| The Real Wizard 02.04.2007 01:13 |
link In short, they're doing all they can to fast-track making JPII a saint. "Such a waiver had only been granted once before, to Mother Teresa." What a horrible disgrace to her name. She is a real saint who spent her life making a difference, selflessly. But I can't say I'm surprised. The sheep will always have their shepherd. Some nun recently came out and said her parkinson's disease was cured because she prayed to JPII, and they're actually taking this seriously. "Theologians will then determine whether the cure came as a result of prayer to John Paul." You've got to be kidding me. Full-grown adults in a post-modern world are actually going to spend time discussing this? It absolutely baffles me that there are people who will even consider this to be a credible reason to make someone a saint... not to mention ignoring his actions on the fight against AIDS in Africa. He surely caused an incredible amount of damage after he "advised" the people of Africa to refrain from using condoms because they allegedly had holes in them. That's actually kind of funny, coming from someone whose position requires him to remain celibate, so he probably had never even seen a condom... unless he broke celibacy of course, but nobody affiliated with the church would ever do that.... *sarcastic*. Any independently thinking person has surely translated this as nothing but pushing the church's outdated dogmatic anti-abortion agenda, regardless of repercussions. Not to mention, the majority of people he was speaking to were illiterate and impoverished people, so he was abusing his power by taking advantage of that and manipulating them. It is no coincidence that the African countries best fighting AIDS are the non-Catholic ones. The Vatican must be aware of all of these things, and so I therefore find it to be truly unbelievable that there are human beings in this world whom, in seemingly good conscience, continue to cover up his crimes against humanity - only to protect their own image. And then there's the covering up of pedophile priests, all for the same reason. Stories like these have me losing faith in the god-given (if you will) brains of humanity. We're not moving forward at all. We can build a nice car and keep making our computers faster, but as people, philosophically and socially, we as a collective body haven't progressed in the slightest in thousands of years. We're still separated into groups of people based on which ancient stories we believe, and which we reject... which is essentially the root of the majority of the world's current major issues. I gave my two cents as a feedback on the CBC news page, but my best guess is that my comments won't be published on the CBC site, because they're not politically correct, and/or they'll upset people... and if that's the case, it's okay. The Catholic church will eventually come to its demise one day, with or without media censorship of free thought. It just may take a while... a long, long while. In the meantime, if they fast-track him and make him a saint, then "R.I.P. Humanity" until further notice. Your thoughts? |
| eenaweena 02.04.2007 05:07 |
well, from what i know, they need more than just one story to make a certain person a saint. and he still has to be beatified before he becomes a saint, so, yeah. they still have to prove that JPII did indeed do miracles by getting more than just one miracle story. :) [edit] this just in: JPII isn't beatified yet, so he can't become a saint yet. to become a saint, you have to be beatified first. there is a certain process before someone is beatified, btw. :) |
| john bodega 02.04.2007 05:29 |
Surely a saint wouldn't go all pasty and yellow in his coffin. He'd stay 'fresh' forever, right? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 02.04.2007 06:56 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Surely a saint wouldn't go all pasty and yellow in his coffin. He'd stay 'fresh' forever, right?Most of them claim that, yeah |
| Mr.Jingles 02.04.2007 07:16 |
Sainthood is irrelevant. It's like an athlete making it into the Hall of Fame for his postmortem achievements. I wouldn't even bother making a big deal out of something coming from people who worship a taco just because it happens to look like the Virgin Mary. |
| iGSM 02.04.2007 08:45 |
I don't like any Saints. Except George. He was pretty good. What makes a Saint...a Saint? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.04.2007 09:23 |
iGSM wrote: What makes a Saint...a Saint?A slow-down in donations to the church? A need to restore interest in said church? The recent/convenient death of a well-known figure within the church whom all must aspire to imitate lest they be damned? |
| Dan C. 02.04.2007 09:23 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Sainthood is irrelevant. It's like an athlete making it into the Hall of Fame for his postmortem achievements. I wouldn't even bother making a big deal out of something coming from people who worship a taco just because it happens to look like the Virgin Mary.Have you something against my God, Jingles? |
| OgreBattleField1980 02.04.2007 12:20 |
*enter George Carlin line here* "Do you believe in God? Yes! .. Do you believe in my God? No ... POOF DEAD! ... My god has a bigger dick than your god"! lol |
| user name 02.04.2007 12:46 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: "Such a waiver had only been granted once before, to Mother Teresa." What a horrible disgrace to her name. She is a real saint who spent her life making a difference, selflessly. Your thoughts?I think this statement might not be as true as you (and everyone else) think it is. Of course, then again, it _might_ be true. But like all things, it is not so cut and dry. More to come later. I wouldn't just make a baseless accusation like that. Edit: link link She was reportedly kind of a sadist, adamantly believing that suffering was necessary on the path of Christianity. She also used the funds she received to open convents and to promote Christianity, rather than to actually help the poor in any productive manner. Read up. I'm not saying these things are true, but I am saying it is foolish not to consider them. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 02.04.2007 13:48 |
MusicMan, just to clarify, sadist is not the correct term to use. That term comes from the Marquis de Sade, a French nobleman who used violence and pain as a sexual turn on. Sadism is only a term used for violence that gets sexual gratification. link Suffering physically (usually whipping oneself a la The DaVinci Code) to truly understand what Christ suffered on the cross is more properly termed flagellation. Back to the original point of the post...Bob, why in the world does this surprise you? Humans have never done well without a leader of some kind (political, religious or otherwise) because that would require independant thought, which can be uncomfortable at times. Much easier to just have someone tell you what to do and how to think. (At least that's how the theory runs) They probably will make him a saint, but who cares? Another guy to add to the pantheon of demi-gods....none of them having a very good effect. Let them add him, that's fine. No skin off my nose if they now have one more name on the list to memorize that they can recite at the pearly gates and get into heaven with. I've got better things to do personally than worry about the afterlife. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 02.04.2007 13:54 |
Actually Sir GH, the CBC has been laying a beating on the Catholic church in Canada for their handling, pun not intended ;) of pedophile priests, so I'd think they'd be open to any comments. There was great 5th Estate program recently on how the London archdiocese has had rampant cases of abuse and covers them up. Absolutely shameful. |
| Killer Queenie 02.04.2007 15:20 |
*edit* nevermind |
| user name 02.04.2007 16:42 |
I did inappropriately use the literal term 'sadist.' I merely wanted to get across the point that she promoted suffering. However, thanks for pointing that out, as I am now more familiar with "sadism," and a firm understanding of vocabulary is something I always enjoy attaining. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 02.04.2007 17:50 |
No problem, MusicMan I knew you'd take it as a compliment since I know you deplore ignorance. |
| user name 02.04.2007 18:05 |
Aye, I'm a bit strange. But I guess everyone has to be headstrong in one way or another. |
| Saint Jiub 03.04.2007 00:18 |
This man is not a saint ... link "THE PROMINENT role that the Vatican has bestowed upon Bernard Cardinal Law following the death of Pope John Paul II goes far beyond the merely inappropriate. It is repulsive and offensive, and it makes you wonder whether the Catholic Church has learned anything following the pedophile-priest scandals of the past four years. Law resigned as archbishop of Boston in late 2002, following revelations that he had covered up the crimes of his Roman-collared rapists, and had reassigned many of them to new parishes where, inevitably, they raped again. His departure came nearly two long years after the first of a series of groundbreaking reports in the Boston Phoenix on Law’s culpability in the sexual-abuse crisis. (An archive of the Phoenix’s coverage is online at link The Boston Globe won the Pulitzer Prize for public service by exposing the extent of Law’s culpability. Yet there Law was this past Monday, saying a mass of mourning for the pope at St. Peter’s Basilica, a clear signal that he remains a respected member of the Catholic hierarchy. John Paul’s life has justifiably been celebrated for his many accomplishments: his courageous opposition to communism, his unprecedented outreach to the Jewish community, his opposition to unjust wars (including the war in Iraq), and his advocacy of such social-justice causes as abolition of the death penalty. Within the Church, though, his record was a bitter disappointment to progressives. His persecution of gay and lesbian Catholics, his refusal to ordain women and married men, and his continued opposition to birth control — even to the point of condemning the use of condoms to prevent AIDS — all speak to another, less attractive side of his papacy. Nowhere, though, was the pope more in the wrong than in his passive approach to sexual abuse. John Paul made an example out of Cardinal Law, but it was precisely the wrong kind of example. Law was rewarded with a cushy sinecure in Rome and placed in a position where he could re-emerge, as he now has. The next pope has to get it right when it comes to pedophile priests. He could start by making a very different kind of example of Law, a preening, arrogant man whose willful negligence destroyed so many lives — and who virtually bankrupted the archdiocese for which he was morally, spiritually, and financially responsible." |
| The Real Wizard 03.04.2007 01:34 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I think this statement might not be as true as you (and everyone else) think it is. Of course, then again, it _might_ be true. But like all things, it is not so cut and dry. link link She also used the funds she received to open convents and to promote Christianity, rather than to actually help the poor in any productive manner. Read up. I'm not saying these things are true, but I am saying it is foolish not to consider them.Again, fascinating. Indeed, I was just another person with the popular belief about her. Pretty much everything in popular belief turns out to be bullshit after you read up. |
| Hitman 04.04.2007 05:38 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Surely a saint wouldn't go all pasty and yellow in his coffin. He'd stay 'fresh' forever, right?well some Saints have this "benefit" |
| Mr.Jingles 04.04.2007 07:29 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Then again, who are we to criticize morality issues?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I think this statement might not be as true as you (and everyone else) think it is. Of course, then again, it _might_ be true. But like all things, it is not so cut and dry. link link She also used the funds she received to open convents and to promote Christianity, rather than to actually help the poor in any productive manner. Read up. I'm not saying these things are true, but I am saying it is foolish not to consider them.Again, fascinating. Indeed, I was just another person with the popular belief about her. Pretty much everything in popular belief turns out to be bullshit after you read up. C'mon, let's be real for once. We as human beings have done good and bad things. I (like anybody else) try to act following my moral convictions, but I'm conscious that I've acted wrong a countless number of times (many times with full knowledge of what I was doing). Nonetheless, regardless of the criticisms, Mother Teresa still has done more for humanity than anyone of us. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 04.04.2007 11:19 |
This all goes back to a very old argument, that started development with Peter Abelard in the 12th Century: Which matters more? Your actions and the outcome of your actions, or your intentions? If you took your army and killed 100 people, do we judge it differently than if you say "Those 100 were trying to kill me and my people, so I had to prevent this from occurring"? You bet your butt we do. For Mother Theresa....which matters more? The good deeds she accomplished for others, or the fact that she was ramming religion down their throat and raising money for a very aggressive brand of Catholicism? In the West, we say that intentions matter...which is why there is a difference in punishments for 1st degree murder and manslaughter. If you intended to commit the crime, you will get the full punishment. If it was an accident, you get off with a lighter punishment. Personally, I don't think the debate will ever be solved. But it's interesting to see how this plays out. As for my own viewpoint on her...good deeds are good, but she's tarnished most of them by her intentions. They are still good, but they would have been better had her intentions been more pure. Does she deserve Sainthood? I think Sainthood is a relic of thousands of years ago that should be abolished completely, as no one could be perfect. But that's my opinion. If they want to make her, or Pope John Paul II a saint, fine by me. It doesn't even enter into my realm of consciousness, so let them do what they want. |
| Sherwood Forest 04.04.2007 20:54 |
well he atleast he wasnt a nazi |
| user name 04.04.2007 22:00 |
You make a good point. |
| deleted user 05.04.2007 12:35 |
I actually agree with Music Man about Mother Theresa, but obviously that's not the point of the arguement here. John Paul II was very popular with the right-wing group of Catholics and (seemingly) the rest of the world. He was very media-conscious one the one hand (the whole Popemobile thing and so on) but on the other, ridiculously old-fashioned and highly dislikeable because of it. His treatement of gay and lesbian Catholics, of women in general and his somewhat bizarre antipathy towards abortion and contraception disgusted me. In theory the idea of remaining a virgin till your married works but in practice it just won't. The Catholic church has gained a bit of a reputation for it's old-fashioned, homophobic and slightly sexist views (JPII's refusal to ordain women and so on) and John Paul did little if anything to combat this reputation. He was too superficial. Did little to spread the word of God (I'm not not sure if I believe in all that but he must have done) and instead persecuted gay people and possibly prompted the spread of HIV (keeping in mind many Africans have religion because it's the only thing they feel they can learn from). You can't surely be considered for sainthood unless you've changed the world in someway, truely acted as a Christian at some point. Like St. Francis...Assisi, now that's a poem which really does depict the hypocrisy of the modern-day church. Kind of like John Paul. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.04.2007 12:50 |
My thoughts? This is the Catholic church; one of the most ridiculous perversions of faith to ever disfigure the face of the earth. They started their career by murdering the Gnostics in the early Christian Church, proceeded to alienate the Eastern Christians because the Pope wanted to be in charge of the other Patriarchs, then had a field-day killing the Cathars after 'freeing' the Holy Land from...well, nobody, as nobody needed freeing (Christians, contrary to popular belief, still had free, unhindered passage even after the Turks took over from the Arabs). And that's just the period prior to the high middle ages for you there! |
| Raf 07.04.2007 14:43 |
<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: The Catholic church has gained a bit of a reputation for it's old-fashioned, homophobic and slightly sexist views (...)Slightly? Yesterday I saw on the TV that in a ceremony in Vatican (or was it Rome? Well, something that the Pope participated) they said something about time for women finally arriving, bla bla bla bla bla. How can they support women if only men can get important "jobs" in the Catholic church? |
| john bodega 08.04.2007 10:44 |
Too bad I wasn't in the Vatican in 2005. I coulda given it to his rotting corpse. WHEELBARROW position. urrrgh |
| Hitman 10.04.2007 08:32 |
i am disgusted by the total ignorance of the lasts posts here. who do you think you are to give this heavy judgements to thousands of year of history? do think twice babies |
| AspiringPhilosophe 10.04.2007 08:59 |
I'm curious as to what you mean, Hitman. Granted, some of the posts on this last bit are not the strongest or best communicated, but what about them is ignorant? Is it just because you don't agree with them? If so, state why and give us reasons. Don't just proclaim them ignorant because you don't agree with them. Most of us who are posting here love a good debate, but you have to be able to prove your points. Personally, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issue. |
| Hitman 11.04.2007 07:50 |
Well ThomasQuinn is a well known comunist so i'm not surprised about his anticlerical, clearly exagerated, statements. Everybody easily forget all the charity the Church has made in 2000 years. Somebody else doesn't even know that The Vatican is a State, and that being "priest" or "bishop" is not exactly a "job" and probably noone else has ever listened to a Mess (or just reading a Gospel)and they're not interest in trying to understand the message of Jesus.just polemics. "HOmophobic" about Catholicism is pure madness |
| Mr.Jingles 11.04.2007 08:50 |
I agree with Hitman to some extent, but not completely. Some people in this board only see things with a single perspective. John Paul II did more good than bad things through out his life. Many people just ignore the fact that during WWII he saved many Jewish in Poland from Nazi persecution, and as a Pope he embraced other faiths and gathered with leaders from different religions to find a common ground to build peace. Not to mention that he apologized from all the crimes committed by the Catholic Church through out the past centuries. Now when it comes to the issues of child molestation in which the Vatican has either turned a blind eye, or sent accused priests to a different diocese, I have to say that it's absolutely morally wrong to hide the dirt for the sake of protecting a reputation. The position of the Church on AIDS in Africa and Pre-marital sex where they claim that contraceptives don't work is just bollocks. However, even more retarded is to see people making a big deal about it and blaming the Church for AIDS and teen pregnancies. Regardless of their position, the Catholic Church can't stop people from using condoms, so QUIT WHINING! Another old-fashioned issue is the fact that the Catholic Church prohibits women from being ordained. Which is nothing but a sexist and unfair rule. There's plenty of extremists who believe that the Catholic Church should be destroyed, but it does indeed need to be reformed. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 11.04.2007 11:17 |
I'm glad that Hitman responded. And you are right, to a certain extent. As a graduate student of European history from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, and currently researching a major paper on the subject of religion and reason and the concept of truth, I have to say that I am not anti-church. (When you talk of Church at the time frame I study, it is the Roman Catholic version, unless you specifically state Greek Orthodox). They have done many wonderful things, and have served as a unifying factor in people's lives when everything was going to hell around them. They've also been directly or indirectly responsible for some of the most beautiful architecture, art and music ever produced by humans. John Paul II in particular did many wonderful things during his pontificate, many of which Jingles mentioned. But where I think you may be getting confused, Hitman, is that most of us here (at least the more intelligent ones) are not dissing Jesus or his message or things like that. Most of us have heard sermons or Masses or read the Bible and understand his ideas. What we are talking about is the Dogma of the Catholic Church...that is where we have problems. Jesus never proclaimed that we should establish Saints and worship them almost as much as him...that was something that Catholic Church started (for many reasons I won't bother to get into here, except to say it was probably done to make the conversion from polytheism to Catholicism more palatable). They claimed the right to be the sole interpretor of scripture, and created the dogma to back that up, and future dogma that was based on this right. That's fine, but even the most ardent Catholics admit that you can't live into today's life using the morals that were applicable during the time of Jesus. Otherwise we'd be selling our daughters into slavery, and killing all non-Catholics. Morals have progressed since then, and the Church has not progressed with them. Granted The Church recognizes the need to reform itself on a couple of occasions, but they are only forced to do it when the people drag them, kicking and screaming the whole way, into it. The major abuses within the Catholic Church (which had always been present) weren't addressed until after Martin Luther broke off and created Protestant religion; the Church only addressed the issues that caused the separation when it seemed woefully obvious that they weren't winning back the people who had left. It gives the distinct impression of "Oh, alright. We'll fix things now, since you are making us." We are at another point where the Catholic Church needs to seriously think about reform. For one, people aren't superstitious and uneducated anymore (at least not the majority like it was in the Middle Ages) and sainthood means nothing anymore, besides smacking of possible idolatry. Their stance on priestly marriage should be evaluated, since Jesus never said that priests should be that way, and the scripture even says that if you can't be celibate, then marriage is a good option. Their stance on women in positions of authority is horridly sexist and flies in the face of the fact that women are just as capable as men of doing things, not to mention it ignores the fact that for centuries it was the woman's job to see her children educated in the ideals of religion within the Catholic Church. Their stance on birth control has done nothing but helped to spread AIDS and create huge families which cannot feed themselves. Their stance on gay rights is completely forgetting the whole "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "He who is without sin cast the first stone" thing. Pedophile priests are running rampant, and they have done NOTHING to fix that. It is time for reform of the Church and it's dogma. That is what we are arguing. Do you have a response? |
| sparrow 21754 11.04.2007 13:05 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: I'm glad that Hitman responded. And you are right, to a certain extent. As a graduate student of European history from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, and currently researching a major paper on the subject of religion and reason and the concept of truth, I have to say that I am not anti-church. (When you talk of Church at the time frame I study, it is the Roman Catholic version, unless you specifically state Greek Orthodox). They have done many wonderful things, and have served as a unifying factor in people's lives when everything was going to hell around them. They've also been directly or indirectly responsible for some of the most beautiful architecture, art and music ever produced by humans. John Paul II in particular did many wonderful things during his pontificate, many of which Jingles mentioned. But where I think you may be getting confused, Hitman, is that most of us here (at least the more intelligent ones) are not dissing Jesus or his message or things like that. Most of us have heard sermons or Masses or read the Bible and understand his ideas. What we are talking about is the Dogma of the Catholic Church...that is where we have problems. Jesus never proclaimed that we should establish Saints and worship them almost as much as him...that was something that Catholic Church started (for many reasons I won't bother to get into here, except to say it was probably done to make the conversion from polytheism to Catholicism more palatable). They claimed the right to be the sole interpretor of scripture, and created the dogma to back that up, and future dogma that was based on this right. That's fine, but even the most ardent Catholics admit that you can't live into today's life using the morals that were applicable during the time of Jesus. Otherwise we'd be selling our daughters into slavery, and killing all non-Catholics. Morals have progressed since then, and the Church has not progressed with them. Granted The Church recognizes the need to reform itself on a couple of occasions, but they are only forced to do it when the people drag them, kicking and screaming the whole way, into it. The major abuses within the Catholic Church (which had always been present) weren't addressed until after Martin Luther broke off and created Protestant religion; the Church only addressed the issues that caused the separation when it seemed woefully obvious that they weren't winning back the people who had left. It gives the distinct impression of "Oh, alright. We'll fix things now, since you are making us." We are at another point where the Catholic Church needs to seriously think about reform. For one, people aren't superstitious and uneducated anymore (at least not the majority like it was in the Middle Ages) and sainthood means nothing anymore, besides smacking of possible idolatry. Their stance on priestly marriage should be evaluated, since Jesus never said that priests should be that way, and the scripture even says that if you can't be celibate, then marriage is a good option. Their stance on women in positions of authority is horridly sexist and flies in the face of the fact that women are just as capable as men of doing things, not to mention it ignores the fact that for centuries it was the woman's job to see her children educated in the ideals of religion within the Catholic Church. Their stance on birth control has done nothing but helped to spread AIDS and create huge families which cannot feed themselves. Their stance on gay rights is completely forgetting the whole "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "He who is without sin cast the first stone" thing. Pedophile priests are running rampant, and they have done NOTHING to fix that. It is time for reform of the Church and it's dogma. That is what we are arguing. Do you have a response?agreed. it needs to be 'upgraded'. i further |
| Mr.Jingles 11.04.2007 17:33 |
Sparrow wrote: agreed. it needs to be 'upgraded'.GREAT!! Where can I download my Catholic Church Vista? |
| user name 11.04.2007 18:13 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:It's still in Beta.Sparrow wrote: agreed. it needs to be 'upgraded'.GREAT!! Where can I download my Catholic Church Vista? |
| sparrow 21754 11.04.2007 20:08 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:i heard they went to 8-track.Mr.Jingles wrote:It's still in Beta.Sparrow wrote: agreed. it needs to be 'upgraded'.GREAT!! Where can I download my Catholic Church Vista? |