The Cloud Cuckoo Land in Pope Francis' Mind

A couple weeks ago I published an article about the Pope's "apology" to the First Nations, Metis, and, Inuit of Canada. In the process of researching that piece, I came across something particularly weird that I thought justified it's own article. As part of his statement to the delegates in Rome, Francis mentioned the term "ideological colonialism". I'd never heard that phrase before, so I decided to do some research to figure out what he was talking about. I found some quotes that gave me an idea of what he meant and I partially explained this in the original article. But to learn more, I decided to read a book on the subject that both he and the previous Pope (Benedict) have repeatedly encouraged others to read. 

"This is ideological colonization," Francis told reporters. "They introduce an idea to the people that has nothing to do with the people. With groups of people yes, but not with the people. And they colonize the people with an idea which changes, or means to change, a mentality or a structure."

Inspiring the pope's vision is one of his favorite books, Lord of the World, a 2016 work [sic---someone didn't double-check the date!] by the Rev. Robert Hugh Benson, a British Catholic priest who had converted from the Church of England. In the novel's dystopian future of the 2000s, global powers impose what Francis has called an "imperial form of colonization" that leads to the end times.

Pope Francis attacked cancel culture. It sounds better than 'ideological colonization.':  National Catholic Reporter, Jan 19, 2022

When I made the effort to read it I found that I'd fallen down a rabbit hole and was in a worldview as nutty as anything that Lewis Carol envisioned when he wrote about the adventures of Alice in Wonderland. The only---yet extremely significant---difference being that Carol's whimsical world wasn't meant as a dire prediction, but Benson's was. 

&&&& 

The cover notes tell us what the Pope thinks about the book.

 

Lord of the World was published in 1907 (I wonder if the reporter in the National Catholic Reporter actually knew the real date of original publication) by Robert Hugh Benson. It's hard to categorize, but the most accurate thing I can think of to say is that it's a work of Edwardian science fiction by an extremely conservative Roman Catholic.

It is set in the far distant days of the early 21st century. According to people like the Pope, this book is a dystopia. But when I read it, I was struck by how much I liked parts of it. Britain, all the European nations (except Ireland and Rome), and, both of the Americas have elected democratic socialist governments which have eliminated poverty while still keeping all the benefits of a real liberal democracy. The air is clean and unpolluted. Everyone has a home, and it's easy to travel just about anywhere using fast, convenient public transit. In addition---with one significant exception---peace reigns supreme across the continents of Europe, and, both North and South America. 

In short, the earth is something like the Star Trek utopia. There are problems---but they are based weirdly on the prejudices of a 19th century particularly conservative person. 

First of all, there's an evil empire of the East where all the Eastern "pseudo-religions" have bonded together under the leadership of a co-joined Chinese and Japanese empires. These folks have already conquered all of Russia East of the Ural Mountains plus India and Australia. And now they are threatening a war with Europe that would be catastrophic because of the existence of new extremely powerful explosives that can be dropped from aircraft. 

Please pay attention to what is going on here. At the time of publication, among reactionary elements of society, a fear of Asians existed and was known as "the yellow peril". The idea was that Asians were inscrutable subhumans who manifest no sense of individuality. Left alone, they will breed like flies and eventually erupt out of the East under the control of some devious despot. This army could overwhelm "Western civilization" through sheer numbers. This paranoid, racist fantasy fostered a whole literature of things like the "Fu Manchu" novels of Sax Rohmer and is also part of the H. P. Lovecraft worldview. 

The situation was indeed as serious as it could be. That huge Empire, consisting of a federalism of States under the Son of Heaven (made possible by the merging of the Japanese and Chinese dynasties and the fall of Russia), had been consolidating its forces and learning its own power during the last thirty-five years, ever since, in fact, it had laid its lean yellow hands upon Australia and India. While the rest of the world had learned the folly of war, ever since the fall of the Russian republic under the combined attack of the yellow races, the last had grasped its  possibilities. It seemed now as if the civilisation of the last century was to be swept back once more into chaos. It was not that the mob of the East cared very greatly; it was their rulers who had begun to stretch themselves after an almost eternal lethargy, and it was hard to imagine how they could be checked at this point. There was a touch of grimness too in the rumour that religious fanaticism was behind the movement, and that the patient East proposed at last to proselytise by the modern  equivalents of fire and sword those who had laid aside for the most part all religious beliefs except that in Humanity.

(Lord of the World, Robert Hugh Benson, p-60)

Also, pay attention to the fact that Benson is a chauvinist in that he simply dismisses Buddhist, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, and, every other non-Catholic religion as being simply false---for reasons he never really bothers to share with the reader. Moreover, he felt the same thing about Protestantism for slightly different reasons.

It is perfectly true that Protestantism is dead. Men do recognise at last that a supernatural Religion involves an absolute authority, and that Private Judgment in matters of faith is nothing else than the beginning of dis-integration. And it is also true that since the Catholic Church is the only institution that even claims supernatural authority, with all its merciless logic, she has again the allegiance of practically all Christians who have any supernatural belief left.

(Benson, p-47) 

Take the time to really think through what Benson is saying here. First, Christianity is a supernatural religion, next that it requires an absolute authority, and, Private Judgment in matters of faith is nothing else than the beginning of dis-integration. And, that the Catholic Church uses the merciless logic of "supernatural authority" to become the leader of all Christians.

Let's take the time to critically review the ideas that Benson is pushing around like vegetables in a bowl of cold, bad-tasting soup. As David Hume pointed out long ago, anything that is "supernatural" is---by definition---something that is so oddly out-of-step from the normal state of affairs that unless there is a lot of very strong evidence it makes more sense to assume that it didn't happen than to believe it did. This is another way of saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Frankly, neither Benson in his book nor the Church in any form that I've seen has come up with the extraordinary evidence that would back up the extraordinary claims that would support belief in a supernatural religion. 

And what exactly is an "absolute authority"? It would be someone you have to follow no matter what. And "what" is it that makes someone question an authority? In my experience it comes down to wondering if the person who sets out to be an authority over me is either wrong and/or is lying. If so, then isn't the point of "absolute authority" ultimately that you do what you are told---even if you think the person is wrong or lying? Then what's an "absolute authority" other than a dictator? Does this mean that if we follow absolute authority in a supernatural church we are pretty much doing the same thing as following a despot like Caesar's governor Pontius Pilate and the Jewish Sanhedrin (ie: the people who crucified Christ)---or for that matter, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or, Putin? 

Actually, you don't even have to reach into politics or history to find people who have taken on the mantle of "absolute authority". How many of us have had the experience of meeting some family member who goes nuclear if you even question their religious opinions? Isn't the sort of thing we see in this clip from Family Guy the logical result when we start throwing around the idea of "absolute authority"?

 

I'd agree that allowing for "private judgements in matters of faith" is probably going to lead to the "dis-integration" of communities ruled by dictators who require absolute obedience when it comes to believing things that require extra-ordinary evidence---evidence that is missing. But I wouldn't call that a "bug" of modernity---I'd call it a "feature".

Another dystopic element introduced by Benson is the legalization of euthanasia. I suppose in the world of his novel there are individuals who are suffering horribly because of incurable illness, but the reader never sees any reference to that sort of thing. Instead, we see several absurdist "straw men" examples raised to ensure the naive reader never strays near the reason why sensitive, moral people might support the procedure.

When one of the characters, Mabel, witnesses an airship (a "volor") crash in front of her, a nearby hospital doesn't see fit to send first aid but rather mobilizes to euthanize all the injured survivors.

Down the steps of the great hospital on her right came figures running now, hat-less, each carrying what looked like an old-fashioned camera. She knew what those men were, and her heart leaped in relief. They were the ministers of euthanasia.

 (Benson, p-69)

If this image isn't enough to make the reader take pause, Benson really grinds the message home later on the novel. When Mabel decides that there is something "off" about her society, she decides to have herself killed rather than fight to make things better. Under the relevant legislation, this isn't seen as a frivolous reason, but rather perfectly legitimate. She checks herself into a facility. Part of the regulations involve a strict rule against the authorities letting anyone know about her intentions---this ensures that friends and family, like her husband, are kept from trying to talk her out of the dying. 

If this wasn't enough, Benson goes on to parenthetically mention that things are now much better. In the past, the god-cursed scientists used the euthanasia system to pursue their own twisted ends. 

She had suffered again for an hour or two from a more concrete fear; the memory came back to her of those shocking revelations that ten years ago had convulsed England and brought about the establishment of these Homes under Government supervision —those evidences that for years in the great vivisection-laboratories human subjects had been practiced upon—persons who with the same intentions as herself had cut themselves off from the world in private euthanasia-houses, to whom had been  supplied a gas that suspended instead of destroying animation. . . . But this, too, had passed with the return of light. Such things were impossible now under the new system—at least, in England. She had refrained from making an end upon the Continent for this very reason.

(Benson, p-353)

Think about the stupendous ignorant arrogance of Benson's worldview. I have known various members of both the medical and scientific communities in my short life and every single one of them were profoundly ethical people who put the well-being of both patients and the general public at the very top of their agendas. Benson's moronic assumption that scientists, doctors, and, nurses are licking their lips in anticipation of killing hordes of people and even worse, torturing them in experiments absolutely boggles the mind---especially considering all the scientists and medical researchers who have historically been threatened by the "absolute authority" wielded by Christian groups like the Inquisition.  

(Might I point out at this point that it was an MD, Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce---not a priest, nun, or, Bishop---who tried to blow the whistle on the residential school system in 1907. And he got kicked out of the Public Service for his pains. He didn't leave his complaint to gather dust in some neglected archive, either. He instead wrote a book about the subject The Story of a National Crime. If we are to believe Benson, it's amazing that he didn't instead try to dissect the children under his care instead of trying to help free them from the diabolical clutches of the "absolute authority" wielded by a "supernatural religion". My guess is that Bryce was one of those evil bastards who rely upon the "private judgement" that inevitably leads to "dis-integration" of the Church.) 

Just in case you didn't have the term on the tip of your tongue, Benson is trying to use a "slippery slope" argument. That is the idea that society is never able to place effective limits on something once any particular part of it is allowed. That's why---according to this cracked way of thinking---if a person in extreme agony is allowed to end their suffering through medical means before you know it ambulance attendants will euthanizing people at accident scenes and people will be put down if they suffer a mild case of the blues. 

This is fallacious reasoning, and shouldn't be used by anyone with a good education and a modicum of ethics. And yet, I hear it very often in public discourse. Remember the officials who used to say "cannabis is a gateway drug" to heroin? (If you think that might be why we have an opioid epidemic, I would suggest reading my article on the subject---or at least watch this YouTube video.) That's another slippery slope argument too. Does anyone actually believe it anymore?

In addition, Benson's socialist utopia/dystopia is riddled with Masonic conspiracies. Indeed, the secret society has wormed its way so deeply into society that at one point in the novel Benson describes a public political gathering in London. After describing banners brought in from the four corner of the city showing representation by "mutual aid" and "democratic" organizations, one of the speakers starts the gathering in singing the "Masonic Anthem".

Lord Pemberton came forward, lifted his hand and made a signal; and in a moment the thin cheering died under the sudden roll of drums beneath that preluded the Masonic Hymn. 

There was no doubt that these Londoners could sing. It was as if a giant voice hummed the sonorous melody, rising to enthusiasm till the music of massed bands followed it as a flag follows a flag stick. The hymn was one composed ten  years before, and all England was familiar with it. Old Mrs. Bland lifted the printed  paper mechanically to her eyes, and saw the words that she knew so well: 

 “The Lord that dwells in earth and sea.” . . . 

She glanced down the verses that, from the Humanitarian point of view, had been composed with both skill and ardour. They had a religious ring; the unintelligent Christian could sing them without a qualm; yet their sense was plain enough—the old human creed that man was all. Even Christ’s words themselves  were quoted. The kingdom of God, it was said, lay within the human heart, and the greatest of all graces was Charity. 

She glanced at Mabel and saw that the girl was singing with all her might, with her eyes fixed on her husband’s dark figure a hundred yards away, and her soul  pouring through them. So the mother, too, began to move her lips in chorus with that vast volume of sound.

(Benson pp-100-101)

The idea that the Masons are a dangerous secret government is the grand-daddy of all modern conspiracy theories. The historical fact is that secret societies like the Masons and the Illuminati came about in the 18th century mostly to create a space where upper-class individuals could freely discuss so-called "radical ideas" (eg: science and democracy) without running the risk of persecution by the minions of absolute monarchs or counter-reformation Christians. And because of the freedoms we now enjoy in modern democracies, they have become not much more than groups devoted to philanthropy, mutual aid, and, recreation. 

What is particularly galling about the Masonic conspiracy that Benson is complaining about is that it isn't about locking children in the basement of a pizzeria so the political elite can harvest adrenochrome from them. Instead, it's the "humanist" idea that we meet God through self-reflection and the greatest grace is charity (eg: "unselfish love of fellow man"). Make no mistake, Benson's Roman Catholic ideal is really different from that held by many---if not all---"liberal" Christians

Fear of masonic conspiracies is still extant among the idiot fraction of the population (I have worked with people who believe in them), but I think the best statement about the subject is a Simpsons episode (guest starring the incomparable Patrick Stewart).

Please note that promoting conspiracies is not a "value free" activity. It has consequences. People who believe in Q-Anon supported Trump's abortive coup attempt. The Holocaust was pretty much wholly based on a conspiracy theory started by the Imperial Russian secret police (the more things change, the more they stay the same) and spread by their forgery: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So while it's easy to make fun of the Masonic conspiracy lunacy, it's important to remember that when belief in this sort of thing gets out of hand the results can be horrific. Indeed, under the NAZIS Masons were also persecuted----thousands were imprisoned in concentration camps.

&&&&

Here's me putting out my begging bowl. I put a lot of hours into researching and writing this essay. I think my perspective is probably very different from what you will read on more mainstream news and opinion sources. If you can afford it, why not sign up for a subscription? I can use the money (I have expenses like everyone else---for example, my bike got stolen last week). Patreon and Pay Pal make it easy to do.

&&&&

The basic plot arc of the novel involves the arrival of a mysterious figure named Senator Julian Felsenburgh. This fellow has the weird, supernatural ability to convince everyone who meets him to love him and do whatever he wants. For example, the world is on the brink of a cataclysmic war between the "yellow peril" and the West but when Felsenburgh meets the leaders of the various nations they quickly decide there's no need to fight. Indeed, shortly afterwards all the governments of the world---both East and West---decide to make him lifetime President of everything. 

Benson argues that the reason why this extremely strange set of events doesn't catch the attention of the vast majority of politicians and ordinary folks is simply because they have turned their backs on Roman Catholicism. 

If this sounds hard to believe, it's because of literary "world-building". Benson's novel isn't the real world, instead it's based on his assumptions about how the world operates. And in his world, people have no internal compass or ability to think things through for themselves. That means that if they aren't being told by the Pope what to think, they instantly latch onto some other authority. 

This weird aspect of the novel is reflected in other ways. For example, he mentions---totally without any explanation---that all the universities of the world have been shut down. He also never mentions science or technology as a force in his world---even though he takes for granted a broad range of world-changing new inventions. It's as if he thought that new things like pollution-free electricity, mass transit, fast air travel, and, weapons of mass destruction just sprouted up like mushrooms after a summer storm and he couldn't be bothered to ask where they all came from. 

This aspect of the novel's world allows Benson to dismiss people's ability to think for themselves from the get-go. This in turn makes it easier to accept the idea that a "yellow peril" unification of both China and Japan, plus all the major Eastern religions "just happens". It also allows him to shrug off the emergence of an individual politician who is able to magically get everyone to voluntarily give him complete authority over the human race. 

I've written about how world-building is valuable as a propaganda tool with regard to white nationalism. The four part series begins with the profound influence that William Luther Pierce's Turner Diaries had on the emergence of white nationalism. In that book racism is actually real because the characters and plot has been have been written this way. In Lord of the World, Benson's people are literally human sheep who must be led. If it's not going to be the Roman Catholic church, then it's going to be the Anti-Christ in the form of Felsenburgh. A person without faith in the Church is totally adrift---like a plastic bag caught in the wind.

via GIFER

And how does someone keep their faith? Here's a long passage where a man who eventually becomes the Pope attempts to help a priest regain his faith.

“You think it my fault, of course,” said the other sharply. 

“My dear Father,” said Percy, motionless in his chair, “I know it is your fault. Listen to me. You say Christianity is absurd and impossible. Now, you know, it cannot be that! It may be untrue—I am not speaking of that now, even though I am perfectly certain that it is absolutely true—but it cannot be absurd so long as educated and virtuous people continue to hold it. To say that it is absurd is simple pride; it is to dismiss all who believe in it as not merely mistaken, but unintelligent as well—” 

“Very well, then,” interrupted the other. “Then suppose I withdraw that, and simply say that I do not believe it to be true.” 

“You do not withdraw it,” continued Percy serenely. “You still really believe it to be absurd: you have told me so a dozen times. Well, I repeat, that is pride, and quite sufficient to account for it all. It is the moral attitude that matters. There may be other things too—” 

Father Francis looked up sharply. 

“Oh! the old story!” he said sneeringly. 

“If you tell me on your word of honour that there is no woman in the case, or no particular programme of sin you propose to work out, I shall believe you. But it is an old story, as you say.”

“I swear to you there is not,” cried the other. 

“Thank God then!” said Percy. “There are fewer obstacles to a return of faith.” 

There was silence for a moment after that. Percy had really no more to say. He had talked to him of the inner life again and again, in which verities are seen to be true, and acts of faith are ratified; he had urged prayer and humility till he was almost weary of the names; and had been met by the retort that this was to advise sheer self-hypnotism; and he had despaired of making clear to one who did not see it for himself that while Love and Faith may be called self-hypnotism from one angle, yet from another they are as much realities as, for example, artistic faculties, and need similar cultivation; that they produce a conviction that they are convictions, that they handle and taste things which when handled and tasted are over-whelmingly more real and objective than the things of sense. Evidences seemed to  mean nothing to this man. 

(Benson, p-79)

Look through the above. It's sheer sophistry. 

First, Percy says that Catholicism can't be absurd because respected people believe in it. This is the logical fallacy of "ad populum". It doesn't address the question of why people do or do not believe that Catholicism is absurd. Moreover, it misses the point that lots of respected people actually do think that Catholicism is absurd. 

Secondly, Percy tries to smear Father Francis by suggesting that there was a "woman involved" or some other "sin" that he wants to indulge in. This is blind, screaming arrogance on the part of Percy. First of all, he is simply dismissing out of hand the idea that Francis might actually have legitimate reasons for losing his faith. If that's allowed, then Francis might be equally justified in suggesting that Percy has motivated reasoning himself---a lot of priests and ministers no longer believe in God, yet continue in the role simply because they like the prestige, money, perks, etc, or, they are afraid of losing their friends, profession, and/or family. Indeed, there is an organization---the Clergy Project---that is designed to help religious leaders leave their present positions with minimal friction---and they say that 20% of the people they deal with stay in their positions as religious leaders, even though they no longer believe in God. 

Next he suggests that Francis' loss of faith is simply "pride". This is an interesting comment, and I think that it's important readers zero in on it. One man's "pride" is another person's "moral courage". There's an episode of Star Trek: the Next Generation where Captain Picard is captured by the Cardassians and ends up being interrogated by an officer in their secret police. In order to break Jean-Luke, he tortures him and only asks him to say one thing. Over the Inquisitor's desk there are four electric light bulbs---if Picard will say that there are actually five, he will be given a respite. 

But Picard's sense of self is bound up with his sense of honesty. This means that he believes that if he starts "bending it" to fit the situation he's in, he will begin a path that will lead to him betraying the confidence placed in him by Star Fleet. To that end, he steadfastly refuses to say there are five lights right up until the point where he is rescued.

This fictional drama is based on real situations that have played out over and over again in both courtrooms and dungeons. It happened to Galileo and Bruno, it happened in NAZI Germany, Stalin's (now Putin's) Russia, and, Mao's China. It's happening in lots of other places right now. And in many of them I suppose other people have said the people holding out for the truth as they knew it were also suffering from "pride". But if you'd asked the victims themselves, they'd probably have said that it was instead "integrity".

Finally, Benson has Percy mention the solutions of "prayer" and "humility"---which Francis suggests are merely "self-hypnosis". This is an important issue, one that goes far beyond the scope of this already ballooning article. Having said that, I do think that it is worth a little explanation.

Oddly enough, I did an undefended Master's thesis on the role of cultural conditioning in religious experiences. And one of the things I found out from my literature survey is that there are significant and very important differences between types of "mystical" experiences---based on the specific tradition. The Jewish tradition emphasizes that God is separate from man, so that's how Jewish mystics experience him. Yogic teachings talk about the unity of God and man---so that's what their mystics experience. Moreover, if you look at different Roman Catholic religious orders you can see that people have different experiences not only based on the particular religious community they inhabit (eg: Jesuit versus Franciscan)---but also according to the specific type of practice one follows (eg: meditating on the Song of Solomon seems to have encouraged some groups of Nuns to have visions about their marriage to Christ). Moreover, if someone has experiences that contradict official church dogma, bad things often happened. (Meister Eckhart---someone I have repeatedly seen quoted by Roman Catholic teachers---died in prison while on trial for heresy because he preached on the basis of religious experiences that at least some officials believed contradicted some core church teachings.) 

The inescapable result of my study on the subject tells me that Francis is quite right. A lot of "spiritual training"----especially of the sort Percy is recommending---is not much more than self-hypnosis aimed at "tamping down" your faculty of reason (or what one professor I studied under called the "bullshit detector"). 

&&&&

As for the main issue---the "ideological colonialism" that got me interested in this book---the clearest description of what I think Francis is talking about that I could find comes in the following passage.

The second main argument was addressed to reason. Persecution, as all enlightened persons confessed, was the method of a majority of savages who desired to force a set of opinions upon a minority who did not spontaneously share them. Now the peculiar malevolence of persecution in the past lay, not in the employment of force, but in the abuse of it. That any one kingdom should dictate religious opinions to a minority of its members was an intolerable tyranny, for no one State possessed the right to lay down universal laws, the contrary to which might be held by its neighbour. This, however, disguised, was nothing else than the Individualism of Nations, a heresy even more disastrous to the commonwealth of the world than the Individualism of the Individual. But with the arrival of the universal community of interests, the whole situation was changed. The single personality of the human race had succeeded to the incoherence of divided units, and with that consummation—which might be compared to a coming of age, an entirely new set of rights had come into being. The human race was now a single entity with a supreme responsibility towards itself; there were no longer any private rights at all, such as had certainly existed, in the period previous to this. Man now possessed dominion over every cell which composed His Mystical Body, and where any such cell asserted itself to the detriment of the Body, the rights of the whole were unqualified. 

(Benson, p-340)

It's extremely hard to understand this mushy porridge of words, but as near as I can tell Benson is trying to say that once the world became just one huge socialist utopia under the benign leadership of Julian Felsenburgh, there was no longer any room for points of view that disagreed with the dominant way of looking at things. I think this is the "ideological colonialism" that the two Popes find so frightening. 

I have some sympathy for the concern being raised---but for very different reasons than the Bishops of Rome. There's a real contradiction at the heart of mass democratic societies: the dynamic tension between individual people's freedoms and their responsibility to society-as-a-whole.

Consider the COVID pandemic that is now hopefully tapering off. The federal, provincial, and, municipal governments of Canada had a responsibility towards the entire population---including the elderly, the sick, and, others with greater susceptibility to the virus than the general public. To that end, they created mandates that said "if you want to engage in this activity, you must show that you have been vaccinated". This directly conflicted to individual people's "bodily integrity", or, the right to refuse any sort of invasive medical treatment.

The above isn't really much of a special case, however. The same conflict arises over and over again in society. During war, the state often drafts people to fight and seizes personal property to aid the struggle. It also levies taxes against individuals and businesses to fund public projects even during time of peace. Again, there are also environment, health and safety, etc, regulations that constrain the freedom of individuals to do as they wish in their place of business. 

I think that for a lot of people the sort of regimentation and control that human beings have to engage in must seem tremendously irritating. I know in my own case that when I was working I found myself constantly grinding my teeth in anger at the things I had to do to make a living---many of which seemed to range from stupidly absurd wastes of time to others that seems downright against the well-being of humanity and life on earth in general.  

But I accept that many of the obligations that society places on us are useful and often necessary. The difference is that I judge each individual one on its own merits using the criteria of evidence and logic. If something "passes the sniff test", then I will accept it. That's what the people running the government usually do too. No one liked having to wear a mask, for example, but most people saw them as a necessary evil during the height of the pandemic. 

I suspect that the problem for Benson, Francis, and, Benedict vis-a-vis "ideological colonialism" is that they don't have something like the evidence and logic sniff test to separate what they believe is a good constraint from one that they consider bad. That's because the most important thing in their life simply can't be supported either by evidence or logic. Instead, they've built their lives around "supernatural religion" and the "absolute authority" of tradition and the ecclesiastic hierarchy. 

This is the corner that revealed religion has painted itself into. In a world where everything is governed by arbitrary authority---like in the time of divine right of kings---it functions just fine. But in a world that is increasingly democratic and governed by science, there's just less and less room for this type of spirituality. 

The thing to remember, however, is that there are many different ways of experiencing transcendence in our lives. Academic researchers are often motivated by a deeply felt interest to find truth. Many politicians devote their lives to making their societies more fair and just. Lawyers and doctors can also be deeply caring individuals who want to help individual people facing terrible problems. Artists, musicians, craftsmen of all types, etc, can use their calling to bring beauty into the world. And many spiritual people have tried to base their religious beliefs on their own conscience and personal experience (ie: they are "spiritual but not religious".) In my own case, I believe I have a real vocation to try to help people make sense of a complex and confusing world---hence the many hours I spend researching and writing every day. 

So when the world steps in and says to the church "you have to stop discriminating against gays and women" or "no, we won't use the coercive power of the state to stop women from having safe abortions", it isn't because the state is forcing an ideology down the throat of a people. Instead, it's involved in a conversation with humanity where it tries to do the right thing as much as possible---based on the best evidence and most rational argument it can find. The problem with church teaching isn't that it is different from the majority viewpoint---it's because it doesn't make any sense and the church cannot come up with anything like a persuasive argument in support of it. 

That's why Benson's language is so turgid. He's trying to justify his position but he doesn't have any evidence or logical reasoning to support it. Instead, all he can do is muddy the water and hope the reader doesn't catch on. And that, ultimately, is all the Pope can do too. 

Celebrities hate it when the general public calls "bullshit" on their actions and make so big a fuss that their careers suffer. That's why they've come up with that nonsense term "cancel culture". This isn't to say that no one ever gets unjustly accused of something they didn't do. I've suffered myself from this sort of thing. But whatever anger people feel against the unjust smearing should include some understanding that there are a lot of "little people" who have been humiliated by the powerful and just had to "suck it up" because that's what it means to be "little people". Just remember that "cancel culture" only really became a "thing" when the "little people" found they could push back against the Bill Cosbys, Jeffrey Epsteins, Harvey Weinsteins, etc of the world. And very few people have listened to the First Nations when they mentioned what happened in residential schools either.   

I believe that Pope Francis' shuck and jive about "ideological colonialism" is just a fancier way of saying that he thinks the Church should be still be able to ignore what the little people say. So I call "bullshit" on this too----. 

&&&&

I've written a lot in the above to try to explain to readers what the novel is like. I've done this because I think it's a window into the mind of Pope Francis. This is important because it is extremely hard to figure out just what exactly is going on in the minds of other people---especially famous ones. For example, just think about how completely Jian Ghomeshi and Bill Cosby's public image seemed to be out-of-step with their real private lives. The public relations machine that insulated them is much, much thicker for a Pope. The only chance that anyone who isn't extremely high in the Roman Catholic church is going to have to evaluate what he really thinks about any given subject is through things like the books he recommends people read. 

That's why it is so disturbing to read Lord of the World. I don't think that I'm exaggerating when I say that it is just as much of an intellectual dumpster fire as anything I read when I was doing my series on white nationalism. The only real difference is that I'm willing to cut Robert Hugh Benson some slack over the casual racism, etc, because it was written so long ago and people were very different back then. But the Pope doesn't have that luxury. He's supposed to be the absolute best representative of the Catholic Church (after all, some of his pronouncements are supposed to be infallible---which, of course, is part of the problem). Moreover, for all intents and purposes, he's that "absolute authority" that at least Benson believes must be followed even if it contradicts one's one personal moral intuition.

&&&&

My wife calls me a "sickening optimist", which I suspect is right. I'm constantly trying to find the best spin on people and situations. As a result, I've tried to snatch some evidence of wisdom or good intention out of things that various Popes have said during my life. When Francis has said things like "Who am I to judge?", I have been tempted to think good things about the Church and it's doctrines. But that's foolishness. Real change doesn't come easy---it requires deep contemplation and contrition. And if you believe that you have all the answers on what it means to be a moral person it is damned hard to look in the mirror, admit that you have done wrong, and, try to honestly figure out how you can change to become better. 

And the Catholicism revealed in Lord of the World is as far from what I would believe is an honest and humble understanding of the wrong done by the Church as I could even imagine. Having read it myself, I can only see it as evidence that the Pope Francis we see in the media is not the real man. Any prelate who would recommend this book seems to me to be totally and utterly incapable of genuine repentance for the ill done in the name of the institution he heads.

&&&&

Again, like a lot of people, I wanted Pope Francis to be a positive influence in the world. Many of the elders that met him in Rome obviously wanted him to be this too. But regardless of whether or not he is personally a kind, good man (I suspect he is), the institution he serves is not a force for good in this world. I don't want it to be forced out of existence, but I do not want it to have an out-sized influence either. What I do want is for it to enter into a genuine conversation with everyone else. A real conversation, one in which it honesty tries to use the principles of honest conversation---facts and logic---instead of being able to use rhetoric and nonsense to bamboozle people into getting its own way.

The Pope is going to be in this nation over the summer and will be visiting sites across the country as part of his "apology" tour. I hope that there will be something more than vague, hard to understand, and, confusing language. But I'm not holding my breath.

&&&&

Moreover I say unto you, the Climate Emergency must be dealt with.