the thread topic.
My Dear Mr Norton,
Irrespective of the sniffy tone of your response, my comment was very much on topic, which was the Vatican’s views on environment and the concomitant response of media outlets, specifically newspapers.
I have therefore taken the trouble to draw the attention of the readers to the opportunism of The Guardian, which published the Vatican’s latest views on global warming “Man must cultivate and safeguard God’s Creation,” but also by running prominently, in the middle of the piece, an advertisment from Shell – a company that is an egregious polluter and has justly been criticised and threatened with boycotts for its behaviour, especially in Nigeria. The advertisement embedded in the article linked to Shell’s site that was a crude public relations exercise to ameliorate the perception that Shell would do anything to enhance its profits, even encouraging murder of activists against its polluting practices.
One of the reasons why I give my considerable time to read and post on the site is because it gives its bit of cyberspace to progressive viewpoints. Therefore I was a bit dismayed by your fingerwagging, which tends to suggest that you do not tolerate perceived dissent or noncoformity.
Incidentally – and this dead-on topic thread – The Guardian article seems to suggest that the Vatican issued its statement after a bit of prior encouragement for the Holy See’s dragging its feet on climate issues.
Ken, without wanting to further distract from the topic, please do not imply that not being allowed to change the topic of a thread has anything to do with not tolerating dissent. It’s about trying to allow a discussion to flow.
If you have an issue with this, I’m happy to discuss it by email, which you can find in the contact page. Meanwhile, stick to the topic at hand, or go to Saturday Salon if you want to start a different discussion.
On the contrary, we welcome dissent and nonconformity, but we do like it to be relevant to the topic being discussed.
Am I onto something? Yes, Mark, you clearly are: I suggest a proper post-modernist second reading of your piece is in order. A search for those who are excluded – and hence rendered powerless in your narrative – might be an aluminating exercise.
By-the-by, Dawkins may tar a lot of people, but never without evidence.
Something, sadly, that cannot be said for you or Eagleton.
sjk, I do believe there’s another thread on which you can continue the discussion with Mark about Dawkins. Also your most recent comment seems a little bit less good-tempered and a little bit more personal than I’d prefer on a thread which I’m moderating.
sjk (and anyone else)
Please go here if you want to discuss atheism, Dawkins or similar subjects.
global warming is becoming such a obvious problem that someone somewhere other than Al Gore needs to step up to help drive the bus!