The 25th anniversary of John Paul II's papacy (no spam)

[fable]

It was celebrated today, and for all that Europe claims the US is far more religion-obsessed, many European newspapers and radio stations also discussed the matter. Radio Nederland had a feature, in which one professorial expert pointed out that, having appointed 130 out of 135 currently serving cardinals, John Paul II looks to reign long after his death. He also accused the Pope of having recreated the Vatican as a Polish church: in his own words, intensely hierarchal, mystical, and with absolutely no democracy, whatsoever.

Your opinions on the Papacy of John Paul II?

[C Elegans]

In the secular Sweden this went by almost unnoticed, and personally, I think the very idea of the pope is a relic. I prefer not to insult catholics here, and all catholics of course don't approve of everything the pope states, but I strongly reject the stance regarding abortion and use of conception. I don't care much about the pope and maybe he has participated in constructive causes as well, but going around in Africa and preaching against use of condoms, and even claiming condoms do not decrease the risk of being infected with HIV, is IMO immoral beyond words.

[Bloodmist]

Gmurrr mmmf fffrruu iikmen

That's a bit how it sounded when a Danish radio-channel humorously played a bit of the Pope's speech, with no translation or anything. I think he's getting rather old...

[C Elegans]

@Bloodmist: Not only is he old, he also has Parkinson's disease, a neurological condition characterised by tremor and shaking. It is mainly movement disorder, but it can also affect speach and personality.

[Bloodmist]

Just another reason to give the old guy a break... I mean, shouldn't he be playing bingo or relaxing on some tropical island, instead of travelling all around the world getting more and more tired?

[C Elegans]

@Bloodmist: Exactly - the idea that the papacy is a life-time position, is stupid to say the least. No human being are so beyond corruption, disorder or other changes that life-time positions should be granted.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by C Elegans @Bloodmist: Exactly - the idea that the papacy is a life-time position, is stupid to say the least. No human being are so beyond corruption, disorder or other changes that life-time positions should be granted.

It's only a lifetime position if the current holder of the title clings to it. There are a number of popes who resigned in the past, setting a precedent. It's just that John Paul II doesn't want to do so.

[Georgi]

The pope made the TV headlines here with his beatification of Mother Teresa, with his ordination of the new cardinals, and with his anniversary. It is a bit odd how much notice the British press take of him, considering this is the country that has an annual celebration of burning a few rebellious Catholics...

The papacy doesn't really have any relevance to me, personally, so I don't really care whether or not he continues. The next pope will presumably have very similar values (eg. concerning things like abortion and contraception, as CE mentioned) in order to become pope - somehow I just can't see the Catholic Church coming over all liberal, all of a sudden. I don't think a change of pope would make any difference to the fact that Catholic doctrine is anathema to my personal views.

Oh, and surely, to some extent, the Vatican has always been "hierarchical, mystical, and with absolutely no democracy, whatsoever"?

[frogus]

The Vatican has historically opposed mysticism quite a bit, because it encourages religion from subjective experience rather than from authority (although there have been many Catholic mystics also), and the pope is elected by the cardinals AFAIK - but hierarchical is right.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Georgi Oh, and surely, to some extent, the Vatican has always been "hierarchical, mystical, and with absolutely no democracy, whatsoever"?

By no means. The Vatican has gone through some strongly liberalizing, even humanistic periods in the past. Sometimes these have lasted for many years. At other times, they have been short. The most recent was the reign of John XXIII, 1958-63, who antagonized the Curia and many cardinals with his attempts to restructure the RCC in terms of how it related to the rest of the world (morality, politics), and its own internal procedures of peer review, promotion, and consideration of issues. He wanted a more transparent church, and said so on many occasions. Unfortunately, his sudden death brought the program crashing down, and the conservative cardinals who had chosen him, retreated from following up with another revolutionary.

Of course, he's been beatified. By the same people who scrapped his intended policies, and reversed the ones he put into place.

[Tom]

I dislike all forms of religion and so I hope the entire RCC goes the same way as their pope.

The RCC being humanistic at times? I must disagree.

John XXIII is certainly an interesting pope but I don’t think he deserves much praise - exept perhaps for casting a bad light on the RCC.

Will write more on Monday – have a good week all.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom The RCC being humanistic at times? I must disagree.

No, I never wrote that. I said that *the Vatican* had gone through some strongly liberalizing, even humanistic periods in the past. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's heavily documented, and was (in part) responsible for the Protestant schism. Yes, the Catholics were corrupt, but even more importantly, they were consorting with Jews and Islamists, horror of horrors, and reading Greek, and sponsoring paintings of pagan subjects! Heretics, all!

And it's true: a variety of popes and important members of the Curia encouraged and paid for the translation of ancient Greek scientific, ethical, religious and philosophical texts that were still in Islamic hands. Many high ranking church officials, including a few popes, were actually scholars themselves, encouraging pre-Judeo-Christian studies and theories of existence. They supported the leading painters, composers, musicians, architects, sculptors, writers and craftsmen of their day, and supplied humanistic themes as the scope for these works. Members of the Curia even encouraged the study of pan-Christian, pantheistic rituals by several celebrated scholars: it's all on record, though obviously, not discussed. In fact, at least one pope became the subject even during his life of folktales about his supposed paganism and pacts with demonic forces: Gerbert of Aurillac, Sylvester II. In reality, Gerbert was an ambitious cleric and scientist, with cutting-edge theories (for his age) on physics and mathematics.

Let's be clear: I'm not suggesting the RCC was ever liberal. I'm not suggesting most of the popes were liberal. I am stating that there were a few popes who were diehard reformists, and others who didn't give a rat's butt about reform but simply ignored the RCC and its teachings, creating (in a sense) an entirely separate, liberal sub-Church at the top of the hierarchy.

And finally, there were at least a couple of popes who were consensus builders and relatively moderate unless bucked. That exactly describes Maffeo Barberini, Urban VIII, a lavish artistic philanthropist who tried to find a path that would embrace both a solar-centric planetary system and the modified Ptlomeian model with its innumerable crystal spheres. When Galileo, social misfit that he was, severaly ridiculed Urban and his efforts in print--especially after Urban had been his private patron for years--that put an end to scientific tolerance in the RCC for the time being.

PS: Just in case anyone is wondering, I'm not a Catholic apologist. As forum members who have been around for a while will know, I'm a pagan: a witch, a Wiccan for the last twenty-six years, and serious about my beliefs. Many religions have done a dirty on followers of mine, and the RCC is easily among the top three. But that doesn't mean I can't separate out the pope from his church, or individual popes from among the line since that Roman bishop who did a power grab against the other catholic churches of his day.

[fable]

Time to revive this thread: the Pope's gone to a hospital with "severe respiratory problems" that are, however, "not life threatening," or so we're told. Leaving aside for the moment the whole issue of whether Roman Cathoics truly deserve what some American wits once called "the best mind of the 7th century," does anybody else think he should have resigned a few years ago, to pave the way for an orderly transition?

[Macleod1701]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable It's only a lifetime position if the current holder of the title clings to it. There are a number of popes who resigned in the past, setting a precedent. It's just that John Paul II doesn't want to do so.

Not to get conspiritorial but maybe he isn't allowed to resign. I mean come on does anyone actually beleive that HE makes any decisions what so ever anymore?

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macleod1701 Not to get conspiritorial but maybe he isn't allowed to resign. I mean come on does anyone actually beleive that HE makes any decisions what so ever anymore?

He can definitely resign anytime he wants, and you can bet that the College of Cardinals would just love the opportunity to pick someone. This pope is ultra-conservative, and he's stacked the CoC with others as well during his papacy, but he's feeble, now. The CoC would definitely want a more vigorous pope, believing that this would somehow revive the RCC's public image. And while to an extent I think they're right--image does count, at least, a bit--simply replaying the ideological failures of the current papal mindset isn't going to win back nominal Catholics to the fold, IMO. But of course, I'm not a Catholic (big surprise, I know), so my opinion isn't that of an insider.