Was John Paul II the best Pope of the last few centuries?

[Princeps]

Pope John II has the authority to crown roman emperor.

 

[Adler17]

What I meant is the church has to drop the ideas of the "evil" of women as priests, married priests and some other things like condoms. In short they have to enter 21st century...

Adler

 

[Squonk]

What I meant is the church has to drop the ideas of the "evil" of women as priests, married priests and some other things like condoms. In short they have to enter 21st century...

Adler

Claiming that church has to do something because it's "n century" are simply silly.
What's the meaning of this?

women as priests - perhaps. But note that all the pupils of Christ were men, and the ascension of Holy Spirit that is treated as the start of Christian priestship, it was only for men too. While I see nothing wrong in women as priests, there are no direct evangelical reasons for allowing that.

Married priests and condoms - why so?
Sex was always seen as something unclean by the church. In my opinion it's a bit too radical, but that's kind of how it looked from the very start.
And religion is not a matter You can just switch to fit the trends of the times.

 

[Plotinus]

It's overstating it a little to say that sex was always seen as something unclean by the church. Basically, the attitude in the first centuries of the church was that of Paul in 1 Cor 7 - it is *better* to be celibate, but sex is not actually wrong. In the fourth century, Jerome got into a bit of trouble when his praises of virginity seemed to transgress the second principle, and he moderated them as a result. Similarly, his opponent Jovinian was actually condemned for denying the first principle and saying it was no worse to be married than to be single. So the church tried to do something of a balancing act in this area. Whether it succeeded, of course, is another matter.

Squonk makes some good points though. By the criteria of modern liberal-minded Western people, the current Pope hasn't been as good as he could have been. But does that represent the criteria of the church? John Paul II has, perhaps, been less eager to work out the ramifications of Vatican II than he could have been. To many in the West, that looks like he's going backwards to a pre-Vatican II mindset. But is the West the dominant voice in the Catholic Church? Christianity is most vibrant and growing today in Africa, and the African religious mindset is most certainly pre-Vatican II. It's more like Vatican I. South American Catholicism, too, is not noted for its liberal doctrinal agenda. Can liberal Western elites like us really dictate to these increasingly dominant voices within the church what their views should be?

 

[Squonk]

Squonk makes some good points though

Thanks. I'm blushing

 

[Adler17]

But why can´t that be allowed in the western world? So the catholic church is also slowly able to reform the other areas... No the catholic church is still caught in ideas far away form the original ideas of christ. Most probably Jesus himself as Rabbi was married. Until Gregor VII it was no problem to be married. The orthodox church, the Jews, the Muslims, the Protestants and nearly all other religions don´t know a celibate. It is out of time.
This is only ONE point of many in which the catholic church is still out of time. No, the pope could have done more in this area. That this pope will change that is not very propable.

Adler

 

[Plotinus]

[Adler17] It is true that compulsory celibacy of priests was an innovation in the church after the first centuries (St Gregory of Nyssa was probably married, and he was a bishop), but I think you're way off saying that Jesus was probably married since he was a rabbi. Jesus wasn't a rabbi. There *weren't* any rabbis in his day. The beginnings of the rabbinical movement only came about after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the increasingly hegemony of Pharisaic elements within Judaism towards the end of the century. This is one of the ways we can tell that the Gospel of John was written at this late date, since the title "Rabbi" which characters in that Gospel apply to Jesus is anachronistic. Certainly Jesus was unusual in being unmarried, and it's been suggested that the saying preserved in Matthew 19:12 was originally a response to jibes about *why* he was unmarried. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he was married, and in this case an argument from silence is pretty good: if he had been married I think his wife would have got a mention.

And don't you *dare* mention "The Da Vinci Code"! Don't even *go* there!

 

[Squonk]

But why can´t that be allowed in the western world? So the catholic church is also slowly able to reform the other areas...

Not every change is a reform. Prove me this change is.

No the catholic church is still caught in ideas far away form the original ideas of christ. Most probably Jesus himself as Rabbi was married.

Any kind of proof?
You will never find it.

Until Gregor VII it was no problem to be married.

By the priests? Not at all. It was not that compulsory, restricted, and later forbidden, but it was not respected.

The orthodox church, the Jews, the Muslims, the Protestants and nearly all other religions don´t know a celibate.

The orthodox know a celibate, but it is restricted to higher positions in hierarchy and sometimes even there married are allowed.
The attitude is similar, just the catholic church is more principial in this matter.
The Jews and Muslims are differnt religions and their example is not important for Christians. The Protestants are catholic rebels, a minority in Christianity too.

It is out of time.

What You do not seem to understand that there's nothing that's "out of time".
Saying something is is not any real point. What does it mean? Who says it is anyway?

How come somebody who is so Christian he wishes death to the leader of the biggest Christian denomination should tell this denomination which way should it go, by the way?

 

[Adler17]

Well, Squonk, WE are rebels because of incapable popes who can not go with the time. I mean especially the celibate. First the Da Vinci code is nonsense- mostly. Nevertheless I also think Jesus was married. He was, to my infos, a Rabbi. I´m not very common in Jewish history of that time, so I have to rely on the infos I got from the (respected) sources I have. According to them Jesus was a Rabbi. In this time it was law that Rabbis had to be married. And if he wasn´t married his numerous enemies would have used this fasct. But never some of this insultings appeared. This is why I think he was married.
Nevertheless no god can claim to have celebatarian priests. It is inhumane and nearly against all the enlightment brought to us AND more important there is nothing mentioned in the bible expressis verbis forbidding the marriage of priests. Priests are also men. They will serve god as well if they are married, most probably even better. But in the modern world they have to hide their women and deny their children. This is inhumane and also against the traditions of the church. As what I said: The pope is not living in the 21st century.
The marriage of priests was for a long time allowed. That´s all I know. And indeed it was respected. IIRC several Popes were married until Gregor. And many popes after him had children (the Borgias for instance) and "wifes". This shows another morale as in the rules of the church. Why NOT allowing it?
Another point is women as prists. Why is that also forbidden? Because Jesus had only men as followers? He had 13 men indeed. But the role of the woman in that times was far morerestricted than today. And with the enlightment these ideas became absolete that today it is against the basic rights not allowing female priests. The bible is written by many men and it is written to another time. So a few things became obsolete.
Another point is sexuality. The use of condoms and other things could help to stop spreading AIDS in Africa. In near future it is feared to have 40 millions persons to have AIDS, nerarly half of them on the black continent. So there as well as in Asia and Latin America the spreading of AIDS could be stopped. But due to the rigidy of the catholic fundamentalists, as one I consider JP II himself, nothing is done. In fact it is done everything to avoid condoms.
A last word to Matthew 19, 12: If someone thinks he must live a celibatarian way it is okay for me. But no one should be FORCED to live that way, even priests. There it is NOT written that only so priest must live. There it is NOT written it is the only way to go to heaven. Indeed it is only a liberal statement: Laissez faire. Jeder nach seiner eigenen Facon. A one who is not married should not be pinished by society. But there is no further informations. IF you take the words you can also not find another sense in without interpreting too much.
All in all the pope IS not living in the 21st century. These arguments should be enough. But if you still don´t believe them I won´t argue further. It seems to be senseless then.

Adler

 

[aaglo]

"Was John Paul II..."
Was? Is he dead? Or excommunicated ?

About the topic: being a protestant myself, I don't think very highly of the pope. To me he (John Paul II) was just a pityful old man, who should have retired in the early 90's.

 

[Plotinus]

[Adler] All I can say is that I would like to know what sources are telling you that Jesus was a rabbi and it was the law that they had to be married. The Gospels certainly don't present Jesus as doing rabbinical things, such as spending his time sitting down with disciples and spending his whole time explaining the Law; rabbis didn't go around healing people and preaching the coming Kingdom of God. Where's the evidence that Jesus was bound by any kind of rabbinical laws?

 

[Adler17]

I read this often, Plotonius, and IIRC there was a story in PM or Der Spiegel about Jesus being a Rabbi. Nevertheless I am no familiar with this part of history. But IIRC Jesus is called a Rabbi in the bible. Nevertheless we should ask a historian of that time.

Adler

 

[Squonk]

This is why I think he was married.

1) What Plotinus said.
2) Still, no proof, not even a clue.

Nevertheless no god can claim to have celebatarian priests. It is inhumane
and nearly against all the enlightment brought to us

why do You think so?

AND more important there is nothing mentioned in the bible expressis verbis forbidding the marriage of priests.

In one of Paul's letters i think He says a bishop should be husband of a single wife.
In catholic symbolism, marriage status is applied both to Christ and the Church and the Church and the priests. The clergy interpretes this part as that priests should have one wife - the church.

Priests are also men. They will serve god as well if they are married, most probably even better.

Nope. They will get engaged in personal life too much, and remember, sex makes people dirty. You may not agree with that, but You should respect such belief, if You respect all the other Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish dogmas and superstitions. Why aren't You complaining that not eating pork is backward etc?

But in the modern world they have to hide their women and deny their children.

If they do not feel like to obey the rules that were put on them by their status,
they should change it. Otherwise, when they breake the rules and pretend they do not, they are not to be pitied, but condemned as hypocrites.

The pope is not living in the 21st century.

When will You learn that it's not any arguement?

IIRC several Popes were married until Gregor. And many popes after him had children (the Borgias for instance) and "wifes". This shows another morale as in the rules of the church. Why NOT allowing it?

I'm not sure if they had wifes.
Borgias were not legal papal children, I'm pretty sure. And the times of them is treated as one of the most obscure.

To me he (John Paul II) was just a pityful old man, who should have retired in the early 90's.

There's some point, yes. But on the other hand, You may admire the courage and strenght of the pope that feels he should continue this mission until God says "enough", despite all the pain and criticisement he gets.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I really agree here with Squonk:
Why should the Catholic Church be forced to modernize? Do you think you or me will join them then? JP2 is a couragous personality without Fascist or Mafia contacts, no need to critizise him personally - his integrity is undisputed. So, if he think the Catholic Church should stick to its traditions, why not?
The really important thing is:
JP2 is defintely not preaching hatred against other confessions or minorities; compare that to Protestant Fundamentalist, or parts of the Islamic World. It's something totally different if you don't propagate the use of condoms, or consider homosexuals as animals. Or have you ever hear him calling opponents "The Antichrist"? No, they stand above such trivialities.
So, why not accepting the Catholic Church like it is? There is no Inquisition anymore; if you don't like it, leave it.

That said, I personally do not agree with with about 99% of his POVs, but I have no problems to accept them - while I can't accept Billy Graham et al.

 

[Squonk]

Thank You for this post.
One note: the church does not "consider homosexuals as animals".
It doesn't condemn the feelings of them, just the sexual acts.

 

[Adler17]

Personal integrity? Yes. JP2 is integer. And I do have nothing against traditions. Even if I don´t like them, let them do that. But are these traditions real traditions or only worthless things or even dangerous ones? In modern times it is not accepted in the western world to differ between the sex if you want to hire him/ her. It is not accepted to force someone not to marrie. Thank god my family is protestant since the 16th century, so I have not to do this. Nevertheless I can give my opinion on these matters. And my opinion is that the church has to reform itself and will do in the next century. But that is not possible under this pope. And that´s why he isn´t the greatest one.
Also I think he is indeed a fundamentalist, at least to the protestants. He sais not something like this but he acts like forbidding to have a common evening meal withprotestants and so on. A wolf in a sheepgoat is more dangerous than a man who tells his feelings.
JP2 had his merits by tearing down the iron curtain. There we all agree. He also, until some extent, goes towards the other churches, but sometimes he does the very opposite.

Adler

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Thank You for this post.
One note: the church does not "consider homosexuals as animals".
It doesn't condemn the feelings of them, just the sexual acts.

Oh, that's what I mean!
The Catholic Church simply doesn't propagate condoms. I don't see them condemnating them, and they consider homosexualty a sin, but not more.
But there are other religious communities who claim homosexuals to be inferior to beasts...

 

[Masquerouge]

Nevertheless no god can claim to have celebatarian priests. It is inhumane and nearly against all the enlightment brought to us AND more important there is nothing mentioned in the bible expressis verbis forbidding the marriage of priests. Priests are also men. They will serve god as well if they are married, most probably even better. But in the modern world they have to hide their women and deny their children. This is inhumane and also against the traditions of the church. As what I said: The pope is not living in the 21st century.
The marriage of priests was for a long time allowed. That´s all I know. And indeed it was respected. IIRC several Popes were married until Gregor. And many popes after him had children (the Borgias for instance) and "wifes". This shows another morale as in the rules of the church. Why NOT allowing it?

As far(fair ?) as I remember, the whole thing about the celibacy of priests was intaured by the Nicae Council in the 4th century BC (the same council that decided that Jesus was at the same time God and the son of God).
It was decided so that there would be no inheritance problems messing up with the Church's business.
You're indeed 100% to say that nowhere in the Bible and in NT it says priests can't marry. And I think that there would be a lot less of child abuse by priests if they were married and not sexually frustrated.

Now many Catholics that I know of (like my mom) don't like JP2 too much. For instance they find his stance on women indeed medieval, and, to their eyes, not in agreement with the values of love, empathy and care that Jesus promoted.
I don't think Jesus ever said that women were evil, or that they should only stay at home and take care of the family... Or else I missed the quote

 

[Squonk]

worthless things or even dangerous ones?

Defending the life of the unborned is not worthless or dangerous, it is worth a praise and support.

In modern times it is not accepted in the western world to differ between the sex if you want to hire him/ her.

Did the church ever say that there should be a difference? huh

It is not accepted to force someone not to marrie.

No-one's forcing anyone. They don't want to be priests, they don't have to.

And my opinion is that the church has to reform itself and will do in the next century. But that is not possible under this pope. And that´s why he isn´t the greatest one.

Again, not every change is a reform. You haven't proven a thing.

Also I think he is indeed a fundamentalist, at least to the protestants. He sais not something like this but he acts like forbidding to have a common evening meal withprotestants and so on.
Adler

I do not recall such thing at all, and I guess You are mistaken. He sends wishes to Hindus, Muslims and Buddhist when they are having their celebrations. He's been the first pope to enter a mosque, and first since hungreds of years to enter a synagogue... Do You think he'd have anything against dishes with protestants? C-mon.
That's some blatant ueberprotestant propaganda.

As far(fair ?) as I remember, the whole thing about the celibacy of priests was intaured by the Nicae Council in the 4th century BC (the same council that decided that Jesus was at the same time God and the son of God).

It was not DECIDED. That's very important distinction. It was not decided, it was ustained. The Nicea Council was held because Arius claimed there was a time the Son did not exist (because if the God "borned" a Son, there had to be time when the Son did not exist). But even He considered Christ Son of God.
This is a very common misconception, though, that he did not consider him Son of God and it was due to that in fact, He was accused of that - it was something bishops usually accused of each other when they missed other arguements
There were several people that did not I think, like Paul of Samosata (I think, anyway, the one that was a bishop of Antioch during Zenobia's reign), but these were exemptions, sorry.

It was decided so that there would be no inheritance problems messing up with the Church's business.

Again, You are wrong, though this time it is not so definite.
Such problem existed, and the popes sometimes weren't very hesitant to state it. However, You are looking on these people from atheistic, bah, marxist perspective. They weren't just using religion for their goals, and the church was not a well-run company. These people actually believed in what they did, though sometimes it may seem strange.
Economical questions existed, but were marginal ones in fact.

 

[Plotinus]

For instance they find his stance on women indeed medieval...

I wish people wouldn't use the word "medieval" as a synonym for backward, unreconstructed, and generally stupid and unenlightened. In fact, women in the Middle Ages had considerably more rights and abilities and social standing than they did throughout most of modernity until the last fifty years. Don't believe Victorian myths about the Middle Ages.

Squonk is right about Arius, who unlike later, more radical "Arians" believed that the Father and the Son were "like" - bear in mind that "Son of God", as a title, is largely meaningless as it simply means somebody whom God favours. Bear in mind also that the whole Arian debate was not about the identity of *Jesus* but about the nature and extent of the Son's divinity. As for Paul of Samosata, no-one really knows quite what he believed, except that it was generally agreed to be incredibly heretical. He was the first bishop to be deposed by a synod of other bishops.

It's also true that the Council of Nicaea did - in its third canon - state that any bishop, priest, or deacon who was married at the time of his ordination should cease to live with his wife. But Nicaea was not the first to say this - it had already been done at the Council of Elvira twenty years before. Evidently many priests *were* married, or no-one would have felt the need to enforce this rule; but equally evidently most people agreed that the rule was correct, or it would not have been made.

I'd be interested to know which Popes of antiquity were married, though, since I certainly don't know of any - other than St Peter himself, of course.