Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: A Meditation for Guy Fawkes Day Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/a_meditation_for_guy_fawkes_day#8406 Post contents: Hey John Z, a hearty handshake from me! And I trust you'll admit that I am not anti-Catholic, although I think you know I have more reservations about the Papacy than you, and that my reservations about the Papacy are part and parcel of my English heritage, including a heritage of Anglicanism in my family until my great-great-grandfather's stepfather (c 1850) got caught up in the Tractarian movement and converted to Catholicism - and it was a very incomplete and wobbling conversion, and so the "Catholicism" in my English family has remained, since then, always with a bit of Protestant reservation in it. And I still have, and believe in, that reservation against total submission of my own conscience to the Bishop of Rome. (And most of my family converted back to Protestantism one generation later; it was only because my own nominally Catholic grandfather married an Irish Catholic Lady, that he agreed to raise his son, my father, as a Catholic; otherwise my grandfather, John Ball Sr, lived and died with the mind and conscience of a Protestant, and so did my Father for that matter, not least because of his memories of the nuns beating the shit out of him and trying to fill his mind with superstitious crap, and of his mostly Irish-American classmates ranting, in their teens, about their and their fathers' hatred of the British, ie of my Father's own family and heritage.) And I agree with almost everything you've argued here, especially your refutation of bibliolatry and the ahistorical, illogical belief that the authority of the Bible is in any way separable from the authority of the community (aka, Church) who sorted out the canonical books from the dross circa 300s AD. However, John Z my friend, SINCE you titled this article with the name of the Fifth-columnist useful-idiot English traitor and terrorist, Guy Fawkes, kindly allow me to offer an English (and Anglican) perspective on all this: 1. You wrote, "The bishops who discerned which books were really the Word of God were in union with the Pope" ...so far so good. But being "in union with the Pope" is an essentially contestable concept. Union is not the same thing as absolute subordination. 2. The English had bloody good reasons to repudiate the religious AND POLITICAL authority of the Pope, because back in the 1500s and 1600s, the Popes conflated their own religious authority with political authority. I'm no great fan of Henry VIII (although, actually, the Church of England's repudiation of the Papacy was really effectuated under Elizabeth I, not Henry), still, get real: Henry (and then more forcefully and more effectively, Elizabeth) repudiated the Papacy because the Popes and their partners-in-international-crime, the bloody Spaniards, were arbitrarily meddling in the internal political affairs of England under a thin veneer of religious authority. Look at it - and look at Guy Fawkes' Day - from an English perspective. In the 1500s, Spain was the Superpower of the West (and of the Americas too - a condition whose effects continue to afflict the USA today), and in 1588 the bloody Spaniards attempted to invade and to conquer England. Thank God, the Spaniards failed to do so, otherwise you, John Z, would not enjoy the patrimony of English law and (what vestiges remain of) English customs of tolerance and simple decency that you have in America today. In any case, the USA as you know it is the child of English Protestantism, and you can look at Mexico or Cuba to see a more Hispanised interpretation of law and liberty - and that's what the Spaniards almost inflicted upon England in 1588. (Not that the Irish would have noticed, half-pagan barbarians as most of them were at the time.) 3. And then you mention Guy Fawkes? I notice that you say nothing in his defense - because he is indefensible. He was a traitor and a terrorist (yes, terrorism is the correct word.) You say (and I believe you mean it), that you believe in "embracing the rights of non-Catholics NEVER to be persecuted by the state, so long as their beliefs pose no threat to “public order.” If so, then you, John Zmirak, ought to share at least one drink with me on Guy Fawkes Day, to toast the memory of how the true and lawful King and Government of England (and Scotland) discovered and prevented a mortal threat to "public order". Furthermore, in THOSE times,in 1605, the reign of terror of the "Catholic" (a REALLY "bad Catholic", you'll agree?) Queen "Bloody Mary", was still within living memory among my English ancestors. You believe non-Catholics should never be persecuted by the state? All when and good - today - but in 1605, there was a real and present danger in England, of non-Catholics being persecuted by the state, as they were under Bloody Mary. And as the Pope and his vicious Spaniard useful idiots would have enforced even more so upon the unwilling people of England, if Guy Fawkes had not been discovered and sent to his well-deserved shameful death. 4. And then there's another digression which I can't get into now: a digression about my experiences, as an American-born grandson of England who accidentally was baptised Catholic (but thank God I never went to Catholic primary or secondary schools, although I did go to a Catholic university) - my experiences of encounters with all too many Irish-American Catholics whose Catholcism seems, to me, to have more to do with hatred of the British than with faith in Christ. One of my history professors at my Catholic University was an Irish-American who said, in the very first class, that he makes bombs for the IRA (wink wink, oh he was just being a cute little Leprechaun! (Sarcasm)) - and he asked all of his students to indicate whether they were "Irish" on a form he handed out on the first day. Although I'm one-fourth Irish (peasant, Catholic, bog-Irish), I filled out his form saying: "I wear Orange on St Patrick's Day." He almost failed me for that course until the Dean intervened on my behalf because I was about to graduate with honors. 5. And so, Johnny Z, you wonder why some, or rather most, British and people of recent British descent, always maintain just a WEE bit of reservation about total submission to the Papacy? In the memories - both personal and inherited - of the peoples of Britain, the Papacy is equated with political intrigues with foreign enemies who tried - and thank God, failed - to conquer Britain. Today's Papacy is not like it was in 1500-1650. It no longer poses any peril for the liberties of the peoples (Protestant AND Catholic, and others) of Britain, America, Australia, etc. But 400 years ago, it was a different story, and so, although I DO agree with you about the traditional and ancient community of the Church, and bishops etc, being the foundation of the authority of the Bible, still, I maintain reservation about surrendering my personal conscience - or the internal affairs of my country (now Australia) to the arbitrary, personal and historically politicised authority of Bishop of Rome. All that said, John Zmirak: GOOD ON YA, as we say here in my new country, Australia, where my temporal sovereign is Good Queen Bess the Second, and my eternal sovereign is Christ, and although I admire Pope Benedict very much, he has no authority over me in this world or the next. What say you, John Zmirak, my friend? Sent at: 2008 07 24