Pope Dies.....
- Thread starter Mohrg
- Start date
SimpleMinded
Vault Fossil
Not to sound disrespectful but it's almost for better that he's dead. He's gotten old and really couldn't hold an active role in the church in his weak state. With the introduction of a new pope, he can hopefully add new life into the Catholic Church.
On another note, a history forum I read mentioned that the pope would probably be added to the list of great popes in history. Anyone have any strong opinions on his reign? Things he did good, things he did bad?
On another note, a history forum I read mentioned that the pope would probably be added to the list of great popes in history. Anyone have any strong opinions on his reign? Things he did good, things he did bad?
welsh
Junkmaster
I liked that he expanded the dialogue between other faiths and in that way reduced the level of conflict between different religions.
On the downside, in many developing countries the catholic church is often tied to the ruling elite and act in ways that stifle resistance (the whole "suffering is good" nonsense). Pope could have been better in that way.
On the downside, in many developing countries the catholic church is often tied to the ruling elite and act in ways that stifle resistance (the whole "suffering is good" nonsense). Pope could have been better in that way.
Mohrg said:
Well, I believe the church has it's chance now.
While it has been different in continents other than Europe, the Church here is doing very, very badly. There's a huge shortage of priests on its way, and most churches are nearly empty. Why? Missed opportunities.
The Church missed its train. It chose to ignore several tendencies in secular and spiritual life that it could have connected to, and have given it meaning. The summer of '68, for instance: basically, the message from all those smelly hippies was the same as was Jesus had said. (well, 'cept for free love, then) Heck, they even dressed the same as him!
Yet, that's when the church really started 'closing' itself: after the Vatican Concilie (sp?) of the sixties, there was a kind of self-satisfaction among religious leaders in the sense that they believe they'd done all the reforms needed. They changed a lot in that concilie (for the better, I might add), and then seemed to grind to a halt in their modernisation-proces. The real dialogue on a spiritual level between the Church and it's followers died then: all the kind of things that lead to the reforms of the Vatican concilie were suddenly ignored. It rusted into place, and didn't connect to what was happening among it's followers: new forms of cohabitation among lovers outside of marriage, that could be just as honorable; new developments in social/hygienic/sexual ethics such as AIDS; and so on. Pope John Paul II especially seemed have wanted only 'the best of all worlds': he believe strongly in the sanctity of marriage, of sexuality, of religion, without respecting/accepting the inherent imperfection in human beings which always jeapordises these kind of utopian ideals. He focussed to strongly on perfection, marginalising all those that didn't fit in the 'traditional' church teachings: homosexuals, the post modernistic intellectual elite, or whatever: a huge number of people that suddenly found themselves rejected by an institution that's supposed to bring the world together.
Don't get me wrong: pope John Paul II was a good pope, if not a bit too strong-headed. He acted very authoritarian and centralised all power in the Vatican, and reacted way too strongly against theologists/priests that didn't neccesairily agree with the 'official' Vatican views. The way he treated the whole discussion relating to the admission of women into the Church is a perfect example of that: he basically told everybody to shut the hell up and never, ever (even after his death) speak of it again. That's not a good way for a spiritual leader to act, especially when it's the leader of a spiritual belief that preaches respect and love for each and every human being. Dialogue is still essential in this day and age when it comes to believing, otherwise a major part of the younger generation will find itself averted from an institution that does not want to evolve beyond what it has grown into in the first half of this century.
That said, I think the Church will also have to find a way to re-position itself in the world. With all respect for what Pope John Paul II has accomplished in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Wall, but that's basically not his job. Pope John Paul II was a politically very 'active' pope, and that was out of line. While connecting 'real life' to spiritual beliefs is one thing, actually meddling in politics is another. We all saw what it lead to in the past.
Not only that, but there's a basic ideological problem too. For an institution based on a teaching that's so obviously leftish, the Church is amazingly right-wing. That's another discussion, though.
I don't have all that much hope in changes, though, as the Cardinals that will now go to the Conclave in Rome are most likely all faithfull followers of the current path. One doesn't become bisshop if one does not follow the official Church teachings, and one sure as hell doesn't become Cardinal then.
Yet, let's all wait for the white smoke, and hope it will lead the Church into the new age.
Nocturne said:
Chances for that are very, very, very low. Pope John Paul II and Ratzinger are basically the same when it comes to beliefs, doctrine and execution. No way in hell is the Conclave going to chose the exact same type of guy when they've been complaining so much about the authoritarian way of acting of Pope John Paul II...
Mohrg said:
RubyTuesday
First time out of the vault
I am saddened to hear of Pope John Paul II's death, but I am relieved that he is no longer suffering. He will forever be remembered as a man who fought for world peace. In my opinion, it will be difficult to fill his shoes.
John Paul II had to be strict. Many people called him too conservative for acting against Protestants and Catholics sharing the Communion at an ecumenical Mass, but that would have nullified all his efforts of bridging the gap between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church because the Orthodox church IS very conservative.
Diplomacy never was an easy game and you can't avoid hurting some feelings if you have to juggle two extremes.
In some way John Paul II was very conservative, yes, but in many ways he also tried to reunite the Christian churches and improve the relations to other, even non-Christian, religions.
I'm not saying that I agree with all things he said (after all old people tend to get funny -- and that in more than one way) and I don't think claiming that oral sex causes cancer or telling South Africans that condoms can't save them from AIDS during a widespread AIDS-preventation campaign is the smartest thing to do, but within the past years his mind was far healthier than his body and even when his body was failing on him, he tried to stay as active as he could.
He likely pissed off many of the conservative hardliners in the Vatican with what he did and I can only hope the next pope will not be one of those but rather someone who builds on the progress made during the Pope's lifetime.
By pope standards he was a hippie.
Diplomacy never was an easy game and you can't avoid hurting some feelings if you have to juggle two extremes.
In some way John Paul II was very conservative, yes, but in many ways he also tried to reunite the Christian churches and improve the relations to other, even non-Christian, religions.
I'm not saying that I agree with all things he said (after all old people tend to get funny -- and that in more than one way) and I don't think claiming that oral sex causes cancer or telling South Africans that condoms can't save them from AIDS during a widespread AIDS-preventation campaign is the smartest thing to do, but within the past years his mind was far healthier than his body and even when his body was failing on him, he tried to stay as active as he could.
He likely pissed off many of the conservative hardliners in the Vatican with what he did and I can only hope the next pope will not be one of those but rather someone who builds on the progress made during the Pope's lifetime.
By pope standards he was a hippie.
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
welsh said:
Too true Welsh. Im so glad to see any of the worlds four major religions have a large branch that promotes understanding on a multi-faith level...its the reason I can have so many friends of different religions!
Sadly Jebus is right though...hopefully the new Pope will be more open.
Regardless he's in a better place and meant well for people while he was alive. I just pray the successor is as good as he is at least in the inter-faith department since being the leader of the largest and most powerful denomination of Christianity he can have a great effect on how the next 10-50 years occur in terms of peace and love or hate and violence towards the ever-increasing meetings between Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians who devide the world equally in terms of land and people. (roughly)
Really...that last line sounds like good grounds for a crappy strategy game storyline.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
greatatlantic
It Wandered In From the Wastes
As one of the faithful, this day has been expected for years now. So, I'm sort of numb to it, though I was a big fan... saw him twice!
But there is a lot more at stake than just getting along with other religions. The reason any religion has a belief in the first place is because they think its right. Now Catholics are different than other denomination in that a "good" person who is not Christian can still achieve salvation, so dialogue is more readily possible. But that doesn't mean they are going to abandon there very well rationalized and documented system of beliefs. Change can happen, but it is a very slow process in such a beaucracy.
But there is a lot more at stake than just getting along with other religions. The reason any religion has a belief in the first place is because they think its right. Now Catholics are different than other denomination in that a "good" person who is not Christian can still achieve salvation, so dialogue is more readily possible. But that doesn't mean they are going to abandon there very well rationalized and documented system of beliefs. Change can happen, but it is a very slow process in such a beaucracy.
If you're all looking for a progressive Pope get ready to be sorely disappointed.
Scuttlebutt I've heard is that the frontrunners are all from the developing world. Expect teh next Pope to be from an African nation where the Catholic church is growing rapidly. Note that these areas are the same that take the bible very seriously on all matters. Intolerance and reactionary attitudes are in the cards kids, mark my words.
Scuttlebutt I've heard is that the frontrunners are all from the developing world. Expect teh next Pope to be from an African nation where the Catholic church is growing rapidly. Note that these areas are the same that take the bible very seriously on all matters. Intolerance and reactionary attitudes are in the cards kids, mark my words.
greatatlantic
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Here is a slate article naming some possible successors. It is also important to remember that the process isn't decided by pundits, its decided by an elite group of about 170 people who keep in touch with one another. They might pick somebody based on their reputation for holiness and mass appeal alone.
http://www.slate.com/id/2089815/
http://www.slate.com/id/2089815/
greatatlantic
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Scrapper said:
Oh, and baloney. There is only one pope at any given time, and while he is pope he is the most recongnizable person in the world. True, when one dies he is replaced quickly, but the different personalities and beliefs of popes can be felt through out history.
Ashmo said:
Heck no he wasn't.
Perhaps he seemed that way, though. He was the first pope to my recollection that wrote poems, climbed mountains, played soccer and whatnot; he was the first pope that met with rockstars, played the media and tried to go along with popular culture, BUT -
He was a man of contradictions. Beneath that 'modern' exterior - the way he was presented when he became pope: "the pope to lead the Chruch into the new millenium"- there was a man that was at war with the 20th century. While he played the media like a puppeteer, he dispised everything that mankind had become. He tiraded against consumerist culture, yet he himself appeared in big shows in football arenas. He dispised the lack of 'culture', yet he was best buddies with Bono. He worshipped the Virgin Mary, yet he was afraid of women as his equals. Heh. He might have sounded modern (at start), but he was a pope that fought to retain an image of the church that comes right out of the Middle Ages.
No offense to the Polish - but the fact that he was Polish probably had a lot to do with it. Christianity in Poland is still Middle-Agish like: with old-school masses, processions that last for days, and basic old-school religious experiences. And that contrasts with the modern exterior that the Polish nowadays have - just like with the pope. He might've seemed a reformer, but his view on the Church, on Christianity and on mankind as a whole was unmistakeably midieval.
If any pope in history was 'a hippie', it would've been Pope John XXIII, who died in 1963. He was the pope that opened the second Vatican Council and thus -among other things- made it so that masses aren't in Latin anymore.
Murdoch said:
If an African Cardinal becomes pope, I'll eat my hat.
It's going to an Italian (or perhaps a South-African) in his seventies with a slightly shaky health. Mark my words.