Obit: Pope John Paul II

Subject: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,amergin
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 03:39 PM

Regardless of the feelings many may have for this man...I know of the controversies surrounding his life...but I cannot help but have shivvers down my whole body as one of the most powerful men in the world have passed.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 03:42 PM

We ain't none of us perfect. I will miss the man and the good he tried to do.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 03:53 PM

"The Holy Father died this evening at 9:37 p.m. in his private apartment. All the procedures outlined in the apostolic Constitution `Universi Dominici Gregis' that was written by John Paul II on Feb. 22, 1996, have been put in motion."

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: stevi
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 04:03 PM

im'e not catholic or very religious! but feel an empty ness deep inside from his passing.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: The Walrus
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:06 PM

Regardless of what one thought of his policies, he made his mark on the world and, on balance, I believe he left it better than he found it. If only it could be said of us all.

I pray his passing was easy.

To all Catholics on the list, please accept my condolences on your loss.

W

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Beer
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:14 PM

There are times when threads have become bad taste. I hope this will not be one of them. A truly great loss.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:25 PM

Oh give me a break. Progressive Catholics feel this pope was the worst since Pope Pius X.

Don't know who Pope Pius X is? Then stop yer grandstanding about how overcome with grief you are, and what a great guy John Paul II was, because if you aren't Catholic, you truly don't have a clue.

God, these celebrity deaths sure bring out the dregs of pietistic phonies...

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: paddymac
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:33 PM

There have been some truly evil Popes in the history of the Roman Church, and there have been many who were genuinely good people. I think this one was clearly one of the good ones. Like all men, none of them were perfect. Most interestingly, especially as his passing came so close on the heels of that of Ms Schiavo, the Vatican announced last Wednesday, I think, that he had chosen not to go to the hospital. Perhaps he didn't want to be "plugged in" and kept vacantly alive for may years as she was.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:42 PM

Thank goodness JP existed and you, 05:25 PM, do not. Please leave us be... have at least that much compassion.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:43 PM

Ditto what Gnu said.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:45 PM

Pius X didn't say he wasn't infallible

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Brían
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:46 PM

Scott Simon of NPR expressed it well for me: NPR

Brían

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:48 PM

And of course, JP did nothing to silence the Vatican II Heavenly Hootenanny Battle of the Bands.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:50 PM

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Zany Mouse
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:57 PM

Joe: please remove the cowardly posting by the anon guest.

Anon guest: you obviously hold strong views so have the guts to name yourself. Such cowardly behaviour is NOT acceptable on Mudcat.

As to the Pope passing: well as an ex-Catholic I was no longer a member of his flock but I would like to say that he has proved to be a good man who fought long and hard for the downfall of Communism. He stands alone as a Pope who would state his views without fear of criticism and retribution. The World is a sadder place for his going. I hope his successor will pick up the baton.

Rhiannon

---

Well, it's strong and it's harsh, but it's a legitimate opinion. Not the sort of thing we would delete.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:01 PM

Oh good, censor anyone who disagrees with the worship of the pope--especially if it is someone who knows their way around Catholicism. It's the Mudcat way.

Look, the death of the pope has more to do with politics than anything else. If this were an obituary announcing the death of George W. Bush, I don't think you'd see the piety being expressed in this thread, do you? It's not damn different with the pope.

Like it or not, this pope and his College of Cardinals, are every bit as conservative as the Bush White House. If you don't expect a few dissenting views to be expressed over his death, you have your head buried in the sand.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Beer
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:04 PM

Rhianon,
Well said.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:05 PM

"...especially if it is someone who knows their way around Catholicism"

What's the First Commandment, GUEST 06.01?

Don't think anybody worships the Pope

... not allowed

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Brían
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:07 PM

This is troll. Ná bac leis.

Brían

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:07 PM

I gather that guy who didn't use a name up, there said something unpleasant. Scroll on past, that's the best policy.
....................................

Quite a man, quite a Pope. A fierce critic of the excesses of capitalism, and of exploitation, and of all kinds of racism genuinely pro-life, including opposition to the death penalty and to warmaking (including the war in Iraq). Yes, there's stuff to disagree with and to argue about, but there's time for that.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Zany Mouse
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:14 PM

Anon Guest: it wasn't your views I object to. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. What I object to is you posting without having the courage to name yourself.

Rhiannon (and proud to say so)

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:16 PM

Bunch of Vatican murderers. They had absolutely no right to let this man die a natural death.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:30 PM

Not everyone agrees with the propagandistic picture being painted of JP.

He ushered out the progressive orders and replaced them with Opus Dei. He personally oversaw the lobotomizing of the progressive Latin American church, effectively consigning millions of people to abject poverty and despair, out of his paranoia about liberation theology. He steadfastly refused to even consider changing the church's stand on birth control--including condoms, while AIDs ravaged the African continent.

Progressive Catholics are more relieved at his passing than mourning it.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Zany Mouse
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:32 PM

And you're STILL not putting your name! Have the courage of your convictions.

Rhiannon

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Zany Mouse
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:33 PM

Incidentally I do agree with your comment about the AIDS/condom issue.

Rhiannon

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:33 PM

. . . and you know this because you are a progressive Catholic, right?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:36 PM

No, I know this because I pay fucking attention to politics. The pope is a political figurehead of the Roman Catholic Church--remember that little thing called the Holy Roman Empire brucie?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Brían
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:39 PM

I thought what Scott Simon said was very moving.

Brían

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:42 PM

It wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman and it wasn't an empire. Be cool. And be nice. Like him or not, this ain't a bar. The fight can be carried to another thread, no? Let those who wish to pay their respects do so in peace.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:46 PM

We've been through this before on this forum. There is no rule that says obituary threads must be reverential to the deceased. They are threads where the life of the deceased gets discussed. If it's piety you want, go to church and light a candle. This is a public forum, and unless the Catholic Joe and his Catholic clones decide to censor me (which is entirely possible), I'll continue to speak my piece like everyone else here.

You will not be censored ever for having an opinion. You will be deleted if it turns into a personal attack. I have deleted a post above that I felt was nothing more than an attack on you. The same rules will apply to you. --Mudelf--

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:47 PM

Oh.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:48 PM

But you seem so angry? Bad decade?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:52 PM

GregF--did you not hear they tried their darndest to keep him artificially alive in recent days--both a respirator and a feeding tube.

For those of you who don't know what death looks like, the high fever they were talking about is also very common when someone is dying. The "urinary infection" was bogus--his kidneys had shut down, and the ketones were building up which was the cause of the "blood problems".

Somebody at the Vatican made damn sure this death followed the "culture of life" standard they came out in support of with Terri Schiavo in the last couple weeks. But then again, another camp at the Vatican came out in the last few weeks and started talking up opposition to the death penalty. That shows the secret battle behind the papal throne between the forces of progressivism and the forces of traditionalism, positioning themselves for the vote.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:55 PM

But that tension has existed since Constantine. You are adding nothing new to the thread of history. I will start another thread where you can rail against the Church. Leave the man alone. He is dead.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:57 PM

I do get pissed off when I post an opinion that his at odds with the majority, and the first impulse of the sheep here is to either shout me down or demand I be censored, yeah. Does that make me overly sensitive? I don't think so. Especially when people say shit like "I'd like to meet your mother and slap her for bringing you up such an ignorant piece of fucking garbage." And I believe you seconded that, right brucie?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:00 PM

Why argue with someone who chooses not to be present?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:03 PM

"Thank goodness JP existed and you, 05:25 PM, do not. Please leave us be... have at least that much compassion."

The above is what I said ditto to, GUEST. Go take a look. No apology necessary.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:04 PM

I see McGrath, you are doing your usual bang up job of ignoring guest posts.

Look, this isn't that big a deal to most Catholics. Most Catholics won't go to mass because pope died. Most Catholics won't do anything in particular to note his passing. This will be a big deal for many Polish Catholics, many Italian Catholics, but mostly, to the extreme right wing of the Catholic church. Everybody else is just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame in front of the TV cameras, and be part of the "phenomenon" the same way they do with the death of any celebrity.

We saw the same thing when Princess Diana died. This is no different.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:06 PM

It IS a big deal to most Catholics. And it is to those who have posted here, GUEST. Do you want me to start your thread or not?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:07 PM

Well don't know that this is the time or place for any of the pro or anti Pope vitriol.........he was a gentle old guy who I hope died peacefully. As to the rights and wrongs of Papal politics I guess its the same as all the others.........some good, some bad' driven by belief systems or custom and tradition and ultimately able to be challenged at any number of different levels. What remains true is that large multi-nationals be they religious, commercial, political or (as they probably all are) a combination of all three often don't acknowledge or respond in a rational way to the massive responsibilities they have. The head Honcho gets the flack especially if they happen to die in office. In commerce they might be paid off early or in politics have some grotesque honour bestowed upon them. Not so in the Papacy! I don't have guests knowledge of papal politics but the Catholic church does have issues it needs to address..........I watched Shoes of the Fisherman the other day based on the Graham Greene novel which does a good job of exposing the internal and external machinations of true Papal power..........quite erudite for its time circe 1960's when it details the election of a Russian Pope whose attemps at sensitivity and reform are inhibited by the Vatican mafia. I suspect that I might agree with guest on many of the issues that s/he has with Catolicism and its failures, however a meek weak old guy has died and I don't think any good is done by posthumous personal attacks.I believe the Pope is merely a figurehead fronting a significant machine which has a corporate political structure. Big question who next ? What nationality? Will they have or be allowed to have their own agenda........................???
Franl

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:08 PM

er...........Frank

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:08 PM

I have respect for the man, what he stood for, and his manner of leadership and charisma. That doesn't mean I agreed with him in all things. He will be missed.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:11 PM

OK, let's poll everybody here. How many of you who have contributed to this thead are practicing or lapsed Catholics?

And bullshit this is a big deal to most Catholics, brucie. I'm watching my local news, and in our archdiocese cathedral, which is HUGE, the pews for the mass for the pope aren't even 1/8th full, in a church that normally is 3/4 full every Sunday. It ain't like we haven't been expecting today's announcement from the Vatican, so it wasn't like the faithful couldn't make advance plans to get to mass.

Hell, they didn't even interrupt the Saturday sports schedule on two of the three main networks here in the US.

The only "big" coverage of the pope's death on TV here is coming from the perpetual breaking news 24/7 channels: CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM

BTW Guest I believe you to be totally wrong in your last post.....Catholics will care and mourn,and no I ain't one.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:13 PM

Lapsed, but still human

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:13 PM

And I'm with whomever quoted Garrison Keillor here recently: "The death of an old man is not a tragedy".

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:14 PM

He will be missed by some, but not by all.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:14 PM

tho' I was once

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:15 PM

GUEST,

I don't think this is the time or the place.

BM

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:17 PM

And you are entitled to your opinion. But it doesn't make you right and me wrong.

And now, appropriately, I'm off to see an original play called "Deviled Eggs"--a play about Christ's resurrection from Satan's perspective.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:17 PM

Brucie, et al. Forgive them, for they know not...

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:18 PM

I have not said I think you are wrong (or right). I think you have lousy timing. Enjoy the play.

PS The butler did it.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:18 PM

OK, I forgive you both.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:19 PM

Guest - you're a prat. No-one's censoring you. Just take it to another thread. Like brucie said, leave the man alone, he's dead. If you've got issues with christianity, take it to another thread.

Not "shut up", just take it to another thread. Capisce? I don't like christianity, I especially don't think much of the dogmatic catholicism that Karol was fond of, but he did the best he knew how to & was at least consistent.

Now leave it alone in this thread, will you? Take it somewhere else & let those who have some respect pay their respects. Oh yeah, & give yourself a name, just so's we know who we're talking to.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:20 PM

Doesn't make you right, neither.

Hope you enjoy the play, however.

So there is a Hell, is there?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:23 PM

And remember guest............if it is devilled eggs


he who sups with the devil should use a long spoon



rather than use it for stirring things up here

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Padre
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:23 PM

May the soul of John Paul rest in peace, and may light perpetual shine upon him.

Padre

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:24 PM

Amen to that Padre

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:28 PM

You know what? Why don't those of you who are only interested in eulogizing, why not start yourselves a eulogizing prayer thread for the pope, and I'll be happy to stay out of it. Obituaries include both the good and the bad like this from the BBC:

"Despite the Pope's progressive, hands-on leadership, he is not without his critics, particularly over his views on contentious issues such as divorce, contraception and abortion.

At a Vatican conference in 2001 he spoke out against laws allowing divorce, abortion, homosexual unions and rights for unmarried couples.

Critics both inside and outside the church say such views risk alienating many Catholics and are out of touch with a rapidly changing world."

Some reason why we should all just fall into lock step, and pretend that this man wasn't a polarizing figure, just because he died? He was a controversial public figure. To expect a holier than thou obituary thread about him just isn't realistic, IMO.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Clifton Jiminez
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:28 PM

I wonder if GUEST is actually happy that the Holy Father has passed on.

He/She sounds like it

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:29 PM

Amen.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:30 PM

"At a Vatican conference in 2001 he spoke out against laws allowing divorce, abortion, homosexual unions and rights for unmarried couples."

Did you vote for Bush, incidentally?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:30 PM

I am happy he passed on. He was an old man, he lived a full life, and I hated a lot of what he did "in the name of god".

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:31 PM

That was a short play, GUEST.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:33 PM

Hey Guest why not finish the rest of that bottle and go sleep it off

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:33 PM

So part of the reason you are happy he's dead, is because you hated him?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:36 PM

Not to make this political, but he did more to bring down Communism than Ronald Reagan did.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:36 PM

Esteban.........think guest said he hated what he did rather than the man although I can see where you're coming from given the nature of his/her posts

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:38 PM

Good point guest but are you the original guest or someone else ?????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:39 PM

I know what he said, Frug

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Standish Joyce-Gautier
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:41 PM

Not to make this POLITICAL?

That would put it below the line.

I like it up here when it's all about music

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Skipy
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:50 PM

"Guest" you have a lot to say & a lot of valid points!
But I for one am not interested in you as you hide behind a Guest tag.
Come our & identify yourself, you can use a name of your choice, but use something! "Guest" just means coward out here! The passing of the Pope to me means nothing more than the death of an 84 year old man with Parkinsons, to billions it means a lot more & they have the right to believe whatever they wish. I hope his passing was without too much pain & sorry for him as an individual. I am lead to believe that he has helped to make this world a safer place for my children, if this is the case then I thank him, if this is not the case then I thank him for at least trying.
Skipy. (well eastablished atheist)

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:56 PM

Hey, I'm sorry he has died but if his is indeed a Christain then he is in a better palce now...

But with that being said, I have mixed feelings about John Paul. Yeah on one side of the fence he spoke out for the underdog and he spoke out for peace... That's good! Real Good!!!

One the other side, he was very much a sexist in continuing to sipport archaic attitudes toward woman and afmily planning???

Like how can one be for the impoverished while ordering them to have more babies???

But, sniff, he has been with us all a long time. He has preached peace so, like I said, a mixed bag...

But I'm not expecting anyone more progressive as a replacement. Probably older so that the church won't have 30 some years of service out of the next pope. That cramps their style...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: kendall
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:58 PM

He was old, he was sick, he believed in a better life to come, so why mourn?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:00 PM

Because people do, kendall.

And they should be allowed to do so

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:02 PM

Ya know, when I asked "Please leave us be... have at least that much compassion.", it was as a reasonable request.

It's kinda like when I tell them religious people who think they are sent by Jesus to ring my doorbell early on Saturday morning, and I remind them that Jesus speaks to all his children, and that he left a message for them that reads, "Don't ever ring this particular doorbell again or I will smite you. I like this guy. Leave him alone." They get the message.

Same deal. You naysayers are worse than the best of them doorbell ringers. And you are less welcome. Don't you get the point or are you really that fucking stupid? Even professional flamers and trolls would show some respect. You guys are just plain dirt.

POOF. I am a Fairy.

gnightgnu

PS... Hey, JP, wait up. I got some names for purgatory... but they're all "GUEST". What, NO SHIT! You can do that? Way cool dude. Let's grab a cool one and go over the list. I've got some favourites. Really? You too? No, not U2... You like them 2? Cool.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Cleo Lindsay
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:07 PM

Aren't 'Progressive' and 'Catholic' mutually exclusive?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: jaze
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:13 PM

Guest must be related to Marvin Gibbon. They sure sound alike.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:18 PM

Martin would not do such a thing. Period.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:21 PM

Yes he would brucie, and you know it

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:25 PM

Do you people learn anything? This person has shown you over and over that s/he feeds on your anger. To even acknowledge this person's vitriol only feeds her/him. Those that respond are acting in an ignorant and irresponsible way if you tire of this stuff on the Mudcat.

God be good to this man. I had severe disagreements with him in a number of areas, but he was consistent. And he was an ardent supporter of workers rights, as well as a critic of the Iraq war. I believe he acted out of conscience, out of his strong convictions. Bush is a hypocrite, he says one thing, does another. One never had to wonder where the Pope was coming from.

On NPR this afternoon, they interviewed a boyhood friend who was Jewish. He told the story of how, at age 13, Karol Wotyla came to his home on Saturday and asked him to come and play soccer on his team. The boyhead friend explained that it was the Sabbath for Jews and he had to take his Mother to Synagogue. The friend said that the future Pope was very apologetic for not realizing this. And Wojtyla went on to tell the young Jew that he would be blessed for being faithful to his religion. The old man said that a hallmark of his boyhood friend, even at the young age of 13, was tolerance of others religions.

Yeah, he was very rigid when it came to the ordination of women, and on the issue of abortion/death penalty/pro life. But he reached out to the world, he ministered to the young, he chastised world leaders, spent Christmas Eve with the man who attempted to kill him, and a week from his death he was still trying to minister to his flock. He always spoke of how every part of life, even the pain and the dying, was sacred. And he went to meet his boss faithful to those principles to the end. He was a true mystic, and loved every single one of us. God be good to him.

Mick

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:29 PM

I disagree. Martin has tolerance for the religions of others. There is no way he would do what has been done here today.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:43 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Last rites given....
From: Martin Gibson - PM
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 04:23 PM

As a non-Christian, I admire the Pope and feel he was a true person of good.

Those that ridicule him and what he stands for, please remember, when it's your turn to go, good chance no one will give much of a damn and do any praying for you.

*************************************************
Guess again Guest.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:48 PM

ROFLMAO

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:50 PM

"Do you people learn anything? This person has shown you over and over that s/he feeds on your anger."

I haven't seen much anger displayed here today, Mick. FYI.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,working class spiritual boy
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:55 PM

I feel fuck all for him..

he and his corporate religion are a damned despicable irrelivence...

I am very angry and despise the weakness

of the slaves of institutional religous fascism..

I wish the real jesus would return

to cast all these bogus evil fuckers out of the temple of 'our' father

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Charlie from Ashby de la Zouch (by the sea)
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:55 PM

Mick knows something we don't, brucie....

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:56 PM

Even I think this one is a big fat hairy deal.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:56 PM

That's a personal attack.

Mick, Mick, where are you?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Brían
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:56 PM

Lord, lift me out of the small annoyances that take up too much of my energy. I believe in your resurrection from the dead. I thank you for the peace that you bring, putting all our lives into perspective.


Brían

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 09:04 PM

I won't repost the Lenny Bruce quote from his "Religions, Inc" here although it reflects much of what I beleive about organized religion. That said though, the one thing that differentiates people in any belief system or personal philosophy is courage of conviction. That doesn't mean rigidity, but instead the ability to defend your position while being open to opposing views......perhaps even to occasionally be won over.

I think this is what marked the life of John Paul II. And it is that that makes me feel a certain closeness to this man who I would pretty much disagree with across the board. Odd as this may seem, the attributes I admired most of John Paul II actually were shared by my Mom. Our minister had had long and far reaching argummnets/discussions with her during the long three years she had been ill and when she died akmost 40 years ago he said at her funeral, "You didn't have to agree with Margie but you knew where she stood." That is also what is being said of John Paul and for me at least, that is high praise and something worthy of aspiring to.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 09:38 PM

I will only say that, while I disagreed with much of what he taught, the world is poorer tonight.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 09:49 PM

He defined Roman Catholicism, I suspect.

I 'lapsed' over many issues. First and foremost over the issue of 'Confession', which I thought to be just a smoke-screen to enable the Clergy to keep their ear far too close to the ground, for my liking.
I wasn't old enough to be thinking of condoms, at that stage of my life.

That said, I never wanted to twist the Catholic Church to what my interpretation should be of it. If it doesn't suit you, leave it, and make up your own version of the religion.

I can rain criticisms down on most 'Organised' religions, for the control they exert over their followers.

But remember.... They are followers of the faith. And that is their business.

John Paul II upheld the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. I have no doubt of his faith, and of his belief that he was carrying out the work of God.

I'm also a little skeptical about the existence of God bit, as well, if the truth be known, but as I say, I can admire his faith, his conviction, his Ecumenical work, and the fact that he was a genuine person.

I liked him.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 11:30 PM

I hope they play Mel's "The Passion" during the funeral intermission. That'll get His Holiness' Legions fired up.

I see no real need to respectful of a man I had no respect for, and that goes for gnu tew.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Lenny's evil twin
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 11:44 PM

President Clinton and the Pope died on the same day, and due to an administration foul up, Clinton was sent to heaven and the Pope to hell. The Pope explained the situation to the Devil. He checked out all of the paperwork, called the Pearly Gates admitting office, and the error was acknowledged. The Pope was told, however, that it would take about 24 hours to fix the problem.

The next day the Pope was called in, the Devil said his good-bye, and he began his journey to heaven. Along the way, he met Clinton, who was on his way down. They stopped to chat.

The Pope said, "Sorry about the mix-up. By the time you get to hell, it's really too late to save any souls."

Clinton replied, "No problem. I'm sure I'll be with more familiar company down below, anyway."

The Pope continued, "Well, I'm really excited about going to heaven."

"Why's that?" Clinton asked.

"All my life I've wanted to meet the Virgin Mary," the Pope replied.

"Oh," said Clinton. "I'm afraid you're a day late."

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: johnfitz.com
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:24 AM

Good joke. Nice one to read at the bottom of these postings. I find it awful hard to not like the guy. I think he's got more cahunas and brains than all of us put together. I bet even "guest" would have been impressed if he sat down with John Paul and talked philosophy or politics--in about thirty different languages. John Paul did not back down from saying what he felt to anybody. By all accounts, he led a truly prayerful life. His prayers just led him to a different spot than the average folksinger sort. Guest has the right to his views, but I think that John Paul's substance is more informed and less petty. I am not saying that to piss him off, because it is equally true if myself. When they asked Mozart why he remained a Catholic, he said, "Everything else is just in your head."

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:00 AM

I've been at the California convention of Call to Action this weekend. It's a progressive Catholic organization that advocates the ordination of women and married men, and the recognition of the dignity of homosexuals. The organization also takes a strong stance in favor of social justice. Although many members oppose abortion, most also oppose legal restrictions on abortion. I and most of the members of Call to Action have been deeply disappointed by Pope John Paul II in many ways.

No doubt, many of John Paul's rules will be broken at our closing liturgy (Mass) on Sunday at noon. The presiders at Mass will probably be married and unmarried priests, male and female, straight and gay. Still the organization is very Catholic in its theology and tradition. We want to reform our Catholic Church, not start a new religion. Most of us have been Catholic all our lives. Many of us have degrees in Theology from Catholic institutions (so do I). Many conservative Catholics and many outsiders think the Catholic faith requires strict obedience and conformity, but that's not what I learned in my Catholic theological training. There is a good amount of room for dissent and disagreement and diversity among Catholics. Catholics in Lincoln, Nebraska, were have been excommunicated for belonging to Call to Action, but Lincoln is the only diocese that has taken such a severe measure against the organization.

During the convention many of us would check the radio at breaks, to hear the latest news on the Pope. Many were also checking the scores of the Illinois game today, and the two actions seemed strangely similar. Still, when the news came, there was a sincere feeling of regret. He was a good man, a man who stood up for peace and for social justice in many ways, but he hurt many Catholics by his strictly conservative views on gender and reproductive issues. Some of the participants were friends with theologians whose views had been suppressed by this pope. There was relief at the end of his reign, but also a feeling of uncertainty about the future. It could well be that John Paul's successor will be more conservative. If that happens, I'm afraid that many progressive Catholics will just give up.

May John Paul II rest in peace, and may the Catholic Church elect a new pope who truly stands for love and justice and equality - and diversity.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:06 AM

I'm not a Catholic, but two of the last few church services I attended were Catholic Masses - and the church was packed on both occasions.

I'm not a supporter of many of the Catholic tennents (no divorce, no contraception, celibate male priesthood to name but 3), but I do respect those who choose to live that way.

I'm not overly fond of instutional religion either, but I accept that many people choose to live their lives that way and that they have the right to follow one leader if they so choose.

As I've said in other threads, I don't have to agree with the man to respect his faithfulness and his courage.

I'm not a Catholic, but I'm sad that such a charismatic and faithful person has gone. I'm also glad for him, he made a fairly peaceful end after a long, eventful and world shattering life, which is more than most people can ever hope for.

In the end, he was human, with all the vulnerabilities and weaknesses that brings with it.

LTS

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Leadfingers
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:57 AM

Despite his views on abortion and contraception he did a lot more good than harm - At least his passing was peaceful .

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Leadfingers
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:59 AM

And Ted ?? 100 !!

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:33 AM

...Then said he, "I am going to my Father's, and tho' with great difficulty I am got hither, yet now I do not repent me of all the Trouble I have been at to arrive where I am.

"My Sword I give to him that shall succeed me in my Pilgrimage, and my Courage and Skill to him that can get it. My Marks and Scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me that I have fought his Battles who now will be my Rewarder."

When the day that he must go hence was come, many accompanied him to the Riverside, into which as he went he said, "Death, where is thy Sting?" And as he went down deeper he said, "Grave, where is thy Victory?" So he passed over, and all the Trumpets sounded for him on the other side.

(Mr Valiant for Truth's passing, Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan)

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 08:51 AM

His interior (within RC church) politics was awful and very conservative. His exterior (towards other religions and re general politics) politics was mostly good and even progressive. He had the ability to make it easy even for people disagreeing with his politics to like him. He seemed to have a genuine interest in the people he met. His will power and determination in the teeth of illness and approaching death was admirable.

I couldn't but feel for him and admire him in his last weeks.

The bad he has done within the church is depicted in this joke (I may even heard it first in Mudcat):

A RC priest has died and comes into heaven. Upon entering and meeting god he says: "I know I'm not supposed to question your ways, but I'd like to ask you three things." "Go on, says god"
"First, I'd like to know whether Catholic priest will ever be allowed to marry." "Not as long as John Paul II is pope"
"Sigh, I thought so. But then, will there ever be a reform of the liturgy and a reapporachment of the Christian churches?" "Not as long as John Paul II is pope"
"I'm not going to ask you how long he'll live that's up to you, but will there be another Polish pope?" "Not as long as I'm god".

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 11:06 AM

"No doubt, many of John Paul's rules will be broken at our closing liturgy (Mass) on Sunday at noon"

Then it wont be Sunday 'Mass', Joe.
And because many of the Roman Catholic Church's rules will be broken, you cannot call yourself a Roman Catholic either, I'm afraid.

Sorry Joe, but if you're breaking the rules (like I did, and continue to do), you can't call yourself a Catholic, and although I too have had the label of Catholic attached to me all my life, I'm at least honest enough to admit that I was never following what values the Church laid down for me.

Rules are rules, Joe.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 11:33 AM

... For just like the Mudcat, you don't get to make them...

;-)

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 11:41 AM

It doesn't work like that, Esteban. The fact that a few rules were being broken wouldn't in any way stop it being a perfectly valid Mass.

Catholicism is a lot more flexible and adaptable than a lot of people appreciate. (After all, that's one of the things catholic with a smallc implies in other contexts.)

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 11:57 AM

So, is this a thread about the pope or a thread about me?

Good point Esteban Sykes. Although your honesty will piss off most of the Mudcat loyalists.

I find it just bizarre that nearly everyone here thinks JP wasn't a great man for what he DID have influence over, which is the teachings of the church that affected billions of people (birth control, ordination of women, cohabitation of couples, racism and sexism around the world, accepting gays and lesbians into the church, divorce, etc) but was a great man for what he DIDN'T have any influence over (wars, detente and the collapse of Soviet communism, the arms race, etc.)

I mean, to use a yardstick of greatness to measure a man who clearly doesn't match up to it seems phony to me. People think he's great because he is a celebrity, first and foremost. Not a holy man, a celebrity. Or as they keep saying on TV "a rock star pope".

People succumb to the emotional appeals of the celebrity driven media about this stuff. Just like with Princess Diana. Remember all the people that said "what a great woman, she did so many great things for the world" and then couldn't really name anything she herself had accomplished? Same thing with this pope. He travelled alot. He accepted Bono at the Vatican, and they talked about shoes. He was charismatic. People were in awe of him, but he was really just a regular guy.

Anytime someone like this dies, the majority of people, regardless of their relationship to the deceased, go into icon worship mode, as this thread illustrates. If you read through this thread again, you will see people say "he was a great man, even though...." and then list all the things that undermines the assertion that he was "great".

So let me say these very nice things about the pope. He wasn't a tyrant in the sense of a Saddam Hussein or a George W. Bush. He (thankfully) had no armed forces, and his security detail got better over time. He was very famous, and knew how to rub elbows with the richest, most famous, and most powerful people in the world. He had great shoes.

As a leader of his flock, I just plain can't see where he gave the majority of them what they so desperately needed in life, but which his position demands in spades: dignity.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:06 PM

Perhaps you could elucidate on the Roman Catholic Church's flexibility and adaptability as regards "married priests, male and female, straight and gay"?

To operate within the tenets of the Catholic Church is fine, McGrath, and I'm well aware of the flexibilities within the religion.

But as far as I'm aware, the line quoted from Joe Offer does not read like a secene from any Mass that I have ever attended. I still go to Weddings, Christenings, and Funerals, but I don't take Holy Communion...., only because I don't feel myself to be in a state of Grace, and I'm not going to just go through the motions.

If you believe in 'The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church', you cannot then pull that credo apart, and fill in the bits you don't like.

Many Roman Catholics are quite happy the way things are. Those that arent, should take a leaf out of the book of the American Anglicans, and go their own way.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:07 PM

"Guest," whyoncha take it on over to the Pope non-obit thread and respect those who feel that this thread should not be a referendum on his reign as Pope. You don't have to, of course. But it *would* be mighty civil of you. I have some to say, myself, but I will keep it over there where we can have a more free-wheeling discussion without unnecessarily offending people.

Subject: Discussing Spirituality at Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:22 PM

... discussion without unnecessarily offending people...

This is simply not realistically possible at Mudcat. There are quite a few Mudcatters whose beliefs are very different from mine, with whom I know I could have a fruitful discussion on just about any topic in person or even, perhaps, by correspondence at a distance. But Mudcat threads? They invariably become reactive displays of rigidity. I guess this is what is called "signal-to-noise" ratio.

I don't have a need to eulogize John Paul II, but I do feel a desire to write reflectively about the impact he had on my spiritual life. I've come to understand that much as I might benefit from dialog about it with a good number of Catters-- known to me and as-yet unknown-- it's better done in another environment.

So saulgoldie, nice try my friend... but I'd encourage you not to waste any good energy on trying to untangle what inevitably re-tangles.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:23 PM

I was raised Catholic by my intellectual father, who eventually quit the church because he couldn't reconcile himself to it. A few members of my family have remained Catholic. My in-laws (really large family) are VERY Catholic. Our kids went to a Catholic school for a few years. So I do still go to mass fairly often for family reasons, even though I am not a practicing Catholic and haven't been for decades (though our kids were baptised Catholic). I always go to the traditional services, and don't have a problem with them per se. I do have a problem though with the hypocrisy of the "let's do our own thing and leave out the parts we don't like" faction though, and would side with Esteban for that reason.

There are aspects of the Catholic church I still love--the rituals especially, and the seven sacraments in particular. The beauty of the older music. A lot of the art. I love the fact that I can go anywhere in the world and find a Catholic community of people who will welcome me, even though I am a lapsed secularist. I love that the church will feed, clothe, house, heal, and educate anyone who comes to them if they can. I love the incense. I love the candles. I love the meditative side of the religion.

Now, if you look closely at that list, you will see none of it has anything to do with the pope. That is as it should be. Catholics need to get rid of the Roman hierarchy, and take back their church. About that much, Joe Offer is certainly correct.

As much as I disagree with the Catholic church's positions on the treatment of women especially, I can also say this positive thing about the pope. I'm glad he brought the Black Madonna icon into the Vatican, and blessed her crown on his death bed. Now, if only he had had the guts to do it while he was alive, and open the church up in that regard, I might still be Catholic today.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:30 PM

"I do have a problem though with the hypocrisy of the "let's do our own thing and leave out the parts we don't like" faction though, and would side with Esteban for that reason"

"Catholics need to get rid of the Roman hierarchy, and take back their church. About that much, Joe Offer is certainly correct."

Which is it, GUEST

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:38 PM

IMO Esteban, the Roman hierarchy isn't the church. It's the bureaucrats who took it over circa the 11th-13th c.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:49 PM

And lest we forget, there are over 250 million Orthodox Christians who wouldn't agree the pope was such a great guy either, including a good number of folks in his old neighborhood in Poland. But we never hear about THEIR opinion of the pope, now do we?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:00 PM

Whoever they are, they are still the 'Church' though, Guest.
Those are the cards we are dealt at baptism.

For the record... I have no problem with married priests, gay priests, women priests, divorce, sex before/outside marriage, abortion, condoms, and all those other no-nos that we (as Catholics) are told we can't do.

There's a long list, there; too long for any 'reforms' to return anything like the present RC Church.
It will be something else.

If it is the fate of the RC Church to fade back into the realms of insignificance to present-day life, then so be it, IMO

There are those who like it as it is (like you, Guest, I come from a very large, very committed, very faithful RC family), and they don't want change.
Quite possibly a very sizeable majority of the couple of million people that are expected to pass through St. Peter's Square over the next few days, like the Church just the way it is, too.

I can't see the problem with the formation of 'The Church Of Progressive Catholics', or whatever. People can make up their own rules then, safe in the knowledge that heaven is at the end of the journey, without all the guilt and sin of yesteryear.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:32 PM

No, the Orthodox Catholics AREN'T part of the Roman Catholic church! That's what the 11th century Schism was all about. They DON'T recognize the pope. The old mode of Orthodox church government was the Patriarchate (remember, they left in a huff and went to Constantinople!). Nowadays, the Patriarchate has much less governmental authority over Orthodox Catholics, because of church governance reforms that the Roman Catholic church would have been wise to incorporate too.

Nowadays, for the most part, the Eastern Orthodox Catholic form of church governance is decentralized and churches are self-governing. They are held together by a holy synod of both bishops AND laymen (no women, of course). The patriarchs are now MODERATORS of the synod, and are not imbued with executive powers like the pope is. Also, there are many Orthodox churches that do not recognize or "report to" the Patriarchate, and they are considered to be perfectly legitimate. One example of a very ancient Orthodox church which doesn't fall under the control of the Patriarchate is the church of Mt. Sinai.

Now, the Patriarchate has, throughout much of it's history, fallen under control of the emperor/rulers who ruled the lands by force (for example, Justinian I, the rulers of the Ottoman Empire, etc). The patriarch of Constantinople never amassed the jurisdictional powers and privleges that the papacy in Rome did. The reason why is because of the autonomy of the churches in Russia, the Balkans, and Greece. The Patriarchate fought that, of course, because they did try to amass jurisdictional powers that Rome had. But the Patriarch of Constantinople was never able to centralize it's authority over the minority Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch. And then there are the seven national churches.

If you want to know the REAL story about JP's anti-communist stance, you can easily look at the history of the Bolshevik revolution and it's destruction of the Russian Orthodox church. That lead to a split of the Russian Orthodox church that continues down to this day. Not coincidentally, every pope of the 20th century has conveniently exploited this split (especially Pope Pius XII, who made a pact with Hitler to "fight communism"), in an attempt to suck the millions of Russian Orthodox Catholics into the Roman Catholic church.

JP's "anti-communist" ideology is deeply rooted in THAT political history of the battle between the Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church, not the stuff of detente, glasnost, and Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" crap.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:51 PM

Thank-you John Paul II for recognizing the Black Madonna.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:14 PM

Do you know what the significance of him recognizing the Black Madonna is dianavan? Hint: it has NOTHING to do with pagan worship of goddesses.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:31 PM

There are quite a few married Catholic priests - even in our diocese we have some. (They used to be Anglican vicars and moved over). And of course in the Uniate churches - which are full members of the church, and will have representatives in the Conclave - married priests are routine, as they always have been.

That kind of thing is purely a matter of regulations that could be changed at any time. I can't imagine it'll be long before that change comes in. After all, St Peter had a mother-in-law.

And I heard someone the other day say it's estimated that 50 per cent of Catholic priests in the USA are gay. Whatever that actually means in a celibate lifestyle.

True enough, there's a lot of hypocracy around and a lot of fudging. But it's not as rigid as a lot of people make it out to be, either because they think it's too rigid, or because they wish that it was more rigid.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:57 PM

You have married Roman Catholic priests do you McGrath? Well, that explains YOUR bizarre postings of late.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:59 PM

These guys perhaps?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Brían
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:09 PM

Yeah, what Joe Offer and "Spaw said. BTW, the Virgin was not white.

Brían

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:15 PM

Didn't the RC's institute an order of RC-ordained clergy who had been married before becoming RC, like Anglican clergy who "swam the Tiber" as we call it? To help address the priest-shortage? Do they have different responsibilities/authorities sacramentally?

~S~

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:15 PM

BTW, nor was Jesus, if you believe there was such a thing as an historical Jesus.

I believe this is what McGrath was talking about. There was a teeny tiny TEMPORARY ONE TIME ONLY dispensation made for married Anglican priests becoming Catholic priests, in order to allow for the conversion of entire congregations.

The Holy See has NOT approved married priest in general, and even the Anglicans turned Catholic priests, must adhere to the vow on celibacy if widowed.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:16 PM

Guest - I don't know why the Pope, personally, chose to recognize the Black Madonna but I suspect it has to do with his Polish roots. Do you have another story? I don't really care why he chose to do it, I only know that it will open up intellectual inquiry.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:21 PM

And this article speaks to the brutality of the Holy See's position on celibacy and homosexuality within the hierarchy. Now mulitply that times all the gay and lesbian lay people who suffer in silence as well. And their families, their children, etc.

John Paul's position on this has been nothing short of barbaric.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:23 PM

Yes, the fact that he chose to sanction the Polish Black Madonna has to do with his Polish roots. But it is the political reasons why he chose to do it that matter. It is another attempt to grab converts from the Orthodox church by showing this "new tolerance" (as if) of one of their most beloved, most worshipped religious icons. It isn't even a tip of miter to Marianism.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Big Tim
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:24 PM

I think, GUEST, that you could learn much from the late Pope, especially re bitterness, intolerance and anger management. The man was a uniter, you seem to be a divider.

As an atheist of 40 years standing, I respect and admire John Paul, because I believe that he was a very good human being.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:25 PM

BTW, there are several icons, each known as "The" "Black Madonna."

~S~

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:37 PM

Big Tim, if you are an atheist, why should I take your word over my own personal experience of Roman Catholicism? The American Roman Catholics who are the staunchest supporters of this pope are extreme right wingers--like those who support the Right to Life movement--and who are Bush Republicans.

This pope has been nearly as divisive to the American Roman Catholic laity as Bush has been to the US electorate. Despite the disagreement over the 2 Gulf Wars notwithstanding, Dubya and John Paul are two conservative extremist peas in a pod. And I don't care how much the American news media tries to remake the image of this pope over into a Reagan anti-communist hero, that just ain't the reality of this pope's reign.

There are very few Europeans weighing in on this thread, and the majority of them seem to be pretty conservative Roman Catholics themselves, including Brian and McGrath of Harlow. However, my experiences travelling throughout Europe during the reign of this pope has also shown me that this pope was much less popular in most of Western Europe than he is in the US. And because of the meddling of this pope, women's rights in Poland have nearly been turned back to the Middle Ages. All thanks to the religious conservatism and backlash against women's rights among the leaders of Solidarity and the other Polish trade unions.

I have a Polish sister in law, a Roman Catholic feminist, who thinks this pope is WORSE than the influence of communism in Poland when it comes to women's rights.

You see, Roman Catholics aren't just one big happy family who loves their Big Daddy unquestioningly.

First and last warning. This is an obit thread, not a discussion of what you hate about the Catholic Church. If you want to discuss that, then fair enough. Do it in the non obit thread or start one. Any further attempts to hijack this or any other thread will be deleted.

Mudelf

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:52 PM

It was only a matter of time until I was censored, as per usual. And under what "Mudcat rule" am I to be censored, oh so pope worshipping Mudelf?

A personal attack on the pope?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:54 PM

And BTW "Mudelf". Further up the thread, the "Mudelf" weighed in to say I would NOT be censored in this thread for stating my opinion--only for "personal attacks". I haven't personally attacked anyone, yet the threat is made to censor me--for expressing my opinions here.

How typically hypocritical of you.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:06 PM

I have my issues with the Pope--plenty, for sure. But I would no more air them on this thread than I would go to someone's funeral and heckle the eulogy. Time and place, and all that.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:18 PM

This is a chat forum on the internet. Not a church, not a funeral home. Anyone who believes that obituary threads on internet chat forums should be "sacred" and only contain praise for the deceased, has some serious control issues (as we've seen throughout this thread). There is no Emily Post etiquette--or even netiquette--that dictates that the conversation in threads in chat forums about recently deceased celebrities should be sanctimonious, pietistic, phony, and worshipful. So get off your high horse saulgoldie.

I'm sure it will make you all feel better to see me censored by the Mudcat rulers. Since it will make all of you feel very holy, smug, and self-righteously "on the side of decency" you go for it. You wouldn't want anybody who actually KNOWS SOMETHING about the Roman Catholic church, to interfere with the celebrity worship on non-Roman Catholics here who would just like to say "let us pray" and "he was a great guy". That really helps the world.

---

I checked, and I can see nowhere on this thread where any of your comments have been deleted or altered. The "Mudcat rulers" may or may not disagree with your opinion, but they have not altered or restricted it in any way.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:28 PM

The "Black" in Black Madonna iconography of Europe (as opposed to the depiction of the madonna as a dark skinned woman of African descent, as is seen all over Africa, in Mexico, etc) is believed by most Catholic religious scholars (I have a sister-in-law who is one) has to do with the language of Aramaic--the language an historic Jesus would have spoken. In Aramaic, like many ancient languages, the use of the word which is translated as meaning "black" or "dark" in English, does not refer to color of the skin. Rather, it refers to the countenance upon her, ie "sorrowful". All the European Black Madonna icons are "Sorrowful Madonnas". Very few of them are actually painted with dark skin.

Art historians have determined that the majority of the Black Madonna paintings of European origin have a Byzantine origin or pedigree. The pigments in many of these paintings darkened over time due to oxidation. Also, many darkened as a result of smoke from fires in the places where they were kept, dirt, etc. Very few of them were ever actually painted with black or very dark skin.

The majority of Black Madonna iconographic paintings are indigenous to France (something like over half of them, I think it is). I myself have a copy of a Russian Black Madonna, given to me by my Russian nephew, whose mom is Roman Catholic, but his dad and dad's family (all of whom still live in Russia) are Russian Orthodox. My Black Madonna print is of the Russian Orthodox type, not the Roman Catholic.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:36 PM

I didn't include all the Black Madonna statuary in the above, BTW. The study of the Black Madonna statues are a whole other thing in terms of art history. However, the meaning of "black" would remain the same. It means "sorrowful" and if you look at any of these icons, that is the sense that you get of them. They are made to look sad.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Zany Mouse
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:47 PM

I must admit my 'beef' is not with Guest's view so much as he/she is such an outrageous coward.

Stand up and be counted!

Rhiannon

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:52 PM

Guest - I have been accused of being negative but you really take the cake. This is an Obit thread. Have a little respect for others even if you didn't respect the Pope himself.

As to the Black Madonna. I stand by what I said. I'm glad the Pope brought her to the Vatican. A linguistic interpretation is only one side of the story. The actual history has long been obscured. The prevalence of her image throughout Europe cannot be denied. It is the spirit of the Black Madonna that is important. Her presence in the Vatican is good news to me. I'm happy to know that Pope John Paul loved the image of a universal mother.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:01 PM

I respect very few people in this life, dianavan. Very, very few. There is no reason for me to show either deference or respect to people here, most of whom have demonstrated in this thread they aren't deserving of any respect from me.

If you want to believe New Age fantasies about Marian worship, and remain in complete denial of the history of it, you go right ahead. I'm sure it makes your celebrity worship of the pope that much easier for you.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:34 PM

John Paul was one of 3 modern popes to have claimed to have seen apparitions of the Blessed Virgin (the other two were Leo XIII & Pius XII).

John Paul claimed to have seen an apparition of the Blessed Virgin while recovering from the assassination attempt on his life. That assassination attempt, for those who don't know about it, occurred on the anniversary date of the original Fatima apparition. John Paul claimed that the Third Secret of Fatima (a vision of a man in white climbing a hill with a cross at the top), depicted the assassination attempt by Muslim Turk Ali Agca on him.

John Paul had the bullet taken out of his body mounted into the crown of the Our Lady of Fatima in Portugal, as a way to say "thanks" to the Blessed Virgin for saving him. Oh, and BTW, that Third Secret of Fatima version John Paul used was in stark contrast to the apocraphyl nature of the version published by John XXIII , which is said to have referred to Khrushchev & a nuclear war.

Gotta love those apparitions. And of course, they are COMPLETELY pious, holy, and religious. Not political in the least.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:25 PM

You misunderstand me, GUEST Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:32 PM

My "Whoever they are, they are still the 'Church' though..." referred to GUEST Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:38 PM's "the bureaucrats who took it over circa the 11th-13th c"

Reforming a church has always been painful and bloody, and all religions are exclusive to one degree or another.

Let The Roman Catholic Church be, I say.
A 'Good Catholic' follows the teachings of that faith, and there are millions of good and devout Catholics out there that want none of these reforms.

Reform is not the way. Re-invent, perhaps. But the Pope is the leader of the Church of Rome, and one is either with him, or against him

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:25 PM

There's never been any kind of principled objection to married priests in the Catholic Church, it's just a matter of what's been seen as the best way of running things. It could change any time, and, as I pointed out there are plenty of Uniate Catholic dioceses in places like Ukraine where they have always had married priests, the same way they do in the Orthodox Church.

In England the situation arose where a number of Anglican clerics, sopme of them married, wanted to become Catholics and it was agreed they could be ordained. A sensible solution for them, as well as a few extra priests on board. And, I suspect, a way of testing the water, so to speak.

And there are a fair number of married deacons, who do things like conducting weddings and funerals and generally taking care of business. There's one in a parish next-door to ours. He might as well be a priest, and I'm sure sooner or later they'll amend the regulations and he will be.

...........
But I agree this isn't really the thread for getting into that stuff - it's just that the drift took it that way.

The Black Madonna? That's an icon that just happens to be black. But the idea that it's quite appropriate to have images of Our Lady, or of Jesus, that is whatever colour or appearance is most approachable for people, that is as old as the Church. That's why Our Lady of Guadaloupe looks Mexican, for example.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:32 PM

"I'm sure sooner or later they'll amend the regulations and he will be..."

It's a bit like legalising Cannabis, though, McGrath...,

Either way, Il Papa will have to OK that, and on that score, I'm not as hopeful as you seem to be on the matter.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:36 PM

... I also think that those who would reform the Church, do not have the courage to set up their own version, independent of Rome.

Why?

It's easier this way...

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:22 PM

There have been reformers throughout the 1000 year history of the Roman Catholic church. I don't think the answer is to so "it's my way or the highway" to yer pilgrims there, Esteban.

In Roman Catholicism, like every thing else, there will always be the modernisers, and those fighting modernisation, kicking and screaming all the way. John Paul II was the latter sort of pope.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:23 PM

It's been tried. Whatever you think about the final outcome, it had some pretty terrible results at the time, and for centuries after.

Cannabis? That's pretty well legal most places now. Way to go!

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:26 PM

What's been tried?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:36 PM

That last post of mine, of course, was a response to the previous post in the thread, by Estaban at 06:36 PM.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:44 PM

"I don't think the answer is to so "it's my way or the highway" to yer pilgrims there, Esteban."
It is if you're infallible, Guest
Religion is the opium of the people, remember.

Speaking of drugs...
Cannabis? That's pretty well legal most places now. Way to go!"
De-criminalised, I think you mean, McGrath, and I think you miss my point, incidentally.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:46 PM

Of course it has been tried, McGrath.

That is why it is easier this way...

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:49 PM

Papal Infallibility

Popes have limits, too.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:58 PM

Not where it counts...

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 08:04 PM

... I'll save you a bit of trouble...

43. The exercise of teaching authority in the Church, especially in situations of challenge, requires the participation, in their distinctive ways, of the whole body of believers, not only those charged with the ministry of memory. In this participation the sensus fidelium is at work. Since it is the faithfulness of the whole people of God which is at stake, reception of teaching is integral to the process. Doctrinal definitions are received as authoritative in virtue of the divine truth they proclaim as well as because of the specific office of the person or persons who proclaim them within the sensus fidei of the whole people of God. When the people of God respond by faith and say "Amen" to authoritative teaching it is because they recognise that this teaching expresses the apostolic faith and operates within the authority and truth of Christ, the Head of the Church.(3) The truth and authority of its Head is the source of infallible teaching in the Body of Christ. God's "Yes" revealed in Christ is the standard by which such authoritative teaching is judged. Such teaching is to be welcomed by the people of God as a gift of the Holy Spirit to maintain the Church in the truth of Christ, our "Amen" to God.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 02:53 AM

Esteban, you need to read the entire document you linked to. Those who have teaching authority in the Catholic Church (the Magisterium) had the duty to discern and define the sensus fidelium. Look at this quote from the document you linked to:

29. In every Christian who is seeking to be faithful to Christ and is fully incorporated into the life of the Church, there is a sensus fidei. This sensus fidei may be described as an active capacity for spiritual discernment, an intuition that is formed by worshipping and living in communion as a faithful member of the Church. When this capacity is exercised in concert by the body of the faithful we may speak of the exercise of the sensus fidelium.

Here's an even more powerful statement:

..a recognition that because of their baptism and their participation in the sensus fidelium the laity play an integral part in decision making in the Church (same document)

The Pope and the bishops cannot dictate doctrine - it flows from the faith of the people. This was defined very precisely in the Doctrine of Infallibility in the 1870's, but people shortcut past all the restrictions and explanations, and assume that the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does. There have been only two "infallible" statements from the Pope since the 1870's, and they both involved adding noncontroversial titles to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

There are lesser levels of doctrine that have been promulgated since 1870. In general, the faithful are also supposed to accept these teachings - but it is far from being a papal imposition of what Catholics are supposed to believe and not believe. All doctrine is supposed to flow from the faith of the people, this sensus fidelium.

Yes, there are many Catholics who have a limited amount of theological education, and they may see the Catholic Church as a monolithic, authoritarian structure that dictates what members must believe and what they must do. That view is NOT shared by most Catholic theologians. Bishops are managers, and they tend to take a more authoritarian view of their positions - but even they do not believe in a monolitihic church. The Catholic Church has had a long history of dissent, disagreement, and change. Institutions usually change very slowly, and with much discomfort - but they DO change, and the Catholic Church has changed and evolved radically through the ages.

We had our Call to Action Mass this morning, and it was wonderful - but it did not break as many rules as I thought it might. There was a celibate, ordained priest on the altar as the primary celebrant, and he was flanked by two women who read some of the prayers of the Mass. We all wore red to symbolize that we all share in priesthood through Baptism and we all were celebrating the Mass. We all recited the words of consecration of the bread and wine together. We had four processions with music and dance, and a wonderful dance with candles after Communion (to Peter Yarrow's Light One Candle).

So yeah, there were some things you might not see in an ordinary parish Sunday Mass, but it wasn't all that far from the norm. There were gays and lesbians, married (resigned) priests, at least one woman who had been excommunicated by her bishop, and all sorts of people with all sorts of disagreements with the Catholic Church. None were refused communion, but most Catholic parishes would not refuse them communion.

Esteban, you may say that "rules are rules," but there's also an opposite saying: "rules are made to be broken." The Catholic Church is not what it was 50 years ago, and certainly not what it was 500 or 1,000 years ago. It has changed - slowly, but radically. Those changes came about by evolution, by questioning, by adapting to local cultures, by the breaking of rules that no longer had relevance.

So, yes, Call to Action is Catholic, and our Mass was Catholic. We did spend some time at the conference talking about John Paul II and praying for him and for his successor. Here's the Call to Action press release about the death of John Paul II:

Catholic reformers reflect on Pope’s legacy and hope for future


“Death, even when long expected, always brings an element of sadness,” states Linda Pieczynski, national spokesperson for Call To Action (CTA), the nation’s largest Catholic reform group. “The members of Call to Action share with the rest of the Roman Catholic community a sense of loss with the passing of Pope John Paul II. There is also a sense that an era in Christianity has passed and the prospects and challenges of the twenty-first century now face us in a new way. With millions of other Catholics worldwide who continue to cherish the promise of the Second Vatican Council, Call to Action prays for prophetic leadership from Pope John Paul’s successor, the new bishop of Rome.


Uniquely prepared for the Papacy in the Post-World War II world, the deceased Pope has left an indelible mark on the history of recent decades. His uncompromising calls for justice and peace continued the tradition of Papal challenge to power and wealth; but within the Roman Catholic Church his reign was characterized by Vatican domination of Church government and procedure. In a time of frequent turmoil and uncertainty the Catholic Church has unquestionably been helped by his strength and deep personal piety, but some of its energy and creativity have also been limited by the authoritative culture of the Vatican during recent decades.


Our hope is that the guidance of God’s Spirit will lead the Papal conclave to elect a Pope with John Paul’s strength, with dedication to fulfilling the progressive mandate of Vatican II and with fearless openness to ‘the signs of the times’. As we bid farewell to Pope John Paul II, we rejoice with him, assured of his welcome into the unending life of resurrection.”


For a listing of local CTA chapter contacts, visit CTA’s website at www.cta-usa.org.


###


Call To Action is the largest Catholic church reform group in the U.S., composed of 25,000 laity, religious, priests and bishops and 40 local chapters. It advocates reforms in the Catholic Church such as the ordination of women; optional celibacy for priests; change in birth control teaching; Church financial and leadership accountability; equality for homosexuals and minority groups; clergy sex abuse reforms; and focus on the church’s peace and social justice teaching. Their comprehensive web site is: www.cta-usa.org.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:47 AM

This thread was closed by someone last night, though it appears Joe has reopened it.

Here is what I was threatened with by "Mudelf" for posting my opinion:

"First and last warning. This is an obit thread, not a discussion of what you hate about the Catholic Church. If you want to discuss that, then fair enough. Do it in the non obit thread or start one. Any further attempts to hijack this or any other thread will be deleted.

Mudelf"

When I bitched about being slapped down, Joe, after reopening this thread, made this remark":

"I checked, and I can see nowhere on this thread where any of your comments have been deleted or altered. The "Mudcat rulers" may or may not disagree with your opinion, but they have not altered or restricted it in any way.
-Joe Offer-

Closing the thread doesn't qualify as "restricting" the expression of a controversial opinion?

This is exactly the sort of censorship the Mudcat rulers are being criticized for, and they all know it. In the case of this thread, the threat of censorship, and the subsequent closing of the thread for absolutely no reason whatsoever (it was closed after the 03 Apr 05 - 08:04 PM post by Esteban), other than that particular "Mudelf" didn't like the direction the thread took, apparently.

That is censorship of the worst sort. It may now have been rectified by Joe, but that doesn't change the fact that censorship is beyond the pale of reasonableness here. Short of me being flamed (which I withstand without anyone deleting "personal attacks" on my behalf), there is nothing unreasonable about the progress of this thread. Nothing.

---

No, the thread should not have been closed. I reopened it as soon as I saw what had been done. If you want to talk about the Pope, please do it here. If you want to talk about censorship, do it in the Censorship thread. The "Mudelf" has been talked to.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:09 AM

Just a little aside re: Anglican married priests converting to Catholisism in Britain. Probably the largest number of these priests converted after the decision to ordain women to the priesthood in the Anglican church in 1992. They were welcomed into the Catholic church and allowed to remain in Holy Orders if they were already married. They were not allowed to continue in Orders if they were divorced or separated. If they were widowed whilst in Orders, they were allowed to continue as long as they didn't remarry.

LTS

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:45 AM

As far as I've been able to discern, the admission of married Protestant ministers as Roman Catholic priests was not just a "small window." It has happened, in small numbers, over a number of years - and has continued to the present time. Ironically, many of theise new married priests are far more conservative than their celibate, lifelong-Catholic brothers.

I see links above to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia; and to EWTN.org, Mother Angelica's Eternal Word Television Network. Nothe that these are resources provided by right-wing Cathloic groups, and are not necessarily official teaching. Esteban has provided links and quotations from the Vatican wevbsite, which is official - you'll not that the statements on the Vatical Website are much more carefully written and much more balanced.

My quote from Call to Action is from a group which is considered to be extremely liberal - but I thought it was quite balanced in its statement on John Paul II. Call to Action has a number of distinguished theologians among its membership (and also some very strident ideologues).

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:51 AM

There are MANY married priests in parts of the world. It is not advertized loudly. Or even quietly.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:52 AM

Thought this thread was closed yesterday.

---

Yeah, it was closed for about 4 hours becaouse one of the Clones thought it was becoming a troll thread, but I didn't buy the rationale behind closing it. I don't think it's fair to insist that an obituarly thread include only nice statements about the deceased. Few people are either all good or all bad - even when they're dead.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:48 PM

Justice and reason prevailed. Thank you Joe.

As to the ETWN link, I didn't think it was out of line to use a link to conservative organization, to explain the conservative side of the church's position on married priests. I had already early provided the link to a married priests website.

Some priests in the Eastern Rites are married too, as McGrath has pointed out. But JP's critics are talking about the Papal & Roman Curia's doctrinal position on married priests in general. The exceptions only prove the rule.

And it is good to remember that in the US alone, under John Paul II the church has lost 15,000 priests.

JPII also centralised power in Rome, effectively taking away the power the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the US. Until the late 1980s, that group had been much more progressive and liberal in it's social justice teachings than Rome was, just like the Latin American Conference of Bishops was until JPII slapped them down too.

I don't hold out any hope for a liberal pope because this College of Cardinals is extremely conservative. But if we could get one in who allowed for some return of power and authority to the bishops, priests, and laity, it would at least be a start.

If the papacy is to have any relevancy internationally on the diplomatic scene, we desperately need a champion of the poor and a champion of social justice. IMO, John Paul II wasn't that sort of pope. He was more interested in hobnobbing with the political power brokers and celebrities, and being the "rock star" pope by packing millions into stadiums, than he was in championing the rights of the poor and social justice.

And BTW, when will we see the first environmentalist pope, hmmmmm?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 01:28 PM

Or, as some are now starting to discuss publicly, why not get rid of the papacy altogether, and let the Bishop of Rome stick to issues relevant to their local flock, as all other bishops would without this extraneous layer of centralized bureaucracy.

Hell, even JPII acknowledged in his 1996 that the Orthodox church might be on to something with the way their church governance is done.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:53 PM

Well, the statement accompanying the EWTN link implied that th elink was official and factual, and the fact is that EWTN puts a conservative "spin" on almost everything it presents. It's unfortunate that the conservative American Catholics have so much money from the Catholic brewing families and from Domino's Pizza, and they've invested almost all of it in propaganda.

The liberals tend to spend their money on feeding the poor.

An environmentalist Pope? I'd have to dig to find actual statements, but I think I can say that John Paul II has spoken strongly in favor of protecting the environment. Catholic social justice teaching is not new, and John Paul II supported it very well. He spoke strongly against the war in Iraq, against nuclear weapons, against capital punishment, and against oppression of the poor.

JPII's tightening of restrictions on national councils of bishops disturbed me, as did his restrictions on granting annulments so divorced people could start over again in life. These are procedures within the church and are not official teaching, so they can be changed by a new pope with the stroke of a pen.


-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:58 PM

Joe, I hope you will be glad to know that even with the conservative barrage on EWTN, I have gotten a lot of good out of that channel. A number of images and memories come to mind (mostly during the masses), but even some of Mother A's personal reflections about faith have been nourishing. Yeah, I know-- a lot of crap there too-- but the good stuff is always more powerful, innit?

~S~

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:04 PM

I never watch EWTN. I was simply looking for an explanation of the conservative side of the married priest issue, to balance the other link I provided (that "rent a priest" one). EWTN fit the bill, so I linked to it.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Alba
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:51 PM

Oops thought I was in an Obit thread.
Maybe remove the Obit from the Thread title so as it indicates discussion rather than mourning? Just a suggestion.


Jude

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:54 PM

Trouble is though, Joe, that the bottom line of the Papacy/Catholic Church lies in Paragraph 43, that I pasted in above.
More specifically point 3 of that passage:"3) The truth and authority of its Head is the source of infallible teaching in the Body of Christ."

What the Pope says goes, in other words...., when he wants to say it 'authoritively'.

I think that whereas married male priests may become the norm; female priests, perhaps in a few generations. Gay and lesbian; never.
Birth Control; not in a million years (counter productive...) Divorce; only if you circumvent the doctrine by wangling an annullment, through a sympathetic priest. Abortion....., well, hardly worth getting into that one neither, really, is there?

What we have here, therefore is a shopping list that will never get filled, because there are a few unalienable truths that the Roman Catholic Church will continue to uphold. The Papacy is the Rock upon which the Church was built, after all, and the College of Cardinals are duty bound to return a Pope that upholds those unalienable rights, and as you must surely know, Joe there is only so far down the road the Roman Catholic Church will go.

If John Paul II called homosexuality a 'disorder', authoritively or not, it is a very powerful statement, and in societies outside the fairly liberal (using the term advisedly, here) North American one, there are those who take that statement as fact, anyway.
It is those peoples' Catholic Church you would reform, Joe.

To bring democracy to Iraq is one thing. To bring it to the Catholic Church, is a much different proposition entirely. There are those who are quite happy with it the way it is. Remember that all that 1000 years of reforming has led us to the point where the Roman Catholic doctrine and morality is being challenged.

And that's where the Pope comes in...

I don't think the RC Church will move much more Joe.
What it is been asked to do, will be too much for those who believe in the Sanctity of marraige, the right to life, the fact that one must sacrifice to get to heaven.

The European and Asian Churches are still quite fundemental in their outlook. It would be a crime, almost to take their faith out from under their feet. Because America has always been a bit more inclusive in many ways, it is not un-natural that the Church should have evolved this way.

But I think that the Progressive faction of the Catholic Church, with respect, should really go their own way, on this. They will probably achieve a lot more, in a shorter space of time.

$0.02

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 07:04 PM

.... it just occured to me that we seem to have a Mudcat Blessed Trinity at work in this thread... God the Mudelf, God the Joe, and God, the Anonymous Guest

:-0

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 02:35 AM

I dunno, Alba, I think an obituary is a discussion of a person's life, and not necessarily limited to an expression of mourning. There's more to be said about John Paul II other than, "Aw, gee, isn't awful that he got old and died." He was a complex and interesting person.

Esteban, look again at the document you linked to - it says that the Head of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ, not the Pope. It gives a well-reasoned explanation of the role of authority in the Catholic Church - it's not a papal dictatorship.

As for your speculation on other issues, all I can say is that only time will tell. The Pope ceased to be a major political player in the 1870's, when the Papal States became part of Italy. That brought about huge changes in the Catholic Church. In the 20th Century, many European and American Catholics got a good education and began to think for themselves; and the Church is still reeling from that development. Women and homosexuals became respected members of society - and the Church hasn't caught up with those issues yet. Many bishops, priests, and theologians have advocated an end to the prohibition on birth control - the decision on this and many other issues could go either way under a new pope. I don't think the Church will change its mind in the next decade and say homosexuality is wonderful - but Roman Catholic thinking and teaching on sex in general is confused and inconsistent, and I am quite certain that there will be much study and change on this issue in the next hundred years.

I think you're right that the Catholic Church will never applaud abortion, but the tactics of Church leaders against abortion are far more understanding and compassionate than those of the so-called "pro-life" movement. For one thing, the Church includes opposition to war, capital punishment, and poverty along with abortion in its pro-life stance, and that makes many in the "pro-life" movement very uncomfortable.

As for divorce and annulments...annulments are not currently "wangled through a sympathetic priest." They are granted by a diocesan tribunal, staffed by canon lawyers and authorized by the Code of Canon Law.

No, the Catholic Church will never be a democracy, with clergy elected and doctrine determined by popular vote. What's on the books is the principle of collegiality, which seeks to make decisions by consensus - giving weight to those who have expertise in various areas, but with knowledge that no doctrine can be held by the Church unless it is accepted and believed by the vast majority of the faithful. In practice, the Powers That Be in Rome tend to stray back to the principles of machiavellian monarchy - but Canon Law specifies the principle of collegiality.

You say that change will be offensive to those who like things the way they are - but most of the changes that have been requested will have no effect on those who don't want to change. Recognition of the dignity of homosexuals should not be a threat to people in a stable heterosexual marriage (unless their marriage isn't as stable or heterosexual as they claim it is). Allowing birth control has no effect on those who do not wish to practice birth control. Allowing divorced people to remarry and remain in the Church should also have no effect on people with a stable marriage. Most of the requested reforms are asking for tolerance and acceptance. Those who object to reform will have to sacrifice their intolerance, but maybe that's something Christians are supposed to do.

And if you study church history, you will see that the Catholic Church has been in a constant state of change over the last two thousand years. Whether you like it or not, change happens.

And whether you believe it or not, Pope John Paul II brought about a lot of change. He opened the Catholic Church to dialogue with Jews and Muslims and Protestants and other faiths. He stood firmly for peace and against imperialism form all sides. He reached out to young people, and generally sought and savored contact with the people of the world. There are many things I wish he had done differently, but he did accomplish much in his quarter-century as Pope.

And as for the obituary, when a person has lived a good, long life, the Catholic tradition is to celebrate his life when he dies. Mourning and sadness at death is natural and is not to be denied - but the death of a good person is also a reason for believers to celebrate. I disagreed with John Paul II in many ways, but I firmly believe and rejoice that he is now with God.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 02:47 AM

Joe,

Thanks for a thoughtful essay. Well written and interesting.

A

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:16 AM

... which doesn't contradict what I have said at all hardly, Amos.

Jesus Christ is the Head of The Church.
That's what I was brought up to believe, as well...

But I ask you, Joe, how many interpretations are there of the words that he said to St. Peter (...upon this Rock, I will build my Church)?

However I never thought we'd be getting into discussions as to who is the Leader of the Catholic Church in this thread.

But you see Joe, my point is and always has been that the reforms that are on the table now; progressively over the last half century, or so, threaten to blast that rock apart.

The Catholic Church has a very bloody history of reform. But those two words have always been linked: Bloody and Reform.

I don't like fundemental religions, Joe.
And I agree that there is a helluva lot of injustice within the Roman Catholic Church, and were Call For Action a seperate faith in its own right: the RC version of Bahai'ism, for example, I would be applauding them from the rafters.

I had a crisis of conscience with the Catholic Church.
To me my faith was more linked with my identity as a person; which, I'll wager was not the same in your case, Joe.

My crisis of conscience went to the degree that it resembled a reconciliation with a bad mother: One would love her and hate her at the same time. Yet at the same time there was an inevitibility about the situation where one knew that one would have to go one's own way eventually. I did not want to be forever in conflict with myself about what I thought was morally acceptable in my circumtance, and what someone else had generalised for me.

Seriously, Joe.
Why bother.

You have already accepted that it could be hundreds of years before some of these reforms ever be accepted as part of Roman Catholic philosophy.
I think that is probably a generous prediction as well, because long before that ever happens, the RC Church will cease to exist.
The jackhammers that are drilling into the Rock, will crumble it eventually. The jackhammers being, of course, modern day thinking and needs. In a hundred years time, what we know as the Christian Faith, will not be recognisable.

I'm lamenting the fall of the Catholic Church, incidentally. I think that's why I would prefer it to drift away and die a natural death, after fulfilling the needs of the faithful for the time that it was relevant for, than to be hounded into oblivion.

It is not only the Pope's mission in life to speak out about, and find positive solutions in the struggle against Aids, for example.
Pfizer and Glaxo Wellcome should be put under at least an equivalent amount of pressure, and to single out the Catholic Church as doing nothing, is wholly unfair, given the accepted neo-con state of the World we have today.

I said up the thread that I liked the man.

I liked him intensely, as it happened.

But there was only so much he could do

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:26 AM

I agree with Alba. This thread should have discussion at least added to the title and it's not that I cared about the man, at all. Just seems disrespectful to dis someone in their obit thread.

kat

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Fiolar
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:47 AM

Looking through the thread it never ceases to amaze me how some characters like "Guest" crawl out of the woodwork and criticise people. The Pope during his long life has suffered more than "Guest" can only imagine. Did "Guest" have his/her country invaded? Did he/she get shot? Did he/she have several fractures? Did he/she have a tracheotomy? One story about that late great man tells how as a young man he fed a starving survivor of Auschwitz and then carried her on his back to join the rest of her surviving colleagues.
Ar Deis De le na hAnam.
The following extract from an Irish blessing could certainly have been written for him.

"May a blessed light shine out of your two eyes,
Like a candle set in two windows of a house,
Bidding the wanderer to come in out of the storm.
May you ever give a kindly greeting to those whom you pass,
As you go along the roads."

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:22 AM

Message from JP:

I will be keeping an EYE on you all.
God bless you

End of message.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:24 AM

From Merriam Webster's online dictionary:

Main Entry: obit·u·ary
Pronunciation: &-'bi-ch&-"wer-E, O-, -'bi-ch&-rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ar·ies
Etymology: Medieval Latin obituarium, from Latin obitus death
: a notice of a person's death usually with a short biographical account

Obituary simply means an announcement of a death, that includes biographical information about the deceased life. There is nothing--I repeat NOTHING in the definition of the word, or that can be found in Netiquette rules of engagement, that says online "obituary" notices posted in chat forums are to be solemn, mournful, and/or restricted solely to praise for the deceased.

What is it with some of you people and your insistence that you should be able to control what people say about celebrities who have died?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: wysiwyg
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:44 AM

Why should an obit thread be any more respectful than Mudcat BS threads in general? There's enough raised-Catholic, raised-fundie, anti-church, anti-religion distress rehearsed around here to choke on, any day of the week.

~S~

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:51 AM

Ah, so the pastor's wife is complaining about disrespect for religion in a music forum with a bullshit section where religion gets debated all the time.

Susan, why not start your own forum for the religious with interests in folk music if you don't like the way religion is discussed here? Or (gasp!) don't participate in the threads you find to be disrespectful to you and your beliefs.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: wysiwyg
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:54 AM

I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out that there is no sense in complaining.

~S~

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 11:04 AM

Except that is exactly what you are doing Susan--whining about how you think we are all so disrespectful here about religion.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 11:26 AM

So I was just looking at the list of who will and won't be attending the funeral.

Apparently, the rancor between the pope and the Russian Orthodox church has not lessened one iota. Patriarch Alexiy II (who steadfastly refused to meet with the pope) will not be attending.

Surprise, surpise.

I also noted that there is quite a bit of scrambling amongst US Republican politicians to get to the Vatican, and shore up their conservative Catholic constituency in advance of the 2006 elections.

Grandstanding Right to Life Senator Rick Santorum, for instance, has said he will be going to the Vatican with or without an official invitation.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 11:28 AM

Santorum is running against a popular Catholic Democrat in 2006.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 12:05 PM

Last night's Nightline was devoted to the pope, beginning with his early history. I hadn't stopped to realize the time line of his history, but his having been born in Poland in 1920 ensured that he would be bombarded and shaped by the horrific events and activities we remember today.

It was absorbing, and I ended up feeling tremendous respect for the man. I'm not Catholic so I can't speak to his beliefs and actions as Pope but I think he was superb as a man.

I could say though in regard to his not having moved as Pope into a more modern, less restrictive, place that it is not surprising when a person reflects his time and his generation. What is remarkable is when a person is ahead of (or behind) his time.

If the next pope is younger than John Paul II by a good bit we'll probably see far more rapid change. It would be remarkable if we did not.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 12:11 PM

Ebbie,

Did you forget that this blanket media circus coverage of the pope is intended to manipulate our emotions so that we WILL respect this man in death, even though we may not have given him a bit of thought while he was alive, except to disagree with him?

Do you not see how emotionally manipulative the media coverage is, and that you came away from that special feeling just the way they wanted you to come away from it? Which means WANTING MORE COVERAGE. Hence, you stay stuck to the tube watching pope propaganda ad nauseum for weeks on end?

They were manipulating us last week with Terri Schiavo. Before that with the Scott Peterson trial. They need something to fit into the 24/7 perpetual news coverage of a non-story.

Why can't really intelligent people here tell when they are being emotionally manipulated by the media coverage of stuff like this?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 12:44 PM

Speak for yourself, Guest. I watch very little television so I am not manipulated by talking heads. I never saw O.J. on TV or Robert Blake or Diana or Charles and Camilla or Ms. Schiavo or anyone else of the moment. Including the Pope.

I do follow the news and I read various and conflicting opinions on the news of the day.

I think it's more important to monitor ourselves than it is to worry about what others may wish to do to us.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 01:19 PM

So Ebbie, are you saying that this unprecedented media frenzy is normal then? Something we need not concern ourselves about, especially when it is being used propandistically?

I find it odd that the Dalai Lama is not on the list of those attending the funeral. I looked for information, and it said he will be arriving in Japan for an 11 day religious visit. The Dalai Lama's Japan visit is generating some controversy, of course, because the Chinese have officially complained to the Japanese government that he is being allowed into the country. They had ask that he not be given a visa.

The Dalai Lama's "official" condolences goes on and on about what close personal friends he and the pope were.

I also note that the White House announcement now included former pres. Bush & Clinton, but not Carter. Wonder what's up with THAT?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Tam the man
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 01:29 PM

I'm not a Catholic and I don't agree with the Catholic teachings however He did some good, at least he left Italy to travel around the world unlike all the Pope's before him.

It's sad that he is dead.

And Guest, your entitled to your opinion as well.

Tom

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 03:21 PM

Guest, for the record.................

[bleep - for antisocial behavior] I don't care if an obit thread bashes the deceased, but please take your atheistic underpants and bunch them up your soul-less ass.

Can you personally attack a Guest?

Which Guest?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:25 PM

A better thread than I was expecting, thanks mainly to some interesting and useful posts from Joe - with whom I have sometimes been in heated argument on this and related subjects.

I was encouraged by a conversation with a student at a Catholic secondary school in Belfast which has been deliberating about whether to close on Friday. She said: "It would suit me if we got a week off, but why close for a funeral? I mean do they think we're going to watch it?" I suggested that many kids at the school would not share her indifference, but she said: "well as far as I can tell, everyone thinks the same as me." This is another little snapshot that indicates the scale of the sea-change that has taken place in the past 10 years or so.

I have an impression taht much of the US and UK admiration for the pope is from people for whom the AIDS crisis blighting Africa is a small and distant matter, but for whom his hostility to communism was paramount. Rhiannon recalled that he "fought long and hard for the downfall of Communism," which is of course true. It even led him to bite the bullet and establish diplomatic relations with Israel. But when it came to dealing with at least equally brutal, military dictatorships in South and Central America - Brazil for instance - he sided with the rich against the poor, and against the Catholic priests on the ground who could not stomach the injustices around them.

From the other side, I must say some of the praise has sounded distinctly lukewarm. Big Mick, I noticed, latched on to consistency as one of John-Paul II's virtues! (It was Churchill who justified changing his mind by saying he would rather be right than consistent.)

I do not see how it is possible to revere the memory of someone who re-wrote the rules on the discernment of saints, in order to sanctify (among others) fascist priests by the score, on the most vestigial of evidence, and also the founder of Opus Dei - a bizarre and secretive cult, the recruitment methods of which have broken up many a family. Until recently Opus Dei was discouraged and contrained in the UK but has openly flourished under J-P's patronage, as have extreme personality-based cults such as the Neocatechumate. He seemed shameless in his eagerness to reach out to fanatical weirdos of any hue, in order to reverse a catastrophic decline in vocations, not least in Ireland.

I don't see much to support Wolfgang's point that John-Paul II has progressed his church's relationships with other churches. I would say rather the reverse, that he has knocked back the trend towards ecumenism that was set in train by John XXIII and Vatican II. And in giving full reign to Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the order for the doctrine of the faith (formerly the inquisition) he has caused direct offence to some churches.

I'd be delighted to take on McGrath and his assertion that the catholic church is a flexible church, but it would be going beyond the scope of this thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:50 PM

Guest, I don't suppose you are old enough to remember when Kennedy was assassinated? If you are, then your current discontent is misplaced. This business about the Pope will last just a short time in comparison. Once he is buried or encrypted and a new pope is chosen the media will move on. That was not true at all in the case of Kennedy.

Methinks thou art beating a dead horse.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:06 PM

Whaaaa? Who brought Kennedy into this?

But now that you mention the Kennedy thing...they are, after all, the American royalty for celebrity worshippers, are they not?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 03:28 AM

I dunno. I think it's appropriate to discuss the flexibility of the Catholic Church here. Time and time again, I see remarks here about how the Pope is the absolute ruler of the Catholic Church. That just hasn't been my experience. I'm at church three to five times a week for various classes and activities, and I work as a volunteer in a women's center run by nuns from three orders. I'd be surprised if I hear the Pope mentioned twice a month in these Catholic institutions (other than the brief mention in the prayers of the Mass). He just doesn't have much effect on ordinary Catholic parishes and institutions. For the most part, Catholic parishes and institutions are autonomous. Even the local bishop rarely interferes with the operation of a parish. Rome and the Bishop's office are around enough to be occasionally irritating, but they really don't have all that much to do with the day-to-day lives of Catholics and Catholic institutions.

No, Catholics aren't going to ordain women or homosexuals without approval from the Pope, but most things go along unhindered. Rome and some bishops may bar people from communion for various reasons, but they are not going to direct priests to refuse communion to those people. Some priests will refuse communion, but most won't.

If you hold to a strict, top-down theory of organization and apply that theory universally, then I guess you're not going to be able to understand how the Catholic Church operates. A pope may have all the trappings of an absolute monarch, but he has very little power over Catholics who aren't ordained. What can he do to me, fire me?

Many organizations can seem from the outside to have a rigid structure, but that may not be the actuality. I worked as a federal investigator for 25 years, through the administrations of two Presidents I hated, Reagan and part of Nixon's term. Their policies had some effect on me as an employee, but not all that much. During the Reagan Administration, I took delight in digging up dirt on Reagan's political appointees - and nobody raised a finger to stop me from digging up that dirt. In fact, I got a lot of praise and a number of good bonuses. I'm a pacifist and a believer in socialism, but nothing was done to stop me from working during these conservative administrations.

I've worked in the Catholic Church all my life, and I'm often asked to teach or to lead various church activities. I was selected as a delegate to our diocesan synod, in a diocese with a conservative bishop. A few lay people have written nasty letters about things I've said, but nobody in authority has ever questioned what I've done as a lay leader and teacher.

Oh, and at that Call to Action reform conference last weekend, there was good representation from the staffs and administration of most of the Catholic social programs in town. Five nuns from the staff of the Women's Center were there, as were directors of our Loaves and Fishes Dining Room (which also has schools, shelters, and bank, a library, and lots of other services for the homeless). Most of the 390 people in attendance were leaders in church institutions.

Rome can suspend a theologian's credentials, but that's about the only repression that goes on in the church nowadays. Catholics are supposed to obey the Pope's directives in certain matters - but that obedience is voluntary.

So, maybe it's time to take another look at the Catholic Church. I see it as a loose network of largely autonomous centers of worship, education, and service. There is unity in the church because of our shared beliefs and sacraments - but uniformity in the church is in short supply. Catholics are a lot more diverse and a lot more free than some people would think - and even some Catholics don't understand that.

And Esteban, I'll bet you are in the "state of grace." It takes a lot more than a few broken rules to get out of God's good graces.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:23 AM

It presupposes a belief in God however, Joe. (see earlier post)

But nobody can fire you, Joe, you are certainly right there. Not if they didn't hire you in the first place.

And yes, you are right "Catholics are supposed to obey the Pope's directives in certain matters"
I would like to know though, who said obedience was voluntary?

Someone said up the thread a bit that a new Pope could sign away quite a lot with the stroke of a pen.

Is this not the case, then Joe?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:51 AM

When one has free will, all obedience is voluntary. Even behavior that is compelled by physical force is underlaid by whether one has agreed or not agreed, in terms of how one experiences the event.

Also, if God is God, then it does not matter if you believe in Him-- what would matter would be if HE believes in YOU. :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:58 PM

I can't answer much of your 9:23 AM post, Esteban, because I can't figure out the context.

It presupposes a belief in God however, Joe. (see earlier post)

Can't figure out what you're answering.

But nobody can fire you, Joe, you are certainly right there. Not if they didn't hire you in the first place.

But although I have always and openly disagreed with some Church practices that you consider essential to Catholicism, I have served as a religious teacher of both adults and youth, as a delegate to a diocesan synod, as a pastoral council member and president in two parishes, and in many other positions - so perhaps the Cahtolic Church does not require as rigid a discipline and obedience as you suggest.

And yes, you are right "Catholics are supposed to obey the Pope's directives in certain matters"
I would like to know though, who said obedience was voluntary?

They stopped burning people at the stake five centuries ago. Look at the birth control issue - millions of devout Catholics simply ignore the Pope's directives on that issue, figuring correctly that a celibate senior citizen really can't understand their sex lives. A pope can issue a decree and huff and puff all he wants to get people to obey it - but that decree will be obeyed only if it is credible. And it has been Church teaching for centuries that Church doctrine must be in accord with the sensus fidelium - the Pope can only decree what the people already believe. Doctrine must also be rational, and backed by solid theology. When a pope oversteps that authority, what results is bad doctrine, and it will not withstand the test of time.

Someone said up the thread a bit that a new Pope could sign away quite a lot with the stroke of a pen.
Is this not the case, then Joe?

Yes, I'm the one who said it. In arbitrary matters and matters that are not an essential part of Church teaching, the Pope can make changes with the stroke of a pen - the same can be done by the CEO of any organization. Celibate priesthood is one of those matters - only the Latin rite of the Catholic Church requires celibacy of priests. Many parts of the Catholic Church have had married priests since the beginning of Christianity, and the Latin Rite only began to require it in 1215.

One perfect example of what can be changed with the stroke of a pen is the prohibition against eating meat on Fridays. There was some unsound teaching that went on, that gave people the impression they could burn in hell for a Friday hamburger, but that really wasn't the case. There was an element of "identity" that was good about universal meatless Fridays for Catholics - the universality of it gave Catholics solidarity and identity, just as Kosher laws help Jews maintain their awareness of their identity as a chosen people.

But the mistaken teaching gave Catholics a twisted concept of morality as being the following of arbitrary laws, and the abolition of meatless Fridays was a healthy thing. Catholics in most dioceses are still required to abstain from meat on Fridays in Lent, and they fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday - but most bishops are careful to assure people that it is not sinful to eat meat on Fridays in Lent.

The ordination of women and the prohibition against "artificial" birth control are similar matters, although it is a bit more complex. They are not essential factors of Catholic belief, and neither issue has a solid body of theology to support it. Both could be changed with a stroke of a pen.

Abortion is another matter. I think you might see a new pope take a new approach to the matter, but you will never see church approval of abortion. I believe you will see the abandonment of the effort to get governments to criminalize abortion, and the hysterical right-wing anti-abortion campaign may be replaced by a more positive and all-encompassing campaign to encourage respect for life - a campaign that includes the issues of warfare and capital punishment and euthanasia and other issues.

I think you may be surprised at what might change with a new pope. The Creed and the Sacraments and Scripture and love of neighbor have always been the essential elements of Catholic teaching - everything else is open to change. Since the Reformation, the Catholic Church has been slowly returning to those three essential elements - Creed, Sacraments, Scripture, and love of neighbor. The pace of that return quickened in the twentieth century, especially after Vatican II. Authority, money, and power now play a much less important part in the Catholic Church than they did in 1500, or even 1950. In 1950, sermons still pushed people to obey the authority of Holy Mother Church, and the name of Jesus Christ was rarely mentioned from the pulpit. That's not the case now. Since Vatican II and through the reign of John Paul II, the Church has continued to turn its emphasis toward spirituality and social justice - and away from authority and power. Outsiders don't really notice this, but the change has been consistent.

Throughout his papacy, John Paul II wrote extensively - about prayer, spirituality, and social justice. Authority and power were never major aspects of his papacy, although there certainly were people in his administration who abused authority and power. I may disagree with some of the things he did as pope, but I still admire him. He was a good man.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 04:23 PM

Let me ask this.

The Catholic churches doctrine causes problems for some, which appear to be a minority. Isn't it just typical liberal ploys to get a program to fit into their lifestyle because they just don't like the rules?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:46 PM

Well, Martin, I suppose you could just stick a "liberal" label on it and discount it, but I think the reformers have many good points.

Because of a "vocations shortage," my diocese is importing priests from Nigeria and the Philippines. We have many devoted, articulate, educated American Catholic men and women who could serve as priests - but they're disqualified because of marriage or gender. As a result, congregations get priests they can't understand.

The Catholic Church rightly condemns the huge number of abortions that take place. The number of abortions would be greatly reduced if unwanted pregnancies were reduced by birth control - but the Catholic Church still prohibits "artificial birth control," and suggests that married couples should use a calendar to determine when they should have sex.

Marriages sometimes fail. Once a marriage ends, it rarely can be put back together. The Catholic Church has always believed in repentance and forgiveness and starting over again - but not when it comes to marriage. If divorced Catholics want to start over again in a new marriage, they have to go through a complicated judicial annulment process to dispose of a failed marriage that may have ended ten years earlier - and there's no guarantee of an annulmnent even that long after a previous marriage has ended.

And homosexuals....well, I don't know about homosexuals, but my sense of fairness says they aren't getting fair treatment, and the churches need to re-think their opinions on homosexuality.

So, yeah, these are not just liberal ploys, and it's not just people not liking rules - these are real problems that need to be solved. And in general, they don't involve doctrine, which is what people are supposed to believe. These are matters of procedure, not belief.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: jaze
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:37 PM

Very well said in your last two posts, Joe.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:39 PM

Joe, according to the bible Jesus said "Where three people are gathered in my name, I will be among you." This carries a strong implication that no huge top-down institution was ever needed.

I've argue with you before that there are churches that favour a non-hierarchical, plain-and-simple approach to worship, nearer in fact to the kind of model you seem to advocate than to anything found in the Catholic church. Your posts suggest that your own loyalty is rooted largely in dustom-and-practice, nostalgia, etc - ie you're comfortable with Catholicism because it's what you've always known.

A conservative Catholic theologian on UK TV yesterday, who is hoping there will be no backsliding on sexual orientation, etc, with a new pope, said to a liberal Catholic on the other side of the table: "If you want to play 20 holes instead of 18, go and join another golf club." There's surely no answer to that. Many of those who support the church's values do so out of deeply held conviction. It cannot be right that those with contrary values have a right to proselytise those values.

I know you compare your relationship with the Vatican with your relationship with the US administration, but there are the important differences that 1) you don't need to be part of the Vatican's organisation and 2) that organisation is not a democracy in which policies survive or fall according to the weight of numbers behind them. By staying within it, when you have the option to leave, you are contributing, however benignly or passively, to the strength of that organisation. When the pope or some cardinal tells us in all seriousness that condoms are no good because sperm can penetrate the membrane, far better for him that he does so in the name of one billion thinking catholics than in the name of a small and extreme cult. And thanks to you, he can.

On the question of flexibility, there are times in its history when the church was notoriously harsh, authoritarian and inmflexible. So if you were to claim that your church can trace an unbroken line right back to Jesus, you would also have to admit that the line has survived thanks to some extremely dubious people and practices, and that the church throughout its history has shown a tendency to modify its messages as those messages become unfashionable.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:56 PM

From a friend:

---

Congress will consider a bill today declaring that John Paul II is prohibited from entering into the Kingdom of Heaven until Tom Delay declares that he is in fact dead.

Religious scholars have expressed concern over federal government intervention in a matter that has previously been under divine jurisdiction. However, there is a consensus among political experts that it was only a matter of time before the Congress would choose to play a role in determining who can enter the afterlife and when they can do so.

Although several doctors declared that the pope died shortly before 2 PM Saturday, Eastern Time, House Majority Leader Tom Delay insists that the fight for his right to live must go on.

---

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.
          -- Martin Luther King

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:18 AM

I'm sorry, Peter. There's no logical basis in your post, not a bit.

The fact that Jesus promised to be with three people, does not imply that he wouldn't be with millions. It also did not imply that if there were were millions, they would need no organizational structure. I work in a Catholic social service program that has five paid staff and a hundred volunteers. According to your logic, we're too big, and must be immoral.

No, I don't belong to the Catholic Church because of nostalgia. It is a framework through which I can practice and share my faith, and through which I can be part of a worldwide worship community. There is a wonderful richness and diversity in the tradition of the Catholic Church, and there is also a deep and diverse intellectiual tradition. We also have the Mass and the sacraments, which are very important to me. The Mass, sacraments, and the community are the vehicles through which I reach out to touch God, and through which God reaches back and touches me. Mass, Sacraments, and community are the three basic facets of the Catholic Church - organization, authority, structure, and doctrine are all supplemental to these three basic facets. Scripture is also very important to me and to my relationship with God, but that's something all Christians share. Service to humankind is also an essential part of my relationship with God - but that sort of service is something we all should have in common, whatever we believe.

Your conservative Catholic theologian doesn't make the rules and he certainly is not a total reflection of appropriate Catholic values. Does my extensive but more progressive Catholic upbringing and training count for naught? Do you truly believe that the only true Catholic is a fundamentalist Catholic? The "church's values" reflect my values just as much as they reflect his. My Church has both liberals and conservatives, and I think that both sides are required to respect each other's views and learn from them. Some conservatives may not think that I am fit to be a Catholic, but that doesn't mean I have to hand my church over to them. This is my church, just as much as it is the Pope's church.

The permeable condom remark didn't come from the Pope, but I can't recall which official said it. The remark was widely ridiculed in the Catholic press, and it certainly is not official teaching. Why should I abandon my church and let it be taken over completely by idiots like that? Those who assume that my being Catholic means that I support that idiot, must have a screw or two loose themselves.

I think that the Catholic Church survived despite some extremely dubious people and practices, not because of them. We've also had many extremely admirable people and practices. I think that John Paul II was one of those admirable people, even though I disagreed with him on a number of issues.

I think your logic failed you 100 percent today. I thought you were smarter than that. Perhaps you need to see what's blinding your ability to think more clearly. Could it be prejudice?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Leadfingers
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:07 AM

I was going to stay out of this due to the obnoxious anonymous guest comments , but What The Hell !
He did SO much to promote world peace that his conservatism with regard to the Church becomes a secondary issue. May he rest in Peace

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Leadfingers
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:08 AM

Oh - And By The Way -- 200 !!!

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 08:45 AM

Joe, I mentioned that bit from the bible as a reminder that, contrary to something you said, it is perfectly logical to start or join another church so that you can pursue your faith on your own terms rather than remaining signed up to an institution that perpetrates injustice as well as good work.

You are fortunate to live in a free society, parts of which - and perhaps your part - are affluent. In some societies where that is not so, Catholic influence has been mighty - and deeply damaging to the common good. I think you accept this to be true, but then fall back on the line "heck I don't support everything the US president does either." But your church is not a democracy, and if its direction was to be determined by majority voting, that would be a departure indeed.

As you will know as well as anyone, your church is saddled with a code known as Canon Law. "My" conservative theologian has that code behind him. For him, rules are rules. Where was the illogicality in his suggestion that if you don't like the rules, find a different club? Much of the work to codify those rules into their present form was done by Cardinals Gasparri and Pacelli (subsequently Pius XII). Was their work misguided and was the Vatican wrong to adopt it? Or is Canon Law mere informal guidance? Are Catholics at liberty to reject with impunity those chunks of Canon Law they don't like, as you seem tot ake pride in doing? And when Cardinal Ratzinger says that anyone adhering to some of the attitudes that you espouse is "in error" (in the full Catholic sense of the term), do you accept that judgment or reject it?

Is a pope wrong to impose his personal authority on the church, within the code and the creed, as all tradition says he will? And would that mean a pope was right if he adopted some notion of collegiality apparently more acceptable to latter-day mores?

The "official" who claimed that condoms don't work was Vatican Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family. (I've sometimes wondered what this council makes of those extremist Catholic cults patronised by John-Paul II that split up families with their aggressive recruiting of the young and vulnerable.) Relying on a "substantial body of scientific opinion" which he has never identified, Trujillo said that spermatazoa pass "easily" through the pores of condom membrane.

This idiot has never been challenged by other voices in the Vatican, though John-Paull II and Ratzinger must have been smarting. J-P after all had re-committed Catholicism to an anti-condom stance on the basis that they were barrier contraceptives. And from Ratzinger's prefecture condoms had inspired a truly fascinating adjudication. The question was whether a condom was an acceptable means to collect sperm for medical analysis, the obvious method of masturbation being disallowed (oh, the stinking hypocrisy of this church!). The verdict was in favour, with the neat proviso that the condom be first punctured, so that there was still the possibility of impregnation during the intercourse that produced the sperm.

Neither John-Paul nor Ratzinger had realised that condoms were, as Trujillo later revealed, already full of holes, and constituted no barrier at all....

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:05 PM

Peter, the Code of Canon Law was completely revised in 1983, and now includes the changes that were made during the Second Vatican Council. I've read parts of it, and it's quite solid. In my experience, which I admit is only a period of 56 years, the Catholic Church has indeed made most decisions in accord with the principle of collegiality expressed in the 1983 Code, and the interests of all Catholics are represented quite well.

What you describe and condemn is not the Catholic Church of today - it's the Catholic Church of 1915, which is indeed quite unacceptable to people of the 21st Century. If you will explore the practices of the the governments and cultures of the world of 1915, you will find many of the same shortcomings - the Catholic Church was and is reflective of the culture and society in which it exists - although I think that in areas of justice and service, it is a few steps ahead of society.

And yes, an organization led by celibate old men is likely to be a bit clueless about sexual matters. That's improved a lot in my time, and I expect it will improve more in the future.

So, yes, what you describe and condemn would certainly be worthy of condemnation - but what you describe are the worst aspects of the Catholic Church of another time, and the vestiges of that other time which remain in the practices of a few fundamentalists. Pope Paul VI excluded the fundamentalists from the Church to a great extent, and even excommunicated some. His successor John Paul II brought them back and allowed them to function within the Church. They are indeed an annoyance, but they are not the mainstream of the Catholic Church. Maybe they have a right not to be excluded. Maybe John Paul II was right to "bring them back into the fold."

You suggest that the shortcomings of the Catholic Church are so severe that I should seek another church. The local Church of Religious Science had a wonderful pastor, a wise, intelligent woman who was passionate in her concern for social justice. She's become a good friend. I went to a few services there, and really liked what she did. When she was there, the church was close to my ideal for a congregation, except that it did not have the Mass and sacraments. Unfortunately there was a majority in the congregation who were more interested in healing and self-help, and they saw no need for social justice in an affluent community - so they fired the pastor and got somebody who was better at making them feel good. the social justice pastor was underemployed for a long time, working at a drugstore. She eventually found a non-pastoral job at a Jesuit (Catholic) retreat house, and she's happy - but still underutilized.

Same with the local United Methodist Church. I really liked the pastor, and I agreed with his enthusiasm for social justice, his demad for dignity for homosexuals, and his opposition to the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, his congregration disagreed with him on those same issues, and they voted him out and he had to move his family a hundred miles from here to get a job at a college campus parish. Oh, by the way, my Methodist minister friend tells me his most fulfilling job was when he worked as a pastor to the homeless at the Catholic Loaves and Fishes Dining Room in Sacramento.

My Catholic parish isn't perfect, but it's a place where I am known and respected as a leader, a place that I can push toward perfection because I "know the ropes" as well as any priest. The pastor is a dynamic, intelligent, passionate man. I regularly disagree with him, sometimes vehemently; but we respect each other and work very well together. And once a week, I go to work with "my nuns" at my beloved Wellspring Women's Center, which is about as near to perfection as an institution can be.

So, why should I join another church? Because the Catholics have some whackos in their leadership? Name me one organization that doesn't have some whacko leaders - and I can guarantee you it WILL have whacko leaders soon. I think I'd rather do battle with the whackos I know, rather than going somewhere else to encounter whackos I don't know how to deal with.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 11:26 PM

All the U.S. flags flying at half staff at Bush's proclamation for the pope, the head of state of another country. I prefer to treat them as flying at half-staff in memory of Prince Ranier of Monaco, who was, after all, head of state of a much larger country than John Paul was.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 07:53 AM

Sorry to come back to this a bit late and perhaps revive it when it's past its sell-by date.

Joe, I stand corrected on the 1983 Code. I had not taken on board how much of Vatican II had been written into it and thus remains on the record notwithstanding the leanings of the last or any other pope. Obviously you are perfectly entitled to hold out for collegiality if that principle is acknowledged in the code. My apologies.

As an aside I watched the service yesterday and thought it was a magnificent occasion, marred only by Prince Charles shaking the hand of a megalomaniac dictator who keeps his electorate under the cosh by control of their food supplies. It was amazing to hear solo voices ringing out, right on the pitch, and with no obvious sign of nerves, at such a colossal and emotion-charged occasion. I remain, however, uneasy about media-stimulated mass "outpourings of grief" such as accompanied this and Di's funerals.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 07:58 AM

Right now, all the world leaders are headed to Rome. President Bush flew to the Vatican today, and he told reporters he had tremendous respect for Pope John Paul II. Then, here's the bad part, Bush added, 'I was also a big fan of his dad, Pope John Paul I."

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 07:53 PM

Of course, one could ask why all those world leaders are headed to Rome the day AFTER the Pope's funeral - to elect/appoint a new Pope, perhaps?

Must be one of those One World Order conspiracies...

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: mg
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 12:29 AM

media stimulated...oh come on...two million Poles took the equivalent of one month's salary, or living expenses, or whatever, to get on the buses and trains to go there. What media could have made them do that? Sometimes things are as they seem. mg

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM

Perhaps it might be a good idea to put attention back on Bush's actions.... WHY, as was reported, did he meet with US cardinals while in Rome for the funeral?

~Susan

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 07:59 AM

Why on earth wouldn't Bush meet with them while in Rome for the funeral? Fer chrissake, it was a bloody reception at the ambassador's residence.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 08:00 AM

Ah, but what did he WANT from them? Given the opportunity, did he suggest how they should vote in conclave?

~S~

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 08:05 AM

You are a damn clueless woman, you know that Susan? Really not very intelligent at all.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 10:37 AM

Well of course one of those US cardinals was kicked out of his US archbishopric after presiding over a regime of sexual abuse and selling $100 million of diocesan property to fund pay-offs. Which wouldn't be worth dredging up now, except that this guy (Bernard Law) has just been selected to lead a Mass for J-P II. Vatican arrogance/indifference in the face of these issues never ceases to astound.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,The Priestess
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:32 PM

I like this man, I bless this man, as a shining example of all that is good and can be good in this world, I will miss you until we meet, Rest in Peace.

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM

I'll agree that Bernard Cardinal Law screwed up royally in his mishandling of the sex abuse scandal in Boston; and I agree that he should have been pushed into resigning from his position, which happened. I disagree with those who believe that he must now live in shame the rest of his life, and that he should be limited to janitorial work or garbage collection or the like. He's been given a post in Rome, in charge of a single church. This is a makework job, a huge step down from being in charge of the Boston Archdiocese.
If he celebrates a Mass in memory of the Pope, so what? Why make a big deal of it? He's a priest, and priests celebrate Mass. When popes die, most priests celebrate a Mass in honor of the dead guy.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:07 PM

Did he ever give a mass for the victims of the sexual abuse?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 10:10 PM

Actually, I think that Cardinal Law did have a Mass for the victims of sex abuse, and he did set up counseling programs and a system to prevent further abuse. It's just that he was very slow to recognize and respond to the problem in the first place. Law is not a bad person. He did a lot to promote social justice, and he was reasonably progressive in implementing the reforms of Vatican II. He just failed miserably in handling the sex abuse problem.
-Joe offer-

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 06:23 PM

... It was just a continuation of the conversation, Joe: "It takes a lot more than a few broken rules to get out of God's good graces", to whit, I replied "It presupposes a belief in God however..."

I admit a healthy respect for the intangible, however.
Just not the white-beardy type

Back to Square minus Fourteen Seventy Splat, by the looks of it, Joe.

To me, obedience was central to the Catholic Faith.

Otherwise I could say I was following the teachings of the Church.
It's not the kind of thing I would normally talk about, but a relation of mine who knew that every time she would get pregnant, she had an over 70% chance of having a child with Cystic Fibrosis, recalled 'God's Will', and put herself in his hands.
She has had 6 children, two of them died at the age of 12 and 19, respectively, and one is eight years old, and the prognosis is not good.

She, and people like her give TOTAL obedience to the faith. Unquestioning faith.

I could not live up to those standards (for those are the standards, Joe), and for once in my life, I find myself agreeing with Martin Gibson.

Benedict XVI will consolidate the Church he has inherited, and is not going to reform much more, I think.
He will settle for a 'smaller, less troublesome' one.

How many facets on a schism?

Subject: RE: Obit: Pope John Paul II
From: GUEST,Esteban Sykes
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 06:25 PM

... Otherwise I could NOT say...

Apologies