Creation in the Darkness: A Review of Wild Blue Yonder

Warning the following contains spoilers for the episode Wild Blue Yonder!

 

Not only is Doctor Who back but with David Tennant and Catherine Tate! In the second special Wild Blue Yonder, we were treated with double the Doctor and Donna as they faced their mysterious doppelgangers after being abandoned by the Tardis on an empty ship at the edge of the universe. The episode was weird and wonderful, with great performances by both Tennant and Tate, and I have been thinking almost non-stop about it since I watched. Because it wasn’t just a good episode of Doctor Who, it was episode that was conceptually interesting, while still being mysterious (what sort of being are the doppelgangers is never truly understood). It was episode that made me think a lot about creation in many different senses and AI.

 

One of the aspects of the episode that I found very striking is the use of the word “creation” in it. It is not a word that feels very Doctor Who-y or in science fiction. The universe or galaxy seem more obvious choices. But in attempting to figure out where they have ended up, when looking out the window that shows only darkness, the Doctor says to Donna that its “Nothing at the edge of creation.” They are so far from anything that they cannot even see the stars. It is hard for Donna to imagine being at “the edge of everything,” the Doctor explains that currently there are no words that can explain it to her. From this interaction, my head has a lot of thoughts about how to interpret this episode. I am firstly reminded of something that one of my theology lecturers said which is that the language of creation implies a creator. In visualising nothing, the tendency is to see it as darkness because how else does one visualise an absence. There is a sense of play, I think in Davies’ choice to have these doppelgangers emerge from “the absolute nothingness” because it is not creation from nothing.

 

The Not-Doctor and Not-Donna exist in some sense prior to the Doctor, Donna and the spaceship that they land on. They seem to exist in the darkness in “no time” as potentiality, with no essence, accidents, or form. Despite the nothingness, they are shaped by what comes to the edge. In response to the question of what made them so bad, the Not-Doctor replies “We could hear your lives of war and blood and fury and hate. They made us like this.” Even in this darkness, they were being shaped. It is slightly harrowing image that the only thing that came to this part of the universe was hatred, rather than love or even just starlight. But as Not-Donna replies “Love letters don’t travel very far.” Despite seemingly being able to be anything, they are not constrained by shape, the doppelgangers do not have the ability to be original. They mimic others. They are reliant on others as they are figuring how to be a physical being.

 

The parallels with Artificial Intelligence are clear as soon as it is revealed to the Doctor and Donna that they are not talking with each other but with the doppelganger. It is revealed because their arms are too long, which is very reminiscent with the way that AI generated art struggled to fully understand the human body. Not-Donna remarks that she is unsure whether having two knees refers to each leg or in total has the feel of one putting in a description and the AI being unsure of how to interpret it. But even before the reveal, the language used by both the Not-Doctor and Not-Donna is slightly stilted, suggesting that they are slowly learning what to say. As the episode goes on, they both learn how to talk and be a physical being. The Doctor says that the difference between the two Donna’s was 0.1%. The episode can be interpreted as the potential challenges of AI. There is evidence that AI systems can be biased because of the datasets that are used. For example, if one does not specify a skin tone, an AI generated image will default to white. A more diverse dataset may help to rectify some of these biases, but the problem is bigger. Things are not created in a vacuum. One may not intend to create a biased machine, but a machine absorbs cultural norms and is a product of cultural norms. Hille Hake wrote that “science and technologies as social practices that need to be justified in light of the normative framework.” Technologies that do not have ethical scrutiny are not neutral, they will reflect the cultures that they are created. There is a need to continually reflect on what values and norms are being respected. Does it acknowledge human are more than just a utility? But this space of nothing in Doctor Who is not only absent of any stars, but it also lacks a normative framework to guide the act of creation. One of the key questions for AI, like any technology, is what is its purpose or why is it being made? This is helpful because it reminds one that it needs to be justified. There remains the problems of unforeseen consequences of technology but considering the intended telos can be a helpful beginning for continuous reflection. It is notable that the Doctor remarks that initially they existed in this part of the universe with no purpose and from what they heard they decided they want to join the universe’s “vicious games.”  While it is not exactly the same, there is slight parallel with the gap in Donna’s mind in the previous episode. Donna lacks the memories of her time with the Doctor, which is a kind of absence. But even in that state, the Doctor continued to shape her. She gave her lottery winnings to charity because she felt that it was what the Doctor would do. The Not-Doctor remarks as he is learning about shape the “When something is gone, it keeps existing.” Even when the Doctor is gone, his goodness, his love still existed in Donna. She had the Doctor’s norms even in his absence.

 

There is also a sense that the mysterious doppelgangers are a representation of the future. I described them earlier as seeming to exist initially as potentiality. At present, this is also the state of the future, it exists in potentiality. It can be almost anything. In other words, it lacks shape and definition. Not-Donna says that the consequence of being embodied is that “It limits.” Regardless of how idealistically one envisions the future, one cannot escape the reality that being created means being limited. As one moves towards the future, the question is how we move towards the future. In the ship there is a robot that they refer to as Jimbo who is moving slowly down the corridor. For most of the episode, the purpose of Jimbo is unclear but after discovering that the doppelgangers can learn more from the Doctor and Donna when they are thinking fast. They don’t understand slowness. Jimbo has been programmed by the captain before she committed suicide to move slowly in order to destroy the ship and the doppelgangers. This was the opposite of Mark Zuckerberg’s motto of “Move fast and break things.” There is a need for intentionality, the robot moved slowly with purpose and was able to save the day. If we just head forward into the future with no regard, we may just end up destroying it. This is interesting to note in a show where the protagonist is known to run from one thing to the next. As the Doctor admits “We stand here now on the edge of creation, a creation which I devastated. So, yes, I keep running.” The Doctor doesn’t look back because of what he would be faced with. On one level, this is unlikely to ever fully change without undoing the premise of Doctor Who as explorer of time and space. But at the same time, Donna was seen as someone who was destroyed by her relationship with the Doctor and yet it is shown that what seems impossible and tragic can change. In encountering Donna again there was the possibility for Donna to be made whole again. She is a new creation.

Thoughts on Dignity in Dying Bill 2020

 

The question of whether one should be able to choose how one dies has returned to Irish political discourse with the Dignity in Dying Bill which is being voted on in the Dáil today. The bill says that if one is terminally ill, that one has no treatment other than medication that relieves the illness and that if one has the clear desire to die that they can be assisted in dying. Assisted suicide is a difficult issue which touches on many thorny issues including how do we think of pain and suffering, what dignity means, how this affects how one thinks of being disabled, elderly and mental health.

https://pixabay.com/photos/mouth-guard-pandemic-epidemic-virus-4955470/

 One of the critical questions to this debate is what does dignity mean? Does dignity include a good death as the term euthanasia suggests? Like so many terms today it is critical that we define exactly what dignity means because today dignity is used mainly in two ways which makes dialogue difficult in this area. Labour leader Alan Kelly in his support of the bill said, “Now there is a public mood as regards giving people their dignity and that is why the Labour Party is supporting this legislation.”[1] The idea of dignity, that Kelly and many who argue for assisted suicide, is using is an understanding where dignity can be lost. Unlike the other understanding of dignity, the emphasis is on individuals’ sense of whether they have dignity and their autonomy. There is a danger with this understanding of dignity because it can be linked with one’s abilities. The author Terry Pratchett, who had Alzheimer’s,  in the documentary “Choosing to Die” (2010) said that “When I can no longer write my books, I’m not sure that I will want to go on living.”[2] Pratchett’s view is in many ways very understandable, how many of us feel that we want to be giving to others what might be regarded as the best of us. But there is an element in this understanding of dignity of ableism because our dignity is linked with our capacities. This ableism may not come from anyone outside of the individual, but it is still full of expectations about what means that one is worthy of the concept of dignity. As a disabled woman, I understand that it is important to affirm the autonomy of people with disabilities who so often are paternalised, but I cannot say that assisted dying helps in that respect. The other understanding of dignity which is used in human rights law and stems from Kantian and Christian ethics is that dignity means that humans are never to be used solely as a means. It assumes that all people, regardless of who they are, what religion, what their abilities are, possess dignity and it is inalienable. Dignity is to be assumed; it cannot be proven as it is a transcendental concept, like human freedom. Dignity is not a quality that we may or may not possess, but we are able to interact with people in such a way which speaks to their dignity and we need to really think whether assisting someone with their death is such an action?

 

The bill does not use the term consent but instead says that they have “made a valid declaration to end his or her life.”[3] It is important to consider that while consent is an important principle that there are reasons to recognise that it is not without flaws. In bioethics, it is expected that there will be informed consent, which is meant to protect people’s decisions so that with the knowledge provided by medical officials, one can reflect and make a choice. But people can be swayed by medical officials, to fail to grasp the consequences or the medical information and importantly, be influenced by other factors. I think in this argument most of these factors, like grasping the medical information and consequences, are ruled out but it is important to ask are they influenced by other factors? If one looks at another area of end of life care advance care directives, there is no recognition of what people might want in a positive sense as it is not viewed that there is a right to healthcare and therefore, the content is focused on orders such as do not resuscitate. But in countries like the United States, which I would argue objectively has a terrible health care system, where these advanced care directives are more common, it seems clear that there is the question do people really happy to die sooner or that they feel the pressure to not want to burden their family with the cost of care? I am not saying that it is the only reason, but we must be honest that people are influenced by their financial situations. As a result, it is vitally important that we help the elderly not to feel that they are a burden, that we make palliative care as accessible for as many people as possible so that it is nor a luxury and the family of those who have family in palliative care can take time so that they can spend time with their family. Being with people, even if they are not cognitively aware is not a waste but is in fact valuable. There are other concerns in relation to assisted dying which makes consent a problem, this may be a result of depression. Medical literature shows that 25-77% of that people with terminal illnesses have depression.[4] The fact that that people are clearly suffering and pain does not mean that we should be treating their depression and thoughts about suicide in a completely different way than other people with depression in the sense that we legitimise one group’s but not the other. Very few of us argue for complete autonomy, recognising that we can consent to things which are wrong and one of the main reasons to restrict autonomy is when it will harm people. We cannot simply accept things on the grounds of choice.

 

It is hard not to be aware that I am writing this in the time of Covid-19. When Covid-19 shut down the world back in March, there were many articles about how it would change the political landscape. It would lead to a society that emphasises more the importance of healthcare, that it would lead to a world that would be more accessible for those of us with disabilities and we would learn to see ourselves not as independent individuals but as people who are interconnected and that we need to lean on each other and care for each other. It is hard not to be cynical about this as one listens to people complain about the restrictions and the desire to return to normality, but I do hope we can be a better society. As someone with a disability, it can be a struggle to accept the ways that I feel dependent on others because that is not the norm and I hate the idea of being a burden. But the reality as disability rights activist John Kelly from Not Dead Yet has pointed out is that “we’re all interdependent, whether or not we acknowledge it.”[5] I would love if after Covid, independence is seen as a myth and that we attempt to accept others help as well as offering others support, that we can share with each other our struggles and suffering. I acknowledge that helping your neighbour buy food during lockdown is different to helping someone to go the bathroom or change them, but if we are to create a society that has space for people with disabilities and the elderly, we need to be open to being in uncomfortable situations. We need to treat people with dignity and that may mean helping your grandmother change her clothes. The Death with Dignity Act Report 2016 cites reasons for assisted suicide were “loss of autonomy” (92%), “less able to engage in activities” (90%), “loss of dignity” (79%), “loss of control of bodily functions” (48%) and “feelings of being a burden” (41%).[6] In an article on assisted suicide, Dan Diaz said, “If I find myself in a situation where I can’t go to the bathroom on my own, where someone has to change my diapers, where I can’t feed myself, where I can’t care for the people around me, where other people have to move me around to keep me from having bedsores, I would then submit, ‘Is that really living?’”[7] We need to affirm each other’s dignity, be willing to create a society where our understanding of what counts as living includes people with disability and those who are elderly. Covid-19 might change our understanding of the human person for the better, but we cannot accept the anthropology of assisted dying because it is ableist.

---

[1] https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/0914/1165121-politics-dying-dignity-bill/

[2] https://www.irishcatholic.com/terry-pratchett-and-the-right-to-die-debate-greg-daly/

[3] https://ionainstitute.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Dignity-in-Dying-PMB.pdf

[4](Note this article is from 2001) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1291326/

[5] https://theminimiseproject.ie/2020/09/06/notes-from-the-rehumanize-conference/

[6] https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Documents/year19.pdf

[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/death-with-dignity-laws-and-the-desire-to-control-how-ones-life-ends/2016/10/24/6882d1e6-9629-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html

What if God was one of us? Thoughts on Chalcedonian Christology, Suffering and Solidarity

Copyright: May I Walk in Your Truth

Theodicy, the justification if God’s goodness in the face of evil, is a question that every religious believer and theologian must consider and grapple with. There are many responses which seek to explain the problem of evil, for example, to blame it on human freedom and to turn it into a question of anthropodicy or to see evil as something which helps to make us who we are, known as soul-making theodicy. The existence of suffering poses a threat in how one understands God, how is one to speak of God? As Metz has observed theology cannot remain untouched by the history of suffering. It cannot be silent to suffering or presume that it is innocent, one’s words need to be carefully considered.[1] Following Metz, many theologians have reconsidered the classical understanding of God, particularly the attribute of divine impassibility. Jesus is understood as the visible sign of the invisible, pointing to who God is in the immanent sense. It is easy to look at the suffering of Jesus and to understand that this shows that God suffers with us. Proponents of passibility will point out that this shows a God who is moved and open to the suffering of humanity and that He loves His people. They contrast their understanding with the classical impassible God. Their God as He is moved by people, which they argue means that active solidarity is possible as God can be a co-suffer. An impassible God, they argue, is one that is very passive, who watches humanity from eternity.

 

Those who argue for a passible God are not a single viewpoint, there are a variety of perspectives of how exactly they understand passibility, for example, to what extent a God who suffers helps the theodicy question. However, for the purpose of this piece, I will focus on Jurgen Moltmann’s understanding of divine passibility. Moltmann views the crucifixion as the central event which shows who God is, that God is in solidarity with “the godforsaken,” who are the victims of history. The crucifixion is understood an intra-trinitarian event, where the Father has abandoned the Son as He dies on the cross and therefore, Christ suffers as He dies, and the Father also suffers. They have become part of the godforsaken and there is a gulf between the Father and Son, their relationship has been destroyed which is overcome by their love, the Holy Spirit, who is reaching out towards the godforsaken.[2] Rather than an understanding of God where humanity is divinised, that Christ became poor so that we may be rich, but for Moltmann, the incarnation is Christ becomes poor so that we can recognise God in “despised humanity.”[3] It appears that the main purpose of the incarnation for Moltmann is to show that God is on the side of the oppressed and is involved in their protest and the work against injustice. A part of the reconsideration of how one understands God is the rejection of Chalcedonian Christology. This rejection is because of a variety reasons, for example, it is perceived that due to the influence of Hellenistic philosophy that it is unbiblical and because of what it potentially implies about God. The two natures of Christ is not seen as being a solution but instead continued to malign the human body of Christ without being docetic, although Moltmann would argue that Chalcedon came close to Docetism, as it maintained that Jesus only appeared to die and suffer because they only attributed these to His humanity. Moltmann argues that it overlooks the suffering of Christ, that in Christ there is greater unity than the Council of Chalcedon declared.[4] It does not recognise that when Christ dies is not just the death of his human nature but also that God dies, which cannot occur if the divine is understood as impassible and that it is maintained that Christ’s divinity is unaffected. Moltmann instead argues that Christ “suffered in his special divine pain.”[5]

 

In Moltmann’s theology, there are many aspects which one could explore and critique, for example, whether to accept divine impassibility, however, I want to focus on his rejection of Chalcedonian Christology. But first, lets briefly give an overview of what was decided at the Chalcedon and Ephesus. The conflict broke out due to the title of Theotokos (God-bearer) to the Virgin Mary. There was the question of whether it could be said that she gave birth to Jesus’ divinity. Nestorius by rejecting the title of Theotokos (at least on its own), had wanted to protect Jesus from any suggestion that His two nature were mixed. This would also protect God from the suggestion that God was subject to time or changed as the title Theotokos could be understood to suggest. Cyril of Alexandria, however, disagreed and argued that Christ had one nature, although he understood nature in a different sense to Nestorius. The Alexandrian understanding referred to a concrete entity rather than the Antiochene meaning that Nestorius used which referred to a collection of characteristics. Cyril understood the difference between the two meaning and when using the Antiochene meaning of nature was happy to say that Christ had two distinct natures. But he maintained that there was never a time when Christ was only human which the rejection of the title Theotokos suggested. In the two councils which followed their dispute, the title Theotokos was affirmed, which meant that whatever could be said of Jesus the human was equally applicable to His divinity as Christ has two natures in the Antiochene sense but Chalcedon stressed that Christ is one person, one single subject. The principle of communicatio idiomatum was established, which meant that the human attributes can be used in connection to Christ’s divinity and vice versa as Christ is one person. In the incarnation, the humanity was added to the Son without taking anything away or mixing anything together.

 

Critics of Chalcedon, including Moltmann, argue that Chalcedon conceded too much to Nestorius, that it continued to conceive of Christ in dualistic terms. A model like Moltmann, it is argued means that there is greater unity as he does not split Christ in two, the suffering Christ is the suffering God. But this overlooks the great potential of communicatio idiomatum and Chalcedonian Christology where one can say that Christ is both passible and impassible. The 4^th century liturgical manual Apostolic Constitutions said that “the impassible was nailed to the cross.”[6] From a Chalcedonian perspective, there is nothing technically wrong in saying that God suffered because natures are not persons. Therefore, while Christ did not suffer in His divinity but in His human nature, it did occur to Christ who is a single subject. It only becomes dualistic if one mistakes nature for person. One’s nature does not act, which means that one is unable to assert that one’s nature, but it is by one’s nature that one is able to act. It is the person who acts, according to their nature. Therefore, it is by Christ’s humanity that He suffers but it is one person of Christ who suffers.[7]

 

As many theologians, for example, St. Augustine of Hippo, have recognised that due to Christ’s role as mediator, it is necessary that He is both divine and human.[8] The divinity of Christ often receives the most attention, but the humanity plays an important role and from my reading of Moltmann, he does not recognise that the humanity of Christ in a Chalcedonian model has the potential for radical solidarity. For those who propose a suffering God, in order to pre-emptively reject the criticism that it suggests God can be changed by something outside Himself and therefore, God is no different to the rest of creation and imperfect, they will usually argue that divine suffering is different to human suffering as it is freely chosen by God so to protect His perfection. But this approach is an unnecessary step. While a suffering God is meant to be in solidarity with the victims of history, but with an interpretation of the passion like Moltmann's, it is easy to lose sight of the human suffering as the entire Trinity suffers in a divine way. But with Chalcedon, Christ’s suffering is not something different to our suffering. Christ through the incarnation, by taking on humanity takes on the totality of human suffering and gives voice to human suffering “precisely as human pain and as our pain.”[9] This seems to me to be a greater form of solidarity than proposed by passibilists, because they only propose a God who suffers but it is not clear that their Christ shares in our suffering. Moltmann does not do anything with Christ’s humanity in his interpretation of the crucifixion, which raises the question apart from showing solidarity and being the visible sign of the invisible, what was the point of Christ becoming human specifically? The Chalcedon Christ who is homoousios with humanity is in greater unity with humanity and their suffering, and in a much more meaningful way, one can say that Christ is a co-suffer with humanity.

 

One of the important aspects when considering the question of whether Christ’s life reveals a passible God is to consider whether Christ’s life is simply a reflection of God. The idea that if Christ suffers then this must reflect something about who God seems prima facie a sound assumption, but it needs reflection otherwise there is the danger of a simplistic reading of Christ’s life and what it reveals about God. Moltmann argues that with the crucifixion God, both the Father and the Son die, not just Christ in His humanity. But in approaching Christ in this manner, Moltmann, in fact, collapses the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity, by making the crucifixion a Trinitarian event. It suggests that what occurs on earth is simply a repetition of what happens above.[10] Apart from being reminiscent to some heresies, it overlooks that some of what Christ says while reflecting God, does not do this in a straightforward way. Christ’s cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” With Moltmann, it expresses Christ’s literal abandonment by God. But if one follows figures like Aquinas, Christ’s cry is not on His personal behalf, but it expresses the pain of humanity. Christ’s words do not reflect His bodily pain, rather He gives voices to the pain of others. Rather than Chalcedonian Christology encouraging a view of God that lacks solidarity with His people, it has greater solidarity to the victims of history.

---

[1] Johann Baptist Metz, “Suffering Unto God,” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 4, Symposium on "God" (Summer, 1994): 611.

[2] Richard Bauckham, “'Only the Suffering God Can help'. Divine Passibility in Modern Theology,” Themelios, 9.3 (April 1984): 11.

[3] Jürgen Moltmann,  The Crucified God: The Cross as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press, 2015), 220.

[4] Ibid., 238-242.

[5] James Keating and Thomas Joseph White, ed. Divine Impassibility and the Mystery of Human Suffering (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 42

[6] Ibid., 129.

[7] Ibid., 282-283.

[8] Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

219.

[9] Rowan Williams, Christ the Heart of Creation (London: Bloomsbury, 2018), 92.

[10] James Keating and Thomas Joseph White, ed. Divine Impassibility and the Mystery of Human Suffering, 297.

Ireland First or Catholic Solidarity? A Necessary Choice

Tom Szustek / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)

Across the West, there has been a resurgence of nationalism, with anti-immigrant, racist and anti-multiculturalism rhetoric. Ireland has not experienced this phenomenon to the same extent as the countries on its left or right, however, it is there. Not only does it exist but I have observed it in Irish Catholicism. This is not something I had recently noticed, but over the last few months I had the opportunity to dedicate a lot of time considering it for the class “Religion, Media and the Public Sphere.” For that class, I wrote about Irish Catholicism and how it was constructing online an understanding of what it means to be Irish and Catholic using the issue of immigration as a defining issue. While for the class, I adopted the position of an impartial observer, I knew as soon as I chose the topic that I wanted to write about what I observed and analysed in that essay as a Catholic.

 

I originally intended to publish online two pieces, the first part being the essay I wrote for the class and the second piece being my response to my findings. However, having written the essay, I have decided that I do not want to publish it online because while I only used social media posts which were public and therefore, no one I cited as an example should be uncomfortable with me using them, I have decided against it as I do not want this article to be read as a personal attack against any particular individual. After all, Ireland is a small country, it is not inconceivable that what I wrote might be shared with someone I wrote about. Let me give an overview of what I have observed over the last few months. I have noticed that there is a group of Catholics who devote a lot of their social media posts on the issues of nationalism, immigration, open-borders, refugees, and multiculturalism. I use the term group but to be clear I do not mean that they are in any way a formal, organised group and there are differences, for example in how they view Pope Francis due to his stance on immigration, from disagreeing with him theologically to implying that he is a freemason. When Irish Catholics, for example, a bishop, make public comments about how the Bible tells us to welcome the stranger or statements with a similar intent, these are judged as an incorrect statement. The backlash that I have seen when someone makes a statement of this kind includes arguments that they are not interpreting the Bible correctly, that Catholic social teaching allows for strong borders and that the individuals have been influenced by anti-Catholic forces, the atheists and liberals. Catholics who advocate for the support of refugees are treated as an other, with the suggestion that they are pandering to liberals. I have noticed that there seems to be intense anxiety around Irish culture being destroyed with multi-culturalism. It is argued that those in Ireland should accept Irish law and culture if they are to stay. The introduction of “alien” cultures, even if there are similarities, will not work. There seem to be two fears connected to the introduction of other cultures, the first is that it will result in violence as Islamic extremists will be let in and secondly, that the Irish will be replaced. These Catholics want a largely homogenous Ireland, which controls its borders and laws, which is why many advocate for Ireland leaving the European Union, promote free speech and often have a libertarian perspective.

 

First, I would like to address what I might call the “trumpening” of Irish Catholicism (although I do recognise that this phenomenon is not simply due to the influence of American culture). One of the aspects I had originally planned on exploring was what was causing this change in Irish Catholicism, however, in the end, I decided to focus on other aspects. It appears to me that this is in part because of the influence of conservative figures like Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, etc. and I think a distrust of the “liberal” media which has led to people looking for alternative sources also plays a role. It is also clear that these Catholics do not feel represented in the new Irish identity. As Charles Taylor wrote when a group does not feel that the identity does not include them, that they are not accommodated and that they feel that are not full citizens that trouble will follow. As mainstream culture does not represent them, they find conservative and provocative figures as attractive due to their ability to “own the libs.” They may have started supporting the figures because they agree with them on some issues but over time it appears that they have granted them authority beyond those initial issues. Let us take a figure like Donald Trump as an example. I do not support him; I do not think that he is pro-life. But I could be I am wrong, however, in other areas, for example, the treatment of children at borders really leaves me unconvinced that he cares about the sanctity of life and therefore, it is impossible for me to support him. From my perspective, it appears that these Irish Catholics are not only supporting him on the issue of abortion but also mirror his immigration rhetoric, for example, “Ireland first.” It is always difficult to judge how much this is coming from the individual and to what extent this is due to following right-wing media, which persuades them of the general worldview, so I am not going to make a judgment on whether the Catholics sincerely hold these views. From my perspective, they see themselves in opposition with the liberal left and I fear that they are letting this impact their thinking. Catholicism does not fit into the modern right left, Republican Democrat binary, yet these Catholics appear to continuously, on almost every issue, identify with the Republican Party. When other Catholics say anything that might be understood as “left-wing,” like statements supporting refugees, one is understood as anti-Catholic. Apart from the theological and biblical tradition which often accompanies these views, they are ignoring natural law theory. According to natural law, while we are all subject to original sin, we are all orientated towards the good. As Paul says in Romans, while the Gentiles did not receive the revelation of God’s Law, they already knew it as it is written on their hearts. With the way that some Catholics write one might wonder whether God was tired of writing and so skipped the hearts of the left. Natural law does not mean that people are free from error, but it does mean that without God, people are able to use reason to know of the good. Therefore, it is important to recognise that the left in its support of the poor, refugees, for example, has recognised the good. I think that it is crucial when one approaches any thinker, whether they are religious or not, left or right, to consider what they are saying critically and whether it corresponds with the truth.

 

To turn to the question of culture, I think it is important to recognise that there are two ways in which we can speak about multiculturalism. One way of speaking of multiculturalism is that it is good to have a variety of cultures, for examples, if one considers the US and the pride that some Americans have in seeing their country as a melting pot. But multiculturalism also refers to the state of a country. In looking at Ireland, it is a fact that Ireland is a multicultural society and it cannot be ignored. In a given class, one might find students whose family have come from another country, children with no religious identity and those with religious identities which have not historically been the norm in Ireland. The Irish identity that is put forward by these Catholics is on where everyone is proud of Ireland, of the revolutionaries, saints and writers, etc., where people accept at the very least that Catholicism is a part of Irish culture and speak Irish. I do not think that anything is necessarily wrong with wanting to promote, for example, the Irish language. My problem is with how Irish culture is seen by these Catholics, where it is something that they possess, but that those who, for example, support Ireland being part of the EU are viewed as having betrayed Ireland. Culture is not static; it is something that by its very nature is constantly evolving and being contested. Right now, Ireland has evolved so that it is more multicultural than it was in the past and I do not think that even if Ireland closed its borders would radically change that. In modern Ireland, there is no unified idea of what constitutes the good life. We are living in a society with people of all sorts of views exist and we need to learn to accept that fact. I understand that the very nature of conservatism wants to conserve aspects of society and culture, but it is necessary to acknowledge that cultures will change for better or worse and not to treat the change as a betrayal to a past vision of Ireland. We are all to varying degrees choosing what of the past that we want to keep and what we wish to reject. Rowan Williams describes culture as a process of trying to figure things out, where we are constantly trying to alter society to make it better. I think it is important to recognise that culture is a negotiation between people, there is no platonic ideal that is Irish culture, it is bound by time. Let me be clear, however, what I am not saying, which is that I am not supporting relativism, there are certainly versions of Irish culture which correspond to moral truth more than others. When I look at some Irish Catholics, who might quote an Irish revolutionary saying something along the lines of Ireland can never be free while under the influence of a foreign power, it feels like Irish culture has been decided rather than being historically contingent. But there is no singular Irish culture and none of them are perfect. Like multiculturalism, it is also necessary to recognise that the world for better and worse is very interconnected. Even those who are ardent nationalists, whether they recognise it or not, are influenced by outside cultures. Particularly with the invention of the internet, I do not think it is possible for a culture to stay in its box.

 

I confess that observing this group of Catholics that I have often felt frustrated with them. I think a particular post really encapsulates why I felt upset with them, it stated that the essence of Christianity was self-sufficiency. Christianity which at its centre is about Jesus Christ who lived, died, and rose again for others, this is really about self-sufficiency… okay… In my essay, I was focusing on the issue of immigration and refugees, but this mentality is there on many other issues, in how the welfare state is viewed and how some people are treating COVID-19, as Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters’ court case shows. Solidarity is a part of Catholic social teaching and yet it is being ignored by these Catholics, trading it for a more libertarian view. Many of these Catholics are dismissive of Pope Francis and therefore, if I quoted his calls for solidarity and quoted him saying that self-sufficiency is a sin, I imagine would be unconvinced and would not feel any urge to rethink their personal philosophy, even though Saint John Paul II also said the same about self-sufficiency. The reality is that we are dependent on God and dependent on each other. Their idea that what matters is freedom from others, of negative rights, ignores the common good and how we have responsibilities to one another. Solidarity, while an important them of Francis’s papacy, predates him, it is a theme which is found in many papal documents, where it is stress as part of our moral thinking. Solidarity, John Paul II wrote in Centesimus Annus, is a principle that we are to use to judge both the national and international order in how it treats the most vulnerable. This includes refugees and it shows that our moral concern is not confined to our country. Solidarity is often seen as a structure which is needed in our institutions, which should determine how they are run, and it should help to combat structural sin. It is both a communal and individual virtue. In the Pontifical Council Document Cor Unum, which was written in 1988 on the treatment of refugees it says:

“Indifference constitutes a sin of omission. Solidarity helps to reverse the tendency to see the world solely from one’s own point of view. Acceptance of the global dimension of problems emphasises the limits of every culture; it urges us towards a more sober lifestyle with a view to contributing to the common good; it makes it possible to provide an effective response to the just appeals of refugee and opens paths of peace.”

From my perspective, the rhetoric of Ireland first, where it is argued that we cannot take in anyone in due to the housing crisis, appears to be a limited perspective, which overlooks the plight of those beyond Ireland and the need for Ireland to recognise that the common good, which is not limited to borders and to recognise what it can do to help the refugee crisis. We cannot be indifferent to our neighbours who are part of the same human family. As Pope Paul IV argued nationalism can jeopardise our sense of common humanity and solidarity. Without love, nationalism can threaten the welfare of humanity. We need to recognise that as richer countries we have obligations to help poorer countries. As Catholics, it is necessary that we practise the habit of solidarity. If we adopt a virtue ethics approach, we need to consider what our end goal is, what kind of society do we want to become. The end of the virtue of solidarity is to participate in the common good. If one is to practice solidarity, I do not think it is possible to maintain the attitude of Ireland first because at every level of society, from the individual to the global, we are called to look beyond ourselves and reach out to others. Looking at the accounts of this group of Catholics, from what they regularly post which are posts arguing against immigration, it appears that the habit of solidarity is absent. In accepting a global approach to problems, this does not mean that the local is not to be respected, it is as part of solidarity is respecting each other as equal agents. It also does not mean accepting the problematic elements of globalism, it just means that recognising that we have a responsibility towards others beyond our nations and the structures of the world can require an international response.

 

I want to conclude by saying that I am writing as a concerned Catholic, who feels that it is important that I speak out about what I see as a worrying trend, particularly as I see that some of these Catholics seem to be viewed as having some authority by Catholics. I pray that we will all grow in the virtue of solidarity, reaching outwards even when it is tough.