Voltaire’s Fanaticism, part 1: the Philosophical Dictionary entry

“In a word, let us contemplate the horrors of fifteen centuries, all frequently renewed in the course of a single one; unarmed men slain at the feet of altars; kings destroyed by the dagger or by poison; a large state reduced to half its extent by the fury of its own citizens; the nation at once the most warlike and the most pacific on the face of the globe, divided in fierce hostility against itself; the sword unsheathed between the sons and the father; usurpers, tyrants, executioners, sacrilegious robbers, and bloodstained parricides violating, under the impulse of religion, every convention divine or human — such is the deadly picture of fanaticism.”

-Voltaire, “Fanaticism,” Philosophical Dictionary

In my report from the panel discussion about Charlie Hebdo earlier this month, I noted that in his introduction Ed Berenson had mentioned an 18th-century play by Voltaire about Mohammed: Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet. Having now read it, I’m surprised the play hasn’t received more attention.

Most striking is its modernity. And I don’t just mean the 2013 translator Hanna Burton’s decision to render Voltaire’s verse into modern prose (though that helps). I mean its psychological-sociological examination of fanaticism as a social phenomenon. Many people, it seems, are focused on the question of who the play is “really” about. People have discussed Voltaire’s knowledge or ignorance of and attitudes toward the historical Mohammed and the early Islamic movement. They’ve pointed to various indications within and without the work - his arguments about historical fact being secondary to artistic effect, his use of imaginary place names,… – as suggesting that he didn’t intend it to be a work of historical accuracy. Many have suggested that the “real” target of the play was Catholicism (or specific sects or movements within it), and that the use of the Muslim figure was just a means to get around Church censorship and avoid persecution.¹

It seems to me that these arguments are both right and wrong. The play is about both early Islam and contemporary Catholicism and at the same time about no religion in particular. It’s a very modern work about a social phenomenon: fanaticism. This seems clear from Voltaire’s later Philosophical Dictionary, published anonymously, which contained an entry for “Fanaticism.”² The play seems to be a dramatized version of the argument Voltaire sets forth in the extended entry.

Fanaticism as a global problem and its consequences

Voltaire’s dictionary entry about fanaticism as a generic social phenomenon was ahead of its time. “Fanaticism,” as Voltaire defines it, is “the effect of a false conscience, which makes religion subservient to the caprices of the imagination, and the excesses of the passions.” He encourages the reader to imagine a temple filled with religious fanatics of various sorts, all engaging in the bizarre practices they believe are demanded by or pleasing to their gods. They then, “full of the inspiration of their respective deities, spread the terror and delusion over the face of the earth. They divide the world between them; and the four extremities of it are almost instantly in flames: nations obey them, and kings tremble before them.”

He presents fanaticism as a global phenomenon, to which all humans are vulnerable. Throughout the entry, Voltaire uses concrete examples – some no doubt historically and anthropologically questionable – to illustrate the various bloody consequences and social-psychological characteristics of the phenomenon. These are by no means limited to a particular culture. Fanaticism almost invariably leads to some form of human (he doesn’t talk about animal) sacrifice: “It is dreadful to observe how the opinion that the wrath of heaven might be appeased by human massacre spread, after being once started, through almost every religion; and what various reasons have been given for the sacrifice, as though, in order to preclude, if possible, the escape of any one from extirpation.” He describes the various categories of people marked for sacrifice in different religious cultures - enemies, children, the “just and good,” the “most beautiful” and “most valuable,” the “purest,” the “most sacred” – offering specific examples of each from a variety of cultures.

He discusses fanaticism’s role in the crusades and the genocidal European conquest of the “New World”:

The same spirit of fanaticism cherished the rage for distant conquests: scarcely had Europe repaired its losses when the discovery of a new world hastened the ruin of our own. At that terrible injunction, “Go and conquer,” America was desolated and its inhabitants exterminated; Africa and Europe were exhausted in vain to repeople it; the poison of money and of pleasure having enervated the species, the world became nearly a desert and appeared likely every day to advance nearer to desolation by the continual wars which were kindled on our continent, from the ambition of extending its power to foreign lands.

Fanaticism, he argues, gives rise to wars, persecution, and massacres:

Let us compute the thousands who have been seen to perish either on scaffolds in the ages of persecution, or in civil wars by the hands of their fellow citizens, or by their own hands through excessive austerities, and maceration. Let us survey the surface of the earth, and glance at the various standards unfurled and blazing in the name of religion; in Spain against the Moors, in France against the Turks, in Hungary against the Tartars; at the numerous military orders, founded for converting infidels by the point of the sword, and slaughtering one another at the foot of the altar they had come to defend.

Fanaticism leads to a violent and destructive intolerance. Voltaire discusses a monk who murdered his brother for holding different beliefs; “Polyeuctes, who went to the temple on a day of solemn festival, to throw down and destroy the statues and ornaments”; the “assassins of Francis, duke of Guise, of William, prince of Orange, of King Henry III., of King Henry IV.; and “various others” - all “equally possessed, equally laboring under morbid fury...” “The most striking example of fanaticism,” notably, is close to home: “that exhibited on the night of St. Bartholomew, when the people of Paris rushed from house to house to stab, slaughter, throw out of the window, and tear in pieces their fellow citizens not attending mass.”

Fanaticism as a progressive illness

Voltaire saw fanaticism as a sort of contagious illness, a “religious madness” or “malady of the mind, which is taken in the same way as smallpox.”³ More precisely, it was akin to a symptom marking the advanced nature of an illness:

Fanaticism is, in reference to superstition, what delirium is to fever, or rage to anger. He who is involved in ecstasies and visions, who takes dreams for realities, and his own imaginations for prophecies, is a fanatical novice of great hope and promise, and will probably soon advance to the highest form, and kill man for the love of God.

The prognosis for advanced cases – individual or collective - was in his view generally negative:

When once fanaticism has gangrened the brain of any man the disease may be regarded as nearly incurable. I have seen Convulsionaries who, while speaking of the miracles of St. Paris, gradually worked themselves up to higher and more vehement degrees of agitation till their eyes became inflamed, their whole frames shook, their countenances became distorted by rage, and had any man contradicted them he would inevitably have been murdered.

…Only let a single people be thus fascinated and agitated under the guidance of a few impostors, the seduction will spread with the speed of wild-fire, prodigies will be multiplied beyond calculation, and whole communities be led astray forever. When the human mind has once quitted the luminous track pointed out by nature, it returns to it no more; it wanders round the truth, but never obtains of it more than a few faint glimmerings, which, mingling with the false lights of surrounding superstition, leave it, in fact, in complete and palpable obscurity.

Anticipating 19th- and early 20th-century elite fears about crowds and masses, Voltaire contends that people assembled in crowds are particularly susceptible to fanatical passions and irrationalities:

That almost despotic power which the enthusiasm of a single person exercises over a multitude who see or hear him; the ardor communicated to each other by assembled minds; numberless strong and agitating influences acting in such circumstances, augmented by each individual’s personal anxiety and distress, require but a short time to operate, in order to produce universal delirium.

…

We seldom get heated while reading in solitude, for our minds are then tranquil and sedate. But when an ardent man of strong imagination addresses himself to weak imaginations, his eyes dart fire, and that fire rapidly spreads; his tones, his gestures, absolutely convulse the nerves of his auditors. He exclaims, “The eye of God is at this moment upon you; sacrifice every mere human possession and feeling; fight the battles of the Lord”— and they rush to the fight.

His most subtle analysis concerns the leaders of fanatical movements. On the one hand, he presents them as cynical and self-serving manipulators:

Fanatics are nearly always under the direction of knaves, who place the dagger in their hands. These knaves resemble Montaigne’s “Old Man of the Mountain,” who, it is said, made weak persons imagine, under his treatment of them, that they really had experienced the joys of paradise, and promised them a whole eternity of such delights if they would go and assassinate such as he should point out to them.

He offers as an example of the cynical use of fanaticism Oliver Cromwell:

Cromwell said to General Fairfax: “How can you possibly expect a rabble of London porters and apprentices to resist a nobility urged on by the principle, or rather the phantom, of honor? Let us actuate them by a more powerful phantom — fanaticism! Our enemies are fighting only for their king; let us persuade our troops they are fighting for their God.”

Fairfax then “composed his regiment of red-coated brothers, of gloomy religionists, whom he made obedient tigers. Mahomet himself was never better served by soldiers.”⁴

But, despite what this story suggests, he doesn’t argue that the leaders are merely cloaking their self-serving, material goals in the language of religion. They, too, are fanatics:

What a tissue of frauds, calumnies, and robberies has been woven by fanatics of the court of Rome against fanatics of the court of Calvin, by Jesuits against Jansenists, and vice versa! And if you go farther back you will find ecclesiastical history, which is the school of virtues, to be that of atrocities and abominations, which have been employed by every sect against the others. They all have the same bandage over their eyes whether marching out to burn down the cities and towns of their adversaries, to slaughter the inhabitants, or condemn them to judicial execution; or when merely engaged in the comparatively calm occupation of deceiving and defrauding, of acquiring wealth and exercising domination. The same fanaticism blinds them; they think that they are doing good. Every fanatic is a conscientious knave, but a sincere and honest murderer for the good cause. [emphasis added]

What can check the growth of fanaticism?

As noted above, Voltaire was pessimistic about the prospects for recovery from the illness of fanaticism. Neither laws nor (it almost shouldn’t need to be said) religion could counteract it: “[W]hen the disorder has made any progress, we should, without loss of time, fly from the seat of it, and wait till the air has become purified from contagion. Law and religion are not completely efficient against the spiritual pestilence.”

In fact, “Religion…so far from affording proper nutriment to the minds of patients laboring under this infectious and infernal distemper, is converted, by the diseased process of their minds, into poison.” (With one exception: “There has been only one religion in the world which has not been polluted by fanaticism and that is the religion of the learned in China.”)

Laws, he argues,

are yet more powerless against these paroxysms of rage. To oppose laws to cases of such a description would be like reading a decree of council to a man in a frenzy. The persons in question are fully convinced that the Holy Spirit which animates and fills them is above all laws; that their own enthusiasm is, in fact, the only law which they are bound to obey.

What can be said in answer to a man who says he will rather obey God than men, and who consequently feels certain of meriting heaven by cutting your throat?

There was only one treatment and prophylactic - reason: “There is no other remedy for this epidemical malady than that spirit of philosophy, which, extending itself from one to another, at length civilizes and softens the manners of men and prevents the access of the disease.” While fanaticism both thrived on inflamed passions and further inflamed them, the spirit of philosophy worked through inducing mental calm: “The different sects of ancient philosophers were not merely exempt from this pest of human society, but they were antidotes to it: for the effect of philosophy is to render the soul tranquil, and fanaticism and tranquility are totally incompatible.”

But even this antidote wasn’t always successful. Troublingly, fanaticism could strike even the most reasonable. “It seems as if superstition were an epidemic disease,” Voltaire lamented, “from which the strongest minds are not always exempt”; “[o]ver what precipices do not men fall, notwithstanding their boasted leading-strings of reason!” Even Isaac Newton hadn’t been immune:

Were it allowable for us to reveal the disgrace of those to whom we owe the sincerest respect, I should observe here, that Newton, the great Newton himself, discovered in the “Apocalypse” that the pope was Antichrist, and made many other similar discoveries…. [I]f the exalted Newton imagined that he found the modern history of Europe in the “Apocalypse,” we may say: Alas, poor human beings!

In sum, then, rather than attributing it to any particular religion, Voltaire saw fanaticism as a global scourge with devastating consequences. He tried to find the psychological and social conditions in which fanaticism and fanatical movements took root and spread. He viewed fanaticism as a sort of contagious illness, progressive and almost always incurable – once “the human mind has…quitted the luminous track pointed out by nature,” it was nearly impossible to return to it. He sought to capture the dual nature of the leaders of fanatical movements, both self-serving manipulators and themselves suffering from the same sickness. Finally, he considered possible checks to the growth of fanaticism, arguing that neither law nor religion was effective and placing his hopes in a reason grounded in nature, the tranquil “spirit of philosophy,” while acknowledging that even this didn’t always protect us.

If this were a critical review, I would take issue with some of Voltaire’s arguments, but my intent is really just to summarize them in order to provide the necessary intellectual and political context for reading the play. In my next post on the subject, I’ll talk about the play within this context.

¹ Which he did. As Burton notes in the introduction to her translation (p. 16), after some Catholic officials raised objections and forced the play’s withdrawal from the stage, Voltaire wrote to the Vatican and received papal approval from Benedict XIV. Lord Chesterfield, Malise Ruthven mentions in her preface (p. 8), saw the play as a veiled attack on Jesus, and was flummoxed to hear the response of a Catholic ‘who was extremely edified by the way in which this impostor and enemy of Christianity had been depicted’.

² I had a hell of a time with this. The text I quote from here was published online by the University of Adelaide in Australia. They state that it’s “[d]erived from The Works of Voltaire, A Contemporary Version, (New York: E.R. DuMont, 1901), A Critique and Biography by John Morley, notes by Tobias Smollett, trans. William F. Fleming. I was unsure about the entry because it doesn’t appear in this Project Gutenberg version from 1764. But the entry is included in Volume V, which does appear in the Project Gutenberg version of The Works of Voltaire. I also found a version of the full entry in French from 1826, after Voltaire’s death. It appears Voltaire reworked and expanded on the PD throughout his life, so this might have been the last version. I haven’t been able to discover when exactly this version of the entry was completed or originally published.

³ Voltaire takes care to distinguish between two types of fanatics, of which one bears greater moral responsibility: “There are some cold-blooded fanatics; such as those judges who sentence men to death for no other crime than that of thinking differently from themselves, and these are so much the more guilty and deserving of the execration of mankind, as, not laboring under madness like the Clements, Châtels, Ravaillacs, and Damiens, they might be deemed capable of listening to reason.” [emphasis added]

⁴ Here Voltaire is quite sociological. He argues that Cromwell could only have succeeded in certain conditions: “in order to inspire this fanaticism, you must be seconded and supported by the spirit of the times.” To “make and to guide fanatics” requires the “profoundest dissimulation and the most determined intrepidity,” but “everything depends, after these previous requisites are secured, on coming into the world at a proper time.”

Catholic employment ethics

I posted last month about the church finally accepting the resignation of a Missouri bishop, Robert Finn:

Finn…waited six months before notifying police about the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, whose computer contained hundreds of lewd photos of young girls taken in and around churches where he worked. Ratigan was sentenced to 50 years in prison after pleading guilty to child pornography charges.

Finn pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of failure to report suspected abuse and was sentenced to two years’ probation in 2012. Ever since, he has faced pressure from local Roman Catholics to step down, with some parishioners petitioning Francis to remove him from the diocese.

It was the first case in the US of a bishop being removed for such an offense, and only came about after a long campaign of public pressure. But really, he was just protecting a child pornographer. That’s hardly as serious as tweeting anti-hate messages:

A priest claims he lost his job as director of Seton Hall campus ministry because of a pro-LGBT Facebook post he made.*

Rev. Warren Hall posted on Twitter Friday afternoon that he was “fired from SHU for posting a pic on FB supporting LGBT ‘NO H8’. I'm sorry it was met with this response. I'll miss my work here.”

…

Jim Goodness, a spokesman for the Archdiocese, declined to comment on the specifics of why Hall was removed from the campus ministry position, but did confirm that Hall's “term as director of campus ministry is ending.”

Goodness said Hall will still serve as a priest in the Archdiocese of Newark, but will have a new assignment.

…

Current and former students replied to his tweet with angry reactions to the news.

“Unfathomable,” user Vito Amato wrote on Twitter. “No better representative of my alma mater than you, Father.”

Hall did not immediately respond to a request for an interview, but did post on Twitter that his supporters should use the incident as a reason to have discussions on LGBT issues within Catholic colleges.

Priorities.

* Of course we can’t be sure this was the reason, but it does seem in character for the institution.

Pope accepts resignation of US bishop who covered for child sex abuser

Evidently, this is the first case of a bishop even being “removed” for such a crime in the US, which is itself shocking. The resignation appears to be the result of sustained public pressure.

Pope Francis on Tuesday accepted the resignation of Bishop Robert Finn, who led the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph.

Finn pleaded guilty in 2013 to failing to report a suspected priestly child abuser in the first known case of a pope sanctioning bishops for covering up for pedophiles.

The Vatican said Tuesday that Bishop Robert Finn had offered his resignation under the code of canon law that allows bishops to resign early for illness or some “grave” reason that makes them unfit for office. It didn’t provide a reason.

Finn, who leads the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph in Missouri, waited six months before notifying police about the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, whose computer contained hundreds of lewd photos of young girls taken in and around churches where he worked. Ratigan was sentenced to 50 years in prison after pleading guilty to child pornography charges.

Finn pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of failure to report suspected abuse and was sentenced to two years’ probation in 2012. Ever since, he has faced pressure from local Roman Catholics to step down, with some parishioners petitioning Francis to remove him from the diocese.

“Miscarriage of Medicine”: ACLU and MergerWatch report on Catholic hospitals’ interference with medicine

The ACLU and the MergerWatch Project have released a short, informative report about Catholic hospitals and hospital systems* and their terrible effects on women’s health care.

From the introduction:

All across the country, an ever-increasing number of acute-care hospitals are Catholic- sponsored or are affiliated with a Catholic health system, with one in nine beds now in one of these facilities. Many of the largest health care systems in the country are Catholic-sponsored and they are expanding rapidly, in part by acquiring non-Catholic hospitals. In some states, such as Washington, one quarter or more of the hospitals are Catholic-sponsored or -affiliated, and entire geographic regions have no other choice for hospital care.

Religious restrictions govern care at Catholic-sponsored facilities. At these hospitals, health professionals are prohibited from providing vital health services or honoring patients’ health care decisions when they conflict with Catholic teaching. Often at these facilities health professionals may not even provide their patients with counseling and referrals for services prohibited on religious grounds. As a result, when it comes to reproductive health care, hospitals operating under these religious rules can provide care that falls short of expected standards of care. Historically secular hospitals or hospitals founded by other religious faiths are often required to adopt some or all of the Catholic restrictions when they affiliate with or are acquired by Catholic hospitals.

This report looks at the increasing number of acute-care hospitals that are Catholic-sponsored or -affiliated and the expansion of Catholic-sponsored health systems in the United States between 2001 and 2011.1 Indeed, 10 of the 25 largest health systems are Catholic-sponsored, with combined gross patient revenue of $213.7 billion. The report discusses the threat this growth poses to patient access to reproductive health services, including information and referrals. It further shows the degree to which these institutions rely on tax dollars, even as they limit medical care based on religious doctrine. At the same time, data also indicate that, despite their claims of service to the poor, Catholic-sponsored and -affiliated facilities actually provide only an average amount of charity care and report a lower percentage of gross patient revenue from Medicaid than any other type of hospital.2

In short, this report reveals how Catholic hospitals have left far behind their humble beginnings as facilities established by orders of nuns and brothers to serve the faithful and the poor. They have organized into large systems that behave like businesses — aggressively expanding to capture greater market share — but rely on public funding and use religious doctrine to compromise women’s health care. We make recommendations about how to ensure Catholic restrictions do not interfere with patients’ rights and protect access to comprehensive reproductive health care.

Even if you don’t have time to read the whole thing, you should at least skim the sample of items from the Ethical and Religious Directives in Appendix A. For example,

44. A Catholic health care institution should provide prenatal, obstetric, and postnatal services for mothers and their children [sic] in a manner consonant with its mission.

One would think a healthcare institution’s mission would be to provide these services.

On assisted dying:

60. Euthanasia is an action or omission that of itself or by intention causes death in order to alleviate suffering. Catholic health care institutions may never condone or participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way. Dying patients who request euthanasia should receive loving care, psychological and spiritual support, and appropriate remedies for pain and other symptoms so that they can live with dignity until the time of natural death.

61. Patients should be kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity, and in the place where they wish to die. Since a person has the right to prepare for his or her death while fully conscious, he or she should not be deprived of consciousness without a compelling reason. Medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain may be given to a dying person, even if this therapy may indirectly shorten the person’s life so long as the intent is not to hasten death. Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering. [my emphasis]

This seems inconsistent with recent statements from Francis. Why aren't poor and marginalized people simply helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering? Problem solved.

* The report also shows the rapid growth of for-profit hospitals, which also poses a threat, if of a different sort. For-profit and healthcare shouldn’t be connected in any way.

Changes at the Vatican: more political opportunity

I’m as surprised as anyone that I’m posting about the Pope again, but the developments are significant enough to warrant some comment.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Francis’ remarks about global capitalism and their political significance. I welcomed the statements as providing a political opportunity for social justice movements, particularly in the Americas. (I wasn’t surprised to learn recently that he’d met with liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez back in September.)

At the time, I wrote that my position didn’t entail an end to criticism or skepticism, linking to this article at RH Reality Check and this report from Democracy Now!. Both discussed the church’s continuing anti-woman policies. Conservative US bishops have been a powerful force both in fighting reproductive rights and in suppressing progressive movements within the church, including the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. To a significant extent, Francis has continued his predecessor’s support for these bishops and their priorities.

This week, though, he’s made some changes that could have a meaningful impact for progressive Catholic movements and for reproductive rights. Most importantly, he replaced conservative Cardinal Raymond Burke with “ideological moderate”* Cardinal Donald Wuerl on the Congregation for Bishops. “Cardinal Burke still serves as the prefect of the Vatican’s highest canonical court, but analysts say his removal from the Congregation for Bishops will sharply reduce his influence, especially over personnel changes in American churches,” Jim Yardley and Jason Horowitz report.

Once again, responding positively is not a matter of celebrating Francis, the institution of the papacy, Catholicism, or religion, but of appreciating the ways these moves alter the political landscape, both symbolically and concretely. They open possibilities for women and progressive movements within the church and in society more generally. This is especially true since the conservative bishops, under a more supportive pope, argued that the uppity progressive nuns should submit unquestioningly to papal authority. They’ve boxed themselves into that corner, and now any opposition to Francis’ agenda is revealed as hypocrisy. Authoritarianism is unforgiving that way.

* “Father [Thomas J.] Reese noted that Cardinal Burke had been a leader of American bishops arguing that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be barred from receiving communion, while Cardinal Wuerl had taken an opposite tack.”

It concerns me...

...how much Scandal resembles The Borgias.

Well, not the resemblance itself so much as the lack of attention to it.

“The dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose”: Pope says No to capitalism in new broadside

Today, the Vatican published an “apostolic exhortation” by Pope Francis called Evangelii Gaudium - The Joy of the Gospel. It contains a section on the “crisis of communal commitment,” with its own subsection “Some Challenges of Today’s World,” which in turn contains the subsections “No to an economy of exclusion,” “No to the new idolatry of money,” “No to a financial system which rules rather than serves,” and “No to the inequality which spawns violence.” As these headings suggest, as have some of Francis’ previous public statements, this pope is not going to serve as a mouthpiece for capitalism. From “Some Challenges”:

…In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history, as we can see from the advances being made in so many fields. We can only praise the steps being taken to improve people’s welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications. At the same time we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day, with dire consequences. A number of diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich countries. The joy of living frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity. This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative, rapid and cumulative advances occuring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.

…Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

…Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

…In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

…While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

…Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.

…Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called “end of history”, since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.

…Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. This serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.

I haven’t read the entirety of the work, but from what I understand there’s plenty of specific nonsense in it to dislike – in addition, of course, to its basic faithiness. Even in this section, the references to science and technology and social Darwinism are bothersome, as is the conflation of ethics with a god. However, this section on political economy, even if not especially original, is remarkable and most welcome.

Pope condemns global capitalism

As reported by Al Jazeera:

...He discarded his prepared speech after listening to Francesco Mattana, a 45-year-old married father of three who lost his job with an alternative energy company four years ago.

Mattana, his voice trembling, told the pope that unemployment "oppresses you and wears you out to the depths of your soul."

The crowd of about 20,000 people in a square near the city port chanted what Francis called a prayer for "work, work, work." They cheered each time he spoke of the rights of workers and the personal devastation caused by joblessness.

The pope, who later celebrated Mass for some 300,000 people outside the city's cathedral, told them: "We don't want this globalized economic system which does us so much harm. Men and women have to be at the center (of an economic system) as God wants, not money."

9/11: The fight for justice in Chile…and the US

Today is the 40th anniversary of the US-backed coup that overthrew the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile and installed the brutal dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. The commemorations, it seems, are as much about the present as they are about the past, which is as it should be.

Democracy Now! has been focusing on the efforts to get justice for the families of journalist Charles Horman (I’ve written about this case before)



and singer Victor Jara





They link to Peter Kornbluh’s article in The Nation about the role of the US government – primarily Nixon and Kissinger – in the coup. Kornbluh is also interviewed about recently declassified documents providing further evidence of their complicity.



These struggles for justice rely on the US public to develop a willingness to listen and to criticize our nation’s past and present.

(Unfortunately, the Vatican isn’t discussed.

Neither is Friedrich von Hayek.)

Why we URGENTLY need secular-humanistic psychology

I was reminded during the past couple of weeks of the pressing need for a humanistic vision of psychiatry/psychology due to two developments: an upcoming conference about pediatric medicine hosted by…the Vatican, and an article by an author, James Davies, whose book I just recently mentioned here.

A post last month at Mad in America drew my attention to an upcoming meeting at the Vatican about “the child as patient,” organized by the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, in which several authors critical of biopsychiatry will participate. I don’t know that I have words to describe my horror at reading about a conference on children and medicine hosted by the Vatican. As perverse as “the Vatican and children” and “the Vatican and medicine” are separately, the combination is grotesque. Honestly, I had no idea their pediatric psychological web was so developed.

The problem isn’t so much these experts participating in the event (although that’s by no means thrilling), though, as what the meeting signifies. With regard to James Davies, prior to posting about his book, I’d noted, but not investigated, a few potentially troubling aspects: that he’d spoken at the Harvard Divinity School, that this book was favorably reviewed by Peter Hitchens, that he’d written a book entitled The Importance of Suffering. So I’ve now had time to look into it, and discovered that, indeed, religious nonsense pervades his thinking.

In this piece, Davies contrasts “positive” and “negative” visions of suffering – “the different presuppositions about emotional suffering underpinning the psychiatric and Christian responses to emotional distress” (this is especially interesting to me in that I recently discussed this question in relation to assisted dying):

I was led to reflect that the psychiatric management of despair is premised upon a very different vision of suffering from that which Christianity traditionally professes. In short, psychiatry appeared largely to advance what I would call a "negative model of suffering," while Christianity, in its more traditional forms, seemed to advance a "positive model of suffering."2

The positive model holds that suffering can have a redemptive role to play in human life, that from affliction there can be derived some unexpected gain, new perspective, or beneficial alteration. If this vision of suffering could have its motto, Thomas Hardy captured it well in his poem In Tenebris II: ". . . if way to the Better there be, it exacts a full look at the Worst." The positive vision, thus considered, sees suffering as a kind of liminal region through which we can pass from a worse to a better place. Or alternatively, suffering is a natural outcome of confronting certain unpleasant facts about the human and natural world, facts we may well need to confront if we are to live more firmly rooted in reality.

The negative model asserts quite the opposite view—namely, that little of value can come of suffering at all. It holds that there is no new vista or perspective to be gleaned at suffering's end, nor any insights to be retrieved from its depths. Suffering is thus something to be either swiftly anesthetized or, better still, wholly eliminated, for what good is an experience whose most obvious features are pain and inconvenience?

The positive vision of suffering is at the heart of traditional Christianity. This can be illustrated by the Christian idea of spirit, which is traditionally understood in two generally accepted metaphysical senses: first, as describing an element of God which reaches down to the individual through expressions such as the Holy Spirit; and second, as an element of the individual which reaches up to God for the soul's total purification. In either correspondence (from God to individual or from individual to God), suffering has been regularly acknowledged to play its part, as if very few "summers of divine communion" can be won without a preliminary season of struggle and sorrow. Martin Luther captured this idea well:

God works by contraries . . . a man feels himself to be lost in the very moment when he is on the point of being saved. When God is about to justify a man, he damns him. . . . God's favor is so communicated in the form of wrath that it seems farthest when it is at hand. Man must first cry out that there is no health in him. He must be consumed with horror. This is the pain of purgatory. . . . In this disturbance salvation begins.3

Luther understands purgatory not as a geographical domain lodged between the earthly and heavenly realms, but as a stage or period of human life during which we become conscious of the flawed portions of our humanity—a stage which is inherently painful, because to overcome our defects we must first see them, and seeing them hurts….

Davies calls the negative biopsychiatric vision the heir of the Enlightenment, in contrast to the positive vision characteristic of Christianity. The negative vision maintains that “emotional suffering does not facilitate, but rather impedes human advancement” and needs to be managed and anaesthetized, while the religious vision holds that that “suffering is implicated in our moral or spiritual advancement” – some portion of it “purposeful, ennobling, holy, or transformative.” (Amusingly enough, Davies finds that in practice biopsychiatry and religion are wholly compatible, both being authoritarian and all.*)

There’s a kernel of truth to the first part: biopsychiatry is the inheritor of certain problematic aspects of “scientific” thinking. The “positive” Christian vision is, frankly, blather, and dangerous blather at that. (The part about being rooted in reality is breathtakingly funny.) And the suggestion that these are the only options is absurd. In reality, both the religious and the biopsychiatric visions of human suffering are false, harmful ideologies.

Psychiatry is collapsing, probably (hopefully) sooner rather than later. This is inevitable: it’s pseudoscience. The danger is that religion and other forms of woo see an opening to exploit. If biopsychiatry is the only alternative to a “spiritual” vision of human problems, and it fails, the field is open for religion. And this “positive” vision of suffering is an equally useful ideological accompaniment to neoliberalism and empire. The happiness, the lives, of millions of people are at stake. We have a choice. We need, at this moment more than ever, a clear secular-humanist vision of psychology that avoids the traps of both religion/woo and psychiatric pseudoscience.

We can pursue a humanistic path, which understands human psychological suffering in existential and political terms; which doesn’t superstitiously celebrate, demonize, or pathologize it; which seeks to develop social policies, movements, and arrangements that foster joy and relieve suffering. Or we can turn to the authoritarian superstitions of biopsychiatry or religion.

* “Another factor challenging the idea that ‘psychiatry always advances secularization’ is that many of the websites I encountered did not see antidepressants as threatening Christianity (as I originally did), but rather as working in league with it, irrespective of how the psychiatric vision of suffering might be contrary to the Christian vision.9 These websites provide theological justifications, if ad hoc, for antidepressants being a manifestation of God's love. Many Christian groups, it seems, are adapting to rather than attacking pharmacological remedies by rearticulating their understanding of medicine in terms that enable adherents to reconcile drug consumption with the religious way of life. Pills may mitigate suffering so prayer can be indulged; doctors can be consulted because medicine is part of God's plan; drugs can enable the severely depressed to quit one's bed and return to the pew. Many churches, therefore, seem to be transfiguring these pills into tools that keep church attendance alive, and do not see them as agents of secularization.”

Gay rights in Poland and the RCC

I talked in a recent post about the efforts of the Catholic Church to deny reproductive rights in Poland. I've learned of another WikiLeaks US cable from 2009, this one concluding that "Polish society and the Polish Government have a long way to go toward ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" and citing the RCC as a major "source of anti-gay views":

Gays and lesbians face discrimination in the educational system, in the workplace, when renting or buying property, and in access to health services. Some have been subject to or threatened with physical violence on the basis of their sexual orientation....

---

The Catholic Church plays a significant role in the formation and propagation of anti-gay attitudes in Polish society, especially in rural areas. In a society that is 94 percent Catholic, the Church is widely recognized as a political and moral force. While the Polish Episcopate has condemned violence and discrimination against gays and lesbians, this message is often ignored - and sometimes contradicted - by parish priests in small towns and villages, some of whom present homosexuality as a deviant condition. Moreover, the Church continues to label homosexual acts as sins and calls on homosexuals to practice abstinence. Most Polish opponents of gay rights cite "Catholic values" and "natural law" to support their views. In November 2008, for example, users of the internet forum "Fronda" launched a boycott campaign against IKEA in response to its gay-friendly advertising. The campaign was named "I'm a Catholic and I don't shop in IKEA."

I'm troubled that the story of these cables and the dismal situation of sexual and reproductive rights in Poland (this article places it within a broader context of pro-natalist policies in the region that have disproportionately harmed women) has appeared of late almost exclusively on rightwing Catholic blogs and sites - I found the most recent cable through a link to something called LifeSiteNews, which I won't link to. It does seem to be under discussion to some extent elsewhere. A conference earlier this week was apparently organized to foster acceptance of the role of the Church in Polish politics: "'The goal of this conference is a mutual discussion about what is missing in our current political system and what values politics should serve,' conference organizer Wladyslaw Zuziak was quoted as saying by the Catholic News Agency." At the event, though, German president Christian Wulff warned against people with "convictions that divide people into 'us' and 'them' based on culture, religion or nationality" coming to power and that "fanatical Christianity can bring suffering."

Abortion in Poland, the US, Venezuela

Sometimes it’s good that I don’t read all of my feeds in real time, only getting to some posts after the urgency of the situation they describe has passed. That was the case with a post by HRW a few days ago – “Poland: Reject Blanket Ban on Abortion.” I was relieved to find that the law had failed. On the other hand, the state of reproductive rights in Poland is dismal. Abortions are only legal under three circumstances: the pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the woman or results from rape, or the fetus is severely deformed or sick. And even under these circumstances, it seems they’re nearly impossible to obtain. Legal abortions numbered a mere 583 (in a population of 11 million women of childbearing age) in 2010. It’s estimated that well more than 100,000 abortions actually occurred, not counting those obtained in foreign countries; these were illegal and expensive (a veritable racket), beyond the reach of many poor women.

It’s difficult to estimate the suffering and death this has caused, and it’s especially perverse given that abortion was legal under Communism. The denial of human rights to women in Poland does not simply reflect cultural attitudes. It results from the long-term targeted interference of the Catholic Church in the country’s politics. As Wikileaks documents have revealed, the Vatican has looked upon Poland as a place to realize their authoritarian, misogynistic fantasies in the 21st century and a fortress against secular Europe. I hope this law’s failure signals that the Vatican is losing its grip on Poland and that the country will make progress on reproductive rights.

Unfortunately, many US states are determined to outdo them. The Guttmacher Institute reports that

In the first six months of 2011, states enacted 162 new provisions related to reproductive health and rights. Fully 49% of these new laws seek to restrict access to abortion services, a sharp increase from 2010, when 26% of new laws restricted abortion. The 80 abortion restrictions enacted this year are more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005—and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010. All of these new provisions were enacted in just 19 states.

Venezuela provides an example of how revolutionary social change, even that which challenges the Church and leads to important gains for women in some respects, can leave behind women’s most basic human rights. I was unpleasantly surprised to read in Revolutionary Doctors Brouwer’s description of a local health committee meeting:

…There was a short discussion about birth control, with everyone lauding the free contraception available in various forms at each walk-in clinic and asking for even more information to be provided by both doctors and health committee volunteers. No one, however, brought up the subject of abortion, which generally is not accepted by most lower-class Venezuelan women. For this reason, I was told, the Cuban doctors, who are used to providing abortion on demand in their own country, do not proselytize about the subject to their Venezuelan patients. (KL 1489-1493).

It should be noted that this was several years ago, but it’s probable that Brouwer is underestimating the strength of desire for reproductive rights in the country even then. Women continue to be sacrificed by politicians and governments who claim to be fighting for justice. It should be discussed in this context, as the criminalization of abortion is not just a denial of human rights but a serious public health concern. Estrella Gutiérrez reports that unsafe abortions are the second leading cause of maternal mortality in the region. The Catholic hierarchy hates Chávez anyway and would like nothing better than to get rid of him (as they helped do with Aristide). I don’t care if many politicians, including Chávez, see themselves and their movements as in part inspired by Christianity. No church should have any role in government policy.

The Day for the Decriminalization of Abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean is the 28th of this month, and I plan to post more at that time. There is movement, and I’m optimistic for the expansion of reproductive rights globally, including in the three countries just discussed. But a major element in effecting that expansion has to be getting religious, and especially Vatican, influence out of policy.

Also from Democracy Now!: the Vatican against Aristide

I've talked about the longterm interference in Haitian politics by the US and other governments. The latest reports based on documents revealed by Wikileaks call attention to an aspect that's received less attention: the involvement of the Vatican. From the interview:

AMY GOODMAN: Give us specific examples that you found in the documents.

KIM IVES: Well, the Vatican, for instance. Here, they said they had no regrets about Aristide being removed. They said, “The priest had to go.” When he was out, and there was, after the earthquake, talk of bringing him back, they said, “This would be a disaster. It would be destabilizing.” It was very interesting, too, how they were seeing it as similar to Cuba. And they said, “Cuba is a much harder problem, because that’s a system there. In the case of Haiti, it’s just Aristide. It’s an individual. We can get him out easily.” So, they’re openly talking among themselves on this worldwide basis about how to block this guy.

...

AMY GOODMAN: March 5th, 2004, U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican James Nicholson wrote a cable reporting that the Holy See’s Deputy Foreign Minister had "no regret at Aristide’s departure, noting [that] the former priest had been an active proponent of voodoo.”

KIM IVES: Of voodoo, yes. Well, we have to remember, the Vatican has a huge grudge against Aristide. He was one of their star priests. That’s how he rose to prominence as a Salesian priest, St. John Bosco in Port-au-Prince in the 1980s. He was talking about liberation theology, putting the hierarchy on the spot.

The RCC seems fairly content to let people see them as champions of freedom and justice in the Americas on the basis of the involvement of some priests and nuns in liberation movements. But the Vatican has been supportive of the most brutal dictatorships in the region and hostile to Catholics on the front lines of social justice struggles, even exposing local clergy to harassment and violence.

Marcha de las Putas (Slut Walk) in Tegucigalpa!

This is awesome. From Real News Network:



Please watch the whole thing. Two aspects are especially important to note: First is that, while it may appear that people are protesting a perennial problem, which of course they are in large part, the situation, as previous posts here have discussed, has of course drastically worsened since the coup. Politics is about these issues, and those active in fighting for women's, reproductive, and LGBT rights have been among the most active in the resistance and persecuted by the oligarchs. These rights are inseparable from others. Second, the march ended with people writing messages on the side of the main cathedral. In the words of one of the organizers:

The Church is one of the institutions that has repressed women's rights the most, especially in a Catholic country like ours. Abortion is illegal in Honduras, not only for the women 'cause it's criminalized, it's from 3 to 6 years in jail, and the doctor is also penalized and its license is restricted.

...We should have the right to decide how we want to plan our life. Without that, we have no reproductive health and rights, which are human rights.

The Catholic Church continues to be an opponent of basic human rights around the world, and the hierarchy in Honduras (though not all of the priests on the ground) have been coup enthusiasts.

Vatican called to account at UN