A Papal Rant

[OldGreyEagle 5]

As the days go by after the passing of John Paul II, I find myself becomming more and more upset with world reaction. All over the globe, from GW to the muslim world John Paul II is being hailed as a brilliant man, a natural leader, a man of the people. If John Paul II was so highly regarded, I think it would have behooved those beating their breasts in agony at his passing to have listened and acted on his message while he was alive. I heard the Jewish and Muslim worlds were praying for him, why not honor him with a real peace? For all the countries that were at odds with him and what he said, why do their leaders extol his virtures now that he is dead rather than have done what he asked while he was alive. A week ago John Paul was alive, not in great shape mind you, but alive and no world leader talked about his wisdom, and now that he is dead, he is talked about with such fervor that you would have thought he righted all the worlds long ago.

 

 

"Let us learn to show our friendship for a man when he is alive and not after he is dead"

F. Scott Fitzgerald

[Backpacker 11]

OGE

 

I agree with you. I think it is just the fickle nature of humanity, a prominent person passes on and the world extols his virtues, even those who disliked them, case in point Ronald Reagan. The sad part is that when the new pope is chosen watch and see how fast they forget about John Paul II. I guess people need a short period of mourning and then want to move on with life as quickly as possible. This week will be JP II's memorial, next week when the new pope is chosen it will be time for joy and celebration. Yet the conditions in the world you refer to will still remain the same.

[Vicki 11]

Two separate issues, OGE - the man and his message. Just because I may have a great deal of respect for a person does not mean that I'm going to "do what he says." One thing all have agreed upon, whether or not they liked what he had to say, was that he was a man worthy of respect, unafraid to stand by his beliefs. The only other people I can think of who received that level of universal respect were Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Theresa.

 

That alone is going a long way.

 

Vicki

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Just my point, I think,

 

Gandhi was the comsummate pacifist and Mother Theresa the comsummate missionary struggling to ease the burdens of poverty and now we add John Paul II, wouldnt it honor Gandhi more if no more wars were fought and the nations of the world worked to erradicate poverry and hunger with the same fervor they work to erradicate the enemy du jour?

[dsteele 20]

OGE, dear friend:

 

I agree with your premise. Yes, it would honor the greats more if their message was universally accepted. I have no doubt of that.

 

But does it diminish their greatness to aknowledge their contributions and to do all we can to rid society of the ills they themselves fought ... even though we know we can not do it ourselves or even as effectively as these humans who were so great?

 

The Pope deserves his due. We who give him these praises in his death owe it to him to continue the missions he sought through his holy life.

 

Unc.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OGE says:

 

I heard the Jewish and Muslim worlds were praying for him, why not honor him with a real peace?

 

Since you said you were upset, I will choose not to be offended by your comment. I will just point out that the nation of Israel is one part of the "Jewish world" and its policies do not speak for the "Jewish world." Having said that, I happen to be one of those people who think that Israel has done everything it reasonably can to bring about peace while protecting its own security. I therefore think that Israel does not bear responsibility for the violence that is occurring. And, as a result, I do not believe it is within Israel's power to bring about a "real peace."

 

I suspect there are people who disagree with me, perhaps including yourself, which is fine. But I do not think it has to do anything with the Pope. I can think that this Pope was a great man (which I do) without it having to do anything with Israel's defense policies.

[Eamonn 61]

Without wanting to take anything away from the Pope, but I can't change or be responsible for anyone else, how they act or what they think. I can only change me and responsible for me.

We honor the Pope by trying to follow his example.

"Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me."

Eamonn.

[Rooster7 11]

NJ,

 

Believe it or not, I agree with you. Israel is not to be blamed for the lack of peace in that region. They are surrounded by millions that hate their existence. Excluding self-inflicted genocide, they will never be able to appease their neighbors. I applaud Israel for being a people of self-restraint.

 

OGE,

 

I also believe the Pope was a good man. And while I did not agree with every conclusion he made, I agreed with most. I think, George W. Bush falls into the same catagory of admirers. Certainly, in regards to homosexuality, abortion, and many other social issues, the Pope and the current president were of one mind. Obviously, there were some differences in other areas, but name two men that were always in complete agreement.

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but I'd have to say that Israel isn't an "innocent victim" when it comes to the violence in the region. Yes, they bear the brunt of "not being welcome" in the region, their land having been created after WWII by taking land away from the "losers". But, the government of Israel has hardly been an innocent; they take fine advantage of the military tools provided by the U.S. Israel seems to be the poster child for the pre-emptive strike policy which GW has taken such a fondness to. They have shown restraint mostly when the U.S. has exerted political pressure on them. When it comes to the Middle East, you're taking on issues that go back centuries; they're not going to be addressed by giving Israel the biggest guns, or by the U.S. invading the region, thinking that we're somehow going to "fix it" by forcing democratic reforms on them.

 

Regards the Pope....

I think it's possible to separate the man from his mission. I think the Pope was a wonderful leader for our times, but I disagree with much of what he stood for. As far as praising him now that he's gone, that, I think, is just human nature, although he was given plenty of credit during his life. It's not like this is something new.

[acco40 95]

Time for a little levity.

 

Our parish priest, who is of Polish descent, has a favorite T-shirt which reads: I went to Rome to see the Pope, but he was in Hamtramck. Sorry, that maybe was a little too much regional humor but I liked it.

 

My guess, OGE, was that you were really not looking for an answer (I'm sure you knew the answer) but were asking a rhetorical question. I'll do the same. Why does Dubya, in the Shiavo case, talk of erring on the side of human life, but when Governor of Texas, allow the execution of more inmates than all the other states combined? His comment at the time, after spending on average less than 15 minutes reviewing each case, was that he would not interfere with the courts. He must have had some type of ideological turnaround since then or maybe, just maybe, he is doing what is politically expedient?

 

Karol Jozef Wojtyla, like Ronald Reagan, was a trained actor (and I don't mean that in a negative way). They both firmly understood the power of television and modern media. The Pope, even more so was the "Great Communicator" being fluent in a multitude of languages (8?) and knowing many more. He used these capable tools to send his message to all. I highly respected the man. Like the Scout Oath and Law, the Catholic Church has guidelines for those to follow. The vast majority strive to meet them but all fall short. He was very much against the USA's actions in both of our conflicts with Iraq. He was not in agreement with the communist leaders of Poland, Cuba, USSR, etc. but was able to make an offer they could not refuse. He would come visit their countries, recognize them (the leaders) - lending a sense of legitimacy to them - but speak of human rights. The crowds he would draw added legitimacy to his doctrine.

 

Many forget that as well as a religious leader he was also a head of state.

[packsaddle 753]

Wow, Acco40, I was just thinking almost exactly the same thing. My wording was that ...when W held the lives of the condemned in his hands, he presided over more executions than any governor in the history of this country, 152 of them.

 

I understand OGE's frustration but I suspect he is well aware of the forces that drive these spectacles. Everyone knew this was going to happen and had prepared for this for a long time. I suggest that neither the Pope, nor any leader can deliver peace. Short of totalitarianism, peace can't be forced. We choose conflict because that is what we want. "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." That accounts for most conflicts and all of terrorism.

When we decide, collectively, to have peace then we'll stop conflict and have peace.

 

I spoke well of Reagan (although I disagreed with much of what his administration did) because I have to acknowledge his gift of reaching the collective ear of the people to accomplish his policies. In that respect he was a truly great man.

 

Likewise, the Pope was tremendously influential over vast numbers of people throughout the world. I disagreed with some of his views and agreed with others - but there is no denying that he was a great man.

 

I believe that the Pope, like Reagan, was basically an honest man who sincerely wanted to help people.

 

W, on the other hand, will always be a liar.

[Proud Eagle 13]

I happen to think the Pope is a great man.

 

I also think he was right on the vast majority of issues, though there are a few here and there I don't agree with, or at least I can't fully support them. However, I am only willing to suggest I may be right on a very narrow set, because I do not have the benefit of the long years of education, contemplation, and spiritual guidance of the Holy Father. On most issues where I differ I chalk it up to my quite limited understanding, and hope that God will forgive an ignorant soul (and I hope to one day gain a greater understanding). The Pope is one of histories rare extrodinary men who did extrodinary things.

 

In a similar way, I happen to think that our President is a good leader. He is not perfect by any means. In fact I disagree with him on a great range of issues from energy policy to Amtrak. Yet I agree with a great deal of his positions, and I think he is doing the best he can under present circumstances. I think he is pretty much an ordinary guy who has been able to do extrodinary things.

 

Anyone who thinks they can do a better job as either Pope or President is more than welcome to make a try at either. If you happen to get the job, good luck. I would say that the most we can ask of such leaders is that they do their best to be prepared for whatever tasks they may be faced with.

 

I don't care for Pres. Clinton as either a leader or a person. Yet I have a sort of respect for him too, though not of the same sort I have for either the Pope, or the sort I have for our current President.

 

Life is funny like that. We may think a person is completely wrong and still have a type of respect for them. It is sort of like sportsmanship. You want to beat the other team. You want them to lose and you to win. Yet you can still have respect for the other team.

[Trevorum 24]

Vicki mentions Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Theresa as being great moral leaders of the modern world. We can not omit His Holiness, the Dali Lama.

[Vicki 11]

Trevorum, I didn't include the Dalai Lama because his life's legacy is not completely written yet. History hasn't finished with him yet:

[Trevorum 24]

...not for a long time, I hope.

 

(and thanks for correcting my typo!)