Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor attacks secularism

swampgas

Daily Mail story here

Apparently secularism is "very very dangerous" now. Sounds to me like he is unhappy that the privileged position of his church is being challenged, and he is lashing out.

Absolute drivel.

Dades

That type of perceived oppression spouted from an organisation that has wielded far too much power for centuries makes me livid.

Just because you're losing your grip on people doesn't mean you deserved the control you had in the first place.

Solair

There's nothing particularly anti religious about secularism. It's about ensuring a clear division between the state and its systems and the churches.

I don't see it as any different from ensuring that a government and state is free from infiltration by any other vested interests be they religious organisations, banks, oil companies etc etc

The religious constantly portray secularism as imposed atheism, which is something that it absolutely is not.

Secular societies are ones where the religious beliefs of the people are their own business and the state has nothing to do with them.

The alternative is a state that has an established religion or a theocratic regime of some sort which is something that is contrary to the very notion of a liberal democracy!

Society is more secular now than it has ever been and compared to generations when it was more theocratic we now have :

better living standards, improved human rights laws, a generally more compassionate society that tends to be more open and understanding, less racism, more tolerance of differences between people...


overall, I don't think secularism is much of a threat.

The most oppressive regimes aren't secular - middle east Islamic theocratic states, and China - some kind of capitalist command economy laughably refers to itself as communist, that only accepts religious beliefs that don't rock the boat..

I think the cardinal is quite honestly talking out of his impressively large hat!

Fortyniner

There's a common root in all this crap, of how secularism/atheism/anything other than their religion will lead to/has led to the ruination of civilisation, see how they nearly did it last century etc... I wonder if head office in Rome is trying to co-ordinate an international campaign?

Judging by the comments after this article it doesn't seem to be working.

Nodin

swampgas wrote: »

Daily Mail story here

Apparently secularism is "very very dangerous" now. Sounds to me like he is unhappy that the privileged position of his church is being challenged, and he is lashing out.

Absolute drivel.

If he posted that here, its full of so much crap I'd presume that someobody got bored and designed to 'go troll the atheists'.

I won't even bother with the "wars" thing - its been done to death.

The cardinal condemned the Government for trying to hijack the meaning of marriage with its plans for same-sex marriage

,

'We Hijacked It First- Its Ours Now!!!!!!!!'

denounced the equality laws that led to the closure of Catholic adoption agencies,

,

A nice way of saying they closed themselves rather than particpate in or faciltate 'gay adoption'.

and protested against the state-backed movement to ban the wearing of the cross by Christians at work.

....there isn't one, to the best of my knowledge.

lazygal

Surprised that the comments from DM readers on the article seem to be pretty balanced besides the usual nutters. The more religious people I know actually favour a more secular approach to State services etc. mainly due to the high levels of frustration at a la carte adherents who complain about doing pre marriage courses and the like but never contribute to the day to day costs of being a member of a faith. I mean, if I was in a club I wouldn't want a whole load of Johnny Come Latelys expecting to get to use the facilities without pitching in for the more boring bits.

kylith

This bit is my favourite

‘In the name of tolerance it seems to me tolerance is being abolished.’
...
The cardinal condemned the Government for trying to hijack the meaning of marriage with its plans for same-sex marriage, denounced the equality laws that led to the closure of Catholic adoption agencies, and protested against the state-backed movement to ban the wearing of the cross by Christians at work.

Translation "In the name of tolerance they're not being tolerant of our intolerance"

Bannasidhe

Apparently '‘No one is forced to be a Christian'. That must be why baptism is only performed on consenting adults as babies are not old enough to make an informed decision...:rolleyes:

ShooterSF

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Apparently '‘No one is forced to be a Christian'. That must be why baptism is only performed on consenting adults as babies are not old enough to make an informed decision...:rolleyes:

On top of which Christianity should have a say in which non-christians can get married by the state. Unbelievable!

goose2005

Does the cardinal realise that it's precisely because of secular values that he is allowed to openly preach beliefs which are inimical to the Established church of the realm?

Delirium

I'm seriously beginning to think those bishops hats are actually dunce's caps :rolleyes:

He honestly thinks it would be better for Roman Catholics to live in a Protestant theocracy instead of what they currently have?

And I also like the cynical way he put it in peoples heads that it's only atheists that are supporters of secularism. I also like the way he says that no one is forced to be a Christian. I guess it's only Ireland that deviates from the norm by having infant baptisms:rolleyes:

Not content with the shoe leather he's already chewing on, he begins to work his way up to his ankles by declaring secularism a religion.

His criticism of the secularism "claiming to know what is right" is the cherry on top from a man who held the highest office of a group that claims to represent the creator of the universe. The very deity that they claim decides what is right or wrong.

Wouldn't surprise me if Jesus rode one of the Cardinals ancestors into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday :pac:

Daftendirekt

Is there anything more infuriatingly ironic than an RCC spokesperson whining about the intolerance of secularists while criticising Government plans to 'hijack the meaning of marriage'?

Thankfully, this organisation's relevance and influence is fading, and through no fault but its own.

Galvasean

Keep talking Hat-man...

No no, dig up st00pid!

Sarky

I suppose evil secularists are also responsible for hijacking the original meaning of child rape too. Probably meant something much more benign back in the day.

Run_to_da_hills

Notice the bent / broken crucifix on their vestments.

Its enough to indicate to any vigilant believer that these guys are all servants off Satan. .....by their fruits.

Sarky

So it isn't an illuminati symbol that indicates their rank in the secret communist sub-organisation formed to control the giant robotic squid they use to patrol the Bermuda Triangle to keep the lizard people's space ship landing site clear of humans?


MIND=BLOWN

Banbh

He was speaking to "an audience of Catholic thinkers".
Does the Pope know of this?

robindch

koth wrote: »

Wouldn't surprise me if Jesus rode one of the Cardinals [...]

Had to read that sentence twice.

swampgas

I was re-reading the article, and find it hard to believe that a cardinal would not know the difference between atheism and secularism. He is either woefully ignorant or knowingly mendacious. It looks like he is on a deliberate campaign of dis-information to conflate secularism and atheism in the minds of the public, presumably to slow down the introduction of secular measures in general.

Fortunately, from the top-rated comments following the article, it appears most people see right through this distortion of the truth.

robindch

Banbh wrote: »

He was speaking to "an audience of Catholic thinkers".

Must have been a very small audience.

robindch

swampgas wrote: »

I was re-reading the article, and find it hard to believe that a cardinal would not know the difference between atheism and secularism. He is either woefully ignorant or knowingly mendacious.

Whatever one thinks about the Vatican and its henchmen, one can't help but notice that they're a far lesser group of men than their forebears. Or perhaps it's just that their adversaries are far smarter and can spot a pig in a poke.

Still and all, a cardinal lying for institutional gain? That's his job isn't it?

Whelpling

"On what grounds does a minority have the right to change the meaning of a fundamental institution for the majority?"
~Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor

Presumably, Mr Murphy-O'Connor would retro-actively apply this same logic to slavery, and denounce emancipation?

And presumably, were a referendum called in the UK and gay marriage supported (as a recent ex-pat, I firmly believe it would be), he would bow quietly to the majority opinion.

And presumably, given the trend for more and more people to identify as atheist or agnostic, he will happily sit aside and watch the Catholic churches of the UK close, and any and all of their influence be removed when their congregation reaches a significant minority.

No?

robindch

"Atheists are not fully human"

- Cormac Murphy-O’Connor on BBC Radio 4 in 2009

And this man thinks atheists are the assholes?

Gbear

‘They conveniently forget that secularism itself does not guarantee freedom, rationality ... or violence. Indeed, in the last century, most violence was perpetrated by secular states on their own people.’

Secularism may not guarantee rationality but rationality must guarantee secularism.

‘The propaganda of secularism and its high priests want us to believe that religion is dangerous for our health.

I'm not really sure what religious people's point is when they try to conflate secularism or atheism with religion.

Are they saying "Religion is stupid but at least we're more experienced at it!"?

pH

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Notice the bent / broken crucifix on their vestments.

Its enough to indicate to any vigilant believer that these guys are all servants off Satan. .....by their fruits.

Actually it's a traditional Y shaped orphrey on a semi-gothic chasuble - a traditional design dating back to the 11th C.

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-articles/chasuble-buying-guide/article/58

But just to get things straight, - there's a man in his "work clothes" on a British street in 2012 wearing a bright Gold chasuble a pointy white and gold hat and a wizard's staff - and the thing you have a problem with is the angle of the Y?

Corkfeen

Gbear wrote: »

I'm not really sure what religious people's point is when they try to conflate secularism or atheism with religion.

Are they saying "Religion is stupid but at least we're more experienced at it!"?

If he's going to be a merchant of bullshít, he should at the very least do it right (Bad Propoganda is hardly going to work) . He should have equated secularism with the nomenklatura (higher ups in Communist Russia) and it would have at the very least fitted somewhat in with his ramblings that implied communism and Nazism. Instead he chose to show similarities with Bishops and Cardinals for some reason.

It does seem as Robindch previously mentioned that the previous Cardinals and Bishops were far superior at throwing shít at groups that they didn't like. Now, they just seem crazy and are incapable of really shaping public opposition in the masses. I wonder if there's Cardinals that simply miss the good old days of Rodrigo Borgia. :pac:

robindch

pH wrote: »

But just to get things straight, - there's a man in his "work clothes" on a British street in 2012 wearing a bright Gold chasuble a pointy white and gold hat and a wizard's staff - and the thing you have a problem with is the angle of the Y?

Post of the month.

Run_to_da_hills

pH wrote: »

Actually it's a traditional Y shaped orphrey on a semi-gothic chasuble - a traditional design dating back to the 11th C.

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-articles/chasuble-buying-guide/article/58

But just to get things straight, - there's a man in his "work clothes" on a British street in 2012 wearing a bright Gold chasuble a pointy white and gold hat and a wizard's staff - and the thing you have a problem with is the angle of the Y?

It still looks like a large back patch cross with its arms bent upwards and I'm sure Christ or his apostles of ACTs would not have approved of it.

Even the crucifix that the Pope carries is questionable.

Here's another severe abomination that the Pope himself couldn't even spot.

His bishops should have had this covered over and don't try to pass it off as a St Peters Cross as many people try to do. (Christ died on the cross for our sin not St Peter)

Sarky

That's just the shape of a crucifix used for midgets, silly.

Logical Fallacy

Fortyniner wrote: »

There's a common root in all this crap, of how secularism/atheism/anything other than their religion will lead to/has led to the ruination of civilisation, see how they nearly did it last century etc... I wonder if head office in Rome is trying to co-ordinate an international campaign?

Judging by the comments after this article it doesn't seem to be working.

I always find it weird when religious institutions worry about the death of civilisation when the majority of religious institutions seem to be expecting an Apocalypse at some point.

Solair

Taking this guy's views on secularism seriously, is a bit like asking an oil Barron what he thinks of wind powered electric cars.

He is clearly not living in the real world, which is almost entirely secular. The only non-secular societies that I could think of are Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East and the Vatican City. Everywhere else is fundamentally secular. There's the odd quirk here and there e.g. the school system in Ireland, the House of Lords and Monarchy in the UK, the US sticking "In God We Trust" on their bills instead of their original secular slogan "E pluribus unum" (Out of many, one) back in 1956 etc etc but the expectation is that even those institutions behave in a somewhat secular manner accepting that religious belief or lack there of is a private matter.

Western society is basically secular, and its driving forces are largely humanist in nature i.e. a shared and accepted notion of fundamental human rights, democracy and basic freedoms. These are enshrined in constitutions, basic laws, conventions and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It's those kinds of enlightened, people-centric views that have defined modern, 20th and 21st century societies, not religious dogmas.

Penn

Solair wrote: »

There's the odd quirk here and there e.g. the school system in Ireland...

Yeah... an odd quirk...

Banbh

It wasn't until I had kids that I realised that Ireland was far from being a secular state. The control of the schools and hospitals by the church spills over into many other areas of life - law, taxation, sports, youth organisations, to say nothing of our Constitution.

I'm not saying that we aren't a long way from the openly confessional states, such as Saudi Arabia or Israel but we are far from secular still.

And let's not forget that it is only very recently that our Fianna Fail/Green Party government brought in the anti-blasphemy law (which has still not been repealed).

Solair

Yeah, I'll agree that most European countries (with notable exceptions like France) still have major throwbacks to theocratic eras. But, the broad thrust of Western Society is still very much secular in almost every thing it does and Ireland is rapidly catching up.

Ireland's a really bad example of a typical western country though when it comes to secularism.

I actually think when you analyze it, socially, Irish society seemed very similar to the kind of stilted, conservative, highly religious society that Franco was trying to create in Spain. The only difference was we actually self-imposed it democratically!

Both Ireland and Spain operated corporatist models of public administration of health, social services and education etc by bringing the church directly into the provision of those services.

Social undesirables were squeezed out of society in a similar way i.e. through the use of vast scale institutinalisation of kids from single moms, poor families, etc (prevented rebellions), magdalene laundries, threats of industrial schools for any teens that remotely stepped out of line and anyone who didn't fit in e.g. the liberals, gay community, non-religious seemed to be squeezed into exile abroad.

Then you'd very conservative religious-inspired censorship of publications, films and broadcasts etc too which was like something out of a dictatorship rather than a liberal democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Publications_Board_%28Ireland%29 --- Random clergy and other conservatives appointed to unaccountable boards to censor publications --- Very democratic!

The legacy of all that stuff remains in a slightly screwy educational system and hospital system with too much religious ownership / control and also in the legacy of vast numbers of people who were taken away from parents, and abused etc etc etc.

I don't think Ireland actually faces up to the reality that until the 1970s we lived under a pretty horrible and very much self-imposed regime that treated a lot of people very badly over the decades. It's coming out in the wash now with all the revelations of abuse in institutions, the Magdalene laundries etc etc.

It's all horrible stuff, and should never have happened.

I find that we sometimes tend to gloss over the fact that our completely screwed up society at that time allowed those atrocities to happen and turned a blind eye to them. We really need to figure out what was going on that was so toxic that it allowed those kinds of things to occur in what should have been a relatively open democracy.

Personally, I think the lack of secularism is more to do with Ireland's tendency towards being a corporatist state i.e. bringing large powerful groups into Government in a totally non-transparent way.

We got utterly screwed over by the religious in the past causing immense social damage.
We then moved onto to incorporating the banks and property speculators into the Government and look where that's got us - bankrupt with the IMF in!

What Ireland needs is a major dose of open Government, transparency, and an end to corporatism / neo-corporatism. There's a lot to be said for simple, transparent Government and pluralism (where you've competing ideas and open lobbying).

Bannasidhe

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I always find it weird when religious institutions worry about the death of civilisation when the majority of religious institutions seem to be expecting an Apocalypse at some point.

I see where you may be a tad confused but it actually makes sense (in a we are talking about religion so 'sense' is quantifiable and may actually be nonsense with mental reservations kind of way.)

The church is worried about the fall of civilisation - a bad thing* - rather then the end of the world - a good thing*.

Heres how it works - the RCC used the infrastructure of Imperial Rome to spread it's message. It adopted and adapted the admin structure used by the Empire - hence 'diocese' a Roman term for an administration unit (like a ward in politics). The RCC needs an urban centralised infrastructure to be able to spread their message and control it's flock.

'civilised' just means an urban society- civilised people live in cities. Uncivilised people don't - hence 'pagans' are the paganus (paganii) or country people/forest dwellers. Same as our culchis - people who lived in the Coillte. These wild and hairy folk who lived far from the civilised taverns and slave markets were hard to 'Shepard' - this is a bad thing*. The more urbanised and centralised a society becomes the easier it is to impose a greater level of control over their actions and thoughts - this is a good thing* which relies utterly on 'civilisation' i.e. Urbanisation.

If 'civilisation' ends - so does the RCC's ability to monitor and control it's flock.

The End of the World is totally different - that's a very good thing* which is to be encouraged. See, that's when baby Jesus is gonna come back, raise the dead and there will be JUDGEMENT (ta da dahhhhhh!).

Naturlich the pillars of the Church actually believe that should...if...when baby Jesus comes back he will pat them on the back and say - 'Nice one Dudes - the Inquisition that was awesome!! You guys were so right to protect the church by shutting up all of those raped children. I am so in awe of you all. C'mon to my Dad's house - we have cheap wine and dry bread for tea.'

There was also a widespread belief (might still be) that in order for baby Jesus to come back - everyone must believe in him** (or die). This is the drive behind missionary work and killing heretics. According to this doctrine Everyone in the world must be on the same page, belief wise, before baby Jesus will come again and the Righteous will have the eternal reward in paradise.

Luther also subscribed to this view and was very very PO'd when everyone didn't convert to his new, improved, guaranteed to save your soul version of Christianity - he mostly blamed the Jews. :rolleyes:








* Church defined goodness and badness of things.
** Belief in 'him' defined by membership and obedience to the RCC.

Zillah

Increasingly irrelevant old man speaks out against his increasing irrelevance; reasonable people unswayed. Tune in tomorrow for more tiresome drivel!

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

Whatever one thinks about the Vatican and its henchmen, one can't help but notice that they're a far lesser group of men than their forebears.

Agreed.

Given the small numbers signing up for the priesthood these days, it will be interesting to see what calibre of man* the Cardinals of the next 10 or 20 years will be.

(*) Assuming they're still all men by then :-)

Banbh

There's no doubt that the Catholic Church is in decline but history doesn't run in straight lines. As long as they have their legal special position, the priests and bishops could regain their dominance. A war or recession or some other calamity could have the population back in thrall.
That's why its so important for secularists to push for institutional changes now by getting them out of the schools and making them pay their equal share of tax.

Ellis Dee

A high-level sky pilot and purveyor of religious hogwash criticising secularism (i.e. unwillingness to buy his product) sounds like a big-time mafia boss complaining about the inexorable onward advance of honesty.:rolleyes:

It's not really paranoia on his part, because the forces of reason really are threatening to blow his world to smithereens as people increasingly realise that the myths he and the other religions peddle are just not credible, and never were.:)

Penn

Banbh wrote: »

There's no doubt that the Catholic Church is in decline but history doesn't run in straight lines. As long as they have their legal special position, the priests and bishops could regain their dominance. A war or recession or some other calamity could have the population back in thrall.
That's why its so important for secularists to push for institutional changes now by getting them out of the schools and making them pay their equal share of tax.

It's not even that, it's getting rid of the cultural aspect of it. Showing people that you don't need to get married in a church. You don't need to have your children christened. That it's okay to not be a Catholic. Getting rid of the social stigma that comes from saying you're an atheist. Only that will bring about any real change

the_syco

'Dangerous atheists want to wipe out Christianity': Cardinal warns lack of belief fosters violence

As opposed to what?
Dangerous priests, bishops and probably the pope that want to hide paedophiles?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its enough to indicate to any vigilant believer that these guys are all servants off Satan. .....by their fruits.

Satan only seems to exist in god related religions.

qrrgprgua

swampgas wrote: »

Daily Mail story here

Apparently secularism is "very very dangerous" now. Sounds to me like he is unhappy that the privileged position of his church is being challenged, and he is lashing out.

Absolute drivel.

SO "secular values haven't fostered the violence of totalitarian states" I must return my history book it seems it was mis-printed.

swampgas

qrrgprgua wrote: »

SO "secular values haven't fostered the violence of totalitarian states" I must return my history book it seems it was mis-printed.

Sounds like you need a better history book.

Secularism is not the same thing as state sponsored atheism, or totalitarian oppression. Secularism simply means that the state is neutral with respect to religion. You seem to be making the same mistake as the good cardinal.

Turtwig

qrrgprgua wrote: »

SO "secular values haven't fostered the violence of totalitarian states" I must return my history book it seems it was mis-printed.

Given your twisted understanding of secularism I think you'd best check your dictionary first.

Sarky

Oh yay, he's back! I was afraid he'd run off after he was asked to back up his claims that last time!

Corkfeen

qrrgprgua wrote: »

SO "secular values haven't fostered the violence of totalitarian states" I must return my history book it seems it was mis-printed.

What history book are you using? Because it's exceedingly wrong.... I love it when people make such absurd statements....

Gbear

Corkfeen wrote: »

What history book are you using? Because it's exceedingly wrong.... I love it when people make such absurd statements....

I don't.

I despair for humanity enough as it is.:(

Banbh

It's in the Bible.



(Irony)

Galvasean

qrrgprgua wrote: »

SO "secular values haven't fostered the violence of totalitarian states" I must return my history book it seems it was mis-printed.

If I may, how do you pronounce your username?

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

If I may, how do you pronounce your username?

+1 I've often wondered it too.
*Challenges A&A folks to find the most unique pronunciation of it on the web.*:D

Galvasean

I imagine it as that noise Homer makes in the Simpsons when he's babbling and Marge tells him to slow down so he says something like, "gur-ig-a-flag-ur-ag-la!"