Thanks to so many of you for asking about my experience at Pope Benedict XVI’s prayer vigil in Hyde Park yesterday afternoon. It was profoundly renewing spiritually and I’ll remember it for the rest of my life. I don’t want to get boring, soap-box-y, or too personal, so I’ll leave it at that.
But I would like to start a discussion, if anyone’s willing, about the controversy surrounding the Pope’s visit. I think this was a bit of a missed opportunity in class – the past few days have been historic, marking the Holy See’s first-ever state visit to the UK, first visit of any kind in 28 years, and perhaps most importantly, the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman, an Christian theologian from the Victorian Era and an important English figure, historically, intellectually, and religiously. (The beatification – or the penultimate step on the road to sainthood – of Cardinal Newman has taken a kind of backseat to the “state visit” thing. Actually, Newman is the main reason for the Pope’s visit. To learn more about the Cardinal – and why he’s so important to England and to the Church – read here: http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/Cardinal-Newman)
The visit’s official theme – “Heart Speaks Unto Heart” – comes from the writings of Cardinal Newman. Although Newman was a theologian and a professor at Oxford, he recognized the importance of faith deeply felt. He found in the Catholic Church what he considered to be a perfect union of intellect and spirit, mind and heart. You can probably guess why Benedict wanted to emphasize this aspect of Newman’s life to believers in England- we’ve spent plenty of time talking about how secular today’s England is. In his homily at Hyde Park, in front of an estimated 80,000 he encouraged Christians to join with Newman and “radiate” faith rather than just accepting it intellectually. He also recognized that believers in England fight a bit of an uphill battle as they try to live their faith in a nation that wants little to do with faith. The Guardian reported quite fairly, in my opinion, on the Hyde Park vigil here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/18/pope-benedict-hyde-park-speech
Waiting for Benedict in Hyde Park (personal photo)
What I’m driving at is that, in my experience, the Papal visit was tailored very carefully to fit the English character. The visit reflected a lot of what we’ve talked about in class, actually. He wanted to address secularism as well as a long history of religious strife – the altar at Hyde Park was set up, intentionally, very close to Tyburn, where Protestants and Catholics alike have been martyred. Benedict also, at other times during his visit, addressed the British tendency toward moderation – reminding them, essentially, to be moderate in moderation. He paid homage to the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain – pointing out that he was a child during the dark days of Nazi Germany, and expressing his gratitude for the sacrifices of British servicemen and women.
I mentioned the controversy surrounding the visit a little earlier, though. Although I’m sure most of us noticed the Scientologists protesting in their Guy Fawkes masks – a little paradoxically, considering that Guy Fawkes was Catholic, or maybe that’s the point – the main group protesting the visit is called Protest the Pope. Their official website contains a list of grievances against the state visit of Benedict XVI: http://www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/ Although they claim that 20,000 protesters came out to support their cause yesterday, the police can’t confirm that number and neither can I – really, I don’t know where all those people were hiding because we certainly didn’t notice them.
For me, at least, Protest the Pope’s arguments are flimsy. They’re essentially saying the Pope can’t have a state visit because he’s Catholic, as far as I can tell. And it seems to me that when 17.5% of your country accepts the moral authority of one person, the government has a vested interest in a good relationship with that person. Not to mention that the Holy See is an ally for the UK government on matters of worldwide poverty, healthcare, and education, of climate change and sustainability, of nuclear disarmament and peace.
There’s one last aspect to the religious controversy surrounding this visit: six Muslims were arrested in connection with an alleged plot to assassinate the Pope. Here’s some more information on that: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8010002/Pope-visit-sixth-man-arrested-over-alleged-assassination-plot.html. The men have been released without charges. But I can’t help but wonder how this will affect Britain’s religious climate as well. Until these arrests, the conflict was between Catholics and secularists. Now, there’s a whole new dimension. Will the Muslim community react with anger and outrage? Will some Catholics resort to discrimination and hate? Will the whole story be forgotten by tomorrow? It will be interesting to watch this unfold.
Sorry for the length of the post – I just wanted to give some background on the visit and see if anyone has thoughts to share. I think this would be a good space to have a respectful dialogue about the place of religion in the British government.
6 responses so far ↓
bowmanc // Sep 19th 2010 at 17:56
I think that in general the UK’s reception of the Pope’s presence has been, typical of British society, pretty moderate. I think the prompt release of the alleged plotters will mute any serious rebellion.
I mean this completely respectfully – but I actually agree with some of the points that the protest-the-Pope’s website brings up. He is anti-giving-Africans-condoms-to-prevent-AIDS. To me, that is an unacceptable belief for someone considered a world leader. That is the only issue listed that I know to be true; however, the others listed (that may be true) also bring up valid points as to why it shouldn’t be a state visit.
Young Dennis // Sep 19th 2010 at 18:08
If the Pope is coming on a state visit (he is), then like any other visiting statesman, he shouldn’t be immune from protests, like, say Tzipi Livni (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/14/tzipi-livni-israel-gaza-arrest) or George Bush.
battilaj // Sep 19th 2010 at 22:46
MK, I’m really glad you enjoyed the Pope visit.
I’m confused as to what you meant when you said “They’re essentially saying the Pope can’t have a state visit because he’s Catholic.” Does that mean that none of the accusations on the website are verifiable, or that they listed a bunch of Catholic viewpoints but phrased them so they looked really bad?
With regards to the men arrested, the article says they’re Islamists not regular Muslims, so I doubt there will be much outrage from the Muslim community. Islamism is a political fundamental movement (sorry if you alredy knew that. I had to learn it from a class). I found a pretty good article about it:
http://www.danielpipes.org/954/distinguishing-between-islam-and-islamism
I worry more about the effect it will have on the non Muslim community because I think people are more apt will misunderstand the phrase Islamism and assume that it’s a Muslim attack which could fuel some of the Islamphobia we read about earlier in the month.
Mary Kate // Sep 20th 2010 at 03:11
Dennis – never said there shouldn’t be protests, just said I think the protestors’ arguments are flimsy.
Jesse and Chris – all the “accusations” the Protest the Pope website listed are true, but most of them are beliefs that the Catholic Church has long held, not actions. That’s why I think the Protestors just don’t like Catholicism, Jesse. The one you mentioned specifically, Chris, is a good example, and it goes hand in hand with “denying abortions.” (I also think the no-condoms thing should be taken in conjunction with the fact that a quarter of all healthcare provision in Africa is under the auspices of the Catholic Church.) The Pope can’t send condoms to Africa, or do whatever it is the protestors want him to do with abortions (hand them out?), because he’s both a spiritual leader and the ruler of a theocratic state with a moral theology that forbids these actions. The Pope’s not the problem here; Catholicism is. It’s not that the protesters don’t want Benedict as a leader to visit because of his actions. It’s that they don’t want the state to give any recognition to the Catholic Church or our beliefs. So the protesters are being a little disingenuous here, basically, probably because they don’t want to sound intolerant. But anti-Popery is a longstanding tradition in Great Britain, and I’m not surprised to see this iteration now.
Mary Kate // Sep 20th 2010 at 03:15
And Jesse – thanks for clarifying the Muslim/Islamist dichotomy here. I do know the difference, but the reason I expressed concern about it is because it seems that many people don’t – we still hear 9/11 blamed on “Muslims,” etc. I think any time anyone professing the Muslim faith (whether they’re Muslim or Islamist) is under even any suspicion for violence, there’s cause to prepare for a little tension, although I hope that Chris is right, and that the reaction will be moderate.
amyh // Sep 20th 2010 at 08:51
Chris, I respectfully disagree with you. No part of the British reaction to the Pope’s visit was moderate. In the days leading up to his arrival there was article after article denouncing him and the Catholic Church. In a society where everything is done in moderation and restraint is common practice the outpouring of anti-Catholic and anti-papacy feelings really surprised me. There was no counter weight in these discussion of the pope’s visit — there were no news articles discussing the good the papacy has done for the world and there was very little coverage on Newman’s beatification. I understand that the pope has been involved with several things that have offended a lot of people but that is no excuse for ignoring his positive message. Even his attempt to apologize to victims of the priest abuse scandal was treated with sarcasm and contempt by British news agencies. I am frankly appalled by how vehemently people have protested the Pope’s attempt to create goodwill in the UK.
You must log in to post a comment.