why I LIKE this pope

i'm not a catholic, not even a christian, more like an atheist, but i've always liked pope john paul the second.

why? i am not even sure, i like his multlingualism, his many many travels, the palpable adoration of him by his followers. he's definitely been one of the most unusual popes in all history.

i figure if so many thousands of people can love one little old man like they do, he must be a good guy.

frankly, i'll miss this pope.

That one was just to much. Some how I never trusted that one. It seems to me he did something wrong with Hitler and all that crazy group, but I do not re-call now what I read, it has been so many years. I have just kept the dis-like of the man in my mind. Very un-fair of me I guess.

She was brought up in the Church and did not like him either and always calls him that, so it is sort of a joke with us. It was Pius and I could not re-call if that or Paul was his name.. The Pope after was John Paul I think and it was just a short time.He always seemed like a very good man to me.

Not Paul VI, who, while he got it wrong big time with Humane Vitaae,
did support Liberation Theology and put much of Vatican II into actual practice(John XXIII having been the pope who actually called for the Countil.)

Yeah he was not my favorite either, despite Vatican 2 coming on his watch.

I look at Popes the way Jews look at Popes. "Is he good for the Jews?"

Well, Paul never struck me as a warm fuzzy let's love our Jewish neighbors, not tell their kids they're going to Hell and deny any complicity in the Holocaust.

But this Pope has vastly improved Ecumenical relations not just with Jews, but with Protestant and also with the Eastern Churches. He traveled all over the world, to Africa to Asia to places Popes never went before. I believe that he is the first Pope ever to into a synagogue and a mosque.

He cares about poverty & war - issues that degrade the lives of millions of people, Catholic, non - catholic, praticitioners of indigenous faiths.

I believe he has made mistakes of course particularly the sex abuse scandal cover up and there are issues with which I will never agree with the Catholic Church. But I'm not Catholic.

But I do think that he is a decent man and that his heart if you will is in the right place. He set of religious beliefs is what it is, It's not my place to judge those anymore than it is his place to tell me I'm not getting into Heaven (Although he doesn't say that he says Jews are brothers in the Covenant, a statue no other Pope has or is likely to attribute to us in the future.


So I hope his end is peaceful and that whoever succeeds him as Pope will have some of his curiosity and openess to other faiths and cultures and that his message of Peace will someday come to pass.

Its just something people say. They respect the institution, and as the head of that institution they equate their religion with him. From my experience most people don't even know much about the pope, or what he's done differently in the office compared to others.

So, you're wrong.

I love the Pope because he is/was an advocate for humanity.
I love the Pope because he is/was an advocate for economic justice.
I love the Pope because he confronts/ed predatory world powers.
I love the Pope because he would hug ANY HUMAN BEING in spite of his strict adherence to certain moral rules.
I love the Pope because he used his power to reach out to others rather than destroy them (with HATE or GUNS or BOMBS or incitement of violence).
I love the Pope because he did the very best he could with what he had to positively influence this world.


I am a "deist", a person with faith and no religion. I LOVE the Pope and I take a stand for him and his life.

That was truly beautiful. Thank you for that. :)

I can't stand some of the things he's done.

But I give him credit for standing with Lech Walesa at the perfect time when Solidarity was striking and they brought down the Warsaw Pact.

I give Pope John Paul more credit for defeating communism than I'd ever give Reagan.

He's a staunch supporter of the just war doctrine, against the death penalty and in favor of helping the poor throughout the world.

Sadly when it comes to issues of gender, reproduction and sexuality, Pope John Paul has been a strict conservative.

I doubt very much if his replacement will be any more to my liking, though as a Catholic who has left the Church over its intransigence on these issues, I would love to see a softening of its stand.

liberation theology at every turn. He has NOT changed the church's support for the death penalty, in some cases.

And there would be a helluva lot fewer poor people to help if they were allowed to use birth control.

He is not a liberal.

There is no excuse for condoms and AIDS. Just flat wrong.

BUT, think of the psychology of natural family planning. Theoretically. Every male knows that not having children and abstaining several days a month is a natural, normal part of sexual relations. Every male. Accepts that. It's not just something SHE has to take care of, the male does too. He views sex differently. He learns self control. He learns there's more to a relationship than sex.

Is that a bad thing for women?

Is it possible, just remotely possible, that teen birth skyrocketed since the pill because of WHO is reponsible for birth control???

is nonsense.It simply doesn't work. There's no reliable way, short of very modern medical measures, to know when a woman is ovulating, or how long before or after it is "safe" to have sex.

But it does work, and with modern medical measures, it's even more effective. Why would basal thermometers, etc., work for women getting pregnant, and not for women who don't want to get pregnant? Granted, birth control pills are alot easier and for all practical purposes, no real difference to intent, in my mind. But there's some psychological benefits to rhythm that the pill misses.

I take it you agree with the rest of the post?

third-world women don't have the equipment or training to monitor their ovulation.

Saying the Rhythm method is "not 100%" is an understatement. For many women with irregular periods, it is entirely useless. Even for a woman with very consistent periods and ovulation, if the method is used meticulously, it is 92% effective. That means at the very best, 8 women out of a hundred will get pregnant EVERY YEAR among those using the method. So over 13 years, statistically, EVERY woman would face an unwanted pregnancy. And that's if the method were used perfectly.

And no, I don't agree with the rest of your post.

How effective are other birth control methods? All of them are in the 90%. Which means out of 100 sexual encounters, 1-10 girls are going to get pregnant. What a delightful thing to forget to tell women as well. Why do you think the abortion rates are so high?

Changing views about sexual responsiblity, wouldn't want to do that.

and 92% was the very highest claim for effectiveness. Others I saw were 75% and 87%, again, when used meticulously for women with regular periods.

By contrast, perfect use of the Pill is 99.5 to 99.9% effective. Norplant is 99.5% effective. An IUD is 98.5% effective.

The rhythm method requires abstention from sex for 10 days per month surrounding ovulation. Then, if one presumes 3-5 days for the period itself, it requires that 50% of the time, sex is out of the question. It's a silly way to deal with family planning.

The notion that the rhythm method is somehow "sexual responsibility" is equally silly.

The Pill isn't that effective, because people make mistakes with it. I'm not even arguing against birth control anyway. I've already said that.

What I said, which you won't discuss, is that the pscyhology behind rhythm CHANGES the sexual relationship and thereby CHANGES the basis of a relationship. AND that if men were raised with complete acceptance for their responsiblity to NOT cause pregnancies and exercise restraint, it would increase respect for women and reduce their economic hardship. That it is a GOOD thing for a religion to teach.

the perfect-use statistics for ALL forms of birth control. The site that gave the other statistics had a 87% perfect-use rate for rhythm.

I simply disagree with you on the rhythm method. I don't think it's a reasonable approach, and I don't agree with you that preventing people from having sex is necessarily a good thing.

Telling other people when or how they should have sex is the height of busy-body-ness. Better people than you or I have tried to get for millennia to get others to adjust their sexuality to their liking, without success.

Even among the pilgrims in Plymouth Colony, 1 out of 5 marriages involved a pregnant woman. That extrapolates to a 30%-50% rate of pre-marital sex. Among Pilgrims. In Plymouth.

You know, I wasn't advocating the rhythm method. I was explaining the pscyhology beind it. It makes sense to me. In fact, it's what I raised my kids with, male and female. That they better think about the very real possibility of a baby when they have sex, and that the other parent may well be in their life forever and ever and ever, as a result. I also was crazed about birth control. So far we have no unplanned pregnancies and excuse me for thinking that's a good thing. I think talking honestly about responsible sex AND birth control is the way to go.

I'm just pointing out the psychology behind the Church's teaching on sex and marriage and babies, because I don't think people understand it. And I don't expect any church to say "made a mistake on that sex and marriage" thing, any time soon.

Pope Sergius III

<snip>
One of the worst popes in history, his reign begins the era known as the pornocracy or the rule of the harlots, the darkest period in the history of the papacy. His mistress Marozia was the mother of Pope John XI, the aunt of Pope John XIII, and the grandmother of Pope Benedict VI. In addition to Christopher, he killed Pope Leo V in order to obtain the throne, and once in power he had the body of Formosus exhumed, tried, found guilty, and beheaded.
</snip>

"Pornocracy?" WTF kind of government is that (and how does one get elected to office)? :D

i've kept up with him, and i remember the two previous popes.

oh yeah, back then, it was GOOD to be the pope, as mel brooks would say.

but when I sang for the Papa back in '87, he didn't complain. :D

What would you think if I sang out of tune,
Would you stand up and walk out on me.
Lend me your ears and I’ll sing you a song,
And I’ll try not to sing out of key.

I get by with a little help from my friends,
I get high with a little help from my friends,
Going to try with a little help from my friends... :)

(not that I don't believe you, but it IS April 1st...;))

But it rained while I was singing, and I got soaking wet... I must've looked foolish. :+

:thumbsup:

I remember when the dude played his guitar for the Pope, using only his feet - that was very impressive.

Miami Orange Bowl. It was a beautiful spiritual day. I came as close to him as one commoner could hope, maybe 25 feet away. I was in awe, for sure. Viva!! Papa!

Pope Sergius III

Date of birth unknown; consecrated 29 Jan., 904; d. 14 April, 911. He was a Roman of noble birth and the son of Benedict. He became a strong upholder of the party opposed to Pope Formosus; as this party was not ultimately successful, the writings of its supporters, if they ever existed, have perished. Hence, unfortunately, most of our knowledge of Sergius is derived from his opponents. Thus it is by an enemy that we are told that Sergius was made Bishop of Caere by Formosus in order that he might never become Bishop of Rome. However, he seems to have ceased to act as a bishop after the death of Formosus, and was put forward as a candidate for the papacy in 898. Failing to secure election, he retired, apparently to Alberic, Count of Spoleto. Disgusted at the violent usurpation of the papal throne by Christopher, the Romans threw him into prison, and invited Sergius to take his place. Sergius at once declared the ordinations conferred by Formosus null; but that he put his two predecessors to death, and by illicit relations with Marozia had a son, who was afterwards John XI, must be regarded as highly doubtful. These assertions are only made by bitter or ill-informed adversaries, and are inconsistent with what is said of him by respectable contemporaries. He protected Archbishop John of Ravenna against the Count of Istria, and confirmed the establishment of a number of new sees in England. Because he opposed the errors of the Greeks, they struck his name from the diptychs, but he showed his good sense in declaring valid the fourth marriage of the Greek emperor, Leo VI. Sergius completely restored the Lateran Basilica, but he was buried in St. Peter's.
>
>
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13729a.htm

And here's from Wikipedia, where that term "pornocracy" is also mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sergius_III

pnorman
On edit: to avoid confusion, the "dude above" was in reference to Pope Sergius III. There were TWELVE Pope, including Sergius, who reigned during that "Pornocracy"
http://www.answers.com/topic/pornocracy

I will be sad when he's gone.

I dont' care for his dogma. but he's a brave guy show has helped a lot of people socially.

Redstone

I just don't get why people wouldn't want to see an old sick man go to his rest.
I've got 12 years of catholic school behind me and it just seems ridiculous that anyone who really believes the doctrine of the church - especially the pope - would want to hold on here and not go to meet his maker.
I am not a believer - and I am no fan of this or any pope or religion who can't see that woman are people too and deserving of equal rights- and until they start speaking out against war and poverty with the same gusto they speak out against gays, abortion and healthy sexuality - they do not speak for me.
But let the guy go - why do people want him to hold on - for what? he's old and sick and deserves a rest.

state. Just this week he was at his window waving to the faithful. He still seems to have so much life and we love him for it.

let him retire. (And yeah, I know that's not how it works) Years ago. He hasn't looked like he's been enjoying himself up there--- for quite a long while.

???

should be home in bed.

Other than that, to me, he's just another very old man in a very large hat. I hope his passing is peaceful, but at his age it's hardly a tragedy.

if he had publically come out against Bush. While other American catholic church leaders were standing behind Bush, the Pope did not back the Catholic canidate. To me that was the ugliest part of the election. Far too many of my catholic family voted for Bush. I can feel my Kennedy loving grandmother spinning in the grave.

Just what Kerry would've needed...an endorsement from ROME...feed right into the right wing Christian thing about Catholics being beholden to the Pope. And liberals would have been up in arms about religious interference in the campaign. Sounds like a lose - lose situation here.

That was very impressive to me. I guess many of us, probably myself included, wouldn't have been in that same situation without a good horsewhip. You hear all this talk and the anagram WWJD. Well, in this instance JP2 probably did exactly what I think Jesus would have done.

It's probably hard to believe especially these last few years but I thought it was really cool to have a pope as active as JP2 was when he first started his papacy. Like others I though he played a huge roll in the thawing of the cold way.

I will miss him. I didn't agree with some of the things he did but I thought he was a fine man.

.

He was always reaching out.

That gives him a lot of credo.
He helped end the Iron Curtain with his solidarity with the strikers in Poland.
He's against the death penalty in most cases.

Those are things that made a difference.

As for the other stuff, I don't agree with his positions, but he's the Pope and can certainly believe what he wants to.

I think he's been a good one, overall.

Disclaimer: Not a catholic, raised a protestant, now I suppose an agnostic.