Two Questions for Readers: Popes and Presidents
Here are two questions for reader feedback.
1. Who do you think will come first, a non-white American President or a non-white Pope?
2. A woman Pope, if ever to be, could be another millennium away, but who do you think will come first, a non-white American President or a woman American President, or do you think it might be a tie, with someone like Condoleeza?
1. Who do you think will come first, a non-white American President or a non-white Pope?
2. A woman Pope, if ever to be, could be another millennium away, but who do you think will come first, a non-white American President or a woman American President, or do you think it might be a tie, with someone like Condoleeza?
posted by Tom Blake | 2:15 PM
13 Comments:
Non-white pope will come first. Perhaps the next time around -- which could be in just a few years. It would be a Latin American.
As for non-white or female American prez, I would say non-white. Neither will happen anytime soon, but I could see a Hispanic prez at some point in the future. I think the Hispanic population is the key political demographic in the country at this time.
Since many vote Republican, maybe a Hispanic candidate will be seen by many in America as "white enough."
Chris in Bangkok
I thought there might have been a Pope from Africa, but I did not take the time to research it before I posted this question. Victor I was the 13th Pope and was from Africa, but according to a biography of Victor published by the West Hollywood parish bearing his name, it is not clear whether he was a native African or a Roman colonial descendant. He could have been a little of each. Check out the picture of Victor in the parish bio - though he definitely looks contemporary, I guarantee if there is another Pope from Africa, he will look more like this picture of Cardinal Arinze .
Reading Raine's comments makes me realize what a difficult position the Pope, any modern day Pope, must fill. By Raine's standards (of which I agree), he must be a religious leader of the Roman Catholic faith and a spiritual leader that everyone in the world can respect and emulate. At the same time, the Pope must also run one of the largest businesses in the world. Tom can research the figures, but the Catholic Church must have a billion dollar budget and employ tens of thousands of mostly men. Who could do both? Only a saint, someone who is a combination of Donald Trump and Mother Theresa. The fact that the Popes have done fairly well over the centuries could be used as a proof of the existance of a personal God who intervenes in the lives of people on earth.
John from Phoenix
The National Black Catholic Congress website explains that three popes came from North Africa. It then states that "although there are no authentic portraits of these popes, there are drawings and references in the Catholic Encyclopedia as to their being of African background." I suppose this doesn't explain much. Like Chris, I could see a Latino pope in the near future. Hmm... wonder how this might impact the illegal immigration issue here in the US? How do Catholic politicians tend to stand on this?
The presidential situation will obviously depend on who specifically is in the running-- getting a female or a non-white candidate even as one of our (two?) choices is going to be significant. Perhaps Obama? It's going to be important that the candidate is seen as having something in common with the reality or (more likely) dreams of average Americans: ex, weathly, self-made, mainstream hobbies and leisure pursuits. I'm not sure why my sense of all this feels so vague-- is it really such a remote dream or would having an "outsider" in the white house not change anything?
Anna of Vermont
John, if the job of the Pope in being a spirtual leader and operating a large business organization is difficult, Jesus foretold the futility of it - the camel trying to pass through the eye of the needle. What little good some of the Popes may have done for the world has been far outdone by the evil fostered by so many others. John Paul II may have inspired Solidarity in Poland, though that movement also may have encouraged the Pope. Communism was failing for a long time and global communications had improved to such an extent that the people in Communist countries could see the failure compared to other parts of the world. Since conservatives have always said Communism was totally wrong and since history had shown it to be at least a second rate economic system and probably a doomed failure, it is interesting that conservatives want to give credit for "tearing down the wall" to right wing icons like Reagan and the Pope. Hey, it was only a matter of time and those guys just happened to be in office when it happened - and when Gorbachev chose to accelerate the process.
Truly inspiring religious leaders do not accept personal wealth. Look at Buddha, Jesus, Ghandi, Dr. King, Mother Teresa - and like it or not, because of the nature of his religious views, Osama. Trump should not even be mentioned in the same sentence as Mother Teresa. There was nothing inspiring about John Paul II ignoring the American priest sexual abuses and then bringing the Boston cover-up perpretrator Law to Rome for a promotion. Nor was it inspiring to see JP allow himself to be used by Bush for a medal awarding photo op as Bush ignored the Pope's condemnation of the Iraq War. Granted JP could hardly function at the time, but where was his #2 man, Ratzi? They had no problem injecting themselves into American secular politics over abortion policies, so why did they not do the same with Catholic politicians who supported the Iraq War? Imagine if Planned Parenthood had awarded the Pope a medal with a Bush style photo op.
Anna, I posted a comment about US Catholic policy on immigration under the Illegal Immigration topic. Obama is interesting because he is not a descendant of Africans enslaved in America. His father was an African student who studied in America and went back to Africa. I don't know that much about his experience growing up bi-racial in Americ, but I expect it would be somewhat different from that of most African Americans, in part because of the absence of any black relatives here in America.
Tom,
In your litany of awful things Popes have done, you didn't mention the first Pope we knew, Pius XII. He has been highly criticized for doing nothing about the holocaust. That puts him in the same company as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, usually listed as one of the top three American Presidents of all time. They both found it politically expedient to avoid taking a real actions to stop the holocaust or even speak out strongly against it until after the war.
When I said that the Popes have done fairly well despite a very difficult job, I was trying to speak historically. I was using as grounds the power and influence of the Catholic Church worldwide. That influence has grown under John Paul's reign. The growth has been in the Hispanic world and in Africa. Many Catholics in America don't revere him, and fallen away Catholics like you and me don't like him, probably because he didn't provide reasons for us to return.
Just like most CEO's of large corporations and world class political leaders, people can pick at individual items about Pope's that don't agree with their sense of morality. The Pope says women shouldn't be priests. I say that is the most important area of reform for the Church. The Popes say don't use condoms. I think birth control is very important issue. Not using it is immoral in my mind. But I won't say the Pope is immoral because his morals and mine differ. I just quit going to his church.
John from Phoenix
The Jewish Virtual Library of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise includes this article on Pius XII and the Holocaust. That Library has several articles on FDR, mentioning pleas made to FDR and actions taken or not taken by FDR in respect to the plight of the Jews, but none I found similar to the one on Pius. The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies has several articles critical of FDR on this issue. The Pope and FDR both believed neutrality compromised their ability to speak out, an excuse that disappeared for FDR once America entered the War. The Papacy could avoid such a problem in the future if it turned the Vatican government over to its citizens and the Pope concentrated on spiritual leadership.
Increased influence of the Church in Latin America and Africa might be indicated by the increase in clerics and laity, with more Catholic souls having a chance for heaven. But using the influence to work on this earth now for social justice in those regions seems lacking to me.
The term "fallen-away" Catholic is used by the Church to pre-suppose a return. I consider using "former".
Denying Catholic priesthood to women is typically archaic. As for married priests, the best argument I have heard against it is that it could lead to clerical dynasties - sons having a leg up on hierarchical rise because their dad was a big shot [like George H. W. and George W.]
If you believe not using birth control is immoral [I presume you mean for certain people in certain circumstances], and if the Pope uses the influence of his spirtual office to stop a Catholic from using birth control, even though that Catholic believes birth control should be used under the prevailing circumstances, it seems to me the Pope has done something you consider immoral and you should say he acted immorally. Refusing to say so because his morality differs from yours seems to me like refusing to say Hitler did something immoral in exterminating the Jews because Hitler believed it was moral.
I agree with Chris on these questions. The next Pope will be a Hispanic. As for President, it will be a long time, but eventually we will have a Hispanic man US President. Only after the passage of significantly more time will we see a woman President. Women are at the bottom of the political totem pole. Freed male slaves got the right to vote more than 50 years before women did. Women do not stick together politcally. The TV show Survivor demonstrated that a while back when a bevy of ladies shared camp with a lone male with not much going for him. The ladies, who had been talking female solidarity all along, ended up voting each other off, until all that was left was the man and one woman. The predominantly female jury then voted to give the big moola to the man rather than the woman.
Tom,
I prefer the term "fallen away Catholic" to "former Catholic" because I would like a reason to return to the Church. I remember with nostalgia the mystical feelings that the old Latin liturgies raised in me. I had two sisters who were nuns - both resigned. I miss the comfort I used to get from the theology and ritual of the Church. I want to leave the door open.
And there is a deeper reason to prefer the term "fallen away" over "former". If you have been indoctrinated with Catholic theology and ritual as a young child, you cannot remove its influence by wishing it away. I am a Catholic and will always be a Catholic. I am Catholic, American, male, lower middle class, upper middleclass, Democratic, corporate entity, etc. I am not a "former" Catholic, because being in the Catholic culture as a child became part of my identity, and I cannot deny who I am. I am a Catholic, but I go to Church only when my big sister comes to visit.
I don't understand your comment about birth control for some people in some circumstances. Everyone should practice birth control always. Birth control means deciding how many and when your children should arrive. Of course, chance still plays a part, but it is minimalized. Woman (and their male partners) should decide when and how many offspring they should have.
Tom says that I should treat Popes who have denied their followers the freedom to use effective contraceptives the same as I would treat Hitler who killed 6 million Jews. I reject this comparison as thoughtless and trivializing the holocaust. Of course Catholics who followed the Popes' teachings have been hurt by the burden of too many children, but most Catholics blissfully ignored the Popes' teachings. Bottom line: Catholics had and have a choice about birth control. The Jews murdered by Hitler did not.
John from Phoenix
John, you prefer “fallen away” and I prefer “former”. I wonder if some people, taking a page from AA, say they are a “recovering Catholic”.
I did not realize you believe so universally in birth control, or maybe more accurately, family planning. Your position is substantially in opposition to that of the Pope.
I most certainly was not trivializing the Holocaust. You brought it up, mentioning FDR and the Pope as not doing enough to stop or speak out against the Holocaust. My point had to do with your refusing to say the Pope is acting immorally in telling people not to use condoms to practice birth control. You said you would not say the Pope was immoral just because his morals and yours differ, and I responded that the same reasoning would prevent you from condemning Hitler for the Holocaust. You apparently differentiate the two situations based on the extent to which the victims have a choice. Granted the Jews were given no choice by Hitler, but the Pope declaring the use of condoms is a mortal sin with the possibility of eternal damnation is not intended to offer much choice either.
I disagree with your comment that most Catholics blissfully ignore the Pope’s teachings on birth control. While that may be true to a significant extent in the US and Europe, I doubt it holds true for many Catholics in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
Tom,
I know your comment about recovering Catholic is facetious. But it made me think. I really do not prefer the term "fallen away Catholic". I am a "nonpracticing Catholic".
I think it important to attempt to distinguish between universal moral principles and cultural differences. This distiction is philosphically difficult.
I remember reading some anthropolical account of a culture that set up a hammock for a woman about to give birth. The baby would drop through a slit in the hammock to a soft landing on leaves set up on the ground. The elders would then inspect the baby and give him/her back to the mother if it were "normal". Otherwise the baby would be killed and nothing more would be said.
This concept is far from what we in our American/European culture would consider just. But, I have to admit, I see the logic of this. A child with birth defects can place a staggering demand on the society that must endure it. Removing the mother from the decision to abort a viable birth is a blessing to her.
What I have described is an extreme kind of birth control. Now compare that with the obliteration of a race of people. Can nearly killing the entire Jewish population of Poland compare with the killing of a fetus or an individual with severe birth defects? Or even more telling, with using a condom?
I am saying that the Catholic religion has created a culture that professes artificially preventing pregnancy is immoral. This has been a cause of concern for true believers and ignored by the vast majority of Catholics in the US. To equate this culture with genocide clouds the issue and trivializes the examples of genocide we have seen:
1. the attempted extermination of the Jews during the Third Reich.
2. the recent slaughter of the Tsutsi's by the Hutu's in Africa (or was it the other way around?).
3. the slaughter of the American Indians by the American government starting with the presidency of Andrew Jackson.
I believe these examples of genocide are universally accepted as immoral. I believe that questions of birth control are vary from culture to culture.
I believe most American Catholics blisfully ignore the Church's teachings on birth control. I don't know about Africa and Latin America. I can only guess. My guess is that, given the African culture that supports promiscuity, birth control would be welcome. But given the African AIDS epidemic, it isn't used (or, at least, condoms are not used). I guess birth control is not universally used by Hispanics. There seems to be a cultural bias against it.
My point is that both African culture and Hispanic culture far outweigh what the Popes say about birth control.
John from Phoenix
I think for American Catholics personally there is a perceived line between pregnancy prevention (e.g. condom usage) and pregnancy termination (e.g. abortion) - prevention is acceptable but termination is not. Opponents of abortion argue that there are millions of unborn children being aborted, making it a kind of holocaust. At Seattle University in 1959-1960, Father Tolouse argued that there were "children of oblivion" - those not conceived because of contraception. I don't think many American Catholics have bought that argument.
I think the problem in the "Third World" countries is the especially low status of women, which drives some women into prostitution and makes wives of promiscuous husbands powerless to stop their adutery and leaves both groups of women unable to insist on condom usage. Where such women have been even minimaly empowered, such as by attempts to educate males and form solidarity pacts between prostitutes and wives to insist on condom usage, progress has been made both on birth control and on stopping the spread of AIDS. Unfortunately, while the Church would agree men should be educated on abstinence and the "rhythm method", the Church works against advice to use condoms.
Post a Comment
<< Home