Pope John Paul II RIP

[Eggs]

Well, while this discussion has been interesting and all (riiight ), I'm going to go eat some food and watch a movie. Have fun, and dont scratch each others eyes out.

 

[Vieope]

fairy tale? in what way will their beliefs effect there critical thinking that would in turn effect you?

To begin, women that think premarital sex sucks..

 

[bio-chem]

To begin, women that think premarital sex sucks..

im sure you can find a catholic school girl that will put out for you, its not that hard.

 

[busyLivin]

To begin, women that think premarital sex sucks..

 

[Little Wing]

sadly his failings need to be addressed now. the church leaves little time to put a new pope in his seat and while some may not like it the catholic church has a lot of power in the world to decide standards of living for many. a new loved and powerful man will soon be telling the world who to love, who and what is evil and so on and so on. no one knows really one mans personal thoughts he could have secretly wished these abusive priests would drop dead. i am hoping the next pope will be more willing to put the one above the many when it comes to human suffering vs the church saving face. who can't find pity for an old man who's very path in life stands for wanting a better world, but to truly move toward one his areas of weakness matter a great deal when it is time to select his replacement.

 

[bio-chem]

Vieope 1 x 0 God

its not wise to get in a scoring contest with God. Remember your one man and God currently has about 6 billion children on the earth right now.

 

[Little Wing]

his biography


this is a nice site but if you are already saddened by his passing it is not easy to read of him being an active boy n so on. it makes for a melancholy read.

 

[Vieope]

its not wise to get in a scoring contest with God. Remember your one man and God currently has about 6 billion children on the earth right now.

Actually I deleted the post. Now that I read "catholic schoolgirls", that is just sick. But there are some women that want to be nuns, they are quite hot..

 

[Little Wing]

Smoke over the Vatican: Picking the pope

Tellers, tallies and antipopes

by John Christensen

(CNN) - There have been a number of methods for choosing a pope over the centuries since St. Linus, the second pope, replaced the apostle Peter -- St. Peter to Catholics -- in the year 67.

The first popes were chosen by local clergymen who lived near Rome, but kings, emperors and other interested bystanders have done what they could to influence the process as well. And there were times when those who were displeased with the outcome appointed their own man, who was known as the antipope.

But in 1059 Pope Nicholas II decreed that henceforth all papal electors must be cardinals, and in 1179 Pope Alexander III ruled that all cardinals would have an equal vote in the election.

In 1274, Pope Gregory X decided that the cardinals must meet within 10 days of a pope's death, and that they should be kept in strict seclusion until a pope was chosen.

By the late 1500s, most of the electoral procedures now used were in place.

The pope can be elected by one of three methods. A unanimous voice vote is permissible, as is the unanimous selection by the cardinals of a 9- to 15-member committee, which then must agree on a pope.

Tellers and tallies

ALSO Who's Waiting in the Wings
Potential Popes: Profiles The most common method, however, is election by ballot, which works as follows:



<li> When the pope dies, the dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals notifies the cardinals and calls a meeting -- always held in the morning -- that must begin no more than 20 days after the pope's death.

<li> The cardinals draw lots to select three members to collect ballots from the infirm, three "tellers" to count the votes and three others to review the results.

<li> Blank ballots are then prepared and distributed.

<li> After writing the name of one man on his ballot, each of the approximately 120 active cardinals -- those under 80 years of age -- walks to an altar and pledges to perform his duty with integrity. He then places his ballot in a container which is covered by a plate.

<li> After all votes are cast, the tellers tally the ballots and the result is read to the cardinals.

<li> If there is no winner, another vote is taken. If there is still no winner, two more votes are scheduled for the afternoon.

<li> After the votes are counted each time, the ballots are burned. If there has been no winner, a chemical is mixed with the ballots to produce black smoke when they are burned. Sight of the black smoke emerging from the roof of the Vatican Palace tells those waiting in St. Peter's Square that a pope has not yet been selected. When a winner has been selected, the ballots are burned alone, and the white smoke indicates there is a new pope.

<li> Traditionally, the winner had to garner two-thirds of the vote plus one, but John Paul II changed that in 1996. He ruled that if, after 12 or 13 days there is still no winner, the conclave could invoke a rule -- by majority vote -- that would permit the selection of the pope by an absolute majority.

<li> Once there is a winner, the pope-elect is asked if he accepts the decision. (Pope John Paul II reportedly accepted his election with tears in his eyes.) If he does, the dean asks what name he chooses and announces it to the cardinals, who then come forward to offer congratulations.

<li> The oldest cardinal then steps out on a balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square and says to the crowd, "Habemus papam" -- "We have a pope." He then introduces the pope, who steps out on the balcony to bless Rome and the world.

Many popes have been formally installed with a coronation, but Pope John Paul II refused a coronation and was installed as the pope during a Mass in St. Peter's Square.

 

[Little Wing]

who's next?

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn

Cardinal Bernardin Gantin

Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Cardinal Camillo Ruini

Cardinal Pio Laghi

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray

Cardinal Francis Arinze

Cardinal Angelo Sodano

Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi

Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez

Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos

Cardinal Godfried Danneels

 

[crazy_enough]

A lot actually, since I am surrounded by catholics. How can I trust their critical thinking when they believe in fairy tales?

WOW, those are absolutely, totally and exacly the words that I never found to express I how feel....Evolution is far fetched, but not the catholic story...

When will the vatican realize that giving birth to an unwanted child "thru" rape is evil...?Even worst is knowing that one will not be able to provide appropriate love and care for this child once it is born, however conception took place!
When will the vatican realize that it is more evil for a person to remain in a loveless relationship, where lack of attraction and affection dominate, than to love a person of the same sex?
When will the vatican realize that relocating and protecting child molesters is evil? That not allowing females to "priesthood" is pure evil discrimination...So many "evils" never condemned by the catholic church...

 

[Vieope]

who's next?

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/4086/sort/1/cat/500/page/1

 

[Shae]

^ You wish!

 

[PreMier]

RIP Pope John Paul II.

 

[Vieope]

RIP Pope John Paul II.

RIP. RIP..
It is not like he is going to be buried standing up.

 

[ZAGLOBA]

you're way off base. i have nothing at all against catholics. never have. it is very sad that many now carry a wound upon their faith inflicted by their own church. many no longer attend services, many priests with no mark whatsoever on their honor are looked upon with suspicion. good men who would serve their entire lives to better the lives of those less fortunate turn away from the priesthood because it has been stained. stained by nothing more than greed. money, power, pride... these were treasure more valuable to the powerful in the church than the human rights of children. there are countless catholics who still attend church regularly and rest assured they keep a close eye on their sons. i do not care if you are black , white or purple a baptist, catholic or jew if you are in a position where you have the power to protect innocent children and you for any reason fail to do so it should damn well be remembered and the rain of roses when you die should be halted in rememberance of your failing. he was a good enough man to call this a sin and to hope these men would move on and not bring further shame to the church but make no mistake about it he was a powerful enough man to set a zero tolerance standard and he failed to do so. my anger is nothing compared to the anger of countless catholics.

WHY don't you just admit that you are a Catholic HATER just like millions of other americans? You are starting to give single accounts of sodomy and child molestation as if the Pope was supposed to stop these. Additionally, how do you know that the American Bishops reported these infractions and crimes to the Pope? they may have kept it in their archdiocese. I think you are faulting the wrong person.

 

[PreMier]

I was just showing my condolences.. dont disrespect

 

[Little Wing]

WHY don't you just admit that you are a Catholic HATER just like millions of other americans? You are starting to give single accounts of sodomy and child molestation as if the Pope was supposed to stop these. Additionally, how do you know that the American Bishops reported these infractions and crimes to the Pope? they may have kept it in their archdiocese. I think you are faulting the wrong person.

i have by marriage been part of two large, italian, very roman catholic families. i am far from being a catholic hater. but any power that provides or has a history of providing a shield for men who commit egregious crimes against children warrents a watchful eye turned toward it. if you think not then pity the positions your children find themselves in because you blindly accept the coddeling of criminals as somehow an excusable act. it is well documented that the vatican was well aware of the molestation problems for many years before policy even began to change. do you think the catholic church was paying out settlement money to families without answering to the vatican? and i said a watchful eye not a hateful one there is a world of difference. i hate the fact that adults use children for sex, not catholics or the pope.

 

[kbm8795]

Great sources there, a google search that isnt actually pointing to him actually calling gay evils, but calling the lifestyle evil.

Oh, and pointing to gay.com. Now thats not going to be a biased source!

Lets be realistic, the Pope wasnt saying that Gays were evil people... that they should be burned at the stake, or whatever else you could think of. He's saying that according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, and in that, sin is evil.

Actually, gay.com generally gleans their news items from reputable sources, including the Associated Press, Reuters and the two leading gay news organizations. A story reported in an alternative press that isn't always carried as "news" in the "mainstream" press doesn't make it inherently biased.
It would be natural for that source to have an interest in news items that relate specifically to their audience.

 

[Eggs]

RIP. RIP..
It is not like he is going to be buried standing up.

Now I know why those Catholic girls want nothing to do with you

 

[Eggs]

Actually, gay.com generally gleans their news items from reputable sources, including the Associated Press, Reuters and the two leading gay news organizations. A story reported in an alternative press that isn't always carried as "news" in the "mainstream" press doesn't make it inherently biased.
It would be natural for that source to have an interest in news items that relate specifically to their audience.

Of course they are unbiased... only Christian sources are biased, right KBM? Gay sites would never do that.

We've been here and discussed this. If you accept Gay.com as a non-biased source of your news, then you obviously shouldnt criticize anybody else on what their sources are. Dont hold people to different standards as it suits you, its unbecoming.

Regardless, I dont really feel like arguing with you right now or getting into that in this thread. Lets let it drop.

 

[kbm8795]

Of course they are unbiased... only Christian sources are biased, right KBM? Gay sites would never do that.

Nice try, but you apparently don't understand the meaning of bias or its application by a news organization. A story isn't biased if it is a complete report with attribution relating to a subject of particular interest to an audience. Bias would indicate that the reporter (or, in this case, the author of a well-recognized book on religion and gays) would deliberately mislead the reader, leave out relevant information, or falsely report information...kinda like Faux News' premature announcement that the Pope was dead. Merely publishing the story in a gay publication doesn't make the story itself biased. The only gatekeeping procedure for gay news sources would be that the story be about gay citizens. That would be in keeping with their audience. A source doesn't lack credibility because it reports news to its audience - it lacks credibility when it consistently slants the news and/or alters it within many stories.
I'll ignore your remark about christian sources being biased until you have a better idea of what the term means in application to journalism standards.
[/

We've been here and discussed this. If you accept Gay.com as a non-biased source of your news, then you obviously shouldnt criticize anybody else on what their sources are. Dont hold people to different standards as it suits you, its unbecoming.

Obviously, you don't know much about media bias or how to apply it in looking at different types of articles in different publications. Assuming that the gay press is somehow practicing the same editorial policies as worldnetdaily or The Washington Times is naive.

Regardless, I dont really feel like arguing with you right now or getting into that in this thread. Lets let it drop.

There is no argument on this sort of issue. Minotaur didn't use an inherently biased source.

 

[Eggs]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1945056.stm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050401/ts_alt_afp/vaticanpopeus_050401163002

So let me get this straight. Pretty soon after this crap really started in ernest (2002 some time, though previous cases exist in limited numbers), the Pope called the leaders of the Church in the US and basically laid out the rules for them and criticised them for what was going on. Now, while he didn't physically go over there and try to wring each persons neck, he did tell the people actually responsible for the matter that they needed to shape up. That would be kind of like the US going over to one of its territories and telling all the locals that they needed to change their laws. If Washington wanted something done, dont you think they would approach the leaders over there? Or should they send in troops and force the people to do so?

See, the Cardinals are responsible for everything that is happening over here... and while the Pope has been informed, its not his job to micromanage everthing going on in Catholicism. His job is to provide direction. Lets say I was a CEO of a company, you'd be telling me that I should fire all my VPs and what not and do their job myself. Or go down to the factory and box stuff up.

So while I've already said that he could possibly do something more, and in hindsight he might have, I dont think that you know a lick of how to run a business, much less a country and a religion.

and say, if we are going to allow sources like Gay.com, then lets have at it:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html

and the most reliable source I've come across so far.. oh wait, is it making fun of Mormons?

http://www.nutimesnewroman.neu.edu/v3i4/pederast.html

 

[Eggs]

You're so obviously biased yourself it is rediculous. I can pretty much guess what you're going to say, obvious as can be. I mean, for gods sake you're fucking off your rocker.

Lets see some organizations they use for their information:

Their main source is PlanetOut Network, but checking that out I see they reference some articles from Gay.com.

Regardless, what you are saying is that an organization that has an inherent interest in something isnt going to provide information thats biased in the direction they want it to appear. This isnt always easy to see, but it can be evident in as much as the fact that they will choose articles from agencies that only support what they are saying. They arent trying to get a rounded view, and they arent trying to have people be open minded, they want people to follow what they are preaching. It happens on Christian web sites, and it certainly happens on homosexual web sites. Even if you want to believe differently.

I'm pretty disappointed... I thought that you did actually have standards when it came to utilizing non-biased sources. You do, but apparently only when they affirm what you want to hear.

 

[Eggs]

Oh, and btw, I think I've seen my share of enough guys bodies after checking out those sites. I think that CNN should put some pics of some half naked chics up, then they'd appear more professional.

 

[kbm8795]

The issue isn't about this as something that only happens here - there is no reason to believe this hasn't been repeated (and subsequently covered up) in many other nations as well. Unfortunately, it seems like the situation has its roots directly in church teachings about celibacy and the expectation that a gay Catholic can only be in the graces if they are celibate, too. One of the issues the Church has is that it is difficult to attract heterosexual men to the priesthood because of the celibacy factor. I would consider the Pope was aware of that issue, especially since the number of priests in our country continues to decline.

This shouldn't take away from his accomplishments, however. He came from a nation that was ruled by a communist dictatorship, survived the Nazi occupation of his homeland, and helped challenge Soviet domination over Eastern Europe. He apologized for historical transgressions against Muslims and other religions, and even embraced the Palestinian movement for independence. And he also reached out to young people more readily than any other Pope in the last century. As with any man, he isn't perfect...and his railings against same-sex marriage (particularly targeting Spain and Canada) indicated how little he reached out to those people within his own church. Still, his job was to support and defend the teachings of a religion in a rapidly changing world.

 

[kbm8795]

You're so obviously biased yourself it is rediculous. I can pretty much guess what you're going to say, obvious as can be. I mean, for gods sake you're fucking off your rocker.

Somehow your musings don't indicate much reliability on that opinion - but it would help if you'd learn how to spell ridiculous.

Lets see some organizations they use for their information:

Their main source is PlanetOut Network, but checking that out I see they reference some articles from Gay.com.

Since you obviously haven't performed a content analysis study of their news sources over an extended period of time, you don't really know that it is their main source. However, planetout.com uses some wire service news reports and they file field reports. Again, that doesn't indicate any bias except in choosing to report news that pertains to the gay community and that was what Minotaur was writing about.

It is kinda fun to think you were rushing that mouse around trying to support your statement, though - kudos for that willingness to learn something.


Regardless, what you are saying is that an organization that has an inherent interest in something isnt going to provide information thats biased in the direction they want it to appear. This isnt always easy to see, but it can be evident in as much as the fact that they will choose articles from agencies that only support what they are saying. They arent trying to get a rounded view, and they arent trying to have people be open minded, they want people to follow what they are preaching. It happens on Christian web sites, and it certainly happens on homosexual web sites. Even if you want to believe differently.

Uh...that would pertain to places like worldnetdaily and The Washington Times...and most certainly to publications related to places like the Traditional Values Coalition. You cannot judge reliability solely on the basis of the selection of news articles for a special interest publication - you judge it more clearly on the basis of what those articles are about and how they are produced and what inherent editorial biases are contained within the selection and the copy. In this case, the only editorial bias you can cite as making a source unreliable is that it appeared in a gay publication.

I'm pretty disappointed... I thought that you did actually have standards when it came to utilizing non-biased sources. You do, but apparently only when they affirm what you want to hear.

Don't be such a slave to your emotions.

 

[kbm8795]

Oh, and btw, I think I've seen my share of enough guys bodies after checking out those sites. I think that CNN should put some pics of some half naked chics up, then they'd appear more professional.

Maybe you should have looked for the news stories instead of the entertainment section.

 

[Eggs]

The issue isn't about this as something that only happens here - there is no reason to believe this hasn't been repeated (and subsequently covered up) in many other nations as well. Unfortunately, it seems like the situation has its roots directly in church teachings about celibacy and the expectation that a gay Catholic can only be in the graces if they are celibate, too. One of the issues the Church has is that it is difficult to attract heterosexual men to the priesthood because of the celibacy factor. I would consider the Pope was aware of that issue, especially since the number of priests in our country continues to decline.

Whether something happens here or abroad does not in any way indicate that the Pope knows about it, or that he can have any direct impact on it.

The majority of priests do not abuse children. So while there are priests that are abusers, there are many others that are not. I personally believe that priests should be allowed to have families, and that will have the greatest impact on lowering child molestation. That isnt something that you change overnight though, certainly not in something so entrenched as the priesthood. I dont disagree that the number of priests is in a decline, but I would attribute that as much to the modern man as to anything else.

This shouldn't take away from his accomplishments, however. He came from a nation that was ruled by a communist dictatorship, survived the Nazi occupation of his homeland, and helped challenge Soviet domination over Eastern Europe. He apologized for historical transgressions against Muslims and other religions, and even embraced the Palestinian movement for independence. And he also reached out to young people more readily than any other Pope in the last century. As with any man, he isn't perfect...and his railings against same-sex marriage (particularly targeting Spain and Canada) indicated how little he reached out to those people within his own church. Still, his job was to support and defend the teachings of a religion in a rapidly changing world.

And to that I dont disagree with anything... and in many ways that was what my original angst was about when people began saying rude things about him. The man just died, we can at least give him a couple days in peace before attacking his character (not that Kbm did ever). Nothing is going to change in that time, and I think that it is important to respect other people and their beliefs.

I think the Pope took over the Catholic Church in troubled times, and he was doing a great job, but with the tremendous problems that suddenly arose from these scandals.

 

[Flex]

but any power that provides or has a history of providing a shield for men who commit egregious crimes against children warrents a watchful eye turned toward it. if you think not then pity the positions your children find themselves in because you blindly accept the coddeling of criminals as somehow an excusable act.

So do you hate all white people for what they did to blacks for centuries?