John Paul II - a saint already?

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/01/canonization-popejohn.html

In short, they're doing all they can to fast-track making JPII a saint.

"Such a waiver had only been granted once before, to Mother Teresa."

What a horrible disgrace to her name. She is a real saint who spent her life making a difference, selflessly.

But I can't say I'm surprised. The sheep will always have their shepherd.

Some nun recently came out and said her parkinson's disease was cured because she prayed to JPII, and they're actually taking this seriously.

"Theologians will then determine whether the cure came as a result of prayer to John Paul."

You've got to be kidding me. Full-grown adults in a post-modern world are actually going to spend time discussing this? It absolutely baffles me that there are people who will even consider this to be a credible reason to make someone a saint... not to mention ignoring his actions on the fight against AIDS in Africa.

He surely caused an incredible amount of damage after he "advised" the people of Africa to refrain from using condoms because they allegedly had holes in them. That's actually kind of funny, coming from someone whose position requires him to remain celibate, so he probably had never even seen a condom... unless he broke celibacy of course, but nobody affiliated with the church would ever do that.... *sarcastic*.

Any independently thinking person has surely translated this as nothing but pushing the church's outdated dogmatic anti-abortion agenda, regardless of repercussions. Not to mention, the majority of people he was speaking to were illiterate and impoverished people, so he was abusing his power by taking advantage of that and manipulating them. It is no coincidence that the African countries best fighting AIDS are the non-Catholic ones.

The Vatican must be aware of all of these things, and so I therefore find it to be truly unbelievable that there are human beings in this world whom, in seemingly good conscience, continue to cover up his crimes against humanity - only to protect their own image. And then there's the covering up of pedophile priests, all for the same reason.

Stories like these have me losing faith in the god-given (if you will) brains of humanity. We're not moving forward at all. We can build a nice car and keep making our computers faster, but as people, philosophically and socially, we as a collective body haven't progressed in the slightest in thousands of years. We're still separated into groups of people based on which ancient stories we believe, and which we reject... which is essentially the root of the majority of the world's current major issues.

I gave my two cents as a feedback on the CBC news page, but my best guess is that my comments won't be published on the CBC site, because they're not politically correct, and/or they'll upset people... and if that's the case, it's okay. The Catholic church will eventually come to its demise one day, with or without media censorship of free thought. It just may take a while... a long, long while.

In the meantime, if they fast-track him and make him a saint, then "R.I.P. Humanity" until further notice.


Your thoughts?

well, from what i know, they need more than just one story to make a certain person a saint. and he still has to be beatified before he becomes a saint, so, yeah. they still have to prove that JPII did indeed do miracles by getting more than just one miracle story. :)


[edit]
this just in: JPII isn't beatified yet, so he can't become a saint yet. to become a saint, you have to be beatified first. there is a certain process before someone is beatified, btw. :)

Surely a saint wouldn't go all pasty and yellow in his coffin. He'd stay 'fresh' forever, right?

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Surely a saint wouldn't go all pasty and yellow in his coffin. He'd stay 'fresh' forever, right?[/QUOTE]

Most of them claim that, yeah

Sainthood is irrelevant.

It's like an athlete making it into the Hall of Fame for his postmortem achievements. I wouldn't even bother making a big deal out of something coming from people who worship a taco just because it happens to look like the Virgin Mary.

I don't like any Saints. Except George. He was pretty good.

What makes a Saint...a Saint?

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]iGSM wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
What makes a Saint...a Saint? [/QUOTE]

A slow-down in donations to the church? A need to restore interest in said church? The recent/convenient death of a well-known figure within the church whom all must aspire to imitate lest they be damned?

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sainthood is irrelevant.

It's like an athlete making it into the Hall of Fame for his postmortem achievements. I wouldn't even bother making a big deal out of something coming from people who worship a taco just because it happens to look like the Virgin Mary.[/QUOTE]Have you something against my God, Jingles?

*enter George Carlin line here*
"Do you believe in God? Yes! .. Do you believe in my God? No ... POOF DEAD! ... My god has a bigger dick than your god"! lol

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]

"Such a waiver had only been granted once before, to Mother Teresa."

What a horrible disgrace to her name. She is a real saint who spent her life making a difference, selflessly.

Your thoughts?
[/QUOTE]

I think this statement might not be as true as you (and everyone else) think it is. Of course, then again, it _might_ be true. But like all things, it is not so cut and dry.

More to come later. I wouldn't just make a baseless accusation like that.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Critics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position

She was reportedly kind of a sadist, adamantly believing that suffering was necessary on the path of Christianity.

She also used the funds she received to open convents and to promote Christianity, rather than to actually help the poor in any productive manner.

Read up. I'm not saying these things are true, but I am saying it is foolish not to consider them.

MusicMan, just to clarify, sadist is not the correct term to use. That term comes from the Marquis de Sade, a French nobleman who used violence and pain as a sexual turn on. Sadism is only a term used for violence that gets sexual gratification.
http://www.reference.com/search?q=Sadist
Suffering physically (usually whipping oneself a la The DaVinci Code) to truly understand what Christ suffered on the cross is more properly termed flagellation.
Back to the original point of the post...Bob, why in the world does this surprise you? Humans have never done well without a leader of some kind (political, religious or otherwise) because that would require independant thought, which can be uncomfortable at times. Much easier to just have someone tell you what to do and how to think. (At least that's how the theory runs)
They probably will make him a saint, but who cares? Another guy to add to the pantheon of demi-gods....none of them having a very good effect. Let them add him, that's fine. No skin off my nose if they now have one more name on the list to memorize that they can recite at the pearly gates and get into heaven with. I've got better things to do personally than worry about the afterlife.

Actually Sir GH, the CBC has been laying a beating on the Catholic church in Canada for their handling, pun not intended ;) of pedophile priests, so I'd think they'd be open to any comments. There was great 5th Estate program recently on how the London archdiocese has had rampant cases of abuse and covers them up. Absolutely shameful.

*edit*
nevermind

I did inappropriately use the literal term 'sadist.' I merely wanted to get across the point that she promoted suffering. However, thanks for pointing that out, as I am now more familiar with "sadism," and a firm understanding of vocabulary is something I always enjoy attaining.

No problem, MusicMan
I knew you'd take it as a compliment since I know you deplore ignorance.