Well, I agree with this, but with the reality tunnel that I imagine a Pope lives in, he probably just thought everyone would just abstain from sex to prevent the spread of AIDS.
We imagine the Pope's "reality tunnel" differently, then. The AIDS crisis deepened over several years and, while one might be forgiven a degree of naivety at the beginning (although, frankly, I think even this stretches credulity), it quickly became obvious that people were still having sex, and dying as a result.
You see, while I realise he is not completely innocent, he had to consult with those he represented to form his presentation of the church's stand on the issue. Even if he did have a different opinion on some things, he most likely was obliged to go with the majority rule.
I'm not at all sure about this, where something like contraception is concerned. Is the Pope always obliged to go with "majority rule" or can he at least initiate review/discussion? Could someone more clued-up on Vatican workings enlighten us?
Perhaps in the past, the majority rule was not as conservative and thus it appeared as if the Pope of the time wasn't either. Perhaps he was though? He would still get the credit/blame for what he presented on behalf of the church. Can you see my point a bit?
Umm no, not really. I mean yes, I can see that any Pope would be credited/blamed for what they said and did - whether it were their particular idea or the church's - but I'm not sure how that's directly relevant to my point that there have apparently existed less conservative Popes and/or a less conservative College. If you're returning to the "meat puppet" argument, then I guess you could argue that the College has waxed and waned over time with regard to how conservative it is, and the Pope reflects that while having no personal responsibility for any of it. I'd reiterate that the Pope maintains a degree of autonomy, and accordingly bears some share of responsibility.
It seems far more constructive than critising the figurehead, especially in an obituary thread.
I wasn't attempting to be "constructive"; I was expressing an opinion on what I see as John Paul II's personal failings as Pope (and, as I've made clear, I see him as more influential than a mere "figurehead"). As a thread devoted specifically to John Paul II, it seems appropriate to discuss him rather than Catholicism more generally - but if it helps, imagine I've appended "and I find the Catholic orthodoxy abhorrent too" to each of my posts.
Which, the only reason you have given me for doing so was that it was simply what is accepted here on Barbelith. To which I still reply: just because the rest of Barbelith does it, does not make it okay
Okay, let me clarify: I've criticised John Paul II because I feel, extremely strongly, that the fact that someone has recently died does not preclude discussion of their failings, particularly if those failings caused enormous human suffering. I have never understood why death should necessitate a selective airbrushing of the uglier facts of someone's life - and I've always been heartened that, almost without exception, no-one on Barbelith has encouraged this airbrushing. Free speech has always seemed to prevail.
(I am attempting to ascertain why there's an expectation that we avoid speaking ill of the dead - but I don't think it's a practice I'm ever likely to adopt, myself...).
To be honest, I don't really read the obits on Barbelith, mainly because they are usually someone I have never heard of. But if this is acceptable on this board, I certainly disagree with it. I think it is fine to criticize someone even after their death, just not in a thread dedicated to recognizing their demise.
Firstoff, I don't think we do "obits" in the sense of solemn extolling of someone's accomplishments while ignoring their less savoury aspects. Secondly, you gave no indication at the start of this thread that you considered certain viewpoints unacceptable. If you wanted people merely to 'recognise the Pope's demise' ("yep, he's dead alright; I'd know that rigor mortis anywhere"), you were perfectly free to state this at the outset. Frankly, I think you'd still have received a certain amount of righteous bile - as you would if you'd started an "obit" thread dedicated to respectful "recognising" of Reagan's demise, or Harold Shipman's - but there y'go. That's Barbelith. |
