What do you think of the Beatification of JOHN PAUL II?

[adhuin]

Can we not run our mouths off at a dead man who was respected by many people around the world? It seems just a little bit tasteless to me.

It's been 6 years already. I think that is enough 'sensivity-buffer' after the tragic death by being so damn old.

 

[Arakhor]

Discussing what he did is fair enough, but let's not make value judgements about him, please. It's extremely disquieting.

 

[NickyJ]

The Catholics who believe it would be the 'few' I was referring to.

Again, how do you know that there are few? How do you know there aren't more?

There is very little controversial about claiming the nun in question was not healed by a prayer to John Paul II.

There is very little controversial about claiming that I am in Australia, even though I'm not. You're point?

The people that would see such a proclamation as controversial would more than likely boycott any publication that ran such a story.

But according to you, only a few people would believe it, so only a few people would boycott the publication. Why would they care about only a few readers?

So on the one side you'e got people who don't care about the story, and on the other you've got people who would boycott you for running the story. Therefore, you don't run the story.

Isn't that the way it is with other things? What about articles about 6 year olds driving cars into trees? On the one hand, you'e got people who don't care about the story, and on the other you've got people who would boycott you for running the story because they think six year olds should be able to drive cars. Therefore, they shouldn't run the story. But does that stop them?

'Praying to' or 'praying through', they function in very much the same way.

Most definitely not. To pray through a saint is to pray to God. To pray to a saint is not praying to God.

Thus, there is a good argument to be made that Christianity - at least the Catholic part of it - is a polytheistic religion in a sense.

Definitely, definitely not. It's a rather bad and baseless argument, only meant to try to slander Catholicism.

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

That should have been extremely obvious.

What about the Trinity?

Mussolini is still respected by many (if a minority) of people in Italy, does that mean we shouldn't discuss his failures? Even more so with Stalin.

You're comparing John Paul II to Mussolini and Stalin?

 

[Zack]

What about the Trinity?

Read my posts, man!

 

[NickyJ]

Read my posts, man!

What about your posts, bro?

 

[Zack]

This.

There is one, and only one, God.

....Who is three people in one?

 

[Truronian]

Again, how do you know that there are few? How do you know there aren't more?

More than a 'few' still falls under the definition of a 'few'; that's the great thing about that word.

There is very little controversial about claiming that I am in Australia, even though I'm not. You're point?

1) You said the story would be controversial
2) I said it wouldn't be
3) You said you don't live in Australia

I don't know where 3) came from.

But according to you, only a few people would believe it, so only a few people would boycott the publication. Why would they care about only a few readers?

They care enough not to run a story for which there is little positive interest.

Isn't that the way it is with other things? What about articles about 6 year olds driving cars into trees? On the one hand, you'e got people who don't care about the story, and on the other you've got people who would boycott you for running the story because they think six year olds should be able to drive cars. Therefore, they shouldn't run the story. But does that stop them?

Were the bolded part a non-zero set, they probably wouldn't run the story.

This really isn't a debate I expected to be having. Surely it's self evident that journalists have nothing to gain from running a this story, after all no-one has run it. Hypothetical scenario Nicky. The BBC run a story debunking this miracle: what happens? Who reads the article?

 

[NickyJ]

This.

Trinitarianism by definition denies that there is more than one God. There is a word used to describe a unity of three separate gods. It is the word "triad." A triad is not a trinity. A triad is three separate gods. A Trinity is one God in three persons. A triad is polytheistic. A trinity is monotheistic.

From your own link:

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, one of the most important in mainstream Christian faith, teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons (Greek hypostases), in One Divine Being (Greek: Ousia), called the Godhead (from Old English: Godhood), the Divine Essence of God.

According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way. Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well. "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient.

More than a 'few' still falls under the definition of a 'few'; that's the great thing about that word.

How many are you referring to, then? Please don't hide behind trivial definitions of a word. I could much better engage your point if you were more upfront about it.

They care enough not to run a story for which there is little positive interest.

Or, they have no proof that it didn't happen, so they didn't run a false story.

Were the bolded part a non-zero set, they probably wouldn't run the story.

I see stories in my paper about stuff like this all the time. And I'm sure there are a "few" people out there who are crazy enough to think six year olds should be able to drive cars.

This really isn't a debate I expected to be having. Surely it's self evident that journalists have nothing to gain from running a this story, after all no-one has run it.

Because they have no proof that it didn't happen.

Hypothetical scenario Nicky. The BBC run a story debunking this miracle: what happens? Who reads the article?

People read it, and they move on in life. No boycotts.

 

[naterator]

The pedophilia problem didn't surface until last year.

Good god man, what planet do you live on? Your Rex Grossman fetish makes total sense in light of your complete divorce from reality.

 

[schlaufuchs]

If it were a hoax, it would have been reported earlier. After all, "everyone loves a good scandal."

A woman lying about miracles is not a scandal. A beloved and well-known Pope being canonized on a miracle that later turned out to be a hoax might be, although I doubt that it would be.

Having lower gods, means that you have more than one god. God is the only god. Having more would be blasphemy.

Man, arguing with you is like pulling teeth. Explain to me why the above is so.

 

[civ_king]

The Father Maciel thing alone should be keep John Paul II from ever being a saint. Bastard abused god only knows how many children and encouraged the men under him to follow in his pedophile footsteps, spent a significant portion of his life high as a kite on morphine. When the best moral thing you've ever done is steal church money to support your mistress(es?) and kid, you know you're a scumbag.

Despite this, John Paul's papal administration shielded Maciel against criticism and the law, because Maciel was bringing in money and recruits. I'm not fond of Benedict, but I'll give him credit where it's due. As soon as Benedict got his pope hat, he ordered Maciel to live a life of solitude and repentance, then set up a commission to root out abuse in Maciel's organization.

To be honest I think JPII was going senile before his death so other people might have been doing that.

Weren't the Poles already standing up to the Soviets with Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement?

JPII was standing up to the communists before his election

What I think of it?

Adding a new God to the Christian pantheon is a very populist act, but people like it, so why not?

WTF?

They needed a spiritual pep rally. With people leaving the church in great numbers and then the pedophilia problem, the Church needed something good to happen.


So the Church doesn't appease polythiests, except when they rewrite the bible to take into account the values of the recently conquered pagan Saxons.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=412050&highlight=Charlemagne

That's called Saxon language was very crude.

Paedophilia cover-up are concerning to non-Catholics (as well as Catholics), and as such make for good news stories.

Few people believe that the nun in question was miraculously healed, and as such few people will care about a news story debunking it. Journalists don't run stories that no-one wants to hear about.

Well why hasn't abuse by Protestant clergy gone nuts in the media?

Spoiler :

Insurer data sketch Protestant clergy sex abuse

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in America say they typically receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by clergy, church staff, volunteers or congregation members.
The figures released to The Associated Press offer a glimpse into what has long been an extremely difficult phenomenon to pin down — the frequency of sex abuse in Protestant congregations.

Religious groups and victims' supporters have been keenly interested in the figure ever since the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis hit five years ago. The church has revealed that there have been 13,000 credible accusations against Catholic clerics since 1950.

Protestant numbers have been harder to come by and are sketchier because the denominations are less centralized than the Catholic Church; indeed, many congregations are independent, which makes reporting even more difficult.

Some of the only numbers come from three insurance companies — Church Mutual Insurance Co., GuideOne Insurance Co. and Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co.

Together, they insure 165,495 churches and worship centers for liability against child sex abuse and other sexual misconduct, mostly Protestant congregations but a few other faiths as well. They also insure more than 5,500 religious schools, camps and other organizations.

The companies represent a large chunk of all U.S. Protestant churches. There are about 224,000 in the U.S., according to the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, although that number excludes most historically black denominations and some other groups, which account for several thousand congregations.

Church Mutual, GuideOne and Brotherhood Mutual each provided statistics on sex abuse claims to The Associated Press, although they did not produce supporting documentation or a way to determine whether the reports were credible.

The largest company, Church Mutual, reported an average of about 100 sex abuse cases a year involving minors over the past decade. GuideOne, which has about half the clients of Church Mutual, said it has received an average of 160 reports of sex abuse against minors every year for the past two decades.

Brotherhood Mutual said it has received an average of 73 reports of child sex abuse and other sexual misconduct every year for the past 15 years. However, Brotherhood does not specify which victims are younger than 18 so it is impossible to accurately add that to the total cases.

Report doesn’t always imply guilt
Abuse reports don't always mean the accused was guilty, and they don't necessarily result in financial awards or settlements, the companies said. The reports include accusations against clergy, church staff and volunteers.

Even with hundreds of cases a year "that's a very small number. That probably doesn't even constitute half," said Gary Schoener, director of the Walk-In Counseling Center in Minneapolis, a consultant on hundreds of Protestant and Catholic clergy misconduct cases. "Sex abuse in any domain, including the church, is reported seldom. We know a small amount actually come forward."

Tom Farr, general counsel and senior vice president of claims for GuideOne, based in West Des Moines, Iowa, said most abuse cases are resolved privately in court-ordered mediation. Awards can range from millions of dollars down to paying for counseling for victims, he said.

One of the largest settlements to date in Protestant churches involved the case of former Lutheran minister Gerald Patrick Thomas Jr. in Texas, where a jury several years ago awarded the minister's victims nearly $37 million. Separate earlier settlements involving Thomas cost an additional $32 million.

Greater awareness about abuse
When insurance companies first started getting reports of abuse from churches nearly two decades ago, the cases usually involved abuse that happened many years earlier. But over the past several years, the alleged abuse is more recent — which could reflect a greater awareness about reporting abuse, insurance companies said.

Insurance officials said the number of sex abuse cases has remained steady over the past two decades, but they also said churches are working harder to prevent child sex abuse by conducting background checks, installing windows in nurseries and play areas and requiring at least two adults in a room with a child.

Patrick Moreland, vice president of marketing for Church Mutual, said churches are particularly susceptible to abusers.

"By their nature, congregations are the most trusting of organizations, so that makes them attractive targets for predators," he said. "If you're a predator, where do you go? You go to a congregation that will welcome you."

A victims' advocacy group has said the Southern Baptists, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, could do more to prevent abuse by creating a list of accused clergy the public and churches could access.

"I think they should have a list of credibly reported clergy child abuse," said Christa Brown, a member of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, a group initially created to hold the Catholic church accountable for sex abuse by its clergy.

"These are things people are entitled to know," said Brown, who says she was sexually abused as a child by a Southern Baptist minister. "The only way to prevent this crime is to break the code of silence and to have absolute transparency when allegations are raised."

At the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting in San Antonio this week, the Rev. Wade Burleson of Enid, Okla., proposed a feasibility study into developing a national database of Southern Baptist ministers who have been "credibly accused of, personally confessed to, or legally been convicted of sexual harassment or abuse."

A convention committee referred Burleson's motion to the SBC executive committee, which will report back with findings and a recommendation at next year's meeting in Indianapolis.

Southern Baptist President Frank Page said leaders are considering several options to help churches protect children against abuse.

"We believe that the Scripture teaches that the church should be an autonomous, independent organization," Page said. "We encourage churches to hold accountable at the local level those who may have misused the trust of precious children and youth."

Names of sex offenders released
Several years ago, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which represents moderates who have increasingly distanced themselves from the conservative-led Southern Baptists, started a list of accused clergy for churches, but not the public. Under pressure from victim advocates, the Texas group just released the names of some convicted sex offenders who may have been ministers in local congregations.

Joe Trull, editor of Christian Ethics Today and retired ethics professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, helped the Texas convention create its registry and says there are now about 11 cases involving clergy abuse with minors.

But he believes these are just the "tip of the iceberg" because churches don't have to report abuse cases to the registry and aren't likely to.

"The problem we're having is that churches just weren't sending the names," Trull said. "In the normal scenario, they just try to keep it secret. We're going to have to be more proactive and let them know if they don't come forward, they're helping to perpetuate this problem."

Yes, of course. Which is why they're titled as saint (or Saint? Should it be capitalised?) instead of god, demigod or anything similar.

The purpose of the saints however, seems to be very identical to that of the number of gods in a pantheon. A saint for this, a saint for that, a god for this, a god for that. People prayed to each of these gods to help them in their respective fields, and if I'm not mistaken, Catholics may pray to saints or ask the saints to intercede with God on behalf of the human. Since the saints are specialised into many different fields, I think the analogy is very obvious.

Very much how I've come to understand the development of monotheism.

The saints came later though, but they do fill the exact same purpose as the multitude of gods in a pantheon.

Actually the associating saints with things is a folk thing

 

[Bubbac]

I'm a catholic and I'm not so thrilled with it. During JPII papacy they changed the rules for canonization. They sped up the process and removed the "devils advocate" from the process. They also changed the rules about how long the person had to be dead before the declaration. So in John Pauls case the process started before he was even cold in the grave. The mistake of all of this is that it takes a long time for history to be sorted out. What really happened during his papacy? What things might come out of the woodwork? Sainthood and beatification take more than just a miracle, they also call for that person to live a meritorious life. We see examples of mistakes such as these all of the time. Should there be schools named after living presidents? Should there be streets in cincinatti named after Pete rose?

I have questions about JP papacy. He made Opus Dei a personal prelature. Opus Dei, beyond what Dan brown said, has its share of skeletons and more than it's share of secrecy. Will history judge opus Dei as a purely good thing?

Nope. Too many open questions at this point. I like JP but it's too early. Nothing bad would have happened by waiting.

 

[civ_king]

I'm a catholic and I'm not so thrilled with it. During JPII papacy they changed the rules for canonization. They sped up the process and removed the "devils advocate" from the process. They also changed the rules about how long the person had to be dead before the declaration. So in John Pauls case the process started before he was even cold in the grave. The mistake of all of this is that it takes a long time for history to be sorted out. What really happened during his papacy? What things might come out of the woodwork? Sainthood and beatification take more than just a miracle, they also call for that person to live a meritorious life. We see examples of mistakes such as these all of the time. Should there be schools named after living presidents? Should there be streets in cincinatti named after Pete rose?

I have questions about JP papacy. He made Opus Dei a personal prelature. Opus Dei, beyond what Dan brown said, has its share of skeletons and more than it's share of secrecy. Will history judge opus Dei as a purely good thing?

Nope. Too many open questions at this point. I like JP but it's too early. Nothing bad would have happened by waiting.

Disregard everything Dan Brown has said, he writes rubbish

 

[classical_hero]

Right, but God worked through the Saint. That means the person must have been especially good to have God choose him/her for the purpose. Just like how the Virgin Mary is regarded as a saint because God used her to bear Jesus. All the organization is doing is deciding whether John Paul II should be regarded as a saint.

Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, but she is not now, since she got married and had other children.

To a person of faith, they would say that the power to grant miracles comes from God. But the naming of saints, the calling of a person a saint, that is the Church, not God. God does not send the church a list of those to be sainted. The church makes up its own mind on the subject.

The mission of the Church is to share the Godspel, not to decide who is a saint. We are saints if we have trusted in God, not becuse of some mighty work we have done, but by the grace of God.

There were many gods at the time those scripture were codified. In fact, part of the Israelite history is believed to be the migration from polytheism to monotheism, and some of the text in the Bible reflects that.

The idea of a single, dominating, unique God is (I think) borrowed from later philosophy. The implication of such an idea is that the other gods were not actually gods. That idea, though, is a progression.

It could be that JHWH was a local god, and demanded fealty of the Israelites in preference to the other gods. Later tradition then modified that idea as the monotheism progressed.

Well if you read it carefully you will see that Israel had plenty of problems with the nations around them and their various gods that eventually God had enough of their ways and sent them to exile in Babylon. It was only after this captivity that they left any resemblance of Polytheism. They were meant to have been Monotheist and follow Jehovah, but they did not do what was right for God and they allowed themselves to follow the wickedness of the nations around them finally forcing God's hand.

 

[Truronian]

How many are you referring to, then? Please don't hide behind trivial definitions of a word. I could much better engage your point if you were more upfront about it.

I don't know the number, nor does it matter. It's irrelevant to my point.

Or, they have no proof that it didn't happen, so they didn't run a false story.

There is plenty of proof that it didn't happen. Parkinson's is a degenerative disease that results in brain cell death: there is no way to cure it (brain cell death is permanent). Thing that are impossible don't happen.

I see stories in my paper about stuff like this all the time. And I'm sure there are a "few" people out there who are crazy enough to think six year olds should be able to drive cars.

And they would boycott the newspaper because...? People take religion a lot more seriously than car related believes.

Because they have no proof that it didn't happen.

See above.

People read it, and they move on in life. No boycotts.

Which people? Where's the interest?

 

[Arakhor]

That's why they're called miracles, Truronian. If the Catholic Church wants to laud it as a miracle, surely that is their prerogative?

 

[warpus]

Weren't the Poles already standing up to the Soviets with Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement?

The pope was the only one who was able to publicly support the movement and speak out against communism. He gave us a lot of hope when he came to Poland and did that. I used to live in the "holiest" city in Poland - when the Pope came to visit Poland that's where he always went. I saw him 3-4 times when I was a kid (before communism fell) - HUGE crowds of people gathered to hear him speak.. and when he spoke out against communism and said we have his support.. and nobody yanked him off the stage? It made us stop and think: "Wait a second, maybe we have a chance after all". His support was incredibly inspiring.. Heck, I was a little kid and didn't really understand what was going on, but I could feel the energy in the crowds.. Left a huge impact on me

He was generally a really good man, his lack of support for condoms nonwithstanding.. He was a good guy who did all he could within the confines of the catholic church.

But does he deserve to be a saint? First of all, the evidence of a "miracle" is really really flimsy here.. Of course I don't believe in miracles to begin with - but if you beatify this guy based on the evidence that is given - you might as well beatify half the planet.

 

[Truronian]

That's why they're called miracles, Truronian. If the Catholic Church wants to laud it as a miracle, surely that is their prerogative?

Indeed, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence that they didn't happen. There a lot of evidence, which ironically is the very reason that such occurrences are called miracles.

The point I was trying to make way back when was that refuting miracles in a newspaper is a pointless endeavour, because the only people that believe them in the first place aren't going to take any notice.

 

[NickyJ]

Good god man, what planet do you live on?

When did it surface, then?

A woman lying about miracles is not a scandal. A beloved and well-known Pope being canonized on a miracle that later turned out to be a hoax might be, although I doubt that it would be.

That wouldn't stop the media from reporting it.

Man, arguing with you is like pulling teeth. Explain to me why the above is so.

"Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" - Ten Commandments - God

Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, but she is not now, since she got married and had other children.

Actually, she didn't have any other children. Either way, it's splitting hairs. She is still regarded as a saint because God used her to bear Jesus.

I don't know the number, nor does it matter. It's irrelevant to my point.

It most certainly does matter. If it's a small amount of people, the media wouldn't care.

There is plenty of proof that it didn't happen. Parkinson's is a degenerative disease that results in brain cell death: there is no way to cure it (brain cell death is permanent). Thing that are impossible don't happen.

Which is why her being healed is considered a miracle. According to the world English dictionary, a miracle is "an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause".

And they would boycott the newspaper because...? People take religion a lot more seriously than car related believes.

People wouldn't boycott the paper. They would consider it that the paper doesn't believe the miracle, and they would move on with their lives.

See above.

See what above?

Which people? Where's the interest?

The people that read the paper. Where's the interest in a six year old crashing a car?

 

[SuperJay]

The pope was the only one who was able to publicly support the movement and speak out against communism. He gave us a lot of hope when he came to Poland and did that. I used to live in the "holiest" city in Poland - when the Pope came to visit Poland that's where he always went. I saw him 3-4 times when I was a kid (before communism fell) - HUGE crowds of people gathered to hear him speak.. and when he spoke out against communism and said we have his support.. and nobody yanked him off the stage? It made us stop and think: "Wait a second, maybe we have a chance after all". His support was incredibly inspiring.. Heck, I was a little kid and didn't really understand what was going on, but I could feel the energy in the crowds.. Left a huge impact on me

I have nothing significant to add to this discussion, but I always dig reading your stories about growing up in the environment in Poland at the time - it's always interesting and even education. Keep it up.