When does the POPE revisionist period start? (1 Viewer)

[Atticus.]

seriously the pope is being considered for sainthood?
am i the only one in the entire world that remembers that the pope was a homophobic bigot who had a mssive thing against people with HIV and who encouraged the bid for the catholic church to buy major shares in american and russian weapons manufacturers?
when will the hagiographers shut the fuck up and tell the facts...
it seems that the pope has all of a sudden become the most pure being in fucking history all because he died? surely the virtue of dying should not bestow such a fucking stigma!
it pisses me off that people are forgetting this...
what does everyone else think
discuss

 

[zahid]

that's nice.....

 

[Atticus.]

that's nice.....

its true though...

 

[Iron]

But it's not the point. Hitler wasn't perfect, but when he died the world mourned the loss of an important person... or at least according to grandad they did.

 

[Atticus.]

But it's not the point. Hitler wasn't perfect, but when he died the world mourned the loss of an important person... or at least according to grandad they did.

are you kidding? the world didnt even know hitler was dead, there was a big confusion over if he was actually killed or not...
its believed he killed himself in a bunker but no one will ever know if this is true because the russians went in with flamethrowers and everything, including hitlers body was incinerated...

i had a feeling that this would happen. that everyone would get caught up in the hype of the pope's death... open your eyes

 

[iamsickofyear12]

He was just a religious figurehead, nothing more.

 

[asscookie]

It's a matter for the Vatican to decide. Their job is to guide Catholics in their spiritual beliefs, not the other way around. If you have issues with the Vatican, there are plenty of other churches who would be happy to have you.


(This is assuming you're a Catholic, of course. I can't see why you'd have problems with this if you weren't a Catholic...)

 

[Comrade nathan]

The Pope is going for sainthood, its catholic they dont have to be perfect.

 

[Atticus.]

It's a matter for the Vatican to decide. Their job is to guide Catholics in their spiritual beliefs, not the other way around. If you have issues with the Vatican, there are plenty of other churches who would be happy to have you.


(This is assuming you're a Catholic, of course. I can't see why you'd have problems with this if you weren't a Catholic...)

no im agnostic which probably explains my view towards the pope... but do you all not agree that people are ignoring the darker side of the pope?

 

[TimeAndTide]

I agree. They say he has done many things for people around the world, and has helped the world blah blah blah crap.

Why should he get the saint title when many people are doing the same thing, unoticed?

I would be a better candidate for sainthood.

 

[asscookie]

no im agnostic which probably explains my view towards the pope... but do you all not agree that people are ignoring the darker side of the pope?

Well, I personally don't even understand why anyone would want JPII to be made a saint in the first place, since he doesn't really match the criteria to begin with. I'm not a Catholic, and Australia's not really dominated by Catholics, so whatever the Pope thought or did during his lifetime doesn't bother me in the slightest (and I don't see why other non-Catholics would be terribly affected by it). Even if the Pope did condone homosexuality (although that would be hypocritical in his position), he couldn't change the beliefs of other officials within the Vatican.

 

[zahid]

its catholic they dont have to be perfect.

THAT pretty much sums up everything.

 

[withoutaface]

seriously the pope is being considered for sainthood?
am i the only one in the entire world that remembers that the pope was a homophobic bigot who had a mssive thing against people with HIV and who encouraged the bid for the catholic church to buy major shares in american and russian weapons manufacturers?
when will the hagiographers shut the fuck up and tell the facts...
it seems that the pope has all of a sudden become the most pure being in fucking history all because he died? surely the virtue of dying should not bestow such a fucking stigma!
it pisses me off that people are forgetting this...
what does everyone else think
discuss

I think you need to put things into context.

 

[Riewe]

no im agnostic which probably explains my view towards the pope... but do you all not agree that people are ignoring the darker side of the pope?

But the greater percentage of JPII was on the light side, pretty much blocking out all of his 'darkness' Why should we concentrate on a very, very, very minor percentage (<1%) of his personality (and his darker side is only by your definitions) when the majority of his life and personality is >99% goodness? So they're not ignoring as you say, but focusing more on the good part of his life, of which is the greatest in him

 

[angelduck]

i agree, context ppl, he did great things for the world, and he was an amazing pope

 

[euripidies]

I think you need to put things into context.

that's his point everyone going on about how good the guy was which is taking a few actions examplify those few points out of the context of the reast of the stuff he did.

 

[alex_c86]

Well, I personally don't even understand why anyone would want JPII to be made a saint in the first place, since he doesn't really match the criteria to begin with. I'm not a Catholic, and Australia's not really dominated by Catholics, so whatever the Pope thought or did during his lifetime doesn't bother me in the slightest (and I don't see why other non-Catholics would be terribly affected by it). Even if the Pope did condone homosexuality (although that would be hypocritical in his position), he couldn't change the beliefs of other officials within the Vatican.

y would it be hypocritical of him to criticise homosexuality? John Paul II wasn't gay

 

[asscookie]

y would it be hypocritical of him to criticise homosexuality? John Paul II wasn't gay

The Bible says it's bad (Leviticus 18). As Pope, he can't very well ignore what the Bible says, even for the sake of being PC.

 

[alex_c86]

oops sorry i completely misread ur post... yeh thats what i thought, and i meant to say that he had a right to criticise homosexuality. sorry

 

[iambored]

Australia's not really dominated by Catholics,

asdasdsadsad