OK, a challenge to the Catholic church, or even a direct salvo against it, I can accept. But why is that dangerous? I can only speak for myself, but my reaction to the linked article was based mostly on frustration that the Catholic League (and other opponents of Pullman's film and novels) seemed determined that only probably response to material that challenges their authority was to literally demonize it and insist the faithful not read it.
But that approach strikes me personally as far more dangerous, not just to your society, but to the faith that these people purport to be defending. Is it a very robust tradition, if it can't stand up to its adherents' exposure to contrary ideas? Will it remain robust if it doesn't encourage active intellectual engagement with these challenges?
Frankly, the attitude that mere exposure to "bad" or "wrong" or "un-Christian" ideas was wrong for a believer is the very thing that drove me away from Christianity in the first place. (Well, that and a very urgent desire to break certain moral codes that were standing in the way of an intimate friendship. And that turned out to be a pretty good idea too. :p )
Admittedly, my vision of the Catholic Church is pretty jaundiced, given that my family broke pretty catastrophically with it, over a series of very petty matters. (Condemnation of a mixed marriage in the 1950's; rejection of a family member from conversion over a minor point of doctrinal disagreement; insistence we put a ritual ahead of an ailing family member's health in the 1980's.) So when I look at history, while I'm aware of a lot of good and genuinely spiritual traditions in the history of Catholicism, I do tend to focus on the times when the Church IMHO indisputably focused on temporal matters at the expense of spiritual ones.
(I've taken two classes on medieval history and religious heresy, so I recommend you do NOT challenge me on this point, if for no other reason than I'll bore you to death with old class notes. :) But I promise civility and an open mind if you try.)
So I guess my point is that I can see how Pullman could be opposed to earthly religious authority, and still amiable enough with the idea of a transcendent, unnameable spirituality. In fact, I outright dispute that the Dark Materials is in any way atheistic, and also that the atheism of the author makes it impossible for him to write a theistic book.
Personally, I'd say that the cosmology of Pullman's fantasy world is nothing more or less than classically Gnostic. I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize the Authority as "plainly associated with God" nor the books as "a re-telling of Paradise Lost, except one where Lucifer wins." (Admittedly, the article did the latter itself.) In Gnostic cosmology, the categories of "God" and "Devil" just don't match up the same as they do for you, and I think applying Catholic cosmology to it is forcing premises onto it that I just don't think Pullman ever intended.
In summary, I think there's a legitimate question being asked in Pullman's book, and in Gnosticism in general. "Just how the hell do we know this guy is the real Creator, especially given how much misery is wrought on this planet?" If the best answer that the Catholic League and their fellow travelers have to that question is "How DARE you ask such an insolent question..." Well, for me that just raises more questions, maybe even lends some credit to Pullman's challenge that they're more interested in this-worldly authority than next-worldly joy. Because, after all, that's the point I think Pullman and the linked article are trying to make about God -- if it's ruthless, scowling, and deeply wrapped up in power and matter, maybe it's not God. This does not, I think, preclude the many parts of the Catholic legacy that are indeed joyful, wise, and bountiful from being holy -- even in a way that might be surprisingly meaningful to people like Pullman, or myself.
Dare I call myself a Devil's advocate here? :)
But that approach strikes me personally as far more dangerous, not just to your society, but to the faith that these people purport to be defending. Is it a very robust tradition, if it can't stand up to its adherents' exposure to contrary ideas? Will it remain robust if it doesn't encourage active intellectual engagement with these challenges?
Frankly, the attitude that mere exposure to "bad" or "wrong" or "un-Christian" ideas was wrong for a believer is the very thing that drove me away from Christianity in the first place. (Well, that and a very urgent desire to break certain moral codes that were standing in the way of an intimate friendship. And that turned out to be a pretty good idea too. :p )
Admittedly, my vision of the Catholic Church is pretty jaundiced, given that my family broke pretty catastrophically with it, over a series of very petty matters. (Condemnation of a mixed marriage in the 1950's; rejection of a family member from conversion over a minor point of doctrinal disagreement; insistence we put a ritual ahead of an ailing family member's health in the 1980's.) So when I look at history, while I'm aware of a lot of good and genuinely spiritual traditions in the history of Catholicism, I do tend to focus on the times when the Church IMHO indisputably focused on temporal matters at the expense of spiritual ones.
(I've taken two classes on medieval history and religious heresy, so I recommend you do NOT challenge me on this point, if for no other reason than I'll bore you to death with old class notes. :) But I promise civility and an open mind if you try.)
So I guess my point is that I can see how Pullman could be opposed to earthly religious authority, and still amiable enough with the idea of a transcendent, unnameable spirituality. In fact, I outright dispute that the Dark Materials is in any way atheistic, and also that the atheism of the author makes it impossible for him to write a theistic book.
Personally, I'd say that the cosmology of Pullman's fantasy world is nothing more or less than classically Gnostic. I don't think it's entirely fair to characterize the Authority as "plainly associated with God" nor the books as "a re-telling of Paradise Lost, except one where Lucifer wins." (Admittedly, the article did the latter itself.) In Gnostic cosmology, the categories of "God" and "Devil" just don't match up the same as they do for you, and I think applying Catholic cosmology to it is forcing premises onto it that I just don't think Pullman ever intended.
In summary, I think there's a legitimate question being asked in Pullman's book, and in Gnosticism in general. "Just how the hell do we know this guy is the real Creator, especially given how much misery is wrought on this planet?" If the best answer that the Catholic League and their fellow travelers have to that question is "How DARE you ask such an insolent question..." Well, for me that just raises more questions, maybe even lends some credit to Pullman's challenge that they're more interested in this-worldly authority than next-worldly joy. Because, after all, that's the point I think Pullman and the linked article are trying to make about God -- if it's ruthless, scowling, and deeply wrapped up in power and matter, maybe it's not God. This does not, I think, preclude the many parts of the Catholic legacy that are indeed joyful, wise, and bountiful from being holy -- even in a way that might be surprisingly meaningful to people like Pullman, or myself.