Peter And John Paul

[poliphilo]

I'm in the middle of reading Roger Lewis's enormous Life And Death Of Peter Sellers- which runs to over 1,000 pages. Sellers was always peculiar, but career success drove him over the edge into full blown paranoid schizophrenia. Oddly enough, his madness never affected his art- and he was as capable of giving wonderfully sensitive performances at the end of his career as he was at the beginning (though the films he graced with those amazing performances were frequently wrecked by his wayward behaviour.)

A little money, a little power- and Sellers turned into the Emperor Nero. As I've been reading this 20th century morality tale I've been thinking about the Pope. John Paul II was an immeasurably stronger character than poor Peter, but what did it do to him to be elevated to a position where he had no equals, where there was God, then himself as the unique mouthpiece of God and then, very far below him, everybody else?

Did he have doubts? Did he ever wonder whether he might be wrong in the opinions he laid down as law? And did he have any friends? Peter didn't; it's very hard for the powerful to have friends; people are afraid of them. So was there a secret room in the Vatican where John Paul could slob around in a tee-shirt with his shoes kicked off, drinking beer with his cronies, watching TV? Were there people around him who called him Karol? People who were allowed to tease and twit and criticise?

Seems unlikely, doesn't it?

And if he never came off duty, never allowed himself to be vulnerable, how inhuman he must have become!

Comments

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

On the contrary, I have a feeling he was constantly vulnerable. He was far more human/e, I believe, than many. I think it is because he never let the "power" of his job consume him. I do not remember who (I believe it was one of the cardinals) said that despite who he became, he remained at heart a priest, and he was always willing and always had the desire to help people. Maybe that's one of the ways he remained connected.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

My quarrel is less with the man than with the office. I think it is wrong that one man- no matter how wise and priestly and human- should lay down the law on matters of personal morality.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

If your quarrel is with the office, then why are you expressing what you think is wrong in terms of "one man". Why not "one office"?

In essence, I think this is a large part of why Quakers have committees.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The two are so closely identified. The office is a man and a man is the office.

I'm drawn to the Quaker model. I think it shows more respect to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

The two are so closely identified. The office is a man and a man is the office.

I'm going to disagree with you yet again. Maybe this is an American thing, but people talk about loathing George Bush but respecting the Presidency. I think this is no different. (Well, it's the opposite--liking JPII, but disliking the papacy.)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The American Presidency is part of a wonderfully contrived system of checks and balances. The Papacy doesn't have these.

Just about the only check on a Pope is his own mortality.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

I think the issues is really complex. I may be speaking heretically here (hopefully, my Church won't come and burn me at the stake if this is the case), but here's the way I see the Pope.

He is, first and foremost, human. However, in matters of spirituality, he is divinely guided to the right decision by the Holy Spirit and is thus, infallible provided he actually listens to what he is being told. Our pastor gave a very interesting sermon last week where he talked about how the Holy Spirit guides the Church and how He has to work through impefect instruments.

Essentially, the Pope has the potential to be infallible in spiritual matters if he chooses (remember, there is always free will) to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

But how do you ascertain the Will of the Spirit?

This has always been a problem. The Biblical test is along the lines of "by their fruits shall ye know them." Or, in other words, "wait and see."

The Pope's supposed infallibility makes it tricky for the Church to reverse what a Pope has taught- even when the results of that teaching fail the Biblical test and are plainly disastrous.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

How do any of us ascertain the Will of the Spirit? You advocate no churches at all, instead letting each person listen to the will of God themselves. How do any of us know if we are truly listening?

I don't have the answer to that. I have met people who are good at listening. Me....well, I'm not so good. There must be a stubborn, recalcitrant part of me that still wants to do what I want, and not what He wills.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

This was what happened at the Reformation. The Church broke apart and all these seers and prophets started up their own sects. Some of them were a good thing and some of them were crazy and some were downright vicious.

No, individuals are no less fallible than institutions.

I guess what it comes down to is that I'd rather make my own mistakes than be complicit in someone else's.