CE9

[riley]

These couple of recent lost lives that are receiving so much media attention have made me ponder more about our human priorities than the significance of the actual individuals.

I got thinking about when rock stars die and people show up in droves. I'm probably as big a pop culture junkie as anyone, but I can't think of one single artist who's grave site, fan love in or funeral I would show up at with the announcement of their passing, untimely or otherwise.

If Robert Deniro died I wouldn't cry or show up to mourn among other fans. If Geddy Lee passes along, I'll reflect on the art he created, feel grateful he did and get on with my day. I wouldn't show up at Michael Jackson's trial to show support even if I didn't think he was a fucking kook show, and I wouldn't go check out the Pope's corpse ... well pretty much for any reason because it's ... well a dead old guy ... like my grandfather, but with a better hat.

They're humans I don't know. I respect life in all forms, but, but all I really know is their contribution and slices of a perceived character, often based on A & E Biography re-runs. I can be moved negatively or positively by their contribution to the life I know, but beyond that what do I know?

To make a big deal out of someone, alive or dead, based on what they've contributed is fine. But where and how does it cross over into a sense of personal loss of the individual? The contribution will never be gone. It remains. So where is the loss? Unless the Pope is like your brother or son I suppose.

You lose parents, family, pets and people you know. You don't lose the famous people who make impressions on you regardless of their venue, becasue they're not really yours to lose.

[Mary]

someone said:

The Pope's death has an equal amount of impact on my life as Terri Schiavo's. And that would be none at all. I'm not Catholic, I don't ever plan on being Catholic, so who gives a fuck if the Pope's dead.

I'm not Catholic either... I'm a Jewish agnostic... but it's a bit naive to think the Pope is irrelevant to our lives as non-Catholics or non-believers. The Pope is an enormously influential figure with a demonstrable impact on global politics and on the lives, beliefs, and commitments of massive popuations, especially in predominantly Catholic countries. Unless you're equally indifferent to global politics as such, then there are many reasons to care about the passing of a pope - and the selection of a new one. World leaders - again especially in predominantly Catholic countries - listen to and care very much about the Pope's positions.

This is why I have mixed feelings about John Paul II - I have nothing but respect for him as an individual and I believe he was an admirable man, but his legacy in the Church leaves me with some ambivalence. Just as one example, his absolutely rigid and unbending opposition to birth control isn't just some irrelevent position that some random old man happens to take - it's a position would potentially affects the decisions of millions of Catholics around the world, and to the extent that any of us care about unwanted pregnancies, global poverty, and the spread of AIDS and other STDs, we have every reason to care about the Pope's position. On the positive side his qualified critique of capitalism has left an indelible impression on the politics and policies of many Latin American countries in particular - a Pope who was even more vocal about economic injustice could have a striking impact on our collective response to global economic inequality.

....on this note I don't really understand Chrisfan's response to the article Drum posted - which did not claim John Paul II for the "left" but merely pointed out that some of his positions were consistent with a leftist politics - which indeed they were. It strikes me as odd to say it's "childish" to "pretend" that the pope "can and should be used for politics" when virtually every pope since the history of Catholicism has willfully and self-consciously inserted himself into politics. Just one major example:

The idea of the "social mortgage" - a fundamental Catholic doctrine - holds that there is no absolute right to private property, that our limited right to property is dependent upon our relationship to the rest of humanity. Many popes have vocally and publicly interpreted this doctrine to mean that large accumulations of private property are unacceptable when there are others in the world suffering from material deprivation. Many popes have therefore supported significant wealth redistribution - including John Paul II. I find it hard to interpret this as anything other than a political intervention - one which is fundamentally hostile to laissez-faire capitalism - and also hostile to statist socialism - hence John Paul II's vigorous and admirable opposition to Soviet-style communism.

I think it's far from "childish" to recall the long history of Catholic social teaching, especially in a country when "moral issues" have become defined almost exclusively by culture wars around homosexuality and abortion... and now Terri Schiavo. Economics has nearly been totally bracketed from such discussions, as though Catholic morality and laissez-faire capitalism are perfectly hospitable to one another. This is the ideology that certain elements of the American right perpetuate and it's more than useful, therefore, to recall Pope John Paul II's commitment to issues of economic justice which clearly contradict the neoconservaive ideology. It's simply not the case that we can selectively list quotes from John Paul II to make him seem like a defender of nearly any political position - just as we could never make him seem like an advocate of abortion rights, so too we could also never make him seem like an advocate of an unbridled right to private property - and that's both political and very relevant today.

M

[Galactus]

Maarts, I agree about the cameras. I really don't understand wanting to veiw a body anyway. I can see people going out of their way to go see someone do what they do, be it rock the house or hold mass but I don't know why anyone would want to go look a dead person. Whoever that dead person may be. Whatever is was that made them an admirable person is no longer in that worldly vessel. Depending on what you believe that spark has been snuffed out or has moved on to a better place. Even if I did want to see the body, three days is plenty. I wouldn't want to veiw my own parents for three days.

Though I do see a very big difference in covering the death of the pope and plastering Terry Shaivo's picture everywhere. One is at least mostly valid, the other...well we've already argued for two weeks about it...

[Mary]

I encourage everyone who is interested in Catholic social teaching to check out this essay:

www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html

And I also ask again how we could possibly separate these teachings in any meaningful way from "politics". It seems to me that they are all explicitly and intentionally political. On the other hand, the principles are often vague enough that they are potentially consistent with a variety of positions, which explains why we get more and less radical popes, and more and less radical versions of Catholic social doctrine - ranging from the modified Marxism of liberation theology to the pessimistic conservatism of Opus Dei.

M

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

....on this note I don't really understand Chrisfan's response to the article Drum posted - which did not claim John Paul II for the "left" but merely pointed out that some of his positions were consistent with a leftist politics - which indeed they were. It strikes me as odd to say it's "childish" to "pretend" that the pope "can and should be used for politics" when virtually every pope since the history of Catholicism has willfully and self-consciously inserted himself into politics. Just one major example:

Oh I fully recognize and agree that the Pope and the Catholic church DO play a role in politics. I don't disagree with that. What I object to - what I find childish - is to use it in a taunting way as i believe that Drum's post way. To in essence say "oh, all these neo-con supporters suddenly support and mourn the pope ... well look at what he endosed that they don't agree with." The truth is that either side of the political spectrum has some things that are supported by the pope, and some that are in opposition. Further, the pope's motivation is not to be true to a political ideology, so of course his guidance is not going to fall in line with one side or the other. Take the issue of the church's stand on contraception vs the spread of AIDs and HIV. I completely understand your perspective, and the belief that condoms WOULD stop the spread of AIDs. But I also appreciate the perspective of the church that to condone the use of condoms ... especially outside of marriage ... would COMPLETELY go against the biblical teachings they base everything on. I'd have a big problem with a church that decided to teach based on the norms of the world today rather than the bible.

The bottom line is that politicians are working (in an ideal world) for what they believe is best for their country / state/ district. The pope is working for what he believes is God's guidance for the world. In an ideal world, the two will always be in agreement. But in practice, they're often in conflict. The goals are not the same, the outlooks are not the same, so while they're working together, they're not in total unity.

As an example - the pope commented in the past about his concern for the way people were treated badly under the tyrany of Sadaam Hussein. So did George W Bush. The pope spoke out adamantly against the war in Iraq. George W Bush did not. The pope can say "Things in Iraq need to change" and also say "No war in Iraq" and the two work together. Bush, at least as I see it, cannot do the same. The expectation of results is different for each. The pope's top focus overall is eternal life and the teachings of Christ. His basis for everything should be the bible. The presidents top focus is the United States, and his basis for everything should be protecting and defending the Constitution.

[chrisfan]

Out of curiosity, for those who have expressed a dislike for showing the pictures of the Pope's body ... are you a person who does or does not take time to view the body when you attend a funeral? I personally am one who avoids the room with the open casket like the plauge. I'm just curious to know if you have the same aversion when facing it in person, or if the cameras make it different.

[strat-0]

As some have said, I think that enough is enough, news-wise. I understand and recognize the significance of the Pope, and appreciate that this one was a good one - sad to see him have to go. But the whole world is not Catholic. I'm glad that popes in modern times are not emperors, also, and that I won't be stoned for not attending mass.

Mary's comments on private property are interesting. Our Western ideas about it are sort of funny. Of course, the Catholic Church has unbelievably vast real estate holdings throughout the world.

I watched a documentary about Stonehenge the other day that made me think. At one point, they were looking at an area of large stones quite a ways away from Stonehenge, where some stones were quarried for it. There were still places where stone wedges had been driven in, in an unsuccessful attempt to pry away stone slabs 4,000 years ago. I thought, yeah, farmer Jones may "own" that land now, but it's only for a fleeting moment.

[maarts]

Out of curiosity, for those who have expressed a dislike for showing the pictures of the Pope's body ... are you a person who does or does not take time to view the body when you attend a funeral?

I do. I have said goodbye in that fashion to grandparents and each time when I saw those bodies it was quite a shock. I'm not queasy at all but seeing beloved people looking so incredibly different the way I remembered them has always unsettled me. But I used the privacy of that little moment to say a last farewell to someone almost face to face.

I can in a sense relate to Riley's post as well. I wouldn't travel to Rome even if I was a catholic. Yet the pope's death did touch me. It had nothing to do with the politics or the history of the church which I believe is cause for many tragic world events. The only thing I saw was the struggle of an old man with life- riddled with Parkinson's disease and old age, yet still trying to find the strength to bless his people. That impressed me. That was the man that I gave my respect to...not the left-wing, yet conservative strongman of world religious politics.

That's one of the things I feel is lacking with cameras present- the opportunity to privately have a moment to say goodbye. Also the fact that the people who wish to not see the body at one stage or another gets the dead face of the pope presented to them, on the news or the papers- yeah, you can shut off but why should you?
For a fairly secretive congregation, this kind of openness is a bit unnerving.

[chrisfan]

I can certainly see and appreciate the uncomfortable feelings that many have about the camera presence. But I kind of wonder if a lot of it is not for the people who have the desire, but can't make the trip. Kind of an opportunity for them to be there without being there?

When Reagan died last year, the thought never crossed my mind to travel to Washington to be a part of any of the observances. But I will admit that as I was watching the procession from the capitol to the national cathedral, i was a bit sorry that I did not. If I lived in Washington, I think I definitely would have been there. For me, I appreciated having the coverage that was there -- having the camera on the casket in the capitol on C-span pretty much non-stop, as well as the coverage of the funerals. I made it a point to sit quietly and "be a part" of the services. It was my "goodbye". I can certainly appreciate how in that instance as well, that it could have been seen as very intrusive. But I was appreciative of the access the cameras gave.

[Ampage]

If the casket is open, I feel like it is my duty to have a last look. I mean, that is literally the last time you will see them on earth.

[chrisfan]

I know that many people feel that way. I even know one or two people who feel obligated to touch the person. But I've always preferred to have my memories of the person when they were healthier and alive. Maybe it's because most of the members of my family are cremated, so we don't have that final goodbye.

[Ampage]

I am all for cremation and simple services.

[stratman19]

Ampage said:

I am all for cremation and simple services.

That's how I'm going out.

[pissin2]

These people that are waiting in line to see the pope are the people that really scare me.

[Ampage]

Hey Strat.