Pope Paul VI makes the millennium
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
John Paul II has attempted to create bridges of ecumenism to other branches of Christianity and other religions. Paul VI would not have done that. It was, not too long ago, the policy of the Roman Catholic Church that marriages contracted in other denominations were "illegal". Paul supported that, which left him in the position of either recognizing the Methodist marriage of Elizabeth Seton, or admitting during her canonization ceremony that a Saint had five illegitimate children.
Perhaps, without the Pope's support of freedom of religion, instead of just glaring at the Middle East, we would be in open warfare with Islam.
Perhaps, without the Pope's support of freedom of religion, instead of just glaring at the Middle East, we would be in open warfare with Islam.
Modest differences
I remarked in another thread that there are theological, political and discipline axes to consider in regards to a Papacy. On the theological spectrum Paul and John Paul II are very close. However John Paul II is much deeper--he was himself a major figure in New Theology in its more conservative formulation and Vatican II was the flowering of New Theology. Paul also embraced New Theology. If anything he was slightly more liberal but not on the "pelvic" issues and that has unfortunately become the touchstone in recent decades.
On the discipline scale Paul was definitely laxer than John Paul II though not completely consistent. The current priest sex abuse scandal would've probably put him in his grave because he worried mightily over the possibility that priests might < shudder > masturbate.
The political scale is perhaps the most interesting of all. All too often the Polish Pope gets credit for the downfall of Communism. I tend to think his role is exagerrated so I'd expect a long lived Pope Paul to watch the Berlin Wall fall.
There is also personality to consider. Paul was never capable of engendering the sort of Personality Cult that John Paul II does. That might be a good thing though.
I remarked in another thread that there are theological, political and discipline axes to consider in regards to a Papacy. On the theological spectrum Paul and John Paul II are very close. However John Paul II is much deeper--he was himself a major figure in New Theology in its more conservative formulation and Vatican II was the flowering of New Theology. Paul also embraced New Theology. If anything he was slightly more liberal but not on the "pelvic" issues and that has unfortunately become the touchstone in recent decades.
On the discipline scale Paul was definitely laxer than John Paul II though not completely consistent. The current priest sex abuse scandal would've probably put him in his grave because he worried mightily over the possibility that priests might < shudder > masturbate.
The political scale is perhaps the most interesting of all. All too often the Polish Pope gets credit for the downfall of Communism. I tend to think his role is exagerrated so I'd expect a long lived Pope Paul to watch the Berlin Wall fall.
There is also personality to consider. Paul was never capable of engendering the sort of Personality Cult that John Paul II does. That might be a good thing though.