In the last few months, as the topic of a papal resignation came up frequently in conversation, I realized I was opposed. At first, I'd just shake my head and dismiss the idea. Then, I'd voice a general objection. Eventually, I tried to put rational discourse behind my gut reactions. In the LA Times today, there is an excellent summary of the reasons in that rational discourse.
Of all of them, the one that triggered my initial wordless rejection is this:
Being the successor of Peter is more akin to being a father than being the chief executive of a multinational corporation. As Pope Paul VI said, one cannot renounce paternity
When I hit more rational reactions, I am swayed by this reason:
many observers believe that John Paul II is providing precious testimony about the inherent value of human life, from beginning to end.
For those of you needing less visceral reactions, the article walks you through all of them. It is worth reading as a basis for discussion regardless of where you fall on the issue.
Posted by Justene Adamec at February 22, 2005 02:23 AM | TrackBackThanks for the post. It was nice to see a more rational discussion of the issue.
Posted by: caltechgirl at February 22, 2005 05:48 AM (Permalink)(A post-script regarding your comments on the death of Jacques Derrida from October...)
There is much to disappoint and disconcert about your comments reflecting on the life and death Jacques Derrida. Like the academic world of mediocrities and cronies you accuse Derrida of not only promoting but helping to create through 'his' supposedly obscurantist or nihilist philosophy (a claim that is as unfounded as it is unargued), you speak disingenuously. The reason is simple. Nothing in your argument explains exactly why you have such a distaste for Derrida's work. Your words are neither a matter of articulated personal opinion nor skillfully analytical critique. They offer no compelling reason why the reader should believe you have any understanding of the man or his work behind what you have been passively exposed to in the name of "deconstruction." Simply put, I do not believe that you have read Derrida's work. Not even a single book. The New York Times obituary is hardly a convincing testament to any knowledge beyond the falsely cursory. I encourage you to see the response of many accredited and distinguished philosophers, academics and thinkers of all trades through this website: "http://www.humanities.uci.edu/remembering_jd/ " Decide for yourself.
And if your interest lies with the possibility of opening yourself and/or your mind to the other, whether that be in the form of a person or a book, I suggest (even if your lust is towards rant and condemnation) for you to first familiarize yourself with the terrain within you supposedly judge and snear, snarl and scoff at so easily. So unearned. If you can offer nothing more than second-hand opinions in a second-rate manner, your cry of 'fraud' will direct your reader or listener all too lucidly to who is tricking who, what cheat has been perpetrated, who the imposter is.
And yet I hope one day you may discover for yourself not only the kindness Jacques Derrida the person was indeed famous for, but the affirmatory 'yes' resounding throughout his life's work as a thinker, writer, speaker and surely, much missed human being.
Sincerely,
Adam Fitzgerald
"Is the most distressing, or even the most deadly infidelity, that of a possible mourning which would interiorize within us the image, idol, or ideal of the other who is dead and lives only in us? Or is it that of the impossible mourning which... refuses to take the other within oneself, as in the tomb of some narcissism?"
-Jacques Derrida, "Memories for Paul De Man"
Posted by: Adam Fitzgerald at February 22, 2005 08:27 AM (Permalink)