The Pope isn't a purely religious figure

[dsc]

and thus he should be treated, to at least some degree, like a world leader. I think if the Queen of England were to go on TV and declare that the law in Spain, which permits gays and lesbians to be married, should be disobeyed by Spanish citizens who have English blood, we would scream bloody murder. The Pope is a head of state as well as a Religious figure. He has also decided to involve himself in our election in 2004. Thus he is fair game for criticism. It is no more anti Catholic bigotry to criticise him, than it was anti British to critisize Prince Harry.

[Maple]

1. Well the Queen could because

she's the head of the Anglican church.

But she doesn't.

[adwon]

2. Huh?

The pope derives his status as the head of state from his ecclesiastical authority, not any temporal authority. His influence isn't predicated on the historical oddity of having his own separate country, it's predicated on his authority as the vicar of Christ.

In other words, he's not a head of state as head of state is conventionally defined, so the argument tends to fall.

[dsc]

3. He issues stamps

prints money, has ambassadors, and all the other trappings of a state, and has no compunctions about using them. Hence he is to be treated like any other head of state.

[adwon]

4. Nope

The conventional definition of a head of state is one who derives that particular status from some temporal authority. The pope does no such thing. With or without Vatican City, he's still the pope and his influence is independent of it.

Had Vatican City been founded nearly 2000 years ago as a central piece of the pontificate, this argument might work. However, as it is not a central piece, this particular argument fails.

P.S. I'm writing this very narrowly. I am exclusively attacking the argument that the pope's status as the head of a sovereign nation opens him up to criticism in the same manner as a secular head of state. I'm not saying you can't criticize at all, just that this argument is pretty weak.

[Maple]

5. The Vatican

is a separate legal state...and he is the head of it.

Since there is no place else quite like it...it's not comparable to somewhere else.

Nevertheless, it exists.

[dsc]

6. It is irrelevent why the state exists

it does. He is a head of state, and an unelected one at that. He may have inflated power due to his religion since his state makes Luxenborgh and Lichenstein look like the second and third comings of the US, but he still is a head of state and deserves the scrutiny of one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Actually the past week proves he is elected

but whether the Vatican is a functioning state is a matter of debate. After all, it has a zero birth rate, no agriculture, and its industry consists of stamps (which I bet are printed somewhere else).

[dsc]

19. No

unless you consider US ambassadors and federal judges elected. He is appointed, by a body of 115.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. He has a seat at the UN. no?

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. No. The Vatican is a 'permanent observer'

and is a 'non-member state'. see http://www.un.org/Overview/missions.htm#nperm

[Cleita]

9. Eh, he is as much a head of State as Prince Albert of Monaco.

eom

[Cleita]

8. I couldn't agree more and

he should be criticized for this. His role, if he wanted to do it the right way, was to advise the Catholic dioceses in Spain of his opinion, not the government of Spain.

[blogbear]

10. amen! I don't see him as 'purely' anything! I'm glad to hear you refer to

the new pope as fair game especially when us non-catholics receive an earful whether we want it (or need it) or not!

[dsc]

11. I am not Catholic either

[SympatheticBrit]

14. To the topic creator

No one denies your right to criticise, quite the contrary, it should be encouraged. However, a lot of the criticism I have read here seems to be demanding that the Catholic Church adapt to the liberal worldview. This is fair enough for a business or political party, which can be made to conform to the wishes of the voter and customer, but cannot work for a religious institution like the Catholic Church which believes it holds the fundamental doctrine of truth. Furthermore, religion (for now at least) is forced on no-one. If you do not feel the Catholics represent you, go elsewhere.

[MollyStark]

17. The RCC doesn't represent me and I do go elsewhere

The RCC doesn't represent many Catholics and they stay anyway. They enable the assualt on liberal politics. Unfortunately some also get indoctrinated in the idea that the "poor unborn baby" is the most inportant issue of our times, and vote accordingly. Forget the woman, forget poverty and abusive marriage, single parenthood and sexual inequility. Once you are pregnant your future, your health and your happiness no longer matters.

As long as the RCC makes such a concerted effort to control American politics I am going to criticize, not the religion, but the politics.
55 percent of Catholics voted for Bush. That is a change from the past and is a direct result of the RCC hierarchy indirectly instructing preists to interfere in US politics. It didn't start with a few Bishops, it started at the top.

If the Pope had spent years decrying poverty and unjust war with the same passion and dedication, Kerry would have won in a landslide.

[Solly Mack]

15. I have a hard time viewing the Pope as a world leader

I don't view the Queen as a world leader either.

The Pope is , to me, nothing more than the leader of the Catholic Church.That's it. Just head grand poobah of Catholics and ONLY Catholics.

But any time a religious leader attempts to dictate to anyone outside the fold, they are open to criticism. Any time they attempt to have an influence on the laws (or politics) of secular America, they are open to criticism. Same with Falwell, Dobson, Robertson...any of them. .

I'd treat the Queen with the exact same scorn if she tried.

It's not anti-Catholic bigotry to criticize the Pope when he involves himself in America's politics.

The far reaching power of the Holy See has diminished over many, many long years. Those days of power are gone forever. I've read about them in history books. Let them remain on the pages of history.

[Deja Q]

16. Recommended for greatest.

:thumbsup:

[KG]

18. quite so.

[Az]

20. The art of criticising the Pope

First off the Pope is the head of state of Vatican city. The Vatican and it's surrounding campus are actually an autonomous state and the Pope is the official head of that state.

Secondly the the Queen of England is officially the head of the Church of England. As such the British monarchy serves the same roll as Pope within the CoE governance. In practice though the ArchBishop of Cantebury.

But as to how to deal with the Pope. One must recognise that Catholics are supposed to be following every word the Pope commands. Thats the theory. In practice though the vast majority of US Catholics believe the Pope has his opinion and they have theirs.

Think of the Pope as like the father of the Catholic church. Not everyone listens to what their father says but most people will get their feathers ruffled if you bad mouth their father.

The Pope is not a simple monolyth of invalid opinions. His stances on many issues may be seen as negatives to us but he does have many positions that are often in line with out thinking. Traditionally the Pope objects to war and the death penalty. These factors may raise many people's opinion of the man as he is an advocate for peace. We don't have enough of these individuals running around today and any that carry as much power as the Pope are welcome.

But then the church's position on reproductive rights and homosexuals typically runs afoul of liberal positions. If you are going to criticize try to keep the points focused on the specifics you object to. Criticize the positions rather than the man. Remember the Catholic you are talking to may not agree with the Pope's positions but they still see him as an important part of their family. Start painting him with too broad a brush and you will lose the issue on that alone.