home
RSS
July 2nd, 2013
02:55 PM ET

Vatican: Pope John Paul II close to sainthood

By Hada Messia and Brian Todd, CNN

Rome (CNN) - The Catholic Church is on the verge of declaring late Pope John Paul II a saint, a Vatican source familiar with the process told CNN on Tuesday.

The committee that considers candidates for sainthood voted Tuesday to credit the late pope with a second miracle, the source said, asking not to be named discussing internal Vatican deliberations.

It is not clear which of several miracles under consideration would be credited to the late pope. Pope Francis must now sign off on the decision before it is official.

John Paul was pope from 1978 until his death in 2005, and was essentially the first rock star pontiff – drawing vast crowds as he criss-crossed the globe.

At his funeral, thousands of pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square chanted "Santo Subito" - Sainthood Now!

The Polish-born pope was fast-tracked to beatification when he died in 2005, and became "the blessed" John Paul II barely six years after his death - the fastest beatification in centuries.

"For an institution that typically thinks in centuries, this is remarkably quick," said CNN Vatican analyst John Allen.

There are essentially three steps to becoming a Catholic saint after death.

First, the title "venerable" is formally given by the pope to someone judged to have exhibited "heroic virtues." Secondly, a miracle must be attributed to the deceased person's intervention. Canonization – or sainthood – requires a second attributed miracle.

In 2010, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI approved John Paul's first reported miracle: a French nun cured of Parkinson's disease.

Sister Marie-Simon-Pierre, a nun whose order prayed to the pope after he died, said she was cured of the disease, an ailment that also afflicted John Paul.

The second miracle reportedly occurred in Costa Rica, where a woman said she recovered from a severe brain injury thanks to the intervention of John Paul, Vatican sources told Allen.

Patrick Kelly, executive director of the Blessed John Paul II Shrine in Washington, explained the church's process for investigating reported miracles.

"A team of doctors first examine the miracle. Secondly, the team of theologians look at the miracles and then they discuss amongst themselves the legitimacy and all the facts surrounding the miracles," he said.

The record for the fastest canonization is modern times is St. Jose-Maria Escriva, the Spanish-born founder of Opus Dei, a Catholic order of laypeople and saints dedicated to finding God in daily life. Escriva was made a saint 27 years after his death.

John Paul could shatter that record.

But there are critics who say, not so fast on canonization.

Despite being beloved, John Paul didn't live up to expectations at a crucial moment in the church's history, as sexual abuse scandals involving thousands of Catholic priests erupted across the world, critics say.

In the United States alone, nearly 17,000 people have come forward with abuse claims and the church has paid $2.6 billion in settlements, therapy bills, lawyers fees and expenses related to removing priests from ministry, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Eight American dioceses have declared bankruptcy as a result of sexual abuse claims against its priests.

"The rap against John Paul in terms of the sex abuse scandals is basically that this stuff metasticized during his papacy - and he didn't respond adequately to it," said Allen.

Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl defended the late pope, saying "his ministry was so clearly a ministry for everyone."

"Now when you're presiding over a worldwide church with over a billion members, surely there are going to be things that happen over which you don't have a lot of control - or maybe no control," Wuerl said.

In any case, the cardinal and other Catholic leaders say the measure of a saint is not the list of accomplishments or setbacks – but how holy the person was.

CNN's Daniel Burke contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Christianity • Opinion

soundoff (685 Responses)
  1. bostontola

    As an atheist, the RCC should be able to choose who gets into their Hall of Fame. Scientists, writers, etc. get Nobel Prizes. They get to create the criteria and make the judgments. Who cares?

    July 3, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • jazzguitarman

      Who said the RCC shouldn't have a right to decide who is a saint. NO ONE. But people can point out the folly and immaturity of the entire process.

      July 3, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
  2. My Dog is a Jealous Dog

    I believe that everything with html is going through moderation – it appears that CNN has figured out that some bloggers have been able to post "naughty" words by using html to get around the filter. My guess is that they are in no way interested in the content of the posting as long as you don't use a bad word.

    July 3, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      If you guess that no one is interested in the content of your posting, you are probably making a safe bet.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • My Dog is a Jealous Dog

      I am sorry that I offended you with my post speculating as to why so many are having their posts go into moderation.

      I guess the content of my posting was so controversial that you had to respond – even though I have not commented on a single one of your postings today. You don't ordinarily "strike out" at people that are not actively calling you an idiot for trying to justify the RCC's cover-ups, but you did open yourself up to it. Your contention that the RCC is OK because s3xual abuse of children happens elsewhere is disingenuous and quite frankly evil. Go suck on that.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • Akira

      Projecting again, Bill?

      July 3, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
    • AE

      From the Editor

      "I see a lot of you have back-and-forth conversations that have little to do with the article itself. Which is fine. Have at it.

      But I also see a lot of crudely worded personal attacks. Surely you can do better.

      Those of you who continue to use foul language to criticize fellow commenters will be reported as abusive and eventually banned. A lot of you sound like really smart people – let's try to keep this a positive space to have much-needed and sharp debates."

      July 3, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • *

      My Dog is a Jealous Dog,

      Your html guess is *possibly* a reason, but I used none of it in my immediate "awaiting moderation" post earlier.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
    • AE

      My first couple of posts said: "Your comment is awaiting moderation."

      I've kept my same name and e-mail and haven't seen it again.

      Have you been changing your "name"?

      July 3, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • Akira

      I had a few posts go into moderation because I inadvertently used c-o-n in my e-mail addy rather than c-o-m. Other than that, I've used html repeatedly on some posts and had no problem whatsoever, once I corrected my e-mail addy.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • My Dog is a Jealous Dog

      I don't bother with html and I the only cussing I have done was calling someone a "bumba clot" – so I have not had any problems posting today. I am not sure I believe that AE is really forwarding a message from the "moderator" – but it could be true. I have found that swearing is usually not as effective as a well thought out put down. I understand the frustration that some of the posters have with people like Vic, Chad, faith, and lol??, but they make themselves look far worse than any foul language can. I do not believe that there are "bad" words, and those that are considered "forbidden" have their place in real conversation between adults to express frustration, indignation, and wrath.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • AE

      I wouldn't believe somebody posting that either.

      But, I did see this go down:

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/conservatives-brace-for-themarriage-revolution/comment-page-4/#comments

      Check out the comments.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Akira

      AE:
      Hey, thanks! I completely missed that entire thread. I got Daniel Burke's e-mail addy from it, and it was quite the fun (for the most part) exchange.
      Thanks again.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      They seem to object to any reference I've made to The Cult of the Man On The Stick.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • tallulah13

      So does that mean we can no longer use words like Constitution?

      July 3, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Well that one seemed to work. However, I've had a couple deleted. If it isn't a glitch, there is definitely bias at play. I wish they'd be honest and replace deleted comments with the reason they were deleted instead of skulking and hiding.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
    • AE

      Akira, you are welcome. I think a lot of us missed that. It was posted on a Saturday morning.

      July 3, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
    • My Dog is a Jealous Dog

      Censorship on such a divisive and emotional subject is a VERY slippery slope.

      I followed this blog for at least a year before I started to contribute to the conversation, and from what I have seen, the community did a fairly good job of shaming those that needed shaming (on both sides). There were times that I actually clicked on the "Report Abuse" button because of some offensively racist comments. I have seen personal "duels" that got out of hand, and there are some people on this forum that are more "fragile" than others that have been pushed further than they should have. I also notice that some of the more extreme members have not been seen for a couple of days. I am not sad to get rid of some of the posters that I actually felt might be dangerous (the Hindu hater) and using the forum for coded messages (OK – maybe farfetched, but you have to admit that was some strange text).

      I am just asking for transparency with the censorship (which reinstates the "shaming" of individuals that cannot be nice) and not a heavy handed authoritarian approach (although I respect that it is CNN's right to do as they please). The idea that all personal attacks are going to be moderated is not a good idea. Who gets to decide what is a personal attack? I find the statement that all gays are going to hell to be very offensive – and I would believe that about half of the posters here would find that to be a personal attack, if not on themselves, then on their friends and family.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
    • AE

      "I have found that swearing is usually not as effective as a well thought out put down."

      Why the need to put people down? I mean, that is how Fred Phelps and his Westboro Church operate. Why be like them?

      July 3, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
    • My Dog is a Jealous Dog

      What I meant was that an insult does not have to be vulgar to be effective. (put down = insult) I probably should have used a hyphen. (put-down)

      July 3, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
    • My Dog is a Jealous Dog

      Insults are sometimes just. I try not to insult people, but I do recognize it as a valid part of language and verbal intercourse.

      July 3, 2013 at 8:00 pm |
    • AE

      Got it. I admit I put down people, too. And sometimes I need to try hard and not let others provoke me into being vulgar.

      July 3, 2013 at 8:07 pm |
    • My Dog is a Jealous Dog

      I actually welcome more moderation on this blog. I am simply arguing for more transparency. I don't want to see whole conversation threads (and pages) disappear because one or two people got out of hand. I would actually like to know when some of the crazier posters are banned. I would like to know which users are being censored and for what reason. I don't care if they come back with new handles/emails as long as they behave themselves – the more "interesting" members of this forum can't hide behind a different name for more than a post or two anyway.

      July 3, 2013 at 8:22 pm |
    • AE

      I think everything is spelled out in the "Terms of Service." An editor offered a way to contact him.

      It is a comment section of a blog dedicated to the faith angles of stories. It is not like we are getting paid for this or will win anything.

      July 3, 2013 at 9:10 pm |

  3. Am I still moderated by default?

    July 3, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
    • *

      @ (phantom)

      Dunno what's going on here. Earlier today I had a 'reply' post put under "awaiting moderation" immediately upon posting it; but I re-posted it a minute later as a new comment and it went through. (and no, it was not a matter of too many posts in rapid succession)

      July 3, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
  4. Earl

    Jesus saves the whales.

    July 3, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      Is that like the Hispanic version of Free Willy?

      July 3, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
  5. Brent

    The fact that the Catholic Church continues to sign off on these "miracles" is laughable.

    Have you ever noticed that, as man has become more advanced, sightings of GOD have become practically non-existent.
    2,000 years ago you couldn't swing a cat without hitting GOD (to this day he doesn't like cats).
    Today, if someone says they've seen GOD, even his believers don't believe it.

    July 3, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      How can you say sightings of God are less extent when everyday people on this very blog witness to you the reality of Christ in their own lives? You probably won't believe it until its on pay per view right?

      July 3, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • Brent

      Bill Deacon:

      The reality of Christ in their own lives? If that's all they had to base Christianity on 2,000 years ago GOD is really in trouble.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • tallulah13

      The problem, Bill, is that every true believer of every god is willing to swear that their god is active in their lives. Your emotional experiences aren't terribly unique and not terribly compelling. Anecdotal evidence is useless when trying to prove the supernatural.

      July 3, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • jboom

      Prove that God exists? Based on material science. Its a non-starter. That does not make it laughable.

      The miracle is that we are here. Even materialists (though without solid ground to stand upon) should be in awe that we are here.

      July 3, 2013 at 9:27 pm |
  6. Dyslexic doG

    let's see ... I saw Jesus on a piece of toast once, and then I heard voices speak to me last week.

    Is that two miracles?

    Wow ... this is easy.

    July 3, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
  7. Dyslexic doG

    The use of supernaturalism to manipulate and control people is the world's oldest confidence scheme, it relies on the ritual abuse of children at their most impressionable stage by adults who have themselves been made childish for life by artifacts of the primitive mind.

    July 3, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
  8. Dave

    AE –

    What type of church do you attend?

    July 3, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • AE

      ELCA

      July 3, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
  9. John Stemberger

    AE

    To see Jesus's spirit is a wonderful thing
    ----------------

    Huh?

    July 3, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • AE

      I didn't say that.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
  10. John Stemberger

    "The second miracle reportedly occurred in Costa Rica, where a woman said she recovered from a severe brain injury thanks to the intervention of John Paul, Vatican sources told Allen."
    ...........................
    Well there you have it. lol This is almost comical.

    July 3, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
    • William Demuth

      It would be comical if it wasn't so terrifyingly real

      People whose minds are stuck in the Bronze age.

      The RCC is down to the last dregs, recruiting third worlders because no first or second worlders will even give them the time of day

      July 3, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      The RCC knows: God must love 3rd worlders – because he made so many of them.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
  11. William Demuth

    The Egyptian Army has a priest and an Imam advising them during the coup.

    Two steps forward, two steps back.

    July 3, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      You are bing kind. I would say "a few steps forward, many steps backward."

      July 3, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • jazzguitarman

      How is that a step back? e.g. If the Imam was providing advise about how to remove a religious leader as President without causing a civil war by those in the brotherhood than that advice is useful and practical.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
  12. Dave

    AE

    What method do you use to determine "truth"?

    July 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • AE

      Probably the same as you. My experiences, education and understandings.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • My Dog is a Jealous Dog

      I use math.

      Experience, education, and understanding are not rigorous enough.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • AE

      I'm not great at math, but I use it to. I have to have a basic understanding in my line of work.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • AE

      Too.

      Grammar also not my strongest subject.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • My Dog is a Jealous Dog

      I work in math and logic all day long – what passes for logic on this board literally has me laughing myself out of my chair.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • AE

      Logic is great. In my experience there is much more to life than logic. Art and music, for example.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • AE

      I can't think of any job where I wouldn't use logic.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Experience, education, and understanding is enough to reject the Judeo-Christian myth as "truth" and accept it as a ball of mixed myths. Of course, you've got to have the courage to deny the feelings generated by your brainwashing/indoctrination.

      I think that some of the members here aren't too bad in using logic. Doc Vestibule comes to mind.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      I can think of few human endeavors that don't utilize logic to a great extent. Religions and cults use it because they must if they are to be practical in running their organizations and managing their time and resources.....they just don't use it to determine veracity of "truth."

      July 3, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • AE

      Is it possible that there are people with a lot more courage, experience, education and understanding than you that believe in the Judeo-Christian God?

      How do you think I have I been a product of brainwashing/indoctrination?

      And how can you be so sure you are not a product of brainwashing/indoctrination?

      July 3, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • AE

      "Religions and cults use it because they must if they are to be practical in running their organizations and managing their time and resources.....they just don't use it to determine veracity of "truth.""

      My church doesn't operate this way.

      I know others that don't either.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      AE

      1. Yep. And there are people wiser, more courageous, more experienced, etc who don't believe in your invisible sky fairy. In fact, there is a distinct correlation between education and atheism. The more educated, the less a person is prone to fundamentalism and the less prone they are to "magic" explanations such as a bound in religions. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but you're the one who brought it up, so if you're using that logic, you should go with the numbers and give up your belief. I'd hate for you not to follow your own logic.

      2. We are all brainwashed by our culture and our society when it coms to the setting of values. Myth believers and cults (people who find magic to be a reasonable explanation for events in the physical world and for events for which there is no proof-–ie. after death, etc) tend to resist questions with answers (or no answers, yet) which do not line up with their unproven myth-explanation. And yes, your church does exhibit this behavior as is demonstrated by your reasoning, here. It would be obvious to you, too, if you were to somehow give up your faith in favor of a more reasonable philosophy.

      3. No, AE, your church uses a myth as its arbiter of truth, not logic. Many logical, consistent data points place your myth in very serious doubt; that your church does not directly deal with these data points and admit that the likelihood of its being true are very minimal means that your church does not use basic, practical logic for determining truth.

      I don't think you are lying; I think you are blind.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • AE

      You figured all that out about my church, without ever stepping foot in it, talking to a member or even taking the time to figure out what city it is located in.

      That doesn't sound logical. Or reasonable.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • AE

      You claim my church "brainwashes" me?

      This is what brainwashing means:

      "to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), esp by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, hunger, extreme discomfort, pain, and the alternation of kindness and cruelty"

      Can you explain how my church does this?

      I just have no idea what you are talking about!

      And I've only been a member of my church for 1 year.

      I've only been following Jesus Christ ways for 2 years.

      Please tell me when I was brainwashed.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • AE

      If I thought somebody was brainwashed I would try and help them.

      Not insist I was smarter, and post about evidence that show people like me are smarter than others.

      Are you serious about what you write?

      July 3, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • jboom

      Capt,

      Are all former atheists turned Christians brainwashed too?

      Its a pretty impressive list.

      July 3, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
  13. Bad Bad Leroy Brown

    what exactly requires moderation?

    July 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
  14. Bootyfunk

    damn, if he had only molested 3 more kids before he died. if you molest 100K+ children, you automatically become a saint in the catholic church.

    July 3, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Alison Tschains

      I would hate to see what that punch card looked like.

      July 3, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • ME II

      Ok, that's uncalled for.

      July 3, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • WASP

      @booty: XD

      July 3, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Booty

      I actually believe he was disgusted by the truth.

      As Popes go, he was far less evil than most.

      But he was no Saint by any stretch of the imagination

      July 3, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
  15. Colin

    My course on An Introduction to Atheism involves a number of segments:

    1. Why do we, as a species, believe in things which we would otherwise dismiss as nonsense, simply because those beliefs are called “religion.”

    2. A short history of the three major monotheist religions.

    3. A look at the Bible, how it was written, compiled, translated and interpreted down through the Centuries. I focus more on Judeo-Christianity than other religions as it is the faith most relevant to my students’ lives.

    4. A look at the Universe and Earth, their size, how they formed and their natural history.

    5. Critical thinking and rational thought.

    6. The difference between religion and morality.

    7. Is religion an overall good or bad thing for mankind?

    July 3, 2013 at 1:27 pm |

    • We are martyrs for the one true lack of belief.

      July 3, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • AE

      These are good questions. And like I said below, we ask and answer these in my church.

      July 3, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      no, AE, you don't.

      July 3, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Colin

      But, as a church, you have a pre-packaged answer to most, right?

      July 3, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • AE

      Bootyfunk,

      Yes. We do.

      Why wouldn't we?

      July 3, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • AE

      "But, as a church, you have a pre-packaged answer to most, right?"

      No. We are free to discuss and seek the truth.

      July 3, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • AE

      Colin,

      You have pre-packaged answer though, right? I've noticed a lot of your posts are copy and pasted.

      July 3, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      As if quoting The Babble is not using pre-packaged answers and cut & paste!

      July 3, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
    • AE

      Calm down, Colin.

      I mean copy and paste from your previous posts.

      As in, you just copy and paste pre-packaged answers you have used before. And they are often completely off topic.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Colin, most people don't believe in the true God. You're not special for thinking using rational thought is mandatory, you're just one of many of the lost.

      Jesus warned,

      Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

      Matthew 7:13

      Amen.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
    • Dave

      AE

      What method do you use to determine "truth"?

      July 3, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • John Stemberger

      HeavenSent

      Colin, most people don't believe in the true God. You're not special for thinking using rational thought is mandatory, you're just one of many of the lost.

      Jesus warned,

      Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

      Matthew 7:13

      Amen.
      ----------

      The author of Matthew warned, not jesus.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Then AE, please enlighten us

      Exactly what conclusions does your "group" conclude after these enlightened discussions?

      Pray do tell, I believe it will offer us great insight.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Colin- "But, as a church, you have a pre-packaged answer to most, right?"

      I find this a little hypocritical. If you really are a teacher, don't you have a pre-packaged answer for your students? I'm pretty sure you go into your class with the same mindset you've had everytime you had the class.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
    • AE

      What a pre-packaged answer might look like:

      http://www.google.com/#q=%22First+and+most+obviously+is+the+fossil+record.+The+fossil+record+is+much,+much+more+than+just+dinosaurs.+Indeed,+dinosaurs+only+get+the+press+because+of+their+size,+but+they+make+up+less+than+1%25+of+the+entire+fossil+record.+Life+had+been+evolving+on+Earth+for+over+3+thousand+million+years+before+dinosaurs+evolved+and+has+gone+on+evolving+for+65+million+years+after+the+Chicxulub+meteor+likely+wiped+them+out.+%22&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWM&fp=f63cc7b990c20fb7&biw=1440&bih=771

      July 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Lydia

      It depends on the discipline one teaches

      Math teachers yes, philosophy teachers no. This highlights the fatal flaw of faith. Those who taught it to you were either fools or liars, yet your indoctrination is so deep, you couldn't recognize your errors if they stood right before you.

      A rational mind always questions, and no believe is absolute. If present evidence that disproves something, we may hesitate, but in time we will discard the irrational.

      You will not.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • WASP

      @HS: you aren't following your bible again, now go ask for forgiveness. 🙂

      1 TIMOHTY 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. …

      1 Corinthians 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

      T itus 2:5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
    • AE

      @William Demuth

      "Then AE, please enlighten us
      Exactly what conclusions does your "group" conclude after these enlightened discussions?
      Pray do tell, I believe it will offer us great insight."

      We have an educational hour, where experts from different fields come and talk to us. We ask questions and they answer. We have people from different faith backgrounds and even people of no faith speak.

      You should come some time, you might like it.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      John Stemberger, I posted this scripture many times. Does changing handles affect your memory?

      2 Timothy 3:16

      All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

      Amen.

      July 3, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • Observer

      HeavenSent

      "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

      So why do you ignore it when it is shown that the scripture has to be fixed "for correction"?

      July 3, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • William Demuth

      AE I have no doubt I would

      I also have no doubt you would not.

      I have little tolerance of nonesense

      July 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
    • WASP

      @HS: yeah that's what i'm saying; i'm instructing you in the way of your LORD, that he said for women to STFU. XD
      isn't he so loving?

      and if you try really hard you can see that i'm not whom ever you claimed me to be. my wording and points are different from those of the sternberger person.
      so in short, you lose. XD

      July 3, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Observer, you posted "HeavenSent "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" So why do you ignore it when it is shown that the scripture has to be fixed "for correction"?"

      Answer: Y.ou i.nsists it needs c.orrection because you don't know what's going on. N.either d.o the s.cholars you refer to.

      July 3, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      WASP, don't you have a drama recital to attend?

      July 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      What Colin may not realize is that, presuming he teaches in a public school system, his curriculum violates the Constiitution to the same degree as if I were to teach a class that asked the question from the opposite angle and asked why we put up with the "nonsense" of atheism simply because it often masquerades as scientific.

      If he is teaching is some sort of self styled or non-public funded effort, his students are probably self styled atheist to begin with and are only seeking self reinforcement for the same preformed conclusions their instructor starts the day with. In which case, while I believe they are entiitled to their own circle jerk, I lament the lapse of professional educational integrity of inquiry Colin displays.

      So which is it Colin?

      July 3, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      @Bill

      You made the following claims:

      1. Atheism masquerades as science.
      2. Colin's class is unconst.itutional.

      On both claims, how do you figure?

      thanks

      July 3, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Cpt. I'm not claiming atheism masquerades as science. I'm saying if I taught a class that presented atheism as nonsense in the public school system, I would be in breech of the first amendment because the state (me) would be presenting the ideology of some Americans in a biased manner. Colin is doing the same thing, he's just biased against religion and, by his words, particularly Judeo-Christianity. I find it interesting that he hasn't replied to my question of whether or not he teaches this class int eh public school system.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      more accurately, my argument is not rooted in whether atheism masquerades as science or not. It is rooted in the freedom of expression clause of the first amendment and the separation of Church and state. For the same reason that you might be upset at the teaching of creationism as science, I take offense at the teaching of atheism as (insert your discipline of choice) Science? Logic? Philosophy? Ethic? What department are you teaching from anyway Colin?

      July 3, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • AE

      Colin also tried to insult me about "pre-packaged answers", yet didn't answer my question about his use of "pre-packaged answers".

      July 3, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • AE

      Actually, some of Colin's un-kind comments have been deleted.

      He might be sitting in timeout until he can act nice.

      July 3, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Bill, it doesn't make sense to me that you see things so narrowly.

      It would be stupid to teach atheism as science or science as atheism. It just wouldn't make any sense. It'd be like teaching that the idea that Santa does not exist is Algebra.

      Atheism is the rejection of a philosophy. To my knowledge, the US does not require philosophy to be taught in any certain way or that rejections of certain philosophies be taught in any certain way. Religion is philosophy. The US does say that teachers should not teach that one religious philosophy is more accurate than another religious philosophy, but I disagree with that because certain philosophies are more reasonable than others as they are more internally consistent, are not widely variable, account for known facts in a somewhat elegant and simple manner, and etc.

      To teach "creationism" as science would be to lie, AND to promote one religious philosophy over others. So it would be lying to children and it would be breaking the law of the united states. It is really stupid to compare "atheism" (or teaching it) and "creationism' (or teaching it) because the two are such drastically different things. Atheism is the rejection of a philosophy, while creationism is a part of a religious philosophy and contrary to fact if taught as "fact" or "science." (Certainly it could be taught as part of myth and perhaps compared equitably with other creation myths from various cultures and time periods).

      So, let's review:

      1. Atheism isn't science so it would be stupid and wrong to teach it that way.
      2. Atheism and creationism do not share enough relevant characteristics for you to compare them the way you did for your argument's sake.
      3. No one is breaking any laws to teach about certain philosophies and rejections of those philosophies. It would be breaking the law to promote one religious philosophy over another. (Because atheism rejects all religious philosophies, by definition it does not promote any over any others).

      July 3, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      @Bill

      Just to be clear, in the South, 99% of the comments and behaviors from school officials and teachers "teaches" the students that atheism is nonsense. In the bible belt, where I live, principals, teachers, administrators, and all other school officials are basically just preachers talking about their version of Christianity; school employees that are not Christian dare not speak a word less they lose their job or chance at advancement or better situations. The most successful school officials are often those employees who go to the same church together, and many times the most successful students are those who attend the same churches as their teachers who preach and promote their particular Christian cult over other, competing Christian cults in the same town.

      In a least a quarter of the states, Christianity IS the message of the public school system. Although the religion of football does come first.

      July 3, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • AE

      Q. Are you an atheist?

      A. Yes.

      B. No.

      C. I don't know.

      What else is there to it?

      July 3, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • AE

      I live in the Bible Belt, and public school is not at all like that here.

      From what I've hear, not even Catholic School is like that.

      July 3, 2013 at 6:21 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      AE, I accept the possibility that it is not "that bad" by your standards in your particular area; however, it is prevalent if you live anywhere in the bible belt. Christianity is taught by school officials and teachers the same way testing taught. Nobody ever teaches a class on how take a test (well, a few here and there), but students understand how to sit for a test better than almost anything else in life. Why? Because we have a very fundamental model that we follow very closely in almost every single testing experience. It's a "fabric" of our educational culture that underlies the entire system. Christianity is taught the same way. Everyone a.s.s.umes that church, god, jesus are "good" and what "good people" do and the web of interconnected ideas promoting Christianity pervades the educational system in that way.

      July 3, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      AE, everyone is an atheist, so it's very easy to know that you are. Everyone rejects religious philosophies and many "gods" of the religious philosophies that they reject. For example, everyone is an atheist when it coms to the god of thunder-Thor. Some atheists simple reject all gods instead of all but one god like you and other god believers do.

      July 3, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
    • AE

      Those schools are out of line. That is not what Jesus asks us to do.

      I kind of get what you are saying on atheism, but I don't consider myself an atheist. I believe in God. Just because I don't accept another man's concept of God does not make me an atheist.

      I will admit I am agnostic on some issues.

      July 3, 2013 at 6:38 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      AE, I would say that your atheism lacks completion. I can understand why incomplete atheists do not consider themselves atheists.

      With the public schools teaching Christianity, you'd have to change the culture. If the culture believes that Christianity and church attendance are important factors of success and that Christian cronyism is proper, then it hardly matters what is "right" under the law. Remember, a Christian will follow what he thinks are his god's commandments over the commandments of men, so legislating that a Christian not evangelize doesn't slow it down one bit. God's law comes first to a Christian, does it not?

      July 3, 2013 at 6:45 pm |
    • AE

      I didn't go to school in your school system.

      My school system allowed teachers that were Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Christian, Jehovah's Witness, atheist and agnostic.

      Church attendance meant absolutely nothing. We were graded on performance. Our subjects taught were English, History, Math, Science, etc.

      Pretty much our goal was to prepare for college. And we prepared to be tested via the ACT and SAT.

      No requirment of church attendance needed.

      In fact to require so would be illegal.

      I can't recall ever hearing the words "Jesus Christ" mentioned by teachers. Maybe in English in reference to literature. Or History.

      But I really don't remember ever talking about Jesus in school.

      "God's law comes first to a Christian, does it not?"

      God's commandments are about how we should treat other people. Because God loves those other people.

      "Thou shall not steal" can be "Love does not steal."

      "Love does not murder"

      "Love does not covet"

      July 3, 2013 at 6:58 pm |
    • Lycidas

      William Demuth- "It depends on the discipline one teaches"

      Possibly true.

      "philosophy teachers no."

      Are you considering atheism a philosophy?

      "Those who taught it to you were either fools or liars, yet your indoctrination is so deep, you couldn't recognize your errors if they stood right before you."

      What on Earth are you talking about? Is this your only real game plan in debate? Try and take to the personal level? It's a flawed plan William. I have not been "indoctrinated" into any religion.
      What errors? Name one error in regards to whatever you are thinking on. I will @ssume you are meaning in a religious nature. Since all you know of me comes from here, it should be quite easy for you to cite your info. Good luck.

      "A rational mind always questions, and no believe is absolute."

      Agreed and I ask many questions.

      "but in time we will discard the irrational."

      What is rational is subjective dear boy. Your biased standards are not the standard for everyone and maybe not anyone but you for all we know.

      "You will not."

      And with that...you became a liar.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
    • AE

      "Remember, a Christian will follow what he thinks are his god's commandments over the commandments of men, "

      Rosa Parks was commanded by men to sit in the back of the bus. Her Christian background taught her she should take a stand and sit in the front of the bus.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      AE, you are looking through a tinted lens and pretending things are different than what they are. You are using confirmation bias.

      Go back and read what I wrote about how we teach children to take tests. Also look more closely at what I said about how we teach children that football is "good" even though it injures children more than any other state-sponsored activity (other than cheer leading, which is the most dangerous sport). We don't actively teach our children that football success is good, it's just part of what we do on a daily basis. Our schools teach Christianity the same way; we teach it as an expectation. \

      And by the way, since god both murders and covets (murders those he feels it necessary to rid the earth of--like in the flood or when Isreaelites worshiped an idol) (covets our undivided worship) it is not a good moral code. A good moral code does not include the originator of that code breaking the code whenever he wants to; that's called tyranny or "might makes right." If god can break any of his commandments because he's mightiest (being god) then that's just old fashioned terrorist dictatorship.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
    • AE

      "I heard the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone. No never alone. No never alone. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone."

      "My uncertainty disappeared. I was ready to face anything."

      – Martin Luther King, Jr

      On following God, over man's racist laws

      July 3, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      AE, I think it is disingenuous to state that Rosa Parks was acting purely in accordance with her Christian ideals. You don't believe that. You know as well as anyone else that there was a lot more going on in that situation,. Also, I am not saying that it is always wrong to disobey the law. I'm just stating that a law will not stop a Christian if the Christian believes it is god's will to break the law; therefore, Christians proselytize "righteously" when they do so in the public schools and in so doing break the federal law.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:09 pm |
    • AE

      I wasn't taught that football is "good" in school.

      What are you talking about? It was an after school activity that I didn't participate in. Most students at my school did not either.

      I don't understand why you seem to blame Christianity for football or tests.

      All public school experience for me (granted, I've only lived in 3 cities) have been very secular.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:11 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      AE, again I think you are being disingenuous with the MLK example. MLK was fighting for something very dear and personal; it wasn't like he was breaking a federal law to not each shellfish or wear two fabrics at the same time.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:13 pm |
    • AE

      Me crediting Rosa Parks Christian background to stand up against man's laws makes more sense than you blaming schools teaching that football is "good" on Christianity.

      --

      "Since I have always been a strong believer in God, I knew that He was with me, and only He could get me through that next step"

      “God has always given me the strength to say what is right... I had the strength of God and my ancestors with me”

      – Rosa Parks

      July 3, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      AE, I don't believe you are as stupid as your comments would lead me to logically believe. I believe you understand the points I am presenting far better than your remarks would lead one to believe. But, I am no longer interested in what you think on the matters. Good bye.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
    • Lycidas

      There is a big problem people neglect whent trying to judge God by human morality.

      1. The religious pov: Even in the Tanakh, God's actions, thoughts and motives are considered to be not like humans.

      2. The Logical pov: You are trying to judge a being that is suppose to be infinite, omnipresent, omnificent and omnipotent. But you are a being that is finite in faculty, confined, weak by comparrison and mostly impotent.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
    • AE

      I haven't said anything about shellfish or fabrics.

      I don't follow the laws of Leviticus, I am not an ancient Hebrew priest trying to follow a purification code.

      I proved 2 examples of actual CHRISTIANS who credit God for getting them through a tough time.

      MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR STATES THAT HE WAS READY TO QUIT, BUT JESUS CHRIST TOLD HIM TO GO FORWARD!

      And he did. Thank God.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • AE

      The school system you went to is nothing like the school system I went to.

      I am sorry yours was so horrible. In Minnesota, Kansas and Missouri we must have a better school system.

      I am going to believe Martin Luther King, Jr and Rosa Park's words over your words.

      They gave credit to God.

      July 3, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Cpt. Obvious, withholding Jesus Christ's wisdom to be taught n schools leave us nothing but man made vanity. You wouldn't understand this truth because the sin of pride blinds you.

      July 4, 2013 at 9:55 am |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Lycidas's two reasons above would also preclude any believer (or anyone) from ever commenting about anything having to do with god's nature.

      1. If god's thoughts and actions are beyond the believer's understanding, then it's equally ridiculous to comment on anything he does, whether it be judgment of his morality or any other action or behavior.

      2. If god's infinite nature puts his thoughts and actions beyond anyone's understanding, then it's equally ridiculous to comment on anything he does, whether it be judgment of his morality or any other action or behavior.

      If god is beyond human reasoning, and thus we should not comment on his morality, then he is beyond human reasoning, period. No point discussing him at all, ever.

      July 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
  16. We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

    We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

    We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    July 3, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      Who is this "We" again and when did they give you the authority to speak for them?

      July 3, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • Athy

      Blah, blah, blah. You have no idea how silly that sounds to a nonbeliever.

      July 3, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      The "we" is the community of the faithful which includes all Catholics as well as other denominations. The authority is by the Councils of Nicea and Trent. This is our faith

      July 3, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
  17. bingo

    The moderator seems to be blocking (.html) now. Thanks to whomever is responsible for that.

    July 3, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • Athy

      Ooh! That's going to make Vic unhappy!

      July 3, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • Akira

      Perhaps Vic is the cause of it; I've never seen a poster emphasize random words the way he does.

      July 3, 2013 at 6:49 pm |
  18. Draw near and listen

    There is but one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet

    July 3, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
  19. Hear Oh Israel

    The Lord our God
    is the One God

    July 3, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
  20. Anti Catholicism

    We mustn't say things critical of the RCC. CNN won't allow it.

    July 3, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.