Posted on 04/05/2005 10:59:12 AM PDT by presidio9
There's nothing but good film on Pope John Paul II. The human consequences of his policies are largely missing. They are always off-camera. I intend no harsh assessment of the late Pope. I admired and respected him. He was that abstraction very close to my heart - a political (not cultural) liberal who hated communism and disliked rapacious capitalism and confronted authoritarian regimes wherever he found them. He cherished human life, opposing the death penalty as well as abortion - a moral lesson to our own President. On the war in Iraq, he was indistinguishable from many liberals here. He simply opposed it. He indirectly confronted the church's lamentable record on anti-Semitism by recognizing Israel and making innumerable statements of understanding and commiseration - the easy stuff, I think. Still, it was something.
But it does John Paul neither justice nor respect to treat him as nothing but a celebrity. He was that, of course, and he cultivated the image because he was, at heart, an evangelical. But he also was the author of 14 encyclicals and numerous rulings whose net effect was to make the church stubbornly conservative on issues that matter to us all. I am not referring now to his adamant opposition to the ordination of women or married men or even his ban on divorced Catholics receiving Communion. These are matters for Catholics to decide among themselves.
There are other areas, though, where John Paul's teachings affected non-Catholics. I am referring now to his implacable opposition to birth control - not just abortion, but the mere use of condoms. Advising against the use of condoms is church policy, and it has its biggest impact precisely where the church is strongest, Latin America and other parts of the Third World. Elsewhere, particularly in Europe, Catholics have largely ignored the Pope on this issue.
The cult of the Pope, which John Paul nurtured, was useful. It made him an enormous force for good in the world, but it also obscured his obdurate doctrinal conservatism and his intolerance of dissent. He serves to remind that faith can be a form of blindness. As the driving force behind the Pope's willingness to duke it out with communism, it did wonders for us all. On the other hand, a faith-based inability to distinguish between the taking of life and the prevention of a pregnancy - or the spread of AIDS - is not something to be admired or, to my mind, understood.
The spotlight he kept trained on himself left the human consequences of his policies in the dark. They include, above all, the poor and the ignorant whom he no doubt loved, but not in a way that gave them truly effective control over procreation or protection from AIDS. He had an impact on the world we all live in beyond what we could see on television - much of it good, but some of it, regrettably, bad. It is the whole picture.
Also a moral lesson to people like Richard Cohen and various lib politicians, who oppose the death penalty and support abortion. Funny how Cohen kind of forgot the other edge of that double-edged sword.
Yes, you do.
I admired and respected him.
No, you didn't.
The Pope was about Life. Cohen and his Leftist buddies support the Culture of Death.
And who is Richard Cohen that he sets himself up as a judge of Papal doctrine? And more importantly, who cares what Richard Cohen thinks?
With every body found after an Amber alert, I am more firmly convinced that it is not compassionate to be against the death penalty.
He won't like the next one either but neither will a lot of Americans.
'...a political (not cultural) liberal who hated communism and disliked rapacious capitalism and confronted authoritarian regimes wherever he found them."
Liberals can't seem to understand that government control of the economy is what CAUSES authoritarian regimes.
Contraception in any setting is still a roulette.
The Popes are very wise in this position. It is a world full of the superficially sexual that argue against this.
Notice he writes:
"is not something to be..., to my mind, understood. "
What he means, of course, is "is not understood by my mind."
This misstatement is actually the perfect essence of liberal arrogance. What the liberal is to ignorant to understand, shall not be understood by anyone.
Who is a liberal Jew to deplore dissent in the Catholic Church? It is sort of like the Brtis meddling in our elections. If those in the Catholic Church who share his opinions are grown-ups, they can defend themselves. To Cohen i say: MYOB!
Yep moral lesson to Dubya but nothing to teach NOW or Planned Parenthood or liberal members of Congress.
Dubya cherishes life more than they for he enforces the death penalty for people who take innocent lives.
The Pope, of course, opined of his own mind that the death penalty was unwise policy for an advanced and stable democracy such as the United States. On the other hand, he proclaimed the infallible teaching of the magisterium that abortion is always inherently and profoundly evil.
Even if the occurrence of these two events, the death penalty and abortion, were similar, men of reason and good will would be compelled to end abortion at all costs, but could reasonablyt debate the efficacy of the death penalty as a matter of political prudence.
The fact that abortion kills 100,000 more times people than does the death penalty, makes abortion 100,000 times the more grave of an issue.
"Cohen kind of forgot the other edge of that double-edged sword."
forgot? I hope this was sarcastic.
"forgot" implies that Cohen is not self consciously dishonest, deceptive, hypocrite.
I am amazed at these pseudo intellectuals who think that the solutions to Africa's woes are pieces of latex.
How sad!
where is THAT spelled out in the bible? "holy orders" as a sacrament did not appear until the 6th century. one of the earliest descriptions of christians from roman sources were the letters of pliny - then governor of bithinia. he was asked to pass judge on two women described as "deaconesses", or local church leaders. (off topic - if you could show your religion was older than rome, such as judaism, you were exempt from roman religious rituals. at that time christians were differentiating themselves from judaism, hence a new religion NOT allowed by rome)
sorry, this IS a sore point with me... if blacks or asians or others were excluded from the priesthood. because they weren't of semitic origin, like the apostles, they'd be upset for similar reasons..
even the old testament talks of a "priestly PEOPLE". this all-male tradition is cultural, not spiritual, in origin.
The best I can give him is his own words back:
These are matters for Catholics to decide among themselves. If you are a non-catholic, a muderer, an atheist or non-believer, please feel free to ignore everything te Pope says.
What's the problem here?
Why should the teachings of the Catholic church have to be altered for those who disagree? Why don't those who disagree with the Catholic position find another church?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.