by Kevin Meagher
It’s a strange time to be a Catholic in Britain. Beset by internal turmoil and out of kilter with liberal-left thinking on a range of issues; my co-religionists can be forgiven for circling the wagons in the face of what feels like incessant hostility.
Yesterday’s Daily Mirror front page photo showed Cardinal Keith O’Brien stood next to a reclining Jimmy Savile, posing at some charity photo opportunity more than a decade ago. The photo was used gratuitously and bore no relation to the news report which focused on O’Brien’s resignation – amid accusations of “improper conduct” towards a number of priests. But the snide implication was clear enough. Clear – as well as tawdry and unjustified.
There is something happening to British Catholics at the moment; a growing sense among the poor bloody infantry that they need to justify their faith in the face of a pervasive threat. Friends in a range of workplaces and professions now complain of casual verbal insults – snide digs and asides – that would never be countenanced (rightly) against any other minority community. For many Catholics these days, it pays to keep your head down.
Liberal Democrat MP David Ward was pilloried recently for stupidly holding “the Jews” accountable for the actions of the Israeli government. The accusation of Islamophobia is enough to reduce any self-respecting liberal a fit of the vapours. Yet Catholics are now fair game – worthy targets of scorn – as the Mirror’s front page testifies.
But we’re a minority too. We’re not the ones with representatives in the House of Lords, or the ones with all those nice stone churches people want to get married in. We’re the other lot. The elderly Irish widows. The lonely young Polish girls, over here working for buttons. The family of Eritrean asylum seekers. For them and many others like them, the church provides a spiritual and social lifeline. It supports and inspires and, if needed, feeds and clothes.
Not to forget the plucky bands of English, Scots and Welsh believers whose forebears faced 250 years of outrageous state-sponsored persecution after the Reformation. This church is not the powerful, privileged monolith of liberal misconception.
It’s anomalous, but the embrace of political correctness – the guarantee that abuse and discrimination will not be tolerated against minorities – stops a long way short when it comes to Britain’s five million Catholics.
The abuse Catholics receive is casual and consistent. Remember the mean-spiritied protests against the Pope’s state visit in 2010? (Knocked into a biretta, it has to be said, by the numbers swelling every public appearance to cheer him on). It’s there, too, in the nasty jokes and digs that do the rounds on Twitter from self-proclaimed “lefty atheists”. (The next batch should be arriving any minute, ahead of the Pope stepping down tomorrow). And it’s on display every time some pig-headed attempt is made to undermine Catholic schools.
Again and again when Catholicism is critiqued (a polite word for vilified) one of four fallacious ‘justifications’ are used to excuse the suspension of the usual rites of political correctness. Let me summarise:
1. The big bad Vatican
‘Ah’, comes the response, ‘it’s not Catholics per se that we don’t like, its the Pope/Vatican/Cardinal X’. The Catholic Church, we are frequently told, is powerful, rich and inherently perfidious. Curiously, it’s a similar smear to that used by anti-Semites; the one that says secretive power is used to wield malign influence.
But ‘The Church’ is simply a collection of ordinary believers, prince and pauper, African and Albanian alike. It is a body of people, not some abstract, faceless corporation. St. Lawrence was asked by the Roman authorities in the 3rd Century to present the treasures of the church for confiscation. He lined up the poor, lame and orphaned as ‘the treasure’ and was martyred for his impudence. An attack on ‘The Church’ or the Pope, or even a Cardinal forced to resign in disgrace, is felt by all Catholics. There is no free dig at the expense of ‘The Man’ just an insult to the poor and often marginalised.
2. Condoms, gays and women
There’s no hiding the fact Catholic teachings on women’s rights and gay rights collide messily with certain liberal-left beliefs. For some, though, this gives carte blanche to slate Catholics with impunity.
But a true liberal recognises it is implausible (perhaps undesirable) to achieve universal groupthink and that, in Voltaire’s hoary claim, we may disagree with what people say but defend their right to say it. Which side ultimately takes precedence in a row between minorities is a moot point. Do the interests of equality trump the interests of pluralism?
The former is used as justification to upbraid the Church on its social teachings. But if it is discriminatory of the Catholic Church to oppose, say, gay marriage, is it not equally discriminatory to launch salvos attacking it for doing so? Surely there needs to be space in any free society to agree to disagree; even through gritted teeth?
But those social teachings also extend to a radical critique of contemporary capitalism, with one of the favourites to success Pope Bendict calling for a new global financial settlement as ambitious in scope as the post-war Bretton Woods arrangements.
These teachings also compel believers to the most extraordinary heights of selflessness, with the Catholic Church the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare in the world, providing a quarter of all care for people with HIV in Africa.
3. All religion is fair game
This is the canard of those clever enough not to fall into the first two traps. This argument assumes all religion is, by its very essence, abusive and intolerant and believes it is being, well, ecumenical with its disdain for the whole lot of it. It spills forth nonsense about ‘religion-being-the-cause-of-all-war’ and religious state schools being A Bad Thing because they (apparently) inculcate a hatred of others. Of course it’s as ludicrous a train of thought as assuming support for our collectivised NHS inexorably leads to love for collectivised North Korean agriculture.
Moreover, it assumes people who take their religion seriously are irrational dimwits. Given so many British Catholics are now foreign-born, there is a vaguely racist tone to these sorts of criticisms. The ‘fair game’ defence insists it is critiquing the religious equally. Funny, though, how the roar of call-it-as-it-is atheism turns into a squeak when it comes to deriding Islam. Perhaps bishops should issue fatwas?
And finally,
4. The Church is treated like a political party
Everyone feels compelled to point out that the Catholics should simply “get with the 21st Century”. For an institution that thinks in centuries, the church’s seemingly antiquated nature ensures an endless stream of free, banal management and PR advice about how it should simply “modernise”.
But “thou shall not kill” – to take one random example – is not an entreaty that lends itself to regular, expedient revision. As evidenced by the most powerful voice opposing the Iraq War ten years ago. Not a Richard Dawkins or an Owen Jones, but Pope John Paul II. Heavens! A Pontiff, rather than a pontificator.
So what to do? The challenge for the liberal-left is two-fold. First, address the problem of intellectual incoherence. Include Catholics in the standards that you readily apply to other minority groups or stand accused of selective bigotry.
Second, recognise there are more areas of congruence than conflict between Catholics and the left. As I’ve argued before, a culture war is costly distraction depleting the left’s potential ranks as Catholics are frozen out.
The best way of achieving a de-escalation in petty conflict and coalescing around common concerns is by fostering mutual respect between Catholics and liberals and finding space to disagree amicably where agreement will never be found.
Kevin Meagher is associate editor of Labour Uncut
Tags: Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Catholicism, discrimination, Kevin Meagher, Pope Benedict, respect, Vatican
Firstly can I say how disappointed I am in Labour Un-cut for the publishing this rubbish. I wrote a really long comment and many of the points repete themselves as Kevin Meagher repetes the same falacy over and over. The TLdR version is, “political correctness” is about treating people equally but this article is an attack against political correctness, it is just an extended bleeting call for privileged status and in favour of discriminationary institutions that are totally against the values of Labour Un-cut
Let’s go through some of the points.
The Daily Mirror front page
Yes the photo was a bit silly and out of context but “tawdry and unjustified”? Given the Catholic Church’s ongoing criminal consipracy to cover up the institutionalised rape and abuse of children showing the link has some justification.
“There is something happening… need to justify their faith in the face of a pervasive threat.”
The “pervasive threat” of people increasingly thinking differently to you or the “pervasive threat” of modern catholics questioning their beliefs?
“Friends in a range of workplaces… community.” if you are used to being treated with privilege then I’m sure the fact that people in the workplace might disagree with you can feel bad. How about growing up? 1 we do tolerate similar language about other minority beliefs (try announcing to your work place that the earth is flat or announce what your support of the BNP you would expect some snide comments) which is completely different to genuine workplace discrimination against people because of their race, cast, religion, sex or sexuality which is rightly outlawed (except in many catholic run institutions political correctness apparently doesn’t go that far)
“For many Catholics these days, it pays to keep your head down” if Catholics are so embarrassed / ashamed by the actions of the Catholic church or so indifferent about being Catholic that they don’t want to shout about it that’s their problem.
“The accusation of Islamophobia is enough to reduce any self-respecting liberal a fit of the vapours” yes and this is a problem as it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between anti-muslim bigotry and genuine well deserved criticism of Islam, you are making the exact same conflation about Catholicism.
“Yet Catholics are now fair game…” Criticism of evil catholic doctorines and the criminal institution of the catholic church is not criticism of catholic and you know it isn’t so stop using the tactic of conflating the two (but with out that tactic I guess you wouldn’t have an article).
“But we’re a minority too… and, if needed, feeds and clothes.” so? You don’t have all of the privileges of the COE but you have plenty. Stop pleading the reason your church is a minorty is because it is unpopular, a minority social institution isn’t entitled to any special protection in the way that people of discriminated against minorities are.
“This church is not the powerful, privileged monolith of liberal misconception” massively subsidised by the state, privileged by special laws internationally and domestically, exempt from a lot of equal rights legislation…
“the embrace of political correctness – the guarantee that abuse and discrimination will not be tolerated against minorities” people disagreeing with you and your institution being unpopular isn’t abuse or discrimination. Shall we go into the Catholic Church’s litany of abuses and discrimination.
“Remember the mean-spiritied protests against the Pope’s state visit in 2010”
No. But I do remember the protests against a state funded (with money from the international development fund an important fund that Labour Uncut supports) from the leader of an international criminal organisation to this country to insult our citizens and politically correct equal rights legislation.
“it’s on display every time some pig-headed attempt is made to undermine Catholic schools”
Yes because Catholics are so discriminated against by Catholic schools, bigoted, discriminatory and social divisive institutions which damage the wider education system and take public money to subsidise private institutions.
“Again and again when Catholicism is critiqued (a polite word for vilified)”
At least you’ve moved on from conflating Catholicism and Catholics but using a different word doesn’t undermine the validity of the critiques.
“The big bad Vatican” yes the criminal organisation disguised as a city state. A status first recognised by its treaty with fascist Italy.
“Ah’, comes the response, ‘it’s not Catholics per se that we don’t like, its the Pope/Vatican/Cardinal X”
Yes that is the response because it is accurate.
“The Catholic Church, we are frequently told, is powerful, rich..”
City of Gold built with the money it’s taken from the poor…
“It’s a similar smear to that used by anti-Semites”
Given the vaticans long history of anti-semitism this is an area you might want to avoid.
“But ‘The Church’ is simply a collection of ordinary believers, prince and pauper…”
And it is also an institution
“There’s no hiding the fact Catholic teachings on women’s rights and gay rights collide messily with certain liberal-left beliefs.”
Yes which is why people disagree with them.
“For some, though, this gives carte blanche to slate Catholics with impunity”
Back to the central falicy of your argument
“But if it is discriminatory of the Catholic Church to oppose, say, gay marriage, is it not equally discriminatory to launch salvos attacking it for doing so?”
Lynching this black person is discriminatory, but if you think about it isn’t your criticism of me for doing it also discriminatory? No that’s free speech and open debate.
“Surely there needs to be space in any free society to agree to disagree; even through gritted teeth?”
Yes there is space, which is why it is strange that you have written this whole article against people’s right to criticise.
“But those social teachings also extend to a radical critique of contemporary capitalism”
From the Gold plated city state with a huge international investment profile. There are much better places to get my critique of contemporary capitalism thanks.
The catholic church does good in Africa bla blab la
The good work could be done without the bad. The Catholic church’s war on condoms is also responsible for the deaths millions of Africans, any of the church’s good work could be done by non criminal organisations.
“All religion is fair game”
Glad we agree
“This argument assumes all religion is, by its very essence, abusive and intolerant”
Catholicism is but that’s beside the point even if it wasn’t then is would still be an idea and fair game for criticism. This is just special pleading.
“religious state schools being A Bad Thing”
Institutions that take money out of our education system to indoctrinate and divide children based of their parents religious beliefs (or the fact that they can’t find another school) and discriminate against their employees are “A Bad Thing”
“it assumes people who take their religion seriously are irrational dimwits”
We’re all “irrational dimwits” in some areas of our beliefs. Luckily most Catholics aren’t dim enough to take the Church’s teaching seriously in all areas.
“a vaguely racist tone to these sorts of criticisms”
Nonsense, criticism of ideas or institutions isn’t racist.
“The ‘fair game’ defence insists it is critiquing the religious equally”
No, while there are some ways that religions should be critiqued equally (the belief in god etc) religions that cause more harm are criticised more.
“Atheism turns into a squeak when it comes to deriding Islam. Perhaps bishops should issue fatwas?”
Yes the threat of violence is a major constraint on criticism of Islam, as for thousands of years it was a constraint on criticism of the Catholic church. You sound like you miss those good old dark ages.
“And finally”
Finally, considering you’ve basically just repeated the same fallacy in different forms I’m glad you are finally coming to an end.
“The Church is treated like a political party”
There are many areas in which the two institutions are analogous
Everyone feels compelled to point out that the Catholics should simply “get with the 21st Century”
Including many Catholics because they are embarrassed and ashamed by the current church.
“Opposing the Iraq War”
So what? A lot of institutions opposed the Iraq war, from the BNP to the CND, the fact that you are right about 1 thing doesn’t mean you are right about anything else. Speaking of opposing wars, what was the last war the Church supported? Hitter’s invasion of Russia.
“So what to do?”
Not all minority groups are equal, being a minority because your ideas are unpopular is not the same as being the member of a discriminated against minority.
“Second… as Catholics are frozen out.”
No Catholics aren’t frozen out in any way shape or form, the Catholic Church isn’t even frozen out. Its privileged access to political powerhas just declined in some areas.
“The best way of achieving a de-escalation in petty conflict…”
Is by one side to shut up?
You seem to equate discrimination with criticism. Suppressing the rights of people to use contraception, have abortions or marry their chosen partner is discrimination. In other religions and cultures, it might be Female Genital Mutilation, or tolerance of slavery. Criticising those practices isn’t discriminatory.
You can also, like my mum did, choose to reject your church and its teachings. You can’t do the same for your skin colour, gender or sexuality, and to compare criticism of a belief, however strongly held, with acts of discrimination based on factors like those does your argument no favours at all.
Thanks Alastair – but your recourse to irony belittles a serious argument. By pretending to be a caricature of a wacko pseudo-liberal, resorting to breathtakingly violent language, you are simply making my point for me. But I guess you realise that?
Would you respond quite as vehemently if it was Islam he was talking about, Alistair?
@Paul J I already answered that. Islam and Catholicism are in some areas deserving equal criticism. Perhaps if you learnt to read you’d have seen that and spelt my name correctly and perhaps if you’d read Kevin’s article you’d realised it is just endless pleading for special privilege based on conflating Catholics and Catholicism along with other fallacies as Jonny Morris points out in his comment.
@Kevin I think pretty sure the only pseudo-liberal argument is coming from you
Jonny – So tenets of Catholicism equate with female genital mutilation, or tolerance of slavery do they? So presumably you deprecate the practice of male circumcision in Jewish and Islamic custom? Just that I didn’t see you mention it.
Perhaps you should check out the 2010 Equalities Act which does place religious discrimination on the same plane as other forms of discrimination.
Alastair – I don’t know whether you simply don’t understand issues around religious freedom or whether you’re too bigoted to accept their validity. Either way, you clearly have deeply prejudiced views against Catholics, so dialogue is possible. But I am happy that you have exposed the problems that I raise in the piece. Thank you.
Kevin, don’t get defensive. I enjoyed your article and just think you’re wrong.
No I don’t equate a belief in transubstantiation with genital mutilation.
You are quite right, my list of cultural behaviours wasn’t exhaustive, and nor am I a cultural anthropologist. I’m sure if I had written a longer and more boring comment I could have covered a few more.
I know the 2010 Equalities Act very well, and thank you for your concern that I may have overlooked it. It concerns unfair treatment because of protected characteristics, not criticism of behaviours or beliefs. The only discriminatory practice you adduce in your original essay is the fact that Catholic Bishops do not sit by right in the House of Lords. As I don’t think Anglican Bishops should, either, please forgive me for not being that concerned.
If it’s any help, I come from a long line of McCluskeys and Delaneys, and support Celtic.
Well I guess here I can make some criticisms without being accused of anti-catholicism similar to one tends to get accused of antisemitism when making any criticism of Israeli government actions even when you are not even against the state of Israel. Anyway in this case I am catholic tribally even if not in beliefs.
Yes there is institutionalized anti-catholicism and the sooner laws such as not allowing Roman Catholics to be prime minister, or having an alternative religion’s representives granted places in the second chamber, are abolished the better.
But the game Kevin seems to be playing is a copy of the Israeli Embassy lobby which says any criticism is an outright attack on our existence. Kevin knows full well that through the last two popes’ reigns we have seen the Vatican become more political while moving to the right. There are plenty of criticisms to be made of church policies. At the same time we have seen the uncovering of some very unholy scandals in the church. With child abuse and its cover up having taken the church’s reputation to new lows. The latest Irish government apology for the church run Magdalene laundries and Cardinal O’Brien’s hypocrisy is just the icing on the cake of bad news.
So be open to criticism and don’t cry about discrimination Kevin. There may have been a case for that in Scotland a generation past and in Northern Ireland far more recently, but most of us Catholics have grown up without feeling any real bigotry.
Big thanks there to Les for speaking on behalf of most Catholics? Les best you just speak for yourself I for one am sick to the back teeth on anti Catholic vitriolic bile. I agree with Kevin’s points wholeheartedly this sort of bigotory and hatred can only lead to discrimination. I can’t see how people like Alister (let’s hope he’s not an employer) could avoid discriminating against candidates based on his Cromwellian thought processes. Most Catholics quantitively vote Labour largely because of a sense of social justice – large amounts of Catholics are traditionally immigrants also – which means they are more susceptible to inherant bigotory and discrimination anyway – liberals better factor in the words Respect, tolerance, positive regard
Because Labour can’t afford to lose our interest or input
Jonny Not defensive, but as a self-proclaimed Celtic fan, you should probably be aware that nearly two thirds of religiously-aggrevated offences in Scotland are against Catholics: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/11/religious-hate-crime-in-scotland-on-the-rise/
Les – My point, if you’d care to re-read, is that the Catholic church is made up of lay members – often poor and marginalised to begin with – and they are made to suffer with attacks from so-called liberals whose intention is not to find a modus vivendi with the religious, but to delegitimise our faith entirely.
@Joe no I would never discriminate against a person in employment because of my views about a set of ideas or an institution. The only person defending the rights of employers to discriminate against people on the grounds of religion is Kevin and you asking to replace one form of religious discrimination in parliament with another.
I’ve expressed no discriminatory or biggoted beleifs the fact that you feel under attack is because you are not used to having aspects of your privilege challenged and have zero argument to back it up.
@Kevin “I don’t know whether you simply don’t understand issues around religious freedom or whether you’re too bigoted to accept their validity”
I believe in religious freedom which means no positive or negative discrimination, you are defending discrimination. I think you need to learn what religious freedom actually means and stop being so closed minded that you can’t accept criticism of your position.
The 2010 Equalities Act is designed to protect people not institutions or ideas. Your argument is based on your own privilege, illiberalism and intollerance to criticism.
Alastair – so you now “believe in religious freedom”? Glad to hear it. Perhaps you will recant your previous hate-speak where you pillory the “evil catholic doctorines” [sic] of “the criminal institution of the catholic church”.
You asserted that Catholic schools are: “bigoted, discriminatory and social divisive institutions which damage the wider education system and take public money to subsidise private institutions.” (your conjecture aside, the last point is a total fabrication).
You also immaturely dismissed the work of Catholic agencies providing a quarter of the HIV care in Africa thus: “The catholic church does good in Africa bla blab la” while erroneously holding Catholics “responsible for the deaths millions of Africans” because of church social teachings on contraception.
Glad to hear you are a convert to the true cause of liberalism, plurality of expression. Can we therefore disregard your previous bilge?
@Kevin
1) Yes I support religious freedom, however unlike you I realise religious freedom means people’s freedom of ideas and from discrimination not the freedom of institutions to act as they wish. What hate speech would that be? Once again you are confusing criticism of ideas with criticising people. Many of the catholic church’s teachings and ideologies are evil (and many are not), would it be hate speech to say that homophobia is evil or sexism or discrimination in employment and public services or complicity in the spread of aids is evil? I don’t hold ordinary catholics responsible for these evils only the institution and the ideas. That might be one of the reasons that so many people identifying as Catholics criticise the church’s positions or simply ignore them on a range of issues, if you stopped putting all Catholics in one group you’d be able to see the difference between the two.
2) Do you deny that institutions which discriminate against employees and people and use their access to preach discrimination are bigoted? Do you deny that dividing children based on the religious beliefs is divisive? Do you deny that public schools which are able to select on the basis of ability damage the wider public education system that can’t? Do you deny that religious schools are a major stream and recruitment of income to unpopular institutions at the public’s expense?
If you deny these simple facts as “fabrication” will you sign my petition for a school for gingers? We’ll be discriminating in favour of ginger pupils and parents (or middle class brunettes who will boost us in the league tables) I’ll be taking on employees based on their adherence to ginger-ism and dying their hair blond will be a sackable offence. On Tuesday our unqualified teachers (we’re allowed a certain number as a ginger school) will read a letter to all children in the school urging them to oppose inter hair colour marriage. The parents of poor children at the school across the road won’t be able to afford travel to school but my children of ginger parents will have special subsidies. I amuse that you wouldn’t be so “pig headed” as to not support my ginger school? Remember if you do it’s hate speech and you hate all ginger people.
3) I did not dismiss the work of the Catholics in Africa, I simply pointed out that all that good work could be done by a non criminal non discriminatory institution. Once again you come to the central projection of your argument, you conflate Catholicism (which is an institution and ideology) and Catholics (who are people) the Catholic church in Africa (and not just through its policies on contraception) is responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans. I in no way blamed mainstreme or lay Catholics for this just the institution and ideas.
4) There are 2 main disagreements between us are that I unlike you am capable of differentiating between people and ideas and between criticising ideas and therefore between criticism of ideas and insulting people. If you really support religious freedom I take it you now support “pig headed calls” to end faith schools? Or is it that you don’t actually support freedom of religion only privilege? Plurality of expression is the very thing your article is criticising; I disagree with you in that I support religious freedom and oppose discrimination and in that I oppose the institutions and ideas of the catholic church. I’m sure there are plenty of other areas we would agree and areas where you might be right and me wrong but to find out you would have to respect plurality of expression calling people bigots because they disagree with you on a matter of ideas isn’t a great start. A second step would be to stop being closed minded and only hearing what you expect people to say but recognise the plurality in plurality of expression and that people can agree or disagree with you for a verity of reasons.
If you had raised any genuine example’s of intrusions into religious freedom, Catholics being excluded from employment for example, then we would be in agreement. It’s interesting that while you have resorted to insults like bigot and accused me of not supporting religious freedom I’m actually able to point to examples of you supporting discrimination and intrusions on religious freedom where as you shown no evidence to support your insults.
For the record I don’t happen to think you are biggoted, I amuse you are united with almost all Catholics in opposing at least some aspect of the church or its ideas. And as I’ve said I’d support you in opposing any discrimination against catholics just for being catholics I just think obsession with protecting the privileges of an institution and its dogma have caused you to act in this way and blinded you to the “plurality of expression”. This protection of privilege before people is not in the spirit of any liberal political correctness nor is it sustainable if you genuinely support liberalism or religious freedom.
P.s. will you be supporting my ginger school, there’s a governor position in it for you and if we extort parents of non ginger children we could make a killing.
Les – My point, if you’d care to re-read, is that the Catholic church is made up of lay members – often poor and marginalised to begin with – and they are made to suffer with attacks from so-called liberals whose intention is not to find a modus vivendi with the religious, but to delegitimise our faith entirely.
Delegitimise our faith entirely? Really Kevin this is way over the top. And yes I know the church has the support of many new arrivals and the priests and lay people do a lot of good work for them. I know how hard the church charities work overseas as I’ve spent most of my life outside of Britain. What I haven’t seen in London where I was raised is any attempt to delegitimise the faith in more than sixty years of being a catholic. If you feel under attack, is it because of the scandals that are in the public domain. If so them maybe we need a root and branch reform of the church to stop it happening again.
I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who tries to defend the indefensible, The catholic church is not a force for good, maybe through misguided attempts to remain in the 15th century. We have a huge problem with aids in Africa and the stance from Rome is irrational, millions are dying yet condoms are refused them doctrinally and often through law, it is not only astounding it is Evil.
It seems the Church can control actions in most of the world but refuse to take action on their own clerics, they have known for many years that priests have been abusing children, those priests have been protected and have even moved them on to other Parishes to continue abusing our children. Ratzinger knew what was happening more than anyone as he set up the unit for the recording of clerical abuses and did nothing, the most Evil of all was the fact they silenced the abused children of discussing or naming abusing priests with the threat of excommunication.
My father was abused by a priest, it wasn’t nice listening to him at 70 years of age weeping about something that happened to him 60 years earlier, it is a fact child abuse is a life sentence for the victim, the church has failed them and protected the perpetrators, nothing more needs to be said, it is an evil pedophile protecting organisation and deserves all the attacks that comes it’s way.
Terry – ‘evil’ eh? Not really much point even trying to cut through that and have a civilised conversation. But, again, you make the broader point for me.
Just as an aside, its striking to me how frequently opponents of religion use religious language to castigate it. Both Alastair and Terry refer to the Catholic faith as ‘evil’ to make their point.
I have complete respect for genuine atheists who hold that there is no afterlife – when we die, we die etc. I usually find them quite disinterested in castigating others. Its those who want to turn anti-belief into its own belief system that I find odd. They have, well, religious fervour in their persecution. Any psychologists reading, feel free to offer a diagnosis.
Anyway, I digress, back to the hate-speak…
Using semantics doesn’t do it for me Kevin, you pick up on a word (which I actually don’t agree is “religious” language) but pass on the content of the post, it’s as if what was said was unimportant but the word evil was which to me is a total cop out. You are entitled to follow your faith, I attacked the Church not the faith.
When you answer why the Catholic church has systematically protected child rapists and continued to move them to put more children in harms way I will take you seriously, until then I will continue to say they are a force for evil.
Terry, with respect, there was no ‘content’ to pass on. Yours is the logic that because some suicide bombers kill in the name if Islam all Muslims must be terrorists. Little point continuing this dialogue, I suspect, as you’re stuck in the Big Bad Vatican groove I discuss above.
Kevin, your logic is everything is fine, it isn’t mate you have a crisis of the church’s own making, nobody has stood up and thrown these rapists out of the church but they have hidden them or excused them.
I have to say every time you religious zealots are challenged you revert to the we’re getting picked on mantra and always use the “stop this dialogue”
Regarding the islamist fundamentalist bombers I have no intention of attacking ordinary muslims and nor have I attacked ordinary Catholics, what I attacked was your church right up to Ratzinger for not doing anything about the pedophiles clerics that pollute your religion, nothing was done, nothing is being done.