Pope John Paul II: Most harmful person of past 25 years?

[Clutch Munny]

Right now the mainstream media is awash in glowing eulogies of JPII. The critical notes that are sounded -- he was internally authoritarian, stacked the college of cardinals with conservatives, stifled discussion on the ordination of women -- are depicted as trivial or at least forgivable in comparison to his love of peace, his campaigning for human rights, and his outreach work to the young.

But if you consider the misery and death that the poorest people in the world have continued to endure over the past decades, especially the women and children, as the result of

-- having too many children to care for and
-- the spread of AIDS

it's hard to think of any one person in the world who was in a position to do more good, but did more harm, than JPII.

By not reversing the prohibition on birth control pills, and by vehemently opposing at every level, in every way possible, the distribution and use of condoms, the Church under JPII actively contributed to the foreseeable misery and death of the most vulnerable people in the world.

To see the media praising him in cultures sufficiently free and cosmopolitan for even most Catholics to disregard the pope's birth control policies to some extent is very frustrating. I think his standing with the Western media stems largely from his opposition to communism in Poland. He was on the "right side" in the Cold War; everything else can be sugar-coated.

Whether he was the most harmful person is an open question. That he was responsible for enormous suffering, I think, is not. It would be useful to see the effects of his policies discussed openly in the media.

[godfry n. glad]

Yeah.

At minimum, they should require that the priests wear condoms. He had the power, and he muffed it.

[Crumb]

By not reversing the prohibition on birth control pills, and by vehemently opposing at every level, in every way possible, the distribution and use of condoms

Maybe, we will get lucky with the next one and the CC will reverse this silly notion. There really is no excuse for this. Does anyone know if JPII had anything to do with the desimination of the "condoms cannot prevent the transmission of AIDS" misinformation that was being spread (maybe still is) by anti-contraceptive folks a while back?

This is surely the CC biggest fault at this point.

[Ronin]

While I certainly didn't agree with the Pope's stance on some hot-topic issues to include that of contraception, I don't feel that makes him harmful to others.

We all, even the poor and uneducated, have to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions (to include our own sexual behavior).

I find that his condemnation of the death penalty and the Iraq war were two of his more beneficial expressions that are truly worthy of consideration.

As an aside, I have found that no one is ever perfectly attuned to my own opinions, yet I know that there is a difference between disagreeing with a position and actually being harmful to others.

One need only look at the mass of humanity currently mourning his absence to understand that the level of comfort his position and personality brought was more beneficial than malevolent.

I think there are some better nominations for the title of "The Most Harmful Person of the Past 25 Years" than this man.

[TomJoe]

Thanks Ronin.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Ronin

We all, even the poor and uneducated, have to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions (to include our own sexual behavior).

This may be applied to the adults, but there are also an obscene number of children in Africa with HIV/AIDS. How can they possibly held accountable? They're parents can be, I suppose.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Ronin

We all, even the poor and uneducated, have to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions (to include our own sexual behavior).

What does "uneducated" mean, in this context, if not unawareness of the consequences of actions, and/or unawareness of better options, when it comes to the spread of STDs and the prevention of pregnancy? On both fronts the church under JPII was resolutely against sexual education and the availability of prescriptions for the poorest and least autonomous, a determination particularly harmful where the local priests and nuns are the sole or major source of education and counselling, and socio-politically powerful as well.

When people are kept ignorant, thus closing off their options, hand-waving about their "accountability" is misguided and callous. I remarked in the OP that the rich, educated, and sophisticated of the West seem to find it easy to minimize the ways in which millions of others are kept poor, uneducated, and naive.

As an aside, I have found that no one is ever perfectly attuned to my own opinions, yet I know that there is a difference between disagreeing with a position and actually being harmful to others.

Nobody has said that the problem is who JPII disagreed with, so it's hard to see the relevance of this remark. The problem was the harm he did -- to men, women and children -- by refusing to regard women's rights as human rights.

One need only look at the mass of humanity currently mourning his absence to understand that the level of comfort his position and personality brought was more beneficial than malevolent.

The reasoning here is unrecoverable. Do you think Stalin wasn't mourned by millions? This man is taken as God's representative on Earth. He is regarded as a father in way that goes well beyond the metaphorical; he was genuinely trusted to be a good father by tens of millions. Of course they mourn him. Does this mitigate or exacerbate any respects in which he did not act in ways that respected their rights and well-being?

The casual weighing, moreover, of "feelings of comfort" against the misery of people's lives and deaths is hard to fathom. I don't underrate the former. But the two rather don't compare.

I think there are some better nominations for the title of "The Most Harmful Person of the Past 25 Years" than this man.

And with argument, this claim might even be made reasonable. I have no deeply vested interest in seeing JPII at the top of the list in any case; I'd just like to see a discussion of the harm he did -- one that takes the suffering of the relevant people seriously.

[Sauron]

Imagine if this pope had been a "traditional" pope. In that scenario, he would have spent his time sitting in the Vatican, issuing decrees, endorsing the status quo, and basically collecting dust. He would never have left Rome, would have made everyone come to him, and simpy waited to die. He would have functioned only as a figurehead to keep the ball rolling; somewhat like the Queen of England does.

Don't set your expectations too high. When you're dealing with the question of the Pope of the entire Roman Catholic Church, you ain't gonna get a freethinker. You can take it as a given that contraception, gays, female clergy, and opposition to abortion are going to be the traditional positions, and not open to compromise. So there's already a lot of damage done there. And if that is all a given pope offers, then everyone can give a big yawn and go home. No progress, just a lot of damage and the same old song and dance.

But John Paul II gave something positive as well, to offset a lot of the traditional RCC baggage / damage. John Paul II used his popularity for getting something positive done. He challenged the Soviets and accelerated the liberation of Eastern Europe. He tried to heal divisions between Jews, Christians, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Russian Orthodox, Muslims, etc. He stood against war in Iraq, both under Bush I and Bush II. He stood against organizations like the World Bank and large corporations that steamrolled over poor people. He broke the mold for the pontificate, and made many of the fossilized "Vatican handlers" nervous by his active and face-to-face approach to his role. And within certain parameters, he expanded the role of women in the RCC church.

This isn't a winner-take-all scenario. And no matter how bad you think things *are* with the RCC and its influence, they could have been a hell of a lot worse under a traditional, stuffy Italian pope. Instead, the world experienced 26 years of a pope that grew up under the Soviets, was influenced early by the horror of Auschwitz, and had a special feeling for the poor and forgotten. With John Paul II, the glass is at least half full, instead of being totally empty as it usually is.

My 0.02.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Maybe, we will get lucky with the next one and the CC will reverse this silly notion.

Maybe...or maybe the next pope will be even more hateful and evil than JPII was.

I've been worried for many years that a war may be coming between xians and atheists. Maybe this next pope will be the one who starts such a war.

Who knows?

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Ronin

While I certainly didn't agree with the Pope's stance on some hot-topic issues to include that of contraception, I don't feel that makes him harmful to others.

We all, even the poor and uneducated, have to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions (to include our own sexual behavior).

I find that his condemnation of the death penalty and the Iraq war were two of his more beneficial expressions that are truly worthy of consideration.

As an aside, I have found that no one is ever perfectly attuned to my own opinions, yet I know that there is a difference between disagreeing with a position and actually being harmful to others.

One need only look at the mass of humanity currently mourning his absence to understand that the level of comfort his position and personality brought was more beneficial than malevolent.

I think there are some better nominations for the title of "The Most Harmful Person of the Past 25 Years" than this man.

I don't get it, Ronin. Why are you helping them?

[Clutch Munny]

Sauron, thanks for your remarks. I disagree, all things considered, but you've offered some arguments that have to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Sauron

Imagine if this pope had been a "traditional" pope. In that scenario, he would have spent his time sitting in the Vatican, issuing decrees, endorsing the status quo, and basically collecting dust. He would never have left Rome, would have made everyone come to him, and simpy waited to die. He would have functioned only as a figurehead to keep the ball rolling; somewhat like the Queen of England does.

Hang on, now; by the same reasoning, a "traditional" Queen would be beheading rival claimants and invading France. The relevant trends are recent ones, and here the comparison is not as favourable to JPII as you make out. Sweeping reform has been accomplished in the church as recently as the Second Vatican Council; JPII actually counts as regressive by that standard.

You can take it as a given that contraception, gays, female clergy, and opposition to abortion are going to be the traditional positions, and not open to compromise.

No. You can't. It was only 1951 when Pius XII declared that the rhythm method was acceptable. For most of the 1960s Western Catholics were confident that Paul VI was going to accept the use of the Pill. It was only 1968 that this was decided otherwise, and in making this decision Paul overrode the recommendation of the papal advisory board on the matter.

It was an entirely open question only a decade or so before JPII became pope. His extremism on the question only seems like an inherent feature of modern Catholicism after 25 years of his leadership.

But John Paul II gave something positive as well, to offset a lot of the traditional RCC baggage / damage. John Paul II used his popularity for getting something positive done.

He was the first pope of the real mega-media age, and it showed. His profile was enormous, and it sometimes made a positive difference. I don't think he did a great deal of good, but if he did, that's wholly consistent with his being responsible for a great deal of harm as well.

He tried to heal divisions between Jews, Christians, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Russian Orthodox, Muslims, etc.

Did he? He alienated the Eastern/Russian Orthodox churches by working to expand the RC presence in their "spheres of influence", and by overtly asserting the RC's primacy as Christian church. His much-hyped apology for the church's wrongdoings was almost hilariously vague, apologizing for nothing specific though receiving great press anyhow; it was one of those apologies that actually shows less real regret and determination to change than no apology at all. He canonized as a martyr a Jewish convert to Catholicism murdered at Auschwitz -- patently murdered because she was a Jew, not because she was a Catholic -- thereby inciting Jewish resentment at the attempt to co-opt the Holocaust.

He stood against war in Iraq, both under Bush I and Bush II. He stood against organizations like the World Bank and large corporations that steamrolled over poor people.

These were positive things to say. It's unclear they made any practical difference.

He broke the mold for the pontificate, and made many of the fossilized "Vatican handlers" nervous by his active and face-to-face approach to his role.

Is that obviously a good thing? The nervousness was at least partly borne of JPII's contempt for consensus-building within the church. Even lots of Catholics were put off by the tension between his preaching against totalitarianism in the wider world and his near-totalitarianism within the church.

And within certain parameters, he expanded the role of women in the RCC church.

Yuck. Within certain parameters? He forbade so much as discussion of the ordination of women, and his actions on birth control hurt women "in the RCC" most of all. In the West, where Catholic couples feel free to practice birth control and even have abortions at rates virtually indistinguishable from non-Catholics, things like having women do the occasional reading in church may seem noteworthy. But it borders on casuistry to offer such practices as relevant considerations against the effects of church teachings and influence in the poorest parts of the world.

And no matter how bad you think things *are* with the RCC and its influence, they could have been a hell of a lot worse under a traditional, stuffy Italian pope.

Could have? What does this show? Perhaps Russia could have been worse under Beria than Stalin; perhaps the USA could have been worse under Alan Keyes than under GWB. My point is, how much harm was done?

Instead, the world experienced 26 years of a pope that grew up under the Soviets, was influenced early by the horror of Auschwitz, and had a special feeling for the poor and forgotten.

The "special feeling" did not seem to extend to taking the practical root causes of their poverty and misery more seriously than the idea that women should be baby machines.

With John Paul II, the glass is at least half full, instead of being totally empty as it usually is.

I don't claim that the glass was totally empty. I see no grounds to think it was anywhere near half-full, and I don't really understand the "usually" qualifier, when we consider a realistic cohort for comparison.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Goliath

I don't get it, Ronin. Why are you helping them?

Why does it have to us against them? (And who's who, anyhow? Sauron's a Them?) That's not what I want the thread to be about, if that matters. I'm just urging a more critical look, beyond the media slogans and master narratives that get thrown around at a time like this.

I thought the same thing when Mother Teresa died -- to the extent that people could stop talking about what an amazingly positive influence Diana had had, they were talking about the amazingly positive influence MT had had. She too campaigned tirelessly to prevent the use of birth control among the impoverished people who hence remained impoverished and needed her (equally tireless) help.

[Ronin]

What does "uneducated" mean, in this context, if not unawareness of the consequences of actions, and/or unawareness of better options, when it comes to the spread of STDs and the prevention of pregnancy?

On both fronts the church under JPII was resolutely against sexual education and the availability of prescriptions for the poorest and least autonomous, a determination particularly harmful where the local priests and nuns are the sole or major source of education and counselling, and socio-politically powerful as well.

When people are kept ignorant, thus closing off their options, hand-waving about their "accountability" is misguided and callous. I remarked in the OP that the rich, educated, and sophisticated of the West seem to find it easy to minimize the ways in which millions of others are kept poor, uneducated, and naive.

The priests and nuns that are the sole or major source of education and counseling also promote other RCC directives regarding monogamy, sexual responsibility and abstinence which are consistent with the Pope’s position on contraception.

These emissaries also provide many other practical services (consequences of actions and “better” options) to the poor and uneducated that they would otherwise never have ever been exposed to.

We may disagree on what we consider "better", but there is consistency with the RCC position.

In short, I don’t hold the Pope responsible for suffering that occurs regarding the issue of contraception because the rest of the message regarding sexual responsibility is also taught consistently with the original position.

Personally, I provide my financial support to UNICEF which (as you may know) supports responsible contraception and provides the poor and uneducated with material and resources to become informed of other options.

Just as I would disagree with a Fundamentalist that UNICEF causes the malicious murder of millions of human lives in the form of unborn fetuses with this practice/position, I also disagree with you that the Pope causes harm to human lives by the RCC practice/position.

It gets no more simple than that.

Nobody has said that the problem is who JPII disagreed with, so it's hard to see the relevance of this remark. The problem was the harm he did -- to men, women and children -- by refusing to regard women's rights as human rights.

That is why I said “As an aside”, Clutch.

That said, the relevance of my remark is that the Pope did not “harm” men, women and children by promoting consistent options and promoting health and educational benefits from a RCC point of view.

You may disagree with abstinence or monogamy as viable options, but it is consistent with beneficial behavior and not harmful behavior.

The reasoning here is unrecoverable. Do you think Stalin wasn't mourned by millions? This man is taken as God's representative on Earth. He is regarded as a father in way that goes well beyond the metaphorical; he was genuinely trusted to be a good father by tens of millions. Of course they mourn him. Does this mitigate or exacerbate any respects in which he did not act in ways that respected their rights and well-being?

The glaring difference is that Stalin directly ordered the killing of millions and advanced an ideology that promoted no other beneficial option. Fear was all that was represented.

You have not shown proof that the Pope acted in ways that did not respect the rights and well-being of others.

Further comparison between the Pope and Stalin is beyond rational discussion in my view.

The casual weighing, moreover, of "feelings of comfort" against the misery of people's lives and deaths is hard to fathom. I don't underrate the former. But the two rather don't compare.

That is because misery exists regardless of the Pope and that feelings of comfort existed for some because of him.

To me that is important because I am not only an atheist I am a Humanist.

And with argument, this claim might even be made reasonable. I have no deeply vested interest in seeing JPII at the top of the list in any case; I'd just like to see a discussion of the harm he did -- one that takes the suffering of the relevant people seriously.

Sorry for the interruption then, I must have misunderstood the thread title and OP.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Why does it have to us against them?

Do you really not know why? Is it not obvious?

(And who's who, anyhow? Sauron's a Them?)

If you don't know, then I don't know why I should bother with this discussion any further.

[Ronin]

I don't get it, Ronin. Why are you helping them?

I am merely expressing my opinion and articulating why I hold that opinion, Goliath.

What is your opinion regarding this issue?

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I am merely expressing my opinion and articulating why I hold that opinion, Goliath.

You're also defending the xians. Why?

What is your opinion regarding this issue?

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

[Ronin]

You're also defending the xians. Why?

That simply doesn't matter to me.

I simplify things by oberving/appreciating deeds and not creeds in any event.

The fact remains that there exist Christians who selflessly bring comfort to others.

There exist all sorts of people with creeds I do not follow/practice/observe who behave in like manner and I appreciate their good works.

I don't see that as defending the creeds, I see it as appreciating the deeds.

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

I'd honestly like to know how you regard the specific issues I have raised in articulating my position in this thread, Goliath.

Frankly, the few posts you have presented here do not provide enough of a foundation for me to make an assessment on your position.

I wouldn't have asked otherwise.

[Ronin]

By the way, here is a message from UNICEF regarding the Pope's passing:

UNICEF calls Pope John Paul "great friend of children"

[Goliath]

If you refuse to further the conversation with a relevant reply, then so be it, Ronin. I won't make the mistake of wasting my time on you again.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Ronin

The priests and nuns that are the sole or major source of education and counseling also promote other RCC directives regarding monogamy, sexual responsibility and abstinence which are consistent with the Pope’s position on contraception.

Indeed. As do "abstinence only" educations campaigns even in America, which suppress birth control information -- and do harm.

These emissaries also provide many other practical services (consequences of actions and “better” options) to the poor and uneducated that they would otherwise never have ever been exposed to.

This is of course consistent with doing great harm.

In short, I don’t hold the Pope responsible for suffering that occurs regarding the issue of contraception because the rest of the message regarding sexual responsibility is also taught consistently with the original position.

If that's what floats your boat, fine. No doubt much in the Taliban's ethos was internally consistent, too. Yet they did much harm.

That said, the relevance of my remark is that the Pope did not “harm” men, women and children by promoting consistent options and promoting health and educational benefits from a RCC point of view.

This entirely fails to follow, however. All sorts of "consistent" perspectives are harmful. My claim is rather clearly not the JPII was self-consciously evil, nor even self-consciously hypocritical. It's that he did great harm. Not by his own lights, you reply. Well and good. But great harm is often done by those whose actions are justified by their own lights. It's simply not relevant to my claim.

The glaring difference is that Stalin directly ordered the killing of millions and advanced an ideology that promoted no other beneficial option. Fear was all that was represented.

Certainly false, as many people did mourn him. (And he did take a nation directly from the feudal to the industrial age; don't suppose that Stalin apologists have nothing to work with.) But I certainly agree that the differences between JPII and Stalin are many and weighty. The point was not that they were morally equivalent. The point was that your reasoning fails. Recall your claim: The fact that so many people were mourning shows that JPII did more good than harm. But this is a non-sequitur -- as the Stalin example shows, and any number of others besides. Mao was mourned with hysteria, but he did enormous harm. (And non-trivial good.)

That is because misery exists regardless of the Pope and that feelings of comfort existed for some because of him.

I don't recall claiming that JPII invented misery, so this seems to be a red herring.

Sorry for the interruption then, I must have misunderstood the thread title and OP.

You must have. You seem to have missed everything from the question mark in the thread title to the closing summary:

Originally Posted by Clutch

Whether he was the most harmful person is an open question. That he was responsible for enormous suffering, I think, is not. It would be useful to see the effects of his policies discussed openly in the media.

Apology accepted.

[Ronin]

And with that we'll just have to agree to disagree, Clutch, and let our words in this thread speak for themselves to those reading them.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by Goliath

If you refuse to further the conversation with a relevant reply, then so be it, Ronin. I won't make the mistake of wasting my time on you again.

Alright, Goliath.

Take care man.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

[...] it's hard to think of any one person in the world who was in a position to do more good, but did more harm, than JPII.

By not reversing the prohibition on birth control pills, and by vehemently opposing at every level, in every way possible, the distribution and use of condoms, the Church under JPII actively contributed to the foreseeable misery and death of the most vulnerable people in the world.

That does seem to be the case. But are you sure you can you say with confidence that the abstinence-only education is directly harmful? I honestly have no idea what the studies say about the relative effectiveness of that method vs. contraception, etc.

Whether he was the most harmful person is an open question. That he was responsible for enormous suffering, I think, is not.

I can't think of any other single person who has had any impact (good or bad) on such a vast number of people all over the world, so I'd have to agree that in doing the harm you mentioned above (with the caveat I mentioned) he does seem to be the frontrunner for position of person who has caused the most harm. I have no idea to what degree (if any) the good things that others have brought up counterbalanced that.

It would be useful to see the effects of his policies discussed openly in the media.

I agree.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Hang on, now; by the same reasoning, a "traditional" Queen would be beheading rival claimants and invading France. The relevant trends are recent ones, and here the comparison is not as favourable to JPII as you make out. Sweeping reform has been accomplished in the church as recently as the Second Vatican Council; JPII actually counts as regressive by that standard.

Well, not really. JPII was an advocate of the 2nd Vatican Council. Part of the job requirement, actually.

You can take it as a given that contraception, gays, female clergy, and opposition to abortion are going to be the traditional positions, and not open to compromise.

No. You can't. It was only 1951 when Pius XII declared that the rhythm method was acceptable.

The rhythm method is *barely* contraception at all. Timing the sexual act is hardly contraception - we're talking about artificial contraception, remember?

I understand RCC doctrine, the rhythm method still leaves open the (very) large possibility of conception, thus the sex act is not entirely for recreational purposes. But with an artificial contraceptive, you introduce a deliberate tool to frustrate the natural divine intent, and the percentage chance of conception is reduced to almost zero. So the fact that rhythm was OK, but condoms/the pill are not -- well, it's not really that hard to understand. And I don't think that the rhythm method really qualifies as contraception, except in a very haphazard way of the definition.

For most of the 1960s Western Catholics were confident that Paul VI was going to accept the use of the Pill.

Hard to see why.

http://are.as.wvu.edu/Slominski.htm
In 1968, Pope Paul VI leaned toward their position when he denied the usage of contraceptives in the official statement “Humanae Vitae.”

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/MARRIAGE.TXT
On November 25, Pope Paul took action and. . . sent four special
amendments on the marriage section to the joint commission. Each
commission member was given a copy, but before hand the "periti" were
asked to leave the room. Tension immediately mounted and Cardinal Leger
sprang to his feet in angry protest. . . . the members were informed by
another letter on the following day that they were not free to reject the
amendments, but only to determine their phrasing.

The first. . . called for the insertion of two words 'artificial
contraceptives' among the 'deformations' detracting from the dignity of
conjugal love. At the same time the Pope called for a precise footnote
reference to two pages in Pope Pius XI's encyclical, "Casti connubii"
where the use of artificial contraceptives was condemned. The commission
excused itself from introducing 'artificial contraceptives', used instead
'illicit practices against human generation, ' and omitted the reference
to "Casti connubii."

It was only 1968 that this was decided otherwise, and in making this decision Paul overrode the recommendation of the papal advisory board on the matter.

Remember, we're talking about whether or not JPII was any worse than some other pope would have been. That's a hypothetical situation, comparing JPII to historical precedents of other popes. And you've just admitted that it was an earlier pope that went against the advisory board that favored contraception.

Whether the decision was overridden or not, mypoint still stands: the pope wasn't going to approve contraception. It's simply not in the realm of possibility. Any Roman Catholics that got their hopes up otherwise, were simply not connected to reality. And your example of Pope Paul undercuts your argument, because he, too, went against the modernization trend and refused to approve contraception. So if you want to claim that JPII was worse, or more reactionary, than some other pope then you'll have to find some other example. Pope Paul -- by your own admission -- went against the trend of modernization.

It was an entirely open question only a decade or so before JPII became pope.

No. It wasn't.

But John Paul II gave something positive as well, to offset a lot of the traditional RCC baggage / damage. John Paul II used his popularity for getting something positive done.

He was the first pope of the real mega-media age, and it showed. His profile was enormous, and it sometimes made a positive difference. I don't think he did a great deal of good, but if he did, that's wholly consistent with his being responsible for a great deal of harm as well.

Now contrast with the usual pope who almost certainly would not have done as much good. Even your recent example of another pope - Pope Paul - regressed against the general flow of Catholic thought.

He tried to heal divisions between Jews, Christians, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Russian Orthodox, Muslims, etc.

Did he? He alienated the Eastern/Russian Orthodox churches by working to expand the RC presence in their "spheres of influence", and by overtly asserting the RC's primacy as Christian church.

Some of the leaders may have been upset. But I don't think that was the universal reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Jo...rthodox_Church

In May 1999, John Paul II visited Romania. This was the first time a Pope had visited a predominantly Eastern Orthodox country since the Great Schism, the event that separated Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Roman Catholicism in the year 1054. The visit was prompted by an invitation from his Beatitude Teoctist, the Patriarch of the autocephalous Romanian Orthodox Church. On his arrival, the Pope was greeted by the Patriarch as well as by the Romanian president at the time, Emil Constantinescu. The Patriarch stated that "The second millennium of Christian history began with a painful wounding of the unity of the Church; the end of this millennium has seen a real commitment to restoring Christian unity."

On May 9, the Pope and the Patriarch each attended a worship service conducted by the other (an Orthodox Liturgy and a Catholic Mass, respectively). A crowd of hundreds of thousands of people turned up to attend the worship services, which were held in the open air. The Pope told the crowd, "I am here among you pushed only by the desire of authentic unity. Not long ago it was unthinkable that the bishop of Rome could visit his brothers and sisters in the faith who live in Romania. Today, after a long winter of suffering and persecution, we can finally exchange the kiss of peace and together praise the Lord." A large part of Romania's Orthodox population has shown itself warm to the idea of Christian reunification.

His much-hyped apology for the church's wrongdoings was almost hilariously vague, apologizing for nothing specific though receiving great press anyhow;

No, I don't think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Jo...rthodox_Church

In Athens, the Pope met with Archbishop Christodoulos, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece. After a private 30 minute meeting, the two spoke publicly. Christodoulos read a list of "13 offenses" of the Roman Catholic Church against the Orthodox Church since the Great Schism, including the pillaging of Constantinople by crusaders in 1204, and bemoaned the lack of any apology from the Roman Catholic church, saying "Until now, there has not been heard a single request for pardon" for the "maniacal crusaders of the 13th century."

The Pope responded by saying "For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us forgiveness", to which Christodoulos immediately applauded. John Paul also said that the sacking of Constantinople was a source of "deep regret" for Catholics.

Later, John Paul and Christodoulos met on a spot where Saint Paul had once preached to Athenian Christians. They issued a "common declaration", saying "We shall do everything in our power, so that the Christian roots of Europe and its Christian soul may be preserved. … We condemn all recourse to violence, proselytism and fanaticism, in the name of religion." The two leaders then said the Lord's Prayer together, breaking an Orthodox taboo against praying with Catholics.

it was one of those apologies that actually shows less real regret and determination to change than no apology at all. He canonized as a martyr a Jewish convert to Catholicism murdered at Auschwitz -- patently murdered because she was a Jew, not because she was a Catholic -- thereby inciting Jewish resentment at the attempt to co-opt the Holocaust.

1. She wasn't canonized for her murder, she was canonized for miracles associated with her after beatification:
http://www.justpeace.org/stein.htm

2. The Jewish protest wasn't about co-opting the holocaust:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=34524

He stood against war in Iraq, both under Bush I and Bush II. He stood against organizations like the World Bank and large corporations that steamrolled over poor people.

These were positive things to say. It's unclear they made any practical difference.

Light a candle....or do we tell the 1,000,000 protesters around the world that their efforts also made no practical difference?

He broke the mold for the pontificate, and made many of the fossilized "Vatican handlers" nervous by his active and face-to-face approach to his role.

Is that obviously a good thing? The nervousness was at least partly borne of JPII's contempt for consensus-building within the church. Even lots of Catholics were put off by the tension between his preaching against totalitarianism in the wider world and his near-totalitarianism within the church.

I'm not a scholar about inter-RCC squabbles. I, too, have heard that JPII was a centralizer of authority, and that many cardinals and bishops resented their lack of ability to run their dioceses the way they would like. However, I would say that any time an organization gets fossilized and out of touch with the people it supposedly serves, it needs a good shaking-up. The RCC struck me as an organization that was too afraid of getting soiled by the touch of the poor, the sick, or the unloved. I think JPII changed some of that attitude.

And within certain parameters, he expanded the role of women in the RCC church.

Yuck. Within certain parameters? He forbade so much as discussion of the ordination of women, and his actions on birth control hurt women "in the RCC" most of all.

However, he expanded their ability to participate in church functions and roles - something none of his predecessors did.

I'm not addressing the diatribe against birth control, since that is a re-hash of the first point in this post.

And no matter how bad you think things *are* with the RCC and its influence, they could have been a hell of a lot worse under a traditional, stuffy Italian pope.

Could have? What does this show?

That life is a game played without total wins or total losses. And that no matter how bad you think things are at the moment, they can always get worse.

Perhaps Russia could have been worse under Beria than Stalin; perhaps the USA could have been worse under Alan Keyes than under GWB. My point is, how much harm was done?

Your examples, however, don't work. All the previous popes before JPII failed to make any of these advances you wanted to see. JPII also didn't make many of them. However, he did do a lot of other positive things - which his predecessors left undone. So they are the same, with regards to things they refused to change. But JPII did other positive things, which differentiated him greatly from his predecessors.

Your example is busted, because you start out at the middle, and show a worse example as the contrast. But in the RCC case, the worse example is the baseline, and the contrast is something better.

In concrete terms, the Philippines were better off under Aquino, than under Ferdinand Marcos. Did Corazon Aquino do everything that we might have liked? Did she rid the govt of corruption, institute universal education and healthcare, and reform the police? No. And in fact, there was corruption in her govt, and nepotism. But in the final balance, she was a damn sight better than Marcos and his thugs. Aquino and JPII are similar in that regard - not perfect, but better than their immediate predecessors.

With John Paul II, the glass is at least half full, instead of being totally empty as it usually is.

I don't claim that the glass was totally empty. I see no grounds to think it was anywhere near half-full, and I don't really understand the "usually" qualifier, when we consider a realistic cohort for comparison.

1. Well, I think the glass was half-full.

2. You haven't provided any examples of "realistic cohorts" (other popes in recent times) who have done better. The only example you did manage to provide (Pope Paul) actually undercuts your argument, because he went retrograde against the tide of modernity by failing to approve of artificial contraception.

And note to the audience - I am not Roman Catholic. I was actually raised Baptist/Pentecostal. But I think it's important for people to understand why they don't like someone / some group, and to make sure those reasons are valid. Anyone who's watched me over on Infidels knows that I also defend Islam and Muslims the same way.

Or, at least, I *used* to do that, until the moderators over there decided it was more important to shield one of their own kind, rather than to be impartial in the execution of their duties. But I digress.....

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Maybe...or maybe the next pope will be even more hateful and evil than JPII was.

Yes, evil. And I suppose Mother Theresa was the Devil Incarnate, given that she advocated the exact same thing.

I've been worried for many years that a war may be coming between xians and atheists. Maybe this next pope will be the one who starts such a war.

What the fuck are you talking about?! Like maybe, maybe you're being facetious in some really strange cock-eyed-American way that I don't understand, but from subsequent posts you actually sound serious.

Do tell, Goliath, you fucking genius, how such a war is likely to take place. Should all we atheists go out and start to kill or capture our local Pastors by day or night, regardless of season, weather, or terrain? Or do we just need to start bombing everything with a cross on it?

Who knows?

Probably some Christian-power-mongering-whitehouse-Hitler-reincarnation whose sending mind control beams into your head as we speak.

There isn't a big enough rolleyes emoticon to cover the level of sarcasm I'd feel comfortable expressing at this point.

Just imagine one from here --->































to here ---->