# Giovanni Paolo II (the last Pope)



## DDT

The last Pope has left.

I consider he has marked history through his actions and writings.
I am wondering about the way you foreros perceived his life and "work".

DDT


----------



## alc112

In fact, I thought he was ohter person who likes pray.
But I know he was very important in the history. 
Here we would have a war if he wouldn't act delimitting our territories. And maybe we would lose our patagonia.


----------



## Lancel0t

DDT, are you referring to Pope John Paul II?


----------



## Jana337

Lancel0t said:
			
		

> DDT, are you referring to Pope John Paul II?



DDT, I'd suggest that - for the sake of clarity - you rename this thread or at least include Pope there. Giovanni does not really resemble the non-Italian forms of this name (e. g. in Czech it would be Jan Pavel II.).

I believe that his contribution to the overthrow of communism can be hardly overrated. My country is atheistic but in Poland, which is indisputably the regional leader, he helped nurture the hope of a better future.

Jana


----------



## DDT

Lancel0t said:
			
		

> DDT, are you referring to Pope John Paul II?



Yes, that was his official name



			
				Jana337 said:
			
		

> DDT, I'd suggest that - for the sake of clarity - you rename this thread or at least include Pope there. Giovanni does not really resemble the non-Italian forms of this name (e. g. in Czech it would be Jan Pavel II.).



Thanks for suggesting, I just modified the title

DDT


----------



## Silvia

I propose a super partes title: 
Ioannes Paulus PP. II

That is his international name, in Latin.

His name in other languages:
Gjon Pali II (Albanian)
Gioan Phaoloâ II (Chinese)
Ivan Pavao II. (Croatian)
Jan Pavel II. (Czech)
Johannes Paulus II (Dutch)
John Paul II (English)
Johannes Paavali II (Finnish)
Jean-Paul II (French)
Johannes Paul II. (German)
János Pál II. (Hungarian)
Giovanni Paolo II (Italian)
Jan Pawel II (Polish)
João Paulo II (Portuguese)
Ioan Paul al II-ea (Romanian)
Ján Pavol II (Slovak)
Janez Pavel II. (Slovenian)
Juan Pablo II (Spanish)



			
				DDT said:
			
		

> I am wondering about the way you foreros perceived his life and "work".


 I wonder, too.


----------



## Whodunit

Silvia said:
			
		

> I propose a super partes title:
> Ioannes Paulus PP. II



Sorry if that's a little off-topic, but would it be "Pavlvs" in Old Latin?


----------



## timpeac

DDT said:
			
		

> The last Pope has left.
> 
> I consider he has marked history through his actions and writings.
> I am wondering about the way you foreros perceived his life and "work".
> 
> DDT


 
I know not a single thing about his life or work other than that he was Polish and against condoms. (Sorry I don't mean to be unhelpful but I thought you'd find it interesting how little impact he can have on someone's life)

Therefore in answer to this question I'm afraid when I think of his impact I have to wonder how fewer people would have AIDS in places like Africa if it wasn't for his opinions and policies.


----------



## timpeac

whodunit said:
			
		

> Sorry if that's a little off-topic, but would it be "Pavlvs" in Old Latin?


 
Do you mean Classical Latin? Latin used the V for both V and U as you say, but they also only had capital letters, so it would have been "PAVLVS" in Classical Latin in fact.


----------



## fetchezlavache

timpeac, amen, if i may say so without making a bad pun. 

to me, he was not a man of his time, i have always been shocked by his positions.




			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> I know not a single thing about his life or work other than that he was Polish and against condoms. (Sorry I don't mean to be unhelpful but I thought you'd find it interesting how little impact he can have on someone's life)
> 
> Therefore in answer to this question I'm afraid when I think of his impact I have to wonder how fewer people would have AIDS in places like Africa if it wasn't for his opinions and policies.


----------



## Whodunit

timpeac said:
			
		

> Do you mean Classical Latin? Latin used the V for both V and U as you say, but they also only had capital letters, so it would have been "PAVLVS" in Classical Latin in fact.



Thank you.


----------



## DesertCat

I have little awareness of his accomplishments.  I'm not Catholic (or any religion for that matter) so his official positions were irrelevant to me.  To be honest, I was rather surprised that my local newspaper had nothing but Pope related news on the first 8-10 pages of the front page this morning.


----------



## timpeac

DesertCat said:
			
		

> I have little awareness of his accomplishments. I'm not Catholic (or any religion for that matter) so his official positions were irrelevant to me. To be honest, I was rather surprised that my local newspaper had nothing but Pope related news on the first 8-10 pages of the front page this morning.


 
Yes, I've been thinking the same thing. England is largely secular, and the most Christians here are protestant in any case, yet there's been little else on any of the news channels. (it was only yesterday I learnt he was Polish for example!).


----------



## Silvia

Never too late to learn something new.

Karol Wojtyla, that was his real name, was fully aware of the oncoming apostasy and tried to do his best against it. The theme of apostasy is quite controversial and cannot be discussed in just a few words. He ended his papacy without fulfilling his mission, and that not only according to him.

He, more than any other pope before him, let the world know about Christianity.

If you are interested or curious, you can find many articles about this all and about the Fatima events all over the web.


----------



## lsp

I am surprised to read posts about the Pope being little known. There are certainly going to be many debates over his legacy in the future. While well traveled and a vocal anti-oppressionist, especially against communism and in finally issuing an apology to the Jewish people regarding the complacency of the Vatican during the holocaust, to many he fell short in the goals of uniting the church in the face of some serious and divisive issues of our time.

In major international conflicts he urged dialogue, but his papacy made room for none in matters of the church itself. Statistics may not view this pope favorably when the mourning period has passed. Catholicism has been eclipsed by Islam as the world’s leading religion, there are fewer priests and nuns than when he became pope and fewer still seeking out those professions. In America the shortage is profound, with many parishes unable to fill the position at all. 

He is given credit for fighting for women's right, but in a limited way and did not include the most important rights to give women true equality and freedom, that is to say the freedom over their own bodies, or the right to be ordained and therefore truly equal to men in religious decisions. He primarily fought in ways that would not conflict and in fact would perpetuate safer more traditional female roles as mother/primary parental caregiver.

And like many American, particularly in the northeast, I think I will always feel disappointment in the reluctance of this pope to face the problem of sexually abusive priests. In one of the most notorious cases, that of Cardinal Bernard Law, when the scandal forced Law out of his position, he was practically rewarded by this pope, who named him archpriest of one of the four basilicas under Vatican direction in Rome, Santa Maria Maggiore (Mary Major).

The issue of AIDS proliferation as a possible consequnce of his immutable position on condom use has already been brought up in this thread. 

It is also widely felt that this pope fanned the flames of hatred and intolerance when he referred to homosexual marriages as part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, in his recent book, "Memory and Identity," where he also called abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century.


----------



## walnut

My feelings are contradictory.
I'm not religious and personally very far from official and political positions of Catholic church, which I generally firmly disapprove.
The same, JPII's last years strongly impressed me on a personal side. As a human being, he touched me beyond my opinions. I developed a deep admiration for his courage and firmness in facing personal suffering, and this is something that helped me when I needed inspiration and guide about.


----------



## cristóbal

lsp said:
			
		

> I am surprised to read posts about the Pope being little known. There are certainly going to be many debates over his legacy in the future. While well traveled and a vocal anti-oppressionist, especially against communism and in finally issuing an apology to the Jewish people regarding the complacency of the Vatican during the holocaust, to many he fell short in the goals of uniting the church in the face of some serious and divisive issues of our time.
> 
> In major international conflicts he urged dialogue, but his papacy made room for none in matters of the church itself. Statistics may not view this pope favorably when the mourning period has passed. Catholicism has been eclipsed by Islam as the world’s leading religion, there are fewer priests and nuns than when he became pope and fewer still seeking out those professions. In America the shortage is profound, with many parishes unable to fill the position at all.
> 
> He is given credit for fighting for women's right, but in a limited way and did not include the most important rights to give women true equality and freedom, that is to say the freedom over their own bodies, or the right to be ordained and therefore truly equal to men in religious decisions. He primarily fought in ways that would not conflict and in fact would perpetuate safer more traditional female roles as mother/primary parental caregiver.
> 
> And like many American, particularly in the northeast, I think I will always feel disappointment in the reluctance of this pope to face the problem of sexually abusive priests. In one of the most notorious cases, that of Cardinal Bernard Law, when the scandal forced Law out of his position, he was practically rewarded by this pope, who named him archpriest of one of the four basilicas under Vatican direction in Rome, Santa Maria Maggiore (Mary Major).
> 
> The issue of AIDS proliferation as a possible consequnce of his immutable position on condom use has already been brought up in this thread.
> 
> It is also widely felt that this pope fanned the flames of hatred and intolerance when he referred to homosexual marriages as part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, in his recent book, "Memory and Identity," where he also called abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century.



For what it's worth, I disagree wholeheartedly with almost everything you've just said.


----------



## JB007

He along with others was an inspiration to the polish people and helped to enable them to rise against communism which in turn brought about the end of the Soviet Union. This was achieved with the minimum of bloodshed. 

Also the serene way in which he approached his death has given me a new outlook in my search for inner peace.


At the moment that’s how I feel the affect of his life and I’m confident that I’ll realize more positive feelings about him in the future.


----------



## Silvia

Lsp, you gave a clear picure of what the Church has been through and leading to apostasy.

About your doubt regarding dialog on religious matters, clearly they are not subject to dialog nor meant to please the trends of society.

Women's freedom over their own bodies is not a female issue, since the Catholic doctrine extends the lack of freedom to anyone's body, life or death. How is a so called traditional role of the woman safer? Or even why do you think it's safer?

Also, it is difficult to judge John Paul's reluctance to face a delicate matter as the one you mentioned (corruption and abuse within the Church), since the most delicate matters are dealt secretly in the Vatican State. He for sure summoned U.S. cardinals to the Vatican for a historic meeting on the subject, he issued a directive to shed light and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith set up the guidelines to handle the problem and opened trials, but away from the mass media. After all, that kind of bad publicity can only make the Church lose credit.

You also mentioned the good role of condom in fighting AIDS. Do you really think people follow the Pope's teachings? You had the proof there are people who don't even know who he is, nor I expect prostitutes or their guests, homosexuals and anyone else not to use condoms, because the Church said it is wrong. If they were following his preachings, they wouldn't have occasional sexual encounters in the first place.


----------



## walnut

Silvia said:
			
		

> nor I expect prostitutes or their guests, *homosexuals* and anyone else not to use condoms


Umm... According to statistics about AIDS today, I suppose *eterosexuals* would fit better as an example.  Walnut


----------



## Nywoe

cristóbal said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I disagree wholeheartedly with almost everything you've just said.


 
In my humble opinion, it is not worth much unless you make a case for yourself . I'd be curious to know in what regards you disgree, since lsp expressed himself/herself so well (once again, in my opinion).

N.


----------



## cuchuflete

A man has just come to the end of his life.  I remember things for which I admired him.  Regarding many matters, he held viewpoints with which I could not begin to agree.
He was always true to his own faith, his nation, and his church.  For that integrity he had and has my respect.

Cuchuflete


----------



## cristóbal

Silvia said:
			
		

> Lsp, you gave a clear picure of what the Church has been through and leading to apostasy.
> 
> About your doubt regarding dialog on religious matters, clearly they are not subject to dialog nor meant to please the trends of society.
> 
> Women's freedom over their own bodies is not a female issue, since the Catholic doctrine extends the lack of freedom to anyone's body, life or death. How is a so called traditional role of the woman safer? Or even why do you think it's safer?
> 
> Also, it is difficult to judge John Paul's reluctance to face a delicate matter as the one you mentioned (corruption and abuse within the Church), since the most delicate matters are dealt secretly in the Vatican State. He for sure summoned U.S. cardinals to the Vatican for a historic meeting on the subject, he issued a directive to shed light and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith set up the guidelines to handle the problem and opened trials, but away from the mass media. After all, that kind of bad publicity can only make the Church lose credit.
> 
> You also mentioned the good role of condom in fighting AIDS. Do you really think people follow the Pope's teachings? You had the proof there are people who don't even know who he is, nor I expect prostitutes or their guests, homosexuals and anyone else not to use condoms, because the Church said it is wrong. If they were following his preachings, they wouldn't have occasional sexual encounters in the first place.



I couldn't have said it better myself, silvia.


----------



## cristóbal

Nywoe said:
			
		

> In my humble opinion, it is not worth much unless you make a case for yourself . I'd be curious to know in what regards you disgree, since lsp expressed himself/herself so well (once again, in my opinion).
> 
> N.



In my humble opinion, I think Karol Wojtyla's life was all the case necessary.  If you didn't listen to him when he was alive, why should I believe you will listen to _me_ now.


----------



## timpeac

cristóbal said:
			
		

> In my humble opinion, I think Karol Wojtyla's life was all the case necessary. If you didn't listen to him when he was alive, why should I believe you will listen to _me_ now.


 
Then why bother posting in the first place if the only people you are interested in listening to you are those who already agree in the first place?


----------



## winnie

lsp said:
			
		

> ...
> In major international conflicts he urged dialogue, but his papacy made room for none in matters of the church itself. Statistics may not view this pope favorably when the mourning period has passed. Catholicism has been eclipsed by Islam as the world’s leading religion, there are fewer priests and nuns than when he became pope and fewer still seeking out those professions. In America the shortage is profound, with many parishes unable to fill the position at all.
> 
> He is given credit for fighting for women's right, but in a limited way and did not include the most important rights to give women true equality and freedom, that is to say the freedom over their own bodies, or the right to be ordained and therefore truly equal to men in religious decisions. He primarily fought in ways that would not conflict and in fact would perpetuate safer more traditional female roles as mother/primary parental caregiver.
> 
> And like many American, particularly in the northeast, I think I will always feel disappointment in the reluctance of this pope to face the problem of sexually abusive priests. In one of the most notorious cases, that of Cardinal Bernard Law, when the scandal forced Law out of his position, he was practically rewarded by this pope, who named him archpriest of one of the four basilicas under Vatican direction in Rome, Santa Maria Maggiore (Mary Major).
> 
> The issue of AIDS proliferation as a possible consequnce of his immutable position on condom use has already been brought up in this thread.
> 
> It is also widely felt that this pope fanned the flames of hatred and intolerance when he referred to homosexual marriages as part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, in his recent book, "Memory and Identity," where he also called abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century.


 
though i'm an Italian and therefore with catholics roots i completely share the same lsp's ideas.
furthermore he supported the worst branch of catholic church: the "OPUS DEI", he made the worst marketing action naming a lot of saints and  "beati" (blessed) only with the porpouse to increase Vatican incomings and his intolerance not only was directed to homosexual couples but even to not married heterosexual couples. one of the most obscurantist man i've ever heard of.


----------



## cristóbal

timpeac said:
			
		

> Then why bother posting in the first place if the only people you are interested in listening to you are those who already agree in the first place?



On the contrary, I wanted it to be known simply that there are people who hold opinions contrary to those of Isp.  I know quite well that I could argue until the cows come home that John Paul II was just as great a man as were the beliefs that he held to so tightly.  If you think you can separate the man from his beliefs and convictions, I think you're doing him an injustice.  What he believed in and what he had faith in made him the great person he was, and his life will always have a profound influence on me.  

I'm sorry if my simple disagreement disagrees with your intellectual desire for debate, but the fact of the matter is that had I expounded even further on why I disagree, then in that case indeed I would have been writing for those "who already agree in the first place."  As I said, the sole purpose behind the post was to make it known that there were contrary opinions.  If you'd really like to enter into a debate of apologetics, then I'm ready when you are.


----------



## Alfry

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> A man has just come to the end of his life. I remember things for which I admired him. Regarding many matters, he held viewpoints with which I could not begin to agree.
> He was always true to his own faith, his nation, and his church. For that integrity he had and has my respect.
> 
> Cuchuflete


 
Perfect, I agree.

a great man, a great soul, a strong will and a great power as well.



I couldn't agree with most of the things he said and did (I won't repeat what others have already said) and even if a lot of people didn't know who he was, there were others who knew who he was. But we could go on arguing about that till the end of this year.



I think that a great power can influence public opinion, or better, surely influences public opinion.



He had a strong will and for that reason I admired him. I cannot deny that.


----------



## DDT

timpeac said:
			
		

> Then why bother posting in the first place if the only people you are interested in listening to you are those who already agree in the first place?



Since I was the one posting this thread let me please restate my sincere interest in everyone's opinion

DDT


----------



## gotitadeleche

> ...intolerance not only was directed to homosexual couples but even to not married heterosexual couples. one of the most obscurantist man i've ever heard of.



If he had accepted homosexuality and unmarried cohabitation, then he would have been hypocritical to the doctrines of his faith.


----------



## Everness

This Pope's main contributions are basically two. First, his strong criticism of consumerism. On this topic, he has done a better job than we Protestants. Second, his mea culpa on the serious and egregious sins the Catholic church committed in the Crusades, against Jews, Muslims, Galileo, etc. His shortcomings could be boiled down to two. First, his decision to pick Cardinal Sodano as his secretary of state. Sodano was a formal papal ambassador to Chile and a friend of Pinochet. Sodano intervened on Pinochet's behalf when he was facing indictment in a Spanish court. He recently requested Condoleeza Rice's help to defuse a sex abuse lawsuit filed against the Vatican by a Kentucky lawyer, something that was beyond her control. Second, his decision to refuse the request of US bishops to give them a streamlined process to defrock pedophiles. His response was too passive, to say the least.


----------



## timpeac

cristóbal said:
			
		

> On the contrary, I wanted it to be known simply that there are people who hold opinions contrary to those of Isp. I know quite well that I could argue until the cows come home that John Paul II was just as great a man as were the beliefs that he held to so tightly. If you think you can separate the man from his beliefs and convictions, I think you're doing him an injustice. What he believed in and what he had faith in made him the great person he was, and his life will always have a profound influence on me.
> 
> I'm sorry if my simple disagreement disagrees with your intellectual desire for debate, but the fact of the matter is that had I expounded even further on why I disagree, then in that case indeed I would have been writing for those "who already agree in the first place." As I said, the sole purpose behind the post was to make it known that there were contrary opinions. If you'd really like to enter into a debate of apologetics, then I'm ready when you are.


 
No no, I don't want to debate this - I know nothing on the subject and am really not that interested in the pope to go into a debate.

It just surprises me that you should be bothered to state that you disagree without desiring to explain why. I suppose you have hit the nail on the head by "disagrees with your intellectual desire for debate". Exactly - isn't that what these forums are for?

If on the other hand you consider that one person on one side of the debate will never change their opinion then that's just silly (in my opinion). People have moved from one side of a divide to another on many occasions. If you want a religious example to be in keeping with the thread, how about St Paul on the road to Damascus?


----------



## Silvia

Tim, we have an expression in Italy that perfectly describes what you just did: you throw a stone and then hide your hands  Oh, innocent you 

You can explain to someone who feels like listening. If you don't feel like listening, why should anyone bother to explain? Though it's true that Christians should spread the word unconditionally.

For what I have read so far, we all agree on a few points, while we question others that are not strictly related to the man himself, rather to teachings of his religion. Also, I realize it's difficult to talk about something you don't know.

Now, just a few analogies. Jesus Christ's figure and his environment were two separate things. His followers, his men, apostles, disciples etc. let him down more than once, but he never got rid of them. He stood up against the corruption of the time and the religious leaders. He was against divorce in general, which back then was often used to discriminate women.

So now you have a whole religion to criticise. But maybe in another thread, not to go off topic in this one


----------



## timpeac

Silvia said:
			
		

> Tim, we have an expression in Italy that perfectly describes what you just did: you throw a stone and then hide your hands  Oh, innocent you
> 
> You can explain to someone who feels like listening. If you don't feel like listening, why should anyone bother to explain? Though it's true that Christians should spread the word unconditionally.
> 
> For what I have read so far, we all agree on a few points, while we question others that are not strictly related to the man himself, rather to teachings of his religion. Also, I realize it's difficult to talk about something you don't know.
> 
> Now, just a few analogies. Jesus Christ's figure and his environment were two separate things. His followers, his men, apostles, disciples etc. let him down more than once, but he never got rid of them. He stood up against the corruption of the time and the religious leaders. He was against divorce in general, which back then was often used to discriminate women.
> 
> So now you have a whole religion to criticise. But maybe in another thread, not to go off topic in this one


 
No I didn't!! That is precisely what I am saying Cristóbal did! He said to someone "I completely disagree" but he was unwilling to say why. I don't understand why you're accusing me of that?

There is nothing on the subject of the pope I would be _unwilling _to discuss - I gave all I know in an earlier post. I know no more, and that is why I am saying there is no point in me discussing the pope further.

I am, however, interested in someone who is interested in a subject to say they disagree, but apparently not interested enough to discuss the point.  I find that interesting since I can't imagine just popping into a forum to say I disagree and then popping out again! That was what I was saying.


----------



## Silvia

I was referring to this:





			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> I have to wonder how fewer people would have AIDS in places like Africa if it wasn't for his opinions and policies.





			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> No no, I don't want to debate this - I know nothing on the subject and am really not that interested in the pope


To discuss about something, you need at least a rough idea of what we're talking about. I guess the purpose of this thread is just to voice one's opinion about a historical figure, so in saying "I agree with you", someone is stating his/her feelings/points of view regarding the matter. I think that is in line with the original question of this thread.


----------



## timpeac

Silvia said:
			
		

> I was referring to this:
> To discuss about something, you need at least a rough idea of what we're talking about. I guess the purpose of this thread is just to voice one's opinion about a historical figure, so in saying "I agree with you", someone is stating his/her feelings/points of view regarding the matter. I think that is in line with the original question of this thread.


 
I don't understand what you mean -

-Someone (not me) made a long post about the pope.
-Cristóbal replied to that saying "I completely disagree".
-I commented on this asking why he was not explaining himself, since this is a subject of which I know very little and having read the post Cristóbal was replying to I was interested to hear what a counter argument would be.

No one said they agreed with anyone. Cristóbal said he _dis_agreed with someone with no explanation. It is reasonable to say you completely agree with someone, since there is very little to add to that. If you disagree there is usually a reason, I'm sure you'll agree!

My comment is that I myself do not want to comment further on something I know very little, and I am not interested enough to go away and do some research. It doesn't mean I'm not interested in what someone else has to say.

Since I cannot see any point whatsoever in just making the comment "I disagree" with no reason, I am also interested in why someone thinks that is a reasonable thing to do.


----------



## cuchuflete

We seem to have hijacked DDT's thread... May I ask Tim, Silvia, and anyone else with any interest to open a new thread, and continue the discussion?

We can do the same with any of the other topics raised here.

For those who may be concerned, this is an attempt to continue, not stifle, the debates.

thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## Silvia

Yes, Cuchu, and I think we're all waiting for DDT's impressions


----------



## cuchuflete

Silvia said:
			
		

> Yes, Cuchu, and I think we're all waiting for DDT's impressions


Yes, it would be nice to have his thoughts on these bits of history:



> Reports that Pope John Paul II made an appeal to the British government for the release of Augusto Pinochet "for humanitarian reasons" provoked outrage from human rights groups and relatives of the victims of Pinochet's murderous regime in Chile.
> 
> Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro Valls confirmed that the Pope had interceded on behalf of the former Chilean dictator.


 http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/pope-m04.shtml

To be sure that this does not become a "left-right" discussion:



> When the pope visited Cuba in January 1998, hard-line Cuban leader Fidel Castro set aside his drab olive fatigues and put on a business suit to welcome him. Castro also attended a number of functions for the pope and escorted the frail Holy Father with almost touching deference.




http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/pope/bio/papal/index.html


----------

