RIPOSTE
by RIP RENSE |
|
JL VS. JC
AGAIN
Nov. 25, 2008
“It’s quite suspicious
To say the least
Even mentioned it to my priest
One Our Father, three Hail Marys
Each Saturday night. . .”
—from “Vatican
Blues,” by George Harrison.
I read the
news today, oh boy, about Obama possibly naming Monsanto
shill Tom Vilsack as secretary of agriculture (help!), and
Donald Rumsfeld opining in the NYT about strategy in Afghanistan
(cough), and Ahmad Chalabi---the
Zelig
of the Middle East---kissing Obama’s ring in the NYT in yet
another slimy bid to become emperor of Iraq. . .
And how the Vatican
pardoned John Lennon.
Eh?
As I recall, Lennon is
still dead, and therefore not in much of a position to enjoy a
pardon. As I also recall, Lennon never attacked the Vatican, or
the Pope, never killed anyone, never helped turn Wall Street
into slot machine. Funny---when you read about someone being
“pardoned,” especially by the Vatican, isn’t it generally for a
rather nefarious deed? Didn’t Pope John Paul forgive that nutso
who shot him?
Lennon did, of course,
once suggest that The Beatles might be a bigger draw than Jesus
Christ, but then, Christ was dead at the time (still is), and
his talents as a performer remain open to question.
I checked the rest of the
news today, oh boy. Nope. Nothing about the Vatican meeting with
Generalissimo Francisco Franco, or urging that nations try to
stave off World War I. I checked my watch. Yup, just as I
thought. 2008. No new Beatles music since 1970.
Yet there was the
Reuters copy:
The Vatican's
newspaper has finally forgiven John Lennon for declaring that
the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, calling the
remark a "boast" by a young man grappling with sudden fame.
And from the
Guardian:
But
L'Osservatore Romano turned the other cheek on Saturday,
dismissing Lennon's remarks as "showing off, bragging by a young
English working-class musician who had ... enjoyed unexpected
success".
So some fellow, or
fellows, or the holy editorial board at L’Osservatore,
decided that poor old Lennon has not committed a sin against
Gawd, after all. Forty-two years later. The countless
thousands---millions?---of so-called Christians in this country
who burned Beatles albums and frothed at the mouth, many
demanding Lennon’s death, were wrong, after all. (Gawd forgive
them.)
Well, as the Church Lady
used to say, “Isn’t that special!”
Isn’t it special that the
Il Papa and his minions would concern themselves with this! You
know, they really have many more important things to do. Like
psychologically enslaving the poor, ignorant, helpless of the
world by indoctrinating them into the Big Catholic
Guilt Trip,
and condemning anyone to hell or purgatory who wears a condom or
interruptus-es their coitus. Generally rah-rahing
to make every
ejaculation
count, and foment still more little human greedball
needballs to wahhh and puke and consume and cry and destroy and
get tattooed and play Super Smash Brothers III.
Then there are trifles
such as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, genocides, famines, AIDS,
Madonna. . .
Yet the Vatican took a
little time out to “forgive” Lennon. How very Christian of them!
Okay, just for fun,
sinners, let’s rolllllll back the clock, shall we, to the foggy
old year of 1966, when men were men and Beatles were Beatles.
It was then that
journalist Maureen Cleave wrote an “at home with” London
Evening Standard
profile of Lennon, who was still married to first wife
Cynthia and living in a posh suburban London enclave with
three-year-old son, Julian. The man was all of 25 years old.
It’s a nice article,
actually, half-substantial and half-chocked full of gossipy
details heavily in demand at the time, casually related, and
without apparent awareness of Lennon’s frequent use of
psychedelics. (Put it this way: there were at least several days
that year when he was not tripping out.) Ringo and George are
apt to stop in, Cleave jauntily reported, and “they while away
the small hours of the morning making mad tapes---Bedtimes and
mealtimes have no meaning as such.” (Heh.)
(My favorite part of the
article: Lennon’s prized possession of the moment seems to have
been a gorilla suit. He tells Cleave how he suggested that the
other Beatles each get one, too, so they could all go driving
around London in them. The others weren’t as keen on this idea.
Pity!)
It is fully eight
paragraphs into the piece that this candid little aside crops
up, in passing:
“Experience has sown few
seeds of doubt in him: not that his mind is closed, but it's
closed round whatever he believes at the time. 'Christianity
will go,' he said. 'It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue
about that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more
popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first-rock
'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples
were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for
me.' He is reading extensively about religion.”
Uh-oh. . .
As we know aoo too
punishingly well, the world
press soon filled with headlines, “LENNON SAYS BEATLES
BIGGER THAN JESUS,” and the
Beatle-album-burning orgy began. Now, forty-two years later,
the Vatican has suddenly adjuged this comment to merely have
been a harmless “boast” by an “English working-class musician
who had enjoyed. . .unexpected success.”
Holy See, Batman! They’ve
gotten all it wrong again. Cue “Strawberry Fields.”
Misunderstanding all you see. . .Il
Papa? Il Poopoo.
First, the statement
was about the decline of so-called Christianity, not
Lennon or The Beatles' fame. He was simply stating the obvious:
that the modern version of Christianity---hollow, hypocritical
churchonsundee ritual---was losing support. And so it
was, especially in the wake of the youth movement of the ‘60’s,
which was rooted in rejecting seemingly empty conventions of the
day. This was a perfectly valid observation well in the context
of the time. Just one month later, Time Magazine ran one
of its
most famous cover stories, “Is God Dead?”
What’s more, as any
half-serious student of Beatles history knows, Lennon could not
have cared less whether The Beatles were more popular than
Christ, The Rolling Stones, or Tiny Tim. (Well, maybe the Stones!)
At the time of the interview, Johnpaulgeorgandringo were
seriously considering an end to touring---repeat, an end to touring---deeply repulsed by
all the screaming, fetishizing idolatry. (They did, in fact,
cease concert performances permanently just a few months later---except for
the final show atop Apple Records in 1969---after being hounded with
record-burning and death threats in the wake of Lennon's remarks.) Boasting of fame? Why,
Lennon was practically a
recluse
at the time of the interview,
and never went on tour again in his life(!) after
The Beatles.
Overall, the Jesus statement was just offhanded musing, an excerpt from a long, free-ranging
discussion. Never mind that Cleave included it as an
illustration of Lennon’s sometimes willful statements and
skeptical nature, not merely for its content. She hardly played
the angle up.
Repeat: Lennon’s comment
was meant to illustrate the widely known decline in popularity
of so-called Christianity---not to trumpet the rise of The
Beatles. (Fer crissakes.) Note that he did not tout rock ‘n’
roll or The Beatles as being better than Christianity, declaring
that all were
transitory
phenomenae. What's more, JL actually compliments JC---something
he also did, not incidentally, in interviews throughout his
life. The man was a Christ fan. The salient part of his
statement, really, is how Jesus’s “disciples were thick and
ordinary---it’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”
Yowzah! Can you say. .
.Pat Robertson?
John Hagee? Boy, did John hit the nail on the head here,
pardon the metaphor. It’s the televangelists, the martinet
priests and pastors and ministers, and the poor dunderhead
intolerant true-believers who know that they are gwyne
up to hebbin’ because The Babble tells them so. .
.who screw up the whole deal. Who have turned the unassailable
goodness of Christ’s ideas into stupidity, hypocrisy, tyranny,
evildoing, insanity.
Mormon
underwear, anyone? I have a personal relationship with
Christ.
Any thoughts of Lennon
“boasting” about “enjoying unexpected success” should
finally be allayed by a statement made later in the article, one
that addresses the songwriter’s now fabled restlessness. It is,
in retrospect, eerily prophetic:
“You see, there's
something else I'm going to do, something I must do---only I
don't know what it is,” he said. “That's why I go round painting
and taping and drawing and writing and that, because it may be
one of them. All I know is,
this isn't
it for me.”
By “this,” he meant
wife/house/six cars/9-to-5 world-famous John-the-Beatle. Not
exactly embracing the old Elvis lifestyle, was he! Of course, it
would not be long before Lennon would find Yoko Ono and try to
turn his gargantuan fame into something constructive: a quixotic
ongoing music and
PR campaign
on behalf of peace, cooperation, understanding. You know, all
the kinds of little notions that Christ stood for.
This “something
else I’m going to do” statement renders as ludicrous the
Vatican’s remark implying that the young “working class
musician” was a punk kid drunk with unexpected “fame.” Quite the
contrary, he was hiding from it, trying to figure out how to
accomplish something fulfilling as a private human being.
By the way, almost all of
the articles summarizing the
Vatican’s
comments used that word—“fame,”
or “famous,” instead of accurately quoting Lennon’s “popular.”
(Exactly which Italian word was used in the Vatican press, and
how it was translated, I don’t know.) Attention, journalists:
there is a big difference between fame and popular.
Jack The Ripper is famous. You've gotten the whole point wrong, right
out of the starting gate. In the ‘60’s, it absolutely did feel
as though The Beatles were more popular---popular---than
Jesus. I remember.
And so this sad old
story never dies. Short-sighted, unthinking "Christians" and
sophomoric writers will continue to resurrect it and “stir up
the controversy” ad nauseum, as long as it will turn heads and
compel ears (and advertising bucks.) The mere fact that feeble
minds the world over still argue about it, and still castigate
Lennon’s old ghost, and that the Vatican---the Vatican!---would
issue a wrongheaded “pardon” that winds up trivializing Lennon
as a braggart kid intoxicated with fame and fortune. . .just proves
the ever-so-thoughtful 25-year-old Beatle’s central point:
Christ’s followers
are thick and ordinary.
© 2008 Rip Rense. All rights reserved.
BACK TO
PAGE ONE |