Pope Death Watch!

[drkitten]

Is there any compelling basis for concluding that John Paul II is anything but a huge net benefactor to humankind that doesn't simultaneously suggest that Catholicism itself is, on balance, an unpardonable sin?

Um, yes?

The Pope is certainly the most visible representative of Catholicism in the world, and is the titular head of it --- but contrary to popular opinion, there are a number of different approaches and theological theories that shelter under its umbrella. Just as an example. the Pope is widely considered to be a "Marianist" -- which in this case doesn't mean a member of the Society of Mary (which he demonstrably isn't), but a follower of a particular subphilosophy of special reverence to Mary, which he demonstrably is.

One of the Pope's primary missions over his entire tenure has been to reduce or eliminate many of the rival philosophies within the Church. The Jesuits, and "Liberation Theology" have been one of his primary targets (he accused them of "supporting revolution in South America" in 1981), and he has done a reasonably good job of removing them (and many of the other "liberal" orders, such as the Franciscans and Dominicans) from their traditional role in church decision making. At thte same time, he has been raising new, and more "conservative" orders to such as Opus Dei,and the Legion of Christ, to fill this role. He's essentially eliminated the role of progressive theologians from the church, and has been systematically enforcing both a much greater degree of conservatism and of central control over the church.

Quoting from "worldpress.org":

Doctrinal tradition has been the dominant thread in [John Paul II's] messages, as a defensive wall against such facets of modernity as pluralism, multiculturalism, and laicism. During the displacement of the progressives within the church, some very important theologians have been reined in by the Vatican. Today we no longer have the tribunals of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, but some people say the contemporary body—The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which Cardinal Ratzinger is considered to be the top religious
policeman—is comparable.

By use of this body, the major progressive theologians, such as Jacques Dupuis, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, and Bernhard Haring, have been pushed aside, along with many others in Latin America, such as Ernesto Cardenal and Leonardo Boff. One of the theologians in this group (Hans Küng) wrote a devastating critique of John Paul II’s papacy, which he referred to as burdened with “fatal contradictions.”

For example, Küng states that the same man who defends human rights around the world denies them to people in the church, such as theologians and, above all, women. The pope claims to be an admirer of Mary yet denies women ordination as priests; he is a man who preaches against poverty and misery yet is incapable of changing his stance on birth control, despite even the serious AIDS situation in Africa, which makes him partly responsible for the problem; he is an absolute adherent to a male, celibate clergy yet does nothing about the loss of priests and the serious pedophile scandals within the clergy; he wants a dialogue with other religions yet, at the same time, disqualifies them as less-valid faiths.

In sum, we have a great contrast: a pope who has used modern means to express himself, who has traveled the world over like no other pope before him, who has placed the church in a new international position and transformed the religious landscape in a radical fashion, but one who, at the same time, has erected a wall of traditionalism against the challenges and problems of modernity, preached doctrines that urgently need revision, and governed the church by medieval means—a pope who has surrounded himself with individuals, orders, and movements at the conservative end of the spectrum.

This restoration is leaking on every front. Perhaps the pendulum of history will soon swing back to enable the church to find a way to deal with the problems of the 21st century—not from the prison of tradition but instead by interacting with the demands and necessities of a world that no longer fits the medieval mold in which the church has been kept these past 25 years.

Essentially, the Pope is trying (and to some degree has succeeeded remarkably) to return the church to a more "medieval" structure, both in organization and in thought. You can see this, if nothing else, in the way he's returned to -- one might even say re-created -- the cult of the Saints; there have been more new saints created under his papacy than under any other Pope in history (or arguably under all previous Popes put together.) There's nothing necessarily wrong with conservatism per se, but there's also legitimate grounds for criticizing the Pope for the theological positions that he's taken in contrast to the positions taken by other well-respected theologians within the Catholic Church. There is, for example, nothing about the nature of the Catholic Church itself that demands that women cannot be ordained, that birth control cannot be used, that homosexuality cannot be tolerated, et cetera.

Any of the things that John XXIII or Paul VI can legitimately be praised for attemping in the Second Vatican Council, John Paul II can probably legitimately be criticized, or even condemned, for running roughshod over since the 1980s.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Who else in the world is welcomed with open arms by everyone from George Bush to Fidel Castro? There are few people in the world who are respected by as many people as he is.
....
He's been stabbed, shot, ...

Are you sure you meant to include both these in the same post?

 

[Darat]

I agree that the initial response was HORRIBLE. I was raised in the Catholic Church and though I was never diddled by a priest myself, I know people who have been...and I think that the way it was handled up until a couple of years ago was just crazy. In fairness, since the whole scandal blew up, the Vatican has really cracked down and gotten their act together, though I would like to see them take more action. However, priests are no longer being shuffled from parish to parish when abuse allegations surface. That's a good thing.

But this is where I think a good leader would have acted differently. My opinion is that this was a known problem when he became pope and I think it should have been a matter of urgency for any new leader to tackle. Waiting until the public outcry became so overwhelming that if action wasn’t taken the church itself would suffer before ensuring something was done about this most terrible of issues is not good leadership.

That's what I meant about the message being clouded by superstition and fear. The core message of most religions basically boils down to "Be nice, help people, and don't be a d**k." I agree with that message. It's the "Do as I say else..." that turned me off from religion in the first place. I agree with you, and I don't think any leader should frame an argument that way.

I strongly disagree in the matter of the Christian message as it is portrayed by most of the established churches including the RCC, the message is actually, “do as I say or else”; the fact that some of the “do as I say” is what I describe as “good” is incidental to the underlying threat behind a lot of actual Christian theology and teachings. But this probably moves a bit too far away from my belief that the current Pope is not a great man or leader.

Well, in fairness, most religions have a weird, cult-like mentality. Being a religious leader, that sort of goes with the territory.

Again I would say a good leader would be prepared to go against tradition, however it is probably a given what his actual authority and responsibility is based on .

I realize the irony of an atheist defending the pope, and I don't want to sound like an apologist for the man. His views on a woman's role in society and other issues such as birth control are antiquated and just plain wrong. No leader is perfect, and he has acknowledged that the church has made mistakes. But he has also done good things. Consider that many people (secular and non-secular alike) credit his association with the Solidarity movement in Poland one of the driving forces that helped bring down that country's Communist regime. I'd say that worked out pretty well.

I don’t think you are “defending” the Pope, you are putting forward a counter argument to mine, it shouldn’t matter if we are atheists, Buddhist or Chrisitian we can still argue that the pope is good or bad (based on our personal beliefs of what constitutes good or bad) and what evidence we have. And I would never say the current Pope has done no good or doesn’t have any redeeming qualities and so on.

Darat, I realize that you take issue with him as a leader, and I respect that. I just think that to summarily dismiss him as an ineffective leader is short-sighted, and I respectfully disagree with that part of your argument.

Edited to remove a stupid argument

I can’t deny that I did summary dismiss him; I did admit my original post was more of a polemic then anything else. However I do believe that my view has merit and I’ll expand on it in some of my following comments.

Before you guys go off the deep end on Pope hatred, ….. snip… keep in mind that US Catholics are as rich as any other US citizen. It's not the religion that keeps people poor -- it's the dictators, the communist governments, et al.

I don’t have any hatred for the Pope, I question whether he has been a good leader and what he stands for is good, that’s quite a bit different from hating him.

….snip…

keep in mind that US Catholics are as rich as any other US citizen. It's not the religion that keeps people poor -- it's the dictators, the communist governments, et al.

I wasn’t meaning that the RCC makes people poor, but rather that some of its tenets (that someone like Mother Theresa seemed to have taken very literally) such that the “poor will always be with us” and we should "offer up our suffering" when put forward by a leader does little to help the world.

Secondly, the Pope did do some good things -- and probably braver than most of you ever would.

I am absolutely certain that he has done many “good” things and was at time very courageous however that does not mean that he is a good leader or that his core message and his opinions as Pope are not barbaric.

When Poland was having labor troubles, and the government there was gonna crack down hard lest the Soviets pull another re-invasion, he publicly announced he'd lay down his Pope hat and march with the labor.

Now you'd have a civil uprising that would probably lead to civil war -- and communism would lose big time vs. the Catholic Church in the hearts of the people. The people being oppressed, not the fatasses sitting in their Ivory Towers in the West. He stared them down and helped get the ball rolling towards collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Again even if he did all this, it does not mean that his leadership of the Catholic Church hasn’t been bad.

He is probably not going going to for a number of reasons but popes have abidicated in the past.

I couldn’t find any recent examples of Pope’s “abdicating”. When did the last one “abdicate”?

Source? The cardinal of the dictrine of the faith (aka the head of the inquistion) has stated that other forms of chritiany are "gravely defficent" but that is all I am aware of recently.

…snip…

The Pope in his Encyclical, "Ecclesia de Eucharistia". In it he made clear that for all time only the Catholic Church can offer, and only through its priests, communion. All others are less then shadows of the “real thing” and in fact Catholics must in future refrain from participating in these "false" communion ceremonies.

Pretty much buggers up “reconciliation” between the Churches.

– http://www.vatican.net/holy_father/...-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

[Bold by me]

"The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made towards full visible unity. Similarly, it is unthinkable to substitute for Sunday Mass ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of common prayer with Christians from the aforementioned Ecclesial Communities, or even participation in their own liturgical services. Such celebrations and services, however praiseworthy in certain situations, prepare for the goal of full communion, including Eucharistic communion, but they cannot replace it."

There's an old saying around the Vatican: "The pope is never sick until he is dead."

Seriously, though, I'm a bit taken aback by some of what I've read here. To say that John Paul II's reputation and record form a pretty solid basis for admiration is like saying that there's reason to doubt that Al Capone was quite the upstanding citizen he claimed to be.

We profoundly disagree, about the man we may be closer but as the Pope we are very far apart.

As a young man, this fellow was a hero in the Polish resistance against the Nazis during World War II. He is widely viewed by people on both sides of the former Iron Curtain as an indispensable player in the downfall of European Communism.

I separate the man from the Pope and I agree that he has done many worthwhile and praiseworthy things as both the man and as the Pope, but overall I hold his leadership of the RCC as Pope has been terrible and overall his message barbaric.

He has done more than perhaps any person who ever lived to improve relations between the Catholic and Jewish communities worldwide. He has founded numerous institutions of learning and research in the humanities and sciences.

To be blunt that wouldn’t have been hard given the traditional animosity of the RCC towards Judaism.

Are the institutions he founded secular or run by the Church or on behalf of the Church and therefore promote the Church’s beliefs?

John Paul II has been called - not without reason - the best-informed person alive. He is surely the most intellectual figure on the world stage. He holds two earned doctorates (in philosophy and theology, respectively) and was a phenomenally accomplished student, earning almost superhumanly high marks from secondary school all the way up to his doctoral examinations and dissertation defenses. At one time, he was considered to be one of his country's most promising young poets, playwrights and stage actors. He contributed important Polish translations of literary classics, including translations of Sophocles from the original ancient Greek. The pope also is fluent in anywhere from 8 to 12 (depending on whom you consult) modern languages, such that despite being one of the most well-traveled persons in history he rarely requires an interpreter.

Apart from the slight hint of hyperbole there’s very little I disagree with here.

…snip…

Is there any compelling basis for concluding that John Paul II is anything but a huge net benefactor to humankind that doesn't simultaneously suggest that Catholicism itself is, on balance, an unpardonable sin?

It is hard to separate the Pope from Catholicism*… but yes I can think of many but just one I think will suffice his position on condoms and AIDS.

(*Since by and large a Pope does have the ability to “alter” or “adjust” or even impose vast swathes of new Catholic doctrine then I think a Pope always has to be considered synonymous with the RCC.)

 

[ceo_esq]

Um, yes?

The Pope is certainly the most visible representative of Catholicism in the world, and is the titular head of it --- but contrary to popular opinion, there are a number of different approaches and theological theories that shelter under its umbrella. Just as an example. the Pope is widely considered to be a "Marianist" -- which in this case doesn't mean a member of the Society of Mary (which he demonstrably isn't), but a follower of a particular subphilosophy of special reverence to Mary, which he demonstrably is.

There are "different approaches and theological theories", but when you get right down to it there is one body of doctrine and one orthodoxy. "Different approaches and theological theories" that are incompatible with that doctrine and that orthodoxy are not really "sheltered under the umbrella" of the Catholic Church. Special devotions, charisms, personal expressions of faith and so forth (such as, I daresay, the pope's special reverence for Mary), don't really fall into that category. We're talking about the Catholic Church, not the Democratic Party.

One of the Pope's primary missions over his entire tenure has been to reduce or eliminate many of the rival philosophies within the Church. The Jesuits, and "Liberation Theology" have been one of his primary targets (he accused them of "supporting revolution in South America" in 1981), and he has done a reasonably good job of removing them (and many of the other "liberal" orders, such as the Franciscans and Dominicans) from their traditional role in church decision making. At thte same time, he has been raising new, and more "conservative" orders to such as Opus Dei,and the Legion of Christ, to fill this role. He's essentially eliminated the role of progressive theologians from the church, and has been systematically enforcing both a much greater degree of conservatism and of central control over the church.

I'm not sure what your basis for characterizing religious orders like the Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans as "liberal" or "conservative" is, and I am deeply skeptical of whether, say, Saints Ignatius, Francis and Dominic would be inclined to agree with such nomenclature. Moreover, what is the "traditional role in church decision making" to which you refer (bearing in mind that those orders - the Jesuits in particular - are relatively recent innovations in the long history of the Church)?

Certain strains of so-called "liberation theology" (more properly, "theologies", since there are/were a variety of them), by the way, actually do condone revolutionary violence as a response to social injustice. I assume you know that already. But what was the particular accusation (time, place and expression, please) made by the pope regarding this subject that you found especially objectionable?

Essentially, the Pope is trying (and to some degree has succeeeded remarkably) to return the church to a more "medieval" structure, both in organization and in thought. You can see this, if nothing else, in the way he's returned to -- one might even say re-created -- the cult of the Saints; there have been more new saints created under his papacy than under any other Pope in history (or arguably under all previous Popes put together.)

For the moment, I can't discern anything intrinsically "medieval" about this. (Indeed, the large number of lay persons canonized by John Paul II seems distinctly un-medieval.) You've made a number of unsupported assertions. It seems to me that most (though undoubtedly not all) people adequately familiar with the organization and thought of the Church during the Middle Ages and with the organization and thought of the Church in the early 21st century disagree with your point of view.

More curiously, one senses that you are using the term "medieval" in a vaguely ahistorical and pejorative sense which you haven't explained.

By the way, assigning the pope partial blame for the African AIDS crisis is ludicrous. That alone left the article you cited practically bereft of credibility.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with conservatism per se, but there's also legitimate grounds for criticizing the Pope for the theological positions that he's taken in contrast to the positions taken by other well-respected theologians within the Catholic Church. There is, for example, nothing about the nature of the Catholic Church itself that demands that women cannot be ordained, that birth control cannot be used, that homosexuality cannot be tolerated, et cetera.

I submit that most Catholic theologians agree with the pope, who of course is not only the most well-respected Catholic theologian of all, but also has an important extra credential (not to me, but presumably to Catholics).

I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to "the nature of the Catholic Church itself", but it seems to me that any reasonable definition of the term would have to include somehow the Magisterium (isn't that what makes Catholicism Catholic?). The Magisterium does indicate that women cannot be ordained. The Catechism itself indicates that artificial contraception should not be used. I may object to these notions in theory, or even make fun of the Catholics for them, but I'm not going to kid myself into thinking that Catholic doctrine isn't necessarily incompatible with, say, artificial contraception. I could imagine a hypothetical religion similar to Catholicism but with women priests and condoms galore, but I would never actually mistake it for Catholicism.

I mention in passing that only someone unfamiliar with Catholic doctrine (as even many Catholics are) would paraphrase its teachings about homosexual individuals as "Homosexuality cannot be tolerated", but that's another matter.

Any of the things that John XXIII or Paul VI can legitimately be praised for attemping in the Second Vatican Council, John Paul II can probably legitimately be criticized, or even condemned, for running roughshod over since the 1980s.

Are you forgetting that John Paul II (when he was a bishop) was one of the more important shapers of and contributors to Vatican II, particularly (but not exclusively) the portions on religious freedom, the role of the Church in the modern world, and the importance of laypersons in Christian life? He is certainly the most important living co-author of the Vatican II conciliar documents, and as such is not merely the legatee of Vatican II's ideas but actually their legator.

You don't mention which parts of Vatican II the pope has run roughshod over, but under the circumstances is it possible that you misunderstood either (1) what he was saying as pope or (2) what he and his fellow bishops were saying at Vatican II?

Anyhow, all of the statements you made don't really address the most important part of my original question, which was: is there adequate reason to conclude that John Paul II was not, all things considered, a net benefactor to humankind? Even if every one of your criticisms is valid, do they really outweigh the enormous accomplishments discussed earlier? Apparently Annan, Walesa & company don't think so. Neither do I. Do you?

 

[JLam]

Darat,
I think you're right in that I was combining the acts of the man with the acts of the leader, while you were looking at them separately.

If there's anything that this thread proves it's that two people can respectfully disagree with each other and be civil. The world needs more of that

 

[ceo_esq]

But this is where I think a good leader would have acted differently. My opinion is that this was a known problem when he became pope and I think it should have been a matter of urgency for any new leader to tackle. Waiting until the public outcry became so overwhelming that if action wasn’t taken the church itself would suffer before ensuring something was done about this most terrible of issues is not good leadership.

This seems sensible enough to me. I'd really have to look deeper into exactly what the pope did or didn't do concerning the sexual abuse scandals. One thing that springs to mind is that the Catholic Church in its day-to-day operations is really far more decentralized than most people apparently think, notwithstanding new drkitten's characterization of the Church under JP2 as a highly centralized outfit. I think that the sex abuse problem, which even in the United States was hardly the pandemic affair popular opinion has made it out to be, existed essentially at the parish and diocesan level. Accordingly, I'm not certain that failure to exercise the type of papal oversight you're talking about was as flagrantly negligent as you've implied.

Also, the now-famous report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice determined that 75% of allegations regarding clerical sexual abuse concerned events dating back to before 1984. That means that the current pope was not even in a position to exercise oversight while most of the offenses were taking place. There was a very steep drop in priestly sexual misconduct during the current papacy. If there had been a steep increase during this period instead, I'm sure you would fault the pope's leadership. Are you willing, in fairness, to credit good papal leadership for the steady improvement since JP2 took over the reins?

I strongly disagree in the matter of the Christian message as it is portrayed by most of the established churches including the RCC, the message is actually, “do as I say or else”; the fact that some of the “do as I say” is what I describe as “good” is incidental to the underlying threat behind a lot of actual Christian theology and teachings.

I agree with this assessment to a certain extent, but not to the point where I would say it fundamentally characterizes the Christian message.

* * *

I'll have to continue this fascinating discussion later. Have a good weekend.

 

[shecky]

I'd like to think JPII is a huge net benefactor to humankind, though I disagree with some Church teachings. I do find his veneration of characters like Padre Pio, Mother Theresa, and fabricated people like Juan Diego to be flies that ruin the soup, however.

 

[ceo_esq]

I wasn’t meaning that the RCC makes people poor, but rather that some of its tenets (that someone like Mother Theresa seemed to have taken very literally) such that the “poor will always be with us” and we should "offer up our suffering" when put forward by a leader does little to help the world.

I'd hoped Mother Teresa - another flawed but outstanding benefactor to humankind - wouldn't be dragged into this. Ah, well.

The fact remains that, for all the RCC's warts, it would be challenging indeed to make the case that any single institution in history has accomplished more for the benefit of the poor, directly and indirectly, than the Catholic Church. I'm speaking both in terms of alleviating the concrete suffering of such people and in addressing the social injustices that are frequently at the root of such suffering. I'd actually be interested, just as an intellectual exercise, to try and make such a case against the Church, but embarrassment over the relative meagerness of my own personal efforts to aid the world's poor would probably get in the way.

I agree that one is inclined to wonder how the reasoning behind such notions as "the poor will always be with us" and "offering up our suffering" squares with the RCC's obvious institutional commitment to aiding poverty-stricken people. I don't really know the answer to that. I suspect that I simply interpret such ideas in a different way than the Catholic Church apparently does.

I couldn’t find any recent examples of Pope’s “abdicating”. When did the last one “abdicate”?

Apparently it was a long, long time ago.

The Pope in his Encyclical, "Ecclesia de Eucharistia". In it he made clear that for all time only the Catholic Church can offer, and only through its priests, communion. All others are less then shadows of the “real thing” and in fact Catholics must in future refrain from participating in these "false" communion ceremonies.

Pretty much buggers up “reconciliation” between the Churches.

I don't know about that. I'd agree that it rules out an easy short cut around the really difficult work of ecumenism. But anyway, complete union of faiths is not the sole goal of ecumenism, so perhaps the term "buggers up" is misplaced.

It also occurs to me that many Christian denominations do not share the Catholic belief in the so-called Eucharistic "Real Presence" - in other words, those denominations are already perfectly at home with the notion that their communion rites are, in a manner of speaking, "shadows of the real thing". And yes, I'm speaking a bit tongue-in-cheek here.

By the way, did the pope introduce any really new religious ideas in that encyclical? Or did he merely clarify, expound upon, and draw some logical conclusions from traditional Catholic doctrine? And if, for example, Catholic doctrine necessitates the conclusion that Catholic laypeople or Baptist ministers cannot perform the magical communion transubstantiation, would you characterize the pope as a bad leader for reminding his flock of the implications thereof? Aren't such things part of his job description?

To be blunt that wouldn’t have been hard given the traditional animosity of the RCC towards Judaism.

I dispute the notion of generalized institutional animosity toward Judaism at least since the Council of Trent. However, to the extent you allude to what Rabbi A. James Rudin (past Chairman of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations) referred to as a relationship marked by "nearly 20 centuries of suspicion and mistrust" between Jews and Catholics (source) then you make a very valid point indeed.

Now that I think of it, one could even apply the same reasoning to make a broader point: that it's not difficult for JP2 to leave the world a much better place than he found it, simply because - to be blunt - the world was in lamentable shape when he found it (Nazism, Stalinism, etc.).

So let's say that the Jewish-Catholic relationship had nowhere to go but up when JP2 took over Pete's old chair (probably an exaggeration, but I take your point). Does that really diminish his accomplishments as pope in this regard? Perhaps anybody could have taken the initiatives he took and made equally momentous advances in interreligious dialogue with Judaism - but nobody did, until he did it. Occasionally I'll look at a Picasso or Pollock canvas and inwardly think "that can't have been too hard", but part of me realizes that such critiques are very cheap - because as easy as it might seem in hindsight, nobody did it before them.

More to the point, there seems to be fairly widespread agreement among the international Jewish community that the pope's achievements in this regard are those worthy of a great man and an admirable leader. I find little reason to disagree with them on this particular issue.

Are the institutions he founded secular or run by the Church or on behalf of the Church and therefore promote the Church’s beliefs?

Query whether that distinction is relevant to my assertion about the pope's accomplishments. I daresay that most, if not all, of the institutions in question are administered by or on behalf of the Church. I know you do not mean to suggest that universities, research hospitals, libraries and so forth do not significantly contribute to the public good if they are affiliated with the Catholic Church.

It is hard to separate the Pope from Catholicism*… but yes I can think of many but just one I think will suffice his position on condoms and AIDS.

I have two questions for you on this, if you have time: 1. Briefly, how do you think the pope would summarize his own position and reasoning on condoms and AIDS? 2. How does one separate your answer to to the previous question from Catholicism?

 

[Kopji]

A brief review of 'Medieval' Catholic activity in Central America:
http://klar.bz/academic/catholic.html

This is not to say that another religion of the period would have done any better. Certainly there was enough blood to go around. Why any religion?

...is there adequate reason to conclude that John Paul II was not, all things considered, a net benefactor to humankind? Even if every one of your criticisms is valid, do they really outweigh the enormous accomplishments discussed earlier?

And I would say no. Except in the sense that the 'pope' represents an ultimately false and authoritarian solution to the problems of humankind. Certainly the atrocities of conquest happened a long time ago, but what has really changed that might result in a different outcome next time?

We don't need religion to do good.

My complaint about the pope is maybe an odd sounding one:
He is a walking indictment against the terminally ill. By playing the role of suffering Holy Martyr for his god, he sets an example that diminishes the efforts of those who recognize the high value of their own lives, and make it a priority to save it. The pope's message to the ill: "your life is of no value to god".

On AIDS, the Catholic church does not create aids. The 'evil' is only one of good people doing nothing, or actively promoting misinformation like in Nigeria - thereby hastening it's spread among mothers and hence to their children. The connection is so obvious that it seems almost a moral blindness to not perceive it.

And clergy abuse. The world needs to hear that Catholic priests are not the worst offenders, and are in fact, probably some of the very best at trying to do something about it. If the small slice of clerical abuse I see in my own community is any indication at all, the problem is as bad in other churches and continues unabated. Perhaps the Catholics are a comforting scapegoat that keep us from looking closer to home.

The famous statue of Francis kindly feeding the birds is so apt for religion. The innocent birds come to feed at the hands of the kindly priest, but the priests also keep cats. The cats feed well on the birds. The sacrifice of a few birds to the hunger of the cats has always been acceptable to preserve the peaceful beauty of the scene.

If I stand against the pope, it is only as he persists in his role of bird and cat lover and feeder.

 

[ceo_esq]

Good post, Kopji.

We don't need religion to do good.

In principle, this is absolutely true. In practice, however, religion appears to influence how much good we actually do:

Article 1
Article 2

My complaint about the pope is maybe an odd sounding one:
He is a walking indictment against the terminally ill. By playing the role of suffering Holy Martyr for his god, he sets an example that diminishes the efforts of those who recognize the high value of their own lives, and make it a priority to save it. The pope's message to the ill: "your life is of no value to god".

There seems to be the germ of an interesting notion here. Could you flesh it out a little bit?

 

[ceo_esq]

Except in the sense that the 'pope' represents an ultimately false and authoritarian solution to the problems of humankind.

Establishing that the pope's religion represents such a false solution is problematic in the extreme. It's far less difficult (though, of course, not necessarily easy) to assess the pope's relative contributions to humanity on a more mundane level. Perhaps our discussion will prove more fruitful at that level.


* * * * *

To return to the original topic of the thread, it now looks as though the pope will avoid having to meet his original predecessor in that job for at least a little while yet. The papers are reporting that he's showing physical improvement.

 

[Kopji]

ceo_esq
Yeah it's hard to express. Maybe its the idea that the martyr's way is full of promises of heavenly rewards, but simply surviving in the present moment is somehow an inferior path when in fact it is one of courage.

If only I could be more like the pope.
Just one more bag to carry.

I am left with the non-believer's perspective: not really wondering what kind of god needs a sick old man, but what kind of followers require so much.

A similar example happened here a couple years ago. One of the Mormon apostles showed up to speak at a big conference. He was very ill, and just before the talk he was up at the hospital getting chemotherapy. So does that sacrifice make Mormonism more, or less right?

Somewhere, at the edge of perception, is what I walked away from.

I agree that religion can provide a framework that 'good' can be expressed in. It is certainly evident that religion can inspire greater sacrifice for a cause than unbelief can. Is the world a better or worse place for having those sacrifices?

I think a world of ordinary people taking responsibility for their actions would be better than one filled with faithful followers punctuated by the occasional great sacrifice or good.

 

[Darat]

ceo_esq - not been on line much on the last few days, I'll get to your excellent posts and the many points you raise ASAP.

 

[Darat]

This seems sensible enough to me. I'd really have to look deeper into exactly what the pope did or didn't do concerning the sexual abuse scandals.

I have to admit I'm basing my views on the (apparent) lack of any indication that the Pope took an early and active public role in dealing with a long existing problem.

One thing that springs to mind is that the Catholic Church in its day-to-day operations is really far more decentralized than most people apparently think, notwithstanding new drkitten's characterization of the Church under JP2 as a highly centralized outfit. I think that the sex abuse problem, which even in the United States was hardly the pandemic affair popular opinion has made it out to be, existed essentially at the parish and diocesan level. Accordingly, I'm not certain that failure to exercise the type of papal oversight you're talking about was as flagrantly negligent as you've implied.

But it was widespread (as in at least three countries I am aware of UK, USA & Eire), and my criticism of the Pope about this matter is about how he acted as a leader as opposed to any direct "executive" action he may or may not have taken. Plus this should have been recognised as such a serious matter that the central church offices should have stepped in. To allow this matter to be handled at a local level, (i.e. inconsistent approaches to the problem, lack of understanding of the bigger picture and so on) speaks of a Church unable to self govern itself on (in my opinion) truly important matters.

Also, the now-famous report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice determined that 75% of allegations regarding clerical sexual abuse concerned events dating back to before 1984. That means that the current pope was not even in a position to exercise oversight while most of the offenses were taking place. There was a very steep drop in priestly sexual misconduct during the current papacy. If there had been a steep increase during this period instead, I'm sure you would fault the pope's leadership. Are you willing, in fairness, to credit good papal leadership for the steady improvement since JP2 took over the reins?

I'm using the sexual abuse problem as an argument for poor leadership rather then poor executive action. And (surprisingly) I'm not willing to grant that it has been JP2’s leadership that has seen to an apparent fall (we will have to see over the next 25 years if this is really the case given the long time these types of crimes typically seem to take to surface).

Over the last 25 years we have seen immense public scrutiny and a recognition of the widespread nature of these types of crimes (not just in the Church). Couple that with the fact that until the 80s child sex abuse was hardly spoken about, and the fact that Chruch officials (not just RC) no longer have quite the same degree of respect and deference shown them by public investigators and public prosecutors. And I see the improvements (and I hope to goodness there has been an improvement) stemming from the public outcry rather then a strong leader saying "this stops".

I agree with this assessment to a certain extent, but not to the point where I would say it fundamentally characterizes the Christian message.

* * *

I'll have to continue this fascinating discussion later. Have a good weekend.

Perhaps I did over generalise. I should have said “do as I say or else" is one way that the Christian message can be interpreted and taught and I believe that is the RC's way of teaching it. My own Christian upbringing was much more of a "do as I say or else… but not really because God will forgive you anything thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus".

 

[TragicMonkey]

Apart from his alarming views that quantity rather than quality mattered in making new saints, this pope was fairly non-controversial. A little heavy on the Marianism, and far too obsessed with birth control. The travelling had its good points and its bad--certainly he will go down in history as the most travelled pope, although he isn't the only one to serve time in prison. I liked that he denounced poverty, and was willing to criticize capitalism-- isn't the Church supposed to stick up for the poor?

I just hope the next one spends more time using the resources of the Church to deal with serious global issues like world hunger, disease, poverty, and ethnic and religious conflict, rather than worry about condom use and gay marriage.

I am grateful, as an ex-Catholic, that he never went on record saying anything idiotic about Spongebob Squarepants, or calling for nuclear missiles to strike Foggy Bottom, or claiming that Florida received Hurricane Andrew because of Disney paying medical benefits for same-sex partners of employees.

 

[ceo_esq]

I have to admit I'm basing my views on the (apparent) lack of any indication that the Pope took an early and active public role in dealing with a long existing problem.

It's not entirely clear to me what sort of "early and active" role you have in mind. I think that the Vatican was not necessarily more aware of the problem than the general Catholic (or non-Catholic) community at least in the United States. Indeed, for some of the more notorious cases, even the victims were not consciously aware of the problem, since they came forward with accounts based on allegedly repressed memories. The problem seems to have burst into the public consciousness fairly rapidly (and turns out, in retrospect, to have been relatively modest in scope despite the gravity of individual cases); plus, the best available evidence suggests that it related primarily to a timeframe prior to this papacy. One wonders what type of papal intervention could have been reasonably demanded, and when.

But it was widespread (as in at least three countries I am aware of UK, USA & Eire), and my criticism of the Pope about this matter is about how he acted as a leader as opposed to any direct "executive" action he may or may not have taken.

As I already pointed out, though, the problem, though surely existing internationally, does not appear to have been particularly widespread, and the scandal arguably broke out precisely when the problem was at its lowest ebb ever. Naturally, we could debate what exactly constitutes a "widespread" problem. But I'm more interested in what you go on to suggest about the distinction between "acting as a leader" and "direct executive action". I think your point here may be too subtle for me. An executive's leadership, it seems to me, is largely characterized by the executive actions taken by him. I would agree that such a person's leadership can also be characterized by his personal example - but most American Catholics believe that by that yardstick JP2 has distinguished himself even more than by his executive actions (source).

I don't mean to assimilate the pope's job to that of an ordinary exective. But it is interesting to note that the polls referred to in that link show an impressive approval rating for the pope's leadership among American Catholics (down from even higher levels pre-scandal, it's true), and even a majority approval rating among non-Catholics. I suspect the sentiments are even more pronounced among Catholics worldwide. If the pope's tenure has been overshadowed by failures of leadership, word of it has clearly failed to reach the people he's leading. Of course, certain U.S. presidents who had dismal approval ratings when they left office are now widely viewed as having been great leaders. I suppose time will tell.

Plus this should have been recognised as such a serious matter that the central church offices should have stepped in. To allow this matter to be handled at a local level, (i.e. inconsistent approaches to the problem, lack of understanding of the bigger picture and so on) speaks of a Church unable to self govern itself on (in my opinion) truly important matters.

I agree here. To use a broad analogy, would you characterize this as as basically an "intelligence failure" (a phrase that's become so familiar since 9/11 and the Iraqi WMD case), or something even worse?

I'm using the sexual abuse problem as an argument for poor leadership rather then poor executive action. And (surprisingly) I'm not willing to grant that it has been JP2’s leadership that has seen to an apparent fall (we will have to see over the next 25 years if this is really the case given the long time these types of crimes typically seem to take to surface).

Tough crowd. I agree, though, that another 25 years of perspective will shed more light on all these things.

Does the fact that these sorts of allegations take so long to come forward have any bearing on your assessment of what the pope should have known/done prior to the rapid explosion of (generally very dated) allegations that precipitated the recent scandal?

Also, I refer to my earlier question regarding the factors other than executive action that contribute to good leadership.

Over the last 25 years we have seen immense public scrutiny and a recognition of the widespread nature of these types of crimes (not just in the Church). Couple that with the fact that until the 80s child sex abuse was hardly spoken about, and the fact that Chruch officials (not just RC) no longer have quite the same degree of respect and deference shown them by public investigators and public prosecutors. And I see the improvements (and I hope to goodness there has been an improvement) stemming from the public outcry rather then a strong leader saying "this stops".

You seem to have a very well informed view on the topic. In the absence of better evidence to the contrary, I still think that the problem was considerably ameliorated on this pope's watch (and mostly prior to the outbreak of scandal). Whatever the proper distribution of blame and praise in the Church, though, I suppose the best outcome (together with some reparation for innocent victims) is the learning of some difficult lessons by the Church hierarchy.

 

[Donks]

Seems the Pope has taken a turn for the worse.
From AP:

Doctors were preparing to operate on Pope John Paul II Thursday to help ease his breathing problems, an Italian news agency said.

The news agencies ANSA and Apcom said doctors would perform a tracheotomy - a procedure in which a hole is made in the throat and a tube is inserted to assist breathing. The pope already was in the operating room, according to Apcom.

 

[LostAngeles]

The trache... er... *looks it up*.

The tracheotomy has been performed according to CNN as of 1PM PST.

So um, how is he going to respond to the cardinal calling him by his baptized name?