PDA

View Full Version : Religion John Paul II - Saint or aint?


mlyonsd
05-01-2011, 06:04 PM
John Paul has been beatified and is one miracle away from being canonized. Should it happen?

I'm having trouble getting over my impression he ignored the sexual atrocities that took place.

*disclaimer* I'm a non-practicing Catholic that is still pays attention to what is going on in the church.

Dave Lane
05-01-2011, 06:07 PM
Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck for?

Brock
05-01-2011, 06:07 PM
He was a really nice man, I think.

ClevelandBronco
05-01-2011, 06:10 PM
Are you ****ing kidding me? What the **** for?

Why would you care even a little one way or the other?

BucEyedPea
05-01-2011, 07:10 PM
John Paul has been beatified and is one miracle away from being canonized. Should it happen?

I'm having trouble getting over my impression he ignored the sexual atrocities that took place.

*disclaimer* I'm a non-practicing Catholic that is still pays attention to what is going on in the church.

It's up the the RCC—and NO ONE else. Especially Protestants who left the church. As far as ignoring the sexual scandals committed by about 2% of priests....he didn't believe the reports because that's the type of thing the communists did to priests in Poland. Time to forgive the man since he still did more good. No saint was perfect anyway. Remember there were few sins St Francis didn't commit.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-01-2011, 08:57 PM
no

patteeu
05-01-2011, 08:59 PM
I don't have a problem with John Paul II's actions wrt the child molestation allegations in some parts of the church so IMO it shouldn't prevent him from being cannonized. Whether or not he's met all the requirements is something I'm not competent to judge though since I don't really believe in God-inspired miracles.

Dave Lane
05-01-2011, 09:06 PM
Why would you care even a little one way or the other?

It adds to the scorn I would feel for religion which is actually fairly hard to do. I mean WTF about JP2 says saints. I mean seriously. He was just a guy. I know nicer guys than him.

Dave Lane
05-01-2011, 09:07 PM
No it should be up to the states to decide this matter. Plus he was a looter of other peoples money.

It's up the the RCC—and NO ONE else. Especially Protestants who left the church. As far as ignoring the sexual scandals committed by about 2% of priests....he didn't believe the reports because that's the type of thing the communists did to priests in Poland. Time to forgive the man since he still did more good. No saint was perfect anyway. Remember there were few sins St Francis didn't commit.

ClevelandBronco
05-01-2011, 09:33 PM
It adds to the scorn I would feel for religion which is actually fairly hard to do. I mean WTF about JP2 says saints. I mean seriously. He was just a guy. I know nicer guys than him.

Thanks. Now why should we care even a little how much scorn you have? Is there a perfect degree of scorn from you that we should be aiming for?

BigChiefFan
05-02-2011, 10:27 AM
What makes the Catholics think that they decide who is and isn't a saint?

ClevelandBronco
05-02-2011, 10:34 AM
What makes the Catholics think that they decide who is and isn't a saint?

You gotta know they do it just to fuck with Dave Lane.

patteeu
05-02-2011, 12:07 PM
What makes the Catholics think that they decide who is and isn't a saint?

What makes Baptists (or any other Christian denomination) think they can decide which Bible translation is or is not acceptable?

BigChiefFan
05-02-2011, 12:11 PM
What makes Baptists (or any other Christian denomination) think they can decide which Bible translation is or is not acceptable?

I really prefer to hear an answer to the question, than to get off on a side issue this early into the conversation, but I do agree with your sentiment.

Cleveland B's answer was pretty funny.

patteeu
05-02-2011, 12:30 PM
I really prefer to hear an answer to the question, than to get off on a side issue this early into the conversation, but I do agree with your sentiment.

Cleveland B's answer was pretty funny.

That was supposed to be an answer. In both cases, they believe they can do it because it's divinely inspired.

Demonpenz
05-02-2011, 12:34 PM
he has enough miracles to get in. It just depends on his vertical

Taco John
05-02-2011, 01:20 PM
Yeah sure, why not. Just conjure up another post facto miracle and make it happen.

Huffmeister
05-02-2011, 01:20 PM
he has enough miracles to get in. It just depends on his vertical

I understand that-a two of them was-a card tricks. / Father Guido Sarducci

ClevelandBronco
05-02-2011, 01:28 PM
I understand that-a two of them was-a card tricks. / Father Guido Sarducci

Now that was a great line.

BucEyedPea
05-02-2011, 02:17 PM
No it should be up to the states to decide this matter. Plus he was a looter of other peoples money.

Nope. The Vatican is an example of a libertarian state funded with voluntary donations. You don't understand what the word plunder means.

fbal4lif32
05-02-2011, 04:47 PM
Nope. The Vatican is an example of a libertarian state funded with voluntary donations. You don't understand what the word plunder means.

Why is the Vatican a libertarian state?

BucEyedPea
05-02-2011, 04:55 PM
Why is the Vatican a libertarian state?



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7366928&postcount=27

fbal4lif32
05-02-2011, 05:02 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7366928&postcount=27

Interesting perspective. It doesn't tax, but it doesn't provide any public services, either. I would have figured that a religious monarchy was the last thing that could be considered libertarian, but I guess some have different views.

BucEyedPea
05-02-2011, 05:13 PM
Interesting perspective. It doesn't tax, but it doesn't provide any public services, either. I would have figured that a religious monarchy was the last thing that could be considered libertarian, but I guess some have different views.

Public services—whatever for? They get other funds from selling postage stamps, tourist souvenirs, admissions fees to museums and the sale of publications as governmental revenue. They issue their own coins and provide security with the Swiss Guards.

It's not a different view. I learned about this on the leading libertarian website. I think perhaps you have a partial misunderstanding of what libertarianism is.It's based on the non-aggression doctrine. The Vatican state is a voluntary community. Tom Woods is a well known libertarian and Roman Catholic.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/29169.html

fbal4lif32
05-02-2011, 05:23 PM
Public services—whatever for? They get other funds from selling postage stamps, tourist souvenirs, admissions fees to museums and the sale of publications as governmental revenue. They issue their own coins and provide security with the Swiss Guards.

It's not a different view. I learned about this on the leading libertarian website. I think perhaps you have a partial misunderstanding of what libertarianism is.It's based on the non-aggression doctrine. The Vatican state is a voluntary community. Tom Woods is a well known libertarian and Roman Catholic.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/29169.html

I take libertarianism as something that is largely connected with individual liberty as Western society has come to know it: speech, religion, voting, etc.

The Vatican is a monarchy. The Pope is the King. And there's no talking back to the Pope or voting him out of office. That's why your designation of the Vatican as a libertarian state puzzled me. I think you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I don't think the Libertarian Party in this country sees the Vatican as a strong ideal of what they aspire to be, but I don't follow the leading libertarian websites.

That's not to say that Catholics can't be libertarian, though, and I'm sure there are good Catholic libertarians [See George Weigel]. But there are also good Catholic Democrats, and they vastly outnumber the Catholic libertarians, so I'm not sure that a demographic count is a good idea here.

BucEyedPea
05-02-2011, 05:49 PM
I take libertarianism as something that is largely connected with individual liberty as Western society has come to know it: speech, religion, voting, etc.

The Vatican is a monarchy. The Pope is the King. And there's no talking back to the Pope or voting him out of office. That's why your designation of the Vatican as a libertarian state puzzled me. I think you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I don't think the Libertarian Party in this country sees the Vatican as a strong ideal of what they aspire to be, but I don't follow the leading libertarian websites.

That's not to say that Catholics can't be libertarian, though, and I'm sure there are good Catholic libertarians [See George Weigel]. But there are also good Catholic Democrats, and they vastly outnumber the Catholic libertarians, so I'm not sure that a demographic count is a good idea here.

Well that is not really what libertarian is totally. There's no square peg here especially if you look at how there's no compelling anyone in the Vatican state. The Pope isn't a King though because he is chosen. It is not a heriditary position. Furthermore, many libertarians do not believe in voting. Voting doesn't make something libertarian.

There's just different kinds of libertarianism, but they are all united by one common denominator—the non-aggression doctrine. Govts are usually based on force. Taxes are based on force because if you don't pay them you got to jail. The Vatican doesn't compel anyone and anyone is free to leave voluntarily too.

There's left libertarianism too. It's really communitarianism though. It is not a free-market system but it does presume that the state has withered away and the sharing equally is voluntary.

A monarchy just means the power is in one person. But that doesn't mean if that person believes in liberty they would not allow liberty, not tax, and just allow the society to do as they want so long as they don't harm anyone. I don't think it's likely but it would just depend on the monarch. A monarch need not be authoritarian.

fbal4lif32
05-02-2011, 06:00 PM
Well that is not really what libertarian is totally. There's no square peg here especially if you look at how there's no compelling anyone in the Vatican state. The Pope isn't a King though because he is chosen. It is not a heriditary position. Furthermore, many libertarians do not believe in voting. Voting doesn't make something libertarian.

That the papacy is not hereditary does not exclude it from being considered a monarchy. As you say so yourself later in this post: "A monarchy just means the power is in one person." The power in the Vatican is in one person: the Pope. Thus, monarchy.

While voting might not make something libertarian, the freedom of voting rights and chose policy certainly is a libertarian stronghold.

There's just different kinds of libertarianism, but they are all united by one common denominator—the non-aggression doctrine. Govts are usually based on force. Taxes are based on force because if you don't pay them you got to jail. The Vatican doesn't compel anyone and anyone is free to leave voluntarily too.

Under that line of thinking, the United States doesn't compel anyone either: anyone [with minor exceptions] is free to leave voluntarily. Sure, you are free to leave the Vatican, but doing so means you are leaving behind your Church position.

There's left libertarianism too. It's really communitarianism though. It is not a free-market system but it does presume that the state has withered away and the sharing equally is voluntary.

A monarchy just means the power is in one person. But that doesn't mean if that person believes in liberty they would not allow liberty, not tax, and just allow the society to do as they want so long as they don't harm anyone. I don't think it's likely but it would just depend on the monarch. A monarch need not be authoritarian.

That's great, but I'm talking about, and you were talking about, the Vatican. The Vatican, the Pope, is authoritarian.

So is it still your position that the Vatican is libertarian?

BucEyedPea
05-02-2011, 06:16 PM
While voting might not make something libertarian, the freedom of voting rights and chose policy certainly is a libertarian stronghold.
Not necessarily because it's not rooted in property rights. It's not even a natural right. It's more like an entitlement.


Some libertarian thoughts on voting (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/68453.html)

I mean really if libertarianism is a mini-anarchy which is hardly any govt why is voting even needed. If relied on as much as we do, then it's less likely to vote for libertarian policies since it mainly means getting your side the force others to submit to your way.


Under that line of thinking, the United States doesn't compel anyone either: anyone [with minor exceptions] is free to leave voluntarily. Sure, you are free to leave the Vatican, but doing so means you are leaving behind your Church position.
Men of faith are there because they want to be there. It's still a voluntary society that does not compel which was my point. Or the closest thing to one.


That's great, but I'm talking about, and you were talking about, the Vatican. The Vatican, the Pope, is authoritarian.
That's in terms of the faith because Catholicism is based on dogma which means the members are compelled to believe those dogmas. Not all parts though, because not all is defined as dogma. The religion is voluntary. No one is compelled to be a member.

So is it still your position that the Vatican is libertarian?

I was referring to the Vatican state and said why. Yes I do—more than any other state that I know of.

fbal4lif32
05-02-2011, 06:26 PM
Not necessarily because it's not rooted in property rights. It's not even a natural right. It's more like an entitlement.


Some libertarian thoughts on voting (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/68453.html)

I mean really if libertarianism is a mini-anarchy which is hardly any govt why is voting even needed. If relied on as much as we do, then it's less likely to vote for libertarian policies since it mainly means getting your side the force others to submit to your way.

Is it your contention that libertarianism is a mini-anarchy?

fbal4lif32
05-02-2011, 06:36 PM
Not necessarily because it's not rooted in property rights. It's not even a natural right. It's more like an entitlement.


Some libertarian thoughts on voting (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/68453.html)

I mean really if libertarianism is a mini-anarchy which is hardly any govt why is voting even needed. If relied on as much as we do, then it's less likely to vote for libertarian policies since it mainly means getting your side the force others to submit to your way.

This is really strange view, although forgive me if I don't take a disgruntled blog post as being the end-all philosophical argument of whether voting is a right. "why is voting even needed?" I'm not sure if you and I are operating on the same practical level. How else would things get done in our system if we didn't have a right to vote?

fbal4lif32
05-02-2011, 06:38 PM
Men of faith are there because they want to be there. It's still a voluntary society that does not compel which was my point. Or the closest thing to one.

That's in terms of the faith because Catholicism is based on dogma which means the members are compelled to believe those dogmas. Not all parts though, because not all is defined as dogma. The religion is voluntary. No one is compelled to be a member.

You've evaded my question: I agree that the Vatican is a "voluntary society" in the sense that people can leave voluntarily. Why is this not the same for the United States? Can people not leave this country voluntarily? Is someone compelled to be a United States citizen against their will?

I don't think so. So I'm not sure why the Vatican, in regards to compulsion of citizenship and participation, is 'better' than the United States, or many other countries. They all seem to be tied in that respect.

chiefzilla1501
05-02-2011, 08:35 PM
As a practicing Catholic, no he should not be canonized. It's one thing for priests to be involved with molestation, it's quite another that the Vatican went at great lengths to cover it up. And I have a very, very hard time believing the Pope had no knowledge of that.

Bump
05-02-2011, 08:37 PM
AIN'T

fuck the entire vatican, biggest scam on earth.

mlyonsd
05-02-2011, 08:57 PM
As a practicing Catholic, no he should not be canonized. It's one thing for priests to be involved with molestation, it's quite another that the Vatican went at great lengths to cover it up. And I have a very, very hard time believing the Pope had no knowledge of that.That's where I am. I suppose there is a chance the Cardinals hovering over the Pope kept the info from him but I find it troubling that Europeans are willing to ignore what happened.

You would hope that a true Saint, in talking to God would understand what was going on.

ClevelandBronco
05-02-2011, 09:14 PM
As a practicing Catholic, no he should not be canonized. It's one thing for priests to be involved with molestation, it's quite another that the Vatican went at great lengths to cover it up. And I have a very, very hard time believing the Pope had no knowledge of that.

I'm guessing that you'll have a choice to make.

fbal4lif32
05-02-2011, 09:24 PM
As a practicing Catholic, no he should not be canonized. It's one thing for priests to be involved with molestation, it's quite another that the Vatican went at great lengths to cover it up. And I have a very, very hard time believing the Pope had no knowledge of that.

I think the documentation very well shows that John Paul II knew of child abuse. Why else would there be letters and partial reforms beginning in 2001? The valid criticism seems to be that JPII did not do enough, and in some cases, ignored, the problems. And through the discoveries, it seems to me that although Pope Benedict has gotten the brunt of the criticism, yet he attempted to do more than the Vatican was willing to do.

JohnnyV13
05-02-2011, 10:51 PM
It doesn't really matter what any of us think.

JP's canonization is inevitable. As famous as he is, with millions of catholics likely praying to him, its almost inevitable that one of them will have a spontaneous health care cure that can't be explained.

Viola! Third miracle.

patteeu
05-02-2011, 11:49 PM
As a practicing Catholic, no he should not be canonized. It's one thing for priests to be involved with molestation, it's quite another that the Vatican went at great lengths to cover it up. And I have a very, very hard time believing the Pope had no knowledge of that.

To what lengths did the Pope JP II go to cover anything up?

Taco John
05-03-2011, 01:31 AM
Interesting perspective. It doesn't tax, but it doesn't provide any public services, either. I would have figured that a religious monarchy was the last thing that could be considered libertarian, but I guess some have different views.

The Catholic Church doesn't provide any public services? Are we talking about the same organization?

fbal4lif32
05-03-2011, 06:15 AM
The Catholic Church doesn't provide any public services? Are we talking about the same organization?

I don't think we are. You are talking about the Catholic Church, which provides enormous amounts of charity. BucEyedPea and I were talking about the political state of Vatican City.

Amnorix
05-03-2011, 10:05 AM
Public services—whatever for? They get other funds from selling postage stamps, tourist souvenirs, admissions fees to museums and the sale of publications as governmental revenue. They issue their own coins and provide security with the Swiss Guards.

It's not a different view. I learned about this on the leading libertarian website. I think perhaps you have a partial misunderstanding of what libertarianism is.It's based on the non-aggression doctrine. The Vatican state is a voluntary community. Tom Woods is a well known libertarian and Roman Catholic.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/29169.html


You get that the Vatican is an extremely small "country" that is entirely within another country that effectively provides for all of its defense needs (and who knows what other needs)? The Vatican is also basically the headquarters of a multinational organization that can feed money into it to the extent necessary/

This isn't exactly a typical governmental entity. In fact, it is an entirely unique governmental entity as I'm not aware of anything else quite like it.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2011, 10:50 AM
You've evaded my question:
I have evaded nothing.
I certainly had NOT intended to remain here all evening getting into a debate of this length and extent with one poster for hours, in a thread about the impending sainthood of a former Pope. If you desire such a debate, how 'bout you put up your own thread huh?


I don't think so. So I'm not sure why the Vatican, in regards to compulsion of citizenship and participation, is 'better' than the United States, or many other countries. They all seem to be tied in that respect.

I didn't say anything about the Vatican being better. I just said and defended that Vatican city did not compel and is supported voluntarily. The US does compel and there's a lot more coercian than ever before. The US is a very coercive state these days and I hear passports may even get more restrictive. The US is very far from being a libertarian country. It's not what I consider free. It has elements of fascism and socialism. Not sure if it ever was libertarian either, since states had a lot more latitude in how to govern and tax. In fact they had official state churches etc. Federalism does not bar any state from authoritarianism. Not under the original plan anyway.

fbal4lif32
05-03-2011, 11:11 AM
I have evaded nothing.
I certainly had NOT intended to remain here all evening getting into a debate of this length and extent with one poster for hours, in a thread about the impending sainthood of a former Pope. If you desire such a debate, how 'bout you put up your own thread huh?

I was not aware of the offending situation of discussing the alleged libertarianism of the Vatican in a thread about the leader of the Vatican. I've been a long-time poster of this forum, though, and don't recall limitations set up about what can be and cannot be debated in a thread. Forgive me if I have overstepped any boundaries. I would appreciate not being banned for such grievous harms. In my defense, though, you were the first one to bring up the allegation of the Vatican being a libertarian state.

And it was not my intention for you to remain in this thread all evening getting into a debate of this length and extent "for hours." I assumed this was a voluntary choice of yours; I certainly didn't mean to compel you into a forced discussion. I will point out that you don't have to respond to me, but also that I'm grateful for your responses to my inquiries thus far.

I didn't say anything about the Vatican being better. I just said and defended that Vatican city did not compel and is supported voluntarily. The US does compel and there's a lot more coercian than ever before. The US is a very coercive state these days and I hear passports may even get more restrictive. The US is very far from being a libertarian country. It's not what I consider free. It has elements of fascism and socialism. Not sure if it ever was libertarian either, since states had a lot more latitude in how to govern and tax. In fact they had official state churches etc. Federalism does not bar any state from authoritarianism. Not under the original plan anyway.

My 'better' was only in regards to the 'libertarianism' aspect of the two states. Part of the reason you think the Vatican is libertarian is that it does not compel (like, a supposed 'less libertarian' state = the US). My argument is that the Vatican certainly does compel in a number of areas. For instance, you mention as evidence of a lack of libertarianism in US history that the states in this country once had official state churches. My counter is that the Vatican doesn't just have an official state church. It is an element of one Church. It would be like if the Pentecostal Church established and operated Oregon. I think there is a compulsion to be Catholic in the Vatican, which is absent in the United States: there is no litmus test here, but you won't see the next pope being named Mohammad El-Iraqi.

I'm still utterly unconvinced that the Vatican is libertarian, moreso than the United States, despite the fact that most of its money comes not from taxes, but from voluntary contributions. I can assure you, however, that if the Vatican found itself in dire need of money to run their operations, it could easily convince dioceses to give. In fact, maybe they do already. Maybe dioceses are compelled to give money to the Vatican for certain things.

Dave Lane
05-03-2011, 01:06 PM
It doesn't really matter what any of us think.

JP's canonization is inevitable. As famous as he is, with millions of catholics likely praying to him, its almost inevitable that one of them will have a spontaneous health care cure that can't be explained.

Viola! Third miracle.

But why?

I'm not getting any answers here perhaps from reputation. But for the love of a false god, why?

What did he do in his lifetime that was anything more than pedestrian? And I don't even care about the scandal. Are all popes just automatically made saints ?

BucEyedPea
05-03-2011, 01:16 PM
But why?

I'm not getting any answers here perhaps from reputation. But for the love of a false god, why?

What did he do in his lifetime that was anything more than pedestrian? And I don't even care about the scandal. Are all popes just automatically made saints ?

It's NONE of your business.

fbal4lif32
05-03-2011, 01:25 PM
But why?

I'm not getting any answers here perhaps from reputation. But for the love of a false god, why?

What did he do in his lifetime that was anything more than pedestrian? And I don't even care about the scandal. Are all popes just automatically made saints ?

Not all popes are automatically made saints. In fact, if you look at the long list of men who were Pope, I think you'll find that less than half of them have been recognized as Saints by the Catholic Church.

Aside from just becoming Pope as being something more than pedestrian, I think the greatest case for his Sainthood rests on two significant factors: 1) He nearly single-handedly inspired a global reach of Catholicism through his travels, his charisma, and his connection with people throughout the world. I think it's safe to say that billions of people, rich or poor, black, white, or brown, and Catholic and non-Catholic, loved him and were inspired by his religiosity; and 2) He played a significant role in bringing about the demise of Communism in the Western world, a force that threatened, and succeeded in places, to stomp out freedoms, including the most basic human freedom of believing and practicing in the religious convictions of ones own choosing.

Brock
05-03-2011, 01:26 PM
But why?

I'm not getting any answers here perhaps from reputation. But for the love of a false god, why?

What did he do in his lifetime that was anything more than pedestrian? And I don't even care about the scandal. Are all popes just automatically made saints ?

Why do you care?

BucEyedPea
05-03-2011, 01:53 PM
Why do you care?

He a closet religionist, perhaps even a Roman Catholic.

patteeu
05-03-2011, 03:07 PM
But why?

I'm not getting any answers here perhaps from reputation. But for the love of a false god, why?

What did he do in his lifetime that was anything more than pedestrian? And I don't even care about the scandal. Are all popes just automatically made saints ?

I think it helped that he survived an assassination attempt and that the global scourge of Soviet communism died on his watch and, to some extent, through his intervention. While those might not be the miracles required for sainthood, they create an atmosphere of receptiveness to the possibility of saint-like miracles surrounding this man.