Excellent assessment. I generally agree. But strangely I have to defend the Pope to some extent. The liberalizing of religion can go too far, and while a little would certainly have helped the Catholic Church in the last few decades, we do have the counter example of the Church of England and the Episcopal Church where liberalization has basically destroyed the church. One good thing JP2 did do was to encourage traditionalist anglicans who were abandonned by their Church to join the Catholic Church under the 'anglican exemption' and he allowed them in with the retention of priestly marriage and other traditional anglican practices. But he could never quite see the next step which was that moving Catholicism more towards the model of conservative anglicanism would have solved a lot of its problems.

Dave

My little beanie hat is off to Queenie for one of the best overall assessments I've ever seen written of this Pope's Papacy. (say THAT three times fast!)

The murder of Archbishop Romero in his cathedral was inexcuseable and could well have been prevented by the Pope easily,if he hadn't been quite so communist-phobic.
God but that smacked of the whole Becket thingie ......!!!!!

Thanks Queenie for an excellent read.

And thanks Dave for your novel ideas which I wish more people had open enough minds to accept.

If the Catholic church wishes to sincerely stop their atrophy and distinegration, they MUST undergo a radical change. That change must include the allowal of birth control, and the marriage of priests, and the inclusion of females as priests.

Barring those three changes from taking place, the Catholic church will continue it's steady downhill slide into a "past religion" for failure to relate to the needs of current society.

Pope John Paul II never excommunicated Hans Kung. He forbade the Swiss theologian from presenting his teaching as Catholic.

Here in the US folk masses abound under the Teen Life program; Richard Rohr presents inspiring, liberal views of the church without trouble, though he'll fondly recall the suspicion towards him a couple of decades ago; and the only orders not facing a priest shortage are those that are most traditional.

if indeed there is no priest shortage---
which is the opposite of everything I've seen in print over the last several years; there is one reason explaining why that might be at this point in time.

that one reason is not that it is an attractive profession or avocation for those so spiritually minded, as much as the fox in the chicken-coop explanation.
If you were a pedophile looking for prey where would you think might be an excellent place?

Frighteningly I half agree with Tristan, birth control and marriage for priests are essential. However, I don't think female priests are a good idea. There's no tradition to support it and no biblical justification - unlike priestly marriage, which was tolerated for a millenium and more and which is not prohibited in the Bible.. And note that this is coming from someone who was married by a female Anglican priest. There's just something not right about women priests - though I could see more of a role for women in lay orders participating in church services.

Dave

I'm terribly sorry if I was inaccurate about Hans Kung, but I was under the impression that his continued teaching in Tubingen, or wherever he is (can't remember), despite that order, resulted in an automatic excommunication.

Catholics can be excommunicated for not attending Mass twice a year - Easter and Christmas - don't forget. But you don't actually get a letter throwing you out unless you ask for one.

Queenie

This is an excerpt from an article I am working on. Queenie's points hit home but in a way not unlike experiencing an epiphany...

My fellow "liberals," it's time to take a long hard look at ourselves. What is the common characteristic of the Reagan and Wojtyla eras? It's consistency, my friends. The Democrat Party has no ideals. Under Howard Dean it could have had a chance but after several weeks it looks like his wings have been clipped. As easy as it is to blame President Bush and the Christian Right, that does nothing to solve our societal problems. President Bush may appear as a ratings driven President but that really got its start in the Clinton White House. The only ones that are willing to honestly work with the Bush Administration are those who we perceive as religious agenda-driven fundamentalists. All those who are at odds with this Administration, including middle of the road Republicans, spend so much time making noise that they have drowned out their own voices. Who on the Democrat side of the aisle was the one to have the guts to stand up against the Republican railroading of the Schiavo bill? Barney Frank, the gay Democrat from Massachusetts. Imagine, a Democrat with conviction, who had the guts to take the extra time on Palm Sunday to stand in the House of Representatives and express his opposition to the bill. There's the consistency I'm talking about.

Both sides of the aisle are more obsessed with shouting than listening. Nancy Reagan talked about a picture of Ronnie with the Pope. In it the Pope seems to be intently listening to Ronnie making a point about something. She remarked that the picture always made her laugh because she would love to know what it was that the President was telling the Pope. In that instant, I finally got it. It's all about listening and vision. The anti-communist Reagan took the time to respect Gorbachev as human being and treated him with dignity. He maintained his convictions, but was willing to listen and develop mechanism by which his ultimate goal would be achieved. That basic respect forged an alliance that would ultimately bring freedom to millions of people. Pope John Paul II realized that the Church had erred for 2,000 years in its treatment of Jews. Thanks to his commitment to the preservation of human dignity, he swallowed the "Catholic pride" and apologized for the Church's indiscretions. He was the first Pope to step foot in a synagogue or mosque. He was the first Pope to express sorrow at the treatment of the Spanish during the Inquisition. He was the first Pope who sought dialogue with the Muslim world. He was a man of his convictions and where he knew his Mother Church erred; he recognized the problem and responded to it.

As I said, much of it is about family. Sure, gay people would like to be married and I don't see that as unreasonable. On the other side of the coin, I appreciate the opponent's point of view. So, let the situation work itself out in small steps. Two people should have the right to love each other and make lives for themselves regardless of gender. If they want to have rights similar to those of a conventional marriage, then all they have to do is enter into a contract. Allow people to forge those domestic partnership contracts. If the couple wants to call it a marriage, who cares? The government doesn't have to sanction the relationship with the same label. If a same sex couple adopts a child rather than make the child a victim, embrace that child. His or her parental situation may not be conventional but that shouldn't negate the importance of the child's individual humanity. The Pope alluded to homosexuality as an evil. Many religious sects within Christianity are at odds with his doctrine. If a homosexual, a homosexual couple or a homosexual couple with a family seek spiritual life there are thousands of denominations across America who will embrace these people with open arms. The practice of faith in word and deed speaks to character far more than standing in a protest group shouting hateful epithets at the opposition. It all starts in the family. Every individual family lays the foundation for the next generation. That quiet, focused consistent commitment to your ideals is what will gain the most respect from the opposition. Rather than continuing the mean spiritedness between the political factions across the world, we should be forging common ground.

As paternalistic as the Roman Catholic Church may be, there is a tide toward the maternal. Pope John Paul II dedicated his reign to the Blessed Virgin. He believed in the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima in his assassination attempt. What's more surprising is that his would be assassin Mehmet Ali Agca is reported to believe that it was divine intervention which saved the Pope. Throughout his reign, John Paul II never forgot his Polish roots and the importance of Our Lady of Czestochowa in daily Polish life. He adhered to the beliefs in the visions of Sister Faustina and the Divine Chaplet. Women were not diminished creatures in the Pope's eyes. He revered them and submitted to the feminine in so many ways. Because of his convictions, he continued the tradition to limit the priesthood to celibate males. In a world where most of us want a quick fix, the Pope stayed the course. I believe the day will come when women will be ordained. It will take time, but it will happen. And with all the controversies thrown before the Pope, he maintained a focused, steady calm. He clung to the Cross with such devotion and never strayed from it. Those of us who are Christians must also take up that Cross and cling to it for guidance and hope. As we strive to bridge societal gaps, we must remember that the paramount mission we have as human beings is to preserve the dignity of every human being regardless of status.

They say two things you shouldn't discuss are religion and politics. Has it ever occurred to anyone that is in those very discussions where ideas are born, cultivated and grown? John Paul II masterfully worked his religious convictions into his secular diplomacy. And it always came from the same viewpoint, that being respect for human dignity. He stayed the course, disregarded the polls and remained a much loved figure even by those who did not entirely agree with what he stood for. Ronald Reagan masterfully wove his own religious convictions into his secular diplomacy. As gruff and abrasive as he may have seemed at times, he was a man of his word. He was the Great Communicator - a title that was placed upon the Pope after Reagan left office. So - where are the Great Communicators amongst the middle of the road Republicans; ultra leftist and moderate Democrats? It seems to me that the unrelenting extremist Conservative Right has our collective fate in their hands. They didn't do it out of the execution of some diabolical plan. Moderates, liberals and ultra liberals opened the doors and allowed everyone to come to an empty banquet table. The ideas, solutions and compromises that were expected did not materialize.

If this society is going to effectively implement change in government it starts at the grass roots level. People must get involved in their local communities in Parent-Teacher groups, local government and cultivating truly electorate responsive representatives to state and Federal legislatures. Time is a commodity that seems to be in short supply amongst the middle class. Somehow, the middle class has to find a mechanism, a compromise that insures that their family life remains strong as they work to strengthen the community family. At the grass roots level the electorate should be electing representatives to Congress after careful deliberation. The representatives we elect must be a true reflection of our neighborhoods, villages, towns and cities. They must be held to strict account for their actions on our behalf. It doesn't take long to get that kind of information. You have newspapers, television media and the Internet as sources. Not being an informed individual is intellectual lassitude. We should be teaching our children about the significance of casting a ballot, a powerful act which maintains basic human dignity.

Holy Father, it literally took your entire Pontificate for me to finally get it. Though you took the world by storm, you maintained a steady stream of love and radiance as you brought the Good News to all four corners of the globe. Those who hunger for the Spirit in Africa, Latin America and Asia have been blessed by your leadership and support. As Catholicism grows in these areas, I see now that the message of the Church easily fills the spiritual needs of the individual who seeks it. Meanwhile, there are other areas where Islam is providing for those same needs and growing. We live in modern times and operate under an entirely foreign dynamic from days gone by. It is incumbent upon the leaders of the world to set an example that their constituencies can not only emulate but understand and support. We must maintain personal liberties and the right to worship as an individual chooses but we must guarantee these opportunities by sustaining honest dialog that has the possibilities of opening new alliances and fostering common ground. In the end Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share common bonds. Pope John Paul II recognized that fact and did something about it. It's time now for the secular sides to determine and forge common bonds.

The College of Cardinals will meet in Conclave several days from now. The 117 Cardinals are faced with a great challenge that requires deep, prayerful consideration in light of the fact that the Church is the lifeline of over one billion people across the globe. Regardless of its past mistakes, the Pope has symbolically atoned for those transgressions and has moved the Church forward. The modernization of Church Doctrine can be facilitated by seizing this opportunity to open dialogue and come together on those things we can and agree to find ways of bridging the gaps on those things we seem to be totally opposed. "Be not afraid!" Open your hearts and your minds to the possibility that the days of deep division can be put behind us. May the spirit of John Paul II fill the Sistine Chapel during conclave. May the next Shepherd of the Catholic Flock have those qualities which made us love Karol Wojtyla. May the next Bishop of Rome possess the qualities of a leader who can be admired and revered. And as the Church prepares for the new era, may we in the secular world find a way to tone down the rhetoric and turn up the volume of our hearing aids. Holy Father, you didn't forsake me. I just didn't take the time to understand the point from where you were coming and, in doing so; I was the one who has forsaken you.

But Silas, the news today is that the Democrats have 'found religion'. That's what their support of Tom Delay in the Schiavo case was all about. They're no longer the party of godless atheists, they're the party of Jesus and the Bible. So apparently that means there is no longer a major party for people with a love of reason - not that there really ever was.

Good personal commentary on the Pope, though.

Dave

Democrats supported Tom DeLay? Where does this idea come from? More Democrats voted nay than yea and an even larger number simply did not vote at all. I don't think you could interpret that as the Democrats suddenly being the party of Jesus.

47 Democrats voted yes, 53 voted no and more than those two numbers combined didn't bother to show up. By not showing up they essentially let DeLay have whatever he wanted.

That said, it's not just the Schiavo vote that shows where they are going. There is now a conscious effort in the Democratic party to try to hold on to the base they have been alienating for years by reasserting their commitment to religious values.
They don't want to lose all the blacks and catholics, and see that as a real danger, so they're starting to talk all holy to keep them on board. They're ressurecting the old idea of the 'social gospel', the idea that huge public assistance programs and government handouts are really motivated by Christian charity. It's a pile of bunkum, but they're trying to sell it.

Dave

I think you're jumping the gun a bit there Dave. More or less, Democrats are simply sitting back and watching the Republican party tear itself up. To the average American, it looks like the Republican party is now nothing more than an extension of the Conservative Christian far-right, which will force some Independents and moderates into the Democrats corner.

That's why so many Democrats (and some Republicans) didn't vote on Schiavo's bill...they (along with a majority of the country) thought it was overstepping the government's boundaries.

Can someone explain to me what "life saving sex" is? Sounds like a happy replacement for mouth to mouth!

great post Queenie, thanks! I am little more generous, but I'm not Catholic so the Pop's dictates don't effect me directly. The general consensus seems to be: energized the Church, took frim stands, but took stands that many feel are backward

Ms. Queenie, thank you. I can see a little good that the pope did, and I am not pleased about his demise, but IMO he continued the church's downward spiral and likely, though his sprawling influence, will keep the centuries-old denomination in the dark for at least another half-century. Pity.

You might want to cite some better evidence for the claims about the Pope being somehow responsible for the murder of Archbishop Romero. What exactly could John Paul II have "easily" done to prevent that assassination or any other?

At that time, right-wing death squads and left-wing revolutionaries were killing people all over Latin America, and nobody seemed to be able to do anything to stop them. Blaming the Pope for any of those deaths seems to require attributing supernatural powers to the man.

Generally I disagree with both extremes of opinion on the recently departed pontiff. Those who lionize him forget his harmful mistakes. Those who demonize him neglect his contributions to the peaceful ending of the Cold War, among many other achievements which benefited not only the Catholics, but all humankind.

>>I think you're jumping the gun a bit there Dave. More or less, Democrats are simply sitting back and watching the Republican party tear itself up. <<

If only it were true. The sad fact is they're looking at the Republican party jealously and trying to figure out how they can immitate it. They have the exact same problem, you see, they have a religiously motivated minority. In the Republican party the religious minority is out of control. In the Democratic party it's getting alienated and disgruntled. Republicans are trying to figure out how to get rid of or subdue their religious nuts. The Democrats are trying to figure out how to hold onto theirs. They're deathly afraid that the religious posturing of the right will suck their religionists over to the other side.

>>To the average American, it looks like the Republican party is now nothing more than an extension of the Conservative Christian far-right, which will force some Independents and moderates into the Democrats corner. <<

Yes, but the Democrats are making no efforts to change their positions to attract those people. Those aren't people who are going to go to a Howard Dean party.

>>That's why so many Democrats (and some Republicans) didn't vote on Schiavo's bill...they (along with a majority of the country) thought it was overstepping the government's boundaries.<<

That was just sheer spinelessness. If they didn't like the idea they should have damned well voted. By not voting they get tainted with having supported it by default.

Dave

"If only it were true. The sad fact is they're looking at the Republican party jealously and trying to figure out how they can immitate it."

Well, I agree that they're jealous of the Republicans share of Christians and they are probably doing some re-tooling to figure out how to grab a larger share, but as far as a specific group of christians within the democrats that are getting disgruntled...I haven't seen that happening at all. Have you any specifics?

"the Democrats are making no efforts to change their positions to attract those people."

Here's the thing: I don't think they really have to. If people like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist keep grabbing the headlines away from the more moderate Republicans, the Repubs just keep looking like nutjobs, while Democrats will start looking good just as they are.

"That was just sheer spinelessness. If they didn't like the idea they should have damned well voted. By not voting they get tainted with having supported it by default."

I don't agree that not showing up to vote is support of the legislation. It was, after all, a special session to pass the law. Jeff Miller (my district's congressman) flew back up to Washington just to vote on it. I think not showing up is as good as saying you don't support it. I mean, if there is an issue on the ballot, say an amendment to the state constitution and I don't vote yes or no on it, I haven't supported it by not voting, right?

Here's the thing: I don't think they really have to. If people like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist keep grabbing the headlines away from the more moderate Republicans, the Repubs just keep looking like nutjobs, while Democrats will start looking good just as they are.

Poppycock. The Democrats are cowards. They've lost their identity and have no message which resonates with America's people. Potential shining stars like Barak Obama are doomed because the party doesn't have the balls to invest in an idealogy. They can't just sit back and hope that Frist and DeLay will make the GOP look looney. That's just not going to happen.

As long as people in the grass roots remain complacent and allow the GOP side of the aisle to control the government things won't change. What's needed here are people who have vision, sensible ideas and a clear understanding of what's at stake. We need a "Great Communicator" like Ronald Reagan or the Pope. Without a master of the media, we'll just ramble along like lemmings to the edge of the abyss.

>>I don't agree that not showing up to vote is support of the legislation. It was, after all, a special session to pass the law. Jeff Miller (my district's congressman) flew back up to Washington just to vote on it. I think not showing up is as good as saying you don't support it. <<

Not showing up is saying you don't care, that the issue is meaningless to you. And that's fine, if that's the message you want to send - but it also means that you're saying that it's fine with you to let the other party set the agenda and get their desired outcome from it.

>>I mean, if there is an issue on the ballot, say an amendment to the state constitution and I don't vote yes or no on it, I haven't supported it by not voting, right?<<

Your complacency supports those who expect people to be apathetic and let them do whatever they want to your state constitution. They're betting on the lazy and the ignorant not voting so that they can control the process.

Dave

Queenie:

I HATE it when people refer to themselves in the third person...

FWIW...

Here's something simple:

The Pope is a religious leader.

He leads the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is a Christian Church.

Christians believe the Bible (Old and New) is the WORD OF GOD.

In the Bible, it calls homosexual behavior a sin.

So, just why exactly should a religious leader, who believes the Bible is the WORD OF GOD, suddenly turn a blind eye to a SIN, simply because a minority of believers no longer think it's such a bad thing?

Has the Bible been amended recently, by God? Did I sleep through that?

My point, is that a religious leader has an obligation, rooted in his supernatural belief, to follow the WORD OF GOD. And if GOD thinks those who engage in homosexual acts are sinners (and He apparently does, according to His WORD, in the Bible), they what right does such an earthly leader have to "amend" GOD's word?

hello Mr. Christopher..i know you used to be a Saint..then we changed it..now you are a Saint again..congratulations..

enjoy that hamburger on Friday...God changed his mind about the whole fish only thing..

oh yes..and Galileo..i know it took 500 years...and i know we excommunicated you...but we now decided we were wrong then and you were right, the Earth does revolve around the Sun..

that's all from the Throne of St. Peter for now ...

/end satire

Excelsior!

>>In the Bible, it calls homosexual behavior a sin.<<

It also says that homosexuals should be killed, as I recall. I wonder of JP2 ever considered preaching that message?

Dave

Dave - "Not showing up is saying you don't care, that the issue is meaningless to you."

Me - "I think not showing up is as good as saying you don't support it."

We are in agreement. In the case of Schiavo's law, most Americans believe it was overstepping government's boundaries and driven by political gain rather than personal conviction. So, even though it did pass and Republicans "set the agenda," it served only to make them look like vote-grabbing do-gooders and the mouthpiece of the Christian right. Considering that, skipping the vote seems like a fairly wise move. (and Republicans did not achieve their desired outcome after all)

Thank you all for your comments.

I don't think the article says that JPII is responsible for the death of Oscar Romero. It says that he could have done more to protect him. It is widely believed that if the Vatican had issued a public backing of Romero's position, then the death squads would not have got the nod from the representatives of the superpower that was funding their agenda.

Life-saving sex..... yes, a bit clunky, I admit.... although an interesting concept you must admit!!

We refer to ourselves in the third person because we are of royal blood. We are very sorry if it annoys you. Well, no we're not actually. :-)

I love the way this comment thread has turned into a Republican-Democrat debate... again. Do you people think of nothing else??

Queenie

did you say something? I was thinking about the '08 election.

Looks to be Frist vs. Bayh, eh?

Queenie, my sweet, I'm starting to bend towards being a Monarchist. Perhaps our head of state should be a Royal and we'll convert the government to a Parliamentary system. Thank you for starting this whole debate, it has been enlightening.

WAIT just a second!

All these "quotes" from the "bible" ~~~

ummmm~~~out of the 746 different versions promulgated upon the poor illiterate public over the last 1800 some odd years~~~starting with whatever the 1st "official" version was (and this is back in the days when the only people that COULD READ were either priests or nobility~~nobody else went to "school"--!!!!) ~~
which "Official Version" bible aRE you all "quoting" ~~~

I strongly suspect it is NOT the original manuscripts-----which were in Greek and Aramaic and never compiled together into any version of a unified "book" ---
and all these "modern" translations and versions have taken HUGE liberties from the original Aramaic and Greek~~~
just to point to one very popular modern quote: "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live" ..........which, by the way, was the quote used to justify the Holy Inquisition for 300 years and the ensuing MURDER of over 8 MILLION innocent human beings ~~MORE BY FAR THAN ADOLPH HITLER MURDERED ....... if you go back to the original Greek and Aramaic manuscripts this was supposed to derive from---you will find the actual word they recently CHOSE to interpret as "WITCH" was actuall "WELL POISONER" -----someone who put poison in someone's well ~~~ nothing the least to do with the term "WITCH" ...
I won't get boring and pedantic and tear the entire "book" apart- you all can do that on your own; but pleaseeeee~~~~
give me a break! Most of you are quite well educated---use the wisdom you've been "blessed" with! This is NOT the "Ireffutable Word of God" ...!!!! Pleaseeeeeeeee...............
We can't remember exactly what little GW Bush said three days ago exactly~~~and these fools in black robes (who control more capital tha any nation on earth!!!!!) --tell us THIS latest translation 745 versions later is the Irrefutable Word of God........heh ....heh...!!!!!

So, Tristan. What do you think of the Koran?

never read it my friend ----
thus I have no thoughts on it at all.

"the ensuing MURDER of over 8 MILLION innocent human beings ~~MORE BY FAR THAN ADOLPH HITLER MURDERED"

No, Hitler killed vastly more than that. 6 million were Jews. Millions more were non-Jews. But it added up to more than 8 million...

ok~~~
not to quibble over a few hundred thousand and which "side" had more murdered on~~

BACK to the Future .....

I mean BIBLE ~~~~~~~~~

and all of it's oh-so-convenient-political-MIS-interpretations as they were ORDERED to be TRANSLATED; ie, as in the "Authorized" King James version~~~~
come on........ talk about "political INPUT" ...!!!!