Book Jacket

 

rank 5849
word count 33400
date submitted 16.06.2008
date updated 23.12.2012
genres: Non-fiction, History, Harper True L...
classification: universal
complete

ON POPES, POLITICS, AND PROTESTS

Michael Dickinson

Articles on politics and religion published in 'America's Best Political Newsletter, COUNTERPUNCH.'

 

Armaggedon a little angry...

 
rate the book

to rate this book please Register or Login

 

tags

political protest, religious hypocricy, rethink

on 2 watchlists

24 comments

 

Text Size

Text Colour

Chapters

3

report abuse

April 4, 2005

And Jesus Said: "Call No Man Your Father"

It's Too Late Now for John Paul II to Repent

By MICHAEL DICKINSON

I have a bit of a fetish.

Whenever I come across a calendar where the month is wrong, at the barber, or in a bank or a school say it's June and the one on the wall still proclaims May I either inform them of their tardiness or get up and rectify the situation myself, turning the page and bringing us into the present, bang up to date. I don't know why, but it gives me a feeling of satisfaction.

So it was with great difficulty that I managed to suppress the urge to point out to Father Vinander that afternoon in 1979 as I bade farewell to him and the brothers of the Calcutta Missionaries of Charity, that the picture of Pope Paul V1 on the wall of his office was way out of date. Since his death there'd been another Pope John Paul the First, who only lasted 33 days before being found dead in his bed by a nun; and that he'd been replaced by the present incumbent, Polish John Paul the Second, the first non-Italian pope since 1542.

I resisted the temptation to point out the picture needed changing the deaths and takeovers had all been very sudden and I'm sure he'd catch up - but as I traveled back overland from India to England by bus I had time to ponder popes and their power over people born to obey them. Somehow, luckily, after a lifetime of fear and thrall I had managed to free myself from the unquestioning obedience demanded by the Church, and gradually over the years since then, looking at it objectively, I've come to find it very questionable indeed.

It seems to me now that the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy See, contradicts the instructions of Jesus in very many instances.

According to Matthew, Jesus said "Call no man your father on earth", and yet you've got these men of the church swishing around in long skirts, all telling their 'flock' to address them as "father'.

Jesus also said "No one is good but one - God." And yet the Pope is called
 

 
the 'Holy Father'--double whammy sin!

On prayer, Jesus said:

"And when ye pray thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are for they love to stand praying-- that they may be seen of men.

But when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and shut thy door, and pray to thy Father which is in secret--" and "But when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking--"

But the Church with its elaborate Masses and chanted repetitious litanies goes against this simple advice of the Master.

Again, he says: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth-- but lay up for yourselves treasures in n heaven For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. - Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

And yet the Vatican has billions of dollars in solid gold in its coffers, mostly stored in bullion with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank; the rest in bank accounts in London and Zurich, Switzerland.

With all of its assets added together, the Church possesses more riches in real estate, property, stocks and shares than any other single institution, corporation, bank, government or state, making the Pope, the official ruler of this vast reserve, the richest man in modern history.

The U.N. World Food Summit estimates $150 billion a year could significantly eradicate world hunger.

Instead of making proclamations on such "issues" such as the sanctity of marriage and so-called family values, the pope and his church should regain the true Christian mission of charity. Imagine the sweeping effect to cure hunger and sickness around the world of a Church founded on genuine goodwill, not human hypocrisy.

But it's too late now for Pope John Paul 2, who has finally shuffled off his mortal coil. So, while the media is at its sickening feeding-frenzy orgy of eulogies and sycophancy, let's have a brief look of our own at some of the ideas of the dead old billionaire and (very likely) those of his successor on the Vatican throne.

Just a little peek, because if we got into the whole nitty-gritty of the wherefores of the Roman Church it could go on for screeds. So let's confine ourselves to a subject that's close to their hearts - SEX.

(Actually, they're not fond of it at all, but you know what I mean!)


 
Let's start with an innocent wank -

The Catholic Church condemns masturbation. Catholic teaching is that sexual activity is intended for conception, thus masturbation is an immoral sexual practice because it does not permit conception. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that masturbation breeds lust and selfishness, which takes one further from God.

Pope Paul wrote: " - masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act...the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."


 
How about a fuck?

In 1996 Pope John Paul said that artificial birth control was ruining people's moral sense by giving a false idea of sexual freedom. He attacked 'unbridled hedonism' which was slowly creating 'an eclipse of values'. The Roman Catholic Church considers artificial birth control and abortion an objectively grave or "mortal" sin (that is to say it causes the "death" of the soul by depriving it of the life of grace, when it is committed with full knowledge and full consent).

To the Vatican Institute of Bioethics he said: "Worrisome consequences have been produced in the sexual sphere of life by a false sense of freedom provided by contraception, which is both an incentive and a tool. He criticized public health campaigns that promote contraception. "Unbridled hedonism and a distain for life is at the heart of the modern world's moral quandary. The 'Gospel of Life' must be maintained by educating children to recognize their vocation as carriers of life, in responsible collaboration with the creator."

"This teaching must be considered to be definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (procreation aspect of marriage), and it is contrary to the mutual giving of the spouses (union aspect of marriage). It hurts true love and denies God's sovereign role in the transmission of human life"

"Even for people infected with AIDS or for those who want to use condoms to prevent AIDS," said John Paul 11 at the International Congress of Moral Theologians in Rome in 1988, "the Church's moral doctrine allows no exceptions."

Carlo Caffarra, the pope's spokesman for marriage and family issues, added that if an AIDS - infected husband couldn't manage to maintain "total abstinence" for the rest of his life, then it was better to infect his wife than to use a condom, "because the preservation of spiritual goods, such as the sacrament of marriage, is to be preferred to the good of life."


 
I'm feeling a little queer--

From Pope John Paul's 1986 "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons"-

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

Catholic Catechism: #2357 (in part) Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of great depravity, tradition has always declared that "Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered". They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complimentary. Under no circumstances can they be approved....#2359: Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."


 
So there you have it.

Pope John Paul believed that it was contrary to God's law for anyone - Catholic or otherwise - to engage in birth control, abortion, homosexuality, in-vitro fertilization, masturbation, artificial insemination or sterilization. Intercourse between married partners, with no barrier to pregnancy and childbirth, was the only permissible sexual act in his eyes.

And you go to hell if you believe otherwise.

This was also the man who condemned 'liberation theology' - the belief that the church had a moral obligation to engage politically in the struggle for economic and political justice for the poor.

The man who declared: "The church cannot approve of this idea of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary."

One who declared that the Church "has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that all the faithful are definitively bound by this judgment."

A man who believed that he had been saved by the "special protection" of the Blessed Virgin Mary when shot by a Turkish gunman in St Peter's Square. "One hand fired," he said, "and another hand guided the bullet."

And he who had that bullet set into the crown of Mary at the Portuguese shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, and donated the bloodied bandage to the Polish shrine of Our Lady of Jasna Gora.

A real Lady's man...

During his long reign within the church, Pope John Paul the second dominated the hierarchy, appointing like-minded conservatives to important offices and quelling liberal dissent - so don't hold your breath waiting for the result when the white smoke rises. More of the same is expected.

It's over 25 years since I bade goodbye to 'Father' Vinander and the brothers at the Missionaries of Charity's 'Institute for Sick and Dying Destitutes' in Calcutta. I'm sure he eventually got round to updating the picture on the wall, and that now the portrait of a healthy-looking Pope John Paul 2 beams down.

But this time, despite my fetish for keeping things up to date, I would that the portrait, once removed, be not replaced by another...

 

Chapters

3

report abuse

To leave comments on this or any book please Register or Login

subscribe to comments for this book
Seringapatam wrote 152 days ago

Yes for what I read, I enjoyed. Very graphic and harsh in some parts. I wish you luck with this int he future. Well done.
Sean Connolly. British Army on the Rampage. (B.A.O.R)

EltopiaAuthor wrote 831 days ago

BACKED "ON POPES ... POLTICS ..." ETC. FEB 11 AT 10 PM

Well, I had read a little of this some months back and finally got around to revisiting the book. (I just read through Chapter 10.)

While I may not like everything said, and I think the book would be more effective without some of the vulgar language, it is well worth reading. As they say, "If the shoe fits ..."

Gutter talk: Even though I understand and agree that some of the gutter talk is justifiable, I would argue that it is not as effective as sticking to more neutral language would be.

The facts as detailed here are powerful enough to stand on their own two feet.

At any rate, I think every Christian should read this book. The point, for me, is not that every Christian should agree with or identify with every single statement. For me the point is to put the shoe on the other foot and see how our own interpretation of the gospel may look to certain victims of our own bad religion. Perhaps we could do a better job of being Christian by taking more of this to heart.

FEL

Michael Dickinson wrote 891 days ago

All of these articles, most of them composed in a few heated hours, were published online by the famous political newsletter COUNTERPUNCH on the same day as I delivered them. I know there are errors and unrefinements, but what the fuck?, the surge of pleasure I felt as I saw each one included in Counterpunch's choices of the day was orgasmic each time and lasted longer.

As for language, the Vatican's response to the blatently honest question "How about a fuck?" (rarely stated directly), that unwed protected sexual intercourse is a sin for which you deserve to be roasted in Hell...Well...

Your lack of discipline in the use of street language is understandable, but it does detract from the impact of your writing; the graphic language (such as "how about a fuck) draws attention to itself and distrats from the message itself. If you only want to "preach to the choir" then fine. But if you want to cause thinking men and women to pause for thought, you need ot do a careful re-reading and editing for such irregularities, and to correct a few awkward constructions, sentences that have the feeling that they were literally "thrown" onto the page in the excitement of the "kill" so to speak. And that's fine for a draft, but you now need to rework this and refine it a bit if you want to be taken seriously as an author.

FEL

EltopiaAuthor wrote 891 days ago

Your lack of discipline in the use of street language is understandable, but it does detract from the impact of your writing; the graphic language (such as "how about a fuck) draws attention to itself and distrats from the message itself. If you only want to "preach to the choir" then fine. But if you want to cause thinking men and women to pause for thought, you need ot do a careful re-reading and editing for such irregularities, and to correct a few awkward constructions, sentences that have the feeling that they were literally "thrown" onto the page in the excitement of the "kill" so to speak. And that's fine for a draft, but you now need to rework this and refine it a bit if you want to be taken seriously as an author.

FEL

Robert Craven wrote 960 days ago

Formidable prose & succinct arguments - It's clear that you write in anger at the way the middle east is just one big checkerboard at the mercy of one superpower and it's cats paw in the region.

These essays could be embellished with perhaps personal statements or sound bites with representatives as you have shades of old-style Gonzo Journalism ala Hunter S Thompson.

Backed because what your write is real

Rob

GET LENIN

Jupiter Echoes wrote 1255 days ago

Ok.... a bit Noam Chomsky but more accessible.
The more i read... the conspiracy theories aobut Israel just become more believable. Their lobbying power not only in the US but also the UK is downright scary.
These essays surely will be of interest to readers with a soicial consciousence, but as always, i approach such works not as true, but subjective....
However, how close i feel these perceptions are to actual reality remains a private matter.

Really enjoyed the essays i read, finding them thought provoking.
Very good.

BACKED

mikegilli wrote 1257 days ago

Brilliant essays..I hadnt read all of them.
Where you triumph is in your unique world view....
the humble engaging personal anecdote that
links us into already fascinating subject matter.
If only there were more brave people like you, willing to risk rejection
or violence in provoking a creative response.
All the best, shelved, mikey The Free

I read this on the Blog...10 times better..Heres the link
http://money-free.ning.com/profiles/blog/list?user=346vn1uwhtusj

David Black wrote 1674 days ago

Maybe it's Diversion Tactic #18: Life is shit, you're shit, I'm shit; why bother arguing about anything?

Michael Dickinson wrote 1674 days ago

Is that a description of your self?

Hope wrote 1674 days ago

You call it pessimistic, I call it realistic. There has never been a time in history free from war and division. Sure, pockets of people managed to live in relative harmony for a while, but experience shows it never lasts. There's always tyrants, war mongers and greedy people ready to take from the meek, and trample over anyone who gets in their way.

David Black wrote 1675 days ago

The argument that "With or without money, people will find a way to oppress, divide and conquer one another" does strike me as pessimistic and misanthropic. To point that out is hardly diversionary..

Michael Dickinson wrote 1675 days ago

Interesting. What are the other diversion tactics, and how many are there?

Hope wrote 1675 days ago

Diversion Tactic #17: When you're losing ground, question the character of the opponent.

Michael Dickinson wrote 1678 days ago

You sound a rather pessimistic misanthropic sort of person. Are you a monarchist too?

Hope wrote 1679 days ago

The existence or non-existence of God doesn't fix the crack in your moneyless utopia Historical evidence proves that cultures throughout the ages didn't use money as a source of exchange, yet there was still division. Money is simply a symptom of the THING that causes division, taking it away won't take away people's pride, greed, lust and hatred. With or without money, people will find a way to oppress, divide and conquer one another.

Michael Dickinson wrote 1679 days ago

Sorry, but I don't believe in Adam and Eve or Cain and Abel or the spiteful, bossy God of the Old Testament.

It is a fact that most crime today is caused by money - theft, corruption, prostitution, and the exploitation of people forced to work in crappy jobs just so they can pay their rent and taxes, a large amount of which goes to the arms industry, making weapons to kill and threaten other people.

Human beings are basically social animals. Get rid of the thing which causes the gross division of rich and poor - money - and then it will be much easier to follow the golden rule of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', and to start creating the kingdom of heaven on earth.

Hope wrote 1680 days ago

Your premise is seriously flawed. With or without money, people fall short of the Glory of God. Money adds to corruption, sure, but to suggest it's the reason why people commit evil is plain wrong. This can be supported biblically and non-biblically. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and fell from grace, money didn't exist yet. When Cain killed Abel, money didn't exist yet. And if you comb through the OT, there are more examples to be found. Also, as late as the 1900's, certain primitive tribes, who still lived in a moneyless society, waged war against one another--murdered and enslaved one another. If this isn't evil and corrupt, then what is? The LOVE of money is the root of evil, not the money itself. The LOVE of money refers to the pride, lust, greed and hatred within us--AND as long as these things remain, no matter what system of exchange we use--corruption will continue to exist.

Michael Dickinson wrote 1681 days ago

Man is not naturally corrupt. He is corrupted by money and the capitalist system.

A barter system will not be necessary in the moneyless society. Everything will be provided to everybody free of charge. Do they use money in 'heaven'? I don't think so. You remember the 'Lord's Prayer'? "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." And it says "Give us this day our daily bread", not "Sell us it." And what about "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."? I think you'll have to admit that according to your criteria, it's not me who is the king of twaddle, but Jesus.


Hope wrote 1681 days ago

Talk about twaddle, you're the king. The world existed without money for thousands of years under the barter system and everything wasn't fine. Doing away with money isn't going to fix anything, because money isn't the problem. It's the corrupt nature of man.

Michael Dickinson wrote 1682 days ago

What a load of twaddle, woman!

Can you imagine Jesus, investing in banks and land and swanning around in ermine like the pope having incence swung around him in a palace like the Vatican? Jesus was calling for an end to the capitalist, elitist royalist system that existed in his lifetime and persists to this day. Jesus was a socialist communist. He would be disgusted by the mammon worshipping hypocritical Church built upon his bones, invading third world countries, conquering and commiting genocide in his name. Get real!

You cannot serve God and Mammon. If you call yourself a 'Christian', you will follow this message and pass it on, in order to finally bring about the kingdom of heaven on earth -


WORLD STRIKE 2012

If you agree that the abolition of money would be a fine solution to most of our problems, and that we could create a much better system where EVERYTHING - food and drink, clothing and housing, water, heating, education, health-care and entertainment - shall be FREE for EVERYONE - why not join the World-Wide Strike on the opening day of the Olympic Games in 2012?

The Strike will begin the moment the symbolic Olympic flame is lit - the signal for all who support the abolition of money to stop work and demand a new fair world of true freedom and justice.

WE WANT A MONEYLESS WORLD

http://money-free.ning.com/

http://yabanji.tripod.com/id10.html

Wake up! Or you can just go yawning into hell.

Hope wrote 1682 days ago

This book sounds like it was written by an angry ex-Catholic or someone eager to blame a religious group for all the ills in the world (sound familiar?). There's nothing new here, except the same old tired and often unsubstantiated claims about the pope sitting on a vault of gold, and how the Catholic Church is at fault for the ills of the world. Eye roll here. Plus the same silly claim that the Vatican should sell off it's assets to solve world hunger. Most the Vatican's assets are tied up in land--churches, missions, schools and hospitals--makes a lot of sense to sell them off to help the poor, when the majority of the land is used to help educate and minister to the spiritual and physical needs of the poor. This book is filled with unoriginal anti-catholic rhetoric and resembles long drawn-out Jack Schick rant . The writing style is OK, but the subject matter has been done many times over, and it's a great big YAWN.

Michael Dickinson wrote 1790 days ago

A friend tried to access the site to check out my stuff but couldn't, and registration was rejected.

If you asked an agent or a publisher to inspect your work here, would they be able to?

David Black wrote 1790 days ago

Michael, you ask if there is "a message board on this site where comments on particular books might be kept for reference, or where writers could share general tips about writing and ideas?" and answer "No." Well, it's certainly a good question. If there's no answer, then it's more Big Brother house than concentration camp - though in both cases there is no "audience." Or is there? Presumably the answer is "Somewhere out there" (I love that song; those mice are so cute).

Michael Dickinson wrote 1790 days ago

And where do general comments go? Is there a pool on the site where they are collected? No.

Is there a message board on this site where comments on particular books might be kept for reference, or where writers could share general tips about writing and ideas? No.

Is this just a self-congraturatory concentration camp of author rejects? What is the point?

1