kinda sad

[mtporter 0]

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I have been glued to my tv. The pope finally passed away. I grew up catholic, but even if you are not you have to admit that he was a great man and a humanitarian. He will be missed by millions of people. On a lighter note, I am very interested to see the conclave that will follow.

[Travis Kroells 0]

Yeah, I dont have much opinion in this matter, being an Atheist myself. I'm sorry the dude died, he seemed like a nice guy though.

[Seiben 0]

I'm Protestant myself, but still.. I am quite saddened by the Pope's death. He was a nice man. :blink:

[koolaidman 0]

he was a good man. im a roman catholic and am waiting to see what goings on will occur at church tomorrow.

Edited April 3, 2005 by koolaidman

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

As an active, practicing, Roman Catholic I can tell you that I'm very sad to see Pope John Paul II move on. However, to a certain extent, I am also happy to see him go. The man was in such failing health it was almost painful to watch him attempt to perform a simple task like give a blessing. Personally, I feel he himself might have seen the time as coming when...this past Sunday...he tried to speak but couldn't do so.

 

I'm also looking forward to see who will replace him. However, I also feel sorry for the next person. He will have very big shoes to fill since Pope John Paul II was a figure appreciated by people of almost every faith. Matching that will be a difficult challenge.

[NDak 0]

I am not a Roman Catholic, however, I do feel that the world has indeed lost a great figure for humanity. During his long Pontifcate, John Paul II did so many great works for furthering the basic inalieable rights of all humans.

 

Not only that but his work towards bridging the gaps between the Religions of the world was truely visionary and ground breaking.

 

A sad moment indeed.

[WxMurray 0]

I'm a Lutheran, and while it is sad to see such an important and loved man die, (not to sound caollous here) I am sorta happy to see him go. He has been on death's door for so long. I'm amazed he lived this long. At the rate he was going he was going to be 150. Still, it is sad to see him go. I kinda liked him and he had nothing to do with my religion.

Edited April 3, 2005 by WxMurray

[koolaidman 0]

Hey there,

 

As an active, practicing, Roman Catholic I can tell you that I'm very sad to see Pope John Paul II move on. However, to a certain extent, I am also happy to see him go. The man was in such failing health it was almost painful to watch him attempt to perform a simple task like give a blessing. Personally, I feel he himself might have seen the time as coming when...this past Sunday...he tried to speak but couldn't do so.

 

I'm also looking forward to see who will replace him. However, I also feel sorry for the next person. He will have very big shoes to fill since Pope John Paul II was a figure appreciated by people of almost every faith. Matching that will be a difficult challenge.

my thoughts exactly

[Grom 0]

A Protestant's Perspective on the Pope

 

He was a preacher, a teacher, a humanitarian, a celebrity, but what no one seems to be mentioning is that he was a man of uncompromised integrity. In today's times we've seen so many scandals, cases of gross misconduct and individuals of power compromising their moral values. Yet, throughout the Pope's twenty-six year reign he remained untouched by those things.

 

Something that seems to be lost in today's society is practicing what we preach. How many standards do we hold people to that we don't meet ourselves? I know I have struggled with this many times. The Pope, however, seemed to be a man who strived to avoid hyopcricy and chose to lead his life worthy of little reproach.

 

As a practicing evangelical Christian of a mainline Protestant demonination, I think there is something that I and my fellow believers can learn from him. He not only walked the walk, he stood up for what he believed was right according to the teachings and the tradition of the Church. That same resolve, that same spirit, I endeavor to harness in my own life. Good bye Pope John Paul II and God Bless.

[Dumbass 0]

Well, here is my Atheistic take on the Pope's reign - and I have no problems calling it a reign because, let's remember, the Vatican is technically it's own country, with it's own government, foreign policy, etc.

 

The Pope should have sacked Cardinal Law for Cardinal Law's refusal to sack the priests, bishops, etc who were mollesting young boys in the U.S. Instead he looked the other way. (Heck, they actually had to have a conference in order to ask the question of whether or not they should stop.)

 

That having been said, the Pope did a lot of good. He got the Catholic church to own up for some past mistakes - admitting the church could have done more during the Holocost, their persecution of Galileo for saying the Earth is not the center of the universe, etc.

 

The Pope also "legitimized" the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland which was the first domino in a row that brought the Berlin wall down, broke up the Soviet Union, and ultimately ended the Cold War. This would have happened whether or not the Pope got involved but it probably happened quicker because of him. That and meeting with Gorbachev and telling him what's what.

 

So, all in all, not a bad guy. We can debate his stands on issues like abortion, euthenasia, birth control, etc (although all he really did was put a face on what the church had been saying for decades before his reign) but the only real blemish against him was not sacking Law.

 

Plus he was an avid skiier well into middle age.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

I was raised / am Catholic. I have always admired the Pope. A good man. His suffering of the past few years is now done and he has gone home.

 

As for the replacement / conclave - from a historical perspective, this is not something that happens a lot during our lifetimes. When the pope is in office it is often for life, as far as I understand it. So, I am interested in observing the process of the installation of the new pope.

[Dumbass 0]

As for the replacement / conclave - from a historical perspective, this is not something that happens a lot during our lifetimes. When the pope is in office it is often for life, as far as I understand it. So, I am interested in observing the process of the installation of the new pope.

From what I understand, this is an entirely new process because John Paul II was able to have a lot of the (archaic?) rules changed.

 

What happens now is the College of Cardinals - meaning those Cardinals who have a vote in Pope selection - is required to meet in the Vatican within 20 days after the Pope's death is anounced. (The old rule was they had to meet within 10 days, which was probably a bit of a nuissance before the airplane.) A majority vote of the College of Cardinals determines who the new Pope is. (The old rule was the Pope had to be elected by 2/3 plus 1. As you can imagine, this led to multiple ballots. This could still happen with a simple majority if there is more than two candidates but the odds are not as great.)

 

The interesting thing is what happens with the ballots themselves. After the counting the ballots are destroyed (so there is no way to contest the election after it is declared final). If after the ballots are counted there is no winner the ballots are doused with some chemical which gives off black smoke. This is the message to those crowded outside the Vatican that there is still not a Pope. If after the ballots are counted there *is* a winner (assuming the winner consents to serve) the ballots are burned which gives off a white smoke. This is the message that there *is* a Pope.

 

Then what happens is the oldest member of the College of Cardinals addresses those gathered outside the Vatican and announces the winner, and introduces the new Pope (assuming he is present).

Edited April 5, 2005 by Dumbass

[Grom 0]

From what I understand, this is an entirely new process because John Paul II was able to have a lot of the (archaic?) rules changed.

 

What happens now is the College of Cardinals - meaning those Cardinals who have a vote in Pope selection - is required to meet in the Vatican within 20 days after the Pope's death is anounced. (The old rule was they had to meet within 10 days, which was probably a bit of a nuissance before the airplane.) A majority vote of the College of Cardinals determines who the new Pope is. (The old rule was the Pope had to be elected by 2/3 plus 1. As you can imagine, this led to multiple ballots. This could still happen with a simple majority if there is more than two candidates but the odds are not as great.)

 

The interesting thing is what happens with the ballots themselves. After the counting the ballots are destroyed (so there is no way to contest the election after it is declared final). If after the ballots are counted there is no winner the ballots are doused with some chemical which gives off black smoke. This is the message to those crowded outside the Vatican that there is still not a Pope. If after the ballots are counted there *is* a winner (assuming the winner consents to serve) the ballots are burned which gives off a white smoke. This is the message that there *is* a Pope.

 

Then what happens is the oldest member of the College of Cardinals addresses those gathered outside the Vatican and announces the winner, and introduces the new Pope (assuming he is present).

From what I understand, and I could be mistaken, the Pope still has to be elected 2/3 plus one, but that the Cardinals can now vote to make it a simple majority should they desire.

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

Allow me to help clarify the confusion some seem to be having. :blink:

 

In 1996, Pope John Paul II put in place a "Constitution" of sorts. This called for several reforms within the internal workings of the Vatican. Most I am not actually familiar with, however I have become versed in the changes that took place regarding the death of a Pope.

 

As some may be aware, in previous times, a Conclave is formed. This is the mentioned "meeting" of the College of Cardinals to determine who the next Pope is. As with historical times, this must take place no less than fifteen days after the death of the Pope and no more than twenty. This rule was put in place some centuries ago after, as I recall, in one case it took over two years for a new Pope to be elected.

 

Along with the same rules, when this meeting is taking place, the Cardinals are not allowed to leave. This is in place to prevent any outside influence from taking place. It's an idea I think our Congress should hold. Could you imagine them being forced to hammer out a deal without being able to run to their 10,000 staffers ever sixty seconds? Work might actually get accomplished. Anyway...

 

A change that came in 1996 dealt with this. While the Cardinals still cannot socalize with the outside world or anyone not in the college during this time, Pope John Paul II had a..."hotel"...of sorts built on the grounds of Vatican City. It has, I believe one hundred and twenty rooms. If, after a days of talks, the Cardinals have not reached a decision...they can retire to this hotel for the evening. Thought being, you wouldn't want to force someone who might be taking medication to have to bring a goodie bag with them into the meeting. The rooms they stay in prohibit phones, no television, newspapers, etc.

 

As Grom mentioned, it takes a 2/3 majority vote to elect a Pope. However, another change from 1996, is that if after twenty days of debate a 2/3 majority has not been established, a 50% plus 1 majority rule is put into place. Again, it gets back to not wanting to have a situation where the Church is without a Pope for an extended period of time. To my knowledge however, the Cardinals cannot walk in the door on day one and "vote" to have a 50% plus 1 rule go into effect. There must be clear signs, for twenty days, they cannot reach the required 2/3.

 

Other changes from 1996, as I recall, dealt with other items. Such as who would be in "operational command" of Vatican City until the College of Cardinals arrived, etc. It didn't remove most of the tradition, just updated it slightly. I know there is a regulation that a Pope cannot be photographed on his death bed...I don't know if that came from 1996 or another degree in the late 19th/20th century.

[Nemesis 0]

Isn't it 30 voting sessions, not 20 days?

[STSF_BluRox 0]

And throw into the mix, whether there will be 117 or 118 voting.....

 

 

Pope's secret cardinal yet to be revealed

 

Associated Press

Published April 3, 2005

 

VATICAN CITY -- For the moment 117 cardinals are eligible to vote in a conclave to elect Pope John Paul II's successor, but the number could actually be 118.

 

When the pope created new cardinals in 2003, he said he was keeping one name secret, or in pectore--meaning "in the breast."

 

The formula has been used when a pope wants to name a cardinal in a country where the church is oppressed, leading to speculation that it could be a prelate from China, where only a state-sanctioned church is recognized.

 

Pope John Paul II's faithful secretary, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, has also been mentioned as the possible secret cardinal.

[Dumbass 0]

When the pope created new cardinals in 2003, he said he was keeping one name secret, or in pectore--meaning "in the breast."

 

The formula has been used when a pope wants to name a cardinal in a country where the church is oppressed, leading to speculation that it could be a prelate from China, where only a state-sanctioned church is recognized.

Yeah, I guess there isn't much choice on that one. It wouldn't do very well to publicly name a Cardinal in a country where the "lucky" recipient would instantly be a target for imprisonment, assassination, etc. He wouldn't be very effective in rallying the local branch of the church if he had to live in exile.

[Grom 0]

Yeah, I guess there isn't much choice on that one. It wouldn't do very well to publicly name a Cardinal in a country where the "lucky" recipient would instantly be a target for imprisonment, assassination, etc. He wouldn't be very effective in rallying the local branch of the church if he had to live in exile.

Underground church movements are usually pretty sucessful and in a place like China that is hungering for religious freedom, it does not surprise me that an underground movement is thriving there. The movement is similar to what went on in Russia for many years, until religious freedom reforms allowed underground cell groups to go public.

[FredM 0]

The movement is similar to what went on in Russia for many years, until religious freedom reforms allowed underground cell groups to go public.

Hey there,

 

Indeed...it's also worth noting that Pope John Paul II had a similiar situation in Poland. Heck, he had to train to become a Priest in secret for fear of the Nazi. As a result, I think he probably held such folks in high regard and wanted to do whatever was possible to allow them to be successful.

[Dumbass 0]

Underground church movements are usually pretty sucessful and in a place like China that is hungering for religious freedom, it does not surprise me that an underground movement is thriving there. The movement is similar to what went on in Russia for many years, until religious freedom reforms allowed underground cell groups to go public.

Granted, but my point is the Cardinal would have to keep a low profile since everything that person does must be under the radar. It wouldn't make much sense for the Vatican to issue a press release or the Pope to make a speech or whatever that Cardinal XYZ is in charge of the Catholic church in the People's Republic of China since that would give the Chinese authorities a name and address to target.

[Grom 0]

Granted, but my point is the Cardinal would have to keep a low profile since everything that person does must be under the radar. It wouldn't make much sense for the Vatican to issue a press release or the Pope to make a speech or whatever that Cardinal XYZ is in charge of the Catholic church in the People's Republic of China since that would give the Chinese authorities a name and address to target.

Oh yes, I know. I wasn't disagreeing with you...I was using what you said as a jumping off point.

[Sam_SemaJ 0]

No one take this the wrong way please...

 

First off, as this is a big tell your denomination party, I'm Methodist. That aside. It is always sorrowful to see the passing of an influential figure, especially a religious one. I agree with what has been said that we now have an opprotunity for change, and I am curious to see who will replace him. Though this is a very very pivotal issue, however, I feel that there has been a bit too much coverage on TV. It seemed as though in his last hours, they came on by the minute to confirm that, yes...the Pope is dying. I suppose its not a bad thing, but a little less publicity may have been more appropriate. He will be missed and morned, but death is such an important part of life's journey...especially for those of us who do have faith in life after death.

 

Sam

[Dumbass 0]

Though this is a very very pivotal issue, however, I feel that there has been a bit too much coverage on TV. It seemed as though in his last hours, they came on by the minute to confirm that, yes...the Pope is dying. I suppose its not a bad thing, but a little less publicity may have been more appropriate.

Well I suppose you can't fault the media for that. A Pope dying, like a President dying, is a pretty newsworthy event. The only other things going on that are really newsworthy right now are the war in Iraq, Martha Stewart being released from jail, and the Michael Jackson trial. By now even those things are old news.

[mtporter 0]

I was born and raised catholic so maybe it is a bit diffrent for me but, he was a very important man. I think the media tries to find things that will get there channel the most coverage. I think that when he died it was a reason to celebrate because he was going to a better place. But what I find interesting is the fact that a few years ago when princess diana and mother theresa died who did the media cover more. Princess diana, she was front page and yet mother theresa was a side spot. Anyway I think the media goes with what sells and that is what a lot of people want to hear. The fact that there are millions of catholics in the world make it a selling story and ...well...you gotta stick with what sells. (I don't mean that in a bad way, but thats how it is)

[FredM 0]

The only other things going on that are really newsworthy right now are the war in Iraq, Martha Stewart being released from jail, and the Michael Jackson trial.

Hey there,

 

You know what? Out of those three things, I think only one really classifies as an important event. :blink: