Page 1 of 8
The Pope is dead
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:29 pm
I'm sure most people have heard the news about the passing of Pope John Paul II. After all the suffering he has gone through it is actually nice to know he has passed on and found true peace. I don't particularly agree with a lot of his (and by extension the Catholic Church's) positions, but he was a true man of peace and compassion. To me that means much more than where he stood on specific issues and makes him someone I have incredible respect for. In a world where we generally see too much of the power hungry, hateful, and selfish, the Pope remains one of the beacons of light.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:03 pm
Thousands of people die everyday, the only reason you give a crap is because he's famous!
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:08 pm
No, I care because he has done more to help this world than almost anyone else. I tend to think people who devote their life to helping others should be remembered.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:21 pm
Not to be sarcastic, but what has he actually done? Because I've heard people going on about all the good he did for the world, but never what he actually did.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:24 pm
If i could i'd devote my life helping the world, but as you say that, what about all those Soldiers in WW2 that were lost that devoted there lifes to save the world from Nazi domination?
John Paul has done alot of things to help the world, but i must agree that hes got too much power, easily one wrong evil pope that they say will be the 7th Pope, he easily could take over the world and rule it with such massive power.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:31 pm
In a way it's a good thing all his pain is over.. Millions of catholics praying for him to survive was a bit strange, considering he was an old man who wanted to die.
"The future starts today, not tomorrow"
- Pope John Paul II
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:33 pm
Give me a break. That may have been the issue in the middle ages (crusades), but it's not so now.
Why does stews seem to be the only mature one here talking about this? He's absolutly right, and I agree with him about certain ideals not seeming right by my standards. But he meant good... by what his definition of good was, which is more than I can say for most of the so-called leaders of the world...
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:45 pm
What about the soldiers of WWII? We have honored them several times every year for more than half a century now. . .
John Paul II's main achievement in my eyes was the amazing work he did reconsiling the differences between the major religions (and denominations). He did a great deal to re-establish connections to the major religions and denomiations. This has in turned helped to make places like Ireland much more peaceful than they would be otherwise. He has also championed the poor worldwide (specifically in Africa). In addition he has been a great supporter of peace through all the turmoil that has occured during his reign. Specifically he was one of the few people to believe that the Iron Curtain would fall and he worked to make that as peaceful and rapid a process as possible. I could go on, but I think that is good enough for now.
What great power does the Pope have? He has finacial resources of course (although considering the amount of money needed to simply upkeep all the property the Church controls that is much less powerful than many think). He has no army after all. He simply has his voice and his will. He is extrodiary because the power he wields is not that of the sword but that of the dove. He does not do what he does through fear and extortion, but through simple force of will.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:51 pm
Stews he may have helped Ireland be more peaceful, he also helped more kids be abused by just pretending none of the abuse cases happened and denied it whenever questioned about it. Not saying he didn't do a lot of good in his time, but if it comes down to a judgement call that is one hell of a black mark against him.
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:01 am
From what I have understood the lack of action reguarding the abuse cases was more a problem with Vatican burocracy than the Pope's indifference. The Pope is actually known for his love of children (and no not in the sick, perverted way). That is one of those things I do disagree with him on though (I would have liked to have seen him deal with it personally, but with his health at it was I don't know what impact he could have had).
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:19 am
The pope is, sort of by definition, a hard-line catholic. The official postion of the Catholic Church is that it is imposable for a officer of the church to do wrong, or for the church to take the wrong path (it has to do with their interpetation of a passage in Luke, I think- "Go and preach onto all men and all nations, and I am with you in all things, even onto the consummation of the world" or something to that effect). They hold the pope to be a direct sucsessor to office held by St Peter, and believe themselves to be the SAME CHURCH. Which is quite a big deal, when you think about it.
Anyway, long story short, thats why they have such difficulty addressing crimes commited by Priests.
John Paul II did not represent my views, but I would like to think that any one who devotes his live to a noble cause, as he did, will be missed.
Edit: It's Matthew 28:19-20. Interpritation by Bishop Challoner (1691-1781)
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:24 am
Umm. . . No, they don't believe priests are perfect. They hold Jesus (and God) are the only perfect people (all though even Jesus was baptised, but if he was actually perfect there would be no need for that). The Vatican routinely disciplines priests, but it does like to keep those things quiet.
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:30 am
They don't believe priests are HOLY, but they do believe they are devinely guided in all they do. There are less ridged views within the church as well, of course. But I'm pretty sure on this. In fact, I have a copy of the The Latin Vulgate (Douay translation) in front of me, with a nice bit about how Anglicans have got it all wrong.
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:51 am
The priciple of infallibility (which I assume is what you are talking about) is in reference to Biblical interpretation (not moral conduct) and generally only applies to the Pope and the Cardinals (to a lesser degree obviously). The Vatican actually has a fairly extensive system of what would otherwise be called courts to deal with questions of misconduct within the Church. Such a structure would not be neccessary if it believed all priests were totally righteous.
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:55 am