Changes

[[Pope]] [[John Paul II]]’s reaction to [[Mel Gibson]]’s <i>[[The Passion of the Christ]]</i> is well known. Immediately after [[seeing ]] it, he murmured, “It is as it was!” — a [[statement ]] that was then quickly withdrawn by [[Vatican ]] officials. A glimpse into the Pope’s spontaneous reaction was thus replaced by the “official“[[official]],” neutral stance, corrected so as not to hurt anyone. This [[withdrawal]], and its nod toward [[liberal]] sensibility, betrayed what was best in the late pope, his <i>intractable</i> [[ethics|ethical]] stance.</p>

Today, in our era of over-sensitivity regarding “[[harassment]]” by the [[Other]], it’s increasingly common to hear complaints [[about ]] “[[ethical violence]],” those [[ethical ]] injunctions that “[[terror]]ize” us with their brutal impositions. In its [[place]], these critics would prefer to see an “ethics “[[ethics]] without violence,” a sort of permanent (re)negotiation of ethical [[norms]]. It is here where the highest [[cultural critique]] unexpectedly meets the lowest [[pop psychology]].

<p>The example <i>par excellence</i> is [[John Gray]], [[author ]] of <i>[[Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus]]</i>, who, in a series of “[[Oprah]]” shows, brought this stance to its extreme [[logical ]] terminus. Since we ultimately “are” the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, Gray argues, the solution to our [[psychic ]] deadlock resides in creatively “rewriting” the [[narrative]]s of our [[past ]] with a positive twist. What Gray has in [[mind ]] is not only standard [[cognitive therapy]] — that is, changing [[negative ]] “[[false belief]]s” about oneself into a more positive attitude of the assurance that one is loved by [[others ]] and capable of creative achievements. He advocates a more “radical,” pseudo-[[Freud]]ian [[notion ]] of regressing back to the scene of the primordial [[trauma|traumatic wound]].

[[Gray]] accepts the [[psychoanalytic ]] notion of an early [[childhood]] [[trauma]] that forever marks its [[subject]]’s further [[development]], giving that development a [[pathology|pathological]] spin. He proposes that, after [[regression|regressing]] to this [[primal]] [[trauma]]tic [[scene]] and directly confronting it, the [[subject]] should, under the guidance of a therapist, “rewrite” that [[experience ]] in a more “positive,” benign and productive [[narrative]]. For example, if the [[traumatic ]] scene that persists in your [[unconscious]], deforming and inhibiting your creative attitude, is that of your [[father]] shouting at you, “You are worthless! I [[hate ]] you! [[Nothing ]] [[good ]] will ever come out of you!,” one should simply rewrite it into a scenario where a smiling, benevolent father encouragingly tells you, “You’re OK! I trust you fully!” To play this [[game ]] to its end, in [[Freud]]’s famous [[case ]] of “[[Wolf Man|Wolfman]]” — whose [[primal]], [[trauma]]tic [[scene]] was [[witness]]ing his parents’ <i>coitus a tergo</i> — Gray’s ostensible solution would be for [[Wolfman]] to rewrite the scene, so that what he effectively saw was merely his [[parents ]] lying in bed, his [[father]] [[reading ]] a newspaper and [[mother ]] a [[sentimental]] novel.

The problem is that such a satirical exaggeration is actually taking place. Today, many [[ethnicity|ethnic]], [[sexuality|sexual]] or [[race|racial]] minorities rewrite their past in a more positive, [[self]]-assertive vein, i.e. [[African American]]s who [[claim ]] that long before [[Europe]]an [[modernity]], ancient [[Africa]]n empires already had highly developed [[science]] and [[technology]]. Along the same lines, one can imagine a rewriting of the [[Ten Commandments]]: Is some commandment too severe? Let us regress to the scene on Mt. Sinai and rewrite it! “Thou shalt not commit adultery — except if it is emotionally sincere and serves the [[goal ]] of your profound self-realization.” Exemplary here is Donald Spoto’s <i>The Hidden [[Jesus]]</i>. In this [[New Age]] “[[liberal]]” reading of [[Christianity]], we can read apropos of divorce:

<blockquote>Jesus clearly denounced divorce and remarriage. … But Jesus did not go further and say that marriages cannot be broken. … Nowhere else in his teaching is there any [[situation ]] where he renders a person forever chained to the consequences of sin. His entire [[treatment ]] of [[people ]] was to liberate, not to legislate. … It is simply self-evident that in fact some marriages do break down, that commitments are abandoned, that promises are violated and love betrayed. </blockquote>

Sympathetic and [[liberal]] as these lines are, they involve the fatal confusion between emotional ups-and-downs and an unconditionally [[symbolic]] commitment that is supposed to hold precisely when it is no longer supported by direct emotions. “Thou shalt not divorce — except when your [[marriage ]] ‘in fact’ breaks down, when it is experienced as a unbearable emotional burden that [[frustrates ]] your [[full ]] [[life]].” In short, except when the [[prohibition]] to divorce would have regained its full [[meaning]] (since who would divorce when the marriage is still blossoming?).

This is how (although the modern topic of [[human rights]] is ultimately grounded in the [[Judaism|Jewish]] notion of the [[love]] for one’s [[neighbor]]) we tend to establish today a negative link between the [[Decalogue]] (the traumatically imposed divine [[Commandments]]) and [[human rights]]. That is to say, within our [[post-politics|post-political]], [[liberal]]-[[permissiveness|permissive]] [[society]], [[human rights]] have, ultimately, become the rights to disobey the [[Ten Commandments]]. “The [[right ]] to [[privacy]]” — the right to [[adultery]], done in [[secrecy]], where no one has the right to probe. “The right to pursue [[happiness]] and [[private property]]” — the right to steal and [[exploitation|exploit]] others. “[[Freedom of expression]] and [[freedom of the press]]” — the right to [[lie]]. “The right of free citizens to bear weapons” — the right to kill. And ultimately, “freedom of [[religious belief]]” — the right to worship [[false ]] gods.

The greatness of [[John Paul II]] was that he personified the [[disavowal]] of the [[liberal]], easy way out. Even those who respected the [[Pope]]’s [[morality|moral]] stance usually accompanied their praise with the caveat that he nonetheless remained hopelessly old-fashioned, medieval even, by sticking to [[dogma]]s out of touch with the [[demands ]] of [[modernity]]. How could someone today ignore contraception, [[divorce]] or [[abortion]]? How could the [[Pope]] deny the right to abortion even to a nun who got pregnant through rape (as he effectively did in the case of the raped nuns in Bosnia)? Isn’t it clear that, even when one is in [[principle ]] against abortion, one should consent to a compromise in such an extreme case?

One can see why the [[Dalai Lama]] is a much more appropriate [[leader]] for our [[postmodern]], [[permissiveness|permissive]] [[times]]. He presents us with a feel-good spiritualism without any specific obligations. Anyone, even the most decadent Hollywood star, can follow him while continuing their [[money]]-grabbing, promiscuous lifestyle. In stark contrast, the [[Pope]] reminded us that there is a price to pay for a proper [[ethics|ethical]] attitude. It was his very stubborn clinging to “old values,” his ignoring the “realistic” demands of our [[time]], even when the arguments against him seemed “obvious” (as in the case of the raped nun), that made him an authentic [[ethics|ethical]] [[figure]].

That said, however, was John [[Paul ]] really up to the level of this task? Consider that the [[Catholic Church]] has its own “white mafia,” [[Opus Dei]], a (half) [[secret]] organization that somehow embodies the pure [[Law]] beyond any positive [[legality]]. Opus Dei’s supreme rule is an unconditional obedience to the [[Pope]] and the ruthless determination to [[work ]] for the [[Church]], with all other [[rules]] [[being ]] (potentially) suspended. As a rule, its members, whose task is to penetrate the top [[political ]] and financial circles, keep secret or play down their [[Opus Dei]] [[identity]]. As such, they are effectively “opus dei”—the “work of [[God]],” i.e., [[perversion|perversely]] imagining themselves as the direct [[instrument]] of [[divine will]].</p>

Let us also consider the abundant cases of [[sexual ]] molestation of [[children ]] by priests. These cases are so widespread, from [[Austria]] and [[Italy]] to [[Ireland]] and the [[United States]], that one can effectively [[speak ]] of an articulated “[[counterculture]]” within the [[Church]] that has its own set of [[hidden rules]]. And there is a connection between the pederast scandals and [[Opus Dei]] because the group works with the Church to intervene and hush [[them ]] up.

The Church’s reaction to the sex scandals demonstrates the way it perceives its [[role]]: It insists that these cases, deplorable as they are, are the Church’s [[internal ]] problem, and it displays great reluctance to collaborate with [[police]] in their investigations. Indeed, in a way, the Church is right. The molestation of children is the Church’s internal problem — that is to say, an inherent product of its institutional organization and of the [[libidinal economy]] on which that organization relies. Obviously, these scandals are not simply [[particular ]] criminal cases concerning particular individuals who just happen to be priests. The problem is systemic.

Consequently, the answer to the Church’s reluctance should not only be that these are criminal cases and, if the Church does not fully cooperate in the investigations, it should be seen as an accomplice after the fact. Over and beyond this, the Church, <i>as such</i>, as an institution, should be investigated in [[regard ]] to the way it systematically produces such crimes. This is also the [[reason ]] why one cannot explain away the priests’ sexual scandals as the opponents of celibacy [[suggest ]] — that they occur because the priests’ sexual urges do not find a legitimate outlet and thus explode in a [[pathology|pathological]] way. Allowing [[Catholic ]] priests to get [[married ]] would not solve the problem. We would not get priests doing their jobs without harassing young boys because it is the priesthood itself that generates [[pedophilia]] through its [[sexuality|sexual]] [[apartheid]] ([[male]] exclusivity).

And it is here that the [[Pope]] failed. In spite of his [[public ]] pronouncements of worry, he failed to confront the roots and consequences of the pedophilic scandals. Under his reign, [[Opus Dei]] got stronger than ever. The pope’s spokesman, Navarro Valls, is a member. He even elevated the group’s founder, Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer (an open [[anti-Semitism|anti-Semite]] and [[proto-Fascism|proto-Fascist]]), into [[saint]]hood — an act that blatantly contradicts and thus cancels his apology to [[Jews]] for the centuries of [[Christianity]]’s crimes committed against them. This is why [[John Paul II]] was an [[ethical failure]] — proof that even a sincere, radical [[ethics|ethical]] stance can become a fake, empty pose if it does not take into account its own [[conditions ]] and consequences.

* [[The Pope's Failures]]. ''[[In These Times]]''. April 8, 2005. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2059/>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizekpope.htm>.