I usually dont agree with his views on a variety of topics, but I have to give kudos to SD on an excellent letter he wrote in the Globe today. I wouldn't have pegged you SD to hold the Pope in such high regard.
Again, SD that was a good letter.
I copied it off the guy next to me.
Thanks PRZ.
These might still work:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050204.LETTERS04-8/TPStory//?DENIED=1&brand">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ED=1&brand</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://canoe.com/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Letters/">http://canoe.com/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Letters/</a><!-- m -->
I agree with you Stephen. I'm a recovering Catholic, I have been for about ten years, but I will never forget when I saw the Pope twenty years ago in Montreal. It will be a sad say when he dies.
Are you serious? You hope he pulls through his current illness? He needs to give up the ghost and turn the post over to someone a little more capable. I shake my head when I see the major media give by-the-minute updates such as "Pope beginning to eat solid food again". My Catholic friends have sent out mass e-mails praising God that the Pope is able to lift his head and speak, however incoherently.
Pope John Paul II has done amazing things in his life, but his life is over now. They should retire him. It's one thing to get excited when your great-grandfather manages to eat food after a sickness, but this man is supposed to be the spiritual leader of a world religion with hundreds of millions of followers! I don't know to what extent he's involved in the affairs of the Church, but he's really nothing more than a figurehead at this point. Look at the things he was doing ten and twenty years ago! You think he's capable of any of that now?
Aside from the obvious religious differences I have with the Pope, I see his symbolic value. But what symbolic value is there in a person that infeebled? What practical use has he? The papacy worked much better back before people lived long enough to succumb to everything in the medical books.
i would like to see the catholic church finally step into the 21st century (hell, the 20th century would be great, too) and elect a pope who is younger and more willing to bring new ideas to the church.
can someone paste the letter in here? i am not going to register just to read it.
what day did it appear in?
grooveless touque Wrote:Are you serious? You hope he pulls through his current illness? He needs to give up the ghost and turn the post over to someone a little more capable. I shake my head when I see the major media give by-the-minute updates such as "Pope beginning to eat solid food again". My Catholic friends have sent out mass e-mails praising God that the Pope is able to lift his head and speak, however incoherently.
Pope John Paul II has done amazing things in his life, but his life is over now. They should retire him. It's one thing to get excited when your great-grandfather manages to eat food after a sickness, but this man is supposed to be the spiritual leader of a world religion with hundreds of millions of followers! I don't know to what extent he's involved in the affairs of the Church, but he's really nothing more than a figurehead at this point. Look at the things he was doing ten and twenty years ago! You think he's capable of any of that now?
Aside from the obvious religious differences I have with the Pope, I see his symbolic value. But what symbolic value is there in a person that infeebled? What practical use has he? The papacy worked much better back before people lived long enough to succumb to everything in the medical books.
I'm with you GT, that's one of the things that seriously pisses me off about the catholic faith. We wait with baited breath as to what he's going to say next and then the faithful follow it like sheep.
I think the catholic church needs to adopt a new policy and retire popes. It's rediculous to have to wait till a pope dies in this day and age.
However, I will be sad when he dies. I still have a special place in my heart for him.
The Pope is free to retire if he so choses but he can't be forced to retire nor can he be fired; the Vatican it is a theocracy not a democracy and rightly so.
patiodweller Wrote:The Pope is free to retire if he so choses but he can't be forced to retire nor can he be fired; the Vatican it is a theocracy not a democracy and rightly so.
I have to agree here; People of different faiths have the right to disagree with a religion they think is wrong, but to call the believers sheep is a little much, I think. In this day and age a religious figure such as the Pope, a muslim cleric or a Jewish rabbi can't just pronounce something and make it apply to everyone in the community. I think that attacking the Catholic Church for its "backwards" practices is wrong on two counts; one, it distracts from concerns that some Muslim practices, like apostasy and shar'ia, are even more backward than their Christian cousins and two, some of the attacks from the left are based on the supposition that tradition has no place in shaping and protecting society.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:I have to agree here; People of different faiths have the right to disagree with a religion they think is wrong, but to call the believers sheep is a little much, I think.
I come from an EXTREMELY devout Catholic family, however my mother was the first to rebel against the church. I have some relatives that said when I got married, because I wasn't married by a priest in the church, I wasn't married. Well I'm not married now because I'm divorced, but hey whatever! :lol: :lol:
All I know is I have a bitter taste in my mouth because religion was shoved down my throat and my boyfriend's family is extremely religious, they're born again baptists and you wanna talk sheep?! BAAAAAAAAA
VioletlightHeron Wrote:I think that attacking the Catholic Church for its "backwards" practices is wrong on two counts; one, it distracts from concerns that some Muslim practices, like apostasy and shar'ia, are even more backward than their Christian cousins and two, some of the attacks from the left are based on the supposition that tradition has no place in shaping and protecting society.
Both of those are false arguments. Pointing to Islam is a red herring; it's the kind of defence we expect from six year olds. The Catholic church is not entitled to a by simply because it can find a religion with more restrictive practices. We're talking about you, young man, not your cousin.
The second is hilariously bad. It says: "attacking the Catholic church is [absolutely] wrong because
some of the attacks don't recognize the importance of tradition." Obviously, attacks on the Catholic church in general can't be invalidated simply because some practices can be defended on the basis of tradition. Secondly, it's a straw man: "tradition has no place" is never the premise of criticisms leveled at the church.
What school are you at, ViolentRightHeron? Do they actually accept this kind of nonsense, or are you just staying in practice for after you graduate?
Edited to add: Oh, and there's one obvious problem with retiring popes. If men decided to limit the pope's term, that would somewhat undermine the doctrine that he's the representative of God on earth, wouldn't it? We can't be telling the almighty what to do with his main man, folks.
First off, I didn't say attacking the Catholic Church was absolutely wrong, I was arguing that some of the attacks by liberal secularists on the church are hypocritical when they ignore obvious problems within Islam while attacking the church for "not being with it". Professors like Ward Churchhill and Susan Sontag are not being intellectually honest when they excuse away actions by Islamic fundamentalists by essentially saying the West had it coming. Secondly, tradition in cultural institutions and practices has alot of redeeming value in explaining where Western culture and society has come from and how it evolves. Tearing down an old order of society without replacing it with something of intellectual solidity that the common person can understand and embrace leads to the stagnation of that society.
mark Wrote:can someone paste the letter in here? i am not going to register just to read it.
what day did it appear in?
It ran in the Sun too, that link you should be able to see for free. The Globe registration is quick and free though. It ran this past Friday.
And PRZ tipped me off to a reply they ran today (Monday) from somebody on the other side of the issue... well, he's on the other side anyway.
It's really easy to critisize this pope and his organization, and I do, often. But the point was, from this secular, filthy lefty's point of view, the guy has stuck to what he believes during an era where character and commitment are lacking in public figures.
And I think he's so devoute, so resolute and so determined to carry on a job he feels so strongly about, that he'll only give up when he boss says he can give up. And given who he feels is his "boss," he'll be there 'till his literal last breath. Good for him. It's a spiritual position, he's doesn't need to be able to flip pancakes and kiss babies to do his gig.