John Paul honored at vigil on eve of beatification

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By NICOLE WINFIELD

ROME (AP) - Thousands of young people have flooded an ancient Roman field for an all-night prayer vigil honoring Pope John Paul II on the eve of his beatification, remembering his teachings, travels and his own suffering.

Pilgrims waving flags from Poland, Spain, Germany and Brazil on Saturday filled the Circus Maximus, which twinkled with the light of thousands of candles as choirs from John Paul's native Poland, the Philippines and Italy sang. They listened as a French nun who suffered from Parkinson's recounted how she was cured after praying to John Paul, who also battled the same disease.

The Vatican has decreed that Sister Marie Simone-Pierre's inexplicable healing was the miracle needed to beatify John Paul, a process that will reach its culmination Sunday during a Mass in St. Peter's Square celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI.

Benedict put John Paul on the fast-track for possible sainthood when he dispensed with the traditional five-year waiting period and allowed the beatification process to begin weeks after his April 2, 2005 death. Benedict was responding to chants of "Santo Subito" or "Sainthood Immediately" which erupted during John Paul's funeral.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20110501/D9MUBNK00.html

---

A faithful prays in St. Peter's Square, at the Vatican, Saturday, April 30, 2011, a day before late Pope John Paul II's beatification. Tens of thousands of people are converging on Rome for the beatification and many are expected to attend an all-night vigil in Rome's Circus Maximus. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. Why?

This asshole covered up years of child abuse

He is a saint? Bullshit.he was a conspirator in massive ci es and their cover ups.

That shit heads down to flames, not heaven.

[Lost-in-FL]

5. Hiding child abuse for so long would be considered a miracle. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. you got it in one.

Although family shame, pressure from the local priests, and all too often, denial of the facts seemed to keep the families quiet.

[Scairp]

2. Ok

This has been bugging me from the beginning. This asshole deserves nothing, no recognition, and there are no such things as saints anyway. Whatever my personal feelings, these things almost always take decades to investigate and decide if the person warrants sainthood. This guy has only been dead a few years. Such bullshit.

[naaman fletcher]

4. They are desperate to find miracles that he did.

I guess they have not considered the thousands who have succeeded in life despite being raped by his henchmen.

[Odin2005]

3. Patron Saint of Pedophiles.

[davidthegnome]

6. Wow, this is hostile

John Paul II was conservative - but about as progressive of a Pope as Catholics are likely to get. I definitely had some real disagreements with a lot of what he said, some real criticisms, but he was an overall decent man. As for covering up abuse - the Pope is the ultimate authority figure of the Catholic church (aside from God, for those who believe) but he does not have much power outside of Rome and even there his powers are limited. For the most part, popes are old men who are advised by other old men who are professional nuisances and very good at their jobs.

I don't like the Vatican, I'm not crazy about religious dogma or Catholic (or any sort of religious) doctrine. I don't see valid reasons for hating the man though - not for the amount of contempt he seems to be getting here.

He was a careful man - there were many things I wish he would have done that he never attempted, but he still did good things. It takes a certain kind of person to forgive someone for shooting them.

I don't care about the Sainthood business - the Dominicans and Inquisitors who were made saints sort of invalidates the whole thing for me. But JP II wasn't the monster some here seem to think he was.

(Edited for spelling. Oops.)

[emilyg]

7. I loved this Pope with all my heart.

[mysuzuki2]

9. why?

[DeadEyeDyck]

10. I am not a catholic so I don't have any skin in the game

but I am a little shocked at the vileness directed at him. Obviously this man meant a lot to many people. You would think that those that don't follow him would simply ignore the whole affair. If you are not Catholic, saints should only pertain to a New Orleans ball club.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. When people glorify individuals who have committed vile deeds

I pay attention.

[iverglas]

13. Should this work both ways then?

You would think that those that don't follow him would simply ignore the whole affair.

Too bad he didn't "ignore" things that are not the business of the Roman Catholic Church ... like politics in Poland, women's reproductive rights and health, and all of the other things he and his fellow travellers were and are constantly sticking their beaks into.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. No condoms for africa? Not a monster?

I cannot reconcile the two positions.

[davidthegnome]

15. What does he have to do with

condoms for Africa? My understanding is that he discouraged their use and distribution in general but also discouraged sex prior to marriage, regardless of protections used or not used. That's standard for a lot of conservatives - particularly religious conservatives. That doesn't make it right, but it is not as if he had the power to determine whether one would or would not use them.

Perhaps I missed something where he was able to deny their distribution or use altogether, rather than discouraging it and/or voicing his opinion against the use? He doesn't have that kind of power, as far as I'm aware. There may be some Catholics who consider his word to be absolute holy law... and therefor could be argued to be in his complete control... but I have yet to meet them.

He had plenty of opinions that I considered absurd and ignorant - but that does not make him a monster. I believe he did the best he could to follow his faith, as misguided as I may believe it to be.

[iverglas]

16. time to learn some modern history

got google?

The Vatican -- which inexplicably has official observer status at the UN and thus has a voice, although not a vote, in the deliberations of its agencies -- has long been a partner in an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Muslim states to derail any and all development initiatives that involve anything to do with contraception. And that's how it defines improving information about and access to condoms.

These search results should give you a start:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&biw=1024&bih=612&q=vatican+%22united+nations%22+beijing&btnG=Search

(Ratzinger seems to have moderated the stance on condoms quite recently, saying words to the effect of support for anything that stems the spread of HIV.)


I believe he did the best he could to follow his faith, as misguided as I may believe it to be.

Excuse me, but who the fuck cares?

I couldn't care less what someone's "faith" (RELIGION) is, or how well or otherwise they follow it.

The Vatican's interference in the lives of people over whom it has no jurisdiction, and who do NOT follow its "faith", is a matter of concern to me.

[freshwest]

17. Those search results have shocking details I didn't know. Thanks.

[iverglas]

19. you're welcome!

Next, we'll do "Mother" Teresa ... and then we can move on to the "Dalai Lama" ... ;)

[freshwest]

21. Already heard some dirt on the Dalai. But no use bringing it up, let the believers continue.

People are strange, and I oughta know, being one myself. I think.

But all kidding aside, there is something to be said for refusing to assign any one person with all blame, like a straw dog to be sacrificed when people change their minds.

All the people that we may dislike, left, right, religious, not, killers and saints, they don't act alone. They are not omnipotent.

It's their followers that will cut your tongue out for going against the object of their affection whatever they hold sacred, or for defending the object of their hatred or scorn. I've seen this in almost every human endeavor.

Talk with you later.

[iverglas]

20. a site that may be of interest

http://www.seechange.org/

[freshwest]

23. Thanks, I'll check that out. Did you see the Wikileak about the Vatican and Goldman Sachs, etc.?

It wasn't a secret, how the Vatican is involved in the money system. And it's been going on for centuries. I was stunned to further look it up and find a Wikipedia article on it. Hiding in plain sight, it just blew me away.

There's a guy here on DU from Sweden who has also referred us to things that it seems Americans are only recently finding out. About how the world is actually knit together and who has the real amount power. The kind of power that lies above and beyond governments. I'm not talking Illuminati conspiracy, it's just what is.

Right now I think those powers are letting us know about them since they've got most of the cards in their hands. I am hoping that all the things we're seeing now is part of the human race growing up.

[davidthegnome]

22. Very well, allow me to rephrase

I believe he did the best he could to do what he believed was right. I do not think he had the power to deny distribution or use of condoms. I do not think the Vatican has had that sort of power for a very long time. They play dirty political power games for the sake of a Church that is dying out and losing what little significance it still has.

JP II had influence - but not that much influence. I am aware of the fact that John Paul took a very conservative stance on the use of condoms. I do not think his stance really meant that much overall - I don't think all that many people really gave a damn what some old men in Rome had to say about the use of condoms in regards to morality or religion. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the Vatican was directly or indirectly responsible for making a terrible situation worse. It certainly didn't help - I can't argue that point - and it's for reasons like that that I left the Catholic church back when I did still believe in God.

While I appreciate your attempt to further my education, the condescension really isn't necessary. I can google just as well as you can, thanks.

[iverglas]

24. yeah, I saw it

I believe he did the best he could to do what he believed was right.

My response remains: who the fuck cares?

I don't care how someone else measures up to their own standards, or the standards of some authority they have chosen to recognize. I could not care less. I judge people's actions by my standards, not theirs. Don't you?

I do not think he had the power to deny distribution or use of condoms.

I do not think that anyone said he did that, or had the power to do that. Much straw, much?

I do not think his stance really meant that much overall - I don't think all that many people really gave a damn what some old men in Rome had to say about the use of condoms in regards to morality or religion. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the Vatican was directly or indirectly responsible for making a terrible situation worse.

Perhaps, as I suggested and even tried to make easy for you, you should speak from a knowledge of the facts, and not what you "think" or don't think.

[davidthegnome]

25. The implication is that

Some may have refrained from using condoms in response to the Vatican's stance on the issue, thereby worsening the epidemic. For the most part we have been arguing perspective rather than fact. Ignorant and self righteous fools within the Vatican (JP, in this case, among them) promoted their own agenda without regard for great suffering, for an epidemic that has claimed millions. I find that despicable regardless of what anyone's moral stance is - and I find it despicable that JP was so ignorant in this case. I don't think (as stated above, in response to another poster) that this makes him a monster.

Ignorant statements are just that - ignorant statements. I do speak from a knowledge of facts, I suspect we have read many of the same articles and lived through much of the same history in regards to this debate. My intent here, however, has not been to debate facts or even so much present them. Rather, my intent is to suggest that JP II was a decent man despite his flaws - a man who had much love and respect from people all over the world.

I judge people's actions by my standards, but only to an extent - because I am well aware that a lot of their standards differ greatly from mine - and mine are by no means absolute or absolutely right. I have a pretty good idea of what JP's moral standards were because I heard him speak of them (or read of them) quite frequently while he was alive. I'm familiar with the conservative argument that the wide distribution of condoms encourages people to be more reckless sexually. I think it's a load of shit - but I realize that that's what many actually believe. By their perspective they are doing what they believe is right, even if it is absurdly wrong from my point of view. I'll fight them on the issue, I'll call them out for it and get into shouting matches when the occasion calls for it - but they aren't monsters. They are people with a different perspective.

The greater argument - which could go on for a long time, is just how the situation was effected by the Vatican's stance and by their actions.

I believe however, that there are some people who are convinced John Paul took his conservative stance because he was an uncaring jerk. That simply isn't the case, he was someone who saw things differently.

With all of that being said... very few things in this world are absolute, if in fact anything at all is. I am someone who is always deeply suspicious of most "facts", for far too often I have seen them proven to be lies or distortions of the truth - and I don't even watch Fox news.


(Edited to correct a few typos I noticed. I'm sure I missed some.)

[iverglas]

26. No, that is not the implication

The implication is that
Some may have refrained from using condoms in response to the Vatican's stance on the issue, thereby worsening the epidemic.

Any chance you'd like to address what has actually been said (including by the suggestion that you avail yourself of some readily findable facts) and not of what you wish had been said?


Ignorant and self righteous fools within the Vatican

Self-righteous they may well be, but they are not and were not ignorant. They were and are knowingly evil.


Rather, my intent is to suggest that JP II was a decent man despite his flaws - a man who had much love and respect from people all over the world.

You are stating your opinion and the opinion of unnamed other people. My opinion, and the opinion of lots of other people, is that he was not a decent man, and was very far from being a decent man.

Once again: who the fuck cares? I really don't get this. The total number of people who love and respect someone is not of the slightest relevance to my judgment of the person, so you might want to not bother arguing this particular fallacy. Handiest reference for you:

http://scepticon.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/ad-populi/

The logical fallacy known as the argument from popularity or ad populi is one that pervades modern culture though is seldom recognized. The premise of this can be summed up as “Everyone else is doing it”, and is a subcategory of the argument from authority fallacy. Essentially this kind of reasoning is fallacious if it is used to try and prove or support the truth of a statement, proposition or practice based solely on the popularity of it. In other words it is the “Fifty Million Frenchmen can’t be wrong” sort of thinking.

By their perspective they are doing what they believe is right

Okay, one more time: I DON'T FUCKING CARE what they believe is right or whether they are doing what they believe is right. Honestly ... for the love of ... what is your point?? If you are saying that I must admire someone for doing things that they believe are right and I believe are purely evil, just say it, okay? Otherwise, every time you say that so-and-so does what they believe is right, I will say I DON'T FUCKING CARE, and the world will keep turning on its axis.


I believe however, that there are some people who are convinced John Paul took his conservative stance because he was an uncaring jerk. That simply isn't the case, he was someone who saw things differently.

And if that isn't just an opinion you have whipped up out of egg white and eye of newt, then you have some FACTUAL basis for saying it. So, is it an opinion or an assertion of fact?

As an assertion of fact: bzzt. As an opinion with no demonstrated (demonstrable?) basis: wtfc?



I am someone who is always deeply suspicious of most "facts", for far too often I have seen them proven to be lies or distortions of the truth

Oh. Well then. That settles that, I guess. I mean, I have no clue what it's meant to mean, but I guess it settles it.



typo fixed

[davidthegnome]

27. My point

I suppose my point has been to argue that John Paul was a good man who did bad things. At least that's how I've always seen him, maybe I'm wrong. I just can't understand why people dislike him so much, or see him as evil. Maybe I paid too much attention to the public face, or to my Mother, a Catholic who loved him very much - and no I'm not saying that means you have to admire him or that anyone else does. My Catholic upbringing probably plays a part in my desire to defend him, even though I am no longer Catholic.

I don't understand the great anger and dislike for him that I've seen - but I will make an effort to. For now, I bow to your superior knowledge and debating skill and am going to sleep.

[iverglas]

29. it isn't *wrong*

I suppose my point has been to argue that John Paul was a good man who did bad things. At least that's how I've always seen him, maybe I'm wrong.

It's an *opinion*, and those aren't right or wrong.

A judgment as to whether a person is "good" or "bad" is always merely an opinion. For discussion purposes, it serves no purpose, unless something is produced to back it up.

I may sum up my assessment of someone by saying they are "bad", but what I'm really saying is they did bad things. That's all that matters to me. There may be instances in which motives count, but then we have to know what they were.

There is no good motive for exerting pressure on public authorities for the purposes for which the RC church regularly exerts such pressure, on governments, doctors and others: maintaining the ban on divorce in Chile, preventing women from accessing reproductive health services everywhere in the world, forcing sexual abused children in various countries to endure pregnancies and childbirth, etc.

The RC church and its internal authorities wield influence in this world. They use it for evil purposes.


I don't understand the great anger and dislike for him that I've seen - but I will make an effort to.

It doesn't take a whole lot of effort, really. He was the leader of a viciously misogynistic organization, and he upheld and in fact intensified that misogyny, and made every effort to influence public policies the world over to reflect his and his organization's misogyny. That's my basic reason. Others' will be different.

[newspeak]

31. I don't agree

Pope John XXIII was more progressive and Pope John Paul I known as the "laughing pope" would have continued the church's path to progressivism. John Paul II was a conservative pope, and there are still questions about the vatican bank scandal and of course, the pedo cover up.

[iverglas]

32. and let's not forget Paul VI

and Vatican II. That was a pope I could get behind. ;) (Well, as popes go, eh?)

I was a Christian in the 60s, when ecumenism was the watchword of the day, and my very progressive church (the United Church of Canada) was behind him too.


http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

... 5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man's relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: "He who does not love does not know God" (1 John 4:8).

No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to "maintain good fellowship among the nations" (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15)

[enuegii]

8. Well, since JPII had the foresight to abolish the office of the Devil's Advocate,

I'm sure scratching up a couple of bona fide miracles will be a breeze.

[iverglas]

14. I liked this comment

by Massimo Faggioli, assistant professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn.

Pope John Paul II: deserving of sainthood, or of condemnation for ignoring sex abuse (Toronto Star)

Pope Benedict has also been criticized for his handling of sex abuse allegations when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he was John Paul’s enforcer of Catholic doctrine. But Faggioli argues that the troubled Church he now heads is very much the product of his predecessor.

So on Sunday, when the Catholic faithful watch Pope Benedict preside over the veneration of his predecessor, the ceremony will strike Faggioli as somewhat ironic: “The one who is left cleaning this mess has to beatify the one who created it.”

He explained:

The sexual abuse of children and adolescents by priests speaks directly to John Paul’s poor management of the church ... . The late pope left the running of parishes to bishops he appointed, who were “known more for their obedience and silence than for their intelligence or courage,” Faggioli says. They had an interest in covering up sex abuse by parish priests, fearing it would reflect badly on their management skills and hurt their careers, he adds.

“During his pontificate, John Paul clearly overlooked this,” Faggioli says of the sex abuse. “He did not pay attention, and gave too much power to cardinals and bishops.”

[davidthegnome]

18. Faggioli gives him undeserved credit

He didn't create this mess. Rather, this mess has been an epidemic within the Catholic church for centuries. The public has simply become far more aware in the last few decades. Though I think it has always been suspected by many.

I do not believe that John Paul ignored the abuse or was unaware of it. I believe that he was for the most part powerless to do a great deal about it. In theory, the Pope has ultimate Authority in the Catholic church - but only in theory. There are many he must speak to and live with and negotiate with. Given the history of the church, a Pope who makes waves that are too large can easily expect to find himself drowning in them. The vast majority of the Catholic faithful do not consider his word absolute holy law.

To be fair - John Paul could have done more, a lot more. I wish he had and have always been disappointed that he didn't. I don't think it's because he was heartless or didn't care. I think it's because he was overwhelmed by the problem.

That said - Ratzinger was never worthy of the position or the respect JP gave him. There's a reason they call him God's attack dog.

[boppers]

28. Ah, polytheism/monotheism.

Kind of funny how that circle turns.... it starts out with worship of a "god", then turns to worship of folks "like god", or "representatives of god", or "messengers of god" and the worshipers eventually get back to the roots of honoring hundreds of people as being godlike, in contrast to believing in only one "god".

Then somebody comes along, starts a new form of monotheism, and begins it all over again.