General Brock wrote:
Hmmm. Warning: Another long post, as I try and sort out my thoughts.
No problems
General Brock wrote:People make bad decisions and tie themselves to bad systems. It is useful to understand why morally irrational stands are made and allowed to stand. I don't see JP II as some infallible superhuman, and I don't think he saw himself as such either.
And the relevance to your reply to the OP (especially regarding Darth Wong calling him a shitty leader) is?
General Brock wrote:I never argued he was above criticism, or not responsible for his actions as Pope.
But you were making excuses for him. Point A and B in your reply to the OP were essentially of the form " he was just following the Bible".
You have mentioned that he did his "job requirements" adequately. I don't care if he gets an A + for doing what ever Popes are suppose to do. I am more concerned about what he did and whether it is immoral as judged by the negative consequences.
General Brock wrote: If anything, he went out of his way to be approachable to ordinary people.
Since I didn't exactly accuse him to being unapproachable to ordinary people, whats they point of that sentence except to take up bandwidth?
General Brock wrote:If he wanted to remain Pope, it was inevitable that he would find himself at odds with modern morality. It would have been nice if he either resigned or openly defied the scriptures in favour of more popular, more utilitarian moral stands, but that is not realistic.
You are again trying to argue that he "did his best in the context of his position". However that is irrelevant to whether his actions have negative impacts which can be assessed and criticised. And the fact that you acknowledge he could take (albeit not realistic) "more moral stands" bears this out.
General Brock wrote:It is not a false dilemma to suggest the Pope had to be careful about how he went about his job.
That's good. Because I never suggested that was a false dilemma. I said it was a false dilemma to force us to compare "bad" with "worse" when we should be judging whether the Pope's actions were bad in itself.
General Brock wrote:
Confused and angry lemmings have been known to engage in extreme bloodshed and violence. JP II refained from declaring crusades and bulls, inciting extremist religious strife, and refused to let the Bush and co. use the 'Just War (tm)' for their Iraq adventure.
You are repeating the same false dilemma. Essentially saying, well he could have been worse.
General Brock wrote:As Pope, JP II seemed more determined to do honest good, <snip>
The fact that history's villains think of themselves as doing "honest good"(usually because they some delusions about themselves) should have thought people judging someone by "good intentions" as opposed to actual acts is pretty stupid.
General Brock wrote:He was not the sort of naturally conniving politician or ignorant demagogue I would have expected from Popes past, nor was he a liberal token of a figurehead.
Does he bear responsibility for protective paedophile priests. Does he bear responsibility for telling Africans lies about condoms. Either he does or he doesn't.
Whether he is or is not a "naturally conniving politicians", "ignorant demagogue" or "what you would expect from Popes past" is irrelevant to the criticisms expressed in the OP.
General Brock wrote:
He tried to maximize the good that could be done through the Church, and surprise, surprise, the Church was found wanting.
Their is a fucking difference between not being able to help more people and
actively causing harm. I again refer you to the criticisms expressed in the OP.
General Brock wrote:Oh, yes, as a matter of fact I would respect a murderer and rapist who was honest and open about it, more so than one who connives and lies and tries to get away with it, or worse, does.
It is much easier to deal with open problems and deal them justice, whether rehab or life imprisonment [Canada does not have capital punishment]. It would not be the same positive quality of respect I have for good people, but it's there.
emphasis mine
The fact that someone who is evil but admits to it gets your respect speaks volumes.
General Brock wrote:The Pope may be wrong about how to deal with AIDS in Africa, but the Church has a clear policy against contraception and pre/extra marital sex, and following it greatly improves the chances of avoiding an STD or complications from a flawed contraceptive. It is scientifically sound, even if it is ignorant and unrealistic. I never said the Catholic Church was an instrument of reason and utilitarian good.
So you shouldn't have a problem when the pope is criticised for doing the opposite of what "an instrument of reason and utilitarian good" should do.
General Brock wrote:Regardless of what the Pope says, there are people in NA who are not even religious that find reasons not to use condoms and be promicuous - even when they know they are not only at risk but an STD carrier.
What's your point?
Because the Church wasn't 100% responsible for the problem (no one accused them of, just of making the problem worse) its ok?
Because the problem isn't going to be 100% cured the Church washes its hands of its responsibility of making it worse.
General Brock wrote:The Pope is hardly going to tell the Africans what to do if they do not want to do it, I am not going to blame him entirely for that.
Tell that to the people who want to distribute condoms but can't, courtesy of the
church
General Brock wrote: People in secular authority have tired to hide and excuse pedophilia as well. Why would I expect the Church to be any different than, say, the early secular school boards?
The implication of course, that the Church is being held to a different standard.
Your comparison might actually mean something, if people didn't criticise secular schools for excusing paedophilia but strangely criticised the Catholic Church. Got any more red herrings?