This post should probably be called The Pope in Ireland II, following Kieran’s post of a couple of days ago. But I’m not quite ready to finally delete the shreds of a posting I keep re-writing that keeps getting overtaken by other posts and events in the meantime.
Anyway, this morning Slugger O’Toole points to the most beautiful antidote to the dolorous (and, frankly, condescending) blanket coverage of the pope’s death by CNN. Slugger kindly reproduces in full Fintan O’Toole’s superb essay placing JPII’s reign in the context of Hobbes’ description of the papacy as “nothing other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof”.
If, like me, you can’t bear another moment of mock-mourningful journalists raking out endless and unseemly titbits of human interest and pointless kremlinology-like speculations about the next pope, read this. It’s a cracker.
{ 19 comments }
des von bladet 04.05.05 at 7:57 am
As the newly-appointed Holy-Roman-Emperor-in-exile (self-appointed, yes, but only because no one else is remotely glorious enough to do it), I think you, O’Toole and Hobbes will find that I am “the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof”, thank you very much.
Except possibly Hobbes, who it pleases our Imperial Majesty to allow to just stay dead if he prefers.
Doug 04.05.05 at 8:21 am
I think Voltaire had some secret allies at our little bit of state media here in officially mourning Bavaria. The second song they played after announcing JPII’s departure was John Lennon’s “Imagine”:
Imagine there’s no heaven,
It’s easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky…
P ONeill 04.05.05 at 8:52 am
The Malachi O’Doherty piece in the Observer (to which Slugger also links) is another excellent antidote to the JP2 hagiography.
Matthew 04.05.05 at 9:37 am
What an excellent article, thanks!
Uncle Kvetch 04.05.05 at 10:08 am
Thanks to Maria & P O’Neill for the links. As you say, a good antidote to the mawkish pablum we’re getting served from the US media.
mcm 04.05.05 at 10:58 am
“It may be a temporarily bewitching media attraction, but it is in fact a spectre that the church has to exorcise.
For all his talent, charisma and iconoclastic energy, John Paul was never the man for that job.”
Is there a man for that job? It seems unlikely that you’d find someone who was at once willing to accept the office and committed to the elimination of that office.
Maria 04.05.05 at 11:42 am
MCM, that’s an interesting idea in the general sense. And I have a long document to write so I think I’ll engage in some displacement activity…
I can think of a few people appointed or elected to roles they they were committed to detroying or terminating in some way. Chris Patten in Hong Kong is an obvious one, and I’m sure there are plenty of examples of people committed to finishing off an institution at a more or less natural concluding point.
But the first example of someone willing to accept an office he/she is committed to eliminating an office in a more scurrilous sort of way might be a character called Donal O’Buachalla, a Fianna Fail hack who was the last Governor General of Ireland. The Governor General was the representative of the King in Ireland after the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1921. As far as I remember, De Valera appointed O’Buachalla with the sole intention of making the office seem so ridiculous it would be easily abolished.
O’Buachalla happily went along with it and eschewed official transport for his own bike. He also stayed living in his own rather humble home instead of moving into the official residence, and generally ignored the office altogether. O’Buachalla finished in 1936, no one else was appointed, and the office was rendered entirely moot by the 1937 constitution which declared the republic.
A similar category might be those who occupy (or in some cases refuse to occupy) offices they are opposed to in principle, like UKIP MEPs, Sinn Fein members of the House of Commons, and other assorted trouble makers.
The fun we could have here, it’s mind-boggling…!
Jack 04.05.05 at 11:47 am
Paddy Ashdown is an interesting case study of the difficulty of actually eliminating the job even if you want to. It’s like parenting, when do you let them be responsible for themselves? You know it’s got to happen but now is never the right time.
I’m not talking about leading the Lib Dems.
Chris 04.05.05 at 11:52 am
It always strikes me as a bit odd to hear about how the Church needs to get back to Christ from people who evidently believe in neither.
(Or sure, we all believe Christ existed — but honestly, aren’t his views more attractive as they’ve been translated/systematized/compromised/what-have-you by the Church than as you would take them to be merely on the basis of biblical accounts?)
duane 04.05.05 at 12:11 pm
No, chris, I would say the complete opposite. In fact it is a cliche for non-Christians to note their admiration for Christ’s teachings while deploring their interpretation by His self-described followers.
Chris 04.05.05 at 1:04 pm
Duane: almost no one takes seriously Jesus’ injunctions to turn the other cheek, to forgive seventy times seven times, to sell all you have, etc. It isn’t just that people don’t live up to them — it’s that most of us admire people who don’t “turn the other cheek” but stand up for themselves, and so on. Moreover, the end-times apocalypticism that permeates the biblical Jesus’ rhetoric is virtually impossible to separate from his ethical teachings.
The Church’s ethical teachings are largely an attempt to tame Jesus’ teachings into a reasonable system of ethics for living in the real world, which 2000 years later hasn’t ended and shows little sign of doing so. Hebraic prophecy + Greek rationalism = Catholic Christianity. At the very least you’ve got to admit that the move from Jesus to the Church is intellectual development, not regress.
mpowell 04.05.05 at 2:15 pm
Well, there are obviously people who disagree w/ Chris’ assessment of the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Jesus’ teaching. (we know of them as Protestants) That being said, Catholicism has got the empirical evidence on its side. A billion followers world wide strongly argue that the Church’s ethical teaching are quite appealing to the masses.
Gene O'Grady 04.05.05 at 2:15 pm
May I break in with a question going back to Pope in Ireland I (let the record show that my last name notwithstanding I’m not in any signicant sense “Irish,” although I am in a significant sense Catholic).
When we read of Irish bishops with a 17 year old child by their housekeeper (or some similar situation) are we to imagine that they did it a couple of times years ago (could happen to anyone) or that there has been an ongoing relationship happily employing contraceptives for the last 16 years? There never seem to be 10 kids.
Apologies for any irreverences detected.
mpowell 04.05.05 at 2:16 pm
By the way, how can I get line returns in my posts?
pierre 04.05.05 at 6:37 pm
It always strikes me as a bit odd to hear about how the Church needs to get back to Christ from people who evidently believe in neither.
Snarky comment written and then deleted.
But I just wanted to say, that if Bono were made Pope, I personally would consider joining up.
“This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles — and we’re stealing it back!”
Is there an opportunity for write-in candidates?
Christopher M 04.05.05 at 8:01 pm
pierre– the Bono for Pope campaign is already underway:
http://esplodere.com/johnandgenia/about_us/popebono.html
In theory, you know, the cardinals can elect any Catholic male, though I think technicalities of canon law would prevent them from choosing a married man.
duane 04.06.05 at 4:50 am
Chris: I guess we run with different crowds. I know many people who aren’t Christian and who specifically cite “turn the other cheek” as exactly what they find most admirable about Jesus’s teachings. As to the apocolyptic themes, I’m afraid I’m not familiar enough with the bible to discuss it intelligently, although I’m inclined to agree.
I also agree that the church has made a lot of progress over the last 2000 years in refining and explaining (away?) the teachings of Jesus in order to make them applicable to modern life. Also to make them more suitable for the church. I suppose it is an open question as to what extent they have succeeded, or whether their efforts are admirable or abominable. Personally, as a non-Christian, I don’t particularly care one way or the other about doctrinal purity as such.
strewelpeter 04.06.05 at 6:22 am
Gene Asked :When we read of Irish bishops with a 17 year old child …are we to imagine that they did it a couple of times years ago or …an ongoing relationship happily employing contraceptives?
In the two cases mentioned, and there are loads more if we wanted to dredge that ditch, Eamonn Casey’s relationship was probably a short term thing But Michael Cleary was to all intents and purposes living the life of a (typical :-)) Irish married man at home. As there was just the one child I guess we could assume the use of contraceptives.
As a kid growing up with both those dudes a presence of sorts in my life, I always felt that Casey was too good to be true and that Cleary was too sweet to be real. I guess I was right about both of them. I feel for Casey now ,I see him as much a victim of the church as anyone. Not that he sees it that way now. What a Pope he would have made!
Maria wonders about people who are committed to removing the office they hold.
I wonder which of Adams, McGuinness or their fascist cronies it is that as head of the Army Council of the IRA they claim in their ‘day job’ to being committed to disbanding? How real is there committment and will we ever know?
strewelpeter 04.06.05 at 10:30 am
No sooner had I posted that than it appears the bould Gerry is going off to have a conversation with himself. Here is the public half of the conversation:
http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/9106
Comments on this entry are closed.