What was so great about the Pope?

Do I think paedophiles were born that way. Well, yes I do. I had a patient who was a paedophile. I knew his family and some of his friends (as patients). He was a personable man except for a certain unquantifiable quality, very easily ingored unless you knew his background. During his last sojorn in prison he was treated with hormones which had the effect of suppressing his tendencies. A friend of his told me he couldn't control his 'cravings' ( prob the wrong word) any other way. Anyway afterwards he never (as far as I know) offended again. He married and lived a productive life.
There is no point in locking up paedophiles. This will not 'cure' them. Some form of chemical castration is really the only way, and seems to have a good prognosis, although I understand it isn't as effective in all cases.
I have worked in a prison, and locking offenders up is no use unless the underlying problem (usually drug abuse) is dealt with. They will only re-offend as soon as they are released. They know no other way of living unless their prison term gives them training or some form of education. I worked in Feltham Young Offenders Institute for a couple of years, mentoring one of the inmates. So I know a little about this problem.
 
JP2 was a major factor in putting a stop to a movement towards dropping priestly celibacy. the requirement for celibacy is supposed to ensure that only those with a strong sense of vocation enter the priesthood. unfortunately it also helps to select those to whom a lack of relationships with women is not a disadvantage.

that could explain an unusually high proportion of priests with non-mainstream sexual tendencies. what it doesn't explain of course is the fact that so many choose to indulge those tendencies despite the church's explicit prohibition.
 
[quote
Long time since I read many parts of it, but I don't recall any mention in the bible of the shape of the earth - perhaps you could give me a refence? If it's going to change again, what shape will the world be next? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Most major christian religions still believe in Adam & Eve and that God made the world - Darwin disagrees - but it doesn't stop christians believing the Bible as a foundation of their faith.

There you go faith as opposed to science again - gets pretty deep doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the Church that insisted that the Earth was flat! I have no idea what the Bible says on the subject but you can be sure that it contradicts itself if it does express an opinion.

There was an interesting letter in the ToryGraph over the weekend about Creation. The first chapter of Genesis tells how god created the world in six days, forming plants, fish, birds and animals in succession. He concluded with human beings, male and female, made in his image. Chapter two tells how Adam was made first, then plants, animals and birds. Finally, Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs. In other words the bible isn't even consistent on Creation!

You can make the bible say anything you want, and I am sure that there will be those who can quote the bible in support of paedophilia. Personally, I think that the bible is a good story book; no more, no less.
 
The more I learn about science the more I believe that the world as we know it, following the big bang, could not spontaneously and randomly spring into place in its present form.

One example quoted by Bill Bryson in "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is a protein called collagen. A protein is a selection of amino acids strung together. To make collagen you have to string 1055 amino acids together in exactly the right order. The statistical probability of this happening, randomly, is nil. If instead of 1055 acids you only take 200, the statistical probability is 1 x 10 (to the power of 260). That in itself is greater than all the atoms in the universe.

If science cant explain it, only faith remains.

John
 
[ QUOTE ]
My youngest son was taught by the DeLa Salle brothers, St Johns Grammar school, Portsmouth. Was that the same for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the late 60's, 800 teenage boys in a controlled and disciplined environment - not without it's faults but mainly successful in what it set out to achieve. Became a victim of progressive, secular, anti-religous education.
 
The pope didn’t protect paedophiles only, his food soldiers (Bishops of high rankings) sleep with women too.

The Vatican payed for my sister’s (half-sister) entire upbringing and education until she was 25, after DNA proved that one of his Bishops did the job. How many women are out there who had to bring up ‘gods’ children without any of that support? Probably more women then there are popes (who ever lived) and bishops out there.

Maybe I should ask my boss to create a website called ‘findascrew’ for the heavenly personnel so they stop using (abusing) the sheep they are supposed to take care of.
 
But you get away from my original point:

"...the bottom line is that the Catholic faith is based on any number of non-negotiables including attitudes to homosexuality, women and the practice of many aspects of it's faith. Even the Pope cannot change these."

The shape of the world is not one of the fundamental beliefs that the Catholic faith is based on. Some parts of society's beliefs will change, some Catholic beliefs are and will remain unchangeable. If they were to change they would cease to be Catholic. Comes into the category of "unshakeable beliefs" and a difficult concept that I don't always fully understand. (I also don't understand any number of other things, but it doesn't mean they are wrong as well)
 
erm .. actually if you go far enough back Judaism & Islam had a common root but separated with Islam being a vibrant and fertile faith until it stultified c 16th C. Judaism on the other hand diverged with its emphasis on law, procedure & obedience. Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism (& ergo Islam) whereby faith and motive were more important than deeds. Indeed there was much argument in the early church as to whether gentiles should be accepted andl if they were whether they were then subject to Judaic law. Reluctantly it was agreed they would'nt cos quite understandably most gentiles were reluctant to be circumcised. After Constantine the Holy Roman Emporor adopted christianity and founded the RC church it eventually split about 1050ad into east and west, the Orthodox churches of the East focussing more on the resurrection, whilst the RC church majored on Christ's sacrifice and death.

The birth of Protestantism was sod all to do with Henry VIII, being a serial marrier he needed to divorce or whatever he fell out with the Pope who demanded too much money .. so he started his own church at the same time enriching himself considerably in the process.

Protestantism arose with the Renaissance. The Renaissance and the Reformation were consonant. The printing press was invented, people were more enquiring as scientific discoveries mounted. There was rising dissatisfaction with the power and corruption of the established church. many devout Christians were finding the Church's growing emphasis on rituals irrelevant in their search for personal salvation. The sacraments had become mere forms of ritualized behavior that no longer intimated and awed the common people. They had become devoid of meaning. And since more people were congregating in towns and cities, they could observe for themselves and more important, discuss their concerns with others. The papacy had lost much of its spiritual influence over its people because of the increasing tendency toward secularization. This was the origins of protestantism not the sexual and material avarice of Henry VIII.

What is ironic is that if you look at the message of Jesus ie have good thought and motives and your reward will be in heaven etc etc it is amazing how men have managed to build huge structures of ritual, pomp and power around that very simple doctrine. Ergo my argument that the established churches have in fact very little to do with religion, they are the legacies of corrupt powerbrokers.

But back to the matter in hand .. what will JPII legacy be to future generations .. sadly I believe none. The breakdown of communism would have happened anyway he was irrelevant. His appeal to the IRA was ignored. He was not to blame for aids but allowing conraception would have stopped much misery and many women dying in childbirth. I genuinely find it difficult to see what he left.
 
[ QUOTE ]
But you get away from my original point:

"...the bottom line is that the Catholic faith is based on any number of non-negotiables including attitudes to homosexuality, women and the practice of many aspects of it's faith. Even the Pope cannot change these."

The shape of the world is not one of the fundamental beliefs that the Catholic faith is based on. Some parts of society's beliefs will change, some Catholic beliefs are and will remain unchangeable. If they were to change they would cease to be Catholic. Comes into the category of "unshakeable beliefs" and a difficult concept that I don't always fully understand. (I also don't understand any number of other things, but it doesn't mean they are wrong as well)

[/ QUOTE ]

What I was trying to say is that the Church will interpret things as it sees fit. Over time things change and it will go to a different part of the bible to support whatever its latest position is. Things that are non-negotiable today, will become negotiable tomorrow. That is what happened with the flat earth theory. It was pretty fundamental at one stage; people were burnt for not agreeing!
I suspect that in years to come, when the evidence about the cause of homosexuality becomes irrefutable, that the church will change its view. It will change its view on contraception. It will change its view on Women. It will change its view on celibacy. Etc Etc. Each time it changes it will claim the authority of the bible in support!

On a completely different tack.......We were wondering at work today..............Who takes the Popes confessions?
 
[ QUOTE ]
What I was trying to say is that the Church will interpret things as it sees fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a Catholic would say that this is the difference between "the Church" who will and "the Catholic church" who won't.

[ QUOTE ]
On a completely different tack.......We were wondering at work today..............Who takes the Popes confessions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any priest can, you don't have to be a higher "rank".
 
Have to say that I find the TV coverage extreme. I have no problems with his beliefs as a private individual and I would defend his right to have any beliefs he wanted. But as Pope I believe his life should be concentrated on improving the life of his followers, not just growing his church so that he has more followers, wealth and power than other religious leaders.

The pope was certainly a forceful character, his opposition to communism was admirable as was his determination to get out and meet his subjects and engage with other religions.

But what positive results did he actually achieve. IMHO very little. Communism fell because it was a bankrupt system whose leaders could no longer pretend it could keep up with the west ( mainly the USA) although of course his support would not have hurt.

His opposition to all change regarding contraception, gay and womens rights is indefensible in my opinion as is the continued extortion of money from believers on the basis of "Give me your money - I'll guarantee you happiness after death."

Other cults get raided by the police and prosecuted for fraud. Why should the Catholic Church be any different.

I have no problem with the Idea of a God - personally I believe there is a God but I refuse to have anything to do with organised religion in view of their hypocrisy and substitution of ritual for actually carrying out any actions that live up to the beliefs they theoretically uphold.

Its this hypocrisy and general irrelevance to the real everday concerns of his followers that mark the late Pope out as achieving very little.
 
So what's so good about modern thinking. Where's it got the world or this country in particular - innumerable broken families, promiscuous lifestyles, boundless crime,people frightened to leave their homes and in some parts barricaded in them, drug ridden youths theiving to maintain their habits, lies at every level of society - is this what we want any new church leader to reflect?
 
Interpretation?

My experience of the faith was formed by Fransciscans, Jesuits and Benedictine monks. Also, dear old mum who's an Irish Catholic by nature.

Though I would take issue wih their teachings and have chosen my own path of life, my scant moral values are based on the teachings of the few great priests I met and knew.

Please remember that we have lost our great pope and many are sad at his passing.

There will be a time for other debates, but for now we bend our knee and mourn the loss of our leader. Along with a billion other mourning souls.

Tom
 
Really sad

Ok Tom, I too am saddened at the passing of a fellow human being after a long period of suffering. I have no doubt that many are also saddened particularly because of the office he held and what it represented to so many. BUt name me not 10, not 5 but even 3 achievements that merit him being called John Paul the Great?

Several things have been named here that could have been done but were'nt!
 
Re: Really sad

Jim, I'm no great expert but here's a few to which no doubt many others could be added

Opposed the war in Iraq

Affirmed the rights of the Palestinians to a homeland

Embraced other religions, notably Jewish and Muslim

Visited 120 countries in his mission to unite the church and its followers, consistently denouncing violence and calling for action to combat world poverty

Spoke 9 languages

Instrumental in bringing about the liberation of Poland

Forgave his would-be assassin

Led the world's largest christian community for 26 years
 
The problem with the pope is the problem with most religions - how can anyone possibly believe in all that mumbo jumbo?

There is no evidence what so ever that Christ is the son of God - There is no evidence there even is a God. The old testament is a pretty good read but is just a collection of myths and fables - Charming, provide a pretty good moral structure for a society to live by but by no means the only one. The new testament is much the same. None of the Gospels were written during the lifetime of Jesus and the most contemporary was written 80 years after his death - in another country by a foreigner.

He was born to a married virgin - had brothers and sister and possibly had Mary Magdalen to boot. And why not? He was a religious leader - a man about whom we know a little but certainly not all the events in his life. There are decades of his life in which he was around but not famous enough to be chronicled.

Certainly the pope was a leader also. Some pretty odd views not the least of which was that the church and its dogma was more important than anything or anyone else.

I find it extraordinary that anyone can believe in something that has absolutely no shred of evidence to support it but if that belief gives some sort of comfort and the ritual aggrandizement of someone of a good age that died makes people feel good then I guess that's fine.

It is fine as long as christianity does not try to stop people being gay if that's their inclination or having protected sex if they do not want sexually transmitted diseases or children... Or if the 12 year old or 42 year old finds themself pregnant and does not wish to have the child to forbid them to abort it or to suggest that women are in some way iferior to men because they are women. The Pope and the entire church behave as if they have had a message from God! Really?
Now how did they receive this message????
 
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you choose - but please, on a subject like this, do not try to have the last word with such a collection of false aphorisms.

And try not to dress up ignorance as fact. The First Gospel was written by Mark - a Jew, almost certainly a disciple [not apostle] of Jesus. The Gospel was written at some point after 40ad and certainly before 70ad - so between 10 and 40 years after Christ's death, by someone who almost certainly witnessed his ministry.
 
... but large parts of Mark were excised because it did'nt suit the church at the time. Fact proven by references elsewhere to apparently non existent bits of Mark's gospel
 
Well I hate to disagree with you but ......

I hope you're not joining in this 'Da Vinci Code' surrealism of the Secret Gospel of Mark.

In actual fact Mark was hardly excised but was added to. His Gospel almost certainly ended complete with the discovery of the empty tomb. The early Church seems to have found this abrupt and so have added a couple of sentences showing the risen Christ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top