BARBELITH underground
 

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


Pope John Paul II is now dead.

 
  

Page: 12(3)45678

 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:44 / 04.04.05
Well yeah, it's not good that he's a Head of State but I was only pointing out why the news coverage is so concentrated and so positive. If we're going to criticise this it has to for the right reasons- because the power structure is absurd, because religion is wrong and not because one religion is given more attention then another. Catholicism has simply been extremely influential here and this man was insanely, internationally powerful.

The British press don't really take Heads of State very seriously, I think that's why they're being so mindlessly positive about the death.

Some of you might findTerry Eagleton's article on the whole shebacle a little bit more to your tastes?
 
 
ibis the being
12:51 / 04.04.05
the best anyone's suggested is that they be theologically conservative and socially progressive.

Uh, great hulking oxymoron aside, that may be the best anyone's suggested but it's not at all likely. The Church viewed JPII as frighteningly radical, and they're going to take a hearty step back from his free-thinking, long-haired, bell-bottom-wearing liberal platform. Hard to see from the non-religious side of things, but John Paul really shook up Catholicism and now it's seeking a major slowdown. A breath of stuffy, conservative centuries-old air. Really, it may be hard for us to mourn the death of this Pope, but in a way we "should," because the next guy is going to make him look like Bill Clinton.
 
 
ibis the being
13:00 / 04.04.05
The Catholic church had lived through its own brand of flower power in the 60s, known as the Second Vatican Council; and the time was now ripe to rein in leftist monks, clap-happy nuns and Latin American Catholic Marxists. All of this had been set in train by a pope - John XIII - whom the Catholic conservatives regarded as at best wacky and at worst a Soviet agent.

This is from Eagleton's article linked above. But I think her characterization of JPII as a "shift to the right" is a false one. For one thing, her suggestion that the behemoth Catholic religion is blown about by the political weather in the US and England is a bit absurd. But also, it's important to point out that John XIII was not part of any kind of trend - he was a fluke, someone the last conclave elected as a short-term bandaid. As a candidate he was seen as very "safe," and expected to die relatively soon - he shocked them all by suddenly going radical once Pope. In fact the Church probably pretty consistently chooses "safe" Popes, but they are after all individual men suddenly handed carte blanche over the religion, and don't always do what's expected of them.
 
 
grant
13:48 / 04.04.05
1. Unless I'm mistaken, Catholicism is still the largest Christian denomination in the world.

2. Did John Paul II actually say homosexual relationships were "intrinsically evil"? I've always thought of his specific take as being more... oh, those poor sick homosexualists, we must be very patient with them and keep them from their unnatural ways.

That said, "evil" is the pope's stock-in-trade.

3. I'm still very interested in seeing if the African fellow gets elected -- a bit socially conservative & outspoken, but, you know, African. I suspect his theology is a little different as a result. Francis Arinze. That's the guy.

4. Anybody know how that Irish oddsmaker is stacking up the various candidates for successors now? They seem to keep a running tally (I believe the longest shot is Sinead O'Connor, but the favorites are pretty much in line with reality). Paddy Power, that's his name. According to recent reports, he's taken down his betting page for 24 hours as a sign of respect. That article lists the favorites for successors, though.

5. It's hard to discuss the Pope in terms of liberal & conservative. John Paul II was conservative as far as most politics go, except for, like, standing against the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq and, like, telling the President of the US about it. But theologically, in some ways, he was pretty non-traditional.

His whole attention to Our Lady of Fatima was really quite novel, as far as theology goes -- I believe he went further than any other pontiff toward declaring Mary "co-redemtorix," which is *really freaky* as far as Catholic theology goes. He was definitely the first pope since the apparitions (in 1917) to consecrate Russia in the name of Our Lady. That was one of the things the visionaries said the Virgin had requested, but it was considered too outre for previous pontiffs. (Some Catholics believe this is what helped bring down the Soviet Union.)

He was also a very ecumenical pope, which is anything but conservative. He was, in this time of heightened tensions with fundamentalist Islam, the first pope to visit a mosque, the first to make an official visit to Jerusalem, where he officially recognized the nation of Palestine but also left a note at the Wailing Wall "expressing sorrow for the suffering of Jews at Christian hands." He was also the first pope to visit the synagogue in Rome. Which is, as far as pontiffs go, pretty darn liberal. He was all about the respect.
 
 
Eloi Tsabaoth
13:55 / 04.04.05
It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.

JP on Gay Marriage in his last book. What a sweetheart.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:14 / 04.04.05
Eagleton's a he, for future reference, and John XIII was Pope in the late 10th century, IIRC. John XXIII was the architect of Vatican 2.

Certainly, the response to:

The church has always been far behind leftist thought, and I'd say that maybe it's just not the right time for the pope to accept gays and abortion doctors as good catholics... but in terms of the liberalness of other popes, this one may have as well been Karl Marx

Would be "John XXIII". Personally, I wouldn't mind that much about gay men and lesbians, or doctors who perform abortions being accepted as good Catholics or not if the Pope had pronounced that they could and should be accepted as good people, but that might be a question for another day.

Whether JXXII's thinking might have been carried on with a different succession, or even what might have happened if JPI had lived - it looked as if he was potentially going to amend Paul VI's declaration that all forms of artificial contraception were sinful, for example - we'll never know. What we can say with confidence is that Catholic priests who were working with left-wingers in America to seek greater social justice for their people were summoned to the Vatican by JPII and given a slap. Also that the Catholic Church's injuctions against contraception, which were irresponsible before AIDS, became downright horrendous afterwards. And that JPII must surely have decided at some point that it was more important to attempt to preserve the appearance of the moral integrity of the Catholic priesthood than to stop bits of it molesting children. That's a horrible decision to have to make, but I have to say that if I were an altarboy I'd rather wish he'd chosen differently.
 
 
Ganesh
14:34 / 04.04.05
2. Did John Paul II actually say homosexual relationships were "intrinsically evil"? I've always thought of his specific take as being more... oh, those poor sick homosexualists, we must be very patient with them and keep them from their unnatural ways.

It was "intrinsically evil", yes, but only if we express them in any sort of physical manner with another human being during our entire lives. I'm pretty sure it's Googleable.
 
 
Ganesh
15:10 / 04.04.05
I think there's a difference between being glad the Pope is dead and being glad that an old man is dead. The problem with the whole Pope thing is that it's a position that's about to be filled again so really the Pope and all the bile that's spouted about homosexuality and contraception isn't dead, it's just going to start again in 15 to 20 days time.

That probably will happen, yes, but several of us have already pointed out that Popes aren't necessarily generic in their endorsement of "the bile that's spouted about homosexuality and contraception"; there is, it would appear, at least a degree of individual interpretation of the role - hence the idea that there have existed many more liberal, reformist Popes than the one that's just been embalmed. John Paul II has been unusually conservative on a number of levels.

Thus, when the dead old man is also the dead hardline social conservative Pope, the latter tends to trump the former, and make me whistle a happy tune.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:21 / 04.04.05
That's very positive thinking and something I'd be intensely wary of. Catholicism doesn't allow for contraception, it's a sin and a fundamental one and the church is hardline. Sex is a sin, sex out of wedlock or in a marriage for any other purpose than to reproduce is an intrinsic evil. That's the basic church line and always has been and the idea that they would elect a Pope who isn't as tough on that... they would be sacrificing Catholicism. If sex wasn't a sin, then Priests would not be celibate.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:37 / 04.04.05
Catholicism doesn't allow for contraception, it's a sin and a fundamental one and the church is hardline.

Well... yes and no. Artifical contraception was not discussed at Vatican 2, being instead deferred to a specific coucil, originally made up of priests but with members of the laiety added by Paul VI. This council actually recommended that Catholic policy should be amended to the effect that artifical contraception was not in itself sinful and that Catholic couples should make their own decisions about birth control. Obviously, this was within the context of a married union, but then any sex taking place outside a married union was outwith acceptance _anyway_. Paul VI explicitly rejected the findings of this council in the encyclical Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), which was influenced in its wording heavily by a dahing, young(ish) Karol Wojtyla. So, it might be more accurate to say that Karol Wojtyla doesn't allow for contraception, it is a sin and a fundamental one and Karol Wojtyla is hardline. Catholicism itself has shown itself in the past to be more heterodox on the question, both in theory and in more general practice.
 
 
Papess
15:40 / 04.04.05
I forgive the Pope for all his sins.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:58 / 04.04.05
Also, the idea that all sex for any purpose other than procreation sex is a sin is not strictly true; it's one of those binds. We're back to vitae humanae for this one:

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy." It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

It goes on to explain that "natural" contraception, since it remains connected to the natural processes whereby the human body provides for reductions in the likelihood of conception without, in effect, deciding that one is entitled to make decisions about what sex is for that are not allowed for in the divine design of the human body. That is, sex within marriage is a sacramental act in and of itself, but sex is only sacramental if it is connected to the procreation of the human race that is identified as one of the ultimate aims of sex.

More liberal Catholic thinkers can go from there to assuming that the expression and strengthening of the union blah blah fishcakes is a good in and of itself, and therefore that sex with artificial contraception remains worthwhile in the context of a loving (and usually divinely sanctioned) relationship.

The celibacy of the priesthood is a bit more complex, but it isn't actually ker-wite as set in stone as it may seem. IIRC, married protestant priests who convert are allowed to remain married, and to the best of my knowledge to have naughties. Likewise priests and deacons (but not bishops) in some of the Eastern churches that are recognised as Catholic - that is, in communion with Rome.
 
 
ibis the being
18:12 / 04.04.05
Sex is a sin, sex out of wedlock or in a marriage for any other purpose than to reproduce is an intrinsic evil. That's the basic church line and always has been and the idea that they would elect a Pope who isn't as tough on that... they would be sacrificing Catholicism. If sex wasn't a sin, then Priests would not be celibate.

I presume that reason Catholic priests are celibate has its root in the teachings of St. Paul.

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
- I Corinthians 7:1-9


Note that Paul admits this not a commandment from God, merely his recommendation to believers. This also doesn't say that sex must be confined to the purposes of procreation - in fact if you aren't blessed with the gift of celibacy, you really should marry and have sex with your spouse as often as you must to keep satisfied enough to avoid the temptation to "fornicate."
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:21 / 04.04.05
FTR, I'm with the haters. In part, you get this when anyone dies, that people feel obliged to say kind words about their lives. Fair enough, I suppose, to a limit. Also, I think, there is a reflexive respect for religious feeling that stops you shouting "you are not drinking blood there, not matter how much chanting you do or incense you burn. Its wine. WINE." Or somesuch. And to an extent, from that kind of perspective, this is an event I feel I should largely ignore.

But...the papacy is a hugely influential post and the pope's opinions have real world consequences. In this, I think that Haus is spot on in saying that Catholic doctrine is rather more broad than some people are allowing. The teaching on contraception, if my knowledge of catholics is anything to go by, is pretty fragile, for instance. A moderately liberal pope could change that fairly quickly. Allowing women priests and practicing homosexual catholics would take a while longer, but I think these are things that could change given the right person. That person will not appear, of course, but I think this is the right standard by which to judge JP2.
 
 
Ganesh
18:48 / 04.04.05
Interesting - if inevitably homo-centric - piece from Planet Out...
 
 
Issaiah Saysir
18:59 / 04.04.05
Ok, I am at a loss here ~ This thread leaves a bad taste in my mouth despite the fact I am not a Catholic. From Strix starting a thread to state the obvious (seemingly to be the first one to post the news and following with "Finally he has passed on" %really,finger on the button% and let us speculate on his predecessor %John Paul 1 - What was he like%) I also fail to understand how a religous icon and beloved leader of 1.1 Billion Catholics worldwide would be subject to ridicule from the posters of this thread. If he was Jewish, it would be anti-semetic and seriously frowned upon by the board. Really, you dont find it offensive? Not that I wish to piss anyone off about this, I just needed to speak my bit. Maybe someone could enlighten me on why the Pope is so hated. In the mean time, I am doing a search to see the jokes that were made about Princess Diana when she passed on.

Have a nice day.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:10 / 04.04.05
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. In fact he shunned contraception for anyone at all, he just wants us to abstain or get hitched and have babies- something that I regard with distaste frankly- because apparently that's what women are good for. To many of us he is the figurehead of an archaic and judgemental religion and that's not the half of it.

You dislike Catholicism, chances are you're going to hate the Pope. A figure greatly loved by 1.1 billion runs the risk of being hated by the rest for the judgements constantly placed upon them. You do yourself a profound disservice for not understanding the responses in this thread.
 
 
Issaiah Saysir
19:20 / 04.04.05
"You do yourself a profound disservice for not understanding the responses in this thread. "

Perhaps I am. Maybe I am taking it the 'wrong way'. All I am saying is let the man be put to rest first, there is plenty of time to 'poke fun' at him and the traditions he was forced to follow due to his position. let us speculate on his predecessor then, John Paul 1, the Pope who was intent on exposing the Vatican's dealings with the Mafia and maybe we can see why he didn't wish to rock the boat. Or maybe it was that assasination atempt that made him do as he was told. Who knows.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:21 / 04.04.05
I just have to point out that what I know about Catholicism, I know from Polish exiles so the brand of Catholicism that I've been surrounded by isn't intellectual or theoretical, it's what my family members were taught was absolute. The brand of Catholicism I come from was literally the one that Karol Wojtyla came from. When Eagleton talks about the late Pope's roots, he's got them right (even if he is being an insulting bastard about the Madonna). Naturally, in accordance with my teachings I also see Catholicism as something to be treated with a great big dollop of cynical jam.
 
 
Ganesh
19:37 / 04.04.05
I also fail to understand how a religous icon and beloved leader of 1.1 Billion Catholics worldwide would be subject to ridicule from the posters of this thread. If he was Jewish, it would be anti-semetic and seriously frowned upon by the board. Really, you dont find it offensive? Not that I wish to piss anyone off about this, I just needed to speak my bit. Maybe someone could enlighten me on why the Pope is so hated. In the mean time, I am doing a search to see the jokes that were made about Princess Diana when she passed on.

Have you tried reading some of the links? Click on the one I've posted a little way up the page, and you might learn a little about the reasons many gay people loathe the late John Paul II.

And no, I don't find it the equivalent of anti-Semitism to express my anger with a man who classed me "disordered" and "intrinsically evil" for being in a consenting same-sex relationship - while his institution did its best to harbour paedophiles. A man whose dogmatic cleaving to an ultra-conservative hardline - and whose church's active distortion of the facts - on contraception condemned many to needless suffering and death from AIDS.

I guess I find it offensive that you're apparently more offended by some comments on an Internet message-board than you are by the above.

(Not sure what point you're making re: Diana jokes. I can remember plenty of those.)
 
 
Papess
19:38 / 04.04.05
I am doing a search to see the jokes that were made about Princess Diana when she passed on.

Camilla Bowles-Parker
 
 
Ganesh
19:42 / 04.04.05
Perhaps I am. Maybe I am taking it the 'wrong way'.

No, some of us really do hate the old bigot.

All I am saying is let the man be put to rest first

Why? No-one is allowing him to be "put to rest" before spewing forth nauseatingly buffed-up eulogies. Why should those who think differently hold their tongues?

there is plenty of time to 'poke fun' at him and the traditions he was forced to follow due to his position.

You might want to try scrolling up just a little and reading some of the posts describing the ways in which he may not have been "forced" to follow the ultra-conservative agenda he espoused with enthusiasm.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:53 / 04.04.05
If he was Jewish, it would be anti-semetic and seriously frowned upon by the board.

No it wouldn't. If he had been Jewish, and everyone went "Another dead Jew, hooray! Only good Jew is a dead Jew!", it would be anti-Semitic. Mind you, if he had been Jewish it would have been a very different kind of papacy. This is a rather different thing, where we are looking, largely, at the historical and social impact of a person who has recently died. Be smarter.

Further, what exactly do you think he was forced into by his role? He was, to paraphrase, the fucking Pope. If people were criticising his tendency to wear robes or his taste in hats, that would be one thing. However, one of the things that is being discussed here is the heterodoxy of Catholic faith, and therefore the fact that he had the option of being more or less liberal on various issues, and chose not to be liberal, which in certain cases contributed to the AIDS epidemic, or had the choice to protect the priesthood or the victims of sexual abuse by individual priests and chose the latter (and if you want to claim he was somehow unaware of it, then why is Cardinal Law currently working in Rome?) And not a specious conspiracy theory to be seen.

If JPII is to be defended, he deserves a better defence than that.
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:36 / 04.04.05
Probably a defence of JP2 would best revolve around his opposition to communism and his opposition to war. For instance, I think a case could be made that his public and relatively firm stance against the Iraq war had a certain influence, at least in shaping the perception of the constituents of the anti-war sentiment. That sounds minor, I suppose, but actually I think it is quite valuable in terms of undermining pro-war rhetoric.

Still, there is a lot left to criticise.
 
 
Papess
20:38 / 04.04.05
Haus? Ex?

I am terribly confused.

Good discussion, and I would like to say, it is easy to get carried away with the emtional eulogies and accolades being given to the JPII, now that he is dead. The truth is, some of people's gripes here are very justified. I am a little curious as to what others think of responses to JPII's "hate-crimes", by being pretty much hateful in return, ie: The Pope hates gays, so gays will hate the Pope, especially if it extends to all catholics and the church itself. It seems to be just a clash of opinions, lifestyles and preferences. I certainly think that the Catholic Church and the Pope, whomever he is at the time, have outdated and sometimes ignorant ideals and philosophies, but given that, shouldn't we all just take it where it is coming from? An ignorant, tyrannical dinosaur? How can one be so insulted by that, whether your argument against the The Catholic Church is justified or not? The only reason I can think of is that some homosexuals would also like to also be Catholic. Which seems a pretty lofty goal, trying to ask a church to change their entire doctrine to suit a particular groups needs. Although, I am sure iot can be done after years of persistance. I have to say though, all religons have their own exclusivity. If you want to belong, you have to conform.

However, Catholics themselves have suffered through hate crime and bigotry as well. One would think they would know better and do better because of it.

By the way, Issaiah Saysir, I was "stating the obvious"? I was making an announcement, and someone has to be first, you have a problem with it being me?
 
 
Olulabelle
20:47 / 04.04.05
Now I have visions of Haus and Ex writing a post together, then completely disagreeing on whose name it should be posted under. which is somewhat weird.

Strix - it matters not, but FTR, it's Camilla Parker-Bowles.
 
 
Papess
21:19 / 04.04.05
Strix - it matters not, but FTR, it's Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Yes, of course. I am not a big fan.
 
 
Olulabelle
21:55 / 04.04.05
You mean there are some?
 
 
Papess
21:58 / 04.04.05
Apparently one. However, we should start a new thread to discuss her and Chuck, so we don't rot this thread.

The two of them make me ill.
 
 
■
22:04 / 04.04.05
Let's not. Discussing the past head of one church is bad enough without bringing in the future head of another. You've heard that Brenda is supposedly ill? No, let's not go there.
 
 
Nobody's girl
22:49 / 04.04.05
Huh.

Here's a link to a transcript of a news programme that is one of the reasons I feel so much antipathy towards the late Pope. Quite apart from the horrific homophobia the late Pope endorsed, is a whole host of human misery caused by JPII's arrogance. Women, as usual, suffer most at the hands of this arrogance.

For example-

Welcome to Mulukuku, remote town in the heart of Nicaragua. Like other Latin American countries,
overwhelmingly Catholic. This is a macho country of often distorted sexual values, where official
estimates suggest one in three women has been physically or sexually abused, and where age and close
relationships are sometimes no barrier to abuse. We met four school girls, all left with babies after being
abused or abandoned. In Catholic Nicaragua abortions or interruptions are almost impossible to obtain
within the law. The Catholic Church believes destroying any life, even a fertilised egg, is immoral. The
girls had no choice but to carry their children to term. Sarai says she was made pregnant by her stepfather,
now on the run after rape charges. She's just 14.

Did you think of completing the pregnancy? Did you think of having an interruption?

SARAI: Yes, I thought of having one. I thought of terminating the pregnancy.

BRADSHAW: Miriam is heavily pregnant by a young man who has abandoned her. She already has two
other children by him.

MIRIAM: My opinion on abortion? Well some people say it's bad because you lose your child. But my
opinion is that it's better not to do it because terminating a pregnancy is a sin.

BRADSHAW: Francisca and Lucila are sisters, they're 15 and 16. Both had small babies after their father
raped them. He is now in jail.

LUCILA: I got pregnant by the father but I was ashamed that it was my own father who got me pregnant.
Afterwards I had to stay like that until I had it and I'm ashamed. The baby is here now.

FRANCISCA: They threw me out of the house, my father and mother, and everyone made things difficult
for me. So I had to bring my child here.

BRADSHAW: Did you think of having an interruption or not?

FRANCISCA: Yes.

LUCILA: Me too.

BRADSHAW: We met the girls in a woman's health clinic run by Dorothy Granada. She says such cases
are not unusual. Sometimes pregnant girls who can't get abortions are even younger.

So when you come across a girl 12 or 13 or 14 whose having to carry her father's child to term….?

DOROTHY GRANADA
Mulukuku Women's Clinic
It's very awful. It's very terrible. It's very terrible. We cry a lot in this clinic.

BRADSHAW: Some men, Dorothy Granada says, take more care of their cattle than their women. And
she says some pregnant women get a raw deal from the state too. Although they can apply to have legal
abortions if their lives are in danger, few succeed. At the start of the Pope's rein about 100 women a year
got permission for these so-called therapeutic abortions but church pressure has cut that number close to
zero.

GRANADA: The therapeutic abortion simply does not work in this country, and that's because I believe
the threats of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and physicians are simply afraid to exercise their right.

BRADSHAW: The Catholic Church in Nicaragua goes back almost 500 years. Cardinal Obando Y Bravo
has wielded the power of the church here for over three decades. He's just helped persuade the government
to pulp copies of a sex education guide that mentioned abortion and contraception. As a political player,
press and cabinet ministers hang on his words, today about Nicaraguan troops in Iraq. The Cardinal told us
he couldn't see why it should ever be unsafe for a young girl to deliver children.


How about the suffering of repeated childbearing whilst living with the most oppressive poverty?

"KRISEL LAGMAN-LUISTRO
Philippines Congresswoman
Mr Speaker, Your Honour, I feel that it would be best for President Arroyo to read and understand the
Reproductive Health Care Bills for himself rather than to listen and be alarmed by panicked Asians who are
blinded by their personal religious biases against a Reproductive Health Care law that is pro life and pro
choice as well.

BRADSHAW: But with the Church warning it may try and unseat politicians at the next election if they
back the Reproductive Rights Bill, it has little chance of success. You don’t have to step far outside
Congress to see what ignorance about sex and lack of contraception can lead to. This is a city so
overcrowded that even a railroad track gets called home, no wrong side of the tracks here. The
Congresswoman took us to her constituency outside Manila to see the kind of woman she wants to help.
She introduced us to Marichu, 7 children in a tiny shack plus one working and another put out to adoption.
They're all malnourished. Krisel Lagman-Luistro, who has a nursing degree, thinks some also have TB.

BRADSHAW: So tell me their names.

MARICHU: Mei Ling, Adanika, Veronica, Danika, Danny Boy, Marlon, Junady.

BRADSHAW: And how much space do you have to bring up your kids in?

KRISEL: (translating) This is her space, this is the whole house .

BRADSHAW: This is it. Tell me, did you intend to have that many children?

KRISEL: (translating) No, it was not planned. I only wanted three but what can we do? They came one
after the other.

BRADSHAW: The family's earnings, a dollar a day. Marichu, mother of 9, tells the congresswoman she
wont use contraception, she's heard it's dangerous and the Catholic church says it's wrong, much to the
dismay of the Catholic congresswoman.

Nine kids, 7 still here, a dollar a day, told by the Pope no contraception. I mean what do you make of all
this?"


Oh, and the HIV/AIDS thing? Again, taken from the above transcript-

Is it the position of the Vatican that the virus, the HIV virus can pass through the condom?

Cardinal ALFONSO LOPEZ TRUJILLO
Pontifical Council for the Family
Yes, yes, because this is something which the scientific community accepts, and doctors know what we are
saying. You cannot talk about safe sex. One should speak of the human value, about the family, and about
fidelity.

BRADSHAW: But I have spoken to the World Health Organisation and they say it is simply not true that
the HIV virus can pass through latex from which condoms are made?

TRUJILLO: Well they are wrong about that, no dialogue is possible at that level, scientifically speaking,
because this is an easily recognisable fact.

BRADSHAW: In Kenya the Vatican's unyielding rejection of condoms is affecting real lives. Here in
Kisumu Irene already has AIDS. She's telling a group of unwed mothers in a community project what it's
like.

IRENE: Take it seriously, it's hell. My dear sisters, it's hell.

BRADSHAW: This isn't a Catholic project so condoms are available, though with the propaganda against
them there's been a local backlash.

JOAB OTHATCHER
Teenage Mothers' Association of Kenya
We need people who are working especially with teenage mothers and child prostitutes, people who are
already engaging in sex, are actually being seen as promoting promiscuity because we are telling them if
you cannot… if you haven't reached a point where you are strong enough to abstain, then you'd better
protect yourself rather than getting exposed.

BRADSHAW: Some of the women who work here say Catholic propaganda against condoms is partly to
blame for their HIV positive status.

EUNIC ATOGO ATIENO
When I engaged in sex I didn't use a condom. I can remember my headmaster one day was trying to tell us
about the condom but when we went to church I heard something the priest was saying that condom is not
good for people, and in my life I say that if I could have had enough information on the condom use, I
couldn't have contacted the virus.

OTHATCHER: I think that the Pope perhaps is not in touch with the real problem. I know, working with
young girls in this programme, I know how bad HIV/AIDS has hit our adolescent girls, and I feel it. It is
not so easy for someone sitting in Rome to know what happens on the ground. Most of the girls that we
have here are girls from the Catholic background, and yet they are infected, they are HIV positive. If they
used a condom one time it would have saved their lives. Yet they cry and say it is too late. And we know it
is too late because they are already infected, and that's my appeal to the Pope. You can do something. You
can say something that will come down to the church and the young people of the world will be saved. We
are losing a generation of young people.


One documentary uncovered so much human misery caused by the Vatican and JPII that my heart was aching by the end of it, so forgive me if I can't join in with the lionisation of a tyrant.
 
 
grant
15:06 / 05.04.05
Just to help clarify the earlier discussion about what the Pope could and couldn't do as far as interpretation of the issues, you should understand that he's the supreme authority of the church, but not the totality of the Magisterium (which is the fancy name for the Church-as-authority). So his job is to interpret current issues in light of scripture *and* past tradition -- officially, his position is as teacher. So his hands are slightly tied, but not entirely. Interpretation is a tricky business.

The Church's positions, as determined by papal decrees, can take the form of disciplines, doctrines or dogmas.

If you stick "dogma" in the search box here, you'll find a simple explanation of all three. (Actually five, including the words of Jesus ((deposit)) and weird practices by believers ((devotion)), which includes things like the rosary and cults of saints.)

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on dogma:
Revealed truths become formally dogmas when defined or proposed by the Church.... The dogmas of the Church are immutable. Modernists hold that religious dogmas, as such, have no intellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be all false, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberal religious life. But in the Catholic doctrine that Divine revelation is addressed to the human mind and expresses real objective truth, dogmas are immutable Divine truths.

Basically, the Pope has to say, "I am declaring this to be an infallible, immutable truth of the Church," and then state the dogma. This is something that isn't done terribly often, and can only be done within certain limits. The pope can't dogmatically declare anything that has to do with "fact," which is basically the same thing as scientific truth -- something to do with physically observed facts (like: latex condoms block HIV). Dogma is only within the realm of revealed truth.

Pope John Paul II could never, ever change any dogmas of the faith.

Mostly, the pope's teachings take the form of pronouncements of doctrine. You can find more on that distinction here and here.

These are authoritative declarations. It's not entirely clear whether Pope John Paul II's statements about never allowing women in the priesthood were dogmatic or doctrinal -- most say dogma, but some say doctrinal. These beliefs/teachings can evolve as new realizations or facts come to light.

If Pope John Paul II wanted to change past doctrines of the Church, he could have, but only with a bit of work. If a future pontiff wanted to allow women into the priesthood, it would take an awful lot of work -- much more after John Paul II made his pronouncements.

Disciplines are even more slack than doctrines, but include things like celibacy of the priesthood -- practices of the faithful that are declared by the Magesterium and upheld by tradition, but not absolute truths of any sort.

There are married priests (and even ones with kids) although they're rather rare in the Western Church. In some of the Eastern Rites (the ones what used to be Orthodox but switched over after the Great Schism), I think marriage is mandatory for "full" priests (but bishops should be celibate).

If the next pope wanted to, he could start an order of married clergy just to see how it would fly. It would ignite a firestorm of controversy, but it would be perfectly within his authority to do so.

Um.

I was sure that sketching this out would clarify things, but now I'm not so sure.

Anyway, there it is.
 
 
grant
15:17 / 05.04.05
By the way, according to St. Malachy, there are now two popes left before the End Times -- the "Glory of the Olives" and "Peter the Roman."


Wanna bet the new guy lasts in office only seven years?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:49 / 05.04.05
Read the Policy forum.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
18:05 / 05.04.05
It should be fixed now.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45678

 
  
Add Your Reply