Has the Pope gone a bit overboard? I know that plenty of people are opposed to “Adam and Steve,” but this sounds like a pretty loopy description of gay marriage from the Pontiff’s new book Memory and Identity:
“It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.” (courtesy of CNN)
Karol Wojtyla is a significant philosopher who has shown remarkable courage in his life. How sad to see him slip out of the world in such an undignified manner.
GOOD LORD!!!. . . er. . . sorry about that, God. For decades, leadership in the Roman Catholic Church covered up the fact that some of its own clergy were raving sexual predators who did a far better job of profoundly screwing up lives than they did saving souls. Hmmm. . . now THAT is truly evil. And THAT, I would argue, has done far more harm to the family and to Man than gay marriage. I think the Catholic Church has lost just a liiittttle bit of moral authority on anything dealing with sex at this point in time. It’s almost like having to enroll in classes at the United Nations on such subjects as, say, “Business Ethics 101,” or “The Competitive Bidding Process: How it works and why it is so imnportant.”
Is this the same pope that presided over Vatican II? I know it *looks* like him, but methinks something’s changed.
I had to look up Karol Wojtyla-for those too lazy, it’s the Pope’s real name. I will give the Church credit for one thing-at least they’re consistently pro-life instead of just anti-abortion.
“Is this the same pope that presided over Vatican II?”
No, it isn’t. Vatican II was presided by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.
Cardinal Wojtyla did take an active role in Vatican II, particularly in the making of Gaudiem et Spes.
“For decades, leadership in the Roman Catholic Church covered up the fact that some of its own clergy were raving sexual predators who did a far better job of profoundly screwing up lives than they did saving souls.”
In an organization as large as the Roman Catholic Church, there will always be some bad apples. Unfortunately, Mr. Canty is correct in stating that its leadership has not always delt with those issues in the best manner but it hardly seems fair to use that fact in order to descredit the moral authority of the Catholic Church.
As for “Memory and Identity”, I haven’t read it yet so I can’t make final judgement but from the excerpts I’ve seen I believe it is entirely consistent both with the Pope’s previous work as a philosopher and with the Catholic Church’s tradition.
Thanks to AAA for pointing that John Paul II was still a cardinal at the time of Vatican II. But my point was that the church seems to have shifted its mentality post-vatican II from not just purifying worship, but to taking a more active role in codifying its moral stances, often using pre-vatican II, evil/good mentality.
The popes were different indeed and, sadly enough, the advisors too…Do you actually believe that John Pope II is the author of his last book? I doubt so.
NV
“But my point was that the church seems to have shifted its mentality post-vatican II from not just purifying worship, but to taking a more active role in codifying its moral stances”
Mr Radzinsky’s probably right in that there was a shift in that direction with Pope John Paul II. Being sympathetic to most of his writings, I would argue that challenging some of the dogmas of post-modernism and moral relativism is another area where he has shown remarkable courage.
I also believe that taking an active role in moral issues is an essential part of the Catholic Church’s mission, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the positions taken.
Regarding gay marriage or the “ideology of evil”, I believe the Pope’s positions are in line with Catholic tradition.
As to the authenticity of the Pope’s authorship, I would say that his comments are consistent with his line of reasoning in the Theology of the Body, his defenses of Humanae Vitae, and his blessing of the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church. No doubt, this is what Karol Wojtyla thinks.
Actually the Catholic Church took a pretty active role in codifying its moral stances (more specifically on sexual issues) post-Vactican II. In 1975, the Vatican’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” set out some pretty cut-and-dry guidelines, including how it viewed homosexuality. At the time the Church was reacting to a society where “the corruption of morals has increased,” especially what it called “the unbridled exhaltation of sex.” It was trying to clear the water on sexual issues that it felt had been muddied by “those who have put forward concepts and modes of behavior which are contrary to the true moral exigencies of the human person.” Basically, that was what John Paul II endeavored to do years later only on a much larger scale. He was trying to reiterate the Church’s stance on moral issues that had been muddied by “cafeteria theology,” which had run rampant in the U.S. and Latin America. AAA is absolutely right, John Paul II did show courage in challenging some of the dogmas of post-modernism and moral relativism. And his stances have pretty much held true to historical Church doctrine.
I guess my issue is that I see neither the Pope nor Roman Catholic doctrine as infallible. AAA, you mentioned that it hardly seemed fair that I used the Church’s handling of its sex scandal in order to discredit its moral authority.I believe the Church damaged its own credibility by its actions, or lack thereof.
Since I’m not a Catholic, but I do admire the traditions of scholarship and moral enquiry that are closely associated with the Catholic Church, I should merely add that my remarks above (notably “Karol Wojtyla is a significant philosopher who has shown remarkable courage in his life”) were entirely sincere. The pope’s philosophical writings are profound and interesting and his life has displayed true courage. If the CNN quotation from his new book is accurate (and I’ve not yet been able to obtain a copy of the book for myself), it does seem that his remarks have gone overboard; there is plenty of real evil in the world, and whether Hans and Stefan or Liselotte and Charlotte get married and buy a nice flat seems an unlikely candidate for a constituent element of an “ideology of evil.” The fact that it’s “more hidden” (more than the priestly abuse of innocents?) suggests that you have to look very, very hard to find it.
“Since I’m not a Catholic, but I do admire the traditions of scholarship and moral enquiry that are closely associated with the Catholic Church, I should merely add that my remarks above (notably “Karol Wojtyla is a significant philosopher who has shown remarkable courage in his life”) were entirely sincere.”
As far as I’m concerned, I never had any doubts about the sincerity of Tom’s remarks: I merely have what I believe to be an honest disagreement on the interpretation of Pope John Paul II moral stances and I tried to express it as best as I could. Other than that I share Tom’s admiration for the Catholic tradition and for this Pope’s courage.
“If the CNN quotation from his new book is accurate (and I’ve not yet been able to obtain a copy of the book for myself)”
I have no problem admitting that the quotation is accurate but one should also take into consideration the overall context (both of the book, the Pope’s previous positions and Catholic tradition). Since, like Tom, I haven’t read the book I cannot pass a judgement on that.
“AAA, you mentioned that it hardly seemed fair that I used the Church’s handling of its sex scandal in order to discredit its moral authority.I believe the Church damaged its own credibility by its actions, or lack thereof.”
Did the grave misconduct of somem members of the clergy and the subsequent bad handling of the situation by the Catholic leadership damaged the Church’s credibility? Yes, I have no doubt about that and it’s something I wish had been better handled, but one must always keep in mind that the Church is operated by men, not angels.
What I think is unfair is to question Pope John Paul II’s moral authority based on those events.
“I guess my issue is that I see neither the Pope nor Roman Catholic doctrine as infallible.”
The issue of papal infallibility (regardless of what one thinks of the concept in general) is frequently overblown.
I haven’t got the time right now to ellaborate but I recommend this article as a cstarting point for those interested in knowing more about the subject: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm