Pope John Paul II, 84, what happens next?

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=Yeltsu]
I'll just keep quiet about my views on religion in the future then, since people are obviously offended by them. I didn't mean to offend anyone, I guess I just got carried away, I just really dislike religion as a whole, and all the horrible things that have been done in the name of religion.
[/QUOTE]

Yeltsu, I don't know what you wrote, but in general there is no more problematic to be critical towards religion. Problems occurs, as always, when you start generalising, or when you make personal attacks. If you wrote something like "religious people are stupid idiots" that is a personal attack. If you wrote something like "catholics are immoral" because you think the late pope was immoral, you overgeneralise. I am sure that we who dislike the concept of religion for principle reasons can express this in a general way as long as we don't attack people who happen to believe in religion.

Like I have posted elsewhere on this board, I, like Audace, dislike the Catholic church and the pope for the many inhumane and discriminative acts they have done in the past, and still do.

[quote="Morlock]
But he was upholding his tennets of faith"]

So you are saying that holding up a religious principle legitimises opinions that increase the spreading of the HIV epidemia? Is it your opinion that religious faith is enough to propose and spread a message that lead to millions of deaths? If so, I could not disagree more with you. John Paul travelled much, and he preached a message of total prohibition of birth control, abortion, homosexuality and that women should stick to nursing children.
He preached against using condoms in the South of Sahara countries where 50% of the population already have HIV. He refused abortion to the nuns who became pregnant by rape during the Bosnian war.
He supported peace and democratic values when the Soviet union fell, but in his own territory he increased his own autocracy. He amplified the doctrine of "papal infallibility". He fought actively against calls for liberalisation and democratisation of the RCC. Like Audace pointed out, he did nothing to try to stop and even refused to critisise the sexual abuse of children within the RCC.
He said the future of the church was to turn to the poor - and that he certainly did with his messages that only contribute to keep the poor in poverty.

Since millions of people are influenced by the pope and the RCC, I really hope the next pope will be less inhumane and less immoral (yes, I think it is highly immoral to hold and act out beliefs that are discriminatory of humans, and even more immoral to put those beliefs above the survival of millions). I am not well read into the subject, but at least a couple of the slightly younger cardianals from developing countries have publically expressed humane values and concern about human rights issues, so I hope one of them will be pope, at least after the interrim pope.

[fable]

@CE, just heard a report on the BBC about the large number of social aid groups in Asia that have formed under JP2's reign, by Catholics, strongly opposed to RCC policies involving condoms, abortion, social and political activism. (It should be remembered that this pope began by strongly opposing dictatorships involved in human rights abuses, and later reversed his attitude, ordering priests to not question the activities of local authorities involved in abuses, and withdrawing bishops with a history of doing so.) Quite a number of people heading these organizations and others in the field, so to speak, were interviewed. All were Catholics, and all were angry about the doctrinaire approach of the RCC, and the seeming lack of awareness or concern about escalating birth rates in poverty-stricken zones, the spread of HIV infection, the Church's access to state power that allowed them in essence to make national policy over the heads of citizens who to deal with soaring death rates, etc. Such audio pieces are by their nature incapable of coinveying numbers in depth; they are anecdotal. But the personalities were telling, and the sheer volume of anger and subversion at a grassroots level towards RCC policy was striking.

[Cuchulain82]

I think that one thing everyone here tacitly realizes is that PJP2 was a multi-faceted Pope- the first non-Italian Pope in more than 400 years, widely traveled, etc. For that I think he deserves some credit.

As far as his approach to AIDS/HIV in sub-saharan Africa is concerned, I think that to applaud the Pope for upholding Cathloic values is top applaud him for his own naivete. I don't believe that the abstinance-only approach to birth control/stopping the spread of disease is effective; for the sake of argument, I know the Pope did believe in this approach. However, I don't think he considered it in the cultural context of sub-Saharan africa, specifically the diminished rights of women.

In many places in Africa polygamy is common- the number of wives is a symbol of a man's ability to provide for them (many nations also don't have divorce- if a man wants to leave his wife, he can do so, but he still has to provide for her, even if he remarries). Also, women have very little control of their own sexual/reproductive rights (ie- it isn't uncommon for a man to "take" a woman who is not his wife). These factors, coupled with the widespread lack of information available to most Africans about HIV/AIDS, have led to the pandemic that is rampant today.

I bring all this up because the Pope, as a spiritual leader of 1 billion people (many of them African), could have done many things differently- increased AIDS awareness, facilitated a discussion of safe sex within the cardinals, etc. He didn't do any of this, instead allowing a disease to ravage an entire continent, one populated by millions of Christians and Cathloics.

Re: Fable, Liberation Theology

Unfortunately, I don't think that the Liberation Theology movement will get going anytime soon. There isn't any significant momentum behind the remnants of the movement, in large part because the founders of the movement have been painted as liberal extremists by the conservatives that now populate the RCC. What can you do? I have heard recently though that many Cathloics in South America who strongly supported PJP2 have taken to completely ignoring him and the church regarding the use of contraception, birth control, and the like. There was an article in the New York Times about this last Sunday (Luis, you’re down there, right? Can you confirm/deny?)

Re: Jews, Arabs, extremism

Personally, I think that Sharon and the Likud have been doing much better recently, especially since the death of Yassir Arafat. Think back to late 2001/early 2002 as Oslo really came unraveled- suicide bombs were going off every day, the Israeli army was leveling whole blocks looking for guerillas, much of the Arab world supported Osama bin Laden (tacitly or otherwise)… it was really a mess, practically a new intifada. Now, at least there seems to be some desire for peace on both sides, and this is leading to talk of removing West Bank settlements, normalization of relations between Israel and the rest of the Arab world, and other positive potential resolutions.

However, I think that the expansion of information has, in many was, caused the growth of polarization/extremism; I respectfully disagree with Maharlika, who said:

The way I see it, when there are more opportunities for people to be exposed to other people's culture and plight (internet and high-tech mass media come to mind), then there is the greater possibility for everyone to be less rigid. Sorry if I sound a bit naive, but I would rather be somewhat optimistic despite all these things. *shrugs*

Mass media is today so blatantly biased (towards some point of view) that people don’t have enough objective information. This is a global phenomenon- Arab TV, Fox News Network, Internet-based news sites, etc. The potential for increased democratization of information exists, but so does the potential for manipulation of information. The former has yet to be realized, and that is bad. (This doesn’t have much to do with the Pope now- I’ll get back on topic)

The biggest problem I have with PJP2 is that he was so conservative and, at the same time, so darned good at it! Not only did he shift the focus away from the Vatican II reforms, but he also loaded the RCC with people from his own school of thought, ensuring a simlar Cathloic trajectory for the next decade at least. If the Pope would have tried to lead the Church away from some of the conservative issues (some of which have no basis in scripture) so much could be different- ie- what if married men could be priests? Would the priesthood be decaying in the way it is now? Would the child abuse scandal in the US have been so widespread? I don’t have the answers, but my intuition tells me that things would have been very different.

[Maharlika]

I personally like the way this discussion is going...

@fable: That just goes to show that for a number of Catholics, we are not "blinded by faith." To put it somewhat lightly, we do "think" too.

@Chuchu: To a certain extent I do agree with you, but then again, there is the role of EDUCATION, where people are trained to think critically and not just take everything that they see or hear --- hook line and sinker.

[Morlock]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]So you are saying that holding up a religious principle legitimises opinions that increase the spreading of the HIV epidemia? [/QUOTE]

From anyone else, of course not. From the pope, yes. To say I have an unending list of problems with the Catholic church would be putting it extremely mildly, but I do believe that it is the pope's job to uphold the principles of his church. I blame the church, not the man. The immorality is in the church, not in Karol Wojtyla. I believe that that is a separation that must be made.

[Cuchulain82]

[QUOTE=Morlock]@Chuchu: To a certain extent I do agree with you, but then again, there is the role of EDUCATION, where people are trained to think critically and not just take everything that they see or hear --- hook line and sinker.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. However, I don't think that most people realize exactly what "education" in many parts of the Middle East (re: extremism) and Africa (re:AIDS) is comprised of- I know I certainly didn't until very recently.

In many countries in the Middle East, education is largely done in Madrasas (Islamic Fundamentalist Schools). In countries like Pakistan* and (what used to be) Afghanistan, the state couldn't support education systems. The Madrasas filled that void, and any child who attended them was usually fed. However, they essentially had no supplies or resources, and the only thing that students learned was to memorize the Koran (along with a very intolerant version of Islam). Science, geopolitics, math, computer literacy, and other "core" subjects aren't given any attention in these schools. You can see where I am going with this, so I will skip ahead- this is the breeding ground (as I understand it) of terrorism in the Middle East.

*CM- I don't want to pick a fight, especially with someone who is the exact opposite of the fundamentalist I just described. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the Madrasa/Islamic school system.

In Africa, on the other hand, education about AIDS was retarded for years- in fact, the existance of AIDS was flat out denied, even by heads of state! Thabo Mbeki, head of the South African state, refused to acknowledge AIDS in South Africa, even after his son was infected! A genuine campaign of misinformation flourished in South Africa for years regarding AIDS. Now, education is starting to spread, but it had been repressed for a long time.

I just don't get it

[QUOTE=Morlock]From anyone else, of course not. From the pope, yes. To say I have an unending list of problems with the Catholic church would be putting it extremely mildly, but I do believe that it is the pope's job to uphold the principles of his church. I blame the church, not the man. The immorality is in the church, not in Karol Wojtyla. I believe that that is a separation that must be made.[/QUOTE]
I understand your position, but I think it lets the Pope and the entire Church organization off the hook. The Church (as an organization) and the practicioners of Catholicism (as people) need guidance. The Pope is supposed to be the highest official in the organization and the representation of the divine on earth- IMO, he needs to be a dynamic force. If Cathloics allow the Pope to simply maintain the Church, instead of moving it forward, then the religion will become less and less relevant to the lives of the practicioners. The Pope has a duty to confront big issues (i.e.- HIV/AIDS), especially when some of his followers could be placed in danger by a lack of action (i.e.- HIV/AIDS)

[fable]

[QUOTE=Morlock]From anyone else, of course not. From the pope, yes. To say I have an unending list of problems with the Catholic church would be putting it extremely mildly, but I do believe that it is the pope's job to uphold the principles of his church. I blame the church, not the man. The immorality is in the church, not in Karol Wojtyla. I believe that that is a separation that must be made.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't even make basic sense. Look up the history of the RCC in any given century, including our own: a succession of popes can and will dramatically shift policy all over the spectrum on a huge number of issues. There have been some very dramatic reversals, as even you yourself have acknowledged--otherwise, how would you explain the RCC recently acknowledging errors of judgement in WWII regarding Jews? It was John Paul II who made that dramatic change. That's only one superficial example. I could list dozens that affect the structural, administrative, social and political organization of the RCC and the way it relates to the rest of the world. Did John Paul II's recent predecessors fight a no-holds battle against condoms and abortions? They didn't; in fact, the policy was in process for being reversed under John XXIII's papacy, when he died. John XXIII and Paul VI also supported Liberation Theology, while John Paul II removed all bishops who did so and insisted that his new conservative bishops remove any priests similarly inclined. And so it goes.

You've got it reversed, Morlock. The policies that most of us have problems with were policies that were not in place during the papacy of John XXIII or Paul VI, or were removed by these prelates. It is John Paul II who set the specific policies CE, myself and so many other others have found repellent, no one else. He was the strongest and most authoritarian pope in centuries, and as both his supporters and critics acknowledge, it is *his* stamp that the policies of his administration bears. You should look up some in-depth articles on this particular Catholic prelate. By all means, support him if you will, but find firm ground to argue from.

[Adahn]

What I can't stand is all the propaganda created throughout Italy about "Oh the Pope fought Communism" "The Pope stood alone against the viciousness that was Socialism" "The Pope lead a fight for democracy against totalitarianism" All this is what bothers me. You know why? Because the ******* president we have here. Berlusconi is the most conservative, nigh-fascist ultra-capitalist monstrosity ever to rise in power after Mussolini. Now people see that, and we're very close to election time over here. If we can kick him out, we'll have peace for at least a few years. But now that this propaganda on the Pope has spilled out, the average person tunning into the television sees "Pope = Good" "Pope (who is good) fight Leftism = Bad) Then they say "w00t Let's vote for anything except the left. Thus keeping our good friend Berlusconi in power. It sickens me. It already sickens me that the Pope was an anti-communistic anal-retentant conservative puppet but that the average italian acctually believes him to be a saint after all the ill he did and naming him the GREAT is ludicrous.

Don't circument the profanityfilter please. Profanity removed. - Xandax

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=Adahn]What I can't stand is all the propaganda created throughout Italy about "Oh the Pope fought Communism" "The Pope stood alone against the viciousness that was Socialism" "The Pope lead a fight for democracy against totalitarianism" All this is what bothers me. You know why? Because the fuggin' president we have here. Berlusconi is the most conservative, nigh-fascist ultra-capitalist monstrosity ever to rise in power after Mussolini. Now people see that, and we're very close to election time over here. If we can kick him out, we'll have peace for at least a few years. But now that this propaganda on the Pope has spilled out, the average person tunning into the television sees "Pope = Good" "Pope (who is good) fight Leftism = Bad) Then they say "w00t Let's vote for anything except the left. Thus keeping our good friend Berlusconi in power. It sickens me. It already sickens me that the Pope was an anti-communistic anal-retentant conservative puppet but that the average italian acctually believes him to be a saint after all the ill he did and naming him the GREAT is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

I can relate, and I'd say I felt sorry for you but I'm stuck with Bush, and his crap. I'd say it's good to know there's other people in other countries in the same boat I'm in, but it's a horrible thing so that won't work either.

Personally, I'm waiting for some "natural disaster" to strike the Vatican and see how the church takes that.

[jopperm2]

Here's my take on things.

I am not Catholic and don't know enough about things to make definitive answers. I'll say what I think though and people can correct me if I'm wrong.

A certain number of policies of the RCC were things that were added for certain reasons and have nothing to do with Christianity itself. IIRC the chastity of Priests is one of these things. Therefore I think the Pope should feel free to adapt these things as needed to accomodate circumstances. Perhaps a little sexual relief by way of a spouse would alleviate the abuse problems. I'm not sure it would but maybe. It would certainly be more Holy IMO.

The comdoms issue I am not sure about. I don't know where that belief comes from. If it is truly believed that God does not want you to use contraception then I expect the Pope to tell you not to. If it's a matter of Church "policy" then I think it should be changed. I don't like what was said about condoms not being effective, and all that with the inaccuracies, etc. I wouldn't expect the Pope to endorse condoms, but I don't like the untruths either. I would expect something more like this: "Condoms may or may not prevent AIDS, but you shouldn't be having sex anyway. If you don't want to die a horrible death and suffer eternally for your sins, then don't have sex."

Anyway, I don't know enough about the whole condoms thing to make a big decision about that, but I will say that the Pope did many great things and I thank him for that.

[Magrus]

I don't recall reading anything in the bible stating "God decrees condoms spread AIDs and are not to be used, Amen". In fact, I'm fairly certain neither were mentioned at all. Therefore, it's got nothing to do with the religion or the church. Simply a personal decision which was made yes?

[Luis Antonio]

It has been mentioned, as a church "truth" by a Priest five years ago, when I've abandoned the RCC.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Magrus]I don't recall reading anything in the bible stating "God decrees condoms spread AIDs and are not to be used, Amen". In fact, I'm fairly certain neither were mentioned at all. Therefore, it's got nothing to do with the religion or the church. Simply a personal decision which was made yes? [/QUOTE]

Yes. It was John Paul II's viewpoint. Of course, many of his appointed bishops were more than happy to take up this line. The general anti-condom line can be extrapolated from an early Renaissance position of the RCC, but it was by no means pressed by all popes. Some deliberately downplayed it.

[Xandax]

I've cleaned up a bit in this thread.
This thread obviously contains a serious topic, so please keep irrelevant spam to an absolute minimum of respect of the thread starter and the seriousness of the topic.


__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

[jopperm2]

Thanks Xan, to continue on the condom thingy. I think it has something to do with the a small quote from the bible. I'm just not completely sure about that. Regardless, I do think theologically it is sinful to have sex for pleasure, that doesn't keep me from doing it though. I do feel bad on occasion though.

Perhaps a stance of no condoms for contraception but they are an effective way to prevent disease would be a better way to go for the RCC.

Can anyone provide the basis for the anti-contraception?

[fable]

In the early Renaissance, around 1250-1350, the RCC began to consolidate its territorial gains. Where it had previously been intent on conversion in Europe, acqueiscing on a number of points, it now began to lay down its law. Marriage within certain degrees was out. No marriage was legal unless performed by a priest, in chapel. Confession was required. Marriage even in the lesser degrees of the Church hierarchy was now forbidden. Among these policies was one about sex being only for procreative purposes. Sex itself was regarded as dirty, since it put the body above the spirit, which could only be contemplated rationally. It follows that any method of birth control worked against the sole reason for permissable sex, and also reduced humans to the level of rutting animals. Or at any rate, that was the RCC's take.

That's essentially the basis of the problem: a small group of elderly, celibrate Aristotelians telling others how to worship, how to interpret a particular holy book, and how to view human beings (note the Gnostic division between spirit and body). Over time, various popes have emphasized or ignored this policy. Sixtus IV--the guy who had the Sistine Chapel built--licensed the Roman brothels, and brought in a tidy sum in taxes. Alexander VI had 10 illegitimate kids. Most popes, of course, have not chosen this point of view. John XXIII was known to wish to moderate this condemnation of contraceptives privately, and it was believed that it would be a matter dealt with when he convened only the second Vatican Council in history to end the "holy isolation" (as he termed it disparagingly) of the RCC from humanity. Unfortunately, he died before he could push through this particular reform. Interestingly, the future John Paul II attended those Council meetings in the 1960s, and opposed the changes John XXIII wanted every step of the way.

So the policy was established some time ago, but individual popes have pushed it or ignored it. John Paul II's use of blatantly false material to support his position is, however, the most aggressive and condemnatory approach by a pope that has ever been taken on this issue.

[jopperm2]

Thanks, that makes some sense.

I don't have a problem with forbidding contraceptives if that's what they want. I do have a problem with lies and misinformation.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Thanks, that makes some sense.

I don't have a problem with forbidding contraceptives if that's what they want. I do have a problem with lies and misinformation.[/QUOTE]

But it shouldn't be what THEY want, it should be the religion. Just because they're running it, doesn't mean it should be a human decreeing the religion for everyone else in the name of their god. Don't you agree? If he is to be the highest representative of "God" here on earth, he should see to it everything he says and does agrees with the core of the religion. Not twist it to his own beliefs and wants.

[CM]

[QUOTE=fable]So the policy was established some time ago, but individual popes have pushed it or ignored it. John Paul II's use of blatantly false material to support his position is, however, the most aggressive and condemnatory approach by a pope that has ever been taken on this issue.[/QUOTE]

No offense Fable, you know alot about the subject than me but that just reads as a biased point of view instead of anything substantial. You have provided one side of the story. What are the views that John Paul II to support his position? This is a Pope. He has in some ways to respond to his followers and the like. It was so blatantly false don't you think someone would have picked up on it?

I don't want to comment further on this subject as all i see is one set of moral values in conflict with another. As people do not agree with the moral teachings of the RCC they see them as wrong. It is nothing more than an I feel this and you feel that arguement.

[jopperm2]

@Magrus, Christ Himself was a human. So was Mohammed, Buddha, Moses, etc. People are the creators/conveyors of the will of God. The pope speaks, and as far as I'm concerned, it's the will of God for Catholics. I'm not Catholic. I'm prohibited from being so, but I still think the Pope has some authority on the matter.