Changes

Today, in our era of over-sensitivity regarding “[[harassmentPope]]” by the [[OtherJohn Paul II]], it’s increasingly common ’s reaction to hear complaints about “[[ethical violenceMel Gibson]],” those ethical injunctions that “’s <i>[[terrorThe Passion of the Christ]]ize” us with their brutal impositions</i> is well known. In its placeImmediately after [[seeing]] it, these critics would prefer to see an “ethics without violencehe murmured,“It is as it was!” — a sort of permanent (re)negotiation of ethical [[normsstatement]] that was then quickly withdrawn by [[Vatican]]officials. It is here where A glimpse into the Pope’s spontaneous reaction was thus replaced by the highest “[[cultural critiqueofficial]] unexpectedly meets ,” neutral stance, corrected so as not to hurt anyone. This [[withdrawal]], and its nod toward [[liberal]] sensibility, betrayed what was best in the lowest late pope, his <i>intractable</i> [[pop psychologyethics|ethical]]stance.</p>

<p>The example <i>par excellence</i> is Today, in our era of over-sensitivity regarding “[[harassment]]” by the [[John GrayOther]], author of <i>it’s increasingly common to hear complaints [[Men are from Mars, Women are from Venusabout]]</i>, who, in a series of “[[Oprahethical violence]],” 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 those [[ethical]] injunctions that “[[narrativeterror]]s of our past ize” us with a positive twisttheir brutal impositions. What Gray has in mind is not only standard In its [[cognitive therapyplace]] — that is, changing negative these critics would prefer to see an “[[false beliefethics]]s” about oneself into without violence,” a more positive attitude sort of the assurance that one is loved by others and capable permanent (re)negotiation of creative achievementsethical [[norms]]. He advocates a more “radical,” pseudo-It is here where the highest [[Freudcultural critique]]ian notion of regressing back to the scene of unexpectedly meets the primordial lowest [[trauma|traumatic woundpop psychology]].

<p>The example <i>par excellence</i> is [[John Gray]] accepts the psychoanalytic notion of an early , [[childhoodauthor]] of <i>[[traumaMen are from Mars, Women are from Venus]] that forever marks its </i>, who, in a series of “[[subject]]’s further [[developmentOprah]]” shows, giving that development a brought this stance to its extreme [[pathology|pathologicallogical]] spinterminus. He proposes thatSince we ultimately “are” the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, after [[regression|regressing]] to this [[primal]] [[trauma]]tic [[scene]] and directly confronting itGray argues, the solution to our [[subjectpsychic]] should, under deadlock resides in creatively “rewriting” 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 s of your our [[fatherpast]] shouting at you, “You are worthless! I hate you! Nothing good will ever come out of you!,” one should simply rewrite it into with a scenario where a smiling, benevolent father encouragingly tells you, “You’re OK! I trust you fully!” positive twist. To play this game to its end, What Gray has in [[Freudmind]]’s famous case of “is not only standard [[Wolf Man|Wolfmancognitive therapy]]” — whose that is, changing [[primalnegative]], “[[traumafalse belief]]tic s” about oneself into a more positive attitude of the assurance that one is loved by [[sceneothers]] was and capable of creative achievements. He advocates a more “radical,” pseudo-[[witnessFreud]]ing his parents’ <i>coitus a tergo</i> — Gray’s ostensible solution would be for ian [[Wolfmannotion]] of regressing back to rewrite the scene, so that what he effectively saw was merely his parents lying in bed, his of the primordial [[father]] reading a newspaper and mother a [[sentimentaltrauma|traumatic wound]] novel.

The problem is [[Gray]] accepts the [[psychoanalytic]] notion of an early [[childhood]] [[trauma]] that forever marks its [[subject]]’s further [[development]], giving that such development a satirical exaggeration is actually taking place[[pathology|pathological]] spin. TodayHe proposes that, many after [[ethnicityregression|ethnicregressing]]to this [[primal]] [[trauma]]tic [[scene]] and directly confronting it, the [[sexuality|sexualsubject]] or should, under the guidance of a therapist, “rewrite” that [[race|racialexperience]] minorities rewrite their past in a more positive“positive, self-assertive vein” benign and productive [[narrative]]. For example, i.e. if the [[African Americantraumatic]]s who claim scene that long before persists in your [[Europeunconscious]]an , deforming and inhibiting your creative attitude, is that of your [[modernityfather]]shouting at you, ancient “You are worthless! I [[Africahate]]n empires already had highly developed you! [[scienceNothing]] and [[technologygood]]. Along the same lineswill ever come out of you!, ” one can imagine should simply rewrite it into a scenario where a rewriting of the smiling, benevolent father encouragingly tells you, “You’re OK! I trust you fully!” To play this [[Ten Commandmentsgame]]: 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 its end, in [[Freud]]’s famous [[case]] of your profound self-realization.“[[Wolf Man|Wolfman]]” Exemplary here is Donald Spoto’s — whose [[primal]], [[trauma]]tic [[scene]] was [[witness]]ing his parents’ <i>The Hidden Jesuscoitus a tergo</i>. In this — Gray’s ostensible solution would be for [[Wolfman]] to rewrite the scene, so that what he effectively saw was merely his [[New Ageparents]] “lying in bed, his [[liberalfather]]” [[reading of ]] a newspaper and [[mother]] a [[Christianitysentimental]], we can read apropos of divorce:novel.

<blockquote>Jesus clearly denounced divorce and remarriageThe 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. … But Jesus did not go further [[African American]]s who [[claim]] that long before [[Europe]]an [[modernity]], ancient [[Africa]]n empires already had highly developed [[science]] and say that marriages cannot be broken[[technology]]. … Nowhere else in his teaching is there any situation where he renders Along the same lines, one can imagine a person forever chained rewriting of the [[Ten Commandments]]: Is some commandment too severe? Let us regress to the consequences of sinscene on Mt. His entire treatment of people was to liberate, Sinai and rewrite it! “Thou shalt not to legislate. … It commit adultery — except if it is simply emotionally sincere and serves the [[goal]] of your profound self-evident that in fact some marriages do break down, that commitments are abandoned, that promises are violated and love betrayedrealization. ” Exemplary here is Donald Spoto’s <i>The Hidden [[Jesus]]</blockquotei>. In this [[New Age]] “[[liberal]]” reading of [[Christianity]], we can read apropos of divorce:

Sympathetic <blockquote>Jesus clearly denounced divorce and [[liberal]] as these lines are, they involve the fatal confusion between emotional ups-remarriage. … But Jesus did not go further and-downs and an unconditionally say that marriages cannot be broken. … Nowhere else in his teaching is there any [[symbolicsituation]] commitment that is supposed where he renders a person forever chained 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 lifethe consequences of sin.” In short, except when the His entire [[prohibitiontreatment]] to divorce would have regained its full of [[meaningpeople]] (since who would divorce when the marriage was to liberate, not to legislate. … It is still blossoming?)simply self-evident that in fact some marriages do break down, that commitments are abandoned, that promises are violated and love betrayed.</blockquote>

This is how (although the modern topic of Sympathetic and [[human rightsliberal]] is ultimately grounded in as these lines are, they involve the [[Judaism|Jewish]] notion of the [[love]] for one’s [[neighbor]]) we tend to establish today a negative link fatal confusion between the [[Decalogue]] (the traumatically imposed divine [[Commandments]]) emotional ups-and-downs and an unconditionally [[human rightssymbolic]]. That commitment that is supposed to say, within our [[post-politics|post-political]], [[liberal]]-[[permissiveness|permissive]] society, [[human rights]] have, ultimately, become the rights to disobey the [[Ten Commandments]]hold precisely when it is no longer supported by direct emotions. “The right to [[privacy]]” “Thou shalt not divorce — the right to except when your [[adulterymarriage]]‘in fact’ breaks down, done in [[secrecy]], where no one has the right to probe. “The right to pursue when it is experienced as a unbearable emotional burden that [[happinessfrustrates]] and your [[private propertyfull]]” — the right to steal and [[exploitation|exploitlife]] others. “[[Freedom of expression]] and [[freedom of the press]]” — In short, except when the right to [[lieprohibition]]. “The right of free citizens to bear weapons” — the right to kill. And ultimately, “freedom of divorce would have regained its full [[religious beliefmeaning]]” — (since who would divorce when the right to worship false godsmarriage is still blossoming?).

The greatness This is how (although the modern topic of [[John Paul IIhuman rights]] was that he personified is ultimately grounded in the [[disavowalJudaism|Jewish]] notion of the [[liberallove]] for one’s [[neighbor]]) we tend to establish today a negative link between the [[Decalogue]], easy way out. Even those who respected (the traumatically imposed divine [[PopeCommandments]]’s ) and [[moralityhuman rights]]. That is to say, within our [[post-politics|moralpost-political]], [[liberal]] stance usually accompanied their praise with the caveat that he nonetheless remained hopelessly old-fashioned[[permissiveness|permissive]] [[society]], medieval even[[human rights]] have, by sticking ultimately, become the rights to disobey the [[dogmaTen Commandments]]s out of touch with . “The [[right]] to [[privacy]]” — the demands of right to [[adultery]], done in [[modernitysecrecy]], where no one has the right to probe. How could someone today ignore contraception, “The right to pursue [[divorcehappiness]] or and [[abortionprivate property]]? How could ” — the right to steal and [[Popeexploitation|exploit]] deny others. “[[Freedom of expression]] and [[freedom of the press]]” — the right to abortion even [[lie]]. “The right of free citizens to a nun who got pregnant through rape (as he effectively did in bear weapons” — the case right to kill. And ultimately, “freedom of [[religious belief]]” — the raped nuns in Bosnia)? Isn’t it clear that, even when one is in principle against abortion, one should consent right to a compromise in such an extreme case?worship [[false]] gods.

One can see why The greatness of [[John Paul II]] was that he personified the [[Dalai Lamadisavowal]] is a much more appropriate of the [[leaderliberal]] for our , easy way out. Even those who respected the [[postmodernPope]], ’s [[permissivenessmorality|permissivemoral]] times. He presents us stance usually accompanied their praise with a feelthe caveat that he nonetheless remained hopelessly old-good spiritualism without any specific obligations. Anyonefashioned, medieval even , by sticking to [[dogma]]s out of touch with the most decadent Hollywood star, can follow him while continuing their money-grabbing, promiscuous lifestyle[[demands]] of [[modernity]]. In stark contrastHow could someone today ignore contraception, the [[Popedivorce]] reminded us that there is a price to pay for a proper or [[ethics|ethicalabortion]] attitude. ? It was his very stubborn clinging How could the [[Pope]] deny the right to “old values,” his ignoring the “realistic” demands of our time, abortion even when the arguments against him seemed “obvious” to a nun who got pregnant through rape (as he effectively did in the case of the raped nunnuns in Bosnia)? Isn’t it clear that, that made him an authentic even when one is in [[ethics|ethicalprinciple]] figure.against abortion, one should consent to a compromise in such an extreme case?

That said, however, was John Paul really up to the level of this task? Consider that One can see why the [[Catholic ChurchDalai Lama]] has its own “white mafia,” is a much more appropriate [[Opus Deileader]], a (half) for our [[secretpostmodern]] organization that somehow embodies the pure , [[Lawpermissiveness|permissive]] beyond any positive [[legalitytimes]]. Opus Dei’s supreme rule is an unconditional obedience to 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 [[Pope]] and the ruthless determination to work for the [[Churchmoney]]-grabbing, with all other [[rules]] being (potentially) suspendedpromiscuous lifestyle. As a ruleIn stark contrast, its members, whose task is to penetrate the top political and financial circles, keep secret or play down their [[Opus DeiPope]] reminded us that there is a price to pay for a proper [[identityethics|ethical]]attitude. As suchIt was his very stubborn clinging to “old values, they are effectively “opus dei”—the “work ” his ignoring the “realistic” demands of our [[Godtime]],” i.e.even when the arguments against him seemed “obvious” (as in the case of the raped nun), that made him an authentic [[perversionethics|perversely]] imagining themselves as the direct [[instrumentethical]] of [[divine willfigure]].</p>

Let us also consider That said, however, was John [[Paul]] really up to the abundant cases of sexual molestation level of children by priests. this task? These cases are so widespreadConsider that the [[Catholic Church]] has its own “white mafia,” [[Opus Dei]], from a (half) [[Austriasecret]] and organization that somehow embodies the pure [[ItalyLaw]] to beyond any positive [[Irelandlegality]] and . Opus Dei’s supreme rule is an unconditional obedience to the [[United StatesPope]], that one can effectively speak of an articulated “and the ruthless determination to [[counterculturework]]” within for the [[Church]] that has its own set of , with all other [[hidden rules]][[being]] (potentially) suspended. And there As a rule, its members, whose task is a connection between to penetrate the pederast scandals top [[political]] and financial circles, keep secret or play down their [[Opus Dei]] because [[identity]]. As such, they are effectively “opus dei”—the “work of [[God]],” i.e., [[perversion|perversely]] imagining themselves as the group works with the Church to intervene and hush them updirect [[instrument]] of [[divine will]].</p>

The Church’s reaction to Let us also consider the sex scandals demonstrates the way it perceives its role: It insists that these abundant cases of [[sexual]] molestation of [[children]] by priests. These cases, deplorable as they areso widespread, are the Church’s internal problem, from [[Austria]] and it displays great reluctance [[Italy]] to collaborate with [[policeIreland]] and the [[United States]] in their investigations. Indeed, in a way, that one can effectively [[speak]] of an articulated “[[counterculture]]” within the [[Church is right. The molestation of children is the Church’s internal problem — ]] that is to say, an inherent product of has its institutional organization and own set of the [[libidinal economyhidden rules]] on which that organization relies. Obviously, these And there is a connection between the pederast scandals are not simply particular criminal cases concerning particular individuals who just happen and [[Opus Dei]] because the group works with the Church to be priests. The problem is systemicintervene and hush [[them]] up.

Consequently, The Church’s reaction to the answer to sex scandals demonstrates the Church’s reluctance should not only be way it perceives its [[role]]: It insists that these cases, deplorable as they are criminal cases and, if are the Church does not fully cooperate Church’s [[internal]] problem, and it displays great reluctance to collaborate with [[police]] in the their investigations, it should be seen as an accomplice after the fact. Over and beyond thisIndeed, in a way, the Church, <i>as such</i>, as an institution, should be investigated in regard to the way it systematically produces such crimesis right. This The molestation of children is also the reason why one cannot explain away the priests’ sexual scandals as the opponents of celibacy suggest Church’s internal problem — that they occur because is to say, an inherent product of its institutional organization and of the priests’ sexual urges do not find a legitimate outlet and thus explode in a [[pathology|pathologicallibidinal economy]] wayon which that organization relies. Allowing Catholic priests to get married would Obviously, these scandals are not solve the problem. We would not get priests doing their jobs without harassing young boys because it is the priesthood itself that generates simply [[pedophiliaparticular]] through its [[sexuality|sexual]] [[apartheid]] ([[male]] exclusivity)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>.