StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote:So he had no choice but to try and drag the church backwards rather than forwards?

In any case, one does not have to prove that the man was unqualifiably evil in order to show that he does not deserve the ridiculously effusive praise being heaped upon him, or to say that we're sick of the media blitz.

Did he drag the church backwards? He urged people to activley participate in charity, he activley campaigned for the poor, he fought against the death penalty, governmental injustice, and the war in Iraq, along with War altogether. He was a moderate inside the church, despite how some people would like to paint him, and he was faithful to his religion and his people.

Does he deserve all this praise that is being pour onto him? No, pracitcally no one ever has (or ever will,) and he wasn't one of them. His active support for an irrational reasoning on women in the priesthood (for those of you who don't know, it goes something like this: "god is in everyone equally, man and woman alike. BUt because jesus was a man god obviously likes men more than woman, so women can't be priests) was absolutley absurd, his regarding transexual/transgender as insane was insulting, and he's guilty of a lot more of nonsense similar to that, yet moderating on any of those issues would have been near impossible in the church he was in. Nonetheless he was a good man, a good pope, and it is a sad thing that his successor will probably be nothing like him at all.

Straha, leave them alone. They made this thread so has not to butt in on you and the others, give them that same due for the Love of all that's Holy.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:So he had no choice but to try and drag the church backwards rather than forwards?

As far as I was able to tell, his default position was stasis. What regressive policy did he enact, or progressive policy did he repeal?

Did he not reiterate the position that all non-Catholic Christians were heretics? Does that qualify as a regressive statement?

In any case, one does not have to prove that the man was unqualifiably evil in order to show that he does not deserve the ridiculously effusive praise being heaped upon him, or to say that we're sick of the media blitz.

There's a subtle difference between saying "he does not deserve all of the praise he's getting" and saying "good riddance to the bastard."

True; some people in this thread are saying the former, some are saying the latter (leaving aside the bitches who think that both opinions should be censored off the board and this thread not allowed to exist).

Knife wrote:

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:if you hide pedophiles, dont expect to remain popular.

It's a little difficult to hold a man personally responsible for decisions being made by regional managers in one of the least important sectors of an organization that counts over a billion members. Not only had he nothing to do with the shuttling of those priests, he didn't even appoint the people who appointed the people that did the shuttling. As the titular head of the church he's there to absorb that responsibility, but it's inaccurate to say that he did anything of the sort.

Bull shit, he's the pope. The fact that millions of people are 'praying' for him tonight, show that he is indeed the 'leader' of the church. If he was still alive, and tomarrow decreed that gay's were holly and in acourdance with church doctrine, there would be desenters and perhaps a split with in the church, but a good majority of Catholics would still follow the Catholic church.

... Except he's not the church. He can't just twitch an eyebrow and cause the church to completley change course. To draw a crude analogy if George Bush suddenly walked out onto the Whtie House lawn and said that he had seen the light and thought that the invasion of Iraq was an abomination of wrongs, you wouldn't suddenly expect a majority of Repulicans to change their minds with him. This goes doubly so when the bible, the basis of the catholic church in part, has numerous paragraphs denouncing homosexual (males at least) in no uncertain terms.

THE POPE IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE POPE! LONG LIVE THE POPE!

I just wanted to say that.

Straha wrote:

Knife wrote:

Pablo Sanchez wrote: It's a little difficult to hold a man personally responsible for decisions being made by regional managers in one of the least important sectors of an organization that counts over a billion members. Not only had he nothing to do with the shuttling of those priests, he didn't even appoint the people who appointed the people that did the shuttling. As the titular head of the church he's there to absorb that responsibility, but it's inaccurate to say that he did anything of the sort.

Bull shit, he's the pope. The fact that millions of people are 'praying' for him tonight, show that he is indeed the 'leader' of the church. If he was still alive, and tomarrow decreed that gay's were holly and in acourdance with church doctrine, there would be desenters and perhaps a split with in the church, but a good majority of Catholics would still follow the Catholic church.

... Except he's not the church. He can't just twitch an eyebrow and cause the church to completley change course. To draw a crude analogy if George Bush suddenly walked out onto the Whtie House lawn and said that he had seen the light and thought that the invasion of Iraq was an abomination of wrongs, you wouldn't suddenly expect a majority of Repulicans to change their minds with him. This goes doubly so when the bible, the basis of the catholic church in part, has numerous paragraphs denouncing homosexual (males at least) in no uncertain terms.

Noone asked him to change everything,but at least he and others in the Vatican could have fired or turn over to the justice system all the pedophile priests.

Montcalm wrote:

Straha wrote: ... Except he's not the church. He can't just twitch an eyebrow and cause the church to completley change course. To draw a crude analogy if George Bush suddenly walked out onto the Whtie House lawn and said that he had seen the light and thought that the invasion of Iraq was an abomination of wrongs, you wouldn't suddenly expect a majority of Repulicans to change their minds with him. This goes doubly so when the bible, the basis of the catholic church in part, has numerous paragraphs denouncing homosexual (males at least) in no uncertain terms.

Noone asked him to change everything,but at least he and others in the Vatican could have fired or turn over to the justice system all the pedophile priests.

My paragraph up there was mainly on declaring gay people as holy and in line with church doctrine.
As for him being able to better with the pedophilia scandals? Yes,but there's a shit load of in-church politics overthis, and a whole lot of tradition, going back about a thousand years, dealing with the Church handing over priests to secular judicial authorities. I'm no scholar of the vatican, but I sincerley doubt he could have done much with the church on this issue, especially considering that he was direly sick with Parkinson's when it was/is coming to it's head.

If he had to die, why didn't he take one of those other chances he had over the past 30 years? Why did he die to ruin my vacation coming up in two weeks?

Straha wrote:As for him being able to better with the pedophilia scandals? Yes,but there's a shit load of in-church politics overthis, and a whole lot of tradition, going back about a thousand years, dealing with the Church handing over priests to secular judicial authorities. I'm no scholar of the vatican, but I sincerley doubt he could have done much with the church on this issue, especially considering that he was direly sick with Parkinson's when it was/is coming to it's head.

Question: why didn't he turn over the reins to someone else when it was obvious that he was losing the ability to effectively lead?

Darth Wong wrote:

Straha wrote:As for him being able to better with the pedophilia scandals? Yes,but there's a shit load of in-church politics overthis, and a whole lot of tradition, going back about a thousand years, dealing with the Church handing over priests to secular judicial authorities. I'm no scholar of the vatican, but I sincerley doubt he could have done much with the church on this issue, especially considering that he was direly sick with Parkinson's when it was/is coming to it's head.

Question: why didn't he turn over the reins to someone else when it was obvious that he was losing the ability to effectively lead?

Becuase of precedent. The last pope to step down was in 1217.

Straha wrote:
... Except he's not the church. He can't just twitch an eyebrow and cause the church to completley change course. To draw a crude analogy if George Bush suddenly walked out onto the Whtie House lawn and said that he had seen the light and thought that the invasion of Iraq was an abomination of wrongs, you wouldn't suddenly expect a majority of Repulicans to change their minds with him. This goes doubly so when the bible, the basis of the catholic church in part, has numerous paragraphs denouncing homosexual (males at least) in no uncertain terms.

Again, bullshit. The fact that millions are lining up to 'pray' for him and the overall public sentiment show's that he had a certain amount of 'political capital' that he did not use.

If he had said, for example, that gay's were the best thing since Jesus got nailed to a cross, there would be a bunch of people jumping ship, but millions of other 'Catholics' would not believe, by verdict of the 'prophet' and the Earthly god dude, that Gay's were cool.

The fact that a bunch of second tier people would not like it is irreleveant, the millions of people crying over the popes death show this.

Darth Wong wrote:

Straha wrote:As for him being able to better with the pedophilia scandals? Yes,but there's a shit load of in-church politics overthis, and a whole lot of tradition, going back about a thousand years, dealing with the Church handing over priests to secular judicial authorities. I'm no scholar of the vatican, but I sincerley doubt he could have done much with the church on this issue, especially considering that he was direly sick with Parkinson's when it was/is coming to it's head.

Question: why didn't he turn over the reins to someone else when it was obvious that he was losing the ability to effectively lead?

Two millenia of papal tradition he couldn't buck, and a belief (that is held by a good portion of the catholic church) that the pope is picked by god's will and that he's in it to the very end, otherwise he's not carrying out his will.

Straha wrote:
Two millenia of papal tradition he couldn't buck, and a belief (that is held by a good portion of the catholic church) that the pope is picked by god's will and that he's in it to the very end, otherwise he's not carrying out his will.

Tripple bullshit. The next pope is going to be some unheard of Father that has spent 30 years with the poor in Peru? Doubtful. The College of Cardinal's will vote for some 'old boy'. It's tradition.

BTW, edicate with the dead and all, I'm going to laugh when this thread is bigger than the 'positive' thread.

Darth Wong wrote:Did he not reiterate the position that all non-Catholic Christians were heretics? Does that qualify as a regressive statement?

I would say no, for two reasons. It does not constitute any change in policy, and it is simply impossible for him to take any other position. The Reformation is as unsealable a breach as the schism with the Orthodox Christians. The most progressive thing he could have done is to have remained silent on the issue, which really wouldn't count as anything at all.

True; some people in this thread are saying the former, some are saying the latter (leaving aside the bitches who think that both opinions should be censored off the board and this thread not allowed to exist).

Well, my opinion is that he could have done better, had he been a more progressive and headstrong Pope. The objection to contraception is just wrongheaded and should have been changed. I'd say that his overall balance as a human being is roughly even, mainly because of the things he did before he became Pontiff. As a Pope, he's certainly one of the best... but a tough competition that is not.

Knife wrote:Bull shit, he's the pope. The fact that millions of people are 'praying' for him tonight, show that he is indeed the 'leader' of the church. If he was still alive, and tomarrow decreed that gay's were holly and in acourdance with church doctrine, there would be desenters and perhaps a split with in the church, but a good majority of Catholics would still follow the Catholic church.

My statement was that he bore responsibility for the actions of his... uh... minions because he is the Pope, but that he literally couldn't have had any personal responsibility for it. Talen seemed to be saying that the Pope himself had come to America for the purpose of hiding pedophiles.

Also, as for changing the doctrine of the Church at will--in that case, one taken directly from the bible... well, believe it or not, the Pope is not that powerful. There are actually rules that he's supposed to follow (to prevent some excesses). Popes can be and have been (Western Schism, for example) removed and replaced when the situation demands it.

Straha wrote:Two millenia of papal tradition he couldn't buck, and a belief (that is held by a good portion of the catholic church) that the pope is picked by god's will and that he's in it to the very end, otherwise he's not carrying out his will.

Over two thousand years,most pope changed many things that was tought by Jesus to serve their political and economical goals,so the tradition is faulty,and if they wrote anything and imposed their will at least JPII could have brought the church in the modern time.

most idea are archaic today.

Knife wrote:

Straha wrote:
... Except he's not the church. He can't just twitch an eyebrow and cause the church to completley change course. To draw a crude analogy if George Bush suddenly walked out onto the Whtie House lawn and said that he had seen the light and thought that the invasion of Iraq was an abomination of wrongs, you wouldn't suddenly expect a majority of Repulicans to change their minds with him. This goes doubly so when the bible, the basis of the catholic church in part, has numerous paragraphs denouncing homosexual (males at least) in no uncertain terms.

Again, bullshit. The fact that millions are lining up to 'pray' for him and the overall public sentiment show's that he had a certain amount of 'political capital' that he did not use.

If he had said, for example, that gay's were the best thing since Jesus got nailed to a cross, there would be a bunch of people jumping ship, but millions of other 'Catholics' would not believe, by verdict of the 'prophet' and the Earthly god dude, that Gay's were cool.

Just because he's being mourned by this many people doesn't mean that he was regarded as some sort of prophet (the pope is in no way considered a prophet, much as Ronald Regan, FDR, or almost any other political figure who recieved massive amounts of mourners was.) Further more there are some things he just can't do, like go against the bible so openly like you would have had him.


By the way, Emperorsolo, I don't think a pope has ever stepped down from a papacy, except when you had that three way schism way back when. You sure about that date?

EmperorSolo51 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Straha wrote:As for him being able to better with the pedophilia scandals? Yes,but there's a shit load of in-church politics overthis, and a whole lot of tradition, going back about a thousand years, dealing with the Church handing over priests to secular judicial authorities. I'm no scholar of the vatican, but I sincerley doubt he could have done much with the church on this issue, especially considering that he was direly sick with Parkinson's when it was/is coming to it's head.

Question: why didn't he turn over the reins to someone else when it was obvious that he was losing the ability to effectively lead?

Becuase of precedent. The last pope to step down was in 1217.

Well ... that's really old but it's still a precedent, isn't it?

Montcalm wrote:

Straha wrote:Two millenia of papal tradition he couldn't buck, and a belief (that is held by a good portion of the catholic church) that the pope is picked by god's will and that he's in it to the very end, otherwise he's not carrying out his will.

Over two thousand years,most pope changed many things that was tought by Jesus to serve their political and economical goals,so the tradition is faulty,and if they wrote anything and imposed their will at least JPII could have brought the church in the modern time.

I agree with you... I really do. But you got to understand the Catholic Church. I highly suggest that everyone here read the Papal Oath (I think Wikipedia has it) and understand that THAT is the basis of the church. Without Tradition (capital T) the church would have no reason to exist by its own definition. Further more a good portion of the Catholic Church's doctrines are based on this Tradition, and to start changing one part of it would bring down every theologian in the church crashing down on his head. If you want to imagine something similar in the American system, just look at what happens when people try to repeal the second ammendment because it's archaic.

Pablo Sanchez wrote: My statement was that he bore responsibility for the actions of his... uh... minions because he is the Pope, but that he literally couldn't have had any personal responsibility for it. Talen seemed to be saying that the Pope himself had come to America for the purpose of hiding pedophiles.

The buck stops here. It works against Bushy boy, why not JPII? Sure the Catholic Church is a huge beuracracy, doesn't give him a pass for not going against it.

Also, as for changing the doctrine of the Church at will--in that case, one taken directly from the bible... well, believe it or not, the Pope is not that powerful. There are actually rules that he's supposed to follow (to prevent some excesses). Popes can be and have been (Western Schism, for example) removed and replaced when the situation demands it.

So, him not taking a stand on something, because the beuracracy would oppose him, makes him great because? Fucking kids is wrong, by Christian standards and every other. Gay bashing is wrong and only supported by Thin Biblical scripture. If he wanted to spend the 'political capital' on it, he could have. He isn't a despot in the 'Church' but he has considerable power and popular support. He didn't use it.

Darth Wong wrote:

EmperorSolo51 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Question: why didn't he turn over the reins to someone else when it was obvious that he was losing the ability to effectively lead?

Becuase of precedent. The last pope to step down was in 1217.

Well ... that's really old but it's still a precedent, isn't it?

Just did a wikipedia check, it says the pope of that era (Honorius III) reigned from 1216 (from the death of Innocent III) to 1227 (Honorius's death.)

As I said the only 'Popes' stepping down that I recall were the two in the three-way papal schism and that was a real special circumstance.

Straha wrote:By the way, Emperorsolo, I don't think a pope has ever stepped down from a papacy, except when you had that three way schism way back when. You sure about that date?

A few have, and he got the date wrong. The last Pope to step down was Gregory XII in 1409. Benedict IX abdicated for money, but eventually regained the Papacy (twice). Celestine V was a hermit that was elected and who gave up the Papacy because it was too stressful.

Straha wrote:Just did a wikipedia check, it says the pope of that era (Honorius III) reigned from 1216 (from the death of Innocent III) to 1227 (Honorius's death.)

As I said the only 'Popes' stepping down that I recall were the two in the three-way papal schism and that was a real special circumstance.

OK, I'll take your word for it. Nevertheless, this would have been an opportunity to (ironically enough) show leadership. The fact is that our modern technology allows us to keep people alive for a lot longer than they would have lived centuries ago, and in many cases, well beyond their ability to act effectively in an executive capacity. This scenario will only repeat itself. Sooner or later, some Pope has to decide that the position is more important than the man occupying it.

EDIT: Or maybe I won't take your word for it; the post after yours suggested that there may be precedent after all.

Straha wrote:
Just because he's being mourned by this many people doesn't mean that he was regarded as some sort of prophet (the pope is in no way considered a prophet, much as Ronald Regan, FDR, or almost any other political figure who recieved massive amounts of mourners was.) Further more there are some things he just can't do, like go against the bible so openly like you would have had him.


By the way, Emperorsolo, I don't think a pope has ever stepped down from a papacy, except when you had that three way schism way back when. You sure about that date?

Wow, I get to say 'bullshit' alot in this thread. Millions of people are 'preying' for him and supporting and honoring him. If he had turned these people against the staunch 'conservatives' (I really hate saying that since I'm a conservative) and forced the bigots to either capitulate or face being obsolete in the 'church', then he'd be a great man. As it was, he towed the line, talked the talk but didn't walk the walk and let the asshats in the 'church' have their way in the interest of beuracracy.

StarshipTitanic wrote:

Straha wrote:By the way, Emperorsolo, I don't think a pope has ever stepped down from a papacy, except when you had that three way schism way back when. You sure about that date?

A few have, and he got the date wrong. The last Pope to step down was Gregory XII in 1409. Benedict IX abdicated for money, but eventually regained the Papacy (twice). Celestine V was a hermit that was elected and who gave up the Papacy because it was too stressful.

Gregory was one of the Popes in the Schism I mentioned, and Benedict didn't abdicate for money... he was forced out of office, and then back in, and then back out, and then back. If I recall correctly he was 11 when he was appointed.


I don't know about Celestine, give me a few minutes to check him out and I'll find out what I can.