A Lesson From History?
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was contemplating a few things the other day during the wall to wall coverage of the death of John Paul II.
First observation. It is quite refreshing to see (some) serious discussion of theology, religion, spirituality, and faith on the television and in newspapers that isn't connected to scandal and driven by an agenda.
Second observation. The American Bishops are able to deflect a little blame from themselves onto the late Pope concerning the pervasive abuse scandals. It is interesting that the Bishops "want more autonomy and ability to self-govern" most of the time. But now that they can they are happy to say (and allow it be said by others) that "Well... If only the Pope had stepped in, or someone in Rome had stepped in, the abuse would have been cleaned up a long time ago." Look bubs. There is plenty of blame to go around. Frankly, it is the firm belief of your Maximum Leader that the American Bishops did all the could to conceal the nature and scope of priestly abuse of children. He also believes that they took what steps they could to conceal what they could from Rome. This doesn't absolve the Pope or anyone else. He would have liked to see the Office of Inquisition opened and some Torquemata-like inqusitor torture some priests. But your Maximum Leader thinks that American Bishops shouldn't try and pass the buck to the dead Pope. (Although that tactic does often work.)
Third observation. Your Maximum Leader thinks that in a few centuries (when we might have a better historical perspective) some may look back on the 1980s and 1990s and be unduly critical of Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul (as well as Margaret Thatcher) and say that their defeat of Communism opened up the world to an age of Muslim fundamentalism and religious clashes. Perhaps a good historical antecedent for our age might be the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (610-641AD).
Heraclius, the Exarch of Carthage, was called upon to assume the throne of Byzantium as the Empire was being attacked on all sides. Avars, Slavs, Huns, Persians. Heraclius took the throne and over the first decades of his reign vanquished all the threats to the Empire.
(Excursus: cool title we don't use nearly enough nowadays. Exarch. Another - Voivode. Need another? - Margrave.)
If you would like to learn more about Heraclius, your Maximum Leader highly recommends Lord Norwich's history of Byzantium. Heraclius figures in Volume One (of Three).
Of course, we can now look at Heraclius and see that his destruction of the Persian Empire, and his failure to annex those lands or put them firmly under his control; opened up the fertile cresent to the eventual conquest by the Muslim Arabs.
See the connection? Your Maximum Leader thought you did. He's always been rather proud of how you follow along in class... Even if you don't always read the book...
Carry on.
First observation. It is quite refreshing to see (some) serious discussion of theology, religion, spirituality, and faith on the television and in newspapers that isn't connected to scandal and driven by an agenda.
Second observation. The American Bishops are able to deflect a little blame from themselves onto the late Pope concerning the pervasive abuse scandals. It is interesting that the Bishops "want more autonomy and ability to self-govern" most of the time. But now that they can they are happy to say (and allow it be said by others) that "Well... If only the Pope had stepped in, or someone in Rome had stepped in, the abuse would have been cleaned up a long time ago." Look bubs. There is plenty of blame to go around. Frankly, it is the firm belief of your Maximum Leader that the American Bishops did all the could to conceal the nature and scope of priestly abuse of children. He also believes that they took what steps they could to conceal what they could from Rome. This doesn't absolve the Pope or anyone else. He would have liked to see the Office of Inquisition opened and some Torquemata-like inqusitor torture some priests. But your Maximum Leader thinks that American Bishops shouldn't try and pass the buck to the dead Pope. (Although that tactic does often work.)
Third observation. Your Maximum Leader thinks that in a few centuries (when we might have a better historical perspective) some may look back on the 1980s and 1990s and be unduly critical of Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul (as well as Margaret Thatcher) and say that their defeat of Communism opened up the world to an age of Muslim fundamentalism and religious clashes. Perhaps a good historical antecedent for our age might be the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (610-641AD).
Heraclius, the Exarch of Carthage, was called upon to assume the throne of Byzantium as the Empire was being attacked on all sides. Avars, Slavs, Huns, Persians. Heraclius took the throne and over the first decades of his reign vanquished all the threats to the Empire.
(Excursus: cool title we don't use nearly enough nowadays. Exarch. Another - Voivode. Need another? - Margrave.)
If you would like to learn more about Heraclius, your Maximum Leader highly recommends Lord Norwich's history of Byzantium. Heraclius figures in Volume One (of Three).
Of course, we can now look at Heraclius and see that his destruction of the Persian Empire, and his failure to annex those lands or put them firmly under his control; opened up the fertile cresent to the eventual conquest by the Muslim Arabs.
See the connection? Your Maximum Leader thought you did. He's always been rather proud of how you follow along in class... Even if you don't always read the book...
Carry on.
posted by The Maximum Leader at 4/07/2005 01:49:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home