…
But the church is more than just a political institution, and a pope can’t be evaluated in political terms alone — left on economic issues, right on abortion, as if he were a candidate in a U.S. Senate race. A pope’s moral impact on the world, like the impact of the church itself, has a lot of moving parts, including the complexity of the religious experience, the material or psychological benefits each believer derives from that experience, and — last but hardly least — the impact of religious doctines or practices on nonbelievers.
…
As the church moves through the ancient rituals of succession, I’ll be watching closely — to see whether the old graybacks in the College of Cardinals can transcend their own limitations and produce a pope like John XXIII, or whether the reactionaries will, as usual, have the upper hand and the kind of papacy that goes with it.The answer may not determine the fate of the church — for a 2,000-year-old institution, what’s another CEO, more or less? But it will go a long way towards telling me whether I should, on balance, regard that ancient institution as an ally or an enemy of the moral values I believe in.
Shoes of the Fisherman
I wouldn’t attack the man for his sincerity, but his actions and legacy are certainly open to question. Criticism of the Pope as a Pope – the holder of an influential office – is certainly legitimate, no matter what his private thoughts were.
Posted by: Oliver T. | Apr 5 2005 8:50 utc | 101
Fran, thanks for the link, very good article;
Speaking of the fawning media, this papacy granted a “man of conscience” award to Rupert Murdoch (who, the year after he got the award, divorced his wife of many years to marry a young woman).
Posted by: Friendly Fire | Apr 5 2005 9:25 utc | 103
Colman: Actually, I think he believed a good deal of what he said – contrary to many who would see this as mere window-dressing and manipulation of some pwer-hungry guy. In fact, in this manner he’s just like Bush, BenLaden, other religious extremists, and countless moderate and decent believers of many religions.
It’s also possible that many here assumed that it was slightly less outrageous toward the Catholics to say that some of the Pope’s actions were pretty bad, and had bad consequences, rather than targetting his beliefs and implying they are the source of the problems, and also a bunch of BS. As usual, there are many different interpretations of N Testament and Catholicism, depending on the people, like you can see by comparing Aristide and John-Paul II; or by comparing the Borgia Pope and Martin Luther – both originally Catholic officials. I would suppose that the default position is to blame the actions rather than the ideas that underline them – doing this is quite often considered thought crime in the West, I think. Not that it’s necessarily the best position or that it’s the best way to understand things, of course.
So, if we assume most of his positions were derived from his beliefs, than it means that either the beliefs were wrong or bad, or that he was heavily misguided, or strongly biased – more probably, a mix of all.
(though if you want my personal opinion, I’m with those who think he’s the Catholic equivalent of conservative leaders like Thatcher, except that he was in a better position by not being a vassal of the US, and could openly rant against some US trends and actions without fearing retribution)
Now, for his legacy, there’s one big elephant which he didn’t create, which is shared by protestant churches, but which he definitely didn’t help to solve, which is that the churches are mostly waning in the West. From what I’ve seen these last 20 years, I tend to think that in 20 years most of the West will roughly be divided between a sizable minority of nuts religious extremists (Opus Dei, Falwell-like guys, …) and a bunch of agnostics who never go to church except for christenings, weddings and funerals – with a sizable minority who simply don’t go to church at all. There would also be the various minorities and their own religions, as well as the odd Westerner converted to Krishna, Mormonism or Moon.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Apr 5 2005 10:19 utc | 104
[.. ] many here assumed that it was slightly less outrageous toward the Catholics to say that some of the Pope’s actions were pretty bad, and had bad consequences, rather than targetting his beliefs and implying they are the source of the problems, and also a bunch of BS.
So beliefs are more important than people. I guess I missed that memo too.
So, if we assume most of his positions were derived from his beliefs, than it means that either the beliefs were wrong or bad, or that he was heavily misguided, or strongly biased – more probably, a mix of all.
Translation: Karol Wojtila was human.
Actually, I think he believed a good deal of what he said – contrary to many who would see this as mere window-dressing and manipulation of some pwer-hungry guy. In fact, in this manner he’s just like Bush, BenLaden, other religious extremists, and countless moderate and decent believers of many religions.
This is rather my point. By denying the possibility that these people believe in what they are doing at some level, we deny reality and end up being driven into mad conspiracy theories rather than realise that many of these people are more or less sincere ideologues. They believe this crap, and it’s that belief and that crap that needs to be addressed. They believe the Randian or Augustinian or Pauline or Marxist crap that they spout. Greed is good, sex is dirty and sinful, women are inferior, the world will end next week.
Now, for his legacy, there’s one big elephant which he didn’t create, which is shared by protestant churches, but which he definitely didn’t help to solve, which is that the churches are mostly waning in the West
You say this like it’s a bad thing?
Colman: Totally OT, but since you’re here around I hope people won’t mind off-topicness.
I was pondering a psychotic killing spree throughout the green isle later this year, or the next if I have to delay it, but I’m quite reluctant to try the left-driving stuff – randomly killing bikers and sheep isn’t my thing. Is it realistic to use public transportation like bus or train to move outside Dublin (say to Cork, Galway, Clonmacnoise) or is it totally foolish? If so, then I’ll have my henchmen drive me around 😉
Back to normal:
I didn’t mean to imply beliefs top men or the reverse. Just that pondering if JPII’s beliefs were a bunch of BS could easily be taken as an overall attack against Catholicism and Catholics, when in fact some of his positions and actions are highly blamable, but those are usually not shared by many Catholics. Putting his beliefs mostly aside was probably considered better to avoid the anti-Catholicism strawman.
He was human. Yep, no one would claim otherwise – so some will soon want to make him a saint. Stalin and Gandhi were human too, so either we try to assess people with our partly biased views, or we accpet moral relativism.
I agree with you that we shouldn’t deny people their beliefs. To some extent, even a crank like Pol Pot may have thought he was doing communism. In fact, if such people really believe, it may make them even more dangerous because then they won’t go into realpolitik when things go bad or risky. I don’t think every single one of them was just a cynical agnostic non-ideologue schemer who played the believer to cheat the masses, in some kind of conspiracy theories. But believers too can make their own conspiracies – except that their goals aren’t really what most people would guess they are, and that doesn’t mean the goals aren’t sometimes as bad if not worse.
I didn’t say it was a bad thing that churches are waning. That was just to go back to an objective less hotly debated discussion, by pointing to a mere fact that, all along as the leftist criticism of the Pope, will also be ignored by the media in the next days. In itself, I would say it’s good; but if it means that 1/3 of the people who leave end up in the Rapture crowd or convert to BenLaden’s version of Islam, or end up Moonies, than there wouldn’t be much gain either. And even at a non-religious and non-spiritual level, our secular governments should watch this, just in case the waning of the biggest religious powers don’t empower other weaker, less stable and wackier crankier movements.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Apr 5 2005 11:29 utc | 106
CJ: I’ll answer the OT question on Le Speakeasy if that’s ok, thus avoiding the sin of off-topicness.
As far as I understand it, most of what the Pope says isn’t binding on Catholics. I’ve had a Jesuit priest at a marriage preparation course approved by the diocese explain that contraception was ok if a Catholic couple decided after a clear examination of their conscience that it was necessary in their specific circumstances. It was beautiful to watch actually: one rule for the rich and sophisticated, one rule for the simple and the poor. Pure evil brilliance.
He was human. Yep, no one would claim otherwise – so some will soon want to make him a saint.
Funny you should mention that:
Archbishop Seán Brady has called on the church to declare the late Pope John Paul II a saint.
The Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, Ireland’s most senior Catholic cleric, was speaking following a special mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Armagh today.
You say:
I don’t think every single one of them was just a cynical agnostic non-ideologue schemer who played the believer to cheat the masses, in some kind of conspiracy theories. But believers too can make their own conspiracies
It seems that some people around here do believe that they’re all cynical: they can’t imagine honestly held beliefs different from their own. I wouldn’t deny some conspiracies exists, and are dangerous, but I’d like to see us try to concentrate on the real ones rather than make up imaginary ones.
as jérôme would know the opus dei rests a force to be contended with in france
Yes, but we in the UK can top that because thanks to Blair we now have a Department of Education led by a woman affiliated to Opus Dei.
My personal gripe with the late pope is that he chose to promote a kind of fake feminism for Catholic women based on having the Virgin as an “object of emulation” – you know, the Virgin Mary, the woman in the New Testament who doesn’t actually get to speak.
Emulate that, women.
Posted by: Ineluctable | Apr 5 2005 14:39 utc | 109
Colman – this is veering OT as well, but you’ve brought up a general refutation of conspiracy theories before in some of your other posts, attributing at one time a series of events in iraq, i believe, to incompetence, specifically, on the part of u.s. leadership. could you perhaps give an example of an “imaginary” conspiracy theory you have noted here? i can think of a couple off the top of my head, but i’m curious at to what you’re thinking of when you make it sound like there’s always a full moon at the moon.
and i do think that political ideologies, in themselves, usually are rather cynical propositions.
Posted by: b real | Apr 5 2005 14:43 utc | 110
….there’s going to be a new Pope.
Posted by: Duirt bean liom gur duirt bean lei | Apr 5 2005 15:07 utc | 111
Colman said:
Maybe the Pope believed in his positions? Maybe he believed he was doing the right, if difficult, thing. Maybe he believed homosexual acts to be sinful. Maybe he believed these things as fervently as you believe the things that cause your outrage at his record.
Maybe… in which case his granting Vatican safe haven to (among others) certain Boston clergy complicit in homosexual pedophelia becomes another great mystery of the church: no condoms in Africa, but ass fucking altar boys gets a pass.
Hell, maybe he was a good man trapped in an ancient, confused, fucked-up set of beliefs
Bingo!!!
struggling, and often failing to adapt them to the modern world.
… or anything else.
I recall vividly, around age 12, when the church “modernized” the Mass: they turned the “celebrant” around so attendees could actually see him in action. I was in Catholic school at the time. The nuns were beside them selves about the significance: “The Pope has truly been moved by God.” My parents couldn’t talk about anything else for a nauseatingly long periods of time. And whether I fully appreciated the value or not, feigning so saved me considerable scorn and a few lashes.
I recall thinking: it’s taken these dinosaurs +- 1960 years to decide the faithful may like to watch this event. I’m 12. I got another 60 or so years to go. (Doing the math….)
I DON’T HAVE TIME TO WAIT FOR THESE GUYS… I WANT TO DO SHIT IN LIFE!!!
I think I decided to leave the church about then. Looking back, a *real* good move.
If you’re suggesting conditions you describe are necesary qualifications for Pope-hood, I quite agree. Which more or less confirms my premise: this 2 week papal regeneration process is an exercise in unenlightenment: it smells like shit allright, but everyone says it’s roses.
My God (oops) people, he’s just another man in a dress.
Posted by: JDMcKay | Apr 5 2005 15:36 utc | 112
I would think that the pope is the last person in the world who can excuse his ill behavior with by explaining, “But in my heart, I believe it.” It is his JOB to do his best to understand God’s will, not to bend to his own personal tendencies.
Paul (you know, the first one) was always very cautious to note when he was just voicing opinion and when he was certain that he was speaking God’s will. And all this sex and condom crap is clearly derived from Paul’s optional opinions. What JPII most deserves censure for is pretending to know God’s mind and (perhaps) for greedily fooling himself into believing he was right. This is proof of his hypocrisy – and the fact that it kills millions is proof that the pope was a high devotee of – in his Church’s own terms – the culture of death.
Why do we revile him? Jesus explained: if it is lukewarm, spit it out.
Posted by: citizen | Apr 5 2005 15:47 utc | 113
“Sadly, John Paul II represented a different tradition, one of aggressive papalism. Whereas John XXIII endeavored simply to show the validity of church teaching rather than to issue condemnations, John Paul II was an enthusiastic condemner. Yes, he will surely be rmembered as one of the few great political figures of our age, a man of physical and moral courage more responsible than any other for bringing down the oppressive antihuman Communism of Eastern Europe. But he was not a great religious figure. How could he be? He may, in time to come, be credited with destroying his church”. Thomas Cahill, “The Price of Infallibility,” on today’s NYTimes op-ed page.
An interesting article by someone who wants to speak well of Wojtyla, but can’t overlook the fact that that his regime was a total disaster (I’d link if I didn’t have to register).
Posted by: alabama | Apr 5 2005 16:07 utc | 114
Jake Novak
“Many experts believe the conservative College of Cardinals will choose a Black or Hispanic man to be the next Pope. But they fail to realize that the world’s only right wing Blacks and Hispanics already have positions in the Bush administration.”
Posted by: Friendly Fire | Apr 5 2005 16:25 utc | 115
jim connolly has a partial list of “the damage wrought by this arch-reactionary and the regressive forces he unleashed in the Catholic Church”
Posted by: b real | Apr 5 2005 17:40 utc | 116
Thanks for the above link b real.
It was even worse than I thought.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Apr 5 2005 18:05 utc | 117
Just one more about the Pope then I’ll leave it be.
“There is no contradiction between Christianity and a piece of rubber.” – priest in Guatemala.
In Switzerland, not using a condom in certain conditions is a crime that can send one to jail for many years. It is a penal matter, assimilated to wilfull poisoning, treated the same as putting rat poison in your friend’s bowl of chili con carne. Afaik, so far, only men have been convicted, but the law applies to both sexes; and convictions have only occurred, natch, when the act resulted in infection. The law itself raises many questions concerning knowledge, intent, and the judgment of what is called “probable or certain result.”
Sidebar: — One torrid case involving a seropositive transexual (genetically male but anatomically female) prostitute and her client was finally simply thrown out of court, with neither punished in any way. The judge said the fault was shared; the client (now seropositive) was also at fault, as he should have evaluated the risk of infection as very high and used a condom himself. The fact that he paid more for unprotected sex was very damning. Both were going to live unhappy, curtailed, lives. This was all over the tabloid press and the TV with everyone stirring the pot. Medicos, prostitute associations, lawyers, etc. were all up in arms and arguing it one way or the other. —
The Church’s stand in the fight against AIDS has very carefully been framed in a positive way, for reponsible sexuality, abstinence, chastity, fidelity, prevention, education, etc. The against part has been stated in very general, imprecise terms, such as against a hedonistic society, against immoral behavior, against all contraceptive devices. The anti-condom stance has often been put forward as “it is impossible to advise the use of condoms”.
The Church’s lies that condoms do not protect against AIDS (that the virus can pass thru the rubber, or even that the rubber selectively leaks the virus..) fall into the crackpot category. They aren’t actionable. Afaik. Very clever.
I have read that the Pope himself has never publicly used the word condom. I believe it. Nor has he ever directly adressed the problem of a married couple where one partner has AIDS, although I did read somewhere that “Church Officials” (?) have said that if abstinence is not possible, they still may not use a condom. (?)
In short, the Pope has very carefully skirted around the edges of laws such as those of Switzerland, parts of the US, etc. (No doubt following expert advice.) How hypocritical is that?
Who has created more misery, suffering, poverty, anguish, early death, orphans – the Pope or (say) the present Bush? My answer is the Pope. And in spades.
As for what the Church’s minions do and what it has given to AIDs patients and orphans, it is huge. Far larger than any nation. Worldwide (est.) about 25% of money, care and work devoted to AIDS is directly given by the Catholic Church. The one does not contradict the other. That is another topic.
Posted by: Blackie | Apr 5 2005 18:33 utc | 118
I’m not sure why we should be any softer in our criticisms of a Pope than of a President, Premier, Prime Minister, Dictator or other man with enormous power, visibility, and influence in the world. And I’m not sure that sincerity is any validator of beliefs. [Maggie Thatcher probably believed what she said when she opined that there was “no such thing as society.” I think she was completely wrong and that this was a dangerous ideology which when enacted as policy, caused great harm.]
I know people who sincerely — really, truly, sincerely — believe that Black people are inferior to White people and that therefore it is pointless to make any attempt at social equality between different races. Does the sincerity of their belief mean that I should suspend or mollify my criticism of this position? I think not. I know people who sincerely believe that God created the world exactly 3000 years ago (or whatever the magic number is) and that humans shared the earth with dinosaurs, etc. The sincerity of their belief doesn’t mean that I think we should teach children this mythology in school — or any other religious mythology for that matter.
Sincerity of belief, in other words, is no litmus test of moral approbation — for me anyway. Hypocrisy is offensive to be sure, but sincere and heartfelt bigotry ain’t much of an improvement.
I don’t really care whether the belief that “this other human being is inherently a piece of s**t and inferior to me” springs from cynical greed and a desire to steal their property, or from a sincere religious conviction that this other person is a sinner or was created by God or Gods in a caste inferior to my own. It is an undemocratic and pernicious idea. (I don’t even think the Pope was inherently inferior to me or anyone else, just because I condemn much of his ideology.)
This pope adhered to such ideas about many people — inherent inferiority — anyone not adult, hetero, and male, for a start. Whether this was personal prejudice or sincere religious dogma doesn’t make much diff to the poor people who died as a result of obeying the dogma he promulgated. If we get too deeply into “ah, but he meant well,” we short-change the victims of all history’s tyrants/incompetents/madmen — and even the penny-ante quotidian abusers who insist that they only beat their child for the child’s own good. Who knows, maybe the Taliban honestly believe that women are happier and better off heavily veiled and confined to the home?
Even someone who believes in the Bible, believes in God, believes in the words of Jesus can raise serious questions about the spiritual or moral consistency of the late Pope’s positions and utterances. One sincere believer questioning another? Why should nonbelievers not question also?
To what extent do we have to “respect the other person’s opinion” when we believe that opinion to be dead wrong? Must I try to understand the secularised cult of Eretz Yisroel and sympathise with it before I am allowed to criticize the Occupation? Or can I just say that stealing land is wrong, and I don’t care what religious faith is being used to justify it, no matter how sincere?
Connolly’s got it right. I would add one footnote: there’s been a lot of mention in the press about the drive to laicize ecclesiastical functions, thanks to the shortfall in priests. But given the grip of Opus Dei–a lay order, as I understand it–on the Church as a whole, from top to bottom, I really don’t see this step as a self-evidently healthy one.
Alberto Fujimori was (is?) very proud of his membership in Opus Dei. It would be fun to read a list of the current membership, and I’m sure the list can be acquired by a diligent hacker.
Posted by: alabama | Apr 5 2005 18:41 utc | 120
I’d like to add my thanks for the link, b real. That & the Hans Kung link from der spiegel said everything that needs to be said.
After reading about Opus Dei, I realized that in addition to Tony Scalia, Peggy Noonan is doubtless a member in good standing. What about Clarence Thomas?
Does anyone around here expect European & American Catholics to form a separate church? It strikes me that this takeover of the Catholic Church by arch-reactionaries isn’t that different than the Prot. fundies taking over the Southern Baptist Church & now working to takeover more mainline Prot. churches one by one.
This counter-reformation, if you will, began in business w/the Louis Powell Memo, moved to politics & then into religion. It’s of a piece. (Now xUS Catholics have formed order to imitate fascist political agitation carried on so successfully by the fundie Prots. Shouldn’t be hard since as art B Real linked to shows they’ve removed all internal intellecutal resistance.) No wonder Bu$h has gone to Vatican once & is going again…..
God are we fucked………And so called Peak Oil makes the perfect vehicle for the final take-down……how timely…how sweet…how perfect….
Posted by: jj | Apr 5 2005 19:00 utc | 121
colman
i think i did mention a number of times in this thread that all humanity possesses both the ability to create & the ability to feel wonder. this perhaps for me is what constitutes the sacred. any belief which annexes that is to me criminal deeply criminal
that capacity for wonder even under the most difficult circumstances is a question of flesh & blood & earth. , what the spanish call duende. what william blake fully understood. what john milton hinted at. that all our metaphysics are earthbound
the institutionalisation of that wonder is called fear & we have created the institutions of fear where everything is turned on its head. the institutions of fear which are replicated by mr murdoch for example wherever he goes – denies in any sense & richness or an interiority in ordinary people. on the contrary we are turned into beasts. we are not. our wonder makes us something else & that wonder is singular existing & coexisting in multiplicities. thus the need to defend with our lives – the idea & the reality of difference
the tedious troll who sounded nothing so much as a frustrated secondary school teacher who rules with banality & force – never knowing the scholarship od which he or she speaks. i’m convinced that the person would have the most schematic understanding of the theological crisis of this century let alone the complicated & labryinthine path since st augustin
& again a troll presumes a homogenised community when in fact we often argue on points of detail or precision or of clarity. & i have often felt the heat of our debate. i have been hurt but i have learned
what i never feel here is gratuity – even with people i argue with i am aware of their ‘considered’ opinion while in the trolls i am aware only of their false urgency
even amongst those of us who would consider themselves marxists we are of many different & sometimes competing opinions – which seems to me all for the good. it is not surprising – we work for that communication – something trolls never seem to do. for them i imagine it is a search for authenticity. a legitimisation process by insult
again i’d demand anybody to read the vast number of interventions here & try to imagine a homeginised point of view – it does not exist & thus the thread & site are the richer for it
even my old friend slothrop knows that i was joshing with him for so deliberately misreading my post but we maintain our differences – especially on monopoy capital & the national character of empires as our tools for a real search
if we are regarded as 68’ers or antique lefties – i for one regard it as a compliment
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 5 2005 20:13 utc | 122
if we are regarded as 68’ers or antique lefties – i for one regard it as a compliment
“Antique Lefty — slightly distressed finish, some dents and dings. Still in good working order. No manual. Becoming collectible. Auction ends in 7 days, 21 hours, 13 minutes.”
Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 5 2005 21:02 utc | 125
Good to see the Catholic church and the beliefs of so many millions of mindless dupes trashed so comprehensively. Sometimes everything’s in the sub-text. Now Marxism, there’s a real religion for you.
Posted by: O’Brien | Apr 5 2005 21:03 utc | 126
Ever read 1984 slothrop? Come to Room 101 and we’ll talk about how real things are.
Posted by: O’Brien | Apr 5 2005 22:29 utc | 128
feel more sad ove the death of the prolific saul bellow this night – surely he gave a greater gift – creation
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 6 2005 0:09 utc | 129
“Rest in peace, tireless fighter for friendship among peoples, enemy of war and friend of the poor.”
Posted by: Semper FIDELis | Apr 6 2005 0:42 utc | 130
Well, that’s just a sign Castro is selling out, as far as I’m concerned. He’s clearly too old and used to make a decent leader anymore, after all.
But if anonymous-poster is fine with the complete and absolute emptiness of his beliefs, he’s welcome to it 🙂
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Apr 6 2005 0:55 utc | 131
”Everyone else’s beliefs are wrong and only ours are right.”
The Official Revolutionary Comrades Faction (‘Real True Believers Brigade’, founded April 6th 2005 after acrimonious split with ideological heretics masquerading as committed revolutionaries in row over whose revolutionary credentials were impeccable enough to earn the seat by the heater,)
C/O Some dingy back-street café nursing two half empty bottles of coke and a Pernod between all embittered five of them & bumming skinny roll-ups from former comrades as they lament the perfidy of the world and prepare to shuffle home to their lonely dingy apartments,
The Center of the Universe,
Anytown,
Anywhere.
Posted by: Communique Number 341,321 (revised) | Apr 6 2005 1:23 utc | 132
God to blot out the sun on day of Pope’s funeral
Say what you like about the Catholics, they sure do stage spectacular rituals don’t they? Of course the whole eclipse thing is probably just some artificial ‘Deus ex machina’. If it’s any comfort, believe it drizzled for a few minutes on the day Marx was buried.
Posted by: Top that | Apr 6 2005 2:39 utc | 134
Thanks for that, rgiap and others.
Still it’s hard to separate the training, indoctrination, and yes, wonder of the Catholic liturgy from the political decisions made by the clergy.
Of course there will always be states of wonder, and moral training as well, without the Church. I cannot separate them from the backwards teachings equating sex and shame, not to mention political influence from the pulpit.
It’s a tough call.
I have tremendous respect for those who celebrate religion and have the support of faith and community, even if I am not a part of it.
I can’t copy for some reason into the edit box, but there is an interesting article by Jim Connolly today on Counterpunch, he lists the non-saintly actions of the Pope. It’s at Counterpunch.org.
Posted by: jonku | Apr 6 2005 3:07 utc | 135
O’Brien
I know its de rigueuer these days to assign the metaphors created by Orwell to every imagined instance of oppression. The MacIntosh Superbowl ad contributed to the dilution of 1984 as a meaningful cultural object. The terror of a delayed consumption is like a visit to rm 101.
I mention this, because I would occassionally like to contribute to the defense against the expropriation of great art by stupid people.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 6 2005 3:53 utc | 136
here’s another, from Green Left Weekly via ZNet – Pope John Paul II, a reactionary in Shepherd’s clothing
One of his great political alliances was with US President Ronald Reagan. In 1980 the gang that organised the Reagan for the presidency movement met in Santa Fe for a conference and issued a statement saying: “US foreign policy should begin to confront liberation theology (and not just react to it after the fact). Unfortunately Marxist-Leninist forces have used the church as a political weapon against private ownership and the capitalism system of production, infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are more communist than Christian.”
Reagan, as president, quickly moved to form a united front with John Paul II against liberation theology. The pope fought the theology while the Reagan administration and its Latin American allies murdered the liberationists.
just to flesh out a bit of the Pope’s politics, here’s an account of John Paul’s 1983 visit to Nicaragua, taken from Clara Nieto’s Masters of War, set up w/ a brief background
The United States pured forth millions of dollars, not only into terrorist activities, but also to strengthen the internal opposition. Political leaders, conservative parties, private organizations, and the Church hierarchy received funds through AID. It gave $493,000 in start-up money to the Archdiocesan Social Promotion Commission created by the Archbishop.
Archbishop Obando y Bravo actively worked to take away the government’s popular base, through pastoral letters and critiques widely broadcast by the press and from the pulpit. He removed progressive priests and replaced them with conservative ones. His position was in accord with that of Pope John Paul II’s. In 1981 the Conference of Nicaraguan Bishops issued an ultimatum to the minister-priests: they must resign [their official support against Somoza’s dictatorship] and return to their pastoral misson; not to do so would be seen as open defiance of the authority of the Church, and they would be sanctioned under Church law.
…the Saninista government sent a delegate to Rome to negotiate the “delicate” situation with the Vatican.
…
The Church hierachry supported Reagan’s policies. Monsignor [Pablo Antonio] Vega was one of the first to defend the contras publicly and to lobby for United States aid. But those who spoke in favor of the contras mentioned nothing about their crimes or the CIA’s terrorist actions, which were doing enormous damage to their country. The Church remained silent when United States backing of the war against Nicaragua came to light, but loudly condemned the government’s call to patriotic military service in July 1983, which was necessary because the country was at war. In a widely published declaration, it announced that no one was obliged to register, because the army represented the FSLN and not the country. The government called the declaration “treasonous.”
Pope John Paul II’s visit to Nicaragua in 1983 was plagued by tensions, misunderstandings, and tendentious and distorted reported. For some it spelled disaster. Daniel Ortega’s welcoming speech at the airport, which the United States press characterized as a “tirade” – quoted several times a 1921 letter from a bishop to a cardinal denouncing the occupation of Nicaragua by United States marines. The Pope was not interested. What he cared about was Church “unity.” He was concerned with the dissention and with the collaboration of prominent priests and nuns with the revolution. He wanted the Nicaraguan Church unified under the Archbishop’s leadership (he ordained him a Cardinal in 1985). The people, victims of United States agression and crimes committed by the contras, were not interested in what the Pope had to say.
Crows followed the Pope as he moved through Managua and Leon. The middle classes wanted to spin this popular enthusiasm for the Holy Father’s presence as support for the hierarchy of the Nicaraguan Catholic Church. The people were waiting for words of support from the Pope, of recognition for the achievements of the revolution. They hoped that he would condemn the war or at least offer words of solace. But the Pope spoke only of Church unity. As he was delivering his homily during the Mass he celebrated in Managua – the day before, the funerals of seventeen yound men and women killed by the contras had been held in the same place – the people interrupted him with chants of “We want peace.” Mothers and widows held up photographs of their slain children and husbands. The Pope became exasperated, demanding “Silence!” The Holy Father’s public recrimination of Ernesto Cardenal [priest & minister of culture], who was profoundly respected by the people and was a hero of the revolution, offended many people. They did not accept the Pope’s opposition to the collaboration of priests and nuns with the revolution and his wish to force them to retire from the government. “The Pope has undone in one day what they had built in foun years,” they declared.
Posted by: b real | Apr 6 2005 4:16 utc | 137
there very could have been “crows” following the Pope, but Nieto’s text cited “crowds.” What would Sigmund say about that typo…
Posted by: b real | Apr 6 2005 4:23 utc | 138
slothrop, can you explain what the MacIntosh Superbowl ad was, for the benefit of those of us who aren’t American and who pay no heed to such lower class pastimes or any kind of crass commercialism, preferring instead to immerse ourselves in works of literature or perambulate serenely through various stimulating art galleries? I have no idea of what you are adverting to but it sounds absolutely dreadful. Some people have no conception of how to get a message across do they? I think that narcissism and a belief that everyone sees the world the same way is largely to blame, that or some minds not having quite emerged from Plato’s cave.
Incidentally, if someone hadn’t seen the advertisement to which you refer in such disgruntled tones, would that not suffice to leave their appreciation of ‘1984’ metaphors intact? Or is it your contention that when the American hoi polloi lose their sense of mystery (or humor), that the cognoscenti of the world must blindly follow suit?
Posted by: O’Brien | Apr 6 2005 4:33 utc | 140
This goofy guy came down from Poland, and you thought he could govern the world’s largest, most far-flung, most attenuated bureaucracy? He was good at languages, certainly–and that’s cool–and he had some experience in the theater–and that’s cool….but did he have any experience in foreign affairs? In complex financial projections? In management? In long-range corporate planning? I don’t think so. I think he needed help. Ah, but just think of all those managers hanging around, waiting for the right person to come along and take their advice….No, that wouldn’t be Pope Paul II we’re referring to–he would never have seen things the right way…..But those guys at Opus Dei–they certainly know how to…..
Posted by: alabama | Apr 6 2005 4:45 utc | 141
Marcin Krol makes an attempt (imho straining a bit) to define this “Pope for all seasons,” foe of left-liberation theology and friend of Reagan as a challenger of capitalism. considering his documented coldness towards clergy in S. Am. who really were challenging capitalism, it seems a bit of a reach.
I think we could form a fairly powerful Know-Nothing movement from among some of the posters here. I’m slightly concerned that going for the Catholics will take our eyes off the main targets, Muslims, but if there’s a spot of religious witch hunting going on count me in.
Posted by: Millard Fillmore | Apr 6 2005 4:57 utc | 143
Help me, Millard Fillmore, for thou know’st! Where, along the length of this entire thread, do you find a single word by anyone trashing “the Catholics”? Since the thread is very long, there has to be at least one word of that kind, but I really haven’t managed to find it. I, for one, obviously hold the Roman Catholic faith in the very highest regard., it’s the predatory thugs in its midst that get me down. They get me down, Millard Fillmore–yes, they do! And don’t they, I wonder, get you down as well? And if they don’t, why don’t they? Do you find something in Fujimori, for example, that we ought to admire? I’m teachable, Millard Fillmore, when it comes to this sort of thing, and will benefit from any enlightenment you might provide on this particular point.
Posted by: alabama | Apr 6 2005 5:41 utc | 144
Interesting commentary from Catholics-for-choice leader Francis Kissling on Salon website: that this Pope reached out to the non-catholic world – but tore apart the catholic one. As one who left the RC church in disgust during his reign, I have to agree with Francis. This pope damaged Catholicism.
Posted by: gylangirl | Apr 6 2005 5:45 utc | 145
Comic launched starring Pope John Paul II as a Superhero
Posted by: Zap! Pow! Holy Guacamole! | Apr 7 2005 2:26 utc | 146
