I am astounded by the large number of comments yesterday and today that used the death of the Pope to attack the man and more generally Catholicism. Most of the disparaging comments came from non-Catholics or lapsed Catholics. If you don't profess the religion, why do you put so much weight on the words and actions of the Bishop of Rome? I know I don't hang on every pronouncement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Dalai Lama, or the Southern Baptist Convention.
Has the media gone overboard in their wall-to-wall coverage of his death? Of course. But that's an issue with the media. I watched the TV briefly yesterday and shut if off until I heard Chris Matthews say what a "muscular, good-looking" man the Pope was. (At least we know his homoerotic gushing isn't confined to Commander Codpiece on the aircraft carrier.)
I am not someone who was especially affected emotionally by the Pope's death. I respected him. I respected him during my agnostic period. I thought he was a very good Pope, though I don't have a lot to compare with. Pope Paul was a faint memory. Still, I am saddened. By the way, Catholics don't worship the Pope or anything else but God alone. Learn the difference between worship and veneration.
Did the Pope have faults? Yes. Was he a saint-on-earth? Probably not. But he was a good, decent, holy man who had a genuine love of people. Look at the photographs where he is constantly giving a warm embrace to an ordinary person. Read his writings and you at least find integrity in his arguments.
Why the hell is anyone surprised the Pope or the Catholic Church is considered "conservative"? The Church views itself as the depository and guardian of a 2000 year old faith passed from generation to generation from the Apostles to the present day. That is by its nature "conservative" in the neutral sense of the word. It has nothing to do, except incidentally, with American political conservatism.
This stuff about the gold in the Vatican should be melted down and given to the poor is the same clap-trap that has been going on since the Reformation. When Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries, the lands went to the Crown not the poor. Should we auction off the holdings of the Smithsonian to give to the poor? Judge the Church by what it does for the poor. No other institution can compare in size, scope or devotion.
The spread of AIDS in Africa is the Church's fault? Listen people, it's a disease. It's like saying the spread of AIDS in America is the fault of the gays. While condoms can help, are the Africans heeding Rome any more than American Catholics are?
Blaming the Church's stance on homosexuality for all the discrimination gays see is going overboard. I hate to break it to you, but when you're not looking people are still sniggering and telling jokes--and it has nothing to do with what people hear at Mass on Sunday. The Church, in my opinion, certainly needs to develop a better understanding of human sexuality, especially in light of a modern understanding that orientation is inbred. Perhaps it will. But just because `Will and Grace' is on TV, doesn't mean you can expect the Church will change its thinking so soon. I can understand that if one is gay and does not feel welcome in the Church. I am all the happier if you have found a home elsewhere. Just don't equate the Pope with the `God Hates Fags' group. They think God hates the great majority of humanity. They are more of a Satanic cult posing as Christians.
As far as the priestly sexual abuse scandal is concerned, of course it is a stain on the Church. Many take it, however, as an opportunity to impugn the good name of every priest out there. As far as the institutional failing of shielding the priests, it must be remembered: 1) that most of the abuse came at a time when the dominant thinking in psychology was that sexual predators could be cured, 2) that this is within an institution that places a great deal of emphasis on the healing power contrition, confession, penance and absolution, and 3) in many cases is dealing with many claims based solely on "recovered memory". Could the bishops have dealt with the problem more quickly, vigorously and openly? Yes. Should the Vatican have urged them to do so? Yes. Does priestly celibacy play a role in attracting those who hope to control their inner demons with a vow of chastity? Yes. But some of the comments are basically calling the Pope a child molestor. This is especially ludicrous since most of the cases happened long before his pontificate.
As far as everyone out there injured by stupid words of a priest or nun, they are just that--stupid words. People make mistakes. It's just that people in authority can make bigger mistakes. Shake them off if your conscience has an understanding of what is right.
Criticizing the Pope for holding himself as an example of the dignity of suffering makes no sense. No one is saying suffering is good. But I hate to break to you, human suffering is unavoidable. Where it can't be alleviated, we should be affirm their dignity and remain in solidarity with the suffering. I thought that's what we liberals stood for.
Did the Church deny us a Kerry presidency? Perhaps so, if the Catholic vote in NE Ohio would have been a little stronger for us. On the other hand, perhaps nothing could have overcome Blackwell's fix. Reports in the Catholic press are that the Vatican was "rooting" for Bush but only because they did not want to be confronted with a Catholic President who did not see eye-to-eye with the Church on abortion. The confrontation would have been ensured by conservative Catholic laypeople. Does the Vatican agree with Bush? I hardly think so--Madsen's report that the Pope thought Bush the Antichrist is probably not true--but I see little in the Pope's thought that matches the evil and lies Bush represents. True, it was fear and weakness on the part of the hierarchy that allowed the appearance of favoring Bush. But what the American bishops actually did was issue a balanced document that no one could read as favoring Bush. It was outside groups that introduced the misleading voters' guides. And it was mainly the news media that played up what should have been an insignificant controversy over reception of Communion. Yes, the bishops should have taken a stronger role in ensuring that a message consonant with the true nature of Catholic doctrine was communicated. But just as I haven't emigrated to Canada, I'm staying in the Church to help strengthen the Catholic Left.
I am not especially pious and I swear and drink and sin as well as the next guy. But I do take my faith seriously. Let me put it this way--I would sooner renounce my American citizenship than my Catholic faith. I don't expect everyone to agree with every doctrine of the Catholic Church--I don't--especially if you are not Catholic or are irreligious. (The majestic compass of Holy Dogma is so much more than abortion or gays.) But, the hateful language put forth by so many posters yesterday and today is genuinely hurtful.
I was happy to stumble across (last August) a community which shared my opposition to the evil represented by Bush/Cheney and their minions. Dissent is fine, and I've not been bothered by the occasional comment I would take as an insult. But the scope and vehemence of the recent attacks against Catholicism show a deep-seated bigotry exists among many members of this community. I would have thought the closet KKK sympathizers were over at Free Republic.
P.S.: Read the front page of DU for what I feel is an appropriate response to the Pope's passing.
P.P.S: Markos, I think you've let the situation get out of control.