Vows of Poverty

The subject matter of this rant caused the only argument my wife and I had on our Honeymoon. True story.




Having returned refreshed from my holiday and only having had one near death experience whilst out there, I'm quite surprised to find myself rather uninspired as to what to write. There are of course the event in the UK whilst I've been turning myself a sort of grubby looking off-white colour in the Spanish sun. Not least among these is the furore over Brass Eye and its satirical look at the media treatment of paedophiles. God, how I wish I could have been here to bask in the aftermath of that one. However, I doubt that I could add much to the 700+ newspaper column inches that were generated in the week following broadcast, so I shall limit myself to a few points. Firstly, it did not encourage paedophilia (as claimed by the Sun, the Mail et al) any more than Jonathon Swift encouraged cannibalism when he wrote "A Modest Proposal" during the Irish Potato Famine (that book was a satire on British attitudes to the Irish during the famine. In one passage he suggested that the Irish should cease complaining about their lack of food, as there was an overabundance of children that could be butchered and eaten). It was a program that poked fun at both media frenzy and the effects thereof (anybody remember the Welsh Pediatrician who was chased from her home after the News of the World's name and shame campaign?) and media whore B-list celebs who will do anything for publicity and cash, to the extent that they don't even listen as their spastic words tumble out of their mouths.

Secondly, it very effectively embarrassed the relevant governmental spokesmen and women who rushed to condemn it before having to admit that they hadn't actually seen it (although in fairness one could accept that David Blunkett is not really very likely to see anything...). This also explains my own lack of unconditional praise for the program. I've only seen clips of it on the Net and not the whole thing, so I'm not really qualified to go into any more depth about it. And it is with that in mind that I shall move on to other matters.

Whilst on my merry jaunt to the Iberian peninsular I managed to take in some culture between the epic bouts of sunbathing. That which held most interest for me (or at least sticks most in my mind) was the cathedral in Seville. This was a truly magnificent building; littered with monuments and choked up with chapels, it could not fail to inspire awe. (You just know there's a "but" coming don't you?)

However, what rather cast a pall over any appreciation of its majesty was the Treasury room. Bearing in mind that the Treasury was probably intended to cause gasps of delight at the sheer range of artifacts and objects of unutterable beauty, a brisk walk around the room was enough to make me feel sick with anger at and loathing of the Catholic Church. I estimate that if the contents of that room were to be converted into it's value in £20 notes then one could have filled the cathedral itself. I saw golden crucifixes inlaid with diamonds and emeralds, icons that were smothered in pearls, goblets dripping with precious stones, and don't even start about the various pieces of dead saints that were littering the place (although I do wonder how many of them were genuine; a quick count of the altars in Italy that claim to house a digit of St. Paul indicates that he had at least 27 fingers...).

And that was just one single cathedral! There are hundreds of the damned things worldwide, and if we suppose that each one only held treasures a tenth of the value of those found in Seville then on can see that the Catholic Church must have a value running into billions, if not trillions (trillion= 1000 billion) of pounds. How come we never see the Pope at the top of the Times Rich List? And why does this get my goat so much? Because the hypocritical bastards never let up about how it's easier for a poor man to get to heaven than a rich man, thus implying that by tithing one's wealth away then heaven becomes somehow more accessible. Surely the papacy must have been banned from passing the pearly gates since the 9th century is that's the case. And also because this organisation claims that it does so much good for the poor, the hungry, and the needy and takes the moral high ground in any debate about what more can be done to help them. Here's an idea; why not sell just one artifact from each cathedral, thus providing enough money to feed, clothe, and educate pretty much every person in any given continent? Go for 4 or 5 items and one can do the same to 4 or 5 continents. Shit, the stuff can be replaced with gold leaf and costume jewelry and nobody would know the difference.

Of course, this will never happen, as all artifacts are needed "for the greater glory of God". Well, I was in that Treasury for a good half an hour and I didn't see anybody's eyes light up with religious fervour. I saw lots of avaricious faces admiring the pretty baubles, and that was about it. Why does God need all of this stuff anyway? Is he an art collector? If so he has a taste for the gaudy and glittery.

Actually, since we're on the subject of this quaint idea of collecting and doing stuff for some semi-mythical father figure with a penchant for collecting people and things into vast stone buildings, I think it might be worth commenting on the Cathedral itself. It was vast and gothic in it's appearance, and at every corner there was some piece of tourist guide scribble reminding us that the building was completed in God's name and for His glory, as if somehow it wouldn't have been possible to build the damn thing without His blessing! Yes, it is an amazing achievement that so huge and imposing a building could have been constructed over 500 years ago but it was mankind who built it, not God (unless I'm mistaken; maybe God mixed the mortar, Jesus did the carpentry, and the Holy Spirit did the ceiling...). It is a testament to man's ability to create and perpetuate his ideas in exactly the same way as the Pyramids, the Statue of Liberty etc. The fact that it was done in the name of a religion doesn't make it any greater and to say that it does is to downgrade the importance of those two monuments I have just mentioned, the latter of which was built in the name of Freedom and the former as a monument to a great Pharaoh. (Well...actually the latter was a gift to the US from France and the former was more of a monument to a great ego but let's not let the facts stand in the way here...).

So what is the point of this (other than me venting my spleen of course)? Probably that the Treasury proved to me that the words of the Catholic church are hollow and meaningless when it comes to their claims that one can have a better life when one has faith. The church as a body care little for you or for the poor and needy. They care about worshipping their God and all you and I are to them is a means to get more pretty baubles and buildings for Him. Even the ticket I had to buy to get into the Cathedral made the proud boast that 60% of the price would go on building (and presumably outfitting) new churches. If you actually do have a faith of some kind or another then that is a good thing, but please do keep it as a personal faith. The more money that is given to the church, the more wealth it can accumulate and the longer it will keep getting on my nerves.