The Papal visit is being viewed as a success, although given the negative publicity accompanying the buildup to the event, the bar for 'success' was not set very high.
Part of the evidence of the success of the trip is the fact that the heated debates over funding for the trip, the child abuse scandal, and Catholic doctrine concerning contraception, women and homosexuals are no longer in the news. This despite the fact that the last two in particular remain vital issues which the Catholic Church has yet to address satisfactorily.
On the child abuse scandal, the Pope talking about how the issue affects "all of us [in the Catholic Church]" is a positive sign. And he's on the mark when he says that child abuse by Catholic priests "seriously undermines the moral credibility of church leaders." But while he does now appear to be taking the subject seriously, it's far from saying that the buck stops with him. The Catholic Church can only move forward on this issue and regain lost credibility" if the Pope's talk of child abuse being a "crime", results in meaningful co-operation with civil authorities to bring abusive priests to justice in secular courts. His talk of "reparation" looks like a smoke screen - his actual quote was "Indeed, what better way could there be of making reparation for these sins than by reaching out, in a humble spirit of compassion, towards children who continue to suffer abuse elsewhere?" So the reparation does not mean compensating victims of Catholic priests, but to making efforts to support abused children elsewhere. Which is a worthy aim, but the use of the word "elsewhere" suggests an attempt to move attention away from the Catholic Church's own child abuse scandal.
As for liberalising the Church's doctrine on contraception, abortion, homosexuals, and women priests, this looks as far away as ever. Until these are addressed, the Catholic Church will always be out of step with modern society. Anti-Catholic activists will still have the easy target of saying that by opposing condoms in Africa, the Catholic Church is promoting the over-population of the planet, not to mention the spread of AIDS.
The biggest damage these shortcomings in Catholic doctrine will do is the way the controversy surrounding them overshadows the positive work of the Church. I was brought up as Catholic - and was even an altar boy for a while - and contrary to many people's expections, at no point did the priest try and molest me. With all the negative publicity surrounding religion these days (and here I'm including all religions, but in particular Catholicism and Islam), it is easy to overlook the good things that religion achieves in this country. It gives people a moral code that they might not have acquired from our secular society, it gives people a sense of community, it gives support to people in difficult times, and supports a lot of very worthwhile charitable activities. I might not agree with their belief system, and there may be flaws in the current doctrines, but I can't let that make me see the average Catholic (and indeed Muslim) as immoral or evil, and I certainly wouldn't want to deprive them (and society in general) of the benfits that organised religion brings.
The issue of the cost of the visit is a thorny one. And is difficult to comment upon as estimates of the cost vary between £15m and £55m depending on the agenda of the person making those estimates. Also, it's hard to know what the Church can afford. Allegedly, the 'pastoral' visit by Pope John Paul II in 1982 nearly bankrupted the Church, which would suggest that the church alone could not afford the visit. But it's only a suggestion, as it's very difficult (if not impossible) to assess how much cash the Vatican has to spend on a visit like this.
Declaring it a state visit makes sense. It is a good idea for the UK to be on good terms with a country with the powerful international influence of the Vatican City, especially when you consider that 10% of the UK's population is Catholic. If the UK were to refuse funding, and thus effective prevent or massively curtail the visit, it would lay itself open to accusations of anti-Catholicism, and restriction of the right to religious freedom. Much of the cost comes from the security operation (which is the main source of the wildly varying estimates) but one has to remember that it's not the Catholics that would be causing the potential security problems. So, should taxpayer be stumping up money for the visit? Dunno.
No comments:
Post a Comment