Blessed are the poor in spirit
When Joseph Ratzinger, the man who will be Pope Benedict XVI, is described as conservative, we should remind ourselves of what he would be conservative in relation to. The Pope is the supreme leader of an ancient and powerful hierarchy dedicated to the strict enforcement of a two-millennia-old religious dogma. In this case conservative means conservative relative to what are in any case the most rigid and unyielding of standards. Given that the Pope is the spiritual leader of a sixth of humanity, its worth looking closely at what that means in practise.
From 1981, Cardinal Ratzinger ran the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; formerly known as the Inquisition. Gaining the nickname “God's Rottweiler”, his injunctions included pronouncements that homosexuality is evil, that other religions and versions of Christianity are defective, and that women should not be allowed to sing in choirs or serve at the altar. He also barred Catholic priests from counselling pregnant teenagers on their options.
Under Ratzinger’s enforcement of doctrine the Vatican continued to forbid the use of condoms, even for health, and went so far as to claim they do not prevent the spread of Aids. This in spite of the fact that between 1981 and the end of 2003 Aids killed 20 million people, and that during 2004 around five million adults and children became infected with HIV.
Ratzinger’s doctrines leave little room for attempts to improve the lot of humanity, at least not in this world. As he once lamented, “Greenpeace and Amnesty International seem to have taken over mankind's concerns, which formerly would have radiated from the impulses of Raphael, Michelangelo or Bach”. In Ratzinger’s moral calculus, efforts to alleviate the suffering of the most unfortunate among us rank some way below contemplation of divinity and adherence to papal dogma. This is most clearly demonstrated by his ruthless crusade against Liberation Theology in Latin America.
In the 1980’s Ratzinger sought to ostracize the mass movement of “Liberation Theology” which was calling for major social reforms in favour of the poor. The movement’s leading figures were condemned and ordered to remain silent. Even before Ratzinger’s appointment in 1981 the suppression was underway. When Archbishop Oscar Romero denounced the gut-wrenchingly brutal dictatorship of El Salvador, he was reprimanded for not being sufficiently balanced in his criticisms of the regime, which the then Pope referred to as the legitimate government. Continuation under Ratzinger was seamless. In 1984, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff was reprimanded for his efforts to speak out against the military dictatorship in his country, banned from preaching and from celebrating the sacraments. Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns, the archbishop of São Paulo who had supported Boff, had his diocese drastically reduced in size and conservative bishops were brought in by the Pope.
For Ratzinger, the attempts of liberation theology to alleviate poverty in this life served as a distraction from the higher goal of seeking spiritual redemption beyond the material world. From the opulent comfort of the Vatican, Ratzinger opined that “It is the poor, the object of God's special love, who understand best ….that the most radical liberation, which is liberation from sin and death, is the liberation accomplished by the death and resurrection of Christ". Therefore, to listen to the poor meant accepting traditional piety. Instead of "serving as the voice for the voiceless," the liberationists were seeking to misdirect popular piety toward an earthly plan of liberation. According to Ratzinger, this would lead to another form of slavery, and was a "criminal" act.
In other words, liberationists were enslaving the poor to their material needs; the need to escape from desperate poverty, malnourishment, rampaging infant mortality, illiteracy and so forth. Were it not for these irresponsible dissident priests, filling their heads with ideas, the poor would revel in their earthly piety and concentrate on seeking salvation in the next life. Driven by this repulsive moral-absenteeism, Ratzinger moved to eradicate liberation theology more or less single-handedly, and by silencing its advocates, actively worked to destroy the hopes of the world's poor. In this life, that is.
Was this what the Archbishop of Canterbury was referring to when he described Ratzinger as “a theologian of great stature who has written some profound reflections on the nature of God and the Church”?
From 1981, Cardinal Ratzinger ran the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; formerly known as the Inquisition. Gaining the nickname “God's Rottweiler”, his injunctions included pronouncements that homosexuality is evil, that other religions and versions of Christianity are defective, and that women should not be allowed to sing in choirs or serve at the altar. He also barred Catholic priests from counselling pregnant teenagers on their options.
Under Ratzinger’s enforcement of doctrine the Vatican continued to forbid the use of condoms, even for health, and went so far as to claim they do not prevent the spread of Aids. This in spite of the fact that between 1981 and the end of 2003 Aids killed 20 million people, and that during 2004 around five million adults and children became infected with HIV.
Ratzinger’s doctrines leave little room for attempts to improve the lot of humanity, at least not in this world. As he once lamented, “Greenpeace and Amnesty International seem to have taken over mankind's concerns, which formerly would have radiated from the impulses of Raphael, Michelangelo or Bach”. In Ratzinger’s moral calculus, efforts to alleviate the suffering of the most unfortunate among us rank some way below contemplation of divinity and adherence to papal dogma. This is most clearly demonstrated by his ruthless crusade against Liberation Theology in Latin America.
In the 1980’s Ratzinger sought to ostracize the mass movement of “Liberation Theology” which was calling for major social reforms in favour of the poor. The movement’s leading figures were condemned and ordered to remain silent. Even before Ratzinger’s appointment in 1981 the suppression was underway. When Archbishop Oscar Romero denounced the gut-wrenchingly brutal dictatorship of El Salvador, he was reprimanded for not being sufficiently balanced in his criticisms of the regime, which the then Pope referred to as the legitimate government. Continuation under Ratzinger was seamless. In 1984, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff was reprimanded for his efforts to speak out against the military dictatorship in his country, banned from preaching and from celebrating the sacraments. Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns, the archbishop of São Paulo who had supported Boff, had his diocese drastically reduced in size and conservative bishops were brought in by the Pope.
For Ratzinger, the attempts of liberation theology to alleviate poverty in this life served as a distraction from the higher goal of seeking spiritual redemption beyond the material world. From the opulent comfort of the Vatican, Ratzinger opined that “It is the poor, the object of God's special love, who understand best ….that the most radical liberation, which is liberation from sin and death, is the liberation accomplished by the death and resurrection of Christ". Therefore, to listen to the poor meant accepting traditional piety. Instead of "serving as the voice for the voiceless," the liberationists were seeking to misdirect popular piety toward an earthly plan of liberation. According to Ratzinger, this would lead to another form of slavery, and was a "criminal" act.
In other words, liberationists were enslaving the poor to their material needs; the need to escape from desperate poverty, malnourishment, rampaging infant mortality, illiteracy and so forth. Were it not for these irresponsible dissident priests, filling their heads with ideas, the poor would revel in their earthly piety and concentrate on seeking salvation in the next life. Driven by this repulsive moral-absenteeism, Ratzinger moved to eradicate liberation theology more or less single-handedly, and by silencing its advocates, actively worked to destroy the hopes of the world's poor. In this life, that is.
Was this what the Archbishop of Canterbury was referring to when he described Ratzinger as “a theologian of great stature who has written some profound reflections on the nature of God and the Church”?
Ratzinger’s rise to the Papacy is ominous indeed. But, when comparing him to his predecessor one should reflect that all of the abovementioned exploits occurred under the gaze of Pope John Paul II. When considering alternative paths the church might have taken one should reflect that, to a greater or lesser extent, religious dogma will always attempt to subordinate rationality. Those who believe that a reasoned enquiry into the workings of the world around us offers humanity’s best hope of happiness and fulfilment should reflect on Ratzinger’s warped and scornful view of that secular humanism: "Relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards. We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires". We can be sure that Pope Benedict XVI will spend his reign working tirelessly to protect the poorest and most vulnerable from their own corrupting desires.
14 Comments:
I really like what you wrote. Everything is backwards. Sensibiltiy should be ignored in favor of submission. Catholicism tries to institutionalize ignorance. The Church is perverse. Slavery is offered, not salvation.
It's so obvious. But humanity is trapped. There is no escape for us. it appears we are doomed.
...well...I wouldn't put it quite so strongly as your last paragraph. I got all this info from publicly available sources, secularism is on the rise in europe...so although organised religion does present a challenge that's less true than it was, in the 15th century for example.
we're not doomed, altheperson
I think you miss understand these issues.
1. The Pope condemed Liberation Theology not because he thought it might do some good to the poor but because it was linking radical marxist ideology with Roman catholicism and using this nexus to justify terrorism and violence in the name of the poor. The papal authorities thought this was a miss use of Christ's fundamentally peaceful message. The problem then was with the means not the ends.
2. The church condems sex out side of marriage the single best way of preventing AIDs. Why should those who break this rule worry about breaking the rule on condoms? If they are not breaking this rule then they should not be at risk...
NYE
hi - thanks for your comments
On your first point I'll say two things.
Firstly, if you'll look at the above quotes from Ratzinger's refutation of Liberation Theology you'll see that he did in fact identify a theological dissonance between the offer of material salvation on earth and the prospect of spiritual salvation in heaven. Given the realities of poverty in Latin America at the time I think that's a pretty sickening view to take. Maybe it sounds better in the Vatican library than in the slums of São Paulo.
Secondly, if the Pope's stand was a principled one against violence and terrorism, why then did he reprimand Archbishop Oscar Romero for speaking out against the government of El Salvador, and describe the vicious regime there as the legitimate government? If you follow the "El Salvador" link above you'll see some graphic descriptions of that legitimate government's behaviour. For example:
"The results of Salvadoran military training are graphically described in the Jesuit journal America by Daniel Santiago, a Catholic priest working in El Salvador. He tells of a peasant woman who returned home one day to find her three children, her mother and her sister sitting around a table, each with its own decapitated head placed carefully on the table in front of the body, the hands arranged on top "as if each body was stroking its own head."
The assassins, from the Salvadoran National Guard, had found it hard to keep the head of an 18-month-old baby in place, so they nailed the hands onto it. A large plastic bowl filled with blood was tastefully displayed in the center of the table.
According to Rev. Santiago, macabre scenes of this kind aren't uncommon."
The Vatican could have given support to those brave priests who spoke out against such despicable atrocities, whilst still condemning the use of violence (unless in direct self defence of course, given these horrors). Liberation Theology was not, as you suggest, necessarily or exclusively linked to violence. It was a broad movement that arose to defend the poor against a series of savage Latin American police states. It would have been a small effort on the Vatican's part to at least lend qualified support in principle to the peaceful majority of that movement. Instead, the Papacy set about stamping it out altogether. The problem was not with the means as opposed to the ends. The problem was with the Vatican's moral bankruptcy.
On your second point, I do have some sympathy with your view . However, the problem is that although its rationally consistent in fairly narrow terms, there are real-life implications on the ground that are far less intellectually satisfying. In many countries AIDS is spread by lack of female empowerment; where women cannot refuse intercourse or oblige their promiscuous partners to wear a condoms, and so place themselves - and their foetus - at risk. Often, the papal doctrine only serves to provide justification for irresponsible, promiscuous men not to use condoms. Whether or not that's what the Vatican intends is largely irrelevant because that's the entirely predictable result of how its message plays out in reality. At the very least the Vatican could stop contradicting the message coming from the AIDS charities who are striving to mitigate the effects of this epidemic. Its stance is profoundly unhelpful.
Both AIDS and poverty are serious subjects that require detailed, balanced, nuanced and reasoned solutions. The search for those solutions is far too important to be hamstrung by the demands of holy doctrine, where possibilities are closed off if they do not comply with some ancient scripture or another. As I said before, religious dogma will always, to a greater or lesser extent, attempt to subordinate rationality. It will therefore, to a greater or lesser extent, continue to be an obstacle that standing between humanity and a less blighted existence, in this life.
Most of the views we hold "subordinate rationality"! For a simple example rationally justify the value you place on human life, well being and equality...it is impossible. Our shared strong belief in these is not based on rationality but totally founded on faith. Now I am no Roman Catholic but I accept their right to have faith in things higher than mere rationality. I dont agree with them and I have principled arguments with in the faith structure of the Catholic Church against their views. However, that is not to say that I do not accept their right to such a faith even when it advises actions that I disagree with. You should not be a secular bigot any more than they should be a religious one.
On the point about promisicious husbands. The male/female power relation here is to blame not the Catholic church. If the man does not want to use condoms or to sleep around he will and the Catholic church can not effect that. If he is doing the second and doesnt want to do the first I can not see how the Catholic church diluting its message will help. Surely stressing the importance of monogomy would be far more useful.
I think if you want to tackle the Catholic Church on condoms the secret is not to agrue as you do. It belittles strongly held faith and dogma. Rather I suggest argueing that the principle of double effect allows for condom use. The principle is part of papal orthodoxy and states that if one does something for good reasons but this act has forseen negative side effects it is still possible for the initial intent to over rule and justify the act. In the case of an operation that will save a mother's life but as a forseen side-effect will kill her unborn baby the catholic church allows the operation on the basis of double effect. I think that this reasoning can be applyed to condoms. The intent is to protect one's own life and that of your partner, the unintended side effect is contraception. This would not justify other forms of contraception like the pill it therefore would allow the Church to remain consistent while allowing for the needs of the poor. This is an arguement which accepts the basis of faith but gets the same result as your arguments. As such i think it is worth focusing on. Enjoying your sight very much keep it up.
NYE
The value of human life, well being and equality is that the more human beings are free to realise their potential the more they can achieve and the greater the sum of human happiness. That would be my rational justification.
In any case, whatever the flaws of rationalism, it can hardly be compared with religious faith. The Enlightenment - from which came advances in science, democracy, liberalism, socialism, capitalism - is at least an attempt to establish what we know methodically, and use this knowledge to increase the sum of human happiness (without such attempts you and I would not be at our respective PCs discussing this). Religion, by contrast, is nothing of the sort.
You go on to confuse my criticisms of the behaviour of the Vatican (shutting down the diocese of priests fighting against state terrorism, undermining the work of aids charities) with an attack on their right to their faith. These are two very different things. Criticisms of another's point of view - be that view religious or otherwise - is not in any sense bigotry. No more than you're being bigoted for posting your comments here or denying me my right to my views by disagreeing with me.
Regarding the use of condoms - as I said before, whatever the Vatican might have intended to say with its stance on this is irrelevant. It was entirely predictable that the message would be abused in the way that it has, given the male/female power relation you describe, and which the Vatican is perfectly well aware of. The stance is therefore irresponsible, and needs to change as you go on to accept yourself.
Moral bankruptcy of the Vatican? Excuse me? You are a prime example of the relativism Ratzinger writes of but you do not recognize it. Catholic bashing is so very convenient when the real blame for social ills is to be found in more uncomfortable places. Latin America's poverty is a product of malignant US economic and military policies and the corrupt Latin American governments themselves (I know a bit about it as I was born there). To blame the Vatican for the spread of HIV is patently absurd. Vast numbers of NON-Catholic men refuse the use of condoms as "unmanly". A woman who must prostitute herself for a bowl of rice would laugh at your completely naive concept of "female empowerment" provided she understood the meaning. She can't afford to lose a customer by insisting on protection, even if she could pay for a condom in the first place. This may offend your sense of political correctness but ethnic and cultural subtleties are vastly more significant in influencing the spread of HIV than the Church. Economics, local and global politics play the most prominent role. In fact, the Church is often the only help and hope desperately poor people have, no matter what their faith. Perhaps I have spent more time in poor and developing countries than you and have seen how complex the struggle for survival is on a daily basis. The virulent tone of your article is indicative of an armchair philosopher with little insight or understanding but plenty of inflated opinions. Warped and scornful, those were your words, but they should be applied to your own article and not to Ratzinger's thoughtful, if not always agreeable work.
Munich, Germany
Hi - thanks for your comments. I'll try and respond to each of your points
My article recognised and identified the source of these problems in Latin America as being the US-backed police states. A movement against the malignant economic and military policies of those regimes grew out of local Catholicism and the communities that were engaged in the complex struggle for survival that you mentioned. The Vatican moved to stamp out that movement. To hold the Vatican to account for this is not "Catholic bashing". It is to observe minimal levels of moral responsibility.
I'm sure you're not suggesting that I've tried to blame the Vatican alone for HIV/Aids among Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Plainly economics and politics play the most prominent role, as you say. What I've said, pretty clearly, is that the Vatican's stance is profoundly unhelpful in the struggle against the epidemic, for reasons I've described. Opposing the use of condoms is, putting it mildly, not a positive contribution to the broader state of affairs. Again, to hold the Vatican to account for this is not "Catholic bashing". It is to observe minimal levels of moral responsibility.
I recognise the good work that many religious organisations do in the third world (hence the link to Pressureworks, a Christian Aid initiative, at the top of the homepage, hence my lamenting the attacks on Archbishop Romero and others in the Liberation Theology movement). Neither this, nor the greater influence of other factors in regard to the problems of Latin American and the Aids epidemic, puts the Vatican above and beyond responsibility for its actions.
Just a quick one...
"The value of human life, well being and equality is that the more human beings are free to realise their potential the more they can achieve and the greater the sum of human happiness. That would be my rational justification."
This is not a rational justification of your beliefs. It is a statement of what is important to you namely "The sum of human happiness" and how you believe it can be achieved. There is no rational reason to value this end. It would be completely rational to hold the opposite view take for example the egoist. There is only personel reasons. What you value is therefor no better no worse than what the Catholic values. Just different values, yours humanist theirs based on tradition and the bible. You can not claim therefore to trump theirs. That is the point I was making before, I did not mean to suggest that you were a bigot but that bigotry is possible from either side if they fail to appreciate the nature of their own values.
NYE
quick one indeed
I'll happily acknowledge that I can't prove, and wouldn't attempt to prove, the absolute value of the sum of human happiness. It is purely in the service of this single deeply illogical, mindlessly irrational belief that I think reason should be devoted. I'm pretty comfortable with that. Might I gently suggest that if you don't share that view - if you don't view the sum of human happiness as the ultimate value - then you've come to the wrong place? If you don't share it I'm not about to try and convince you otherwise.
I would also be happy to consider the possibility that the greater glory of some God or another should be valued as above or even equal to the sum of human happiness - just as soon as you can prove God's existence. Otherwise we might just have strayed a little too far into the realms of abstraction. You can of course make a comparison between a single belief - in the value of the sum of human happiness - and religious beliefs that encompass vast ancient texts, doctrines, superstitions and rituals. The comparison would be a shallow one but you could make it. However, to actually equate the two systems simply on the basis that belief exists in each - completely ignoring the massive differences in nature and scale of belief - constitutes (forgive me) some pretty lazy thinking.
By equating the two in this facile manner it seems to me that we're not having a serious discussion of ethical behaviour and how it affects real people in real life situations. We're discussing grand abstractions. Lets then travel back the long distance to the point of this discussion, which was the record of Joseph Ratzinger. The article condemned his attack on a liberation movement in Latin America and his deeply unhelpful position on contraception. Ratzinger apparently made these attacks because he values the service of an imaginary God, ancient texts, doctrines, superstitions and rituals, over and above the actual welfare of really existing human beings. If you're comfortable with the assertion that his system of values and mine are equally worthy of dismissal then fair enough. That's for you. And as I say, I'm not about to try and convince you otherwise.
Hello,
It is nice to see reason employed in this debate.
The censure of various Catholic theologins, priests, etc. were not done on the basis of 'they are Liberation Theologians/advocate', but on the specific actions or words they issued. Gutierrez, the principle theologian of the movement, for example, is a well-respected theologian with a prime teaching position in the Church. The specific issues the the Magisterium had with certain people and the Ratzinger was specifically addressing are a) no theology can be concerned only with the material world - to divorce theology from spirituality it to leave theology and enter philosophy. That's fine, but call it philosophy, not theology. And b) many used the term 'Liberation Theology' as a mask for marxist advocacy, a fact the Romero himself decried.
Romero was chastized as he was for the very practical reason that he was also a political entity. The prominence of his office in Latin America meant that his words had very direct political impact. His words led to a crackdown on mission activities in El Salvador that prevented priests from ministering to the poor and sick due to reactions from the government. Basically, he was told that there were ways to do and say what he was doing while throwing a bone to the rulers that would allow them to 'ignore' what he said and permit the missions to continue.
And I agree with many others - the Church teaches that the only acceptable sexual intercourse is within a monogamous marriage. When someone disregards this and then uses Church teachings to also decline a condom, you must blame the person, not the Church. And I must agree with the Church - epidemiology stats from the Real World indicate that condoms don't effectively stop AIDS; Ask the CDC and WHO. The only program in Africa that is truly effective is Uganda's, one based on (shockingly) abstinence and monogamy.
And to demand that someone change a moral and ethical stance because it is abused and misunderstood is the height of arrogance. Morals and ethics don't change, Diarist. If people misunderstand them, they need to be educated.
And I must point out that the core conceit of the Enlightenment - that the universe is coherent and knowable and that the tool for this gathering of knowledge - is a Catholic conceit. Universities and hospitals were invented by the Church and the great jewles of reason were preserved and spread by the Church. Aristotle's nicomachean Ethics and the logic of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are the foundations of Catholic theology to this day. The Enlightenment was not despite the Church, it was founded on it.
Hi - just some quick thoughts.
Your first main paragraph makes a theological/philosophical point. Perhaps that point has merit. Perhaps not. I've said already that at the time of these events what was rather more important was to support, or at least not actively try and crush, a mass movement challenging vicious state terrorism. Let them call it theology, philosophy, botany, ornithology...whatever...just let them defend themselves. Look at the conditions in Latin America at the time - which do you think is the more important issue?
Later on you say that "to demand that someone change a moral and ethical stance because it is abused and misunderstood is the height of arrogance." Pretty strong words since you appear to condone just that in your second main paragraph. Not sure I can comment on either paragraph until you clarify this.
re.condoms and aids prevention - "The consistent use of male latex condoms significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection in men and women" - WHO website. http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/rtis/male_condom.html
"Universities and hospitals were invented by the Church" - I'm sure you didn't mean to use the word 'invented'. More generally your last paragraph I fear rather misses the point. The Enlightenment was a specific and fundamental rejection of God and the church on philosophical grounds. Therein lies the Enlightenment's strength, for reasons I've already described and to which I've nothing to add.
"if you don't view the sum of human happiness as the ultimate value - then you've come to the wrong place? If you don't share it I'm not about to try and convince you otherwise."
That is a shame because it is very questionable whether the sum of human happiness is the ultimate end in morality. Many would argue that doing the right thing may in some cases involve decreasing the sum. For example killing an innocent man as ransom for the lives of many. The point is debateable but that is my point.
As for the need for this discussion. Both levels are necessary if we are going to understand the right thing to do. Ofcourse we must look at practicle reasoning but to do so with out consideration of higher principle would be as pointless and dangerous as to consider principle with out action.
Finally I still hold the self evidence of the supremecy of the sum of human happiness is personal to you and not based on any rational process. Therefore I still hold it is of no greater validity or importance than the faith of others who disagree with you and put the will of God or Kantian duty before the sum. Still greatly enjoying your site!
NYE
thanks for your contribution, nye. I think my last reply to you addresses the points you make here so I won't repeat myself, if you'll forgive me
Post a Comment
<< Home