Just to prove yet again that we're an open (and openly reckless) blog, I'm going to post an almost entirely unedited letter that was sent to us by a random, unknown reader.
Reader Andrew Neiman reacts to Hitchens's recent Newsweek article on bringing the Pope to Justice (and the intro to GOD IS NOT GREAT). Emphasis is mine. Except the capital letters routine. That's Andrew's. - Mark
Let's assume that, in spite of NEWSWEEK'S shoddy fact-checking regarding the details of this scandal, that Cardinal Law and--by extension--Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzenburg)--have been complicit in covering up numerous cases of abuse of power, of sexual misconduct on the part of many clergymen...this being the case, it nonetheless came as no surprise to me that Mr. Hitchens is author of GOD IS NOT GREAT, according to the byline at the end of his--as one blogger has rightly called it--"diatribe."
How ironic that this editorial is labeled by NEWSWEEK editors JUSTICE and RELIGION. The Justice Hitchens would have is the wholesale destruction of the church, as strongly implied and overtly stated in his aforementioned book. (I read as much of the intro as Amazon would allow without my actually having purchased said polemic.) It seems to me that one of the great advantages of being a secular humanist/atheist (as Hitchens claims himself to be) would be to eschew the wrath of the God of Judgment, to seek “restorative” justice instead of mere “retributive” justice (a distinction a healer friend of mine engaged in, among other things, Non-Violent Communication, recently explicated). I'm not sure what that would look like exactly in this instance, but it was clear to me in reading this polemic (I'm here referring to the article, not the book, though that too is very much a polemic) that Hitchens in not interested in healing and supporting the faithful members of the Catholic church through this crisis; he evidences neither compassion for them (in this article) nor respect for them (in his book.) Though there may be no higher cause than the protection and advocacy of children, especially those preyed on by those in authority, I must admit I was troubled by his tone, curious as to the seeming hatred with which it was laced. (Again, I was working off the misguided(?) assumption, before reading a number of blog entries, that his facts were in line.)
Ought a man who loathes “religion” while adhering to a childish vision of “Justice” (Hithchens mentions Crime-cum-Punishment in his article; and, interestingly, lauds Dostoyevski in his book; he also seems outright scornful of the possibility of contrition and forgiveness without punishment) be permitted to contribute to the RELIGION and JUSTICE section of a reputable periodical? In his book Hitchens admits to having been “writing this book my whole life.” Indeed, his uber-agenda as a writer seems to be dismantling any and all religious institutions, reveal injustices (of which the church and other religious institutions are no doubt guilty), and cast aspersions on faith of all kinds, except for his own, which, again, in his book, he refers to using more romantic—or at least less controversial terms— such as “awe” and “wonder” and “mystery.”
Hitchens exalts literature (as opposed to scripture) as the source of these apparently well-reasoned sensations. I hate to break it to you, Hitchens, but Shakespeare is as celebratory of Christianity as he is skeptical of (many) Christians; then again, he wrote plays which are decidedly not diatribes, but rather elegant and textured dialectics. I should know: I daresay I have more Shakespeare committed to memory than your average Oxford Lit professor. (Or at least all of your Dartmoor teachers combined.) [I think Hitchens does also, or at least he pretends to. Let's have a challenge. - editor]
I am not a Conservative Catholic. Or even a Christian. I am a very liberal Jewish Theater artist. And while Hitchens cites Freud for his purposes, I am more likely to quote Jung, who contended, as a man of science, that the contents of the collective unconscious exert their relatively autonomous agendas such that reason, no matter how subtle and sophisticated, will topple in an instant in the face of primal or deep-seated forces immune to the machinations of reason. But I swerve off-topic in the hopes of rescuing or at least defending the faithful, of which I consider myself a member. (“Reason and love keep little company together nowadays; the more shame some honest neighbor will not make them friends.” --W.S.) A dear friend of mine—a Catholic Phd candidate at Northwestern University in Drama—travels to St. Louis this weekend to attend her niece's first communion, which will, I'm sure, mark a beautiful and important right of passage deeply meaningful for the entire family. “Grounded on well-wishing,” Mr. Hitchens? Perhaps. Or maybe a longstanding response to a true and beautiful call of the collective soul to welcome a young person into a sacred covenant.
I'd say I feel sorry for Mr. Hitchens. But I don't. He has a wonderful command of the English language. (He is, after all, English.) And we need whistle-blowers of his caliber, of his wit and insight and perseverance. But his thinking is nonetheless one-sided, (and rather short-sided), a manner of thinking which I suppose can befall anyone engaged in the profession of composing polemics; but Mr. Hitchens ultimately comes across as, well, no less petulant than the indignant child he describes himself to have been in the introduction of GOD IS NOT GREAT, merely (“presumably”) rebelling and kicking things to the ground, rarely building, and failing to create, failing to heal, failing to dig deeper.
I am tempted here to continue to extol religious virtues such as cleansing in order to attain peace and humility, living deeply through metaphor, communing with the ultimate, and making oneself and one's world holy, but I am more accustomed to writing plays than diatribes. And Mr. Hitchens will or will not do what he damn well pleases.
As a post script, however, allow me to posit a thing or two more:
Hitchens writes, in GOD IS NOT GREAT, that his chance at “wholesome belief was not destroyed by child abuse or brutish indoctrination.” Yet his anecdotes of simplistic, human-centric schoolmarms and sadistic closet-case homosexuals (I myself was psychically abused by a closeted Southern Baptist teacher who I, too, have long since forgiven as a result of his positive contributions to my development) suggest exactly that: abuse and brutality, however subtle. (More subtle than the serpent as you yourself admit.)
I speak for the innocent, for the truly holy, for the divine potential in all of us. As for the guilty, well, Hitchens seems to have attended to them with stunning scrupulousness.
I heard a quote the other day: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who don't, no proof is possible.” While this quote may weaken my overall argument/point/theme, I think it speaks to the frustration between camps: Mr. Hitchens, you are outraged by any and all debasements of reason; while the faithful (myself included?) are outraged by your wholesale dismissal of the validity of relating to truth non-rationally. Or am I overstating that which you overstate? For contrarily—redemptively—you admit Shakespeare—equal parts believer and doubter, gut-level intuitive and high-minded rationalist—into your pantheon.
“The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant." • "If it is an offense to justice to hold people who may have been victims of mistaken identity or of vendettas by other factions, then it is also an offense to justice to release psychopathic killers who believe that they have divine permission to throw acid in the faces of girls who want to attend school." • "Don't be such a lesbian!
”
