A Man of Courage

Remove all ads!

I'm not a Catholic. But I wanted to share this story in Newsweek, which I thought was quite moving. It seems to me that men like this are very rare these days in public life. Everytime I turn on the TV, I am constantly bombarded by the latest on George II, so I've been turning it on less and less, and looking outside of American politics more and more.

It seems to me that John Paul represents what is best in a leader. I often don't agree with him on the issues. Nevertheless, he is a man of true principles, and he lives those principles everyday, and even in what may be his final hours, he won't retreat from them. I could write for a week doing a comparative study on the vast contrasts between George II and Pope John Paul. But in the end the actions - and how these two men have lived out their lives - would speak louder and clearer than anything I could muster.

But this is not about politics, for this goes beyond politics. And I am digressing on my own topic, which is to highlight that there are still a few rare men of true courage out there, engaged in a Life's Work that is of true and lasting significance to all men.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999966/site/newsweek/

Here are a few points that caught my attention. Sorry that this somehow got posted before I was finished with the quotes.

 

John Paul is no different from any other authoritarian bigoted fanatical religious leader. The only difference between him and the ayatollahs is that the Pope has a better PR machine.

 

@ Joacqin: There is a very big difference between the Pope and the ayatollahs. for example the pope doesn't approve of killing disbelievers ( not any more ) And the pope preaches peace and love, unlike most ayatollahs. Furtermore the pope has not very much power and everybody can (and too much do without reason ) criticize him, unlike all religious leaders in islamitic countries.
To make a long story short, the pope as he has been the last centuries is imo very different from most ayatollahs.

 

The man goes to aids-ridden Africa preaching against the use of condoms.

That is almost a crime against humanity.

 

@ oxymore: Please read Chandos post carefully,

Even if you can´t agree with the things the pope preaches, that is not enough to say he is like an fanatical ayatollah.

 

Yes it is. The only reason the pope isnt preaching the devastation of the unbelievers is because it is politically unsound. He is a zealous religious fanatic just like a mullah or an ayatollah. Their methods and aims are quite different but they are the same when all things are said and done.

 

I´m afraid you have a very limited understanding of the Cristian faith, joacqin. did you ever read some of the things Jesus said and did? I'm quite sure the pope wants to follow the lines set oput by Jesus and one of the most important ones is to love your enemies and certainly not the devastation of the unbelievers.

 

I read his post.

My opinion is that if the Pope is willing to let an entire continent die from aids, that doesn't make him a courageous man true to his principles, that makes him a stubborn fool with little regard for human life. I therefore disagree with Chandos.

 

Everyone who thinks the pope is willing to let an entire continent die from aids, put your hand in the air

The point i'm trying to make is that the pope doesn't want anybody to die but just that the old catholic church is against the use of condoms. On the other hand thay do their utmost to help the the aids-victims and relieve other forms of suffering. You would be wise to think of this and compare it to what you do for these people besides flaming the pope.

 

I'm sure the pope doesn't *want* millions to die, he's not a mass-murderer (not flaming, see?). But his stubborness in enforcing the old church views on condoms is causing a lot of deaths that could be prevented.

He's got a lot of influence in Africa, and he uses this influence in a way that ultimately leads to people dying from aids. He's got the power to stop suffering, but he won't.

And I actually *am* devoting my time and money to help Oxfam solidarities, send computers to African schools, take to the streets to obtain the relief of these countries' debts and so on. I don't pride myself over it, but leave the 'you don't help them' for others.

 

People my dear, have you really considered carefully the charge that the Pope is killing off a continent?

In what is he killing them off? In telling them fidelity is the better way?

Sex is not food or drink. No one has ever died from not having sex or from having it with only one person. Is the Pope so unfair in teaching what is required of all faithful? It's not just Africa. According to the Catholic Church, both the faith (revealed to believers) and natural law (revealed to non-believers, as well) dictate that the only proper place for sexual intercourse is in permanent indissoluble marriage. Those Catholics who choose to have extramarital sexual relations go against their religious tenets and those non-Catholics who do so go against the natural law. Should the Pope assist them in that and provide them with ways of escaping the consequences?

Another thing is that rubber isn't 100% effective against AIDS and not everyone agrees on high nineties, either. People who have AIDS and those who have sex with them choose freely to play with death.

 

Since when the natural law supports that the only proper place for sexual intercourse is in permanent indissoluble marriage?

 

I think the spread of Aids in Africa is less connected with promiscuity or infedility. It's more connected with widows and widowers getting married again. In a rural economy, to marry again is essential.

 

@ Oxymore I´m glad to see you didn´t mean to flame the pope and now you detailed your meaning a bit more i can respect your opinion. But i have to say that i can understand the pope, I was going to say what the pope thinks about aids-prevention but Chevalier pretty much summed it up (thanks Chev)

@ Iago And why excactly are there so much widows and widowers in Africa? Well of course it was because their husbands dying from aids because the were married with a widow before they married this widow who got aids from another widower she was married with before this widower who was a widower because.........
(I don´t want to make fun about this but this is just to show the flaw in your argument)

 

The Church has never stood in the way of efforts of others to spread condoms throughout Africa, it has merely refused to make them part of its aid packages because to do so would violate one of the basic principles of Church teaching...the use of any means of artificial birth control is inerently wrong.

Certainly there are plenty of other secular aid groups who have no compunctions over the use of condoms that can step up and supply them if that's what they feel strongly about.

You critics should focus less on the one aspect of aid that the Church isn't doing, and realize that there are far more Catholic missionaries in Africa to nurse the sick and comfort the dieing than all the other aid groups combined. They deal with the most hopeless cases and go places that the "condom peddlers" don't dare go...so shame on you for not seeing the forest for the sake of one little tree.

On the broader topic, John Paul II is a great man. He meets all the definitions of what makes a man great...and not one of them is how much he agrees with you.

Hats off to Chandos for posting this topic.

 

I agree with Hacken Slash, Hats off to Chandos for bringing that up.

But the pope has pushed a platform that the only place for sexual expression is in indissolvable, legal and lawful marriage. If both man and woman live that principle, their odds of getting HIV or AIDS are greatly reduced. He is proposing that as an alternative to the sinful practices of fornication, adultery and Homosexuality. For this he is flamed?

I will admit that the desire to be sexually active is completely natural, but from a Christian point of view, the goal is to transcend the "natural man" and to become like Jesus Christ, a man who lived a perfect life and loved us so much that He died for our sins that we may be forgiven. This is what I believe. Flame me if you must...

 

The pope is an upright man. People are responsible for themselves, I don't really care whether the catholic church forbids the use of condoms or not.

No sensible, intelligent human being should do what he is told without sparing a thought of his own. This is even true for Africa - imagine that! People in Africa are not animals, you know. I feel it is a bit chauvinistic to think that our influence is that big. I'm pretty certain Africans have opinions on these matters on their own - they don't have to wait for the white man to show up and tell them what's good and what's bad. They look at what is offered and choose what they feel is good for them. In some cases this may be the doctrine of the CC. In others, the influence of their ancestry and socialisation may be exceeding this doctrine. They are free people.

Why do we think that only we are capable of grasping the concept of and mechansims behind AIDS? Because we have better education than them? Well, maybe; but isn't it rather an educational problem then - and not one caused by the maliciousness of the Pope?

Sorry for this lenghty rant. But Chandos is right to bring up this topic. Some of you seem to think that greatness and integrity lies in being congruent with your world view.

I say he is an upright man who stays true to his principles and doesn't act against his better judgement. This is certainly true for Johannes Paul II. I wish I could say that much for myself.

 

Now wait untill Jaocqin shows up again so he can explain something about the devastation of the unbelievers

 

No problem, it is what the church has done in the past. My point was that even though it happens to be out of fashion today to wack the infidels on the head it lurks beneath the surface of every religion.

How come the love gospel of Jesus is only brought up to defend christianity nowadays? When it is preaching time it is Leviticus and other old testament that matters.

I stand by my point, the Pope is like any other theocratic authoritarian leader, he just happens to have a better PR machinery. Here we have a man who have never ever had any kind of relation with a woman, barely with his own mother, who takes it on himself to dictate how people should live together. If that isnt as insane as chopping off hands of thieves then I dont know what.

 

I don't really think its out of fashion. I belong to an online travelling group that visits pagan sites around Ireland. Though most people are non-believers in God, Allah etc there are still some Christians that are interested in local history. We get lots of American Religious fanatics starting trouble on the forums.

I do admire people that stand up for what they believe in, even if it conflicts with my views and John Paul is no exception. He does not force his opinions on people as he is not saying ban condoms, they are just not included in his aid packages.