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!
He's already a saint. It's a forgone conclusion. Make it official already!
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.
A saint isn't required to perform miracles. Miracles have to happen in your name for you to become a saint.
No miracles yet happened. But still he's a holy man.
I thought there was supposed to have been one, a person praying to him and the person was cured or some such thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
That's one I haven't heard before. When we die our souls go to sleep?
According to Paul, the souls will sleep until the second coming of Christ. The second coming has to happen first.
but the soul is intellectual not physical matter. how can intellectual matter sleep? surely SP was meaning 'lie in wait' rather than 'sleep' and it got lost in translation.
Regardless of that, praying for a Saint to intercede when he/she is really just "lying in wait" hardly seems rational given there is a "Supreme God" for that.
When I said 'lie in wait' I was guessing at what SP might have meant. The soul is immortal and cannot become more or less than what it is. It cannot become less conscious because consciousness is what defines it.
When Catholics believe a person to be saintly, that is, close to God, they want God give some indication that this is the case, so that the saint may be rightly revered. If a miracle happens in association with a saint, then Catholics see that as God indicating the same.
A saint is not a rival god, but a further affirmation of God's grace.
Some might view a declaration of a saint from this "earthly" and "limited" environment to be an attack on God's authority to judge a person as to whether he or she is a saint. Would you not agree with this?
Not at all. Saints aren't people who have led a blameless life. Think of St. Paul; a murderer of Christians before his road to Damascus experience. We revere his words more than Joe Bloggs down the road because we believe them to be revelations by God. Who told us this? A saint is someone who, by his actions, by his words reveals truths about God. We give saints an earthly prestige to give us leadership while we inhabit an earthly world.
So if a mass murderer were to have a supernatural experience and turn his life around, he would then have more merit than Joe Bloggs down the road who never committed a morally decrepit act?
I am not a God fearing Christian but a saint whose actions included killing people would never more prestige than some average Joe who lived his life free of criminal activities.
You pray to Saints to intercede on God's behalf and in doing so take God out of the picture because He is too busy with other things.
"We give saints an earthly prestige to give us leadership while we inhabit an earthly world." That sounds like a wishful deal with the dead. Should not "prestige" be given to God and God alone?
St Paul did in fact kill Christians before his conversion. My question is,that if you hold no one in prestige, what made you quote him?
Saints do not take God out of the picture, quite the reverse. They help to bring him more into everyday life because they give us a context of Christian behavior which we can emulate. It tells us that it is possible for a sinner to become a saint. We all have the capacity to be saints. Sainthood doesn't begin with perfect behavior, it begins with a love of God.
I quote St. Paul not because I hold him in prestige but because YOU hold him in prestige. Regardless of the fact of whether he killed Christians or Jews, he murdered people. By today's standards, would you follow someone who murdered people en masse and then had a "conversion"? Is it the fact that he killed Christians supposed to somehow enhance the argument that whatever he preaches is righteous? There is a sinner and there is a criminal and the moral compass with which you are guided by is totally off the deep end.
Logically speaking praying to a dead saint, how does that bring you closer to God? Should you not be praying to that God instead? Why the diversion?
Any mass murderer including Bin Laden can have a true genuine love of God. It is what they do to their fellow human beings on earth which is far more important. This is why secular justice has replaced religion in terms of the justice system. How would you feel if a person stabbed and killed you and then went on to be a "saint"? Truly a bizarre way of thinking and morally bankrupt of justice.
Wow! ok. I didn't realise it was one of these kinds of conversations. I thought when you quoted SP you were a born-again Christian or something and that this was a theological discussion.
To clarify, st paul was a Roman in charge of arresting and executing Christians, that was the law of the time and he lived a comfortable life by conforming to it. When he converted, he knew the danger it put him in but he couldn't deny his new found faith, so he gave himself to a life of poverty and wrote numerous letters to various groups, including to his fellow Romans, trying to convince them lead a Christian life. These are some of the most beautiful tracts ever written. Inevitably he was arrested and tortured by the Romans, but when they came to crucifying him he said he was not worthy to die in the same way as his savior, so they crucified him upside down. I think that makes him a little different from a blood-thirsty, avaricious, poligamous, megalomaniac like Bin Laden. Plus, Bin Laden was not driven by a love of God. He was driven by hatred of the west.
It is not a diversion to speak to God through the saints. All prayers are directed to God but sometimes it is easier to find a saint whose cause reflects your own and use them as a vessel with which to contact God on a more familiar level.
Finally, since when did secular justice replace religion? Secularism may have crept into common law, but the basis of the legal system throughout Europe anyway, is still entrenched in the ten commandments. It may be different where you live.
First off, you are confusing Paul with Peter. Peter was crucified upside down. Paul was beheaded. Peter was the one who said "I am not worthy to die like my saviour."
Paul was a Roman citizen but he was a Jew. So the law of the time was to arrest and execute Christians? Paul did not have the authority of a Roman to kill Christians, he was a Pharisee. He took it upon himself to go after the Christians according to the Acts Of The Apostles. You cannot justify his actions because he "was part of the system." The Nazis used that excuse and it did not get them very far.
Who are you to say that Bin Laden did not have a love of God in his heart. Maybe in his own warped mind the West interfered with his love for his god.
Your "vessel" analogy means that saint are acting as God's couriers. Why would an omnipotent God need such a service. He hears all, he sees all, he knows all. What need would anyone of that stature possibly have for a messengers of saints and angels of obvious inferior power. The question is - does God need the saints to do His will and why? If he does, then it reflects that he is not as omnipotent or all knowing. You cannot have it both ways.
If you think the ten commandments are the be all, end all of historical foundations for law, you are sadly mistaken. The Hammurabi code predates the Ten Commandments by at least 500 years. Guess Yahweh was a little late coming to the table. Common law has been developed over many centuries. It is much more complex than a set of 10 rules handed down by Yahweh on a mountain. I agree with you that the ten commandments may be a slight basis for a starting point of our legal code but a very faint starting point. That starting point was not even the first set of laws to grace humanity.
Hold it! I was certainly not justifying St Paul's actions. He was a terrible person! That is why it was so extraordinary that such a bad person should have turned so dramatically. You're right, I've confused Peter with Paul on that point. Paul couldn't be crucifed but beheaded because he was Roman citizen, I remember now. But you're absolutely right, he was as bad and as culpable as a Nazi. Had he not shown himself willing to suffer in the same way that Christians had been made to suffer under him, he would never have been a saint. It was the ultimate proof that he loved God.
Nevertheless I can say that Bin Laden did not love because he preached hate. Nothing he did suggested that he was driven by love. It's a natural deduction. You're being facetious if you don't admit that. We know that St.Paul loved, because he preached love. He died for love. Simple.
'if I have faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing'.
As far as your problem with saints is concerned, I don't know how I can better express it. God doesn't need saints, we need saints. God wants us all to be saints. The more saintly we are, the closer we are to God.
Why would I think the 10 commandments are the be- all and end- all? Certainly the foundations of our law are fundamentally Christian, whatever they were predated by. One of he reasons why Turkey has still not yet been welcomed into the European union is because there is concern that as a Muslim country, it's laws will contrast with the Christian basis of our own. The formulation of our law came from Aristotle's teachings on political and social structure combined with Aquinas' theology and is still relevant today in the understanding of law, which is why you must study both at law school.
I, for one, feel very glad and lucky to be under such laws, which protect me as a human, as a woman, as an individual.
So then according to your thinking, a Hitler or a Bin Laden can become a saint by turning around and preaching about love to the masses. Hypothetically speaking, according to your analysis even a murderer and a mass murder at that can still become a saint.
We are not sure how many people Paul was supposed to have killed, but let's say he persecuted and killed twenty people (and it may be more than that), is it possible ethically speaking that a murderer on that scale can attain sainthood?
Why do we need saints? Why do we need to feel we have to pray for their intercessions? What you describe as the relationship between yourself and praying to these saints is tantamount to demi-gods (demagoguery?)
Strange that people pray to St. Jude for favors received yet the book of St. Jude is widely regarded as pseudopigraphic.
While foundations of our laws have Christian influences on it, they have now progressed to reflect universal ethics, of which Christianity nor any other religion has a monopoly on. I did not know that St. Thomas Aquinas' theology was necessary for an understanding of law but if so, then I stand corrected.
You must know that the idea of sainthood came straight from Roman paganism, designed to win them over to the faith. It is a very thinly disguised veil of polytheistic worship and very strange to an outsider from another monotheistic religion.
I can see this saint thing is making you frustrated. Protestants too, have long misunderstood having saints as being polytheistic and idolatry. I don't find it hard to accept at all because it is part of my culture as a Roman Catholic. And, yes, the influence of Roman culture can be plainly seen. As can paganism and in Spain, Islam, as a result of the 600 odd years of Muslim rule there. None of it is at odds with christian theology. It is the rich tapestry resulting from of 2000 years of a living culture. The central theological themes, however, are unambiguous, unchanging and absolute. People want to know that if something is true now, it will always be true.Things that may seem contradictory to you, are a mark of the freedom of Catholic culture. Consider the medieval Gothic cathedrals of Europe. Triumphs of creative expression by free men. Not like the symmetrical blocks built by slaves in Egypt.
Saints are not demi-gods, they are not pretenders to celestial throne. They are icons in some respects. Religious pointers. But they are still just souls. I don't think the physical world and the spiritual one are so very far apart and it seems to me quite natural that there should be contact between them.
The notion of God can sometimes be very perplexing, and having saints is almost to say, 'see that man, he was filled with Gods grace, speak to him about it'. But they are also peripheral to the church. They don't alter catholic teaching or have stuff added for them in the Bible. The most important prayer is still the Our Father.
To go back to your first point, can Hitler or Bin Laden become saints, that is a key question in christian theology. It is the hardest but also the most important to accept as it means believing that everyone is capable of redemption and ultimate forgiveness. We presume it's a bit late for those two, who shoud be tap-dancing on those proverbial hot coals for eternity all going to plan.
By the way, St Jude is the patron saint of lost causes. Something for everyone.
No, the saint thing does not occupy my time but I do like to debate certain issues with people and I have enjoyed your discourse.
Interesting, do you feel that Bin Laden or Hitler would be in hell for all eternity? Would that fit their crime. I am not sure about that. Their crimes although horrifying would still be finite. Hitler could pay with punishment of a hundred years for every person he had murdered. That would account to six hunded million years. What then? Would he have not paid for those sins? Okay, maybe another six hundred million years for good measure. However, 1 trillion years is still just a drop in the bucket in terms of time out there. It would not amount to eternity. What do you think about infinite punishment to fit finite crimes? There does not seem to be be an equilibrium in justice.
This I agree with. No finite crime deserves infinite punishment. Even worse, we do not know why Hitler did what he did- was he just sick, was it enviornmental factors or heredity factors.
I've always had a problem that if there is an all loving God, how could there be a Hell?
How about listing the alternatives or possibilities?
God exists and hell does not exist: God in this case would be an all-loving god who loves everyone unconditionally, no matter what kind of person they are and as a result everyone will be with him when they die.
This would be god worth worshiping.
God exists and hell exists: God is not all-loving nor accepts us unconditionally. He punishes those who don't believe or obey him by sending them to hell.
This would be an evil despot not worth wiping your boots on.
How about a few more examples?
That't too far out there for me. Why the concept of an all loving god? Why can't there just be a concept of some type of existence after death, what, how, who, I have no idea.
I came to conclusion that there is a Power, but don't have the mental brainpower to go beyone that.
Death would appear to be the lack of an existence, at least for the person who is dead.
Sure you do, you're a smart guy. The idea is to keep working on the possibilities and alternatives.
The concept of an all loving god is tantamount to creation, is it not?
Working on possibilities and alternatives do not turn into high probabilities and beliefs.
Why is an all loving God tantamount to creation. Maybe a God created the Universe because he was pissed off at something.
Yeah it doesn't work does it. There is no atonement. There is no punishment that suits the crime. But there is a way to win the battle over evil, and that is to remain uncorrupted by it. Who knows what happens when we die?
It's been interesting chatting with you.
Well actually the ten commandments are not really what our laws are based on. Before Moses the laws against theft and murder existed and had existed for a long time. The only commandments that did not exist concern the Jewish god and what to believe and what not to believe. We don't observe those in secular law.
Egypt had laws and so did every society before it. Moses was familiar with law having been brought up in the Egyptian court.. To think his laws are original is a mistake.
which of the commandments don't you observe? Apart from 'love the lord thy god'. They don't seem like a bad set of rules really.
Not bad, but incomplete. The first four deal with god's vanity and probably should have had at least one replaced with not engaging in sexual activity with children. And maybe another about not owning and abusing other human beings against their will. Those seem to be pretty basic human rights that it would have been nice to see in there. Just my opinion.
Hello again Tahoe
They are incomplete yes. That's why Jesus added another which was 'love thy neighbour as thyself'. He thought that would cover the above and more, including all instances of ill treatment and abuse against another person. These are the outlines of a good life. If you ignore the ones on God, they are still good outlines.
Well.... Let's see.
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
I don't. But I don't have this one either. Not a civil law. That's one
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
I don't. I assume this means to take an image as a god. Otherwise artists are in trouble and little kids that draw pictures are going to hell. Not a civil law. That's two
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
I might do this on occasion but I'm not sure what it means exactly nor why it would be a problem. Again, not a civil law. That's three
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
I defiantly break this one, and it is not a civil law. That's four.
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
I do. It is not civil law but if you have good parents no one has to tell you this. Five that don't end up in our laws so far.
SIX: 'You shall not kill.'
Definitely civil law and yes I obey it to the degree I can. Unfortunately I have to murder plants and animals to live because god couldn't think of a better way to do things. Unfortunate in my opinion. That's one so far.
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
No longer against the law though it is grounds for divorce. 6 that are not civil law. No. I haven't broken it in 33 years of marriage. But again, not because it is a sin according to the bible..
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
This is civil law so that's 2 so far. Theft causes all kinds of conflict. It's not worth it.
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
It's a good plan and I wouldn't do it. It might be against the law in certain circumstances as well. I'll count it as part of civil law. That's 3
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Well this could be dealing with theft and so is not a different law. You can also take it as meaning you can't you shouldn't be jealous of what some one else has, in which case it is not part of our current law.
So like I said, only murder and theft made it into civil law with telling lies about people is sometimes a crime if it concerns slander or false accusations which result in an innocent person going to jail.
In a very real sense all of the laws except the ones talking directly about god are laws against theft in some way. Murder is theft of life and adultery is a theft of trust and a betrayal if people have expectations of fidelity.
Nothing we have in civil law is original to Moses. But in answer to your other question, other than the ones about god which are irrelevant, no they are not bad laws at all.
One and two, yes, no longer relevant in today's society.
Three; this has kind of come to mean that we must respect other's beliefs. Four; supermarkets are still only allowed to open between 10 and 4pm on a sunday.
Five; parents still have certain rights over you unitl 21.
Six; we've stopped killing criminals, good, but we've started killing unborn babies and old people. A tricky one.
Seven; adultery as you say, is still relevant in law.
Eight; still relevant yes.
Nine; lying is still relevant, will end in jail at worst.
Ten; jealousy or envy very relevant as something to be discouraged as they cause most of the above and are thus pretty serious.The only one of the laws which is a thought crime.
Yes I think these laws do basically concern theft, but more specifically they concern social disharmony. You follow these babies and you're making a pretty good start.
Incidentally, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I still think one can take for granted the Christian values that underpin our laws. My brother spent 6 months in Saudi Arabia and became very conscious of not being under a Christian based law. We have something called the Samaritans law in this country, for example. If a person has a heart-attack or an accident say, in the street and you don't try to help, you can be held accountable for criminal negligence.
btw congrats on 33 years marriage! Good going!
"Three; this has kind of come to mean that we must respect other's beliefs. "
That's a strange interpretation of something that so obviously means what it says. It's clearly against tolerance of other religions.
The Sunday closing laws are a perfect example. First, sabbath is on Saturday and that's the day the bible refers to. Secondly, the Sunday closings were started by Constantine. Not for the Christian sabbath but for the day of the Sun. This is after he converted Rome to Christianity and he expected Christians to follow it. They have to this day.
The other thing you say is that you can see we live in societies with Christian values. While I won't argue against that point, the Ten commandments do not include many of them. The good Samaritans law is a good example of that.
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?"
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.
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!"
They have a nice Vatican museum though
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.
priests have to eat and pay for gas. contributions every sunday goes to the priests for their daily expenses.
Hard to keep all the ill gotten gains without it.
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.
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." :
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?
Not hard to accept at all and it makes my point poignantly that the majority of humanity is easily fooled and led!
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.
"...really? fooled and led to do what? honor a man they respect?"
Respect a pope?
Again, that proves my point that folks are easily led and easily fooled.
End of chat
What is that supposed to mean, exactly? Does science breed evil? Is science seeking the destruction of others? Puzzling statement.
It was actually the Christians that made the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Scientists did not have anything to do with it. 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
: Lizzie, you represent to me, one who is involved in human trivia and hasn't, yet, conceived a macro concept of human ineptness, immaturity and predation.
Why would you,... your words, "argued the history of Catholicism, from various points of view." knowing full well that to WIN an argument, one must provide evidence and proofs not just opinion based on prior inculcation? That'd be pure foolishness.
I would never offer any child my opinions about abstract metaphysical concepts concerning souls, gods, spirits, et al and offer them as being truth. That would be heinous child abuse.
Who knows if this is true:
We humans have evolved "guile" as an inherent characteristic to survive for hundreds of thousands of years.
Yes people were so happy with Europes religious power and control that they left and created a nation called the USA.
Lizzie, the vatican "IS" catholicism.
I understand man and his anthropological history. Do you?
His propensity to create the supernatural, has necessarily evolved to sate a need for answers in those facets of his psychological experiences of "reality" that frighten him and that he cannot understand.
Lets agree to disagree. :
I am not an atheist, agnostic, deist or a believer in supernatural divinities. I am an ignostic.
you have still given me no evidence to support anything you've said. It's been fun chatting to you though.
Yes, your religion has caused many wars and deaths in the name of your god. That's one of the main reasons why it's such a serious problem for mankind.
You just said, "faith has been fought for, died for..." hence you cannot tell your children that killing is wrong if you are to refer to your faith.
You would be lying to your children, then.
Out of respect for others, keep it to yourself. If you are compelled to share your faith, you therefore have no respect for others and are being selfish.
No, it is no universally accepted. In fact, your Christ most likely did not exist at all if we are to use the bible as our source.
Sorry, I wasn't clear there. When I said 'died for' I meant killed for their faith, murdered, you know.
I also think that if everyone kept their views to themselves it would be a very ignorant world indeed. Debate keeps us alive.
Good - debate can also formulate, tweek and change our own opinions.
Yes, I understand, your religion has resulted in many murders and killings. Yeah, I get that.
And, you see no problem with that?
Freedom to practice religion or not has always been a thing that has caused wars. Chairman Mao said that religion was poison and used this as a reason to slaughter a million Tibetans. How would you describe your standpoint in the world? I have read you describe both Muslims and Catholics as inherently murderous. What philosophy do you side with in the world? What set of criteria governs your choices in life? Lets see if anyone belonging to something similar has ever been guilty of a heanus crime. Members of the RC church have been guilty of huge crimes in the 2000 years of its existence. Am I ok with that? No of course not. They are as guilty as anyone. It must be remembered however, that the church has also been responsible for our system of law in the west, for laws regarding the respect of property and protection of the human person. It has been a place of refuge for the poor and sick, and a place where class or race are irrelevant, because it is the doctrine of the church to be peaceful and charitable. These are good things. I'm sure you'll agree that power in the hands of the weak is a dangerous thing.
No, the practice of religion has caused wars.
Really? Why not have a good look at the history of Mao and Communist China to see the real reasons why he admitted to mass murder.
What does that have to do with anything? I govern my choices, just like you do.
Nonsense. Your religion had nothing to do with creating laws having respect or protecting people, on the contrary.
Sure, those are good things, but not things practiced by the church. From where do you get those ridiculous notions?
Especially the weak minded, who need holy books to govern their lives and the world around them.
You may want to check out the definition of indoctrination.
In my opinion, he did not do what Jesus did and believed; and in fact he worked against the teachings of Jesus.
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.....
"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.
Thankyou. Gosh this is pretty tireing isn't it.
I only discovered this forum two days ago and already I'm weary of it.
Weary of the relentless venom I mean, not what you've just said.
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.
I have no vote either, but from what I saw on TV he won't need our 2 votes.
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.
Yes, I'm not too bothered by it either. Sorry I can't answer the question, I have no idea.
That would be the correct spelling in French. lol....
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.
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
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.
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.
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....
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.
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....
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.
I think the problem is a lot of abuse was not reported before the 1960s and 70s and that change was on the way of a sort. People were too scared to talk about abuse and no one did anything about it. I think stats before that were tainted by this fact. Again, the 60 and 70s were about change, not abuse.
Society has gotten freer and more permissive since the 60s, at least in Canada it has, and crime has dropped a lot in all aspects the last few years. Which is why I hate the fact that we suddenly have a conservative government for the next 4 years. They will do untold damage to our society and freedoms, building more prisons and supposedly getting tough on crime. Now is not the time for that. But crime was up for a while during the the gangster rap era, which has mellowed a lot.
As for abuse, again, it is because of the 60s that people now feel they can tell. Civil rights and womans lib took away one of the biggest hurdles for woman. They can now be self sufficient and don't have to rely on a man for their financial needs. A lot of woman stayed in abusive relationships because they had no where else to go. That has changed because of he 60s.
You have a good point about the Greek soldiers. But that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the philosophers, the rich, and politicians.
The thing is that permissive society is not necessarily abusive society. It can be, of course, so can conservative societies be abusive. Again, it as you say, it doesn't matter what religion we are talking about. Look at current Islam which produces the most conservative societies in the world today and also generates the most abuse toward woman and children.
But not all men are abusive in any culture. Far from it. However one incident is too many.
As for keeping laws simple fair and firm, It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but life is not simple or cut and dried. Fair is obviously good. But simple and firm often come as a pair and they often are not fair because they do not take specific circumstance into consideration. Theft is theft, but there is difference between taking a loaf of bread to feed your family and taking millions from old retired people and moving to Mexico.
More to the point there is a difference between two 14 year olds having sex and 14 year old being forced to have sex with her relative. If you keep laws too firm and simple innocent people go to jail for nothing. That's not justice. Of course there are things like pedophilia for which there is no excuse, and the excuses that can be made, like the person can't help it, don't matter. They still need to be taken off the streets for every child's safety. Beating you wife should never be allowed either. But there is a difference between beating you child and giving them a spanking. While it is a fine line, there is a line.
Ah yes, the person in question. Well JP II was undoubtably a good man, not just in the opinion of Catholics but also Jews and Muslims and Anglicans because he made it his life's work to draw people together by finding our common humanity, a people under one God. He showed his respect and good-will by kissing the ground in every country he visited. He could not have been aware of the full extent of the abuse scandal initially because firstly, a Pope is informed about a parish by his Cardinals who in turn are informed by Arch Bishops who themselves are informed by Bishops. A Bishop is in charge of moving his priests from one parish to another, and If a Bishop chooses to withhold information, (which some clearly did,) you can see how such a vast institution was able to develop these clouds of murkiness and corruption within it's ranks. Secondly, proper investigations into abuse scandals did not really begin until 1993. Although JP II could have been more on the ball. I have a newspaper article from back then which showed Ratzinger was trying draw attention to the problem but it wasn't really being tackled. Once he became Pope, he declared soon after, 'we're going to root out the scum from South America', meaning Catholic officials there involved corruption and sex cover-up scandals. It's a good thing the Church was forced to act so publicly. It was handled so badly before.
John Paul... Well he was a man. He died, and that for me is the end of the story. For Catholics he's a saint whether they make him one officially or not. His sainthood is inevitable.
Was he responsible for the abuse that went on under his leadership? Yes. He was in charge. But, did he act inappropriately? That's up for debate.
From an outsider's view point he should have handed over every offending priest to the authorities. From an insider's perspective he was the authorities and he did what he thought most humane for all. There were rehab programs and often the priests were taken out of the communities and not placed in others. The pope isn't about punishment, he is supposed to be about forgiveness and making things right. Priests are people and according to the religion they are all sinners from birth. So instead of throwing them to the wolves so to speak, he showed compassion for them.
Most of the victims families all through history were willing to allow the church to take care of it as they saw fit for the good of the religion. You can't throw out what you consider the truth just because some people abuse their power.
Some of the victims felt the same.way. Others did not and they are the ones that suffered and eventually told, which lead to the current scandals.
He showed compassion for the priests, felt sorry for the victims, and protected the church as did all his predecessors. That makes him a compassionate man and perhaps a saint, at least in the eyes of the insider.
But did he do enough for victims? Did he do justice? What could he have done for the victims? Throw money at them? Wouldn't that have been seen as cynical? That's what pop stars and politicians do to keep victims quiet. Yet that's what they are getting now through the courts for not keeping quiet. Is that really justice? Some want to see priests hang and others want to see them in jail. Would that have been justice?
Perhaps so for you and me, but not for the believers or for the church. There is no compensation possible that will reverse the acts. So trying to rehabilitate the priests and offering apologies to the families as well as counseling would have seemed to John Paul about as much as he could do in the capacity of second in command behind Jesus. What would Jesus have done? Apparently he would have said: "Let those without sin cast the first stone."
The church is supposed to be based on forgiveness, not revenge. It's adherents are supposed to practice forgiveness not demand financial compensation or revenge. He took the priests at their word if they said they were genuinely sorry and forgave them if they asked for it. Isn't that saintly? I would have excommunicated them and thrown them to the wolves. Besides being an atheist, that's probably why I am not pope, and will never make saint..
Was he smart about it all? No. He should have taken all the priest that were reported abusers out of service permanently and stuck them in a monastery where they could spend the rest of their lives in service to their god, away from the public. In effect giving the priests a choice between self imposed jail or civil trial, with the proviso that if they left the Church they would be excommunicated and civil authorities notified so that future offences would not occur. That would perhaps have been seen as justice as well as compassion for all concerned. Real compensation being impossible.
But being smart isn't a prerequisite for sainthood. Being compassionate is. And he was that to a fault according to Catholic and most Christian beliefs.
We must also not forget that bishops like the present pope are the ones who were in charge of this issue and they are the ones who are to blame for re offenders and cover-ups. John Paul would have trusted their decisions, which also shows he perhaps wasn't as bright as he was compassionate.
In the end it isn't up to atheists, other Christians, or anyone else to decide whether he is sainted or not. It's a Catholic thing. Personally I don't believe in saints.
So like I said as a response to the original question posed by the forum: Sainthood for John Paul is inevitable. Get on with it already.
I see what you're saying. I suppose the sharp drop in cases in the 80s and 90s was because you could no longer get away with stuff now the abuse was being exposed.
Well I am not sure what your stats are dealing with specifically. But in general I'd say if your stats are correct then yes. When a person knows they are likely to be exposed then they either have to kill their victim or choose them more wisely. We are talking abuse in general so for many people murder is not an option while abuse may be, so the idea of getting caught can act as a deterrent. A husband is always the first suspect.
Woman who are abused these days tend to leave the relationship more often and thereby stop the abuse. They have recourse now and a lot of resources which they never had in history before. That should have brought the numbers down considerably by itself. After all, there are only so many abusive people.
Education helps a lot. No tolerance for violence in a society helps. Making abuse a crime in society and unacceptable to the average person helps. Not accepting anger or jealousy as a virtue or a right, helps.
But pedophiles come in two varieties. The ones that kill and the ones that don't. The ones that kill are rare, but the ones that don't won't risk being caught in a society that would take their jobs and their lives for life. So family incest while still happening is probably down because of several factors: Child education and awareness of it, the fact that woman can leave abusive relationships more easily, and the fact that if you caught fewer people are going to sweep it under the rug for the reasons they used to have to.
Culture evolves. We want to be rid of abuse but it is a hard long road to get there. However, we have achieved a lot over the last two thousand years, and I think the 60s was a time in the evolution of human morality when we shook up the status quo and created a new dynamic. Woman and minorities gained rights and protections. Children gained rights and protections. The taboo was talked about and made plain.
Yes, when that happens in a society there are excesses that happen. The early materialist movement was met with stories like Jekyll and Hide, the picture of Dorian Gray and Frankenstein. The early 1900s feared a godless world and feared that morality would die.
It was time like the 60s where morality was up for debate. Without a god, is man moral? The answer is yes. Cause and effect force us all to be moral beings for our own good and for those we love. We do after all love and want to belong. And that has nothing to do with a god. Materialist ideologies of today all have a strong moral compass (or is it GPS these days?)
The point is that cultures evolve and shift. And while they are in a state of shift there is often turmoil until we find a new balance or status quo. This is inevitable due to the fact that when you tear things down for renovation, you always leave a big mess before you can make things better. Unfortunately creative solutions are only found out of necessity when conflict is at its greatest.
Change is slow and comes in waves with often violent focal points, with long periods of status quo in between.
As for the 60s, like the Church, it was all about peace. It was also about freedom, fair play, exposing injustice, and reopening a dialog on all things taboo . That there was a backlash to it by the status quo was inevitable. That it went too far at some points was inevitable as well. But it served it's purpose and we are better for it.
You bring up some interesting points. I don't know what the statistics are in Canada however, but child abuse within families in Europe is sadly as high as ever, as are the appearance of peodophile rings and domestic violence in the newpapers. Education is the best thing we can do for ourselves, it's true. Education is enlightenment after all. The great Cardinal Newman, who was beatified in Birmingham recently said (and I paraphrase), that we must educate ourselves to the best of our ability. We must not be in the dark or accept anything with ignorance. It was a reminder of why the Church built great universities and encouraged a scholarly life. People tend to forget, or choose to forget how the church regards ignorance as a fault, not as a requirement in the practice of the Faith.
I didn't mean to sound as if I was slating the Church when I accused it of poor handling of crimes. It is because I see the beauty and truth of it that I am cross it allowed itself to be so punctured with weak men.
Natural morality; always a good debate. Are we born good or born with a yearning to be good? We are naturally spiritual certainly. We can't help but look for meanings behind the stars.
I must just talk about the books you mentioned cos it's kind of my subject. Dorian Gray I will give you, was a cautionary tale about materialism and godlessness. Jekyll and Hyde was actually a response to Darwinism and the horror of man having evolved from beast. Frankenstein was written as an allegory of Romantic Humanism which Mary Shelly believed in: Man is created by a man, therefore without a god, born without sin but made bad by the world. It is also an allegory about the injustice of being born into the lowest class and that through not fault of your own, you are hated and denied the rights of the rich. The Romantics believed that man is born knowing everything but that the corrupt world gradually strips him of his innate knowledge and, unless he shuns it, he will fall prey to it.Interesting huh.
I thought I'd tell you that because it sounds right up your street.
From what I am seeing we don't have a lot of stats pre 1980. The reason being that it wasn't until then that the laws toward child and spousal abuse changed. We were still running on British common law which told us that we were permitted to correct wives and children though it did gave a rule of thumb. Not sure if or when that was changed in England.
From Statistics Canada I found that abuse rates dropped dramatically from over an estimated 65 percent of all woman who would report anything saying they had been abused at some point in their lives to about 35 percent reporting the same thing only ten years later. Now it is one in 7. The troubling statistic is that while abuse us down in general, it has leveled off and remained at exactly the same number for the last 5 years. Abuse makes up 12 percent of all police reported crime. One of the ways society has made it harder on abusers is that the police lay charges, not the victim. If the victim does lay charges independently they can not drop them.
There a spike in abuse in a 1990s survey that saw abuse go up by 40 percent in a five year period. But it was discovered that the reason was not because there was more abuse, it was that officials taking the survey included a whole range of abuses that were not considered before, making the standards for proper behavior much higher. Some would say too high. For example, making comments about ones body weight was included as abuse. Once adjusted it is assumed that there was a slight increase but no where near 40 percent during those years.
I'm not saying verbal put downs and bullying are not abuse. I'm just saying statistics are a nightmare if we don't strictly standardize, categorize and define what we want to know before we start asking questions. I'm never sure whether the reliability of statistics is getting better or worse.
I don't really blame the church for the way it handed the crimes either. Certainly I don't blame John Paul. But I don't think the church can help but attract both the honorable well meaning men and the pedophiles alike. And in others posts I have made here I have illustrated why the church handled it the way it did. But tit is a changing world and people want transparency in religion even if it isn't their own. It's a rather understandable but strange circumstance for the church to find itself in after being able to do what it wished for so long without much scrutiny.
I was sure about Dorian Gray and Jekyll and Hyde being in response to Darwinism would also implicate materialism. It certainly seems to have some of the same themes. I am surprised to learn that Shelly was a humanist, and it is the first time I have heard the phrase Romantic Humanism.
Thank you. I'll have to look that up.
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....
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.
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.
lol... How true. A heretic's work is never done. But don't forget to write about abuse in the Protestant churches. We mustn't forget them.
The good news is that you can stop being agitated because what you're saying is not true.
It has ben in the newspaper media, I think.
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.
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.
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'.
How do you know that what I'm saying is not true?
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 ?
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?
There has already been one, proven and verified miracle he did. I can't wait for the next one.
Can you elaborate, since I don't know what the miracle was.
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.
Yep I saw that. She had one that is a bit hard to prove or disprove. It was CNS related.
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.
Yup. Now that you mention it, I'm almost sure that was it.
No, not parkinsons, it was something else. I will think of it or find it soon.
You seem to be right, all I can find is parkinson's disease.
The next one he is chasing is a guy who copped a bullet.
Holy intervention batman!
of course I am right. lol... I'm going to write to Hawking and tell him now's his chance.
Well it wouldn't do his body any harm, and if the up and coming saint can cure him it would be a miracle so big that not only would he get his wings... I mean his sainthood, but he'd probably get a lot of converts too.
Everybody! Pray to John Paul for Stephan Hawking. Let's see if we can make this thing happen!
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?
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.
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?
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.”
God doesn't want you asking questions. Haven't you read the bible? 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?
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.
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?
I agree with you 100 percent for all those reasons and more.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
Revelation? That's your argument, what Revelations reads...?
Well it is hard to debate someone who bases their knowledge off the Book of Revelation. A fiction body of work, I'll add, about a dream........ I've got a lot of Marvel comic books to sell, you interested?
Revelations.... my oh my.
No you appear to misunderstand me IE. Revelation is taken by many to be literal. I do not agree. It is an account given to us from which we can gain some understanding as long as we see it for what it is. That is pictures, symbolism and allegory.
The fundy sees eternal tortur in the flames of hell. I see each one of us facing God after a resurrection where He will make us right.
The themes of Revelation are repeated throughout the bible and it is not something to be simply dismissed.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
by earnestshub7 years ago
According to an Australian Lateline news show, a show of good standing, the Pope may be involved directly in hiding knowledge of child abuse!Is this in any other news? What will it mean to the catholic church?Are some...
by atomswifey7 years ago
My personal experiences came at many times and intervals of my life. When I first accepted Christ, I was young and didn't quite understand as I really didn't "feel" any different. What I mean by that is, I saw...
by dutchman19515 years ago
So who invented the idea of having Saints?When and where?just woundering..?
by Rhys Baker5 years ago
Here is my point. All of the heads of the major branches of Christianity, as well as the heads of the other major religions all accept Evolution as the process by which the biodiversity we see before us came to be....
by quietnessandtrust5 years ago
1st Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Why would the Apostle Paul need to explain that Adam was formed first and then...
by Donaisabella7 years ago
As a Christian, tell us who you give to, what you work you have been involved in the community or at church and tell us why. What has God been teaching you about these things lately?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.