I hesitate to revive this thread, but Sharon took me to task while I was away for a few days and I didn't want to duck the point. Also Gloredhel, I'd be extremely interested if you could turn up any second-century references to papal supremacy. I'm not questioning that they may exist, just interested as I've had a good look at the early period myself. (For instance looking for a link between Peter and the first Popes. I've not found one, nor any evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, apart from an argument (which may have some merit) that when the bible says he was in Babylon, this meant Rome.)

But back to Sharon. Sharon, it seems to me that your comment "Look at Wojtyla's role in the downfall of communism in eastern Europe, for example" in the context you wrote it, made sense only if you think we all buy into the assumption "communism bad; capitalism good." I for one don't, and I find it disturbing that a large part of a large nation has signed up unqestioningly to so simple a view of a complex question.

JP2 should have kept out of politics, just as Pius IX and his successors had no business knocking democracy.

This partly addresses Fiolar's point: religions do in fact interfere with people other than their zealous adherents, as when popes pontificate on birth control and homosexuality. Or when Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusions for minors, or when the Hindu custom of suttee required widows to throw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres. On the whole, communities would surely be better off without all the mumbo jumbo, and those of us who believe this must preach the message with all the evangelic zeal we can muster.