MSM Leader, NYTimes And The Pope's Obituary

[Annie]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_04.php#010051

Scroll down just a bit for the 'screen grab' that was caught. No bias here.

Pope John Paul II died this afternoon. The New York Times reports on his papacy in an article that inadvertently tells us more than the Times really wanted us to know. The Times had its criticisms of John Paul's papacy ready to go, but apparently went looking for something good to say about the Pope at the last minute:

Even as his own voice faded away, his views on the sanctity of all human life echoed unambiguously among Catholics and Christian evangelicals in the United States on issues from abortion to the end of life.

need some quote from supporter

John Paul II's admirers were as passionate as his detractors, for whom his long illness served as a symbol for what they said was a decrepit, tradition-bound papacy in need of rejuvenation and a bolder connection with modern life.

"The situation in the Catholic church is serious," Hans Kung, the eminent Swiss theologian, who was barred by from teaching in Catholic schools because of his liberal views, wrote last week. "The pope is gravely ill and deserves every compassion. But the Church has to live. ...

In my opinion, he is not the greatest pope but the most contradictory of the 20th century. A pope of many, great gifts, and of many bad decisions!"

Among liberal Catholics, he was criticized for his strong opposition to abortion, homosexuality and contraception, as well as the ordination of women and married men. Though he was never known as a strong administrator of the dense Vatican bureaucracy, he kept a centralizing hand on the selection of bishops around the world and enforced a rigid adherence to many basic church teachings among the clergy and Catholic theologians.


There you have it. The Times' criticisms are ready to go, a few good words for the Pope are an afterthought.

UPDATE: I got a screen grab of the second page of the Times article, just before they changed it to delete the "need some quote from supporter:..."

 

[Merlin1047]

LOL - good catch Kathianne.

I have to admit that I too am critical of some of Pope John Paul's philosophies and decisions. While the basic tenets taught in the Bible should remain inviolate and constant, we should not confuse biblical teaching with church dogma.

It is the Catholic church, not Christ or the Bible which foisted the aberrant policy of celibate priests on the Catholic clergy. The result of this policy has been homosexuality and pedophelia. The Catholic clergy has been tainted by the actions of priests forced to endure an unnatural lifestyle. I see the Catholic concept that priests receive the blessing of the church as a substitute for a wife as not only downright stupid, but sick. Even worse than the pedophiliac predations of some priests was the systematic and institutionalized coverup sponsored by the church. Worst of all was the deafening silence from the Vatican while all this was going on.

John Paul was no champion of women's rights. He resolutely and emphatically rejected the notion of women priests. Again, this is mostly church dogma not biblical teaching. I doubt very much that Christ viewed women as subservient second-class citizens.

John Paul was a determined foe of contraception or any form of birth control. This, in a time when we are in imminent danger of breeding ourselves into an irreversible environmental disaster of global dimension.

John Paul resolutely opposed ANY effort by our country to attack terrorists. He blindly holds to his belief that ANY war is wrong. In my view, that is a fool's notion.

John Paul was a force for liberation in eastern Europe and I believe that history will remember him fondly for his efforts there. But any objective look at his Papacy will have to include the many gaping flaws which characterized his decision making process.

 

[Annie]

LOL - good catch Kathianne.

I have to admit that I too am critical of some of Pope John Paul's philosophies and decisions. While the basic tenets taught in the Bible should remain inviolate and constant, we should not confuse biblical teaching with church dogma.

It is the Catholic church, not Christ or the Bible which foisted the aberrant policy of celibate priests on the Catholic clergy. The result of this policy has been homosexuality and pedophelia. The Catholic clergy has been tainted by the actions of priests forced to endure an unnatural lifestyle. I see the Catholic concept that priests receive the blessing of the church as a substitute for a wife as not only downright stupid, but sick. Even worse than the pedophiliac predations of some priests was the systematic and institutionalized coverup sponsored by the church. Worst of all was the deafening silence from the Vatican while all this was going on.

John Paul was no champion of women's rights. He resolutely and emphatically rejected the notion of women priests. Again, this is mostly church dogma not biblical teaching. I doubt very much that Christ viewed women as subservient second-class citizens.

John Paul was a determined foe of contraception or any form of birth control. This, in a time when we are in imminent danger of breeding ourselves into an irreversible environmental disaster of global dimension.

John Paul resolutely opposed ANY effort by our country to attack terrorists. He blindly holds to his belief that ANY war is wrong. In my view, that is a fool's notion.

John Paul was a force for liberation in eastern Europe and I believe that history will remember him fondly for his efforts there. But any objective look at his Papacy will have to include the many gaping flaws which characterized his decision making process.

Again Merlin, we are all free to choose whatever religion or lack thereof we want. Interestingly enough, there may be no more apologists on earth than Americans, for our mistakes and examining what we have done right or wrong; except to be an American Catholic. You don't have a clue to what that double whammy does, for being hated while you try, (even if sometimes you are wrong or fail to do the right thing).

I am in no way trying to convince anyone to become Catholic or even Christian, I think the way to God is through Christ, which means that in the most basic sense, there's not a lot of difference between "Christians" and what so many see as "not Christians," but Catholics. Again, if done with respect, I don't really feel a need to argue, just expect the same respect in return.

As for the points you bring up, you might try reading the encyclicals, which can be found here, I'm giving the 'English' homepage:

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

Then again, don't. There is something to be said for those that are 'Catholic' but choosing what to go along with and not, that they should look at the 'reformed' Protestant religions.

 

[Merlin1047]

Again Merlin, we are all free to choose whatever religion or lack thereof we want. Interestingly enough, there may be no more apologists on earth than Americans, for our mistakes and examining what we have done right or wrong; except to be an American Catholic. You don't have a clue to what that double whammy does, for being hated while you try, (even if sometimes you are wrong or fail to do the right thing).

I intended no disrespect toward Catholics, the Catholic Church or the Pope. I merely wanted to offer a critical evaluation of Pope John Paul II's reign.

FYI, I was raised in the Catholic faith. Was an altar boy and all. And no, I was never abused by a priest. But I left the Catholic church when I started having questions about the church for which no one had any answers which satisfied me.

In my view, the Catholic church has become mired in its own beaurocracy and has begun to confuse that beaurocracy with the teachings of the Bible. Church dogma is simply policy that has been developed over time by officials of the Catholic church. As such, it is neither biblical nor sacrosanct. Church dogma should be subject to periodic review and update, it should not be treated as if it were etched in granite.

So I apoligize if I offended you, that was never my intent. Religous discussions are always a ticklish topic and with my propensity for blurting out exactly what I think, it would probably be best if I stayed the hell out of them.

 

[Annie]

I intended no disrespect toward Catholics, the Catholic Church or the Pope. I merely wanted to offer a critical evaluation of Pope John Paul II's reign.

FYI, I was raised in the Catholic faith. Was an altar boy and all. And no, I was never abused by a priest. But I left the Catholic church when I started having questions about the church for which no one had any answers which satisfied me.

In my view, the Catholic church has become mired in its own beaurocracy and has begun to confuse that beaurocracy with the teachings of the Bible. Church dogma is simply policy that has been developed over time by officials of the Catholic church. As such, it is neither biblical nor sacrosanct. Church dogma should be subject to periodic review and update, it should not be treated as if it were etched in granite.

So I apoligize if I offended you, that was never my intent. Religous discussions are always a ticklish topic and with my propensity for blurting out exactly what I think, it would probably be best if I stayed the hell out of them.

I should have made it clear, I did NOT take offense at anything you wrote! The points you made are constantly being made by Catholics, including priests all the time. For now though, they are the teachings of the Church, very unlikely to be changed in the forseeable future. Many American Catholics have chosen to leave the Church because of one or more of the issues you brought up.

No offense taken.

 

[Merlin1047]

No offense taken.

Good.

I piss off enough people on purpose. I don't want to get anybody peeved at me by accident.

 

[Avatar4321]

I wanted to make a few comments to your remark.

John Paul was no champion of women's rights. He resolutely and emphatically rejected the notion of women priests. Again, this is mostly church dogma not biblical teaching. I doubt very much that Christ viewed women as subservient second-class citizens.

I don't see a problem with him rejecting the notion of female priests. The fact is there is no evidence of females with the priesthood in the scriptures. I don't think this means that they are advocating that Christ views women as a subservient class.

John Paul was a determined foe of contraception or any form of birth control. This, in a time when we are in imminent danger of breeding ourselves into an irreversible environmental disaster of global dimension.

I don't see anything wrong with him fighting contraception. I don't have a problem with them myself. Im in favor of the natural contraception called chastity myself. But I don't believe the environmentalist wackos when they complain about overpopulations. They've been b****ing about it for well over a century already and despite huge population surges we are still doing quite well. Heck there are still areas of the world with little to know populations. In fact ive seen some reports that that indicate that the worlds population will is evening out and will begin declining in a few decades. And thats without us killing each other.

John Paul resolutely opposed ANY effort by our country to attack terrorists. He blindly holds to his belief that ANY war is wrong. In my view, that is a fool's notion.

I can't disagree here. Which is interesting considering his background. You would think he was more sympathetic with good people fighting to stop tyranical and totalitarian regimes such as Hitler's and Stalins.

 

[Annie]

I can relate to most of what Avatar wrote. I think everyone here knows my feelings on the WOT, yet let's not forget, he did say that Afghanistan fit the 'just war' parameters.

This might be a good place to input the 'infallibility' issue, on something like war, contraceptives, women's roles, etc., the Pope is not considered 'infallible,' which is why these issues are revisited time and time again.

 

[Merlin1047]

I was going to just let this one slide. But I guess my sadistic streak is active today.

I don't see anything wrong with him fighting contraception. I don't have a problem with them myself. Im in favor of the natural contraception called chastity myself.

Ummm - are you married? If so, how does your wife view this "chastity" thing? Mine's no nymphomaniac, but I doubt she'd be too damn pleased if I came home and announced "Honey, guess what, you won't need those pills any more! From now on, we're doing the Nike thing in reverse and we 'Just WON'T do it' ".

Yeah, I know that's probably not what you meant.
I tried to let it go and not jump on that.
I just couldn't.
I'm a weak person.
I'm so ashamed.
Trust me.
:teeth:

 

[Annie]

I was going to just let this one slide. But I guess my sadistic streak is active today.



Ummm - are you married? If so, how does your wife view this "chastity" thing? Mine's no nymphomaniac, but I doubt she'd be too damn pleased if I came home and announced "Honey, guess what, you won't need those pills any more! From now on, we're doing the Nike thing in reverse and we 'Just WON'T do it' ".

Yeah, I know that's probably not what you meant.
I tried to let it go and not jump on that.
I just couldn't.
I'm a weak person.
I'm so ashamed.
Trust me.
:teeth:

She sounds so demanding!

 

[Avatar4321]

Ummm - are you married? If so, how does your wife view this "chastity" thing? Mine's no nymphomaniac, but I doubt she'd be too damn pleased if I came home and announced "Honey, guess what, you won't need those pills any more! From now on, we're doing the Nike thing in reverse and we 'Just WON'T do it' ".

Chastity is only the abstention from unlawful sex. Once your married its perfectly chaste to have fun. in fact its a commandment from God.

Course like i said i dont have any problem with the contraception. its between you guys. aint none of my business. I just agree that they should be encouraging chastity rather than condoms to unmarried people.

 

[Avatar4321]

She sounds so demanding!

Yeah i feel soooo bad for the guy. :teeth: