Aye, I'm a bit strange. But I guess everyone has to be headstrong in one way or another.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
This man is not a saint ...
http://72.166.46.24/boston/news_features/editorial/documents/04607577.asp
"THE PROMINENT role that the Vatican has bestowed upon Bernard Cardinal Law following the death of Pope John Paul II goes far beyond the merely inappropriate. It is repulsive and offensive, and it makes you wonder whether the Catholic Church has learned anything following the pedophile-priest scandals of the past four years.
Law resigned as archbishop of Boston in late 2002, following revelations that he had covered up the crimes of his Roman-collared rapists, and had reassigned many of them to new parishes where, inevitably, they raped again. His departure came nearly two long years after the first of a series of groundbreaking reports in the Boston Phoenix on Law’s culpability in the sexual-abuse crisis. (An archive of the Phoenix’s coverage is online at www.bostonphoenix.com/pages/cardinal.asp.) The Boston Globe won the Pulitzer Prize for public service by exposing the extent of Law’s culpability. Yet there Law was this past Monday, saying a mass of mourning for the pope at St. Peter’s Basilica, a clear signal that he remains a respected member of the Catholic hierarchy.
John Paul’s life has justifiably been celebrated for his many accomplishments: his courageous opposition to communism, his unprecedented outreach to the Jewish community, his opposition to unjust wars (including the war in Iraq), and his advocacy of such social-justice causes as abolition of the death penalty. Within the Church, though, his record was a bitter disappointment to progressives. His persecution of gay and lesbian Catholics, his refusal to ordain women and married men, and his continued opposition to birth control — even to the point of condemning the use of condoms to prevent AIDS — all speak to another, less attractive side of his papacy.
Nowhere, though, was the pope more in the wrong than in his passive approach to sexual abuse. John Paul made an example out of Cardinal Law, but it was precisely the wrong kind of example. Law was rewarded with a cushy sinecure in Rome and placed in a position where he could re-emerge, as he now has. The next pope has to get it right when it comes to pedophile priests. He could start by making a very different kind of example of Law, a preening, arrogant man whose willful negligence destroyed so many lives — and who virtually bankrupted the archdiocese for which he was morally, spiritually, and financially responsible."
http://72.166.46.24/boston/news_features/editorial/documents/04607577.asp
"THE PROMINENT role that the Vatican has bestowed upon Bernard Cardinal Law following the death of Pope John Paul II goes far beyond the merely inappropriate. It is repulsive and offensive, and it makes you wonder whether the Catholic Church has learned anything following the pedophile-priest scandals of the past four years.
Law resigned as archbishop of Boston in late 2002, following revelations that he had covered up the crimes of his Roman-collared rapists, and had reassigned many of them to new parishes where, inevitably, they raped again. His departure came nearly two long years after the first of a series of groundbreaking reports in the Boston Phoenix on Law’s culpability in the sexual-abuse crisis. (An archive of the Phoenix’s coverage is online at www.bostonphoenix.com/pages/cardinal.asp.) The Boston Globe won the Pulitzer Prize for public service by exposing the extent of Law’s culpability. Yet there Law was this past Monday, saying a mass of mourning for the pope at St. Peter’s Basilica, a clear signal that he remains a respected member of the Catholic hierarchy.
John Paul’s life has justifiably been celebrated for his many accomplishments: his courageous opposition to communism, his unprecedented outreach to the Jewish community, his opposition to unjust wars (including the war in Iraq), and his advocacy of such social-justice causes as abolition of the death penalty. Within the Church, though, his record was a bitter disappointment to progressives. His persecution of gay and lesbian Catholics, his refusal to ordain women and married men, and his continued opposition to birth control — even to the point of condemning the use of condoms to prevent AIDS — all speak to another, less attractive side of his papacy.
Nowhere, though, was the pope more in the wrong than in his passive approach to sexual abuse. John Paul made an example out of Cardinal Law, but it was precisely the wrong kind of example. Law was rewarded with a cushy sinecure in Rome and placed in a position where he could re-emerge, as he now has. The next pope has to get it right when it comes to pedophile priests. He could start by making a very different kind of example of Law, a preening, arrogant man whose willful negligence destroyed so many lives — and who virtually bankrupted the archdiocese for which he was morally, spiritually, and financially responsible."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Critics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position
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.[/QUOTE]
Again, fascinating. Indeed, I was just another person with the popular belief about her. Pretty much everything in popular belief turns out to be bullshit after you read up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Critics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position
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.[/QUOTE]
Again, fascinating. Indeed, I was just another person with the popular belief about her. Pretty much everything in popular belief turns out to be bullshit after you read up.
[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]
well some Saints have this "benefit"
well some Saints have this "benefit"
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Critics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position
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.[/QUOTE]
Again, fascinating. Indeed, I was just another person with the popular belief about her. Pretty much everything in popular belief turns out to be bullshit after you read up.
[/QUOTE]
Then again, who are we to criticize morality issues?
C'mon, let's be real for once. We as human beings have done good and bad things. I (like anybody else) try to act following my moral convictions, but I'm conscious that I've acted wrong a countless number of times (many times with full knowledge of what I was doing).
Nonetheless, regardless of the criticisms, Mother Teresa still has done more for humanity than anyone of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Critics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position
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.[/QUOTE]
Again, fascinating. Indeed, I was just another person with the popular belief about her. Pretty much everything in popular belief turns out to be bullshit after you read up.
[/QUOTE]
Then again, who are we to criticize morality issues?
C'mon, let's be real for once. We as human beings have done good and bad things. I (like anybody else) try to act following my moral convictions, but I'm conscious that I've acted wrong a countless number of times (many times with full knowledge of what I was doing).
Nonetheless, regardless of the criticisms, Mother Teresa still has done more for humanity than anyone of us.
This all goes back to a very old argument, that started development with Peter Abelard in the 12th Century:
Which matters more? Your actions and the outcome of your actions, or your intentions? If you took your army and killed 100 people, do we judge it differently than if you say "Those 100 were trying to kill me and my people, so I had to prevent this from occurring"? You bet your butt we do.
For Mother Theresa....which matters more? The good deeds she accomplished for others, or the fact that she was ramming religion down their throat and raising money for a very aggressive brand of Catholicism?
In the West, we say that intentions matter...which is why there is a difference in punishments for 1st degree murder and manslaughter. If you intended to commit the crime, you will get the full punishment. If it was an accident, you get off with a lighter punishment.
Personally, I don't think the debate will ever be solved. But it's interesting to see how this plays out.
As for my own viewpoint on her...good deeds are good, but she's tarnished most of them by her intentions. They are still good, but they would have been better had her intentions been more pure. Does she deserve Sainthood? I think Sainthood is a relic of thousands of years ago that should be abolished completely, as no one could be perfect. But that's my opinion. If they want to make her, or Pope John Paul II a saint, fine by me. It doesn't even enter into my realm of consciousness, so let them do what they want.
Which matters more? Your actions and the outcome of your actions, or your intentions? If you took your army and killed 100 people, do we judge it differently than if you say "Those 100 were trying to kill me and my people, so I had to prevent this from occurring"? You bet your butt we do.
For Mother Theresa....which matters more? The good deeds she accomplished for others, or the fact that she was ramming religion down their throat and raising money for a very aggressive brand of Catholicism?
In the West, we say that intentions matter...which is why there is a difference in punishments for 1st degree murder and manslaughter. If you intended to commit the crime, you will get the full punishment. If it was an accident, you get off with a lighter punishment.
Personally, I don't think the debate will ever be solved. But it's interesting to see how this plays out.
As for my own viewpoint on her...good deeds are good, but she's tarnished most of them by her intentions. They are still good, but they would have been better had her intentions been more pure. Does she deserve Sainthood? I think Sainthood is a relic of thousands of years ago that should be abolished completely, as no one could be perfect. But that's my opinion. If they want to make her, or Pope John Paul II a saint, fine by me. It doesn't even enter into my realm of consciousness, so let them do what they want.
well he atleast he wasnt a nazi
You make a good point.
I actually agree with Music Man about Mother Theresa, but obviously that's not the point of the arguement here. John Paul II was very popular with the right-wing group of Catholics and (seemingly) the rest of the world. He was very media-conscious one the one hand (the whole Popemobile thing and so on) but on the other, ridiculously old-fashioned and highly dislikeable because of it. His treatement of gay and lesbian Catholics, of women in general and his somewhat bizarre antipathy towards abortion and contraception disgusted me. In theory the idea of remaining a virgin till your married works but in practice it just won't.
The Catholic church has gained a bit of a reputation for it's old-fashioned, homophobic and slightly sexist views (JPII's refusal to ordain women and so on) and John Paul did little if anything to combat this reputation. He was too superficial. Did little to spread the word of God (I'm not not sure if I believe in all that but he must have done) and instead persecuted gay people and possibly prompted the spread of HIV (keeping in mind many Africans have religion because it's the only thing they feel they can learn from). You can't surely be considered for sainthood unless you've changed the world in someway, truely acted as a Christian at some point. Like St. Francis...Assisi, now that's a poem which really does depict the hypocrisy of the modern-day church. Kind of like John Paul.
The Catholic church has gained a bit of a reputation for it's old-fashioned, homophobic and slightly sexist views (JPII's refusal to ordain women and so on) and John Paul did little if anything to combat this reputation. He was too superficial. Did little to spread the word of God (I'm not not sure if I believe in all that but he must have done) and instead persecuted gay people and possibly prompted the spread of HIV (keeping in mind many Africans have religion because it's the only thing they feel they can learn from). You can't surely be considered for sainthood unless you've changed the world in someway, truely acted as a Christian at some point. Like St. Francis...Assisi, now that's a poem which really does depict the hypocrisy of the modern-day church. Kind of like John Paul.
My thoughts?
This is the Catholic church; one of the most ridiculous perversions of faith to ever disfigure the face of the earth. They started their career by murdering the Gnostics in the early Christian Church, proceeded to alienate the Eastern Christians because the Pope wanted to be in charge of the other Patriarchs, then had a field-day killing the Cathars after 'freeing' the Holy Land from...well, nobody, as nobody needed freeing (Christians, contrary to popular belief, still had free, unhindered passage even after the Turks took over from the Arabs).
And that's just the period prior to the high middle ages for you there!
This is the Catholic church; one of the most ridiculous perversions of faith to ever disfigure the face of the earth. They started their career by murdering the Gnostics in the early Christian Church, proceeded to alienate the Eastern Christians because the Pope wanted to be in charge of the other Patriarchs, then had a field-day killing the Cathars after 'freeing' the Holy Land from...well, nobody, as nobody needed freeing (Christians, contrary to popular belief, still had free, unhindered passage even after the Turks took over from the Arabs).
And that's just the period prior to the high middle ages for you there!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The Catholic church has gained a bit of a reputation for it's old-fashioned, homophobic and slightly sexist views (...)[/QUOTE]
Slightly?
Yesterday I saw on the TV that in a ceremony in Vatican (or was it Rome? Well, something that the Pope participated) they said something about time for women finally arriving, bla bla bla bla bla.
How can they support women if only men can get important "jobs" in the Catholic church?
Slightly?
Yesterday I saw on the TV that in a ceremony in Vatican (or was it Rome? Well, something that the Pope participated) they said something about time for women finally arriving, bla bla bla bla bla.
How can they support women if only men can get important "jobs" in the Catholic church?
Too bad I wasn't in the Vatican in 2005. I coulda given it to his rotting corpse. WHEELBARROW position. urrrgh
i am disgusted by the total ignorance of the lasts posts here. who do you think you are to give this heavy judgements to thousands of year of history?
do think twice babies
do think twice babies
I'm curious as to what you mean, Hitman. Granted, some of the posts on this last bit are not the strongest or best communicated, but what about them is ignorant? Is it just because you don't agree with them? If so, state why and give us reasons. Don't just proclaim them ignorant because you don't agree with them.
Most of us who are posting here love a good debate, but you have to be able to prove your points. Personally, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issue.
Most of us who are posting here love a good debate, but you have to be able to prove your points. Personally, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issue.
Well ThomasQuinn is a well known comunist so i'm not surprised about his anticlerical, clearly exagerated, statements. Everybody easily forget all the charity the Church has made in 2000 years.
Somebody else doesn't even know that The Vatican is a State, and that being "priest" or "bishop" is not exactly a "job" and probably noone else has ever listened to a Mess (or just reading a Gospel)and they're not interest in trying to understand the message of Jesus.just polemics. "HOmophobic" about Catholicism is pure madness
Somebody else doesn't even know that The Vatican is a State, and that being "priest" or "bishop" is not exactly a "job" and probably noone else has ever listened to a Mess (or just reading a Gospel)and they're not interest in trying to understand the message of Jesus.just polemics. "HOmophobic" about Catholicism is pure madness