Christianity, Immorality/Sin, Theology and Atheism

 

(Selected indignation, insight, witticism and commentary from me, an ex-Catholic atheist.)

 

Say It Loud and Clear!

 

The question professed Christians cannot answer: "Why do you Christians sin so much?" Isn't the God you believe in, once you embrace him (or is it her, or it?), supposed to infuse you with the Divine Grace to make you stop sinning?! I had a Catholic priest tell me, as a lame apologetic, "We're all sinners." To which we "immoral" atheists can reply, "We may have 'sinned' by masturbating, or having sexual intercourse outside of marriage, but none of us sinned by—

Catholic priest-pedophilia (or by Protestant pedophilia), nor by its deliberate cover-up by Catholic bishops and cardinals!"

 

Christian Liars

 

Of the Ten Commandments, both the Protestant Ninth Commandment, and the Catholic Eighth Commandment, forbid bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, i.e., lying.  Yet Christians, notably both Protestant and Catholic, lie all the time, especially when 1.) it’s to their advantage to do so; 2.) to get back at someone; or 3.) to curry favor with a third party; or of course, for any combination of the above.  They’ll even lie under oath, perjure themselves, if they think they can get away with it.  They’ll lie shamelessly, banking on God’s forgiveness.  What hypocrites!

 

So Many Moral Pieces of Shit…

 

…believe in God and the Savior Jesus, and look forward to Divine Forgiveness for their transgressions when they die, or even before, even as they freely commit moral atrocities against others, in direct contravention of Christ’s own admonition to “Love thy neighbor as thyself”!

 

Had a Chat with Satan Today

 

He affirmed that he likes me, and thinks I’m really worthwhile.  He also gave me a number of good things over the years:  metal music, “playing with myself,” recreational sex, just to name a few.  But Jesus Christ, meh.  While he says he loves me unconditionally, he also says I’m going to burn in hell forever for being an ex-Catholic atheist!  As for Jesus’ Christian followers, they were notable for consistently treating me like shit.  They are the analogues of the “good Jews” Jesus himself called “hypocrites,” “Pharisees,” "whited sepulchers."

 

Heretical

 

Did Satan create Catholic priest-pedophiles, deliberately covering-up Catholic bishops and Cardinals, indifferent-to-priest-pedophilia Popes, and in my case personally, booze-soaked unctuous hypocrite Catholic priests such as my high school principal?  No, theologically speaking!  According to Christian (not just Catholic, but including Catholic) theology, all these and even more nefarious evils were created by omniscient, omnipotent, infallible and benevolent God himself, not only out of his unconditional love for all humanity (even as he sends many humans to the torment of burning in hell forever!), but also, as part of his—Perfect Divine Plan.

 

The Gospel According to Johnny B. Goode

(No, Chuck Berry, I do not apologize!)

 

To paraphrase the Gospel of John—

 

“For God so loved the world he gave it Catholic priest-pedophiles and deliberately covering-up bishops, Cardinals, and even Popes; Prosperity Gospel hucksters such as Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar; Antichrist Christians such as Donald ‘I’m proud to be a Christian’ Trump; Popes Francis-and- Leo XIV-bashing Catholics such as JD Vance, and much more.  Further, in his Yahweh incarnation, God gave us Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and those nasty West Bank Jewish settlers; in his Allah incarnation gave us Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran, and Islamism; and in his Catholic incarnation, gave us the Inquisition, the persecution of Galileo, the ecclesiastical murder of Giordano Bruno for teaching modern science, and the burning alive of tens of thousands during the Middle Ages for alleged witchcraft, for homosexuality, and for heresy!”

 

On the Problem of Evil

 

I would remind you that it wasn't Satan who created Catholic priest-pedophiles and their covering-up bishops and cardinals, Prosperity Gospel hucksters such as Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar, Christians such as "I'm proud to be a Christian" Donald Trump, or white Christian Nationalists—he turned all this creation over to God, who did it as part of his Divine Love manifested in his Perfect Plan!

 

Have to Hand It to the Catholic Church

 

It certainly knows how to provide expertise on moral and behavioral issues.  For example, its experts on sexuality, sexual and romantic love, and child rearing are all—ordained celibate old men who read about all such matters in Latin while in the seminary!

 

Response to a Christian Door-to-Door Missionary

 

In answer to the question, “Will you allow Jesus Christ to enter your life today as your personal Savior?”:

 

“No, thank you.  I’ve already allowed Satan to enter my life as my personal Savior.”

 

 

It’s Hard Being an “Immoral” Atheist!

 

It’s really hard being an “immoral” atheist!  And Christians should be more charitable, and realize that.  Consider this.  We spend our days in very busy, hectic, activity raping, robbing,  pillaging, and murdering.  Our days are so busy and hectic doing all this that we don’t even have time to take a decent lunch break.  All we can do is grab a baby to eat on the run.  Then, after our hard, hectic days, the only way we “immoral” atheists are able to relax in the evening is through wild sex-and-drug orgies, after which we finally get some sleep by passing out in a drug-and-alcohol-induced stupor.  That’s a hard life we “immoral” atheists have!

 

Aside from Being an Atheist, What Am I?

 

I’m a victim of overwhelmingly Christian maliciousness, cruelty, abuse, and insensitivity, primarily Catholic, but also Protestant, upscale alleged “freethinkers” who didn’t want to confront the religious abuse I suffered, and one nefarious Jewish person I thought was a good friend until he betrayed me, then had the chutzpah to insist I “forgive” him for his alleged “egregious stupidity”!  (In reality, though, his actions were all deliberate; the “egregious stupidity” on his part was getting caught and being held to account!)  I was bullied and socially ostracized in the Catholic grade and high schools I was forced to attend; my Catholic siblings (my four younger sisters who grew up with me, all pretty, pert, all of them sorority girls in college, and all of them—vapid) regarded me as an ugly, unpopular nerd they wanted nothing to do with.  My Catholic parents, when they weren’t screaming at me at the top of their lungs in 15-minute-long tirades, utterly ignored me; and as a young adult in Indianapolis, the “peaceable religious progressives,” with whom I agreed with on a good 90 percent of the political issues of the day, responded to me with maliciousness, bigotry, and dismissiveness.  All that, too, is what I am.

 

 

 

 

 

Mental Health Writings: A Poetic Take on What Is Also "Spirituality"

This poem of mine, my angry screed on the booze-soaked unctuous hypocrite Catholic priest who was my high school principal in the small-town Catholic school where I became the first National Merit Finalist in the school's history, was written originally some time ago, yet, in view of my blog post on "spirituality," takes on a new timeliness.  This priest/principal, who previously to my achieving the National Merit honor, had talked to me only three times prior, and all those times only to reprimand me.  But now, since I was National Merit, he couldn't have enough to do with me!  His unctuous fawning made me feel unclean.  A teacher I had then said this priest was a very shy man who used alcohol to overcome his shyness.  So, my "spiritual" victimization was probably also an alcohol-induced victimization!--GF 

IN UNSENTIMENTAL REMEMBRANCE

(A True Story of a True Priest)

by

George Fish

 

Padre Pop-Tart Jesus!

Holy Priest!

I’m sure you don’t remember me,

you ignored my existence when I was a junior.

You spoke to me just three times then.

each time only to reprimand me.

I’m sure you’ve also forgotten how

I was the first National Merit Finalist

in St. Mary’s history,

and how you oozed on me for that.

Always wanting little chats about my glorious future,

your unctuous fawning on me

making it clear

that it wasn’t my future that mattered.

What really mattered

was your chance to bask in my reflected glory.

 

Padre Fish-on-Friday Anchovy!

Holy Priest!

How I hate you for your oily slime.

You made my National Merit honor

turn into ashes in my mouth.

You showed me how much contempt you really had for me

when you unctuously fawned all over me.

For you saw not the person I was,

you saw not the troubled brainy youth

trying to survive in a world that hated him.

No, you saw only the National Merit honor.

An honor you wanted to aggrandize for yourself.

I was just a pawn in your venal chess game.

You make me want to vomit!

 

Padre Divine Quintessence Pizza!

Holy Priest!

Is there plenty of booze for you now

in that nether world wherever you are?

Is there a stand-up bar in Hades?

Do you still use booze

to cover up

your shyness,

your inauthenticity,

your unctuous insincerity?

Are you still as phony as you were

when you were my high school principal?

Always being sure to be oh-so-so

much on the right side,

the respectable side,

the winning side.

You weren’t one to back losers.

Nosiree!

And I was a loser when I was a junior,

a transfer student with so-so grades,

coming from a school where gangs ruled

and I had to play dumb so I wouldn’t be beaten up.

You were much, much more concerned

with outward appearances and surface gloss.

So you didn’t see me at all

when I was a junior.

But that sure changed when I became a senior!

I’d gotten a new paint job—

one that had “National Merit” written all over it.

Ooh, you loved that!

At last!  Your big chance

to steal some light from my radiant glory.

How much had you been drinking

when you oozed all over me?

More—or less—than when you reprimanded me?

So busy hiding your drinking,

so dishonest,

so unwilling to face up to your problem

and what you really were.

No, you couldn’t do that.

That was too authentic.

So you went on burying your shyness behind booze,

unctuousness and lick-ass fawning.

Not caring at all whom you hurt,

and whose achievement you turned into

cheap and tawdry tinsel.

Not caring at all.

 

Padre Blessed Virgin Spirit-rape!

Holy Priest!

You’ve been dead many, many years.

But you know what?

I still hate you for what you did to me.

Yes, Padre Spirit-rapist,

you still make me want to vomit!

NAMI and “Spirituality”: an ex-Catholic Atheist’s Perspective

 

A while back, the NAMI Indiana newsletter summarized a Huffington Post article that claimed, based on a sample of 87 respondents, mostly Catholic and Buddhist, that a sense of “spirituality” was integral to mental health, and upheld that position itself.  Needless to say, and self-evident to anyone with a statistics background (which I, as holder of a university degree in economics definitely have), such a small sample size is grotesquely too tiny to have any statistical validity at all; and that the sample was skewed toward Catholic and Buddhist respondents undermines the statistical necessity that the sample taken must be random, which obviously in this case it is not—so such a conclusion has no legitimacy whatsoever.  Also, the recent and current events of Catholic priest-pedophilia and Catholic priests and bishops using Catholic nuns and convents as harems and sources of sex slaves, along with the Catholic bishops’ and cardinals’ deliberate cover-up of decades of priest-pedophilia, and coupled with the ethnic cleansing of non-Buddhists carried out under the aegis of Buddhist monks in Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, and Sri Lanka, denies any moral authority whatsoever for either Catholicism or Buddhism to claim any “moral high ground” when it comes to “spirituality,” the alleged necessity of “spirituality” to mental health, or the tenets of  morality!

 

Psychiatrist Eli Chesen, in his book Religion May Be Hazardous to Your Health (New York: Collier Books, 1972), very admirably points out the perils and deleterious effects of too great an attachment to religion and “spirituality.”  But he still upholds, in my mind, a psychologism, a simple “belief in belief,” with his notion that religion can do some good by teaching appropriate moral values.  However, drawing on my experience as both a Catholic child and adolescent and later atheist adult, I think that appropriate moral values flow more readily from secular humanism than they do from any religion, no matter how “enlightened;” and that “enlightened" religions are such precisely because they’ve been positively influenced by—secular humanism!  (Secular, of course, does not mean atheist; it simply means indifference to religious claims.  Humanism means, of course, human-centered.)  My direct experience with the Catholicism I was born and raised in, and which was inculcated in my through twelve years of Catholic schooling, has taught me that the values religions promulgate and teach are often quite arbitrary and selective—and I’ve seen the same thing in those raised in other religious traditions.  As a key example, within Catholicism, and within Christianity in general, it’s specifically noted that Jesus himself admonished his followers that this commandment was “like unto” the first, of loving God with one’s whole mind, body, and soul, and every bit as important—loving one’s neighbor “as thyself.”  Yet, “Hate thy neighbor” is quite common within Christianity, especially when one’s neighbor is different:  of a different creed, or different sexual orientation, or of a different race or ethnicity, or a “nerd,” or otherwise deemed an undesirable person.  Indeed, I, myself, suffered as a Catholic child and adolescent from my Catholic classmates’ bullying and social ostracism because I was “different”—too physically weak and non-athletic, too “nerdy,” too much given to reading!  Same with my Catholic parents—too much not a “chip off the old block,” too “nonconforming,” too much into intellectual pursuits, not athletic or interested in sports enough.  These were enough to make my Catholic childhood and adolescence, especially from the ages 10 through 18, a living hell!  Also, racism was widespread among my white Catholic classmates, as was disdain for the Civil Rights Movement among both my Catholic classmates and my Catholic parents—a disdain I did not share, and was thus punished for and screamed at for rejecting!  Further, what “values” that were taught us in the Catholic schools were arbitrary, selective, very conforming to right-wing viewpoints, were rigidly upheld, and above all, were quite different and distinct from any notion of “Love thy neighbor as thyself;” which, as I recall, was never taught us in the Catholic schools I attended from 1953 through 1965!  Instead, we were taught a simplistic, totalizing anticommunism, a disdain for Protestants and all other non-Catholics, hostility toward Jews as Christ-killers who had really shady ethics (something Catholicism did not change until the early 1960s at Vatican II!), and above all, once we reached adolescence, the absolute necessity of constantly policing our genitals and romantic/sexual attachments, lest we fall into perdition! Along with absolute obedience and unquestioning allegiance to Catholic authorities and Catholic moral, “spiritual,” and even temporal, authority.  The Church was first, all else was strictly secondary.  Those were the Catholic “values” I was raised on, the Catholic values my classmates and I were specifically taught.  No mention ever of “love thy neighbor.”

 

So it seems to me that when NAMI embraces “spirituality” as necessary for mental health, it’s really saying that, for some reason, simply a belief in some sort of otherworldly, anthropomorphic but supra-human, benign father figure is somehow beneficial to mental health.  Yet NAMI does not answer how such a father figure could be benign and yet punish transgressors with eternal punishment in hell, which is taught specifically by Christianity (at least historically for about the last 2,000 years) and Islam, and certainly implied in some forms of Judaism; while Hinduism posits an equivalent cycle of endless reincarnations into undesirable animals for such transgressors!  All at the hands of an allegedly benign God or gods who somehow love us humans, but whose sense of justice requires very severe, even unending, punishment.  Not exactly consistent with Logic 101, to say the very least!  NAMI’s adherence to such is thus certainly naïve, if not outright false.  In fact, as I state at the bottom of this essay, it’s directly contradictory to the positive peace and humane morality I’ve found as a mental health consumer who’s specifically an—ex-Catholic atheist without an ounce of “spirituality”!

 

Then there are those expressions of religion, of “spirituality,” that are mental illnesses themselves.  As in people who believe they are God, or Jesus, or some saint, or have been given a specific divine mission to carry out by God, even if it is to harm others; not to mention people who believe, are convinced, that God is directly talking to them!  There are also mental health consumers, among them people I’ve known personally, of a New Age “spiritual” bent, who advise other mental health consumers, “Go off your psychotropic medication and let God heal you!”  Indeed, there are many mental health consumers, and even some prominent “mental health professionals” (author Seth Farber, for example, comes to mind, as do those associated with the group MindFreedom) for whom the quintessence of mental health “recovery” is—going off one’s psychotropic medication!  Even just quitting it, cold turkey!  Further, many mental health consumers, both recovering and non-so-recovering, are drawn to evangelical, even fundamentalist, Christian sects and denominations that teach that mental illness, poverty, homelessness, and other adversities in life are God’s punishment for “sin,” and which demand, or at least strongly pressure, their adherents to tithe, i.e., give 10% of their income to the church, even when they have only a poverty-level income.  These, too, all these above, are also “spirituality.”

 

Chesen’s book cited above relates a very moving case history (pp. 75-76)  of someone fatally blinded, led to desperation, by his religion, his “spirituality”: a struggling married Catholic computer programmer with eleven children when he and his wife had wanted only four, but both of whom followed the Church and didn’t use birth control, and who committed suicide when it was apparent he could not support such a large family on his and his wife’s already-stretched-to-the-limit income; after which his wife went on welfare and gave the two youngest children up to foster homes![1]  (Yes, I know, that invidious, “nasty” question pops up, at least to this atheist:  Just where was God when all this was happening?)

 

When I was a Catholic child, I used to pray to God to protect me from those tormenting me, not realizing, in my naivete, that I was asking God to protect me from—his professed followers!  For indeed, as I attended four different Catholic grade and high schools with different student bodies, had professed Catholic parents and Catholic relatives on my mother’s side, and professed Protestant relatives on my father’s side, and have of course known or been acquainted with Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim religious believers in adulthood, I’ve specifically known, or acquainted with, over 500-700 professed Christians or students at Catholic schools in my lifetime; of these, I can say that only 60 of these were what I would consider morally admirable.  Or, only about 8-11% of the whole.  Moreover, of the rest, overwhelmingly they were cruel, insensitive, malicious, or slighting of me personally, and not uncommonly sanctimonious, self-righteous, and in complete denial they were doing anything harmful or hurtful to me, even when they were, and I called them on it!  I had only one-two friends at a time throughout my grade- and high-school years, and didn’t develop any real friendships until I was of college age and older—and with precious few exceptions, those who did befriend me were all  “immoral” atheists who really saw merit in me and actually practiced “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” even as Christians maintained that people were atheists only because they wanted to sin, and rationalize their sin away!  (But then, to Christians overwhelmingly, “sin” has solely to do with how one uses one’s genitalia, and has no relation whatsoever, except in a very abstract, formal, sense, to “love thy neighbor.”)  So, yes, I do have “problems” with cruel, insensitive, sanctimonious, self-righteous, and morally blind religious believers!  Among whom are many such who are absolute bigots toward those they deem “mentally ill”!  But I have no problems whatsoever with humane and humanistic religious believers of any stripe, among whom are some close friends of mine and very admirable, moral people, long-time fighters for social and individual justice—but who, I’ve found, are preciously few and far between among religious believers generally!  So, I content and devote myself to trying to live a conscientious life that is morally upright and admirable, living my life without God or gods, not as one still ruefully “worshipping” a malignant anti-God!  Such is now my positive life as an ex-Catholic atheist who has found full peace and contentment in a life lived without “spirituality,” someone who finds a deep “awe at the universe” more in the magnificent photographs taken by the Hubble telescope than in any notions taken from theology, no matter how allegedly “sublime” they’re portrayed to be.

 

               

---

[1] Catholics, of course, are forbidden by the Catholic Church itself from using any form of “artificial birth control” (condoms, the Pill, diaphragms, IUDs, etc.) and must rely for family planning only on the rhythm method (often sarcastically referred to as “Vatican roulette”!), or else, abstinence from sexual intercourse entirely, to prevent pregnancy.  However, since the Church sees the purpose of sexuality as solely for reproduction, Catholics may not engage primarily in sexual activities (cunnilingus, fellatio, manual sex) that thwart reproduction, although Catholic married couples (sexual activity outside of marriage is strictly forbidden by the Church; that includes masturbation) may use such in foreplay only.  Such is determined by the Catholic Church authorities themselves, from the Pope on down, all of whom are (at least theoretically) celibate males who have been ordained as Catholic priests! (And only males can be ordained as Catholic priests.)  Nuns, by Catholic canon law, are subordinate within the Church to male priests (only from whose ranks may come valid Catholic bishops, Cardinals, and Popes); and lay Catholics are specifically designated as powerless, as their purpose in the Church is only to obey Church authorities.  Such is the reality of the Catholic Church that I, myself, was specifically taught and directly experienced, along with the duty of all Catholics, lay and clergy alike, to uphold these unquestioningly.  Although many Catholics do not hold such rigid views on sexuality, they are deemed illegitimate and “sinning” when they do so.  So, to remain good Catholics, they must not make such views public.  If they do express such views publicly they are deemed as “causing scandal” to the Church, and can be excommunicated.    

The "Correspondence" Monthly Review Declined to Print

I submitted the "Correspondence" to the long-established socialist magazine Monthly Review in January 2016.  Since its founding in 1948, Monthly Review has been a theoretical mainstay of the Marxist left, especially the self-styled "revolutionary left."  In December 2015 it published an article by French Marxist Michael Lowy, a leading figure in one of the sections of the Trotskyist Fourth International, that was uncritically laudatory of Pope Francis's enclclical on climate change, Laudato Si'.  As a socialist influenced strongly by Marxism and Trotskyism as well as an ex-Catholic atheist, I found Lowy's paean to what was a mundane eucyclical that only repeated what scientists themselves had been saying for over a decade really over-the-top, and his embrace of "papal socialism" most untoward.  While in the absence of major activity of a strongly socialist charcter absent from the working classes in especially the advanced capitalist countries apparent for some time now, many Marxists have shifted ground in search for a new "revolutionary" substitute for the moribund proletariat--some, such as the Maoists, have embraced the peasantry and the dispossed in the Third World, while others have cast their lot with various racial and social "vanguards" that Marxist intellectuals can oorganize through the all-purpose means of the Leninist party.  But to see the Catholic Church as suddenly a force for socialism, for a new political consciousness, for a new critical awareness, given its nearly-two-millennia record of obfuscation, obscurantism, reactionary social and political policies, and open support for reactionary and repressive political regmes?  For this decidedly ex-Catholic who was himself a victim of Catholic abuse, that was too much!  Hence, this "Correspondence," whch Monthly Review declined to prnt, thus casting its lot with those who would align with alleged "Catholic social conscence" and its new PR-frendly Pope rather than those who were abused and dispossed by Catholicism itself--GF

To the Editors of Monthly Review:

 

Michael Löwy’s paean to Pope Francis’s “ecological encyclopedia” (as he calls it) in the December 2015 issue of Monthly Review, “Laudato Si—The Popes Anti-Systemic Encyclical,” http://monthlyreview.org/2015/12/01/laudato-sithe-popes-anti-systemic-encyclical/,

is, by far, too much a glossing-over of the dark side of both the Pope and the Catholic Church;   it is able to extend fulsome praise to Laudato Si’ only by overlooking, by separating it out abstractly from, the many other failures and considerable limitations of Pope Francis’s refurbished Catholicism itself.  For ex-Catholic atheists and Marxists such as myself, these failures and limitations are especially glaring; and while we are perhaps willing to march partially with the Pope on ecological concerns, on so many issues which still fester in Catholicism, issues on which leadership and eloquence from Pope Francis have been noticeably lacking, we must dissent and demur.  The supposed “anti-systemic” critique of global capitalism, which Löwy sees in Laudato Si’, simply cannot cancel out  the inaction, indeed even the hidebound reaction, that is still integral to the Catholicism of Pope Francis just as much as it is of his predecessors, and which is still part and parcel of Catholic theology and ethical teachings.  The Pope is more than “naïve,” as Löwy would have it; despite certain advances he’s promulgated in some areas of Catholic teaching (which have actually garnered more favorable publicity than actual substance would justify—i.e., they are more achievements in public relations than they are in loosening the grip of reaction on official Catholicism), the Pope is still preaching doctrine that, while partially recognizing the Twenty-First Century, in other crucial ways is still mired in the medieval scholasticism that is the Catholic Church’s continuing legacy as a whole—whether we wish to recognize it or not. 

These concerns of mine as precisely an ex-Catholic Marxist and atheist moved me to prepare the following flyer I distributed to a meeting here in Indianapolis, Indiana, that was convened to discuss Laudato Si’.  In trying to write with an appropriate balance, especially to the audience gathered that was primarily comprised of religious believers, I think I achieved precisely this in the short space of less than 650 words, and summed up my arguments appropriately in my very subtitle:  “Kudos to the Pope, but Not to Catholicism.”  I present this flyer below as a contribution to discussion of the Pope’s encyclical and the ongoing nature of Catholicism itself.

 

POPE FRANCIS’S CLIMATE CHANGE ENCYCLICAL—

KUDOS TO THE POPE, BUT NOT TO CATHOLICISM!

written on June 22, 2015

 by George Fish, Indianapolis, Indiana:

ex-Catholic, atheist, democrat, socialist, humanist, secularist

 

While we can indeed take heart at the Pope’s recent, very positive and needed, affirmative encyclical message and call for action on climate change, Laudato Si’—a message issued so strongly, so urgently, and with such scientific validity it upset climate-change denialists and conservative Catholics to a degree that drove them into frothing rage—let it not stand as a vindication or a prettifying of a still-ugly and ominously regressive Catholic Church.  Of course, we who are secular and democratic in our instincts should be delighted at the viciousness and obtuseness it has excited among the likes of the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue and Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum, notoriously right-wing Catholics and ardent opponents of both science and secularism.  Yet that not serve as pretext for overlooking the still-seamy underside, indeed, even the public face, of official Catholicism:  as illustrated by remarks, and their lack, from Pope Francis himself.

In all honesty, even as we celebrate the Pope’s directness and scientific correctness evinced in Laudato Si’, let us also pointedly note that scientists and secularists have been saying the very same things as the Pope is now saying, and for a good decade previously.  And in honesty, let us also pointedly note that Pope Francis, ever true to official Catholicism even in its open obscurantism, felt obliged to gratuitously insert into his climate change encyclical yet more inappropriate, dogmatic and obscurantist screeds against not only abortion, but even birth control, “officially Catholic” positions even much of the forced-to-remain-silent Catholic lay body objects to; not to mention all of us outside of the Catholic Church who are sick and tired of hearing these monotonous, one-sided mantras that indicate so firmly that Catholicism has yet to actually enter the 21^st Century.

Let us not also forget the Pope’s, and the Vatican’s, denunciation of the recent historic vote in traditionally-Catholic Ireland firmly upholding same-sex marriage, a fundamentally decent political and human rights position the still-viciously homophobic Catholic Church insists on repeatedly negating and denouncing; thus denying in its ecclesiastical fulminations the fundamental dignity and humanity or non-heterosexual humanity.  Let us not forget either the Pope’s own backhanded approval given to the Muslim fanatics who committed the Charlie Hedbo massacre, as the Pope himself gave backhanded justification to the murders of the magazine’s staff for “offending” another religion—as if the magazine’s open secularism and anti-clericalism even justified horrific mass murder!  Let us also note the Pope’s own glaring silence on the ethnic cleansing being carried out today in Myanmar (Burma) and Sri Lanka that is being fomented by chauvinistic Buddhist monks.  As well his silence on the ever-prevailing atrocities continually carried out in the name of Islam not only by supposedly “rogue” groups such as ISIS, but even by Islamic states themselves, as in Saudi Arabia and under the military dictatorship in Egypt—not to mention the Islamic suppression of the Arab Spring!

 

Nor let us forget the still-festering scandal within Catholicism due to rampant priest-pedophilia, and the Vatican’s still-prevailing do-nothing-effective approach to it (Pope Francis did nothing more except appoint yet another commission to “study” the problem).  Nor let us forget the centuries of abuse and suffering meted out to Catholics and non-Catholics alike through the official actions of the Church, in the rampant abuse and abuse of power in the Catholic school system, and the systematic oppression meted out to whole populations, even those that were comprised of stalwart Catholics, in such Catholic countries as Ireland, Spain, and throughout Latin America.  Despite the Pope’s new encouraging words on climate change, Catholicism still has a lot to answer for before the body of secular, democratic humanity.

 

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE:  George Fish is an ex-Catholic Marxist atheist and writer whose work has appeared in many publications of the socialist and alternative press.  He contributed what many regard as one of the best short expositions of Marxist atheism so far published, “Two Kinds of Atheism,” in the February 1988 issue of Monthly Review.  He may be contacted via e-mail at georgefish666@yahoo.com. 

 

 

The "Correspondence" Monthly Review Declined to Prnt

I submitted the "Correspondence" to the long-established socialist magazine Monthly Review in January 2016.  Since its founding in 1948, Monthly Review has been a theoretical mainstay of the Marxist left, especially the self-styled "revolutionary left."  In December 2015 it published an article by French Marxist Michael Lowy, a leading figure in one of the sections of the Trotskyist Fourth International, that was uncritically laudatory of Pope Francis's enclclical on climate change, Laudato Si'.  As a socialist influenced strongly by Marxism and Trotskyism as well as an ex-Catholic atheist, I found Lowy's paean to what was a mundane eucyclical that only repeated what scientists themselves had been saying for over a decade really over-the-top, and his embrace of "papal socialism" most untoward.  While in the absence of major activity of a strongly socialist charcter absent from the working classes in especially the advanced capitalist countries apparent for some time now, many Marxists have shifted ground in search for a new "revolutionary" substitute for the moribund proletariat--some, such as the Maoists, have embraced the peasantry and the dispossed in the Third World, while others have cast their lot with various racial and social "vanguards" that Marxist intellectuals can oorganize through the all-purpose means of the Leninist party.  But to see the Catholic Church as suddenly a force for socialism, for a new political consciousness, for a new critical awareness, given its nearly-two-millennia record of obfuscation, obscurantism, reactionary social and political policies, and open support for reactionary and repressive political regmes?  For this decidedly ex-Catholic who was himself a victim of Catholic abuse, that was too much!  Hence, this "Correspondence," whch Monthly Review declined to prnt, thus casting its lot with those who would align with alleged "Catholic social conscence" and its new PR-frendly Pope rather than those who were abused and dispossed by Catholicism itself--GF

To the Editors of Monthly Review:

 

Michael Löwy’s paean to Pope Francis’s “ecological encyclopedia” (as he calls it) in the December 2015 issue of Monthly Review, “Laudato Si—The Popes Anti-Systemic Encyclical,” http://monthlyreview.org/2015/12/01/laudato-sithe-popes-anti-systemic-encyclical/,

is, by far, too much a glossing-over of the dark side of both the Pope and the Catholic Church;   it is able to extend fulsome praise to Laudato Si’ only by overlooking, by separating it out abstractly from, the many other failures and considerable limitations of Pope Francis’s refurbished Catholicism itself.  For ex-Catholic atheists and Marxists such as myself, these failures and limitations are especially glaring; and while we are perhaps willing to march partially with the Pope on ecological concerns, on so many issues which still fester in Catholicism, issues on which leadership and eloquence from Pope Francis have been noticeably lacking, we must dissent and demur.  The supposed “anti-systemic” critique of global capitalism, which Löwy sees in Laudato Si’, simply cannot cancel out  the inaction, indeed even the hidebound reaction, that is still integral to the Catholicism of Pope Francis just as much as it is of his predecessors, and which is still part and parcel of Catholic theology and ethical teachings.  The Pope is more than “naïve,” as Löwy would have it; despite certain advances he’s promulgated in some areas of Catholic teaching (which have actually garnered more favorable publicity than actual substance would justify—i.e., they are more achievements in public relations than they are in loosening the grip of reaction on official Catholicism), the Pope is still preaching doctrine that, while partially recognizing the Twenty-First Century, in other crucial ways is still mired in the medieval scholasticism that is the Catholic Church’s continuing legacy as a whole—whether we wish to recognize it or not. 

These concerns of mine as precisely an ex-Catholic Marxist and atheist moved me to prepare the following flyer I distributed to a meeting here in Indianapolis, Indiana, that was convened to discuss Laudato Si’.  In trying to write with an appropriate balance, especially to the audience gathered that was primarily comprised of religious believers, I think I achieved precisely this in the short space of less than 650 words, and summed up my arguments appropriately in my very subtitle:  “Kudos to the Pope, but Not to Catholicism.”  I present this flyer below as a contribution to discussion of the Pope’s encyclical and the ongoing nature of Catholicism itself.

 

POPE FRANCIS’S CLIMATE CHANGE ENCYCLICAL—

KUDOS TO THE POPE, BUT NOT TO CATHOLICISM!

written on June 22, 2015

 by George Fish, Indianapolis, Indiana:

ex-Catholic, atheist, democrat, socialist, humanist, secularist

 

While we can indeed take heart at the Pope’s recent, very positive and needed, affirmative encyclical message and call for action on climate change, Laudato Si’—a message issued so strongly, so urgently, and with such scientific validity it upset climate-change denialists and conservative Catholics to a degree that drove them into frothing rage—let it not stand as a vindication or a prettifying of a still-ugly and ominously regressive Catholic Church.  Of course, we who are secular and democratic in our instincts should be delighted at the viciousness and obtuseness it has excited among the likes of the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue and Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum, notoriously right-wing Catholics and ardent opponents of both science and secularism.  Yet that not serve as pretext for overlooking the still-seamy underside, indeed, even the public face, of official Catholicism:  as illustrated by remarks, and their lack, from Pope Francis himself.

In all honesty, even as we celebrate the Pope’s directness and scientific correctness evinced in Laudato Si’, let us also pointedly note that scientists and secularists have been saying the very same things as the Pope is now saying, and for a good decade previously.  And in honesty, let us also pointedly note that Pope Francis, ever true to official Catholicism even in its open obscurantism, felt obliged to gratuitously insert into his climate change encyclical yet more inappropriate, dogmatic and obscurantist screeds against not only abortion, but even birth control, “officially Catholic” positions even much of the forced-to-remain-silent Catholic lay body objects to; not to mention all of us outside of the Catholic Church who are sick and tired of hearing these monotonous, one-sided mantras that indicate so firmly that Catholicism has yet to actually enter the 21^st Century.

Let us not also forget the Pope’s, and the Vatican’s, denunciation of the recent historic vote in traditionally-Catholic Ireland firmly upholding same-sex marriage, a fundamentally decent political and human rights position the still-viciously homophobic Catholic Church insists on repeatedly negating and denouncing; thus denying in its ecclesiastical fulminations the fundamental dignity and humanity or non-heterosexual humanity.  Let us not forget either the Pope’s own backhanded approval given to the Muslim fanatics who committed the Charlie Hedbo massacre, as the Pope himself gave backhanded justification to the murders of the magazine’s staff for “offending” another religion—as if the magazine’s open secularism and anti-clericalism even justified horrific mass murder!  Let us also note the Pope’s own glaring silence on the ethnic cleansing being carried out today in Myanmar (Burma) and Sri Lanka that is being fomented by chauvinistic Buddhist monks.  As well his silence on the ever-prevailing atrocities continually carried out in the name of Islam not only by supposedly “rogue” groups such as ISIS, but even by Islamic states themselves, as in Saudi Arabia and under the military dictatorship in Egypt—not to mention the Islamic suppression of the Arab Spring!

 

Nor let us forget the still-festering scandal within Catholicism due to rampant priest-pedophilia, and the Vatican’s still-prevailing do-nothing-effective approach to it (Pope Francis did nothing more except appoint yet another commission to “study” the problem).  Nor let us forget the centuries of abuse and suffering meted out to Catholics and non-Catholics alike through the official actions of the Church, in the rampant abuse and abuse of power in the Catholic school system, and the systematic oppression meted out to whole populations, even those that were comprised of stalwart Catholics, in such Catholic countries as Ireland, Spain, and throughout Latin America.  Despite the Pope’s new encouraging words on climate change, Catholicism still has a lot to answer for before the body of secular, democratic humanity.

 

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE:  George Fish is an ex-Catholic Marxist atheist and writer whose work has appeared in many publications of the socialist and alternative press.  He contributed what many regard as one of the best short expositions of Marxist atheism so far published, “Two Kinds of Atheism,” in the February 1988 issue of Monthly Review.  He may be contacted via e-mail at georgefish666@yahoo.com. 

 

 

Kudos to the Pope, but Not to Catholicism! Pope Francis’s Climate Change Encyclical

 

[A slightly modified version of a one-page leaflet I passed out at a discussion and question-and-answer session on Pope Francis’s new encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’,  held in the Interchurch Center on the campus of the Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, Indiana, June 22, 2015.  The event was organized around panel presentations by Jesse Kharbanda, Executive Director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, and Andy Pike, head of St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church and School’s Creation Care Ministry.  The discussion with question-and-answer session, open to the public as part of a series of forums held under the sponsorship of the Seminary’s Monday evening SPEA class and organized by the students themselves, while positive on the need for environmental protection and the need for action, focused primarily on the “spiritual” side of the Pope’s encyclical, and what individuals themselves “could do” to advance environmental awareness.  Aside from the students, the great bulk of the audience was decidedly senior, with most of the public attendees easily in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and even 80s, which is reflective of Indianapolis’s aging “progressive” population itself.  The youngish (under 40) Kharbanda, by his own admission, has tried to “broaden the appeal” of environmentalism by pitching the environmental message not only to the usual left and liberal activists and groups, but also to corporations and conservative Christians and other religious; Pike, who is retired, spoke as a Catholic activist on environmental and other issues.  The modified text of the leaflet is directly below.  It is essentially as it was originally composed (admittedly in a hurry) and passed out at the meeting, where it was received with interest—GF]

 

POPE FRANCIS’S CLIMATE CHANGE ENCYCLICAL—

KUDOS TO THE POPE, BUT NOT TO CATHOLICISM!

written on June 22, 2015

 by George Fish, georgefish666@yahoo.com, Indianapolis, Indiana:

ex-Catholic, atheist, democrat, socialist, humanist, secularist

While we can indeed take heart at the Pope’s recent, very positive and needed, affirmative encyclical message and call for action on climate change, Laudato Si’—a message issued so strongly, so urgently, and with such scientific validity it upset climate-change denialists and conservative Catholics to a degree that drove them into frothing rage—let it not stand as a vindication or a prettifying of a still-ugly and ominously regressive Catholic Church.  Of course, we who are secular and democratic in our instincts should be delighted at the viciousness and obtuseness it has excited among the likes of the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue and Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum, notoriously right-wing Catholics and ardent opponents of both science and secularism.  Yet that not serve as pretext for overlooking the still-seamy underside, indeed, even the public face, of official Catholicism:  as illustrated by remarks, and their lack, from Pope Francis himself.

In all honesty, even as we celebrate the Pope’s directness and scientific correctness evinced in Laudato Si’, let us also pointedly note that scientists and secularists have been saying the very same things as the Pope is now saying, and for a good decade previously.  And in honesty, let us also pointedly note that Pope Francis, ever true to official Catholicism even in its open obscurantism, felt obliged to gratuitously insert into his climate change encyclical yet more inappropriate, dogmatic and obscurantist screeds against not only abortion, but even birth control, “officially Catholic” positions even much of the forced-to-remain-silent Catholic lay body objects to; not to mention all of us outside of the Catholic Church who are sick and tired of hearing these monotonous, one-sided mantras that indicate so firmly that Catholicism has yet to actually enter the 21^st Century.

Let us not also forget the Pope’s, and the Vatican’s, denunciation of the recent historic vote in traditionally-Catholic Ireland firmly upholding same-sex marriage, a fundamentally decent political and human rights position the still-viciously homophobic Catholic Church insists on repeatedly negating and denouncing; thus denying in its ecclesiastical fulminations the fundamental dignity and humanity or non-heterosexual humanity.  Let us not forget either the Pope’s own backhanded approval given to the Muslim fanatics who committed the Charlie Hedbo massacre, as the Pope himself gave backhanded justification to the murders of the magazine’s staff for “offending” another religion—as if the magazine’s open secularism and anti-clericalism even justified horrific mass murder!  Let us also note the Pope’s own glaring silence on the ethnic cleansing being carried out today in Myanmar (Burma) and Sri Lanka that is being fomented by chauvinistic Buddhist monks.  As well his silence on the ever-prevailing atrocities continually carried out in the name of Islam not only by supposedly “rogue” groups such as ISIS, but even by Islamic states themselves, as in Saudi Arabia and under the military dictatorship in Egypt—not to mention the Islamic suppression of the Arab Spring!

Nor let us forget the still-festering scandal within Catholicism due to rampant priest-pedophilia, and the Vatican’s still-prevailing do-nothing-effective approach to it (Pope Francis did nothing more except appoint yet another commission to “study” the problem).  Nor let us forget the centuries of abuse and suffering meted out to Catholics and non-Catholics alike through the official actions of the Church, in the rampant abuse and abuse of power in the Catholic school system, and the systematic oppression meted out to whole populations, even those that were comprised of stalwart Catholics, in such Catholic countries as Ireland, Spain, and throughout Latin America.  Despite the Pope’s new encouraging words on climate change, Catholicism still has a lot to answer for before the body of secular, democratic humanity.