![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranhaCTV news interrupts us frequently with "breaking news" such as "the pope is not doing well, but he is conscious and lucid", and "the pope is slowly dying" (yeah, man, so are we all). i don't really care. or rather, i don't care for myself. i am not catholic.
i care in a more general sense. i've been an adult throughout this pope's entire reign, and i've seen things get more and more restrictive as compared to john XXIII. john paul II returned more legalism to the catholic church, and set back progressive ecumenical movements. there's been less intellectual pursuit of social issues, there has been more secrecy surrounding missteps of priests, there has been no progress whatsoever on the question of women serving as priests. the catholic church stands once again not as a force for social justice, as protector of the poor, but as an unfeeling institution that gives deadly advice regarding HIV and AIDS, and shields bad priests from justice while allowing children to feel all the guilt of abuse.
soon we'll hear lots of accolades, and then it won't be seen as polite to speak ill of the dead. so i better do it now. john paul II was not a good pope IMO. the catholic church is such a powerful force, it could do so much for the downtrodden of this world, but he pissed that force away into regressive policies. worse yet, he stacked the deck against the next pope being better than him by fiddling with the voting assembly. bah humbug, i say.
also, i don't grok this clinging to life bit when one's organs are failing. i'd be eager to meet my maker (albeit concerned about all my personal fuck-ups; my judgment day would be a long embarrassment). except that, of course, i don't believe there is a god. that's really damn annoying; it'd be great if people actually got a lecture on their stupid moves after they died, and then lessons on how to do it better the next time.
the best memory i will have of john paul II is that there was no moral ambiguity in his views on what he called the "culture of death" -- he stood firm against not only abortion (the easy one), but also capital punishment (the questionable one) and war (the worst of the lot). i can respect that; he wasn't a hypocrit, and he had the courage of his convictions.
i care in a more general sense. i've been an adult throughout this pope's entire reign, and i've seen things get more and more restrictive as compared to john XXIII. john paul II returned more legalism to the catholic church, and set back progressive ecumenical movements. there's been less intellectual pursuit of social issues, there has been more secrecy surrounding missteps of priests, there has been no progress whatsoever on the question of women serving as priests. the catholic church stands once again not as a force for social justice, as protector of the poor, but as an unfeeling institution that gives deadly advice regarding HIV and AIDS, and shields bad priests from justice while allowing children to feel all the guilt of abuse.
soon we'll hear lots of accolades, and then it won't be seen as polite to speak ill of the dead. so i better do it now. john paul II was not a good pope IMO. the catholic church is such a powerful force, it could do so much for the downtrodden of this world, but he pissed that force away into regressive policies. worse yet, he stacked the deck against the next pope being better than him by fiddling with the voting assembly. bah humbug, i say.
also, i don't grok this clinging to life bit when one's organs are failing. i'd be eager to meet my maker (albeit concerned about all my personal fuck-ups; my judgment day would be a long embarrassment). except that, of course, i don't believe there is a god. that's really damn annoying; it'd be great if people actually got a lecture on their stupid moves after they died, and then lessons on how to do it better the next time.
the best memory i will have of john paul II is that there was no moral ambiguity in his views on what he called the "culture of death" -- he stood firm against not only abortion (the easy one), but also capital punishment (the questionable one) and war (the worst of the lot). i can respect that; he wasn't a hypocrit, and he had the courage of his convictions.
no subject
on 2005-04-02 05:56 (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-02 08:05 (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-02 05:58 (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-02 14:58 (UTC)As for his changes to the voting system, I think they're good, and long overdue. I don't think they're going to guarantee a continuation of his policies.
Re: popery
on 2005-04-03 19:43 (UTC)of course this is all meaningless, since i am not catholic, nor christian at all, but if i put myself into the shoes of a person like that, really, interfaith efforts and solidarity with the polish revolution do come in a pale second when compared with the huge damage he caused to women and children (especially in the third world). because getting one's own house in order should be more important than affairs outside of it. he's not reached out his hand to those most downtrodden, and that, to me, is a great failure if one alleges to walk with christ. i don't know where his personal growth happened, but it certainly wasn't in regard to understanding and empathising with women and children; he was a man's pope through and through, and set women's and children's issues back to the pre-50s. hushing up sexual abuse also besmirched the ethics of the church.
i don't think his changes to the voting system are going to guarantee a continuation of his policies, but they've made it a lot more likely. he's taken the vote away from anyone who predates his papacy, and he's stacked the assembly with cardinals who agree with him. it's like letting bush appoint the entire supreme court -- it's not a guarantee, but it's a very political move, as compared to an ethical one.
no subject
on 2005-04-02 17:23 (UTC)I agree with you about his theological views being regressive, although as a non-Catholic in a Protestant nation I don't really have a dog in that fight. But I think that his secular positions were more positive than you do. I suspect that his obituary will give him much of the credit for the independence of Poland and the subsequent decay of the Soviet era, and my memories of the time agree with that. And I think he made some long overdue statements to repair (or perhaps establish) the state of Catholic-Jewish relations. He could always have done more, but that will one day be said of each of us.
I wonder if his legacy will be that he canonized more saints than all of his predecessors combined? That's sort of like appointing federal judges whose terms won't expire until the Second Coming.
no subject
on 2005-04-03 07:35 (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-03 20:40 (UTC)no subject
on 2005-04-03 20:44 (UTC)