Why I do not like this Pope....

[Dookus]

First, I speak of him as a political leader, not a spiritual leader, and there is no denying that he IS a political leader. He is also a spiritual leader, but he's not MY spiritual leader.

This Pope is conservative. Nobody disagrees. He is among the most conservative popes in modern history. The Catholic Church has been, under his leadership, a force for conservatism throughout the world.

On policy issues, it's easy to pick out those most of us here on DU disagree with. They include the church's positions on birth control, abortion, the rights of gays, the role of women in the church, among others.

Personally, the birth control issue alone is enough to make me oppose him. Yes, the church often tries to help the poor - but I think a more sane solution would be to stop MAKING so many poor people in the first place. Creating life that is doomed to suffer and die early is immoral, in my opinion. Requiring families to take on greater and greater burdens, so that NONE of the children can be well-cared for or properly educated is both immoral, and politically insane. We cannot solve the problems of the poor without giving them a chance at a healthy diet, medical care and education.

I think continuing the prohibition on condoms - even for people with HIV - is unconscionable. It simply leads to more sickness and death based on a medieval concept of sacred fertility. This alone is enough to make me oppose him.

I don't need to go into great detail on the pedophilia scandals, but it's generally perceived as inflammatory. But no one denies this Pope had a role in hiding pedophiles and obstructing secular justice in these cases.

I hear many claim that "aside from social issues, the pope is liberal." I don't think so. First of all, I think it's silly to cast aside the "social issues", especially family planning and the role of women, as something apart from politics. These ARE inherently political issues.

As to more conventional definitions, people make two claims most often: the Pope opposes the Death Penalty, and was opposed to the war in Iraq. Let's examine them:

On the Death Penalty, the official position of the Catholic Church is found in the catechism -

According to the Catechism (2266):

Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in case of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

Certainly this Pope could have issued a blanket opposition to the Death Penalty - he did not. So we have to presume he believes what I just posted above - that the DP is allowable.

On Iraq, yes he spoke out against the war, and I commend him for that. Many people - in fact, most of the world - spoke out against the war. I did. Robert Novak did. Pat Buchanan did. All sorts of people did. I don't find it particularly admirable that the Pope did - I think ANY right-thinking person would oppose unjust war.

Now I'll be a little unfair - I think the Pope could've done more. In fact, he was singularly situated to actually have a chance at STOPPING the war. My fantasy at the time was that the Pope would call an ecumenical council to travel to Baghdad. It would have included him, the Dalai Lama, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch of the Orthodox church, and other worldwide religious leaders. They COULD have stopped the war if, for the first time in history, they worked together to accomplish a great good. It would've been historic, and would've saved tens of thousands of lives. But as I said, it's somewhat unfair to fault him for what he has not done, instead of what he has done.

Finally, many talk about Liberation Theology as a worthy political force within the church, but they never mention that this Pope has been consistently OPPOSED to Liberation Theology.

So these are the reasons I do not like this Pope. He is too conservative, and has either used his unique power to advance an agenda I find horrific, or he has failed to use his unique power to perform good. I do not wish him ill, and I will not cheer when he dies, but I will hope for a more enlightened leader to take his place.

[Thurston Howell IV]

1. In a radio interview, Timothy Leary said

Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II were 2 of the most evil people in the world, for many of the reasons you stated.

What's with this culture of life that leads to thousands of deaths?

[TheFarseer]

7. Mother Theresa was evil? WTF?

Explain??????

[Dookus]

10. It's not a new view

it's been around for awhile. While committed to comforting the sick and dying, she raised millions that could've been used to actually allieve pain, but she did not do so. She found dignity and salvation in suffering, and did precious little actually allieve suffering. She just gave them a clean, dry place to suffer.

[jonnyblitz]

13. exactly. i usually don't bring this up because people just don't

want to hear it, but it's true.

[H2O Man]

14. Actually

who cares what Tim Leary says? Mother Teresa was a great lady, and Tim was an ass.

[no safe haven]

52. Timothy Leary's dead....

no, no, no, no, he's outside looking in. (Moody Blues)

[Clark2008]

94. Oh. How. Weird!

I was humming this song today - this morning - and I haven't thought about this song since I was a nubile youth listening to my Dad's reel-to-reel - which is quite possibly about 20 years ago.
I'm only 35 - am I supposed to KNOW this song, even?
I'm honestly freaked!

[Freedom_from_Chains]

8. Oh, those deaths

Well those were just sinners, their not rally part of the Culture of Life we are talking about.

[Johonny]

2. He is among the most conservative popes in modern history.

He's the only pope in modern history. The pope before him didn't even last long enough to do anything. I see him as more a man of his times when it comes to his views on family planning and sexuality. I mean he is what 85 years old. He will best be remember for his action against communism and against materialism.

One has to think the pedophilia scandals will keep him from getting saint hood. But you never know. There have been a lot less worthy popes than John Paul II.

[Dookus]

4. my concept of modern history goes back

further than 27 years. Pope John XXIII was decidedly NOT conservative. I was alive during part of his papacy. I consider that modern.

[Johonny]

20. That's the funny thing about the term modern

Was John XXIII views on family or sexuality where much different than this current Pope? If so it sure doesn't show in the church he left behind. Is the current Pope conservative or simply a man of his time? Are the Popes views out of touch with his generation? I don't think so.

[Dookus]

22. Nope

but he made fantastic changes in the Church. It was a time of great change and progressivism for the RCC. It would've been nice if that had continued.

[Johonny]

25. In what way?

What more could he have changed. The catholic mass has certainly changed in the last 25 years depending on the place you go. To me the next logical step for the church was to change the role of women in it. But for that to happen you are going to need the cardinals to all be born post 1960 and to made up of mostly industrialized nations.

[Dookus]

29. Vatican II

changed a lot, most obviously the mass itself. It was allowed to be delivered in the language of the celebrants, not latin. The priests now turned to face the people. It was a HUGE change in the way members perceived their church and their relationship to it.

It was an enormous step in bringing the church into modern times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_II

[Johonny]

38. Yeah but what was next

I know what the previous Pope had done. But what more did you want this Pope to do in that regard? From my experience the Catholic church mass has continued to change and be more progressive (particularlly in progressive areas) under John Paul II.

Vatican II was only what about 200-300 years late in coming.

[Dookus]

40. I'm not sure what you're asking

What I would hope an elightened Pope would do is outlined in my original post.

Do I understand the role of tradition and how difficult it is to manage change? Of course I do. But nonetheless, he is, almost singularly among world leaders, able to make bold changes simply through his say-so. He did not.

[El Supremo]

46. Do you remember the book and movie 'The Shoes of the Fisherman'?

That Pope was going to save the world by feeding China. He removed his crown during his coronation to symbolize his rejection of the materialness of the church.

Many people though that this Pope would do something similar. Both were from Communist countries.

[Dookus]

49. Yes

I read that book many many years ago. Saw the movie, too - Anthony Quinn, wasn't it? Good read, good movie.

[Johonny]

56. Well

You hold up one Pope as progressive for holding the same social views as the current Pope and the same views of mass as the current Pope. Yet you view the current Pope as conservative. I don't get how you can label them as such. I think that's my point.

[Dookus]

58. I see

but I think it's a strange way to look at it. I consider Franklin Roosevelt a progressive, although he did not support gay marriage. I consider Thomas Jefferson a progressive, although he did not give women the vote.

Progressive is relative to the times and the environment. Vatican II was an enormously progressive change for the church, and one that was widely welcomed. I never expected a wholesale change of all the church's policies in one fell swoop - it's the DIRECTION that's important.

This Pope has moved in the opposite direction.

[Midlodemocrat]

116. I respect your right to your opinion, Dookus

and I also thank you for posting them in a respectful manner to those of who are currently practicing Catholics.

My mom, God rest her soul, was a very devout daily communicant. We used to joke that she was one step from the papalcy. She was also a rabid liberal and didn't agree with a lot of the things the Church was teaching, instead calling them 'man's law' and not Jesus' law. I agree with that. I think that people revere the Pope out of a sense of respect for the position, but I do agree with you that this Pope has been unabashedly conservative and has set things back for liberal Catholics like myself for decades to come.

I also think that people generally try to have hope in a situation and that a lot of Catholics like myself would wait and hope that certain remarks out of the Vatican would be less conservative and more liberal leaning. Of course the Church should recognize gays and of course they should abolish the ban on contraception and I hope the new Pope will lead the Church down a more reasonable road.

An example of my mom and 'Man's law'. She had four kids in five years. When she went to confession and tried to talk about contraception, the very enlightened priest told her that that was between her and her spouse. That the Church certainly didn't intend to force her to have dozens of babies she couldn't care for. And, trust me, my mom is sitting at the Right Hand of the Lord right now. She was That liberal and Christ-like in her behaviors, not just her words.

Just my thoughts on this.

[Dookus]

120. thanks midlo

I know a lot of liberal catholics keep hoping for some change. I just doubt that serious change is coming any time soon.

[JVS]

74. My concept of modern history goes back farther than Vatican II

While JPII is not as liberal as John XXIII, he still is a giant leap left from the pre-Vatican II popes.

[Dookus]

75. Well I'm not comparing to all the previous popes...

I'm talking about his role today, in the 21st Century. I think he's regressive.

[JVS]

77. But he's really more of the 20th century and compared with Pius XII et al.

he is fairly progressive.

Rome moves very slowly. Frankly I'm surprised it can liberalize at all, seeing as a pope is expected to remain consistent with previous popes.

[Dookus]

79. I'm sorry

but I don't see how you can call this Pope progressive by any means.

The times, they are a-changing, and the church should at least try to keep up. Compared to the norms of the Western world today, this Pope is a throw-back. I see nothing progressive about him.

[JVS]

81. I think he's center-left as far as popes go

The Church's very tradition for at least 1000 years has been to resist change. I think this pope is about the same as he was in 1978 when he started, it's the rest of the world that has moved on. I think that the backlash to Vatican II is yet to come

And I think it is fine that you don't like the pope. I don't like him either

[Dookus]

84. center-left in what way?

In that he didn't use the Iron Maiden or start a crusade?

Compared to the politics of the world today, I don't see how he's left of very much.

[JVS]

85. If you want to see what he did that was leftist, check RW criticisms

http://www.truecatholic.org/nop/menu.htm


Among the gallery is

"In “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”, a book by anti-pope John Paul II, he said “Buddhism is a religion of salvation.” This is in direct contradiction to past magisterium and particularly, Pope Eugene IV who said, “Buddhism is a religion of damnation.”

The bogus Vatican II documents on Freedom of Religion are seen working in the fabric of JP2, saying that all religions are equally good. God established only one Church by which we may be saved, and that is the Catholic Church."

Another caption in the gallery.

"Would a true pope allow himself to be annointed by a pagan priestess who believes not in the the Blessed Trinity? NEVER.

How many pagan religions does this man have to endorse, before the world comes to realize that John Paul II is not a Catholic and certainly not the pope?"

Or this one

"The culmination of JP2's ecumenism was achieved on October 31, 1999, when a meeting was conducted between the Vatican and the Lutheran Federation in an attempt to bring unity of doctrine between the Novus Ordo Catholic Church and the Lutheran religion.

While this meeting and unity has no bearing on the true Catholic Church, it does raise several items of consideration for those who believe they are Catholic and those who claim to be Lutheran"

[Dookus]

88. yes

they don't like some symbolic actions he took. But I'm talking about policies.

I don't think being respectful of other faiths is necessarily "leftist". Politically, he is a very conservative force.

I know what you're trying to say, and yes, there's no doubt he could've been more right-wing. But not a lot.

[JVS]

90. The Popes policies on religious matters are hardly symbolic!

They might not seem significant to you or me because he isn't our leader, but bear in mind that to Catholics he is primarily a religious leader and only (and often distantly) secondly one to take political cues from. The actions he has taken in that field are a very far cry from the olden ways.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that within the context of being pope, he's rather liberal. On the other hand if we were to let him govern a county with the same population as the church he governs, he would easily qualify as right wing despot.

[Dookus]

92. well put

and I can agree with that.

[jakefrep]

6. I think...

...that a Pope in better health than John Paul II would have dealt more effectively with the pedophilia scandals. The fact that the man has been in poor health for a long time makes me question a) whether or not the Church has been getting effective leadership and b) who's REALLY in charge?

[Johonny]

18. yeah

me too.

[Dookus]

21. Nobody was

asking the Pope to personally kick the crap out of the pedophiles. It wasn't an issue for which he needed physical strength. He needed to his voice and his moral authority to resolve the problem.

By all accounts, he was mentally sharp until recently, and his role in the pedophile scandals goes back a long time.

I think he chose to do what he did, with full knowledge of his actions.

[TheFarseer]

3. You're right on most of that

I hope the next Pope will reverse the stance on birth control and let priests marry. I don't believe the church should support abortion, just my opinion. I think women are making strides in the church. I haven't given much thought to what the church's stance on gays should be.

[Dookus]

9. I doubt very much the next Pope

will make any such changes. First, the College of Cardinals is composed almost entirely of appointees made by John Paul II - they are heavily conservative. Second, conventional wisdom is that the next Pope will be an older, non-controversial choice meant as a place-holder, to maintain the church while it finds its bearings after this long papacy.

I think we are many decades away from seeing birth control being allowed.

As for abortion, I don't expect the church ever to support it. But I DO expect it not to get involved in electoral politics over the issue.

As to its stand on gays, I think it ought to embrace the radical notion that we are full people, deserving the same rights, respect and dignity of everyone else.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. But no one denies this Pope had a role in hiding pedophiles

Just as the Vatican had a role in helping many Nazi’s escape Germany at the end of WWII. However, you can't talk about that either.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

11. I'm not Catholic and I don't have a strong opinion on the Pope.

However, I would like to say that your post is a good example that one can be strongly critical on a religious topic and NOT resort to bigotry. Good for you! :toast:

[Tweed]

121. Agreed and seconded

Great post Dookus

[LittleClarkie]

12. That's seems reasonable

I esp. liked your last two lines. Agree or disagree, well said.

[El Supremo]

15. You sort of left one out.

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has the power and money to end extreme poverty. This must be done in conjunction with the promotion of birth control.

I don't hate this man or any Roman Catholic, but I have a lot of issues with their church. I can forgive Karol for his sins and his mistake of not changing his church.

[Dookus]

17. well

I think I did address that. We can't address poverty without family planning - they are inextricably linked. We could end poverty in a generation if we chose to.

[applegrove]

16. For me - it is enough he does not encourage safe sex. I do not like him.

When people are in grave danger & will dye because of your beliefs.. or even if their lives will be diminished... I do not go for that. Who does? I guess Catholics or something.

[Fenris]

19. That's a very reasoned analysis, Dookus

He has lead a very interesting life, and I commend him for some of what he has done (including his encouragment of Polish resistance to the Communist government and finally apologizing to the Jews) but I do not like the vast majority of his actions as pontiff.

[ultraist]

23. Well said!

I oppose an institution, be it religious or not, that promotes oppression and consequently, encourages violence against Gays and women.

Gays are women are human beings and deserve full equal rights, despite what Bible quotes they use to cloak their argument.

Making public demands such as, 'people should not use condoms, even if they have AIDS,' is unethical.

It's unfortunate, that an institution, as powerful and wealthy as the Catholic Church, chooses to ingore basic humanitarian principles in so many of their positions.

[BigBearJohn]

24. I wonder what would happen here if someone posted why they dont like some

Jewish leader. I'm sure it would start a major flame war. The Pope is a spiritual leader. Are we now going to start posting threads as to why we don't like various spiritual leaders of the world?

[jonnyblitz]

26. the pope inserts himself into politics and promotes oppressive

doctrine. he is fair game.this is a ahem ((PROGRESSIVE)) discussion board, expect dissent from the pope's views on here. geesh

[El Supremo]

27. Does Sun Young Moon count?

I'd like to see that nut attacked here.

[Lars39]

28. He's not just a spiritual leader, he's a head of state.

[Dookus]

30. Did you read my post?

I said the Pope is a spiritual leader. I also said he's a political leader, and I think that is undeniable.

If you have policy issues with a Jewish leader, I'm sure you'd be free to discuss them here.

[BigBearJohn]

42. If Sharon was dying, I would not post "Why I dislike Sharon" thread

[Dookus]

44. There's a little box

next to the thread title in the forum listing that will make it go away.

[BigBearJohn]

47. Ok. I will do just that. But you insult most catholics with your post.

I didn't think that was the purpose of DU.
I don't berate other person's religious leaders.
I am disappointed. But I'll get over it.
If the rule is, "every topic is fair game"
then so be it.

[Dookus]

50. I did NOT insult most catholics with my post

unless you believe ANY analysis of the church and its policies that is less-than-favorable is an insult to Catholics. THAT, my friend, is more a problem of your perception than my statements.

I was respectful. I did not even MENTION Catholics other than the Pope. If you are determined to take offense where none is meant, that is your issue. Have fun with it.

[Merope215]

91. I thought your OP was great

I'm a Catholic (but an agnostic one), but I agree with you. I think it's hard for some Catholics to take a dispassionate view of the Pope and see him as a political leader, precisely because most Catholics view him pretty much only as a spiritual one. If people are getting offended, that's probably why. But I thought your post made plenty of entirely valid criticisms in a reasoned and open way, which, as we've all seen recently, is hard for many people. :P It was really a model of thoughtful, respectful, and civilized discussion.

[BigBearJohn]

51. Ok. I'll let it rest.

[tishaLA]

86. As a Jew, I will tell you...

I'd be happy if you posted a "why I dislike Sharon" thread now, when he's in the throes of death, or when his family is sitting Shiva. He's a scoundrel and I doubt any progressive Jew would deny that.

[Dookus]

87. LOL

thank you Tisha. I agree with you on all counts.

[Behind the Aegis]

100. You do understand that Sharon is NOT a religious leader?

Sharon is not the "head" of Judaism. Also, I think you'd find many would love to see a thread like that, some because Sharon is not an effective leader and others...well, let's just say "any excuse" will do.

I feel that Dookus did a great job at discussing his issues with the Pope. He did not attack him as a religious leader, but as someone who shaped the policies of MANY countries. You cannot expect him to be exempt from criticism solely based on the fact the he is also a religious leader.

[BigBearJohn]

123. You're right, but I would hope he could pick a better moment to do it.

[Dookus]

126. Why?

Every news outlet is devoted to covering this pope and his legacy. What's wrong with examining ALL of it at this moment?

Despite the way some people act here, the Pope is not your grandfather. You don't know him. He's not family. He's a world-famous political figure. The moment of his death is a fine time to examine his legacy.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

35. That's funny. I actually posted that the OP is a good example...

...of how to give a critical analysis that is not offensive. I certainly think any religious leader can be criticized for his/her policy positions and political stances. I almost wonder if you're not being serious?

[ultraist]

39. DId you miss all of the Reverend Jackson threads?

Being a "spiritual" leader who has great influence in political world affairs does not exempt someone from critical analysis. He is not my "spiritual" leader. Not all people are Catholic.

Where would we draw the line? Should we not express our opinions on Randall Terry too?

There is nothing wrong with expressing our views about any "spiritual" leader or any particular religion.

Why is it ok for religious leaders to be out their expressing their views on Gays, women's rights, etc but not ok for us to disagree?

[BigBearJohn]

31. I'm not religious, but the man is DYING. This is in inappropriate IMHO

[Dookus]

34. I disagree

this is exactly the right time to discuss his contribution.

[WilliamPitt]

32. There isn't much denying what you've said

The hard-line social stands taken by this Pope and the church in general is one of the reasons Catholicism is in full retreat in America. It began happening well before the pedophilia scandals; I remember several years ago, at the funeral of my grandfather's brother, speaking with an elderly nun who lamented that no one was joining any orders to become priests and nuns anymore. Churches were closing.

I like the church's stand on the death penalty, and the pope had good things to say about the war. The Paulists within the church do great social justice work.

The conflict I have over the church can be summed up in something that happened while I was out in San Francisco. The city was going to extend full family benefits to gay and lesbian city employees. The church said no, you can't do that. At first, the city was geared up to tell the church to get screwed...until the church reminded them that it was the Catholic priests, lay folk and parishes that took care of 95% of the AIDS patients in the city, and if the city went against the church on the benefits, the church would be forced to withdraw that care.

There's the conflict. Part of me bellows "Who are these assholes to get in the way of family benefits for gay city employees? How dare they?"

The other part of me says, "Holy shit...95%?"

So there it is.

[Dookus]

37. I'd like to know how they get that number

if they're saying their services reach 95% of people with AIDS, that's possible. But I assure you they are NOT providing full care for 95% of AIDS patients in SF.

[ultraist]

43. I find it extremely difficult to believe they are "taking care" of 95%

of AIDS patients in SF. And if they were, threatening oppression against Gays and using their "charity" work as leverage is unethical.

True giving and generosity doesn't have strings attached. WWJD?

[WilliamPitt]

45. This was what was reported at the time

It may well be wrong.

[Dookus]

48. As I said

I think it was probably very carefully worded to give a certain impression.

It's possible that 95% of people with AIDS in SF, at some point, take advantage of SOME service offered by the church OR its lay members (which means that any lay catholic volunteering for a secular agency gets to claim those patients as being served by the church).

Also, much of the money, both federal and state, that goes to AIDS patients may go THROUGH agencies aligned with the church, but it is NOT church money being used. That same money could certainly be redirected to secular agencies with little disruption.

[ultraist]

55. Federal grants, state funding, and non profit funding for AIDS in SF

http://www.rense.com/general11/plfer.htm

Partial list:

AIDS Health Project, which received $977,701 in federal grants in 2000,

Positive Force, which receives $1 million a year from the CDC

HIV Stops With Me (www.hivstopswithme.org), a CDC-funded San Francisco- based Web site, receives $1 million in CDC money channeled through the San Francisco Department of Health

Federally funded $1.7 billion Ryan White CARE Act.

According to the San Francisco AIDS Foundation's tax forms for 1999, the nonprofit organization, whose annual budget is listed at more than $18 million,

San Francisco, meanwhile, continues to reap the lion's share of AIDS funding...

San Francisco, which experienced a devastating death toll early in the epidemic, receives twice the amount per patient ($5,980) than do other cities whose actual caseload is now comparable to San Francisco's...

To be clear, I in no way am stating that AIDS gets enough federal and state funding. I agree with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco on this one, that more funding is needed.

[Lex]

54. The Catholic Church doesn't advocate the use of condoms or measures

that would prevent HIV spread, but they take care of a large part of those dying of AIDS?

[mondo joe]

64. How do priests and parishes "take care" of AIDS patients anyway?

I'm curious.

[scarletwoman]

33. I totally agree with you on this, and I rarely agree with you on ANYTHING!

As a long-ago (40+ years) escaped Catholic, I have found it quite amusing/interesting to realize that I have continued to be reflexively interested and hopeful regarding the Papacy. I truly wanted to see the Pope as a spiritually enlighted being, a champion for a higher order of human sensibility. HAH! :P

Yeah, years ago I had some hope for "the Polish Pope". I thought he might be someone with a unique worldview -- due to his background -- someone who might possibly breathe some new life into the intermittantly faint stirrings of a social justice consciousness within the Church.

I was totally mistaken, of course. The main thrust of his papacy was the assertion of the primacy of traditional Catholic doctrine. He was never a champion of the People, he was only a champion of Orthodoxy.

Such a disappointment...

I thought at one time that he may have had the makings of a Great Soul, but he was just another defender of heirarchy and authoritarianism.

The Catholic Church, for which I had still retained some respect and affection -- once time and distance had cooled my youthful antipathy -- is a broken and failing institution. The next pope will be irrelevant.

Happily and thankfully a Buddhist,
sw

[Dookus]

41. Yes...

I didn't specifically mention his reliance on orthodoxy and authoritarianism. I guess that's just all background to my specific policy objections.

And I would imagine that if we met and talked, we'd agree on most things. This site exists, though, largely for us to discuss the things we DON'T agree on.

[scarletwoman]

60. Heh...

"I would imagine that if we met and talked, we'd agree on most things." Since we most likely won't ever meet, who knows? ;-)

I just wanted to give credit where credit is due. You wrote a good post and made some salient points with which I quite agreed.

"This site exists, though, largely for us to discuss the things we DON'T agree on." I must admit, I don't really see it that way. My participation in DU is mainly predicated on my enjoyment of conversing with people of like mind -- which is why you will rarely find me in a flame thread.

In any case, if we ever DO meet, I'll be happy to buy the first round.

Peace,
sw

[readmoreoften]

125. Funny, I agree with almost everything Dookus says! n/t

[Dookus]

127. aww....

you're obviously a wise and intelligent person, and I bet you smell good, too. :)

[DemBones DemBones]

36. Thank you for saying "I will not cheer when he dies" and

"I do not wish him ill." I have only scanned through the rest of your post at this point but it seems to be a rational discussion of why you disagree with him, free of the venom that is too often employed by ALL of us, myself included, when discusssing someone we dislike or disagree with.

With His Holiness apparently nearing death, I opened this post with some trepidation,
but it seems to be a mostly fair and appropriate post. I noted some things you said that I disagree with, not because I necessarily disagree with your position on an issue but because I'm not sure you understand the powers that popes do not have.

I have many disagreements with Jerry Falwell but I do not wish him ill and I will not cheer when he dies. I wish he would have done some things differently.

I wish John Paul II would have done some things differently, too, but he is a product of a different time, a far different time than an 84 year-old who has spent all his/her life in this country. And I believe he truly is a good man, who has his blind spots as ALL of us do, myself included.

Tonight, I pray for John Paul II not to suffer unduly, that he may have what we Catholics call "a happy death," at peace and with minimum discomfort at the end.

When he is gone, I will pray for his soul and remember the good he did; (not forgetting the mistakes, but honoring his achievements.} And I will pray for a pope who will do a few things differently while keeping us Catholic. The Church has changed slowly throughout its 2000 year history and that is a source of our strength, but some issues need to be re-examined in a new papacy.

Peace,

DB DB

[Meshuga]

57. Well said...

I'm not a catholic or a christian at all, I'm a Jew, and I feel terrible for John Paul II especially watching his health as of late. Hopefully he will not suffer and if he goes I wish it will be peaceful.

Take care!

[NC_Nurse]

53. There is something hypocritical and paradoxical

about being pro-life and anti-protection (i.e. condom use). But hey, why try to introduce logic into a religious discussion? I suppose it's all about "abstinence" instead of trying to be realisitic.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

He may be a wonderful human, and he would have been a great leader a few hundred years ago.....

I'm not dancing on his grave either, but we need some people who are more enlightened leading the worlds religions and nations.

If all life has value...that means gays, criminals, communists, Arabs, or whoever it is one is afraid of...

[jonnyblitz]

59. 'why try to introduce logic into a religious discussion? "

why indeed.

[DerekG]

61. This Christian certainly has qualms with John Paul II

Yes, I recall reading an essay by Michael Parenti in which he asserted that, in the late 70's and early 80's, the Pope expelled many of the radical priests from the urban centers of Latin America and sent them into the rural areas. Goodbye liberation theology.

And though I'm not bothered by the Church's stance against abortion, I find their condemnation of birth control to be insidious.

[mondo joe]

62. Would you like him in a house? Would you like him with a mouse?

Would you?

[El Supremo]

63. The Catholic Church and Contraception from an Atheist

I don't know how much of this is true, but it makes interesting reading.

Here is a snippet:
This aversion to the condom is brought to its logical conclusion by the ruling of Pope John Paul II during the International Congress of Moral Theologians in Rome in 1988. According to the pope a hemophiliac with AIDS cannot use condoms to have intercourse with his wife. Condom is a method of contraception and "no reason, however grave" will allow its use. The fact that a condom can help reduce substantially the risk of the hemophiliac infecting his wife with the HIV virus is irrelevant. The unfortunate man therefore cannot experience normal marital relations with his wife. And if he cannot abstain, it is better for him to infect his wife than to use a condom. As Ranke-Heinemann remarked: "If the pope weren't the pope, his position might put him at odds with the state penal code."

Read it all at:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/contraception.html

All I know is that laws must change with the times, whether they be religious or secular. 2 or 3 thousand years ago we were not destroying all of this planet like we are now.

[Princess Turandot]

65. JP II did not invent any of the policies which you itemized..

they existed before him, in some cases for a very long time.

I think he is far from being the most conservative Popes in history.
Those were the Popes who threw you in the slammer (or worse) for disagreeing with Church teachings, when they had the power to do so.

On the matter of the death penalty, he actually did issue what pretty much is a universal condemnation of the death penalty, and what became Church policy, regardless of the text of whichever version of the Catechism you are quoting above. From Para. 56 of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical letter on various threats to human life which Pope John Paul II issued on March 25, 1995.:

"This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence."(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated."

(from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html)

JPII was probably the only Pope in history to oppose the death penalty in any way. He routinely attempted to intervene in executions in the US, including that woman mocked by George Bush in Texas when she asked for clemency.

JPII also reached out to other religious faiths in an unprecedented way, including to the Jews. He was the first Pope to ever enter a synagogue.He addressed issued related to the Church's position during WW2, not to everyones' satisfaction, but he was also the only Pope to do so.He has elevated numerous people of color to higher positions in the Church.

I'm not sure whether the Pope or any other religious leader could have stopped the invasion of Iraq, not that I recall every single one of them speaking out against the war. Were they to order soldiers of their faith not to fight? You want the US Air Force reporting to the Pope or the Dalai Lama? You think the Pope could have stopped George Bush from his personal messianic complex? You think Saddam Hussein gave a rat's ass about any religion? You also need to remember that he was already into his 80's and quite ill when we invaded Iraq. He was not the same man who told the Kremlin that if they invaded Poland to stop the Solidarity Movement, they would need to kill him as the tanks passed over the border, because he would be the man standing in front.

I completely agree with you that the prohibition on condoms is morally wrong. I would also point out however that HIV (and population growth) is spreading largely in countries now where the Catholic Church has little if any influence. In terms of population control, most women in countries where there is extensive Catholic populations use birth control regardless of what the Church says. If I recall correctly from a UN report that I read recently, 70% of the women in South America use birth control. I bet a lot of them are Catholics. (I don't know if I saved the link or not.) I assume the percentages in Europe & the US are much higher.

I don't know whether the Pope personally covered up any of the church sex scandals. I've never seen evidence of that one way or another. Certain American bishops of course did.

As to gays and gay sex and gay marriages, the Pope reiterated the Church's long standing view on these matters. I think the Pope has even gone as far as to say that homosexuality may likely not be just a 'choice' - I think I read that on Belief-Net - it's gay sex/marriage that the Church objects to. They are regretfully not alone in that view in the religious world; I read somewhat to my shock, also on belief-net, that mainstream Buddhism also takes a dim view of gay sex. (I didn't expect them to have an opinion on it at all.) I don't approve of the Church's view of gay people, but this Pope did not invent it and it's going to be a long time before that changes.But at least they don't advocate chopping your head off because of it.

[El Supremo]

67. So you are saying...

that he has gone 100 yards toward the goal of a mile. Well, at least he did that. But it is not enough!

The Roman Catholic Church is so far behind the times that they are an impediment to the future existence of mankind.

Yes, I am a Christian. A Christian whose forebearers had rejected Rome since the Reformation. In the past it was mostly theological differences. But today it is morality.

[Princess Turandot]

72. The Church moves only slightly faster than glaciers..

that may or may not change in the future. John XXIII was probably the most progressive Pope of the last 2 centuries. My only point was that John Paul II was far from its most conservative, and outside the realm of sexual matters/policies, did do some good things.

In the interest of amicability, I won't ask if your ancestors were the ones who adopted the Spanish Inquisitors' moral habits of burning witches at the stake in America.

Peace.

[Dookus]

73. I never said he was the

most conservative pope in history. I said in modern times.

And he has been horribly conservative. And authoritarian. And regressive.

Can you tell me what he HAS done that a good progressive should admire?

[Princess Turandot]

111. Read my original response to you..

His life is a combination of what he is as a man and what he did as leader of his Church.

As a young man, he was I believe in the Polish resistance and attended seminary school in hiding because of the Nazi's.

Many people give him great credit for starting the Domino effect that brought down the Iron Curtain. That came up several times when Reagan died, while people were fawning over Reagan and Thatcher.

He sought reconciliation & dialogue among a variety of faiths, to a degree that pissed off other members of the Vatican. Given the premise that some have, that religious differences are often the root of violence, that was a very valuable thing.

He actually left the Vatican, so Catholics around the world could see him and attend services with him.That alone made the Pope more of a player on the world stage.

He walked into the cell of the Turkish nut who almost killed him, and while their conversation was private, most certainly forgave him.

He set the Church on a course against the death penalty which simply did not exist before. People can parse his words all that they want, but as I said to another poster, he said the Church believed that the DP should only be used if absolutely necessary to protect society from one individual, and that given modern prisons & police forces, the chance of that condition ever occuring were virtually zero.The Vatican sent letters at his direction to American governors before most executions, begging them to convert the sentences to LWOP.

He made a sort of apology to the Jews for the Church not acting more aggressively during WW2, altho he did stop short of criticizing the Pope at the time, which was what primarily upset those people who were disappointed with his statements.

He has spoken out against wars of aggression. Your thoughts on what he might have been able to do to stop the war in Iraq are just too unrealistic IMO given his age and particular circumstances.

He believes in evolution.

Even in terms of the US presidential election, the letter he had sent out under Ratzinger's name advised Catholics to evaluate candidates on a totality of issues, not just one, that being abortion. Not all Catholic bishops were forceful in their communication of his views, but unfortunately, given his age and health condition, he was not in a position to do much of anything about that at that point.

Everyone is a product of many things, their genes, their experiences, the times they grew up in. As a Pole, in a country allowed to be a political football for centuries, Polish identity was held together by an unwavering and yes, likely rigid, Catholic faith, despite its banning under Communism. That's what in the end caused Solidarity to stand up and tell their puppet government to go jump in a lake. That's where the man's persona was formed, and the success of the adherence to those beliefs is what he believed saved Poland. Those beliefs were not likely ones he would easily abandon.

As a female, I never have felt particularly oppressed by the Church, perhaps because I never had an inclination to be a priest. I've worked with American Catholic Sisters, and most of them are pretty damn cool, not under any man's thumb and certainly not women who do not think about what they do, including distributing condoms in 3rd world countries. None of them have seemed oppressed to me, and they've all seemed far more interested in service to world-wide impoverished communities than sitting on their duffs saying Mass each day in an American parish.

I fault the Church for its unilateral stance on birth control. I don't fault it for its stance on abortion. I'm pro-choice & a supporter of Roe v Wade, but any religion or person has the right to its views on a matter which is so complex.I think it needs to revisit its position on married priests as well.

He may not have made any progressive changes in the Church's view of homosexuality, which I suspect is the hot button issue here on DU, altho it is not unique to Catholicism. However, he did not invent those issues, nor is he responsible for prejudice against gays in the world, something I've seen him accused of in various threads. It's possible that he could have made some small progress in that area, but it would have taken concensus by a large number of senior church leaders, would have taken years and may have accomplished nothing in the end. The Vatican II reforms instituted by John XXIII, which included notions so radical as saying Mass in local languages, took years of meetings and compromises to accomplish, and in the end, still left many people believing that Vatican II should never have taken place. Rumors abound that John Paul I was murdered by the Vatican because he was too liberal, after being Pope for barely a few months. If you believe that, how far do you think this Pope would have gotten had he announced one day that he was in favor of gay marriage?

I also do not know whether he might have been a more iconoclastic Pope if he had not suffered such a severe injury early on in his Papacy. I don't believe that the man has a vindictive bone in his body.

I doubt any of this will impress you, but as Popes go, he is an extraordinary man.

[Dookus]

112. I agree

that some of those things were good things to do, though I think you overstate some of them.

I never claimed he was evil. I never claimed he was a bad man.

But I DO think much of what you admire about him were symbolic actions, and as a gay man, I think his attacks on me outweigh them. As somebody concerned with poverty and women's rights, I think symbolic acts don't measure up to what needs to be done.

Claiming that his wishes weren't followed as regards American elections is silly. He had merely to say the word, and the bishops would stop their political activities against Kerry and other Democrats.

I, too, admire his forgiveness of his would-be assassin. I admire his outreach to other faiths. I admire his words against the war. But in the end, none of those acts made a single lick of difference in the lives of real people. His positions on gays, on women, on birth control, have made HUGE differences in the lives of many millions.

[El Supremo]

115. Oh, I'm sure some of them were not enlightened enough.

However, my namesake ancestors, who lived near Salem, were forced to become Puritans in name only. They were not that accepting of any dogma. Our progenitor (1st in America) did not flee religious persecution in England. He just wanted to get rich in America.

My Quaker ancestors did flee both England (the Anglican church) and Ireland (the Roman Church) because of persecution.

My Southern Presbyterian ancestors probably used the Bible to justify their ownership of slaves. I understand Catholics did the same thing.

I guess we're getting a little off track. I think that one reason for all the talk about what this Pope has accomplished, is that with his death and the election of a new Pope, the church has an opportunity for change. That change causes much anxiety in some people.

[ultraist]

70. "But at least they don't advocate chopping your head off because of it."

Ah, yes, we should be grateful they are not advocating chopping off heads.

I don't see any difference in the statement Dookus posted on the church's stand on the death penalty and what you posted. Both state
limited use.

"...in case of extreme gravity, the death penalty."

"...it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. "

[Princess Turandot]

71. If I had dredged up the entire statement..

it says that the modern penal system makes the death penalty effectively unneccesary, since it should only be used if it was the only option to protect other members of society, not as retribution. I'd say that means he is opposed to it ever being used, since it's hard to conceive of a situation where a convicted murderer would need to be executed to protect society. I can't think of an example,
other than such a person escaping after conviction, but that's a different matter.Perhaps you can think of an example.

I do not agree with the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality.
I only note that there are religions & governments with far more totalitarian views towards gay people than the Catholic Church, despite the fact that it's the most cited in those types of discussions.

[Dookus]

110. of course there are

more totalitarian states and systems.

I'm finding a constant theme among the defenders of the Pope - to compare him to past popes. I will stipulate now that he was better than the Borgia popes.

But that is not my point. Being better than cheating, murdering, thieving predecessors isn't much of a compliment. He is conservative FOR HIS TIME AND ENVIRONMENT.

[LanternWaste]

66. I've never met the Pope-- can't really say if I'd like him or not

Well, I may disagree with him on a handful of issues (but then again, I disagree with even my closest friends on a handfull of issies); yet since I've never met the Pope, I can't really say if I'd like him or not.

[incapsulated]

68. I guess I'll nail another compliant to the door...

During the activism of priests and nuns against the fascistic governments in Latin America, the Pope turned his back on them when they were persecuted because of his rabid anti-communist stance. It was as if he felt they had it coming, because he saw them aligned with "commies". He preferred the good Catholic dictators to any popular uprising that might threaten the Church.

[incapsulated]

69. and one more...

That comment that he made dismissing the treatment of women in Africa, was it? That it was just their "culture".

[Matilda]

76. Dookus, your words resonate

(to a large degree) with this practising Catholic. And some of the
Catholics posting above (whom I meet from time to time in the
Catholic Forum)obviously also understand where you're coming from.

I am pro-choice, but availability and knowledge of birth control
is a much better way of controlling the population. And human
fertility does need to be controlled - the world's resources are
finite, and we have really reached the upper limits of sustainable
population anyway. The Church has to come to terms with that - I
agree with Princess Turandot that most (educated) Catholics now
practise birth control anyway - in Australia, the old Catholic norm
for families of anywhere from 6-10 children has disappeared, and
2-3 is now usual, and I'm sure this is reflected across the western
world, at least. I believe that Pope Paul VI went against the advice
of most of the world's bishops when he ruled against birth control,
and that was probably his biggest mistake. And when it comes to
preventing the spread of AIDS and other STDs, not to allow the use
of condoms is folly of the worst kind.

I think the Church is beginning to realise that its pro-life stand
must include opposition to the death penalty, and I would hope, to
war as well. An "eye for an eye" is very Old Testament, and we
are supposed to be following the New Testament "let he who is
without sin among you, cast the first stone". I don't know that the
Pope could have done more to stop the Iraq war, as he was old and
already very frail, but that of course also brings up the question
of whether he should have retired years ago. I'm inclined to think
that a younger and more vigorous pope might have made more of an
impact, but the truth is that nothing was going to stop Bush, and
religious leaders going to Iraq ran the risk of being seen to support
Saddam, and that in itself could have opened a can of worms. I think
JP did what he could in the circumstances.

I couldn't agree more on Liberation Theology - the priests who
stood with the oppressed in Latin America - many of them Jesuits
obeying the voice of the wonderful Pedro Arrupe - were, and are, an
inspiration, and I find JP's attitude to them just a bit
hypocritical. To my mind, these men, and the nuns and lay people
who worked side by side with them, were true followers of the Christ
of the Gospels, and did much by their actions to raise the standing
of His Church in the eyes of thinking people everywhere.

I have one final problem with this pope, and this is the issue of
the cover-up of paedophilia, a bungle if ever there was one. I know
that the Vatican's first priority was to minimise the damage to the
Church, and the pressure on the pope would have been immense, but
the coverup, often involving threats and intimidation of victims,
was not only unchristian, it was stupid as well. The next pope
should make a full apology on behalf of the Church itself - not just
a "few" miscreants - and the word should go out that there will be
no toleration in future, charges will be answered quickly, and those
convicted will be stripped of their priestly status - no ifs, no
buts, no excuses.

It won't happen, and neither will any of the other changes talked
about here, because not only has the Pope stacked the College of
Cardinals with like-minded people, the Curia would never allow it.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they haven't kept JP alive all
these weeks while furious lobbying has been going on to see that
the Vatican's choice of pope gets elected.

I personally would like to see the Church became a truly democratic
institution, with a college of bishops elected by Catholics all over
the world running things, and the Pope as a sort of constitutional
monarch, with limited powers to go against decisions of the bishops.
And there should be mandatory retirement when the pope reaches a
certain age - not more than 80 - or becomes too ill to function at
his best. In my dreams.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

80. I thought you were going to hide this thread

I'm not going to honor your silly request that I describe to you what good I have done in this world. I know what I have done, and it's none of your business.

But I can assure you, if I were the Pope, I'd do a helluva lot more.

edit: Your whole thesis is childish. Are you saying that I can't criticize ANYONE in this world unless I've "walked in their shoes"? So I can't criticize George W. Bush because I'm not the President? It's absurd.

You are determined to be offended by this thread no matter what. I'm reminded of William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League who has made a career out of being outraged over nothing. I find it tiresome and silly. You belong to the largest denomination in the world - you should be able to handle some objective analysis.

[jonnyblitz]

82. I wish I could have read that post before it was deleted

your response was good even without knowing what you were responding to.

[Dookus]

83. lol

I'm surprised it was gone so quick - it was gone before I finished my edit. I didn't think it needed to be deleted - if it was a personal attack, it was a very weak one.

[zonmoy]

89. Do any catholics

still pay any attention to what the pope says anymore or are they all pretty much just believing whatever they want to believe?

[Dookus]

97. yes

many do, especially in South America and the growing areas of the church in Asia and Africa.

[ultraist]

98. The Pope has tremendous power and influence

[Jamastiene]

93. He DID apologize for letting fascism take over way back when BUT

he's done so little to stop hatred toward gays and he stands on the other end of the political spectrum from me on so many other issues. Unlike the Falwell thread where I wished only the worst, I don't wish anything bad on the Pope despite the fact that he is sort of conservative. It's because he did the one good thing I mentioned. Falwell NEVER did ONE good thing.

[donco6]

95. He's irrelevant.

And not worth the time to bash.

[Dookus]

96. I disagree

ANY pontiff is the leader of a billion Catholics worldwide. The policies of the church reverberate through billions of lives. He is not irrelevant.

[donco6]

99. Pfft.

I was a Catholic for many years. Nothing the Pope ever said ever made an impact on a decisions I made.

I stand by my statement. He could be replaced with a cardboard cutout and your "billions" wouldn't even notice.

[Dookus]

101. I was Catholic, too, for many years

but to claim the pope has no authority in the world is a huge misreading. If the church had no power, it wouldn't be what it is today: the largest religious organization in the world.

It is very powerful in many parts of the world, and in fact, is still pretty darn powerful here in the US. It may not impact YOUR decisions, but it is nevertheless a very powerful organization.

[slutticus]

102. Great post Dookus

:thumbsup:

[The Magistrate]

103. For Your Information, Ladies And Gentlemen

There are recent reports of the Pope's suffering heart failure, and septic shock. It may well be only a matter of a few hours.

I trust all members of this forum will bear this in mind in further comment on the matter here. Respect for the feelings of others is expected.

[incapsulated]

104. It certainly sounds imminent...

As I said, I'll refrain from any comment on the Pope once he passes on.

If you can't say anything nice, etc.

:hi:

[Dookus]

105. Thank you Magistrate...

I think this thread is a fine example of how people CAN discuss sensitive issues without breaking the rules. In fact, with one singular exception, this thread has been free of any rule-breaking. And I did not think the post in question was a rule violation.

I'm grateful for the chance to have a good discussion about this without it turning into flames on either side.

[tedzbear]

106. But can't I say this?

:nopity:

After all, you guys offer us that smilie for just such moments as this.

[The Magistrate]

107. Do You Think That In Good Taste Just Now, Sir?

[incapsulated]

108. That is...

I disrespectful smilie, heh. That's its purpose.

;)

[Dookus]

109. Please

this thread has been, in my opinion, a fantastic example of reason and debate absent sarcasm and belittling. Let's keep it that way.

Who would've thought that a thread entitled "Why I don't like this Pope" could reach over a hundred posts without any problems?

[Behind the Aegis]

124. yes

I hope that EVERYONE'S feelings will be respected, even if they differ. There is a difference from stating opposition and being crass. Hopefully, people will understand the difference.

[ultraist]

113. Well done Dookus!

This has to be the most civil discussion about a religious topic I have seen on DU.

Excellent job setting the tone and tending to your thread.

:thumbsup:

[Donkeyboy75]

114. Nice discussion.

I'm surprised at how civil this discussion is, and that's down to how you started it. Well done.

I personally think that, like many things, PJP2 was a mixed bag. Overall, though, his backwards steps far outnumbered his forward steps.

Although his papacy was a disappointment overall, I really respect him for his outspoken tolerance of other religions. It would be nice if the power-hungry Falwells and Robertsons would follow suit.

[Dookus]

117. Thank you....

it IS nice to have a good discussion, isn't it?

I agree his reaching out to other religions was a good thing.

[Arugula Latte]

118. Good post.

The pope is a political leader that I do not like for the reasons you've stated above. I am not being anti-Catholic when I say that.

[Spazito]

119. I, too, want to thank you for a very reasoned OP

that allows the discussion of policy issues without it becoming a flame fest. My thanks, too, to all those posters who respected the tone and content of the OP and responded in kind. I have found reading the thread very informative.

[theboss]

122. I think this Pope was actually quite radical....

His role in foreign affairs particularly those in Communist Countries was a far cry from the Church's hands-off policy of the previous hundred years or so.

On Edit:

I should also add that this Pope was very radical in terms of his consolidation of power. I don't know if any Pope has ever been the "face" of the Church in the sense that this one was. Any scholarship, etc. was pretty much in his name and his voice. He traveled everywhere. The role of the Cardinals', Bishops', etc seemed greatly reduced under this Pope.