MAKING SENSE OF
CULTURE
Upholding the importance of
Reason, Beauty, Faith, Heritage & Humanity.
The Anti-Humanism of Roman Catholicism
Epigraph
Religious morality—Passion, great desire; the passion for power, love, revenge, and property: the moralists wish to uproot and exterminate all these things, and “purify” the soul by driving them out of it. The argument is: the passions often lead to disaster—therefore, they are evil and ought to be condemned. Man must wring himself free from them, otherwise he cannot be a good man.… This is of the same nature as: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” In this particular case when, with that “bucolic simplicity,” the Founder of Christianity recommended a certain practice to His disciples, in the event of sexual excitement, the result would not be only the loss of a particular member, but the actual castration of the whole of the man’s character…. And the same applies to the moral mania, which, instead of insisting upon the control of the passions, sues for their extirpation. Its conclusion always is: only the emasculated man is a good man.
– (The Will to Power) Friedrich Nietzsche
Growing up in a strongly Catholic environ, the importance of money, and the importance of status, never became quite part of the converse. At least not in an affirmative way. Whilst the need for or the utility of money for running virtually all aspects of life was recognized, the earning or making of money, and underlying it, the idea of pursuing success by working to achieve and attain great things, of which money is a by-product, was never engaged, at least not positively. Whilst the importance of learning, commitment, and work was extolled, the importance of wealth, and the ways in which wealth is a validator of success, and well-being, was never central to the religious worldview. But as the importance of money and its key correlate: security became more apparent as time went on, I couldn’t help shake off what appeared to be this underlying unease of the Catholic worldview towards money and success, but its, as I would come to understand, necessary antagonism towards elements of the human psyche that predisposed us towards the pursuit of these things.
Catholicism: Self-Negation as Happiness
There is something ingrained in the character of the Catholic faith that seems to put it at odds with the question of money, and underlying it success. Whilst the Catholic Church, if one considers its official doctrine on the matter is principally in favor of work and enterprise. As the catechism teaches: ‘In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community. Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor’.
Well that’s a relief. But what is often missed or rather ignored in this equation of work and reward is the aspirational, the heroic and underlying it the masculine. To put this in perspective, one of the common chants one encounters in Catholic religious life, is the habitual, predictable and seemingly systematic downplaying, undermining and delegitimizing of the aspirational character of the human spirit. Case in point here is the recurring message that, if one listens carefully, seems to underpin the majority of the (invariably boring) Sunday Sermons. Over the years I have sat through countless sermons given by priests from virtually all parts of the world (Catholicism is a global faith), who at one point or the other, in someway shape or form delve into the materialistic question, and invariably do with a negative intent.
The question money and its evils. A topic that is often accompanied by warning against sexual immorality (i.e. why fornication, masturbation pornography and adultery etc. are bad). Which is all good and fine. But what is often implied, though not directly, and it is often articulated subtly, is how the prevalence of money, or rather its pursuit opens the door to these evils. Now since we know that money is correlated with hard work and enterprise (unlike religious organizations, charity is not an option for the enterprising), the preaching against money, actually works as an argument against human initiative and the desire for success which is the endpoint. For when it comes to the sexual evils that the religious seem so fascinated with, most if not all correlate positively with money.
Whilst money may not buy you happiness, it certainly can buy or facilitate access to the sources of pleasure, accomplishment and satisfaction. The very things the Catholic faith stands opposed to in priciple, owing to its elevation of the ideal of the Crucified Christ: one who is bereft of happiness in a worldly (i.e. sensual and materialistic) sense. Which logically means it stands against the facets of the human psyche that drives men to aspire after things which produce joy in a material and physical sense. Making the belief anti-humanistic in practice.
The Looser Mindset
To delver further into the anti-humanistic world of Roman Catholicism, one of the hallmarks of Catholic evangelization is its growing preoccupation with the materialistic question: That is the discourse surrounding the apparent or real dangers surrounding the evils of money, power, pleasure, and honor. One that plays out in various ways, depending on the person and context question. A by-product of the reactionary position held by the Catholic Church to a world where people are increasingly focused on the here and now rather than the promised rewards in heaven or the dangers of hell. A world where the immediacy of rewards is valued; where the input-output ratio (productivity) with respect to time spent and the attainment of desired outcomes are viewed as paramount and underlying it is the importance of growth at a personal and professional level.
Here I am using the term ‘materialistic’ to describe the physical, Earthly, tangible, and sensual. Meaning it represents the antitheses of what is traditionally considered ‘spiritual’: which pertains to the otherworldly, the immaterial, that which concerns things which are not of this world and cannot be experienced until the time of the end.
Expanding upon the ideals of the self-made man (or woman), the modern era is characterized by the desire for social and economic upliftment. Which for the individual transcends the question of economic or financial security, and extends into areas like recognition: honor in other words. As for pleasure and power, these two concepts are closely related to the presence of the other two. And the reality of money and honor or recognition is a function of the kind of power the person has or is likely to command over his life and the world around him. In other words, the four factors of money, power, pleasure, and honor, that defines the character of the modern mind with respect to the kind of goals and aspirations that underpins their behavior, is one that comes to, quite logically it would seem, view the spiritual or religious worldview, such as those espoused by the Catholic Church, as either irrelevant or anti-antithetical to its own.
To provide some context. I recall once listening to a sermon given by a Catholic leader, an Italian, who at the time raised the question of satisfaction. He asked the predominantly youthful congregation if any one of us was truly satisfied (i.e. happy) with our lives? For which the answer was obviously negative. For which he responded by going on a tirade against the failed secular ideologies of the past: notably communism and socialism: on how the utopias that the leaders of these movements promised, which ultimately never came to pass, and only left poverty and misery in their wake. So far so good. But then bizarrely the man proceeded to critic capitalism or the market system. But as it is often the case, he proceeded to ‘critic’ a woefully inadequate conception of what capitalism or the market system is. Which he argued risk turning men into machines.
Whilst the mechanistic character of certain work environments, and the psychological imprisonment of an unsatisfying 9.00 – 5.00 job where the person is stuck inside a cubical, being micromanaged by an obnoxious boss, in a role that provides little to no opportunity for growth and development might fit such a narrative, but it does not correspond to the dynamic character of the modern workplace. Where the advances in technology, the movement of people, and automation along with the evolving demands of consumers across the world means that work itself has become an evolving process. From movie stars to trial lawyers, from chefs to defense contractors, from sportsmen to Instagram influencers, from auditors to YouTubers the world of work in the 21st century is a different place. Much of it is thanks to the ever-evolving character of the marketplace, and underlying it is the complexity and every expanding character of human needs and wants. The marketplace, where buyers and sellers, producers and consumers, creators and charity works work to satiate the demand and in turn be satisfied.
Speaking of the Italian Catholic itinerant, his criticism of capitalism is simplistic and misguided. The man is critiquing what he thinks is wrong with the market system, whilst he fails to recognize the character of human needs and wants that generates the demand and in turn their existence. For a lot of these critics of the ‘evils of this world’, their vocation it seems is to undermine not the reality of money, power, pleasure, and honor but the instinct that drives us to pursue them, and what it entails in practice: The will to work, ideation, determination, and creativity. The very impulses which these Catholic moralists of the modern era, who claim to represent divine authority via their knowledge of God’s will, seem hellbent on smothering.
The Schizophrenic Character of Christian ‘Joy’
In popular culture, one of the most notable exponents of this anti-materialistic worldview is Bishop Barron: the auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Who has built something of a name for himself, or should I say a following on YouTube (since social recognition, works into the equation of status and hence honor. Which are ‘bad’). With hundreds of thousands of subscribers on his channel, he has become one of the most recognizable voices in the modern Catholic discourse in the internet age. Finding himself on mainstream media outlets, giving speeches at respected public gatherings, and even finding himself on stage (or Zoom meetings) with the likes of Jordan Peterson.
One of the things that the Catholic Bishop is known for, like many other messengers of the Catholic faith, is his engagement of the subject of joy. The subject of happiness, or pursuing happiness underlies the basis of his ministry. As it should be. Since the “fruits” of the Spirit include: love, joy and peace. And if you ever happened to spend any time in a religious congregation or community, one of the tenets that get put on constant replay is how ‘following God’, ‘seeking God’, and ‘serving God’ will bring you happiness. But what kind of happiness are we talking about? And how exactly does God give us or make us happy?
When it comes to the question of happiness, one of the things to keep in mind is that when it comes to people like Bishop Barron, as it is with many of these religious types-whose business is to first ‘save souls’, with Earthly or material consideration being a distant second or third-is that their worldviews, when studied in relation to the question of human well-being run into serious conflicts. Irreconcilable ones. In a sermon entitled: ‘Do You Really Want What God Wants? The Catholic Bishop refers to the reading in Matthew 20, where the mother of two of his apostles requests that her sons be placed on the right and left side when Christ reigns in his kingdom. Bishop Barron interprets this request as a request for power and honor. And he is right. That is exactly what the woman is asking of Christ. The Bishop’s summary of this event however is insightfully problematic.
The Bishop starts by defending the importance of power and honor: Of how these have been used by servants of the Church to advance God’s Kingdom on Earth. He even states that wants to be recognized in the eyes of the world as a deep longing of the human heart. However, what is problematic about these requests (or underlying them aspirations) is the spirit in which these requests are made. According to Bishop Barron, it is the human ego that is driving them towards these. And that we simply cannot have. He explains the problematic character of power and honor, and by extension access to money and pleasure-as, as these tend to go together-by stating their potential for destruction. And here he points to figures like Julius Caesar and Macbeth: men who were driven by ambition and the thirst for power. Whilst I personally wouldn’t place the fictional character from Shakespeare’s play with the great Roman conquer, but I’ll give it a pass. However, the real problem with this summation is (again) its awful simplistic. Caesar, whilst no saint, did great things. He did what he had to ensure the growth and continuity of Rome in a hostile world surrounded by barbarians and hostile powers. There is a reason why the world still views Caesar with awe and the Roman Empire with fascination.
Things become more problematic when Bishop Barron argues that the souls who are far away from the halls of power, also risk falling prey to the thirst for power and honor. Here he implies that people who proceed to seek personal glory and upliftment invariably lose sight of the moral principle of doing what is good and right, and invariably become self-serving, conspiratorial, and vindictive; resulting in behaviors that produce chaos and destruction. Hence we must reject them as evil. That is like saying: I’m not going to that party tonight, where they will be a lot of hot girls, drinks and maybe even good food, caz I might fall into temptation and get busy with some broad. So I shall resist temptation by refusing to live. Whilst that is a real possibility, the answer to the dilemma (wanting to have a good time, and be moral) is not the wholesale rejection of the impulse to pursue them. The evils of the human heart, if they do arise, need to be suppressed, and positive emotions strengthened. Rather than giving up on the whole quest owing to the fear of falling into sin. The answer is balance, not world or self-rejection.
So when exactly is the pursuit of power and honor justified according to the Catholic worldview? The answer, explains the Bishop, is when it is directed towards the service of God’s plan, when working towards fulfilling God’s mission. Leaving aside the question of what exactly entails the idea of ‘doing God’s will’ or working to ‘fulfill God’s plan’ (though we can all guess). The pressing question is, what exactly does the pursuit of honor and power for God’s sake (in a very literal sense) mean in practice? To answer this question Bishop Barron brings us to Passion. At the moment of Crucifixion, which the Bishop describes as a moment of “delicious irony” where Christ, it is said to be glorified, he finds two men: one to the left and the other to the right, who also have been crucified. Which the Catholic cleric, with a certain hunger I might add, describes as the “solution to the entire problem”.
You see, if you and I seek power and honor from God, God conferring power and honor, according to the Bishop finds its manifestation in the Passion. He says we need to look to the example of the crucified thieves: their painful, pathetic, humiliating end on a Roman execution device is where the answer apparently lies. For that “is the kind of power and kind of honor that [Christ] is going to give you”.
How about that!? Now there are a number of ways a person can react to this message. The first thing to note is that this interpretation of the Passion is not entirely new. We’ve heard this or versions of this kind of interpretation of the Passion before (i.e. that the death on the cross is something good despite its undeniable barbarity). Hence one can react with a degree of patience, by lending a listening hear, in the hope that there is some deeper, greater message lying somewhere beneath it all. Which I think is the common response to such talk by many believers, and presumably even non-believers.
But let me enlighten you dear reader that there is no nougat of hope, a message of joy, and promise of (physical) deliverance waiting for you here. The Bishop’s interpretation of the Passion and his message means exactly that: Suffering, pain, humiliation is what awaits the followers of Christ. Those who wish to do God’s will stand to gain only these. For the only thing, you can expect God to give you, in your quest to increase your power and to achieve or enhance your status is pain, humiliation, and ultimately-in case the obvious is missed-is death. And you must accept it because it is good. Because God wills it. And how do we know this is true? Because the Catholic priest who knows how to read the mind of God, owing to his ability to interpret the Bible perfectly tells us so.
Something is not right about this. Clearly. But why though? Why this fascination with pain, suffering, humiliation, and death? One that has come to characterize the character of the faith? To answer this, we must delve deeper into the character of the Catholic faith.
The God who Destroys Your Plans
Around a decade or so ago I sat through the sermon of a Catholic priest (another one). But this was a very smart guy. As I later learned, he had a number of degrees in physics/chemistry, and at one point had been offered to work for NASA. Whilst I had no way to verify this information; what was clear, however, having conversed with him a couple of times, is that he was a very smart man. The problem of boring, sleep-inducing sermons was not something to be expected of him: Cogent, insightful, and knowledgeable, this man knew how to speak, and in the context of the Christian world, he spoke with spiritual authority. His oratory skills and ability to weave theology into his sermons were praiseworthy. However the major flaw was the character of his theology: whilst people like Bishop Barron suffer from the lack of it, this man’s problem is that it was bad.
In speaking about God’s plan and will in relation to those of his followers, the priest made the observation that God’s way of bribing us closer to him was to “destroy”
our own plans; to “destroy” the very things that we hold on to, to “destroy” that which seek to attain or accomplish. How about that? So we go from the problem of a God who can only give those who ask him anything pain, humiliation, and death; to a God who now actively works to thwart and undermine the plans and operations of his own creation. What a God!?
You see the problem with a Promethean understanding of the divine: one that comes from Greek myth, where the Titan Prometheus stole the power of fire and gave it to humanity, aiding our civilizational advancement. Which angered the gods, with Zeus punishing him by having his regenerating liver eaten by an eagle, until his rescue by Hercules. The Promethean view, where a God or the gods are actively opposed to the advancement of man is not Christian. That divine beings who are somehow threatened or unsettled by the progress and achievements that humanity can make is an outdated one, one that is, in light of the Christian faith, is categorically wrong. God is not our enemy. God doesn’t oppose man. God has nothing to gain by containing us. God is not susceptible to envy, bitterness, vindictiveness, or any other human frailty. Despite what the Biblical authors had to say on the subject of God’s nature (e.g. Old Testament). In sum, God is not a Man. Despite him taking on the form of a man. If the core Christian message of God’s love for his creation is anything to go by, as God himself is love, God can only want what is best for us. Right? Well, there is a problem. But before we get there, there’s another Catholic spiritual masochism to get through.
Doing God’s Will = Giving up your Hopes and Dreams
Another sermon I recall hearing, around the same time was by a Catholic priest, who I later learned was a Marxist. Whilst you process that bit of information, the priest in question during one of his Sunday Sermons stated, quite forcefully I might add, that the “only” way to God, which also equals doing God’s will, entails each of us giving up goals and desires. That letting go of that which we hope to achieve and attain in this lifetime was the “only” way we can get close to God.
Notice a pattern? All of these clerics, whether they realize it or not, seem to be driven by a deep-seated antipathy towards the human condition. They seem to have an entrenched problem with not only what drives us forward in our lives: our goals and aspirations; but the very fact that we are even capable of these in the first place. That is everything that stems from the human heart that is not oriented towards “God” as an act of surrender or sacrifice is to be shunned or weakened. Because “God” only wants what is best for us. Right? For when his followers seek power, honor, pleasure, and money (perfectly reasonable pursuits if you ask me), the only thing “God” can give in return is the reality of the Cross in what it is supposed to represent: pain, suffering, humiliation, and death.
Unless I am mistaken, aren’t these the very things that you and I, and by this, I mean every sane, healthy, hopeful, joyful, or joy-seeking person in the world wants for himself, his family, and friends. And if “God” or whatever the hell these people are referring to under that name can only give us hardship and adversity in return, is that “God” worthy of our praise, worship, and trust? The answer is No. But then why does this form of self-hating belief exist and persist?
Well, it does so in an ever-weakening way. Thankfully. The rise of the NONEs and the growing secularization of the West is a testament to this. Considering that many of those who make up the ranks of the NONEs are former Catholics there is reason to think that these changes are correlated. But that still does not answer the question: How did the Catholic faith become this way. How did faith in God who is all-loving, all good, and merciful degenerate into this world rejecting, life-hating ideology that worships suffering and death? The answer… Well, it is not blowing in the wind. It is right there in the center for all of us to see.
The Veneration of a Dead God
The problem with Roman Catholicism, unlike other versions of Christianity, is that it places the Eucharist at the center of its spirituality. Since Catholic spirituality is fundamentally sacramental, the crucifixion upon which the Eucharist centered, is naturally elevated to a position of prominence. And the crucifixion of Christ is an unpleasant experience. To reiterate the obvious, in the events leading up to the crucifixion, and finally, during the crucifixion itself, known as the Passion, Christ is beaten, humiliated, and tortured to death for the world to see. This is the God that Christians are made to worship and venerate. For it is through his ‘glorious’ death on the Cross that Christ redeems humanity.
The problem with the crucifixion, in terms of its theological and metaphysical implications, is vast and goes beyond the scope of this essay. But one pressing matter that connects with the message that I am trying to articulate here, remains. And that’s the question: Why this fascination with pain, suffering, humiliation, and death? Why do people: the Catholic leadership notably, and possibly hundreds of millions of people around the world, and especially men, buy into this narrative? Despite what people have to say on the subject, no matter how authoritative, the fact remains that the cross, specifically the one which has Christ on it, is a twisted symbol of pain, suffering, humiliation, and death. The only thing that Christ is not subjected to during this ordeal (in a symbolic sense) is castration. But his nakedness (which he is) ought to suffice. To pose the question again: Why do we put up with this, let alone make this the subject of veneration?
Let me be clear reader. I am not saying this to undermine the mission and saving grace of Christ’s coming. Including, paradoxically his redemptive act by dying on the cross. One that naturally became a symbol owing to it being the place where the Son of God or God himself dies, and in doing so destroys the power of death. The problem I have is with the reductive simplification of Christ’s mission and by extension God’s power and plan for this world to the message or supposed messages and meanings that have come to be associated with the image of a ravaged, naked corpse that has been hung up on a Roman execution device.
The Problem of the Celibate Hierarchy
One of the reasons why the Catholic Church is having trouble retaining its followership, and why it has done such a lousy job bringing in new souls can be explained by the character of its leadership. The Catholic Church is an institution run by celibate men. Men who don’t live normal lives. Pursue or seek after normal (or human) things. Men whose idea of joy, meaning, and purpose in life are tethered to things that are not of this world. This means the things, experiences, and outcomes that preoccupy the minds of men, specifically hot-blooded men, who want to grow in mind and body, men who wish to produce something of value and be rewarded for it. Men who desire the female form, not only for intimacy and love but in an aspirational sense (i.e. so far I have been banging only 7s, now I want to push that up to the 9 mark). Men who want to leave a legacy: wife, children, a name that will be remembered. Men who seek to do great things: develop a cutting edge solution to a problem, break world records, amass great wealth and the recognition that comes with it. Lead nations, overcome adversaries, be a force for social change and yes, even build empires.
Yes, it is those very impulses that define man’s spirit: one that is ambitious, powerful, creative, and sometimes destructive; the creature who has been tasked with governing God’s Kingdom on Earth, that the Catholic Church opposes. To put this in perspective, the character of the Catholic faith is a function of the character of those who lead it. Their character in turn is a function of the kind of life choices they make. If the leadership of the Church is assigned to men who are not supposed to have sex, make money or at least a lot of it, build a reputation, establish a heritage, and did I mention not being able to bang hot, young women!
Since celibacy is requisite for those who wish to become a part of the hierarchy of the Church Church-which I don’t have a problem with, by the way, again paradoxically-but it does raise questions on the character of the Church. If it is to be led by men who don’t value or rather are unable to connect with ‘the things of the world’ at a physical and emotional level in a sensuous way, how exactly can you expect them to be able to relate to the nature and aspirations of the human psyche more broadly. Interestingly, if one approaches this problem in reverse, it is understandable why the crucified Christ has not only been gloried, but has become the dominant, or singular source of fascination for the Catholic leadership.
Since these men who are chosen to lead the Church are required to not have any desire or want for the good things of this world, it is quite natural, don’t you think that would come to identify with, and later idolize a very specific aspect or facet of the Christian faith: that of Christ’s Passion and death. This raises questions on the character of the men who seek to join the hierarchy of the Church in the first place. My conjecture is that the men who join the ranks of the Church are themselves screwed up in some deep physical or psychological way, that predisposes them to reject the pursuit of money, pleasure, honor, and power. But that may not necessarily be a bad thing, given their spiritual calling.
Let me explain. First off, in the Christian faith, the starting point is that we all have problems. All men are fundamentally flawed, owing to our fallen state. The problem however is that the men who join the ranks of the Church are fallen in a very specific way. In a materialistic and sensual sense. That has reinforced their antipathy towards it. The reason why people like Bishop Barron and other clerics like him keep regurgitating the evils of money, power, pleasure, and honor is that these are the very things that they have been denied. Or rather have denied themselves. Or going deeper, they don’t have the capacity to desire and pursue. Hence their ingrained antipathy towards them, which later manifests in the kind of theology they proceed to espouse.
Think of it like the Fox and the Grapes. The only difference is that these men who walk the halls of the Church and tell everyone about who God is and what his plan for the rest of is, never even tried going for the grapes. They know the grapes are good and tasty, but they don’t have the will, the desire, or know-how, or at least not enough of these to pursue it. In other words, they are losers. Men who are bitter with their lives, and feel bitter towards the world. One they cannot fully be a part of. And hence have warped the Christian worldview to a very select interpretation: one that rejects money, power, pleasure, and honor.
However, this disconnect with reality goes beyond material and sensual considerations. When one speaks of the question of honor, one that the Church’s representatives routinely dismiss under the heading of “pride”, it is a key driving force of the human spirit. Many of the social and cultural movements stem from this foundation. Again this point goes beyond the scope of this essay, but if the kind of honor that God is able to give those who seek it, or those who seek it from Him is that of dying a humiliating death bereft of power and honor, then the problem lies not with the human mind that seeks it, but those who constructed this warped, sadomasochistic view. One that stems from the intellectually and spiritually atrophied state of the Church: characterized by the morally deformed character of its institutional human (male) representatives. Those who have manufactured an idol out of a symbol of death, whose true moment of glory lies in his victory over death and all that exist under its aegis: suffering pain and humiliation. And that victory over death and its power over life is represented by the Resurrection.