Irreverent Impiety

Prije nekoliko godina, talijanski satiričar Corrado Guzzanti (brat Sabine Guzzanti; Charon je već pisao o njoj) ismijavao je crkvene autoritete jednim skečom koji je završavao otprilike ovako:  “Ne zaboravite – Crkva je uvijek uz vas. Crkva vas voli. Crkva vas nikada neće napustiti. U najtežim trenucima, Crkva će vas uvijek pažljivo i strpljivo poslušati… …ostavite poruku nakon zvučnog signala”.

Izgleda da je na neki način Guzzanti predvidio neke stvari. Net.hr izvještava o telefonskom broju u Nizozemskoj koji vas u slučaju samoće, depre il grižnje savjesti  može spojiti direktno s Bogom. Dobro ajde, ne baš direktno, s obzirom da morate ostaviti poruku na Njegovoj sekretarici:

Nizozemski umjetnik Johan van der Dong zakupio je lokalni telefonski broj i potiče ljude da nazovu i ostave poruku Bogu na njegovoj telefonskoj sekretarici.

Van der Dong kaže da je pokrenuo ovu ”akciju” kako bi dao ljudima priliku da naprave pauzu i razmisle o životu.

…i kako bi pomogli nizozemskoj ustanovi za telekomunikacije. Nije to malo u ovo doba opće krize i recesije. Em će biti lakše onome koji se bude ispovjedao, em će pružatelj telefonskih usluga biti sretniji jer će na taj način zaraditi. Nije glup taj van der Dong. Nadam se samo da ova vijest neće doći do Mudrinića.

”Pozdrav, razgovarate s Bogom. Trenutno nisam kod kuće, pa poslije signala ostavite poruku”, poruka je koja će vas dočekati na sekretarici.
”To je poput molitve, dok ostavljate svoju poruku za Boga usput organizirate misli. To je odlična kontemplacija”, kaže umjetnik.

E ne! Ovo uopće nije poput molitve! Ma ni blizu! I mean, ovako ljudi jednostavno pričaju u prazno te se obraćaju nekom entitetu kojeg ne vide, ne čuju i koji im ne daje nikakav odgovor, za razliku od molitve u crkvi, gdje je taj entitet itekako vid…khm, ne….zaboravite, sorry.

Možda bi i hrvatski Caritas mogao uvesti sličnu uslugu. Već vidim (odnosno, čujem) poruku na sekretarici: “Za ispovijed birajte jedan. Za nezaboravno druženje s maloljetnicima birajte dva. Za druge oblike tjelesnog zlostavljanja birajte tri. Za utaju poreza i zloporabu položaja birajte četiri. Za običan oprost od operatera birajte pet. Za lančani  oprost i pohvalu od nadbiskupa Bozanića za vaš rad i trud birajte šest…šest…šest…”

Papa Benedikt poker na kvadrat jučer je poništio imenovanje ultrakonzervativnog austrijskog prelata za pomoćnog biskupa Linza, priopćio je Vatikan. Herr Ratzi razriješio je msgr. Gerharda Wagnera obveze da “prihvati položaj pomoćnog biskupa Linza”. Wagner je to sam zatražio prije dva tjedna nakon bezbroj kritika na njegov račun. Prelat je u svojim istupima oštro napadao homoseksualnost kao bolest koju treba liječiti, a valja naglasiti i to da romane ciklusa Harrya Pottera smatra kao štiva koja potiču na sotonizam.

No, Zlatnu palmu za izrečenu glupost zaslužuje njegova izjava u svezi prirodnih katastrofa. Wagner je, naime, tvrdio da su tsunami iz 2004. god. te uragan Katrina iz 2005. bili izazvani grijesima čovječanstva, odnosno da su isti ni više ni manje nego Božja kazna. Nadalje, Wagner je ujedno tvrdio da je uragan Katrina uništio pet bolnica u Louisiani jer su se u istima obavljali pobačaji.

I tako, dok većina javnosti pozdravlja Ratzingerovo poništenje imenovanja (zanemarujući pritom da je taj čin ništa drugo nego prihvaćanje ostavke mentalno poremećenog monsinjora), zaboravlja se činjenica da ga je 31. siječnja 2009. upravo on imenovao pomoćnim biskupom Linza. Zar je Ratzinger ignorirao gore navedene izjave Gerharda Wagnera, ili možda “nije bio informiran” s njegovim ekstremističkim stavovima kao u slučaju negacionističkog biskupa Richarda Williamsona?

Zanima me da li bi Wagner podnio ostavku (a Ratzi prihvatio) da nije bilo sve te galame koju su sami austrijski svećenici digli protiv svog kolege. Razmislite malo: u Austriji katolici reagiraju na izjave  prelata koji opravdava prirodne katastrofe i smrti tisuće ljudi bolesnom idejom “Božje kazne”. U Hrvatskoj,  međutim, svećenici mogu nesmetano držati mise zadušnice za Antu Pavelića i voditi sprovode bivših vojnih lica NDH uz tihi konsenzus katoličke javnosti (just to remind you, 88% stanovnika Hrvatske deklariralo se katolicima).

No, vratimo se on topic. IMO, potez da papa prihvati Wagnerovu ostavku dokazuje kako je vatikanska politika u laganoj zbrci. Ovaj slučaj ima dosta toga zajedničkog s aferom Williamson i lefebvrijevcima, u smislu da papa najprije napravi jedan potez kako bi nedugo nakon toga iz četvrte brzine naglo prebacio u rikverc, vjerojatno potaknut mnogobrojnim kritikama koje – budimo iskreni – u zadnje vrijeme vole pljuštati na Vatikan.

Slučaj s bratovštinom Pia X je u tom smislu simptomatičan. Lefebvrijevcima je najprije skinuto izopćenje, kako bi nakon toga papa pozvao iste na prihvaćanje Drugog vatikanskog koncila i na ponovno razmatranje nekih teza koje su se dokazale prilično škakljivima (cfr. Williamson, odgovornost Židova za deicid). Dok se ostali smrtnici, pardon: grešnici, moraju najprije pokajati za svoje grijehe kako bi ih maćeha Crkva u potpunosti prigrlila, lefebvrijevcima je omogućena obrnuta, a time i privilegirana procedura. Najprije upadni, pa ćemo onda porazgovarati.

Kontradikcija se nastavljaju. Već smo pisali o vatikanskom svojatanju lika i djela Galilea (link 1; link 2). Povodom 445. obljetnice rođenja toskanskog fizičara i astronoma, Vatikan je priredio cijeli niz događaja na temu suodnosa između znanosti i religije. Dakle, sada pak Crkva tvrdi da je Galileo bio nevin, definirajući ga pritom kao “genijalnog inovatora i sina Crkve”. Ako je Galileo bio nevin, odnosno ako je proces protiv njega bio nepravedan (kao što je to svojedobno tvrdio Ivan Pavao II), zašto njegov progonitelj kardinal Bellarmino ima još uvijek status sveca?

Robert Bellarmine (Roberto Francesco Romolo Cardinale Bellarmino) (4 October 1542, Montepulciano, Siena, Italy – 17 September 1621, Rome) was an Italian Jesuit and a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. He participated in the Catholic Church’s proceedings against Giordano Bruno (sentencing him to be burned alive in a public square) and Galileo Galilei (who escaped the same fate, with eleven years’ house imprisonment). He was canonized in 1930 and is to Roman Catholics both a “saint” and a Doctor of the Church. (izvor)

Iz priloženog se može zaključiti da Crkva koja prihvaća lefebvrijevce je ista koja trenutno nema ama baš ništa protiv Svete Inkvizicije. Što drugo reći o instituciji čiji je svetac progonitelj koji je sudio njezinom “sinu i genijalnom inovatoru”?

Nedavno smo pisali o svetoj cenzuri, no taj “slučaj” je benigni prema onome što se pokušava progurati kao rezolucija UN-a 62/154. Iz pera Christophera Hitchensa, poznatog anti-teista (tekst prenosimo u cijelosti jer ga je šteta cjepkati na dijelove):

The Muslim religion makes unusually large claims for itself. All religions do this, of course, in that they claim to know and to be able to interpret the wishes of a supreme being. But Islam affirms itself as the last and final revelation of God’s word, the consummation of all the mere glimpses of the truth vouchsafed to all the foregoing faiths, available by way of the unimprovable, immaculate text of “the recitation,” or Quran.

If there sometimes seems to be something implicitly absolutist or even totalitarian in such a claim, it may result not from a fundamentalist reading of the holy book but from the religion itself. And it is the so-called mainstream Muslims, grouped in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, who are now demanding through the agency of the United Nations that Islam not only be allowed to make absolutist claims but that it also be officially shielded from any criticism of itself.

Though it is written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, the nonbinding U.N. Resolution 62/154, on “Combating defamation of religions,” actually seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being “offended.” The preamble is jam-packed with hypocrisies that are hardly even laughable, as in this delicious paragraph, stating that the U.N. General Assembly:

Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions, beliefs and civilizations, and welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007.

Yes, I think we can see where we are going with that. (And I truly wish I had been able to attend that gathering and report more directly on its rich and varied and culturally diverse flavors, but I couldn’t get a visa.) The stipulations that follow this turgid preamble are even more tendentious and become more so as the resolution unfolds. For example, Paragraph 5 “expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism,” while Paragraph 6 “[n]otes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001.”

You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls’ schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law. This capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it “associate” the faith with human rights violations or terrorism. In Paragraph 6, an obvious attempt is being made to confuse ethnicity with confessional allegiance. Indeed this insinuation (incidentally dismissing the faith-based criminality of 9/11 as merely “tragic”) is in fact essential to the entire scheme. If religion and race can be run together, then the condemnations that racism axiomatically attracts can be surreptitiously extended to religion, too. This is clumsy, but it works: The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success.

Just to be clear, a phobia is an irrational and unconquerable fear or dislike. However, some of us can explain with relative calm and lucidity why we think “faith” is the most overrated of the virtues. (Don’t be calling us “phobic” unless you want us to start whining that we have been “offended.”) And this whole picture would be very much less muddied and confused if the state of Pakistan, say, did not make the absurd and many-times discredited assertion that religion can be the basis of a nationality. It is such crude amalgamations—is a Saudi or Pakistani being “profiled” because of his religion or his ethnicity?—that are responsible for any overlap between religion and race. It might also help if the Muslim hadith did not prescribe the death penalty for anyone trying to abandon Islam—one could then be surer who was a sincere believer and who was not, or (as with the veil or the chador in the case of female adherents) who was a volunteer and who was being coerced by her family.

Rather than attempt to put its own house in order or to confront such other grave questions as the mass murder of Shiite Muslims by Sunni Muslims (and vice versa), or the desecration of Muslim holy sites by Muslim gangsters, or the discrimination against Ahmadi Muslims by other Muslims, the U.N. resolution seeks to extend the whole area of denial from its existing homeland in the Islamic world into the heartland of post-Enlightenment democracy where it is still individuals who have rights, not religions. See where the language of Paragraph 10 of the resolution is taking us. Having briefly offered lip service to the rights of free expression, it goes on to say that “the exercise of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs.” The thought buried in this awful, wooden prose is as ugly as the language in which it is expressed: Watch what you say, because our declared intention is to criminalize opinions that differ with the one true faith. Let nobody say that they have not been warned.

Što još dodati? UN, osmišljen kao organizacija za čuvanje svjetskog mira (nije da im ide, ali ajde) pokušava se upregnuti u borbu protiv svakog kritičkog propitivanja Islama, jednostavno zato što taj isti Islam — bez trunke dokaza! — tvrdi da je aktualna i jedina ispravna riječ Božja. Može li im ovo “proći”? Možda još ne, ali u bližoj budućnosti… tko zna?

Teror religija nad Čovjekom napreduje punom parom.