So, Pope John Paul II died tonight, and although he did a lot of good, Im hoping the more conservative issues of his papacy died with him.
Im looking forward to see what the next pontiff has to say about homosexuality and marriage for priests in the Catholic church.
The late Pope did a lot in bringing certain religions together, I wonder if his successor will do the same or if the Catholic church will crumble without John Paul...I hope it can move on and become more liberal in it's approach to issues such as abortion and the like.
What do you think?

I highly doubt it. I do believe that we are entering, for a possibly brief time, depending on the president of the US in 2008 and what China does to the world economy, an incredibly conservative time. In fact, we are really in it.

I think that abortion will still be the "bad thing to do" in the conservative school of thought. I honestly hope though, that the Catholic church has a reform within the next hundred years. But, I doubt it will happen. There is too much conservative power with or without the Pope.

I do hope that whoever comes in next can do more to bring peace among the opposing sides of most any debate. I hope that whoever comes in next can help teach the world or at least show the world, how to be accepting instead of condemning. (sp?)

What did he actually do?

I think the Church can and will continue to become more open. The Second Vatican counsul took place many years ago and it is a recent event within the Church's history so change will take time.

Don't get angry with me, but I was actually suprised someone posted something about Pope John Paul II's death. I wouldn't doubt that some of you are happy. Its just the feeling I get from being here. So, I'm leaving for good.

Eh? Why're you leaving because someone posted about his death. It's an issue that warrents discussion.

lol, no

I'm leaving because I want to, not because of this. I'm sorry if that seemed a little stupid, but sometimes my emotions can get a hold of me and that was one of those times. So forgive me..

Ah, ok. I hope you'll reconsider your decision though.

Trumpetperson, I'm sorry if posting so soon after the Pope's passing had a personal effect on you, I started this topic as a discussion on how the Church will move forward, and the changes that may occur as a result of the papacy of John Paul II.
It most definately was not a cue for people to attack the Catholic church in any way. Yes, there is a lot of religious diversity on the forums but not, I hope, religious intolerance.

I hope you will reconsider your decision, you are a valued member of the forums and we wouldn't want to see you go...

Although I highly doubt it will happen, I would certainly hope that a new pope would reconsider Catholicism's stance on contraception for the sake of the African nations.

It is currently believed that 80% of 15 year-olds in some regions will die of AIDs. This is a disease that can have its infection rates severely limited with a little bit of common sense. At this rate there won't be anyone left in Africa to Catholic, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't in God's plan.

I'm going to be a little blunt here: I was watching the first live drama broadcast by the BBC in twenty years this evening when a banner flashes up on screen saying that there is a 'major news announcement on BBC News 24'. I know that the Pope's death was of great significance to Catholics around the world, but I was a little puzzled by the wording. Was this a major news announcement? I'd consider the WTC attacks to easily fall into that category, and the boxing day tsunami too, but a massively ill 84 year-old finally getting the peace he needed (that I suspect it would have been nicer for him to have found a few years ago; slow deterioration of health isn't nice for anyone) didn't strike me as a major news event.

I'm sorry if that view seems really cold, but judging by the descriptions of his health over the last couple of weeks I was amazed to find he wasn't dead everytime I woke up in the morning. It is certainly global news, but the term 'major' spoke to me as meaning something that was really tragic rather than a natural and expected event finally happening. It's sad when anyone dies, but he was clearly suffering a great deal, so I'm happy for him that that has ended. I just hope that whoever follows him into the big chair has the sense to not inflict a similar level of suffering on millions of Africans. I bet they don't get nearly as many people mourning them.

Mata: I think your logic is a bit off there. Yes, the Vatican condemns condom use as sinful. The Vatican also says that you should only have sex within a monogamous marriage. Really, if you follow all of the Vatican's rules, you're extremely unlikely to get AIDS.

I'm glad he died.
It has been really upsetting me that every time I turn on the TV for the last week I'm being told how another part of him has failed.
I'm interested in wheather the wispers I've heard about the next pope geting out before they die are true. I certainly hope so.
I'm sure this is a sad day for religious people but I hope you see the good in it because it is wrong that this man was alowed to publicly detieriorate in that way.

DLCP: the Pope may retire if he wishes, and doesn't need anybody's permission or approval to do so. However, when he's elected to the papacy, it's expected that he'll serve as long as he is able to do so. John Paul II was reportedly fully lucid until his last days, so it was appropriate for him to remain in office.

Fair point, but it does rather ignore the social situation in Africa.

The Bush presidency suggests a similar thing in their 'ABC' campaign for Africa - A for abstinence, B for being faithful, and C is for condoms, always in that order. Unfortunately, America only suggests condoms to prostitutes and drug addicts, with abstinence for all single people.

The problem is that there is a culture in the men in Africa for having girlfriends in other towns, so while the woman may be faithful, it's not so likely that the man will be. Discouraging the use of condoms doesn't do anyone any favours, and the infection rates in Africa suggest that monogamy is possibly even less popular than it is here. The best and most realistic defence is to encourage the use of condoms by everyone whenever possible. Putting it as a distant third, that is only suggested for the highest risk people, does nothing to help the average person. That might be a reasonable approach if the spread of HIV were under control but it simply isn't.

I'm half afraid to post this, but I'm hoping the church doesn't change its stance on all its issues. Marriage for priests isn't in the Bible as such (beyond it being better if you can happily devote yourself to God), but for those issues that are such as seuxality and abortion, I hope it doesn't change too much. There's a difference between adjusting to help people (Such as sex ed, fighting violence/abusive behavior toward people with differences, ect) and rewriting your holy book.

This thread prompted me to research though. I'd watched a TV program claiming that besides his efforts for peace, that he'd appointed more bishops/something of different races and cultures than any other pope. I found a listing of the cultural makeup of the elected ones, but not if it was in greater or lesser numbers than previous popes. It was a fascinating read though, especially of his experiences with women and response to women within the church.

Edit- And I agree with you about Africa, Mata. If people were following a single religion consistently and the culture supported it, that would be one thing. But the situation in Africa is so out of control in so many places. A lot people aren't even living long enough to be preached too. I'd love for people to follow abstinence, but they need to be alive long enough to realize its possible.

I watched a doco about the spread of AIDS in africa and when they adked the local priests why people were getting AIDS their answer was "they're sinful" and what about the children born with AIDS "their parents are sinful and if they stop God will fix their kids"
That is a load of irisponsible garbage and the pope knowing the situation and knowing his religion shpuld have said when it was brought to him that it was OK to use condoms.
The various missionarys should also be held responsible for converting people in such a way that they can't rationally say like most of the western world thats crap don't believe that and thats not.

I'm glad that the man has finally gotten the peace he deserves... I'm against suffering of any kind. Death is highly misunderstood, in this regard. We look on it as the worst thing that can happen, but it can be a form of healing, as well. Death is a release, not a punishment.

As for the Catholic church... What can I say about an institution that persecuted a scientist (Galileo), for telling the truth, then waits nearly a thousand years before admitting that it "May" have made a mistake? The Catholic church has always been behind the rest of the world, and will always be, I think.

And, how can they justify having the head of the church living in luxury, when so many of their followers are poor, and/or dying, when a little cash flow could remedy that state of affairs? It's one of the oldest pyramid schemes in existance, to my way of thinking...

Sorry, but I tend to be Anti-organised religion in general, and can't stand it when religious figures take advantage of their parishiners. The Catholic church needs to get off it's collective butt, sell off a few paintings, a few rings, and a few goldplated fixtures, and actually LIVE it's commitment to God's children, rather than just giving lipservice to it.

The soapbox is now free...

I agree Quoth. Its my problem with tele-evangelists and any rather wealthy churches.

Problem is, for the Church leaders to live in luxury is actually supported Biblically.

I never did get the positive message in that. It basically sounds like jee whiz saying that he's more important than the poor because he's about to kick the bucket, and hence implies that their deaths, and as such their lives, are inconsequential. Nice coming from a man who was the "hope of all humanity"... saviour? more like saver...

The chances of the next Pope being a reformer are pretty low, I'd guess. All (or most) of the current Cardinals were appointed by JPII and are likely to hold similarly conservative opinions to him. Additionally, it is Vatican tradition to appoint an older Pope after one who has had a long term, so the next one will probably only last a decade and would not have time to start a major debate on Church doctrine. Plus, older people tend to be more conservative, as is always the way.

And I seriously doubt that the Church's position on homosexuality is ever likely to change: the Bible is pretty clear on what it thinks about homosexual behaviour. The Catholic Church also has a lot of conservative 'ballast' in its clergy and laity, so change is likely to risk serious schisms and find moves to liberalise massively unpopular.

I'm not overly bothered by the Pope's death. I'm not a huge supporter of Catholicism and find their beliefs to be severe and archaic.

This, sadly, is not going to change with a new Pope, I don't think. A lot of Catholics are, and will continue to be, very strongly opposed to homosexuality, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, etc. For the next one to come along and say 'Right. Enough of that, that's all crap' could easily provoke a moral outcry from the Catholic community, as that's they way they've done it for hundreds of years and that's what it says in the Bible. I don't think this new Pope can do much of anything until the followers themselves come 'round to a different way of thinking. He may be able to ease a little leniency in, but I don't think there's going to be a huge change in the Catholic church for a long time yet.

I could, of course, be completely wrong, as I often am.

*edit* Also - what Polo said. That too. Which wasn't there when I started this.

I totally 110% agree.

Another thing that bugs me about the Catholic church are the instances of child abuse that is committed by it's priests. Rather than opening coming out and admitting they had a problem with it, they merely swept the whole affair under the carpet. I hear they sent child abusers off to 'camps' where they could stay, and when the whole thing had blown over, return them to a different parish.

Plus, another thing that, for me, is important was that he was merely a man. Yet some people appear to treat him as though he was a demi-god.

93% of the Cardinals of voting age (a Cardinal must be below the age of 80 to vote for the papacy, a rule introduced by JP2 himself) were appointed by him.

Er, Commie.. you don't see that quote as being wildly out of context? The difference would be giving a gift of love towards say, the Son of God before He died horribly.. and a bunch of old men living in luxury.

Jesus repeatedly gave to the poor, had people give up everything to the poor to follow Him and so on throughout the NT, since we're quoting. While there's a lot to pick on about organized religion, I'm really not seeing the connection between that and the current Catholic Church. One's still living and one was a single gesture of grief and guilt.

I don't want the Church to suddenly abandon scripture. However, I will be naively optimistic and hope that they can start to move on towards dealing with modern issues and concerns. A little reality can be helpful, I hear.

Edit-

Tarantio:

Well, if we look at the gospels, Jesus showed great concern for the poor over and over. Its possible that he could have abandoned all that, but I'm not sure one quote qualifies as evidence of such. In this particular case, its also worth noting who's asking the question and thats its specifically said that he asked out of greed and not concern. Jesus was with Judas for years as they traveled across Judea/Israel. If Judas was greedy, there were likely hints of it before this and that would certainly influence the answer one might give to said person.

There's also a difference, I'd agrue between atonement/funeral and so on gifts and random luxury. At least in the heart of the giver.

Since the Pope is meant to be Christ's representative on Earth, I don't really see a huge leap, no...

I think this is where I'm glad I'm not catholic. Though I still think as in above post that such gifts are different from random luxury.

Minor edit- The above edited post, that is. Because I suck.

I kind of think of the Cardinals as the Justices of Catholicism. Whatever the Pope is, he's going to put Cardinals of his same feather in charge. A never ending cycle with Catholicism, but at least we get a liberal president every once in a while to appoint likewise Justices.

If anything, the Catholics are going to be more defensive of their morals in these times. There are so many touchy issues (homosexuality, abortions, condoms etc.) that they really can't afford to change ideals right now. They have to put their foot firmly down and support what they've always supported in order for everyone to still think they've got their s**t together.

Pardon the pun, but I don't expect miracles from the next pope. I'm realistic that women priests are not likely, and that homosexuality is going to remain deemed 'evil', but I hope that the views of Catholicism on condoms and also their treatment of known child-abusing priests will be revised.

As I've said before, the teachings of the Catholic church are directly related to the deaths of millions of people around the world and particularly in Africa. Any benevolent organisation has a responsibility to the welfare of their members, and the next pope needs to realise that the nature of disease has changed since biblical times. How can a virus be evil? If the Catholic church truly believes that HIV is a punishment for evil deeds then they can try infecting their next pope with it. Surely if he's good then he will recover?... Sorry to be flippant, but I think that Catholicism needs to drag itself out of the middle ages and confront the issues that face the world right now.

Lets pretend that AIDS is a punishment for evil deeds for a moment. Even if we say for the sake of debate that that is true.. its spreading beyond the 'guilty' and into innocent and creating many orphans and AIDS babies. Even if a punishment for sin is an expected consquence, a church should still be working on helping the orphans and widows suffering because of such. Which would be helped by having AIDS fought or protected against. heh.

It is also refuted Biblically.

The donkey being a symbol of humility and poverty.

I have a idea.. wait for it... How about they don't elect a new pope and people actually read their chosen religious reference manual and make up their own minds!! I really can’t help but to feel that organized religion is a kin to Jim Jones and Kool-Aid. To follow one persons interpretation without question is cheating the religious work itself. If you want to have someone to consult that is fine, but when you stop interpreting a work yourself and depend on one person’s insight you lose a little of yourself.

I think the Pope did some great things in regards to spreading peace. Nevertheless, being part of the homosexual community he can bite my shiny gluteus maximus in regards to his social doctrine. I still respect him as a person and I am very glad his suffering has ended. It was horrible to see him is such pain. I really admire his courage and desire to lead as well.
Plus, how can you not love sound bites like these..
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/26...s.ap/index.html

Wow, how cool would it be to say 'I break-danced for the pope!'?

I agree Rav, while I don't agree with all of the things that he stood for I was glad to hear that his suffering was finally over.

I agree with you totally, Mata, that the Church really needs to open its eyes to modern times. However, I'm pretty sure that it's not church doctrine that HIV is a punishment for evil deeds... some local priests may believe that, but the Vatican certainly does not teach that, nor is it able to control the (wacked out) beliefs of all priests.

The next pope is likely to be just as conservative as JPII was. There is one "liberal" candidate, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who has stated that condoms are not sinful in (limited) certain circumstances). My hope is that someone like him will get into power, because then he will be able to appoint cardinals who are a little less conservative, and they will elect a slightly more liberal pope, and so on... and then hopefully 100 years from now, the Church may be finally moving into the 20th century. I don't see the largest church in the world collapsing any time soon (it may slowly die out, but that will take time), so I figure that's our best hope.

I find all the talk of 'liberalising' the church to be rather.... odd. The church is not there to be popular. It is there to hand down 'truths' as given to Man from God and through his son, Jesus.

As a result it is incapable of 'shifting with the times'. Any such action not just raises doubt as to the legitimacy of the institution, but also raises the wishes of Man above the will of God.

The church can change, as recognition that the Earth is not flat or the centre of the Universe shows. The thing is that to my knowledge this was not explicitly stated in the good book. However, there are some 'truths' that are carved in stone (excuse the pun).

Accepting homosexuals, as an example, will not happen unless the Bible is rewritten. And theres about as much chance of that happening as there is of John Paul ][ coming back as a cyborg.

Destroy a bastion of tradition that has persisted more or less for nearly 2000 years while the world around it has been consumed by ever-changing events? Not gonna happen. Any attempt would surely shatter the 1 billion or so Catholics into rival sects. And I am not sure it would be entirely peaceful either.

Saying that, the Church has done (and is currently) doing great evil in the world, to my mind at any rate. Official Catholic spokespeople are saying that condoms can not help stop the spread of AIDS, even with mountains of evidence to the contrary. John Paul ][ was a vocal supporter of this. Even after all the good work he has done, this has undoubtably resulted in the deaths of many

I have even read reports in the last few years of Catholic priests in africa stating that condoms are the REASON for AIDS. It is part of some conspiracy. Nutty? Oh yes... I truly hope these were just some fringe crazies that slipped through the watchful eye of the Church. Like peodophile priests.... ones which the late Pope seemed to shield from justice Maybe he just couldn't comprehend the ghastly nature of the crime... *shrugs*

Reform is needed, and the late Pope was a good start. But nothing great will happen for a while. I celebrate his life for that and I am saddened by his death, but he is not what I would consider the shining light of human goodness. Though maybe his more conservative choices that could have been avoided (like through a Papal Bull or something) were through ignorance. Most of these choices came late in his Papacy though... and during this time I am not completely sure his actions were completely his own. It is not unconcievable that an ill, old, and incredibly frail man had someone make up his mind for him. *shrugs again*

I reckon they will elect a nice old conservative Pope. One that will not live long and would rather consolidate the changes that have been pushed through rather than create any new bombshells. This will give them time to think through the direction they wish to go in, and also see what the actions of the late Pope have resulted in. Hopefully drawn from an area of great religious strife. One who would rather draw together the religions of the world and lessen the attractiveness of religious violance, than cause any great stir. In essance, follow through with the possibly most enlightened policies of John Paul ][.

There is a Nigerian candidate who could fill this role. Nigeria has seen far too much blood spilt between Christians and Muslims recently. But to my knowledge he is an arch-conservative, so things may actually regress.

It is also rumoured that John Paul ][ secretly cannonised a Chinese priest. Secretly so the government there would not pursecute him. If this man was to be called to rome and made Pope, it could do wonders for the strengthening of the faith and strengthening of religious tolerance in that country. Or it could backfire. Who knows?

Given the Dali Lama's relationship with the Chinese government, I seriously doubt that a Chinese pope would be likely to make any difference to their policies. Nice idea though!

Apparently there is historical precedent that shows that the voting for new popes often is on the principle of finding someone with different views to the pope before. This does make sense when you think about it; by alternating between conservative and more liberal popes you can generate a faith that is capable of adapting slowly to the environment around it and new challenges as they evolve. There's a chap from Brazil who would be the best bet if this trend were to continue.

Apparently the most predicatable thing about papal votes is that it usually surprises everyone, so I'm not about to run out and start betting any time soon!

Given that condoms weren't invented until a few hundred years ago, I find it unlikely that they were explicitly mentioned in the Bible, so anything about them is based on interpretation of the existing texts. Where there is interpretation I retain hope for progress. Sadly, I think that even if the next pope did do an about-face on the issue, I think it is still going to be way too late for a very significant proportion of the poorest people in Africa and around the world.

Ah yes, the Dali Lama. I had completely forgotten about that. Maybe the Pope being so highly recognised in the western world would make a difference. It may have an effect on trading partners or the like. But China has always been rather stubborn so I suppose thats just a hopeful dream... Not to put down the Dali Lama, but in the West™ he isn't held as high as the Pope.
The USA (with a supposedly catholic Bush at the helm) might not appreciate the Chinese cracking down on the Catholic Pope. *shrugs*

As for condoms, they have existed for thousands of years. The ancient Egyptians had them, made from pig intestines I believe. The upper classes have always had access to them to some degree or another. Maybe there isn't anything about them explicitly said in the Bible, but a lot of dogma has built up over the millenias. Something about sex only being for procreatian. Using bodies simply for pleasure is evil. But I'm not too sure on the actual stance.
And even if there was a U-turn on it, it is so fundamental to Catholicism that there may even be a split. Scary thought... and in the meantime hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of people die through sexually transmitted diseases.
*sighs*
There isn't really a happy quick solution. Except maybe God coming down and kicking everyone into shape.

Bush isn't Catholic; I think he's a Methodist.

I'm not going to quote the whole post, though I was tempted. I just wanted to applaud it. Very well said and true. The Bible isn't going to be rewritten and the Church isn't there to be popular or liberalize itself with the times. The Bible speaks repeatedly of following the world as one of the great evils and temptations. With that doctrine, it would be much harder to get a majority of catholics or christians to feel comfortable with things outside or directly in contradiction to the Bible. Though people certainly have their own views on some issues and stuff.

Its a struggle I have had and still have, as I find I'd be more liberal than God on my own. >.> Its why I try to concentrate on practical solutions that everyone can agree on. Like how protect people from abuse, limit or end suffering and so on. Thats my hope for the Catholic and Protestant Churches. I don't ever think the world and the Church will agree, but at least the world (and Church) can be made a better place, one person at a time.,

And it may not be entirely relevant for the Catholic Church, but the argument I always hear against sex ed as that it will encourage people to have sex outside of marrage. Same with condoms. That sex/immortality will seem even more acceptable, everyone will do it and so on. The pleasure argument is probably still used somewhere, but its not the one I've heard/read on. The tiny problem with that is that people are already doing and per usual, the wrong people are often suffering for it.

Really? I thought I saw on BBC earlier that he was a Catholic. Oh well.
I wonder if it would hamper trade though... China depends heavily on imports... would the rest of the world suffer from lack of their exports?

"Something about sex only being for procreatian"

That's not actually taught anywhere in the Bible, but is a doctrine that has built up over 2000 years of a very bizarre preoccupation with sex in the Church, especially in connection to the story of Eve/sex as being the transmitter of original sin.

There's other things I could comment on, but it's late and I'm tired.

This is very subtile in the bible, but have you ever noticed that with the trinity, The father is giving everything to his son and the son is giving everything to his father, through this love, life, or the holy spirit, is created.
Using this analogy with love, we find that the sole purpose of sex is for both love giving and life giving. As the pope once said, the opposite of love is use.

There's also the Song of Solomon. *keff*

Ah, but all that sex in the song of Solomon as actually about the love of Christ for humanity. Honest guv. It's not pr0n, honest. No, really. It isn't.

We had to read that aloud in my youth group years ago, and it was terrifying. I was about 11 at the time, and the only girl in the group, so guess who got to read all the female bits?

*shudders*

It is interesting that the church's struggle for a pure image has led to an extreme decrease in our image of them. The Song of Solomon isn't included in a huge number of Bibles printed, and by sweeping all the dirty priests under the rug they've caused this sniggering sort of paranoia.

I have to say though, as a person, I thought the Pope was a really nice. After his assassination was foiled, he went to the prison and forgave the assasin. I know I wouldn't do that. I don't agree with his views on abortion, gay rights, the AIDS epidemic,--scads of things, but I respected him as a leader of a church I'm not part of.

Also, he had people breakdance for him, and that's pretty damn cool.

Mata:

I'm not sure I can believe that, having read it. I don't think Christ loves me like that, thank you very much. >.>

Given the state of the christian faith I don't want the christian god to love me. So far its proved to be a vicious blinkered hateful thing and I want no involvement in it at all.

Breaking story! Pope not as dead as first believed! See here.

I figured this was the best place to report that.

Maybe in the Old Testament, but He seemed to mellow a bit in the New.

Perhaps because he was seeking a broader audience?

The wine improved.

But I suppose you could say that either way, what with the message being taken to the gentiles. And things like the Roman Centurion.