John Paul II

[mrbiggs]

Some people were getting offended at the criticisms of the pope in the thread created to honor him after his death, and I can't say I blame them.

So this thread was created for a discussion of what he did wrong and right, was he a good or bad pope, etc. I'm going to continue the discussion already going on in that thread in a second.

(There are, probably, going to be criticisms of him in this thread, so if you are still feeling a loss to the extent that you don't want to see them, you probably don't want to read this thread.)

[mrbiggs]

Fine, but can you blame the Pope for trying to stop immoral acts from occuring? By giving out condoms you are in a small part saying that pre-marital sex is okay. And it is therefore his right to try and stop people from allowing it to happen. Even though condoms may save lives, absitence saves more.

True, but pre marital sex is very common in many of the places where AIDS is extremely common. As a matter of fact, if there was no premarital sex, there would be very little AIDS. Stopping premarital sex in Africa is just plain not going to happen in the time required; they will all be dead by then. We need to stop AIDS now, period, and if that means doing something that's considered immoral, then so be it.

I feel that there's different levels of being "immoral". Killing someone, for example, is very immoral. Stealing is immoral, but less so. I'd put premarital sex pretty far down on the immoral list, seeing as that it only indirectly violates one of the ten commandments, and doesn't usually harm anyone. I don't think that premarital sex is the worst thing in the world, and I definately don't think that millions of people should die because the church is worried that they're going to be supporting it.

[jeff]

To expand on mrbigg's post: pre-marital or extra-marital sex has nothing to do with this, per se. The Catholic Church opposes contraception for everyone, married or not, Catholic or not, so they oppose NGOs, charities, UN, US, women's rights groups, etc, from providing or even educating people about contraception.

[Maeve_Mari]

Is the Catholic Church acting in "opposition" or could it be better defined as a "non-advocating" position? Although John Paul II did not perform on the promise of Vatican II to move towards more local control, many of the churches have on their own become significantly more localized and with that advocate and support a variety of liencies specific to their neighborhoods and parishes. I think the Catholic Church in general does not support the work of some of the groups you cited, but it does not actively attempt to dismantle their operations either.

I believe, from what I have been reading about successors to John Paul II that we have some very good possibilities for the election of a modern replacement who can carry some of today's critical issues to a new position for catholic representation.

[keith]

I believe, from what I have been reading about successors to John Paul II that we have some very good possibilities for the election of a modern replacement who can carry some of today's critical issues to a new position for catholic representation.

not meaning to rain on your parade - but John Paul II was meant to be this kind of pope when he was elected.

A 'modern papacy' has the ring of an oxymoron - depending of course on your definition of modern.

[Insipiens]

My understanding of the Catholic church's positions on contraception and extra-martial sex is (very briefly) as follows: sex given to mankind as the ultimate expression of two people's love for each other; in sex the two people are freely giving themselves to each other in the most intimate way possible; such a gift, once given, can never be ungiven and is enduring; such a gift of the self to another, and such an expression of love can only be true and free in the context of marriage; Jesus, the bible, the whole tradition of the church, condemn sex outside the marriage*; love is essentially creative; to be truly loving, free and open in sex the couple must not unnaturally close themselves off [or intend to close themselves off] to the possibile creative results of their love - i.e. must not use contraception.

Dobutless it is put better in the document of Paul VI Humanae Vitae . John Paul II consistently followed the teaching of his predecessor - as Pope's are expected to do. They were not just "his" ideas, they are the consistent and enduring teaching of the Church, which is the body of Christ.

Of course they are counter cultural for today's Western society, which is marked predominantly by its selfishness [of which I am very guilty], its pride [shown in its own confidence in its own ability to find the answers to the human condition] and in fact most of the other seven deadly sins.

[Maeve_Mari]

not meaning to rain on your parade - but John Paul II was meant to be this kind of pope when he was elected.

A 'modern papacy' has the ring of an oxymoron - depending of course on your definition of modern.

It's not rain on my parade. The election of a moderate is possible.

Just before John Paul II there was John Paul I, who only survived a month. At his election it became immediately apparant that his was going to be a papacy of implementing significant changes in the church and probably the introduction of Vatican III. There was controversy over this, and at his very quick death, the conclave did not elect another moderate. At first I was concerned that John Paul II's conservatism was going to halt or reverse so many of what I thought needed to be updated and changed in the church. But now, looking back at the level headedness, the strict adherence to basic beliefs on human live and action, and his unyeilding faithfulness and vocation, I think the Catholic Church was well served during the past 26 years. The world was a crazy changing place these last two decades and right now I am glad that the church didn't gyrate out of control as the world turned.

I do think that a more moderate pope could be and should be elected for this next term because there are some significant issues that need to be addressed in a manner can be accepted by the faithful while serving the needs of this very different world.

Different for this next pope is going to be the superior communications access and means. He will be able to use the resources of the internet, the air and radio waves, to deepest darkest areas that couldnt be served before. A great communicator - a saavy fellow of intellect and compassion and vision - if selected will have the greatest impact than ever before.

Modern to me is not a phat dude in goth wear and piercings. I still expect the pope to represent a conservative fellowship. I'm not insane. But I do think we may see a decade of what the Catholic Church sees as modern!

[keith]

It's not rain on my parade. The election of a moderate is possible.

Well IMHO it isn't very likely - most of the cardinals who will be able to vote will be appointments of Johm Paul II. He was very efficient at securing the orthodoxy of the church. Guess we shall have to wait a week or two to find out.

But now, looking back at the level headedness, the strict adherence to basic beliefs on human live and action, and his unyeilding faithfulness and vocation, I think the Catholic Church was well served during the past 26 years.

Well 'unyeilding faithfulness and vocation' is part of the papal job description - where there any who weren't? John Paul II did speak out about more than abortion and contraception - but the church never drove those issues, instead it chose an easy moral leadership. The problem is that his moral line was very strict - an absolute rejection of relatvism. This helped provide a solid front for the church but.........

The world was a crazy changing place these last two decades and right now I am glad that the church didn't gyrate out of control as the world turned.

.... as soon as any change is introduced the church will gyrate out of control - look at the dear old anglicans with women and gay clergy. Now neither of those are going to be issues for the catholics, but what is available to be moderate on?

Different for this next pope is going to be the superior communications access and means. He will be able to use the resources of the internet, the air and radio waves, to deepest darkest areas that couldnt be served before. A great communicator - a saavy fellow of intellect and compassion and vision - if selected will have the greatest impact than ever before.

but what will his message be?

Modern to me is not a phat dude in goth wear and piercings. I still expect the pope to represent a conservative fellowship. I'm not insane. But I do think we may see a decade of what the Catholic Church sees as modern!

Whatever else it shall be interesting.

[jeff]

keith makes an interesting point by bringing up the Anglicans. The Church of England has liberalized (with much controversy) on a number of subjects, and weakened its message to the point where the Archbishop of Canterbury was quoted on his difficulty of believing in God (this, just after the recent Tsunami tragedies). That's a dilution of faith which I, as a secular humanist of agnostic persuasion, am sympathetic to (hmmm, omniscient, omnipotent deity who is totally benevolent but lets countless tragedies happen. Let me think about how to deal with that contradiction...) - but which I imagine would be anathema (hmmm, apt word) to the Roman Catholic church. What will the next Pope want his church to stand for - I doubt it would be a dilution of their core beliefs.

Considering that attendance at C of E churches has diminished over the last 20 years, I don't see that being a "model of success" that the RC church would want to emulate. RC churches have also decreased in attendance in Europe, to the point where churches are largely empty, and the parisioners aging. Instead, I think they will step up their evangelical efforts to compete with the Protestant evangelicals who have been effective in South America in winning converts from Catholicism, and in Africa where Catholicism has been making converts.

The above has nothing to do with my opinion about whether either church is right in its theology (I think they're both all wet), but with what I think the direction the Roman church will take.

[keith]

Instead, I think they will step up their evangelical efforts to compete with the Protestant evangelicals who have been effective in South America in winning converts from Catholicism, and in Africa where Catholicism has been making converts.

indeed, faith is nothing more than a business - and what matters is bums on pews. The C of E problems indicate the mess a church can get into when it attempts to discuss moral absolutes and whether they are applicable or useful when confronting 'evil' in the world. So I suspect the lesson the catholic church will take from that the anglicans is that such examinations of the meaning of faith are bad for business - moral certainty, heaven and hell etc etc is what the congregation wants.

[mrbiggs]

indeed, faith is nothing more than a business - and what matters is bums on pews. The C of E problems indicate the mess a church can get into when it attempts to discuss moral absolutes and whether they are applicable or useful when confronting 'evil' in the world. So I suspect the lesson the catholic church will take from that the anglicans is that such examinations of the meaning of faith are bad for business - moral certainty, heaven and hell etc etc is what the congregation wants.

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. I'm not a supporter of the way the church acts right now, because I think it's become a political tool. But I think it's a LONG way off from simply trying to put "bums on pews" as you say. If they really wanted to attract people, they would not do nearly anything they're doing now. And if they wanted money, they wouldn't do so much charity.

The church does many bad things, but it does many good things as well, and I might be missing your point, but it seems to me that your summation of the church is quite unfair.

[esskreemr]

To expand on mrbigg's post: pre-marital or extra-marital sex has nothing to do with this, per se. The Catholic Church opposes contraception for everyone, married or not, Catholic or not, so they oppose NGOs, charities, UN, US, women's rights groups, etc, from providing or even educating people about contraception.

To expand on the expansion, the opposition to contraception is another one of those doctrines based on... surprise....inference from a couple of passages that could be interpreted many different ways. Take the "Be fruitful and multiple" directive often used as support for anti-contraceptive views. At what point has man become fruitful enough? Is that in the 3rd Testament? As for the "spilling the seeds on the ground" parable, it makes me sick that grown people can actually argue that this is support for using no contraceptive of any type. Perhaps I should take the literal translation of the Bible and wrap my seeds up in a tissue so they don't hit the ground. Oh wait, I continue to forget that only CERTAIN parts of the Bible are to be taken literally. The rest is open to considerable interpretation.

As for the argument that distributing condoms encourages pre-marital sex. It's almost not worth discussion. Guess what the product of abstinence only education is? Participants put off having sex, but do so at equal rates as those who recieved actually sex education. The difference? Abstinence only education leads to greater rates of single-mother pregnancy as well as greater exposure to STDs.

In a place such as Africa, abstinence only education is basically just a death sentence not only for many young women but for children as well.

[keith]

The church does many bad things, but it does many good things as well, and I might be missing your point, but it seems to me that your summation of the church is quite unfair.

well we shall leave a discussion of the vow of poverty for another day .

The issue is that a church wants (for good or bad reasons) to maintain healthy attendances, converts, bums on pews, whatever you call it. Look up proselytizing - its what christian churches do, saving souls to save theirs. It may strike you as strange to talk about churches, or religions in general, as you would a business but it works suprisingly well.

Have a brief look around at the various christian denominations - would you not say that moral certainty seems to be a predictor of success in the market place? The best way to grab market share? Does the catholic church care about market share?

Now fashions may change and perhaps the catholic church will attempt to be a fashion leader and create a 'new' market for liberal theology, but I suspect they will be more conservative.

[keith]

As for the "spilling the seeds on the ground" parable, it makes me sick that grown people can actually argue that this is support for using no contraceptive of any type. Perhaps I should take the literal translation of the Bible and wrap my seeds up in a tissue so they don't hit the ground. Oh wait, I continue to forget that only CERTAIN parts of the Bible are to be taken literally. The rest is open to considerable interpretation.

well if you want to take that passage literally, you should not refuse to impregnate your brothers widow.

So I assume anyone without a brother is free to do with their seed as they will?

[Maeve_Mari]

Considering that attendance at C of E churches has diminished over the last 20 years, I don't see that being a "model of success" that the RC church would want to emulate. RC churches have also decreased in attendance in Europe, to the point where churches are largely empty, and the parisioners aging. Instead, I think they will step up their evangelical efforts to compete with the Protestant evangelicals who have been effective in South America in winning converts from Catholicism, and in Africa where Catholicism has been making converts.

From the Chicago Times, Father Andrew Greeley (Catholic Priest, sociologist, and author) weighed in on the vacancy of Europe's Christians. Interesting article on just this topic and the waning participation.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/greel...t-greel01.html

[mrbiggs]

well we shall leave a discussion of the vow of poverty for another day .

The issue is that a church wants (for good or bad reasons) to maintain healthy attendances, converts, bums on pews, whatever you call it. Look up proselytizing - its what christian churches do, saving souls to save theirs. It may strike you as strange to talk about churches, or religions in general, as you would a business but it works suprisingly well.

Have a brief look around at the various christian denominations - would you not say that moral certainty seems to be a predictor of success in the market place? The best way to grab market share? Does the catholic church care about market share?

Now fashions may change and perhaps the catholic church will attempt to be a fashion leader and create a 'new' market for liberal theology, but I suspect they will be more conservative.

There's a difference between trying to get "bums on pews" for monetary purposes, and to get them there in order to spread their beleifs. (And the "Christain values") It seemed that in your original post that you were saying that the church is motivated by money, which I think is false. I do think, though, that they are trying to grow, but usually the Catholics choose tradition over membership.

[Insipiens]

Of course the Catholic church is interested in bums on seats - prima lex salus animarum: the first rule is the salvation of souls. It is the job of the catholic church to get bums on seats to the extent that the bums on seats imply active participants who are striving to live a life of faith.

[mrbiggs]

Of course the Catholic church is interested in bums on seats - prima lex salus animarum: the first rule is the salvation of souls. It is the job of the catholic church to get bums on seats to the extent that the bums on seats imply active participants who are striving to live a life of faith.

I agree. I had thought that keith was saying that the church is looking to increase membership in order to get money.

[foilz]

It's not rain on my parade. The election of a moderate is possible.

Just before John Paul II there was John Paul I, who only survived a month. At his election it became immediately apparant that his was going to be a papacy of implementing significant changes in the church and probably the introduction of Vatican III. There was controversy over this, and at his very quick death, the conclave did not elect another moderate. At first I was concerned that John Paul II's conservatism was going to halt or reverse so many of what I thought needed to be updated and changed in the church. But now, looking back at the level headedness, the strict adherence to basic beliefs on human live and action, and his unyeilding faithfulness and vocation, I think the Catholic Church was well served during the past 26 years. The world was a crazy changing place these last two decades and right now I am glad that the church didn't gyrate out of control as the world turned.

I do think that a more moderate pope could be and should be elected for this next term because there are some significant issues that need to be addressed in a manner can be accepted by the faithful while serving the needs of this very different world.

Different for this next pope is going to be the superior communications access and means. He will be able to use the resources of the internet, the air and radio waves, to deepest darkest areas that couldnt be served before. A great communicator - a saavy fellow of intellect and compassion and vision - if selected will have the greatest impact than ever before.

Modern to me is not a phat dude in goth wear and piercings. I still expect the pope to represent a conservative fellowship. I'm not insane. But I do think we may see a decade of what the Catholic Church sees as modern!

I wanted to exerpt pieces of Maeve Mari's post, but it's impossible. There are too many great ideas here.

While we never really knew what John Paul I would do, or wouldn't do, it's true that his successor anchored the Catholic faith.

In an era of enormous change, he was steadfast and strong, and profoundly rebuilt the faith.

Over these past few weeks, I knew he was dying. But I literally wasn't prepared for his death. Saturday was an awful day for me. I felt very alone. I desperately missed the human presence of a leader who, whatever was happening, however bizarre it might have been, could be counted on for rock-like strength. Suddenly, he was gone.

His successor must provide the same kind of strength.

He must also find ways to bridge the Church to issues that absolutely have to be addressed -- notably the chastity of the priesthood, and the role of women in the Church.

These two issues alone will address the major causes of decline of the faith in the western world, and promote major opportunities for growth and fulfillment, worldwide.

I pray for strength for the new Holy Father, and for the expansion of the faith.

Apologies if this is over the top for non-believers. It's just what I believe.

[Schiavona]

I would like to see an African Pope. People could never explain to me, while I was growing up, why all the Popes were Italian.