Vatican announces death of Pope John Paul II

[Deleted]

www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1112424770894_18/?hub=TopStories


CTV.ca News Staff

Pope John Paul II died in his Vatican apartment Saturday, ending his 26-year reign as leader of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

The announcement came shortly before 10 p.m. local time, ending hours of speculation in which the pope's death appeared inevitable.

"The Holy Father died this evening at 9:37 p.m. (2:37 p.m. ET) in his private apartment," Vatican spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in a statement.

Registering the sombre news in Rome's St. Peter's Square, tens of thousands of people gathered in vigil were led in prayer by a priest saying, "We turn our eyes to you, the fountain of all mercy."

Above the crowd, lights could be seen in the three windows of the pope's Vatican apartment.

As the crowd stood below, many praying, crying and reflecting on the end of John Paul's 26-year papacy, they burst into a long, spontaneous applause.

Then St. Peter's Square fell silent, as people observed a moment of silence.

The pontiff's death begins the nine-day period of official mourning during which the selection process for a new Pope is set in motion. The Vatican must hold a papal election within 15 to 18 days after the Pope's death.

The Vatican has also announced a special mass Sunday morning in Rome, celebrating the Pope's life.

After months of ill health that saw him twice admitted to hospital, the pontiff's health took several turns for the worse this week.

The first major setback was confirmed Wednesday, when the Vatican announced the Pope was being fed through a nasal-gastric feeding tube.

The next day, he developed a high fever brought on by a urinary tract infection. During treatment for that condition overnight, he suffered septic shock and heart problems that required cardio-pulmonary assistance.

The news came as some 40,000 people gathered outside the Vatican in St. Peter's Square, holding vigil for the Pope.

Final Hours

Earlier in the day, the Vatican called the Pope's condition "very grave" and said the pontiff was battling a high fever. He had been able, they said, to recognize some visitors.

Vatican Cardinal, Achille Silvestrini, visited with him accompanied by another cardinal, Jean-Louis Tauran.

"I found him relaxed, placid, serene. He was in his bed. He was breathing without labor. He looked like he lost weight," Silvestrini told reporters.

He said when he and Tauran came into the room, the Pope seemed to recognize them.

"The Pope showed with a vibration of his face that he understood, indicating with a movement of his eyes. He showed he was reacting," he added.

The Vatican signalled the Pope's determination to keep doing his life's work to the end, continuing the business of the Holy See on Saturday.

For the second day in the row, the Vatican announced a series of papal appointments, including a new Spanish bishop, an official of the Armenian Catholic Church, and ambassadors to El Salvador.

On Friday, an announcement came that John Paul had appointed 17 new bishops and archbishops. As well, the Pope also accepted the resignation of six others.

All the resignations and appointments involved bishops in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe, republics of the former Soviet Union and the Pacific.

The pope's resolve was dealt a rare setback last week when, for the first time in his 26-year papacy, declining health forced the frail Pope to scale down his Holy Week appearances.

On Easter Sunday, he tried, but failed to give a blessing to a massive crowd gathered for Mass.

The Pope's final public appearance was on Wednesday, when he made a silent, surprise showing at his apartment window.

That inability to take part in the Church's public rituals were surely frustrating for a pope best known for reaching out to the people.

John Paul's Legacy

As the first Polish-born Pope, and one of the few non-Italian leaders in the modern age, in 1978 John Paul began his papacy with an intensive travel schedule. He visited more than 120 countries in 25 years, and made three trips to Canada.

His personal appearances before huge crowds, and his telegenic appeal to the global TV audience, are credited with helping to rebuild the Catholic following in many parts of the world; particularly in the southern hemisphere.

Today, the Vatican boasts of 1.1 billion members or about 17 per cent of the world's total population.

In recent years, however, much of the attention on the pope has focused on his health. He had suffered from Parkinson's disease, debilitating knee and hip ailments, and intestinal troubles that may have been related to a 1981 assassination attempt by shooting.

All these ailments made it difficult for him to walk. Aides wheeled him around in a throne-like chair for public appearances and to celebrate public Masses, earning him praise for his perseverance and determination.

Some say such coverage has overshadowed the career triumphs of the man born Karol Jozef Wojtyla.

He is credited with helping to inspire the Solidarity movement in Poland, a worker uprising that started a chain of events across eastern Europe that led to the fall of a number of communist governments.

He was outspoken in the political arena, never hesitating to criticize a host government, in his own gentle way. In a 1998 speech in Cuba, he blamed Fidel Castro's regime for "discouraging the individual," and at the same time took aim against the excesses of capitalism.

[Deleted]

He was a great and well respected man. May he rest in peace.

[blaise]

I disagreed with much of his doctrine and he beatified far too many saints but he was one of the great figures of the 20th century, and George W. Bush doesn't reach up to his knees.

[Cranky]

A man who fit his time. Rest in Peace.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Blaise said:

I disagreed with much of his doctrine and he beatified far too many saints but he was one of the great figures of the 20th century, and George W. Bush doesn't reach up to his knees.

Here! Here!

The Pontif may have made his fair share of enemies, but most of them were practicing fundemental Catholics. He was stalwart in some areas of the faith, but many of these fundementalists felt John-Paul sold out Catholicism on other areas.

Conversely, he seemed to have the support of the "common Catholic." One image sticks out more than others; it was the Pope shaking hands with children, teenagers, et al. One youngster playfully plucked the "Pope cap" from his head but immediately set it back on. The cap was crooked, but the Pope had a grin on his face as he fixed it. I've never seen that from a Pope.

Either way we lost a good man yesterday. And he will be missed.

RIP Jean-Paul. You've earned it.

[mic]

Blaise said:

I disagreed with much of his doctrine and he beatified far too many saints but he was one of the great figures of the 20th century, and George W. Bush doesn't reach up to his knees.

I pretty much agree with you. However, we'll soon regret him if Cardinal Ratzinger ever becomes the next pope.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

I mourn the passing of a wonderful man.
Kind, understanding, and honest. He expanded the travel role of the papacy and reached out to both Catholics and non-Catholics worldwide.
While many including myself disagreed with him on specific points of his doctrine, he was true to his beliefs and we respected him for it. His last years and months were painful for him and painful for those who watched him. For everything there is a season. He will be a difficult leader to follow.

[HardCap]

A good and decent soul, RIP John Paul II

This is good:

Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, a priest in New York, on his old friend, Karol Wojytla:


The final legacy of this man will be the way he has died. The way he has fallen apart, disintegrated—physically, emotionally, mentally, embarrassingly—before the world, making a spectacle of himself.

Now [the documentary was filmed in 1999] he can barely say a word. He's drooling, the body is out of control, headed directly to the [final] moment, and still…he wants the world to see…[his] final encounter with the ultimate question.

For him I am sure this was the moment to embody everything he has said. [That] human life is worthwhile, no matter what—no matter how weak, no matter how insignificant it may look….To challenge the world, which is obsessed with image, with youth, with success, with power, with words. Forcing us to look at the aged, either in ourselves or in others. And in the end summing up his very first words to the world: "Be not afraid.” Be not afraid of even being afraid. The value of your life is worth infinity. It can not be destroyed by death.”

[Disgruntled70sHab]

And the tributes keep pouring in. I find Worthington to be on the mark at times and missing the point on others. But, this one is an eliquent tribute.

Mon, April 4, 2005

Big shoes to fill
John Paul one of the greatest

By Peter Worthington -- For the Toronto Sun

REGARDLESS OF his powerful religious influence, it's clear that Pope John Paul II was one of the greatest men -- if not the greatest -- of the 20th century.

This isn't to say his tenure as pope has been without controversy. Greatness, or immortality, are unachievable without controversy and crises that test both moral strength and emotional impact.

He was a man of action -- a physical presence as well as spiritual. Not a pacifist, nor aggressive, nothing neutral about him; a man who radiated integrity, conviction and empathy for the oppressed.

To some, his attitude towards women in the church, abortion, birth control, homosexuality and fashionable social issues verged on the doctrinaire and dogmatic.

But these fade into insignificance when assessing his role in history.

More than any other individual, it can be said that Pope John Paul II fired the salvo that started the demise of the malignant Soviet empire and its repressive imperialism.

Even before Ronald Reagan became president, the Pope challenged Sovietism head-on. By his courage, he inspired the captive nations of East Europe -- not just his native Poland -- to stand up to the Kremlin.

He inspired others to show backbone and led by example. This quality alone made him special, but it was only one of many qualities.

The ones who saw his leadership clearly and categorically were not just the enslaved people of East Europe, Ukraine and Russia itself, but the masters of the Kremlin and Soviet Central Committee and, it must be noted, assassins in the KGB.

The Soviets sought to kill the Pope before his influence became a plague infecting their empire. More than the accommodating West, soft and fearful of challenging the roughest force on the block, the Soviet rulers recognized the danger to their power that the benign and fearless symbol personified in the Pope.

The KGB was unleashed to arrange for its tame attack dog, the Bulgarian secret police, to recruit the Turkish assassin Mehmet Ali Agca to shoot the Pope in 1981 -- and supposedly to be shot by another assassin in the crowd to eliminate the eliminator.

But the Pope survived, to relentlessly oppose oppression and continue his mission of freeing the soul of East Europe, while forgiving his would-be assassin.

The Pope also took on the "liberation theologists" of Latin America and elsewhere, who sought to dilute Catholicism with Marxism and spread a fever for revolution throughout Latin America.

Liberation theology really never took hold, largely because on his travels to Latin America, the Pope publicly, privately and categorically chided and reprimanded practitioners and advocates of this destructive insurgency within the church.

Today, liberation theology is a bizarre footnote, thanks to Pope John Paul II.

It can be argued that Pope John Paul was not a warm man, in the sense that Pope John XXIII was warm, even cuddly and much loved. John Paul was respected, trusted, revered more than beloved.

His message lives on

His integrity, sincerity and goodness transcended his Catholic faith and embraced all humanity -- something his predecessors (and I am thinking of wartime Pope Pius XII) failed to do and, in fact, had a divisive effect.

His work is now done, and he has gone to whatever reward awards all of us in various degrees when our time is done.

He leaves giant footsteps, and likely the Catholic church will face new pressures and crises for change. His moral and physical leadership was such, that his successor will not have an easy time.

John Paul's message lives on, and one hopes his memory inspires his successor to live up to his courage and integrity.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

HardCap said:

A good and decent soul, RIP John Paul II

This is good:

Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, a priest in New York, on his old friend, Karol Wojytla:


The final legacy of this man will be the way he has died. The way he has fallen apart, disintegrated—physically, emotionally, mentally, embarrassingly—before the world, making a spectacle of himself.

Now [the documentary was filmed in 1999] he can barely say a word. He's drooling, the body is out of control, headed directly to the [final] moment, and still…he wants the world to see…[his] final encounter with the ultimate question.

For him I am sure this was the moment to embody everything he has said. [That] human life is worthwhile, no matter what—no matter how weak, no matter how insignificant it may look….To challenge the world, which is obsessed with image, with youth, with success, with power, with words. Forcing us to look at the aged, either in ourselves or in others. And in the end summing up his very first words to the world: "Be not afraid.” Be not afraid of even being afraid. The value of your life is worth infinity. It can not be destroyed by death.”

Well said.
In his final years, he taught us about tenacity, perseverance and courage.

[mic]

mic said:

I pretty much agree with you. However, we'll soon regret him if Cardinal Ratzinger ever becomes the next pope.

Talk about premonition...

[blaise]

Ratzinger (now Benedict) will opt for doctrinal purity at the expense of membership. I predict that he will not prove popular among Catholics living in the southern hemisphere, whose main concerns are political liberty, economic improvement, and public health. Since Catholics are increasingly centered in these southern lands (and Brazil already has the most Catholics of any nation in the world), I foresee further losses to Pentecostal and Evangelical churches.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Blaise said:

Ratzinger (now Benedict) will opt for doctrinal purity at the expense of membership. I predict that he will not prove popular among Catholics living in the southern hemisphere, whose main concerns are political liberty, economic improvement, and public health. Since Catholics are increasingly centered in these southern lands (and Brazil already has the most Catholics of any nation in the world), I foresee further losses to Pentecostal and Evangelical churches.

Well, as Dean of the College of Cardinals and being appointed as as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I don't think his tenure will be a passive one. I've talked to some friends here in Kingston and they seem to think Benedict XVI will set the church back a few years.

Even if he doesn't he has his work cut out for him.

While John Paul, a Pole, was elected to challenge the communist system in place in eastern Europe in 1978, Benedict faces new issues: the need for dialogue with Islam, the divisions between the wealthy north and the poor south as well as problems within his own church. more

I think you're right insomuch as he'll have to focus on the faith in both Central and South America.

Cheers.

[franko]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

Well, as Dean of the College of Cardinals and being appointed as as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I don't think his tenure will be a passive one. I've talked to some friends here in Kingston and they seem to think Benedict XVI will set the church back a few years.

Others seem to think differently, of course, Papal Predictions

. . . while others agree: The new Pope has been chosen from what could be termed the traditional side of the Catholic Church. To some, he heralds intellectual salvation during a time of confusion and compromise. To others, his record as Pope John Paul II's prefect of doctrine showed the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to be an intimidating "Enforcer", punishing liberal thinkers, and keeping the Church in the Middle Ages.

While many theologians strive for a Catholic Church that is more open and in touch with the world around it, the new Pope's mission has in the past seemed to entailing stamping out dissent, and curbing the "wild excesses" of this more tolerant era. More from the BBC

Me . . . I don't know . . . but it seems to me that someone 78 years old hasn't been elected for a long term. He may be a bridge before change. As always, time will tell.

[BadCompany]

franko said:

Me . . . I don't know . . . but it seems to me that someone 78 years old hasn't been elected for a long term. He may be a bridge before change. As always, time will tell.

I agree. I think people are reading a little too much into his "conservative" nature, and trying to extrapolate that onto a 26 year, John Paul-like reign. Following strong, and lengthy papacies like the one we just came out of, the Church has historically elected "transition Popes", short-timers who are only there to give everyone a breather, to digest and absorb - and lets face it, to get over - the previous reign. Its why the "favorites" to succeed John Paul were all older, more administrative type Cardinals. Like Ratzinger.

It was, in effect, too strong a papacy. The Church can't really come out now, and within the next few years go against the wishes of one of the greatest popes in its history. Not only would it be disrespectful to John Paul, but it probably wouldn't even fly with many of the faithful that John Paul brought back/into the Church. Yes, he lost a lot of the "Western" world, but the western world is only but a part of the world at large. And the world at large, is still largely conservative on matters like contraception, abortion, women-priests, homosexuality, and so on. Trying to reverse John-Paul's legacy on those topics just wouldn't work in most of the world. There needs to be a buffer, time to heal, reflect, and to distance the Church from John Paul, so that it can move forward later.

Ratzinger, by all accounts, is extremely knowledgeable about Church history, and his choice of name seems to indicate that he knows full well his is to be a short reign. His choice of name is also very symbolic, in my opinion, as Benedict the 15th was also short-timer coming out of a Conservative Papacy, and many of Benedict the 15th's characteristics would *seem* to fit the bio of the new Pope.

Even ignoring that Ratzinger was, to use the media term "the enforcer" for John Paul the 2nd, also considered to be extremely conservative (and the Church didn't seem to do too badly under him, no?), I don't think we are going to see a rampant, earnest attempt to stamp out "liberalism" around the world. I think Ratzinger, if I had to guess, will try to carry on John Paul's "travelling legacy", "public relations" work of his predecessor, but won't actually implement anything new, or take any outwardly significant positions. He'll be an administrator, a care-taker, holding the throne for the next Pope, who, I personally think will be the liberal, moderate many had hoped for this time around.

[blaise]

Benedict XVI is doctrinally similar to John Paul II but lacks his warmth. He's not a frightening person despite his sobriquet of 'John Paul's Rottweiler' but I can't imagine children running up to him. John Paul's personal charm made it somewhat easier for people to swallow bitter medicine. On the other hand, quite a few Catholics welcome Benedict because they feel comfortable with orthodoxy and confounded by liberalism. A small minority would actually prefer having a priest turn his back to them while facing the altar and delivering the mass in Latin instead of the vernacular. But isn't the Latin mass a mumbo jumbo that preserves the mystery and separates the clergy from the laity?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

BadCompany said:

I agree. I think people are reading a little too much into his "conservative" nature, and trying to extrapolate that onto a 26 year, John Paul-like reign. Following strong, and lengthy papacies like the one we just came out of, the Church has historically elected "transition Popes", short-timers who are only there to give everyone a breather, to digest and absorb - and lets face it, to get over - the previous reign. Its why the "favorites" to succeed John Paul were all older, more administrative type Cardinals. Like Ratzinger.

It was, in effect, too strong a papacy. The Church can't really come out now, and within the next few years go against the wishes of one of the greatest popes in its history. Not only would it be disrespectful to John Paul, but it probably wouldn't even fly with many of the faithful that John Paul brought back/into the Church. Yes, he lost a lot of the "Western" world, but the western world is only but a part of the world at large. And the world at large, is still largely conservative on matters like contraception, abortion, women-priests, homosexuality, and so on. Trying to reverse John-Paul's legacy on those topics just wouldn't work in most of the world. There needs to be a buffer, time to heal, reflect, and to distance the Church from John Paul, so that it can move forward later.

Ratzinger, by all accounts, is extremely knowledgeable about Church history, and his choice of name seems to indicate that he knows full well his is to be a short reign. His choice of name is also very symbolic, in my opinion, as Benedict the 15th was also short-timer coming out of a Conservative Papacy, and many of Benedict the 15th's characteristics would *seem* to fit the bio of the new Pope.

Even ignoring that Ratzinger was, to use the media term "the enforcer" for John Paul the 2nd, also considered to be extremely conservative (and the Church didn't seem to do too badly under him, no?), I don't think we are going to see a rampant, earnest attempt to stamp out "liberalism" around the world. I think Ratzinger, if I had to guess, will try to carry on John Paul's "travelling legacy", "public relations" work of his predecessor, but won't actually implement anything new, or take any outwardly significant positions. He'll be an administrator, a care-taker, holding the throne for the next Pope, who, I personally think will be the liberal, moderate many had hoped for this time around.

First choice for Pope would go to the country with the worst record if Bettman was running things.

[blaise]

BadCompany said:

I agree. I think people are reading a little too much into his "conservative" nature, and trying to extrapolate that onto a 26 year, John Paul-like reign. Following strong, and lengthy papacies like the one we just came out of, the Church has historically elected "transition Popes", short-timers who are only there to give everyone a breather, to digest and absorb - and lets face it, to get over - the previous reign. Its why the "favorites" to succeed John Paul were all older, more administrative type Cardinals. Like Ratzinger.

It was, in effect, too strong a papacy. The Church can't really come out now, and within the next few years go against the wishes of one of the greatest popes in its history. Not only would it be disrespectful to John Paul, but it probably wouldn't even fly with many of the faithful that John Paul brought back/into the Church. Yes, he lost a lot of the "Western" world, but the western world is only but a part of the world at large. And the world at large, is still largely conservative on matters like contraception, abortion, women-priests, homosexuality, and so on. Trying to reverse John-Paul's legacy on those topics just wouldn't work in most of the world. There needs to be a buffer, time to heal, reflect, and to distance the Church from John Paul, so that it can move forward later.

Ratzinger, by all accounts, is extremely knowledgeable about Church history, and his choice of name seems to indicate that he knows full well his is to be a short reign. His choice of name is also very symbolic, in my opinion, as Benedict the 15th was also short-timer coming out of a Conservative Papacy, and many of Benedict the 15th's characteristics would *seem* to fit the bio of the new Pope.

Even ignoring that Ratzinger was, to use the media term "the enforcer" for John Paul the 2nd, also considered to be extremely conservative (and the Church didn't seem to do too badly under him, no?), I don't think we are going to see a rampant, earnest attempt to stamp out "liberalism" around the world. I think Ratzinger, if I had to guess, will try to carry on John Paul's "travelling legacy", "public relations" work of his predecessor, but won't actually implement anything new, or take any outwardly significant positions. He'll be an administrator, a care-taker, holding the throne for the next Pope, who, I personally think will be the liberal, moderate many had hoped for this time around.

I disagree on two points. First, I do not believe Benedict XVI will be a mere caretaker. I think he will try to do as much as possible to restore orthodoxy in whatever time he serves. Second, I do not believe the next Pope will be more liberal. Virtually everyone in the College of Cardinals was installed by John Paul II, who used orthodoxy as his leading criterion for appointment. I predict that more and more Roman Catholics in the northern hemisphere will be turned off. They won't leave the church but they'll attend it less often.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

I disagree on two points. First, I do not believe Benedict XVI will be a mere caretaker. I think he will try to do as much as possible to restore orthodoxy in whatever time he serves. Second, I do not believe the next Pope will be more liberal. Virtually everyone in the College of Cardinals was installed by John Paul II, who used orthodoxy as his leading criterion for appointment. I predict that more and more Roman Catholics in the northern hemisphere will be turned off. They won't leave the church but they'll attend it less often.

I don't think the Pope should be pursuing Liberalism. He's not an athiest. He's a Roman Catholic. He's the King Catholic. The oft asked question? "Is the Pope Catholic?" Yes, in spades.
It's a big deal when he ok's fish on Fridays. Contraception, homosexuality, female priests.........No!
Cooperation with Muslims and Jews.......yes, but he's still catholic, not muslim or jewish.
He works within his religeon to help his flock and assist all the people of the world.
I have high expectations of this highly intelligent man.

[Toronthab]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

I don't think the Pope should be pursuing Liberalism. He's not an athiest. He's a Roman Catholic. He's the King Catholic. The oft asked question? "Is the Pope Catholic?" Yes, in spades.
It's a big deal when he ok's fish on Fridays. Contraception, homosexuality, female priests.........No!
Cooperation with Muslims and Jews.......yes, but he's still catholic, not muslim or jewish.
He works within his religeon to help his flock and assist all the people of the world.
I have high expectations of this highly intelligent man.

I do believe you got it. What is liberalism? John Paul II was the most awesome, courageous liberal I have ever seen, and I come from a long line of liberals. He insisted upon and called us to a consistent compassion for our fellow man. His liberalism was just deeper and more inclusive than that of most. Is abortion part of being a liberal? Not in my playbook. Is standing up for the institution (not to mention sacrament) of marriage for what it most obviously is "conservative". What kind of mentality develops such nonsense.
Woman priests? Jesus is understood in Catholicism as the Word made flesh. Jesus did not "ordain" women in the same manner as he did men. John Paul II did not see the church as "authorized" to do this. While God necessarily transecends and has within both the masculine and feminine, Jesus suggested God could be fruitfully perceived as "like, as a father." I really don't believe he was a chauvinist. The church and the pope is not free to do whatever it wants.

If a theologian, like Kung for instance wants to teach kungism; fine. If he wants to teach kungism and say that it is Catholicism, not so fine. So many would be happy if Catholicism had no doctrine: if it left it on some uncommunicable, non-propositional level analogous to say, Woodstock. With the power to "bind and loose" on earth and in heaven comes, necessarily, articulation and exhortation.

In the usual paradoox of argument and Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this at the beginning of the conclave, the most stridently doctrinaire voices I hear are those who agressively pursue "moral relativism", a view consistent with materialism. The doctrine however lacks logical consistency, or put another way, compelling reason.

Pope Benedict XVI is by all accounts a very good, very kind, very intelligent and very spiritual man whose theological stances seem to me clearly resonant of the teaching of Christ. This strikes me as being just about a perfect shortlist for the kind of person I would very happily welcome as our new pope. May God bless him and all of us.

[blaise]

Toronthab said:

I do believe you got it. What is liberalism? John Paul II was the most awesome, courageous liberal I have ever seen, and I come from a long line of liberals. He insisted upon and called us to a consistent compassion for our fellow man. His liberalism was just deeper and more inclusive than that of most. Is abortion part of being a liberal? Not in my playbook. Is standing up for the institution (not to mention sacrament) of marriage for what it most obviously is "conservative". What kind of mentality develops such nonsense.
Woman priests? Jesus is understood in Catholicism as the Word made flesh. Jesus did not "ordain" women in the same manner as he did men. John Paul II did not see the church as "authorized" to do this. While God necessarily transecends and has within both the masculine and feminine, Jesus suggested God could be fruitfully perceived as "like, as a father." I really don't believe he was a chauvinist. The church and the pope is not free to do whatever it wants.

If a theologian, like Kung for instance wants to teach kungism; fine. If he wants to teach kungism and say that it is Catholicism, not so fine. So many would be happy if Catholicism had no doctrine: if it left it on some uncommunicable, non-propositional level analogous to say, Woodstock. With the power to "bind and loose" on earth and in heaven comes, necessarily, articulation and exhortation.

In the usual paradoox of argument and Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this at the beginning of the conclave, the most stridently doctrinaire voices I hear are those who agressively pursue "moral relativism", a view consistent with materialism. The doctrine however lacks logical consistency, or put another way, compelling reason.

Pope Benedict XVI is by all accounts a very good, very kind, very intelligent and very spiritual man whose theological stances seem to me clearly resonant of the teaching of Christ. This strikes me as being just about a perfect shortlist for the kind of person I would very happily welcome as our new pope. May God bless him and all of us.

I'm glad you got what you wished for. Me? I can't stomach doctrinal orthodoxy. While I'm no fan of all-out relativism, I'm all for letting people enjoy a little freedom and happiness. Benedict's stance on divorce reminds me of a prison warden. Make a mistake? Find yourself abused or betrayed? Sorry, you're in for life. With a single-minded celibate prig in charge, the only way to escape the chains is to convert. (Unlees, of course, you make a large enough donation to the Vatican to get an annulment. It's been done many a time. After all, the contributions are down at a time the dioceses are paying out settlements to the male victims of priestly lechery.)

[Toronthab]

Blaise said:

I'm glad you got what you wished for. Me? I can't stomach doctrinal orthodoxy. While I'm no fan of all-out relativism, I'm all for letting people enjoy a little freedom and happiness. Benedict's stance on divorce reminds me of a prison warden. Make a mistake? Find yourself abused or betrayed? Sorry, you're in for life. With a single-minded celibate prig in charge, the only way to escape the chains is to convert. (Unlees, of course, you make a large enough donation to the Vatican to get an annulment. It's been done many a time. After all, the contributions are down at a time the dioceses are paying out settlements to the male victims of priestly lechery.)

Blaise

Do you honestly believe that you are the least bit less dogmatic and doctrinaire than Catholicism? All that differs is what one considers orthodox or right belief. Catholicism bases her belief upon the inspiration of the holy spirit as promised to the church by Christ. You, can simply reject such a wild notion as fanciful and absurd as theoretically can I. I find the counter propositions to be far less likely to be true than that proferred by the church. Hence a reasoned assent. I write this to establish that there is a very serious basis for the doctrinal orthodoxy espoused, and it is at the very least if considered dispassionatley, plausibly founded.

To say that you are against doctrinal orthodoxy is to say that you are against reasoning from first principles and the positing of sound arguments. In short you undermine not only your own doctrinaire orthodoxy, but all ethical reasoning, and if examined further the possibility of knowing anything about anything. In short post-modernism. Umberto Ecco's Kantian platypus notwithstanding, there are no grounds whatever in reality to accept such nonsense. Pope Benedict XVI addressed exactly the same dogmatic, agressive relativism prior to the conclave. And your words are exceedingly agressive perhaps reflecting the underlying insecurity of the position adopted. Your are a fan of all-out relativism. You just don't believe you are. It is the unavoidable result of what is often termed naive materialism.

You relish, revel in the failures of men. You really enjoy citing the failings of others, especially if it can be used to discredit the entire two thousand years of the most inspiring institution ever to grace the human history. One needn't dwell too long upon the spectacular failure of atheistic materialism; it's just too obvious. You insult and slander me and far to many really good, even great human beings when you find it necessary to strain the gnats of history, to remove all those specs left by men in the pursuit of good or ill. We must leave something for the religious bigots to feast upon after all.

For my part, I am very unhappy that a naive church accepted in seminaries , a large number of persons with known homosexual orientations. Male only environments with common facilities were probably not the best environment for such persons. There did in fact develop many problems and the vast majority of sexual problems were not of course pedophilia, but rather predatory homosexuals engaged in acts with teen-aged boys. The patterns of abuse have been traced to such seminaries that acted in good faith at the time.

Orthodox doctrine, and I would argue common sense hold that when two reasonable and psychologically whole individuals make a formal lifetime commitment to one another. Most children aren't too happy when their mom and dad divorce. The statistics on the children of divorce are overwhelming. The doctrine is just fine as it is.

Blaise, there's nothing particularly new, unusual or even all that interesting to healthy minds in the idea that human beings can regularly fail in their vocations. Ever hear of Judas Iscariot.?How about St. Peter and the rest of the gang that denied and took off as I almost certainly would have myslef? And these were the apostles fo God's sake! I fail daily, minute to minute in fact, and I have no reason at all to believe you are much different in this regard. It is also true that history abounds with what is rightly termed "heroic virtue", saintliness. A balanced perspective can avoid the one-sidedness of propaganda. Holiness...which consists simply in us being our best selves, also flourishes.

Orthodox doctrine, and uncommon good sense sees that evil can only exist in a dependent relationship with what is good.

I have no idea why you would consider the new pope to be s "single-mined prig". There is nothing priggish about him by all accounts, and as to being single-minded, do you wish to imply that anyone who holds honorably and consistently to reasonable moral principles is somehow therebye defective. You seem often to pick people who have acheived very high levels of expertise, and I would argue, competence and who are highly repected intellectuals in their own right. I know quite a few Catholics, but I know very fewwho I would describe as single-minded prigs. Quite the reverse in fact. Once again the social sciences confirm that they generally report and have mnay signs of happier, fuller lives, including, speaking of priggishness, better sex lives. I certainly find myself to be in full accord with the doctrinal positions very ably defended by the pope, and while I am certainly flawed, I have never been refferred to as far as I know as a single-mined prig.

Detraction doesn't magically enoble the detractor and like any diatribe that demonizes the target, it tends to pose more questions than it adresses.

[blaise]

Toronthab said:

Blaise

Do you honestly believe that you are the least bit less dogmatic and doctrinaire than Catholicism? All that differs is what one considers orthodox or right belief. Catholicism bases her belief upon the inspiration of the holy spirit as promised to the church by Christ. You, can simply reject such a wild notion as fanciful and absurd as theoretically can I. I find the counter propositions to be far less likely to be true than that proferred by the church. Hence a reasoned assent. I write this to establish that there is a very serious basis for the doctrinal orthodoxy espoused, and it is at the very least if considered dispassionatley, plausibly founded.

To say that you are against doctrinal orthodoxy is to say that you are against reasoning from first principles and the positing of sound arguments. [First principles or apriori bullSaperlipopette?In short you undermine not only your own doctrinaire orthodoxy, but all ethical reasoning, and if examined further the possibility of knowing anything about anything. [Exactly what is my orthodoxy? I am willing to question whereas you buy the company line lock, stock, and barrel.In short post-modernism. [Huh?Umberto Ecco's Kantian platypus notwithstanding, there are no grounds whatever in reality to accept such nonsense. Pope Benedict XVI addressed exactly the same dogmatic, agressive relativism prior to the conclave. And your words are exceedingly agressive perhaps reflecting the underlying insecurity of the position adopted. Your are a fan of all-out relativism. You just don't believe you are. It is the unavoidable result of what is often termed naive materialism. [You are facile and presumptuous without recognizing it.

You relish, revel in the failures of men. [Sheer idiocy.You really enjoy citing the failings of others, especially if it can be used to discredit the entire two thousand years of the most inspiring institution ever to grace the human history. [That's the same sort of drivel the Bolsheviks and Nazis believed about their ideologies.One needn't dwell too long upon the spectacular failure of atheistic materialism; it's just too obvious. You insult and slander me and far to many really good, even great human beings when you find it necessary to strain the gnats of history, to remove all those specs left by men in the pursuit of good or ill. We must leave something for the religious bigots to feast upon after all. [Do you deny the intolerance, cruelty, and forced conversions of the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries?

For my part, I am very unhappy that a naive church accepted in seminaries , a large number of persons with known homosexual orientations. Male only environments with common facilities were probably not the best environment for such persons. There did in fact develop many problems and the vast majority of sexual problems were not of course pedophilia, but rather predatory homosexuals engaged in acts with teen-aged boys. The patterns of abuse have been traced to such seminaries that acted in good faith at the time. [You deny that there were Popes with mistresses? With children?

Orthodox doctrine, and I would argue common sense hold that when two reasonable and psychologically whole individuals make a formal lifetime commitment to one another. Most children aren't too happy when their mom and dad divorce. The statistics on the children of divorce are overwhelming. [So are the statistics on abusive marriages, on spousal murder.The doctrine is just fine as it is.

Blaise, there's nothing particularly new, unusual or even all that interesting to healthy minds in the idea that human beings can regularly fail in their vocations. Ever hear of Judas Iscariot.?How about St. Peter and the rest of the gang that denied and took off as I almost certainly would have myslef? And these were the apostles fo God's sake! I fail daily, minute to minute in fact, and I have no reason at all to believe you are much different in this regard. It is also true that history abounds with what is rightly termed "heroic virtue", saintliness. A balanced perspective can avoid the one-sidedness of propaganda. Holiness...which consists simply in us being our best selves, also flourishes. [Tell us why the gospel of Thomas doesn't appear in the bible? Because it doesn't agree with the more sanitized versions?

Orthodox doctrine, and uncommon good sense sees that evil can only exist in a dependent relationship with what is good.

I have no idea why you would consider the new pope to be s "single-mined prig". There is nothing priggish about him by all accounts, and as to being single-minded, do you wish to imply that anyone who holds honorably and consistently to reasonable moral principles is somehow therebye defective. You seem often to pick people who have acheived very high levels of expertise, and I would argue, competence and who are highly repected intellectuals in their own right. I know quite a few Catholics, but I know very fewwho I would describe as single-minded prigs. [Although John Paul II was celibate, he had a much healthier take on sexuality than Benedict XVI.Quite the reverse in fact. Once again the social sciences confirm that they generally report and have mnay signs of happier, fuller lives, including, speaking of priggishness, better sex lives. I certainly find myself to be in full accord with the doctrinal positions very ably defended by the pope, and while I am certainly flawed, I have never been refferred to as far as I know as a single-mined prig.

Detraction doesn't magically enoble the detractor and like any diatribe that demonizes the target, it tends to pose more questions than it adresses. [I can't help it if you see perfection where it doesn't exist.

[Toronthab]

Blaise said:

Blaise

Spurious oneliners do not an argument make. Do you really fail to see that absolutely everyone is a doctrinaire moralizing dogmatist including yourself. To quote Socrates again, "If you aren't dogmatic, you aren't human."

I do not ask you or anyone else to accept unreasonable a priori assumptions, You have stated that you consider yourself one to be guided by tested empirical theories. What you ignore in this of course is that they are useless in determining matters of either ultimate causation, meaning or purpose. In short ultimate unintelligiblity. It even dawned on Hawkings the other day, that Godel's theorem (From 1930) incidentally has PROVEN that any notion of a demonstrated and certain grand unified theory from ohysics is impossible in principle, like a scientific understanding of what was prior to the big bang. IMPOSSIBLE in principle. CANNOT happen.




For one who likes to tout his "scientific" virtuosity you seem to know nothing about the limits of empiricism. The conditon is called naive materialism. Ultimately nihilistic, and unintelligible. That is your orthodoxy, but it is based upon the naive propositions of positivism. Your dogma is unexamined by you, but that is not the case with me. You are still trying to find truth from the dancing shadows on the walls of Plato's deep cave. You seek and even insist upon your absolutes, but your basis is the ephemoral. More sound and misdirected fury than reason.

It is exactly YOUR a priori assumptions that are without foundation. Scientism based upon a fundamental ignorance of the limits of cartesian methodologies, reduces to simple prejudice. Or, call it subjectivism.

Do me the great favour of pointing out my a priori assumptions. I know what I think to be true and sound philosophical resoning in metaphysics, and while I can indeed see you on my trail, I can only feel happy for you for when you catch up you will be a lot more intelligent on important things.

You will note that I am specific in my criticisms. I will let others judge for themselves if they think it at all likely that I am not given to questioning but rather just accept things uncritically. I don't know how many years you spent formally engaged in philosophical study, but I rather suspect that the answer would be not many, and I see no evidence of same in your positions insofar as they are definable. It is rather the common aforementinned naive materialism, subjectivism cooupled with the quite predicatable agressive dogmatic agnosticism. It's charmingly self contradictory every time you use the word should.

Aside from one-liners, and somewhat disjointed utterings, do you actually sometimes understand even a little what I write in response to the insults, prejudice and invective you offer, supposedly as dialogue, or will I have to repeat everything many times over?

Do you think that I suffer from the delusion that Catholics and all others don't sometimes do terrible things in the name of religion. How silly. It is however the case that when all a person can do is wholeheartedly leap in with slander and hasty judgement as in your remarks concerning Pius XII and the jews for , or the clear implication that Catholicism is all about "Inquisitions" with a capital "I", then I would ordinarily have to conclude that I am dealing with a person who is not much interested in fundamental principles of justice, rather like the good folks who think, or at least thought that the "Da Vinci ode" is or ever was historical, and not merely a very lowbrow deception.

Have you got some basis to your stated belief that I uncritically accept ANYTHING??? Please disabuse me. If, in discussing any group,a person can say nothing but evil about them howsoever uninformed, as is usually the case, then it is usually quite clear that even basic respect for others or truth is not the objective. Of races, it's racism. Of religions, It's bigotry.

To continue to address every real or assumed evil of the last two thousand years would frankly start to get not only boring, but more than a little stupid on my part. I believe you have yet to adress the St. Bartholemew's day massacre in France, and the very common belief at the time that people who advanced socially injurious attitudes should be dealt with. It is also true that people would prrposely blaspheme in civil court with the hope of being tried in ecclesiastic courts.

You seem to think that the Catholic church's claims rest upon the perfection of all its members. Where on earth would you get such a naive notion. Again, I ask, Have you ever heard of JUdas Iscariot. Pope Alexander VI or his neice Lucretia Borgia. Do you fancy that Catholics run around saying "Well golly shucks, imagine that'"

What you seem to ignore is that Jewish sources have stated that up to 800,000 jews escaped the Nazi's thanks to the efforts of PiusXII, and that his tremendous efforts were recognized by Golda Meir and others who said that he was the ONLY western leader who DID stand up while we were turning jews away from our shores.

In discussion of the Crusades, you would probably fail to point out that they were fundamentally defensive in nature and as a small historical footnote, saved Europe from the invasion. It's funny, but thanks to Da Vinci code -like "documentaries" on A&E even Muslims are now somehow persuaded that they were the victims. Too funny! Absurd.

When you look for the great, evil and monstrous "Spanish Inquisition" which I think in Spain they refer to as the "black lie" or something along those lines, you will discover that it was a state usurpation of the office of the church to find conversos. Castille and Aragon were joining and reuniting Spain after 700 years of Moorish rule, and indeed not "95 million" as one wingnut claimed, but a few thousand people over a period of several centuries were indeed terribly treated. It was nothng like the black image it conjures up in the fevered imaginations of anti-catholic bigots.

However, hollywood, and little-known German protestant homosexual playrights notwithstanding, most eight year olds or thereabouts have heard all about it

Does this mean that there were no apostles, no resurrection? Are the sacraments not sacraments? How silly.

Enough on this one-sided tiresome listing. It ignores the core, the reemergence of civilizaton following the collapse of the roman empire around the monasteries of medieval europe, the beginning of scholas or schools and the entirely worthwhile development of Western civilizaton and the foundations of science. ( Yes I've heard of Gallileo) and no, the story is not nearly as cut and dry as some would hve it).

As to the so-called "gospel" of Thomas, I will first offer a small insight into catholic faith.
These are not I hope obviously, a priori assumptions I ask anyone to accept, though I of course hold them to be well-faounded.

I believe that Christ was "divine". I find other conclusions, frankly, goofy.

Therefore when he gives Peter the authority to "bind" an "loose" on earth and in heaven, a promise to "send the holy spirit" to guide to all truth , and says that "he who hears you, hears me", I personally rather imeediately recognized that if there was a church of Christ anywhere on earth, it was either the Catholic church or some obscure outfit I had never heard of. I believe that if you don't see infallibility as a necessary condition ot the church, then one misses a funamental aspect of providence. Infallibility flows from the divinity and promises of Christ to Peter and the apostles.

Accordingly, on matters of faith and morals, I EXPECT infallibility. If a new pope were to come out with a fundamental doctrinal element in clear contradiction to an earlier funamental and clearly stated teching of the church, I would be bound by my conscience to call him up and demand an accounting from him. This has not, and will not happen. I obviously accept the authority of the church to decide exactly what and what is not canonical. I choose to be a Catholic. Blaise because I see catholicism as true. Presumably, howsoever ambiguously you must believe at least some of what you write to be true.

Religions share much common ground but are often very, very different from one another. Simple logic shows us that as they all differ in slight and/or serious matters it is logically only possible for there to be one fully true religion. One might believe that they all contain essential falsehood as I decidedly do not believe, but at most there CAN only be one that is fully true. This is not to deny the good and truth that is to be found in other religions or the man on the street.

That said, the so-called gospel of Thomas strangely was not passed on within the church though it apparently dated from near the time of the synoptic gospels. Odd that the bishops ordained by the original appostles including of course the true Saint Thomas never passed on or taught the good stuff that supposedly came directly from an apostle who walked with Christ. We have all heard the much in vogue "conspiracy" theories of "suppression" and yada, yada, yada, but the church had and has no interest whatever in suppressing the apostles. The idea is too ridiculous. Goofy. Gnostic nonsense that will appeal to the Da Vinci Code, Pagan Christ and "the Holy Blood and Holy Grail" crowd.

I believe it is your position Blaise that I uncritically accept things. Is this supposed to be one of them. Do you actually buy into this stuff? You certainly seem to reach an awful lot of unwarranted and un-nuanced conclusions.

Stay on my trail.


I will look up some relative links tomorrow

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Blaise, Toronto Hab

I can't say I'm as conversant on this topic as I thought, but I've enjoyed reading your debate. And while I can appreciate the passion with which it has been debated, I, as a moderator, must interject at this point.

Controversy, or differences in opinions, is a necessary process for facilitating proper dialogue and debate. However, at times your debate has crossed the line into personal conflict.

If either of you feel it necessary to continue your debate, and I sincerely hope you do, please refer to the Code of Conduct and leave personal attacks, finger-pointing and the like, to the personal messaging feature offered to every member of the community.

I feel fortunate just to have access to this debate and to the levels it is being debated. Personally, I feel much more enlightened. But it would be good to see the controversy hashed out and not personal differences. I think it would benefit the community entire. Thanks for your understanding.

Cheers.

Dis.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

Blaise, Toronto Hab

I can't say I'm as conversant on this topic as I thought, but I've enjoyed reading your debate. And while I can appreciate the passion with which it has been debated, I, as a moderator, must interject at this point.

Controversy, or differences in opinions, is a necessary process for facilitating proper dialogue and debate. However, at times your debate has crossed the line into personal conflict.

If either of you feel it necessary to continue your debate, and I sincerely hope you do, please refer to the Code of Conduct and leave personal attacks, finger-pointing and the like, to the personal messaging feature offered to every member of the community.

I feel fortunate just to have access to this debate and to the levels it is being debated. Personally, I feel much more enlightened. But it would be good to see the controversy hashed out and not personal differences. I think it would benefit the community entire. Thanks for your understanding.

Cheers.

Dis.

The question of orthodoxy dogma vs living with independant thought of reaction to environment is not unlike the major difference between Canada and the US.

Canada is a reactionary country. The courts using the British system of Majistrate Judges, attempt to determine right and wrong in dispensing fair judgements.
United States is steeped in orthodox adherence to the magical constitution and it's interpretation. US judges apply strict guidelines of admisability of evidence and essentially judge which team of lawyers did a better job of applying law to the admissable evidence. The judges weigh evidence against6 the written law in the absence of moralistic virtuous concepts of right and wrong.
In Canada judges function as magistrates attempting to determine right from wrong and dispensing justice with a liberal helping of compassion. If a Canadian lawyer fails to optimally represent his client, the Canadian judge may weigh the evidence presented as well as the circumstances and issue a ruling taking all into consideration.
In the US, if a lawyer fails to adequately represent his client, the client suffers.

The Catholic Church has a set of rules and values that differentiate it ftom other religeons. Individuals may agree or disagree with a number of points and most Catholics pick and choose the rules they will follow (yes to attendance on Easter and Christmas, no to weekly confessions). The Pope is not engaged in a popularity contest to please as many parishoners as possible. He is the leader who establishes the moral guidelines for his religeon that the flock may or may not choose to follow.
Reduction ad absurdum, if the Pope eliminated all rules, then everyone in the world be could be a practicing Catholic with no guidelines of conduct.

[Toronthab]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

Blaise, Toronto Hab

I can't say I'm as conversant on this topic as I thought, but I've enjoyed reading your debate. And while I can appreciate the passion with which it has been debated, I, as a moderator, must interject at this point.

Controversy, or differences in opinions, is a necessary process for facilitating proper dialogue and debate. However, at times your debate has crossed the line into personal conflict.

If either of you feel it necessary to continue your debate, and I sincerely hope you do, please refer to the Code of Conduct and leave personal attacks, finger-pointing and the like, to the personal messaging feature offered to every member of the community.

I feel fortunate just to have access to this debate and to the levels it is being debated. Personally, I feel much more enlightened. But it would be good to see the controversy hashed out and not personal differences. I think it would benefit the community entire. Thanks for your understanding.

Cheers.

Dis.

I can only hope that one day I too will have the circumspection and civility to call to order in so reasonable and gracious a fashion. I will accordingly and happily endeavour to restrain my charges.

By the way DH, I have always wondered what in fact a "gruntle" is. Are you perchance the one to sate my curiosity on theis point?

[Toronthab]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

The question of orthodoxy dogma vs living with independant thought of reaction to environment is not unlike the major difference between Canada and the US.

Canada is a reactionary country. The courts using the British system of Majistrate Judges, attempt to determine right and wrong in dispensing fair judgements.
United States is steeped in orthodox adherence to the magical constitution and it's interpretation. US judges apply strict guidelines of admisability of evidence and essentially judge which team of lawyers did a better job of applying law to the admissable evidence. The judges weigh evidence against6 the written law in the absence of moralistic virtuous concepts of right and wrong.
In Canada judges function as magistrates attempting to determine right from wrong and dispensing justice with a liberal helping of compassion. If a Canadian lawyer fails to optimally represent his client, the Canadian judge may weigh the evidence presented as well as the circumstances and issue a ruling taking all into consideration.
In the US, if a lawyer fails to adequately represent his client, the client suffers.

The Catholic Church has a set of rules and values that differentiate it ftom other religeons. Individuals may agree or disagree with a number of points and most Catholics pick and choose the rules they will follow (yes to attendance on Easter and Christmas, no to weekly confessions). The Pope is not engaged in a popularity contest to please as many parishoners as possible. He is the leader who establishes the moral guidelines for his religeon that the flock may or may not choose to follow.
Reduction ad absurdum, if the Pope eliminated all rules, then everyone in the world be could be a practicing Catholic with no guidelines of conduct.

You make a great point abut the "magical" constitution in the the U.S. Faith, is however a reasonned assent which cannot in principle ever be be inconsistent with the right use of reason. That is called the "principle of the Unity of Truth" which essentailly holds that if God who made the universe and the principles and minds that investigate it, then there, in principle cannt ever be a true contradiction, be it science or metaphysical if God actually reveals something.

The Catholic church, founded upon the apostles of Christ sees herself as the body of Christ. I think (obviously) the claim is completely well-founded. Accordingly, the pope is not at all free to establish moral guidelines, but rather is it his mandate, in a particular way, to present what is termed the revelation of God to mankind.

Accordinlgy, if any pope were to introduce a moral guieline out of step with well-established and consistent doctrine, then it is the duty of catholics, myself included, to call him up and say "Whoa there". As a perfect instance of this attitude, and as Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed some years ago, the church in the face of the example of Christ who moved beyond all kinds of restrictons and proscriptions while Himself being a strong defender of "organized religion" never ordained women to the priesthood. There are furhter theological arguments e.g. the fact that the priest acts in "persona Christus", in the person of Christ, and personality and gender are inextricably united to all but the heads buried deepest in ideological sand.

As popes have reiterated, he church' "does not see herself as authorized" to do such a thing. Obviously, if Christ could have and didn't then there are at least serious reasons for the church not to. To ascribe it arbitrarlily to an ignoble, irrational chauvinsism, while ignoring serious argument is the reason we have the phrases like "hasty judgment" and "undue bias" and "prejudice". I HATE gong to confession or, more accurately, "the sacrament of reconciliation". I often prefer to overlook the fact that some of the most moving and affecting expleriences of love I have ever experienced flowed from the graces of confession and absolution. Pride. Catholicism is despite popular imagery about infinite love, mercy and forgiveness. The commandments, like speed limits (ok, THEY shoud be raised) are merely the guidlines of love, to keep us on the road, not arbitrary fetters.

[blaise]

The bible is a compound of many sources. It has been revised and redacted over and over. It assumes "truths" that are unproven and counterintuitive. Accepting it verbatim is a blindfolded leap of faith. Someone who has taken the leap and is still in midair reproaches those who have not leaped before he or she has reached the rocks below. The one who has not leaped recognizes the hand of man in the bible and sees the Wizard of Oz miracles and is more than skeptical about promises of heaven. While there are some wise and noble thoughts expressed in the bible there are some base ones that have been used to justify slavery and other despicable practices. I would never make myself subservient to churchly confidence men who use the splendor and wealth and mystery of the church to awe and intimidate people into compliance with papal bulls and other manmade edicts.

On mundane grounds I dispute the prohibition of contraception. The ban was instituted at a time when of seven births, one or two children would grow to adulthood. Now, seven births could very well result in seven adults. Is this good for people? I think not. Yet the pope maintains that the use of condoms is a sin in sub-Saharan African regions where one of every four is infected with HIV. Better suffer misery and death than contravene an outmoded edict based on some biblical expressio of go forth and multiply. Maybe if the world population dwindled from 6.2 billion (and climbing) to 6.2 million I could see the sense. But without such shrinkage the world is much worse off if it heeds the pope.

Even the use of the rhythm method of contraception goes against Go forth an multiply, so that's another self-contradiction. Moreover, it is useless in warding off AIDS.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Toronthab said:

I can only hope that one day I too will have the circumspection and civility to call to order in so reasonable and gracious a fashion. I will accordingly and happily endeavour to restrain my charges.

Awe shucks ... er ... I mean, thanks.

By the way DH, I have always wondered what in fact a "gruntle" is. Are you perchance the one to sate my curiosity on theis point?

No. But, please consider it your challenge.

Cheers.