Should there be another X in there? John XIII doesn’t leap out of my memory for anything in particular…
JXXIII, that is.
Not priests from TN that I’m aware of. I heard this being spouted by the late Father Malachi Martin, and by a group of priests on a show which used to air on BET called What Catholics Believe Today or something similar. I don’t know what the total number of priests who share that belief, but I hope that it’s small.
I, for one, have always found Buddhists the most Christian of folks, though I dasn’t say it out loud.
Sinead O’Connor was right.
Martin was a blithering idiot who was extremely irrritated that after spending 12 years predicting that the pope of the 1980s was going to “sell out” to the Russkies in some fashion, he was proved 1000% wrong by the selection of a Pole who effectively showed that Martin truly was an idiot. (Martin made a fair amount of money writing bad predictions and worse novels to make his point, but he never got over the fact that JP II proved that he had no idea what really goes on in the Vatican. I suspect that any sycophants to Martin were equally deluded.)
That is true enough, but I had still never heard JP II (or even Merton) described as Satanic.
::: shrug :::
You do know that that “fat Polack” was an avid skier well into his 70s when Parkinson’s slowed him down, right? And that even with Parkinson’s he continued maintaining a daily schedule that wore out his younger assistants until he was nearly 80? Would that you and I looked as fit at the same age.
I think that calling him a “blithering idiot” is putting it mildly. I read one of his books on demonic possession, and found it utterly unconvincing.
I repeat: Sinead O’Connor was right. Fight the real enemy!
I think we’re seeing the end of one of the all time great papacies. What I will remember JP II for is the way he would give a speech with a national leader right by his side and then let them know exactly what they were doing wrong in human rights or other moral issues. That he had the courage to do this and the personality to get away with it made him an effective agent for positive change in the world. He met with Yasir Arafat when few else would and spoke of the rights of the Palestinian and Jewish peoples. There is genuine sorrow in the Jewish and Islamic worlds at his passing.
His was the consistent voice of morality. You may not agree with everything he stood for, and as a pro-choice Catholic I have my differences with him on abortion, contraception, ordination of women, and gay rights. But these are petty differences compared to the more profound truths that he has stood for. When you compare his moral stances and lack of hypocrisy to any other world leader, he comes out on top.
Catholics in general–and American Catholics in particular–are more than capable of forming opinions outside of what the Holy See would prefer. If the new Pope next month said something like “The Church’s position on gays, atheists, abortion, birth control, divorce and the like has been wrong-headed and I’m going to command that our view be favorable to all these things from now on,” it wouldn’t happen overnight. It wouldn’t even happen in a lifetime. Papal edicts seldom change the minds if the faithful, and the inertia that has kept the Church from disintegrating over the centuries has also kept it from any kind of rapid change (For us, Vatcan II and John Paul II’s reforms **are[/b[ rapid change!).
Put it this way: Have any Papal edicts affected the way you think about most social issues? No? Multiply that by about four billion and ask yourself how much power the Pope actually has these days.
I remember him specifically calling atheism and secular humanism “great evils.” of course, what with the business he was in, I guess it’s liking Gimbell’s knocking Macy’s.
(Bolding mine). While I pretty much agree with you overall on this issue, I have trouble with the idea that the issues you cite there are petty differences. To me, they represent a real fundamental disconnect between world views (his and mine, anyway).
I wonder if John Kerry has as cavalier an attitude about the influence of Papal oppinion as you do.
And limited by the long history of the Catholic Church.
As I recall he was quite highly educted, spoke a whole bunch of languages and might even had had a PhD in something or other.
I bought the book Crossing The Threshold of Hope and was struck by the fact that the Pope responded to all questions by citing a Church document on the subject. In governmentese it would be a “position paper.”
I the realized how circumscribed the Pope is by the Church doctrine. The Catholic Church has been around for about 2000 years, has seen all and done all and has an official position on any subject you care to broach. The Pope is bound by that official position.
A Pope *can * contradict the edicts or firm statements of a previous Pope.
I may be mistaken, but this sounds to me like the usual confusion brought over by the Dogma of Papal Infallibility (sp?)
This Dogma stemmed from a Papal attempt to get/keep the kind of absolute power that only a very few rulers in History have held. Since the bishops and the Holy Ghost are not dumb, what he actually got was: “when the Pope speaks in representation of the whole Church and with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, he speaks the Truth.” That would be the only case where something the Pope has said can’t be naysayed by others. It does not apply to his letters, regular sermons, etc. He basically has to climb on a very special, very rare soapbox.
Since a potted flower could speak the Truth if inspired by the Holy Ghost, this dogma is actually kind of a funny one. I just wish its existence didn’t confuse people so much.
Well, yeah, sorta.
As David Simmons has pointed out, there are constraints placed on such declarations by tradition.
On the other hand, both Paul VI and John Paul II (nd even Pius XII ands Pius XI) issued any number of documents on social and economic justice that would have made Pius IX and Leo XIII choke on their soup.
The approach taken when issuing an encyclical (or even a sermon) is to provide the necessary principles on which one is founding the statement. Then, if a later judgement calls for an apparent reversal, the new declaration may not violate the principles, but a recognition of world events may lead to a different set of actions. The late 19th century popes railed against several “worker” movements, but they grounded their principles in a right to property (by the company owners) and a condemnation of anarchy (when faced with a labor movement that was strongly influenced in Europe by a fierce anticlericalism). In their declarations, they also pointed out the need to respect the dignity of the workers. Through the 20th century, as it became clear that the dignity of the workers was being ignored and as different movements within the church and society demonstrated the value of a labor movement that was not inherently anti-religious, the popes have spoken out more forecfully on the dangers of treating the workers as subhuman while not backing down on the basic right to property ownership.
I can’t believe no one said it yet.
Antipope!
Well, keep in mind too that he grew up in Communist Poland. Poland is a very devout, Catholic country, so that would have been an influence. And the communists, who were pretty anti-religion, to the point of often persecuting the church. So his first experience with atheism likely wasn’t a very positive one.
As for the big fuss about it, well, you have people like me-I’ll be 27 in July, and he’s been the only pope I have ever known. And I hate to sound gleeful, but it’s somewhat exciting to witness history like this.
If I remember correctly, I saw an interview of a woman who was friends with him before he was a priest, back when he was still an actor. Of course, she said he never flirted with the girls. But I think I kind of agree with your overall point.
I presume you are referring to the incident where several American bishops said it was sinful to vote for a pro-choice candidate? If you remember however, the pope issued a statement saying that it was not sinful. He said that voters should/had to take into account other issues like the war, capital punishment, and other stuff besides abortion. It was a welcome kick in the teeth to some annoying bishops (at least I thought so), and was consistent with his views on the role of priests involvement with government.
There’s another thing no one’s mentioned; you may disagree, but he took a big stand against the death penalty. It had previously been the position of the church that the state had the right to put offenders to death, but JP II vehemently disagreed with this. He made a lot of trips attempting to persuade governors and such not to use the death penalty, and visited with condemned I believe.
Also, didn’t he even kiss his would be assassin? That’s “nice guy” points in my book.
I do not remember that, actually, and am having trouble finding a cite. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I would be interested in reading about it, so if you could provide pointers, I would thank you very much for them. What I do remember was Bishops Burke and Sheridan making a variety of disparaging remarks about Kerry; and the latter went so far as to threaten to deny communion to churchgoers under him who voted for politicians with positions contrary to Church doctrine. I also remember Bush himself approaching the Pope’s chief secretary, Cardinal Sardano, to ask the Vatican to push American clergy to be more activist in promoting a socially conservative agenda in the States. Sardano and Bush were said to be sympatico, but I don’t know how far things progressed toward explicit endorsement of candidates. At any rate, Kerry obviously felt threatened, and protested loudly about it. Perhaps more significantly, Kerry, far from declaring the Pope’s irrelevance to his candidacy, tried to play up the aspects of his social agenda (war, death penalty, poverty, etc.) that made him sympatico.
No matter which way the knife sliced, Kerry obviously felt matters of faith and his relationship with the Holy See were relevant to presidential politics. Obviously, this impacts those who both care and could care less what the Pope says.
Actually, speaking of the knife cutting another way, I hear Senator Rick Santorum is giving serious reconsideration and qualification to his support for the death penalty, directly citing the Pope’s exhortation that it be used sparingly.
Again, the idea that the Pope and the Holy See are insignificant players in world politics, even in the ostensibly secular realm, doesn’t hold water, IMO.