« Death Is Sad | Main | 2nd Base.gov »
Who Hates The Pope?
Max Sawicky predicts that "If the Pope dies, at least one high-profile wingnut blogger will cite some fragment found on the Internet to demonstrate that Liberals and the Left hated the Pope." I'm afraid I may have to play that role. I certainly wouldn't say that I hate the Pope (among other things, for all my politically aware life he's been in rather bad shape and one gets the sense that he wasn't making all the decisions single-handedly) but I certainly don't admire the man or the institution he heads. Indeed, I find the extent to which it's considered taboo to mention this is a bit odd. Normally, religious leaders who take stances on controversial political or moral issues -- from Pat Robertson to Jesse Jackson to Michael Lerner to whomever else you please -- are considered fair game for criticism and derision from those who disagree with them.
In the United States, for interesting historical reasons, happens to be a country where white Catholics are an important swing constituency and where the Church's Christian Democratic politics happen to be somewhat at odds with those of both major political parties. At least partially as a result of this, the tendency is for actors in the American public debate to emphasize their points of agreement with Catholic teachings in order to appeal to conflicted voters and secure the support or neutrality of the local bishops or what have you. As a political strategy, that's all understandable, but since the American media appears to understand "truth" to mean "printing what Democrats say and what Republicans say" the result is that an eerie reverance for the pontiff pervades the media. But one of the Church's major roles is as an expounder of moral principles, and these are principles that -- quite rightly -- few Americans share. Certainly this one doesn't.
April 1, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2166832
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who Hates The Pope?:
» As Pontiff Turns from Grubbykid.com :: Words
I'm not Catholic, I'm close enough (Lutheran), so I can't help but feel sadness for the deteriorating health of Pope John Paul II. CNN states that: Pope John Paul II's breathing is becoming shallow and several of his major organs... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 1, 2005 7:56:45 PM
» You don't say from New World Man - fool enough to lose it
"One of the Church's major roles is as an expounder of moral principles," Matthew Yglesias notes. Does the Church expound moral principles? Is the Pope Catholic? Also, he blames the media for the reverence the Pope falsely appears to be held in.... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 2, 2005 10:54:00 AM
» You don't say from New World Man - fool enough to lose it
"One of the Church's major roles is as an expounder of moral principles," Matthew Yglesias notes. Does the Church expound moral principles? Is the Pope Catholic? Also, he blames the media for the reverence the Pope falsely appears to be held in. UPDATE... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 2, 2005 12:53:31 PM
Comments
Who hates the Pope? Christopher Hitchens hates the Pope.
Posted by: Christopher M | Apr 1, 2005 7:06:55 PM
Please turn yourself in to Kathryn Lopez for discipline immediately. Be warned, though: she's a little fragile this week.
Posted by: DaveL | Apr 1, 2005 7:07:31 PM
It's not just the Pope and the Catholic Church, it's established religion in general that the American media is absurdly deferential towards. Wendy Kaminer says it better than I could:
"The deference paid to mainstream religion, compared to the derision with which we're encouraged to regard New Age and pop spirituality, is intellectually indefensible. Protestants, Catholics, Moslems and Jews are no less superstitious than people who believe in shamans, witches and astrologers (as many Protestants, Catholics, Moslems and Jews do) ... Why should it be socially acceptable to make fun of psychics and not priests? What's the difference between crossing yourself or hanging a mezuzah outside your door and avoiding black cats? Believing that you've been abducted by aliens or that Elvis is alive is, on its face, no sillier than believing that Christ rose from the dead or that God parted the Red Sea so that Moses and his followers might traverse it ... It is a combination of cowardice and prejudice that discourages us from critically examining established religions, as we examine cults. I suspect the media elites offer virtually no analysis of the religious impulse or majoritarian religious beliefs because they fear appearing impious or giving offense. Less reverent than timid, the press flatters adherents of mainstream faiths instead of challenging them."
Posted by: Don P | Apr 1, 2005 7:08:37 PM
Back in the good old days of all-out WASP domination, it used to be considered good form to Pope-bash. It seems to me that this particular Pope is by far the best of a bad lot, though. He did some real good to help bring down communism in Eastern Europe, for example. He's generally not in favor of foolish wars, additionally.
Posted by: praktike | Apr 1, 2005 7:17:19 PM
The respect isn't entirely political. I admire the Church's tradition of serious and principled consideration of fundamental questions, even if I almost never agree with its positions. Salon's recent interview with theologian John Paris is a good example (though in this case I do agree...).
Posted by: ogged | Apr 1, 2005 7:19:53 PM
Yes, yes, we all appreciate the Pope's anti-communism. Good for him. Maybe somebody will tell this gang that having all of Africa get AIDS and die because people won't use condoms is also bad. Some opposition to fascism would be nice, too, but I won't overreach.
Posted by: Matthew Yglesias | Apr 1, 2005 7:23:04 PM
Normally, religious leaders who take stances on controversial political or moral issues -- from Pat Robertson to Jesse Jackson to Michael Lerner to whomever else you please -- are considered fair game for criticism and derision from those who disagree with them.
That's because critics of Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, and Michael Lerner don't see them as genuinely admirable people in the way that even those who criticize the Pope's policies see him. It's not that everyone agrees with him; obviously not -- the Left thinks his views on sexual morality and abortion are horrible (and says so), and the Right thinks his anti-death-penalty, anti-war, pro-worker views are silly. But people admire him. People get the sense that his actions are motivated by love, not by the kind of self-aggrandizing one sees from Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, and Michael Lerner. One doesn't have to agree with all of, oh, say, Ghandi's views to understand why people generally speak well of the man.
You seem to be a pretty thoroughgoing consequentialist, though, and I'm not sure that kind of admiration makes much sense in that framework.
Posted by: Christopher M | Apr 1, 2005 7:27:18 PM
Wasn't that Pius XII?
Posted by: praktike | Apr 1, 2005 7:29:45 PM
You can't put Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson on the same level as the Pope! For one, the pope is the head of an incredibly powerful global institution. But the real point is that the Pope is a religious leader before he is a political figure. He is the supreme earthly authority of an entire fatih. Jesse Jackson has some game, but he ain't the supreme authority of shit. For sure the Pope is a far more serious religious scholar and thinker than any of the religio-political hacks you mentioned. You should read some of his work, he writes very well. I would recommend a work called Veritatis Splendor.
I like your blog, really I do, But why do so many liberals who themselves dont follow a religion (a group that includes me) feel a need to belittle those who do? I understand that politics is the main focus for your blog, and I was interested by what you said about the media coverage about the Pope and its realtion to the political courtship of american catholics, but I really believe that the Pope is an incomparable figure. No other religion has a CEO the way Roman Catholicism does.
Anyway, keep up the good work, I depend on your blog for some sanity on this cracktarded internet.
Posted by: Greg | Apr 1, 2005 7:32:32 PM
Matt,
I didn't realise until I read your blog that white catholics are such a tiny percentage of the population. Of course we won't talk about all the funny Hispanic male Catholics and I believe that there are quite a few black male Catholics. And why no mention of white female catholics? Maybe you see them as more progressive than their male couterparts.
Posted by: Jonathan | Apr 1, 2005 7:48:10 PM
"Yes, yes, we all appreciate the Pope's anti-communism."
I don't think you really do. At the time of his trip to Poland, it was a truly radical move, some say instrumental in inspiring the Solidarity movement's mass resistance to the ruling party (and the Soviets). At the time, to many who were truly afraid of what (seemed like) the unassailable institutional power of the Communists over the people of Eastern Europe, the Pope's intervention really was awesome. That shine never really faded for many children of the Cold War.
Posted by: Kiril | Apr 1, 2005 7:57:51 PM
ogged:
John Paris's position on Schiavo is the opposite of the Church's. And as for the claim that its teachings flow from some "serious and principled consideration of fundamental questions," I see this quite often from liberals, this I-respect-the-Church's-intellectual-integrity shtick, and I think it's just laughable. Have you actually read any of the documents in which the church lays out its arguments for its positions? They're not even honest or logical or consistent on their own terms. As Garry Wills put it, "When ancient props for certain moral stands are removed, or crumble of themselves, the thing they upheld is not allowed to fall with them. New Jerry-built contrivances are shoved under to keep them in place."
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and other protestant Christian conservatives are foolish and dishonest men, but the inhabitants of the Vatican are no better, and may be considerably worse.
Posted by: Don P | Apr 1, 2005 8:03:52 PM
"No other religion has a CEO the way Roman Catholicism does."
Hah! You forgot Reverend Moon, and Bob.
But dissing the Pope on his deathbed isn't the coolest thing MY ever did. Wasn't this mean to Ronnie.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 1, 2005 8:05:11 PM
Jonathan:
I didn't realise until I read your blog that white catholics are such a tiny percentage of the population. Of course we won't talk about all the funny Hispanic male Catholics and I believe that there are quite a few black male Catholics. And why no mention of white female catholics? Maybe you see them as more progressive than their male couterparts.
Huh? He didn't say that white Catholics are a "tiny percentage of the population" and he didn't distinguish male from female ones. He said that they are an important swing constituency, which is true. (I think he was talking about non-hispanic whites, and perhaps he should have made that more clear, since hispanics are technically whites.)
Posted by: Don P | Apr 1, 2005 8:12:35 PM
"Best of a bad lot", I don't know about. I wish John XXIII had more than five years. But John Paul II isn't Rick Santorum; he's nothing like Rick Santorum. He's done some great things, and some terrible things, and a lot in between how the scales come out I don't really know but I think they lean towards the good. Then again, I suspect the bad part will outweigh the good--in this country at least.
The Catholic Church shares with a lot of religions the unfortunate tendency to sacrifice human beings on the altar of its theological consistency. The teachings on ectopic pregnancy, for instance, or on emergency contraception for rape victims, or divorce, or homosexuality. And in a few cases, like condoms as a means of preventing AIDS and the misguided recent pronouncements on feeding tubes, they're not even being consistent. But most of the time, they ARE. They are as good on the death penalty, on issues of war and peace, on immigration, on torture, on Communism, on poverty, as they are bad on homosexuality and birth control and sexual abuse and canonization of people with shady ties to fascism.
I have no doubt that this Pope would not have been silent during the Holocaust. I can easily imagine him risking his life to help try and stop it. So that's something.
Posted by: Katherine | Apr 1, 2005 8:43:51 PM
But aren't we saying the same thing, Katherine? A mixed record. Maybe I should have said "Best of a mixed lot, all of whom I don't agree with on a lot of substantive moral issues, and some of whom were actively bad."
Posted by: praktike | Apr 1, 2005 8:51:15 PM
I'm not sure about either "best" or "bad lot", is all I'm saying. But yeah, we largely agree.
I'm all verklempt, for some reason...my parents are lapsed Catholics and my grandparents' generation were unlapsed, if occasionally mutinous. (my grandma used to get in trouble for sneaking in gender-inclusive language into her readings.) There's a lot of good there; it's upsetting to see how it's being effectively made into Rick Santorum's and Antonin Scalia's and for God's sake George W. Bush's church in this country instead of the church of people like my grandparents and great aunts and uncles.
And there's seemingly no chance in hell that his successor won't be equally anti-condom-even-if-it-means-innocents-dying-of-AIDS and anti-gay.
Posted by: Katherine | Apr 1, 2005 9:03:43 PM
John Paris's position on Schiavo is the opposite of the Church's
Which speaks well of the Church and its members, no?
Have you actually read any of the documents in which the church lays out its arguments for its positions? They're not even honest or logical or consistent on their own terms.
Well, yes, some of them, and while I don't find them convincing (or I'd be a Catholic) I do think they're serious and principled.
Posted by: ogged | Apr 1, 2005 9:10:34 PM
I'm sad to read this. Any analysis of the John Paul II's career has to include the many positive things he's done. Sniping at things which have more or less been official dogma for 1500 years is just petty.
Raised a Roman Catholic, I have enormous respect for the church, though I am no longer a member. This is a congregation of principles, that arrives at decisions through learned and contentious debate - relying on scholarship, precedent, and logic. Where does the Catholic Church come down on Evolution? Cosmology? This is one of the first denominations to make a huge blunder with dissing science, and then recovering from its mistake.
Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]
John Paul II is no Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
Find a knowledgeable Catholic apologist and ask them about abortion, homosexuality, or any other issues where church doctrine differs from progressive values. If you're lucky, you'll get a rational, compassionate and well-thought-out defense. Unlike fundamentalists, you can have fruitful discussions with these folks where you both learn things, though you may not convince each other.
I like to think that my background as a scholarly Catholic Apologist prepared me for my life as a thoughtful Progressive. Because frankly that's where the trend of Catholic thought leads - not to the narrow cul de sac of the fundamentalists, but to the world-embracing (St. Francis) life-affirming (Mother Theresa), worker-supporting (Lech Walesa) theology of tolerance.
John Paul was indeed a giant, and the world will be the lesser for his passing.
Posted by: Brian Link | Apr 1, 2005 9:17:34 PM
Matt, I'm rather surprised you can't admire the man for his determination, his willingness to take on the Soviets (clearly at the risk of his life), and his indefatiguability in traveling and speaking out for causes he thought were right. No, I don't agree with a lot of his positions either, but disagreement is very different from looking down upon.
Posted by: barry | Apr 1, 2005 9:18:52 PM
what many apparently overlook is the pope's radical humanism. to actually believe that all humans have worth and dignity--irrespective of their ability to "contribute" to society--should be something that most people of good faith can embrace. although i can also understand why so many feel such contempt for the pope due to his views on women and sexuality. my disappointment is that this obscures rather than reveals who the pope is and what he stands for.
oh, and when did hate became a liberal value? and what's feeding this hunger for mean-spirited polemics that is dividing this country?
Posted by: jk | Apr 1, 2005 9:22:39 PM
I'm with you Katherine. As I say here, I think too many progressives allow the less progressive among them to take over institutions that we should rightly call our own. My grandmother was a devoutly Christian woman, but her faith was about helping those even more poor than she, not about spending her days condemning others to hell for their belief or lifestyle. Her legacy informs my faith and I wish their were more Christians like her than Santorum. Falwell or Bush.
Posted by: "George" | Apr 1, 2005 9:24:41 PM
I hate the Pope, also known as the anti-Christ in our neck of the woods. I hate the Pope even more than I hate gays, liberals and the cast of Friends.
God I sure do hate the Pope! Pope, dope, pope on a rope, dopey popey - soapy ropey!.
Posted by: Bob Jones | Apr 1, 2005 9:31:03 PM
Well here we go, 78% of Americans like the Pope. It'd be interesting to see the crosstabs on who those 22% are.
Posted by: praktike | Apr 1, 2005 9:32:55 PM
Katherine:
They are as good on the death penalty, on issues of war and peace, on immigration, on torture, on Communism, on poverty, as they are bad on homosexuality and birth control and sexual abuse and canonization of people with shady ties to fascism.
It's silly to just list issues like this as if they can be considered independently or as if you can evaluate the church by tallying up a list of goods and bads. However immoral you consider the death penalty to be, it is a trivial cause of death in comparison to disease and poverty. You claim that the church is "good" on poverty, but its sexual and reproductive teachings are a primary cause of poverty in the first place, not to mention disease and the perpetuation of the subordinate status of women. These things are all related. One wonders too how many lives lost to AIDS in the developing world might have been saved--millions, tens of millions, perhaps--were it not for the church's opposition to condoms and to any kind of realistic recognition of human sexuality. And its position on matters of war and peace is at the very least considerably more ambiguous than you are suggesting. The church never formally opposed the Iraq War, for example. Liberal apologists for the church need to get some perspective and confront the real-world effects of its policies more honestly.
Posted by: Don P | Apr 1, 2005 9:45:18 PM
"Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, and Michael Lerner".
That's some pretty good moral equivalence there. But why did you forget Koresh?
Posted by: John Emerson | Apr 1, 2005 10:02:56 PM
ogged:
Which speaks well of the Church and its members, no?
No, of course not. It may speak well of Paris, but that's because he rejects the position of his Church.
jk:
what many apparently overlook is the pope's radical humanism. to actually believe that all humans have worth and dignity--irrespective of their ability to "contribute" to society--should be something that most people of good faith can embrace.
Oh, please. Cheap words that in reality mean, as we have recently seen, denying people the right to make their own decisions about medical care. In case you don't realize it, the Pope's position is that life-support should have been forced on Terri Schiavo even if there were no dispute that she didn't want it. What you call "radical humanism" I call an utter disregard for fundamental humanist principles of autonomy and self-determination. One might also question how you can seriously claim the label "humanist" for a religion that teaches that all gay sex, no matter how loving or committed, is an "intrinsic moral evil" and that recently informed us that for a gay couple to raise a child is to do "violence" to that child. I won't rehearse the other issues, except to say that it is also rather implausible to claim that the church's positions on sex and reproduction--which we know now to include the coddling of child molesters--are consistent with the principles of humanism.
oh, and when did hate became a liberal value?
It didn't. When did defending religions that cause an immense amount of harm and suffering become a liberal value?
Posted by: Don P | Apr 1, 2005 10:03:01 PM
Don P- so the sexual and reproductive policies of the church are the cause of poverty? huh. do you have an ounce of empirical data to back that claim?
Posted by: jk | Apr 1, 2005 10:07:11 PM
Good Pope:
Against death penalty.
Against Iraq war (weakly: he told US citizens to vote against pro-abortion candidates, but not against pro-Iraqi war candidates).
Bad Pope:
Discourage condom use in Africa in the face of AIDS.
Protected child abusing priest.
Anti-gay (the head of a "celibate" guy organization!)
Tried to stop women whose children were dying of starvation from using birth control.
Ran anti-women organization for decades. It is offensive to say women can't run things. It is worse to say a man who touches women sexually is too tainted to run things.
Not a good record. Pray for John Paul II. Pray there is no god to judge him.
Posted by: epistemology | Apr 1, 2005 10:17:13 PM
Matt - I don't have much of an opinion on the man's tenure as pope, and i'm not fond of the catholic church, but his activities in Poland in the 1970s (when he was Archbishop of Krakow) were nothing short of heroic. Gorbachev, Walesa, and Havel have all said that without him, the end of communism would never have happened; and they're right.
Because of him, for a time, the Polish Catholic Church was the only non-state political actor in the entire communist world, and it single-handedly preserved independant civil society in Poland during the dark years after the suppression of the Prague Spring. Absent Archbishop Wojtyla, Solidarity would never have gotten off the ground.
Posted by: aphrael | Apr 1, 2005 10:34:29 PM
jk:
Well, gee, I would think it's rather obvious. But here's how the UNFPA put it in its document last year, State of the World Population: The Cairo Consensus at Ten: Population, Reproductive Health and the Global Effort to End Poverty:
"A central premise of the 1994 Cairo conference was the notion that the size, growth, age structure and ruralurban distribution of a country’s population have a critical impact on its development prospects, and specifically on prospects for raising the living standards of the poor. Reflecting this understanding, the ICPD called on countries to “fully integrate population concerns into development strategies, planning, decision-making and resource allocation at all levels”.
Among the key population-development concerns the Programme of Action addressed were: population and poverty; the environment; health, morbidity and mortality; and population distribution, urbanization and internal and international migration.
Poverty perpetuates poor health, gender inequality and rapid population growth. The ICPD recognized that empowering individual women and men with education, equal opportunity and the means to determine the number and spacing of their children is critical to breaking this vicious cycle.
In 1994 there was already solid evidence, based on two generations of experience, that developing countries with lower fertility and slower population growth have higher productivity, more savings and more productive investment, resulting in faster economic growth."
The Catholic Church is doing everything in its power to prevent people in the developing world from acquiring and using the means they need to determine the number and spacing of their children, i.e., contraception and abortion, thus perpetuating poverty, poor health and gender ineqality.
Posted by: Don P | Apr 1, 2005 11:20:45 PM
Don P, do we really know that death was shiavo's desire?...also, there is an inherent conflict with our cultures two most prized values: dignity of every individual and respect for agency/self-determination. downplaying one at the expense of others will have real human costs.
Posted by: jk | Apr 1, 2005 11:22:54 PM
I try not to bash Catholics as I went to Bob Jones University (as the joke above alludes to) and I hear enough anti-Christ, Whore of Revelations talk there to last the rest of my life. Having said that, I've done a 180 though over the years, and as secular person, I'm glad to see me and Christopher Hitchens on the same page again. I don't hate the Pope or Catholicism, but I find a lot to criticize in both. And, no, I don't have to respect the Pope. I will neither mourn nor celebrate his passing. No more than I would mourn or celebrate the death of Bob Jones III. I do have profound respect for individual Catholics, who realize they don't have to tether themselves to every Catholic precept.
Here are just a few reason why I choose not to respect the Catholic church nor the Pope:
>No female priests/leadership
>Child abuse not treated seriously
>Anti contraception
>Against ALL abortion
>Profoundly anti-gay
>Anti death with dignity (despite claims to the contrary)
>Possessing a litany of superstitions
Thanks Matt for your honesty.
If I could find a religion or a religious figure who didn't believe the above nonsense--outdated, superstitious, backwards, non-scientific, irrational beliefs--then I'd respect that religion or relgious figure.
Tangentially, one day we'll look back on these pharmacists who refuse to provide contraceptives, these people who want to put disclaimers in the front of science books, who refuse to teach kids about sex properly--we'll look back on these people in the same way that we look at the TALIBAN. That is not sensationalism. That is not exaggeration. That is not an emotional criticism. That is an exact and sad truth. And the same applies to the Pope.
Just because his beliefs sound more sophisticated, doesn't make them any less anti-human.
Posted by: Robert S. | Apr 1, 2005 11:25:33 PM
The argument that overpopulation is the cause of starvation in the world today is simply specious.
While it's grounds for concern in the future: just about all hunger today is the result of political action and war.
Posted by: pbg | Apr 1, 2005 11:26:33 PM
Don P., so b/c of its birth control policies the church is "causing" population growth that leads to poverty, but these same policies are "causing" millions to die of aids.
isn't reality a bit more complicated than this?and doesn't this same church, through its schools, hospitals, aid workers, etc. help alleviate some of this suffering?
Posted by: jk | Apr 1, 2005 11:34:14 PM
I have no doubt that this Pope would not have been silent during the Holocaust. I can easily imagine him risking his life to help try and stop it. So that's something.
He was a parish priest at ground zero of the Holocaust. Did he risk his life to try and stop it? Interesting question. 25% of the population of Poland was killed in World War II. The Nazis targeted authority figures. How did he survive?
Posted by: Freder Frederson | Apr 1, 2005 11:34:55 PM
I do find the tenor of this argument somewhat disingenuous; the Pope has never seemed to be treated differently from other religious leaders - vapidly reverential treatment for the personality without touching on the tenets in most news media, some people with slavish worship, some people attacking flat out, and some extremely tiny minority actually discussing the points in question. I generally chalk it up to Americans not being particularly conversant on religious matters; theatrically churchgoing, maybe, but that's a different animal.
That said, there's a fine line between making a brave intellectual stand and just being a wanker. Acknowledging that a good number of people are going to be mourning right now is just a matter of common humanity; there's plenty of time to write a good, solid criticism of the man's career.
Posted by: Mike Collins | Apr 1, 2005 11:35:15 PM
Take that back. He wasn't ordained until 1949.
Posted by: Freder Frederson | Apr 1, 2005 11:37:40 PM
Well, Giblets hates the Pope, and has been calling for his death for some time. Of course, Giblets is not a liberal.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Apr 1, 2005 11:41:08 PM
Gorbachev, Walesa, and Havel have all said that without him, the end of communism would never have happened; and they're right.
This sounds rather dubious. The PBS show Frontline interviewed Havel for its episode on the Pope. It reports:
"When we spoke to Vaclav Havel, the playwright and President of Czechoslovakia, he was cautious about singling out any one person--Gorbachev, Reagan or John Paul II--as the prime mover in the fall of Communism. Havel called the Pope's 1979 pilgrimage to Poland "a miracle" and credited John Paul II's contribution during the trip with being more important than anything the leaders of the U.S. or U.S.S.R. had done. But Havel was also careful to place John Paul II in a historical narrative. In the end, the Pope was only one leading character in the story of a vast grass roots movement."
Posted by: Don P | Apr 1, 2005 11:41:15 PM
the Pope has never seemed to be treated differently from other religious leaders
I had CNN on today and they had several hours of Pope coverage today. TOTALLY uninterrupted by ANY other news. I have never seen any religious leader receive that kind of coverage.
Additionally, you can criticize Bob Jones and get away with it. Try tearing up a picture of the Pope on SNL tho, and you'll never live it down. Try criticizing him and it's as if you were criticizing Christ himself. As Matt said, it's a taboo. Who also should not be considered beyond criticism.
Posted by: Robert S. | Apr 1, 2005 11:43:48 PM
Don P., one more thing. you said: "When did defending religions that cause an immense amount of harm and suffering become a liberal value?"
this maniacal insistence that the church is the cause of immense suffering is not only loosely based in reality, but it also completely ignores the great lengths that faithful members of the church go to comfort those in pain and anxiety.
Posted by: jk | Apr 1, 2005 11:44:14 PM
"Don P., so b/c of its birth control policies the church is 'causing' population growth that leads to poverty, but these same policies are 'causing' millions to die of AIDS."
If it evens out, it's all cool. The extra babies don't last too long.
Posted by: John Emerson | Apr 1, 2005 11:44:37 PM
Robert S.,
I was actually thinking about that today when I watched CNN do, of all things, a rather lackluster mass.
The problem ain't the Pope, the problem is CNN. When CNN has an 'event' they do nothing but cover it, I think it's a function of their 24-hour-only-one-narrative structure. I get the vague impression they're afraid to be off camera when he kicks it. This has been going on since O.J. at least.
Posted by: Mike Collins | Apr 1, 2005 11:46:06 PM
John Emerson, my point was that reality is much more complicated than some would have us imagine.
Posted by: jk | Apr 1, 2005 11:49:49 PM
Yeah, you're right about CNN and event coverage. They get in a rut where they think an announcement could be made any second and they don't want to be thr one to pull away.
It must've been 5 hours straight today before I turned it off. Just amazing.
Posted by: Robert S. | Apr 1, 2005 11:52:06 PM
Robert,
Hypnotic, innit? I was wathcing it for about 30 minutes and then went to take a shower, and I was literally thinking "What would happen if the Pope died while I was showering?". I sat myself back at the TV for five minutes before I came to my senses.
Denis Leary made a joke about the effect of telvision - that the first thing he remembers if JFK being shot, the second thing was RFK getting shot, and that he was afraid to leave the television for a second after that, for fear of missing who else might die.
Of course, he could actually deliver the joke, which I can't.
Posted by: Mike Collins | Apr 1, 2005 11:54:11 PM
Yes, I should say, I don't spend every day watching CNN all - I was working from home today and had it one while I worked. But, yes, I did get sucked into wanting to know if *it* was going to happen. Then I started thinking about the fact that they literally talked about nothing else and was pretty disappointed--as a student of journalism and because of the imbalance, not just because it was the Pope in particular.
Posted by: Robert S. | Apr 1, 2005 11:58:17 PM
Soon the pope will be planted,
unlike a tree, dead
you hate trees. coincidence?
Posted by: dolphin | Apr 1, 2005 11:58:54 PM
when Pope Pius the twelfth died it was the same thing. Non-stop coverage.
Posted by: Harold | Apr 2, 2005 1:03:15 AM
I'm an atheist, to get that out of the way. But criticizing the Pope for his views on various issues seems odd to me. It's different if the Pope had politicized himself, but I don't believe he has. To me he's a moral or religious figure, who's views one can agree or disagree with, but they strike me as legitimate held views and it seems incredibly intolerant to castigate the man for these moral thoughts which are clearly not outside of the mainstream of moral thought.
Another point I'd make for some of you is that some people just don't have a consequentialist morality, Catholics among them. To a Catholic you don't think about what a good end is (population control in third world countries), and than reason backwards to justify any means to get there. I may have a political view about population control in the third world, but I would try to be tolerant enough of the beliefs of someone who believed god has some kind of a plan, and that behaving "morally" was not only not going to interfere with that plan, but would bring that plan closer to fruition. I don't know, I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-birth-control, I'm pro-a-reasonable-approach-to-human-sexuality; but I just can't bring myself to feel that antagonistic toward someone who disagrees on these issues. Maybe I'm not making any sense here, but to me the distinction between religion and politics is an important one, and as long as the Pope stayed out of politics, I don't think he deserves such antagonistic attitudes. Of course, the child abuse is another story... that I'm not timid about judging.
Posted by: jedmunds | Apr 2, 2005 1:47:27 AM
You have to put some perspective into the whole thing. Remember, he was the first pope in 2000 years to not hold the jews responsible for that whole killing Jesus bit.
Posted by: bago | Apr 2, 2005 1:55:05 AM
Matt Y.: "But one of the Church's major roles is as an expounder of moral principles, and these are principles that -- quite rightly -- few Americans share. Certainly this one doesn't."
Which principles are we talking about? If you limit your discussion to artificial contraception and divorce, I'll grant you that few Americans would agree.
The other principles (feed the hungry, house the homeless, forgive the sinner, etc.) are almost universally accepted by Americans, even if we don't make much of an effort to act on them.
Posted by: snowball | Apr 2, 2005 2:10:42 AM
A few good comments on both (all?)sides in the above. What I find most depressing, however, is that Mr. Yglesias, who by his own admission grew up knowing no practicing Christians (let alone Catholics) buys (and promotes) lock stock and barrel in the old authoritarian top-down version of Catholicism that few contemporary Catholics, and nowhere near as much Catholic tradition over 2000 years as some people like to claim, would uphold. In fact, along with the crappy bishops he's tended to appoint, the selling of that image of the Church to the world outside the church may be the worst of JP II's legacies.
By the way, the crack about "white Catholics" is cheap and ignorant.
I recommend the post on the pope's imminent demise by Joshua Marshall, who's honestly critical but actually a lot about Catholicism.
Posted by: Gene O'Grady | Apr 2, 2005 2:36:18 AM
Don P., as mentioned, JPII was the first pope to not hold the jews responsible for Jesus's death. That took, what, 2000 years? And how long did it take for them to apologize to Galileo?
So why would you expect the pope to reverse long-standing teachings on birth control?
It's just not healthy to get pissed off at people for doing things you goddamn well know they're gonna do.
You and I will not live to see the Catholic church change its teachings on contraception. Deal with it.
Posted by: hamletta | Apr 2, 2005 2:48:49 AM
Wojtyla's too old for this, but there would be a certain perverse justice in having a pope dwelling indefinitely in a permanent vegetative state.
Posted by: bad Jim | Apr 2, 2005 4:06:10 AM
Yes, all true, but remember what old Joe Stalin said: "How many divisions does the pope have?" So - whatever. Let them sing their songs and perform their rituals. Who cares.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 2, 2005 4:33:58 AM
The Catholic curch is now the biggest provider of care for AIDS patients in sub-saharan Africa. I should know, I live there.
He was a major actor, probably the single most important individual one, in the downfall of communism.
He's done the most of any pope ever to reconcile Jusdaism and Catholicism.
He's been the only real voice for a truly radical ethic of life, that's opposed to abortion, the death-penalty and destitution.
etc. etc.
Posted by: shipp1 | Apr 2, 2005 6:56:36 AM
I could never hate a man who did so much to free 400 million people.
Posted by: Adam Herman | Apr 2, 2005 6:58:33 AM
How can you accept Catholicm, without accepting 1800 years of higly problematic and violent history ?
It's a package deal.
Just as a Lutheran can't run away from Luther's virulent antisemitism.
Posted by: Ron | Apr 2, 2005 9:21:12 AM
How can you accept Germany, without accepting er....70 (1860-1945) years of highly problematic and violent history?
It's a package deal.
Posted by: Troilus | Apr 2, 2005 10:22:41 AM
Completely non-consequentialist ethics would only make sense if there's an afterlife where everything is made good. Catholics do believe this, but if they're wrong, they're doing harm and should be held liable.
I do believe that Catholic ethics is mixed, as ethics should be, however, and consequentialist aspects can be considered, though they're not prioritized.
"Only the good die young." Now that's anti-consequentialism. "Let no good deed go unpunished."
Posted by: John Emerson | Apr 2, 2005 10:41:23 AM
"So why would you expect the pope to reverse long-standing teachings on birth control?"
Actually, If you look at the at the very short tenure of John Paul I (a month or so) he was going to rock the Catholic Church to its roots--women priests, acceptance of birth control, married priests, all were being openly discussed in just that short time. No wonder to this day rumors of murder (egged on by The DaVinci Code) persist.
Theologically, especially on issues of sexualality and gender equality, this Pope has taken the Church backwards, not forwards. In the years after World War II the Church was beginning to modify its medievel views on sexuality and women's roles but that stopped under John Paul II.
As for the Catholic Church's problematic history, it has done a lot of good in the world, but on the other hand if you were to compare it side by side with other major destructive forces in the history of mankind it could stand toe-to-toe with the twin evils of the twentieth century, fascism and communism. The Crusades were unmitigated evil and slaughter. The slave trade and the slaughter of the native peoples in the New World by the Spanish and the Portugese was blessed and encouraged by the Catholic Church. Then of course you had the various purges, inquistions, wars and persecutions in Europe against Jews, protestants, "witches", and any other groups or individuals that offended or challenged the authority of the Church. Although the Church has apologized for some of these sins, they have by no means apologized for all of them, and the apologies are always couched in all kinds of justifications and excuses.
And finally, as a Protestent, it offends me that the Catholic Church still demands, almost 600 years after the first reformation movements, and more than 900 years after the split with the Orthodox Church, that the Roman Catholic Church is the "one true way" and that the Christianity will not be healed until the protestents come back into the fold and recoginize the authority of the Pope.
Posted by: Freder Frederson | Apr 2, 2005 10:57:42 AM
Would I have to accept that every German leader in the past milennia was god's messenger on earth ?
You know, like when Urban II decided it was time to kill a few heathens in the name of Jesus.
Posted by: Ron | Apr 2, 2005 10:57:48 AM
Religion is a vestigial organ of the human mind. The concept that there are many kinds of equally valid truth is laughably nonsensical. Suppose I tell you that there is an invisible dragon that lives in my back yard? Ridiculous, you say - there's no evidence that this dragon exists, therefore your statement is nonsensical, and certainly not true, because truth means evidence. Ah, but the existence of the dragon is true by a different kind of truth: a non-verifiable kind of truth; and, in fact, this non-verifiable kind of truth is actually superior to mundane, verifiable truth. You tell me you see no reason to take this non-verifiable truth seriously. OK, say I: this dragon created the universe, and demands that you profess belief in him, otherwise he will eat you. Does that change your mind?
How is it that most people unquestionably dismiss “primitive” religions as “mere superstition,” but believe in modern religions that are built on the exact same principle of non-verifiable truth?
Non-verifiable truth is a meaningless contradiction. It makes no sense. None whatsoever. End of story. Done. Wake up.
Religion is a vestigial organ of the human mind, that indicated primitive patterns of thought that people resorted to before the concept of scientific inquiry existed.
Posted by: doug | Apr 2, 2005 11:18:06 AM
How dare you insult my faith!
Posted by: Dragon Worshiper | Apr 2, 2005 11:29:03 AM
It's just not healthy to get pissed off at people for doing things you goddamn well know they're gonna do.
You and I will not live to see the Catholic church change its teachings on contraception. Deal with it.
So, at what point does it become OK to criticize the Pope, Hamletta? You would agree, I suppose that it's OK to criticize the Taliban or Bob Jones or Sun Young Moon, despite the widely varying degrees of harm they're doing to humanity?
The pope and the Cathloic church certainly do some good. So did the Puritans. So does Bob Jones for that matter. That does nothing to diminish the fact that they're guilty of latching on to superstitious and anti-human behavior, that is harmful to millions of human beings.
>No female priests/leadership
>Child abuse not treated seriously
>Anti contraception
>Against ALL abortion
>Profoundly anti-gay
>Anti death with dignity (despite claims to the contrary)
>Possessing a litany of superstitions
These beliefs and acts do profound harm to humanity. They shouldn't be ingored just because it may take eons for the church to change. Open criticism encourages change. To use your own example, Galileo didn't SHUT UP because he knew the church would disagree with him.
Deal with that.
Posted by: Robert S. | Apr 2, 2005 11:33:03 AM
The funny thing to me as a person raised Catholic who knows many Catholics is how conservatives push the lie that most Catholics are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and socially conservative like the Church.
The sad thing is the media and many liberals buy into it. The truth is many Catholics in the US disagree with many of the Church's moral stances.
Posted by: Matt W. | Apr 2, 2005 11:45:01 AM
Would I have to accept that every German leader in the past milennia was god's messenger on earth?
Whether or not every pope is in fact god's messenger on earth is besides the point. If, as you imply, Catholicism ought to be removed from the community of acceptable faiths because of its bloody history, then a necessary corollary must be that the past actions of Germany, the United States, France, Great Britain, and a great many other nations render them today as unworthy of statehood.
Posted by: Troilus | Apr 2, 2005 11:47:47 AM
Billmon is also good today, tho I suppose we will soon see a ton of postings and articles.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 2, 2005 11:55:27 AM
Robert,
Galileo did shut up, he publically recanted his views. If you want somebody who was actually martyred for expostulating naturalism, use Giordano Bruno.
Posted by: Mike Collins | Apr 2, 2005 12:01:25 PM
Thanks for straightening out my history, Mike.
Also, Matt, I agree: The truth is many Catholics in the US disagree with many of the Church's moral stances.
Any criticism of mine here is aimed at the dogma and those who enforce it. I know Catholics whose beliefs are very much aligned with my more secular humanist beliefs.
I think many critics of Catholicism understand that.
The sad thing is the media and many liberals buy into it.
I disagree. If anything, the media appears to revere the Catholic church. Same for many, many liberals. People consider me a hard-left liberal, but I'm greatly concerned by the inability of some on the left to criticize any relgious belief system, with the seeming justification that doing so is intolerant.
Calling bullshit should never be considered intolerance.
Posted by: Robert S. | Apr 2, 2005 12:14:05 PM
Ugh. Close that HTML!
Posted by: Robert S. | Apr 2, 2005 12:14:59 PM
Robert S, you hit the reasons that caused me to become an ex-Catholic--while I agree that this Pope has been one of the better ones, there's no getting around the Church's dogma about birth control, women's rights, and the eternal shame of sexual abuse within the priesthood.
I'm also going to throw one more log on the fire--despite one of the commandments saying 'thou shalt worship no idol before me,' it seems that Catholics have a prediliction for worshipping the Pope and Jesus--I know the standard argument is that they are both 'part of God,' but yet, both are really just human, and aren't we really all part of God?
I'll probably get flamed for this, however, the one true God is above and beyond this earth, and I'll stand by my belief that the Pope or Pat Robertson or George Bush has no more insight into God than I do, and I resent any of these people claiming to be God's special messenger...
As an old saying goes: God uses the good, but the wicked use God!
Posted by: David W | Apr 2, 2005 1:03:37 PM
Only 33% of the world's population is Christian and only half of that is Catholic. About 15% of the world's population does not practise any religiion at all. So the Catholics are almost equal in size to people who don't practice any religion at all.
Now all this sobbing over Pope's impending demise is quite comical really. In most cultures (non-Western) people would be celebrating the life of a person who has lived so long and achieved so much (although I really dispute the achievement part).
Come on people, you've got to realize that a majority of the world's population doesn't give two hoots about the pope.
The US media is really something ain't it? For them to totally ignore the dubious role this pope has played in suppressing civil rights of latin americans (his suppressioin of liberation theology), his real conservative and un-scientific views on most every day issues like birth control, abortion, AIDS, homosexuality, abstinence, woman priesthood, allowing priests to marry, lack of action against priests indulging in pedophilia - the list just goes on and on....
And to say that this pope has a lot to do with the end of Cold War and the downfall of the Soviet Union is really taking things too far. Most of Russia believes in Orthodox Church - at odds with Catholics for eternity. And in any case, it is the basic human urge for freedom and better lives that propelled peope in Russia and Eastern Europe towards dismantling communism. The pope at best was a player on the sidelines - just like Reagan and Thatcher. The real heroes were the people on the street in russia and eastern europe.
Someone needs to critically examine the shady legacy of catholic church and especially this pope - just the fact that he is dying does not mean that we forget all that was bad during this pope's reign.
Posted by: Snoopy Dog | Apr 2, 2005 1:38:29 PM
David,
Thanks for that great saying "God uses the good, but the wicked use God!"
Posted by: Snoopy Dog | Apr 2, 2005 1:40:18 PM
To believe in catholic church is to believe in the fact that earth is not round, that sun goes around the earth. It means rejecting modern science and medicine (which oddly enough has kept this pope alive for so long)
Come on people, belief in God, the Supreme Being, the Nature is one thing, but believing that you can only do good by following the dogma laid out by a cult over 20 centuries marked by opression, dogma and superstition is quite another
Posted by: Snoopy Dog | Apr 2, 2005 1:43:10 PM
The Catholic Church is the one claiming each and every pope for the past x centuries years was Peter's direct successor and Christ's representative on Earth.
So it is in fact the essence of the difference between it and present-day Germany.
Posted by: Ron | Apr 2, 2005 2:47:29 PM
he was the first pope in 2000 years to not hold the jews responsible for that whole killing Jesus bit.
John XXIII??
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | Apr 2, 2005 4:26:58 PM
The question I am having difficulty with while reading this thread is "by what standard should we judge the pope and the Catholic Church itself?"
As a human being and a human institution with foibles and capable of mistake and errors of judgement? Which is my instinct.
Or as the sometime infallible shepherd of God's flock on earth? A standard by which the Pope and the Church itself holds itself out. Yet at the same time, I think of the apostle Peter, the first pope, who himself was a notoriously weak disciple that had denied Jesus three times. Is that at all relevant?
But if I claim humility to avoid judging the Church's impact on the world with respect to birth control and its anti-woman attitudes, am I not giving it more deference than I would any other institution on earth? And if so, why?
Yet, to draw a parallel, how should I judge, say former Supreme Court Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendall Holmes, the vast majority of whose jurisprudence I respect greatly, yet who held condescending attitudes toward women and pro-eugenics attitudes respectively? Or what about Franklin Delano Roosevelt who did a lot of good as president, yet who is responsible for interning Japanese Americans? Should I be more forgiving of them because they never claimed the holy connections that the Pope did, though I myself do not acknowledge the Pope in that way?
And at what point should I not condemn someone for their sincerely held beliefs? I'm thinking there's a spectrum here between, say Ghandi and the Taliban, but where should I draw the line?
I'm honestly going back and forth on this. I haven't figured it out. My instinct is one I would characterize as tolerance and humility though.
Posted by: jedmunds | Apr 2, 2005 5:09:25 PM
jedmunds:
You should condemn them all. You should also condemn Ghandi (not so great on the women-folk either, and he was thoroughly anti-modern).
See, don't you feel superior now?
It's the *sophisticated* way. I learned it by watching Matt Y.
Posted by: snowball | Apr 2, 2005 5:30:27 PM
But that's a little too cute I think. I'm not convinced that as a secular humanist/atheist, my greater comfort with calling George Bush a "jackass" because I disagree with a lot of his policies and effect on the world can be justified. I'm not certain that my refusal to view the Pope through a political lens has any justifiable basis, though I think viewing him exclusively through an American/Western political lens would be mistaken.
Posted by: jedmunds | Apr 2, 2005 6:45:39 PM
Ha'aretz has a nice piece on John Paul II and his (apparently significant) role in Jewish-Catholic reconciliation.
Posted by: Guy | Apr 2, 2005 7:20:56 PM
Re: One wonders too how many lives lost to AIDS in the developing world might have been saved--millions, tens of millions, perhaps--were it not for the church's opposition to condoms and to any kind of realistic recognition of human sexuality.
Given that the Church as no condom police with which to enforce its ukases on birth control, I would say that any lives lost were the fault of careless people, not the Church. After all American Catholics have disregarded the Vatican position on condoms; African Catholics were just as free to do so.
Posted by: JonF | Apr 2, 2005 7:23:32 PM
jedmunds:
I am simply trying to correct the error of your ways. Your "tolerance and humility" and your refusal to condemn the Pope are mere moral weakness and intellectual cowardice. Matt has infallibly announced (and what sentient being could disagree?) that few Americans share the moral principles of the late Pope and the Catholic Church. Of course, Matt hasn't told us (i) what those principles are, (ii) what evidence supports the assertion that few Americans agree with them, or (iii) why we should reject those principles just because they are unpopular in America. But I'm sure he has that all figured out nicely.
Aren't you sophisticated enough to join in the condemnation? You must be in thrall to the superstitious taboo that prevents all right-thinking people from agreeing with Matt, as well they should.
Shame on you. You are a bad secular humanist for being so irritatingly tolerant and broad minded.
Posted by: snowball | Apr 2, 2005 7:36:23 PM
snowball:
We should reject the principles of the Catholic Church because they are harmful and wrong.
As to whether Americans share those principles, it is abundantly clear that even American Catholics do not share them. Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as non-Catholic women. This is true not just in the U.S. but in "Catholic" countries such as Italy and Poland. 90% of American Catholics reject the Church's teaching on birth control. Amoung Catholics under 40, the rate of rejection is even higher. In fact, the proportion who agree with the Church is so small that it is statistically insignificant. 87% favor the ordination of women. 80% say that the church should reconsider its positions on divorce, remarriage and human sexuality. Less than 20% go to mass weekly. Less than 32% think that going to confession is necessary. And these are just few examples of dissent and disobediance.
These are not minor disagreements. They go to the heart of the Church's teachings about the nature and value of human life, about man's relationship to God, and about the meaning and purpose of sexuality and marriage.
In short, the Pope and the Vatican are basically irrelevant to American Catholics, except symbolically. American Catholics have long decided to make up their own minds and ignore what the Church tells them to do when they disagree with it. The doctrines and dogmas of the Church are, at most, mere suggestions that Catholics feel free to disregard.
Posted by: Don P | Apr 2, 2005 8:13:33 PM
I certainly wouldn't say that I hate the Pope (among other things, for all my politically aware life he's been in rather bad shape and one gets the sense that he wasn't making all the decisions single-handedly) but I certainly don't admire the man or the institution he heads. Indeed, I find the extent to which it's considered taboo to mention this is a bit odd.
Translation: When I was at [get ready for it] Harvard, there was this girl I really wanted to lay. But she turned me down; it must have been because she was Catholic. I'll show them. I'll be all brave and say the unpopular thing: Down with the Pope! Down with Rome! Damn, I'm such a fearless advocate for the truth. I feel just like Galileo. This must be better than getting laid.
Posted by: The Man of K Street | Apr 2, 2005 8:43:46 PM
Don P:
Thanks for setting me straight. I'm getting a little more illumination on the principles of the Catholic Church, and why the whole thing should be crushed like a ripe melon. I didn't realize that those principles were largely limited to, and defined by, the pelvic region. And, by your own description, apparently most self-identified American Catholics didn't realize that either. But, I'll take your word for it--the Church promotes little else but sexual ascetism, which is evil.
Now that we've got that settled, can you help me out a little with another problem? If the doctrines and dogmas of the Church are mere suggestions that are not taken seriously, how could they be so harmful? And why does the entire political-journalistic firmament quake before the mighty power of the Church, as Matt says they do?
I am not as sophisticated as you are, so you'll have to walk me through these points, slowly, one at a time.
Again, many thanks.
Posted by: snowball | Apr 2, 2005 9:06:39 PM
K Street:
I don't appreciate your denigrating the force and wisdom of Matt Y's comments. He has told us that no one agrees with the (unidentified) principles of the Catholic Church, but that a powerful political-journalistic conspiracy props the whole charade up. With cutting analysis like that, how can you attribute his comments to mere young lust?
Posted by: snowball | Apr 2, 2005 9:21:14 PM
snowball:
I didn't realize that those principles were largely limited to, and defined by, the pelvic region.
The Church itself argues that its teachings on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, marriage, divorce, the importance of the sacraments, the restriction of the priesthood to men, and so on, are a reflection of its fundamental views of human life, human sexuality, man's relationship to God, and the Church's relationship to God. You can't seriously claim that dissent from these teachings is consistent with acceptance of the principles of the Church. You just don't want to admit how rare such acceptance is, even amoung Catholic Americans, let alone amoung Americans in general.
If the doctrines and dogmas of the Church are mere suggestions that are not taken seriously, how could they be so harmful?
In the U.S., they're not very harmful now, because so few people take them seriously any more. But they still do some harm. And in the developing world, where poverty and ignorance makes people more vulnerable to the dangers of the Church, they still cause considerable harm.
Posted by: Don P | Apr 2, 2005 9:38:39 PM
Don P:
Ahh, I see now. Thank you for enlightening me. As you can probably tell, I am hopelessly unsophisticated and need lots of enlightening. If you are correct (as I'm sure you are), then there really aren't any Catholics left in America anymore. I think you are secretly a member of Opus Dei, because they say exactly the same thing.
Is there anything in particular that I can do to help save those ignorant wretches in the third world from the "dangers of the Church" as you call it? Should I send guns and ammo? A Mormon missionary to cut off the Church at the pass? Is the Church dangerous like WMDs are dangerous? Is it too late to invade and set them free?
Posted by: snowball | Apr 2, 2005 10:01:07 PM
snowball:
If you are correct (as I'm sure you are), then there really aren't any Catholics left in America anymore.
No, if I am correct (which I am), then most of the people in America who call themselves Catholic, and may have been baptized as Catholics, do not really accept the principles of the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Don P | Apr 2, 2005 10:12:13 PM
Don P:
Gotcha! You really are a member of Opus Dei! We need more people like *you* to tell all the Catholics in America whether or not they belong in the Church. And not a moment too soon!
Hey, have you met Robert Novak and Louis Freeh? I hope they'll be laying down the law with you.
Posted by: snowball | Apr 2, 2005 10:18:54 PM
ding ding ding you have a winner
Posted by: adam s | Apr 3, 2005 1:11:13 PM
aphrael:
without him, the end of communism would never have happened; and they're right.
Never? You overstate the case.
Posted by: epistemology | Apr 3, 2005 9:56:33 PM
jedmonds:
It's different if the Pope had politicized himself, but I don't believe he has
Yes he has. He has had his minions urge the American electorate to reject pro-choice candidates. Not pro-death penalty candidates, not pro-unjust war candidates, just pro-choice. He led a foreign nation that inserted itself into the politics of mine. If he didn't want to be judged, he shouldn't have made so many judgments that affected others. Of course I mourn his death out of respect for our common humanity.
Posted by: epistemology | Apr 3, 2005 10:05:21 PM
I'm running a little late on this one, but R U Fuxin kiddin me this cocksucker was on his death bed and they didn't want to let him go for nothin.
It's common knoweledge amongst those who trully have the Lord (& there aren't many) that this Bastard & every pope before & after R & will burn, fux'em they deserve eternal Hell FIRE>>>>>>>>
Posted by: burnbitchburn | Sep 20, 2006 7:26:17 PM

