This ‘Notebook’ column originally appeared in the Catholic Herald on 18th July, 2008
A column I write for my student paper – named, as it happens, “social pariah” – has a significant policy: if someone at the university is trying to get their name in print, they must on no account be mentioned. Socialite freshers soon learn that to get noticed, they must show as little effort as possible – it’s called, some say, being cool.
So I’ll mention his name only once. Because it is the last time I intend to. Ever. Richard Dawkins is not cool, and no matter how much he enjoys ranting at religion, I can’t bear him – or his loathsome sneer. He shall henceforth be referred to as ‘the Spleen’.
The Spleen’s problem with regards to faith has, as we shall see, to do with respect and understanding. This week, for instance, he has been on top form – as usual missing the point completely. Catholics at the University of Minnesota were rightly outraged when an atheist student removed a consecrated host from Mass, taking it ‘hostage’ for several days. Eventually, the half-wit returned it – probably feeling guilty when he realised the Catholic community there was on its knees, praying for him to do so.
Now, though, one of the Spleen’s colleagues, Prof “Pee-Zee” Myers (of Minnesota), has promised – as some sort of lunatic protest on behalf of the student – to desecrate a host. He blogs thus: “[I] will treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”
Naturally, many Catholics have called for the professor to be sacked, so the Spleen urges his fans to write to the President of the university in support of Myers. For good measure, he adds: “take care to write in a good, literate, adult style, in order to increase the contrast between the letters of support and the incoherent, juvenile flaming that will doubtless characterise the letters from the Catholics.”
What is wrong with “new atheists”? Why are so many of them such utter bores? Bring back Bertrand Russell, I say. At least his gentlemanly defences of atheism refrain from being offensive (he wrote Why I am not a Christian not You’re all deluded). And at least his understanding of Christianity was learned – Myers seems to think a consecrated host has something to do with “symbolism”.
Many commentators are right to point out Myers’ anti-Catholicism. Why doesn’t he flush a copy of the Koran down the loo? That, more than harassing those who mean you no harm, might really prove your credibility, Pee-Zee.
…………………………….
John Henry Newman, who is likely to be beatified soon, had it straight. His definition of a gentleman, written in 1852, still stands today. It oozes holy clarity. A gentleman, he wrote, “is one who never inflicts pain.” And, Newman continued, “If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent.”
Lord Russell ticks all the boxes – the Spleen, you will have noticed, does not. Newman’s gentleman is “a friend of religious toleration”; he accepts religion and consequently respects the faithful. How, then, should we deal with “new atheists”? Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor pleaded recently for dialogue, saying that God is being misrepresented by them.
Even the Cardinal, however, must realise dialogue isn’t an option when there’s no common language, and when one side insists on offensive petulance. I’ll avoid any “juvenile flaming”, but I’ll be blunt. You, Spleen, are no gentleman.
The Next Post: The ‘happy chaos’ of Lourdes
The Previous Post: Review: A Clockwork Orange (Play)
Comment Down Here
You can follow any responses to this entry via its RSS comments feed. You may also leave a trackback by clicking this link.