At the time of the Pope’s visit to Britain, you had the impression that any meaningful dialogue between Catholics and secular humanists about anything beyond the weather would have been unthinkable. Paul Sims writes at the New Humanist website about his experience of trying to cross the great divide and actually enter into a conversation with Catholics.
I’ll be honest. Discussing gay adoption and condoms with Benedictine monks and spokesmen for Opus Dei is not something I normally find myself doing on a Tuesday evening. But there I was, at the invitation of Alan Palmer of the Central London Humanist Group, who had responded to a post I had written on the New Humanist blog, in which I’d recorded my concerns over the tone of the debate during the Pope’s UK visit. There are crucial disagreements between the Catholic Church and its opponents over issues such as AIDS, gay rights and child abuse, but, I asked, was the opportunity to debate these in danger of being buried beneath the headlines and protest slogans?
In my blog I’d mentioned by way of example the behaviour of sections of the audience at a pre-visit debate at London’s Conway Hall, when the Catholic speakers were frequently drowned out by rowdy heckling. Palmer, the organiser of that debate, read my post and invited me to a smaller discussion between Catholics and humanists, with the aim of discussing some of our key disagreements without the bellicose tone. I agreed.
Which is how a group of 25 of us, evenly balanced between faithful and faithless, came to meet in a room rented from the University of London near Euston. After brief introductions, the three main Catholic speakers – Austen Ivereigh, a journalist and former press secretary to the Archbishop of Westminster, Jack Valero, press officer for Opus Dei, and Fr Christopher Jamison, a Benedictine monk who featured in the BBC series The Monastery, together the founders of Catholic Voices, a group formed to speak up for the Catholic side in the media during the Papal visit – put forward their arguments on gay adoption, condoms and faith schools. The humanists then challenged them in an open discussion. In what felt like a particularly useful exercise, one of the humanists had to sum up the Catholic arguments, and one of the Catholics did the same for the humanist case.
As my first foray into the world of “inter-faith dialogue” (if we extend the definition to include the godless) I thought the meeting had been a good one. As you might expect, there was strong disagreement between the two sides, and I doubt anyone went home with their mind changed on any of the issues. But, while people had expressed strong opinions, the debate was conducted in a manner that meant it could continue over a drink afterwards. Given the way Catholics and humanists were portrayed in some of the press coverage of the Pope’s visit, that’s something you might have thought as likely as West Ham and Milwall fans enjoying a pre-match pint together on derby day. With the religious and non-religious often talking past each other in the public square, it felt constructive for a group to meet and discuss their differences in an amiable fashion. For me, it served as a reminder that you can still get on with someone even if you disagree. This may seem like an obvious point, but it is easily forgotten amid the belligerent tone of the religion debate. And if we can find a way to talk calmly about our disagreements, perhaps it would be possible to find some common ground where we could agree.
Read the rest of his article to see how unhappy some of his secularist friends were about this whole project.
In furtherence to Paul Sims’ statement that such debate may lead to “common ground where we could agree”, I would suggest that such debate can be positive in another way. It can serve to help clarify for the debaters and listeners what Catholics do actually believe which is helpful. There is some confusion ‘out there’, I feel about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what individual Catholics believe and practice; such clarification could help those Catholics who are confused/unsure towards a more stable viewpoint where their uncertainties are diminished.
I am sure your readers are aware that….Not all humanists are argumentative, hell bent on bringing down the Catholic or any other faith and unsympathetic to others ways and reasoning.
I should know because in a faithless moment I married one!
He believes in a strong structure and a moral landscape, where mankind can move forwards in goodness. He has a great interest in current affairs, history, politics and the religions of the world. He is charitable, educated and came from a Christian background. He was the son of a man who used to help The Anglican Reverend Philip Thomas Byard Clayton CH (known as “Tubby Clayton”)
But my husband has no belief or faith in anything supernatural (other than my will)! and only a faith in evolution, survival and the goodness of the human race. He quietly and firmly is unyielding and relentless in his views and secular integrity. This makes for me interesting and opposing dialogue, Gigantic and blood curdling frustration, which challenges all my tenderness, humbleness and goodness and forces me to search for absolute conviction in my faith, which otherwise would remain dilute and unchallenged.
Lightbulb moment…I knew there was a reason for my predicament, other than pure foolishness! And the fact that my five children are being raised as Catholics, and that they all have a wholeheartedly strong and lively faith, proves that the secular mind has its place in strengthening Catholic unity and faith.
It also proves to me that True Authentic Love between two people is a gift only bestowed from God via The Holy Spirit, and can not be over-ridden by human need.
But still he is my biggest teacher that it is humanly possible to serve a wife and children in loving kindness even in the absence of the blessing of true authentic beautiful intimate Love, bestowed by God.
regardless of the undisclosed private secular moral code which appears at times to have a differing yard stick from the public one.
The last comment should have said
Regardless of his undisclosed private secular moral code, which appears at times to have a differing yard stick from his public one
This is all fascinating.
I’d imagine that Messrs Ivereigh and Valero, and Abbot Jamieson, could be excellent as a mainstream Catholic side in a debate with Humanists, but it would be interesting to think about the ways in which they would represent an extreme wing in a debate between Catholics.
That illuminates something about Catholicsm in E&W today that I haven’t really thought about before: some of the (violent) differences between Catholics are about Catholicsm; some are differences about secular matters.