The legacy of John Paul II

[Dilettante]

John Paul II has just died, and as one billion Catholics mourn (perhaps especially in Poland, where he was seen as a sort of national hero against communism) many people are starting to reflect and trying to come up with a summary of his efferct on the world. Perhaps it's too early for a balanced assessment, but I was wondering how other people in the forum see the overall legacy of JP II. He was such an active leader and he traveled so extensively that he must have had an impact on history.

[Dilettante]

Vlad 44 wrote:

It is very presumptuous to believe all of those affected by a pope to be voluntary subjects. The catholic church has great influence in many regions of the world.

That may be so, but don't you think it is the local social pressures rather than a man in faraway Rome that are at work there? Where those pressures are absent (Western Europe) the situation is very different. After all you wrote "tyrannus", not "tyrannis".

The catholic church's views on birth control has adversely affected many women who are not catholic.

I guess you mean women in the third world who only have access to health care provided by Catholic missionaries. In that case the responsibility is shared (perhaps to a greater degree) by the governments in those countries, who are not providing their own health care as they should. Such a thing would never happen in more developed nations.

The wish to deny basic reproductive freedoms causes me to view the catholic church as an anti-women organization.

I see. However, at least where I live (Europe) many women don't see it that way. As a matter of fact, here women go to church in much larger numbers than men. That's a curious phenomenon which makes me think perhaps the Catholic Church isn't all that hostile to women, or they wouldn't remain in the church in countries where they are free to leave it.

To coerce others to follow you in fear for their eternal soul is nothing less that tyranny.

That could apply to most religions I guess. However, I grew up catholic (I'm rather agnostic today) and I was never taught that non-Catholics had to fear for their souls. They told me atheists could be saved as long as their good works pleased God. Where I grew up there was more of an emphasis on good works than just faith.

I am unwilling to believe that the fact that its voluntary allows the organization to do whatever they wish. I hope that most of us on both sides of the fence would agree that the Heavens Gate cult and others of their ilk are extreme examples of overstepping their bounds.

But if someone enters a cult or a religion voluntarily I don't see what you or me could do to prevent that person from doing so. I would try to talk to that person, but, other than that, there's nothing I can do. Of course Heaven's Gate and many more similiar religious groups are dangerous to its own members. Although I imagine that those cults must give people something they are looking for, or they would have gone out of business long ago. But it's good to have forums like this one to at least talk to people.

And I would dare say that the birth control views of the catholic church has affected far more people than that cult could ever have dreamed of.

I suspect you're right. But a growing number of catholics simply disobey the church and use birth control. That would not be possible for members of a cult, because cult leaders exercise a much tighter control over their adherents.

[Vladd44]

Vlad 44 wrote:

Vladd44

I guess you mean women in the third world who only have access to health care provided by Catholic missionaries..

I would encourage you to look at the effect the catholic church has had on the reproduction arena in central/south america. They have used their influence very effectively to block many secular efforts. Also consider the effect they have had in the spread of aids throughout developing nations.

That's a curious phenomenon which makes me think perhaps the Catholic Church isn't all that hostile to women, or they wouldn't remain in the church in countries where they are free to leave it.

Women belonging to the catholic church doesnt make it pro women. It isnt unusual for groups of people to allow their thinking to fall into old mindsets and typical patterns. People act counter to their own personal interest daily.

[The Happy Humanist]

Women belonging to the catholic church doesnt make it pro women. It isnt unusual for groups of people to allow their thinking to fall into old mindsets and typical patterns. People act counter to their own personal interest daily

If they find great joy and pleasure in the church, and don't feel oppressed by its precepts (and aren't physically or psychically damaged by them), who are we to cluck our tongues? If its giving them something they need, and something they ascribe to, what real harm is being done? Perhaps these women agree with the church's teachings on the secondary role of women; perhaps that's the role they wish to fulfill.

I can see your point, we know a better way. But this comes down to a real philosophical fine point: If we could push a button and make the entire Catholic church disappear in an instant, would we be doing women a favor? Especially the ones that rely on the church for spiritual counsel, hope, etc.?

[Dilettante]

Vlad 44 wrote:

Vladd44

Oh, I see. Sorry, slip of the finger.

Vladd44:

I would encourage you to look at the effect the catholic church has had on the reproduction arena in central/south america. They have used their influence very effectively to block many secular efforts. Also consider the effect they have had in the spread of aids throughout developing nations.

True, but that is also largely due to the fact that those societies are not free societies so any dominant religious or ideological group can exercise a kind of control over people which is not possible (not to that extent at least) in free societies. As for the spread of AIDS, I agree that the Catholic church should allow at least the "therapeutic" use of condoms. But that's as far as their "responsibility in the spread of AIDS" goes. The church does not promote the type of sexual conduct which puts people at risk of getting AIDS. Actually, it promotes the opposite: heterosexual, monogamous sex. Of course it would be nice if they changed their policy about condoms (maybe some people are just unable to control their sexual impulses and can't help cheating on their wives) but I don't see that as a major cause of AIDS spreading among the population.

Women belonging to the catholic church doesnt make it pro women. It isnt unusual for groups of people to allow their thinking to fall into old mindsets and typical patterns. People act counter to their own personal interest daily.

Perhaps, but it would be presumptuous of you or me to try to tell them what their "real" interests are. We can try to persuade them with arguments, but we should be careful not to patronize them. Nobody likes to be patronized, and nobody likes having their personal interests defined by someone else. And I never said that the Catholic church was pro-women, only that perhaps it was not as "anti-women" as some say, judging from the fact that it is women rather than men who fill the churches every Sunday. It may be that women are more spiritual than men, who knows. One thing I'm sure of is that they're not less rational.
The Happy Humanist wrote:

If we could push a button and make the entire Catholic church disappear in an instant, would we be doing women a favor? Especially the ones that rely on the church for spiritual counsel, hope, etc.?

Good point. My answer is: certainly not. (However, if we could push a button and make the Catholic church give a more prominent role to those women who feel so inclined, then that would be a totally different matter).

[ST88]

Vladd44:

I would encourage you to look at the effect the catholic church has had on the reproduction arena in central/south america. They have used their influence very effectively to block many secular efforts. Also consider the effect they have had in the spread of aids throughout developing nations.

True, but that is also largely due to the fact that those societies are not free societies so any dominant religious or ideological group can exercise a kind of control over people which is not possible (not to that extent at least) in free societies.

I don't think the point here is that there is or is not a free society, I think the point is that the Church has the ability to block secular efforts either via or with the blessing of the unfree government. This only shows that the Church is not concerned with the welfare of people, but with the doctrine they must follow.

As for the spread of AIDS, I agree that the Catholic church should allow at least the "therapeutic" use of condoms. But that's as far as their "responsibility in the spread of AIDS" goes. The church does not promote the type of sexual conduct which puts people at risk of getting AIDS. Actually, it promotes the opposite: heterosexual, monogamous sex. Of course it would be nice if they changed their policy about condoms (maybe some people are just unable to control their sexual impulses and can't help cheating on their wives) but I don't see that as a major cause of AIDS spreading among the population.

I don't think that the missionary position is the "opposite" of risky sexual behavior. After all, done correctly according to the Church, AIDS can be readily spread by such behavior. The safest kind of sexual behavior (aside from "none") is masturbation, which is discouraged if not forbidden.

Just out of curiosity, what do you see as the major cause of the spread of AIDS?

[Dilettante]

ST88 wrote:

I don't think the point here is that there is or is not a free society, I think the point is that the Church has the ability to block secular efforts either via or with the blessing of the unfree government. This only shows that the Church is not concerned with the welfare of people, but with the doctrine they must follow.

It could be that I have missed the point. I apologize if I did. I believe (perhaps mistakenly) that religions and absolutist ideologies in general are forced to become more tolerant (or less intolerant) in the context of a free society because they have to live with other viewpoints. On the other hand, the alliance between a political regime and a religion or ideology causes endless oppression. I think that this is one of the main reasons why a separation of church and state is so desirable.

Therefore, my point is not that religions are tolerant until corrupted by government, but that monotheistic religions can only develop their full potential for oppression with the aid of an unfree government (which helps by blocking secular alternatives, as you said). I'm not exonerating religions, I'm pointing out the enormous co-responsibility of those governments wielding effective temporal power. Why don't they do something? Because they're not democratic, they're not answerable to the people. In a free society people can choose whether to follow a religious doctrine or not. The fact is that catholics in free societies do use contraceptives. And, since the very same Catholic church teaches them that conscience is the ultimate judge of the morality of an action, then they can't say those Catholics are going to hell. Abortion is a different issue. In that case, I don't see how Catholic doctrine could change. It's not only a matter of deciding when personhood begins--an infant is not a person by Locke's definition, yet no one thinks infanticide is permissible. It's a very involved issue, and it exceeds the scope of this thread.

As for the church being concerned with the welfare of the people, this is debatable. I agree, however, that it's not their main concern, that is definitely true. The main concern of Christianity is the salvation of the souls, all else is secondary. Of course, that can only be interpreted as part of the welfare of the people if one believes in an afterlife. Perhaps we should start a thread on whether Christianity should give more importance to the here-and-now.

I don't think that the missionary position is the "opposite" of risky sexual behavior. After all, done correctly according to the Church, AIDS can be readily spread by such behavior. The safest kind of sexual behavior (aside from "none") is masturbation, which is discouraged if not forbidden.

Just out of curiosity, what do you see as the major cause of the spread of AIDS?

You make very good points. Here's my response: First, I don't see what spiritual purpose is served by discouraging masturbation (I disagree with the church about that too). Especially considering that it poses no health risks whatsoever!

Second, and as for the causes of AIDS, I have no novel theories to offer. One gets AIDS through contact with the blood, semen, or vaginal fluids of an infected person. Babies can be born with it or get it from their mothers through breast milk. A major source of infection is sharing hypodermic needles with an infected person. Unsafe medical treatments (including blood transfusions in France in the 80s or in present-day China) can also get you infected.

In Africa, many children get AIDS when seduced or raped by superstitious infected adults who believe having sex with a virgin will cure them. Statistically, the most dangerous sexual practice is unquestionably anal intercourse, probably because of the profuse blood irrigation of the area and the possibility of unseen sores or wounds (see Gilovich, Thomas "How We Know What Isn't So").Condoms offer less protection in that case, especially if oil-based lubricants are used. Next comes vaginal intercourse, then oral sex. Of course, if neither you nor your partner is infected and you only have sex with each other, I don't think any of those practices, no matter what position you may choose, would be risky.

The World Health Organization has declared that "the most effective way to prevent sexual transmission of HIV is to abstain, or for two people who are not infected to be faithful to each other. Alternatively, the correct use of a condom will reduce the risk significantly." Note they say "reduce significantly", not eliminate. So both the Catholic church and the WHO are discouraging sexual promiscuity as a major factor in the spread of AIDS. It's the faithfulness aspect, not the missionary position, that I had in mind. Unfortunately there are places in the world where the "ABC" approach is not as effective because women are powerless in those societies and rape is common. In those cases, I'm afraid that nothing short of major changes in those societies (peace, develoment, democracy) will stop the spread of AIDS.

[Vladd44]

I don't think the point here is that there is or is not a free society, I think the point is that the Church has the ability to block secular efforts either via or with the blessing of the unfree government. This only shows that the Church is not concerned with the welfare of people, but with the doctrine they must follow.

exactly.

[ST88]

Vladd44:
Even though you were agreeing with me, please do not limit your posts to mere indications of agreement. Expand and give reasons for why you agree or else use PM to indicate such messages... as per the rules:
9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

[Vladd44]

i felt no need to flower my comments, when it was for the simple point of clarification.

It seemed that there was a misunderstanding to what i was trying to say, and your posts had clarified it perfectly. And rather than allow the presumtion of you may be right in defining my position, or not. I chose to simply state assent.

However feel free to remove the offending post, and all other of my post.