"I’d like to have seen the world’s billion or so Catholics wake as if from a dream and say "Damn! The man was a fraud!" They could have run through the streets of Italy kicking his head along like a football, singing "that’s the end of all that bullshit!". Better that than all this inane reverence." – Ryan at Full Spectrum Democracy
No, Ryan’s post isn’t ignorantly anti-religious: it’s polemically anti-clerical, which is a fine English tradition.
Meanwhile, normally-sane-ish Non-Trivial Solutions has a spectacularly wrong-headed post. Upsettingly, he’s attacking a halfway sane article by Stephen Pollard, who is usually a twat.
"Anti-Catholicism good. Anti-Semitism bad. Right, got it, Stephen…", says NTS. Well, yes. Antisemitism is about hating people of the Jewish race; anti-Catholicism is about hating the institutions and leaders of the Catholic Church. The former is indefensible; the latter is perfectly defensible; and the difference is sufficiently obvious that one could only fail to grasp it if one were being deliberately obtuse.
Pollard’s article is in turn about this by Polly Toynbee:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1454932,00.html
anti-Catholicism is about hating the institutions and leaders of the Catholic Church
Depends where and when. When Ian Paisley claims that the Pope is the Whore of Babylon and that Catholics are worshippers of the antiChrist who will all go to hell, it’s not obvious what institutional or liturgical reforms might be made to accomodate him.
Fair play: should’ve been "Toynbee’s, Pollard’s and my anti-Catholicism is about hating the institutions and leaders of the Catholic church".
I suspect Glasgow Rangers fans’ take on the issue is also based on different intellectual foundations…
‘Normally sane-ish’, ‘spectacularly wrong-headed’. I will definitely stick that on the by-line. Yeah, it was a bit of a ranty post, but Pollard has a really irritating habit of taking anything negative that’s even slightly, tangentially related to Judaism, and crying foul, and Toynbee’s article was pretty disgusting, thinly-veiled racism:
‘The Vatican’s deeper power is in its personal authority over 1.3 billion worshippers, which is strongest over the poorest, most helpless devotees.’
Those poor Africans who don’t understand any better… So I over-reacted.
But I’ll agree that Pollard is a twat.
Andrew: "Pollard has a really irritating habit of taking anything negative that’s even slightly, tangentially related to Judaism, and crying foul"
But then Andrew does exactly what he criticises Pollard for.
‘The Vatican’s deeper power is in its personal authority over 1.3 billion worshippers, which is strongest over the poorest, most helpless devotees.’
‘poorest, most helpless’ equals black therefore it’s ‘thinly veiled racism’. Come on!
Okay then – who are the poorest, most helpless Catholics in the world?
It’s very much a toss-up between the Africans and the Vietnamese, and I wouldn’t be sure that the Africans win this particular world cup of poverty and helplessness. Catholicism isn’t really all that big in Africa, mainly due to French colonialism not having been anything like as big as British – the only big African countries that are majority Catholic are Burundi and Democratic Republic of Congo.
… Nope, on a percapita GDP basis it’s not even close. Congo is $700 and Burundi is $600; Vietnam is more like $2,500, Cambodia $1,900 and even Laos is $1,700. So African Catholics are poorer than Southeast Asian Catholics. They also have to deal with 4.2% adult prevalence of HIV/Aids in DRC and 6% in Burundi, compared to 0.4% in Vietnam and 2% in Cambodia. Although this does suggest that the HIV problem is much more to do with being in Africa than being Catholics.
I disagree, however, that the Catholic Church’s power is greatest in DRC and Burundi. It’s a much stronger political force in Latin America. And while not as badly off as the Africans, the Vietnamese are still pretty damn helpless and the Vatican has next to no power there; it’s a Communist state.
It’s also a pretty dismal caricature of the truth to say that the Catholic Church "refuses support to all who offer condoms". CAFOD doesn’t fund the distribution of condoms itself, but that isn’t the same as withdrawing all funding from any project that has so much as a sniff of latex to it.
Right, and now we’ve established that it’s the African Catholics, it isn’t an enormous leap of logic to describe the following as racist:
i) African Catholics are in thrall to the Pope. They can’t use condoms for fear of upsetting the priests, and because they’re poorly educated, and get most of their sexual morality taught from the pulpit, so they get AIDS and die.
ii) African Catholics ignore the Pope. They sleep around with multiple partners, have sex before marriage, and generally display total contempt for Catholic teaching on fidelity and abstinence. This is human nature, and they can’t help it.
which is pretty much Polly Toynbee’s position.
"It isn’t an enormous leap of logic to describe the following as racist"
Yes it is. The fact that we’re talking about black Africans doesn’t make it racist. Polly Toynbee’s position is neither racist nor inconsistent:
(i) African Catholics tend to be conservative and take all papal edicts very seriously (more so than western liberal Catholics of whatever colour).
(ii) Sex education in large parts of Africa is not up to much (though this isn’t because they’re black, more because they’re poor).
(iii) Some papal edicts are hard to follow: fidelity and abstinence. Since African Catholics (like people everywhere) are hormonally charged and fallible, they sometimes (like people everywhere) give in to temptation and have sex before marriage, etc. I’m sure (like Catholics everywhere) they feel very guilty about it and go to confession afterwards.
(iv) Some papal edicts are very easy to follow: don’t use condoms. So when African Catholics break the rules of abstinence and fidelity ((iii) above), not wishing to compound their sin ((i) above), and not realising what a terrible idea it is ((ii) above) they don’t use condoms.
The result is that the papal condom-edict definitely (though not deliberately) facilitates the spread of HIV, which in my opinion puts blood on the irresponsible hands of the late Pope.
The result is that the papal condom-edict definitely (though not deliberately) facilitates the spread of HIV
Not sure the evidence bears this out. While the condom edict facilitates the spread of HIV, the fidelity & abstinence edict impedes it, and the two (obviously) come as a pair. I would also argue that while African Catholics might be more conservative than non-African Catholics (I have no evidence for this, btw), this doesn’t mean they’re necessarily more conservative than other African Christian denominations which also preach abstinence.
Anyway, Zambia has a land frontier with DRC and an HIV prevalence of 16.5%. Tanzania is on 8.8% and Uganda on 4.1%. So it doesn’t seem obvious to me that Catholicism has had a measurably detrimental effect.
I’d agree with Andrew that Toynbee’s point of view is really quite patronising as it deprives the Africans of all agency in the matter; they don’t really make an appearance in her world except as convenient props to be wheeled on stage when they’re need to bash someone with.
"While the condom edict facilitates the spread of HIV…"
Note: to disagree with someone you have to take a contrary stance to them.
"the two (obviously) come as a pair"
The two edicts needn’t come as a pair. The Pope could have preached abstinence and fidelity without ever making the condom-edict. But he made the condom-edict, as a result of which many people have died who wouldn’t otherwise have done. I don’t buy this "balancing out" idea: if I kill 2 people and then save 2 people from drowning, I’ve still killed 2 people (not none).
The Pope could have preached abstinence and fidelity without ever making the condom-edict.
You are coming perilously close here to suggesting that the Pope might not have been Catholic.
But he made the condom-edict, as a result of which many people have died who wouldn’t otherwise have done
Not proven; see above.
I don’t buy this "balancing out" idea: if I kill 2 people and then save 2 people from drowning, I’ve still killed 2 people (not none).
Don’t be silly. We’re talking about large-scale, macro-level, at-a-distance and over time effects here. Of course some sort of "balancing out" idea has to be operative. Otherwise, for example, you couldn’t balance out the cost of not fighting the second World War against the number of people killed.
"Not proven; see above."
Well you conceded earlier that: "…the condom edict facilitates the spread of HIV…"
Don’t you think that telling people not to use condoms during an AIDS pandemic might possibly cause a few extra infections? It seems to be an accepted fact on the ground among charity-workers, even Catholic ones:
http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/lesserEvil.htm
"Don’t be silly."
I don’t think that considering the condom-edict and its consequences in isolation is silly. Nor do I think any "balancing out" is necessary: if the condom-edict saved lives in some other way then it would be reasonable to weigh that in the balance. But it doesn’t. It’s just mad, and trying to defend it by "balancing it out" with a more sensible, possibly life-saving edict, seems enormously disingenuous, not to say very silly.
We don’t have to talk about long-term large-scale effects. We can just talk about a few individuals who find themselves in the situation of (i)-(iv) above and get AIDS because they followed this terrible papal edict. That’s enough for me.
Look, this is the Pope we’re talking about, not some random social theorist. The condom edict and the abstinence edict are not two separate things; they are both implications of the Church’s teaching on sex outside of marriage and contraception. That’s why I said they come as a pair. Someone who maintained one but not the other would not be in accordance with Catholic doctrine and last time I looked, that was a barrier to becoming Pope.
And "talking about a few individuals" is, well, silly if the context is AIDS in Africa. In any case, unless you live in a monastery, nobody forces you to follow Papal edicts. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Personal responsibility’s for white people. I thought everyone knew that.
Dsquared – the Pope *is* in a position to change Catholic doctrine (eg Vatican II). Indeed, he’s the *only* person in a position to change Catholic doctrine.
Had JPII stated that barrier-only contraception was acceptable for married couples in exceptional circumstances – eg where one partner is HIV+ – this would have changed Catholic doctrine on the matter. I know this undermines wider doctrinal points, but so did moving towards vernacular Mass and they did it anyway…
Personal responsibility isn’t directly relevant here, unless you believe BAT should be allowed to advertise cigarettes with slogans such as "tobacco seriously improves your health" on the grounds that only idiots will fall for that kind of nonsense (as it happens, the only reasons I’m opposed to this are pragmatic, although I’m aware others have more sympathy towards idiots than I).
As John says, the Catholic doctrine on contraception is only what it is because that’s what the Pope said. If he’d said something more sensible then fewer people would have died.
On "talking about a few individuals", I wish to demonstrate that the Pope’s condom edict is responsible for some people, who wouldn’t otherwise have done, dying of AIDS in Africa. In fact I believe that he’s responsible for millions of deaths, but showing this would involve getting in a never-ending war of statistics with you, which I don’t have the time for. However I can easily show that he is responsible for at least a few deaths: almost everyone involved accepts this, (i)-(iv) above give a plausible explanation for how it might happen, and anyway it’s obviously true. Being responsible for a few unnecessary AIDS related deaths is already enough for me to conclude that in this instance, the Pope was a bad man.
Yes people who die of AIDS in Africa have to accept some measure of responsibility for their fate. But this is lessened given that: they were surrounded by other HIV+ people (and therefore can count themselves unlucky); their sex-education-classes were pretty piss-poor so they didn’t fully know the consequences of their actions (again Squander 2 notice that this is because they’re poor, not because they’re black); people they respected (Catholic priests and other ideological types) told them that using condoms was bad, and again due to poor education they were unable to tell fact from fiction.
As John says, the Catholic doctrine on contraception is only what it is because that’s what the Pope said
I hold no brief for the bead-ticklers, but it’s a bit more complicated than that!
In fact I believe that he’s responsible for millions of deaths, but showing this would involve getting in a never-ending war of statistics with you, which I don’t have the time for
Well, you believe this in the face of the evidence then. Might I respectfully suggest that if you don’t have time to look up the statistics, there is always the option of saving time by cutting down on the number of accusations of responsibility for millions of deaths that you make?
> Might I respectfully suggest that if you don’t have time to look up the statistics, there is always the option of saving time by cutting down on the number of accusations of responsibility for millions of deaths that you make?
Very nicely put, sir.
> it’s a bit more complicated than that!
Certainly is. There’s doctrine and there’s doctrine. Taking John’s example of the vernacular mass, at no point did God tell humanity that we had to speak in Latin. Multiplying to populate the Earth, on the other hand, is a command from God.
John,
Tobacco is bad for everyone who uses it. Sex without condoms is not inherently dangerous.
The fact that Catholics ought to believe Man ought to multiply to populate the Earth is not in dispute.
Whether the best strategy for human population maximisation involves dying of AIDS before your children grow up, however, is a different call – hence the way I hedged my suggestion of ‘things the Pope could plausibly have said without the cardinals assassinating/deposing him’.
And lying that HIV gets through holes in condoms is equivalent, in my view, to lying that tobacco is good for you.
Oh, I’m with you on the porosity issue: an outright lie. Mind you, it’s a lie that is only damaging to people who don’t follow Catholic rules, and it’s a lie aimed at Catholics, so, again, anyone damaged by that lie is picking and choosing which bits of Catholicism they believe.
JOhn, you make no point, your wandering completely of the original arguement and then using circular logic to defend yourself.
You’ve no facts or stats, yet you make outrageous statements about the pope being a mass murderer.
The point about AIDS is:
"If catholics listen to the church about sex before marriage and fidelity then the point for using condoms is mute."
YOu can’t pick and choose which rules you’ll obey, and then blame the catholic church when your not happy.
I wonder if Anti-Judaism would be accepted as easily from some of the posters here?
a) I’m neither wandering off the original argument nor using circular logic to defend myself. If you believe me to be doing so, please indicate where, so that I can explain why you’re wrong.
b) One clearly *can* pick and choose which rules one will obey and then blame the Catholic Church when one isn’t not happy (‘not happy’ here means ‘dying of AIDS’, of course); the question is whether it is reasonable to do so.
c) No, because antisemitism isn’t a matter of religion. If someone were to criticise Orthodox Jewish doctrine, this would be entirely fine. By the same token, if anyone here were saying that stinking greasy Wops and stupid thuggish Polacks were evil, or whatever other Catholic-ethnic group association you’d care to make, this wouldn’t be accepted.
The point is that, quite obviously, Catholic doctrine could be better; they could change their minds tomorrow and sign up to the WHO agenda, but they’re not going to. What I’m not convinced of is the proposition advanced by Polly Toynbee and others that the actions of the Catholic Church in promoting Catholicism in Africa have been, on balance, bad rather than good. I’m just not seeing this in the numbers. (Then there’s the extra "lunatic’s leap" taken by some other commentators of blaming the Pope for all, or even a majority of Africa’s problems, which given that there are fewer than 150m Catholics in the whole of Africa has to be wrong).
For what it’s worth, the Muslims follow roughly the same line as the Catholic Church on the condoms vs abstinence thing AFAICT which might not be very far.