There’s been a lot of discussion of the late Pope, including whether he should be given the appellation “Great”. Historically, the honorific ‘Great’, when applied to monarchs, including Popes, has not meant “Good”. Rather it’s been applied to those who’ve been successful in extending their monarchical power. This is certainly true of Leo and Gregory, the popes currently regarded as Great. Although they’re both called saints, neither of seems particularly saintly to me: rather they were hardheaded and successful statesmen.
In this interpretation of the term, it’s hard to claim greatness for John Paul II. Since he was elected in the late 1970s, the church has lost ground throughout the developed world to secularism, and in Latin America to evangelical protestantism. Although there have been some modest gains in Africa and Asia, they’ve largely been in countries where the church had a strong presence dating back to colonial times.
Claims that the number of Catholics has risen greatly under JPII look dubious to me. This BBC file gives the basis of claims that there are more than 1 billion Catholics, and includes claims for more than 90 per cent of the population of Italy, Poland and Spain, based primarily on baptism. I suspect many of these are either nominal or lapsed.
If there has been growth, it’s largely due to natural increase in Catholic countries. To the extent that anti-contraception teaching has kept birth rates high, I suppose the Pope was partly responsible for this, but the same teaching contributed greatly to the collapse of the church in former strongholds like Ireland.
If you wanted to make a case for greatness for JPII it would be one of a fairly successful defensive action in unfavorable times.
In any case, judging by those who’ve been awarded the title by common consent, beginning with Alexander, Greatness is not a quality I admire much [1]. And if we’re going for Goodness, I think John XXIII would be a more appealing candidate.
fn1. Fielding has great fun with this in Jonathan Wild, the story of the infamous ‘Thieftaker-General’, who became the Godfather of early 18th-century London.
{ 14 comments }
Andrew Boucher 04.12.05 at 6:18 am
“Rather it’s been applied to those who’ve been successful in extending their monarchical power.” I don’t think that’s why some are thinking of putting “Great” after JPII. The subsequent argument aims to show that JPII did not extend his power, so has no bearing against JPII the Great.
dsquared 04.12.05 at 7:32 am
To the extent that anti-contraception teaching has kept birth rates high, I suppose the Pope was partly responsible for this
But on a look at the birth rate in Italy and Spain, I’d guess not so much.
Ginger Yellow 04.12.05 at 7:37 am
Alfred was pretty “good”, I’d say. Holding off the Danes, building up the navy, creating an education system, , improving the justice system, translating classical texts and bits of the Bible.
latibulum 04.12.05 at 8:36 am
Polly Toynbee had a much different appraisal.
George 04.12.05 at 11:12 am
I used to think that people earn “the Great” by founding a nation: eg, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great. Alexander fits, sort of; Catherine the Great, less so. (The Popes I don’t know about.) Done a bit of thinking about this recently, since we named our son Cyrus.
Jackmormon 04.12.05 at 4:05 pm
What other popes are “great”? Any? “The Great” I usually associate with kings and queens.
John Quiggin 04.12.05 at 6:57 pm
Only Leo I and Gregory I are generally titled “The Great”. I’m not sure what formal process, if any, decides this.
John Quiggin 04.12.05 at 9:22 pm
As far as I can tell, there’s no official process for naming Great popes. Leo I and Gregory I are generally referred to as “The Great” and there is some support for Nicholas I also.
Yusuf Smith 04.13.05 at 3:14 am
And if we’re going for Goodness, I think John XXIII would be a more appealing candidate.
John XXIII was the pope who ordered that sex abuse scandals in the church be hushed up. I don’t he’ll go down as “the good”, for that reason alone.
Doug 04.13.05 at 4:18 am
Why not “the totally bitchin'”? Fits much better with the whole global celebrity bit, which is what the “great” schtick stems from.
Rulers used to get much niftier appellations. Boleslaw II the Bold (Poland), Charles the Bald (France), Louis VI the Fat (France again), Ethelred II the Unready (England), Bela II the Blind (Hungary), Laszlo V the Posthumous (Hungary). And so on. Why not adopt this for contemporary usage?
JPII, the totally bitchin’. Heh. Indeed.
John Quiggin 04.13.05 at 4:40 am
“John XXIII was the pope who ordered that sex abuse scandals in the church be hushed up.”
Yusuf, do you have a source for this?
Doug 04.13.05 at 6:22 am
A commenter at Kevin Drum’s adds that John Paul’s successor should obviously be named George Ringo.
Jonathan Dresner 04.13.05 at 7:12 am
When I do the Early Modern Russia lecture in my World History surveys I talk about “the Great” designation, because there are so many of them: Ivan III, Peter I, Catherine II; Ivan IV gets “the Terrible” but he really should be a Great (except that he was so vicious). The standards: longevity (all of them reigned 30+ years), conquest of new territory and centralization of power. John Paul II qualifies.
Greg 04.13.05 at 6:19 pm
Yusuf’s probably talking about Ottaviani’s guidelines on Solicitation.
It was one of those things that looked like a scandal when the news broke, but on closer investigation turned out to be nothing of the sort.
Comments on this entry are closed.