A response to atheists

As I write this, the media is full of news about the papal visit. The headlines and articles are a jumble of points, relating to child abuse by priests and whether there was a cover-up, criticism from more strident atheists about a state visit by a religious leader, questions around sexuality and related issues, and other wider questions about whether activities run by agencies with a religious background can really be good for the whole of society. The problem with all of the noise that’s being made is that cheap shots about wayward priests, or even militant religious groups around the world, get put alongside serious debates about God and the role of religion in society. So is there any way Christians can respond to all of this in a positive way?

The first thing to avoid is argument about who’s better (or worse) than whom. History is littered with the tragedies and mistakes of those who have acted in the name of religion - from the Crusades to 9/11. We could equally quote atheist regimes such as the USSR under Stalin or Mao’s China in the catalogue of cruelty. But God’s existence or the debates about the worth of state-funded Church schools can’t be settled by some crude calculation of these events. The fact there were nasty people carrying an atheist or a Christian label doesn’t really help us today. For Christians the fact of what we call sin is hardly a surprise – it’s to be expected. The Gospel isn’t about proving we’re better than other people, but about reconciliation for people who fail.

A second pitfall in the current climate is the focus on the allegations that the present Pope failed to act in cases where priests had committed abuse. A recent Panorama demonstrated that the issue is extremely serious, and there are still key questions that need to be answered, but there is a difference between naivety or incompetence, and wilful concealment. The issue won’t (and shouldn’t) go away, so I am sure that much more will emerge as time goes on as to where culpability lies. However, even if the Pope is culpable of serious errors in this area, it would be hugely unfair to smear all Catholics as a result. A failure in leadership in this area damages trust in those who hold responsibility and in the institution they serve, but it’s not decisive proof that everything Catholicism (or individual Catholics) does or stands for must be suspect or damaging.

I’m not even convinced that trying to have any debate at a more intellectual level with people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens gets us anywhere either. In some ways they can end up being a mirror image of religious fundamentalists in their pronouncements – absolutely unmoveable and unwilling to see anything good in the other side.

Some of the Pope's statements about secularism in Europe do seem rather dramatic, but something has changed over recent years. Churches used to be portrayed as generally benign institutions (albeit with some flawed exceptions)  - and often the object of kindly joking. The shift to a point where church schools are now seen as a problem by a significant voice in society represents a shift in culture.

Christians could still be heroes in the 1960s (Martin Luther King) and even the last Pope was seen as instrumental in the changes which eventually brought freedom and democracy to Eastern Europe in the 1980s. Now the Church is seen as an opponent rather than a source of freedom.

It's OK to have prayers and rituals in places of worship, but the public sphere should be secular (based on the questionable assumption that secular = neutral). The rise of Christian fundamentalism and the religious right on one hand, and Islamic extremism on the other,  seems to have questioned the motives of everyone with a faith.

It's tempting to do the thought experiment where 2 people say to each other in a Pythonesque way "what have the Christians ever done for us", with architecture, sponsoring great art, founding universities, providing healthcare, free education, abolition of the slave trade being some of the answers. "Well apart from art, architecture, hospitals.... what have they ever done for us..." the conversation would continue.

In the end, the Pope's visit raises specific questions with regard to issues that he has been involved in - both in what he teaches and the failures of the Catholic Church with regard to safeguarding. However, it highlights issues that were already there in public debate about the role of religion in society, rather than creates any new ones. I suspect that big events and big gestures aren't actually the way any Christian individual or community can commend their faith or themselves. In that sense, on the big public stage we can't 'win' - even if we thought that 'winning' was what it was about (which I don't).

Up and down the land Christians and churches run and host groups and activities for kids, young families, lonely pensioners, people struggling with issues like addiction, they accommodate youth clubs and uniformed organisations, choirs, lunch clubs, after-school groups and so on. If you waved a magic wand and got rid of the Christian contribution to society tomorrow, communities throughout Britain would have significant amounts of their life removed, and not simply the active worshippers. People may not be in church on Sundays in huge numbers (although attendance has stabilised) but the positive impact of local churches extends much further into the community than is often realised, especially where other community facilities and resources are few and far between.

Perhaps the best argument Christians and the Churches can put are the many small, but good stories that come out of those many situations, both for people of faith and people of none. The big story in the news is the Papal visit, but the stories that actually change lives are probably much nearer to home.

Archbishops and Popes

As a county ecumenical officer, Debbie gets invitations to a wide variety of events and services from all church backgrounds. She recently got an invitation to Westminster Abbey for a service  of evening prayer in the presence of Pope Benedict and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It's the first invitation to a service I've seen where you are asked to bring ID, such as a passport, but it's all security, I guess.

She was also recently given a copy of a special booklet with the congregational texts for all the services during his visit, called "Magnificat". Given Debs isn't going to London, we thought we'd have a look at what she's missing. It's fairly predictable stuff, until you get to the exciting moment where (and I quote verbatim) "The Pope and The Archbishop exchange Addresses"

Rowan: "I live in that rather large place across the River. Lambeth Palace - yes the post-code is SE1 7JU. Do you need my mobile?"

Pope: "No, I prefer things in writing. Send anything to The Pope, The Vatican. It should reach me OK".

Following that the Dean will get the incense out and venerate the Altar and the Church Leaders. I'm not an expert on holy smoke, but I've never come across Church Leaders being venerated before. Must be an ecumenical matter, Ted.

Personal Ordinariates: A view from Craggy Island

To be read in a strong Irish accent. Similarities with a popular Irish sitcom are purely coincidental.

D: Ted, Ted, where are you, Ted? We’re getting women!

Father Jack briefly wakes and shouts “Girls!” and various obscenities before succumbing again to the effects of drink.

T: Now what’s that you’re on about, Dougal?

D: Priests, Ted. The Holy Father is inviting the Anglicans to come, so there’ll be women everywhere, there will. I like that vicar of Dibley – you know, the nice smile, the chocolate, and all the crazy people. I’d love to have her here, I would. Mind you, she’d have to get used to not being surrounded by nutters.

T: No, no, no, you’ve got it all the wrong way round, Dougal. The women are the problem.

D: Now why would that be Ted?

T: The Holy Father is inviting the Anglican clergy who don’t want women priests and Bishops to join us.

D: Why would he do that, now, Ted?

T: That would be an ecumenical matter, Dougal.

D: Well, at least we’ll be getting a few more priests in the church, eh? We could do with a bit more help on Craggy Island. Let’s get one to say mass tomorrow and we can go on the beach or stay in and play Buckaroo.

T: Ah, there’s a problem with that, Dougal.

D: What would the problem be, now, Ted? I know where you hid the Buckaroo. I found it while I was hiding Jack’s whiskey.

Jack wakes again, yells “Drink!” and is placated with a large slug from an open bottle.

D: Back to this problem, Ted, what is it?

T: Well these Anglicans, they’re not really priests.

D: But I just thought you said they were.

T: Not exactly, Dougal. You see they think they are, but the Holy Father doesn’t.

D: So let me get this right, Ted. The Holy Father is inviting priests who aren’t really priests to become priests so that they don’t have to be with the women priests who aren’t really priests either.

Ted hesitates slightly

T: Yes, that’s about it, Dougal.

D: So why would he do that Ted?

T: That would be an ecumenical matter, Dougal.

D: But Ted.

T: (wearily) Yes Dougal.

D: These priests, who aren’t priests but want to be real priests like us.

T: Yes

D: What will happen to them?

T: Ah, well they believe they are the proper priests, unlike the women priests, so they want to be accepted by a church that has real priests, which will say that they aren’t real priests, only lay people, but is willing to ordain them to be real priests in a church that hasn’t got any women priests. It’s simple really, Dougal.

D: Who’d be a Protestant, eh Ted?

T: Ah. That would be an ecumenical matter.

Jack bursts back into life.

J: GIRLS! **** ****