It’s no secret that “the sectarian strand” is one of the less attractive aspects of Australian history, and interestingly, probably not one featured highly either in the so-called “black armband” or triumphalist narratives so beloved of our home grown Antipodean culture warriors. That may be because the deep cleavages – overlapping but not identical to class and ethnicity – around Catholicism and Protestantism needed to be elided and to be buried in order to construct the “Anglo-Celtic” identity which came into its own at the same time that the state aid controversy was settled into its grave and multiculturalism launched on its career. And not coincidentally. “Anglos” and “Celts” were on different sides of the political and cultural coin in the Great Southern Land of the Holy Spirit for most of its whitefella history. In a way, Gough Whitlam is probably the progenitor of the “mainstream” Anglo-Celtic Australian. But sectarianism typically rears its head as a defensive accusation whenever the Catholic Church is particularly prominent in public debate, and whenever criticism is directed at the Church’s institutional power.
In the context of World Youth Day in Sydney this week, this accusation has been levelled both with regard to criticism of the extraordinary powers granted to police by Greg Craven and with regard to the ABC’s highlighting of Cardinal George Pell’s ethically very questionable handling of clergy sexual abuse complaints by Andrew Bolt. More broadly, the media sponsors of World Youth Day at News Limited have worked themselves into a lather of holy righteousness, denouncing “aggressive secularism” and lauding all the Popey goodness they’re sponsoring – without disclosing that sponsorship in their journalistic or opinion pieces.
It may well be that a residue of sectarian anti-Catholicism might be in play on the margins of all this, but one of the big ironies is that while Tony Abbott and others speculated that Pope Benedict’s message might not be communicated effectively, the Pope himself has seemingly become a football to be kicked around by the usual suspects in distinctly Australian culture wars which often have only a tenuous connection with his concerns. But are there not genuine issues – of public interest – that can and should be raised at a time when Catholicism is top of the pops in the media stakes?
The question obviously is a rhetorical one. I believe – and this list isn’t exhaustive – that the following concerns are legitimate ones and can be raised free of any taint of sectarianism:
(1) The fact that the Catholic Church in its institutional structures conceals a profound and all-encompassing misogyny and homophobia, and a hierarchical culture which is deeply antithetical to participation, free speech, civil rights and all the other panoply of values which found liberal democracies;
(2) The appalling hypocrisy of celibate blokes in frocks pronouncing on “life issues” and “justice” at the same time as lives are destroyed and justice overturned in relation to survivors of sexual abuse, among others;
(3) The shadow of the Church’s political power which masks a continuing distaste for any genuinely secular and democratic decision making on issues of “conscience” while that self-same Church denies its own adherents any recourse to their own consciences and expects absolute obedience;
(4) The intrusion of religious power into the public domain, exemplified by special laws and special privileges for a “special event”.
Still less should concerns about the monopolisation of public space by a “special event” and the enormous government subsidies given to the Church be out of bounds.
None of this, of course, is to deny the good faith and the good intentions of many involved in both planning and celebrating World Youth Day. But there should be no question of resiling from asking legitimate questions about the power of the Catholic hierarchy at this time. Nothing less should be expected of a robust democracy.
Nice post Kim.
In addition to your list of legitimate topics for discussion re WYD there is the following, more fundamental question:
Why should any belief system deemed to be “mainstream” be given a free pass from critical, logical, textual scrutiny, simply because it is deemed to be “mainstream”?
Catholicism makes some huge claims about its intimate relationship with godhead. These claims are problematical to say the least. And these claims are strongly disputed by denominations that claim to worship the same godhead. These religions and denominations make mutually exclusive claims to “truth”.
Surely, this sectarian struggle for predominance is a legitimate topic for comment, whether one is a devotee of one or another of those theological viewpoints, or whether one is inclined to conclude that they all share a fair slice of obscurantist irrationality and error.
“Is criticism of World Youth Day automatically Catholic bashing?”
Anyone who thinks so should google “glasgow celtics”, song, pope.
Then they will see what real, nasty, bigoted, Catholic bashing is.
that should of course be “glasgow rangers”
Don’t know if this has anything to do with Henderson and his column in the SMH about the conspiracy to bash the pope et al by all those nasty secularists,I some time wonder if hes on the same planet as me.
Its all the ABC the SMH/Age and the usual Henderson suspects,he to me is a very humourless man,I would hate to live in an Australia run by Mr Henderson,it would be possibly the most boring place on the planet,no sorry Thats Perth. I,m a lapsed Catholic and if Henderson thinks the Church is above criticism he must be thinking of a different Church to the one I knew,or is just nostalgic for the days when every one knew there place.
Morgaine said in The Mists of Avalon “I have no quarrel with the Christ, only with His priests.” And with the reported disagreements between the Pope and George Pell on global warming, I have one less quarrel with one of his priests.
Speaking seriously on the topic of the thread, I think there is a good argument that there is perhaps less that is specifically Catholic or Christian than generally and ecumenically authoritarian, reactionary and anti-rational about the authoritarian conservatism on issues like sexuality and reproductive rights, and the anti-rationality on issues like climate change, of clergy like Pell and those he protects, and lay Catholics like Abbott, the Devines, the National Civic Council and its front groups, and many in the NSW Labor government and indeed in both major parties all over Australia. On these issues such people have much more in common with Protestant reactionaries like Howard and the conservative wing of Anglicanism, Jewish reactionaries like some of the US neo-cons, Islamic reactionaries like Sheik Al-Hilaly, and secular reactionaries like Michael Costa, than with many of their fellow Catholics. Also, those of us with memories which extend beyond September 11 2001 will remember an anti-feminist diatribe by Angela Shanahan which fantasised about the potential role of devout young Islamic women as a cultural bulwark against secular feminism, and the alliances between conservative Catholic and conservative Islamist forces at UN Conferences in the 1990s to oppose measures to promote women’s reproductive rights.
The question this raises is whether this really is an intrusion of religious power, or a misuse of secular state power by authoritarian conservative Catholic lay politicians pursuing an agenda which isn’t necessarily that of the Church, or generally approved of by Catholics.
As an ex-Catholic I still have a seep affection for the Catholic Church, despite the fact that I’m now an atheist. So perhaps you might say I’m still unduly sensitive to unmerited criticism of Catholicism.But I have to say the current criticism of the nuisance laws, of Cardinal Pell’s role in the Jones controversy, ot Catholic teachings related to marriage and sexual conduct hasn’t rung any alarm bells for me.And the idea that the Church is beyond criticism is nonsense. Trying telling that to the devout Catholics who taught me Medieval history at uni. In fact, try telling it to Francis of Assissi. It seems to me, in the case of Bolt, anyway, he is totally unaware of the Church’s adaptive stance toward some of the criticisms made against it over the ages. Not all – they didn’t look kindly on the Albigensians, Protestantism, secular humanism, atheistic Communism (and note the qualification) or for that matter, democracy. It took them centuries to apologise to Galileo, etc. Their present stand on priestly celibacy, homosexuality, contraception and so on is not likely to change, but then again, it only affects very devout Catholics.
Whatever protests are currently being made about WYD, it isn’t of the tenor of 18/19 Century Anti-Catholicism or of 19/early 20th century sectarianism in Australia.
What protests might be happening they’re not exactly at the level of the 1780 Gordon Riots. (cf. Dickens’ Barnaby Rudge.)
And btw, Catholics are brought up to expect this kind of anti-Catholic stuff. Theres a whole branch of study that’s evolved to deal with it called Apologetics. So when it happens its a bit like water off a duck’s back.
Kim, do you really reckon that the temporary “monopolisation” of public space is a proper issue? I mean, in Sydney they have the mardi gras which shuts off streets, prevents non-participants using certain public amenities, takes up police/council worker time which is presumably not paid for, and generally causes inconvenience, etc. These are not bad things, by the way, just necessary by-products of a legitimate event. And protests routinely take over public streets and squares. This is not considered violent action, or otherwise a real detriment to the public. WYD is the same, just on a far greater scale.
Despite hating Catholicism, and any other juvenile system of ignorance and superstition (whether Christian, Buddhist, Aboriginal, etc.), I must admit to being a secret fan of WYD, at least when it occurs on Australian soil. Tens of thousands of people, many reasonably well-off Europeans, turn up, dump their cash in our hotels, shops, brothels and bars, then rack off back from whence they came. Not a bad deal, I’d suggest.
BBB
“reasonably well-off Europeans” = none of these darkies, BBB?
And what about Critical Mass? Why don’t they get the free pass that WYD is getting? They have a larger message as well, it’s not just about having a fun ride.
The Catholic Church should and must be criticised. Believe you me as someone who grew up in the opperssive political environment of the Christian Democrats in Italy I know what it means living under the political influence of the Church.
However I am quite surprised at the vehmence of some of the criticism for this event. I think Greg Craven has some good points regarding why the protesters are so determined to paste the deficiencies of these ‘anti-annoying laws on to Catholics and Catholicism itself, especially if, as Craven states, Catholic organisers had no part in pushing for these laws. But obviously the combination of the Pope in Australia and the introduction of these over the top laws have pushed buttons.
With this trip the Pope becomes a lightning rod for grievances (which are legitimate in themselves) about homophobia, sexual abuse etc. But what still gets me is why people get so upset about the church’s position on things.
Maybe is because I did live under a sucecssion of governments which were heavily influenced by the conservatism of the Catholic Church in the 60’s (now much less thanks God) that I find the argument of the possible influence of the Catholic Church in Australia a bit overstated. So the Church ‘misogynist and homophobic’, and has a hierarchical culture which is deeply antithetical to participation, free speech, civil rights and all the other panoply of values which found liberal democracies? True, but should this bother anyone who is not deeply attached or care about the Catholic Church? I care about that as much as I care about the structure of the Masonic Lodge.
‘The appalling hypocrisy of celibate blokes in frocks pronouncing on “life issues” and “justice” at the same time as lives are destroyed and justice overturned in relation to survivors of sexual abuse, among others’ is true again. And lots of people know this, and lots of people (including lots of Catholics) ignore them. But at this point I also would like to consider some prespective. Not all Some Catholics priests are hypocrits and worse, but many are not. As I also said in one of my posts painting the Catholic Church as an evil empire, as some commentators seems to do, is just wrong. There is also lots of good that comes out of the Catholic Church. From Bishop Carlos Belo protesting in sermons against the brutalities of the Indonesian regime or by providing sanctuary in his own home to youths escaping the Santa Cruz massacre. To Melbourne’s priest Father Bob where he looks after intellectually disabled people, single mothers and people affected by substance abuse.
The point of the ’shadow of the Church’s political power’ is an important one. I got extremely annoyed when the Howard government had to kowtow to Senator Harradine to get their GST through the Senate. But I do wonder how much the power of the Church is that shadowy to be honest. If someone like Abbott or whoever view policy through a Catholic prespective that has to be accepted, as long as we know that he is following those beliefs. Politicians all come from a set of beliefs. I remember that Carmen Lawrence, who was the only one that stood up for refugees in the ALP when they meekly and shamefully went along with Howard’s xenophobic actions with the Tampa, stated in an interview with Geralidine Doogue that her moral compass came from the nuns that educated her.
And I don’t see why a Catholic influence should be more shadowy than any other religion, or any other secular belief such as economic rationalism or socialism.
And finally in regards about the intrusion of religious power into the public domain, exemplified by special laws and special privileges for a “special event”, it all depends whether this was specifically asked by the organisers of the WYD or whether, as I suspect was the case, it was the over reaction of a State government in its morubund state that wanted to avoid any embarassment. We have seen with APEC that this sort of over the top restrictions are not restricted to the Pope.
As I said at the start. The Catholic Church, as all institutions has to be criticised and probed. However I still am surprised by all the vehemence of criticism levelled at it by non-Catholics, or those who would not care about the Church anyway. I also think that the level of potential influence over the Australian political landscape is over rated, and no different from other influences. And I also think that a sense of prespective is needed where the Church is not the embodiment of evil. It has done lots of bad things over its 2000 year existence (torture, inquisitions, crusades) but also lots of good stuff (especially at the grassroot level)
Helen, well-off Europeans are more likely to spend money on wine, women and song. More so than, say, poor Europeans (both presumably referred to as “non-darkies” in Helen-speak, historical Anglo-Celtic hostility towards Southern Italians notwithstanding). Anyway, you might have sensed a degree of relish in my use of the phrase “rack off back from whence they came”. I was thinking mainly of intolerable Italian, Spanish and German Catholics (sorry, “non-darkies”), but yes I suppose I should have been thinking more generically. Intolerable Nigerian Catholics can therefore piss off too. The few sensible ones, whether in darkie or non-darkie form, can of course stay and chat.
As for Critical Mass, I’m not sure who they are, but I wouldn’t have a problem with them arranging some event that temporarily takes over public space, although the laws of physics will usually intervene to prevent them from occupying the same space at the same time as other groups (for example, WYD kids). Perhaps your query is better directed to the relevant nameless faceless NSW bureaucrat?
BBB
Helen – given that Critical Mass time their rides for peak hour traffic, the traffic jams which result are the intent rather than the side effect. There are bike rides which promote cycling but held on weekends which do have the support of government which includes partial road closures for safety reasons.
Paul Burns suggested: “In fact, try telling it to Francis of Assissi.”
I tried, Paul. God knows, I tried. But the blighter wouldn’t reply. He ignored me. Was he the bloke with the animals and birds? Maybe I should’ve barked or miaowed….. or tweeted
Yeah, who voted for you Pell? Several farcical aquatic ceremonies on and we’re having to endure ill-informed Archbiscopal gasbagging on global warming?
Render unto Caesar, Georgie boy.
Maybe stirring up sectarian sentiment is the whole point.
Tribalism fills football stadiums, maybe it’s what is need to fill up those empty pews.
Sure, it was easy back in the day when apart from a smattering of kooris and jews the catholics were the only mob in town to pick on, but then came the wogs, and the lebs, then the vietnamese and chinese and indians with their eastern orthodoxy and islam and hinduism and buddhism and whatnot. It’s much harder to get shunted into a box when all you have going for you is a differing view of the Madonna and queer views on transubstatiation.
How is the catholic church going to compete for the eye of the sophisticated modern bigot?
As soon as you paralyze the city, the slings and arrows should start raining in, then you can jump up your barracades and bring in all your lost children behind them, together again at last.
Pure genius.
Ah, Richard Green
Is that the explanation? George Pell is just out there and in our faces, taunting us with his views, is he? I mean, he didn’t start up just ‘cos CWYD was imminent. Ask Melburnians. George has been at it for years. So you reckon they reckon they have to stir the Proddies and Atheists up, to garner more tribal loyalty?
So what of the bruised ex-altar-boys? Are they just a bit of live bait thrown out to the slavering journos? What of the frocks and scarlet robes: just to infuriate the black-is-the-new-black “bohemians”?
Jeepers, it’s a good think the Mahometans haven’t followed suit. Imagine if we had mullahs and sheiks uttering outrageous, mediaeval precepts on the slavery of wimminz, you might even get some young hotheads killing infidels.
* it’s a good thing *
mind you, nuthin’ wrong with a good think
Pro pope graffiti has appeared on the war memorial at Hyde Park.
“Ratzinger Rules” and “God bless you diggers” plus “Aussie Pommies Seppo’s all allies in deed.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world-youth-day/ratzinger-rules-daubed-on-memorial/2008/07/15/1215887587069.html
Pell’s cunning plan:
1. Move from Melbourne to Sydney.
2. Annoy the hell out of everyone, draw some fire, then convince a few of the angry to sign up to your particular brand of idiocy.
3. ???
4. Prophet!
BBB
Re Francis of Assisi – he was on the verge of heresy, but was eubsumed into Catholic orthodoxy by, I think a Pope Innocent something. He was an example of the Church’s ability to adapt to critics.
What a fascinatingly revealing brain-fart.
What is the world-view of dauber of platitudes?
Do these platitudes represent the world-wiew of a significant proportion of WYD participants?
Is God really the patron of UKUSA
“Do these platitudes represent the world-wiew of a significant proportion of WYD participants?”
There’s only one answer to that question, and that is another question:
Is the Pope a Catholic?
I’m not sure I’d consider that graffiti “pro-pope”.
Lefty E @ 14,
Fair go on old George Pell, there, mate.
It’s absolutely clear that what he’s suggesting is that we are in the Last Days. You know, world destroyed by fire (global warming), weeping and gnashing of teeth, mothers tearing children from theit breasts, children cursing their parents,etc. He just doesn’t want to be too clear about it, in case he scares the sh*t out of people.
Elsewhere, Jack Strocchi reckons the real problems are with all this secularism. Well, I can’t think of anything more neo liberal turning to neo con, than the Opus Dei type nonsense that encourages the spending thousands of middle-class dollars on air fares, etc to get to a kind of Ecclesiatical feel-good Woodstock or Nuremberg rally, when it clearly suggests in the New Testament Gospels that folk with spare do re mi of this sort use it instead to help the poor, widows etc.
Is it “secularism”; a healthy response to the heterogeny of the Middle Ages, that is at fault,or the inadequate response of the various religious brains trusts to that secularim, that is at fault?
In chasing the appearance of virtue , haven’t they forsaken its substance/essence?
A question framed by a Catholic apologist.
Kim must be doing something right to be getting hit from both sides.
Guido at 15 is mostly right I think, there is little point in being obsessed by religious belief. But it is annoying when airhead bureaucratic climbers like Pell claim exemption from any scrutiny of their wacky views on real world public policy. Pell is also nostalgic for a strand of catholic political action that helped pave the road for the Nazis: the old European Catholic right anti-enlightenment, anti-liberal, anti-capitalist (in a right wing sense)and anti-democratic.
Kim’s post was good, I thought. Blessings be upon you all. Go in peace.
Katz, you must suspect, as I do, that these absurd scrawlings are in fact the work of agent provocateurs. I mean “Ratzinger Rules!”? Come on!
BBB
Right. Pell gets to say that it’s impossible for aetheists to have a happy life, and somehow that’s not intolerant or disrespectful? Yet, questioning the Pope fest is.
I know Pell doesn’t repersent the beliefs of many Catholics, but he is a leader, so what he says just can’t be filed away as silly, unrepresentative old fart stuff.
Agree with BBB at #30, based in part on my own experience of having an article posted by Labor Right students on Brisbane Indymedia impersonating me and calling on people to dusrupt the Anzac Day Dawn Service.
And in news just in, the Federal Court has struck down the WYD regulations against “annoying” behaviour.
Good old Federal Court, eh?
But I’m not driving all the way to Sydney from cold, cloudy Victoria JUST to annoy someone. There are snowfalls and frosts to look after.
Thanks Paul,
these bits (from SMH website) I particularly liked:
The judges said that the interpretation of Clause 7.1 of the act, which allowed regulation of conduct deemed to be a cause of “annoyance”, was invalid because it “affects freedom of speech in a way that, in our opinion, is not supported by the statutory powers”.
There was “no intelligible boundary” on what “causes annouyance”.
The regulation relating to annoyance “could be expected to have a chilling effect upon the exercise of their freedom of speech because of the very uncertainty about the degree of its infringement upon that freedom,” they said.
Another part of the same clause, which dealt with causing “inconvenience”, had a more “objective content” and could draw on individual judgement.
It gave protection against disruptive behaviour, which caused inconvenience to participants, and behaviour that might give rise to a risk of public safety.
They added: “Over and above these provisions the general criminal laws of the State relating to disorderly and offensive conduct and the like are able to be invoked should that be necessary”.
cheers
The argument against the church’s teachings on condoms gays and women clergy is one you can have 365 days of the year. Wrld Youth Day is different this is State sponsored religion something specifically outlawed in our constitution.
The Micks can have an auto de fe in Martin Place, mock crucifixions along anzac parade, witch burning, witch dunking, a crusade to Auburn to regain the true cross, an inquisition at Randwick. I just don’t see why I have to pay for it.
This is not like the olympics; entry is limited to catholic youth only. The others; Muzzies, Jews and Proddies can come as crowd fodder along but unless they accept Rome as the only way into etenral life they are doomed like the rest of us. The leading lights in the NSW Govt are all Catholics and they are unstinting in their efforts to spend the money of all the hard working Jews, Muzzies Proddies atheists, Bhudists Hindus, Jedi Knights (have I forgotten anyone? )in the State. That’s what is pissing people off.
That and the fact that Olympic Park is a frickin’ huge public space, with dedicated transport, and it’s not being used.
Great News about the Federal Court decision. But will the government appeal?
btw @ 24, I forgot people rising from the dead and Jesus returning on a cloud of glory and turnong us all into sheep and goats.
See, global warming is really a good thing.
Alan, just to clarify, the Constitution doesn’t prevent a state government from handing large wads of cash to undeserving religious orgnisations (more’s the pity). The NSW WYD laws and other arrangements don’t establish a state religion, they don’t impose religious observance on anyone, they don’t prohibit the free exercise of any religion and they have nothing to do with creating religion-based tests for office. So not a lot there to grab onto from a s116 perspective. And in any case, doesn’t s116 circumscribe Commonwealth power, rather than that of any State?
BBB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzzCPHdpISo
BBB, does the absurdity of the scrawlings (and I agree that they are absurd) exculpate Catholics?
Are Catholics innately wiser than other persons in matters related to graffiti?
I prefer to keep an open mind on this question. Indeed these scrawlings may be the work of an agent provocateur, but this is by no means the necessary conclusion to be drawn from available evidence.
And to apply Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation seems the best in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
And this police media release:
The NSW Police suspect that the sentiments expressed in the scrawlings were sincere. In other words, hte Rozzers suspect Catholics.
Katz, it seems that will have to live with our respective prejudices, and the suspicions that they engender, until further evidence comes to light.
BBB
Is it prejudice to report a police statement?
If you think that the NSW Police are prejudiced against Catholics, may I suggest that you take your objections up with the NSW Police Force.
I have hazy memories of the last Pope coming to the most boring place in the country (Perth). The whole shebang was organised by some prominent local Catholics. Let’s hope all the expense and effort gave Laurie Connell some heavenly kudos because being in the papal presence didn’t help Big Brian escape the clutches of the secular law.
Actually I think the whole thing is quite pathetic. Ratzinger is old enough to remember when the arrival of the Pontiff would the same effect as the entry of the Byzantine emperor. Now he’s reduced to stirring up iPod wearing juvenile airheads who don’t have a clue about current Church policies or Church history. All they know is the New Testament and that’s not a reliable document to rely on as your sole source when choosing to make a serious commitment to any Christian religion. Why? Well, it’s the first thing that get’s tossed aside when the gloves come off. If the Beatitudes were Gospel there would be no war.
As a lapsed Catholic and swinging agnostic that still considers themselves a Catholic (Probably makes me a hypocrite but I’m only human), I feel obliged to answer the rhetorical question. Is criticism of WYD automatically Catholic bashing? The long answer is NO. The short answer is YES.
Point 1 is not completely right. At one time Catholics were allowed to marry, etc, etc, so to call the values Institutional would not be accurate.
Mostly the rest of the points can be inferred not be entirely accurate from my counter to point 1. Yes I basically said Marriage would eliminate the other points.
And on the basis of this post we should never have another Olympics, World Cup or World event of any kind ever. A lot of the issues raised above apply to those as well.
“sole source” … I still got it.
“But will the government appeal?”
It hasn’t appealed to me for a long time.
“It hasn’t appealed to me for a long time.”
And in other breaking news… the peasants are revolting.
‘..that helped pave the road for the Nazis: the old European Catholic right anti-enlightenment, anti-liberal, anti-capitalist (in a right wing sense)and anti-democratic.”
Not just that Geoff: helped pave the road out of Berlin bunkers – and the war criminal ratlines to Sth America.
Proddies are worse.
is-criticism-of-world-youth-day-automatically-catholic-bashing ?
Yes.
wbb, why?
“is-criticism-of-world-youth-day-automatically-catholic-bashing ?”
Yeah, pretty much, Kim – since you’ve asked (a tad nervously if I’m not mistaken).
But….I don’t think that you should feel bad about it next time it takes your fancy to post large chunks of Latin liturgy.
I must say that as an old tribal Catholic I’m somewhat bemused by all this evangelical, happy-clappy, WYD stuff – when did Hillsong proddys like Guy Sebastian become pinup persons for devotees of Our Lady and The Sacred Heart?
We never talk about the upside to sectarianism…….
Still it was kind of amusing to attend a symposium at USyd yesterday – on HIV biomedical prevention of all things – in a venue surrounded by hordes of Catholic yoof and Brides of Christ making their way across the campus from residential colleges to pilgrimage assembly points.
I suspect that if George Pell was not the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney – and Frank Brennan was – the vitriol would be more measured.
I’m sure that’s true too, Geoff, which leaves me wondering why you answer the question in the affirmative.
Laura at 40: delightful depiction of the self-loathing necessary to keep the punters perpetually flummoxed and the circus playing to packed pavillions. Racecourses too. Deo gratias pontiff won’t be pipped at the post in the cobbler’s department. Really gotta hand it to Holy Mother Church’s dressers.
Those red shoes are SUCH a spiffy touch!
Im sort of a Mick too!
(If being baptised and never setting foot in Church again counts)
IE With the first mass-wave of Asian immigration, one generation after the Wogs arrived thereby needing a categorisation of those from the Isles off France’s coast who were beginning to look more alike than before without pissing the Micks off.
.
Viz the various assertions of Catholicism’s political incorrectness: the Church goes back pretty much to the Roman Empire and its statutes are based on Abrahamic tenets. Therefore it’s unlikely to alter its stance on homosexuality, say, in a big hurry.
.
I’m not a practising Catholic, I bear a fairly sterotypical heretical cynicism re its doctrines and consider myself Catholic culturally the way a lot of Jews consider themselves Jews but pretty much live secular lives.
.
However there’s a certain internationalism that the Church espouses that can progenerate good things. It’s sexual rules are foolish but they are the sexual rules of Christianity and its two sister religions. There was a time when they weren’t so foolish. That’s the trouble with establishing rules on the authority of God. At least the Church doesn’t make the dumb-arsed mistake of insisting that you take scripture literally. I believe it will eventually liberalize (in about 200 years).
.
That said attacking the Church is fine. Actually a noble tradition from Castiglione to Goya to just about every Irish comedian today.
.
Give ‘em Hell.
Seem to remember in 2007 Pell and Co were promising pilgrim numbers around 225,000 strong.
Also recall that Canada’s reported debt from the 2002 World Youth Day was reportedly around $24 million.
That’s not Catholic bashing – that’s worry about state debt!
Vee started: “At one time Catholics were allowed to marry, etc, etc,”
Well that’s reassuring, Vee. But when did that practice cease? How many of the millions of current Catholics who have married, did so in outright defiance of their Church? Should the Cardinal be told? He who warned this evening “of what Paul called ‘the flesh’”.
Not Catholic “bashing”, but there’s a lot of “taking the Mickey”
The ex-Catholic tribalist in me thinks ‘better the Catholics than the Anglicans or Hillsong or the Islamists or orthodox Jews” while the atheist in me thinks they are all loonies and a bit of religion-bashing is fine and necessary. (Apart from the serious questions about why the state government has given them so much money, etc.)
And it seems to me that a lot of ex-Catholics – in fact, a lot of current Catholics – are leading the criticism eg this priest:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/07/05/1214951110473.html
John Ryan, Henderson is definitely not on our planet. He is an agnostic ex-Catholic who has retained the authoritarianism of his religion in his own personality without any of the humanising elements. He’s all works and no faith.
To the point: I think there has been an anti-Catholic sectarian-style undertone to some of the letters and articles I’ve read. Not so much what is said but how it’s said, like reading Paul Sheehan on Islam. I don’t believe I’m being over-sensitive about this as I’ve been a Proddy since my mid-teens.
Given the cultural history Kim rightly highlighted, it would be almost impossible for some of the sectarian framing not to stick to these issues. I actually think a lot of it comes out in “humour” rather than in polemics, but maybe that’s another discussion. But I certainly do think that:
(a) the issues are well worth discussing critically;
(b) it’s remarkable that so many agnostic or atheistic conservatives are so quick to take the Pope’s side (or what’s perceived to be his side – as the post notes, a lot of this is much more about Pell).
Well, though not exactly the Pope’s biggest fan, I’m really quite focussed on Pell.
To hell with Pell!
As someone pointed out on radio earlier today: This guy believes in virgin birth, but he’s a climate change “sceptic”??!
)
Not only virgin birth Lefty E, but the actual physical change of bread and wine into flesh and blood. Not any old flesh and blood, teh jeebus!
Then they eat it. Cannibals!
Well, now you’re sounding like a Prod, DR, and my rather heavy cultural Irish Catholic overlay wants to throw rocks at ya window, ya Hun!
Weird isnt it.
I was merely noting the bizarre onset of post-enlightenment thought over at Pell HQ, soon as some Liberal party polluting mates might have cough up a few bickies.
I friggin hate Pell. See him lecturing the kiddies today, Principal Skinner style -on not forgetting to pick up after themselves, and do shut up and listen to us in all the excitement?
Pell must detest the circus unfolding before him. If he were Pope I would think that this kind of thing would be done away with.
BBB
I think it’s the other way round, BBB. Ratzinger was highly critical of the circus aspect of this thing when JP2 invented it. It was Pell’s idea to have it here.
[I think it’s the other way round, BBB. Ratzinger was highly critical of the circus aspect of this thing when JP2 invented it. It was Pell’s idea to have it here.]
And also the use of “secular” type music in general for religious services etc. So it is rather hypocritical to have Guy Sebastian, Casey Donovan and Damien Leith on the bill.
Mark, do you think he really enjoys this stuff? I rather suspect that he’s going to be outwardly supportive for so long as is required to ingratiate himself with his peers and betters.
BBB
He looked to me to be enjoying himself at the Mass this arvo, BBB, from the SBS coverage.
Frank Calabrese wrote:
There’s an awfully large number of hymns floating around that were written in the last 200 years – awful secular inspired stuff no doubt played on 17th century instruments that Jesus couldn’t even dream of. They should stick to chanting and hitting drums.
Lefty E wrote:
Don’t you dare be dissin’ my man Armin Tamzarian. He carried an M16 in ‘nam for you boy. Pell largely carried the hefty paperwork required in shifting kiddie fiddlers around the country to fresh pastures. I’d like to vote him off the island now.
No.
I have done some Pell-bashing but it is so not the same thing.
What kind of a moron thinks that a biscuit actually changes into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ?
A college student in Florida recently smuggled a Eucharist wafer from a church. Because these morons actually think the biscuit is Jesus, they accused the student of kidnapping, and issued death threats against him.
The most vehement criticism of WYD that I’ve encountered is from Catholics and former Catholics. I know quite a few practicing Catholics who have left town this week. For myself, I’m chalking up an additional point against the NSW government and I’ll leave it at that. Each time that Pell opens his mouth I think about the committed Catholics I know who have been fighting for social justice, democracy and an inclusive church here and around the world, often against the likes of him. They give me hope that his days are numbered.
Silkie, the biscuit only changes into the flesh. It’s the cheap rough red that changes into the blood.
Guido #10
Paul Robinson #28
I can’t but find your defence of the Church somewhat blinkered. I don’t mean that you intend to be self-serving, just that you seem not to be taking your privileged “first world” and male status into account. G, your premise is basically that yes, the Church still does have deep problems with misogyny, homophobia, spreading HIV, and all the rest. You claim that the effect on public policy is minimal, although we know that religious conservatism affects the right wing of Labor and Liberal alike. Here in Victoria the pollies are about to vote on the decriminalisation of abortion, and guess who would like to put a spoke in that wheel (and reduce the Menhennit ruling to an unworkable stump, as well)?
If someone like Abbott or whoever view policy through a Catholic prespective that has to be accepted, as long as we know that he is following those beliefs. Politicians all come from a set of beliefs.
What you are in effect saying is that Abbott’s former status as someone who influenced policy doesn’t touch you because you are white males who can evade the consequences. If you were a young girl or woman attending one of the pregnancy “counselling” centres he helped to set up, which were tendered to religious groups but not required to advertise the fact, you might realise that the consequences are real. Neither are you at risk of contracting HIV in a developing country because the Church is spreading disinformation about condoms, and you’re educated and middle-class enough to limit the size of your family no matter what your local priest says (and your society isn’t sufficiently dominated by the CC that contraception is actually available); and you won’t be in a position to need an abortion at any time in your life…. well, the Catholic influence in public policy, and homophobia and misogyny in general, don’t really affect you personally, therefore it can’t be all that bad.
As the Americans say, check your privilege.
I’m all for worshipping the god of your choice in private, but it’s not acceptable for religion to seep into our public policy. The middle class can usually escape the consequences – Catholics get abortions, too, where they have the resources – it’s the poorer folk and people in poorer countries who feel the heat. There’s a lot of hysteria about some hypothetical shari’a law coming in but the religious-inspired public policy we DO have gets a free pass. So-called “Catholic bashing” is merely pointing to this fact.
Klaus 77 said
“Each time that Pell opens his mouth I think about the committed Catholics I know who have been fighting for social justice, democracy and an inclusive church here and around the world, often against the likes of him. They give me hope that his days are numbered.”
I agree with you Klaus but as a teacher in a catholic school for twenty years, forced to leave because of grave concerns about the safety of a priest, I am afraid that unless these catholics are prepared to speak up all is lost.
We had a paedophile priest 15 years ago and because it was covered up we didn’t learn from that and had no safety mechanisms in place to stop it happening again.
Mine is not an isolated case.
The silence of the fence sitters is more difficult to manage than the cold legalistic edicts of the hierarchy.
Denial is a very difficult social phenomenon to understand and fight against and the Church use it so well.
Helen,
you raise lots of good points, and you are right, I am a white male, and you are right that I may view issues from those perspectives.
As I said I am no defender of Catholicism. I have had little to do with the Church since I was eight (and as someone living ‘in sin’ with a nine year old boy I am not exactly following the rules).
My comment was not meant to be against any criticism of the Catholic Church. My comment was that to portray the Catholic Church as an embodiment of evil doesn’t seem right to me.
I liked Steve Bracks and I felt sad to see him go, however I was quite happy to see his Catholic morality in Parliament go. And I was very happy that Brumby finally decided to decriminalise Abortion. But the fact that there are pollies that are influenced by Catholicism is just a fact. We may not like it (I don’t) but all politicians are influenced by a number of factors, whether is economic rationalism, socialism or whatever. I guess that it is up to the voters to be aware of it. I haven’t voted for Martin Ferguson last election because of his fairly weak position on Uranium. And I certainly wouldn’t have voted if I was a Kororoit voter for Marlene Kairouz who got Family First preferences because of her anti-abortion stance. But that is politics. There are lots of view in Parliament I don’t like.
Point taken. However my issue was with the reaction of WYD itself, rather than the issue of Catholicism position about condoms in developing countries.
However you pointed out two things that I should have been aware. That is that the Church has more influence in certain parts of the world than in our affluent developed countries because we do have access to information education etc. where many parts of the world don’t.
And you are right that the Church does get a free pass to voice their views more than others. It may irritate me, but it may have more serious consequences elsewhere, and you are right my views were narrow and did not consider wider implications.
Pam Krstic
“We had a paedophile priest 15 years ago and because it was covered up we didn’t learn from that and had no safety mechanisms in place to stop it happening again.”
This is not, sadly, confined to the RC Church, nor to churches generally. Schools (state and private) across the country have had to deal with paedophile teachers.
Sometimes the grubs escape detection for years. Sometimes the parents express disbelief that “that nice Mr K. Fiddler” could be suspected of anything gross: he’s so polite, he does so much for the parent’s group, he always goes on school camps, he always helps out with swimmming classes at the pool, he coaches the football team,…. and does he then just get moved on to another parish? [sorry: to another school?]