The 25th anniversary of John Paul II's papacy (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 5:59 pm

It was celebrated today, and for all that Europe claims the US is far more religion-obsessed, many European newspapers and radio stations also discussed the matter. Radio Nederland had a feature, in which one professorial expert pointed out that, having appointed 130 out of 135 currently serving cardinals, John Paul II looks to reign long after his death. He also accused the Pope of having recreated the Vatican as a Polish church: in his own words, intensely hierarchal, mystical, and with absolutely no democracy, whatsoever.

Your opinions on the Papacy of John Paul II?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 6:36 pm

In the secular Sweden this went by almost unnoticed, and personally, I think the very idea of the pope is a relic. I prefer not to insult catholics here, and all catholics of course don't approve of everything the pope states, but I strongly reject the stance regarding abortion and use of conception. I don't care much about the pope and maybe he has participated in constructive causes as well, but going around in Africa and preaching against use of condoms, and even claiming condoms do not decrease the risk of being infected with HIV, is IMO immoral beyond words.

Bloodmist · Post by **Bloodmist** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:06 am

Gmurrr mmmf fffrruu iikmen

That's a bit how it sounded when a Danish radio-channel humorously played a bit of the Pope's speech, with no translation or anything. I think he's getting rather old...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:59 am

@Bloodmist: Not only is he old, he also has Parkinson's disease, a neurological condition characterised by tremor and shaking. It is mainly movement disorder, but it can also affect speach and personality.

Bloodmist · Post by **Bloodmist** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:09 am

Just another reason to give the old guy a break... I mean, shouldn't he be playing bingo or relaxing on some tropical island, instead of travelling all around the world getting more and more tired?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:12 am

@Bloodmist: Exactly - the idea that the papacy is a life-time position, is stupid to say the least. No human being are so beyond corruption, disorder or other changes that life-time positions should be granted.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:11 am

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Bloodmist: Exactly - the idea that the papacy is a life-time position, is stupid to say the least. No human being are so beyond corruption, disorder or other changes that life-time positions should be granted.

It's only a lifetime position if the current holder of the title clings to it. There are a number of popes who resigned in the past, setting a precedent. It's just that John Paul II doesn't want to do so.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:41 pm

The pope made the TV headlines here with his beatification of Mother Teresa, with his ordination of the new cardinals, and with his anniversary. It is a bit odd how much notice the British press take of him, considering this is the country that has an annual celebration of burning a few rebellious Catholics...

The papacy doesn't really have any relevance to me, personally, so I don't really care whether or not he continues. The next pope will presumably have very similar values (eg. concerning things like abortion and contraception, as CE mentioned) in order to become pope - somehow I just can't see the Catholic Church coming over all liberal, all of a sudden. I don't think a change of pope would make any difference to the fact that Catholic doctrine is anathema to my personal views.

Oh, and surely, to some extent, the Vatican has always been "hierarchical, mystical, and with absolutely no democracy, whatsoever"?

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:55 pm

The Vatican has historically opposed mysticism quite a bit, because it encourages religion from subjective experience rather than from authority (although there have been many Catholic mystics also), and the pope is elected by the cardinals AFAIK - but hierarchical is right.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:12 pm

Originally posted by Georgi
Oh, and surely, to some extent, the Vatican has always been "hierarchical, mystical, and with absolutely no democracy, whatsoever"?

By no means. The Vatican has gone through some strongly liberalizing, even humanistic periods in the past. Sometimes these have lasted for many years. At other times, they have been short. The most recent was the reign of John XXIII, 1958-63, who antagonized the Curia and many cardinals with his attempts to restructure the RCC in terms of how it related to the rest of the world (morality, politics), and its own internal procedures of peer review, promotion, and consideration of issues. He wanted a more transparent church, and said so on many occasions. Unfortunately, his sudden death brought the program crashing down, and the conservative cardinals who had chosen him, retreated from following up with another revolutionary.

Of course, he's been beatified. By the same people who scrapped his intended policies, and reversed the ones he put into place.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:55 am

I dislike all forms of religion and so I hope the entire RCC goes the same way as their pope.

The RCC being humanistic at times? I must disagree.

John XXIII is certainly an interesting pope but I don’t think he deserves much praise - exept perhaps for casting a bad light on the RCC.

Will write more on Monday – have a good week all.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:35 pm

Originally posted by Tom
The RCC being humanistic at times? I must disagree.

No, I never wrote that. I said that *the Vatican* had gone through some strongly liberalizing, even humanistic periods in the past. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's heavily documented, and was (in part) responsible for the Protestant schism. Yes, the Catholics were corrupt, but even more importantly, they were consorting with Jews and Islamists, horror of horrors, and reading Greek, and sponsoring paintings of pagan subjects! Heretics, all!

And it's true: a variety of popes and important members of the Curia encouraged and paid for the translation of ancient Greek scientific, ethical, religious and philosophical texts that were still in Islamic hands. Many high ranking church officials, including a few popes, were actually scholars themselves, encouraging pre-Judeo-Christian studies and theories of existence. They supported the leading painters, composers, musicians, architects, sculptors, writers and craftsmen of their day, and supplied humanistic themes as the scope for these works. Members of the Curia even encouraged the study of pan-Christian, pantheistic rituals by several celebrated scholars: it's all on record, though obviously, not discussed. In fact, at least one pope became the subject even during his life of folktales about his supposed paganism and pacts with demonic forces: Gerbert of Aurillac, Sylvester II. In reality, Gerbert was an ambitious cleric and scientist, with cutting-edge theories (for his age) on physics and mathematics.

Let's be clear: I'm not suggesting the RCC was ever liberal. I'm not suggesting most of the popes were liberal. I am stating that there were a few popes who were diehard reformists, and others who didn't give a rat's butt about reform but simply ignored the RCC and its teachings, creating (in a sense) an entirely separate, liberal sub-Church at the top of the hierarchy.

And finally, there were at least a couple of popes who were consensus builders and relatively moderate unless bucked. That exactly describes Maffeo Barberini, Urban VIII, a lavish artistic philanthropist who tried to find a path that would embrace both a solar-centric planetary system and the modified Ptlomeian model with its innumerable crystal spheres. When Galileo, social misfit that he was, severaly ridiculed Urban and his efforts in print--especially after Urban had been his private patron for years--that put an end to scientific tolerance in the RCC for the time being.

PS: Just in case anyone is wondering, I'm not a Catholic apologist. As forum members who have been around for a while will know, I'm a pagan: a witch, a Wiccan for the last twenty-six years, and serious about my beliefs. Many religions have done a dirty on followers of mine, and the RCC is easily among the top three. But that doesn't mean I can't separate out the pope from his church, or individual popes from among the line since that Roman bishop who did a power grab against the other catholic churches of his day.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:04 am

Time to revive this thread: the Pope's gone to a hospital with "severe respiratory problems" that are, however, "not life threatening," or so we're told. Leaving aside for the moment the whole issue of whether Roman Cathoics truly deserve what some American wits once called "the best mind of the 7th century," does anybody else think he should have resigned a few years ago, to pave the way for an orderly transition?

Macleod1701 · Post by **Macleod1701** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:20 am

[QUOTE=fable]It's only a lifetime position if the current holder of the title clings to it. There are a number of popes who resigned in the past, setting a precedent. It's just that John Paul II doesn't want to do so.[/QUOTE]

Not to get conspiritorial but maybe he isn't allowed to resign. I mean come on does anyone actually beleive that HE makes any decisions what so ever anymore?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:35 am

[QUOTE=Macleod1701]Not to get conspiritorial but maybe he isn't allowed to resign. I mean come on does anyone actually beleive that HE makes any decisions what so ever anymore?[/QUOTE]

He can definitely resign anytime he wants, and you can bet that the College of Cardinals would just love the opportunity to pick someone. This pope is ultra-conservative, and he's stacked the CoC with others as well during his papacy, but he's feeble, now. The CoC would definitely want a more vigorous pope, believing that this would somehow revive the RCC's public image. And while to an extent I think they're right--image does count, at least, a bit--simply replaying the ideological failures of the current papal mindset isn't going to win back nominal Catholics to the fold, IMO. But of course, I'm not a Catholic (big surprise, I know), so my opinion isn't that of an insider.

Macleod1701 · Post by **Macleod1701** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:49 am

Well I just see the whole institutiion as outdated and archaic, then again I think that about most religion. I just really don't undertsand why millions of people want to live their lives under the rules set down by at best a veritble corpse and all the cronies that follow him about in weird clothing. How can he justify (or they I mean the religious world in general) telling people how to live their lives?

C'mon Fable your very clever judging from your posts that I've read if anyone can help me understand you can. (Probably told you that my sister is a wicca so woo yay you)

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:30 am

I think an answer to that question is best left to a Roman Catholic. I don't have an insider's view.

But I do know that the pope is regarded as god's vicar on earth and the "keeper of the keys," as well as the spiritual leader of humanity. He is fallible, except when he speaks ex cathedra. His desire to stay on the papal throne can be viewed as his own personal choice, and I'm sure every Catholic has their own opinion of that.

As for the "weird clothing," it's all symbolic, every bit of it, just a bit more formal and colorful than you're used to. Some religions are simply more into visual symbol than others, and that kind of heavy symbolism used to be the standard, too. I've seen some Wiccan getups that would also make you role your eyes!

Though I personally favor simple black robes, unless I'm with a group that practices skyclad worship. -But nude worship, too, can be viewed as a form of reaction against the rich splendor of Roman Catholic vestments and surroundings. It's all just what works for you.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:58 am

Since the current pope is ultra conservative, much more so than several of his predecessors, and he values religious dogma before human life as I describe above, I hope he will die or retire now so another, hopefully less fanatic and more humanistic pope will be installed.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:36 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Since the current pope is ultra conservative, much more so than several of his predecessors, and he values religious dogma before human life as I describe above, I hope he will die or retire now so another, hopefully less fanatic and more humanistic pope will be installed.[/QUOTE]

Mellowing out, @CE?

I suspect the College of Cardinals would say "traditional" instead of "fanatical," and "rebel" instead of "humanistic." Unfortunately, since the pope has had the opportunity to select nearly every member of the College during his administration, the chances of getting a less doctrinaire successor are slim to non-existent. More likely they will want a young, vigorous man, charismatic and forceful, but as unwilling to budge as John Paul II.

In a way, and strictly from my personal perspective, this is good. It means more Roman Catholics will have to perform some true self-examination and determine whether they can follow the Vatican, or perhaps move to another, less rigidly hierarchal faith--perhaps Anglican/Episcopal, which has become mired in controversy from the opposite of the fence. The Anglicans have certainly taken steps to involve themselves positively in cultural crisis, such as the efforts to free Iran-held American hostages back in the 1970s and 1980s. By contrast, the Vatican has spent all its diplomatic efforts trying to scuttle attempts by world organizations to cope with over-population through the distribution of condoms, accurate sex information, and even accurate information about AIDS. (Who can forget the RCC bishop that claimed in public AIDS was spread by the use of condoms?)

Macleod1701 · Post by **Macleod1701** » Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:42 am

Well religious figures have made some extremely strange claims over the years. Earth being the centre of the universe was a big slip up for them, and don't get me started on when they claimed it was flat, (was that the vatican that claimed that)?
Then you have the typical rubbish they spout like 'gay people are evil' and 'beauty marks are the devils sign'.....wait that was whitch hunters. What a load of tripe they speak