pope paul II - the peacemaker...
Those of you who have read this blog in any depth will know that I alternate between being an agnostic and an atheist. It's a difficult issue for me.
So it may puzzle you that I dedicate this post to Pope Paul II. Why do I do this? Well, tonight I watched what was probably a good piece of Catholic propaganda on the ABC's Compass program. I am however willing to acknowledge Pope Paul II for the following:
He is against war. He preaches that war is no way to solve problems. He inspires the pursuit of peaceful ways of solving problems. He won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for teaching that "all war is wrong". As a pacifist, I feel I must acknowledge this man for his contribution to pacifism. I believe that Jesus was a pacifist. So there is no conflict here...
So it may puzzle you that I dedicate this post to Pope Paul II. Why do I do this? Well, tonight I watched what was probably a good piece of Catholic propaganda on the ABC's Compass program. I am however willing to acknowledge Pope Paul II for the following:
He is against war. He preaches that war is no way to solve problems. He inspires the pursuit of peaceful ways of solving problems. He won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for teaching that "all war is wrong". As a pacifist, I feel I must acknowledge this man for his contribution to pacifism. I believe that Jesus was a pacifist. So there is no conflict here...
posted by The Editor at
11:04 PM
13 Comments:
Maybe so, but I can't ignore his murderous views on contraception. He is at war with AIDS sufferers in the name of archaic dogma which has no place in the modern world. I despise him.
PS: It's great to have you blogging again :)
Fuck, I did it again. That was me, Kent.
Ditto on having you back, Gerry (and no, I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan). I don't know much about the Pope, but I wish his sheep (e.g. Tony Abbott) would follow him in regards to war and such.
How can some religious folk hold such authoritarian views in one area (e.g. abortion) yet be so liberal in another area (e.g. killing people). And these wankers think they're holier than thou... grrr
Kent, so much hate. So much intolerance of another's viewpoint. If you're not careful you'll do "a Gerry" and sign up for some war against "the enemy" and play your part in a new mass murder of people who have different beliefs than your own. Please don't go there, Kent. I've been there and it only fuels the fires of eternal war (hell).
It's easy to believe you are right and they are wrong. But killing them because they are "wrong", "bad", or "evil" is the road to hell itself, and hate is the pavement of that road...
Thanks for your kind "welcome back."
***
Paul, it's broader than just religion. All of us who are a bit shy of being perfect have the problem of being "liberal" in one area and "authoritarian" in another. I think it's called "being human".
Now RATIONAL humans think about these things, and notice that they just as prone to "crappy logic" as the next person, and thereby start to reign our egoes in a bit, and with a bit of luck we don't join extremist groups or fanatical patriotic ratbag outfits to take part in the next bout of murder and mayhem for some ideologically spurious cause.
Yeah, and thanks for your "welcome back" as well, Paul.
***
Link, Yeah, I find it hard to find too much fault with this pope. There's been a lot worse and none better that I know of... May as well acknowldge good where we find it, eh? Oh, I could have a real bunfight with him on a few issues, but overall, I think he has been a force for good.
I certainly care about the contraception issue and I strongly strongly disagree with the Catholic church's stance on it, as I disagree with a lot of other pieces of the Catholic dogma.
But I also think that it is possible to respect the Pope for his pacifist stance, while still thinking that he is completely and utterly wrong in other beliefs and preachings. I definitely don't ignore his views on things like contraception. But, I do respect him for speaking out against war as a solution.
Oh dear... Kent, Jenni, Link, I love this debate. But the Pope is a Catholic. More than that, he's the head of the Catholic church. As such, he has reinforced the Catholic position on sex, which is that its purpose is procreation and not merely the pursuit of sexual pleasure.
Flowing from this premise is the view that, within the moral structure of their faith, sex is to be engaged in only between husband and wife. This in turn informs their attitude towards contraception and how to best deal with aids.
You might not agree with their moral position on sex, marriage, procreation, contraception and aids, but to hate or ridicule them for their moral position is to imply that you are morally superior to the thinking that gives rise to these morals. In short, it's as morally fascist as the Catholics themselves. Pots, kettles, black, I think...
I should know, I'm often the worst offender. :-(
We've wandered into a moral minefield, boys and girls.
Gerry...I gather that you subscribe to moral relativism then, where one set of morals can't be judged from the viewpoint of another? I would tend to agree with that viewpoint most of the time, but I have a hard time seeing two different viewpoints as equals when I see one as providing a way to prevent human suffering and the other as standing back while human suffering continues.
I don't have a problem with the Catholic churches stance of the purpose of sex in theory, but in reality sex is not just used for procreation, whether that is right or wrong. If I was Catholic, I think a more tenable position would be sex should only be used for procreation...but as long as there are people out there who aren't Catholic and don't adhere to our views (or people who are Catholic and "sin"), they should protect themselves as much as possible.
Kent, Jenni, I'll try to stagger through is moral minefield without getting blown to bits. Not easy...
I am not trying to defend the Catholic position. I'm merely saying they have, as a religion, the right to practice their religion, and express their moral views, without being vilified or becoming the subject of hatred.
Anything else is, in my ever-so-humble opinion, a form of moral supremacism or moral fascism, both of which are in fact traits of religious fundamentalism.
Given my comments elsewhere in this blog it may seem strange that I now play the advocate. And maybe not...
Catholicism is a religion. A religion sets out a way to live one's life. It speaks only to its followers. Unless it is evangelising, in which case a short, sharp "fuck off" is in order.
AIDS? Since sex for Catholics would only happen within a monogamous heterosexual marital setting, AIDS would hardly be an issue. Condoms? A non-event because true Catholics would only have sex to create children and therefore contraception would be sinful within their belief system. Abortion? Why would a Catholic want an abortion given their views on the sanctity of life?
So what's the problem?
The problems arise when Catholics try to impose their values on non-Catholics, or when non-Catholics try to impose their values on Catholics, or when Catholics don't practice what they preach.
So let's just postpone the next Kristallnacht, eh?
Kent, as I understand the world "moral", anything to do with "right" and "wrong" is a moral issue.
You said:
(1) '...none of my views are blindly dogmatic as fundamentalism insinuates.' I beg to differ. How can one disagree with so violently with the Pope's teachings except if one is operating from a contra-dogma.
(2) 'Morals play an incredibly small role in my thinking, as well.' Huh? You quite clearly think the Pope's teachings are "wrong", "bad", etc. That's according to your own moral views.
(3) 'Contraception (sic) isn't "right" or "wrong", it's just a method of preventing the transmission of a deadly disease. It's neuter on my moral scale.'
That may be so, but then you would extend that to mean we have a moral duty to use condoms to prevent the transmission of diseases, and the moment you do that you're indulging in moralising.
(4) 'My position on contraception is not a moral one.'
I think it is.
(5) 'Roughly, I think that rules affecting other people shouldn't be made on a moral basis.'
If my understanding of the meaning of "moral" is correct, what you just said is an oxymoron.
* * *
Here's my point: I'm merely saying that the Pope, when speaking to Catholics, is saying nothing which is inconsistent with Catholic values and that those adhering to those values will not be endangering anyone else.
Why do those who do not share Catholic morals get so angry with what the Pope says?
It seems some will not be happy until the Pope makes the following utterances:
"We teach that the human embryo is a life and that all human life is sacred, but hey, it's OK by me if you (Catholics) have abortions."
"We teach that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation and that it should therefore only be performed if the (Catholic) man and woman are married to each other, but hey, it's OK by me if you (Catholics) go and fuck anyone anytime anywhere for sheer hell of it, so please protect yourselves from unwanted pregnancies and promiscuously transmitted diseases, and if you do get accidentally pregnant, kill the fucker!"
This will never happen and so, getting angry with the Pope or the Catholics, or worse, hating them, is in itself a mistake. Do you like it when Catholics get angry at, or hate, secularists? Are we getting this yet, dudes and dudettes? :-)
[/pope's advocate mode]
Kent, I hope there are no hard feelings. I was just trying to make the point that we all moralise whenever we get form opinions about good/bad, right/wrong, better/worse. Religions do it, secularists do it, everyone does it. If we get too authoritarian about it, we become fundamentalist or fasist. The problem starts when we try to impose our values on others when we don't have the authority to do so. It's a very difficult issue.
Inventing a God and attributing moral laws to "him" is a real groovy stunt because it gives the priests instant authority bestowed by the God they invented. It's a con. I understand your anger at this system. I've been there myself. But it just turned me into a secular fundamentalist.
These days I realise that values (morals) are given authority by a community either via a legal code or a religious code. The legal code can be changed via our legislature. The religious code is controlled by the religious leaders, and in non-theocratic countries, if we don't like these, we can quit that relgion. Outside of this there are personal values (morals) but these carry no authority over others.
I didn't say that you shouldn't criticise the Catholic religion (or any other). I was merely pointing out that hating them may be getting a bit extremist.
I hope I haven't pissed you off too much, Kent. :-)
Hey, Kent, I'm struggling with this subject too. :-(
And as far as telling you off for getting too angry? Me, The Angermeister? Anyway, thanks for not taking offence.
Gerry, I understand and agree with the comment you made (posted below)
Does this mean I must be a nutcase too? ;)
"Flowing from this premise is the view that, within the moral structure of their faith, sex is to be engaged in only between husband and wife. This in turn informs their attitude towards contraception and how to best deal with aids.
You might not agree with their moral position on sex, marriage, procreation, contraception and aids, but to hate or ridicule them for their moral position is to imply that you are morally superior to the thinking that gives rise to these morals. In short, it's as morally fascist as the Catholics themselves. Pots, kettles, black, I think...
I should know, I'm often the worst offender. :-(
We've wandered into a moral minefield, boys and girls."
Rosey, one of the few absolute ways of determining that person is a nutcase is this:
If they're posting comments here, they are. ;-)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========