Pope John Paul II, 84, what happens next?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:05 am

[QUOTE=CM]No offense Fable, you know alot about the subject than me but that just reads as a biased point of view instead of anything substantial. You have provided one side of the story. What are the views that John Paul II to support his position? This is a Pope. He has in some ways to respond to his followers and the like. It was so blatantly false don't you think someone would have picked up on it?[/QUOTE]

False? Who said there was anything "false" about JP2's policy? I just explained 1) when the policy originated, 2) where it was drawn from, and 3) how different popes either emphasized or played it down. I don't see where you're getting anything "false" from this, as though the last pope somehow invented Papal policy. I laid it out very clearly.

And no, the Pope does *not* have to respond (as in adjust) to fit his followers' wishes or needs. That's emphatically not part of the RCC. The Eastern Orthodox Church, yes, which continued an earlier Christian tradition of maintaining (to an extent) a mutual influence up and down the layers of hierarchy. But the Pope is directly responsible to his god. (It was precisely this lack of accountability that formed one of the main arguments behind Luther's celebrated 95 Theses.)

As for his comments about condom use not helping prevent and in fact promoting AIDS: John Paul II never justified these remarks of his, and neither have the bishops who adopted the same remarks and tone after he spoke out. How can I produce an explanation for you that he never gave? I already quoted the Vatican policy he personally authored: safe sex considered "a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS." I then quoted Cardinal Trujillo, President of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, and considered by many over the years as John Paul II's righthand man: "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." That's as close to an explanation as the Papal Throne ever gave. And I further quoted Archbishop Nzeki of Nairobi who stated in a printed interview he subsequently read out on radio and verified, that "AIDS has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."

If you think these quotes are somehow inventions of my mind, I suggest you do your own research.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:13 am

I do not doubt your points. Like i said it was not meant to cause offense. But your statement that

John Paul II's use of blatantly false material to support his position is...<snip>

That is where my question arises. What blatantly false material did he use and why haven't other people picked up on this?

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:18 am

"a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS."

I love this quote. I disagree with the way that the Pope wrote this policy because it plays seriously to the lack of education in the region that it primarily affects.

Basically the way this quote should be interpreted is this: You shouldn't be having sex for fun; and if you do have sex with a person who has aids and you wear a condom, there is a small chance you'll get it. Small chances are not adequate.

That, obviously, was not the intent of it though or it would have been more clear.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:34 am

[QUOTE=CM]I do not doubt your points. Like i said it was not meant to cause offense. But your statement that

[/b]

That is where my question arises. What blatantly false material did he use and why haven't other people picked up on this?[/QUOTE]

I see: you want scientific corroboration that the Vatican is way off base. Here's Catherine Hawkins, Chief Scientific Advisor to UNAIDS:

It is very unfortunate to have this type of misinformation being broadcast...The statements are totally incorrect. Latex condoms are impermeable. They do prevent HIV transmission.

...and UNAIDS Director Peter Piot publically asked the RCC to stop opposing the use of condoms against AIDS:

When priests preach against contraception, they are committing a serious mistake which is costing human lives.

Here's the WHO (World Health Organization) commenting on the Vatican's remarks concerning condoms:

These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million...There is so much evidence to show that condoms don't let sexually transmitted infections like HIV through. Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong.

Here's Dr. Rachel Baggaley, head of the HIV unit of Christian Aid:

Condoms are a straightforward and effective way of preventing HIV transmission and to suggest otherwise is dangerous.

Here's Dr. Robert Frascino, who heads his own AIDS research foundation:

If they have documented HIV passing through latex condoms, it would have to be a "miracle," because scientifically it's just not possible...The World Health Organization and virtually every other scientific organization has condemned the Vatican's comments as being complete nonsense...I think that since the scientists of the world, including The World Health Organization, do not try to teach the Pope how to say Mass, he shouldn't try to conduct sex research.

These are individuals and spokespeople recognized in their field for a degree of knowledge and responsibility about AIDS. I'm inclined to think that they know more about it, and condoms, than the Vatican.

Adahn · Post by **Adahn** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:20 am

[QUOTE=Magrus]I don't recall reading anything in the bible stating "God decrees condoms spread AIDs and are not to be used, Amen". In fact, I'm fairly certain neither were mentioned at all. Therefore, it's got nothing to do with the religion or the church. Simply a personal decision which was made yes?

[/QUOTE]

That's right I mean if you get into the whole Abortion thing you can still say "well ok maaaaybeee there is a sertain destruction of life" BUT condoms?! Or the pill? Puh-lease! Seriously, so now killing sperm is against the church? So now, if I masturbate and ejaculate I'm going against the Bible? Or, a girl that stops ovulation by taking the pill, is betraying God? We're not going to start saying that sperm or ovulae have souls are we?

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:52 am

@Adahn: Why worry about going against the Bible? If you are not Catholic, then there's nothing for you to worry about. Masturbate as much as you want, if you PUH-lease.

I'm not muslim, so I shouldn't be worried about eating pork as much as I want. I'm not Thai, so I shouldn't be taken as an obscene person just because I would sometimes point things using my feet. Get it?

Check out fable's post:

In the early Renaissance, around 1250-1350, the RCC began to consolidate its territorial gains. Where it had previously been intent on conversion in Europe, acqueiscing on a number of points, it now began to lay down its law. Marriage within certain degrees was out. No marriage was legal unless performed by a priest, in chapel. Confession was required. Marriage even in the lesser degrees of the Church hierarchy was now forbidden. Among these policies was one about sex being only for procreative purposes. Sex itself was regarded as dirty, since it put the body above the spirit, which could only be contemplated rationally. It follows that any method of birth control worked against the sole reason for permissable sex, and also reduced humans to the level of rutting animals. Or at any rate, that was the RCC's take.

Fable has presented his points nicely, and there is where I have my disagreement with the RCC as an "institution run by men justifying that they are the chosen ones of God Himself."

As for me, Catholicism is a religion that should be a personal relationship with God, having these priests and nuns as mere "facilitators" and not act and justify that their actions are "the Will of God."

I get sick and tired of having to meet these bunch of moral hypocrites. For these kinds of people, they fail to realize that they vowed to serve the flock and not the flock to serve them and their personal agendas.

If only I had the power to decide on things, I wish the next pope would be "flock-centered" and not "let's-protect-the-institution" type.

Protect the flock first, then the institution is already well protected.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:11 am

[QUOTE=Maharlika]

As for me, Catholicism is a religion that should be a personal relationship with God, having these priests and nuns as mere "facilitators" and not act and justify that their actions are "the Will of God."

I get sick and tired of having to meet these bunch of moral hypocrites. For these kinds of people, they fail to realize that they vowed to serve the flock and not the flock to serve them and their personal agendas.

If only I had the power to decide on things, I wish the next pope would be "flock-centered" and not "let's-protect-the-institution" type.

Protect the flock first, then the institution is already well protected.
[/QUOTE]

I can't say I agree. The whole hierarchy and religious dogma's of the RC have been set up to make sure that the individuals contact with God can only be achieved through the church (The church's proof for there views is always quite silly in it's cicular double-think setup). If you don't agree that the pope is the direct ambassador/spokesperson for God on earth (and in such infallable), and that this trickles down through the hierarchy all the way to priests, you are not a Roman Catholic. I suggest that you check out either the Protestant or Greek -Orthodox versions of Christianity. Or start another reformation. Catholicism and Christianity in general is not about the individual. Never has been. And on a personal not, I get a bit aggrevated about people who do not agree with their own church(like my parents) but do absolutely nothing to change it or leave it. It baffels me how somebody can say that they do not believe in the cornerstones of Catholicism (Jesus being part of the holy trinit,eg. he is Godly, the transmutation of the bread and wine, and the pope) and still call themselves Catholic. They just make sure that this madness will continue for at least another 2 centuries or so.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:33 am

If you don't agree that the pope is the direct ambassador/spokesperson for God on earth (and in such infallable), and that this trickles down through the hierarchy all the way to priests, you are not a Roman Catholic.

This really is getting pretty far from the subject; however...Think about what you're suggesting, Audace. If Mah agreed with John Paul II's stance on a whole range of issues, you'd have to say that back during the reign of John XXIII--through the early 1960s--he'd not be a Roman Catholic. And if he holds today to ideas that John XXIII promulgated and supported from the Papal throne, then since John Paul II strenuously disagreed and changed things, Mah's not a Roman Catholic.

That's not the way it works. In theory, yes, Roman Catholics are supposed to change their spots to suit their current Pope's policies. In fact, some don't, to varying degrees, and never have. This bothers the Vatican to no end, and always has. But all these people who disagree with the RCC are still in communion with it, can still attend mass, can still partake of the mysteries of transubstantiation. In other words, the RCC still accepts them, so they are, by definition, Roman Catholic. If you or I were to seek to do this, we would not be allowed. There are requirements, all of which have to be met: baptism, communion, confession, lessons, etc.

So at this point, it appears that the RCC has stated that Mah is a Roman Catholic, and you have stated that he isn't. It looks like a standoff, but you have to admit that in this single instance, the RCC's opinion might be more relevant.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:59 am

Given the ever oppertunistic approach of the RC to allow/ not allow certain views and practices, I'll have to agree with you that in practice the RC doesn't give a rat's ass(or at least not enough) about how a large part of their following practices Catholicsm. That was however not my point. My point was (and forgive me for speaking in general now, because it wouldn't be fair to Marh. , and rather stupid, to discuss his views when I don't even know them) that followers of Catholocism should scrutinize their own beliefs a bit more, and wonder if they are really Roman Catholics, given the dogma's and cornerstones of that church. This is not the RC responsibilty but the individuals'. Like I said, the RC doesn't focus on individuals.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:05 pm

@ Audace: I will not dignify your post by giving a "rebuttal" since it would just dilute this thread. Mind, I'm not offended. I just want to veer away from having the topic of this thread heading off somewhere else.

Besides, fable has more or less answered quite nicely.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:22 am

Re: Audace, Fable, Mah

It seems like you three are arguing about Catholicism writ large, not "what happens next" re: the Pope. One thing that everyone can probably agree on here is that the Pope, whoever he is, has the ability to alter the entire discussion in the Church itself. Despite their differences, both PJ23 and PJP2 changed the framework of the Church during the time they were in office. No matter who the next Pope is, I don't anticipate a Pope that is substantially different from the last one- I find this disheartening.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:39 am

[QUOTE=Maharlika]@ Audace: I will not dignify your post by giving a "rebuttal" since it would just dilute this thread. Mind, I'm not offended. I just want to veer away from having the topic of this thread heading off somewhere else.

Besides, fable has more or less answered quite nicely.

[/QUOTE]

Fair enough!

Adahn · Post by **Adahn** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:34 pm

I just really and I mean -really- hope they don't make him a saint. Yippe, the first anti-communist Saint. Not to mention he'll be worshipped for it. Which personally, revolves my stomach.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:06 am

It takes a long time and jumping over a lot of hurdles to make a saint. The RCC deliberately set it up in such a way that a passion-swept public couldn't push through a sainthood. So I suspect that there will be a lengthy consideration of JP2's actions over the next several decades, before anything is even contemplated seriously--whatever we may read in the popular press.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:32 pm

One has to be declared 'venerable' by the Church before being canonized IIRC, which means one has to be dead more than 70 years or so. I hope and expect that the former Pope's views will be much less fashionable then than now although there are conservatives for every season.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:45 pm

I think they're in the process of slowly working John XXIII up to sainthood, now. John Paul II will just have to wait his turn, I guess.

Adahn · Post by **Adahn** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:37 pm

You guys remember Pope Pius right? Well they tried to make him a Saint a couple of years ago if I remember. But due to the investigations they held and the revelation of his neutral or should I say indiferent and I'd even go as far as saying support for the Nazi's extermination of the Jews and Fascists persecution of Communists and Socialists alike, he was ultimately discarted.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:36 am

Does anyone read the Onion? I thought this was fitting..

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:37 am

"According to the pope, heaven is merely a place of unending peace and happiness, wherein all the spirits of the Elect live together forever in perfect harmony and goodness, basking in the rays of God's divine love." LOL!

So back on target: does anybody have any likely candidates they want to mention for the next papacy?

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:38 pm

I have no idea, but I heard there are bookies that are putting out odds on who it will be, and what the name will be.