BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Pope John Paul II is now dead.

  
  

Page: 123(4)5678

 
 
Issaiah Saysir
18:46 / 05.04.05
In reply:

The problem here is where you people are placing your hatred. The Pope was indeed "The Fucking Pope" but he was one man *seemingly* leading this large organization called the Catholic Church. The Pope did not molest young boys (that we know of). The Pope did not promote the spread of AIDS etc. The Pope was placed in his position to carry on the traditions established by the Church, not to buck the system. Don't like it? Don't be a Catholic (obviously). You should not be hating the Pope,you should be hating on the Vatican /Catholic Church. It's like blaming GWB for all the world's woes, no matter how responsible he may seem.

"He's hated for good reason, he told Africa not to use condoms in the midst of an AIDs epidemic, a point that anyone non-Catholic would rightfully believe utterly irresponsible."

Absolutley, but this is part and parcel with being Catholic. This is a lifestyle choice like any other - with it comes certain parameters. Personally,I hope for Cardinal Francis Arinze, "God's Invisible Hand" tobe the successor for a variety of reasons, including the point Nina made regarding Africa.If anyone shall be a rebel Pope, one who will bring changes that will beof some merit,it is this man. A nice article here to expand on the idea a bit.
As said, the last thing I wish is to step on Barbe-toes, I simply wished to throw in my two sense. Thank you for the links and replies.

[postscript: why is there identical posts from Home,Haus,Hearth and Ex. Are they the same person?]
 
 
w1rebaby
19:16 / 05.04.05
Just to make it clear: are you saying that, for someone in an isolated Catholic village in Africa where the Church is strong, being Catholic is just a lifestyle choice? Because I'd disagree with that.
 
 
Ganesh
19:23 / 05.04.05
The problem here is where you people are placing your hatred. The Pope was indeed "The Fucking Pope" but he was one man *seemingly* leading this large organization called the Catholic Church.

The Pope was the head of the large organisation called the Catholic Church and, as has been amply illustrated, the single most influential individual in determining the direction of that organisation. Where should hatred be placed?

The Pope did not molest young boys (that we know of).

But, as head of the organisation, he bears ultimate responsibility for the repeated, widespread covering up of those priests who did.

The Pope did not promote the spread of AIDS etc.

He did not say, "go spread AIDS", no, but he could, in the face of the most devastating pandemic ever, have moved to relax his organisation's anti-contraception hardline. He chose not to, and millions of preventable deaths are the result. Have you tried clicking on any of the links within this thread?

The Pope was placed in his position to carry on the traditions established by the Church, not to buck the system.

The Pope did not become so involuntarily, and he could've taken a more liberal, reformist line a la Vatican 2. He didn't; he opted to work on reversing those reforms.

Don't like it? Don't be a Catholic (obviously).

Or don't be gay (obviously) or a woman (obviously) or anyone wanting to have sex in those countries whose contraceptive availability is informed by John Paul II's continued hardline (obviously).

You should not be hating the Pope,you should be hating on the Vatican /Catholic Church. It's like blaming GWB for all the world's woes, no matter how responsible he may seem.

No, it's like blaming GWB for those "woes" for which he is demonstrably responsible.

Absolutley, but this is part and parcel with being Catholic. This is a lifestyle choice like any other - with it comes certain parameters.

No. For many, it's not a "lifestyle choice" at all. Contraceptive availability and distribution is, for many, directly related to the local influence of the Catholic church. For many more, distorting the facts around condom efficiency doubtless led to decreased use of condoms during sex.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:37 / 05.04.05
Ex has very kindly loaned me a laptop after I broke mine. I forgot to clear out hir cookies. As it were. It happened to coincide with the failure of our moderation system, so it was not deleted. That's all, my shiny little conspriracy theorist.

As for your protestations that the Pope could do no other, I can only suggest you have a look at some of the discussions above. For example, in 1967 a Vatican committee stated that artificial contraception was not intrinsically morally wrong. The Pope decided to go against the findings of this Vatican-appointed council by releasing Humanae Vitae. This has already been discussed above. At some length. That was not the decision of the evil Catholic Church - it was the decision of one man. As has been discussed above, the Catholic church, and Catholic religious belief, is quite varied - Pope John Paul II tried to centralise power with the Vatican and ultimately with himself and do things the way the Vatican, and ultimately himself, wanted. It is not morally incoherent to dislike both a chold molester, somebody who protects the child molester at the expense of his past and future victims and the person who rewards the protector of the child molester.

As for Arinze:

In many parts of the world, the family is under siege. It is opposed by an anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce.

Doesn't sound terribly radical to me. Bit more barking than the last one, but the same basic burthen. Of course, if Darkseid ever comes a'knocking, his opposition to Anti-Life will be invaluable.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
19:44 / 05.04.05
The Pope was placed in his position to carry on the traditions established by the Church, not to buck the system

Your argument seems to stem from the fact that to become Pope one has to posess certain sets of characteristics, such as being against contraception, the practice of homosexuality, being a man, and the rest; therefore there's no reason to hate the actual pontiff, because he's a token rather than a type, and it's the existance of the type that should be objected to if you're that way inclined.
I might be completely wrong here, but isn't the Pope sort of in charge once he's been selected? I'm pretty sure papal infallibility is no longer strictly docrinal, but surely the rest of the Church can't really do anything about it if he suddenly decides (however unlikely that might be) to permit Catholics to use contraception, for example. The reason (I think) that JPII is hated is that he had the ability to change matters, but didn't. Specifically , the "information" propagated by the Vatican about the efficacy (or rather lack of it) of condoms with full knowledge of the existance of AIDS. Furthermore, the idea that the prohibition of artificial contraception is "part and parcel of being Catholic" is surely dependant on the whim of the Pope. Can Popes be impeached or anything like that?

Or, alternatively, it might just be the same as the reaction I'd probably have to the news that Nick Griffin had been run over by a bus, ie "One fascist bastard down, only the rest of the organisation to go".

[apologies for repetition and non-coherence due to tiredness]
 
 
grant
20:32 / 05.04.05
I'm pretty sure papal infallibility is no longer strictly docrinal,

Uh, no.

Papal infallibility is very much part of Catholic belief. See my prior post for more on that.

but surely the rest of the Church can't really do anything about it if he suddenly decides (however unlikely that might be) to permit Catholics to use contraception, for example.

Well, the *kind* of permission would be filtered through the authority of the bishops.

Meaning: if the new pope turned around and said, "Hey, look, according to this line of reasoning, it's OK," he'd
1. be unable to do so infallibly (more than likely, although I'm not theologian enough to say this for sure).
2. face an immense resistance from those elements within the Church who fully endorse JPII's interpretations.

This is presuming the contraception bidness wasn't elevated to the level of church dogma by JPII. I'm "pretty sure" it hasn't (but cannot say so infallibly).

The reason (I think) that JPII is hated is that he had the ability to change matters, but didn't. Specifically , the "information" propagated by the Vatican about the efficacy (or rather lack of it) of condoms with full knowledge of the existance of AIDS.

Yeah. Most of that came from one specific cardinal, but it was definitely a characteristic of the Church under JPII.

Furthermore, the idea that the prohibition of artificial contraception is "part and parcel of being Catholic" is surely dependant on the whim of the Pope.

Not exactly. See my prior post, or just Google for a definition of "magisterium."

Can Popes be impeached or anything like that?


Heheheh. The last time they tried to do that was in 1378.
More on that here.
 
 
Loomis
13:10 / 07.04.05
I read that there is some talk about dubbing JP2 "the Great", which would make him only the third pope in history with that title.
 
 
Chiropteran
14:01 / 07.04.05
And I've been hearing murmurs about "JPII the Great" becoming Saint John Paul II. I don't know how much faith (ha!) to put in the rumors, and it's probably too early to expect the Vatican to take an Official Position on the matter, but it's something the new pope just might be called to consider.

IIRC, there have only been 9 pope-saints so far, and JPII canonized two of them himself (at once, no less) - along with 474 other saints over the years. He was a saint-making machine!

~L
 
 
sleazenation
14:18 / 07.04.05
Sadly neither Roger Moore or Val Kilmer were recognised for their own saintly personae...
 
 
Aertho
14:54 / 07.04.05
Alexander and Catherine were Popes?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:16 / 07.04.05
At this difficult time we need a Pope with vision and clarity. We need... Dougal Maguire!
 
 
Mourne Kransky
15:45 / 07.04.05
I read in The Grauniad that the elction of Pope Gregory X took nearly three years and a result was only achieved when the locals in Viterbo (where the conclave was held) piled on the pressure. They locked the cardinals in. Then they started giving them poorer rations each day till they were subsisting on bread and water. Then they finally took the roof off the building, the better to allow the Holy Ghost to come visit.

Sadly, they now have the specially built Domus Sanctae Martae for plush overnight accommodation between bursts of trying to ascertain the Divine Will in the Sistine Chapel. Shame they haven't cramped, overcrowded conditions to remind them of the consequences of forbidding contraception to their followers around the world.

And what's the reason for disallowing cardinals over the age of 80 to vote? If the late Pope could run the whole church at the age of 84, why can't other crumbly octogenarian cardinals elect a new one? Surely God doesn't stop talking to them on their 80th birthday. It's not like they have to do physically challenging tasks to stay in the game.

[Vatican tv] And Big Brother is playing Ave Maria through the tannoy. The Cardinals have only five minutes to climb into their seventies disco gear and peform Ave Maria to a disco beat...[/Vtv]

[Vatican radio] And, yet again, it's black smoke. The Archbishop of Milan has been evicted and faces the walk of shame. Davina is coming to get you, Your Grace![/Voice of God]
 
 
grant
15:54 / 07.04.05
For a critical view of the papacy written well and clearly, y'all might want to read this and follow the links, especially the last one, which leads to this Salon blog entry.
 
 
Brigade du jour
22:12 / 07.04.05
Sadly neither Roger Moore or Val Kilmer were recognised for their own saintly personae...

Nor was Ian Ogilvy. Sorry sleaze, but it bugs me that everyone always forgets him! Is it because he's called Ian, do you think?
 
 
Loomis
09:05 / 08.04.05
Right. I know it's not particularly original to point out the gulf between the teachings of Jesus and the current wealth and position of the church hierarchy, but I can't help it this morning. Watching the preparations for the funeral on tv, with all the cardinals in their robes, and the up-front seats of all the world leaders and the OTT decor of St Peters, with all the silly plebs lined up down the road trying to catch a glimpse ... bloody hell.

If Jesus is watching this I hope he's snacking on roasted pope's toes and picking his teeth with splinters from the papal shinbones.
 
 
Loomis
13:56 / 08.04.05
Polly Toynbee sez.
 
 
Loomis
14:10 / 08.04.05
Poor Prince Charles. Apparently that rapscallion Robert Mugabe snuck up on him at the pope's funeral and Charles, "caught by surprise", shook his hand.

It's just not Charlie's week is it?
 
 
Papess
14:18 / 08.04.05
[off topic] scum, and Camilla is going to take the rap for killing Diana. Then again, she had everything to gain, didn't she?[/ot]

Loomis, all religions honour their officials. No one seems to care when the Dalai Lama is laden in silks and fine ornamentaion. Granted, not as wealthy an institution as Catholocism, but Buddhists shower their leaders with gifts and valuable offerings. I am certain this happens in all major religions as a sign of respect and honouring their ideals. Why do people seem only repulsed by the Catholics display of wealth?
 
 
Loomis
14:24 / 08.04.05
Well speaking for myself, I don't have any more time for the Dalai Lama than I do for the pope. At least the pope doesn't have his grinning mug on annoying little stocking filler books stacked up next to the tills at bookstores for impulse buying.
 
 
Papess
15:03 / 08.04.05
At least the pope doesn't have his grinning mug on annoying little stocking filler books stacked up next to the tills at bookstores for impulse buying.

That is because of a difference in belief systems about displaying their image. However, the Dalai Lama has graced quite a few trinkets and books in order to use commercialism to support his monestary and similar causes. The Pope is the same. He has to make sure the church has funds for it's functioning.
 
 
grant
16:27 / 08.04.05
At least the pope doesn't have his grinning mug on annoying little stocking filler books stacked up next to the tills at bookstores for impulse buying.

That is because of a difference in belief systems about displaying their image.

Actually, I suspect it's because the Dalai Lama is a state leader in exile who's running a massive PR campaign for public recognition as the true ruler of the sovereign nation of Tibet.
 
 
Papess
16:43 / 08.04.05
Good point, Grant. I was deriving my estimation based on my experience with leaders of other Tibetan buddhist schools and experience with Lamas and Rinpoche. While they do sell images of themselves as to partially support their monastaries, they also have a strict code about it, and everything has to be approved by them personally.
 
 
Saint Keggers
17:02 / 08.04.05
People are already lining up to see

Pope John Paul 3: Revenge of The Sith
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:43 / 09.04.05
And cunt though he may be, you have to admit that Mugabe has more right to be there than a great many other dignitaries and what-have-you... he was a Jesuit seminarian, was he not?
Whereas I thought Mr Tony was an Anglican...
 
 
Olulabelle
00:49 / 09.04.05
Mr Tony is anything you choose.

'What's your name?'
'What do you want it to be?'
 
 
Tryphena Absent
01:10 / 09.04.05
The problem with the Polly Toynbee article is that it's totally irrational.

She underestimates the power of belief, talks about the ignorance of young people, misunderstands the power of belief in a figure- people don't need to know about Easter to believe in a God or a Pope. She says that ignorance allows people to emote with flow but who is emoting with flow? Tony Blair, a man who does know what easter means, who many of us suspect would have converted to Catholicism if not for his role as PM. A Polish girl who has been confirmed, people who stood waiting for an Easter message at the vatican. The idea that because people here don't know these things, people elsewhere won't is egotistical and ignorant.

A Catholic can use contraception but the Pope believed he was speaking God's will when he said that they shouldn't. Those of us outside of organised religion know perfectly well that every organised religion is irrational- I mean, it's about centring your life around something that may or may not exist and following with no exceptions the rules that this thing that might not exist has set. If you accept the irrationality of that than you have to accept that religion isn't practical and if religion isn't practical than it doesn't care about how wrong it is to take practicality away for a belief system. This is why we shouldn't bother to attack the Pope, to attack the Pope is to ignore a huge, worldwide problem- religion is basically ignorant. It's easy to blame one man and not to blame a series of terrible, impractical and discriminatory systems. The contraception in Africa event isn't a single event alone, it's the description of a problem that occurs in every religion because every single one is archaic, flawed and appalling. Why did you mutilate your baby's penis? My rabbi told me to. Why are you wearing a headscarf when your brother isn't? Because I'm a muslim. Why don't you legalise abortion? Because this country is Catholic. What a load of steaming shit.

The problem for me is never going to be the Pope. It's going to be people who insist on following religious beliefs and Popes and priests as if they represent God when really all you've got is a contradictory book. They give the whole thing power, the Pope is a tiny part of a terrible system. Toynbee talks about the lack of knowledge about Easter as if it's a bad thing- we all know it's a celebration of seasonal change anyway- but then shuns the Pope for relaying the truth of his religion (and it was the truth because erm... he was the Pope). What does she want? A kick up the backside for writing something that ignored every fundamental truth. Including Italian corruption.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
01:15 / 09.04.05
And that's not to say that 'God does not exist' is a fundamental truth but it is to say that 'my religion is fundamentally true' is. How many times have Christian churches reformed, been created, changed their stance? Hundreds. So how can they possibly be following God's defininte ideas? Yet so many people within those religions fail to worship in their own way- they just follow the word relayed. And I add that Catholics who use contraception generally confess...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
01:16 / 09.04.05
Btw- sorry about that.
 
 
Cherielabombe
08:23 / 09.04.05
I have kind of mixed feelings about the whole pope being dead thing.

As someone who was raised Catholic, and as a person of Polish descent, from the time JPII was chosen, I grew up hearing about how wonderful he was and how he worked in the Polish resistance against the Nazis, and my parents have actually had a picture of him hanging up in their house since I was 5. It's right next to their picture of Jesus and one reason the Pope's pic is up is because he's "the Polish one."

Also, having gone to Catholic school for 8 years, you know they're pretty 'pro-pope' there as well, and less than 24 hours after the news that JPII was dead had broke, I was receiving e-mails from some of my old school mates (who I'm still in touch with - it was a very small school after all) saying things like "Aren't You Sad the Pope's Dead?"

Well, ah, no...

Because in spite of a good 13 years of pope-aganda being instilled in me, I can't rationalize that with some of things he did. And I'm thinking in particular of an article that was in I think the Observer which reported the Pope's message regarding homosexuality and feminism as evil. I was so hurt and angered by that article, I mean it was upon reading that that I thought I can't rationalize Catholicism anymore if that is the doctrine.

And then there's the whole pedophilia scandal. You know what is funny (strange not ha-ha) to me about that scandal? NO ONE I know who is a Catholic is surprised that there are so many of these stories. I mean, NO ONE. Doesn't that say something to you? And yes, as the head of the church, the buck does stop with the Pope. As the bracelet says, "What Would Jesus Do?" I don't think JC would allow the molesting of the "Kingdom of God" to continue as long as JPII did.

But of course he did some good things, such as publicly oppose the Iraq war.

So, mixed feelings. Cant' say I loathed him. Can't be a long way say I approved of all of his work. But I do find all of the overdone coverage a bit ludicrous.

And yeah - Mugabe shaking Charles' hand!! But in Charles' defense, that came during the giving the sign of peace, and you aree supposed to offer peace to your neighbors at that time. But, really, Charles should've been tough and refused, I think.
 
 
Ganesh
08:25 / 09.04.05
This is why we shouldn't bother to attack the Pope, to attack the Pope is to ignore a huge, worldwide problem- religion is basically ignorant. It's easy to blame one man and not to blame a series of terrible, impractical and discriminatory systems. The contraception in Africa event isn't a single event alone, it's the description of a problem that occurs in every religion because every single one is archaic, flawed and appalling.

Yes but.

(And it's an enormous fucking "but".)

Yes, it's the nature of the beast (no-one's claiming otherwise).

Yes, the Pope isn't solely responsible for the problem of contraception in Africa (no-one's claiming otherwise).

But, as has been amply illustrated in this thread, even within the huge, irrational, discriminatory power structures of organised religion, the Pope is one man who could have made a difference and chose not to. He could've relaxed his church's hardline over contraception, or at least allowed discussion in the face of the burgeoning AIDS problem. If he'd taken this route (as he well could've done; the anti-contraception stance seen as one of the most likely bits of Catholic doctrine to change), there would still have been a pandemic over multiple continents, sure, and millions would still have died. Very probably a few millions fewer would've died, though.

It's easy - and appropriate - to blame one man as well as religion in general, because that one man sacrificed those millions of people for his own beliefs. And we should bother attacking him because to do otherwise - to simply shrug our shoulders and say, "well hey, that's what religion's like, innit" - is to buy into a lazily complacent fatalist worldview which absolves us from ever having to bother attacking any individual atrocity ever.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:16 / 09.04.05
BUT you're talking about a man who had been indoctrinated by his religion to believe that God didn't support contraception. He would have been betraying God and Catholicism if he had said anything else and as the Pope that's the one thing you must not do because you're commanding, representing a whole religion. He had to represent the truth of the faith, not the practical repercussions. For him it would have been worse for those people to go to hell.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:19 / 09.04.05
All of you have been talking about theory as if it's possible for someone who comes from 1930's/40's Poland and became a Priest to be theoretical about this religion. Or reasonable. It's not, he would have been condemned to hell if he'd done that Ganesh. He would have burnt. It's a problem with the faith.
 
 
Ganesh
12:46 / 09.04.05
BUT you're talking about a man who had been indoctrinated by his religion to believe that God didn't support contraception. He would have been betraying God and Catholicism if he had said anything else and as the Pope that's the one thing you must not do because you're commanding, representing a whole religion. He had to represent the truth of the faith, not the practical repercussions. For him it would have been worse for those people to go to hell.

And yet, previous Popes have introduced liberalising reforms. John Paul II not only chose not to continue in the tradition of Vatican 2 (which, I believe, did suggest open discussion of the anti-contraception doctrine) but worked hard to reverse those reforms - and allowed the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family to spread the dangerous lie that the HIV virus could pass through tiny holes in latex condoms.

One might also argue that concealing paedophiles within the body of his faith might constitute "betraying God and Catholicism" where the protection of children is concerned - but he did that too.

There are several ways in which the Pope - were he the humanitarian he's currently being eulogised as - might've used his power to positive effect without setting undue precedent within the doctrines of his faith. He chose to revert to a socially conservative interpretation of those doctrines, and millions died as a result.
 
 
Loomis
12:49 / 09.04.05
Think of it like corporate manslaughter Nina. If Microsoft (with full knowledge and support of Bill Gates) spreads misinformation that kills millions of people, do you let Bill off the hook because it was the policy of the company and as CEO he had to follow it?

And also you seem to assume that it was impossible for the pope to turn from the church, or at least turn from some of its doctrines. Aren't there millions of people around the world living right now who had a religious upbringing yet have left the church? Or who haven't left but have chosen not to follow certain doctines? Why is he exempt?

If it's okay for him to be personally praised for all the peace-loving stuff (which is nothing other than the doctine of his religion), then why can't he be personally blamed for the misogyny and homophobia (which is supposedly exempt because it's the doctrine of his religion)?
 
 
Ganesh
12:54 / 09.04.05
All of you have been talking about theory as if it's possible for someone who comes from 1930's/40's Poland and became a Priest to be theoretical about this religion. Or reasonable. It's not, he would have been condemned to hell if he'd done that Ganesh. He would have burnt. It's a problem with the faith.

And you talking about John Paul II as if he were a simple product of that background with no autonomy whatsoever, ignoring the possibility that other individuals in his position - with similar backgrounds to John Paul II - could, and have, acted differently.

Still, it's a conveniently pat response to any misdeed anywhere, no matter how atrocious: "well, he was born a human being, it's a problem with human nature, no point bothering to attack him".
 
  

Page: 123(4)5678

 
  
Add Your Reply