Pope John Paul II, 84, what happens next?

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:21 am

May you rest in peace.

I have created this thread for those who would want to post their sentiments as well as thoughts surrounding the possibilities after his death, thereby relieving fable's thread of unecessary posts that would just dilute the discussion regarding the Pope's 25 year papacy.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:43 am

Judging from the fact that John Paul II appointed more than 90% of the current College of Cardinals--who will in turn select the next pope--it's likely his successor will be very much (IMO) in the same mold. I expect to see a doctrinaire arch-conservative who continues to rein in or force resignations from the left of the RCC, but possesses ample visual charisma and an outgoing nature. I don't foresee any policy changes. I wish I could say otherwise, but for better or worse, this pope has stamped the RCC with his image, ideas and actions more than any in several hundred years. The liberal, ecumenical, work-with-people Church of John XXIII has been extinguished for the near future.

Macleod1701 · Post by **Macleod1701** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:15 pm

Who cares! The poor guy was near the end for a long time. The church will never change and will continue to spout useless garbage no matter which idiot is in charge

CM · Post by CM » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:18 pm

[QUOTE=fable]Judging from the fact that John Paul II appointed more than 90% of the current College of Cardinals--who will in turn select the next pope--it's likely his successor will be very much (IMO) in the same mold. I expect to see a doctrinaire arch-conservative who continues to rein in or force resignations from the left of the RCC, but possesses ample visual charisma and an outgoing nature. I don't foresee any policy changes. I wish I could say otherwise, but for better or worse, this pope has stamped the RCC with his image, ideas and actions more than any in several hundred years. The liberal, ecumenical, work-with-people Church of John XXIII has been extinguished for the near future.[/QUOTE]

Same as fable, but then again i am conservative so I don't see it as a bad thing. However i agree with the factual parts of the entire posts. The liberals are dead and buried and the stamp of the Pope shall remain for centuries.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:22 pm

[QUOTE=Macleod1701]Who cares! The poor guy was near the end for a long time. The church will never change and will continue to spout useless garbage no matter which idiot is in charge[/QUOTE]

I don't think any pope has ever been an idiot, and I'd hardly describe John Paul II as one. If you demonize and stereotype anything you don't like and assume "Everybody associated with it is the same," you'll never spot differences or be able to discuss the realities of a situation.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:18 pm

I don't think John Paul II's legacy will be centuries-long, but it will be considerable, if only because of his longevity.

I think the next pope will have to be as energetic as this past one; in recent years he has appeared enfebled by the Parkinson's, but for the first 10-15 years of his papacy, he travelled more than any other and was seen by more people than any previous pope.

However, I also think the next pope will be older; I don't think the Catholic church wants another 26 year reign.

mewp · Post by **mewp** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:32 pm

The Pope

Usually the Church has elected a Pope that is very different from the last one. This may change but it has been thus for ages. I do think he will be older. They usually don't want someone that will be there that long. Which is a shame, it would be nice to have someone who is energetic. However, John 23 was elected partially because he was old. They didn't think he would have time to make any major changes. So, you never know.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:42 am

[QUOTE=Macleod1701]Who cares! The poor guy was near the end for a long time. The church will never change and will continue to spout useless garbage no matter which idiot is in charge[/QUOTE]

First of all, I'm speaking as a member and not as a mod (hence the teal font) and I take offense on this sweeping statement since I'm Catholic. What useless garbage are you talking about? All of the tenets the religion espouses?

Who cares? Well, I'll give you roughly a billion people who do.

I may not agree with all the things PJP2 would have us follow (mainly, the use of contraceptives) but he did do things that are good. I understand fable's point re: Africa, HIV and the (non)use of condoms though I would like to think that he had no intention of having these people die. I just see that the Church is too rigid on this issue on the use of contraceptives other than the rhythm method.

What is problematic is that the repercussions of their related policies (for the faithfuls to follow) are very alarming and needs to be thought of considering the times. I hope that the new pope would have another vatican council to address contemporary issues such as this one.

Although, as fable indicated, PJP2 has handpicked most of the candidates, I would still like to think that the next pope would be relatively be more "objective" (liberal) than most people would expect.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:47 am

Mah (or anybody), do you think the next pope will devolve more power to the episcopal conferences on various continents? That would permit regionalized solutions cognizant of different cultural attitudes. But it would also take a lot for the College of Cardinals and the Papacy to swallow women priests, married priests, a neutral stance towards gays, a more active role in promoting democracy (Liberation Theology), endrosement of condom use, far greater responsiveness of the local RCC and its priests to the community instead of simply to bishops, etc. Can the RCC, which has become so centralized under John Paul II, move so quickly to dispense even a small portion of the power it has gathered?

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:01 am

It's possible, fable... although highly improbable given the tendency of the College of Cardinals of being an "Old Boys' Club". But once that opportunity presents itself and the next Pope does some significant reconsiderations, then things, IMHO, would turn out relatively better for their constituents. One could never know what fate has in store for us.

I feel that the RCC would eventually be less rigid... the only question is, when?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:15 am

[QUOTE=Maharlika]I feel that the RCC would eventually be less rigid... the only question is, when?

[/QUOTE]

Major mainstream religions these days are becoming far, far more polarized, Mah. I've read estimates that there are now 40,000,000 Americans who label themselves "fundamentalist." Evangelical fundamentalism is also picking up in Europe. More extreme Islamic groups are spreading quickly. Israel's hawkish Likud party is everywhere triumphant, save where arch-conservative fringe parties gain. Everybody seems out to grab new recruits, to add to the faithful, to attack other groups and to mix religion and politics in a deadly blend.

And right now, the selection of one of the main players rests with a small group of men, nearly all over 70 years of age, arthritically dogmatic in their thinking. You're right, I think. There's little reason for hope at this moment.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:28 am

@fable:As far as the Phils go, there is the tendency for religions to come out and break away from the RCC. What I do know is that roughly 90% of us are Christians but that does not mean that all the Christians are Catholics. The RCC here is a little bit (just a wee bit) concious about this so they try to keep their flock from going astray by having "open lines" of communication with groups such as the El Shaddai.

The way I see it, when there are more opportunities for people to be exposed to other people's culture and plight (internet and high-tech mass media come to mind), then there is the greater possibility for everyone to be less rigid. Sorry if I sound a bit naive, but I would rather be somewhat optimistic despite all these things. *shrugs*

[QUOTE=fable]And right now, the selection of one of the main players rests with a small group of men, nearly all over 70 years of age, arthritically dogmatic in their thinking.[/QUOTE]

In that case we have roughly another 10 years to wait for a liberal one...

Eventually I hope, the next generations of priests would become more "global" in thinking and the ultra-conservatives would just dwindle in numbers...

Yeltsu · Post by **Yeltsu** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:29 am

---Edited away---

Disclaimer: I wasn't aware that the words I used were seen as profanity by the filter, for that I apologize.
I'll just keep quiet about my views on religion in the future then, since people are obviously offended by them. I didn't mean to offend anyone, I guess I just got carried away, I just really dislike religion as a whole, and all the horrible things that have been done in the name of religion.

I'll leave this thread before I start writing things people don't like again...

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:36 am

Please read the forum rules.

@Yeltsu: If I were you, I would edit that post of yours right away without having a mod delete your post outright and give you a formal warning. This thread is not a discussion whether you believe in religion or not. You're an atheist? Fine. But no religion bashing please.

I have no plans in trying to have you converted nor will I condemn you just because you are not of my religion, so please, for the love of what is polite and proper, keep your intolerance to yourself.

Fable is a Wiccan and despite his disagreement (and that is even putting it lightly) with the RCC on numerous things, I, as a Catholic, was never offended with the way he airs his PoV.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:43 am

I'm Brazilian, and AFAIK, this is the american country with the larger catholic population. Till the current days, non-catholics are looked upon with anger but that was very worst before John Paul came... That is a great merit he has, I can assure it was his work. Every time he came here, he'd talk about uniting the people, not discriminating - even though he was against certain groups of people, and some ideas. May he really rest in peace.

As for what he did, we're being bombed every day with hours of news about his death, his life, his desire to be an actor in the past. I dont really like it. Even non catholic televisions (yes we *do* have three religious televisions, two evangelists and one catholic) are using his death as a marketing form, telling how much was he a hero to everyone, and that all he did was ok, that even his refusal to accept anticonceptional and protective methods for sex - even better, his stubbornness(sp?) to accept sex for pleasure - was due to his strenght of faith and good character.

I cant really agree. I guess he done great political maneuver - never a Rome pope was seen articulating in so many fronts, and never a pope seemed so interested into peace - and also, I think that he had a really good thought when he apologized for the mistakes of his church, in the past. But I cant really agree that such a wondrous man wouldnt see what his flock needs, wants and will do as what should be done. His desires regarding eutanasia, and sex were pretty unilateral, and jeopardized(sp?) lots of people (specially the young ones that shout for everyone that he was the young people pope) with serious STD's.

I really hope he rest in peace. His last days were marked with torment and faith. Let us hope that he next pope continue his political maneuvers, but thinking more into protecting the people, instead of asking for something that the people wont do.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:53 am

Yeltsu, your post above is completely uncalled for, and grossly insensitive. First, it involves profanity. Second, it spams a thread dedicated to discussing the near future of the RCC by an attack on religion. Finally, it amounts to flaming an entire group of people, Roman Catholics, who just lost their spiritual leader, and would understandably feel torn by the event.

Consider this a warning. That kind of grossly insensitive attack isn't tolerated in these forums.

Fable,
moderator

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:04 pm

[QUOTE=fable] Israel's hawkish Likud party is everywhere triumphant, save where arch-conservative fringe parties gain. [/QUOTE]

Likud is hardly hawkish while in power. It is very extreme in talk, and when out of power, but whenever it has been in power, it has always been leaning hard towards left wing causes and ideals. No more so than now, with Sharon, who, when not in power, has done and said some hard-core extremist stuff, but now, has a government quite left wing in nature, and in fact his biggest partners throughout his two terms have been Shinui and labor, which basically are the left wing in Israel's political world.

My two cents about a tiny detail in one post on the thread.

But I certainly do see that the world is becoming a more polarized place, and I see little hope for change, as, most people want it. Most people want their way to reign triumphant, be it national or religious, want to be separated from the rest. I believe humanity to be an intinctively racist race, and there's nothing I see that can stop it, especialy from a vantage point of being a minority everywhere I am.
But on the same note, I believe that John Paul II was the perfect pope. Certainly not the perfect world leader, but I could not dream of a better pope, both as a Jew, and if I were Catholic.
It's true that what he said about the use of condoms in Africa could kill many people. But he was upholding his tennets of faith, the faith which he is supposedly here to represent. As a citizen of the planet, I am angered (to say the least) that someone who is listened to by so many people could say such an irresponsible thing. But then again- he's the pope. The Catholic church is against the use of condoms. Now, god knows I'm no fan of Catholic law, but I should hope that the person who is supposed to represent it to the world upholds it and spreads it as far and as wide as he can.
He was conservative in just about everything else- but, as a person living on this planet, he was liberal in the most important part of his job, in the thing that makes him a great man. He was a peacemaker. He tried to bring people together. He did not categorize by faith, he was accepting of everyone. He went to great lengths to stop church sanctioned racism of any sort. He deplored anti-semitism. I've met with two people who've spoken to him one on one, and they've said that the main thing that came out it is how genuine he is in his goodness, something that is sorely lacking in all leaders now-a-days, religious ones in particular.

And I must say, that I also thing that this urge many people say they have for a more liberal world can be just as destructive as those calling for a more conservative world. It quadrouples the rate of polarization. I'm not saying that I have any better suggestions, as I surely don't (there's a part of me that always embraces the nihilism in all things), but saying that the pope was bad because of condoms in Africa is not helpful, not to say narrow minded.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:20 pm

[QUOTE=Morlock] And I must say, that I also thing that this urge many people say they have for a more liberal world can be just as destructive as those calling for a more conservative world. It quadrouples the rate of polarization.[/quote]

This depends upon the context of the words, liberal and conservative. I did not use them in this thread in a political sense, as a review of posts will show. I was using them strictly in the context of recognized Roman Catholic ideology--ie, support for female priests, ecumenicism, acceptance of gay members of the congregation, are liberal viewpoints by Catholic standards. No tolerance for sex education, no distribution of condoms, the removal of bishops and priests who support grassroots political incentives in poverty-stricken areas, is conservative. To refer to these is not to increase political polarization, because politics isn't being considered. It's simply an acknowledgement of a deep division within the RCC, and one which is readily acknowledged by Roman Catholics.

I'm not saying that I have any better suggestions, as I surely don't (there's a part of me that always embraces the nihilism in all things), but saying that the pope was bad because of condoms in Africa is not helpful, not to say narrow minded.

No, only factual. The Roman Catholic Church has been extremely active, pouring an enormous amount of resources into Africa in an effort to convince governments that 1) there should be no sex education, as this mentions such matters as safe sex and abortion. 2) Condoms should not be outlawed, or at best, distributed only by resources without government money. (Which effectively removes it from the equation, since most African governments act as distribution houses for all international monies.) 3) The message should be spread that the only safe sex is sex after marriage with your married partner. That will ensure a stop to all HIV.

If you don't believe this, consider the Vatican policy on the subject. Safe sex is "a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS." When a French bishop suggested ten years ago that people infected with HIV should use condoms to prevent the spread of the disease, the Pope removed him from office. And in October 2003, the Vatican stunned scientists by claiming that condoms had holes that allowed the AIDS virus to pass through. This became the rallying cry of numerous bishops who claimed that condoms helped spread AIDS, such as Cardinal Trujillo, President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family. ("The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.") Both the Vatican's statement and the bishops' response were immediately condemned by the World Health Organization for deplorable inaccuracy, but the damage was done, and continues to be done, as these remarks continue unabated to the present day: a campaign of deliberate misinformation, when all the scientific facts point elsewhere. It's had a devastating effect in third world nations where media access is virtually nonexistent outside cities, save on government-run stations. When Archbishop Nzeki of Nairobi states in print and has priests across the country repeat in Church his words that "AIDS has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms," there can be no doubt that with the best will in the world the RCC hierarchy is guilty of complicity in many AIDS-related deaths: in Kenya alone, the Archbishop's turf, 1 out of 5 people are HIV positive, and his vast authority, financial backing and access to even remote areas are arguably having a disastrous effect. If you think my comments on this subject are narrow-minded, perhaps you should consider opening your mind to the a wealth of information out there demonstrating the link between Vatican resources put to stopping the use of condoms worldwide, and the ignorance about AIDS (and lack of condoms) in many regions of Africa where the Vatican has a strong influence.

Nobody is suggesting that anyone in the Roman Catholic hierarchy meant for AIDS to claim additional victims. John Paul II was personally a very compassionate man; this has been shown on many occasions. But to ignore the results of Vatican policy he authored is to be blind in a world full of pain and death. I can only hope his successor reverses this policy, and starts putting Vatican money, time and people behind more worthy causes--but I'm not thinking this will happen. Perhaps two or three popes, down the line.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:08 pm

I severely dislike the Catholic church and it's infallable leader for the obvious reasons, the HIV issue, it's/his stance on women and gays etc. This does not make me blind for the great things the pope did (his part in ending the cold war amongst others). There is however one one thing that is unforgiveable and makes me question his morality. (The rest can be explained away by his misguided religion). His unwillingness to make a serious effort to stop or speak out against the sexual abusers in his own church. On the other hand he only damages his church by neglecting the issue so maybe some good comes from it after all. Anyways, the next pope is expected to be an interim pope (meaning one pretty old), probably Italian, and the one after that will probably be one from either South America or Africa. Or so experts keep saying.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:51 pm

I'm sorry if I offend, but good riddance to a bad man. For all of the reasons Fable has stated above. Spreading disease, ignorant beliefs and death to the world is evil IMHO. Why honor such a person? I mean, who honors Hitler? Didn't he spread death and ignorant beliefs to the German people and their neighbors? No doubt I'll take crap for the comparison, but anyone, ANYONE, I don't care who you are, or what you do who takes such actions is a bad person. Protecting child molesters? Even guys sentenced to life in prison for murder have enough decency and honor to be disgusted by child molesters and want them to be punished, often forcing prison guards to seperate those people from the rest of the inmates for their own safety.

Putting on a hat and a robe and reading a book doesn't make you a good and holy man. Doing things that benefit others does. Righting wrongs, healing wounds, etc. Not disdaining things because they don't appear in a book and inflaming problems that are causing suffering, misery, poverty and death worldwide. From what I've learned about the basis of the Christian faith in its original form, he's done a good many things which are very close to the opposite of that.