:smack: , it was the assassin that kissed the pope’s hand.
Can you elaborate a bit on what, exactly, he did to help topple communism? None of the articles I’ve seen so far give specifics.
I think it was playwright Alan Bennett who said that the English will forgive old people anything they might once have one for the achievement of growing old. Clive James (a hard-bitten Aussie with none of that kind of namby pamby sentimentalism) wrote a great piece in The Observer when Nazi architect Albert Speer finally died in 1981:
"…Speer cheated the rope, cheated the world and yet further insulted the shades of innocent millions. Those of us who live by our brains should remember his example, which serves to prove that intellect confers no automatic moral superiority. Otherwise we will meet him again in teh Infernal Regions, and be once more confronted with that look of puzzled concern, as if there were something difficult, ponderable and equivocal about the rights and wrongs of tearing children from their mothers’ arms, piling their little shoes in heaps and pushing their twisted corpses into ovens.
To hell with him…"
…might once have done…
No problem. Unfortunately, this article from the the New York Times In Vatican, Unease with Bush Vies with Qualms on Kerry is too old to get from their website. However, I did get it off my library’s online data base. I can E-mail the whole article if you like, but here are some of the most relevant quotes:
Maybe I got carried away, those are pretty much all the relevant quotes, in fact that’s the bulk of the article. But for lack of a site, although, try this link Lexis-nexis . It’s the link to the database my library uses; I didn’t think to see if it was accessible to non-members. Let me know if it works; it would certainly make my citing easier if it works.
Sorry but I can’t respect him one iota, any one who refers to noncatholics as
“gravely deficient” and gays as “Objectively Disordered” and to their efforts for civil recognition of their relationships, “Homosexual marriages are part of a new ideology of evil that is insidiously threatening society” …is not worthy of respect.
His views of human sexuality and women are primitive beyond belief along with his opposition to the study of cognitive neuroscience which he says is “beneath human dignity.”
Cool. Thanks!
I think he always meant well, but he had a lot of ignorant and bigoted beliefs that made him more of a hindrance than a help to human progress generally. Come to think of it, that’s how I feel about Catholics generallyh.
If you haven’t caught the news yet, the pope just died. RIP JPII.
This message brought to you by a generalized bad mood and overconsumption of Scotch. :o Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Albeit not as noble a quality as pacifism or strength, but how often do you find a pope with a good sense of humor?
He just likes funny hats Again with the hats Pope pretends he’s a superhero
You got cites for those quotes, especially the one about non-Catholics being “gravely deficient?” I’ll grant you his views on gays, sexuality in general and women were horrible, but I don’t recall him ever insulting non-Catholics.
“Gravely deficient” may have something to do with this. Seems a fairly standard-issue assessment of other doctrines in regards to conservative Christian concepts of salvation. The fact this Pope deigned to acknowledge other Christian sects, however flawed, cas serviceable vehicles of salvation is remarkable in itself, and about as ecumenical a statement on the subject as one is likely to get out of the Vatican, I would imagine.
The “gravely deficient” phrase comes from, Dominus Iesus, Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum to Catholic religious teachers, reminding them that the RCC does not embrace a policy that all religions are equal paths to God. It is the English rendering of a theological technical phrase from Latin (which makes it no less insulting), but it was never issued as a personal belief of the pope (or even of Ratzy, for that matter).
If it’s not at least expected to be a personal belief, why publish it?
A statement at the end of the Dominus Iesus reads:
Why would the Pope ratify and confirm the message if it wasn’t something he felt worthy of belief himself?
I was pointing out the difference between technical terms in a theological discussion and the sort of personal belief that prompts one to pray or to act. However, if the phrase offends you, by all means feel free to be as insulted as you wish.
Oh, I’m not personally offended or anything, I’m just trying to figure out why one shouldn’t assume the content of the Dominus Iesus isn’t meant to reflect the personal beliefs of the Pope and/or Ratzinger, since the latter composed it, and the former gave it the official stamp, as it were. I understand that “gravely deficient” wasn’t promoted as a “personal belief” that must be held by generic individuals, and perhaps that’s what you meant. It hadn’t occurred to me that the author and cosigner of the document might not be expected to believe all of what it says themselves.
Bad Pope: You’re going to Hell, Sinner! Confess, or be damned!
Good Pope: We’re only trying to help. If only you’d confess, your soul will be saved. Would you like some espresso?
I’m thinking long term. By 2100, I’m betting that discrimination against gays will be as unthinkable as slavery seems to us today. Likewise, I’m convinced that ordination of women is inevitable. The church is like a huge ship and cannot make big turns quickly. That time will come. In the meantime, I look at John Paul II in terms of what culture existed in his life. If I assign say a 1-100 scale of importance:
Preaching the Trinity: 1000 (Agree with him-infinitely most important)
Teaching to love your fellow man: 100 (agree with him)
Standing up for human rights: 90 (agree)
Inspiring the youth of the world: 90 (agree)
Opposition to war: 90 (agree)
Stressing the value of the individual 90 (agree)
Taking action to stop abuse in the US church: 70. (I think he did what you can expect. The crisis started before his papacy. When it blew up, he summoned the US bishops and told them to clean house. What more could he do?)
His role in toppling communism in Poland: 80 (agree)
Anti-abortion 20 (disagree. But we would both agree that unwanted pregnancies should not take place)
Opposition to contraception: 10 (disagree. But his opposition is largely academic. It is routinely ignored.)
Opposition to euthanasia: 5 (disagree in part. Jack Kevorkian was all to eager to do the deed. With proper pain medication, there should be no need to end a life prematurely. Only when pain is unbearable would I disagree with him)
Ordination of women: 10 (disagree. I think the shortage of male candidates will eventually topple this prohibition)
Gay rights: 20 (disagree. But I see this as a long term issue and eventually the Church will come around)