Johann hits the target again

Once more, Johann Hari has cut through the lies, subterfuge, and shoddy thinking that so often clouds the real issue.

___________________________________________

The Pope, the Prophet, and the religious support for evil

Posted by Johann Hari 2 days ago

What can make tens of millions of people – who are in their daily lives peaceful and compassionate and caring – suddenly want to physically dismember a man for drawing a cartoon, or make excuses for an international criminal conspiracy to protect child-rapists? Not reason. Not evidence. No. But it can happen when people choose their polar opposite – religion. In the past week we have seen two examples of how people can begin to behave in bizarre ways when they decide it is a good thing to abandon any commitment to fact and instead act on faith. It has led some to regard people accused of the attempted murders of the Mohamed cartoonists as victims, and to demand “respect” for the Pope, when he should be in a police station being quizzed about his role in covering up and thereby enabling the rape of children.

In 2005, 12 men in a small secular European democracy decided to draw a quasi-mythical figure who has been dead for 1400 years. They were trying to make a point. They knew that in many Muslim cultures, it is considered offensive to draw Mohamed. But they have a culture too – a European culture that believes it is important to be allowed to mock and tease and ridicule religion. It is because Europeans have been doing this for centuries now that we can no longer be tyrannised into feeling bad about perfectly natural impulses, like masturbation, or pre-marital sex, or homosexuality. When priests offer those old arguments, we now laugh in their faces – a great liberating moment. It will be a shining day for Muslims when they can do the same.

Some of the cartoons were witty. Some were stupid. One seemed to suggest Muslims are inherently violent – an obnoxious and false idea. If you disagree with the drawings, you should write a letter, or draw a better cartoon, this time mocking the cartoonists. But some people did not react this way. Instead, Islamist plots to hunt the artists down and slaughter them began. Earlier this year, a man with an axe smashed into one of their houses, and very nearly killed the cartoonist in front of his small grand-daughter.

This week, another plot to murder them seems to have been exposed, this time allegedly spanning Ireland and the United States, and many people who consider themselves humanitarians or liberals have rushed forward to offer condemnation – of the cartoonists. One otherwise liberal newspaper ran an article saying that since the cartoonists had engaged in an “aggressive act” and shown “prejudice… against religion per se”, so it stated menacingly that no doubt “someone else is out there waiting for an opportunity to strike again”.

Let’s state some principles that – if religion wasn’t involved – would be so obvious it would seem ludicrous to have to say them out loud. Drawing a cartoon is not an act of aggression. Trying to kill somebody with an axe is. There is no moral equivalence between peacefully expressing your disagreement with an idea – any idea – and trying to kill somebody for it. Yet we have to say this because we have allowed religious people to claim their ideas belong to a different, exalted category, and it is abusive or violent merely to verbally question them. Nobody says I should “respect” conservatism or communism and keep my opposition to them to myself – but that’s exactly what is routinely said about Islam or Christianity or Buddhism. What’s the difference?

This enforced “respect” is a creeping vine. It soon extends beyond religious ideas to religious institutions – even when they commit the worst crimes imaginable. It is now an indisputable fact that the Catholic Church systematically covered up the rape of children across the globe, and knowingly, consciously put paedophiles in charge of more kids. Joseph Ratzinger – who claims to be “infallible” – was at the heart of this policy for decades.

Here’s what we are sure of. By 1962, it was becoming clear to the Vatican that a significant number of its priests were raping children. Rather than root it out, they issued a secret order called “Crimen Sollicitationis”‘ ordering bishops to swear the victims to secrecy and move the offending priest on to another parish. This of course meant they raped more children there, and on and on, in parish after parish. Yes, these were different times, but the Vatican knew then that what it was doing was terribly wrong: that’s why it was done in the utmost secrecy.

It has emerged this week that when Ratzinger was Archbishop of Munich in the 1980s, one of his paedophile priests was “reassigned” in this way. He claims he didn’t know. Yet a few years later he was put in charge of the Vatican’s response to this kind of abuse and demanded every case had to be referred directly to him for 20 years. What happened on his watch, with every case going to his desk? Precisely this pattern, again and again. The BBC’s Panorama studied one of many such cases. Father Tarcisio Spricigo was first accused of child abuse in 1991, in Brazil. He was moved by the Vatican four times, wrecking the lives of children at every stop. He was only caught in 2005 by the police, before he could be moved on once more. He had written in his diary about the kind of victims he sought: “Age: 7, 8, 9, 10. Social condition: Poor. Family condition: preferably a son without a father. How to attract them: guitar lessons, choir, altar boy.” It happened all over the world, wherever the Catholic Church had outposts.

Far from changing this paedophile-protecting model, Ratzinger reinforced it. In 2001 he issued a strict secret order demanding that charges of child-rape should be investigated by the Church “in the most secretive way… restrained by a perpetual silence… and everyone… is to observe the strictest secret.” Since it was leaked, Ratzinger claims – bizarrely – that these requirements didn’t prevent bishops from approaching the police. Even many people employed by the Vatican at the time say this is wrong. Father Tom Doyle, who was a Vatican lawyer working on these cases, says it “is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes… Nowhere in any of these documents does it say anything about helping the victims. The only thing it does say is they can impose fear on the victims, and punish [them], for disclosing what happened.” Doyle was soon fired.

Imagine if this happened at The Independent. Imagine I discovered there was a paedophile ring running our crèche, and the Editor issued a stern order that it should be investigated internally with “the strictest secrecy”. Imagine he merely shuffled the paedophiles to work in another crèche at another newspaper, and I agreed, and made the kids sign a pledge of secrecy. We would both – rightly – go to prison. Yet because the word “religion” is whispered, the rules change. Suddenly, otherwise good people who wouldn’t dream of covering up a paedophile ring in their workplace think it would be an insult to them to follow one wherever it leads in their Church. They would find this behaviour unthinkable without the irrational barrier of faith standing between them and reality.

Yes, I understand some people feel sad when they see a figure they were taught as a child to revere – whether Prophet or Pope – being subjected to rational examination, or mockery, or criminal investigation. But everyone has ideas they hold precious. Only you, the religious, demand to be protected from debate or scrutiny that might discomfort you. The fact you believe an invisible supernatural being approves of – or even commands – your behaviour doesn’t mean it deserves more respect, or sensitive handling. It means it deserves less. If you base your behaviour on such a preposterous fantasy, you should expect to be checked by criticism and mockery. You need it.

If you can’t bear to hear your religious figures criticised – if you think Ratzinger is somehow above the law, or Mohamed should be defended with an axe – a sane society should have only one sentence for you. Tell it to the judge.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Athesim, humanism, religion, social commentary

2 responses to “Johann hits the target again

  1. Mij

    Does anybody believe in God?

    I went to a Catholic boarding school for boys for six years, and endured Catechism, church twice a day and three times on Sundays, and catholicism in every aspect of day-to-day life – so I know something about Catholicism. While I was there, I thought I believed in the religion – but looking back on it, I know that I didn’t. I thought that I believed in something, without actually believing it. I don’t think I’m unique in this either! I think that lots of people convince themselves that something is true, while in the depts of their psyche, they know it to be false.

    If a catholic priest is asked what he believes about God, he will say

    1. God is omnipresent – he is always with you

    2. God is aware of everything you do, and even everything you think. (Impure thoughts, thoughts of vengeance, etc. should be confessed in the confessional)

    4. God is VASTLY more important than any human person could be – it is more important to please the heavenly Father than to please one’s own parents

    5. To offend God is a sin – put another way, a sin is defined as an offence to God.

    I believe that any priest (or religious person) who states his belief in this way, believes that he believes it. However, when he abuses a child, he knows that this is a mortal sin – something that will offend God to the core. But here’s my point: You can be sure that he wouldn’t do it in the presence of his own flesh-and-blood parent. The reason why he goes ahead with the act is because regardless what he thinks he believes, in the depths of his ‘soul’ (I use the word advisedly), he believes he is alone – apart from the child in question, of course, who he doesn’t mind offending. At the very least, we can say that at that moment, offending God is much less important to him than would be the offense of his parent.

    I originally had this thought on hearing of a Catholic bishop in Ireland, who was found to have fathered an illigitimate child. I was taught at school that masturbation was a mortal sin – a sin that could send me to ethernal damnation if I should die before being cleansed of it – so how did a bisihop view his act of sexual communion with a woman? It seems more serious than masturbation to me – especially as he made her pregnant! However, you can be quite sure that it wouldn’t have happened if his own flesh and blood parent had been present. In fact, it wouldn’t have happened if some complete stranger had been present, who would have been offended. That’s because he would have /believed/ in the presence of that person. The only logical conclusion that I can draw is that he knew, somewhere in the most primitive parts of his mind, that God wasn’t present!

    I don’t think there’s any religious person anywhere who has not done things that they believed would have offended God (I.e. committed a sin), that they would not have done in front of a disapproving person. So what’s the difference in circumstance between having the person present, and having only God present? As far as I can see, the only difference is the perception of the perpetrator that in one case, there is another person present, and in the other case, there is not. Consequently, I contend that, at a deep, psycological level, nobody believes in God, at least, not in the way that they say they do. They probably believe that they believe in the omnipresence of God – but actions speak louder than words.

    Note 1: During my six years in a Salesian school, I never heard any rumour of any boy being interfered with by a priest or religious brother.

    Note 2: Masturbation being a mortal sin – one that could condemn me to eternal, infinite suffering, was the thin end of the wedge that came between me and religion. Somehow, a punishment like that for something so trivial that I couldn’t remember whether I had done it the previous day, seemed so harsh that I simply couldn’t believe in it.

  2. Mij

    The most dangerous person alive is a psychopath for God – because he can do, and justify, *anything*.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s