John Paul

[ThatReallyHurt]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Isn't there something about being locked somewhere? And 15 days? And smoke? I'm confused.

Unfortunately, some of the traditions may have gone by the wayside. I think you're talking about the locking of the "bronze doors", which I don't think was done the last time this happened, as the previous Pope did not live for very long once chosen. IIRC, the doors are supposed to be locked for a period of time (it may very well be 15 days), while the Cardinals have their discussions, and then they are opened again once the discussion is over and the new Pope is announced.

Sorry, those classes were a long time ago...

[AntonioDelMonte]

after the papel apartment is closed following the pope's passing 15 to 20 days after his death the Cardnals are locked in the sistine chapel cut off from the outside world until the new pope is elected by a 2/3 majority if after many diliberations only a aprox 51% majority is needed to elect a new pope they are locked in the chapel so not outside infulences sway the voting of the new pope

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by AntonioDelMonte

i am saddened to hear that a great man who did many things to further the mission of world peace has passed i hope we can all take a little of his hope for the betterment of the global community we live in and make this little floating rock we call earth a better place

Antonio, nicely said. I hope Moonitic returns to this thread to see the later postings...it will renew her faith in the forum's members.

[Maeve_Mari]

As I understand it, Popes do not resign. The Pope is a "vicar of Christ on earth," and has been asked by God to hold the keys of Peter. This responsibililty of faith, this being "chosen" is not something you can't retire from - you can't just be "unchosen by God" then go about your business as if it were just a job you didn't want anymore. Additionally it would be awkward for the next Pope to be expected to lead in his duties when there was still a living leader, the representative of Christ. It may not make too much sense to everyone, but that's why, even in significant pain and illness John Paul II continued to hold to his assignment and his vocation.

[Have At You]

Originally Posted by Svidrigailov

The pope's continued refusal to support condom use in africa is responsible for a lot of deaths...

It'd be really funny if all those africans were waiting for John Paul when he died. Only they're probably in heaven, and the condom thing, decrying gay rights, and supporting the opus dei, I'm not sure John Paul is going there...

Ah yes. Africa. Well known for being heavily Roman Catholic and diligent followers of the Pope's beliefs. The same continent where unbelievable numbers of people still believe deeply in witchcraft, and that the sure-fire way to cure oneself of AIDS is to have sex with a virgin.

If I understand you correctly, if the Pope were to have somehow unilaterally reversed the accepted doctrine of the Church, ignoring the core religious beliefs from which said doctrine is derived, and stated that people should start using condoms when having sex, then as a result all those africans would not have died? Makes perfect sense to me. (rolling eyes)

"Gay rights" is a political thing, not a religious thing. His religion, like many others, disapproves strongly of homosexual activity. You've got a problem with the head of a religion's priesthood believing in his religion?

And you clearly have no idea what opus dei is.

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by Moonitic

It's so nice to see how religiously tolerant people are on this board. How nice everyone is to those who are not of your own personal belief system. How respectful. How caring.

How hypocritical.

May you not receive the same treatment when you die, but rather may your memory be treated with some dignity, & much more kindness. May your loved ones not have to listen to people gripe, or make crass jokes about you when they've just lost you. May you not reap what you've just sown.

I've seen low on this board. Never thought I'd see it THIS low.

I'm not sure if this was specifically addressed to me, but if I said something you were offended by then feel free to PM me!

I'm a protestant by birth and traditional culture, although a non-believer.
If there's anything you need me to explain I'll try to find words for it. I'm sure it's just a language problem as my vocabulary isn't big enough to discuss these matters in a 'nuanced' way.

[fixxmyweapon]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Isn't there something about being locked somewhere? And 15 days? And smoke? I'm confused.

it's called conclave. (thanks catholic school for teaching me something, and by something, i mean nothing at all) i forget how many days they have to wait after the popes death to get it under way.

as a catholic, even though non practicing at the time, i fear for the future of the church. someone more conservative will become pope, and then really things will get worse. if you thought john paul II was pretty bad, just sit back and watch what happens within the church over the next year or so.

too bad i'm not back in highschool, we got days off for stuff like this.

[Symon]

It may just be me with a warped sence of humour but i just keep getting visions of pope JP on the big stannah stair lift up to heaven and st peter on the pearly gates doing his door security/bouncer pose and the pope pulling out a VIP pass1!!! (i'm sorry if i offend anyone but its my sence of humour!!!)

[jeff]

Like esskreemr, I'm neither Catholic nor religious, so the Pope wasn't a moral or religious authority for me. Nonetheless I respected him for the sincerity of his beliefs (while disagreeing with them - especially on gender and sexual issues) and for his contributions to ending Communism.

Even if I despised him (as I do for instance, Jerry Fallwell or Louis Farrakhan) I still wouldn't find his death funny. A few weeks ago, there was a juvenile, nasty, column in the free newspaper (and rag) New York Press called "52 funniest things about the upcoming death of the Pope" which created a little firestorm of criticism, and led to the editor being fired. Appropriately, I think.

Now that we're trying to express respect for both the dead and living, I hope that we'll have universal condemnation of the next evangelist who celebrates gays dieing of AIDS, or blaming them and feminists for tragedies like 9/11.

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by Have At You

Ah yes. Africa. Well known for being heavily Roman Catholic and diligent followers of the Pope's beliefs. The same continent where unbelievable numbers of people still believe deeply in witchcraft, and that the sure-fire way to cure oneself of AIDS is to have sex with a virgin.

If I understand you correctly, if the Pope were to have somehow unilaterally reversed the accepted doctrine of the Church, ignoring the core religious beliefs from which said doctrine is derived, and stated that people should start using condoms when having sex, then as a result all those africans would not have died? Makes perfect sense to me. (rolling eyes)

"Gay rights" is a political thing, not a religious thing. His religion, like many others, disapproves strongly of homosexual activity. You've got a problem with the head of a religion's priesthood believing in his religion?

And you clearly have no idea what opus dei is.

I've been to the founder's supposed birthplace in a little town called barbastro, and I know a couple of people who the opus has tried to recruit...I know about the opus dei...why do think I do not?

Gay rights a political thing? I'm not sure what you mean here...I do have a problem with the head of a religion interpreting his scripture in a hateful way...the same way I think islamist extremist who interpret their religion to hate other cultures, I think the catholics MUST be censured for their medieval views on gender relations and homosexuality...

and about the condom thing in africa...well, I would refer you to kristoff's latest editorial in the new york times that discusses president bush's withdrawl of funding for birth control in africa. He compares the rise of aids in countries where condoms and birth control are distributed vs. countries where it is not. Not surprisingly, he finds that distributing condoms greatly reduces the spread of aids. I could also refer you to last wednesday's "contra" in www.lavanguardia.es; it interviews a high ranking vatican official that practically admits that he distributes condoms...meaning there is dissention inside the catholic church on this issue which really is a life or death issue for many people and their families...

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by jeff

Like esskreemr, I'm neither Catholic nor religious, so the Pope wasn't a moral or religious authority for me. Nonetheless I respected him for the sincerity of his beliefs (while disagreeing with them - especially on gender and sexual issues) and for his contributions to ending Communism.

Even if I despised him (as I do for instance, Jerry Fallwell or Louis Farrakhan) I still wouldn't find his death funny. A few weeks ago, there was a juvenile, nasty, column in the free newspaper (and rag) New York Press called "52 funniest things about the upcoming death of the Pope" which created a little firestorm of criticism, and led to the editor being fired. Appropriately, I think.

Now that we're trying to express respect for both the dead and living, I hope that we'll have universal condemnation of the next evangelist who celebrates gays dieing of AIDS, or blaming them and feminists for tragedies like 9/11.

well...I wouldn't go as far as calling New York press a rag...I've seen good articles there, especially very good criticism of the American left in this paper...however, I think that as public figures, the pope as well as jerry falwell and farrakhan, are fair game for tasteless humor. The same people that are offended when a magazine makes fun of a public figure are the same people that in my opinion that erode at our civil liberties by promoting censorship.

[jeff]

New York-centric post: I think NYP is a rag, but parts of it are entertaining, so I like picking it up at it's low, low, price of $0. It provides nice balance to the Village Voice, so you get one that tilts to port, and the other that tilts to starboard. Though, with the articles from Cabal, Brodeur, and Knipfel, it perhaps should be the "columnists under medication" paper. Since Russ Meyer sold it, it's been less frothing at the mouth than previously, though he still wastes a page every issue. They've also been notorious for smearing artists and writers (Sohn, Tony Millionaire, many others) that left them for better paying gigs. Classy!

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Svidrigailov

Gay rights a political thing? I'm not sure what you mean here...I do have a problem with the head of a religion interpreting his scripture in a hateful way...the same way I think islamist extremist who interpret their religion to hate other cultures, I think the catholics MUST be censured for their medieval views on gender relations and homosexuality...

I don't think that the Pope's view on gay relations has anything to do with "interpretation" of the Bible. I'm pretty sure that the Bible clearly spells out the Catholic view on gay rights. Now, you can always chose what parts of the Bible are still applicable and which are not. But I think if he choses to listen to:
Leviticus 18:22-No man is to have sexual relations with another man, God hates that.
Leviticus 20:13-If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death.
Then he is well within logical legitimacy to believe that gays should not have sex nor should they marry, and has nothing to do with him "interpreting" the Bible incorrectly.

Furthermore, I don't think the Pope has ever declared "hate" on the gay community, just that they should refrain from immoral deads. The same way he tells murderers not to murder, he tells gays not to have sex.

[keith]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

Furthermore, I don't think the Pope has ever declared "hate" on the gay community, just that they should refrain from immoral deads. The same way he tells murderers not to murder, he tells gays not to have sex.

Well some people find it hard to see the distinction between 'abomination in the eyes of god' and 'hate'.

.... but maybe we are just being over sensitive?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Bu that's because he is taking it directly from Scripture. Can you blame a man for using what is supposed to guide his decisions as a basis, for well, his decisions? Granted we can talk about how archaiec some of the Old Testament is, but after talking to some Biblical Scholars, I am under the impression that those sections of Leviticus are not.

[scrapinpeg]

I'm confused.

The Catholic Church doesn't change its official position that condoms are not okay (because sex is only okay in the first place when performed for the purpose of procreation), and therefore it is the Pope's fault when a bunch of non-Catholic people in Africa exercise their own free will and don't use condoms?

My brain is having a hard time getting a handle on that one. Sounds like some seriously misplaced blame here.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

and therefore it is the Pope's fault when a bunch of non-Catholic people in Africa exercise their own free will and don't use condoms?

I think the connection here is that the Vatican has used its substantial influence to lobby the UN, the US, and other institutions to prevent them from providing condoms - or access to any other contraception - to impovershed people in Africa (and elsewhere). There is a real human consequence (in terms of HIV and unwanted pregnancy) to this policy. It's not that a bunch of non-Catholics exercised their free will.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by jeff

I think the connection here is that the Vatican has used its substantial influence to lobby the UN, the US, and other institutions to prevent them from providing condoms - or access to any other contraception - to impovershed people in Africa (and elsewhere). There is a real human consequence (in terms of HIV and unwanted pregnancy) to this policy. It's not that a bunch of non-Catholics exercised their free will.

Also, there are many missionaries in Africa who were also unable to distribute birth control methods.

[Asentzio]

I'm really new here, so I don't mind being told when I cross the line of wrong and right on this forum. What bothers me about this thread is that it was created to show respect for a man who has died, who was held by a great number of people to be their leader. Yet, I see now that some are criticizing his past. Don't you think that this belongs in another thread? This all seems disrespectful to the starter of this thread and John Paul II.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Also, there are many missionaries in Africa who were also unable to distribute birth control methods.

Fine, but can you blame the Pope for trying to stop immoral acts from occuring? By giving out condoms you are in a small part saying that pre-marital sex is okay. And it is therefore his right to try and stop people from allowing it to happen. Even though condoms may save lives, absitence saves more.