I don’t believe for a minute that horror over the abuse of children by Catholic clergy is what’s animating Richard Dawkins’ on Pope Benedict XVI. Come on—is Dawkins on record as being similarly outraged over the abuse of children by teachers or Scout troop leaders?
No—this is about another Pope Benedict, one stuck in the craw of every decent English Protestant for two and a half centuries. This is about what that Pope Benedict did, in the long-time-ago days—before the iPod, before the iPad, before the iPhone, before the I-Man (but presumably not before the eyeball). Journey back with me to the dimly dark eighteenth century, when Catholics were objects of ridicule, ire, and fear, and ire, and believed to be in thrall to a foreign prince, who as all good Englishers knew was/is the Antichrist himself. Or a fair semblance therein thereof.
It was early September it was, in seventeen hundred and fifty-two (1752), when the unthinkable happened.
Oh-h-h-h my brothers . . . dare I even say it? How to even describe it? The pope, the bishop of Rome, the putative vicar of Christ on Earth, stole, yes STOLE, 11 days right out of the English calendar.
To steal a man’s wife is bad. To steal his horse is unforgiveable (this is 1752). But to steal his time—who but Beelzebub, or a fair semblance therein thereof, could even manage it, what with his diabolical powers, being the devil and all.
Imagine you’re a poor working-class Englishman, waking up on what you think is September 3, only to learn that it is now September 14—and that it is the pope of Rome who stole your time, almost a fortnight’s worth, right out from under the green green earth, or the blue blue sky, if you prefer, of the unsuspecting Christian folk of Britain.
It’s called the Gregorian calendar now. It had been the Julian. But we know what it really was. It was a sign of the End Times. When “the ninth month ran short, and all good men were suddenly in arrears” (Book IX, chapter 3, The Sad Testament of Sammy Wong, High School Ninja).
There was talk at the time of forming a mighty Armada, preferably one more navigable than the Spanish version, to attack central Italy, invade the papal states, and force Pope Benedict XIV to return those 11 days or die. But the English were just so darn late for everything that they never got around to it.
But they’ve never forgiven the Holy See for those lost 11 days. Payback has been a long time in coming. And we all know what payback is. But this is a family blog.
April 15th, 2010 | 12:08 pm
Couldn’t the English have cleverly foiled the Man of Sin’s wicked stratagem of coming up with a better calendar simply by refusing to change their own version of it?
Just as Americans have stymied the dastardly French plot known as the metric system by the fiendish machination of ignoring it.
Apparently drinking 8 or 9 bottles of gin a day didn’t do wonders for the average 18th C. Englishman’s ratiocination.
April 15th, 2010 | 12:20 pm
I doubt that Dawkins is upset for this reason (I can’t believe he’s a Protestant). However, the peasantry had good cause to be upset by the loss of 11 days because rent on their land became due 11 days earlier. In England by tradition, rent is due on the “usual quarter days”, one of which is 29th September. So instead of having 26 more days to save for the rent, they had only 15 before the landlord sent round the men in big boots to extract the feudal payment. One of my ancestors was probably on the wrong end of the affair in 1752 but I hold no grudge against His Holiness.
April 15th, 2010 | 1:35 pm
Gregory XIII specifically forbad the collecting of rents for the missing 10 days when he made his reform. Too bad the English didn’t follow his example.
April 15th, 2010 | 3:08 pm
Come on—is Dawkins on record as being similarly outraged over the abuse of children by teachers or Scout troop leaders?
…
Catholics were objects of ridicule, ire, and fear, and ire, and believed to be in thrall to a foreign prince,/b>
I believe the above explains a large part of the difference in reactions to abuse by scout troop leaders/teachers/protestant clergy and abuse by Catholic priests. To the extent that the Catholic hierarchy is international and the Pope a head of state, the Catholic Church is perceived by noncatholics as being above the law (or thinking it is above the law) in ways that scout troop leaders or teachers are not. If you watch enough police procedurals on TV, you’ll eventually run across an episode where the vile criminal asserts diplomatic immunity and the heroes react with outrage. The programs seem designed to elicit outrage in the audience, too. Any attempt by the Catholic Church to deal with the abuse problem internally and any failure, real or perceived, to turn over accused priests for legal prosecution triggers the same sort of reaction.
The reports of abuse in other countries don’t help, because people realize that, hey, it’s the same multi-national organization that’s involved. The situation in Ireland, where the government was for so long so closely aligned with Catholicism seems tailor made to give noncatholic Americans the heebie jeebies.
I am a non-catholic, and I confess to something of this gut reaction. It may not be fair, it may not be just, but there it is.
April 15th, 2010 | 3:47 pm
For the life of me I can never understand why everyone treats the theft of those 11 days as a matter of only historical significance. People think!!! If what should have been September 4, 1752 was declared to be September 14, 1752, then what should have been (and by all rights would have been) September 4, 1753 was instead September 14, 1753, and so on right up to this very day. So but for the evil machinations of that slippery pope (which is similar to, but not exactly the same as, a slippery slope), what should have been September 4, 2009 was instead September 14, 2009.
In other words, those 11 days are still missing, and I don’t know about the rest of you but I could have used them to catch up on my yard work.
April 15th, 2010 | 4:38 pm
To Nickp,
That is an extremely perceptive analysis.
The difference between Catholic and Protestant feelings on the supra-national character of the Church stems from a difference in how Catholics and (most) Protestants view “the Church”.
I believe that most Protestants do not think of “the Church” (in the sense of “the Body of Christ”) as an institution at all, it is something mystical and abstract. But if, as Catholics believe, the Church IS an institution (as well as something mystical) it must obviously be an institution that is above national distinctions. In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. In Christ, there is no American, German, African, Chinese, either.
Ask a Protestant American, “Are you a Christian first or an American first.” Obviously, he would answer (if he were really a Protestant CHRISTIAN), “I am a Christian first, because Christ comes first. Obedience to God comes before obedience to any merely human institution, however important.” If an (orthodox) Catholic American were asked, “Are you American first or Catholic first,” he would say — for the very same reason — that he is Catholic first. He believes that membership in the Catholic Church is membership in Christ’s Body. But to many Protestant ears that sounds very disturbing, because Protestants see the “Roman Catholic Church” as just an “institution” and not the Body of Christ.
The fact that (orthodox) Catholics see the Church as above nation, does not mean that they believe that the Church is exempt from all civil law. That would be absurd. Only if the law entailed something contrary to the gospel, or that infringed on authority that Christ has vested in the Church, would the civil law lack authority.
Consider the following: What if Caesar had claimed authority to change the membership of the Twelve — say, Caesar had presumed to depose Andrew and John and choose two other people instead to replace them as Apostles. Would the early Christians have recognized that act as having any validity or effect? Would a Protestant of today? Of course not. If Caesar had told Christians that they should not use bread and wine at communion but something else, or should worship not on the Lord’s day but on Wednesdays, would the early Christians have seen that as binding in conscience? In the same way, the idea of civil governments having authority to choose bishops, or change the form of worship services, or decide doctrinal questions (think 39 Articles, etc.) is unthinkable madness in the eyes of Catholics.
Yes, if a bishop commits a real crime, such as obstruction of justice, throw him in jail. If a cleric molests a child throw him in jail — or execute him, that would be perfectly just. No one is saying that the supra-national character of the Church should be a shield against the justice that it is the legitimate responsibility of the state to uphold.
The temporal sovereignty of the Pope is a distinct question from the supranational character of the Church, though the two questions are obviously related. The practical need for the Pope’s temporal sovereignty is that the Pope could not function at all if he were subject to being dragged before every ruler or every court in the world. As Americans, we don’t think the President of the United States can be dragged before every court in the world. If he could be, President George W. Bush would probably be languishing in a Spanish (or French, or Cuban, …) jail right now. The immunities the Pope has as head of a state does not shield the Church from justice: it has not prevented (and no Catholic argues it should have) Catholic dioceses in this country from paying out billions of dollars in settlements and bishops and other clergy going to jail. The international status of the pope is a red herring in this situation.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:22 pm
Poor Richard Dawkins. Could it possibly be that his hour of fame is closing, and he needs to come up with something outrageous, that he probably doesn’t even believe, just to stay in the limelight? Clearly Mr. Dawkins has had great fun with his low to middle brow popular atheism, and who can blame him for wanting the gig to stay?
April 16th, 2010 | 1:44 am
Dawkins is a fool. He pretends to have answers to a question that cannot possibly be answered. But at least he’s not a hate-mongering simpleton whose blind arrogance and selfish lies resulted in numerous children being raped. He may be a fool, but so is the Pope, and the pole is also a disgusting hate monger who hangs out with and protects those who rape children. If God endorses the Pope, then God is dumber than I am. This is clearly not the case, and hence, Catholicism is a disgusting farce.
April 16th, 2010 | 12:32 pm
I haven’t read Dawkins (though I did hear him speak at Auburn University when I was working on my PhD), and I don’t have a link so a) I could be misremembering and b) even if I’m not, my source may not be terribly reliable. However, I seem to remember reading that Dawkins once objected to the “hysteria” over sex with children and thought it (sex with children) wasn’t really all that bad. If that is true, it makes his attack on the Pope even more comically hypocritical.
Weary, hate-mongering simpleton? Do you have any specific examples of papal “hate-mongering” or papal stupidity for that matter? And even if you do, you do realize that “X is disgusting. X is a Catholic. Therefore Catholicism is disgusting.” Is rather stupidly fallacious reasoning.
April 16th, 2010 | 1:38 pm
right, said, Fred
April 17th, 2010 | 4:14 am
> “say, Caesar had presumed to depose Andrew and John and choose two other people instead to replace them as Apostles”
Yeah, or demanded all the bishops assemble and hold a council at, say, Nicea. Something outrageous and unacceptable like that.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact