Comments on: John Paul the Great ?

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:19:05 +0000

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.

By: Jonathan Dresner

Jonathan Dresner — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:12:26 +0000

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.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:22:22 +0000

A commenter at Kevin Drum's adds that John Paul's successor should obviously be named George Ringo.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:40:22 +0000

“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?

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:18:00 +0000

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.

By: Yusuf Smith

Yusuf Smith — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:14:13 +0000

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.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 02:22:53 +0000

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.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:57:54 +0000

Only Leo I and Gregory I are generally titled “The Great”. I’m not sure what formal process, if any, decides this.

By: Jackmormon

Jackmormon — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:05:55 +0000

What other popes are “great”? Any? “The Great” I usually associate with kings and queens.

By: George

George — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:12:51 +0000

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.

By: latibulum

latibulum — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:36:45 +0000

Polly Toynbee had a much different appraisal.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:37:22 +0000

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.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:32:00 +0000

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.

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:18:07 +0000

“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.