September 30th, 2013
08:55 AM ET
Popes John XXIII and John Paul II to be declared saints in April
From Ben Wedeman, CNN
(CNN) - Popes John XXIII and John Paul II will be declared saints in April, the Vatican said Monday.
The announcement came after Pope Francis met with cardinals to discuss the planned canonizations of two of his predecessors. The ceremony will take place on April 27.
It will be the first time two popes will be canonized at the same time.
To be named a saint involves a series of steps, but the qualifications are straightforward, according to the veteran Vatican analyst John Allen.
"You put a holy life and two miracles together, according to the Catholic system, you've got a saint," he said.FULL STORY
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.
@Just the Facts Ma'am... : this is not a "Religion Blog" this is as it says above, a "Belief Blog" which would allow for the discussion between two people with opposing beliefs.
Given that religion is defined as a set of beliefs... What's your point? My point was that atheism is a religion – and was acknowledged as such by the US Supreme Court.
Where are you even going with this? Why do you think that if atheism were a religion, it would somehow make your invisible friend real? Your god probably doesnt exist either way.
Doesn't the SCOTUS simply acknowledge the equal protection under the law of atheism and religion, while not claiming that atheism is in fact a religion?
"...when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the [472 U.S. 38, 53] Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. " [emphasis added]
LOL! If there is a god, it is extremly embarred by its followers, but mostly by Live4Him
Kaufman v. McCaughtry
But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.
A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).
But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.
Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an example of a religion.
Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.
So by your definition, it is impossible to not be in a religion. Even if you are not in a religion, not being in a religion is your religion! Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
Not sure which are your words and which are quotes.
"A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins"
Agreed, but that does not make a lack of such a belief a religion either, otherwise anything and everything would be a religion.
"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment..."
If it were a religion, why would it need to be "equivalent to" in in that particular situation? If it were a religion, then it would be "the same as any other religion", would it not?
"Indeed, Torcaso specifically included 'Secular Humanism' as an example of a religion."
Secular Humanism is an Atheistic philosophy, it is not Atheism itself. One can definitely have a religion that is Atheistic, i.e. without god(s), such as Shintoism, some Budhism, etc. but that would by definition by more than just Atheism.
"Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise."
More from KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY
" The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a 'religion,' perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. "
" We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. "
" The Establishment Clause itself says only that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls 'nonreligion.' In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as 'the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.'"
It seems obvious to me that the court is treating atheism as if it were a religion and NOT saying that atheism is a religion
...atheism is a religion
Yes it is, the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
Is belief in god a religion?
Constantly Lies4 Him as noted "select any religious faith or none at all."
My disbelief is not a religion but it is an opinion just like your religion, which i'm sure is why those of simple mind get them confused. Not all opinions are religions but all religions are opinions.
What difference does it make if you call a belief system a religion? Is it supposed to be some kind of insult, to call us a religion? Call us whatever you like. It doesn't change the one unifying principle that we have - a lack of belief in a god.
I have no belief in a lot of other things too that aren't gods, such as bigfoot, ghosts, fortune telling, unicorns. You can call those religions too, if that makes you feel better.
what a scam!
I'm ok with the RCC having a (very) low bar for miracles, it's their club and they can decide. Not 1 real miracle has happened in our time. Something that could only happen outside natural law. The real world is like that.
How would you determine that an unusual event was not a miracle? What would be the threshold for probability before an event was declared a miracle?
A docu.mented violation of physical laws would be a place to start.
@ME II : A docu.mented violation of physical laws would be a place to start.
First, not all miracles violate physical laws. For example, Jesus was reported to have performed a miracle by healing the lame. This isn't a violation of any physical laws. So, I think your criterion is too limited.
Second, you'd have issues documenting said miracle. For every hard to believe event, there are naysayers everywhere (i.e. man landing on the moon for example). So, it would be almost impossible to have a single event whereby everyone agrees – especially since some would be disinclined to agree since it would conflict with their a-priori conclusions.
So, all around, I don't think you've given a sufficient standard for a miracle.
You claim that a miracle can occur without breaking natural law, you simply have a low bar for miracles. Over the course of thousands of years, very unlikely things will occasionally happen chance, not miracle.
Healing someone while remaining within physical laws is called medicine (or perhaps biology) and, I would think, by definition, not a miracle.
Docu.umentation does not imply that everyone needs to be convinced. Your example of the moon landing is appropriate as there is plenty of docu.mentation, or evidence, available. In addition, I simply said it was a good place to start.
A 17th Century English philosopher (John Locke from memory) had the simplest test. A miracle should only be declared when a natural explanation is less probable than the occurence of a miracle.
I am yet, in my entire life, to see such an elusive constellation of facts.
Something that could only happen outside natural law.
I am shocked. Demon-possessed, violent, perverted lovers of rpe and cruelty in front of disabled children find something negative to say about others.
Here's to u Sam stone, our nation turns its lonely eyes to u
"perverted lovers of rpe and cruelty". Funny, at first read I thought you were attacking RC priests.
Another beautiful example of Catholic sainthood is Juan Diego, México's most important saint. The guy probably never even existed!! Even influential church leaders in México were embarrassed by this one. It would be like the Pope declaring Paul Bunyan the USA Patron Saint of lumberjacks.
If you want to look at how low the Catholic Church sets the bar for declaring a miracle, google "Mother Theresa sainthood."
Mother Theresa died on September 6, 1997. Pope John Paul II waived the usual five years waiting time and put her straight on the road to sainthood (he is, presumably now lining up behind her in Catholic never-never land).
The first miracle came quickly. The very next year, a poor illiterate peasant lady from Dulidnapur village, a village north of Calcutta in India, was suffering from stomach cancer. She placed an aluminum medal which had been blessed by Mother Theresa on her stomach and the tumor went away. A team of medical experts from the Vatican deemed the event inexplicable and the cure a miracle. The woman in question, Monica Besra, became an instant celebrity and was whisked off to the Vatican to meet the Pope amid great fanfare.
Things soon started to go wrong with this simple heartwarming story. The very doctors that treated her have dismissed the Vatican’s claims, stating that they simply caught the cancer early enough and applied the appropriate medical treatment. Her husband, Seiku, has also dismissed the miracle claim, describing it as “much ado about nothing.” In an interview with Time Magazine, he said that "My wife did feel less pain one night when she used the locket, but her pain had been coming and going. Then she went to the doctors, and they cured her," and that “no one should suppose there was a cause-and-effect relationship between it and the cure.”
Monica herself had a different complaint over the incident. Apparently money promised to her by the Vatican when her story first surfaced was not paid. She felt she was taken advantage of and then dumped by the Church once her usefulness to the church as a publicity piece had expired. Rational, third party analysis of the situation is impossible, as the local religious order, the Sisters of Charity, have refused to discuss the case and have taken possession of and refused to share Ms. Besra’s medical records, later claiming to have lost them.
One skeptic had this to say of the incident:
Before all of this allegedly happened, Monica Besra was suffering from tubercular meningitis and from an ovarian tumor, which was discovered during an ultra-sound investigation. This came about after she was admitted to the government hospital in Balurghat, suffering similar severe pain. She was subsequently treated by Dr.Tarun Kumar Biwas and the gynaecologist Dr. Ranjan Mustafi. After she left the hospital, the treatment was continued in the North Bengal Medical College and Hospital and ended successfully in March 1999. A final ultra-sound investigation showed that the tumor had disappeared.
The Hospital’s superintendent supplied Sister Betta from the Missionaries of Charity with Monica's medical records containing sonograms, prescriptions and physicians' notes etc that provided ample evidence it was medical treatment that cured her……But…..Sister Betta lost those official medical records shortly after receiving them.
Despite openly admitting at one stage they had solicited Monica Besra’s hospital records, abruptly The Missionaries for Charity then changed their story, and ignoring a mountain of evidence to the contrary, including statements from their own mission, they now claim they never received the official medical records in the first place.
What they did ‘discover’ in their place amongst the 34,000 pages of meticulously accrued miracle docu.mentation, are claims that several doctors had certified that the healing was ‘scientifically inexplicable’. One ‘small’ problem with this transcript, is the Balurghat Hospital who treated Monica Besra has no records of these doctors and further, none of these anonymous witnesses could be traced.
Balurghat Hospital Doctors are adamant in the validity and robustness of their diagnosis and statements from officials from the same hospital back this up, with claims the Catholic order has been pressuring them to say Monica's cure was miraculous. Remarkably, amongst all those 34,000 pages of ‘official evidence’ for Teresa’s miracle cure from beyond the grave, there was not a solitary sentence from anyone who was actually involved with Monica Besra’s medical treatment.”
The incident remains to this day an official “miracle” in the Catholic Church and Mother Theresa remains on the path to sainthood although, given that it is now September 2013, her pace to canonization seems to have significantly slowed. Perhaps the second “miracle” is receiving a little more scrutiny. It probably should too, given that there is one particular actor in this plot who has severely doubted the existence of God – Mother Theresa herself. In one of her many letters, Mother Theresa wrote:
Where is my faith? Even deep down ... there is nothing but emptiness and darkness ... If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul ... How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, ... What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”
Perhaps she will go down in history as the first atheist or agnostic saint!
When will Topher be declared a Saint?
should be pretty easy to dream up a couple of miracles and get some friends in the cult to swear they saw them ...
You really do have to love some of the "miracles". As a (priest. bishop, nun, deacon, whatever) he/she entered into the dying woman's presence and prayed for her and she proceeded to hacked up a bucket of phlegm and recovered, some also call that the the placebo effect. The second part of the story is never reported, a week later she had a relapse and died. As many have pointed out not one "miracle" of a person re-growing a lost limb, funny how that works.
When the well-intentioned simpleton exhibits a knowledge of his own silly holy book above and beyond a fifth grade Sunday school student.
When will Topher answer my questions about creationism?
Of all the silly superst.itions of the Catholics, I think the doctrine of sainthood is my second favorite.
My favorite is exorcisms – the Roman Catholic Church still employs full time exorcists who roam around the USA exorcising demons from people – in the 21st Century!!! You will not be surprised to know that Satan and his cast of malevolent sidekicks are only ever capable of possessing the mentally ill. The well adjusted seem strangely immune to their Earthly layovers. I guess this is for the same reason that amputees are 100% incapable of attracting a “miracle cure” for their missing limbs.
But, I digress. Back to my second favorite of all favorite Catholic superst.itions – sainthood. It is a favorite of mine because it combines so many silly, Dark Ages beliefs – dead people “living in Heaven”, mind reading, prayers being answered and related hocus pocus. Here’s how it works.
A person like Pope John Paul II dies. If it is in the church’s interest, it will “put him on the path to sainthood.” Then what happens is two miracles have to be performed at the request of a person who prays to the dead person and only the dead person. A person thinks a thought like, “please Pope John Paul make my cancer go away.” The dead Pope then reads this person’s mind (or “hears her prayers” as they call it) and then talks to God. God, if he is so minded, will alter the person’s fundamental biochemistry to cure the cancer.
If this happens twice, the person is declared a saint (it is a little more complex than that, but that’s the gist of it).
Utter childish nonsense believed by grown adults!! Ya gotta love the Catholics, at least they’re good for a laugh.
You post these 1 hour + vids often. How about a brief summary or something. Do you often invest an hour plus on something you have no idea what it is about? Thanks.
Published on May 29, 2013
Filmed at the Royal Geographical Society on 22nd May 2013.
Daniel Dennett is one of the world's most original and provocative thinkers. A philosopher and cognitive scientist.
On May 22nd he came to Intelligence Squared to share the insights he has acquired over his 40-year career into the nature of how we think, decide and act. Dennett revealed his favourite thinking tools, or 'intuition pumps', that he and others have developed for addressing life's most fundamental questions. As well as taking a fresh look at familiar moves - Occam's Razor, reductio ad absurdum - he discussed new cognitive solutions designed for the most treacherous subject matter: evolution, meaning, consciousness and free will.
By acquiring these tools and learning to use them wisely, we can all aspire to better understand the world around us and our place in it.
'When an intellect forgets real knowledge, it fights with men for harmful things as though they were helpful.'
St. Mark the Ascetic
Spreading garlic, Bill? Expecting vampires?
Another quote from another member of the tribe and scam, helps convince anyone other than those that are already deluded enough to believe in the first instance, how exactly?
What exactly is the criteria in determining "real knowledge"?
RCC Sainthood, it's kind of like the hall of fame for an NFL, MLB, etc player. Fast tracking JP II is another good marketing idea by the RCC. It makes RCC members feel like they lived during a relevant period. I'm impressed with the savvy of the RCC, the new pope recently selected is attracting new members in Asia and Africa, the big growth markets, a fresh saint will likely help in the member drive as well. The RCC is making the right moves to expand, while evangelists and fundamentalists are becoming more exclusive. As an atheist, I'm impressed with the RCC business savvy.
Just another way to make a few bucks on T-shirts, "blessed" rosaries, baseball hats and other trinkets.
There "ain't" no heaven and there "ain't" no saints so this whole canonization exercise is another form of RCC inanity.
You want to see religious subjects in schools?
All religions, or just yours?
Do you think is is proper to only have naturalism (i.e. Big Bang, Evolution, birth control, etc) taught in public schools?
I'd be totally cool with a course in comparative religion in HS, in fact let's put it in grade school and kindergarten.
What subjects would be taught? What details would you want included? How would you prevent a teacher from giving a specific lean?
Those questions are asked for every class.
So you support a state religion?
Science is not a religion.
However, if you want to teach stuff from your bible, then they need to teach stuff from all major religions.
Would that really make you happy?
I am all for courses on Mythology.
'Do you know what consoles me somewhat? To know that our great God is an infinite good, and that nobody is capable of loving and praising Him as much as He deserves.'
St. Paul of the Cross
Amen to that.
I've spoken to so many people before on soli deo gloria – the idea that everything happens to the glory of God, and sometimes I get the response of "your God is so egotistical that he demands that everything be about Him!" But in truth, there is nothing else that deserved glory other than Him. And we can never praise Him enough...
He is glorified in mercy and judgement.
Since there is nothing there to contradict you, I guess you can go on making stuff up about your 'god'.
It's thrilling to have a hero, innit?
Hooked on a feeling. High on believing.
Just like to give a big shout out and thank you to that Paul fellow nice to be recognized once in a while.
You know what consoles me? That Bill doesn't have a job, and I do.
Yeah, keep working sweetheart. The Visa bill is due.
why post an obvious quote from a Christian?
Using the words of someone in the same cult as you, who is just as deluded as you, to prove your point is hilarious!
What is the Catholic definition of "saint?" I ask this because they treat it as though it were a special condition that only a few fill, but the Bible is clear that ALL believers are called "saints."
1 Corinthians 1:2 – To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours…
Romans 1:1-7 – Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 11:26 – “…the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”
The Catholic belief is just as you post; that we are all called to be saints. Some are just quicker studies than others.
But I'm still confused...
Paul says that "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are "saints."
Also, "those who are beloved of God" are called saints...
So, according to Paul, we are saints when we are first beloved of God – and that can be argued at our election "before the foundations of the world" (Ephesians 1:3-6, 11-14), and we are saints at our sanctification. Sanctification can be thought of as a lifelong process, but our sanctification begins at our justification, which is at conversion.
That's what scripture says... Am I still missing something?
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to get a grasp on what right that human beings have to declare that a man is a saint or not. That's God's task, and that occured before the foundation of the world at our election.
I suppose I'm just restating the age old discussion between Catholics and Protestants of whether justification preceeds sanctification, or does sanctification preceed justification.
Raise your eyes to God in heaven and pray because of your sins and shortcomings. Leave vanity to the vain. Set yourself to the things which God has commanded you to do. Close the door upon yourself and call to you Jesus, your Beloved. Remain with Him in your cell, for nowhere else will you find such peace. If you had not left it, and had not listened to idle gossip, you would have remained in greater peace. But since you love, sometimes, to hear news, it is only right that you should suffer sorrow of heart from it.
It's amazing how many atheists come to the religion forum to share their religion. They're very vocal about their beliefs.
LOL. You're starting to realize your god, like all gods, are made up fairy tales. So what do you do? You claim atheism is a religion! LOL. Call it whatever you want, welcome aboard!
@ReligionIsBS : You claim atheism is a religion!
Actually, your actions acknowledge that atheism is a religion – by posting on a religion forum. But, obviously, you think YOUR religion isn't BS. Yet ... where are your facts?
LOL. Posting on a religous blog makes me religious? Would posting on a medical blog make me a doctor? Does posting on a christian blog make me a christian? Am I a muslim when I post on Islam blogs! Awesome logic! No wonder you used to beleive in talking snakes!
@ReligionIsBS : Posting on a religous blog makes me religious?
Posting your BELIEFS on a religion forum does indeed make you advocating your religion. Posting facts on a religion forum does not make you religious. However, you've posted no facts – only your deeply held beliefs (which is the dictionary definition of religion).
You want my facts that there arent any gods? Sure! Just tell me why you dont beleive there isnt an invisible pink unicorn orbiting the moon and Ill just use your method!
Let's check out how it works:
Just an FYI, this is not a "Religion Blog" this is as it says above, a "Belief Blog" which would allow for the discussion between two people with opposing beliefs. You believe your God is real and you come here to tell us so. I believe you are wrong because so far not a single believer has been able to produce even the tiniest shred of evidence for their brand of God.
If your hobby is collecting and guns but I choose not to collect guns and don't own a single one, does that make my hobby not collecting guns? Does that also mean that I shouldn't have a viewpoint on gun ownership or that my viewpoint is invalidated because I don't own a gun? As an American I have the right to own a gun or not and to have an opinion about it either way if I so choose. Same with God. By disbelief is not a religion but it is an opinion just like your religion which is i'm sure why those of simple minds get them confused. Not all opinions are religions but all religions are opinions.
If atheism WERE a religion, it would certainly be B.S.
But it isn't – atheism is just absence of belief in any gods.
And we all know you knew that -and were just dragging atheists down into your own mud.
Nice try. No cigar.
What facts are you looking for?
@ReligionIsBS : What facts are you looking for?
Any fact(s) which supports your beliefs.
You are the one claiming there is a god, so you are the one resposible to show the facts that he is real. It is impossible to prove a negative, so i cannot prove there isnt a god, just like you cant prove there isnt an invisible pink unicorn orbiting the moon. The burden of proof lies on you and you have no proof and no facts. If I told you I could fly and you asked me to prove it, it would be up to me to prove I could fly. It wouldnt be up to you to prove that I cant. Sadly, your an adult and you still dont realize this.
Is it up to you to prove that the dozens of Hindu gods arent real or is it up to the Hindus to prove that their gods are real? Also, using your logic, not being hindu is one of your religions.
@ReligionIsBS : your god, like all gods, are made up fairy tales
@ReligionIsBS : You are the one claiming there is a god, so you are the one resposible to show the facts that he is real.
correction: YOU are the one claiming that the Biblical God is a made up fairy tale, so YOU need to provide the evidence to support your beliefs. Otherwise, I can dismiss your religion as your fantasy.
Sorry, you are correct in one aspect, I did make a claim. I should have said he probably doesnt exist. There.
No, since we are talking about facts, lets see your facts that he is real. This should be fun.
And since we are playing this game, when you are done showing me the facts that your god is real, please show me the facts that the other 2,500 doumented gods throughout history are false. Lets see these facts!
"YOU are the one claiming that the Biblical God is a made up fairy tale, so YOU need to provide the evidence to support your beliefs"
You still dont get it. You are claiming it is real. I dont beleive you. Its up to you to prove it is real. Again, if i told you i could fly, it would be up to me to show you, not up to you to prove I cannot. The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim. You are very dim if you still dont understand this.
Lets try your appoach some more to show how ridiculous you sound.
Guess how this whole universe started. No, dont, ill just tell you. It was created when a purple hippo sneezed and we were all born out of his snot.
Dont beleive me? I hope you have some good facts to prove that it isnt true. Because if you cannot, then its obviously true.
@Live4Him : It's amazing how many atheists come to the religion forum to share their religion. They're very vocal about their beliefs.
@ReligionIsBS : Sorry, you are correct in one aspect, I did make a claim. I should have said he probably doesnt exist.
And I've proven the claim that I advanced on this thread. Atheists are very vocal about their beliefs.
How is not beleiving in something a belief?
Is not beleiving in Islam your belief? Is not being Hindu your other belief?
So, where are these facts? You want facts from me proving a negative, which is impossible. And you cannot show any facts that your belief is true. Thanks or playing!
And if you want to stop sounding like an idiot, you should say "Some atheists are very vocal about their non-beliefs."
It's a belief blog, not a religion forum. The discussion of atheism is completely within the scope of this blog, as it pertains directly to the question of belief.
Rumor has it the JP II's second miracle involved keeping Marcial Maciel practicing his criminal behaviour for years after those activities were well known within the Vatican. After all MM was a large fund raiser for the Vatican and thus one of the hierarchies, JP II included, favorites. Money talks, refer to the book and docu.mrntary Vows of Silence. The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II. Sainthood was always a joke, but the inclusion of JP II and the little Mother make it ridiculous.
'The greatest reward that a servant of God can receive for that which he has done for his neighbor is scorn or contempt, the only reward that the world gave for the labors of its Divine Master.'
St. Ignatius of Loyola
Well, well BD am I supposed to be impressed by some cut and paste from some religious twit of old, sorry large fail. You don't seem to know or you willfully ignore the ugly history of RCC. Poor sad BD continue to be an apologist it shows just what you are.
Religious twit of old LOL. You do understand, I hope that Ignatius of Loyola is the founder of the Jesuits, to which pope Francis belongs? Hardly an irrelevant old twit, unless of course you are a rube.
Your quote had nothing to do with the comment, Bill. It doesn't matter who wrote it. If you wish to call someone a 'rube', start with yourself.
Yes BD a religious old twit for participating in the scam at all but of all the losers at least the Jesuits did espouse to following the life of JC than most. No comment on the book referred too in my original post, good reading, try it?
Oh I think it has everything to do with it tallulah.
Come on, BD no comment on the abuse of power in the papacy of JP II? Next thing you know your lot will be beatifying a known pedophile. After all the truth about what a sadistic bit.ch mama T was is known and she got hers.
See what I mean Tallulah? We've come full circle to where my response now is the same as it was at first.
No BD everybody that reads your posts understands you are a born again catholic that does not ever respond to the criminal activities, what is the line to blind to see or blinded by the dogma and doctrine. Saying other organizations are just as bad as ours, is a pathetic excuse. So answer this question if you can muster up the 'courage; Why would the RCC declare someone a saint that abused his power during his papacy? I mean JP II but could probably include John XXIII.
I see only two fallacies in your question. The first is the claim of abuse of power by John Paul. You may not like the way he handled his papacy but I don't think you can substantiate the claim that he abused anybody or anything. Your second error is that you seem to think the Church decides who is a saint. The Church merely acknowledges and declares that which God has decreed, in these matters. if you have an issue, you should take it upstairs.
Sorry about the delay BD had to take care of a client. There is ample evidence if you chose to look into it. I have already pointed out to you the book and docu,mentary, Vows of Silence. The abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II. But as a RCC and papal apologist you do not accept evidence, you reject it out of hand a very catholic malady. The same way you reject the FACTS about the cover up of s&x abuse in the church.
Sainthood ain't what it used to be. All you have to do these days is just be really, really popular. It's like the religious version of American Idol. Vatican Idol, I suppose.
2000 years ago a man called Jesus coerced a number of people in his cult to swear they had seen him perform miracles and the rest is history.
seems pretty easy for the power of the catholic church to have done the same and manufacture miracles to reward their old buddies.
If there is a god, he must be laughing himself silly at the foolishness that is religion.
coerced them by dying on a cross?
Promised them immortality in paradise (after they died) with no actual proof. I can see how people with limited education, living in extreme poverty might fall for such a fantasy, but it's much harder to understand how this belief persists in an age when our knowledge of the world and the universe is so vastly improved. I guess wishful thinking is more powerful than logic.
Is that what he promised?
That seems to be what every christian seems to expect. Tell me, bill. What's your interpretation of the story?
I think he promised them that they would receive the help of the Holy Spirit, that they were commissioned to baptize the nations, in the name thereof and that they would suffer persecution because of that. But I'm willing to see your source for the promises you describe.
Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
this is like one of the posthumous "lifetime achievement" Academy Awards they give out to old actors who never won an Oscar in their careers. What a giggle.
It throws some perspective on all of the miracles mentioned in the bible, when it's this easy to conjure up a couple of miracles to pin a medal on one of the guys from the old boy's club.
What a scam!
WOW! It's amazing how people that do less than Gandhi and Mother Teresa can be Sainted for all time, just to pick up the spirits of the down-trodden Catholic people.
Teresa has been beatified. Sainthood is imminent for her. Gandhi wasn't Catholic. Do Hindus call him a sadhu?
No comparison, both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were political revolutionaries and in a league very different from Mother Teresa who dedicated her life to social causes of the poor and had no political agenda.
Mother Teresa enjoyed the suffering of the poor very much and took money from tyrants. If she's a saint, then sainthood is nothing more than a rogue's gallery.
Who among us would trust someone who has not suffered? If you would learn to love, learn to suffer. Worldly people view earthly suffering as something to be avoided, but to the Christian, suffering is the pathway to peace.
Thus, as Bill's and his church's theology concludes (as evinced by the "leadership's" non-reaction to the horrific things done...that is, non-reaction until they were exposed), the suffering of those ra.ped and molested by the shepherds of Christ are simply providing them with a God-given opportunity to suffer...which, in Bill's arrogance, is a "pathway to peace."
Two recent cases, Bill.
"Worldly people view earthly suffering as something to be avoided..." Bill, a lay-eucharist minister, doesn't leave the sanctuary, apparently. His paper theology has allowed him to make such an absurd conclusion about those non-catholics who suffer...all around the world for millennea (the last two, in too many cases, at the hands of his church).
Ummmm...Bill, all "creatioin" suffers. It is an evolutionary response to stimulus. All avoid suffering (just consider the rise of the pharmaceutical company) but, based on the human definition, suffering will not be avoided. And, it is a pathetic theology that demands that you view suffering othewise.
Bill, whenever I think of Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, I see you...in all of your spiritual pride...in his place. And knowing you and many of the elements of your church, I know you would gladly drive the nails through Jesus' hand and feet...again.
...despite Jesus' kiss.
"...the old man adhere's to his idea[ls]" Dostoyevsky knew you well, Bill.
The contemporary director and writer, Joss Whedon once described one of his villans (from the movie "Serenity") as a "believer"...and he said this of a believer:
somebody "who believed so strongly in what he was doing that he would do ANYTHING..." He goes on to say: "The exact opposite, of course, of the hero...".
And I love how Christians use Hitler and Mao and Stalin as their "atheist" examples....but no. They are wrong. What were each of these men? They were "Believers"
And if it weren't for the Const.itution and the various levels of the rule of law throughout the planet today, many Christians would gladly initiate programs of the Inquisitor and of the Maos, the Pol Pots, the Stalins, and the Hitlers of the world.
Imminent hey Bill? Well, we've been waiting 6 years and the first "miracle" was a stinking pile of you know what, so did they throw it out and start again, or just get her husband, the doctors and Time Magazine to shut up? See above.