Pope John Paul II 1920-2005 [Archive]

Arthur_Vandelay

04-04-2005, 02:27 AM

This is a thread for TTFers to offer their thoughts and reflections on the life and passing of Pope John Paul II . . .

From the ABC website on Pope John Paul II (http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/pope/default.htm):
Pope John Paul II, who was known as Karol Jozef Wojtyla until his election to the papacy, was born in Poland in 1920.

The second of two sons, by the age of 21 Karol Wojtyla was the only surviving member of his family - his mother dying in 1929, his brother in 1932 and his father in 1941.

Involved in the Church from birth, he made his first Holy Communion at the age of nine, and was confirmed at the age of 18.

An artistic man, Karol Wojtyla enrolled in a drama school on completion of high school, and in Cracow's Jagiellonian University.

However, Nazi occupation forces closed the university, and Karol Wojtyla was forced to work in a quarry and then a chemical factory to avoid being deported. By 1942, Karol Wojtyla was aware of his call to the priesthood. He began clandestine courses at a Cracow seminary, and at the same time, was one of the pioneers of the clandestine "Rhapsodic Theatre".

At the conclusion of World War II, Karol Wojtyla continued his studies at the seminary, and recommenced his study of theology at the Jagiellonian University, which had reopened.

In 1946, he was ordained.

Shortly after his ordination, Karol Wojtyla went to Rome where he worked under the guidance of the French Dominican, Garrigou-Lagrange.

He completed a doctorate in theology in 1948, while exercising his pastoral ministry among the Polish immigrants of France, Belgium and Holland during his vacations.

On his return to Poland, Karol Wojtyla continued his theological studies, eventually becoming a professor of moral theology and social ethics.

On July 4, 1958, Pope Pius XII appointed him Auxiliary Bishop of Cracow.

Pope Paul VI then appointed him to the role of Archbishop of Cracow, and made him a cardinal in 1967.

As a cardinal, Karol Wojtyla participated in Vatican Council II and all the assemblies of the Synod of Bishops.

In 1978, he became Pope and adopted the name John Paul II. He was the Catholic Church's first non-Italian pontiff in over 450 years and history's first Slavic pope.

Travelling widely since his Pontificate, Pope John Paul gave general audiences to more than 16 million pilgrims. His travels earned him the nickname the 'globetrotting pope'.

He spoke eight different languages, learning Spanish after becoming Pope.

Pope John Paul II was shot May 13, 1981 at Saint Peter's square by a Turkish extremist, Mehmet Ali Agca.

In 1983, the Pope met with his would-be assassin in Rome's Rebibbia prison to forgive him.

He visited Australia twice as head of the Catholic Church, the second time in 1995 to beatify Mary MacKillop.

His first visit to Australia as Pope was in 1986.

"I come as a friend to urge you, pursue your lives, all those values worth of the human person, to encourage you to be open-hearted, generous to the unfortunate and caring towards those who are pushed to the margins of life," he urged Australians.

His messages, regardless of where he was in the world, focused on human rights, particularly the rights of children.

He also chastised Western nations and communist countries, viewing communism and capitalism as flip sides of a coin, neither of which would lead to happiness.

Since his accession to the Pontificate, he restored conservative stances on abortion, contraception, biotechnology, and the place of women in the Church.

He published four books, Love and Relationships in 1960, Crossing the Threshold of Hope in 1994, Gift and Mystery: On the 50th Anniversary of My Priestly Ordination in 1996 and his autobiography Get Up and Let Us Go in May 2004. The book follow his life from new Bishop of Crakow to being elected Pope. The book's publication also marked the Pope's 84th birthday.

In 1994, Time magazine named him 'Man of the Year'.

In later years Pope John Paul II developed Parkinson's disease, and increasingly began to rely on his cardinals to carry out some of his ceremonial duties. At Easter 2002, he was unable to carry out the washing of the feet ceremony, which is symbolic of the Last Supper. It was the first time the role had been performed by cardinals.

In an unprecedented gesture, the Pope publicly apologised for the past misdeeds of the Catholic church.

He was also forced to deal with the sex abuse scandal that was engulfing the Catholic Church, calling an emergency meeting with US cardinals in Rome. In an address to bishops from north-eastern states, he them to give more guidance to Catholic priests in their country to prevent another child sex abuse scandal.

He also called on the clergy to work for greater dialogue with other faiths in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

The Pope's schedule was relentless. In 2003, he travelled to Pompei, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Spain. As his health continued to deteriorate his visted Switzerland in June 2004 - his first foreign trip for nine months. In August 2004 he visted Lourdes on a two-day pilgrimage to one of the Roman Catholic world's most revered shrines. It was his second pilgrimage to the shrine in southern France.

In early 2005 his health deteriorated further, and the Pontiff spent 28 days in hospital in two periods in February and March. During the second hospital stay he underwent a tracheotomy to ease respiratory problems. The surgery rendered the man once known as 'the great communicator' unable to speak.

Despite the surgery he continued to deteriorate, eventually suffering a heart attack and septic shock from a urinary tract infection.

The Vatican announced that the Pontiff died at 9:37pm on Saturday April 2, 2005.

scotsboyuk

04-04-2005, 02:38 AM

The world has lost a very good man, hopefully his example will inspire others to think of their fellow man. May he find peace and eternal rest with his God.

Sede Vacante

ASLAN THE GREAT

04-04-2005, 02:40 AM

long live the spirit of the pope...............

e.Blackstar

04-04-2005, 04:41 AM

God's grace to him and all he held dear...

Hammersmith

04-04-2005, 06:26 AM

He was a good man, and it seems that he genuinely loved God. What better eulogy could he wish for?

His successor will have large shoes to fill.

Barliman Butterbur

04-04-2005, 05:23 PM

I respected his sincerity. I thought he was wrong on gay and women's issues, but in the main, I thought — as a non-Catholic — that he certainly was one of the better popes because of his humanity, his caring, and his hands-on involvement with the world and its people.

Just this morning I read that about 75% of the world's Catholics want a more liberal pope next time, and that the "team" of cardinals (sorry, don't know the correct term) responsible for choosing the next pope want just the opposite. They want an older pope who'll do a short term (read that die early on), in a much more conservative manner. (I heard this in an interview with a Father Ryan on last night's 60 Minutes). Evidently the Vatican higher-ups want some sort of breathing space, as they consider that the last pope rather stood the Church on its head doctrinally and politically over the last 26 years.

Barley

Hammersmith

04-04-2005, 05:53 PM

Four Cardinals are considered most likely to be "papabili", those worthy to succeed Pope John Paul II.

Oldest is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a 77-year-old German, who is known as John Paul II's ideological "enforcer". He has been in the Vatican for more than two decades and became one of John Paul II's closest collaborators. He is Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - an organisation once known as the Inquisition - which has allowed him to stamp his theological conservatism on the Church over a period of more than 20 years. In the 1980s, he described homosexuality as an "intrinsic moral evil" and said rock music could be a "vehicle of anti-religion". To some he is a saviour to the Church in an increasingly secular world, to others he is an authoritarian who punishes liberal thought.

Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, Archbishop of Milan, 71, is the likeliest Italian candidate and heads Europe's largest diocese with 4.8 million followers. He is a highly respected theologian who specialises in sexual morality and bioethics. Cardinal Tettamanzi is considered highly orthodox but he is also known for his social commitment and a more populist position on globalisation. At the time of anti-globalisation protests during the G8 Summit in 2001, he said that "a single African child sick with Aids counts more than the entire universe". Counting against Cardinal Tettamanzi is a relative lack of international experience.

Cardinal Claudio Hummes, Archbishop of Sao Paulo, Brazil, is a doctrinal conservative who supports decentralisation by increasing the powers of national conferences of bishops. The growing strength of the Catholic Church outside Europe and North America could also help the 70-year-old's cause.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, a 72-year-old Nigerian, could become the first black man in 1,500 years to sit on the throne of St Peter. He is from humble beginnings in the Nigerian countryside where his parents worshipped traditional African gods. He studied in London and became Africa's youngest bishop at the age of 32. Cardinal Arinze is seen as a conservative within the church, who takes a hard line on women priests, abortion and homosexuality. But he believes Muslims, Buddhists and Jews can go to heaven and and has forged links with leaders of other faiths. He is regarded as personable, charming and a good communicator.
(Source) (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13320141,00.html)
These are some of the candidates. I'm not a Catholic, but I personally think Tettamanzi or Hummes would be good choices.

joxy

04-04-2005, 07:18 PM

"Humanity, caring, and hands-on involvement with the world", are I hope, characteristics of all leaders, and of all Christians - not, of course, exclusively.
Certainly Karol Wojtila demonstrated those charactertistics to the full, especially by his adoption of a completely new form of papal ministry, the many visits he made to every part of the world.
Those visits will form a lasting memory of him; but above all he will be remembered as the inspiration for the ending of the "evil empire" which seemed so indomitable at the time when his colleagues so wisely placed him in the line of succession from St Peter.

Of course he was far from being above criticism, but I do not consider that criticism is justified, of his understanding of women's and of gay people's "issues".
And of course there will be speculation as to who will soon be chosen by the cardinal electors (the "conclave", taken from the "college", of cardinals), but no one item seen and read will have any more value than any other. There is certainly no means of assessing what any "percentage" of 1.2 billion people want, or of knowing the opinion of "Vatican higher-ups" about the last 25 years of the church - though I would very much doubt the suggestion that, whoever they may be, they considered the church had been inverted, or diverted; quite the contrary, it has continued steadily on its straight path, gaining strength all along the way.
I would not take Hammersmith's source too seriously, but it does contain the name of the one man who would make an outstandingly good pope, Francis Arinze.

Barliman Butterbur

04-04-2005, 10:53 PM

...he described homosexuality as an "intrinsic moral evil" and said rock music could be a "vehicle of anti-religion"...takes a hard line on women priests, abortion and homosexuality. But he believes Muslims, Buddhists and Jews can go to heaven...

This is the kind of doctrinal doodoo (stronger words got censored) that makes me crazy! I won't go into why, because my "whys" are all over this board in the jetzt-verboten threads on religion. I'll just make one general comment: people's worth should be judged (as if anyone had the right to judge another) according to the amount of their kindly cooperative compassionate behavior towards others over time — and that's all.

Barley

Hammersmith

04-04-2005, 10:58 PM

I would not take Hammersmith's source too seriously, but it does contain the name of the one man who would make an outstandingly good pope, Francis Arinze.

No? Sky News is a subsidiary of Fox, and is the UK's best (in my opinion) broadcast news channel. It displays little of the bias that Fox is renowned for and certainly has access to the resources required to report on stories. I'll admit that it's the only source I've relied on for this particular topic, but they've never led me astray in the past :(

Gothmog

04-05-2005, 12:46 AM

This is a thread for TTFers to offer their thoughts and reflections on the life and passing of Pope John Paul II . . .

While there is inevitably going to be a certain amount of contemplation of a successor, let us keep to the spirit in which this thread was started.

Thank you.

Walter

04-05-2005, 02:06 AM

R.I.P.

De Mortuis nihil, nisi bene...

Gil-Galad

04-05-2005, 02:49 AM

I am not a catholic,but Orthodox Christian....
In spite of all historical and religious problems between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church ,pope John Paul II asked us(the orthodox Christians and the Orthodox Church) for forgiveness ,for all those things done by the Catholic church in the 13-15th centuries.He asked us for forgiveness for the fact that the Catholic Church did not help the Bulgarian Kingdom,the Serbian Kingdom and the Byzantine empire stop the invasion of the Ottoman Turks,although we had helped the catholics in their wars with the arabs.He asked us for forgiveness for the destruction of Constantinople the heart of the early Christianity and the Orthodox Church (Istanbul nowadays)by the Otomman Turks and for letting us(a huge part of the orthodox population-Greece,Bulgaria,Serbia,Macedonia,Romania) to live 400-500 years under literary slavery.

No other pope had asked us for forgiveness,no other pope had had the dignity to to do this.Pope John Paul II had it....

He did not divided the people according to their believes.No matter whether they were orthodox,baptists,muslims,jewish, he saw in everyone of them only love,good and humanity....

An extraodinary and great man.

I feel really sorry for all people who believe in God,Allah ,Yahve or whatever,because they all lost a great man,who believed in the good in everyone of us and the love between all human beings.

Arthur_Vandelay

04-05-2005, 06:44 AM

Pope John Paul II mended a great many bridges during his tenure . . . but he burned a few as well.

As Gil-Galad's post attests, one of the Pope's greatest achievements was his active encouragement of inter-faith dialogue--most poignantly, perhaps, between Catholics and Jews.

The Pope deserves praise also for upholding the Catholic Church's strong social justice tradition: championing the rights of the poor, the marginalised and the displaced. In Australia, refugee advocates have been enheartened by his statements on the treatment of asylum seekers in affluent countries:

“The Church...hears the suffering cry of all who are uprooted from their own land, of families forcefully separated, of those who, in the rapid changes of our day, are unable to find a stable home anywhere…at the same time, States with a relative abundance tend to tighten their borders under pressure from public opinion disturbed by the inconveniences that accompany the phenomenon of immigration. Society finds itself having to deal with the ‘clandestine’ men and women in illegal situations, without rights in a country that refuses to welcome them, victims of organised crime or of unscrupulous entrepreneurs”.

Although his notion of a "culture of life" was often invoked by figures involved in the Schiavo case, the "culture of life" the Pope promoted was much broader a concept than some were prepared to accept. I don't share his position on abortion, but his was the most consistent "pro-life" stance one could adopt, given that was equally opposed to the death penalty. And he insisted that a "culture of life" be accompanied be the cultivation of a "culture of peace"--hence, for instance, his opposition to the Iraq war.

But as Barley's post indicates, the Pope's stance on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, the role of women within the church and in society, and contraception has alienated many within the Church. Their concerns are legitimate and should not be dimissed as "irrelevant" or "wrong." It will only be to the Church's detriment if it becomes yet another battleground in the culture wars.

Karol Wojtyla was a successful Pope not because of his conservatism but because of his charisma. If the new Pope is to follow in his predecessor's footsteps, he should complement the ecumenical direction of the Church with an internal ecumenism: he should seek also to mend the divisions that exist within his Church. Insofar as such internal divisions reflect divisions that exist in the wider world, this would be a great achievement.

Ingwë

04-05-2005, 11:15 AM

I am from Bulgaria and I am not a catholic, but Orthodox Christian like Gil-Galad. But I think the world has lost a great man, not only a Christian but a leader. He was fair man and maybe one of the best popes for ever. Rest in Peace...

joxy

04-05-2005, 07:11 PM

From the inside of the church I do not see the alienation and division that A_V sees from the outside.
On the contrary, the list of supposed causes for those factors actually bring together and unite us.

And a thank you to the young Orthodox contributors for their generous messages.
It was one of John Paul's greatest desires, now sadly unfulfilled, to see the reconciliation of the two great churches.

Arthur_Vandelay

04-06-2005, 02:45 AM

From the inside of the church I do not see the alienation and division that A_V sees from the outside.
On the contrary, the list of supposed causes for those factors actually bring together and unite us.

With all respect, I was raised a Catholic, and my family, extended family on my mother's and father's sides, and some of my friends are practising Catholics. I have even spoken to a few priests. I do see dissatisfaction. It shouldn't be ignored. I appreciate, nonetheless, that you don't see it.

But let's not dwell on it here. For your interest:

A pontificate of trouble (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12743996%5E2703,00.html) (Australian)
Less preaching, more listening, say liberal voices (http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Less-preaching-more-listening-say-liberal-voices/2005/04/04/1112489419779.html) (Sydney Morning Herald)
Legacy of unity comes at a high price (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1450801,00.html) (Guardian)
A Pope of unity but also division (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1540040,00.html) (Deutsche Welle)
Disconnect between US Catholics and Rome grows (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Pope/story?id=640985) (abc News)
Pope's reign full of contradictions (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/04/pope.contradictions.reut/) (CNN)
Bishops fear purge of liberals as Pell gives nod to conservatives (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/22/1058853072690.html) (Sydney Morning Herald)
Remembering Pope John Paul II (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1333976.htm#anchor2) (ABC Radio National--The Religion Report)
Crisis in the Catholic Church: the Pope's contradictions (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,348471,00.html) (Der Spiegel)

Walter

04-06-2005, 10:54 AM

From the inside of the well, the frog does not see all things which the eagles from the sky can easily descry.

It's all a matter of perspective... ;)

Inderjit S

04-06-2005, 12:10 PM

Arthur_Vandelay

04-06-2005, 12:52 PM

He was a good pope, and I have no doubt, a good man-and his death is rightfully mourned. Well at least he is now released from the tyranny of life to the freedom of death. ;)

That being said, I disagreed with some of his views, though that is life, I guess.

On a side note, anyone notice the irony of the French state flying the flag at half mast after his death-isn't it kind of ironic that such a secular state was mourning the death of a religious leader. Double standards perhaps?

I'm as opposed to the French government's policies on religious dress as the next person. But perhaps you might as well have asked: Isn't it ironic that atheists/agnostics/secularists on TTF are paying (qualified) tribute to the death of a religious leader? Double standards perhaps? Religious or otherwise, the Pope was a figure of no little significance in the world (and particularly in Europe)--politically and historically--and I don't think the French government has compromised its secularism by paying its respects to him.

And France has played no small role in the history of Roman Catholicism, either.

Barliman Butterbur

04-06-2005, 02:42 PM

With all respect, I was raised a Catholic, and my family, extended family on my mother's and father's sides, and some of my friends are practising Catholics. I have even spoken to a few priests. I do see dissatisfaction. It shouldn't be ignored. I appreciate, nonetheless, that you don't see it.

But let's not dwell on it here. For your interest:

A pontificate of trouble (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12743996%5E2703,00.html) (Australian)
Less preaching, more listening, say liberal voices (http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Less-preaching-more-listening-say-liberal-voices/2005/04/04/1112489419779.html) (Sydney Morning Herald)
Legacy of unity comes at a high price (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1450801,00.html) (Guardian)
A Pope of unity but also division (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1540040,00.html) (Deutsche Welle)
Disconnect between US Catholics and Rome grows (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Pope/story?id=640985) (abc News)
Pope's reign full of contradictions (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/04/pope.contradictions.reut/) (CNN)
Bishops fear purge of liberals as Pell gives nod to conservatives (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/22/1058853072690.html) (Sydney Morning Herald)
Remembering Pope John Paul II (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1333976.htm#anchor2) (ABC Radio National--The Religion Report)
Crisis in the Catholic Church: the Pope's contradictions (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,348471,00.html) (Der Spiegel)

First, thank you for all these useful links, which I shall definitely visit in due time.

That you have "revealed" :eek: yourself as a born-and-raised Catholic (but evidently have evolved to non-practicing status) reminds me of two old friends of mine. One was an athlete who, when we first met and struck up conversation, revealed to me in her dryly humorous style, that she was "a recovering Catholic." I knew just what she meant. :) Another old friend, one of the most brilliant women I've ever known in my life, was also born and raised a Catholic, including all of her education from elementary school right through university. We had many years of the most excellent wonderful and deep conversations about all the Perennial Questions and Issues. When I asked her what it was that moved her to drift away from the Church, she told me — with a wry smile: "It was the Jesuits. They made the mistake of teaching me how to think."

Barley

Barliman Butterbur

04-06-2005, 02:48 PM

From the inside of the well, the frog does not see all things which the eagles from the sky can easily descry.

It's all a matter of perspective... ;)

Is that a clever snideswipe of the French in favor of the Americans? ;) And yes, we are all the prisoners of our current perspectives, and if we wish to advance and evolve, we must needs overcome them...

Barley

Scatha

04-06-2005, 09:07 PM

Hmmm, why a topis for the pope and none for the longest reigning monarch in europe, who died last night at the age of 84 years, Prince Rainier of Monaco?

joxy

04-06-2005, 09:24 PM

BB:
Your friend who thought the Jesuits made a mistake in teaching her to think underestimated them! They do want people to think, and they know that if that thinking leads them to reject the church then the church is not the place for them.
Walter's analogy of the frog in the well was a reference to my view of the church from the inside.

A_V:
It is a reasonable analogy too, except that I voluntarily went down the well from the upper ground not so long ago, and I still retain both perspectives!
Even the Guardian confirms my view:
"....the effect....has been to leave a church which, in the developed world at least, is considerably more compact and like-minded than when he came into office.
....out in the church at large, active Roman Catholics who do not share Karol Wojtyla's....vision of the world are fast becoming an endangered species."

Inder:
The French authorities honour not the religious leader in that role, but that leader in his other role, of Head of State of the Sovereign Vatican City State.

Scatha:
If Prince Rainier has made a significant contribution to the world I am sure there is space for an area here to consider his life too.

Manveru

04-07-2005, 07:12 AM

Krakow isn't the same place anymore...

He was everything to us, hinc illae lacrimae.

:(

Arthur_Vandelay

04-07-2005, 07:29 AM

A_V's analogy of the frog in the well was a reference to my view of the church from the inside.

Let's give respect where its due. It's a great analogy, but it's Walter's.

Even the Guardian confirms my view:

But the abc News report ("Disconnect between US Catholics and Rome grows") contradicts it--at least in the US context. And the other reports--including the Guardian's, which also points out that "millions of Catholics stopped attending mass during the reign of John Paul II . . . in many cases . . . because they were unable to square their lives with his teaching, particularly on contraception" (indeed, the Guardian's obituary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1451324,00.html), where it discusses the Pope's relationship with the Jesuits, Franciscans, Carmelites, and numerous "dissenting" theologians, is worth reading)--point to disaffection among members of the clergy and the laity regarding the traditionalist and authoritarian orientation of the Church during the last papacy. Is this disaffection uniform? Of course not--and I never claimed that it was. But it is there, nonetheless. As I said, I appreciate that you have a different view, and I accept that there may be a great many Catholics--perhaps even a majority (though to overstate the significance of this would be to advance an argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority))--who do hold with the Pope's views on abortion, homosexuality, the role of women within the church and in society, and contraception. That is not in dispute. But there are, at the same time, many others who feel alienated, for various reasons. All I'm saying is that it would be wrong for the Church to say of these people: "they don't count"/"they are wrong"/"they're not worth listening to"/"they should go and find another Church." It would be unfortunate--and in my opinion to the detriment of the Church--if it were to adopt such an attitude under the next papacy.

Mrs. Maggott

04-11-2005, 09:01 PM

As a person born into the Roman Catholic Church who became an Orthodox Christian in 1961, I also mourn the death of the Pope. He was a very good man who was totally unafraid to witness to his faith in a world that has become increasingly secular and even anti-religious. He was especially willing to use the Church as a moral force in the political forum, working tirelessly towards the downfall of Communism, the premiere athistic secular force of the 20th Century.

For those who believe that most Catholics want a more "liberal" Pope - and by that, I assume we are speaking of doctrines involving moral and gender issues - it is well to remember that the Pope represents the Church and not vice versa. True, in the past some Popes have "done their own thing" and totally ignored Christ, Scripture and Church teachings, but they have been known as "bad" Popes and certainly no true Catholic - even if he or she disagrees with some aspect of Church doctrine - wants a Pope who, for the sake of political correctness, will abandon those doctrines that make the Catholic Church representative of Christianity.

I have always believed - as have my many Catholic friends - that if someone cannot live with Church doctrine, they would be much more honest seeking out a denomination in which they feel comfortable rather than trying to force the Catholic Church (or any other religious group for that matter) into their own image. When I became unhappy with certain aspects of Catholicism, I went looking and found Orthodoxy. I would have considered it to be the highest form of prelest to demand that the Catholic Church bring Herself into line with my beliefs. In the same way, those people who oppose Church doctrine on the issues in question should stop trying to make over the Church to suit them and find themselves a denomination which embraces their beliefs. God knows, they are out there!

Of course, it will be a real problem for many liberals if a conservative black Cardinal is elected Pope! On the one hand, his conservatism will make him unpopular. However, on the other hand, his race will make it difficult (if not impossible) for many liberals to be as critical as they might have been with a conservative Pope had he been white. In any event, it promises to be an interesting time ahead and I wish only the best for my Catholic friends and their Church.

Barliman Butterbur

04-11-2005, 10:43 PM

...those people who oppose Church doctrine on the issues in question should stop trying to make over the Church to suit them and find themselves a denomination which embraces their beliefs. God knows, they are out there!

Assuming that the Church is the True Word of God (which it is decidedly not) why aren't you rushing back to be in it once again?

Of course, it will be a real problem for many liberals if a conservative black Cardinal is elected Pope!

Yeah — sort of a religious Clarence Thomas, huh? That would be a problem, and not just for liberals.

Barley

Gothmog

04-11-2005, 10:59 PM

Mod's Comment
I do not want this thread to turn into a religious battle. Please take care with your posts.

End Mod's Comment.

That being said:
I am under the impression that according to Christian belief it is the Bible that is considered to be the "True Word of God" and the Church is the institution charged with the disemination of the Word. Therefore it would seem that it is a question of being happy or unhappy with the method of this disemination is the point being made.

joxy

04-11-2005, 11:34 PM

A_V: I have corrected that misattribution of the allegory of frogs and eagles, and
BB: I have only just now "got" your comment about the allegory - we don't go in for that sort of symbolism so much over here!
Also to BB: I can't argue with your assertion that "the Church is NOT the True Word of God" - who said it was?
The quotation is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God" - that's what (Who) the Word actually is.
You ask Mrs M why she isn't "rushing back to be in it <the Catholic Church> once again?". Why should she do so, having made the careful decision to join the Orthodox, with whom we are so closely associated, due to the fervent ministrations of the Pope. Had the choice, in practical terms, been open to me when I joined the church, it might well have gone to Orthodoxy, alone among the other "denominations".
Gothmog: Nor can I disagree with your comments on this subject of the Word, though I have to add that the bible is not considered exclusively to contain that Word.
I see no dissatisfaction with the way in which the dissemination of the whole word is being carried out by the church, and specifically by its priests and bishops.

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2005, 12:12 AM

Gil-Galad

04-12-2005, 12:35 AM

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2005, 02:28 AM

I thought that was a thread about a great man who deserved our appreciation and respect.Even from us,the Orthodox,and we showed it sending most ot our Patriarchs to his funeral,something that happened for first time,but it happened because even we appreciate some of his actions.
...but let's stick to the topic or just clos it.

Let's not turn this thread into a religious discussion.
Come, folks! This is not a "religious" discussion. The thread was opened to discuss the passing of John Paul II. A point was made that many Catholics would prefer a "more liberal" Pope as his successor. The rejoiner was made that it is the Pope's responsibility to represent his Church, not to change doctrine to serve a particular "interest group" within it. A further point was made that those persons who want the Catholic Church "liberalized" would better serve themselves and the Catholic Church by seeking another denomination more in keeping with their particular points of view.

There is nothing "religious" in any of these points; they merely make comments regarding the late Pope and the responsibility of the Papacy in general. They also point out that people have no right to demand that a particular religion accommodate their particular points of view if those points of view are in opposition to Church doctrine. Again, these are matters of rational debate. They might just as well be directed at any organization with a leader who is legally and/or morally committed to upholding the aims and goals of the organization.

If the forum does not wish to discuss anything that could be remotely considered "religious", then threads like this should not be opened since it is bound to involve discussions regarding the organization (Church) of which that person was in charge and, eventually, certain facts and circumstances surrounding the organization. Once that happens, if the person is the leader of one of the largest - if not the largest - Christian denominations in the world, what on earth can one expect if not some kind of "religious" discussion??

To me, a "religious" discussion involves debate about the relative truth between and among the various religions including atheism and humanism as well as the legitimacy of various "religious" claims. That is a "religious" discussion, not the types of comments that have been exchanged here.

Arthur_Vandelay

04-12-2005, 09:35 AM

A point was made that many Catholics would prefer a "more liberal" Pope as his successor. The rejoiner was made that it is the Pope's responsibility to represent his Church, not to change doctrine to serve a particular "interest group" within it.

A matter of perspective. In not pandering to one particular interest group (progressives, modernists), the Church hierarchy under Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger has pandered to another interest group (conservatives, traditionalists). The next Pope should rise above such pandering. Not treating every critique as dissidence or as an assault upon the Church would be a good start.

. . . the various religions including atheism and humanism . . .

You may find this (http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/CN/04/040219a.htm) interesting.

The Church is not a "democracy" or even a "republic". It is a "Theocracy" whose ultimate "King" is God Himself and He doesn't take opinion polls nor is He concerned about popularity.

In a practical sense, the ultimate "King" of the Church is the Pope--a human being, with all that that entails. That's what makes theocracy so disturbing.

It boils down to this, really:

Are democracy and the free exchange of ideas good things in themselves? If so, why are they not good for the Church? Or are they only good in certain contexts? Why those contexts, and not others?

Is authoritarianism a bad thing in itself? If so, then why is not bad for the Church to operate upon such lines--as it has done so particularly under Pope John Paul II's reign? Or is it only bad in certain contexts? Why those contexts, and not others?

Walter

04-12-2005, 11:54 AM

Just a few points:

1. The Church created the New Testament, not the other way round. Check history if you doubt this. It was the various Church Councils that decided which "books" would be included in the New Testament and, indeed, that process was not completed for many years after Pentecost, the recognized "birthday" of the Church.
I can only second most of which is said here, though I would add that the process was not begun for many years- or decades - after Pentecost and was not completed for many centuries...

2. The Church is much more than a mere "disseminator" of Christ's teachings. She is His "Bride"; He is the Head and She the Body. He acts in the world through the Church. The Church is the "ark of salvation" in the world established by Christ for His followers.
This paragraph is IMHO more debateable than the one above, it still remains to be proved that the replacement and altering of the role of women – as "body" and "bride" - in religion by the church was what Christ intended (if we suppose for now that he indeed ever existed). And even more so that any one of today's Christian churches comes even close to what he intended as the outcome of his teachings....

3. Is the Church "infallible"? Patently, not all the time or even most of the time. The claim of "infallibility" can be made only at certain times. In the early Church, infallibility was invested in Church Councils which were called both locally and ecumenically (over all the "Sees" of the Church) to determine such things as the final wording of the "Creed" and to deal with the uprising of various heresies and other matters; this is still the way of the Orthodox Church today. Until the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the West - which is, historically speaking, recent - it required a Church Council to make pronouncements as to various issues affecting the Faith. The "infallibility" of any Council was determined by only one criteria - the passage of time. Members of the Councils prayed for the descent of the Holy Spirit to enlighten them so that they would make decisions that were correct and pleasing to God. If after several hundred years, a Council's decrees - such as those of the First Seven Ecumenical or Great Councils - proved to be right and true, the Council was embraced by the Church and considered "infallible". However, many Councils were later repudiated (the one that established the iconoclast heresy, for one) as being at best wrong and at worst, heretical (iconoclasm).
History also shows that the role of the Christian church – as an heirloom of Saulus/Paulus and Simon/Peter – always was more a political one than a religious one. It – apparently, IMO – only survived because of Saulus/Paulus' was quite involved with the Roman officials and Herodian kings and because Constantine in the 4th century found the new church convenient for his own plans and goals and thus decided to support them. But that IMO at no point justifies talking about "infallibility" at their side....

4. If a person disagrees with seminal doctrines of his faith, then he should seek another church that embraces whatever he believes rather than trying to "remake" his present church in his own image. It is a matter of unbridled egotism to demand that everyone change to accommodate oneself. What right has anyone to insist that any Church embrace such changes - especially changes of great moral and theological importance - in order to "please" supposed 'believers" or to meet the standards set by the world. Indeed, the Church is supposed to reject worldly standards, not embrace them and believers are supposed to embrace the beliefs of their Church - not work diligently to change them - or else why belong in the first place!
Given what is said above about the Christian church and in the light of all its crimes in the name of God – or Christ – throughout the millennia, must it not be legitimate to try finding again what may have been the quintessence of Christ's teachings, and - in the event - try to re-establish those in the communities which claim to spread Christ's word? The findings of Qumran (the publication of some of which has been quite successfully suppressed, delayed and blurred by the Dominican order of Jerusalem and its leaders) and Nag Hammadi – but also the quasi-historical writings of Josephus - show us quite different aspects of the peaceful Hellenistic countryside with Galilean fisherman teaching and preaching only faith and peace. The Christian church has made quite some efforts throughout its history to suppress and extinguish everything that does not go well together with its political doctrines at a given time. To give now all those, who are quite dissatisfied with such policies (which btw. remain intact to a certain degree even in today's Christian churches) the "consilium abeundi" may be the most comfortable choice for the leaders of these communities, but is it the right one?

The Church is not a "democracy" or even a "republic". It is a "Theocracy" whose ultimate "King" is God Himself and He doesn't take opinion polls nor is He concerned about popularity. And certainly, there is enough that has been written over the centuries to determine what God wants for His Church in the way of doctrine. Of course, some later denominations have determined that He really didn't mean what the Church has for centuries (millenia?) decided in Councils that He meant. These modern "theologians" know better, after all - and that's fine, I guess, for those who wish to follow the innovators. However, as noted above, since there are "churches" for people who don't like the "old" doctrines - quite a few, actually - it seems extremely selfish of them to demand that those who want the original doctrines accept the changes that they want. I know in my case, I went to where I found what I wanted. I did not insist that the Roman Catholic Church change to suit me.
This all stands and falls with the use of the word "original" and the ability to read God's mind. And those who pray and preach loudest may not always be those who are the devoutest – in God's eyes. As for the mythological aspects of the God/King relationship throughout history of human culture – and also the very role of Christ in this aspect - I would suggest the lecture of Frazer, Campbell, Graves etc.. Many of the Christian myths as presented in the Old and New Testament are not quite as unpreceded or unique as the church wanted them to be...

In my previous post I said "de mortuis nihil nisi bene", thus I am not going to blame John Paul II for all that happened during his "reign." But I cannot fail to notice that he has appointed and in part inaugurated servants for our country, who have been involved in cases of paedophilia, bishops who today still see women as "unclean" - and thus refuse to have them as servers during mass - and bishops who refuse an ecumenical mass for the bereaved families after an incident with some 150 casualties.

I see much room for John Paul's successor to improve things in the Catholic church, and I, for one, would wish for these improvements to come true...

Gothmog

04-12-2005, 11:56 AM

To me, a "religious" discussion involves debate about the relative truth between and among the various religions including atheism and humanism as well as the legitimacy of various "religious" claims. That is a "religious" discussion, not the types of comments that have been exchanged here.This may be your idea of a "religious discussion" but the fact is that a religious discussion involves the discussion of religious beliefs, doctrine and/or practice either within a single church or between different churches or religions.

The nature of this thread is such that a certain amount of such religous discussion with respect of the Catholic Church was to be expected and accepted. However, there is also expected a certain level of courtesy from all posters.

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2005, 02:21 PM

This may be your idea of a "religious discussion" but the fact is that a religious discussion involves the discussion of religious beliefs, doctrine and/or practice either within a single church or between different churches or religions.

The nature of this thread is such that a certain amount of such religous discussion with respect of the Catholic Church was to be expected and accepted. However, there is also expected a certain level of courtesy from all posters.
Wherein have I been discourteous? I have simply pointed out certain historically factual events (that Scripture proceeded from the Church and not vice versa), that the Church has a far greater meaning that many today actually understand - She is the Bride of Christ as Scripture itself defines her - and that it is unreasonable (and selfish) for people to try to remake their particular denomination to suit their own cherished beliefs if those beliefs are in direct contrast to the doctrines of their church.

As for the Pope "pandering" to conservatives: I will believe that when someone can show me what Catholic teaching(s) the Pope abandoned or changed for the sake of these "conservatives". I think you will find it more a case of the Pope being true to the teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church - something which pleased conservatives - rather than him "pandering" to them. If, on the other hand, in order to please liberals, the Pope must change and/or abandon time honored Catholic doctrines, then that is really a case of "pandering" to a particular interest group.

This is a situation in which I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's comments to people who criticized some groups who approved of him. Reagan simply said that he said and did that in which he believed. If people approved of what he said and did, that was fine. On the other hand, he did not do it or say it to gain their approval. In the same way, John Paul II did what he did because he was honor bound as Pope to uphold the Catholic Church. He didn't do it to "please" conservatives or "diss" liberals.

Indeed, this is why I mentioned that the Church is not a "democracy". Doctrines are not predicated on "majority rule" or the approval of the faithful. The faithful are in the Church because they agree with Her doctrines. If people do not "believe" in thos doctrines and dogmas then they don't belong in that Church. Attempts to change doctrine - and the operative word here is change - to suit the times or a particular ideological group is frankly, heretical (the word heresy means "change"). As there are plenty of "churches" with decidedly liberal moral and philosophical agendas, anyone who rejects what they consider to be Catholic "conservatism" is free to go elsewhere and find a more congenial faith setting. This is not a "liberal vs. conservative" issue. It is a matter of existing Church doctrine and dogma that some people want changed or abandoned to suit themselves. I can only pray that the next Pope defends the Faith with as much moral strength as the last in the face of such heretical demands.

Nóm

04-12-2005, 02:39 PM

Wherein have I been discourteous? I have simply pointed out certain historically factual events (that Scripture proceeded from the Church and not vice versa), that the Church has a far greater meaning that many today actually understand - She is the Bride of Christ as Scripture itself defines her - and that it is unreasonable (and selfish) for people to try to remake their particular denomination to suit their own cherished beliefs if those beliefs are in direct contrast to the doctrines of their church.

I didn't see Gothmog accuse anyone of being discourteous.

"There is apparently something wrong with some(?) liberals that causes them to read into statements things that were never said and respond most inappropriately to things that were said"

And some(?) conservatives too?

Why did that remark have to be directed at liberals, if not because you see a connection between being a liberal and reading things into statements and making inappropriately replies? And why is there any question as to whether or not it is some or all liberals that have "something wrong with" them which causes them to do those things.

Maybe some people do think that these little jabs at liberals are discourteous though.

I wonder if it is assumed that those Catholics mentioned in this thread who would like a more liberal Pope are all wanting changes that do in fact (not in opinion) go against the Church's doctrine.

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2005, 02:59 PM

The implication was there after a quote taken from myself.

I was responding to a certain "response" to something I didn't say - and, yes, the inability to get past one's ideology is not limited to liberals. However, most conservatives do try to respond to what actually has been said rather than to an interpretation of what has been said that is frequently diamentric in nature.

Having been more than "jabbed" and certainly in ways that left nothing to the imagination regarding my particular philosophy (conservative), I do not believe that pointing out errors in liberal interpretations of my points to be "discourteous". Of course, in the "p.c." culture, there are different standards for criticism of liberals and conservatives (right wing demogogues, that is).

And, again, I ask what "changes" do liberals want to see a Pope make? Married priests? That is a matter of "tradition" with a small "t" since the early Church had both celibate and married priests and the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics still do. Is it women priests? Ah, that is more in the nature of Tradition with a capital "T" since the early Church never had women priests - although they did have women deacons under certain highly restricted circumstances. Is it acceptance of abortion? That is straight doctrine, not even Tradition. Abortion has been condemned since the Church began contrary to what many try to purport. Is it birth control? Is it "alternative lifestyles"? When the changes being demanded are set forth, then we will all know just what liberal Catholics want. Consider this, however: the Catholic Church has already abandoned many of its fasting disciplines as well as other pious practices since Vatican II so there can't be too much left for people to want changed regarding such things.

And consider one more thing: where the Church has been "liberalized" - Europe, the US, Canada - it is not growing or at least not growing all that much. Where She has remained "conservative" - Africa, Latin America - She is growing. It would seem that serious Christians want a serious Church and not just another social organization doing "good works".

Gothmog

04-12-2005, 02:59 PM

Wherein have I been discourteous?
As Nóm has already pointed out your point 5 of post 31 is a problem, this point was an un-necessary answer to a prior post which could result in an argument between two posters that will cause the thread to be closed, this is discourteous to the other posers on this thread. I am aware of, and myself answered the prior post.

Walter

04-12-2005, 04:33 PM

Now we are indeed at the brink of just another political/religious discussion, basically the umpteenth re-issue of the old arguments between conservatives and liberals (or democrats)...

----

"'Is it Thou? Thou?' but receiving no answer, he adds at once. 'Don't answer, be silent. What canst Thou say, indeed? I know too well what Thou wouldst say. And Thou hast no right to add anything to what Thou hadst said of old. Why, then, art Thou come to hinder us? For Thou hast come to hinder us, and Thou knowest that. But dost thou know what will be to-morrow? I know not who Thou art and care not to know whether it is Thou or only a semblance of Him, but to-morrow I shall condemn Thee and burn Thee at the stake as the worst of heretics. And the very people who have to-day kissed Thy feet, to-morrow at the faintest sign from me will rush to heap up the embers of Thy fire. Knowest Thou that? Yes, maybe Thou knowest it,' he added with thoughtful penetration, never for a moment taking his eyes off the Prisoner."

Dialog between the Christ and the Grand Inquisitor in the prison (in fact it's more of a monologue of the Grand-Inquisitor); from: F. Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov; "The Grand Inquisitor"

Barliman Butterbur

04-12-2005, 07:50 PM

Mod's Comment
I do not want this thread to turn into a religious battle. Please take care with your posts.

"Thou canst not say I did it: never shake Thy gory locks at me!" :D

Barley

Gothmog

04-12-2005, 10:23 PM

"Thou canst not say I did it: never shake Thy gory locks at me!" :D

Barley
It was your unnecessary questioning of denominational choice in post #28 that caused my request for care in future posts. Both Religion and Politics are subjects where the utmost courtesy is required.

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2005, 10:47 PM

As Nóm has already pointed out your point 5 of post 31 is a problem, this point was an un-necessary answer to a prior post which could result in an argument between two posters that will cause the thread to be closed, this is discourteous to the other posers on this thread. I am aware of, and myself answered the prior post.
Point 5 was in response to something that supposedly addressed a previous post - but did not. As this has happened frequently to me (and, I assume others), I made the point that I do not appreciate having what I have posted "reinterpreted" in such a way that it says something other than what it actually does say. Furthermore, as this situation is then exacerbated by a pointed "response" to what wasn't said, it becomes even more annoying.

However, let's be "real" here. Liberal (or should I use the "new" name, "progressive") and conservative are not limited to religion and politics. They encompass a great deal - possibly all of human intercourse in some way. Indeed, frequently a person can be "liberal/progressive" in some areas and "conservative/traditional" in others. If we are going to be so squeamish that we cannot comment upon this situation, then we are going to find precious little to talk about except the weather.

Of course, you are right to say that discourse should remain courteous, but it would be a shame to see this site become a victim of "political correctness" in which people run about taking (or worrying about giving) offense at every comment that is not so bland as to be insipid. Short of indulging in ad hominem attacks - and what I said was not an ad hominem attack because it addressed an action rather than a person albeit I admit to wondering "aloud" if that person's idology might not be the cause of the problem. Nonetheless, short of outright rudeness, we should be able to have a spirited debate without constant threats to "close the thread".

However, having made the point I wished to make regarding what people say and what others think they are saying, I shall bow to your admonishment - especially since I have made the points I wished to make and can now leave the matter for the input of others on the subject.

Barliman Butterbur

04-12-2005, 10:58 PM

...frequently a person can be "liberal/progressive" in some areas and "conservative/traditional" in others. If we are going to be so squeamish that we cannot comment upon this situation, then we are going to find precious little to talk about except the weather.

Of course, you are right to say that discourse should remain courteous, but it would be a shame to see this site become a victim of "political correctness" in which people run about taking (or worrying about giving) offense at every comment that is not so bland as to be insipid...short of outright rudeness, we should be able to have a spirited debate without constant threats to "close the thread"...

In all of which I am in fervent agreement. Once again I thank the webmaster in allowing the Schiavo thread to be floated (as I dare to believe) as an experiment to see how we'd do. We did well, and so I think that in the light of that success AV began this thread. We must all monitor ourselves — even moi — and if we do that, I would hope that the subjects of religion and politics can once again be included as legitimate topics within The Forsaken Inn area — much too strong stuff for the Prancing Pony — I'd be losing customers and would have to hire a bouncer! :)

Barley

Gothmog

04-12-2005, 11:04 PM

I thank you both and hope that there will be no further need for me to post in this thread.

Mrs. Maggott

04-12-2005, 11:56 PM

I agree. We may disagree in some ways, but I have hopes that well intentioned people may disagree without the matter becoming too contentious for words. And if you think that politics and religion causes grief, try sports! I simply cannot get over the fact that the proper and unemotional British are frequently in the forefront of riots during soccer matches!!

If we respect one another as people, we will be able to disagree without being disagreeable and after all, in the matter of human discourse, what more can one ask? :p

Arthur_Vandelay

04-13-2005, 01:05 AM

And, again, I ask what "changes" do liberals want to see a Pope make?

Inasmuch as "liberal" is really a useful term in this regard (does the advocacy of marriage for priests, or for a more frank exchange of ideas within the Church, or for greater collegiality rather than authoritarianism and centralisation, necessarily make one "liberal," for example?), they would like to be listened to. Not shunned. Not ignored. Not told to "find another church."

I don't think it's that big an ask.

From the National Catholic Reporter (http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005b/041505/041505q.htm), April 15, 2005:

In the shadow of John Paul II

The wall-to-wall coverage of Pope John Paul II’s final illness, his death and funeral, and the events leading to the conclave that will choose his successor is certainly indicative of a broad appeal that spanned cultures, national boundaries and religious divides. In a world in need of an anchor and answers, he provided both.

Still, the nature of modern media is such that those unfamiliar with the history of the latter part of the 20th century might conclude that the pope (with some help from Ronald Reagan) defeated European communism with his right hand and defended the faith against internal malcontents and dissidents with his left.

This is a largely comic book caricature that obscures some greater truths not easily transmitted or understood by much of the mainstream media.

There is no great mystery to John Paul II’s worldwide popularity. He combined a powerful message with a forceful personality and used modern communication techniques, not least large televised rallies, to carry that message to the four corners of the earth. Youthful and vigorous (as he was in 1978) or aged and infirmed (as he was in his last years) it didn’t matter. He had a story to tell and he aimed to tell it to whomever -- peasants and prime ministers, the influential and the voiceless -- might listen.

A sophistication about the media would now seem a prerequisite for the job, though it is hard to envision John Paul’s successor having quite the same flair.

It is also difficult to imagine that the next man will possess the absolute certainty that was the hallmark of John Paul’s tenure. Such assurance (some called it arrogance) is a rare commodity even among members of the College of Cardinals. By the time 58-year-old Karol Wojtyla ascended to the throne of St. Peter he knew what he thought -- and he was not shy about translating those beliefs into action once he became Vicar of Christ. The Catholic theological and intellectual landscape is littered with those who paid a price for their disagreements with John Paul II and the Vatican’s enforcers of what some term orthodoxy (NCR, Feb. 25). One imagines that even some among the hierarchy wouldn’t mind a pope who was more open to listening, considering new scholarship and respecting other points of view.

Much of the media coverage over the past weeks has focused on the hot-button issues said to be of most concern to American Catholics: church teaching on birth control, on optional celibacy, the role of women within the institution, abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, the clergy sex abuse crisis, and so on. All of these are, of course, important concerns. But the notion (implied in much of what gets discussed on television) that the next pope, like a newly elected president presenting a program to Congress, could or would move quickly to, say, allow priests to marry, is absurd. Nor, frankly, is it desirable.

The real short-term question is stylistic. Will the new pontiff teach and explain or will he assert? Will he allow discussion of forbidden topics? Will he continue to use the benchmark of enthusiastic fidelity to Humane Vitae as a criterion for episcopal appointments? Will bishops continue to fear the wrath of Rome or will the collegiality envisioned by the Second Vatican Council finally be practiced? Will the expertise of the faithful laity be exploited or ignored? And so on.

These questions will be answered not only in dealing with the hot-button issues, but in those areas that rarely appear on the mainstream media’s radar: in Catholic universities, where academic freedom is threatened; in church-affiliated health care institutions, where guidance on the most nettlesome ethical issues imaginable is needed; at the diocesan level, where for too long the gifts of the laity have been ignored; and in our parishes, where the day-to-day life of the church is carried out.

Personality matters. History would have been different had the College of Cardinals selected an Italian cardinal for the second time in 1978, as most every observer then anticipated. The next pope, operating in the shadow of “John Paul the Great,” will make decisions. He will have to choose.

Pray that God gives him wisdom.

Mrs. Maggott

04-13-2005, 01:26 PM

Discourse on matters that do not challenge doctrine (rather than tradition) is certainly reasonable. "Collegiality" is also perfectly reasonable - after all, the Orthodox Church has no Pope and all matters of the faith are determined by our bishops acting "collegially" if you will. Of course, the bishops themselves have to be held to account that they remain faithful to the doctrines and dogmas of the Church. Historically, the Orthodox maintain that heresies usually start with the hierarchs and the Church has been saved many times by ordinary priests and the laity. So the fact that an individual is a bishop/cardinal is no guarantor of "orthodoxy".

However, I think it is disingenuous to pretend that many "liberals" only want to talk about married priests and to spread the authority around among the hierarchs of the Church. Indeed, when I was young, the saying was "Rome has spoken! The matter is settled!" However, since Vatican II - and perhaps earlier in Europe at least - it has become of matter of "Rome has spoken! Thanks for the input!" I know this to be the case because I have worked closely with a fairly large group of "traditional" Roman Catholics and have heard all that has gone on in that Church at least here in the Northeast and other places in Europe and North America. If you truly believe that the Pope exercises some sort of absolute authority, I think you will find that such is not the case at least in the "West".

Nor has there been total acceptance of papal authority amongst "traditional" conservative Catholics as witnessed by the Cardinal LeFebvre movement. This was a response to what many "trads" believed to be a "watering down" of the faith by - guess who? - the Pope (as well as, of course, the local hierarchs)! So the picture of a Church which is under the thumb of an autocrat without any possibility of discourse is simply not true.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with discourse within the Church on those matters that are not dictated by established doctrine. That is the difference between, say, debating the question of whether priests can be married as opposed to the acceptance of women priests or "alternative lifestyles" or abortion.

I am reminded of something that happened many years ago when we belonged to an ethnic Greek church. My husband was at a meeting with the rest of the parish in the presence of the local bishop and the question of the parish having bingo to raise money came up. The bishop simply stated that the canons of the Church forbade the parish from having bingo. After the bishop left, the matter was brought up again and the president of the council called for a vote on the matter. My husband stood up and told them that they had just been informed by the bishop that they couldn't have bingo and therefore they couldn't "vote" on something that they were forbidden to do. That's what I mean when I say that discourse on certain issues is not only inappropriate, but forbidden. If the Church doctrinally and dogmattically forbids something, then "discussing" it is not only pointless, but calls into question the validity of Church doctrine.

As for telling people to "find another church": if a person is unable to live with Catholic teachings that are fundamental to that Church, then that person should in fact find another Church rather than casting about to find similarly unsatisfied individuals and trying to "democratize" the Church by making the argument that "the majority" want the doctrine to change. That's not how it's done. As already mentioned, the Church is not a democracy. Frankly, I find it personally offensive that any individual or group should seriously believe that they have the right to influence fundamental doctrines of the Church simply because they want to do so. That type of thinking smacks of elitism; I want it and therefore it should happen.

Shireman D

04-13-2005, 02:20 PM

In the long term, I have a hunch that the most significant feature of the tenure of JP2 (sometimes, unkindly, called Long Haul the Second) was that he began to evolve an idea of petrine ministry that may be workable for the future. For those of us in the Reformed Catholic churches (Anglican/Episcopal/Lutheran) who have begun to break down barriers of traditional antipathy by simply accepting that we are different, it was quite remarkable to find a bishop of Rome who was able to take the same approach with integrity - recall that lovely photograph of him kneeling outside the doors of St. John Lateran at the beginning of the jubilee year of 2000 flanked on either side by an Orthodox and an Anglican Archbishop. What we hold to be important does not have to divide and he lived that in a remarkable way, thus allowing the Roman see to be again as it once was - perhaps only glimpsed through the mist at the moment - a sign of unity: by agreement not by compulsion.

May he rest in peace and rise in glory.

Mrs. Maggott

04-13-2005, 02:58 PM

Certainly, unity within the Christian community is to be devoutly wished. After all, it is supposed to be ONE Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church. However, unity is not the main criteria. We could all be unified - and wrong. Historically, at the time of the rise of the great Arian heresy (for which the First Great Ecumenical Council was called in Nicea in the Fourth Century), virtually all of the hierarchs and even the Emperor were in agreement with Arius who taught that Christ was not fully God and fully Man, but rather, that He was a Man whom God "used" much as you would put on a garment. Among the songs being sung around Constantinople in the various ale houses was one that went, "There was a time when He was not."

In the Council, virtually alone against Arius and his followers, was a small, ugly, mean tempered, red-headed deacon (not even a priest) named Athanasius who declared the Truth - that Jesus of Nazareth was both fully God and fully Man and there was therefore no time in which He, as Second Person of the Trinity "was not" - albeit it, there was a time in which He was not Incarnate as a Man. Standing with Athanasius was the Bishop of Myra, the great St. Nicholas (yes, "Santa Claus") and a few others, but it was virtually, Athanasius contra mundi - Athanasius against the world. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit enlightened the Council and Arius was defeated. From that Council came the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which was used unchanged in the Church until 1054 AD (the time of the great East/West schism) and is still used in the Orthodox Church today.

So you see, unity is not nearly so important as Truth. Had unity been the measure of things, the Church would have supported Arius and the entire Faith would have been not only changed, but wrong. Before there can be unity among Christian denominations today, there certainly has to be doctrinal standards that are accepted by all the various denominations wishing to participate in that unity. And while this might not involve matters such as married priests - after all, in the early Church, the West had a celibate priesthood while the East had married clergy - it certainly will involve seminal issues like the nature of the Trinity, the Personhood of Christ and the procession of the Holy Spirit (in matters of theology) and, of course, moral issues which, at one time not so long ago (when I was young), all Christian denominations were in fact, in accord despite their other theological and liturgical differences.

Can unity happen? If God so wills it, it can - and will. However, before we begin to concern ourselves with unity, it would be well if we could at least treat each other - Christian and otherwise - with respect and love. That would certainly be a giant step in the right direction.

Walter

04-13-2005, 03:04 PM

As for telling people to "find another church": if a person is unable to live with Catholic teachings that are fundamental to that Church, then that person should in fact find another Church rather than casting about to find similarly unsatisfied individuals and trying to "democratize" the Church by making the argument that "the majority" want the doctrine to change. That's not how it's done. As already mentioned, the Church is not a democracy. Frankly, I find it personally offensive that any individual or group should seriously believe that they have the right to influence fundamental doctrines of the Church simply because they want to do so. That type of thinking smacks of elitism; I want it and therefore it should happen.
I guess my prior reply to that must be invisible... ;)

Again, I can see nothing wrong in an attempt to adapt the Christian church and bring it in accordance with the teachings of the Christ instead of what the orthodoxy (note the small cap) wanted to make us believe his teachings were. That might actually de-politicize the church and have it focus more on spirituality rather than worrying about power, influence and money (let alone the even more mundane sources of income of the Vatican)...

Mrs. Maggott

04-13-2005, 03:22 PM

I guess my prior reply to that must be invisible... ;)

Again, I can see nothing wrong in an attempt to adapt the Christian church and bring it in accordance with the teachings of the Christ instead of what the orthodoxy (note the small cap) wanted to make us believe his teachings were. That might actually de-politicize the church and have it focus more on spirituality rather than worrying about power, influence and money (let alone the even more mundane sources of income of the Vatican)...
I'm sorry, I was responding to the prior post, not yours.

Money, power, influence... alas, that is the nature of mankind. Yes, there are hermits and great holy men who live in caves and little hermitages who are probably far closer to God than the high and mighty in any religion. But let's face it, when something is important to people, they invest it with a great deal of pomp, circumstance and wealth. After all, God Himself had much to say about how He was to be worshipped in the Old Testament! He demanded a great deal of those who worshipped Him and it is easy to understand how that would continue even into the New Testament Church which was, in fact, an extension of Temple worship.

Furthermore, the Church - indeed, most of man's religions - were/are intrinsically bound up in other aspects of life including government. In the Christian world (and others as well), the Church provided the moral foundation for laws and government and where Her sway was absent, there was often great tyranny and excess. Now does that mean that those representing the Church always represented the Church and not their own ambition? Certainly not. A day long overview of the papacy was proof enough that many popes were put on the papal throne for political reasons - and acted accordingly. However, where there was no moral authority - even a compromised one - the situation was usually many times worse (as in Nazism and Communism in the 20th - and 21st Centuries). As some wag once pointed out, if we are this bad with God, how much worse would we be without Him. I think that question was answered in Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen.

Indeed, this is one reason why the Church cannot simply "retire" from the world but must attempt to influence life outside of the confines of narthex, nave and sanctuary. That does not mean that She will try to force people to believe, but rather that Her representatives must act as the moral conscience of the world calling into account all those who are unjust and wicked. This is the reason why scandal arising within the Church is so much worse than scandal arising in some other segement of society. As Captain Ahab pointed out in "Moby ****", where do you go when the Judge Himself is called before the bar? When those representing the forces of good are themselves evil, what hope is there?

I am less concerned with the trappings than with what they represent. Good can come in rags or furs; likewise so can evil. External appearance is just that - external. I'm afraid until we witness the actions of the new Pope, we will have no idea whether he will be another John Paul II or a Medici wannabe.

Barliman Butterbur

04-13-2005, 05:07 PM

In that this thread has evolved into something much more complex than simply giving our impressions of the departed Pope (which we did), and has gone into areas which have nothing directly to do with me (Christian "in-house" matters), I now withdraw from it. However, I hope that the forum remains open now to serious discussions of all sensitive issues — religious, political and cultural — and that we will all rise to the necessary courtesy and civility for that to maintain itself ongoing.

Barley

Walter

04-14-2005, 01:16 AM

After all, God Himself had much to say about how He was to be worshipped in the Old Testament! He demanded a great deal of those who worshipped Him and it is easy to understand how that would continue even into the New Testament Church which was, in fact, an extension of Temple worship.
Now I wouldn't take that too seriously... ;)

In the later written books of the OT God doesn't seem to honour mankind with his direct presence or express his will directly, IIRC. Only in the older - mythological - cycles (namely the parts ascribed to J and E, which were written about 900BCE - and are, btw., roughly contemporary with the greek epos ascribed to Homer) such things happen occasionally (as they do in Homer's epos, where the gods occasionally grace mankind with their presence).

And those older parts of the OT clearly have the same mythological and poetical nature that Homer's Trojan War has. But to read a poem or a myth as a factual report means - at least - to miss the point.

Those "books", which originally were brought from Babylon to Jerusalem at about 400BCE and which now represent the older parts of the Old Testament, are the - probably much edited - outcome of an already thoroughly orthodox priestly tradition.

But one shouldn't take for granted, that someone who claims to "report" God's very word necessarily is actually doing just this.

What is much more revealing - and what might bring us closer to "God's word", IMO - is to compare the Biblical myths with other myths of the same time and to see the ample parallels. And even more revealing than to check the parallels is to check the divergences. To see where older, common, myths have been - deliberately, it appears - altered and to find out which purposes and goals these alterations served might bring us more spiritual insight than following some churches doctrines.

But if we are able to make out the common roots of these various myths, we might eventually be able to perceive a few chords of the Music of the Ainur, or feel the breeze of the pneuma (spirit/wind/breath) of God hovering upon the face of the waters (Gen 1:2), or catch a glimpse of the logos that was with God, and that was God (John 1:1)...

That said, I think too I have - once again - said more than enough here....

----
Edit:

As for the next pope, I wish for one whom Jesus would consider perfect:

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Luk 18:22

and thus sells all the riches the Vatican and the churches have amassed (yes, Castel Gandolfo too, no cheating...), and give to the poor and feed the hungry...

Arthur_Vandelay

04-14-2005, 02:37 AM

But one shouldn't take for granted, that someone who claims to "report" God's very word necessarily is actually doing just this.

Excellent point.

However, I think it is disingenuous to pretend that many "liberals" only want to talk about married priests and to spread the authority around among the hierarchs of the Church.

I think it is disingenuous (not to mention fallacious) to make generalisations about the motives of "liberals" (or "conservatives," for that matter). It is equally disingenuous to assume that it is only "liberals" who want to talk about married priests and decentralisation. That is, you'd need to specify what you mean by "liberal." Does it mean the same thing in the context of this discussion as it might do in other contexts?

If you truly believe that the Pope exercises some sort of absolute authority, I think you will find that such is not the case at least in the "West".

I think you should take a look at this interview (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1333976.htm#anchor2) with historian William M. Johnston. Here's an excerpt:

Stephen Crittenden: It seems very interesting to me that the further down you go in the cadre, if you like, the more vocal people are. Priests and nuns are very outspoken about what they really think; bishops remain silent, but you can see from their faces and you hear from what they tell you in private, just how crestfallen and demoralised they are.

William Johnston: The way you describe with silence and conformity at the top, and then a gradual loosening as you go down, pertains very aptly to all the Soviet regimes in Eastern Europe, and the regime that also pertains in today’s church. So that, if you will, there’s a pyramid with a maximum silence in control at the top, and then at the bottom there is more freedom of speech. In these 2-1/2 weeks before the next Pontiff emerges, we’re all enjoying the freedom of speech without a central voice and without the apparat repressing anyone, that’s why this moment is special.

So I repeat the following questions, because I think they are important:

Are democracy and the free exchange of ideas good things in themselves? If so, why are they not good for the Church? Or are they only good in certain contexts? Why those contexts, and not others?

Is authoritarianism a bad thing in itself? If so, then why is not bad for the Church to operate upon such lines--as it has done so particularly under Pope John Paul II's reign? Or is it only bad in certain contexts? Why those contexts, and not others?

These questions are important because they bear upon Mrs M's point that "discourse on certain issues is not only inappropriate, but forbidden." Why "forbidden?" Why not "debated," "argued against," "refuted?" If Church doctrine represents the "Truth," then surely it will hold up under any scrutiny. So the Church should have nothing to fear from an open exchange of ideas on any topic among its members; and it certainly has no reason to forbid such an exchange.

However, before we begin to concern ourselves with unity, it would be well if we could at least treat each other - Christian and otherwise - with respect and love.

But it seems that there are limits to this respect and love--at least from the perspectve of those alienated from the Church under John Paul II, including those whose "alternative lifestyle" (a euphemism for homosexuality) has been denounced by the Pope as constituting a "more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm)" which must therefore be seen as an "objective disorder."

Mrs. Maggott

04-14-2005, 02:52 PM

I think we are speaking about different things or looking at the same thing differently.

1. If one is a Christian, there is no question that God's "directions" regarding His worship in the Old Testament represents in fact, God's directions and not simply some writer's invention. Therefore, there is no sense in questioning that fact within the context of a discussion regarding believers and the Church. Of course, for those outside the Church, that is something else again. But you cannot mix the two. You cannot take opinions held by unbelievers relative to Scripture and Tradition and apply or attempt to apply them to believers. To do so is, in effect, "changing the rules of the game" - rather like trying to apply the rules of the game of baseball to the game of football; it doesn't work. Those outside of the Church are perfectly free to hold their opinions but they cannot expect those in the Church to give credence to those opinions especially when they are diametric to Church teachings.

2. In the same vein as above, the Head of the Church is Christ. He did not take polls or ask His disciples what they thought. As Christ was obedient to His Father, He expected obedience from His followers. "Democracy" is an oxymoron in the Church. Now, does that mean that the pronouncements of men - however exalted - are to be accepted unquestioned? Certainly not! That's why the Church had Councils. But those Councils were not a matter of people sitting down and taking a vote on the most "popular" theological idea. As I mentioned, had that been the case, Arius would have won hands down. The ultimate determinant of what the Church would or would not accept was the Truth (with a capital "T") as determined by prayer, fasting and a study of Christ's words and the Scripture that was available - the books of the Old Testament - as well as the testament of earlier Saints and Fathers of the Church - and, finally, the passage of time.

3. I am well acquainted with what many at least American "liberals" have tried to do in the Catholic Church in this country - and it was not simply a discourse on the possibility of married priests. This is a matter of knowledge on my part, not speculation. I have many traditional R.C. friends who are very active in their parishes and so I am well aware of what has been going on for a long time in the American Church. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but you cannot change the truth of the message by becoming annoyed at the messenger.

4. For every interview with someone who believes that the Pope is the "be-all-and-end-all" in the Catholic Church (at least in the US), there are hundreds - no thousands - of examples that can be brought to the fore which show that far too many bishops and priests "go their own way" in these matters. They pay "lip service" to the authority of the Pope, but quietly go about remaking that Church in their own (usually liberal) image.

What more clear example of that can there be than the "seamless garment" criteria regarding an American Catholic politician's "overall" sanctity of life rating. In this "test", American bishops created a list of "pro-life" categories on which politicians were judged. Yes, abortion was one of the categories - but it was of no more importance than any of the others. The rest were mostly about "helping the poor and needy". Of course, the correct stance on all of these issues is/was liberal/socialist. So American Catholics were presented by their bishops with strongly pro-abortion liberal politicians who had higher "pro-life" scores than "pro-life" conservative politicians. Thus Teddy Kennedy who is profoundly pro-abortion was considered on the basis of the "seamless garment" criteria to be more "pro-life" than Henry Hyde, an outspoken opponent of abortion. Why? Because Kennedy supports all the liberal programs so dear to the heart of most Catholic Charities liberals including many bishops.

Now, it is imperative to remember that while the Church has definite a doctrine regarding the prohibition of abortion, She makes no doctrinal determination regarding government programs. She does speak to the necessity of individuals being charitable to the poor, but to my knowledge, there isn't one "socialist" dogma in the Church. Charity is always a matter of individual choice, not government coercion. Therefore, while T.K. and his ilk were given "high marks" by American bishops for their socialist policies, their support and promotion of the only action actually condemned by the Church in canon law and doctrine - abortion - was excused because it was "only one" among the many categories in the "test". Indeed, many bishops and their staffs did not even consider it as a very important category.

Although I am not a Catholic myself, I have had many years of involvement with conservative Catholics within the pro-life movement. Therefore I am aware of what was and is going on in that Church at least in the US and, I suspect, in Europe as well. To imply that I am "guessing" about these matters because I am not a Catholic myself is simply wrong. And, finally, while one may agree with what liberal Catholics are doing - and attempting to do - in the American Church, one may not deny that they are doing it - at least with any credibility.

5. As for the Pope's statements on the homosexual "movement" - and make no mistake about it, he was not speaking about the actions or inclinations individual persons but of advocacy groups which are pushing their own agenda - again he was speaking relative to his understanding of Church doctrine which, as Pope, he was bound to do. He could have said (indeed, might have said) the same thing about heterosexuals who pushed an agenda contrary to Church doctrine (open marriage, bigamy etc.). Sexual sins are not limited to any particular group nor is anyone condemned by his or her "sexual identity". It is behavior that condemns or elevates, not proclivities. Still, you cannot expect the Pope to be politically correct when he speaks for the Church. If he were, he would be failing in his duty to the faithful - and to Christ.

scotsboyuk

04-14-2005, 11:13 PM

1. If one is a Christian, there is no question that God's "directions" regarding His worship in the Old Testament represents in fact, God's directions and not simply some writer's invention.

I suppose that is the great problem; we just don't know.

2. In the same vein as above, the Head of the Church is Christ. He did not take polls or ask His disciples what they thought.

From my limited knowledge of Christianity I was always under the impression that Jesus wasn't trying to create a new religion or be the head of any religious order. Wouldn't that therefore mean that human beings have placed Christ at the head of the Church?

Charity is always a matter of individual choice, not government coercion. Therefore, while T.K. and his ilk were given "high marks" by American bishops for their socialist policies, their support and promotion of the only action actually condemned by the Church in canon law and doctrine - abortion - was excused because it was "only one" among the many categories in the "test". Indeed, many bishops and their staffs did not even consider it as a very important category.

If I believe that people should eat brown bread and you don't, would you refuse my bread if you were starving?

Mrs. Maggott

04-14-2005, 11:59 PM

I suppose that is the great problem; we just don't know.
There is no "problem" for Christians; we know or we certainly wouldn't be bothered following a faith - call it "religion" if you will - in which we had no "faith". Of course, non-believers "don't know" or, in some cases, assert that they do know and that Scripture is merely a human creation.
From my limited knowledge of Christianity I was always under the impression that Jesus wasn't trying to create a new religion or be the head of any religious order. Wouldn't that therefore mean that human beings have placed Christ at the head of the Church?
That is a fallacy put forth by many who make much of the "historical" Jesus as if He was somehow "different" from the Christ of Scripture and the Church. You will find that most who espouse that view also believe that He was nothing more than a "good teacher" and a "good man". But as C. S. Lewis pointed out, that's not what Christ Himself said. So either He was the Son of God or He was a liar or He was demented. Those are the only options open under the circumstances.

No, according to both Scripture and the testimonies of witnesses present at the time (most of which is found in Scripture), the Church was founded by Christ and its spread entrusted to His Apostles and disciples as well as those chosen by them into the future. Certainly in the beginning, many of the Lord's Jewish disciples believed that the Church would be limited to the Jews, but that belief was soon put right as Paul became the Apostle to the Gentiles while Peter continued his work among the Jews. But Christ certainly intended to found a Church to be His Body in the world until the time He comes again.
If I believe that people should eat brown bread and you don't, would you refuse my bread if you were starving?
Sorry, I don't quite understand that reference. I was pointing out that according to the "test" created by the Council of Cathlic Bishops - the so-called seamless garment theology of life - liberal/socialist economic policies "trumped" actual Church doctrine prohibiting the commission, counseling, advocacy or support by Catholics of abortion. Now I am no economic liberal - indeed, I think, as did Winston Churchill (whom you quote) that that economic system merely spreads misery and want around to more people - but that is not the criteria on which any politician should be judged if he or she presents him or herself as a Catholic. For one thing, I may believe (indeed, I do believe) that the poor are much better served by capitalism than socialism. However, whether one intends to help the poor by socialism or capitalism, one is being concerned about the poor and that is what matters as neither economic system has a more elevated spiritual status.

On the other hand, no such argument can be made regarding those who support abortion. The Church condemns that practice and no mitigating circumstances can be presented that would in any way dispense with that condemnation. Ergo, Ted Kennedy would never - in any realistic doctrinal test - be considered pro-life at all, much less more pro-life than a conservative politician like Henry Hyde who opposes abortion. Again this is not a "liberal/conservative" or "socialist/capitalist" argument. It is an example of a very, very flawed "test" to determine just how in keeping with Catholic teachings were the many Catholic politicians in the US at that time. When you have a "test" that gives high marks for something with no doctrinal foundation in the Church - that is, a particular economic system - while ignoring actions diametric to fundamental Church dogma, then in fact, you have no true "test" - at all at least with regard to the Catholic Church.

Now as this "test" was widespread in the American Catholic church and we all know the Pope's position on abortion as well as the importance of the issue within the Church, I think the "seamless garment" business is a pretty fair indication of just how much "power" the Pope exercised over American bishops - very little to be sure. And that was the point that I wished to make when I presented this example. If the Pope was in fact, "in charge" of the American Church in the way many believe to be the case, then his "hot button" issues - like abortion - should have been the "hot button" issues for American bishops, archbishops, cardinals and priests. Does anyone really believe that was the case? Not according to my Catholic friends, it wasn't! Indeed, many of them despaired of the Pope's failure to take charge of the American church and get rid of bad bishops while installing good ones. In one instance, Long Island pro-life Catholics wrote to the Vatican asking that the Pope install a pro-life bishop in the Diocese of Rockville Centre instead of Bishop John McGann with whom they had been at odds for years. McGann found out about it and went ballistic. However, he also began to be more public on the issue of abortion however unwillingly. Of course, it's hard for many Protestants to overcome the vision of an autocrat in the Vatican, but reality is very different at least in Europe and the US.

scotsboyuk

04-15-2005, 12:24 AM

There is no "problem" for Christians; we know or we certainly wouldn't be bothered following a faith - call it "religion" if you will - in which we had no "faith". Of course, non-believers "don't know" or, in some cases, assert that they do know and that Scripture is merely a human creation.

I rarely make correction of others' beliefs, but you do not know. You believe, hence the idea of faith and religion. If you knew then I would warrant that the rest of humanity would also be Christian. You have no irrefutable facts to be able to know, what you have are words that you believe to be the words of God, as do any followers of any religion with regards to their holy texts. If any religion had anything that enabled them to know then there would be no need for other religions because that religion would stand out as being the one that offered the truth beyond shadow of doubt. Belief and knowledge are not necessarily one and the same.

That is a fallacy put forth by many who make much of the "historical" Jesus as if He was somehow "different" from the Christ of Scripture and the Church. You will find that most who espouse that view also believe that He was nothing more than a "good teacher" and a "good man".

You will find that the majority of the world's populace also have that view of Jesus.

But as C. S. Lewis pointed out, that's not what Christ Himself said. So either He was the Son of God or He was a liar or He was demented. Those are the only options open under the circumstances.

Out of interest, did Christ ever call Himself the Son of God or in any way state that He was divine?

No, according to both Scripture and the testimonies of witnesses present at the time (most of which is found in Scripture),

So really just according to scripture ...

... the Church was founded by Christ and its spread entrusted to His Apostles and disciples as well as those chosen by them into the future.

I was unaware that the Bible stated that Christ founded a Church, I thought that was St Paul; the other Apostles and followers of Christ, am I correct in this assumption?

Certainly in the beginning, many of the Lord's Jewish disciples believed that the Church would be limited to the Jews, but that belief was soon put right as Paul became the Apostle to the Gentiles while Peter continued his work among the Jews. But Christ certainly intended to found a Church to be His Body in the world until the time He comes again.

As my earlier points made clear, I was under the impression that Christ didn't intend to found any Church, merely to spread his teachings.

Sorry, I don't quite understand that reference. I was pointing out that according to the "test" created by the Council of Cathlic Bishops - the so-called seamless garment theology of life - liberal/socialist economic policies "trumped" actual Church doctrine prohibiting the commission, counseling, advocacy or support by Catholics of abortion. Now I am no economic liberal - indeed, I think, as did Winston Churchill (whom you quote) that that economic system merely spreads misery and want around to more people - but that is not the criteria on which any politician should be judged if he or she presents him or herself as a Catholic. For one thing, I may believe (indeed, I do believe) that the poor are much better served by capitalism than socialism. However, whether one intends to help the poor by socialism or capitalism, one is being concerned about the poor and that is what matters as neither economic system has a more elevated spiritual status.

On the other hand, no such argument can be made regarding those who support abortion. The Church condemns that practice and no mitigating circumstances can be presented that would in any way dispense with that condemnation. Ergo, Ted Kennedy would never - in any realistic doctrinal test - be considered pro-life at all, much less more pro-life than a conservative politician like Henry Hyde who opposes abortion. Again this is not a "liberal/conservative" or "socialist/capitalist" argument. It is an example of a very, very flawed "test" to determine just how in keeping with Catholic teachings were the many Catholic politicians in the US at that time. When you have a "test" that gives high marks for something with no doctrinal foundation in the Church - that is, a particular economic system - while ignoring actions diametric to fundamental Church dogma, then in fact, you have no true "test" - at all at least with regard to the Catholic Church.

Now as this "test" was widespread in the American Catholic church and we all know the Pope's position on abortion as well as the importance of the issue within the Church, I think the "seamless garment" business is a pretty fair indication of just how much "power" the Pope exercised over American bishops - very little to be sure. And that was the point that I wished to make when I presented this example. If the Pope was in fact, "in charge" of the American Church in the way many believe to be the case, then his "hot button" issues - like abortion - should have been the "hot button" issues for American bishops, archbishops, cardinals and priests. Does anyone really believe that was the case? Not according to my Catholic friends, it wasn't! Indeed, many of them despaired of the Pope's failure to take charge of the American church and get rid of bad bishops while installing good ones. In one instance, Long Island pro-life Catholics wrote to the Vatican asking that the Pope install a pro-life bishop in the Diocese of Rockville Centre instead of Bishop John McGann with whom they had been at odds for years. McGann found out about it and went ballistic. However, he also began to be more public on the issue of abortion however unwillingly. Of course, it's hard for many Protestants to overcome the vision of an autocrat in the Vatican, but reality is very different at least in Europe and the US.

My apologies, I shall rephrase; should a man be condemned for not agreeing with something when he does a lot of good work?

Arthur_Vandelay

04-15-2005, 12:50 AM

If one is a Christian, there is no question that God's "directions" regarding His worship in the Old Testament represents in fact, God's directions and not simply some writer's invention. Therefore, there is no sense in questioning that fact within the context of a discussion regarding believers and the Church. Of course, for those outside the Church, that is something else again. But you cannot mix the two. You cannot take opinions held by unbelievers relative to Scripture and Tradition and apply or attempt to apply them to believers.

But I'm not talking about opinions held be those outside the Church. I'm talking about the expression of opinions within the Church--among those who consider themselves to be believers. And there has been, historically, debate within the Church regarding God's directions--insofar as there has been debate regarding how to interpret the Scriptures. As Walter points out, when someone claims to be reporting God's word it doesn't necessarily follow that they are actually doing this.

In any case, I don't think it is necessary for the Vatican to preclude an exchange of ideas--within the Church--on any topic: if the Vatican line represents the Truth of the matter, then it should hold up under any rational inquiry (in other words, rational argument should "reveal" this).

So, if you do think it necessary for the Vatican to limit the free exchange of ideas among its members, does it follow that you believe that a free exchange of ideas is not a good thing in itself (that is, in all contexts), but is good only in certain contexts? If so, why those contexts, and not others? And do you similarly believe that democracy is not a good thing in itself (that is, in all contexts), but is good only in certain contexts? If so, why those contexts, and not others?

It's obvious that the Church isn't a democracy. Does it need to be a dictatorship?

I am well acquainted with what many at least American "liberals" have tried to do in the Catholic Church in this country - and it was not simply a discourse on the possibility of married priests. This is a matter of knowledge on my part, not speculation. I have many traditional R.C. friends who are very active in their parishes and so I am well aware of what has been going on for a long time in the American Church. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but you cannot change the truth of the message by becoming annoyed at the messenger.

It's not a matter of offending anyone, per se. Rather, it's a matter of making a hasty generalisation about what "liberals" think, based upon anecdotal rather than statistical evidence. That may be offensive to some, but more importantly it's logically fallacious--and therefore the message is unreliable. I'm not calling you a liar or disputing the information that your traditional Roman Catholic friends have passed on to you; but such information cannot be reliably applied to the population of "liberal" Catholics as a whole. There are 66.3 million Roman Catholics in the United States alone, according to this estimate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4243727.stm); you may have many traditional Roman Catholic friends, as you say, but I doubt you have enough to provide you with a sufficient sample of the 66.3 million Roman Catholics in the US (and if they're all traditionalists, you're presented with the problem of a biased sample). A further problem is that you haven't defined what "liberal" means in the context of the Church, and whether that definition accords with or differs from how the term "liberal" is understood in other contexts. For instance, you insist that the issue of married priests is an exclusively "liberal" concern, which is puzzling: I don't see why it would be impossible for people who consider themselves to be "conservative" (at least in other contexts) to be concerned with this matter also. Are there not married priests and pastors in other "conservative" churches? So if you're going to talk about "liberal" Catholics and Catholics who think the Church should change its policy on married priests in the same breath, you need to explain what "liberal" means.

For every interview with someone who believes that the Pope is the "be-all-and-end-all" in the Catholic Church (at least in the US), there are hundreds - no thousands - of examples that can be brought to the fore which show that far too many bishops and priests "go their own way" in these matters. They pay "lip service" to the authority of the Pope, but quietly go about remaking that Church in their own (usually liberal) image.

The interview to which you refer does not dispute that. It points out that the closer one gets to the centre of power in the Catholic Church, the less freedom one has. And bishops and priests who "go their own way" do so at the risk of being disciplined or even excommunicated (e.g. Sri Lanka's Tissa Balasuriya and Brazil's Leonardo Boff)--whereas I think it would be better for the Vatican, if it believes these figures to be in error, to demonstrate this by means of rational argument.

What more clear example of that can there be than the "seamless garment" criteria regarding an American Catholic politician's "overall" sanctity of life rating. In this "test", American bishops created a list of "pro-life" categories on which politicians were judged. Yes, abortion was one of the categories - but it was of no more importance than any of the others. The rest were mostly about "helping the poor and needy". Of course, the correct stance on all of these issues is/was liberal/socialist.

I suppose that this serves to demonstrate that Church rarely pleases everyone. "Liberals" may be unhappy with its position on contraception, women's rights, homosexuality, and so on. "Conservatives," as you suggest, are unhappy with its position on welfare and social justice. (You might have also mentioned the war, asylum seekers).

To imply that I am "guessing" about these matters because I am not a Catholic myself is simply wrong.

You're not guessing; but your information is based upon anecdotal evidence, and thus cannot be used to make reliable generalisations about Catholics, liberal or otherwise.

As for the Pope's statements on the homosexual "movement" - and make no mistake about it, he was not speaking about the actions or inclinations individual persons but of advocacy groups which are pushing their own agenda

Actually, he was speaking about both.

It is behavior that condemns or elevates, not proclivities.

This is where the wording of the document becomes ambiguous. The inclination itself is not a sin, but is nonetheless a "strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Still, you cannot expect the Pope to be politically correct when he speaks for the Church.

We can, however, expect the Pope to listen to those who feel marginalised by the Church, and to try to appreciate matters from their perspective. Is it necessarily "politically correct" to walk a mile in another man's moccasins? A spokesperson for Rainbow Sash recently said the following in a forum on Catholicism:
I'm one of those people who has come forward honestly and openly within the church, and said I am a gay Catholic and I seek dialogue, I seek openness, I seek the ability to work together with the church for a new understanding of sexuality and homosexuality and because I do that, I have not only lost my job as a Catholic teacher and educator, I'm also refused communion on a regular basis, for doing that. Cardinal Law has moved around priests over decades to the extent where he more or less had to get out of town because he could have been sent to jail. He is now the archpriest of one of the major basilicas in Rome and a major, major figure of what's going to happen in the conclave. How can you possibly explain that difference . . . ?
There are those within the church who do seek dialogue with gay Catholics: Archbishop Flynn, according to this Catholic News Service (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0406824.htm) report, allows Communion to be given to Rainbow Sash members. In the same article it is reported that "at one Mass a group of lay people tried to block the aisles to prevent sash-wearers from receiving Communion." Is that a demonstration of the "respect and love" people are supposed to show each other?