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

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 3:03 pm

Isn't it a bit awkward to post this kind of messages in his anniversary thread?

It's sad he is gone, but in Holland (at least where I live) the issue doesn't really 'live' (another awkward word in this situation). Ofcourse it is covered extensively by the press, but only very few are really shocked or grieving and mourning.

I wonder how this is around the globe.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 3:11 pm

[QUOTE=ik911]Isn't it a bit awkward to post this kind of messages in his anniversary thread?

It's sad he is gone, but in Holland (at least where I live) the issue doesn't really 'live' (another awkward word in this situation). Ofcourse it is covered extensively by the press, but only very few are really shocked or grieving and mourning.

I wonder how this is around the globe.[/QUOTE]

I'm inclined to agree with you. From what I've seen, this thread has been more about objective scrutiny and critique of John Paul's papacy. To avoid a nasty mess.. it may be a good idea if people wanting to pay their respects begin a thread designed for that purpose..

I'm not the person to write it up though. I'm not Roman Catholic, and I didn't agree with many of John Paul's views and policies, so it would be insincere of me to do so..

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 3:12 pm

John Paul has stopped suffering... may he rest in peace, his last years in the command of the RCC were really a struggle.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 3:16 pm

In the usual spirits I hold, at least it didn't happen on April 1st... Could you imagine the confusion...

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 3:18 pm

[QUOTE=Aegis]In the usual spirits I hold, at least it didn't happen on April 1st... Could you imagine the confusion...[/QUOTE]

Yeah. It has spared us some doubt. But AFAWK, he could be dead yesterday and the other priests by his side concealed the fact.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:03 pm

Traditionally in Western Europe, April 1st was given over in late medieval times to the Lord of Misrule. Servants were allowed to take over the household, and a fool was paraded through the streets as mayor of villages and towns.

Concerning JP II, however, I'd say there was nothing about his pontificate that was a joke. He quashed all liberal elements within his Church, usually either through removal from office or by simply outliving his opponents and appointing arch-conservatives in their place. As a non-Catholic it doesn't affect me--directly. But he's personally responsible for all the bishops he put in place in Africa that have resisted tooth and nail the introduction of condoms to their respective societies. He's set back the social dimension of his religion by hundreds of years, and made the RCC even less responsive than before to secular cultures for its elitism, bigotry and sexual misconduct. He gave cushy jobs to his close friends among the cardinals such as Bernard Law, who were forced to resign his archdiocese after more than 20 years of refusing to deal with thousands of sexual abuse cases among priests. I'm one of those poor fools that think any mistreatment of people affect all people, and this is a pope who helped killed an injure a huge number of people through his policies.

It's sad that so many of the powerful mainstream faiths have grown visibly far more dogmatic, even fanatical, over recent decades.

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:38 pm

People may be arguing over the pope's opinions, but he was still the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholics. May he rest in peace.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:04 pm

With respect, it's not his opinions that concern me. I'm concerned about his decisions as one of the most powerful people on teh planet, thanks to which many people have AIDS because his handpicked bishops followed his policies demanding abstinence, arguing with African governments against the distribution of condoms or sex education classes. I'm concerned about his decisions to support his old friends who for more than 20 years refused to acknowledge an endless series of sex scandals in churches worldwide, and the way he pampered his pals while only offering money to thousands of victims after governments started efforts to prosecute.

Each to their own, but I'm not about to pay pious blessings upon a man who wrecked so many lives, and whose policies still in force will wreck and kill so many more.

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:36 pm

[QUOTE=fable]
Each to their own, but I'm not about to pay pious blessings upon a man who wrecked so many lives, and whose policies still in force will wreck and kill so many more.[/QUOTE]

I understand that not everybody want to bless him since they "don't like him".
But people can pay the respect to his life as a normal man, and not only as a leader.

I am not saying you or any other have to though.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:46 pm

First, I have nothing against the man, himself, and I don't know him well enough in any case to like or dislike him. I evaluate within my admittedly limited perspective his actions as a ruler on the world scene. That's all.

If you want to pay your respects to him on his departure, logically a thread to discuss his policies is not the place to do it. I made this thread for discussion, argument, review of what JP2 did, and continues to do through the Church whose ruling body he handpicked for decades.

I suggest creating a thread for that purpose is the way to go.

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:58 pm

I agree with you when it comes to things the JP2 have said and done. For example I don't agree on his view on safe sex etc. And I am no Roman Catholic either. But I respect him for the man he was, not for all the things he have said and done. I can't add anything to this discussion, but I don't want to make a new thread just to reply on this.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:00 pm

[QUOTE=Fiberfar]But I respect him for the man he was, not for all the things he have said and done.[/QUOTE]
A man is, surely, what he does and says. Or at least the two are closely related. Am I wrong in assuming this?

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:05 pm

[QUOTE=Vicsun]A man is, surely, what he does and says. Or at least the two are closely related. Am I wrong in assuming this?[/QUOTE]

I'll put it like this then: I respect him for the human being he was, not for his meaning.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:08 pm

[QUOTE=Vicsun]A man is, surely, what he does and says. Or at least the two are closely related. Am I wrong in assuming this?[/QUOTE]

The two are related, but I would suggest they aren't the same. A person may commit heinous crimes in the name of achieving what they believe to be a very worthy goal of benefit to all. Another may do many nominally "good deeds," in pursuit of a despicable objective. These are black and white generalities, but they give an indication, I think, of how difficult it is to assess the nature of an individual from a snapshot of their known actions at any given time.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:14 pm

[QUOTE=fable]The two are related, but I would suggest they aren't the same. A person may commit heinous crimes in the name of achieving what they believe to be a very worthy goal of benefit to all. Another may do many nominally "good deeds," in pursuit of a despicable objective. These are black and white generalities, but they give an indication, I think, of how difficult it is to assess the nature of an individual from a snapshot of their known actions at any given time.[/QUOTE]
In a world where mind-reading is not possible we can only know about a person by what he says and does. If someone is doing good deeds and saying they are persuing a good objective, we will have little choice but to consider them a good person, unless they have done or said something in the past to put doubt on their present actions. Since we can never know, or even suspect, motives not based on (perhaps previous) words or actions, I still think people should be judged on words and actoins. If you dislike someone based on what they have said and done, there's no criteria left to like him on

To put it another way: the world 'interacts' with people through their senses and their senses only. If someone had no senses whatsoever, the world would not exist to him. People 'interact' with the world with their actions and their actions only (this includes both what they say and what they do). If they said nothing and did nothing (very hard, as even standing perfectly still throughout your whole life would be doing *something*, namely standing perfectly still) they would leave no mark on the world. People only 'mark' or change the world around them by their actions. Therefore we can only judge people by thier actions. Suspecting ulterior motives, is just anticipating future actions differing from the current actions based on previous actions

I've never put any thought on this prior to now, so it's quite possible what I'm saying is complete and utter bollocks. Don't expect me to stand by this tomorrow when I've thought it over

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:35 pm

[QUOTE=Vicsun]In a world where mind-reading is not possible we can only know about a person by what he says and does. If someone is doing good deeds and saying they are persuing a good objective, we will have little choice but to consider them a good person...[/quote]

I would have to disagree, simply because judging actions doesn't automatically mean judging the worth of the individual who acts. Each person is intrinsically human, and no matter how they degrade this during their lives by putting ego and individual above all else, they retain this distinction. I wouldn't want to be put in the same cell as a serial murderer, but I wouldn't necessarily judge their inherent worth based on the murderous activities that ruled their lives. I might be willing if I had the social role to function as judge on those activities, and condemn such a murderer to death; but I still wouldn't judge the individual behind those crimes.

Mind, this is an interesting discussion, but I'd really rather keep this thread focused on what JP2's papacy accomplished, for better and/or worse.

Darth Zenemij · Post by **Darth Zenemij** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:15 pm

Fable,I think we can all depend on you to know shuch information,and to explain it elaboritly.(sp?)I've noticed that you know a whol lot of stuff on recent events and Holidays.But thats it,I just felt as if I needed to post this.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:44 pm

Darth, I think you'd be surprised just how many people in SYM know a tremendous amount of stuff. HighLordDave is a lawyer, C Elegans is a neurobiologist. I could go on--but my point is that I don't know more than quite a few others, and I lack their point of view, in any case. So acquiring these POVs, seeing how others with intelligence and discernment think, is both fun, and interesting. I learn things I've never known, and I think that's true of us all, whether we agree or not.

Darth Zenemij · Post by **Darth Zenemij** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:50 pm

Well I mean,You are by far,the olny one who starts new threads about modern events such as this one.I don't doubt the intillect (sp?) of any other members.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:01 pm

Let's keep the thread focused on JP2's papacy, then, and thanks for what I preceive as a compliment.

What's your opinion of his achievements during his long tenure in office? It was, by the way, the third longest papacy in history.