Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Paisley, the Pope, and the 1981 papers

Today, the torch of anti-papalism has been passed from Protestants to atheists.

By Nelson Jones Published 30 December 2011 13:29

Among the most intriguing revelations to emerge from this year's batch of government files from thirty years ago is the suggestion that Pope John Paul II might have been invited to address Parliament during his 1982 visit to Britain. In the event the idea was dropped, partly because of fears that the Reverend Ian Paisley might "make a nuisance of himself". A horrified Margaret Thatcher considered that such an occurrence would have "the gravest consequences and would damage the pope, the established church and parliament."

The fear was to be realised a few years later, although not in Britain. In 1988, Paisley disrupted the pontiff's speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, standing up to denounce John Paul through a megaphone as the Antichrist. It's doubtful, though, that either the pope or the European Parliament suffered great reputational damage as a result.

There were also constitutional objections to the idea, with the Cabinet Secretary Sir Robert Armstrong declaring that it would look "very odd if the pope were to address members of the two houses of parliament in a country which has an established church of which he is not head." Even Britain's senior Catholic leaders were dubious about the proposal, while some Protestant campaigners were aghast at the very idea of a papal visit.

In the event, the visit went ahead largely hitch-free, but also with a bare minimum of official involvement, although the pope did drop briefly into Buckingham Palace to have tea with the Queen. Awkward issues were sidestepped by stressing that John Paul was coming in a purely pastoral capacity.

Things were very different last year when Benedict XVI made a full state visit to Britain. Westminster Hall was packed for the pope's address, but there was no sign of Ian Paisley, by then a lord. Paisley had put in an appearance in Scotland a couple of days earlier to denounce the pope's arrival, but didn't make too much of a "nuisance of himself" and didn't try to heckle Benedict directly. Instead he organised a rival church service at John Knox's old chapel in Edinburgh, at which he lamented that the papal visit should have coincided with the 450th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation.

Instead, the torch of anti-papalism has been passed to a new type of dissenter. I suspect that when the equivalent files are released in 2040 it'll be Richard Dawkins, rather than Ian Paisley, who'll be seen to have caused the government the biggest headaches. The protests against last year's papal visit were dominated by secular concerns about child abuse and opposition to the Catholic church's stance on contraception, homosexuality and the role of women. Where Paisley quoted the Book of Revelation, Geoffrey Robertson QC referred to the UN Charter and tried to threaten the pope, not with hellfire but with the International Court. (Though the threat was, let's face it, no less theoretical.)

Indeed, there's unlikely to be anything quite so embarrassing as what has already emerged -- the leak in April 2010 of a bizarre foreign office "brainstorming session" in which suggestions for the trip included sending the pope to an abortion ward and getting him to perform a duet with the Queen.

The release of documents under the thirty year rule may be anachronistic, but it does offer us each December a window into past concerns that might otherwise be forgotten -- and a reminder that while history doesn't repeat itself, it certainly rhymes. 1981, a year notable for austerity, riots and a royal wedding, offers an especially fascinating point of comparison. The discussion around the proposed papal speech reveals a Britain that was not notably more religious than today but that did have a greater sense of itself as a Protestant nation with an established church, a nation in which (for example) the ban on Catholics marrying into the royal family was less controversial than it is now.

There was both less overt secularism and more reticence about public discussion of religion. The Pope's visit was assumed to be primarily of interest to Catholics and opposition to it concentrated in Protestant campaigners such as Paisley. The Pope remains a divisive figure. But the dividing lines are drawn differently today: not between Protestant and Catholic or even between Christians and followers of other faiths, but between the secular and the religious.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: The Pope Catholic Church Northern Ireland

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

28 comments

Fri, 2012-07-20 09:27 — seeliaden (not verified)

There are many solutions to analysis for your financial investment. The factor that a superior large high quality flat iron is called an expenditure, is not only considering that of the higher price tag ranges than your standard decrease superior drug shop brand, but for the regular accurate salon operation with the 'Wow' outcome that the personally fitting flat iron will give you.

You should preferably also know that there are unique hair treatment regimens for totally different sorts of hair. Implementing hair conditioner to cheap ghd straighteners your curly hair can also get rid of the frizzy glance and will include shine to your hair but it is intelligent to discuss with a great hair specialist to reap the most gains. A really good hair qualified can instruct you with beneficial suggestions about your hair and hair care products and services that is fine for your hair so that your attempt to get rid of wild locks and get a straight shiny hair does not get throw away.

Prolonged phrase Marker. From time to time, university students are essential to ghd straighteners establish their title on laptop computer disks, which should remain at school even though not in use, or text textbooks. A permanent marker is desired amongst higher education products and is in fact a fantastic ghd hair straightener process to make positive that a identify is not removed and will assist an solution to be very easily recognized have to definitely it essentially turn into misplaced or stolen.

Die farbigen Stylerplatten gleiten mhelos durch das Haar und verleihen ihnen ein ultra-glnzendes Complete. Besonders angenehm anzufassen und leicht im Gewicht, ermglicht der GHD styler unendlich viele Stylings und macht das Kreieren von verschiedenen Aussieht ganz einfach. So lassen sich die Haare nicht nur schonend gltten sondern durch die beweglichen Stylerplatten auch sinnliche Locken, aufregende Wellen im Handumdrehen stylen.Desweiteren bietet der GHD styler supplemental Sicherheit durch den Schlafmodus.

Find Out More: http://www.straightenerbrands.com/

Sun, 2012-01-01 21:57 — jankaas (not verified)

"The idea that Hitler was a Christian is as provably false as the notion that the ark of Noah was a real ship."

there was no such ship, yet there was just such a faith embodied in Hitler. i think the only argument that remains is about the definition of a True Christian. and exactly such an argument has caused much friction between different sect of Christians.

Hitler was a Christian, unless the whole internet and all serious references accessed from there are a conspiracy to pretend he was.

i think your argument is essentially that his actions mean you personally won't accept he did believe in the God of the New Testament and that Jesus was his saviour. you say it like os;

"we can dismiss Hitlers Christianity because there is direct proof of his hatred of that faith."

wrong. he hated Jews, and didn't trust Catholics as far as he could throw them. he was a factional Christian, just like so many others, only he had control over an army.

Mon, 2012-01-02 02:27 — Drakula

In Austria, Hitler was brought up as a Catholic and the swastika was the cross motif on the local chapel wall.

The watershed in Hitler's beliefs rose out of the trenches of world war I.

Before that war he wanted to be an artist and contrary to popular belief he wasn't entirely rejected by the Vienna Art school but re-directed to study architecture.

He never fulfilled that ambition.

Sat, 2011-12-31 00:40 — RangerRab (not verified)

Answer me this question: how can a catholic become UK head of state (monarch & also head of C of E) when they have an allegiance to the church of rome ?

Mon, 2012-01-02 09:30 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Jankaas, you know as well as I do the internet is full of crap. Google "9/11" for all manner of conspiracy theories, or just look up "moon landings" to see what crap there is.

http://www.internetisshit.org/print.html

The sheer amount of horseshit circulating about the internet on the topic of Hitlers supposed Christianity is astonishing. Almost all of it comes from the dual source of Mein Kampf (a political manifesto) or other websites. Very little actual data there when you look.

Also, you're indulging in the logical fallacy of "500000 Elvis fans can't be wrong!" Just because a lot of people say something that doesn't make it true. Most people on this planet, for example, believe in god. Does that make gods existence true? Of course not.

Instead of looking at websites which are copy pasted from other websites read a book. Last Days of Hitler...

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Days-Hitler-Hugh-Trevor-Roper/dp/0226812243

Which establishes that Hitler and Braun were married by a secular city official, and that he took no religious council during his final days. Also consider that suicide is supposedly a mortal sin. Also consider that Hitler removed the churches influence on all social services in Germany when he got elected.

Try Alan Bullocks 'Hitler: A study in tyrany'...

Page 387-388

" ...The truth is that, in matters of religion at least, Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist. 'The dogma of Christianity,' he declared in one of his wartime conversations,

gets worn away before the advances of science....Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches, and that why they're heading for ruin—for science is bound to win."

Bullock goes on to say: "It was in this sense of mission that Hitler, a man who believed neither in God nor in conscience ('a Jewish invention, a blemish like circumcision'), found both justification and absolution."

How about Albert Speers 'Inside the Third Reich'?

"Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Page 96

I don't believe Hitler was a Christian for the same reason I believe in evolution - there is a big plethora of evidence when you actually look at the real research!

Sat, 2012-01-21 09:42 — Drakula

Plump: Is sociology based on myth or research?

Mon, 2012-01-02 11:48 — jankaas (not verified)

@Sir M

"Jankaas, you know as well as I do the internet is full of crap."

well put. yes i am fully aware of this. as am i aware that there is more than sufficient academic research that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hitler was a Christian. he was a sociopathic murderous bigoted racist homophobic Christian, but nonetheless he professed his love for Christ in writing sufficiently that we are forced to accept the reality he thought of himself as a Christian.

i note you dismiss evidence in Mein Kampf because it is "political". well so is Christianity in and of itself, and has been abused by any and all who were in a position to do so.

the argument you are reduced to is the True Christian one. as a non-theist i can't join you in that debate. as far as i understand faith, it is a personal issue between the individual and whoever they believe is their God.

"I don't believe Hitler was a Christian for the same reason I believe in evolution"

this is not a good analogy. if it were so then Evolutionary Theory would be in deep trouble, which it clearly is not.

Mon, 2012-01-02 12:36 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Jankaas, you said "there is more than sufficient academic research that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hitler was a Christian", without providing any citations at all (something I did). As you can see this is not the case.

I will respond to your point about Mein Kampf though. No, I dismiss the evidence in Mein Kampf because it is a politcal manifesto intended to get the German people to embrace national socialism, not because it is political. It is like saying that nobody in Guantanamo has been tortured because the USA ratified the UN treaty on torture. So see... they said they didn't... so they couldn't have possibly done it...

It is evident that Hitler was not being honest about his objectives and ideas when he wrote it. Remember this is the man who said...

"I think I can assure you that there is no one in Germany who will not with all his heart approve any honest attempt at an improvement of relations between Germany and France. My own feelings force me to take the same attitude.... .The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers.... .And I regard the maintenance of peace in Europe as especially desirable and at the same time secured, if France and Germany, on the basis of equal sharing of natural human rights, arrive at a real inner understanding....The young Germany, that is led by me and that finds its expression in the National Socialist Movement, has only the most heartfelt desire for an understanding with other European nations."

I take it you still believe in World War 2?

Fanatical atheism is at it's worst when confronting the fact that secular powers are as destructive and vicious as any theocracy. It is here the true nature of the antitheist movement is exposed for what it is. It isn't about evidence, or fact, or proof. It is about belief in the face of evidence, fact, and proof. It is also interesting to note that fanatical atheists who do quote Mein Kampf only ever go to the religious quotes, and never include this....

Nature...puts living creatures on this globe and watches the free play of forces. She then confers the master's right on her favorite child, the strongest in courage and industry...The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel. [Mein Kampf, pp 134-5, 285, 289]

Sat, 2011-12-31 10:28 — Drakula

I think the secular,atheist and humanist opposition is by far the more healthy opposition to papal authority than Reverend Ian Paisley.

The book of Revelation? Big mad John!!!

Mon, 2012-01-02 14:08 — jankaas (not verified)

@Sir M

"without providing any citations at all"

that's a fair anough accusation. i didn;t bother as i was certain you only were of the True Christian position, rather than seriously doubting reality.

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Reich-Conceptions-Christianity-1919-1945/dp/0...

http://www.christianbook.com/hitlers-cross-revealing-story-christ-symbol...

http://www.morris.umn.edu/newsevents/view.php?itemID=8502

and you do appear to wander off down the no True Christian path with statements like so; "It is evident that Hitler was not being honest about his objectives and ideas when he wrote it."

well blow me down, Christians don't lie therefor Hitler wasn't a Christian? seriously Sir M....

you also appear to have me completely wrong on a personal level as you wrote; "Fanatical atheism is at it's worst when confronting the fact that secular powers are as destructive and vicious as any theocracy."

to correct this; i am a non-theist and regularly cross swords with unreasonable atheists. i have in the last moth or so put the following up on other threads;

good humans to bad things despite being religious.
good humans do bad things despite not being religious.

Sat, 2011-12-31 11:22 — Arturo Bandini (not verified)

Are you sure that's where the division lies? As an atheist, I'm reasonably sure that there are religious people with no time for Papacy.

When is a fifth-coloumnist not a terrorist? When he wanders around in a dress, muttering about ghosts in Latin, it would seem.

Tue, 2012-01-03 23:00 — jankaas (not verified)

Sir M

no need for any such apology, but thanks all the same.

i do accept that it is not too great a stretch to be able to defend that he was or was not a Christian. but i honestly think it's a greater stretch to say he wasn't a Christian. we should perhaps also assume that he could of course have made himself believe almost anything. the man as a human being was extremely 'bad'.

but 'evens' is fine by me.

those links. i know the type, and stopped being one several years ago. Scott Atran was linked to me by other posters, so have a read.

"Trying to deal with theism rationally on the internet is kind of like trying to talk about gay marriage in Texas."

haha. so likewise we should tell them that they are not the only atheist in the village. same as with theists, once you ask atheists for evidence of their ontologies the same thing happens. yep, nothing.

ttfn

Tue, 2012-01-03 23:02 — jankaas (not verified)

@postageincluded

loved your summary. lol
but i do like to be reminded of Paisley though, few things have dated as totally as his 'style'. sort of like the Black and White Minstrel show, perhaps?

Mon, 2012-01-02 17:32 — David (not verified)

"Nature...puts living creatures on this globe and watches the free play of forces. She then confers the master's right on her favorite child, the strongest in courage and industry...The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel. [Mein Kampf, pp 134-5, 285, 289]"

Sounds very much like modern Britain to me...

Sat, 2011-12-31 17:03 — peter (not verified)

For someone "wet behind the ears" so to speak, your articles are often quite good, and this one also is in some respects.

But the attempted portrayal of a parallel between the ridiculous Paisleyite antics, and principled rational opposition to the Pope by atheists, will hopefully give comfort only to morons.

The latest visit by the supposed German intellectual Ratzinger was perhaps 'highlighted' by the lie in his initial speech here (or maybe the pope isn't an intellectual, just a willful ignoramous) that the Nazis were atheists and Darwinists. Readers may be interested to consult Coel Hillier's blog to find a dispassionate analysis concerning this lie, with quite a bit of detail about the Nazis' bizarre pseudo-Christian and human origins beliefs, and the considerable support for the fascists from mainstream Christians, especially Catholics.

Mon, 2012-01-02 21:43 — Freeman2

'Today, the torch of anti-papalism has been passed from Protestants to atheists'... who of course attack Protestants as strongly as they attack Catholics.

Tue, 2012-01-03 00:09 — Sir Michael (not verified)

@Jankaas:

"Christians don't lie therefor Hitler wasn't a Christian? seriously Sir M.... "

No, not at all. I sincerely apologise if I have apparently managed to make such a stupid and pig ignorant assertion somehow. Christians are capable of the worst form of lying about some of the worst crimes imaginable. Those Catholic priests for example, who have abused children, are Christians to their very core and are utterly dishonest men. Franco was a staunch Christian and a total monster. The Christian right wing in North America are utterly dishonest. Christian men worked in the Nazi death camps, went to church on Sunday morning, and gassed Jews to death on Sunday afternoon, the lied about it to their wives on Sunday evening.

The reason I say that Hitler was not a Christian has nothing to do with the "no true Christian" argument but the fact his actual behaviour, commentary, and the views of historians and the people closest too him say that he wasn't. His religious beliefs were actually a strange form of neo-Paganism wrapped up in some weird occult interests. That is a matter of historical fact.

The problem is the sheer dross of the blogsphere, which is all heavily antitheistic, has managed to muddy the water and created a spectre of Hitlers supposed Christianity being a credible idea when it isn't.

Read the commentary on these articles.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-both-atheists-believers-need-to-sto...

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-a...

Note the viciousness and obstinacy of a certain demographic.

Or watch this video and look at the comments beneath it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exiCcOcjbBY

Trying to deal with theism rationally on the internet is kind of like trying to talk about gay marriage in Texas.

Tue, 2012-01-03 00:09 — postageincluded (not verified)

To summarise:-

Ian Paisley hates the Pope. Richard Dawkins hates the Pope. Therefore Dawkins is as bad as Paisley.

Pathetic and trivial.

Sun, 2012-01-01 10:43 — Drakula

Opposition to the Roman church, or to be more precise the Pauline doctrine can best challenged by a humanist or impartial body rather than another mystical cult. Using reason not mythology.

First; can the virgin birth be proven? Where are the hard facts?

Did Paul stare at the sun on the road to Damascus to blind himself so that he could use the "vision" as a pretext to infiltrate the Nazarine church of James?(Jeshua's half brother.)

Did not Paul send letters to the Corinthians & Ephesians etc.etc.on his own bat and ignoring James and then turning Peter against James and Mary Magdalene ??

This is strong circumstantial evidence that the Roman church is an apostate faith right from day 2 yet they have had the appalling audacity to point their fingers to other Christian faiths and brand them HERETICS!!!!!

Lets face it the book of revelations are the ravings of a poor fellow who suffered the most horrific hallucinations. How much credibility should that have? Paisley's mistake.

The old Roman Emperors were right they were nothing more than a pernicious cult.

Then came the middle ages, yes don't laugh the dark ages could come again especially in middle America!!!!!

Sun, 2012-01-01 13:11 — valdemar (not verified)

A good article - and well done on the NS gig! - but how much of a dissenter is Dawkins? I would think, for most normal British people, 'secular concerns about child abuse and opposition to the Catholic church's stance on contraception, homosexuality and the role of women' make perfect sense. Fairly widespread opposition to funding the Pope's visit might not have been entirely down to revulsion at the way Ratzinger shielded child abusers, but it must have been a factor, surely?

Sat, 2012-01-07 06:50 — J Unit CYP UK

I have an odd position. I'm a Protestant, but I obviously scoff at Rev. Ian Paisely and can't believe he was in European Parlaiment for so long. I like the current Pope, but believe in the assertion Catholic nations are less intelligent than Protestant nations.

Sun, 2012-01-01 18:49 — jankaas (not verified)

@peter

"But the attempted portrayal of a parallel between the ridiculous Paisleyite antics, and principled rational opposition to the Pope by atheists, will hopefully give comfort only to morons."

hear hear.

"Nazis were atheists and Darwinists."

yep, don't think Benedict realises just how quickly the interwebs expose liars and their damned lies. i have not a shred of doubt he does so wilfully, purely to protect the Institution he guards.

Sun, 2012-01-01 19:28 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Sorry Peter...

"The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life's final task will be to solve the religious problem... The organised lie must be smashed... The final state must be: in St Peter's chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and poor in spirit as anyone could wish. The young and healthy are on our side."

Adolf Hitler, December 13th, 1941. From the book "Table Talk" by Martin Bormann.

And if you want to thumb to page 51 you'll see this comment...

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

The idea that Hitler was a Christian is as provably false as the notion that the ark of Noah was a real ship. Worse in fact. We can dismiss the Ark as a factual tale because it is ridiculous, but we can dismiss Hitlers Christianity because there is direct proof of his hatred of that faith.

Also he did take Darwins work on natural selection and the concept of survival of the fittest to justify the extermination of the sick, mentally ill, handicapped etc. In no way does this make Darwin or evolutionary biology responsible for anything Hitler did. The notion that without evolution Hitler wouldn't have just come up with another excuse is beyond stupid.

But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander....

The idea that without the Koran the Middle East would be a utopia is equally fatuous.