Abolition of limbo now in limbo

I was highly amused to read this week that the Pope has decided, after lengthy investigation and consultation by the International Theological Commission, to consign the concept of ‘limbo’ to the dustbin of history. Limbo, commonly understood to be some sort of halfway house between ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, has long been something of a headache for the Catholic Church. It is supposed to be the eternal resting place of unbaptised babies (because they would not have been cleansed of ‘original sin’ – of course.) and anyone unfortunate enough to have lived before Jesus. Which all seems a bit unfair doesn’t it? But that was the problem: the Church wants us to believe in the concept of a loving and forgiving god; yet this same god is apparently quite happy to condemn the souls of millions of innocents to an eternity in purgatory. How can we possibly reconcile these two different sides to the almighty? Hmmmm. It’s a real chin-stroker alright.

Prior to the 13^th century, it was taught that all unbaptised people went straight to hell when they died, but that was considered a bit harsh on babies who could not possibly have committed any sins yet. And so ‘limbo’ came to be. A place where people would suffer no pain, but neither would they experience the ‘Beatific Vision of God’. In 2004, Pope John Paul II commissioned an investigation with the task of coming up with “a more coherent and enlightened” way of dealing with the fate of innocent infants. The results of that investigation are now known and limbo, it seems, is going to be consigned to, well, philosophical limbo. It’s out. Passé. It was never official Catholic Church teaching anyway and, in the words of Pope Benedict himself: “It has always been only a theological hypothesis.” (Unlike the rest of the Church’s beliefs and teachings of course, which are all based on solid facts and hard evidence.) But isn’t it nice to know that there are people out there spending their time mulling these things over? That people are taking over two years of their precious lives to come to the conclusion that a concept patently made up to plug a theological gap (which has now become inconvenient), a place that clearly does not and could not exist, doesn’t exist?

What unmitigated, abominable nonsense of the highest order! Nonsense on stilts, to borrow Jeremy Bentham’s legendary phrase. Nonsense sent to Nonsense College and awarded a PhD in Advanced Nonsense with honours, presented by Professor Nonsense of the International Committee for the Advancement of Nonsense. Never mind the fact that there is just as much evidence for the existence of limbo as there is for the existence of heaven or hell: none whatsoever. A colossal waste of time.

But the matter is still not satisfactorily resolved. For it appears that official abolition of the concept of limbo will be held up for another year. A suspended sentence, if you will. So we now have a situation where the proposed consignment of limbo to philosophical limbo appears to be in, um, limbo.

I’m going for a lie down.

This is an outrage! The Pope, Islam and perpetual offence.

So, to recap. The Pope makes a speech in Germany and, touching upon the concept of violence within religion, repeats a quote made by Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus in 1391: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Cue hysteria and outrage across much of the Muslim world. Cue shock, disgust and despair. Cue thousands of Muslims taking to the streets in India, Pakistan, Turkey and Gaza burning effigies of the Pope, clashing with the police and attacking Catholic churches, outraged that their religion has again been associated with intolerance and violence. I mean, where does this undeserved reputation come from?

 

Some Muslim gentlemen turn up to engage in a
philosophical debate about their belief system.

Andrew Sullivan here reproduces a quote from a spokeswoman for the Pakistan Foreign Ministry which perfectly summarises this response: “Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.” Beautiful. This is right up there with the one I quoted from someone protesting against the Danish cartoons in Afghanistan: “They want to test our feelings. They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers.”

 

 

Bonfire of the Inanities

Islam strikes me as a particularly childish faith. Of course, all religions are childish with their superstitions, anachronisms and rituals; their reverence of ‘sacred’ texts, rocks, buildings and animals. But Islam in particular is so rigid and inflexible, so unopen to dialogue, reasoning or criticism, so unchanged since the Middle Ages, it sets itself up for strife. It is the Daily Mail of religions: stuck in another age, frozen rigid in a permanent sense of outrage, preternaturally conditioned to take offence at the slightest opportunity. Prepared to kill in defence of its beliefs. Beliefs that are not open to debate under any circumstances.

And so the Pope, quoting from an ancient text and making it very clear from the outset that these were not his own words, has been forced into making an apology for words which he is not personally responsible for in the hope of nullifying the anger that has erupted – again – through the Islamic world. (Question to Muslims everywhere: is there anything you don’t get offended about?) Of course, one might question the Pope’s motives for highlighting this particular text, and one could also point out that the Catholic Church is in no position to criticise or comment on any faith that seeks to enforce and perpetuate its belief system through violence, as it worked well enough for them for hundreds of years. A pot-kettle-black situation if ever there was one. But it’s little short of depressing that for days the biggest news story has been caused by the leader of one redundant belief system quoting some words spoken 615 years ago by somebody most people have never even heard of, criticising the philosophy of another redundant belief system.

Non-theists like myself can only howl in despair and rage. I think I might take to the streets in protest. Would anyone like to join me?

Midweek review

We’re halfway through the week. Let’s sit back and reflect on some of the issues of the moment.

1. I must say, I’ve been enjoying this immensely. The US Episcopal Church has ‘stunned’ Christians around the world by electing something called a ‘woman’ as a primate in the Anglican Church. I have no idea what a ‘primate’ is in this context – I thought they were apes? Ironic, given the aversion of much of the American Christian movement to evolutionary theory (or any type of theory, save for that which involves shutting their eyes and talking to the sky), that the leaders of their church are named after our simian ancestry. Anyway, it’s caused a right rumpus because, err, um. Nope, I cannot get my head around it either. A woman? A representative of 50% of the planet? In the upper echelons of the church? Outrageous. They’ll be appointing homosexuals next! What’s that, you say? Oh. Let’s just sit back and watch them squabble over this pointless debate, perpetually reinforcing their own utter irrelevance to the rest of us.

 

2. Speaking of utter irrelevance, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, has called on ministers to review the existing abortion law and to lower the upper threshold from 24 weeks. An emotive subject, for sure, and there are probably very good reasons for reviewing this in the light of medical and technological advances. Two important things to remember here though. Firstly, the number of terminations carried out at this late stage is statistically minimal and nearly always performed for a valid medical reason. Secondly, when the time for the debate is appropriate, it will be based on the reasoning and expertise of the medical authorities, not the wishes of the Vatican. The day that the good Cardinal himself can carry a baby to term is the day we should listen to his opinions on the subject.

 

3. Watching England in the World Cup has so far been a painful experience. Last night’s game against Sweden was particularly frustrating. Sure, both of England’s goals were great, but what’s happened to the defence? That second Sweden goal couldn’t have been more comical if Harold Lloyd was in the six yard box on roller skates heading towards two men carrying a big sheet of glass. Against the likes of Argentina or Brazil, we are going to be humiliated. Oh, and England fans? Please stop singing the tune to The Great Escape. It’s just embarrassing.

 

4. It’s June 21st, summer solstice, the longest day of the year. From now on the days are getting shorter, the nights are rolling in. Winter begins here, ladies and gentlemen. Christmas cards will be in the shops before you know it. Enjoy!

2005: Looking back. In anger.

It’s not easy, condensing 365 days and one second into a concise, readable post. But what the hell, I’ve got nothing going on this afternoon, so I’ll have a go. Here, for your enjoyment dear reader, are some of the key events of 2005. (Pithy comments added where applicable.) Enjoy, and Happy New January to you all. . . .

Yet again, the world failed to heed my suggestion that New Year’s Day be postponed until 1st March. Seriously, it would work out better for everyone this way. January and February – compositely known as ‘Helluary’ (© The Realist, 1999) – should be a period of mass hibernation for us all. Nobody’s got any money, everyone wants to lose weight and detox, the weather is shit, and there’s nothing much going on. A two month sleep would solve all of these problems. Until then, I guess we’re just stuck with it.

As a Londoner I expect I am not alone in singling out the bombings of 7/7 as the most prominent event of the year. It was strange in that, although it was always expected, it came out of the blue and on the back of a week of events that had actually lifted spirits around the capital. Live 8 had happened the weekend before and then, on 6th July, London won the 2012 Olympics (although the jury is out on whether or not this will be a good thing – especially as London residents will have to foot the bill for £625m, through our ever extortionate council tax bills). Maybe I’m imagining it but there was almost a sense of. . . optimism in London at the time. But this was soon replaced by horror as a group of home-grown Islamic fantasists killed themselves and others by detonating suicide bombs on the underground and a bus. A similar event occurred on 21/7, but it was a naff effort. Depressingly though, we can probably expect more – and worse – in 2006.

Having no real agenda and being prepared to die in the process stands in stark comparison to the terrorism inflicted on the mainland by the IRA in the 70s and 80s. It almost made one pine for the old provos – at least they (more often than not, anyway) gave a quick courtesy call in advance. And on that subject, in good news for the peace process, the IRA officially ceased hostilities in the very same month.

An interesting year for UK politics. May saw Labour returned to government for a historic (for them, anyway) third term, albeit with a much reduced majority. Tony Blair announced his intention to stand down before the next election (much to Gordon Brown’s relief) but refused to specify any particular time (much to Gordon Brown’s despair). Michael Howard stood down as leader of the Conservatives, leading to a six month pantomime as the Tories sought a new leader. In the end, they plumped for David Cameron: a youthful, centrist reformer. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Cameron faces an uphill struggle – despite Blair’s relative weakness, it is still going to take a swing of enormous proportions to get the Conservatives back in power. He’s already parked his tanks on New Labour’s lawn, now watch him try and steal clothes from the Liberal Democrats too.

George W. Bush continued to amuse. His lowest point was undoubtedly in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, amid allegations of incompetence and indifference . Meanwhile, his decision (overturned in the end) to nominate his personal lawyer and lifelong friend Harriet Miers as a candidate for the Supreme Court was, quite frankly, surreal. Given the criticism he has faced for cronyism in the past, that he would have the balls to pursue such an aim was astonishing. His defence? “(Harriet was) the best person I could find”(!!) Coming up in 2006: Bush finally ditches Donald Rumsfeld and replaces him with his dentist.

Still, at least he’s refusing to bow to pressure to withdraw all the troops from Iraq in a hurry. The aftermath of the invasion was chaotic enough – to then leave before seeing the job through would be the blunder of the century. Oh yes, Iraq is a mess alright. No change there as we approach 2006. But there is still hope of a better future. In the Iraqi elections this year, the turnout has eclipsed levels seen in Western nations which proves, without doubt, that the majority of the population wants democracy in their region. All is not lost. Although there’s still that lunatic in Iran to contend with.

The Pope is dead. . . long live the Pope! John Paul II died in April and was replaced by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Controversially, the Vatican selected a white, elderly conservative to head their ever dwindling (in Europe, anyway) numbers. Seeing as he’s 78 years old, we can probably expect a repeat performance in a few years time. Consider him Pope Interim I.

So these were the biggies, at least to my memory. Other notable stories: the David Blunkett saga. Michael Jackson somehow found not guilty. Riots in France. The collapse of the European Constitution. George Galloway before the senate committee. The trial of Saddam Hussein. New licensing laws for the UK. Civil unions for gays. Oh, and Chelsea continue to bore their way to dominance in the Premiership, funded by suspect Russian petro-dollars. Bastards.

Miscellaneous:

Notable deaths in 2005:
Arthur Miller. Hunter S. Thompson. Pope John Paul II. Sir John Mills. Richard Whiteley. Ted Heath. Robin Cook. Mo Mowlam. Simon Wiesenthal. Ronnie Barker. Rosa Parks. John Fowles. George Best. Richard Pryor.

Albums of the year, in no particular order:
The White Stripes – Get Behind Me, Satan
The Magic Numbers – The Magic Numbers
Hard-Fi – Stars Of CCTV
Gorillaz – Demon Days
Franz Ferdinand – You Could Have It So Much Better
The Darkness – One Way Ticket To Hell. . . And Back
Coldplay – X&Y
Bright Eyes – I’m Wide Awake It’s Morning
Arctic Monkeys – I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor (EP)

Comedies of the year, in no particular order:
Extras
Peep Show
The Mighty Boosh
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Nighty Night

The “Sorry, I just don’t understand what all the fuss is about” award:
A dead heat between Little Britain and Kaiser Chiefs (like a bad Blur tribute band)

Liberal Elite Twat Of The Year:
George Galloway

So ends this review and so ends (well, nearly) 2005. See you in 2006.

Ah, men. . .

Relax everyone. Just relax. The Catholic Church has been doing some very, very deep thinking indeed and has finally reported back on its policy regarding gay priests. “At last!” I hear you cry. Indeed, I feel your pain, because I haven’t been able to function properly either, I’ve been that tense.

But now we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief because the verdict is out and, well, to quote Frank Carson, it’s a cracker. Are you ready? Take a sedative and make yourself comfortable as we run through the gist of it.

Contrary to popular conception, and demonstrating the Church’s ever-present ability to fly in the face of reality, homosexuality has been deemed a “tendency” rather than an uncontrollable orientation. This makes sense, because who hasn’t woken up one morning and thought: “You know, I’m sick of the other sex. I just don’t find women attractive anymore. What I fancy today is broad shoulders and a big hairy arse. But only for a while.”? Sure we’ve all done it.

Anyway, it seems that the path to priesthood is open to anyone. As long as they’re male and have either left all that man-fiddling behind or have never succumbed. Strange, because I was under the impression that priests take a vow of celibacy anyway. So what difference does it make about their prior sexuality – they’re not going to be getting any either way are they? Oh, but there’s a caveat: if you have ever succumbed to man filth, you must not have indulged for three years (the minimum time for sin to heal, I guess) before you can enter the Church. So that’s clear then. Homosexuality is a “grave sin, unforgivable under any circumstances” (because it says so in the Bible. Somewhere in the middle.), but as long as you put it (ahem) behind you and don’t touch any man parts (except your own, but only if you’re going to the toilet, or if you touch it by accident in the shower or something – never for self-beastliness) for three years, and then vow never to have any sex with anyone ever again, then you can, in theory, train to be a priest.

Oh, nearly forgot. It’s not just practising homosexuals that are contraband: “supporters of gay culture” are also barred. Whatever that entails. Watching Will & Grace? Buying the new Madonna album? Going to the theatre? Taking a keen interest in home furnishings? What on earth is that supposed to mean?

But don’t get the wrong idea. They wouldn’t want you to think that they were prejudiced, not in this day and age. Heaven forbid! So they’ve stressed that the Church has deep respect for homosexuals and they shouldn’t be discriminated against. You couldn’t make this shit up could you? They haven’t got anything against them, they just don’t want them near their Churches.

God welcomes all His children. (Except bummers.)

Meanwhile, speaking of children, another abuse scandal has broken out, this time in Brazil – home to the largest population of Catholics in the world. But I’m sure this will be brushed under the carpet, like all the others. After all, the Vatican is too busy wasting time creating risible policies that result only in its further alienation from the rest of the rational world, hastening its own well publicised demise.

And the winner of Pope Idol is. . .

Cardinals of the Catholic Church will convene at the Vatican on Monday 18th April to begin the selection/election process used to choose a new pope. The conclave meets behind closed doors, the procedures are strictly hush-hush and the whole thing could take more than a week. It all seems unnecessary to me. I thought the Pope was supposed to be infallible. In which case, why didn’t he just select a successor while he was still alive and end the ambiguity? He couldn’t make the wrong choice, could he? By definition he has to be correct and everyone has to agree. Perhaps this infallibility only stretches so far. On that point, whoever is selected will be also be deemed infallible. Does this begin with immediate effect upon appointment or is it backdated for the whole of the candidate’s life? It seems to imply that a particular cardinal may have once been prone to error, but from the moment of selection will be correct on everything, and any prior mistakes are either now deemed to have been correct or simply didn’t ever happen. Or, it could mean that whoever is selected has to have infallibility listed on his CV as one of the core requirements. In which case, everyone up for candidacy has always been infallible, otherwise they can’t apply for the job.

But wait! It gets more confusing! The dogma of papal infallibility was only decreed in 1870. So does it mean that only popes since then have been infallible and anyone before was prone to making huge gaffes? In which case, there have been only ten (soon to be eleven) infallible popes and the previous 254 were all a bit rubbish. Or is it a backdated concept again? In which case popes were always infallible but it took the church nearly two thousand years to realise.

Illogical horseshit, whichever way you look at it.

It’s the secret procedures that intrigue me the most though. What are the methods by which selection is decided? The mind boggles. I like to imagine 115 cardinals playing a huge game of musical chairs in the Sistine Chapel. Just picture the tense scene as the last two cardinals run around the only remaining seat to a soundtrack of the Benny Hill theme tune. Or a Vatican poker night maybe? Winner takes all. Perhaps not, for gambling is a sin (probably). KerPlunk! would be another option, or what about a round-robin tournament of Hungry Hippos? Cardinal darts? Volleyball? The possibilities are endless.

I’m still hoping that they’ll elect me - I sent in my application for consideration last week. I can see it now: Pope Sane I.

Speaking of the Pope

I am sick and tired of being subjected to reports about what a great man the Pope was. There seems to be an unspoken consensus of opinion in the press which I find troubling and, above all, boring. Oh, he touched the lives of so many! Oh, he rejuvenated Catholicism! Oh, he played such a big role in ending the cold war! Really? Well, it took his death to bring that point up because I have never, not once, read an account of the collapse of the Communist regimes in Europe that mentions the Pope playing a part of much significance. Perhaps that’s the liberal, atheist bias of academia at work. Maybe. Perhaps it’s, you know, the truth?

Whatever. This endless stream of piffle about his papal magnificence is really irritating me now, so I think it’s time to raise a couple of crucial points and stake some sort of claim for rationality before the whole world is swept away by this deluge of phoney grief. This is even more tedious than the guff we had to put up with when Princess Diana died in 1997.

We’ll overlook the obvious historical crimes of the Catholic Church like the Inquisition, Galileo, Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus Of Errors (which posited in the mid-19th century that liberalism, free speech and democracy were “evil”), and a certain, shall we say, relaxed attitude to Fascism in the 1930s and instead focus on two more recent phenomena.

1. The contemporary Catholic Church continues to forbid contraception and, of course, abortion. Given that most Catholics now live outside of Europe, this stance exacerbates the cycle of poverty in the Third World. “Tough shit” say the Vatican. “If you want to have sex, then you have to create more unwanted children that you can’t possibly support. HIV/AIDS rampant on your continent? Tough shit again. Contraception is a sin. We’d rather the disease was spread around even more than ever tolerate any man placing spermicide coated latex on his penis. In fact, just to be sure, we’ll spread propaganda saying that condoms are, in fact, useless at preventing the spread of HIV.” Oh yes, this is the church’s “commitment to life” at work.
2. In fact, the late Pope went as far to say that anyone who uses contraception is “wicked”. As are homosexuals, of course. Funny then, that this intolerance of “deviants” does not extend to child abusers, isn’t it? There were numerous allegations of systematic child abuse and molestation on John Paul’s watch. What did he do about it? Fuck all. Did he instigate a purge of those accused? No, he did what the church does best of all – he swept the whole issue under the carpet. Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, facing allegations of a child-sex racket in his diocese, was given a back room job at the Vatican to avoid taking the stand.

So let’s just keep these in mind the next time we have to sit through an interview with someone who travelled from Sydney or wherever to stand in line with the other million or so people. This great man, this ex-Pope, that they have queued for so long to see in state, personally oversaw a Church that allows people in undeveloped nations to literally die of ignorance. He also supported and promoted priests accused of raping children.

Now why are these facts not being mentioned in the obituaries and retrospectives?