Somewhat more seriously

[jawnbc]

I stand in bold opposition to the Catholic Church on many issues: I support family planning, sexual health, women as true equals to men, and reject the notion that suffering is spirtually superior to contendness and serenity. I cannot count how many times I’ve fought directly against the Church and it’s stances on these sorts of issues. Pope John Paul II consistently put forth the antithesis of these stances, was a social reactionary, who comfortably wielded his authority as pontiff to marginalize dissent in the Church. And his veneration of Mother Theresa, who refused to support birth control in the slums of Calcutta, quite frankly infuriates me. Heartless.

However, I have also rejected attempts for those who are outside the body of the Church seeking to change it; Catholics have a right to change the Church, not anyone else. I believe that secular societies can only be sustained when theology is excluded from public policy--and religions are left to hold their own values, short of criminality. If we don't want theocracy, we have to allow genuine religious institutions (those which operate autonomously of tax/ratepayer support) to hold their own views. Quite often, along with the hideous stuff are some very good thing. That may be unpopular with some of my friends.

His Holiness John Paul II, however, was formidable. He spoke 11 languages fluently. He lost his entire immediate family before and during World War II. He study for the priesthood when to do so (under Nazi occupancy) meant facing the firing squad...or the death camps. He broke hundreds of years of Church complicity in the oppression of working peoples (Ireland would’ve been independent perhaps 200 years earlier, were it not for the Church), by supporting Solidarity in Poland (one example of many). He argued that human rights were a part of the Gospels, and that obscene capitalism was as evil as communism. And he travelled the world, repeatedly, when his predecessors largely remained in Italy and Europe.

And he also made it clear that the spiritual fight for justice was not synonymous with politics. He made it nearly impossible for persons with Catholic religious vocations to hold public office--though he clearly gave opinions on all sorts of issues of political importance and encouraged Catholics as citizens to involve themselves in public life. As Pope he made more apologies for the Church’s historical wrongdoings than all his predecessors combined.

So very far from perfect. So often an adversary. But he endeavoured to live vigorously within the principles he espoused.

I shall not miss him, but I acknowledge that, in many respects, he changed things for the better. And never seemed driven by ego.

I’ll leave it to Gawd to judge him.

Comments

[le-lapin.livejournal.com]

[jawnbc]

Je pense sa vie familiale--mère qui était mort quand il était un enfant, frère aussi mort, père militaire--explique ses principles «spirituelles» sur la sexuality et la famille. Et même-temps son obsession avec la Vierge (Viarge! au Canada :D).

Il comprends pas les femmes, et l'existence quotidien du monde. Il proposait que nous vivons comme il pensait...et donc pas dans realitè.

[fao.livejournal.com]

WOW! I agree with almost all. I'm catholic and even when I clearly don't support many of their policies as an institution (At least there's no Inquisition anymore), I found all is about love and compassion to others. And JP II, at the end, seems to clearly understand that. Maybe with more popes like this, in 400 years homosexuality will be accepted by the church (and maybe in 200 years they will accept condom as a good way to stop HIV/AIDS): at least by now, communist is over, and I must say, military government in Chile too, thanks in big part to him.

[jawnbc]

Gracias amigo. And I think the Catholic Church is much less hateful than some of many Protestant (anabaptist) sects.

[gfrancie.livejournal.com]

As a Cat'lick I am with you on a lot of that. I do admire some of the things he said about obscene capitalism and that he found the war in Iraq wrong. I also liked the fact that he caught up on all of the apologizing that the church needed to do. Talk about humbling yourself. Like anything you take the good with the bad.

You know it is very Catholic of you to say, "I will leave it to Gawd to judge him." hehe

[jawnbc]

Yeah but I didn't have that "but really I think he's an arsehole fuckface" scowl on my face as I typed it. Now that's Catlick!

[/ end Sr. Mary BetterthanYou]

[gfrancie.livejournal.com]

*giggles* yep.

Chalk it up to humanity. Woo.

[that-dang-otter.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[ex-earthmonk411.livejournal.com]

i wish i could have said it so well

[mondragon.livejournal.com]

The fact that he could have been worse, the fact that he lessened the hatefulness of some of the policies of the organization he headed, does not make that organization or him any less hateful.

If there's a hell he's there, burning.

[ink-ling.livejournal.com]

Similar sentiments here. Thanks for putting them out there.

VERY WELL SAID...

[darkphuque.livejournal.com]

When he was gravely ill, I prayed that his passing might be in peace and without pain. He did a lot of good, along with upholding some old ideas that are very bad. He was no friend to the Gays in Italy, nor to those in the rest of the world. We remembred Karol Voytiva (sp) in our services this am. May he be at peace.

[nashobabear.livejournal.com]

yup .. thanks for some thoughtful expression at a time when respect for what deserves respect should garner its due. Tomorrow we can start trashing the bastards again.

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

I don't feel qualified to assess this Pope or many others, not being either a Catholic or a close reader of what he did over the years. Your assessment strikes me as consistent with what I do know. Thanks.

The real reason I'm writing is that I'm utterly fascinated by some consistent thought patterns I detect in your approach to questions like this. I think of your comments on appropriations of gay culture by nongay people (e.g. the use of "queer" as a content-free signifier of straightish "rebellion"), your remarks about the feeling of neighborhood and in-group/out-group belonging in your NYC home environment, and this from what you've said just now:

I have also rejected attempts for those who are outside the body of the Church seeking to change it; Catholics have a right to change the Church, not anyone else.

What's rich about this, for me, is that it exists in dynamic tension with other things I know about you, such as your strong Canadian identity despite your American birthright, and your tendency to exogamy.

If we're going to talk about the "body" of the Church, what I notice is that the corpus of your *life and thought* is intriguingly complex and incorporates a number of things that might seem contradictory at first blush. Small wonder that you provide a nuanced assessment of the departed Pope couched in firm language. Where the rubber hits the road is often in noticing precisely how people navigate these complexities. Good stuff. :)

[jawnbc]

Oh dear. Now I have to think about what I wrote, and what I meant. J'ai la tête qui éclate...

First off, the easy one: unlike most national identities one can truly become Canadian as an adult. Not merely in juridical terms, but with respect to the social reality of the place. Canadians are much less likely than Americans, Europeans, or Australians to say "oh so you're really XXXXXXXan." In terms of identity, I feel more Canadian and not very American. The difference? Meaning, both individual (what I and Canada mean to me) and collective (what it means to be Canadian).

However much of my ability to put things like the Pope in this sort of perspective represents an a posteriori meaning-making exercise, strongly influenced (quel surprise) by my time in Canada. Canadian law has made a pretty good compromise to ensure that we get the theocrats asserting any influence in law or public policy. Partly it comes from being a 50-50 country for a few hundred years (50% Catholic and French, 50% English/Scots and Protestant. Of course indigenous folks don't fit into this, so let's make it 40/40/10). Since either group could easily undermine the other's leaders based on their religious affiliations, a compromise was made: religion stays out of Parliament, or at least out of the PM's office.

So today when the Supreme Court faces issues on human rights for queers, while churches can file briefs for or against any case, they cannot bring action against the government in this area based on their religious beliefs. And if they pay their own way they can disciminate in ways secular bodies cannot. If I want this to remain the status quo it has to work the other way for me: I cannot allow government to control the internal questions of a religion. The exception is the criminal code: violence, harassment and abuse are illegal for any and all. Ditto for kweer issues (and even gay male or gay or male): sometimes it's vital for the in-group to set its own path, and make some clear delineations between who is and who ain't.

Oh, and I'll never be an ex-Catholic. It doesn't seem to work that way, ever. Non-practicising is as far as I've got. Oh, and being bad Catholic. Baaaaaad.