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.

A New Decade A New Discourse... Maybe?

                                            And so, a new decade begins…

Just like New Years are in many ways an arbitrary date in the year where we consider the last twelve months and make plans, express dreams and hopes for the next year, so too is a decade arbitrary. However, it is a useful framework in which to consider the world and where one is going. As someone who is twenty-three as this decade ends it is easy to see a difference in myself compared to who I was at thirteen. It is difficult to separate my perception of the last decade from who I was and have grown into. Despite the financial crash at thirteen, I was much more optimistic about the world. At thirteen, I thought as a species we were going in the right direction that as a species we were growing in humanity, understanding and compassion. I still want humanity to develop these things but today there is a greater cynicism. At twenty-three, I can the idea of progress is alluring, but that it is naïve, and it can be even dangerous as it ignores human weakness. We can discuss the precise interpretation of original sin is correct, critique bad understandings, but if we ignore human sinfulness we do so at our peril. I still believe that people are orientated towards the good, but that sin can get in our way and blind us. I sit here at the end of a decade where Ireland sits in between two countries where people have been polarised since 2016. I see people on the right and the left make caricatures of each other. I see people who are pleased to see certain groups are against a particular idea as it is evidence that the idea is worth pursuing. I see the most simplistic understandings of religion, particularly the idea of a single Islam. It can feel like I am seeing strawman, after strawman, after strawman. Brexiteers, Trump supporters all hate immigrants. The Democrats, Labour want their countries to become Venezuela. Religions want to take control of you and to stop you from thinking rationally, especially if it contains any sort of hierarchy. The list goes on and on.

©Bart Everson

So, where does this leave us? I still want compassion, justice and understanding but if this is to occur something needs to change. I do not think that this approach of suspicion and ill will can continue. There is, I believe, a need for an approach of hospitality similar to what is described by Paul Ricoeur. Ricoeur sees that it is a shortcoming if one is only capable of speaking one language as the more languages that one can speak, the more ways one is able to think and understand. There is a need for linguistic hospitality, where one is open to other languages. This idea he sees as being applicable to other cultures. If this idea of hospitality is to occur, it requires an openness. It requires that one is open in two ways, first it requires that the individual is open in what they personally think. It also requires that people are open towards others that they engage and attempt to understand what the other person thinks. It means that it is necessary that people show in a very honest manner what they think, the reasons for why they think that, the entire process of what they think, how this links to other beliefs that they hold and also being open about the areas where people are not exactly sure of what they think. We can feel at times that it is necessary to make a choice, pick a side, possibly when there is a lack of information. However, being open about areas of uncertainty, apart from being intellectually honest, also allows others to appreciate that people’s views are evolving and that they are still trying to figure out what they think.

Rather than solely speak in the abstract let me give an example, my thoughts and beliefs about refugees and immigration. Some of my reasons are secular, others are religious and some of the religious ideas are translatable into secular discourse. While I am very interested in virtue ethics, the perhaps more “deontological” side of me is also very interested in considering what do we owe other people. To answer the question “am I my sibling’s keeper?” the answer is yes. I, of course, have a duty to care for those around me, my family, my community and my country. But the reason I am likely to focus on them is not because they are citizens but because they are in my immediate vicinity. This does not mean that I see the boundary of the nation state to be the boundary of whom I am to care for and to be concerned with. I also have a duty to those beyond my country and it would seem in a globalised world remiss not to consider their needs. But also because the modern nation state is a human construct, where people at some point historically decided that they were a nation based on a common language, culture, etc. I have as a result no problem with a reassessment of that construct due to a necessity of meeting certain ethical demands. A nation can decide to leave behind a previous understanding of the construct. I think that the material conditions matter as a socialist and therefore I do think we need to be concerned with not only refugees fleeing war but also those who are economically destitute. Ultimately, I am not sure of what exactly the ideal policy is, I only have an idea of what one should be ethically concerned with. Hopefully, by being honest about my understanding of the nation state makes it clear why I am not a nationalist and my view of the ethical obligations helps one to understand my perspective. I could go on to discuss other related ideas like human dignity, the biblical understanding of the stranger and refugee and my understanding of the human person. Even if we are unable to agree on a particular policy, I hope that this approach would result in a more fruitful dialogue, because one may be able to understand my perspective by seeing how exactly the various beliefs and convictions interact.  

Let me be clear that I do not underestimate that genuine dialogue is challenging for many reasons. The old slogan “the personal is the political” continues to be true. There are many aspects of today’s society because they touch on personal issues are seen as beyond question as they are seen to bring pain. I think this approach is entirely understandable. But I would question whether the approach of public reason, where people only argue in terms of what is generally agreeable, works. I would argue that there is a greater chance of strawmen because one is not engaging with people actually think. However, that does not mean that it is excusable to use language is intentionally hurtful, offensive or disrespectful. If there is to be dialogue between those who identify as pro-choice and pro-life, it is much more fruitful to try to discuss what one understands terms like autonomy and life are than to use extreme language like murder. Refraining from such language shows that one is actually willing to really listen and engage with what the other is saying. It also does not help in understanding except on a very surface level, whereas considering each other’s understanding of autonomy may help to see something very important in one’s thinking but may not be particularly explicit in what they believe, though their ideas build upon it.

It is also important to state that any attempt to understand does not mean that one condones the position or even that one refrains from criticising others. It may be that there is an unseen bias or prejudice that the individual has not observed in themselves. The honesty from the person in dialogue can lead to personal growth. On the more extreme end of racism, sexism etc., the call for dialogue is not a call for relativism. I think it is important, for example, to understand those who support Brexit, even though I disagree with them, particularly because of the consequences to Northern Ireland. By understanding the system of beliefs, I hope to understand why Brexit is desired, but I am going to be critical because of how it overlooks Northern Ireland’s peace process and that it was not considered by so many and I am going to criticise the arguments which are based upon racial prejudice. It does not help anyone to say that they are not real problems. If in the quest to understand we no longer challenge these ideas, then it is not better than public reason.

Another challenge with engaging with different arguments and ideas is the problem of judging ideas. To use the title of the work by Alasdair MacIntyre there is the question of “Which Rationality? Which Justice?” Depending on the particular ethical framework one is working in, if one is even working in a particular framework, it can hinder one’s understanding of terms such as autonomy and justice. These terms can hinder dialogue, insofar as my understanding of these terms do not work in another’s argument failing to see that they understand the terms differently. This can be seen in the argument over abortion, where it is in part a hermeneutical question of how one interprets terms like life or autonomy, what are the limits of autonomy, etc. I agree with MacIntyre that with modernity which has meant that there is a break with tradition which has meant that we are justifying and judging ethical questions differently. However, I do not think that translation is impossible as a result. This is for me why I think that dialogue is so important because I hope that in attempting to lay it all bare that we will be able to at least understand each other to a greater degree. Judging other ideas is in many ways is a second step after understanding what the other person is saying, which requires thinking about criteria. Thinking and arguing for certain criteria requires a post on its own, which I may do in the future, but what I really want to underline here is that if we are to judge other’s views, then we need to understand what kind of rationality they are working in, how they justify things and how they define terms.

To conclude, I hope in this new decade that we move past the partisanship and try to really understand each other to the point where we would feel comfortable saying how we understand another’s point of view without it being a strawman but that it actually resembles what they think. This requires time and patience, which is why I think for many of us it is best done in person rather than online. I know it will be difficult since I began writing this piece, I have already seen an infuriating post about Greta Thunberg, and I did not want to try to understand their perspective. I also know that I am not always want to explain in a detailed and honest way what I believe. But I hope to try. I am not naïve enough to say that it will end divisions between people but I hope that by understanding each other we can see each other better and that maybe we can find areas where we might not have originally seen that we could work together.

The Ontological Inconsistencies of “I’m a Little Teapot”

                                  Dedicated to my nephew, the inspiration of this work

 ©Astocker

While singing to my nephew the children’s rhyme “I’m a Little Teapot,” a realisation occurred to me, which made me question whether this song is, in fact, appropriate to teach to children. In the first line, the author establishes that the speaker is a little teapot and in the final line, it is said that the speaker is also tea which can be poured out. These two lines suggest that there is an ontological inconsistency with the teapot in the song. One must question whether it can be truly asserted that the speaker can be both a teapot and the tea? Prima facie, one might assert that there is not a contradiction, that it is a necessity that a teapot has tea. However, consider a triangle which a priori requires by its definition that it has three sides and three angles which culminate in 180 degrees. The various aspects which make up the definition of a triangle are an ontological necessity. Unlike a triangle, a teapot can be separated from the tea as the song itself admits. A teapot can exist that is without any tea and therefore, it is not an ontological necessity.

One might assert that there is a problem, that this understanding of a teapot does not constitute a teapot but rather a pot. After all, if tea is not essential to the definition then it is not a teapot. A jam sandwich, for example, needs the jam to be in the sandwich otherwise it cannot be called a jam sandwich. However, even if the tea is not an essential part of the teapot that does not mean that they have no relationship with each other, there is a relationship that is on the ontological level. It is the final cause or telos. The telos of a teapot can be seen to hold and then deliver tea. As Aristotle acknowledged a being may never achieve the ends in which they were designed for. A teapot can sit on the shelf, never used and never achieving its telos. Tea is the means in which a teapot achieves its telos. Therefore, one can assert that tea is not part of the ontological definition of a teapot, without it resulting in a teapot being only a pot and it does not exclude tea from being an important aspect of its nature by being its telos. To return to the image of a jam sandwich, it cannot be said that two pieces of bread are analogous to a teapot. Bread and jam can be seen as the material cause of a jam sandwich, they are the raw materials which make a sandwich. Bread alone is only the potentiality of a jam sandwich; the bread could be used to make toast instead. The bread is not the equivalent to the teapot, the material cause of the teapot is the material that it consists of whether it is china or metal.

To conclude, “I’m a Little Teapot” cannot maintain that the speaker is both the teapot and the tea. The tea cannot be asserted to be an ontological necessity because the teapot can be separated from the tea. This does not necessitate that the teapot is understood to be a pot because the tea does have an important role because it is the means in which it achieves its telos. As a result, it is necessary that there is a need to reflect upon the future of “I’m a Little Teapot,” whether the song should be allowed to continue. Alternatively, if it is to continue it requires that the song is creatively edited. The final line could be sung instead “Tip me over and pour tea out.” This would better reflect the relationship between the teapot and the tea.

Considering the Brexit Party... as Religious?

Photo by ChiralJon 

As part of my degree, I had the opportunity to write an assignment where I applied two theories of religion to a case study. The case study did not have to be explicitly "religious" (whatever is meant by religious), one could, for example, consider, as I did in the essay, what can be learnt by looking at political rallies as rituals. This essay was to be considered only a starting point for further research, where one considered one's initial findings and point to areas where one might research further, due to the essay being only two thousand words. In this post, I have added a few things I was forced to exclude due to the word limit. For those who are not aware, the study of religion is not a theological perspective, rather it considers religion from the perspective as an outsider, therefore, this piece does not reflect so much my opinion of the Brexit Party as a person interested in political arguments, rather as an observer. The essay was also written in November and therefore, prior to the election results.

On the 23^rd of June 2016, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland voted to leave the European Union by almost fifty-two percent.[1] It has been regarded by many as “the biggest shock to the political establishment in Britain.”[2] It has led to a resurgence of nationalism and populism in many of the UK’s political parties, but this essay will focus on the Brexit Party. This essay will analyse the Brexit Party by referring to two theories of religion put forward by Clifford Geertz and Daniele Hervieu-Leger. It will consider the system symbols used by the Brexit Party, how this is reinforced by rallies as a form of ritual and to what extent the rallies reinforce the symbols. It will use the Brexit Party rally in Watford, on October 10^th, 2019 as an example. This essay will then consider whether a history and a lineage has been constructed or reconstructed. It is hoped that this research may be useful in further research on populism and nationalism.

Nigel Farage became sceptical of the European Union in 1990 when the UK entered Europe’s Exchange Rate Mechanism and became a founding member of the United Kingdom Independence Party, commonly known as UKIP. It began as a small party, but since the 2014 European and Local elections, where they received the largest number of votes for the European Parliament in the UK, they have been seen as a major party.[3][4] Their rise came at a time of austerity.[5] During the 2016 referendum, Farage did not lead the main campaign to leave the EU, but led the campaign called Leave.EU. They argued that as members of the EU they could not control immigration, which is seen with their poster of a crowd of non-white refugees and said, “Breaking point: the EU has failed us all.” The poster’s message suggests a need to control immigration.[6] Since the referendum, Farage has established a new party the Brexit Party, which received the largest number of votes in the UK European election in 2019.[7] The Brexit Party emerged because of Farage’s dissatisfaction over UKIP, who after he stood down as leader has argued that the party has become anti-Islam and because of his frustration that the UK has not left the EU yet, despite the original departure being March 2019.[8][9] There has also been less of an emphasis on immigration, the rally at Watford, for example, did not mention it at all.[10] However, Farage did argue for an immigration cap during the 2019 parliamentary election campaign. [11] Since the Brexit party has been founded they have been campaigning for the UK to leave without a withdrawal agreement, to get candidates elected, appearing on television and radio and holding rallies all over the UK.

The referendum itself, since the referendum, has become an important symbol for something bigger than the event itself. Geertz saw symbols as being “a vehicle for conception”, which can be any object, act, quality and they formulate notions, ideas and beliefs. The symbols create emotions and motivations.[12] Farage has said that the referendum had “the biggest democratic mandate in Britain’s history,” which can be seen to create anger and frustration by those who voted to leave.[13] It may motivate people to campaign against delays or deals which go against their conception of Brexit. The referendum is associated with bigger ideas, for example, the idea of a return of sovereignty. The slogan of “Take Back Control,” while not Leave.EU’s slogan, it is often evoked in the Brexit Party’s rhetoric. For example, Richard Tice at a rally discussed their policies and said that they would save money by no longer giving money to the EU and to the foreign aid budget because the UK would spend the money better.[14] This it is believed will be possible once Brexit is enacted. There were news stories prior to the referendum which discussed how the National Health Service “has been left 'on its knees' by uncontrolled migration from the EU,” and stories about the NHS being dangerously overworked.[15][16] This corresponded with a time when the UK was suffering from austerity. This likely caused a sense of suffering and injustice, and the symbols used in Brexit may have helped to express their experiences and gave people a sense of order. It requires further research by conducting interviews, but the aim of Brexit and the rhetoric of taking back control may have helped to create order. This is not to say that they see it as a complete end to their suffering, some those who see themselves as living in hardship have acknowledged that they will suffer because of Brexit, but honouring the Brexit appears to make it bearable.[17][18] It potentially gives them an origin to the injustice that people can blame where people and therefore, the necessary actions become apparent.

Geertz viewed ritual as helping to give the sense that the religious conceptions are true. It reinforces the moods and motivations which come from the symbols and the sense of order which is found in the ritual. The symbols and rituals help to reinforce each other.[19] During the Brexit party rally in Watford, Michael Heaver, an MEP, spoke about his experience on the EU Budgetary Control Committee where at a meeting it was told that the EU in 2018 misspent four billion euro, which he said sarcastically “isn’t that fantastic?”[20] As one of the criticisms of the EU is the lack of sovereignty and the amount of money that the UK gives to the EU, one can observe that he appears to be trying to rile up the crowd’s sense of anger at the EU. The symbols and moods from outside of the event are reinforced. Some supporters, although not all, of the Brexit Party have said that they do not consume mainstream media like the BBC anymore, but use online sources, like Rebel Media, Spiked, and Youtube.[21] Considering the importance of the internet in today’s culture, the ritual may not play a major role in reinforcing the symbols. For example, Maura had never seen Farage live, however, when interviewed prior to the event, she used the same rhetoric that was used by Farage. She said that after the referendum the genie was out of the bottle, which Farage also said in his speech at Watford.[22][23] Online media where people may be reading and watching a lot of content by the Brexit Party and other Brexit supporting media, likely has a greater role in shaping the person's moods and motivations than rallies as online media can be accessed at a moment's notice and most people use the internet several times a day. The rally probably does reinforce the symbols and affect behaviour, one might discover that there are more volunteers or donations after a rally, however, the internet may be a more important factor in terms of reinforcement of symbols.

Geertz has observed that rituals are not simply to be watched but enacted. In the portrayal, it not only shows the model of believing but also helps one to believe in it.[24] While a rally might be considered as something that is watched by the crowd rather than enacted, the crowd in the rally at Watford did do more than simply watch the rally. Clark, who attended the rally, described it as “like a pantomime” and in watching the rally, I did observe that the crowd seemed to be expected to cheer and boo at different points.[25] For example, at the beginning of Farage’s speech, he mentioned figures such as George Osborne, whose name was booed, and that Watford voted leave, which received a cheer.[26] One might hypothesise that having the crowd repeat the sentiment of the speech helps to reinforce the bigger concepts that they promote. There are also those who interrupted Farage’s speech, for example, one person called the MP’s who have voted against Brexit despite running on the promise that they would respect the vote liars and Farage incorporated the individual’s outcry into his speech, saying that it is worse, they have betrayed the people.[27] Considering some of those who support Brexit have stated that they feel Westminster does not focus on them as why they voted for leave, this approach may produce a feeling of recognition.

Supporters of Brexit have made references to the past. The phrase “Take Back Control” may allude to a past where Britain did have control. Similarly, politicians have made references to the past, for example, Farage wore a tie of the Bayeux Tapestry as a symbol of “the last time we were invaded and taken over.”[28] A blogpost on Leave.EU’s website defends leaving the EU because British democracies have been proven to be resilient to whatever challenges it faces.[29] Hervieu-Leger has argued that modernity lacks collective memory which is the consequence of rapid change. However, there is felt to be a need for collective memory in times of rapid change, in order to help form both collective and individual identity and to provide meaning. This involves an appeal to history which may be inaccurate in order to help an identity that is felt to be threatened.[30] Some areas which voted leave are areas that went from full employment in the 1960’s to mass unemployment in the 1980’s  as a result of globalisation.[31] For example, Ally Simcock, a leave voter, said the end of the mining industry in Stoke on Trent was in part the fault of EU because it was cheaper outside the UK. She hopes that after Brexit will restore “the pride that Stoke had lost.”[32] The return of sovereignty may be an attempt to create a collective identity for these communities. Further research is needed to see to what extent they identify as mining towns with a strong trade union tradition and to what extent they feel a need for a new identity. The interview with Simcock showed some of the children of trade unionists still feel connected to the trade union movement.[33] The appeal to memory is not a main feature of Brexit, the examples previously mentioned are not key arguments used by Brexit supporters. Leave.EU’s blogpost does appeal to the past to justify the future, however, the history one is rather vague and therefore, one could question to what extent it counts as a tradition. The phrase “Take Back Control” also evokes a sense of a past where the UK was in control, however, the focus is on the future. Tice when discussing the UK being able to control its money after Brexit did not reference a perceived history. Hervieu-Leger observed that there is often a rite where events of the past are remembered, showing a lineage of belief.[34] Apart from references to the referendum result, there is no act of remembrance to anything prior to it. This raises questions about how populist movements are understood. There is often an assumption that they have in mind a past golden age which they are appealing to, however, the evidence collected so far for this case study shows that there may be a greater emphasis on the future.

Hervieu-Leger near the end of her book discusses elective fraternities, which emerge from shared interests and emotions. They emerge due to the collapse of traditional communities and differ from traditional communities insofar as they are voluntary. The emotional intensity found in some groups can lead to a feeling that they are not transient, and they have a (re)construction of a chain of witnesses. The chain in these groups are not necessarily primary, however, she observes that they do tend to appeal to some sort of genealogy.[35] Members, like Maura, who said that the genie is out of the bottle, suggests they see the movement as staying around. There is also a sense that people in the movement might see a lineage. Maura says that she is supporting Boris Johnson at the moment because he can get her out of the EU, though she says that Farage “deserves it.”[36] The implication may be that Farage has campaigned for over twenty-five years against the EU and therefore, he is the head of the lineage. Brexit supporters may have viewed Theresa May as the wrong person to bring the UK out of the EU because she is not part of the lineage of those who have campaigned against Brexit. People may support Johnson because he is seen as part of the lineage. However, it is questionable whether this idea of lineage can be applied to Brexit, in part because there is no clear sense of lineage, rather these figures are associated with the Brexit campaign. The shortness of the time period also makes it difficult in assessing whether it can be called a lineage. It may be that this research is too early to see whether there will be debates of who are the keepers of the Brexit memory.[37]

To conclude, using the theories of Geertz and Hervieu-Leger, one can make some initial observations about the Brexit Party, although further research is needed. Considering the injustices that people felt in relation to problems with NHS and austerity, the symbols that they were presented with by the Brexit supporters may have given them a sense of order which helped them to make sense of their experiences, even if they continue to suffer. The rallies do reinforce the symbols like the idea of sovereignty, in terms of the rhetoric that is used, however, their impact may be small as the internet may have a bigger impact in relation to reinforcement. The rallies by getting the crowd engaged with the speeches, by cheering, booing and even interruptions, help to motivate the crowd and give people the feeling that they are being recognised. There are examples where people have evoked a sense of history, however, the references have been very vague and it is not clear that the history is being used to construct a new identity, the old identities may remain. It also does not appear that they have constructed a lineage, at least one that is clearly identifiable. This essay only marks the beginning of the research, questions still remain, for example, to what extent are these nationalist movements actually providing an alternative identity, whether their focus is really on the past and does the system of symbols actually create a sense of order for those facing injustice and suffering?

---

[1] “EU Referendum Results,” BBC, accessed November 24, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results.

[2] Anushka Asthana, Ben Quinn and Rowena Mason, “UK votes to leave EU after dramatic night divides nation,” The Guardian, June 24, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/britain-votes-for-brexit-eu-referendum-david-cameron.

[3] Gabby Gibbon, “Nigel Farage profile: how his political career started in a pub,” Channel4, accessed November 24, 2019, Video, 0:19-1:12, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb0zGr5kOb8&list=PLnk49Nb7c-uqLlawkkHptRBjnrgddCy_i&index=22&t=0s.  

[4] “Vote 2014: UK European election results,” BBC, accessed November 24, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results.

[5] Thiemo Fetzer, “Had austerity not happened, Leave support could have been up to 10% lower,” London School of Economics and Political Science, August 1, 2018, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/did-austerity-cause-brexit/.

[6] Heather Stewart and Rowena Mason, “Nigel Farage's anti-migrant poster reported to police,” The Guardian, June 16, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants.

[7] “European Election 2019: UK results in maps and charts,” BBC, accessed November 24, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48403131.

[8] Melissa Etehad, “Far-right British politician Nigel Farage talks Islam, ‘Brexit’ and whether there’s a rise in hate crimes,” Los Angeles Times, November 2, 2018, https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-nigel-farage-interview-20181102-story.html.

[9] “General election 2019: A simple guide to the Brexit Party,” BBC, accessed November 24, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50338070.

[10] Nigel Farage, “Nigel Farage live from Watford - The Brexit Party,” Youtube, accessed November 24, 2019, Video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4h6QMBJFM4&list=PLnk49Nb7c-uqLlawkkHptRBjnrgddCy_i&index=2&t=1226s.

[11] "General election 2019: Nigel Farage calls for 50,000 net migration cap,"BBC, accessed November 24, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50478341

[12] Clifford Geertz, Interpretations of Cultures: Selected Essays (London: Fontana Press, 1993), 91.

[13] Farage, “Nigel Farage live from Watford - The Brexit Party,” 35:45-35-51.

[14] Ibid., 25:45.

[15] James Slack, “'Migrants are pushing NHS to breaking point': Top cancer doctor warns health tourists are bleeding hospitals dry with demand for treatment,” Daily Mail, February 9, 2016, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3438040/Top-cancer-doctor-warns-health-tourist-migrants-bleeding-hospitals-dry-demand-treatment-leaving-NHS-breaking-point.html.

[16] Michael Alexander, “The nurses too busy to save a life: In this shocking - and revealing - diary, a nurse on a typical hospital ward says a lack of basic care and compassion by overworked staff is costing patients' lives,” Daily Mail, June 19, 2012,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2161292/NHS-care-Lack-compassion-overworked-staff-costing-patients-lives.html.

[17] Sam Sholli, “What Do Brexit Party Supporters Think?” Youtube, accessed November 24, 2019, Video, 0:42-1:14, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrffO0ToJvo&list=PLnk49Nb7c-uqLlawkkHptRBjnrgddCy_i&index=24.

[18] Geertz, Interpretations of Cultures, 103-108.

[19] Ibid., 112.

[20] Farage, “Nigel Farage live from Watford - The Brexit Party,” 19:09-20:26.

[21] Sholli, “What Do Brexit Party Supporters Think?” 9:58-10:48.

[22] Matthew Price, “What’s it like at a Brexit Party rally?” BBC Radio Four, Beyond Today, accessed November 24, 2019, Podcast, 7:08-7:12, https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-mrvd3-6f4ff0e?utm_campaign=w_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=w_share.

[23] Farage, “Nigel Farage live from Watford - The Brexit Party,” 1:03:40-1:03:45.

[24] Geertz, Interpretations of Cultures, 113-114.

[25] Price, “What’s it like at a Brexit Party rally?” 12:33-12:35.

[26] Farage, “Nigel Farage live from Watford - The Brexit Party,” 42:14-42:44.

[27] Ibid., 45:00-45:19.

[28] Kathryn Hurlock, “Bayeux and Brexit: what the tapestry says about the UK’s shared European heritage,” The Conversation, January 18, 2018, http://theconversation.com/bayeux-and-brexit-what-the-tapestry-says-about-the-uks-shared-european-heritage-90332.

[29] “History promises a swift return to business as usual,” Leave.Eu, accessed November 24, 2019, https://leave.eu/history-promises-swift-return-business-usual/.

[30] Daniele Hervieu-Leger, Religion as a Chain of Memory, trans. Simon Lee (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000), 123-125.

[31] Fiona Devine and Marianne Sensier, “Social Mobility and Brexit: A Closer Look At England's 'Left Behind' Communities,” The University of Manchester Economics Discussion Paper Series EDP-1709 (June, 2017): 5. http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/schools/soss/economics/discussionpapers/EDP-1709.pdf.

[32] Laurence Lee, “Brexit supporter hopes to send message to UK politicians,” Al-Jazeera English, accessed November 24, 2019, Video, 1:42-2:04, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvbwbaYqqJE&list=PLnk49Nb7c-uqLlawkkHptRBjnrgddCy_i&index=4&t=0s.

[33] Ibid., 1:10-1:23.

[34] Hervieu-Leger, Religion as a Chain of Memory, 125.

[35] Ibid., 150-155.

[36] Price, “What’s it like at a Brexit Party rally?” 3:55-4:21.

[37] Hervieu-Leger, Religion as a Chain of Memory, 154-155.

Thoughts on the Abortion Referendum, the Catholic Church and Public Theology

On the 25^th of May, Ireland voted to repeal the Eighth Amendment, which is the only protection of the unborn in the constitution. While many were sure that the result would be to repeal, many were surprised because it was expected to be a close vote. Of the people who voted, two-thirds voted to remove the Eighth Amendment. Ireland has been seen by the rest of the world as a Catholic country and though numbers have declined, it remains ahead of other European countries in terms of percentage of Catholics. The 2016 census 78% of the population identify themselves as Catholic. But many Catholics voted against Catholic social teaching which is clearly against abortion. This leaves a lot for the Catholic church in Ireland to reflect on. Is the future of the Catholic church to be solely a private affair? Can the church have a public moral voice in the future?

Many political commentators noted that unlike in 1983, the church was largely invisible during the referendum. There were statements by bishops, but there were also priests who asked that there would be no campaigning outside of churches and many priests did not discuss it in their homilies. Was it right for the church to be so silent? Was it right for the pro-life side to discuss abortion in a way that appealed to public reason? I believe that it was really important to discuss it in such a way that people would see that abortion is wrong regardless of whether one is religious. The religious landscape is changing in Ireland, there are atheists, agnostics and as well as other religions. Many pro-lifers, including myself, were not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Catholic church, but by science. From conception the unborn child has its own unique DNA, the unborn child will continue to develop and by week three the heart will start to beat. This should be of interest to anyone considering the issue of abortion, regardless of their metaphysical views.

However, the church’s silence concerns me. One might question however whether a more vocal church would have made much of a difference. Would more homilies, pastoral letters, radio interviews have swung the vote? It is unlikely, but the church must speak out. Christianity has a particular view of the human person, which Christians cannot ignore. Its moral voice offers an important critique to our culture. Christians believe that humans are created by God and that they are made in His image and likeness. In Genesis, it is also said that humanity is deemed good before humanity has done anything. Christianity rejects therefore the view of the human person which is based on utility. When one looks at a culture which says it is a choice whether a child with a life-limiting illness or special needs is born, the church provides an important challenge to that culture. David Tracy in “Three Kinds of Publicness in Public Theology” writes of a hermeneutical approach of dialogue, where classics such as the Bible are used to aid discussion. He cites Martin Luther King and Dorothy Day as examples of using the Bible to show the truth to the public. He argues that religious texts in particular are useful as they “provide visions of the good.” My discussion of Genesis for example has particular resonance for Christians as it shows the relationship between humanity and its creator. But, as Tracy argues, it can also be a source of reflection for those who do not believe, it gives others a vision of what humanity should be like and help them to see the truth.

The third of us in Ireland who voted against abortion have been told to be quiet and listen to the will of the people. But as Matthew Schmitz wrote on the result in Ireland, democracy is a means and it can produce “evil outcomes.” Bruce Arnold in his analysis of the referendum wrote that the removal of the Eighth Amendment has gotten rid of natural law from the constitution and has made the people not God omnipotent. I acknowledge I am probably taking Arnold too seriously, but as a Catholic, this would suggest that many of the Catholics that voted to remove the Eighth Amendment also committed the sin of idolatry. Arnold’s wording is reminiscent of Feuerbach, who declared that it man, not God, that is divine and that religion causes alienation as the precepts that are given to God are really man’s. What I find problematic with Feuerbach and similar thinkers is that all that humanity does is therefore divine. Whatever is chosen by the people is acceptable as the people are omnipotent and deciders of the truth. There can be no criticism because truth and morality are not external to humanity. Christianity, on the other hand, sees humanity as flawed, limited and is accountable to something outside of them, which is greater than themselves. Catholics must be critical of the idea that the people are omnipotent and recognise that people make mistakes. The law can help to teach morality, but it can also ignore it.

There is a real danger in a silent church, it may follow other churches where the beliefs are made completely private and individual. During the referendum, people were told that they could be personally pro-life and be pro-choice. There seems to be a similar disposition among Catholics, where one can be personally Catholic but in the public realm they feel that they cannot impose their views on others. I suspect that part of the problem is a lack of engagement with the theology of the Catholic church and act as if it has little to do with how one lives. But we are called to be Catholic in everything we do, to live the truth whether explicitly or not. If one does not fully understand the truth of Catholicism, why should one be committed to it in anyway? The truth has also been relativized in our culture, whether the unborn is a person or just a potential person is a matter of personal opinion. People are afraid to say that others are wrong, that this is the truth. There is a sense of fear in being too confident in the truth, because how can one know that they are speaking the truth and not someone else? This is why I think arguments like the personally pro-life and pro-choice are convincing. But what of the truth? Pope Benedict XVI said “man must seek the truth; he is capable of truth. It goes without saying that truth requires criteria for verification and falsification. It must always be accompanied by tolerance, also. But then truth also points out to us those constant values which have made mankind great. That is why the humility to recognize the truth and to accept it as a standard has to be relearned and practiced again.” This means as Catholics, we must not be afraid of seeking the truth, pointing out important values such as the sanctity of life and attempt to teach others the truth, showing them why it is the truth. The truth is important and cannot be ignored. For example, if a Catholic is personally pro-life but supports abortion, they are creating injustice because they ignore the truth. Christ says, “in so far as you did this to the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.” (Matt. 25:40) We must remember Christ’s words in how we vote.

There is one big problem which the church must address, that is its own failings. The pro-choice side often implicitly referred to the failings of the church in their arguments. For example, Una Mullally wondered what the pro-life would do for women and their crisis pregnancies if they won. She wondered if they would “Put them in homes. Sell them to Americans. Abuse them. Bury them in unmarked graves. Thrown them in septic tanks. Fight tooth and nail against their redress and compensation when they came forward and told their stories of trauma, of rape, of torture, of beatings.” Mullally does not explicitly mention the church but anyone who knows anything about the church in Ireland will know what events she is referring to. She is implying which is that the pro-life side is Catholic and that their worldview is abusive. The article’s implication is that removing the Eighth Amendment is the only way for progress, for a more caring society. I think anyone whether they are inside the church or not is right to criticise the Catholic church for the serious wrongs that they have done. I do not think that anyone should defend the serious abuses of the church and it must address its own failing. But contrary to what many might think those abuses by the Catholic Church are not in keeping with the Catholic Church’s theology which sees life as sacred. People have questioned whether the sexual abuse scandals had much of an effect on the outcome of the vote, it may be that the stories of women travelling to the UK had a greater effect. However, the scandals may have caused or furthered the disconnect between the church and the laity. Catholics are hurt and angry about what has happened and many feel that the church is not addressing the problems. Because of this, some may have come to the conclusion that they need not listen to the moral voice of the church. I do not know how the church can recover its moral voice. All I know is that victims must be listened to. Structures must be created to stop it from happening. Those involved must apologise and seek forgiveness. I do not suggest this as a means to an end, our motivation cannot be to restore the church but to seek forgiveness. If the church is to never recover I still know that it is right for the church to say that we have sinned.

The Catholic church in Ireland must not shy away from public theology. Secular arguments are really important, but the church has a particular moral voice which should challenge our culture and help us to discover the truth. The church faces an uncertain future and we have many problems -relativism, privatisation of religion, a legacy of church failure -but we cannot allow ourselves to be silenced. We must seek out the truth and encourage others to do the same. It may challenge us and others, but we cannot be afraid of it. We must be confident in the truth, subjecting it to public inquiry and help all to see it. I acknowledge that it is not easy, I still struggle to talk to people about my faith. But privatisation will not help the church, but likely make it weaker. Catholicism has something vital to offer the world, not just the individual believer, we cannot forget that.