Ressentiment at World Youth Day corpse veneration and state-sectarian largesse?
A lot has been made of the fact that the corpse of a dead Catholic priest will be guest starring at World Youth Day. Sure, to a lot of us (myself included) it’s weird. Indeed, perhaps very weird.
Aside from the weirdness, what can be taken from the phenomena that is this corpse veneration.
Academically speaking, it could cast profound doubt upon the current Pope’s protestations that portrayals of the Catholic Church as dark and superstitious. It’s hard to describe corpse veneration as anything other than dark and superstitious, if one is going to be pressed for an opinion. At least if norms are going to be considered.
Again, academically speaking, how would George Pell reconcile this rather bizarre corpse handling with the notion of “Normative Democracy”. “Normative Democracy” is basically an absolute majoritarian political philosophy where the majority, who sets the norms, can arbitrarily tyrannise the minorities and individual choice is exercised only where allowed by these norms.
This is just doublespeak for totalitarianism of course. Every totalitarian regime has allowed some personal freedoms, just not the ones that the party dogma (i.e. the norms) prohibit. Iran is a textbook “Normative Democracy”, as arguably Turkey is becoming.
But what about corpse handling? How does this relate?
Pell often appeals to the Christian majority, as if somehow there is an undifferentiated, majority, Christian political bloc that supports his politics. If you were to put it to a vote to Australian Christendom however, the notion that corpse veneration and the associated corpse traffiking that necessarily goes with it is somehow of the norm, how do you think they would vote?
I wouldn’t even hazzard the notion that all Catholics find it normal.
If we truly were in a normative democracy, would Catholics at World Youth Day be able to have corpses imported to the event? Indeed, would other uniquely Catholic practises be infringed upon? Would we see a return to some of the bad old days when Catholic was a by-word for “paddy” or “wog”?
Given the pseudo-intellectualism practiced by much of conservatism (I need not differentiate between Catholic conservatism or that of other religions on this matter), this is probably a moot point. Much of the time the philosophy is only practiced and championed by conservative culture warriors in as far as it supports dogma that is determined well before the mockery of intellectual process is even undertaken.
The corpse veneration at World Youth Day is at odds with much of the political and pseudo-intellectual babble that the likes of Pell and Ratzinger pass off as argument. In as far as that, it is probably discussion worthy although I don’t think either Pell or Ratzinger can represent Catholics universally (which is a major failiure of their leaderships). The weirdness per se, isn’t really worthy of much attention IMHO.
Some Catholics are acting against the norm. So what? Is anyone getting hurt? I can’t see a stigma attached to corpse veneration as any more valid as stigma attached to extensive tattoos and body piercing.
The “weird Catholics at World Youth Day” angle has been flogged to death.
There is of course the issue of the largesse of the state. $22 million dollars from the Commonwealth Government and $86 million from the New South Wales Government.
Carmelo Vescio, a lapsed Catholic, is reportedly challenging the legality of the Commonwealth spending, based on section 166 of the Australian Constitution.
Said Commonwealth funding will require the passage of an act of Parliament and section 166 states;
“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
(Australian Constitution, 2008 )
According to Richard Ackland, both Justices Murray Gleeson and Susan Crennan were unwilling to accept the writ, the latter in addition to practical concerns, having the gall to call it (the writ) politically motivated, which of course the funding of World Youth Day is as well.
Susan Crennan has clearly allowed herself to become partisan on the matter, at least as far as her repulsion from a particular political pole rather than a general distancing is concerned. I’m going to assume that the Catholicism of both Gleeson and Crennan isn’t in any way a driving cause, nor their appointment by John Howard who’s Government innitiated the planned largesse. I’m assuming that Gleeson isn’t actually polarised on the issue as Crennan has demonstrated she is (Gleeson purely had more prozaic concerns and wasn’t nearly as dismissive, waiting instead for another Judge to accept the writ).
Unless Crennan can provide a credible retraction that assures the public of a lack of political interest, her conduct should probably be investigated. I’ll steer away from the term “judicial activism” for all its innacurate connotations (see here and here for more on the topic), but Crennan’s consideration of the political nature of the writ isn’t based on an interpretation of law, it’s just a personal, political reflex.
The writ has since reached Justice Kirby’s desk, and he decideded to run with it, stating last week that “If there is some defect in the applicant’s process it is sometimes appropriate to endeavour to cure that defect, rather than to prevent the person having one of the most fundamental rights that exists in a society governed by the rule of law, which is access to the courts.” Keating was wise to appoint this man.
The bid for a day in court has been shot down in flames sadly, 2-1. On the political nature of the bid, The Age reports the Kirby claims the political undertone was irrelevant and that all consitutional matters brought before the court are political in nature (I don’t quote thanks to AP policy of late).
Gummow and Heydon reportedly didn’t make considerations of the legal merits, but rather to the form of the writ which was innapropriate, Gummow claiming that it would be vexatious for it to be considered. Which considering that the case was more about racing courses than anything else, may be warranted.
Reportedly, Vescio is supposedly considering a re-writing of the writ with his legal team.
The hubbub surrounding the Catholic World Youth Day really tells us something about secular politics in Australia. It is dis-empowered.
If we had anything remotely like the ACLU in Australia, a writ less-rushed, more detailed and more representative of those discriminated against would have been submitted earlier for the High Court’s consideration. We don’t have anything like the ACLU though, not remotely.
We don’t have a strong secular discourse to counter the sectarian, totalitarian ravings of the likes of George Pell, nor did we have it in the days of Mannix. We don’t have a strong secular voice to counter the likes of Brendan Nelson, who as Minister for Science and Education, gave the thumbs up to Intelligent Design being taught in Australian schools (including the state ones).
I can’t help but ponder that the fixation on the weirdness of corpse veneration may be a symtom of ressentiment born of this disempowerment. Again, sure it seems weird, but aren’t there more pressing matters deserving of more support in as far was World Youth Day 2008 is concerned?
~ Bruce
“Ressentiment at World Youth Day corpse veneration and state-sectarian largesse?”
I. Not to good on the spelling are we? Ressentiment? or is
it a new English word?
2) “that the corpse of a dead Catholic priest” wrong fact:
Frassati was not a priest but a layman.
3) “Aside from the weirdness, what can be taken from phenomena that is this corpse veneration.”
So when and how soon do we remove the remains of the Unknown Soldier from the entrance to Westminster Abbey, from under the Arch de Triomphe in Paris, the Australian War Memorial, etc etc. The “corpse veneration” you refer to is neither more nor less than the veneration accorded to the unknown soldier One lived a heroic life on the battle feild the other a heroic and exemplary life for his beliefs.
Before you attack the beliefs remember tolerance.
In the case of Vescio and the High Court, given Justice Kirby’s strong disagreements with the teachings of the Catholic Church, especially on issues effecting the gay lifestyle, a matter effecting Kirby in the most personal way, he should exercise some intellectual integrity and recuse himself when matters arise in the High Court involving the Catholic Church. If you say that if he should recuse himself, then so should all the Catholic judges you miss the point. Kirby does go around publicly attacking in print and in speeches individuals and organizations (including the Catholic Church) and praising the glories of the gay lifestyle. The Catholic judges do not go around spreading Catholic Beliefs or attacking anti-catholics as intolerant bigots.
I. Not to [sic] good on the spelling are we? Ressentiment? or is
it a new English word?
It’s derived from a French word, and has a specific meaning in existentialist philosophy and I am using Nietzsche’s version of the term specifically.
Not “to” good at the French?
2) “that the corpse of a dead Catholic priest” wrong fact:
Frassati was not a priest but a layman.
My mistake. Corpse of a dead Catholic. Doesn’t alter my point one bit of course.
3) “Aside from the weirdness, what can be taken from phenomena that is this corpse veneration.”
So when and how soon do we remove the remains of the Unknown Soldier from the entrance to Westminster Abbey, from under the Arch de Triomphe in Paris, the Australian War Memorial, etc etc. The “corpse veneration” you refer to is neither more nor less than the veneration accorded to the unknown soldier One lived a heroic life on the battle feild the other a heroic and exemplary life for his beliefs.
This kind of veneration is different i.e. not at all couched in supernaturalism (incorrupt corpses and all that), so they aren’t comparable. In any case this is somewhat beside the point I was making.
Before you attack the beliefs remember tolerance.
Before you lecture me on tolerance, you should establish that I’m actually attacking someone, not calling for more tolerance. A little reading comprehension is in order.
If you say that if he should recuse himself, then so should all the Catholic judges you miss the point. Kirby does go around publicly attacking in print and in speeches individuals and organizations (including the Catholic Church) and praising the glories of the gay lifestyle. If you say that if he should recuse himself, then so should all the Catholic judges you miss the point.
That Kirby has criticised the behaviour of people who happen to be Catholic, and just because he is gay, has nothing to do with his eligibility as a judge in any case.
Kirby does go around publicly attacking in print and in speeches individuals and organizations (including the Catholic Church) and praising the glories of the gay lifestyle. The Catholic judges do not go around spreading Catholic Beliefs or attacking anti-catholics as intolerant bigots.
False analogy and lacking evidence. Where are these “anti-catholics” you speak of anyway?
If Kirby specifically demonstrated prejudice against Catholics, Catholicism or the Church in the undertaking of his job, then sure, he should recuse himself. But you have singularly failed to demonstrate that this is the case.
Crennan on the other hand demonstrated political polarisation in the undertaking of her job.
Incidentally, before you attack gays for being gay and talking about it like they don’t hate themselves, you should remember tolerance.
What you are suggesting is that Kirby recuse himself because he disagrees with some things that some Catholics have said and lives a lifestyle that the Church doesn’t approve of, yet Crennan has not dissented and should be able to stay. I’m sorry, but the High Court isn’t there to be stacked in accordance of the whim of the sectarian. It’s not the Dark Ages anymore.
If you are going to post here again “LaVallette”, some honesty would be appreciated. Required actually.
Oh what a delicate psyche we have. Obviously on this blog there is no room for any alternative opinion besides yours. There is no lack of honesty on my part. Have a look at the beam in your eye and stop ad hominem attacks. Where the hell did I attack gays for being gay in my post? The issue of “corpse veneration”, is the very substance of your post. Contrary to what you assert there is absolutely no difference between the veneration accorded to the Unknown Soldier and that accorded by Catholics to their dead Catholic heroes. Veneration after all is a metaphysical sentiment whether it is religiously or otherwise inspired or motivated.
As to your question about the whereabouts of anti catholic bigots first have a look at your blog and then have a look in the mirror.
As to Kirby’s attack on people and institutions, including the Catholic Church, who oppose the gay lifestyle have a look at his published opinion pieces and speeches, the most recent in to-day’s SMH. Kirby may be completely right in his inimical views against the church, but so long as he holds these views he is involved in a conflict of interest whenever cases involving the church come up before the High Court and the honoruble path is for him to recuse himself.
Crennan gave many other reasons for refusing the application besides the “political” matter and they had nothing to do with her religion. Indeed she was finally vindicated as these reasons were substantially concurred with in the majority decision of the full court. I repeat she has never used her High Court position to either celebrate or attack perceived enemies of her religion l;ike Kirby has done in support of his life style.i
I do not apologise for upsetting your sense of self righteousness. Of course I fully expect that you will ban me from any further comments on this blog: you are too afraid of an alternative point of view. Thinker’s Podium indeed! So pick up your ball and go home where mummy will protect you. Byeeeeeeeeee!!!
P.S.” According to Richard Ackland, both Justices Murray Gleeson and Susan Crennan were unwilling to accept the writ, the latter in addition to practical concerns, having the gaul to call it (the writ) politically motivated, which of course the funding of World Youth Day is as well.”
I admit I am not proficient in French, thats why I do not use “an expression derived from a French word, (which) has a specific meaning in existentialist philosophy and (of course) using Nietzsche’s version of the term specifically. (My My My, we are so so clever and intellectual). However I do know that gaul is the ancient Roman name for France. May I suggest the word you were looking for is “gall”. You know about people who live in glass houses?
Third paragraph last sentencem of my last post.: I do know that it should be the “honourable” or “honorable” path. Apologies for misspell.
Before you attack the beliefs remember tolerance.
It is not “intolerant” to criticise a belief or an idea.
Of course I fully expect that you will ban me from any further comments on this blog: you are too afraid of an alternative point of view. Thinker’s Podium indeed! So pick up your ball and go home where mummy will protect you. Byeeeeeeeeee!!!
And you can’t expect to be regarded by anyone who reads your comments here as a martyr for your “alternative point of view” if you find yourself banned for behaving in a fashion which most reasonable bloggers would regard as banworthy–i.e. engaging in personal abuse, as you have done in the paragraph above.
the gay lifestyle
What exactly does “the gay lifestyle” involve? Is there a “straight lifestyle?”
Bruce:
We don’t have a strong secular discourse to counter the sectarian, totalitarian ravings of the likes of George Pell, nor did we have it in the days of Mannix. We don’t have a strong secular voice to counter the likes of Brendan Nelson, who as Minister for Science and Education, gave the thumbs up to Intelligent Design being taught in Australian schools (including the state ones).
There are several reasons for this, one being (obviously) the “herding cats” problem. Australia’s generally relaxed attitude to religion probably plays a role as well: we don’t have a strong counterdiscourse to Pell’s theocratic fantasies because there is no evidence that said fantasies even register with the community at large, let alone find much appeal there. Ditto Tony Abbott’s anti-abortionism. Australia has its fundies, and its uber-Catholics, but what it doesn’t have is a population large enough for these groups to have the kind of political and electoral influence, proportionally-speaking, that their counterparts enjoy in the US.
Oh what a delicate psyche we have. Obviously on this blog there is no room for any alternative opinion besides yours. There is no lack of honesty on my part.
Given that you can’t possibly have an insight into my psyche, you are making a claim that you can’t possibly support. That’s profound dishonesty.
Have a look at the beam in your eye and stop ad hominem attacks.
And hypocrisy as well. Incidentally, you may have me mixed up with Cyclops. Not that I believe in fictional characters with super powers of course.
The issue of “corpse veneration”, is the very substance of your post.
Actually, hyperbole and rhetoric surrounding corpse veneration is a good part of my post. Specifically, I’m questioning if secularists should be laying off the ridicule and focusing on more important matters.
Ressentiment. Instead of ignoring one of the most important concepts in my post and dishonestly lumbering on pretending you understand what I’m saying, get off your butt and look it up.
There is no point misrepresenting the thrust of my own argument. I am quite familiar with my own ideas.
Contrary to what you assert there is absolutely no difference between the veneration accorded to the Unknown Soldier and that accorded by Catholics to their dead Catholic heroes. Veneration after all is a metaphysical sentiment whether it is religiously or otherwise inspired or motivated.
Or in other words, if X is in anyway different from Y, and if X in any way similar to Y, then there is absolutely no difference between X and Y. That’s just absurd.
I really shouldn’t be wasting my time tutoring you on such basics as these.
As to your question about the whereabouts of anti catholic bigots first have a look at your blog and then have a look in the mirror.
Accusation isn’t evidence. Provide evidence please.
Incidentally, you should try to write as if you were actually posting under your own name. I can appreciate the need for anonymity on the Internet, but using it as a veil to defame is cowardly.
This is what a evidence looks like…
Where the hell did I attack gays for being gay in my post?
. “…and praising the glories of the gay lifestyle.” which of course has nothing to do with the case at hand. The case didn’t mention homosexuality. I didn’t mention homosexuality. Kirby’s criticism of religious leaders promoting homophobia wasn’t generally applied to all Catholics, nor restricted to Catholics. It’s not at all relevant yet you bring up a hyperbolic reference to Kirby showing pride in his sexuality.
Crennan gave many other reasons for refusing the application besides the “political” matter and they had nothing to do with her religion.
I said so myself. Repeating me proves what exactly?
Of course I fully expect that you will ban me from any further comments on this blog: you are too afraid of an alternative point of view. Thinker’s Podium indeed! So pick up your ball and go home where mummy will protect you. Byeeeeeeeeee!!!
Considering that you are now trolling the comments thread with abuse, it’s pretty obvious why you will be getting yourself banned and it’s silly to think you don’t know why.
This one’s so silly, I’ll have to add it to the “words of kindness” sidebar.
However I do know that gaul is the ancient Roman name for France. May I suggest the word you were looking for is “gall”.
Touché. You found a typo. I’ll fix it thank you.
You know about people who live in glass houses?
Yes, but I didn’t raise the issue of spelling. You did. I simply pointed out the irony of you raising it.
Now, I won’t ban you, yet. I’ll give you a chance because I’m feeling lenient, although I know others will find your trolling disruptive. Consider yourself on probation.
So if you do actually have something honest to say, rather than spittle flecked invective, then please, do gather your wits and participate.
…one being (obviously) the “herding cats” problem.
Not limited to atheists of course. Secular Australians are very much live and let live to the (I think erroneous) extent of tolerating too much intolerance (see relevant Popper quote).
Pell’s theocratic fantasies because there is no evidence that said fantasies even register with the community at large, let alone find much appeal there.
Although, popular appeal and implementation by the state are two different things and don’t always have parity even during elections.
Australia has its fundies, and its uber-Catholics, but what it doesn’t have is a population large enough for these groups to have the kind of political and electoral influence, proportionally-speaking, that their counterparts enjoy in the US.
I’ve never associated such influence with a notion of proportion.
Perhaps it isn’t a matter of proportion, then. Perhaps it is simply a matter of numbers of the ground. Australia doesn’t have a population large enough to foster well-funded and well-supported religious fundamentalist mass-movements such as exist in the United States.
Secular Australians are very much live and let live to the (I think erroneous) extent of tolerating too much intolerance (see relevant Popper quote).
I agree.
Australia doesn’t have a population large enough to foster well-funded and well-supported religious fundamentalist mass-movements such as exist in the United States.
I agree. They still remain a problem for democracy of course, especially when they try to wear the guise of secular concern through faux-multiculturalism, ID, fraudulent pseudo-science about homosexuality, “tolerate-my-intolerance-because-democracy-says-so” memes and so on.
Oh thank you kind sir for your mercies. but no thanks.
If strong disagreement and an alternative viewpoint is interpreted by you and this blog as hatred, and defamation or “trolling”. I do not intend to waste my time. I will find somewhere else where robust debate is appreciated.
P.S. Sarcasm is a legitimate debating tool.
Actually my surname is not Cyclops but it is BORG. Read into that what you will.
God Bless.
If strong disagreement and an alternative viewpoint is interpreted by you and this blog as hatred, and defamation or “trolling”. I do not intend to waste my time.
Just because I criticise what you say, doesn’t mean that I construe things as hatred, defamatory or trolling just because they are different opinions.
I called your attack on someone for being gay, an attack on someone for being gay, because you attacked someone for being gay. It’s just stating a fact, not simply calling it hated because it’s different. Indeed, I didn’t even use the word hatred.
As for defamation. You made allegations about my character. You didn’t take due care, or indeed any care to substantiate these allegations. Calling this defamatory is a statement of fact, not simply calling something defamatory because it is different.
And calling things like “So pick up your ball and go home where mummy will protect you. Byeeeeeeeeee!!!” trolling, is an entirely fair assessment.
You allege that difference is the reason I criticise your (apologies) for commentary. Let’s see some evidence. After all, in each case where I allege a deficiency in your argumentation, I have been able to specifically point to where that deficiency lay.
Or if you can’t substantiate this ludicrous claim, which quite obviously is something you can’t, at the very least stop pretending to be the victim when your ideas are subject to legitimate criticism.
That’s how debate and discussion work, LaVallette. You can’t expect to put forward notions and not have them criticised.
So how about it? Hold back on the nebulous accusations and assertions that you can’t possible substantiate, and specifically address the points I have raised.
It is not enough to just assert that I am anti-Catholic. If you are going to say something like that, you have a responsibility to actually prove it.
I’m not censoring you, I’m showing charity in spite of your abusive nature. Nothing’s holding you back, so get off your butt, and prove that I’m anti-Catholic.
Heck, I’ll even make a special thread for you to do it!
From your own referenced Link
“Ressentiment is a sense of resentment and hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration, an assignation of blame for one’s frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the “cause” generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one’s frustration. The ego creates an enemy, to insulate itself from culpability.”
and
“Nietzsche
Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one’s own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be “blamed” for one’s own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external “evil”.
You sir, fit the definition to perfection
But then I am only a troll and a Borg by name..
All trolling here in future thankyou, “LaVallette”.