THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CELIBACY
The spate of revelations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, and the equally disturbing reports of cover-ups by the religious authorities (including, possibly, by the Pope himself) reflect incredibly badly on the church. The fact that the revelations extend to Denmark, a country in which nearly all Christians are Lutheran and where the Lutheran church is part of the state, shows just how widespread the rot has been.
Yet in some ways the most surprising aspect of the affair has been the Church hierarchy's obstinate refusal to in any way countenance a possible link between the priests' actions and their obligation to be life-long celibates. Sex is, after all, a basic human urge; and not to have it, ever, is (in a literal sense) unnatural. It takes an incredible dedication and willpower not to succumb.
It was not ever thus. In the first millennium of Christianity, priests were usually married (though monks were not). However, priestly celibacy became one of the papacy's weapons of choice in the mid-11th century in its long battle for supremacy with the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and his successors. Despite the formal rule, priests and bishops continued to have sexual relationships, though these were nearly always in the form of concubinages rather than marriages. It was only after the Reformation of the 16th century, when the divisions between Catholics and Protestants became sharper, that the rule started to become law.
The Pope has it in his power to change the rule. Indeed, he has already relaxed it; converted Anglican priests, who were already married when they converted, are allowed to remain married. Relaxing it further would in my view do more to boost the standing of the Catholic church than anything else. Yet if there is one thing certain in this world, it is that this Pope will not do that. A pity; and not just for the next generation of altar boys.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
Monday, 29 March 2010
TURKEY AND THE EU
Should Turkey be part of the European Union? That question has resurfaced, as Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel heads to Ankara for an official visit. Germany matters, since more than 3 million Turks live in Germany; and with the German population likely to shrink over the next 50 years, they will become a bigger and bigger part of society.
Turkey was one of the very first countries outside of the original six EEC member states to ask to join; it applied for associate membership as early as 1959, and obtained an association agreement in 1963. It applied for full membership in 1987, and started accession negotiations in 2005. These are progressing, albeit slowly.
The fact that EU-Turkey negotiations have been going on for 50 years shows how difficult they have been. Ex-communist countries that would not have dreamed of being part of the EU in the 1960's are now fully signed-up members of the club; and, in some cases, even have the euro for their currency. Coups, Cyprus, the (mis)treatment of its sizeable Kurdish minority, and other legal issues, have hampered efforts to align Turkey with the growing body of European law and practice.
However, underlying all of this work lurks a more fundamental question, namely whether Turkey should be a member of the European Union at all. Ms. Merkel thinks not; and I have to say that I agree with her. I do not doubt that Turkey could, with time, meet the necessary legal standards. I have no problem with the fact that most Turks are Muslims, whereas most current Europeans are not. Nor am I worried that Turkey would be both the biggest and poorest member state; other biggish, poor nations (eg Spain, Poland) have joined successfully.
My objection is more historical. I just don't believe that the boundary of Europe lies in the mountains dividing Turkey from Iraq, Syria and the Caucasus. It is a tricky question where the Eastern border of Europe lies; could Russia, in principle, ever join? But I don't have any doubt about where the boundary of South East Europe lies, and it is on this side of the Bosphorus.
The great mistake in dealing with Turkey, in my opinion, was not telling them this at the start. For better or worse, the whole Europe project is precisely that; a European one. Countries outside of the EU can have dealings with it, and the EU has a raft of agreements with countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. But it is a European club.
Ms. Merkel will almost certainly upset her hosts by telling them this. But better late than never.
Walter Blotscher
Should Turkey be part of the European Union? That question has resurfaced, as Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel heads to Ankara for an official visit. Germany matters, since more than 3 million Turks live in Germany; and with the German population likely to shrink over the next 50 years, they will become a bigger and bigger part of society.
Turkey was one of the very first countries outside of the original six EEC member states to ask to join; it applied for associate membership as early as 1959, and obtained an association agreement in 1963. It applied for full membership in 1987, and started accession negotiations in 2005. These are progressing, albeit slowly.
The fact that EU-Turkey negotiations have been going on for 50 years shows how difficult they have been. Ex-communist countries that would not have dreamed of being part of the EU in the 1960's are now fully signed-up members of the club; and, in some cases, even have the euro for their currency. Coups, Cyprus, the (mis)treatment of its sizeable Kurdish minority, and other legal issues, have hampered efforts to align Turkey with the growing body of European law and practice.
However, underlying all of this work lurks a more fundamental question, namely whether Turkey should be a member of the European Union at all. Ms. Merkel thinks not; and I have to say that I agree with her. I do not doubt that Turkey could, with time, meet the necessary legal standards. I have no problem with the fact that most Turks are Muslims, whereas most current Europeans are not. Nor am I worried that Turkey would be both the biggest and poorest member state; other biggish, poor nations (eg Spain, Poland) have joined successfully.
My objection is more historical. I just don't believe that the boundary of Europe lies in the mountains dividing Turkey from Iraq, Syria and the Caucasus. It is a tricky question where the Eastern border of Europe lies; could Russia, in principle, ever join? But I don't have any doubt about where the boundary of South East Europe lies, and it is on this side of the Bosphorus.
The great mistake in dealing with Turkey, in my opinion, was not telling them this at the start. For better or worse, the whole Europe project is precisely that; a European one. Countries outside of the EU can have dealings with it, and the EU has a raft of agreements with countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. But it is a European club.
Ms. Merkel will almost certainly upset her hosts by telling them this. But better late than never.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 28 March 2010
DENMARK AND GERMANY
Denmark has always had a tricky relationship with Germany. Or, more precisely, with the various German-speaking states. Since although Denmark has been a country in its own right for more than 1000 years, Germany has only existed since the second half of the nineteenth century.
In the Middle Ages, German was the lingua franca of the Baltic, encouraged by trade and the dominance of the (Lübeck-based) Hanseatic League. Under one weak Danish king, the country was effectively mortgaged to the Counts of Holstein. The Oldenburg family later became kings of Denmark, and German was the court language in both Denmark/Norway and Sweden. Senior advisers were often ethnic Germans. The King of Denmark also came to hold the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein in personam, and often spent more of his time in the duchies than in his kingdom.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, nation states became ever more important and powerful, and there was less and less room for an independent duchy. The so-called "Schleswig-Holstein" question was complicated, but essentially boiled down to whether the duchies should be part of Germany or part of Denmark. Bismark eventually decided the issue by force; and the Danes' catastrophic defeat by Prussia in 1864, and the consequent loss of the duchies, created huge anti-German resentment.
The defeat, and Denmark's subsequent absence from European realpolitik for the next 70 years (including the First World War), are widely held to be the makings of the country. It turned inward, and underwent a quiet revolution in both economic development and social cohesion. However, antagonism towards Germany did not die, and increased after the Nazis' occupation of the country for most of the Second World War.
That antagonism remains today. Germany is Denmark's biggest export market, and Denmark is highly dependant on German tourists, who flock to its windy west coast or sail across the Baltic to the southern islands. Yet the German mark/euro is not appreciated. German is taught in most secondary schools as a second foreign language after English, and knowledge of German is often a requirement for Danish jobs; but Danes don't like speaking it. The Danish minority in Schleswig-Holstein retains a disproportionate affection in national affairs. Most importantly, Denmark has a little-known EU opt-out which allows it to ban the sale of summer houses to other EU (read German) citizens.
The background to all of this musing was a very good film on television this evening called Flammen og Citronen (the Flame and the Lemon), the codenames for two members of the Danish resistance movement during the Second World War. Denmark's role under the Nazis has always been a bit of a taboo subject. After capitulating within hours in 1940, the country was "occupied" for the rest of the war (it was never "conquered"). Various parts of the population were undoubtedly sympathetic to the Nazis; and although there was a resistance movement, it was not particularly effective. Most people seem to have accepted the realities, and got on quietly with their lives.
Given anti-German tendencies, this makes Danes uncomfortable; why was there not more resistance? As such, the whole Second World War era is, in contrast to (say) the U.K., pretty well absent from Danish life. A good comparison is with Vichy France, another country that was occupied by, and got along with, the Nazi regime.
As with Vichy, it has taken Danes a long time to explore through culture a difficult part of their past. Flammen og Citronen is a welcome step forward.
Walter Blotscher
Denmark has always had a tricky relationship with Germany. Or, more precisely, with the various German-speaking states. Since although Denmark has been a country in its own right for more than 1000 years, Germany has only existed since the second half of the nineteenth century.
In the Middle Ages, German was the lingua franca of the Baltic, encouraged by trade and the dominance of the (Lübeck-based) Hanseatic League. Under one weak Danish king, the country was effectively mortgaged to the Counts of Holstein. The Oldenburg family later became kings of Denmark, and German was the court language in both Denmark/Norway and Sweden. Senior advisers were often ethnic Germans. The King of Denmark also came to hold the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein in personam, and often spent more of his time in the duchies than in his kingdom.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, nation states became ever more important and powerful, and there was less and less room for an independent duchy. The so-called "Schleswig-Holstein" question was complicated, but essentially boiled down to whether the duchies should be part of Germany or part of Denmark. Bismark eventually decided the issue by force; and the Danes' catastrophic defeat by Prussia in 1864, and the consequent loss of the duchies, created huge anti-German resentment.
The defeat, and Denmark's subsequent absence from European realpolitik for the next 70 years (including the First World War), are widely held to be the makings of the country. It turned inward, and underwent a quiet revolution in both economic development and social cohesion. However, antagonism towards Germany did not die, and increased after the Nazis' occupation of the country for most of the Second World War.
That antagonism remains today. Germany is Denmark's biggest export market, and Denmark is highly dependant on German tourists, who flock to its windy west coast or sail across the Baltic to the southern islands. Yet the German mark/euro is not appreciated. German is taught in most secondary schools as a second foreign language after English, and knowledge of German is often a requirement for Danish jobs; but Danes don't like speaking it. The Danish minority in Schleswig-Holstein retains a disproportionate affection in national affairs. Most importantly, Denmark has a little-known EU opt-out which allows it to ban the sale of summer houses to other EU (read German) citizens.
The background to all of this musing was a very good film on television this evening called Flammen og Citronen (the Flame and the Lemon), the codenames for two members of the Danish resistance movement during the Second World War. Denmark's role under the Nazis has always been a bit of a taboo subject. After capitulating within hours in 1940, the country was "occupied" for the rest of the war (it was never "conquered"). Various parts of the population were undoubtedly sympathetic to the Nazis; and although there was a resistance movement, it was not particularly effective. Most people seem to have accepted the realities, and got on quietly with their lives.
Given anti-German tendencies, this makes Danes uncomfortable; why was there not more resistance? As such, the whole Second World War era is, in contrast to (say) the U.K., pretty well absent from Danish life. A good comparison is with Vichy France, another country that was occupied by, and got along with, the Nazi regime.
As with Vichy, it has taken Danes a long time to explore through culture a difficult part of their past. Flammen og Citronen is a welcome step forward.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday, 27 March 2010
LIBEL LAW
Defamation (libel and slander) is a tort, a civil wrong. Like other torts, such as trespass and nuisance, it is designed to protect something, in this case a person's reputation.
In England and Wales, the law of defamation is mainly a common law creation. That means that it is subject to the quirks of history and precedent that bedevil/enrich (take your pick) all of the common law. It is, for instance, one of only four civil offences (along with fraud, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment), where there can still be a trial in front of a jury. There is a "multiple publication rule" dating from a famous 19th century case, which holds that every publication constitutes in principle a separate and distinct cause of action; workable, perhaps, in an age of books and newspapers, but not appropriate for the internet age, where every hit on a website can be a separate publication. And since reputation way back then was a big thing - at least for the minority of bigwigs who had recourse to the king's courts - damage is presumed. This puts the burden on the defendant to prove that their statements are true, which can sometimes be impossible.
True, some things are getting easier. There is now a "Reynolds defence" of responsible journalism if the subject matter is in the public interest; and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (now codified into English law) supports freedom of expression. However, Article 8 guarantees respect for private life, and private life has been held to include reputation. Sorting out the balance of competing interests can be fiendishly complicated.
It is not surprising, therefore, that libel actions are mainly undertaken by rich people with deep pockets. Indeed, the supposed benefits to the claimant are so great that there is a view that London is a source of "libel tourism", where rich expatriates with little connection to England and Wales sue defendants with equally little connection to the juridisiction on the basis of publication within England of minute amounts of material. This is of particular concern to scientists wishing to debunk claims by multinationals and NGO's wishing to expose corruption or other sharp practices.
Nobody really knows whether the libel tourism label is true or not. However, what is undoubtedly true is that reform of the libel laws is moving sharply up the political agenda. The publication on 23 March of a report by the Libel Working Group on some of the difficulties and possible solutions elicited a commitment from the Justice Secretary Jack Straw that there will be reforms if the Labour Government is reelected at the coming General Election. Watch this space ...
Walter Blotscher
Defamation (libel and slander) is a tort, a civil wrong. Like other torts, such as trespass and nuisance, it is designed to protect something, in this case a person's reputation.
In England and Wales, the law of defamation is mainly a common law creation. That means that it is subject to the quirks of history and precedent that bedevil/enrich (take your pick) all of the common law. It is, for instance, one of only four civil offences (along with fraud, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment), where there can still be a trial in front of a jury. There is a "multiple publication rule" dating from a famous 19th century case, which holds that every publication constitutes in principle a separate and distinct cause of action; workable, perhaps, in an age of books and newspapers, but not appropriate for the internet age, where every hit on a website can be a separate publication. And since reputation way back then was a big thing - at least for the minority of bigwigs who had recourse to the king's courts - damage is presumed. This puts the burden on the defendant to prove that their statements are true, which can sometimes be impossible.
True, some things are getting easier. There is now a "Reynolds defence" of responsible journalism if the subject matter is in the public interest; and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (now codified into English law) supports freedom of expression. However, Article 8 guarantees respect for private life, and private life has been held to include reputation. Sorting out the balance of competing interests can be fiendishly complicated.
It is not surprising, therefore, that libel actions are mainly undertaken by rich people with deep pockets. Indeed, the supposed benefits to the claimant are so great that there is a view that London is a source of "libel tourism", where rich expatriates with little connection to England and Wales sue defendants with equally little connection to the juridisiction on the basis of publication within England of minute amounts of material. This is of particular concern to scientists wishing to debunk claims by multinationals and NGO's wishing to expose corruption or other sharp practices.
Nobody really knows whether the libel tourism label is true or not. However, what is undoubtedly true is that reform of the libel laws is moving sharply up the political agenda. The publication on 23 March of a report by the Libel Working Group on some of the difficulties and possible solutions elicited a commitment from the Justice Secretary Jack Straw that there will be reforms if the Labour Government is reelected at the coming General Election. Watch this space ...
Walter Blotscher
Thursday, 25 March 2010
SMUG BUILDER
I must admit that I was rather pleased at myself today.
I am filling in a doorway in a large barn, and I had to start by raising the concrete foundation to the same height as that of the walls on either side. It is one of those slightly tricky jobs, where you build a wooden structure, fill it with concrete, let the concrete set, and then take the structure away again, leaving a concrete shape in - hopefully - the right dimensions.
Since this is the first time I have ever done such a thing, I was a bit nervous. But it went well. My building skills are going onward and upward.
Walter Blotscher
I must admit that I was rather pleased at myself today.
I am filling in a doorway in a large barn, and I had to start by raising the concrete foundation to the same height as that of the walls on either side. It is one of those slightly tricky jobs, where you build a wooden structure, fill it with concrete, let the concrete set, and then take the structure away again, leaving a concrete shape in - hopefully - the right dimensions.
Since this is the first time I have ever done such a thing, I was a bit nervous. But it went well. My building skills are going onward and upward.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
A BIG NUMBER
£1.2 trillion is a large wad of notes. Written in full, the number stands as £1,200,000,000,000. It is so large that as I write it, I have to check more than once that I have got the number of zeros right.
This large number is what the U.K. Treasury expects the public sector net debt for the United Kingdom to be at the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year; in other words, in two years' time. In layman's terms it is what the British Government owes on behalf of the citizens it represents, and it works out to around £20,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
This number was not highlighted in the Chancellor's Budget press release issued today, it is in fact tucked away in table C13 of Appendix C of the Treasury's full set of Budget documents, the part dealing with the public finances. I am not surprised. The word billion has become increasingly common in recent years, but trillion has yet to catch on. There are, after all, not many things that require discussion of a thirteen digit number; and if you owe a lot of money, it is generally wise to keep quiet about it. If you can, of course ........
Walter Blotscher
£1.2 trillion is a large wad of notes. Written in full, the number stands as £1,200,000,000,000. It is so large that as I write it, I have to check more than once that I have got the number of zeros right.
This large number is what the U.K. Treasury expects the public sector net debt for the United Kingdom to be at the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year; in other words, in two years' time. In layman's terms it is what the British Government owes on behalf of the citizens it represents, and it works out to around £20,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
This number was not highlighted in the Chancellor's Budget press release issued today, it is in fact tucked away in table C13 of Appendix C of the Treasury's full set of Budget documents, the part dealing with the public finances. I am not surprised. The word billion has become increasingly common in recent years, but trillion has yet to catch on. There are, after all, not many things that require discussion of a thirteen digit number; and if you owe a lot of money, it is generally wise to keep quiet about it. If you can, of course ........
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
SPRING
Spring is here. The snow has finally gone, and the temperature in Denmark is above freezing. Not much above, but positive nevertheless. After the consistent cold, it feels almost like summer.
Now is the time for the plant kingdom to show its resilience and muscle. After being buried under icy particles of water and cut off from both sun and light, plants have the chance to shine.
And how. Our house abuts a small wood. One day it looks just like a wood in winter, all bare trees and rotting vegetation underfoot. The next day - literally - it is an abundance of colour, as white, yellow and blue flowers spring up from nothing. It is exilharating to watch the change.
The trees won't come out in bloom for at least another month. But the long, grey winter months are over.
Walter Blotscher
Spring is here. The snow has finally gone, and the temperature in Denmark is above freezing. Not much above, but positive nevertheless. After the consistent cold, it feels almost like summer.
Now is the time for the plant kingdom to show its resilience and muscle. After being buried under icy particles of water and cut off from both sun and light, plants have the chance to shine.
And how. Our house abuts a small wood. One day it looks just like a wood in winter, all bare trees and rotting vegetation underfoot. The next day - literally - it is an abundance of colour, as white, yellow and blue flowers spring up from nothing. It is exilharating to watch the change.
The trees won't come out in bloom for at least another month. But the long, grey winter months are over.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
