±«Óãtv

For those who are interested, there will be a Mass of Thanksgiving for the new Blessed on Monday 2nd May at St Mary's Church, Drogheda - think it's at 7.30pm. All are welcome. A relic will be available for veneration and blessing.

It's the way paedophile priests were dealt with by the Catholic Church that concerns me. There is compelling evidence that details of complaints against paedophile priests reached the Vatican, but nothing much happened. Predatory paedophiles priests continued to rape and abuse vulnerable children.

I see that Cardinal Sean Brady will be taking part in the programme. The very man who attended meetings where abused children where made to sign oaths of secrecy.



I do not see how people who favour the beautification John Paul II can simply ignore the Vatican's handling of paedophile priests. Survivors of a clerical abuse have fought for and received billions of dollars in compensation.

I bear JP2 no personal ill-will. Whatever faults and failings the man had whilst in office ended with his death. It's the continuation of those faults and the institutionalised failings of the Church as a whole that's the issue. JP2 is dead and gone, blaming the mistakes of a man once he's dead is pointless, work on changing the people who are still alive. On balance, he's probably not the worst pope in history;
Crusades Started: 0
States Excommunicated: 0
Schisms Suppressed: 0
Heretics Burnt: 0
A fairly non-descript papalcy really. Nothing like his forebears.

I also have no problems with his fast-track to being a saint. If the Catholic Church wants to give another internal thumbs-up to another of its internal celebrities, that's fine by me. Much in the same way I doubt mccamleyc would care if the British Humanists gave Dawkins a 'We Like This Man' award.

"Taking human life indicates that man has doubted the value of his existence."

This is the kind of insight for which Pope John Paul II will be remembered, fearlessly reminding the world that human life must be recognised as sacred, from conception to natural death. For this unflinching determination there will be many who seek to blacken the memory of his name, by falsely implicating him in the dreadful crimes commited by some priests, when in fact most of those cases have their 'genesis' in the crisis of faith and morality which disfigures the recent history of western society.

#3;

Quite funny to see Natman taking a softer line on Pope John Paul II than the majority of "Cafeteria Catholics"!

Communist regimes ended: all of them bar Cuba and North Korea

For those interested, the text for the celebration of the Divine Office on his feast day, 22nd October, has been released by the Vatican:

"... and Fr Charles Curran, the theology professor stripped of his right to teach as a Catholic theologian -- on the orders of Pope John Paul II -- because he challenged long-held Catholic moral doctrines."
**
Referencing the above, even if I could pick up Radio Ulster which is doubtful, I think I'd stick with watching/listening to the ceremonies on EWTN.

mccamleyc,

I seriously doubt that JP2 was personally involved in the downfall of any communist regime. Just because he was in charge of the church when it happened is hardly a claim to responsibility. Otherwise we'll have to blame him for all the bad stuff that went on too.

So the most prolific mass-producer of saints in the history of the Church is to get his own posthumous stripe.

Seems as opportunistic as all the rest to me. A weird sort of necrophilia. Make a dead celebrity. John Paul himself rather lowered the bar for beatification - Mother Teresa and Msgr. José María Escrivá de Balaguer - the fascist ethusiast and founder of the creepy Opus Dei.

You don't have to be good to be revered by the Catholic Church. John Paul's treatment of the crimes of Cardinal Bernard Law spring to mind.

Although to be fair to JP, it's a bit of a stretch to ask people to accept that he was still really calling shots in the state of decrepitude he'd reached by then.

No, the person we should be looking toward for the way the church protected paedophiles like Law is still all-too-alive and running the show today.

Natman - if you don't appreciate Pope John Paul's contribution to the collapse of communism you must have been asleep during the 1980s.

For those interested, John Paul's beautiful prayer for life:

O Mary, bright dawn of the new world, Mother of the living, to you do we entrust the cause of life.

Look down, O Mother upon the vast numbers of babies not allowed to be born, of the poor whose lives are made difficult, of men and women who are victims of brutal violence, of the elderly and the sick killed by indifference or out of misguided mercy.

Grant that all who believe in Your Son may proclaim the Gospel of life with honesty and love to the people of our time. Obtain for them the grace to accept that Gospel as a gift ever new, the joy of celebrating it with gratitude throughout their lives and the courage to bear witness to it resolutely, in order to build, together with all people of good will, the civilization of truth and love, to the praise and glory of God, the Creator and lover of life.

@10:
Lovely prayer, thanks!

As a Catholic myself, I have to say JP2 was not without his faults. Chief amongst them was, of course, his non-handling of the paedophile scandal. It's not like he or the Vatican didn't know what was going on. Certainly, in Ireland as far back as the 1930s, Father Flanagan (he of 'Boystown' fame) reported to his superiors on this and other forms of abuse and the cover-up continued. Had the Vatican come down like a ton of lead the first time they caught a wiff of abuse, we wouldn't have this scandal now. But they didn't, and neither did John Paul, and that will have to stay on his record. On a wider front, the Church's record in the struggle against Communism is one to be proud of, to be sure, but what everyone forgets is that the theological reasons for which the Church opposed Communism are the same ones which (in theory) make it an ememy of Capitalism, at least in its neo-liberal incarnation. Unfortunately, the Church has never stood up against the powerful economic interests of the west with anything like the moral force it invoked against the Communists, and that's another blot on JP2's escutcheon. I think this whole beatification thing is way too soon, and it's going to come back to bite the Church in a very delicate spot.

Always have had a sneaking respect for Karol Wojtyla. He showed physical courage in helping the anti-Nazi resistance in Poland.

As pope he had the graciousness to apologise to some of the many and varied groups and individuals that the RC church had managed to offend and alienate over the centuries.

He was not without his faults, but then nobody's perfect.

So they can 'beatify' away at him, whatever that means, and for whatever little consequence it has.

A relic you say, surely not the pope's hat? I could use something after all those easter chocolates.

Carlos Vazquez experienced constant pain and severe weight loss during his struggle with Crohn’s disease, a supposedly incurable autoimmune disorder causing inflammation of the digestive tract. By September of 2006, after dropping to eighty-four pounds, his situation was life threatening. Nonetheless, Vazquez was repeatedly turned away by Spain’s public health system due to bureaucratic technicalities.

A friend of Carlos Vazquez's family lent him a relic of John Paul II, one of the pope's white papal skull caps, and suggested he pray to the pope for a miracle. The cap, properly called a zucchetto, was placed in the Vazquez living room; thereafter, Vazquez and wife prayed daily for aid from the deceased pope.

On the night of November 14, 2006, Vazquez went to bed, suffering from his usual abdominal pain and unable to eat solid food. That night, he dreamt about John Paul II, and the next morning awoke, free of pain and with restored energy.

Stunned by the change, Vazquez called his doctor, who insisted that a cure was impossible and that he should not risk eating solid food. Vazquez ignored that advice and went out to eat in celebration on the evening of Nov. 15. As he downed a steak dinner, an espresso, and a few shots of liquor, his relatives started shouting, “It’s a miracle. It’s a miracle.�

14. paul james:

Thanks for that. It's a pity that JPII didn't leave a few more caps lying around. They might be useful on child cancer wards and such. Not all that many 'miracles' reported there.

At least Carlos Vazquez is able to enjoy a steak and a shot of booze though.

Missing for post 14

Yeah. Lucky old Carlos Vazquez. I wonder what the reaction to that little vignette would have been among Rwandans. I wonder too why JPII didn't stop the genocide there which his church played a central role in creating the conditions for. I believe he could have. But he treated the people of Rwanda with the same contempt the church has treated the victims of paedophile priests.

I wonder if those Spanish bureaucratic technicalities were in fact that Senor Vazquez wasn't ill at all. He says he had Crohn's disease, but there is a notable lack of medical opinion in that link. He might just've had food poisoning and/or an eating disorder.

Wearing the hat of a dead pope isn't going to catch on in medical circles I think.

And isn't it funny how god can only seem to manage small miracles these days. Gone are the days of parting the Red Sea or feeding 5000 people or stopping the sun in the sky.

So Pope John Paul was responsible for ghastly schools in Ireland in the 1930s, murder in Rwanda and not condemning western capitalism, with its welfare system, wealth creation, democratic principles, freedom of expression and belief, with the same vigour with which he opposed communism with its gulags, forced collectivisation, planned famines, mass murder, oppression.

Because you know communism and western capitalism, really just two sides of the one coin.

As far as I know the James Randi Education Foundation still offers its $1 million prise for "anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event":

This 'miracle' would certainly qualify under that heading.

The $1 million can be donated to a charity. Just fill in the forms:

Let us know how Carlos gets on.

So Pope John Paul was responsible for ghastly schools in Ireland in the 1930s [hardly], murder in Rwanda [yes] and not condemning western capitalism, with its welfare system, wealth creation, democratic principles, freedom of expression and belief [capitalism has nothing whatever to do with the goods you list, and neither has the Catholic Church which would rather be rid of them], with the same vigour with which he opposed communism with its gulags, forced collectivisation, planned famines, mass murder, oppression.

Pope John Paul's opposition to Communism came not from any great sense of compassion to the people saddled with it but because he saw the threat it posed to the church. Let's not pretend, shall we.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

mccamleyc,

You said:

"Communist regimes ended: all of them bar Cuba and North Korea"

You're missing the big one - China, along with Vietnam and Laos. If you count the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries as one regime (which, in effect, they were), that's:

Communist Regimes ended: 1 (possibly, may also be due to economic pressures exerted by the USA and the star wars program).

Wooo, go go JP2!

Funny forgetting China. Shows how capitalistic it's become.

You can count the Soviet Union and half of Europe as one regime if you like - one big box of dominos. And certainly the economic pressures of the arms race were vital. So hats off to Ronald Reagan as well is what you're saying. That's fine.

Funny you should mention John Paul's bosom buddy Ronald Reagan while we're at it. And all of this talk of the political wranglings of the Pope - supposedly a "spiritual leader" who should have nothing to do with politics. At all.

This much John Paul knew, but was a principle he chose to ditch when he was conniving with Reagan against Communist regimes.

But, still siding with Reagan, he "miraculously" remembered that neither he nor his church should have any part in politics when he was crushing the liberation theology movement in Latin America, preferring the line that the church wasn't there to liberate the poor but to bring them into direct contact with God, and we all know how good suffering is for that. An incredible amount of suffering took place in John Paul's long shadow in Latin America.

I find the apparent liking for capitalism from mccamley distinctly odd, given that the adjective that often precedes it is "rapacious". Mccamley seems to have confused capitalism with liberal democracy, whose values the Catholic church has very pointedly and stubbornly opposed.

John Paul's opposition to communism was nothing to do with politics or economics, but the fundamental rights of the human person, his dignity and his nature. He couldn't support liberation theology because it was Marxist.

And he didn't operate with Reagan - just a coincidence of history (or providence) that while John Paul was undermining the ideological base of communism, Reagan was driving them into penury.

Capitalism and liberal democracy go hand in hand.

As far as I'm aware 'official' Roman Catholic political economy leans heavily toward distributism. At least when it suits. Who will ever forget the Pontifical backed corporatist take-over of the Lollipop guild?

Perhaps you could liken the Catholic church to a multi-national and the Pope as CEO- his job to regain territories & reinstate daily operations in closed markets,increasing market share & making sure there were enough Reps manning the franchises.The model seems pretty Capitalist to me- give the working class hope, keep the middle class comfortable, let the rich & powerful donate money in return for indulging their pet ideological preferences. Afford the weakest and most vulnerable no voice & be subject to the whims and cruelty of those with standing. There were however positive ramifications to this system under John Paul II, with the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. Lech Walesa and the Pope were instrumental in Polands role re the fall of the Iron Curtain. Certainly it wasn't the only factor- Gorbachev & his policies of Perestroika and Glasnost were an integral part of the process too, but John Paul was not without his achievements even if he did take the church in a more conservative direction and didn't want to acknowledge -on his watch- the damage done by some -re abuse- in the organisation.

It's funny, here in the States many see the Catholic Church as a subversive leftwing establishment intent on flooding the country with illegal aliens & lobbying against the death penalty & for nationalized healthcare.
You just can't win...

What do you want mccambley? Excuse me, but your piddling response isn't even worthy of a snort. If it is remotely sincere it is pitifully naive at best.

I find myself imploring the "god" you so handily invoke!

Please do me a favour and stop being so insulting.

mscracker,

In the States, everyone left of the Tea Party is seen as a subversive leftwing establishment intent on flooding the country with illegal aliens & lobbying against the death penalty & for nationalized healthcare. The Catholic Church is nothing special ;-)

mccamley (@ 26) -

"Capitalism and liberal democracy go hand in hand."

This statement seriously needs some qualification. As, of course, you must know, there are different degrees of Capitalism, and how a Christian can justify extreme laissez-faire is beyond me. Was this not the philosophy that justified the export of grain from Ireland during the tragedy of the late 1840's? Or the philosophy that justified the wage slavery of the urban poor in Britain throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? And what about recent economic trends in Britain and (more especially) Ireland? Do we really want rapacious bankers to dictate our lives? Is it right that land and property can be snapped up by the highest bidder (even by foreigners) and that huge tracts of land are in private hands (as in Scotland, for example)? Is that democracy in action? I call it a travesty of democracy.

And what happened in Russia after the fall of communism? Many people were far worse off, while the exploitation of Russia's huge natural resources created a few obscenely wealthy oligarchs. Is that what JP2 fought for? How does poverty alongside extreme greed dignify the individual?

What sort of democracy is it that can effectively be bought by those who have succeeded in a 'winner takes all' kind of society?

This is not what I associate with authentic Christianity, or indeed with any economic principles set out in the Bible.

@mccamleyc,

John Paul's opposition to communism was nothing to do with politics or economics, but the fundamental rights of the human person, his dignity and his nature.

Come come, that is only a half truth, JPII, his successors and apologists, care for only some of the fundamental human rights of the person. They are very picky about which ones they support and actively work to deny people their fundamental rights when they don't like them.

But then that doesn't have the same beatific ring to it does it ???

Half truths are a stock in trade of folk with nothing but hand waving to offer to cover up their dictatorial and unsubstantiated dogmas.

You could knock me down with a feather right now, I've just been nodding along with "Logica".

John Paul's opposition to communism was political by its very definition - you can't utter the sentence "John Paul opposed communism" without admitting it. I would have thought that obvious unless you don't know what politics is. Religion (am I really having to say this?) is political.

Christianity is fundamentally opposed to human rights as they are conceived of in the law, and any learned Christian (Andrew?) can point you to the Christian thinking on why that is. In a nutshell, human rights flow from the *intrinsic value* of the individual. Are we seeing the divergence yet? The fundamentalists put it more plainly than the Catholic church is prepared to admit these days, but pull away the nice cobwebs and they're in agreement about the "depravity" of the individual.

The intrinsically depraved individual can only (sometimes) be redeemed by Christ. Even in this imaginary state of redemption, the individual must then submit to the doctrine of whatever church he's into, or by attempting to figure out the laws for himself and of course as much thought has gone into which ones the flock can excuse itself from as those they command everyone to observe.

So you have *intrinsic value* versus the mandatory subjugation of the depraved. A slave morality. Now however "nice" and humanitarian Christianity looks these days that putrid thinking still lies at the heart of it and I make no apology for calling it loathsome. Nothing to do with economics. Wink.

AboutFace - there's no "b" in "Mc Camley". If you're going to be obnoxious you might at least spell my name correctly (while hiding behind "AboutFace").

Thank you for the description of Calvinist theories of total depravity. It's not what Catholics believe and certainly not what John Paul the Great believed.

As for "slave morality", well Hitler couldn't have put it better himself - oh wait, that's precisely how Hitler described Christianity.

It is indeed what Catholics are supposed to believe if they're paying attention, which seems too much to ask of most of them these days, free as they are to pick 'n' mix the bits of their faith that suits them and discarding the rest. Isn't it funny how religion evolves, even though it pretends it doesn't. The pick 'n' mix reflecting the free market. And herein is my point, which you seem to intentionally miss, that your freedom to ignore the rotten core of your religion is conferred by the wider culture and not by the religion itself. The rotten core remains and given the right conditions it is that core which would manifest again as it has done in the past.

It is best set out by Pius IX, who declared himself and all his successors infallible, lest we forget - what he says goes, there is no possibility of revisionism when any of them makes a decree. In his Syllabus of Errors, he declared (among many other things) that the church should be able to "exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government".

Further, in the spirit of ecumenism (I don't think) and as Benedict would later agree, the ecclesiastic authority has "the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion".

He recognises his religion as political in declaring it an error to think that "Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." No, they are to be bound up. Power! More power! They are to be the sole arbiters of children's education and they alone decide whether philosophy and science are correct or incorrect.

Furthermore, he rubbishes any suggestion that "the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization". This would be the liberalism that begat human rights as you and I understand them. Very far from the concept of human right, in this same document the Pontiff declared himself the friend of State regimes - no matter how corrupt or brutal - and pointed out the sinfulness of rebelling against them. The Catholic Church doesn't do self-determination.

Have a read at that fine document here:

I should say you'd do well to make yourself better acquainted with the true nature of the insitution you claim membership of and defend blindly, even if it is on an anonymous messageboard and your name doesn't have a "b" in it. Because given half a chance your church's monstrous true character would re-emerge, and it would respond to your impiety as a cafeteria Christian by punishing you without the spilling of your blood. That's a euphemism for burning at the stake - because the spilling of human blood is forbidden you see. How convenient to put you a good four to six foot above the pire so you sort of roast. Much tidier than spilt blood you'll agree. And fully in accordance with the law.

The above was written in 1862 mostly in response to "modernism" within the church, but also liberalism (mother of human rights) and against the advancement of science, the Origin of Species, published three years before, had been the final straw.

After the bellicosity of Pius IX, the church set about a program of softening its image to avoid risk the indignity of shouting itself even further into irrelevance. It did this by an apparently conscious program of feminising the image of the church, thus a whole series of Marian Apparitions were given official recognition over the following three or four decades. Mary then took heed of the church and duly stopped appearing when some minister of the church pointed out that the veneration of her among the faithful was distracting them from the star of the show, Jesus. They were verging on idolatry and cultishness.

The culmination of this process of enhumblement was Vatican II. The ruling of the Second Vatican Council was trampled upon by your hero John Paul II, who beatified him in 2000, and continues to be trampled on by Benedict, who has stepped back from John Paul's not-quite accomodation of evolutionary theory in calling it "more than an hypotheosis", and declared it instead to be "irrational". Benedict also thinks Christians would be better off not understanding Scripture or anything else of the bunk read at Mass and argues for the return of the service in Latin. I can see what he's getting at with this, and so will anyone who's experienced the feeling of transcendence meditation done properly will bring about. Mantra is a useful aid in this, and all the better if you're not preoccupied by what the words you utter actually mean, which tend to get in the way.

Now, Mac-no-b. Do you have anything proper to say in response or do you realise you're fighting a losing battle?

One more thing. A Catholic waving around what Hitler said is really quite rich, because it is only because of the Fascists that the Holy See has status as a "state" and exchanges diplomats and has sovereignty. If it wasn't for that very convenient gift from the Fascists then there would be no shelter for the child rapists it harbours there.

In any case, I don't know if Hitler - himself a Catholic - said anything about Christianity being a slave morality, but if he did, he was quoting Nietzsche, who was bang on the button with that one. I realise that in the pettiness of this kind of exchange everything can seem like a throwaway snipe, but that Christianity purveys a morality is a fact rooted in its history under the Romans and the reason why it spread so readily among subjugated peoples.

Perhaps that's why Hitler embraced Christianity.

Have you quite finished, AboutFace? I think you need to go and lie down or have a nice cup of tea which I'm about to do.

To repeat, your description was Calvinist, not Catholic - Catholics don't and have never believed in the sort of total depravity of man that you describe; we may be subject to the Fall but are still fundamentally good rather than fundamentally evil.

As for the development of doctrine, well the key, as Pope Benedict continues to explain is the hermeneutic of continuity.

The exchange of diplomatics between States and the Holy See does not and did not rely on the Lateran Treaty.

Hitler never embraced Christianity - he hated Christianity.

Time for a cuppa now - recommend it - calmes the nerves.

***

A couple of should-reads:

#37, paragraph 4. Pope John Paul II beatified Pius IX, author of the Syllabus of Errors.

#38, "...but that Christianity pruveys a *slave* morality..."

@31 natman:
Quite true.
It's nice to occasionally feel liberal & this only happens when I'm among the Tea Party folk.

Mccamleyc,

"we may be subject to the Fall but are still fundamentally good rather than fundamentally evil."

I believe that of the vast majority of Catholics. I just don't believe it of the people who created and sustain the behemoth that that is the catholic church. The Catholic church is more concerned with its own wealth and power than it is about people, that is evil. Mind you that is true of many churches not just the Catholic one.

AboutFace (@ 34)

You could knock me down with a feather right now, I've just been nodding along with "Logica".

In the spirit of détente by - shock, horror - no less a person than Sam Harris, on the subject of economic inequality (very good minus the one unfortunate little dig, which I am sure you will be able to locate. I'll say no more about that).

Now, before you get your hopes up, I must assure you that I have not had a reverse Damascene experience, but credit where credit is due. We're all part of one human race (with one common origin, however you understand it), and even Sam Harris can get some things right (and more right than a great many of his Christian compatriots).

Now where was that feather....?

;-)

Nice cuppa? MacBeeless: The doctrine (singular) of the Fall is the doctrine of the Fall. One doctrine. Central to Christianity. Without this idea there would be no Christianity. Christianity begins with the doctrine that human beings are born in sin. Sin is depravity. Or is it not?

That was one issue. And you've gone all cafeteria on me again. "Oh that's not my version." You're either in, out or you have no business talking about it as far as I'm concerned, and I've given you ample reasons why. Not least that believers more sincere than yourself would have had you roasted for your impiety.

Moreover, you haven't responded at all to the more voluminous material which you should find repugnant from heads of the church you claim membership of past and present, including your hero Pope John Paul II, which this thread is about.

And you don't appear even to know that the Holy See became a State only because Mussolini signed over the house in Rome. And that is precisely the reason why it has been so difficult to prosecute the people invovled in the conspiracy to cover up what looks like an institutional level of the rape of children, mostly young boys, by Catholic clergy.

The "state" of the Holy See, by the way, is a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, of which it is in contravention of six articles in connection with that conspiracy. See Geoffrey Robertson's 'The Case of the Pope'. And this stinking institution is looking for more temporal power. If it had had that then it wouldn't now face this mess it's in. Do not talk to me about calming down in light of this I find you morally repugnant.

Did you look at the Syllabus of Errors? Answer. How does that square with your touchy-feely-sickly-smiley Catholicism? Answer. How do you feel about your hero's having seen fit to beatify that man? Answer. What do you have to say about the conspiracy of silence about the worldwide rape of children by your church that your hero gave sanction to? Answer. What do you say about the fact that the man who contrived the ins and outs of that conspiracy is now the head of your church? Answer. What do you think of the Papa and his predecessor apparently thinking that the megalomania of Pius IX is the right way to go? Answer! You haven't a leg to stand on and you know it.

"Logica",

Thank you for linking the article by the eminently sensible Sam Harris, but it contained nothing I needed to be told. Perhaps though McBeeless should have a look at it, because his hero John Paul II conspired with Reagan to create the conditions Harris bemoans. There is a lot to love about America, not least that aside of all its faults it remains a lynchpin of Western civilisation that Europe is not in a position to replace should it fall. And I share Harris's deep concern that the West is in serious decline and we have much to be properly fightened about. These things are never pretty and we have too much to lose. In that I am not talking about throwaway clothes white picket fences. I mean the idea of Western civilisation and Enlightenment values.

In 2005, Japan was the biggest lender of money to the US, followed by China. China is now the biggest lender. It finances the US debt. In real terms, but for the chicanery of high finance, the US is bankrupt. So is the Britain. Need we mention Ireland? The only countries in Europe worth anything are Germany and France.

Now, given the malign influence religion has been shown to have on places in difficulty in the studies I quote from in that Religion makes you Fat manifesto, do you wonder at my hostility? We have every reason to believe, without cynicism or pessimism but with realism and pragmatism, that in the next one hundred years the West faces not only political fragmentation anew, but deeply troubling new climate patterns and financial ruin. The latter in reality is already upon us.

And religion looms, lurks and leers in the wings, waiting to metastasise again when conditions are poor enough for it.

You might forgive me for saying, spirit of detente or no, that given this situation I do not find the Protestant endearing because he joins me in sneering at the Catholic. Homosexuality is "borne of an intrinsic evil"? Mais non, Papa! Religion is borne of the depraved, animal part of human beings. "God" is the "man-projected figure" in which the best and worst of us is combined. Religion is malign, nefarious and ugly.

Let me tell you I have nothing invested in the future - no children, no great riches, no dynasty, no legacy of work - but I have had my joys and every day I marvel simply at the wonder of being alive and I since we *can* live in such a way that more humans can experience the innumerable joys life has to offer I think we should. Fusty old gods have no place in this. Far less their seedy little executors on my planet.

Just to take a break from the ongoing Catholic-bashing- it was a very nice experience to watch part of the Royal Wedding on TV this morning.The hymns were beautiful.
Those in the Anglican Church are blessed to have such lovely music.
I don't receive ±«Óãtv Radio or TV but wonder if the Royal Wedding had dissenting ±«Óãtv commentators such as those planned for John Paul II's beatification? Is equal time always a ±«Óãtv practise when covering public events?

The 'Great Man' theory of history should be re-Christened 'Great Person', in light of what we know about the life of St. Joan of Arc, who was instrumental in liberating France from the foreign tyrany of the English. In what Richard Pipes pointed out was the only authentic "Workers' Revolution" in history, Pope John Paul II can be seen to have been instrumental in liberating Poland from soviet/Russian tyrrany. The story of his visits from 1979 onwards, the imposition of Martial Law by the communist regime and the possibility that Moscow might send in the tanks - as they had in Budapest and Prague, in the context of the Superpower rivalry poised to escalate into military confrontation, and the appointmet of Gorbachev, have not received adequate treatment by western historians, but when they do, the stature of Pope John Paul II will be seen to surpas even Churchill. As Gorbachev himself famously said;

"None of it could have happened without this Pope."

You're right Theophane, he should be fairly recognised for his achievements as well- alongside Lech Walesa. Re your point on Joan of Arc & *English Tyranny*- remember the King of England at the time was from the House of Plantagenet- also known as the House of Anjou. So the war over the throne of France was really between 2 French families-the house of Anjou & the House of Valois- Valois (Charles VII) having the support of Joan of Arc.

The story of his "miracle" is amusing. Sister Marie Simon-Pierre prayed one night and guess what - her Parkinson's Disease vanished. Just like that! I see a wand and a dove in the photo, but is that a fez? Sister Marie said:

"I bounded out of bed, and I felt completely transformed. I was no longer the same inside."

For sainthood he needs a second miracle and the faithful are racing forward. Only one of them, however, will be chosen. So what about the others who do not get selected - "Sorry mate, but your incurable disease just cleared up. This sometimes happens, but Sister Marie has John Paul stamped all over her."

"For sainthood he needs a second miracle and the faithful are racing forward. Only one of them, however, will be chosen. So what about the others who do not get selected - "Sorry mate, but your incurable disease just cleared up. This sometimes happens, but Sister Marie has John Paul stamped all over her.""

Good point newlach. Though the believers have gotten to terms with inconsistencies far bigger than that, so I suspect they'll find some way to claim that it all makes perfect sense.

MsCracker - # 47

Speaking as an Anglican, I do feel constantly blessed; speaking as a republican I did not watch yesterday's wedding so I have no idea how diverse the range of opinions expressed in the live coverage may have been. Last evening's ±«Óãtv2 Newsnight programme did, however, air a range of views including the critical.

I'm sure the many members of Solidarity will feel a little agrieved that people are giving JP2 the credit for their revolution.

All religions aren't too different from one another with their issues and hows issues are covered up. People should be talking about all religions not just singling out one

A useful way of thinking about (Blessed) John Paul II, giving an accurate impression of the scale of his contribution to the course of human history, might be;

"A poor man's Winston Churchill"

More like a man's poor Winston Churchill.

Churchill will be remembered for a long time, JP2 is just another pope. I can guarantee most non-Catholics will have forgotten him in 20 years.

True Natman,

Churchill will be remembered for what he did and achieved, JPII will be remembered because some people think he should be remembered because of the title he had.

Newdwr

This is totally the wrong thread for this comment, but as I can't even access page 2 of the 'Elizabeth Johnson' thread to see what did and didn't post, never mind add another comment on that thread, I have no option. As it is inappropriate to continue it here, it appears that (unlike the actual events of Easter) our conversation is at a dead end - sorry about that.

Parrhasios

Good to read your voice again.

Glad to see you back Parrhasios

58. Peterm2.

Got that, thanks. I'm having the same problem btw.

@52:
Thank you for the info re the ±«Óãtv.
Last night at Mass honoring Pope John Paul II's beatification we actually had some lovely Gregorian chant sung. Our previous choir director was "borrowed" from the Anglican, or here - Episcopal Church & he had a wealth of knowledge of sacred music.I really miss the music he shared with us.And it's not just the musical score but the lyrics in traditional hymns that are so moving & poetic.

Report and photos from the Drogheda Mass celebrating the beatification:

Following on from mccamleyc's #10, here is a prayer in honour of Blessed Pope John PaulII;

Father of Love and Life,
In every age you inspire your people
Through the teaching and example
Of leaders who are living witnesses of your Kingdom.
We thank you for Blessed John Paul II,
Whom you raised up to point the way
To a Culture of Life.
May we learn from his teachings
That the defence of the unborn
Stands at the centre of our moral priorities.
May we learn from his example
How to defend life with courage and joy.
May we echo his conviction
That the outcome of the battle for life
Has already been decided,
Because Jesus Christ is Risen from the dead.
May we, remembering Blessed John Paul II,
Always proclaim, celebrate, and serve
The Gospel of Life.
We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"....the defence of the unborn
Stands at the centre of our moral priorities"

Never mind the born, oh lord,

Concentrate on the unborn, in your wisdom.

Make sure you ignore the born that were abused by officials of your church oh God,

For we cannot afford the payouts (you have seen fit to cause a recession, as if you didn't know).

And especially ignore anyone unlucky enough to have been born,

To the wrong tribe in Rwanda.

Oh lord.

So might it be, oh almighty and (strangely) invisible one.

[We're pretty sure you're up there/out there somewhere].

Amen

newdwr54;

Time and again it seems useful to ask this question:

Did you have a voice when you were an unborn child?

Theophane,

Let's not open up that bag of pro-death against anti-choice debate again.

Suffice to say whilst the emotionally based arguments for pro-life are appealing, it ignores the rights of the mother and tries to draw a black and white clear line around an issue that is a very grey area.

Theophane,

Time and again it seems useful to ask this question:

Did you have a voice when you were an unborn child?

Did it ever occur to you that if an unborn child had a voice they might tell you to keep your nose out ?

Dave;

Did it ever occur to you that if an unborn child had a voice they might tell you to keep your nose out ?

I see, so the message might be something like:

"Yeah Theophane, and all you busybodies who want to uphold my basic human right to be born - if mummy wants to take me to the death factory, that's her 'choice'. And the whole issue makes grown-ups uncomfortable, so for heaven's sake please just keep quiet about it won't you, and let it be swept neatly away under the carpet, so that everyone can go on pretending that we live in a civilized society."

The next round of anti-Catholic hysteria looks set to revolve around the war-time record of Pope Pius XII, who is accused, wrongly in my opinion, of remaining silent about nazi atrocities. Pro-life campaigners cannot and will not remain silent about the plight of the most precious and vulnerable members of our society - unborn children.

Theophane,

Even if said unborn child faced a lifetime of crippling pain and disability or posed a real and imminent threat to the mother? Abortion is a medical option that should be used when the situation demands it. Your theocratic posturings about pro-life are merely an excuse to see your religiously inspired version of what constitutes a human being imposed upon everyone.

I note, with some amusement, that you spend very little time arguing for the rights of those who are definetely alive and suffer far more, sometimes even at the hand of those claiming to represent your church. I'm not going to use the word hypocricy, as it's far too strong, but to show concern for unsubstantiated claims of suffering of the unborn at the expense of the proven and very real suffering of the already born seems a little extreme.

Save this debate for a thread where it's actually valid, instead of crowbarring it into a debate about a minor pope who is being deified on a wave of ernest and yet misplaced emotional catholic sympathy.

Yet again a thread has been hijacked by anti-abortionists. I have little to say on the matter except that had all paedophile priests and their superiors who covered up the vile crimes of paedophile clerics been aborted the world would be a better place.

Theo,

I agree with Natman, but I would also say that if I had a voice I might say

"my mummy knows best, she knows that giving birth to me is a painful death sentence for me, why is this man waving his arms around and trying to stop my mother doing the one thing I want, the thing she knows is best for me, what gives him the right to subject me to pain and misery just so he can count one more to his religious count?".

yeah cos most abortions happen to prevent a child suffering.

The thread is about Blessed Pope John Paul, without any doubt one of the most significant popes there has been, and certainly a staunch opponent of abortion. So it's perfectly legitimate to talk about it.

Sad that in this day and age there is still so much vile anti-Catholic vitriole to be found.

I don't like the idea of abortion for non medical reasons, or in cases of rape, incest, etc, to be honest. Personally I don't sit comfortably with the idea that a normal healthy pregnancy may be ended for reasons of personal expediency. It strikes me as 'immoral' according to my personal moral compass.

But then I'm a middle-aged comfortably-off man, whose family is basically grown up. I'm not a 17 year old single girl, destined to live her life in poverty if she goes ahead with an unplanned pregnancy. I am in no position to pass judgement on any woman, and I respect her right to proceed as she sees fit, as long as it is legal and is carried out professionally.

Priests should concern themselves with consoling these women, many of whom are faced with unimaginable emotional turmoil following abortions (not least because of prevailing religious attitudes), instead of condemning them. If they can't even do that, then they should stick to worshipping dead people and leave the living alone.

mccamleyc,

Given the age, wealth and insidious nature of the Catholic church, I think it's perfectly entitled to a reasonable degree of vitriole. Especially given its tendancy to display a hypocritical nature (condeming and yet covering up child abuse) and a past that is, shall we be kind, rather less tolerant of views that it disagrees with.

That the average Catholic displays a loyalty and devotion to the organisaion that borders on the fanatical, I suspect most anti-catholic vitriole is merely a persecution complex on behalf of the adherant and is no more than any other large organisation with deep reaching influences on society.

mccamlyc,

"Sad that in this day and age there is still so much vile anti-Catholic vitriole to be found"

Dry your eyes !! An obscene behemoth like the catholic church playing the victim card is really unbecoming and an insult to those victimised by your church.

So to disagree with you is to be vile and anti-catholic. I thought I was allowed to have a different view to the catholic church, I need to go and check up the legal side of it.... yep I am allowed to disagree. I think it's called freedom of expression, something, it seems, the catholic church would rather we didn't have.

By the way, lest you think I am singling your ittle welgion out, I am very undiscriminating in my vitriol, I object to any religion interfering where it is not welcome and assuming it knows best - when it doesn't.

Oh and when you say

"without any doubt one of the most significant popes there has been"

I assume you mean in your head as there certainly seems to be a lot of doubt elsewhere and that significant may not be a good thing (Attila the Hun was significant)

"Sad that in this day and age there is still so much vile anti-Catholic vitriole to be found".

Sad that in this day and age there is still so much vile Catholicism to be found. You walked into that. What else is there to be said for a church whose doctrine is that suffering is ultimately a Good Thing? Seen in this light the sadomasochistic conduct of its clergy becomes both easier to understand and doubly repugnant.

Offer it up. Share in the Passion. And just think how mavellously lucky you'd be if you were martyred.

I know! Why don't we do aborted feotuses the ultimate favour and call them all martyrs? Fast-track them on to beatification?

What a splendid idea!

Oh hang on, we can't can we. Why not? Because for all this mushy, sentimental gush from the Catholics about the precious unborn child, by the book the little one is a sinner. Uncleansed. Their remains cannot be buried in consecrated ground - a fact that devastated my mother even further when my elder brother was still-born. He was buried under a hedge at the side of the graveyard. And where is it that dead babies go these days? I hear Limbo has been done away with, decommissioned. Is it straight to Hell and forget the hanging around? It's certainly not heaven.

What is it, exactly, that's so humane about all of this? Do please tell me.

Morning all from a sunny, royal wedding free, beatification bereft, tolerant country. Congratulations to ice-cream venders in Rome for their recent windfall. And big up to David Weir for the embroidered best wishes to the Royal couple on his Rangers strip. He did the same for Victoria and Albert, I believe.

Havent lurked here for a while so belated happy Easter to the bigots, the entrenched, the intolerant, the bitter, and of course to the increasingly few sane, humane, decent posters on here.

Where have all the shiny, happy people gone? Is there a blog somewhere which has a pope-up blocker. If so, can someone send me a link?

Nice to see you again RJB, we missed your witty and incisive contributions.

Hi Dave,
read back over this thread and fine posts by yourself - as always. Hope you are well.