This is why this non-catholic Christian really did like the pope.....

[LynneSin]

"When war threatens humanity's destiny, as it does today in Iraq, it is even more urgent for us to proclaim with a loud and decisive voice that peace is the only way to build a more just and caring society. Violence and arms can never solve human problems."
-- Pope condemns Bush's invasion of Iraq, March 22, 2003

[ck4829]

1. And that's why this Muslim also liked the Pope.

[Ilsa]

2. A friend told me this morning that The Pope sent a very private letter

to the USSR's puppet prime minister in Poland after marshall law was declared in December 1981. According to this story, Pope John Paul II threatened to "lay down the Crown of Saint Peter" and join the solidarity movement if marshall law dragged on for too long. If this is true, I think he had a real pair, and his influence on these matters should bring him respect.

I disagree with many of the positions: birth control, women and the priesthood, abortion, etc., but i see him as someone with very firm principles governing his life and papacy.

[merh]

9. The Polish Solidarity Movement was supported by Pope

John Paul II (financially -- he sent them money, bought them office equipment like faxes and telephones-- spiritually and publicly). PJPII advocated the peaceful, non-violent opposition to the communist government. The leaders of the Solidarity Movement have given credit to PJPII's support and influence and have said publicly his influence was what gave the opposition heart and kept it non-violent. If it had not been for PJPII, the opposition would have been violent and deadly and would not have had the world wide exposure and support that it had.

Solidarity and the Soviet Union

The formation in 1980 of the Polish trade union-cum-political movement, Solidarity, and the strike actions it organized throughout Poland profoundly disturbed Soviet authorities. It was, after all, acutely embarrassing for Marxist-Leninists to be confronted with a movement that so obviously enjoyed widespread support from among workers, the very class in whose interests the Polish and Soviet Communist parties claimed to rule. The ability of Solidarity to survive, despite coordinated attempts to repress it, demonstrated the weakness of the ruling Communist party in Poland, eventually leading to the demoralization of its leadership, and contributing to the collapse of ruling Communist parties throughout eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself.

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1980solidarity&Year=1980

[JohnnyRingo]

3. I remember that.

The next night in "the great Catholic" Bill O'Reilly's "talking points memo" he accused the Pope of being "out of touch with modern politics" and generally senile.

What an ass

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. Oh my. THAT is a clip that needs air time right NOW

Anybody has it?

[fooj]

4. "Violence is evil. Violence is unacceptable."

The Pope was most definitely a man of peace.

O8)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tweed]

10. Hmmmmmm must have missed that doctrine

Yeah, the Pope hasn't said kill gays. Be absurd somewhere else please why don't you? ;)

[Dutch]

12. What an absurd accusation- the Pope never advocated violence towards gays

Offensive as his views in this area were, to suggest he advocated killing gays is every bit as offensive, as well as being hysterical and untrue.

[mitchtv]

17. he never advocated tolerance either

the violence is there and working against "civil" rights is akin to violence. The net result is what I claim.

[mitchtv]

5. Sorry to puke Lynne,

as a member of the "intrinsically disordered", and part of the "ideology of Evil". I only see through the hurt and bitterness and the eyes of murdered(by so called Catholics) gays.I hope you remember that he could have forbidden Catholics from supporting Bush's war. And all the women dead from aids cause condoms are forbidden, No difference from Dobson in my book I am disgusted by this love fest and mass hypnosis/hysteria.

[jonnyblitz]

7. as a gay atheist FREE of religious dogma, I am with you. puking.

:puke:

[merh]

11. Guess what, as a female that has engaged in premartial sex,

something that is also considered evil and sinful, and as a female that uses contraception, something equally evil and sinful, I am here to say that he does not condemn me, but my actions, just as he doesn't condemn gays, but the gay sex.

[mitchtv]

16. intrinsically disordered seens a bit more than that

[merh]

29. Please find me a link that supports that. I haven't read that before.

In the meantime, you may want to read this. Marriage is a sacarment in the Catholic Church.

March 2004
The U.S. Bishops'Between Man and Woman
Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions

In November 2003, the U.S. bishops approved a restatement of long-held Catholic beliefs about marriage. The statement is a response to a growing movement in U.S. society to recognize homosexual unions as legal, married unions. Within a month of the bishops' meeting, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex unions can be equated with marriage. The U.S. bishops' statement, while it upholds marriage, does not condemn homosexual people. It points out, rather, the ancient and sacred character of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

(snip)

We, the Catholic bishops of the United States, offer here some basic truths to assist people in understanding Catholic teaching about marriage and to enable them to promote marriage and its sacredness.

1. What is marriage?

Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (see Catechism of the Catholic Church , nos. 1602-1605).

These truths about marriage are present in the order of nature and can be perceived by the light of human reason. They have been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture.
(snip)

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0304.asp

[Demit]

13. I'm with you on all this tears-welling-up-in-the-eyes sentimentality

A Pope is SUPPOSED to be for peace. He would have been a most unusual pope if he HADN'T been for peace. I'm just amazed at this dismissive attitude of Oh, I know he reviled gays & birth control & the idea of women as priests but he was such a GOOD man because he didn't like war or George Bush. Sentimental crap.

And this "mourning" for a man nobody has ever met. It's all being juiced by the media to make religion more prominent in the US and everybody is falling for it. Will there be the same outpouring of affection for a man of faith when the present Archbishop of Canterbury dies, for example?

[mitchtv]

19. I think some one gets it

after all its only gays and women.

[beam me up scottie]

21. This is how I remember him:

snip
"The greatest crime of his papacy, however, was neither his part in this cover up nor his neanderthal attitude to women. It was the grotesque irony by which the Vatican condemned - as a "culture of death" - condoms, which might have saved countless Catholics in the developing world from an agonising Aids death. The Pope goes to his eternal reward with those deaths on his hands."
snip


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1451484,00.html

[mmonk]

14. on the part

about supporting bush's war. maybe you can find something in here. And no where will you find him supporting violence against gays. I'm interested in the murdered gays by catholics (or do you mean by reference?) I in no way support discrimination against gays but am asking for clarification. Anyway here's some evil ideology for your perusal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3422202

[mitchtv]

20. simply put , some of the most dangerous places for gays

are Catholic countries and catholic neighborhoods in this country. All this "evil" business is not uneffective in de-humanizing a class of people.Fighting Civil rights with terms like disordered and evil are fighting words.

[mmonk]

23. True

and I also want you to condemn Islam which is also dangerous for gays and women, especially with honor killings. So let's hear it. I want you to say Islam is an evil ideology. Go ahead. And let's look at some of the Protestant denominational treatment of the issue. Those that say it is wrong I want you to say they are an evil ideology. Yes there are even more. So let's go and tell it.

[mitchtv]

27. you get no argument from Me on Islamists (who the Dutch are now regretting

those Heretical protestant sects are no better. I attack them all with regularity. Yes, but must i condemn them in a pope thread?. I just love the one who threatened to kill any gay man who looked at him "that" way. I forget his name , but you know the one, who was picked up in Indio with a hooker. However, "Ideology of Evil" is the Pope's words refering to same sex unions , not mine refering to Catholicism

[mmonk]

40. There are easier ways to get to the gay issue

and the Catholic church than interjecting it into a thread about pope John Paul II's objection to the war. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend he promotes violence by inference. It's intellectually dishonest to say he doesn't care about people, their plight, war, poverty etc. because he is against gay marriage and gay sex as it was laid out in the doctrine. You see, we agree on the fact that the stand on gay sex and marriage is wrong. There are many gay Catholics that agree with you also. Too bad we can't get there because you handle the pope differently than others and interject it in unrelated topic posts.

[mitchtv]

41. seems to me I love Pope JP2 threads are

precisely the place to point out what my strate friends are all too willing to put on the back burner.

[mmonk]

54. I'm sure plenty will join in on such threads.

This was a different topic and because someone might agree with his stance on the war hardly means other issues such as that transfer.

[beam me up scottie]

28. With all due respect,

I don't think he called catholicism an evil ideaology. The word evil is what the church used to describe homosexuals.

edit sp

[merh]

30. The word evil is what was once used to describe gay sex,

not gays.

[The Magistrate]

31. Do You Think It Is Evil, Sir?

[merh]

34. That is not the discussion.

As referenced above, SIR, if you would bother to read all the posts in the thread, I am a female that has engaged in premartial sex and have used contraceptives. Both actions are evil, the actions are condemned by the Catholic religion, but I am not.

Sir, I would suggest you read all posts in the thread. I do not think gay sex is evil or that PJPII was correct in his stance. I do however understand them both intellectually and spiritually and I believe that PJPII was a good man that promoted peace. People that ask for understanding without offering it often find that their requests are denied.

[The Magistrate]

35. Thank You For Satisfying My Curiousity, Ma'am

[beam me up scottie]

39. :-)

nt

[mitchtv]

38. Blame the victim , always handy. Yup, its the gays who are intolerant

"ideoogy of Evil" refers to not gay sex, but same sex marriage. None of a tax free institution's business. I should understand What? that they would like to see us all dead like the Southern Baptists do?.They are free to oppose homosexuality, but when they use tax free status to oppose my civil rights , watch out.

[merh]

44. Read the American Catholic Church's March 2004 stance.

As you and others have pointed out, this could not be adopted without the consent of the Vatican and the Pope.

[mitchtv]

55. seems a bit "outdated"

considering their behavior during the election and the recent contradictory screeds coming from Rome. I must admit the American Bishops gave me hope for a fleeting moment. While they were not. all RW pigs; like many good Xians, they shut up and cowered, while the RW stole the show

[merh]

45. You might want to read this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3423644

[beam me up scottie]

48. Why would that thread be of use to him?

A poster states she doesn't care about catholic dogma because she's not catholic and says she's not worried because the catholic church has little influence over US policies?

Guess what? They have a LOT of influence over US policies.

I CARE because if I need a medical procedure and I go to a catholic hospital I don't want someone to decide what is best for me based on THEIR religious beliefs. The same goes for pharmacies.

I CARE because by MY tax dollars are paying to promote your religion (and not just yours) while it is actively trying to restrict my constitutional rights.

I CARE because the church doesn't just want to stop catholic women from having access to birth control and abortion, it wants to stop ME from having access to it as well.

I CARE because I have gay friends that are getting pushed farther away from having the same human rights that hetero people have and the church is more than indirectly responsible for that.

The catholic church has NEVER just wanted to rule catholics and if you don't believe that, you need to look a little closer.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Oh, it was used quite a bit more recently

along with a few other words:

From "Pope calls for halt to 'evil' gay marriages"
Rebecca Allison
Friday August 1, 2003
The Guardian

"The Vatican yesterday urged Catholic politicians to actively campaign against legalising gay marriages which it said were evil, deviant and posed a grave threat to society."

and

"The guidelines, which were issued by the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also described gay sex as inhuman and gay couples adopting children as "doing violence"."

and also

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," it said, adding: "Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour ... but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."

more at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,101028...

So gays shouldn't take it personally if their behavior is called "deviant" or that sex with their partners is "inhuman", or that adopting children would be the same as "doing violence" ?

[merh]

36. August 2003

Seems outdated, and again, where did he say what you have alleged.
According to this article, that is "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" report or position from August 2003.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Are you trying to say the vatican speaks independently of the pope?

Because even though you may think 18 months ago is outdated, those quotes and guidelines came from the vatican.

Actually I never quoted jp2 directly but since you asked, he did write a book recently. This report is from February 23, 2005.

"Pope's book assails gay marriage, abortion"

"Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, Pope John Paul II says in a new book.

In Memory and Identity, the Pope also calls abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century."

from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1309499.htm

[merh]

46. See the link to the March 2004 stance adopted by the US Catholic

Church posted above.

The U.S. bishops' statement, while it upholds marriage, does not condemn homosexual people. It points out, rather, the ancient and sacred character of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

[beam me up scottie]

47. What does a catholic newletter article

about a bishops' statement have to do with the position taken by the pope and the church?

"The U.S. Bishops'Between Man and Woman
Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions"

"The statement is meant to "draw upon reason and faith in order to identify the nature and purposes of marriage and thereby to demonstrate why a same-sex union can never be equated with marriage. That said, the statement does not attempt to be a "detailed theological treatise, public policy statement or legal argument." "

"In fact, said Bishop Boland, "It does not even present a complete catechesis on marriage or homosexuality." "


edit: sp
(back on opera)

[merh]

49. Since you appear to be clueless as to the Catholic Church's

sacrament of marriage, I again ask that you read the full text at the link I provided in post 29.

As you correctly point out in post 42 "Are you trying to say the Vatican speaks independently of the pope?" the U.S. Catholic Bishops do not speak independently of the pope either.

That being said, maybe this will better explain the Catholic Church's position relative to homosexuality and unmarried sex.

(snip)

Accept the orientation, not the actions

As the Catholic bishops state it: "(W)e believe that it is only within a heterosexual marital relationship that genital sexual activity is morally acceptable. Only within marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator’s dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new human life. Therefore, homosexual genital activity is considered immoral" (Human Sexuality, #55). In somewhat less pastoral, more philosophical terms, Vatican documents use the phrase "intrinsically disordered" when referring to homosexual genital acts.

Whatever the term chosen, the implication would be the same: that sexual intercourse is designed by God both 1) as an act of lovemaking, of two-in-one-flesh union, and also 2) as the means to procreate new life, to co-create—as a couple and with God’s grace—new members of the human species. If these are the indelible meanings of sexual intimacy, written, as it were, into human nature and the nature of these intimate acts, then homosexual sex seems to be essentially deficient or incomplete.

Biologically speaking, homosexual sex acts are wholly non-procreative, since either the sperm or ovum element would be absent. While many homosexual couples embrace one another sexually and intimately as an expression of their love, it can be argued that such intimate genital embraces are fundamentally created to be heterosexual acts, reserved to those couples pledged to each other for life in the bond of marriage.

Therefore, the Church calls all homosexual persons, like their single heterosexual counterparts, to be chaste, that is, sexually appropriate for their uncommitted, unmarried state in life. Various Church documents acknowledge that this may be a difficult challenge, even a lifelong cross to carry. This is particularly true since heterosexual couples may anticipate marriage-to-come, while for gay or lesbian couples such a future sacramental union is not available.

(snip)
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0799.asp

To further explain, as a female that has had premarital sex and that has used contraceptions, my actions are not condoned by the Catholic Church and are "sinful", thus they are "evil". My actions are condemned, I am not.

In that same vein, the Church considers the sexual activities of gays to be inappropriate, as sex is supposed to be performed only by married people for the purpose of procreation. "Whatever the term chosen, the implication would be the same: that sexual intercourse is designed by God both 1) as an act of lovemaking, of two-in-one-flesh union, and also 2) as the means to procreate new life, to co-create—as a couple and with God’s grace—new members of the human species."

I do not think that the Pope hates me or is promoting hate for all unmarried heterosexuals that engage in sex. I understand the import of the sacrament to the Church and the limited views. I do not agree with them as I believe the message of Christ is love, undying, unconditional love, and that our purpose on this earth is to love. Lovemaking with someone I love is a natural extension and display of my love.

Please do not limit your understanding to biased reporting by the media. We all know that the media is not perfect and tries to sensationalize for the sake of headlines. Read beyond the articles and find the statement that the religion actually releases on the subject. It will make it much easier for you to understand. It will also make it easier for you to confront and refute the bias of others.

[beam me up scottie]

50. "Please do not limit your understanding to biased reporting by the media"?

You call ME clueless after I quoted the POPE?
This from someone that keeps telling me to read a catholic NEWSLETTER about a "statement" made by bishops after they got worried that same sex couples could get married.

I DID READ IT. It means NOTHING.

GEE WHIZ, the church doesn't print anything nasty in their newsletter so it can't be TRUE...

I could have asked any one of my catholic friends how the church feels about same sex marriage and gotten a better answer.

Hmmm, you only ever quote catholic news sources - would that not make YOU limited in your news sources? And you say the INDEPENDENT news media is biased?

What you keep referring to is a statement.

It is not policy. It does not negate the position taken by the church about homosexual marriage.

It is a statement.

That is all it is. A sugar-coated pill for US catholics who don't want to admit that their church has a HUGE problem with gays.

You said that "the Church considers the sexual activities of gays to be inappropriate"

INAPPROPRIATE?

Did you not read the pope's book? Because I'd hate to think that you would be criticizing me about MY lack of knowledge when you have absolutely no idea what he wrote.

Just in case you missed it, I'll quote him again:

"Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society."

HE SAID "EVIL".

and don't forget this

"In Memory and Identity, the Pope also calls abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century.""

And you know, I could care less whether or not you think the pope loved you or how you feel about birth control as a catholic female.

THAT was not what the discussion was about. It was about how the church feels about HOMOSEXUAL relationships and marriage.

And it seems to be pretty clear if you listen to the vatican and the pope.

[merh]

53. You have yet to quote the full text of the Pope's writings.

You have sited an article that allegedly quotes it, but I do not know the context of the quote.

Nevertheless, I again stand by my interpretations of the Pope's writings, the tenets of the Catholic Church and the stance of the U.S. Bishops, who cannot make such statements without approval of the vatican, the homosexual is not evil, the sexual acts of the homosexual are considered, just as sex between hetrosexuals that are not married by the Catholic Church. Do you understand what that means? That means if as a Catholic, I marry a man in another church or at the courthouse, and then have sex with that man, I am committing a sin and my actions are evil. As a Catholic, I would have to get my marriage blessed by a priest or be married in the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, premartial sex is a sin and is evil, as is the use of contraceptions, whether I am married or not. If my husband uses a rubber, he too is committing a sin, as he is using birth control.

The sources I provide you are the actual text of the U.S. Bishops stance on the issues. They do come from a Catholic news source, but that don't come from some other news media that fails to include the entire writing and not just portions, taken out of context.

"THAT was not what the discussion was about." This is exactly what the discussion has been about. You are the one that hijacked the thread that contained posts from others that believe the pope's peaceful works were admirable. Instead of ignoring the thread that you apparently disagree with, you insisted on posting your hatred of a man and religion that you do not understand and I would surmise have never studied, let along been a member of.

It is not how the church feels about homosexuals and marriage, it is about how the church feels about sex that does comport with the sacrament that is marriage. That includes premartial sex, homosexual sex, masturbation, the sex a Catholic has with their "legal" spouse, but not their spouse as blessed by the Catholic church or their spouse as a result participating in the sacarment of marriage as conducted in the Catholic church.

Now you are throwing abortion into the mix, which is totally outside of the discussion. But since you have, I will try to help you to understand that the belief of the church is that all life is sacred, life begins at conception, so therefor, the killing of fetus, abortion is evil and murder. Because I can understand and appreciate the positions of the church does not mean I agree with them, it means I appreciate why they are the positions and I do not see the man that makes the statement as hateful, evil or against human rights. In actually, I can understand how being anti-abortion makes that person believe that are concerned about human rights, they are advocating the rights of the unborn.

Because I can understand and appreciate the positions does not mean I agree with them. I believe religion is a very personal relationship with God, I believe in the woman's right to chose, I believe in having sex with the person I love and I believe everyone is entitled to being loved and to expressing love as they need and want.

As another poster on another thread questioned, if you are not a member of the Catholic faith, why do you let the tenets of that faith upset you so?

[beam me up scottie]

56. You want me to quote your pope to you? Do you not know

what he said? I could read the book for you if you like, but since you don't believe the independent media sources I provided, I doubt you would pull your fingers out of your ears long enough to listen to me.

Why do I let the church dogma upset me?

Because your precious church can't be content with controlling catholics, it wants all women to abide by it's "teachings"

Is that a good answer?

Here's a few questions for you:

How do you justify that this pope and the vatican not only protected child molesters and rapists but shuffled them around so that they could continue to do so?

How do you justify the deaths of thousands, if not millions, who will die from aids as a DIRECT result of this pope condemning the use of condoms in third world countries?

Why do I let the catholic church "upset me so"?

Maybe because I read a post from another du'er this morning who had been molested by one of your priests.

Is that a good answer?

Why don't you feel a little more upset about the suffering and deaths he's caused directly and indirectly? You refuse to even acknowledge it.

Please don't falsely accuse me of hating your pope, I could care less, just like I could care less who worships him.

What I do care about is the people who get hurt by all of the ignorance and blindness that seems to be growing regarding the policies of him and his church.

And you know what, so does the rest of the world, try reading something not published in a catholic newspaper, you'd be surprised how much you can learn.

Hijack a thread, please, try reading it again. I made several polite comments regarding the treatment of gays, you choose to spam me with religious tripe and got upset when I didn't buy it.

Try to stick to the facts, we don't need your histrionics, they're counterproductive.

[merh]

57. Yes, I read the thread again - I do see hijacking.

What polite comments you might have made regarding gays were overshadowed by your contempt for the pope and your ignorance of the religion.

I simply provided you with links to sources, not just NEWS sources, but sources that contain the full stance of the church on the issues that you are not properly understanding.

The catholic church does not control my government and never will. You should try to find the facts. I have provided you with actual sources that contain the facts and you ridicule my references because they are "catholic new sources". Well, duh, where better to get the facts than from a catholic source. Yeah, they have catholice in England, but I dont' think the Guardian is considered a legitimate source for information relative to the Catholic faith. I could have looked at Baptist web sites, but that seems about as appropriate as the Guardian. Ridicule all you like, it is a Catholic source, yours is just the interpetation of a reporter. I don't think you have access to the pope's book and therefore you are incapable of providing the full context of the statment. Thus, it is very possible that the statement is taken out of context or that the full context of the statement provides a better understanding of the meaning.

As to the victims of the priests, I have weeped for them and I have know many of them. The priests committed the sins and the U.S. catholic leadership covered it up, excused it and tried to hide it, therefore, they condoned it by not stopping it when first reported. It was wrong and there is no explaining it away. As I do not know what position Cardinal Law had relative to the assaults and/or what position he holds at the Vatican and/or what punishment he has had to face, I cannot make a judgment call on him or the pope. To do so would go against a premise that I try to live by, that it is not my place to judge others, especially when I don't have all the facts.

BTW. I am not a practing catholic and haven't been one for years. That does not mean that I cannot appreciate the good works of the man that was the pope. You seem to be caught up in hypocricy - is he a man with many faults or is he an all powerful leader responsible for the deaths of millions and the suffering of millions? I see him as a man that tried to make a difference. I see him as human, so therefore, I see he made mistakes and was far from perfect. He did not control my life, he does not have control over my government and he should be given credit for the good he did.

In closing, you should know that fundies hate Catholics and believe that catholics are pagans because they pray to saints and believe that Mary should be given a place of honor. Catholics will not be raptured. It is the fundies that have tried to take over the government, not the catholics.

[beam me up scottie]

58. See my post in your other thread.

I am sorry.

[merh]

59. Thank you.

:toast:

I look forward to future discussions with you. I think we share common believes. :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

60. Oh, I feel so much better.

I don't want to make enemies of my allies. I'm way over-sensitive right now because of the media blitz, so I can only imagine how you feel.
I look forward to them too.

[merh]

61. If it makes you feel any better, the media blitz is not surprising.

I remember the news coverage in 1978 when Paul VI died, was mourned, was buried and when Pope John Paul I was appointed, died, was mourned, was buried and when Pope John Paul II was appointed. Imagine the death of 2 popes and the appointment of 2 popes a 3 month period.

You want to talk about television coverage. We had 3 channels, ABC, NBC and CBS back then and all of them covered the Pope(s) activities ad naseum. We did have UL stations that, if the antenna was in the right place, allowed us to see PBS programming, but that was not much of a relief. HBO and Cinemax were also available, if you were rich. We were not, so we didn't have them because. VCRs were the big beta tapes and the VCR units were huge and very expensive. Not many movies were available on VCR tapes and those that were available were terribly expensive. No VCR rental outlets existed, so if you wanted to watch T.V. you were stuck with the pope hoopla. Just imagine spending hours as the news caster talked with someone that once talked to the pope while along the camera focused on the corpse or that damn chimney. Watching a chimney waiting for smoke to appear is not exciting. I do remember that they said that a pope was selected at one point and then had to retract the statement when they realized it was black smoke billowing from the chimney and not white. That was a real giggle.

Don't think the media coverage is unusual, it is expected and will fade or you will find other ways to occupy your time. In all honesty, I think the constant coverage will harm the networks, we are an instant gratification society afterall and this is not a tradition that is instant or satisfying. The masses will get angry at the coverage.

Again, thank you for your passion and your concerns. Until we debate or meet again on another thread! merh

[beam me up scottie]

64. I'm old enough to remember that.

I was fascinated by the white or black smoke thing (for a while, it got old really fast). I lived in rural Vermont, we were lucky we had Canadian channels on top of cbs and nbc.
Thank zeus for the internet!

[merh]

65. You lucky dog!!! You had more channels available to you.

Did canadian tv give it extensive coverage?

And yes, thank zeus and Al Gore for the internet!

[beam me up scottie]

68. CBC had some coverage but nowhere near what the other networks showed.

Quebec has a good size catholic population but the rest of the province seem to be more secular.
I wish Al was in the whitehouse now. I'm so embarrassed by the chimp (thinks it's called the "internets") Dumbass.

[LynneSin]

15. well, to be honest he did follow the catholic dogma to a "T"

Including his anti-choice stance and his lack of outrage during the Catholic Sex Scandal here in the United States.

He's not a perfect guy - but he has done a few things we can step back and say "Damn Good!"

[mitchtv]

18. catholic Dogma to a T

That doesn't bother me. But fighting gay rights in Europe and America has nothing to do with Church business. Inflammatory language was just that.

[Eloriel]

62. I have to agree. And here's another take, from someone who knows

Matthew Fox, no lightweight nitwit:

discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=117682#117723

Some Reflections on the Recent Papacy of JPII
by Matthew Fox, Ph.D.
http://www.opednews.com/foxmatthew_040405_pope.htm

[Demit]

22. I appreciate non-Catholics wanting to show respect and all...

but I fear they are being led to do that by some kind of false comparison. Like, Wow! The Pope was so different from leaders in the fundamental Christian movement! What a breath of fresh air. He MUST be a hero then!! Or, Wow! He dared to speak against our president, unlike all our religious leaders in the US! What a great guy!!

He turned back the modernization of the Church. He was a conservative. He was not liberal. He spoke out for peace because THAT'S WHAT POPES DO. It did NOT make him a liberal.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Exactly.

I would never disrespect someone who is grieving but this is exactly what happened after reagan died. No one was allowed to criticize him, he was a bloody hero. Single-handedly defeated communism and all that hogwash.
I am not catholic and I am not gay. To me he was a political figure who selectively used his power. As a religious leader, he could have done so much more but chose not to.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

26. He was a conservative and a liberal. Anti capital punishment, anti war

anti poverty. A decent Pope as popes go

[Just Me]

24. He certainly had some impactful and positive contributions.

I acknowledge him for that and believe he is at peace.

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. "You go without God"

That's what he told Bush to his face.

[Lilith Velkor]

63. This heathen applauded him for that.

Not for much else, though.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

37. I'm Catholic, but I don't mourn him. He rewarded Boston's Cardinal Law

with a plum post in the Vatican, after Law covered up the pedophilia scandal in the Boston archdioscese. There are a lot of pissed off Catholics in Massachusetts who want Law back here to face charges of conspiracy. His lack of action has created a rift in the Church here. and I don't think it's reparable. Here's some links to great coverage of this scandal:

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/pages/cardinal.htm

[beam me up scottie]

52. Gasp!

You mean you don't get your news from catholic sources?
:wow:
Does that make you evil?

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. Build a more just and caring society...minus homosexuals and

women priests and make sure those women never use birth control and if they don't use birth control and happen to get pregnant, make sure they don't have an abortion and please bring Cardinal Law to the Vatican to be safe from the U.S. laws. hmmmmm.

[beam me up scottie]

51. Oh but he said he loved everybody.

So it's all good.

[fortyfeetunder]

66. Ya can't always agree with everything!

I, not a Catholic, can't agree with the church's teachings. But I could find solace and agreement in some of Pope JPII's positions on peace and caring for those in need. I was elated when he got on Bush's case about Iraq. Wish he had given Bush smackdowns more often!

[Lindacooks]

67. When he moved Bernard Law to the Vatican, I permanently

lost all respect for him and NOTHING he did can make up for that or ignoring the priest pedophile scandal.