f13.net

Story here (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/31/pope1/index.html)

It's a matter of time now  :|

I am utterly amazed he has lasted this long. By all rights he should have died somewhere in the late 90s.

Hopefully the Church will ratify (is that the right word?) a more liberal, progressive Pope in 15-16 days. The world would be a better place without the Catholic Church still being in the Dark Ages.

Dude, the Pope hasn't been running things for a long time. The Carndinals are not going to be elevating anyone "progressive" or "liberal" to anything.

Again, would Yuna just send that guy already?

Did you say Yuna (http://www.jasonrivera.com/viewarticle.php?art_id=237)?

I hope when it's my time Chocolate Yuna (http://www.jasonrivera.com/images/articles/20050216_2_237/chocolateyuna.jpg) comes for me.

I thought this is the liberal Pope

Well god bless him for the work he has done, and historically, he -is- the most progressive of our time.

He's definitely more liberal than some.  I think it was him that helped push more dioceses to allow female altar servers (I remember it being a big deal when I was in grade school).  Still a pretty far cry from allowing female ordination, but it was about the biggest step he could possibly have taken toward it in his lifetime.

Hard to say that he was liberal compared to John XIII or Pius XII or Leo XIII (though the last is probably not from our time).  There's also JPI, who tends to be seen as all things to all people because his papacy was so short, but thought of as liberal by lots of folks.

Popes are hard to pin down as "liberal" or "conservative" by US standards because the Church's official position on most economic issues is way, way, way to the left of the most left-leaning class warfare guy you could imagine getting elected to the San Francisco City Council while its stance on most biology-related issues is way, way, way to the right of the most right-leaning culture of life guy you could imagine getting elected to the Montgomery Alabama city council.  Add to that their stances on the death penalty, just war theory, consumerism, international trade, etc. and the Church defies characterization in US political terms.

I'd say he was pretty conservative overall.  On the biology front, he did not change much, but did come down against dying people refusing food and water, which was a contested position in the Church for at least a few hundred years, with a lot of people saying it was OK when there was no hope of recovery.  On the economic front, he really stifled Oscar Romero and his liberation theology bretheren.  I'd say conservative overall.  He certainly knew his politics, creating a bunch of new cardinalships and populating them with people who agreed with him, so I would not expect the next Pope to be much different.  Certainly a great man if for no other reason than the enormous role he played in the cold war.

I was educated by lefty Jesuits, so take my views with a grain or two :)

Edit: on the issue of the ordination of women, JP2 stated that the church had no power to ordain women.  IIRC, is was debatable whether this should be taken as an infallible statement of doctrine, but I am pretty sure that JP2's henchman [cue the Imperial March now] Grand Inquisitor Cardinal Ratzinger [/cut music] later said that it was.  Text here http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm

It's always wikipedia with you people, isn't it?

Ignore the words. They get in the way of the visual... goodness...

Aughh! My eyes! They are bleeding!

God, you guys. I am so sorry that this really is the pool of gaming chicks from which you must skim. A pool that desperately needs some chlorine. No wonder none of you date gamers.

It's really funny - I always thought that Rikku was way easier to fetishize than little miss innocent Yuna (oh, I get it...). But please don't find pictures of girthsome ladies in daisy dukes and goggles. For the love of god, please don't.

Did Chocolate Yuna change your viewpoints on religion that easily?  :wink:

Hang on, wasn't this the same guy that went on a tour of Aids ridden, starving and populated Africa and said 'You don't need contraception, what you need is more breeding and babies' ?

Someone please switch him off, or at least tell Jim Henson's Workshop to stop operating him from underneath.

Get a grip.

The latest news is that the Pope's urinary tract infection, despite being treated with antibiotics, has spread through his body, causing septic shock.  In addition, he had some sort of heart failure, but the exact nature of that failure is unspecified (I suspect his heart didn't stop completely).  Today he appointed 17 new bishops and arch-bishops, which is heavily indicative of the sort of "house-cleaning" a dying Pope would try to take care of.  It seems clear now that he's very sick and few expect him to recover.

Bruce

I'm going to say this one time, and one fucking time only.

BE FUCKING RESPECTFUL.

I am not Catholic, but my wife is. So as a result, I have some sympathy towards a Catholic's reverence for the Pope. Also, I RESPECT HIM. As someone who does not respect organized religion, that's saying an awful lot. I respect him if for nothing else than his statement about tolerance for other religions and cultures. There are preachers I've known with a lot less riding on their words that wouldn't go so far as to say things like that.

Respect the man in this thread, or any memorial thread when he finally passes away. We have other threads where you can unload your invective on the Catholic Church.

I have one standing rule for memorial threads these days. Try to be respectful, unless the dead was such a complete cockmunching assfucker that you can't say anything nice about him (Yassar Arafat, for instance).

Good call. I like the Pope as well, and I grew up Southern Baptist. That probably has something to do with it.

I like the pope if only because the Vatican is awesome. So whoever the pope is, he gets my respect. Oh, and I was in an audience at the Vatican. That was awesome. he went around in his little pope mobile. He was like a Popemon.

Does anyone know who the next pope is? I mean, that's my big question.

Speculation is between Cdl Ratzinger (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/) (conservative, old thus short papacy) and Cdl Arinze (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1055080,00.html) (third world thus dramatic, some think the Vatican will avoid drama).

There are three leading candidates that are quite popular.  One would be the first American Pope, which many believe would help maintain the Church's high profile.  But recent scandals regarding child molestation may have nixed any chances of that happening.  The second choice would be the first African (black) Pope, which would emphasize and represent the growing majority of Catholics in third world countries and in Africa especially.  However, this choice is very controversial, and there is a contingent who believes the last Pope was "liberal" enough; to embrace a black Pope would seem to continue to push a liberalizing agenda in the Church which many think has gone far enough.  The third choice, and what I believe is the most likely one, is an Italian Pope.  This would be a conservative, consensus choice, and help bring the Church back to its roots, reminding everyone that the center of the Church is still in Rome, not in Africa or North America.

Bruce

Leading contenders?  No idea beyond googling a headline.

Most likely, it's going to be an Italian,  since I believe they have a controlling minority of Cardinals.  Popes tend to be Italian, anyway.

Latin America and Africa are the real growth areas now though,  and I believe there has been a fair amount of rumor supporting an African Pope.  (Would be the first in quite a few centuries).

The present Pope was also pretty big on China.  Been alot of growth there,  since the government has relented a bit on the repression thing.  There are a few "secret" Cardinals there right now.  (Secret,  because their names aren't released.  They tend to die/end up occupying a cell too often if the Vatican releases their names).

A North American Pope is probably out of the running for the conceivable future.

EDIT:  Bah, tried to post this and SirBruce and Lum beat me to the punch.

It's for his love of god. But I am starting to believe there is a hell... :evil:

I have a hard time understanding why an American pope would be appointed, since Americans have brought all of the decades of pedophilia and rape inflicted by priests to light. Wouldn't they rather have someone from a nice, submissive country? Or at least a country that isn't so litigious?

Actually, it's not so much the pedophilia scandal as the fact that America saw fit to publicize a pedophilia scandal. An important distinction. Most of the higher-ups in the Catholic hiearchy view American culture as inherently sinful and the pedophilia scandal was the result of a "sex-obsessed media". Also, the Vatican sees itself as a counterweight moral voice to American global dominance. Thus the chance of an American cardinal being named Pope is nil.

Honestly, though, no one knows who'll come out of the conclave until it happens. No one thought Karol Wojtyla would be a pope, either.

And here I thought the pedophilia scandal was brought on by priests fucking kids. Shows what I know. Damned sex obsessed media!

Thank you!  :-D
I didn't really want to take any more hits for not sympathizing with the Vatican on this one.

Somebody call Mark Burnett...this question is just asking to be our next Reality Show smash hit!

He's dead.

Bruce

Yes, that was the cause.  But I think that their point is that the constant media attention to it betrayed the population's tendency towards sexual sensationalism.  I disagree myself, I think its about a nation of religious  independents feeling superior to organized religion. 

And CNN now says:

Do they have April Fool's Day in Italy?

Vatican is denying that, Bruce.

If anyone wants to get in to the HOV lane to Hell, there are sites laying odds and taking bets on who will be the next Pope:

http://www.readabet.com/index.php/other/article/7237
http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/mode/o/card/specials-politics/odds/124960x/sid/240720

As a lapsed (okay, not really so much "lapsed" as never really hardcore to begin with) Catholic this is really affecting me more than I thought it would.  This guy became pope when I was 4 years old, so really he's all I've ever known as far as popes go.  And as much as I have problems with the church, I really can't bear any ill will towards JPII.  Watching the news I'm fairly bummed out right now.

I felt much the same when Reagan finally died.  He was what I thought a president was meant to be when I was growing up, and for better or worse he's who I've measured subsequent presidents against ever since.

There is nothing I can say that wouldn't violate Haem's rules...  So where's the tube lady thread?  :-D

It will be sad to see him go but he is quite elderly now and he has lived a long full life and stuck to his beliefs. Thats about all any of us can ask for when it comes our time to pass on to whatever lays beyond.

Kaid

Selma Blair is SO gonna play her in the made-for-tv movie.

(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/LAW/11/05/schiavo.case/story.terry.schiavo.ap.jpg)

(http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/photosearch/Previews/PLX059980.jpg)

Un-fucking-canny.

Edit: Thread started.

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=2572.0

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=2742.0

oic.

Aren't like 90% of the world's catholics outside of Europe? South America, Africa, the Philipines, USA...

In that context putting in another European would be a slap in their collective faces. Perhaps it could lead to a split? The catholics have "split" a couple of times before (Western/Eastern, then that French semi-pope dude).

(Europe is mostly secular, a necessity when you have so many branches of Christianity co-existing - as the Founding Fathers of the USA also knew. Other countries are far more "devout".)

Maybe they should embrace the 19th century and have the members elect a new pope?

Actually, there have been several scholars who have speculated about why Europe has become so secular while America is still fairly religious, and the general consensus is it's because Europe has so little in the way of religious diversity.  America's always had a fairly open religious market where nuts like the Puritans and Mormons could flourish.  Much of Europe really hasn't since after the 30 Years War.  The tendency there has been towards official state religions (Anglican church, etc).  That kind of state sponsored monopoly tends to lead to religious ossification and eventually the withering of religious belief.

America fairly religious? I just spent the last few hours at the local Italian-American club watching CNN's Death-Watch coverage with my wife's cousin's brother-in-law. And as we watched footage of Reagan and Pope John Paul waltz up and down the '80's the soundtrack was Meatloaf's 'I would do anything for love'. And it synched up better then Dark Side of the Moon with the Wizard of Oz. Oh my gawd my heart is black and lost for all of eternity. Jim Beam whispers awfull sweet nothings in my ear.

I sort've feel sorry for the guy. Giving his life for a man-made construct of lies and deceit.

Yes, Religion touched me in very bad places.

And yes, I'm drunk. Sue me. Or ban me.

(http://img222.exs.cx/img222/8905/disturbing2jc.jpg)

I told you he was dead.

Bruce

Don't be an ass, Bruce.  He died at 9:37 PM, Vatican time.  For those who are interested, CNN.com has an article here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/02/pope.dies/index.html

As a very lapsed Catholic, I'm still saddened by this turn of events.  He was the Pope since I was 2 years old, and it's a bit pathetic that the news media will have a field day until a new Pope is selected. 

 

Not a big fan of most of his policies, but seemed like a decent dude.  84 is a good run though.

You are a dick. Shut up.

Show some respect in this thread.  It's supposed to be about the Pope, not me.  All these trolling posts are off-topic.

Bruce

You are not allowed to post in this thread again. One more and you are gone.

On behalf of non-believers who still obey the golden rule, I send my condolences to those of you have have been touched by the pope (humor not intended).

He did seem to have a nice long life, and at least he's not in pain anymore.

Okay, I'm gonna jump outta this thread now before I unintentionally put the proverbial foot in the mouth.

It was a somewhat wierd feeling hearing about his death.  My parents had come over to visit for the weekend and my dad and I were hoping to watch some golf (nap time!) when the news broke of his death.  My dad's family is very Catholic (we're hispanic, so it's a given) but our family never has been.  We only went to church to make our grandmother's happy when they asked us to come (one worked in a church, one was well, hispanic).

I'm not sure why he went away from the church.  I think being as socially liberal as he is, he probably found it hard to toe the line with the church's views on certain issues.  He also probably wanted us to choose religion for ourselves if we wanted it, not because we were told.  Anyhow, that's just speculation on my part.  So what's the point? Well, talking about it, we both came to the same conclusion: great guy but just put in a time where the church was ill equiped to deal with some of the more pressing socially sensitive issues.  He did a lot of good in his time, but how does a church deal with the issues of AIDs, homosexuality, and priests doing very unpriestly things?

I'll miss the only pope that I've known in my lifetime.  Rest in peace. 

No disrespect, but why is homosexuality an "issue" akin to AIDs and child rape? One of these things is not like the other...

Well for them it is.  Homosexuality becoming more socially acceptable instead some sort of hushed social taboo (I guess it depends on where you live).  As less and less people see it as some sort of great evil, an institution that has been typically opposed to even the mere thought of it probably has to take another look. 

Am I making sense?

Edit: Yes or no will suffice, lets not derail a death thread too heavily :)

Homosexuality is an issue, because to the church and its historical doctrine, it has been one of the great no-no's. It's only really in the last 5 years, maybe less, that it's even become socially acceptable to talk about on television. I mean, compare Three's Company's depiction of homosexuality to Will & Grace, just to throw some useless pop culture shit on. In the 70's despite the sexual revolution in America, you couldn't have done Will & Grace. Hell, compare what happened to Ellen Degeneres' career when she came out to the great big /meh that would result from the same thing.

Most of society has not traditionally been that accepting of it. The church... almost ANY church, not just the Catholic church? Even less so.

John Paul II was really very progressive given the office he inhabited and the institution for which he was the most visible figurehead. Some of the those issues the church would never bother to confront head-on, whereas he seemed to take the approach that it's better to shine the light of day on something than to hide it under the covers.

There is no doctrinal difference between homosexuality and adultry, for example.  It isn't that the church thinks this one sin is a horrible evil, it's that society used to think it was, and now it thinks maybe not so much, and the church is viewed as archaic when it states that "yes, it's still wrong".  It's also not given any credit when it has spoken out against violance against homosexuals, or when homosexuals are otherwise given "special sin" status by the populas and the church refutes it.  


Sexual morality.  If everyone followed the rules, all of them would go away.  It also comes back to attitude of the church; it is not normally hateful toward offenders, either the priests, the homosexuals, the drug users, or the sexually prolific.  Through and through, the attitude of the church in all these cases is "you screwed up, so lets figure out what we can do right from here on." It isn't about "getting even" or the like, it's about redemption due to personal faults.  

Contrast this with popular notions; people withheld tithes from church due to the priest scandal, they often extol violence (even if in mockery) toward those involved, they want social engineering changes (teaching/counselling programs) to fix AIDS, more research toward killing the disease itself, and leaving homosexuals the hell alone.  Society is concerned with not wanting to be told it can't do something, and placing blame somewhere other than the person.  It is concerned with out-smarting the problems in our society, rather than adjusting behavior so that the problems end outright.  Society is of a a "eat our cake and have it to" mindset.

The Pope didn't perscribe to that attitude toward solutions, and it shows in his / the church's stance toward all three of those.  A very personal instance is the assassination attempt; what does the Pope do but go to prison to forgive him.  Very different attitude than what you find from the masses.

Sure, but it's still not really the same thing.

So there's a new pope as of just nowish.

Cardinal Ratzinger from Germany is now Pope Benedict XVI.

EDIT -- Bah! Serves me right for necroposting the old thread.  Shoulda looked in politics first.