During the dying days of the Pope John-Paul II we saw a great wave of interest and gushing sympathy for all things Roman Catholic which rose to fever pitch during the impressive funeral ritual. Was this a true expression of faith and an enthusiastic declaration of acceptance of the extraordinary dogmas and theology of the Vatican? Or was it yet a further example of the curious sycophantic tendency endemic in our fragile human species? We recall many previous outpourings of human emotion associated with the near worship of an individual - a phenomenon we may describe as “Dianification”.

At the heart of the tragedy of the human condition is the simple fact that, while individuals may have the intellectual capacity for independent thought, the daunting quest for truth finds many humans drawn strongly to mystical sources of authority - the Delphic Oracle or the ex-cathedra infallibility of a Roman Pope.

The new pope, Benedict XVI, when merely Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke of Europe being in the grip of demographic and spiritual crisis. He said, “A falling birth rate is altering the ethnic composition of Europe as Muslim immigration transforms the ancient heartland of Christendom”. He went on to say that Churches were emptying as Christian Culture was threatened by an aggressive secularism, even an intolerant one. This loss of Christian faith in Europe is probably more important to the Vatican than all the problems in Africa and Latin America and may well have been a strong influence in the choice of Ratzinger - a German Pope from Europe’s heartland already outspoken in this matter.

Benedict XVI will probably try hard to bring Europe back to the rule of Rome but, once the emotional tide has receded, secular Europe will be a tough nut to crack. There is no great inclination to turn to Rome for guidance on ethical or moral issues. No matter how people may admire the strength of John-Paul II in his resolve to bring about the downfall of communism, no matter how one may admire his strict moral teaching and his personal charisma, the Vatican emphasis on autocratic thought control is altogether too much for those who have learned how to think for themselves. Popes are not part of an institution with a tradition of two-way dialogue. The Vatican functions by papal decree - a one-way process claiming to have an authority from a God who, for secular Europe, has long disappeared. This institution does not claim to be seeking the truth like most of us do, it claims to be the authority on all matters of ultimate truth and doubtless still considers itself to be the only upholder of truth in the world today.

Galileo once tried to defy the authority of Rome. He wanted to establish the autonomy of scientific speculation unencumbered by biblical interpretation as proclaimed through papal decree. This was at a time when a total commitment to the Christian faith was taken for granted even by Galileo himself. He was the ‘angry young man’ of his time and, understandably, failed to get his way in a society where democracy was merely an ancient Greek idea. A few years ago, one of my old Canadian friends was appointed to the Galilean Chair of the History of Science at Padua University. He, William Shea, has a long and well established record as a sound historian of science. He has now written what is described as the most important study of Galileo in recent times¹. He explores the progress of Galileo by analysing his six trips to Rome and shows that the Galileo-Vatican interaction was not the simple black and white case of wisdom versus simplicity often assumed (Recall the characters in his 'Dialogue': Sagredo, Salviati and Simplicio). The voice of the Vatican was ‘fairly reasonable’ while that of Galileo was often hostile and arrogant. However, good public relations were lacking on both sides and it took a long time for the Catholic Church to extricate itself from the embarrassment of having been too enthusiastic in its denial of Copernicanism. Having finally done so, the Vatican is no longer a threat to the freedom of scientific thought.

Nowadays popes concentrate more on moral issues but they do so with exactly the same arrogant authoritarianism that they used to bring to bear on scientific thought. A ‘Galilean’ type clash may well come about between secular Europe and Benedict XVI and it is incumbent on all secular and humanist organisations to strengthen their resolve in declaring that, “a belief in the supernatural has nothing to do with ethical values” (Roy Hattersley, Guardian 28/03/05). Moral codes are derived from sound ethical principles and no religious faith has ever shown itself sufficiently detached from dogma to be able to derive the sort of moral code that would be applicable to the diverse needs of our modern global community.

The current wave of interest in the Vatican rests on personality cult and the undoubted skill of this richly endowed church to indulge in costume drama theatricals that can outdo the most elaborate theatre of our own royal family, National Theatre and Hollywood combined. Many poor people can be duped by such spectacle, they can weep, pray and tell their beads but, for those who are rich in personal intellectual independence, the chimera bears no fruit.

Anthony Constable

¹ Galileo in Rome - The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius, by William Shea and Mariano Artigas, was published in 2003 (ISBN 0-19-516598-5).

Harold Shipman dealt in death, towards his patients, and so he was unlike the rest of the medical profession - apart from those few in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and now Oregon in the US who will respond when asked by their patient to assist in a, highly regulated, suicide.

Most doctors - particularly those in occupational health - deal in disability. They too are mostly acting against their patient's best interests whenever they give out a sick certificate that can be avoided. That best interest is an ability to get back to activity, though perhaps of a more suitable kind. Nowhere is this breaking of their Hippocratic Oath worse than for the patient of "retirement age". In providing pensions, and in encouragement to sink in them a proportion of earnings, those best interests are often bribed away... not by the doctors themselves it is true; but doctors do act in league with the pension-bribers.

Any change in society, towards provision of positive Occupational Medicine and away from negative Occupational Health, surely must start with the doctors themselves. As a victim of discrimination, based on age and on imposed sickness, I can speak with feeling. I am a GP suspended from the Medical Register by the accusations, that I'm claiming are false, of a younger ex-colleague. And I'm currently experiencing negative occupational health from hospital doctors who like to keep out of work someone they consider too old. Regrettably too the Medical Protection Society - despite receiving a slice of my past earnings in clinical work - is showing itself unwilling to side with me against younger colleagues, who will be giving the Society their future payments. The 'Medical' Protection Society is just that. They have no commitment to protect patients, including those doctors who are made patients by their ageist colleagues.

We Humanists too have a vested interest - in spending our old age as fruitfully as we can. We all have nothing to expect from an 'after-life' and those of us who are doctors will wish to extend the same positive care to the lives of patients that we hope and expect for own.

Although Stanley had severe heart and memory problems, his death was still quite unexpected, especially as he looked so well. He collapsed and died at a bus stop at Shepherd’s Bush; unfortunately I was not there to help. Stanley managed to live to 80 but was quite prepared to make 90 years, although he said if he had to go he would prefer it to be ‘quick and clean’. Well, he succeeded in that!

Ruth and I miss him now but I am sure only later will the full impact of his departing hit us – his humour, his intellect, his honesty and his great humanity. He was a loner but always willing to help and give sound and considerate advice in all of life’s situations. Death did not scare him – not even illness, he was only concerned with the feelings of the people he leaves behind.

Helga Prosser

It was from Stanley that I took over, in 1998, as de facto chairman of the Ealing Humanists. His chairmanship, only de facto and because of his modesty never official like mine, continued to be carried out disarmingly and effectively whenever required. Though imperfectly followed in this office for several years, Stanley Prosser was my role model - however unusual his existentialist views may have sometimes appeared. His loss is keenly felt.

R.C.

We plan to visit the new Darwin Centre at the Natural History Museum on Cromwell Road, South Kensington where in this first phase of the project we aim to explore the museum's extensive natural history collection. This encompasses 22 million zoology specimens, many previously unseen, and includes sea creatures collected by Captain Cook and many specimens, particularly lizards, brought back by Charles Darwin. There is also the opportunity to talk to scientists specialising in various aspects of the collection. If interested one can also visit the other exhibitions in the main building.

We will be meeting outside South Kensington tube station at 1.30pm and then to proceed down the road to the Polish restaurant for lunch. If you wish to come just for the visit, be at the main entrance of the Natural History Museum at 3pm.

It should be a pleasant and, one hopes, an instructive afternoon out.

John Bennett