Posted on 04/08/2005 7:23:59 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Catholic League president William Donohue remarked as follows:
“The storm is about to hit. For the most part, anti-Catholic bigots and the disaffected dissidents within the Church have been quiet. What they have been waiting for is about to happen: the week between the end of the mourning and the beginning of the conclave is upon us. And that means the Left is ready to explode.
“Consider what we’ve heard already. Amidst the mostly favorable coverage by the media of Pope John Paul II, he has been branded as follows: an authoritarian who seeks to silence dissent; the enemy of homosexuals; a misogynist; a polarizing figure; a man who is out of touch with the modern world; a contributor to death due to AIDS in Africa; responsible for the sexual abuse scandal; and so on.
“And we’ve heard a CBS newsperson blast the pope for ruling the Church with ‘an iron fist’ (this was said between the final four basketball games on Saturday); the Jewish Forward said whatever good he did may be undermined by his ‘battles around the world for sexual repressiveness and against reproductive freedom’; the Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church in Minneapolis posted a sign on its property saying, ‘ALL WELCOME, CHRIST IS ALIVE, THE POPE IS DEAD’; the president of the J. Paul Getty Trust commented on ‘the spectacle of grotesquerie and human ruin that has lately filled the balcony above St. Peter’s Square’; Christopher Hitchens said he was ‘part of the coverup and obstruction of justice’ attendant to the homosexual scandal; Sister Helen Prejean, who is soft on abortion, took him to task for not changing his mind soon enough on capital punishment (and in doing so managed to misrepresent his pronouncements on the subject—the pope never said it was an intrinsic evil like abortion); and a website called ‘HillaryNow,’ operated by Robert Kunst, said that when the pope went to Israel, he ordered an ambulance to follow him so that in the event he needed a transfusion, he would not have to access ‘Jewish blood.’
“But this is nothing. Many have been waiting for this moment for more than a quarter century. When they lose again, watch out.”
In the summer of 1987, preparing to cover Pope John Paul II's visit to New Orleans for the National Catholic Reporter, I biked out to the park on Lake Pontchartrain where the multitude would gather for his outdoor Mass.
I climbed to the top of the pyramid-like platform built for the event and stood looking out over the vast lawn and imagined the 46,000 faces spread out below me as far as the eye could see. What must it feel like to stand here and absorb the adulation of cheering crowds? How does this not turn a person's head?
At St. Louis Cathedral a few days later, as the pope came down the aisle, greeting the assembled priests and religious of the diocese, though he was but inches away, I was not moved to reach out and touch him -- not because I oppose a touch, but because I did now know him personally and he is not, more than any Christian, a "sacred object" from whom some magic flows.
When Karl Wojtyla was elected pope in 1978, the first thing that struck the public was his strength. Commonweal magazine pointed to "the complex humanity of a man who has tasted life and found it both painful and thrilling, who has seen and studied Western culture at its most sacred and most secular extremes and learned the glory, the limits and the cost of human freedom." He could sing, play the guitar, swim, ski, climb mountains, canoe, play tennis, and watch soccer on TV. He was an actor, a factory worker, a philosopher, a man who wrote poetry about love and toil. The editorial ended citing the dangers of setting our hopes too high; but one hope was that the moral center of the world "may once again be Rome."
His biographers argue that because of John Paul's physical and moral strength, it became so. His forays into his native Poland and exhortations to the workers helped tear down the Iron Curtain. His world travels projected the image of Catholicism as an international force. But his critics observe that Rome was not so much a moral center as a power center, that the expected effulgence of Catholic intellectual and cultural life wilted.
Vincent T. O'Keefe, a Jesuit, in a review last month in the Jesuit magazine America of John Cornwell's "The Pope in Winter," says Cornwell describes John Paul as absolutist and authoritarian, a man of "epic self-centeredness," a one- man show who smothered other talents, voices and virtues.
Harsh judgment? Yes. But one of the more memorable images of this pontificate is of an angry John Paul on a visit to Nicaragua, where some of the priests had embraced Liberation Theology, which interprets the Gospels from the point of view of the oppressed. He is shaking his finger at theologian Ernesto Cardenal for having joined the Sandinista government, and yelling "Silencio" at Nicaraguans in the crowd who heckled him.
In his defense, biographer George Weigel says the pope did not scold Cardenal but merely urged him to quit the government, and the Sandinistas had manipulated the crowd and the sound system to embarrass John Paul.
John Paul II's most lasting legacy is his support for the dignity of human life at every phase of its development. That means we do not kill life in the womb; we nurture the lives of children with health care and education; we do not execute murderers; we provide medical insurance for the sick and security for the aging; we do not actively terminate prematurely the lives of the very sick; we do not fight -- above all, do not start -- wars without demonstrating just cause; we do not torture or humiliate prisoners of war, and we do not bomb a whole neighborhood to take out one sniper.
It is the most sublime concept that the church preaches today, but it has not sunk in -- both because the culture resists and because the church does not really push it with all its heart. If President Bush and Catholic members of Congress had listened to the pope, Saddam Hussein might still be president of Iraq, but 1,500 American soldiers and an estimated 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians would still be alive. I can think of no moral calculus that would value one man's removal over all those lives.
Depending on how we interpret it, John Paul II will be long remembered for the way he died. Vatican spokesmen say he deliberately died publicly to identify himself with the death of Jesus. We can respect that yet still wish it had been done another way.
A few months ago, I wondered: What if, when he reached 80, John Paul had had a wife, children, and grandchildren who had said: "Granddad, because we love you, we think it's time for you to retire and enjoy your last years with us. The church is filled with brilliant people ready to carry on where you left off. Give them a chance."
In my freshman theology class, we just finished the Gospel of John, at the climax of which Jesus breathes his Spirit into his disciples. That means that the Spirit of Christ lives today in the whole church, not just in the authorities.
Perhaps the Spirit will give us a successor to John Paul II who will take the name John XXIV, after the surprise pope who first convened Vatican Council II. He will call another council to reopen the Vatican windows to the new modern world. He will dress simply in a suit, and travel to the poorest villages of Africa and slums of Calcutta and Haiti, where Christ dies daily from hunger and disease in the poor. He will try to move around with no more fuss than the Dalai Lama or Desmond Tutu -- and accept the risk of assassination as part of the fate of every missionary or prophet.
He will communicate through the media in interviews and discussion and will listen -- and listen more. And sometimes answer "I don't know," or "You know, I never thought of it that way. That's an interesting idea." Then he will trust the Spirit to do His/Her work as well.
Raymond A. Schroth is a Jesuit and the Jesuit Community Professor in the Humanities at St. Peter's College and the media critic for the National Catholic Reporter. He may be reached at raymondschroth@aol.com .
---------------------------------------------------------------
A genuine leader, but still human and flawed
When I was growing up, I thought that the pope lived forever. That pope was Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII, and he looked so ethereal in his pictures and was pope for so many years (1939-1958) that, in retrospect, my childish confusion seems understandable.
Karol Wojtyla became pope in 1978 and has had one of the longest papacies in history, eight years longer than Pius XII. It is much too soon to evaluate the legacy of Pope John Paul II; a fair evaluation would require time so as to consider the pope's decisions and agenda from an appropriate distance. Nevertheless, it is possible now to cite some of the highlights of John Paul's papacy and to understand the tremendous influence this pope exercised over the Catholic Church in the United States.
There is no question that Pope John Paul II taught young people that the Catholic Church is a hierarchical institution presided over by a single man, a pope. Through his travels, and especially through youth rallies, the pope connected with adolescents and conveyed to them his personal interest as well as the message that they are the future of the church. Because so many parents and teachers are concerned about secularism and the indifference of youth to religious faith, the pope's outreach to them was especially appreciated.
One of the most horrific events of the 20th century was the Holocaust and, in the years after World War II when we learned of the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis, Catholics and other Americans came to realize how dreadful anti-Semitism is. I remember when Catholics prayed on Good Friday for the "perfidious Jews" who conspired in the death of Christ. "Nostra Aetate," a document of Vatican II issued in 1965, condemned anti-Semitism and set the tone for respectful language in the Catholic liturgy.
However, words on paper accomplish only limited results. The public outreach of John Paul II to leaders of the Jewish community and his sensitive efforts to repair the past sins of the Catholic Church accomplished much more. In his heartfelt respect for our Jewish brothers and sisters, the pope was a role model for Catholics everywhere.
There is no question that Pope John Paul II was a strong leader who stayed on message and did not waver in the direction in which he steered the barque of Peter. This does not mean that every policy he implemented was flawless or that his very strength did not also contain an element of weakness.
In 1994 the church issued a compendium of its teachings, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church." The "Catechism" is a big volume, not as big as a phone book, but close. Lots of effort went into clarifying doctrine and putting a clear presentation of the church's teaching together. There certainly are benefits to having the "Catechism," but I bring up the time and dedication that went into it because in the years before 1994, the priest sex abuse crisis was simmering just below the surface and the church, headed by Pope John Paul II, was doing its best to keep clergy misconduct from public knowledge.
Someday we may know what the pope knew and when he knew it, and then we will be able to judge his lack of openness and leadership in regard to removing abusers so as to keep children from harm. In the meantime, I can't help but question his priorities.
Another major issue facing the Catholic Church in the United States is the priest shortage. Our priests are aging, and every year the ratio of priests to people declines. We have a sacramental church; we gather at the Eucharist to affirm and renew our faith. Only a priest can preside at the Eucharist, and the future looks grim because there will not be enough priests to staff parishes.
Pope John Paul II was sincere when he said that Catholics should pray for vocations to the priesthood and when he stood forthrightly for continuing to require that priests promise to be celibate. But the pope's inability to face the fact that Plan A is not working and that Plan B needs to be considered may ultimately be evaluated as a strategic failure.
I am a woman and have been a woman all my life. I am a Catholic and have been a Catholic all my life. After my family, my religion is my greatest treasure. But as a woman and a Catholic, I cannot applaud the papacy of John Paul II for strides made in behalf of women.
As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to boast about. A token woman here or there holds a position in a parish, or chancery office, or even in the Vatican. But, by and large, Catholic women are not part of the decision-making apparatus of the church. If we had been, the priest sex abuse scandal would have been handled very differently, empathy would be an integral part of Catholic moral teaching and not an afterthought, and there would be plenty of priests because we would stand behind the altar and preside at worship.
Eileen P. Flynn, a professor at St. Peter's, is the author of 13 books, including "Catholics at a Crossroads: Coverup, Crisis and Cure" and "Catholicism: Agenda for Renewal." She may be reached at eflynn@spc.edu .
Post 100 & 101
Hah, he doesn't mention the 300,000 or so people in Saddam's human landfills and uses BS numbers released the week before the election to hurt Bush.
For priests like Pope John Paul II (and for the One High Priest, Jesus, who washed his disciples' feet) it's all about service.
A poem from Rosie O'Donnell:
so now - today - some givens
i have 4 children
the youngest is vivi - she is 2
i am 43
the pope has died
i have a rock star in my swimming pool
who looks like eminem
life is good
http://onceadored.blogspot.com/2005/04/pregnant-pause.html
Of course, they will not attack JPII--that would be suicidal.
What they WILL do is already on display--interviews of extreme-leftists such as Cardinal Danneels of Belgium (?) who "suggests" that the next Pope must be 'flexible,' and 'innovative,' and so forth.
Sounds entirely reasonable unless you know that they are desperately attempting to control the agenda.
If you believe that "ambulance" story, you'll believe me when I tell you that I just returned from Mars.
Perhaps that's where you get your information from.
Don't believe everything you see on the Internet, or on FR.
This story about JPII 'not wanting Jewish blood' is pure BS, and plenty of responsible Israeli authorities will TELL you that.
D, I think you know the truth on this. Will you help Ms. S understand it?
>> The man obviously had a healthy measure of Ashkenazi blood in him to begin with. <<
Heheheh. Careful: that's the OTHER hate-mongerers' line, who say that several of the Popes have secretly been Jews who dominate the world. :^D.
(P.S. Not to nitpick, but I thought you might like clarification: It's Carol Wojtyla, and it's pronounced Kahr-l Voy'tee-wah. The press seems to know how to pronounce it, but to be afraid to go all the way and say it in the full, Polish way.)
Thanks, and you are NOT alone in your prayer...
Donohue never impressed me, either, except for his gasbag capabilities.
But can you provide a cite for the 'civil union' part?
The question of Peter's marriage assumes that Peter continued marital relations with his wife (if she were alive...)
In this day and age, NOBODY believes that they voluntarily gave up relations--but Church historians are slowly coming to the conclusion that celibacy or continence was the rule--albeit broken frequently.
"If you believe that "ambulance" story, you'll believe me when I tell you that I just returned from Mars.
Perhaps that's where you get your information from."
I don't think I ever said I "believe" the ambulance story. I was just citing the website where the story was located. A website that, coincidentally, is run by a guy who is a HUGE, devoted supporter of Hillary Clinton. Probably you should read through all of the posts before you comment.
If you don't want to bother wasting the time to read thru all of the posts, try
http://www.hillarynow.com/pope.htm
William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the Chronicle, supports President Bush's proposed amendment to ban homosexual marriage; but, the article said that Donohue does not think it will "prevent same-sex civil unions, which he now supports," but merely keep homosexual couples from claiming the status of marriage. "I don't like all-or-nothing approaches anymore," said Donohue. (I can't find the original Chronicle article at the moment, but I have seen it, and I believe it was posted here on FR.)
Regrettably, your initial post did NOT contain a disclaimer from you--thus I mis-interpreted your position on the matter.
Sorry.
Sent that little gem to an individual who wrote a long and very negative article about BillyBoy for Culture Wars magazine.
You can find the article here: http://www.culturewars.com/2004/CatholicLeague.html
Thanks for the ping.
I think the media has been pretty respectful to the Pope, not that they had a whole lot of choice going up against such love for the man with sniping and hate. But I think they probably admired him too, because he was nobody's puppet. He understood that capitalism unchecked is as deadly for the common man as socialism is. They probably liked him for that. Easy bank shot.
He was opposed to the death penalty and the war, again something is shared. Being that they are nowhere near his equal, and they know that, they can't just dismiss him because of the things they disagree with him on. That's not the way it works in Pope John Paul's situation. He was too sincere, too intelligent and too Holy for that.
But, I do think that the honeymoon is not about to last much longer. Read George Neumayr's piece at the American Spectator Online. I think it was published yesterday, and did appear on this site, just in case you didn't catch it. He goes into forceful detail about what the goal is of those who are likely to commence with some sniping.
I've often bemoaned and complained simultaneously about the lack or excess of power of the Cathoic laity or faithful. As the days grew closer to the Holy Father's burial, I began to think about just how easily the laity could turn around the bad set of circumstances that the Church faces, just by being faithful Catholics. Faithful to her teachings. If we fail, which it seems we must, we just pick ourselves up and attempt the Holy life again. And again, and again, as long as it takes.
I think the Orthodox faithful recognize this, and that's why they have a cohesion that we don't. They voluntarily embrace Tradition, they voluntarily want to preserve it. They are quite admirable and wonderful in that way. That's why they can stand the de-centralization. We could too, if our faithful were made of the same stern but loving stuff.
Chesteron was right. It isn't that Christianity has been tried and left wanting, it's that it's too difficult and as such has been left untried.
I did realize that I did not answer your question. Priests are called to sacrifice all that they have in order to serve the Kingdom of God. Peter did immediately leave his boat to follow Jesus. I suppose if he had had pre-adolescent children, maybe he would not have followed Christ in the way he did; there are no suggestions that Peter had tykes in tow. Paul and Christ both state the superiority of giving up everything, including relations with women, for the sake of the Church.
In the PRUDENCE of the TEMPORAL powers of the Church (IOW, in their managerial discretion, as opposed to their interpretation of doctrine), it is better that a man who is able to sacrifice his entire life for the Church be the man selected to lead a parish. A wife and kids become conflicting interests: A man cannot serve two masters, yet the Holy Spirit taught through Paul that a man should be willing to sacrifice his very life for his wife. There is no conflict if God's will for him is that he lead a family. There is a conflict if God's will for him is that he lead a parish: Who shall his loyalty be towards? What Christian woman should marry a man who cannot love her with all his heart, soul and body, because his heart, soul and body are pledged to his congregation?
The Church may indeed change its mind on this matter. The pedophilia scandal suggests a danger to celibacy. For now, it is the apparent opinion of Rome that the germ of the abuse is the disobedient actions of seminaries by which homosexuals were admitted into the priesthood. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the abuse was almost exclusibely homosexual in nature.
Authentic Catholics consider issues such as homosexuality, abortion, euthenasia, women priests, and the like to be beyond discussion. The Catholic doctrine will never change. However, the Catholic discipline of chastity may change someday, or exceptions may be increased. Indeed, in regions controlled by other patriarchs (the Pope is one of many patriarchs; he just has the largest patriarchy), married priests are permitted. And priests who convert are, like Peter, allowed to remain in their ministries in spite of being married.
Will the policy ever change?
It looked likely to for some time after Vatican II, and I suspect many entered seminaries expecting the change. The heterosexual, orthodox members of the era of John Paul II seem quite grateful for the current discipline, so it seems that the Sensuum Fidelis (sense of the Faithful, as opposed to Sense of the People who tell MSM media pollsters they are Catholic) seems to be that celibate priests are a good thing.
Ill tell you this much: I dated a very attractively exuberant woman who was searching for a denomination. I was quite disgusted at having EVERY LAST DARN single minister try to pull alpha-male crap on me because they were horny for my girl.
"Regrettably, your initial post did NOT contain a disclaimer from you..."
Nope, I was reply to a post by fight_truth_decay and didn't feel the need for a disclaimer.
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.