Search

I was in Bowling Green, KY when I found out that the Pope had died. I was without Internet access and had very limited time or opportunity to catch any of the news on television.

But I didn’t want the passing of Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, to go without mention on my blog.

A lot of my sentiment echoes that of Michael John at Cold Fury:

I am not a Christian, and disagreed with many of his policies, but there is no question of the integrity of the man, and of the priest. Most particularly, he accepted a position that carried with it duties, and, as he grew older and sicker, refused to take any opportunity to shirk those duties; not because he believed that no one else could perform them, but because he had accepted them.

My wife and I are not Christians either, but my respect and admiration for John Paul II was significant. I will always remember him most for the courage of his convictions.

Unlike John, I didn’t disagree with many of the Pope’s policies…because they weren’t that important to me as a non-Catholic (priest being allowed to marry, women priests, etc.). I didn’t disagree with his policies because I understood from where they came, and to whom they were meant.

Pope John Paul II was a good man. He was extraordinarily courageous. He lived proudly and steadfastly by his convictions. He was respected and loved by people of all faiths as well as by those of none.

I’m not so much saddened by the passing of the Pope, as I am grateful to have lived nearly my entire life under his watch.

9 Responses to “A Quick Word About the Passing of the Pope”

Dear UG,
Welcome back. Thanks for the post on the Pope. Let me build on it a bit….

Pope John Paul II should earn all of our enduring gratitude for being one of the main Cold War bulwarks against Communism. Along with Reagan, Thatcher, and Solzenytsen (sp?), the Pope’s moral clarity and steadfast support for the God-given rights of man helped deal a death blow to the hideous apparatus of the Soviet communist state and it’s satellites. Without his unyielding, anti-Communist stance the West might also have the Soviets to worry about, in addition to Islamofascists.

The Pope had also done much to combat the worldview underlying the “right to die” movement (or, what I call the “will to kill” movement). It’s the same athiestic materialism underlying Communism: that humankind is the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong, that life is ultimately meaningless, and that there is not Higher Authority to which we all answer. Some people call this worldview “Secular Humanism”, though I think it’s more accurate to call it “anti-humanism”. In this sense, Pope John Paul’s repudiation of this worldview makes him one of the greatest humanists ever!
Thanks for your post…
Travis

Just a quick note: that post was written by me, not by Mike Hendrix, who is in no way responsible for my rantings, and who may not even agree with me.

A comment on “athiestic materialism”…and “life is ultimately meaningless”…

I have come to know a few athiests recently (dated one) and have come to realize they probably value life at least as much as or maybe even more than a lot of religious people because they don’t believe in an afterlife. Hence, the here and now is primary. At first this was a hard concept for me to understand, but it’s beginning to sink in, and I don’t think it’s entirely right to categorize them “all” as believing life is ultimately meaningless.

We can stand up for what we believe (following the example of Pope John) and serve as an example, but I think we should not be too quick to judge.

Dianne,
I agree with the idea of not being too quick to judge. Please consider my statements above: “The Pope had also done much to combat athiestic materialism…”

I’m talking about the athiestic worldview, not necessarily all who call themselves athiests. For those athiests that do believe that life has meaning, I hold that they do so in spite of their worldview, not because of it.

Tommy, John or Travis whoever you are…comments understood on worldview.

dianne

I think Dianne makes a good point, Travis. I believe you’re conflating the notion that believers in evolution (atheists, let’s say) feel that human life is an accident with the idea that life is meaningless. I believe that is mistaken- if you stumble upon the Grand Canyon by accident you would be in no less awe than someone who intended to get there. In fact, I believe the awe may be greater when you consider how infinitely lucky you have been.

Preston,
We could have a fascinating talk about what “meaning” really means. I hold that any meaning found within an athiestic worldview, while it may temporarily satisfying, is ultimately going to be unfulfilling. This is because, according to the athiest worldview, the ultimate end of human kind is simple non-existence and all human works will eventually perish in the heat death of the universe. So, if one helps lots of people or does lots of good things, it does not ultimately matter; there is no eternal reward.

Furthermore, the existential exercise of “defining one’s own meaning” could possibly end in some unhappy results if the meaning thus defined results other people being harmed. So, if one hurts lots of people or does lots of bad things, it does not ultimately matter; there is no eternal justice. Indeed, the definitions of “good” and “bad” in an athiestic worldview seem pretty slippery to me.

Again, let me stress that I do not believe all, or even most, people who claim to be athiests would purposely do more bad things than anyone else. I’m just trying to show the logical extension of the worldview.

Texas Tommy (AKA Travis…..sorry for messing up the “Comments” name function)

Sure, I agree that religion can have positive benefits of inducing people to act humanely who are not inclined to. But I feel that a humanistic notion of community can do the same thing. (There is also some thing that rubs me the wrong way about dangling the idea of eternal damnation in front of people just because it’s the ‘only way’ to make people act ‘morally’. It seems very cynical- I would expect the faithful to find good behavior would seem to be a happy coincidence of a saved soul, not a primary motivation)

I’m inclined to believe we have similar antipathy to materialism (but I suppose everyone sees their own degree of materialism as ideal- any more and you’re shallow, any less and you’re a monk) Even as a humanist (which is, I guess, what I am) I see materialism as a danger that keeps people from acting in a selfish manner.

I don’t really want to push this too hard but comparing cultures with varying degrees of religiosity doesn’t seem to indicate that individuals or societies break down without religion. While some who ‘define their own meaning’ may choose harmful paths the September 11 terrorists present an example of presumably religious people who chose the same path.

(After writing this I see we’re probably not going to go anywhere with this- people suck everywhere)

[...] Cindy is even less of a PoY than either Terri Schiavo or Pope John Paul II, both of whom—through their respective deaths—were infinitely more significant than Cindy Sheehan has or ever will be in life. [...]

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.