Reflections of a stormy petrel

There is an alternative to the hopeless policy of cuts-cuts-cuts with no light at the end of the tunnel, and I suspect that the evident anger of the voters in Greece, France, Italy and Britain (the coalition did what at last Thursday's election?) will begin to prod it over the horizon of things that politicians don't want to see. It is called bankruptcy, and it is what businesses and people naturally do when they cannot pay their debts. We need to go into bankruptcy, and in a few years the USA will be there as well. This will have one silver lining: those banks that survive the earthquake (and I am at the point where I would not mind if most bankers died of cancer) will never lend to sovereign authorities, leaving the states to use only taxation to pay for expenditure. It would be an unprecedented experiment in cutting our clothes according to our cloth, and I can't think it would be bad.

Well, England has pulled the rope once too often and it broke. A few days ago I called the English hatred of Europe a mental illness; now we see it in full swing. The sulphurous pleasure that seems to dominate even GUARDIAN Comment-Is-Free columns seems to me wholly impossible to understand. These people imagine that a country of sixty million people can "renegotiate", to its own advantage its membership of a club of 28 countries and 400,000,000 people. One does not have to have a deep knowledge of the fact to call this an insane, out-of-touch-with-reality, diseased ideation.

Even worse, the final blow of the English knife could not have come at a worse time. Every European leader will feel that Cameron tried to blackmail them as they were struggling for the life of the European project. No wonder nobody wanted to speak with him this morning. Nigel Farage drew attention to President Sarkozy's fury, but I would be more worried about what must be an equally intense rage from Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel. It's not just that she is, by everyone's acknowledgement, the most powerful person in Europe (give or take her fellow-countryman in the Vatican); it is that, as Silvio Berlusconi found out, fat, easily-mocked little Angela, with her frumpy one-size-too-small pants suits (and by the height of misfortune Hilary Clinton around to show how they should be worn) and her inability to speak any language but her own, is someone who makes you pay. Sarkozy may be here today and gone tomorrow, blown about by his mercurial energy, but Angela Merkel can and will remember. If she could end the apparently bomb-proof career of Europe's biggest scoundrel, she can certainly make any British politician regret the day they were born.

What do these people expect? The first demand to renegotiate British membership will be met by a series of actively damaging regulations that will cut European capital off from the City. Do they seriously think otherwise? You cannot negotiate to your advantage unless you are holding a really big stick, and England has none. English business, English exports, the English public and private accounts, none of them are anything worth writing home about. The only thing that stands out is the City, and exclusion from Europe will certainly damage that. Even granting that it can keep the confidence of the Russian, Arab and other third world billionaires who still flock to London with their more or less lawfully acquired wealth, to be left to trust on that sort of people would make the City an even dodgier-looking place than it is today. They speak of Switzerland; but Switzerland, apart from the ancient treaties that guarantee her neutrality, never left the impression of despising Europe and everything in it, and never used a moment of crisis to stab the Union in the back.

England's relationship with Europe is pathological

Nobody seems to have noticed the parallel; because, I suppose, not many historians today write from a Catholic viewpoint. But in 1798, two Catholic priests led two great popular insurrections on the two sides of the war then raging between a French Revolution not yet quite hijacked by a Corsican adventurer, and a reactionary Europe dedicated to the most contemptible and cynical forms of politics (the anti-French alliance was, at one and the same time, working together to slice and destroy Poland, and incidentally to destroy Kosciuzko's constitutional and liberal reforms). Their different fates had something to do with the different countries in which they took place, but they also had something to say about the future of the Catholic Church.( Read more... )

When I heard of the well-named Mrs.Robinson's lust-crazed behaviour and attempted suicide, I was disposed to sympathy. After all, I know better than most the situation of someone who warns against sins he knows - all too well. But when I heard one remark made by her husband - to which, one assumes, she fully submitted - then all sympathy flew away. I have no pity for someone who could so falsify Christian moral teaching as to say that "I did not say that homosexuality is an abomination, God did."

What shallow, ugly nonsense. Do not expect from me a defence of homosexual practice as such; the Church teaches against it. But the Church also teaches that the impulse as such is not a sin; only the practice is; and what is more, the Church teaches, and has always taught, that homosexual fornication is bad in no other way than any other form of fornication. That is what makes Mrs.Robinson's great sin so ironic: she fell into what, according to age-old Christian teaching, was the exact same sin - only a different specification - that she and her husband were busy pushing beyond the boundaries of the human (that is what "abomination" means). And to add to the irony, it was exactly in Ireland that the equivalence of all forms of fornication had been clearly formulated. The earliest Celtic penitentials (the systematic study of morality and guilt is one of the great contributions of the Celtic Churches to Christianity), though ascribed to two saints, Gildas and David, who were notoriously at the opposite end of doctrine and practice, nonetheless fully agree in this: the penances inflicted for homosexual practice (and for homosexual practice only) are exactly the same as those imposed for fornication with women.

If that is the case, where does the peculiar savagery with which the West has long since treated homosexual practice? The answer is simple enough; it is, in fact, present, black on white, in some of the best known and most widely studied documents in history. It came from Roman law, and specifically from the changes wrought in it by one of the worst tyrants in history. The murderous Justinian I, would-be restorer and effective destroyer of the Roman Empire, codified the whole of Roman law in an enormous Code called after him; but in codifying the law, he also put in some enactments of his own, one of which featured the death penalty for homosexuality. He needed it in order to get rid of undesired clergymen and aristocrats.

It must be understood that for most of our history, everything Roman has had a kind of glow placed on it. Ancient Rome was always taken to be a model, however it was perceived. And when Roman law was rediscovered in the twelfth century - after centuries in which Europe, including Italy, had developped a different customary law of Teutonic origin - its superiority was taken for granted. And so judicial murder for sodomy became part of the law of the land. That was not the only horror that resurrected Roman law brought to Christendom: its prestige also covered the codification of torture as a normal instrument of police investigation - which it remained until the eighteeenth century and Cesare Beccaria - and the codification of slavery. Slavery had disappeared from Europe during the Dark Ages; from the moment Roman law was resurrected, there were constant attempts to reintroduce it in various ways, or to alter serfdom into slavery, according to time and place. It was because of one such bright idea that the English peasant rebels fo 1381 had intended to "kill all the lawyers"; they knew, all too well, that legal ideas being pushed included their own enslavement.

I do not feel bound to any of this kind of heritage. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Let us remember one basic point: to a Christian, everyone is a sinner. Including, most certainly, himself, or herself. If I say that a practicing homosexual is a sinner, it is no more than I should and do say about myself, for the practice of a myriad sins none of which I am going to tell you about. I certainly do not mean that the practice should be called an abomination, any more than any other sin is an abomination. Some sins certainly are, beginning with murder and abortion; but I am myself guilty of so many things that I should be the last to condemn others. I walk as a sinner among sinners, and if I ever say that anything is an "abomination" - something from which human beings should flee as from the plague - it will certainly not be the insanitary and rather sad practices with which some people try to ease a desire that cannot be eased. Try murder, or abortion, or the oppression of distant peoples; those, not these, deserve to be called abominations.

There are sins, and there are sinners, whom one should reject; crimes that really are abnormal, that affect the sane human being with a sense not only of anger but of misery, enormous wrongs that cannot be altered. Abortion is an abomination; Nazism is an abomination; Communism is an abomination; Leopold II's conquest of the Congo was an abomination. These evils subvert the very order of society and involve an infinite number of attendant evils, themselves monstrous enough to damn a man's soul, as states and professions are perverted, rank by rank, office by office, person by person - till everyone is guilty of something monstrous. The railway clerks and signalmen who kept the trains running in Nazi Germany made sure that cattle trains loaded with prospective murder victims were efficiently driven to Auschwitz or Sobibor. This is what abomination looks like. To extend that to homosexual practice - let alone to "homosexuality" - is an insult; an insult to the dead who were its victims, and to the damned who let themselves be swept away with its flood, and damned their own souls in consequence.

Myself, I really am not interested in my neighbour's sins. My own are quite enough to be getting on with. And to condemn one man for one of his sins makes sure that all of us will be condemned, always. The experience of Mrs.Robinson ought to be instructive in this regard. If you condemn a man for this "abomination", you condemn some of the finest people who ever lived. You condemn Plato, Virgil, Michelangelo and Tchaikovsky - something that should occur to no civilized man.