The Pope

[Insight]

It's been on the news all day, and it looks like the 3rd longest reigning (?) Pontiff is finally ready to depart.

I haven't seen much about it on the Sinner (which did rather surprise me), so I was wondering what everyone thought of the man who is being hailed as one the greatest humans to have walked our Earth.

I, myself, can't deny that as a spiritual leader within the faith I was raised in, he was a strong guiding light. From what I know of his predecessors, he was exemplary in his efforts to unite the Catholic world, and keep the teachings within the world forum.

And yet, his conservative stance (some of his ministers denied this....I don't know how) may have done damage that will affect us for a long time to come.

The main issue bandied about being contraception. In the mniddle of the AIDS crisis, and as it heightened, he, and the cardinals around him, took stronger and tighter grips on their stance: none, nada, use a johnny bag and burn etc. I can't help but wonder what the infected count would be today if the Church relented. I understand all too well that the Scriptures teach anti contraception, but that's all they will see it as: anti birth control. Not a protective measure against an apparently incurable virus that's eating up the developing world.

I can't deny that the funding the Vatican has poured into the research & treatment programmes is fantasic, but still, had they permitted the use of contraception for preventative purposes, maybe the problem wouldn't be as huge.

All that ties in with the overpopulation of the globe; deep moral questions as to how far we go to control birth rates, but inevitably adding to huge economical, agricultural and plain human problems everywhere, especially in poorer nations. The papacy of today, after all, is on the same lines as the one which sat on the contraceptive pill: designed by a Catholic pharmacologist who spent a large part of his working career searching for a way to provide effective birth control that did not contravene doctrine.

The hard lines against abortion, homosexuality, end of life issues have served perhaps to solidify the core followers, and yet alienate those with more open minds. Heathens maybe, but a large cross section of society, the Western world in particular, who are increasingly accepting of these issues.

I guess it's hard for me to evaluate my feelings: the only Pope I have ever lived under, suffering so terribly and publically, a man I know to be good in that he is faithful to his own traditional beliefs, who apologised for Christian atrocities and apathies centuries ago, but a man who (personally?) has caused much hurt and anger during his own tenure - myself included - some Catholics let themselves lapse for personal reasons, as well as the more common laziness.

I'm glad he's getting peace now.

The next Pontiff should prove interesting...I'm betting Latino.

[pobtastic]

Blah de blah de blah....Christian shit...

I'm sorry that someone's dying, but not any more than I'm sorry about any of the individual 200,000 people who died in the Tsunami.

The only good thing I can say about him is that he did an amazing Yoda impression...

[Insight]

Don't be so flippant. I'm not saying it is any more important than the thousands who died in the tsunami disaster, or my gran dying, or my mate's cat.

However, none of these people (felines) have had such an effect on the world stage during their life (the tsunami victims undoubtedly, tragically, only in their death) and I just wondered what everyone thought.

[Beljeran]

I do beg your pardon, but I can't tell why anybody would so debase themselves as to belittle a dying man and to needlessly interrupt a good debate with such arrogant gibberish as you just did. You may not feel that the Pope's death is something worth talking about - others disagree. I, though not Catholic, am one of them, and take offence, sir, or madame, at your abhorrent disregard for common decency.

That is not to refute your point that it is no worse than the deaths of those in the recent Tsunami crisis - or the death of six million Jews under the Nazi reign, for that matter, or the murder of innocents in Darfur - that is irrelevant, however, to discussion and to veneration of a man. I should kindly ask, therefore, that remarks of that kind not be made. They are, as I said, offensive.

[the racing tortoise]

The man lived to eighty four. To say that his life has not been influential would be a lie but his death is not a tragady, mearly an inevitability. It is regretable that he is dieing but his life is not mournable as he lived a long and sucsess one. In my view anybody who has their life stolen from them by famine or war or any other reason deserves more attention and far more sympathy than a powerful 84 year old who has been allowed to die of natural causes. Pray for the victims of
of the conflicts in the world or the tsunami if you think it will help but the pope does not deserve (or want if he is genuinely not vain) the attention he is getting.

[hr]ohh well.

there's always alcohol.

[David Bean]

Getting back to the central point in question here, I gather that the Catholic Church's stance on contraception has more to do with doctrines it decided upon by itself than what Scripture has to say on the subject; this is one of the reasons why I haven't converted to Catholicism. On that basis I see no hypothetical reason why it shouldn't change its position, particularly in light of the AIDS crisis, controversial though such a move would doubtless be.

However, when it comes to the Third World, I think the Church could stand to take a more moderate view irrespective of its theological position. It ought to state that whilst it maintains its opposition to contraception, it wouldn't attempt to impose its view by opposing (or declining to fund) projects that use contraception as part of a programme of measures designed at combatting AIDS, so long as those projects can be demonstrated to offer the best value for money in terms of lives saved or infections prevented. In taking that sort of line, it would demonstrate a proactive mentality, essentially saying that whilst Catholics still believe contraception to be wrong in principle, there are greater problems affecting those who live in the Third World than the potential spiritual damage attendent on using condoms - namely, the risk of being infected with AIDS.

What we have here is a case of the doctrine of double effect. As Ben Reilly was explaining to me the other night, the Union justifies its condom distribution scheme (of which I'm a part) by stating that its intention is to prevent STD infection, not to provide a means of birth control - but it just so happens that one side-effect of preventing the spread of STDs through this demonstrably effective mechanism is that of contraception. Naturally this employs some fairly transparent sleight-of-hand, but the important thing is that it justifies a worthwhile project in such a way as to prevent its potential opponents from mounting an effective attack. If the Catholic Church wished to moderate its stance on condom distribution in the Third World without revising or contradicting dogma, I would suggest this as a fruitful argument that it could make.

[hr]"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?- Matthew 16:26

[Humphrey]

My mates are playing this game at the moment where you can’t stop drinking until the pope dies. They have BBC news 24 up and have been sitting there since 7 waiting for the old duffer to pop his clogs. Personally I’m hoping he holds out until they’ve wreaked their livers.

[Anon.]

[s]David Bean wrote on 02:30, 2nd Apr 2005:
In taking that sort of line, it would demonstrate a proactive mentality, essentially saying that whilst Catholics still believe contraception to be wrong in principle, there are greater problems affecting those who live in the Third World than the potential spiritual damage attendent on using condoms - namely, the risk of being infected with AIDS.

I assume that the Catholic Church would regard what you term "spiritual damage" as much worse than any malady of the body.

[jennyo]

Erm...'third reigning Pontiff'?
Try 264th.

[Insight]

[s]jennyo wrote on 03:23, 2nd Apr 2005:
Erm...'third reigning Pontiff'?
Try 264th.


Whoops - I meant 3rd longest.

Shall be edited posthaste.

[flarewearer]

The pope... ...that Polish chap in the hat, right?

[hr][s]It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas and half a pack of cigarettes. It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it.[/s]
http://www.magnificentoctopus.com/

[LonelyPilgrim]

Aye, in so far as I am aware, there is nothing in Scripture about birth control... or abortion for that matter. Various churches stances toward these issues arise only as an extrapolation... ie. "If Scripture said something about this, what do we think it would say." More or less.

My two major problems with the Church are it's stance toward contraception, and it's unequal stance toward women in the Church. Their position on abortion, while I disagree with it, is morally defensible on grounds that aren't religious. Therefore, I don't have a problem with a religious institution holding the view that it is wrong. I also refuse to demonize those who disagree with me, just because they disagree with me.

Likewise with end-of-life issues, where I find that the Church's policy is actually more liberal than I would have expected. They basically say that life should extended through whatever means necessarily, however, a person has a right to refuse extreme measures. Obviously then, voluntary euthanasia is not allowed. I disagree with that. But once again, the Church's position is defensible, and I won't demonize them, just for disagreeing with me.

Now, if the Vatican follows their usual routine of liberal Pope - conservative Pope alternation, the next Pope could very well be more liberal on these issues. We can only hope.

At any rate, to deny John Paul II's importance in world affairs is a mistake. I would say that no single man was more responsible for the downfall of the Iron Curtain in such a swift and relatively peaceful manner. Likewise, he has been a stabalising force more recently in Christian/Muslim relations. He was a man Islam felt they could deal with. Let's hope his replacement can fill those shoes.

[hr]I sing of arms, and the man...

[Greebo]

He's still not Poped his clogs yet...maybe he shall while I sleep (just came off night shift)

[La Jouissance]

The story of Onan from Genesis 38 is traditionally cited as an argument from the Bible against Birth control (specifically Coitus Interruptus).

Genesis 38:7-10
But Er, Judah's first born was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. Then Judah said to Onan [Er's brother], "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went into his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.

But I think that's a mis-reading; he actually gets slewn for refusing to impregnate his brother's as required under the the Leverate marriage regulations.

[flarewearer]

Where's Paul when you need him for some fire and brimstone?

[hr][s]It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas and half a pack of cigarettes. It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it.[/s]
http://www.magnificentoctopus.com/

[LonelyPilgrim]

Pauls posts lead me to believe that he's probably coming from a fairly strict Baptist background (apologies Paul, if I'm wrong) in which case, the cynic in me wants to say... he's probably celebrating...

But, then, I'm sure he's not, and I'm just projecting several bad experiences with Southern Baptists onto Baptists in general...

Anywho, apologies to any who might be offended...

[hr]I sing of arms, and the man...

[La Jouissance]

I was about to say exactly the same thing. Don't some baptists reckon the Holy Father is the antichrist?

Edit for missing question mark.

[David]

[s]pobtastic wrote on 01:31, 2nd Apr 2005:
I'm sorry that someone's dying, but not any more than I'm sorry about any of the individual 200,000 people who died in the Tsunami.



A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic

[LonelyPilgrim]

[s]David wrote on 11:55, 2nd Apr 2005:
[s]pobtastic wrote on 01:31, 2nd Apr 2005:[i]
I'm sorry that someone's dying, but not any more than I'm sorry about any of the individual 200,000 people who died in the Tsunami.



A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic
[/i]

Because quoting Josef Stalin always advances the argument so succintly...

[hr]
I sing of arms, and the man...

[md25]

If you read the Catholic press you'll spot that they claim "condoms don't prevent AIDS", as apparently the HIV virion is smaller than the nanoscale holes present in every latex thing. I'm notionally a Catholic but I recognise this as the pish it is (a HIV particle is composed of thousands upon thousands of atoms whereas a water molecule is composed of three, condoms don't leak) and that's one of the things most trying about the faith - the heirarchy's peddling of lies in support of their dogma.

One in six people claim him as some form of spiritual leader though. Not bad going.