Pope John Paul II: The first world leader

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1451482,00.html

The world lived this death. It was a global Calvary. People from every corner of the earth gathered in St Peter's Square, peering up at those two windows of the papal apartment, illuminated against the night sky. Across five continents, Christians, Jews and Muslims joined them through television. Marcello, from Rio de Janeiro, emailed CNN: "We are watching the agony of the greatest man of our time." Mohamed, from Birmingham, emailed the BBC: "He will be missed by Catholics and non-Catholics alike."

What does this tell us? It tells us that Pope John Paul II was the first world leader. We talk of Bush, Blair or Hu Jintao as "world leaders", but they are merely national leaders who have a world impact. That's true even of Nelson Mandela, his closest contender for Marcello's title of "greatest man of our time".

Pope John Paul II uniquely combined three elements. He was the head of the world's largest supranational organisation of individual human beings. (The UN is an organisation of states; the Islamic umma is not an organisation.) He believed withunshakeable conviction that his message was universal, applying equally to every man, woman and child - Catholics and non-Catholics alike. And he seized the technological opportunity of bringing that message personally to almost every country on earth, thanks to jet aeroplanes and television. In short, he made the world his parish. No one had ever done this before. No one could.

At the beginning of the third millennium, we have economic globalisation. We have the globalisation of information, represented by the internet and CNN. We should have international institutions and laws to match. But that in turn requires what has been called moral globalisation. Whether or not we share John Paul II's motivating beliefs, we can acknowledge that his was the most impressive attempt so far made by any single human being to spell out what moral globalisation might mean, starting with a lived practice of universal sympathy. After he preached at Auschwitz in 1979, a nun, kneeling before him, whispered: "I am a Polish nun. But I am also a Russian Jew." In 2005, we need to say: "I am a prosperous westerner. But I am also a woman of Darfur." And then to act accordingly.

[ananda]

1. errr..

Actually, the media has -made- it into a global calvary.

Also, JPII was a celebrity darling, even crafting his own image and that of the church he wished to convey.

This media stuff is somewhat disturbing and distracting to me. Even the Dalai Lama is a media darling. I feel that it degrades and detracts from the true purpose of religion and the spirituality that sometimes gets lost in all the hype.

Also, people tend to let media pundits and celebrities do their thinking for them.

Not everything the pope stood for was good: e.g., anti-women, anti-gay, anti-lay and woman leaders, papal autocracy.

In fact, I would say that those negatives pretty much cancel out the good because -any- collusion with oppression fosters oppression everywhere.

Sue

[piece sine]

5. He didn't foster oppression in the Soviet Union

He strared it down withoutfiring a single shot and he clearly denounced Bush on Iraq. Catholic dogma is inflexible but JP II was a major humanist in many respects. I disagree with Catholic dogma very strongly -- and no longer practice the religion I was born into -- but that doesn't mean I can see why a bilion people adored the guy.

Another thing: Why is DU suddenly becoming so anti-religious? It's sure not a theology site but I've seen more faith-based bashing here that anywhere else? Why is that? Does that buy the Democrats votes? And why can't the "open-minded" progressives here just let religion go... like I did. There's no need to bash others' religious beliefs. The fundies are self-bashing.

[T_i_B]

9. Does that buy the Democrats votes?

I honestly don't think anyone on DU cares about that any more. People on the left are so consumed with hatred for religion that they often forget liberal values such as tolerance and become little better then the likes of Ian Paisley.

Small wonder then that so many Christians reject the left, and whenever you point this out on DU you get flamed.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

12. Being angry about the power mongering hypocrisy of organized

religion is not the equivalent of being "consumed with hatred for religion". But if you frame it that way it's a convenient barb to hurl at DU folks to make them sound extremist and foolish, which they generally aren't. Christians who reject the left aren't Christians in the sense of Christian values but rather Christians in the slavering cult member sense.

[T_i_B]

15. Ah yes

Christians who reject the left aren't Christians in the sense of Christian values but rather Christians in the slavering cult member sense.

Ah, the "I hate religion and anyone who disagrees with me is not truly religious" approach. One of the best ways of getting religious folks not to support the left. Thanks for proving my assertion that the left does not care for anyone who does have faith.

Of course the right also tries this approach, but from the standpoint of "I love religion and anyone who disagrees with me is not truly religious". There is a little bit more logic in that approach, however many faults it has.

No one side is better then the other but both sides make complete and utter idiots of themselves. You'd think that the left would be far better placed to use "moral globalization", particularly as it tends to involve such things as fair trade and debt relief (which the church is all in favour of) but no, prejudice rules OK round here.

[aneerkoinos]

17. anti-religious?

Rather the opposite, cool-headed criticism of the Catholic dogma and JP's questionable merits is very much pro-religion.

In my book Catholic Church (or churches) has been against religion and truth since the day it was created by the Roman Emperor.

[IrateCitizen]

19. Objective analysis is always welcome, to be certain.

However, a consistent line of always focusing only on the negative aspects and refusing to acknowledge positive aspects could hardly be called "cool-headed criticism" or objective.

In my book Catholic Church (or churches) has been against religion and truth since the day it was created by the Roman Emperor.

By that line alone you are demonstrating a pretty severe bias. I'm not going to defend the Council of Nicea nor the Roman Catholic Church (hell, I'm not even a Catholic myself), but by stating so plainly thta the Catholic Church "has been against religion and truth since the day it was created" is, IMHO, a blanket condemnation.

The Catholic Church has much to answer for in its history, and it has much to answer for today. But your statement, in one swift stroke, disavows all positivity that has been done by this organization through its existence as well. For reference, you should look to the Order of St. Francis of Assisi and Liberation Theology for starters.

[aneerkoinos]

21. Why, me not objective? ;)

I wouldn't dare to be so presumptiouss to claim fully objective, unbiased views on any subject. But truth be told, so I do make an attempt to back my views with verifyible arguments. My bias has lot to do with post-Nicean zealots burning the Library of Alexandria, for personal work related reasons, and the Gnostic tendencies that I have.

I have nothing but deepest respect for St. Francis and Liberation Theology, and all the other wonderfull and beatifull things that have happened in the context of Catholic church. But are these phenomena products of the Catholic dogma, or did they occur despite the Catholic dogma and Catholic church? It is fairly obvious history supports the latter view, and so does present day, now that Pope has practically crushed the Liberation Theology movement.

If you are not going to defend the Council of Nicea, which pretty much put end to the spiritual and social revolution that started in around the 1st century BC in the name of Christ, what, exactly, is wrong stating that Catholic Church and dogma are anti-religious, and anti-Christian?

The examples of Catholic Church lying and misrepresenting and silencing the truth on purpose from Nicea to present day are so numerous that I don't think they need to be repeated, so what exactly is wrong about the claim that Catholic Church is against the truth?

If the fact is that as an organization RCC more harmfull than beneficial, what is so wrong about saying that aloud? I have nothing against catholic people, who have a wide variety of opinions and beliefs, but even though it may offend some people who can't make difference between people and their opinions, I will continue criticizing views and organizations that I think cause more suffering than alleviate that.

[Matilda]

2. Someone once referred to him as "the tarmac-kissing superstar".

More than a hint of truth in that statement.

He was expert at creating a "cult of personality".

[FourStarDemocrat]

3. He would be better described as world-leader of Catholics

I respect him and some of the things he has done, such to promote democracy in fmr. soviet east-block countries, and placing a spotlight on poverty and suffering. I recognize that he had a strong voice and was extremely influencial outside of the Vatican, but to call him the "first world leader" is a bit of a stretch.

[piece sine]

6. well, then

there has never, ever been any world leader if you put it in those terms. I thought Guardian made a great case for respecting a person who was seen by more other people than any other person in all of world history. Sounds like a world leader to me. Just because JPII was no big deal at DU doesn't mean he wasn't loved by at least a billion people.

[FourStarDemocrat]

8. Whatever suits you...

I think he was loved by millions, maybe a billion Catholics, and widely respected elsewhere. However, there are many parts of the world where his leadership and influence was not that strong, such as asia (china, india, korea, etc) and much of Europe. In NY, where I reside, there are many Catholics that love him. The media here and in the US as a whole has been deferential to him in respect to his many followers, and has praised his accomplishments. But there are also many lapsed Catholics in this region as well, and many, many people of other faiths who frankly don't consider his leadership pertaining to them although they admire him and respect his role in history.

[T_i_B]

10. As the article is at pains to point out

Pope John Paul II preached the message of Christ to more people then any other pope, he was the most travelled pope, and his influence as a spritual leader went much further then Roman Catholicism and further even then the sphere of Christianity. The word catholic means universal and Pope John Paul II was the best possible example of a universal leader you can find IMHO, even if this was more in a spritual then a political sense. :-)

[aneerkoinos]

18. Spiritual catholicism

There's nothing catholic in the original sense of the word in the Catholic Church, as Roman Catholic dogma preaches very exclusivist soteriology, extra ecclesia nullum salus, the opposite of universalism.

Buddhism is one of the true catholic religions, it don't claim any exclusive rights to truth and salvation, just teaches 84.000 of the possible paths.

[Zenlitened]

4. The whole world adored Ronald Reagan too, right?

I mean, it must be true, judging by the coverage when Reagan died. No one could be found with even a single criticism about that wonderful, beloved man.

:eyes:

[piece sine]

7. Huh?

The same Guardian Newspaper had volumes of anti-Reagan considerations. MSM in the U.S. may have gushed about Ronnie, but the world press was quite succinct in their disfavor.

[IrateCitizen]

11. And I shake my head in amazement at anti-religious bigotry again...

It seems to be a stalwart cause here on DU these days.

I'm not even Catholic -- I'm a liberal Protestant Christian who tends toward gnosticism. But I can certainly see the tremendous moral influence that Pope John Paul II wielded -- on a global scale -- during his tenure.

Was he perfect? Hardly. Then again, the Catholic Church is hardly perfect either, and he was a representative of that organization. For those who are looking for a Pope who will come out in favor of abortion rights and the like, you're going to be waiting until hell freezes over. In fact, if you're a Catholic looking for a religion that supports reproductive choice, you'd better look elsewhere.

PJPII was perhaps the greatest force in helping to end the Cold War. He unflinchingly stood against Soviet totalitarianism. But don't think that he was somehow on the side of the Reaganites and other Cold Warriors either -- he spoke out very clearly against the evils of explotative capitalism as well. And while he recognized free markets as the most efficient means by which to distribute many goods and services, he was also quite clear that there were many things in the world that could NOT be handled effectively by them, and he denounced exploitative capitalism as an evil as much as he did authoritarian communism.

The Pope was consistent in his stances. When asked why he didn't support some of the causes being championed by many American Catholic lay members, he responded, "How can I go against what I have taught and believed my entire life?" You can agree or disagree with him, but it's difficult to brand him as a reactionary or hypocrite on these matters.

Was there EVER a Pope who did so much to take the message of Catholicism and Christian love outside of the Western World? I think many of us don't realize how revolutionary PJPII was in areas like engaging the developing world, healing the rift between Jews and Catholics, and the like, because he was Pope for so long -- to the point that he was the only Pope many of us have ever known (myself included). Compare his actions in many areas to those of Pius X (I believe it was Pius X, but not sure) in giving church approval to Hitler. PJPII is viewed as a conservative, but in fact he did many things to change an extremely static organization during his tenure.

Would I have liked for him to have gone further? Certainly! But I'm not going to use that as an excuse, like others here, to tear down everything positive he did with his position. The fact is that Pope John Paul II was a giant among men, a GLOBAL moral force, and perhaps the first true "world leader" we have ever known. On the whole, I think that the world is slightly better off for him having been among us.

[Eloriel]

13. Yeah, here's some of your moral influence

Some Reflections on the Recent Papacy of JPII
by Matthew Fox, Ph.D.
http://www.opednews.com/foxmatthew_040405_pope.htm
discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=117682#117723

snip (and some darned good stuff, too)

Other attacks include documents against yoga (yes!); against Buddhism (calling it "atheism"); against Thich Naht Hahn (calling him the "anti-Christ"); against feminist philosophers; against women (girls cannot serve at the altar; nor can women be priests); against theologians in general. Priests are forbidden to use the pronoun "she" for God at the altar.

A prolonged effort to render fascism fashionable. This includes the rushing into canonization of the card-carrying fascist priest who founded the Opus Dei movement even though this man actually praised Adolf Hitler and also denounced women and has been accused of sexual abuse of six young men who are alive today.

The taking of Opus Dei under the hand of the papacy granting it legitimacy and power within and without the Catholic structure.

The conscious destruction and systemic dismanteling of the Liberation Theology movement and the very vital base communities it spawned in Latin America in particular--a move which has opened up Latin America to an onslaught of Pentecostal and right wing religious huckstering. The demise of the Catholic Church in Latin America is now well underway--pentecostals are sweeping away the population--now that this papacy (with the encouragment and support of the CIA) has destroyed liberation theology and replaced it with opus dei bishops and cardinals.


Thomas Cahill - The Price of Infallibility (Pope JP II)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x117802
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/cahill.html

snip (some equally good stuff)

ut John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

snip

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 remembered 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.

-----

Of course, as the anti-religious bigot that I am (really, more anti-papal adoration when it's damn well not warranted, but :shrug: call it what you will, I don't care), I will be delighted to see the end of the Catholic Church. Why? Because of 2000 years, 20 centuries, 2 millennia of active harm to a whole lotta individual people, half or more women, and a bunch of them gay, and most of them poor -- in spirit if not in literal fact.

[IrateCitizen]

16. Thanks for helping to make my point, Eloriel...

I read the Cahill piece you linked to, and what is just as important to note is what you left OUT in your excerpts. Like the following:

But there is no single Catholic tradition; there are rather Catholic traditions, which range from the voluntary poverty of St. Francis of Assisi to the boundless greed of the Avignon popes, from the genial tolerance for diversity of Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century to the egomaniacal self-importance of Pope Pius IX in the 19th century, from the secrecy and plotting of Opus Dei to the openness and humane service of the Community of Sant'Egidio. Over its 2,000-year history, Roman Catholicism has provided a fertile field for an immense variety of papal traditions.

You said the following:

will be delighted to see the end of the Catholic Church. Why? Because of 2000 years, 20 centuries, 2 millennia of active harm to a whole lotta individual people, half or more women, and a bunch of them gay, and most of them poor -- in spirit if not in literal fact.

While much of that is certainly true (I'm the last person to defend the record of the Catholic Church as a whole over the years), there is also much that you might have missed in your spirit of condemnation. For instance, what about the impact of liberation theology in Latin America -- something that is finally taking root with the revival of leftist politics in South America today? What about the work of the African Catholic Church in acting against civil war and genocide on the continent? What about the work of priests who go right into the heart of urban ghettos and relentessly fight to stop gang violence and help rebuild those communities?

I find it extremely interesting that you engage this issue from almost the sole perspective of a condemner, since that was one of Cahill's points against John Paul II. Sadly, this is one of the traits of DU that turns me off to it more and more these days -- its gradual shift in many ways from a modern-day Enlightenment project of free sharing and exchange of ideas, somewhat similar to a modern-day 18th century French salon, to a rising cacophony of voices that shriek in anger anytime one tries to look at something from outside the position of absolutism.

[dbeach]

14. And I like the Dalai Lama too....and

Depok Chopra , Mother Theresa ,Princess Di and Andrew Weil...
and any who talk's about spiritul health ,shared values, peace,and anthing that aleviates human suffering and raises the group consciousness of this planet..

"there are no atheists in foxholes"..Col.Potter on MASH..
think its a joke...talk to a combat Vet ..ask them how many were atheist in the war zone.

The USA is in a dilemna that requires spiritual solutions..and we won't be getting them from pols..

[Emillereid]

20. From my point of view John Paul II was not a great world leader --

he was simply the leader of the Catholic faction of Christianity -- one who was uncomfortably anti-modern with his archaic views of birth control, abortion and woman priests. His few universalistic sayings were not earth shattering -- a few vaguely worded pronouncements on the evils of globalization and war. Had he been a leader anywhere near Mandela's stature he would have led the good fight. He would have stood in Baghdad as we urged him to do as the US began it's bombing campaign. He would have done more than whisper to Bush that the Iraq war was immoral -- he would have said it with a voice so loud and clear that there would have been no one on earth who didn't know how he felt and he would have encouraged his flock to not participate. What if he'd been so bold as to threaten Blair with excommunication for going to war? Excommunicate adulters but give war criminals an audience. If he'd only been bold and acted with greater clarity the real teaching of love and peace and heaven on earth of his Lord -- maybe, just maybe, a whole lot of Iraqis might still be alive!