jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (167 posts)

Pope Jean Paul II

  1. Peter Owen profile image59
    Peter Owenposted 6 years ago

    Holy man - yes
    Did good works - yes
    Saint??

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He did do some very good things, he also did some very bad things, such as ignoring the fact that thousands of his priests were molesting children. Saint? Not a chance in hell!

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Now now. It wasn't his fault. He didn't bugger any little boys himself. Think the man, not his papacy! lol.... (that's the official stance by the way)

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He's already a saint. It's a forgone conclusion. Make it official already!

    3. profile image69
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He was not on the path of Jesus.

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why not? Explain please.  Would Jesus not have forgiven the sinning priests? Would he have turned them over to the Romans? I don't know about that.

    4. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No saint... 

      You have had to of performed a miracle.  Three miracles, I think.  What miracles did Jean Paul perform?

      No, he is not a saint.  Just a holy man of God.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image66
        lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        A saint isn't required to perform miracles. Miracles have to happen in your name for you to become a saint.

      2. zulueta19 profile image61
        zulueta19posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No miracles yet happened.  But still he's a holy man.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image66
          lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          He was, yes.

        2. Peter Owen profile image59
          Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I thought there was supposed to have been one, a person praying to him and the person was cured or some such thing.

          1. lizzieBoo profile image66
            lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Saints don't perform miracles. Only God performs miracles.You pray that the saint will intercede on your behalf being that they are closer to God. The saints pray for us, as in 'Holy Mary mother of God, Pray for us sinners...etc' The nun in question prayed to John Paul II to pray to God that she could be cured, and miraculously, it seems, she was. That is how john Paul has been made Blessed. If other miracles happen in his name, he will be made Saint. I hope this is clearer.

            1. Peter Owen profile image59
              Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It does.
              So it would appear that the pope didn't do anything, may not have even known that the nun was praying to him. How does this have the miracle reflect on him? I should think the nun's faith was the better healer.

              1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That's a very good question. The miracle was performed after he died, but if we are to believe in an everlasting soul, then he would have known the nun was praying to him. Often when a person is believed to be saintly (ie; closer to God), people seek to prove it by asking them to pray for a miracle. If a miracle happens, they have their proof. Officially nothing is done until the Vatican step in and do a full report. To get his full saintly accolade, there's got to be about 3 bona fide miracles in his name. I find it humerous. No one does bureaucracy side by side with the metaphysical quite like the Catholic church.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes they are very good at it. wink

                2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes they are very good at it. wink

                3. lizzieBoo profile image66
                  lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi again Peter.
                  I just wanted to say, that as a Catholic I don't share the same views as some of the other people on this forum. When I laugh at the Church it isn't with scorn but as a person from within it, as you would laugh at a dear family member. I think that mirth is a healthy part of any discussion so long as it doesn't mislead. People often get on their high horse that organised religion is the problem in the world. I say it's DISorganised religion that's the problem. Order and consistency reflect that God is rational, that God is truth. The beauty and music in religion reflect that God is joyful and God is love.

                  1. Peter Owen profile image59
                    Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Fair and honest statements. I'm technically Catholic but consider myself more spiritual than religious. I just have too many problems with the history or the Church.

                4. Robertj64 profile image75
                  Robertj64posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  For those who believe in the Saints interceding, please refer to Corinthians 15:23  "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."   Paul states here that there is no resurrection of anyone until after Christ comes again.  How can you then pray or ask that a saint to intercede when he by Paul's own admission is asleep?

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                    lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That's one I haven't heard before. When we die our souls go to sleep?

    5. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ..c'mon!
      He was a religious bureaucrat who worked his way up the Vatican ladder of bigotry to become the CEO of the worlds, richest and most powerful, capitalistic, theocracy!
      He rose to the epitomy of power and esteem by understanding and taking advantage of primitive human fear and superstition! 
      In my mind he was a titan of religious guile!
      He was the antithesis of the concept which he touted:... christianity!
      If there were such a thing, he could be thought of as being the "anti-christ!"
      "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
      Qwark

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image79
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        what? John Paul believed the pitch he sold, so don't accuse any manipulation on the poor dead guy.

        Why would it be so offensive to you that he is made saint when you don't believe in the idea of sainthood? It is a way for catholics to Honor one of the greatest, most popular Popes in history...he did reverse the ruling on Galileo. He also apologized for the crimes of the Inquisition. The man is a luminary.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Cicilia:
          The catholic church and its ceo popes have been some of the worst brigands in human history,
          You must study the history of catholicism.
          From the council of nicea about 316 AD or so, there were 21 ecumenical councils.
          The totality of purpose of those councils was to make necessary changes to keep them in control as societies changed.
          Of course the 1000 yrs of the "dark ages" insured their survival in Machiavellian style!
          John Paul was not a "dummy." He was a catholic who had indoctrinated himself in the idiocy of catholic dogma and was crafty enuf a business man to be able to become the leader of a theocratic world which has dedicated itself to power and domination since its creation!
          I consider catholicism to be as criminal in operation as is the mafia!
          The pope is just the "godfather" of catholicism.
          The catholic pope is programmed to make whatever changes are necessary to keep the "bucks" rollin' in."
          He was not chosen because he wasn't a great and crafty businessman. On the contrary. He knew how to appeal to his followers and keep the tithes rollin' in around the world.
          They, the popes are indeed "luminaries" to the 2 billion believers who keep them rollin' in dough and livin' the hi life of the Pharaohs.
          Down thru their history, they have epitomized their definition of the "7 deadly sins!"

          Qwark

          1. Disappearinghead profile image86
            Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            They have a nice Vatican museum though smile

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ...I've been there! My jaw dropped!
              Qwark

              1. Peter Owen profile image59
                Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I agree. They could sell one statue or painting and feed half a country for a month. Wonder why they are always crying for contributions every sunday.

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  ...AMEN Peter!
                  Qwark

                2. ceciliabeltran profile image79
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  priests have to eat and pay for gas. contributions every sunday goes to the priests for their daily expenses.

                3. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Cashflow.
                  Hard to keep all the ill gotten gains without it. smile

          2. ceciliabeltran profile image79
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, that is that other side too.
            And there is the other side too.

            But that's part of any large organization that spans centuries. There will be good years and bad years. It's like you are zeroing in the particularly notorious aspects of a faith ignoring that it is the same for everything else.

            Even science has its dark side, very dark side. That would be the human dark side entangled with all things good about us.

            A luminary by definition is:"a person of prominence or brilliant achievement" -miriam-webster

            Pope John Paul was an inspiring figure in the same way that say, Newton or Einstein was in the scientific arena. Compare John Paul to Pope Benedict and you'll see what I mean. It's like comparing Obama to McCain.

            Religious groups serve a specific function in society. They are not the brightest bulb in on earth but they become centers for communities and outreach programs. It has a role that cannot fully be replaced by government because it operates on concepts of goodness and selfless giving. It is not necessarily completely good or selfless, but it aims for that just as democracy aims for equality and fairness.

            These are all ideologies that bear our imperfections and shining traits as humans.

            To judge an aspect of humanity as all good and all bad means you yourself have not come to terms with your own totality and you project it outwards.  John Paul 2 was a great figure in Catholicism, and Catholics want to honor that. It should not be considered a crime that they do so in the same way that Nobel Laureates are honored for their achievements in Science even if they're assholes in real life.

            1. profile image69
              paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this
            2. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Cecilia:
              Am I right? You are catholic?
              If you are, I can understand the basis of your comment.
              If you aren't, your knowledge and understanding of "christian" history leaves much to be desired.
              Thanks for the response.
              I have expressed my concerns honestly, bluntly and completely.
              I have no more to say about the "popes."  smile:
              Qwark

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image79
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I was raised Catholic by my Muslim father who told me constantly about Jewish history. So what am I now? A mythologist.

                Can't you appreciate a reason why a people would honor their luminaries? It is very understandable. It is a very human propensity to celebrate the lives of people that are inspirational to them.

                Why is this so hard to accept?

                1. profile image69
                  paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this
                2. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Cicilia:
                  Not hard to accept at all and it makes my point poignantly that the majority of humanity is easily fooled and led!
                  Qwark

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image79
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    really? fooled and led to do what? honor a man they respect? do you know how many men honor and respect pedophiles and thieves that are not exactly religious?

                    Honoring elders does not mean you are fooled. That is just what humans do to celebrate achievement. As a catholic, Pope John Paul became very successful.

                    Now if you tell me that people who honor Micheal Jackson are fooled and led then I will just say, at some point a person's personal life because secondary to what they stand for. For Micheal Jackson it is an era of Pop Music and how they empowered the youth at that age.

                    They don't turn him into a saint because that is not the measure. Instead they call him the King of Pop.

                    Each culture has its own jargon and its own reason for doing it. But sociologically, we are inclined to celebrate those who have achieved greatness in their field.

                    It is this judgement of those who you think differ from you that troubles me more.
                    People are not lesser just because they value different things.

            3. Beelzedad profile image59
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What is that supposed to mean, exactly? Does science breed evil? Is science seeking the destruction of others? Puzzling statement.

              smile

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image79
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                It was actually the Christians that made the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Scientists did not have anything to do with it. big_smile It was also the Muslims who invented guns and the Jews discovered animal testing.

                Atheists are peaceful people, particularly Pol Pot.
                Still puzzled? Talk to Aliens, Mark. They have all the answers.

          3. lizzieBoo profile image66
            lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I am curious to know which history book taught you these extraordinary "truths" about Catholicism. Why, in your view, is it so important to the Pope to have the "bucks rolling in"? What does he spend the money on? Women? Booze? Drugs? All that work, study, submission and obedience over the years and years of working up through the ecclesiastical ranks just to get money he can never spend, and a job he must work at, not until retirement, but until the day he dies? I must say, it seems like an awfully long-winded way of getting status, if that's all he's after.

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Lizzie:
              Easy to answer.
              The history of catholicism has been dedicated to power and control. You know that don't you?
              If you don't, why don't you?  All it takes is an in depth study of the rise of catholicism from about the 300's AD to present day.
              Visit vatican city and give me an estimate of its monetary value...then tell me that the prelates of catholicism represent the life of the one they tout as the ascetic savior of mankind and the son of their god!
              A catholic i.e. Bishop Sheen, said (I paraphrase:)give me a child from birth to 7 yrs of age and I'll give you a catholic for life. This is the same method used by islam to program thier children.
              Relevancy? Obvious! It is the power to control a human being!
              Catholicism is and has been dedicated to power and control.
              Keep those tithes rollin' in in the name of the lord!... sayeth the pope! Oh and are we going to sup on "Beef Chateaubriand"  this evening?
              Qwark

              1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Giving children an education from as early an age as possible is surely not an ideology confined to just Catholics and Muslims? Would you call parenting a dedication to power and control? Surely anything that we impress upon our children is an indoctrination, if you want to call it that, even if we choose to tell them nothing. Do you approve of children watching television? As far as power and control are concerned, I'd like to know how that is exercised. Does the Vatican have power to wage war? Does it have an army? Does it have prisons in which to incarcerate sinners? And what would you have the Vatican do with all it's art and treasures? Give it all to the poor? And what about the next generation of poor folks? How will they be helped? How can an organisation with charities all over the world sustain it's good works without power or influence? Having such influence enabled the Church to square up to the likes of communism in Poland, which it couldn't have done otherwise, and who else would have stepped in I wonder?

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Lizzie:
                  Another easy one to answer.
                  What right has the church to "parent" your kids? You of course can assign your children to those who pervert truth and inculcate fiction as truth into their minds. It's called "brain washing." I consider those parents guilty of heinous child abuse.
                  Of course childrens education should be begun at birth!
                  The first 5-6 yrs of a childs life are the "formative" yrs.
                  Give me your child at birth and by the age of 7, I'll have him/her ready to strap a bomb to the chest and gladly take the lives of others because of being indoctrinated to believe that a wonderful disneyland of fun and pleasure await after death! A Pinnocho world.
                  Or I can lovingly guide my child toward a life of reality and accomplishment that will, eventually, enhance his life and hopefully all the lives he comes into contact with in the future.
                  Lizzie, there has been more life lost and wars fought, pain and suffering, than you can imagine in the name of Roman catholicism.
                  I'm not going to be insulting, that's not my style, but you must read, no study, the history of christianity. All of the questions you ask will be answered.
                  There's no way that the jesus I studied in seminary would live a life of wealth and oppulence like those in vatican city do.
                  Of course, if this jesus did indeed exist, he would break the vatican into pieces and share all its riches with the poor and needy.
                  To paraphrase scripture, I'll offer this: it shall be harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle.
                  The prelates of vatican city live the lives of pharaohs!
                  Read the history of WW2 and see the reigning pope side by side with hitler.
                  Lizzie, ya gotta study these things.
                  Qwark

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                    lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi Qwark
                    You throw around so many statements which you have apparently grabbed out of thin air that it is hard to know which to concentrate on. Firstly, to save you time in the future, I must tell you that I have  studied, and argued the history of Catholicism, from various points of view. The history of Catholicism and the history of the Vatican are very different subjects however. There have been great popes, there have been very dodgy popes, corrupt priests and deeply holy priests but Catholicism as a practice has remained the same. If you have been to the seminary you will know that it is the Apostolic tradition that keeps the faith alive, not the Pope's , or the Bishop's hypnotic gaze into the eyes of the gullible poor. The faith has been fought for, died for, celebrated in the free and happy times once known as Merry England for the sheer enthusiasm of the people. If you don't know that perhaps you ought to study these things.
                    Ok, now I'll just try and reply to some other of your 'thoughts'.
                    "...I can lovingly guide my child towards a life of reality and accomplishment that will, eventually, enhance his life etc..." is exactly the intention of loving parents the world over. Will you tell your children that killing is wrong? that stealing is wrong? that above all Love is the best and most important thing you can do? I'm sure you will. I will be. I will also tell them that they have a soul. You might not. If you were Hindu you would tell them that everything has a soul, including plants and trees. If you believe something; love something, would you not want to share it? Should you not be allowed to share it?  I must say, you seem to have quite an old-school protestant view on these things.
                    Another couple of things: I think it's universally accepted that Jesus 'existed', that a Catholic child has never had a bomb strapped to its chest in the name of God and that the Pope was not a friend of Hitler. Pope John Paul II was officially thanked by Jewish groups for personally aiding their escape from the Nazis. These things that you have chosen to believe is from literature you have chosen to give credit to. Literature that seeks to point the finger of blame at someone for all the misery in the world. Christopher Hitchens perhaps? Richard Dawkins?

                2. Beelzedad profile image59
                  Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You may want to check out the definition of indoctrination. smile

      2. profile image69
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In my opinion, he did not do what Jesus did and believed; and in fact he worked against the teachings of Jesus.

    6. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      While I do understand respecting a person for being "saintly", since all Believers are considered "saints", I've never understood how anyone can elevate a person into "sainthood" based on their good works or good life or "their" miracles.
      First of all, it's not even "their" miracles.   Any miracles would be the work of God himself.   And getting into Heaven isn't based just on how many, or any, known good works.

      Regular Christians wouldn't even dare to try to elevate our most revered Pastors or leaders or anyone else into "Sainthood".  People are human.  The Pope is human.  Each Pope is human until the day they die.   And after that, it's up to the Lord who judges all to put them into whatever category He sees fit.
      Yet people put the Popes into the position of King, basically.  Even Mother Theresa is in God's hands, not ours, to judge.   
      We believe the Biblical prophets are saints, yes, as St. Matthew and Mark, etc.  But not divinity to be prayed to.  What this is is a distraction from the only truly Holy One---Jesus Christ/God/Holy Spirit.

      (sigh).  I wish oh how I wish that Catholics could learn to totally lean upon the Holy One of Israel instead of thinking they need human intermediaries.....

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image79
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Intermediaries" are just a way to embody certain abstract concepts present in the saint, so it is easier to grasp and invoke.

        Just like angels are symbolic of certain expressions of human empowerment. Or godlike-ness, divinity. Non-catholics do it too.

        Micheal - Truth and Justice
        Rafael - Healing

        Atheists do fixate on certain personalities like Albert Einstein as secular "saints."

        Saints are representative of the cause they championed in their lifetime so that the catholic can emulate it.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image66
          lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thankyou. Gosh this is pretty tireing isn't it.

        2. lizzieBoo profile image66
          lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I only discovered this forum two days ago and already I'm weary of it.

        3. lizzieBoo profile image66
          lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Weary of the relentless venom I mean, not what you've just said.

      2. profile image69
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  2. profile image0
    just_curiousposted 6 years ago

    I'm with ernest. I think there is ample evidence that he was involved in the cover up of the abuse. I'm sure he was a good man on many levels, but definitely misguided on others. I vote no, but my vote doesn't count.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have no vote either, but from what I saw on TV he won't need our 2 votes. smile

      1. profile image0
        just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I haven't paid attention. It's a catholic issue, so whatever they do about it is their thing. Won't affect me either way.

        I am confused. Did they change his name to Jean for the sanctification? Or is that a typo.

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I'm not too bothered by it either. Sorry I can't answer the question, I have no idea. smile

        2. Peter Owen profile image59
          Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That was a typo - sorry

        3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That would be the correct spelling in French. lol....

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Cover up? From whom? God knew and that's all that counts. The priests said they were sorry to god, and told the pope they wouldn't do it again. Men are weak, but god forgives. It's not like this has just been going on for the last 25 years. This is the only time in history anyone ever cared.

      This kind of thing has been going on in churches around the world since before the Greeks. And someone complained, the pope would give the guy a lecture and move him some where out of the way. But for the sake of the religion parents let the church handle it and took their word that it was taken care of. That was enough.

      Now the world suddenly wants to meddle in the affairs of the church? What gives them the right? It's between god and the people involved. The church has no moral obligation to tell the world about all the priests that sin. It's none of our business. wink

      1. CMHypno profile image89
        CMHypnoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Since child abuse is against the law in most countries of the land, it is our business. It is a criminal offence and not something that the Catholic Church should be able to sweep under the table and just move the priest to another parish where he can carry on his criminal activities.

        These men are criminals, and should be prosecuted. The fact that they are supposed to be 'men of god' makes their crimes worse, not less, than lay people who also abuse kids

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You can say that. But you probably are not a Catholic. Isn't it between the parents and the church? If the parents don't lay charges, why should the church hand over it's priests to civilian authorities? Armies don't do that. If you are a soldier then unless you commit a crime involving civilians, the military takes care of your penalty. If priests had abused non-catholics then it would be our business.

          The Church is above human law. The priests confessed, asked forgiveness and got it. Then they were shipped to another parish, yes. But they were not expected to re-offend.  Some were given psychiatric treatment before they were redeployed.

          You have to understand it from the perspective of the institution. They have never had to bow to civilian authority. Giving up a priest to civilian courts is like giving up one of your own to the angry mob. It's not done. It tells everyone you can't handle the situation.

          The pope is the head of state of a very small country. He IS the authority over his people. And in the Catholic church, child abuse is against the law.  It's like saying your government has no authority to deal with criminal matters, and has to hand over criminals to another country. That's absurd, right? Well that's what every pope has felt since the beginning of the religion.   

          Like I said, it is just recently that the world started even caring about this stuff. It's been going on for centuries.

          1. lizzieBoo profile image66
            lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure that you can say with authority that "it's been going on for centuries". It has certainly been going on since the second Vatican council, which came about in the mid-1960s. It was also the beginning of all manner of exploitation emerging around the world under the heading of 'sexual revolution' that so characterized that period in history. Barely an institution in the whole of the West, religious or not, was left untarnished by the corrupting influence of the newly permissive, rabidly sexualised decades of the 60s and 70s. Look into it.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol... I lived it. But it started earlier than that. In the 12 th century in France, for instance, during renovations of a nunnery they found the remains of several new born babies in the walls, Not all from the same time period either, Seems priests and nuns were not always celibate, In the early 1900s my grandfather discovered a Bishop who was too friendly with his 14 year old daughter. It was known in the town that one of the priests had a very young girlfriend.  I dare say knowing human  nature, sex and abuse in the church was not confined to the 60s. Though it may have had an influence on the abuse done then, I suppose. But what were those priests doing being influenced by us hippy's? lol....

              1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Certainly I wouldn't suggest nothing was amiss until the 60s but I was having a look a some statistics which showed a steep rise in abuse accusations dating from the early 60s then steeply declining in the late 70s. Those are the ones we are hearing about now. And they are not confined to the Catholic church. Orphanages, foster homes, boarding schools for boys in general. Truly decadent times. Human nature is at fault of course, but we love a scapegoat to take blame for everything.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The all boys schools in England were notorious for ritual abuse by teachers and older students going back 5 hundred years. A good friend of mine went  to one in the 1950s. Same one his father and grandfather ad great grandfather went to. He was abused. But no one ever said anything. He found out it was normal and well known there. It was almost a test for manhood along with getting up at 5 am every day winter and summer and taking a dip in the freezing lake whether you liked it or not.  Humiliation helped make a man out of you. My mother went to school with a girl who
                  s mother had told her it was her duty to sleep with her father because she was too sick. If she refused he would have spent his pay on prostitutes and alcohol. This was in the 1930s and it was not an uncommon story.

                  The school knew and so sis the church. No one said a word. It was a domestic issue.

                  Do you know that until probably the 1970s, police did nothing in domestic despites? A man could beat his wife and unless he killed her they wouldn't interfere. It was a personal matter. He could beat the kids too. It was none of the cops business.

                  That all changed exactly because of the 1950s. Perhaps the fact that people are talking about abuse now and the fact that it is not tolerated is not because the age was decadent, though it was, but because it was also a time where everything was on the table and up for debate. People wanted civil rights, getting the cops out of the bedrooms of the nation, and a more open just and peaceful society.

                  Of course the church isn't the only place where abuse happened. But people trusted priests and expected them to be above all that. Of course they weren't.

                  If you want to see decadence and abuse, read the bible. Lot offered his daughters up for to be raped in place of the two men he had staying with him. Woman and children in those days were property of the male of the house. In the bible it tells us who we are not allowed to sleep with. The list is long. But never does it say a man may not sleep with his daughter.

                  The Greeks used to prize young boys. The older males would apprentice them and though the anal sex they had is reported to usually not include penetration, these days we would consider it abuse. In those days it was normal and the family was well paid.

                  If anything the 60s was anti abuse and pro tell. But it took time for that to become part f our culture.   

                  Don't be trying to use the 60s as a scapegoat now! lol....

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                    lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I just wanted to say that I was looking at some statistics of abuse cases in America from 1950 to 2002, and you can see that the incidence of abuse increase massively in the 60s and 70s. Abuse against boys aged between 11 and 17 increased more than sixfold in the 60s, peaking in the 70s, then sharply dropping again in the 80s and 90s. I'd like to argue that a permissive society corrupts everyone.
                    The Greeks reasons for pairing up the men like that was strategical. If you made them lovers, the men would more likely fight more fiercely for one another on the battle field. The idea of the chaperone was invented in the Roman times so that boys could walk to school without being kidnapped and used for  a 'mascot ' for Roman soldiers.
                    Yes there's allot of crappy tales of abuse it's true but children are still more likely to be abused by fathers and step-fathers than anyone else. Regardless of race religion or culture. Perhaps men shouldn't be in charge of other people's children. Other males in the animal kingdom eat the young which don't belong to them. Do I go too far? In the Bible it says that husbands should treat wives like their own bodies, that fathers should not antagonise their children etc. I don't know how we can prevent stupid people interpreting religion to suit their own knuckle-dragging notions. Every generation has a few. Perhaps that's why it's best to keep laws simple, fair and firm.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh yes. It's like diplomatic immunity. Each priest is a diplomat working for god and the pope. We can't prosecute diplomats even for murder. They are sent back to their country of origin to be dealt with. Same thing for priests, right? lol....

  3. TahoeDoc profile image98
    TahoeDocposted 6 years ago

    He didn't just ignore it, he was involved (with the current pope when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) in trafficking these rapists and child predator priests to new, unsuspecting parishes. He rewarded priests who covered up these crimes and rewrote policies and rules to require that sexual abuse be dealt with only in the church and not be reported to civil authorities.

    The current and recent past pope, if not protected under the sickening umbrella of religion and money, would be in jail.

    This should not even be a question.

    Sorry, I'm pretty agitated about this at this point.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Heretic!

      1. TahoeDoc profile image98
        TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is correct. And I won't stop either. Accepting this type of behavior (molesting little boys or facilitating such) is UNACCEPTABLE. I don't care who you are or how 'complicated' your organization is or how much pressure you are under to keep quiet.

        Guess I need to write (another) hub about the Pope's role in this, focusing on John Paul this time. A heretics work is never done, sigh.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol... How true. A heretic's work is never done. wink But don't forget to write about abuse in the Protestant churches. We mustn't forget them.

          1. TahoeDoc profile image98
            TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So much corruption and perversion, so little time smile

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              For the heretic, it's a calling. Tally-ho!

    2. lizzieBoo profile image66
      lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The good news is that you can stop being agitated because what you're saying is not true.

      1. profile image69
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It has ben in the newspaper media, I think.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image66
          lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          There is much in the media which paints a certain picture of Islam too. What TahoeDoc is telling us, is his opinion of what is told us by the newspapers, not what is fact. No newspaper reported that the Pope was trafficking rapists, nor that he was rewarding priests for wicked behaviour because that would not be true. It is an ugly misrepresentation.

          1. profile image69
            paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I respect the pope; he is the head of a religious group so because of them I respect him.

            I defend all the Revealed Religions; being an ordinary member of a religion myself; though I listen to others patiently.

            1. lizzieBoo profile image66
              lizzieBooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I meant to say, thank you for that.

          2. TahoeDoc profile image98
            TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            WRONG.

            http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Sui … story.html

            http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen … 086738.ece

            http://www.thenation.com/article/160242 … his-papacy

            there are more...

            I'm currently reading "Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II." It seems to be well-referenced, but I will withhold comment until I examine it more closely.

            If you are interested in the current pope's involvement... then see the book "The Case of the Pope" by Geoffery Roberston (or my hub about it). It is very well-referenced with legal documentation and other materials, including some from the vatican, itself. This includes a letters and policies written by the new Pope and the Vatican.

            It seems to me, it would take a willful disregard of reality to think that the abuse wasn't known to and covered up by the very top 'holy men'.

      2. TahoeDoc profile image98
        TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How do you know that what I'm saying is not true?

  4. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    It seems as though we have all gotten used to it.

        Same old same old ...


       That is the real    true    shame.

       BUT !  Who are to judge ?

  5. Peter Owen profile image59
    Peter Owenposted 6 years ago

    As I understand it, a person needs to have performed 2 mirales to reach sainthood. I haven't read or heard about what miracles he might have done. does anyone have any info?

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There has already been one, proven and verified miracle he did. I can't wait for the next one.

      1. Peter Owen profile image59
        Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Can you elaborate, since I don't know what the miracle was.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          A nun prayed to him and he cured her of an incurable disease. I forget what it was. It's probably a matter of looking it up on the net to find out.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yep I saw that. She had one that is a bit hard to prove or disprove. It was CNS related.

            1. TahoeDoc profile image98
              TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Ironically, I think it was purported to be Parkinson's disease (from which he himself suffered). Guess he didn't mind having it himself so cured another. What a great guy.

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yup. Now that you mention it, I'm almost sure that was it.

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No, not parkinsons, it was something else. smile I will think of it or find it soon. smile
                  You seem to be right, all I can find is parkinson's disease. smile


                  The next one he is chasing is a guy who copped a bullet.


                  Holy intervention batman!

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    of course I am right. lol...  I'm going to write to Hawking and tell him now's his chance. wink

  6. Disappearinghead profile image86
    Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago

    According to the NT the definition of a saint is one who believes in Yeshua. So who needs the Catholic Church's definition or stamp of approval?

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Catholic church would. smile

      1. Disappearinghead profile image86
        Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good point well presented.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes. Particularly since if you are not a Catholic you are clearly a heretic and shouldn't be talking blasphemy to compound your sin. Go to a Catholic church at once and repent. Your immortal soul is on the line. wink

          1. Peter Owen profile image59
            Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, let us not use the brains God gave us to question. Aren't the demand for blind faith and the imposition of fear the primary weapons of the church?

            1. Disappearinghead profile image86
              Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.”

              XD :]

            2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              God doesn't want you asking questions. Haven't you read the bible? wink Obey. Love it and obey. That's all you are here for and apparently all you will be doing for eternity if you get into heaven.

              And blind faith and the imposition of fear are not weapons. They are features. Didn't you get the memo from corporate? wink

              1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
                IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Where do you come up with this slightly warped sense of thinking? 


                God created man for the reason you are being sarcastic about.  Only thing is you've got it backwards.  God created man in his image, to have free will and to have the right to choose.  Whereas the angels don't have freewill.  God created mankind in his divinely image, with the ability to think for ourselves.  He only demands us to be held accountable for our actions at the end of our life. 

                You have an oblivious "fire and brimstone" evangelical viewpoint of Christians.  I feel I need to remind you that those Christians, who do teach that stupid nonsense, account for less than twenty percent of all Christians.  I'm curious- do you think that Bin Laden spoke for all Muslims, just because he was one?  Well, that is essentially the very same thing you're doing here..., only  you're accusing all Christians of being short sided.  Much like how Bin Laden was with his Islamic message of hate.

                1. Disappearinghead profile image86
                  Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree with your points here IE.

                  However, slightly off topic, you agree with Judaism that angels don't have free will. Then I'm guessing that you would also agree that Satan cannot therefore be some fallen angel then. Further, would you agree with the Jewish perspective that a spirit being so called leading hoards of demons in opposition to God, aka Satan, does not exist?

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree with you 100 percent for all those reasons and more. wink

                  2. IntimatEvolution profile image80
                    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey DH, I've been out the last few days.  You know- I don't know how I feel about the Satan issue.  I think I summed up my thoughts on that subject matter when I mentioned that just because something is written in the bible, doesn't make it so.  Furthermore, I think that the ancient Hebrews experienced evil on a scale that we do not experience now.  Mostly because we understand the need for tolerance more than they did then, and because we live in a time of advanced, modern-medicine; but, that is a much different topic all together.........  However- it is because of this "evil" that mysticism (steeped in Astronomy) was born. 

                    So naturally, my view of evil is a mixed view. I believe strongly that those who wrote the oral traditions to paper, vehemently believed in what they were writing down to be true.  Why was it true to them, I cannot contest too.  I wasn't there, so needless-to-say, I'm not sure what to believe in; when it comes to evil, the devil and the demons of Jewish mysticism.

                    We also need to consider the Anthropology characteristics of the Hebrews, and how those characteristics played a significant role in the belief in Satan, demons, evil, etc... 

                    Hebrews were;

                    1.) Re-formers of a polytheistic-religion to a monotheistic-religion.  Whenever these two worlds collide, enviably something from the old way usually finds it's way into the new ideology.  For evidence of this, one only has to research the historical foundations of many Christian holidays and symbols.  Such two examples; 1. Christmas, and the Celtic holiday that created 2. All Saints Day.

                    Judaism was born deep within the bowels of Zoroastrianism. Same region, same holy deity, same winged creatures, same stories.  To think that some of the old, wouldn't run into the new, is a mind-set clearly not educated in human studies. But those who do understand basic human characterizations, realize Humans are natural-born hoarders.  We hoard information from every aspect of life, and apply into the way we live.

                2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Only if you choose him and what he wants. Otherwise you aren't left to your self, you are tossed into hell. Some choice. Might as well be cattle. The only reason your god supposedly gave you free will was you could choose him. Wow. How absurd.

                  And where do you get the idea he gave you free will? It is not in the bible. So what gives you that idea?

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image86
                    Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Slarty for what it's worth let me give you my understanding of this hell business.

                    The book of revelation is symbology all the way through and in the Greek rev 1:1 the angel 'signified' the message. That is it was a sign, symbolic. So this lake of fire aka hell cannot be literal.
                    The lake of fire consumes, but God is a consuming fire, so this is not some hell but God himself. It is the same consuming fire spoken of in 1 Cor 3:10-15 that tests each man's works done in life. God will consume our sin and the person themselves will be saved; that is everyone. The fundy will tell you that God's consuming fire purges them from sin but eternally torments unbelievers in hell. Does God have two fires? Or one fire applied differently to believer and non- believer? No.

                    Check out the brimstone in an encyclopaedia. The fundy will tell you it's to make your torment more miserable. Brimstone means burning sulphur which was used by the ancients as a fumigant, preservative and cleansing agent. The brimstone is to cleanse from sin.
                    http://www.georgiagulfsulfur.com/history.htm

                    There is no eternal hell. There is God's judgement by fire and cleansing brimstone and afterwards the person is saved. Very painful and horrible it will be whilst endured so better to get sorted now.

                    So now I'll sit back and await the vitriol from the fundy.

                  2. profile image69
                    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I would like to know as to where "free will" is mentioned in the OT and NT separately.

                    Anybody of any denomination or religion, please.

                3. Robertj64 profile image75
                  Robertj64posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  If the angels do not have free will then how is it that Lucifer, one of God's brightest tried to steal God's authority and being banished as a result?

  7. Peter Owen profile image59
    Peter Owenposted 6 years ago

    Love these forums. We manage to go from Is John Paul II a saint to Book of Revelation and concept of Free will. Wonder where it will lead next.

  8. ceciliabeltran profile image79
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    I met John Paul II when I was a little girl. His hands were cold and soft and his eyes were so light blue. It was an unforgettable experience because when he looked at me, he was looking straight into my eyes like he was seeing something there other people do not. He was appreciating something in my eyes and do not doubt he did that for each and every child.

    Catholics honor great Catholics by making them saints. All saints are revered for their heroism in defending their faith. That's all. It shouldn't be considered a crime.

    1. Peter Owen profile image59
      Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Cecil
      I can agree with what you say, but the "saint" to me has always meant much more than that. Creating miracles has always been the issue I have especially when the chuch determines it many years after a person's death. I just have an issue naming one man a saint with all the problems that the church has and had during this pope's reign.

    2. Robertj64 profile image75
      Robertj64posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would like to ask a question here on the idea of "sainthood".  If Catholics agree that God is all powerful and knowing and he (with Jesus) should judge people when they die, then what does that say about the living Catholics of the world proclaiming a person on this side a "saint"?

      To me, it clearly is usurping God's supreme authority to decide and judge who is a saint and who isn't.  Let me be clear here - beatification and sainthood are "proclamations" by the Vatican which cannot account for every minute in a person's life.  A declaration or a proclamation can only be a clear usurping of what we would call God's role as judge.

 
working