...then Terri Schiavo has someone new and really interesting to compare notes with.
My condolences to the Catholic community on the loss of its leader, a good and decent man.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at April 2, 2005 05:16 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI'm a (very) lapsed Catholic and was often at odds with the direction the Church was headed - but I never stopped respecting His Holiness for his steadfastness, determination, and sheer force of will. Hey, you gotta respect any Pope who has his own comic AND can take a bullet.
I'm sure he is now enjoying a well-deserved rest.
And I must say, having seen a frail and sickly Pontiff for so many years, it will be interesting to see his (presumed) hale and hearty successor...
I tried to avoid both TV and Internet news the whole day since news broke out that he was dying. I thought it was rather morbid and annoying that everyone seemed to be waiting for him to die and be the first to report the big news.
Still though, he'll finally have some peace at least.
I'm Catholic. Just a very bad one. Its sad to see The Pope go, but he was looking pretty pained for the past few, you know, years. So at least he's at peace.
Good things to come out of this? It'll be interesting to see a new Pope. Never seen that before. Maybe they'll be some new twists to the Catholic system. With the dropping off of priests left and right, it'll be cool to see how they try to solve that.
Another good thing - I've had apocalyptic bullshit drilled into my head since, freakin grade school and high school. And I had this one dumbass religion teacher who was trying to tell us, "Oh when this Pope dies ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!". "There's a room in the Vatican with all the pope pictures AND THERE'S NO MORE ROOM IN THE ROOM!" Buncha 14-15 year old kids and he's telling us that.
So, with the Pope's health problems, my friends and my family are ALSO saying this stupid "Pope dying = End of the World" crap. So I told them, "if the Pope dies, and there's no apocalypse in a month, you owe me ten bucks."
There was a point to this story, but I seem to have forgotten it.
TallestFanEver -
As a fellow Catholic who has been keeping an eye on what's been going on in the Church hierarchy, I wouldn't expect the next Pope to be a force for change in the Church. The new Pope is going to be selected by a group of cardinals, of whom all but 5 (I think) were appointed by the current Pope. I'd expect a continuation of Catholic policies from the last 30 years in the next Pope.
The apocalyptic stuff seems to mainly come from the prophecies of St. Malachy. Supposedly written in the 1100's and found in the 1590's, if you think they're prophetic then the next Pope is the last one enumerated in the prophecies and then the one after that is the one that presides over the End of the World. There's a lot of argument over their interpretation among those who believe they are prophetic (let alone a lot of argument by those who think they're fake), so it was fairly inappropriate for a Sunday school teacher to voice his opinion about them to a class of kids.
(Of course, I had plenty of Sunday school teachers who told me things that turned out to be disputed, no longer actual Church teaching, urban legends, or just plain wrong, so it doesn't suprise me.)
There was a point to this story, but I seem to have forgotten it.
That you're gonna be getting ten bucks...?
I may still have the comic Marvel put out about Pope John Paul II's life somewhere. Who needs hyperbole like Battle Pope, Karol had an interesting enough life as it stood.
"I may still have the comic Marvel put out about Pope John Paul II's life somewhere. Who needs hyperbole like Battle Pope, Karol had an interesting enough life as it stood."
I remember this book was the classroom I had CCD (catechism class for those of us in public school). It must have come out in the early 80s. What prompted Shooter to publish this. I mean it was good but I think this and one other autobio (Mandela I think?) were the only ones in this series. I was wondering if anyone knows the stopry behinfd the comic.
Actually, I sort of like the Italian tradition of breaking into applause. If you think the Pope is heading into the afterlife, it should be a cause for celebration, not all this hypocritical breast-beating we saw here in the States earlier this week. What I want to know is, what are the cable news networks going to do without a 24/7 death watch to cover now? I think I heard something about an earthquake that killed a few thousand people (thank goodness for BBC World News) so maybe they'll finally pay attention to the story.
And Peter, I was having a few of those thoughts about the afterlife a couple of days ago, but for a different person. I just had this mental image of Johnny Cochran showing up at the pearly gates, briefcase and all, and St. Peter saying, 'I'm sorry Mr. Cochran, but before I let you in, I'd like to introduce you to Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown; they just wanted to have a few words with you first.'
Peter; thank you.
Re the new Pope--I suppose the safe choice would be an older Italian Pope, give everyone a breather, a chance to think about where they want things to go. A riskier and far more intriguing choice would be to aknowledge the influence of the African and South American membership by recruiting from their ranks.
Found this at http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050402/D897FNB80.html
I'd never heard this story.
When Wojtyla was 20, his father died, leaving him with no immediate family in a country under brutal Nazi occupation.
His name appeared on a Nazi blacklist in 1944 for his activities in a Christian democratic underground. B'nai B'rith and other organizations testified that he helped Jews find refuge from the Nazis.
Stories circulated after he became pope suggesting that Wojtyla was married during World War II to a woman who was killed by a Nazi. The Vatican denied the reports.
The pope himself made a teasing reference to the rumors during his 1979 visit to Poland. He abruptly curtailed a reminiscence of his family by saying: "Well, that's enough of the past. I'm not going into details. There are a lot of reporters around, ready to investigate. Matters of the heart and youth should be left to God, who calls human beings at different stages of their lives."
My name should probably tell you what I am (Irish, and what are the Irish? Catholic or Protestant. I happen to be from the Catholic side.) I find it sad that he has passed on, but I can't find it too sad since he lived until 84, that's longer than any of my grandparents made it, and they lead good lives. 84's a good age to reach, and it sounds as though he went peacefully, what more can you ask for?
Anyway, my reason for replying to this at all was due to Bill Mulligan's remark on how it'd be interesting to see the church promote from the African ranks. I agree, it would, but I also don't think the church would be anywhere near ready to accept such a thing. I, in all honesty, believe that would seperate the church, maybe not break it, but surely shake it to its core. I know that's a sad thing to say, we should all be accepting, but I don't believe everyone would be.
In all likelihood it'll be another Italian, nothing wrong with that, its just that the church is made up of more than Italians.
It would be interesting if they did pick an African Priest... Well Cardinal actually. If there are any.
Man, I'd love to see a wop Pope. Italiano represent.
(I'm allowed to say Wop cuz I'm Italian. Wop. Wop. Wop. Horray!)
LOL! I understand TallestFanEver, if they picked a mick Pope I'd be happy.
It would be interesting if they did pick an African Priest... Well Cardinal actually. If there are any.
I believe that there are 15 African Cardinals. Keep an eye on Francis Arinze of Nigeria.
PAD,
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. They are much appreciated.
I remember the Year of the Three Popes, and both JP1 and JP2 came out of the blue, so to speak. Anyone betting on papabili is making a sucker bet.
Also, what kind of pontiff is also making a sucker bet. The College of Cardinals thought they were going to have a nice, quick lull by electing Angelo Roncalli in 1958. As John XXIII, he had his own ideas.
I'm glad that an 84-year-old man who had Parkinson's and has been ailing for the past few years is at peace.
[Posted by Joe Nazzaro at April 2, 2005 08:40 PM]
And Peter, I was having a few of those thoughts about the afterlife a couple of days ago, but for a different person. I just had this mental image of Johnny Cochran showing up at the pearly gates, briefcase and all, and St. Peter saying, 'I'm sorry Mr. Cochran, but before I let you in, I'd like to introduce you to Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown; they just wanted to have a few words with you first.'
LOL! I couldn't have said it better myself, Joe!
While it's understandable for family and close friends to grieve over the death of Mr. Cochran, I haven't read any comments regarding how his most infamous case succeeded in taking the spotlight away from Mr. Simpson's alledged victims and focused it on his client along with the hypocritical "obits" that were published in local papers! When I've asked several people what they thought of the fact that little or no effort was exerted the murder aspect of the case, they either said, "Well, I don't know [b]them.[/b] Ha Ha Ha." or they spouted legalistic rhetoric as though they were Cochran's law students!
Back to the main thread, I agree that it's more appropriate to celebrate a great man's life than to grieve over his death to the point of being extreme, as the press has done regarding several people that we "lost."
If I'm half-Italian, can I make a half-joking remark?
I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry goes to a pries to complain about how his dentist became a Jew so that he could make Jewish jokes. 'And this offends you as a Jew?' the priest asked. 'No, it offends me as a comedian!'
I read an article somewhere today, maybe Dallas Morning News, about the "front-runners" for the papacy. I seem to remember that most of those they were listing were 70+ years old already. Doesn't bode well for a long term in office like Karol had and probably won't mean any type of changes in current policies.
jeff
Seconded. I didn't and don't share the Pope's faith, and as many people here know I certainly disagreed with a lot of his policy choices ... but he also seemed a kind, warm, and decent man who did an awful lot of good works in the world. I respect that very much, and he'll be missed.
As for his successor ... I too think it'd be really neat to see a Latin American or an African pope. The NYT listed six people who were on the top of the "likely" list; only three were European. (Only one was Italian, for that matter.)
'Twill be interesting to see how things shake out.
TWL
maybe George Bush could convert, and run for pope now.
... damn, I think I just scared myself!
JAC
I'm an agnostic, but I had a lot of respect for the pope for a few reasons. One: the man had, frankly, a staggering intellect. In addition to all the languages he understood, he was extremely well read. Two: his endorsement of evolution as being truth and not contradicting faith.
Of course, I also had some problems with him, but I won't go into those out of respect.
Don't recall the names, but I would love to see the African or Mexican candidates that have been bounced around make it. they would certainly be more representative of the modern complexion of the Catholic Church, and the African candidate especially would imply a broadening of mindset, and quite possibly have a positive anti-racism impact.
all of that is spoken as a Protestant, so none of it will directly affect me, of course. just thought it'd be a good idea.
and the other Marvel bio comic was "St. Francis, Brother of the Universe," about the guy they named San Francisco after. as for what possessed (you'll pardon the pun) Shooter to do it, i imagine that he guessed that well-done comic biographies of major Catholic figures just might, perhaps, have a slightly larger potential audience than, say, Spider-Man.
You know, for ytears now, I have felt a black man would be a tremendous choice as Pope. Many of the new converts to Catholicism come from Africa. Many religious people in America are black, and they would either be represented or possibly drawn to a denomination, or "flock" if you will, headed by someone who "looks like them".
It would also bring to a boiling point across the world two incidents that are still seared in my memory...
1.) I went home (the Scranton area) from Philly (where I lived from 1997-2004). When I left, there was exactly one black person in town - a police officer, Officer Lomax. In the time I was gone, many more minorities, particularly blacks, moved to my hometown, called Carbondale. Some were just nice neighbors, like the family that moved in next to my grandmother. Many others, however, were "forced residents" by Section 8 Housing. Many did deal drugs, start trouble and/or refuse to work.
Anyway, against this backdrop, I went to one of the two Catholic churches in town. It was Saint Rose Parish on the Irish side of town.
There were many people I recognized. The whole town, to paraphrase "Cheers", was a place where "everybody knows your name".
The mass was unusually packed. There was a black man in church. It's not that I was looking for him SPECIFICALLY but he was kind of distictive - not just because he was the only black person at this mass, but because he was in one of the front rows - which are normally packed to the gills - and he was alone. He had the whole row to himself.
The row in front of him was packed.
So were numerous others.
The row in back of him was packed.
So were numerous others.
So in this CATHOLIC church, peoplem were obviously ostracizing this man. He was new, he was an outsider, and he was black. Nothing since has changed my mind that that last fact was the most important of all insofar as the less-than-welcome reception he received.
I was sitting with my family ahead of him and made sure to offer him the Sign Of Peace during mass. Afterward, as my family was leaving, I made a point to walk over and shake his hand and welcome him to the congreagation and the community. He seemed so happy that I did so. He seemed happy, period. Yet, it dawned at me at this moment many would refuse to ever do so because A.) They were lazy B.) He was new and C.) and - perhaps most significant - he was BLACK.
I was appalled that so many "peoplem of faith" had eclined to welcome this man.
Of course, I was originally introduced to such hypocritical nonsense when a hateful, white-hating girlfriend of mine wanted to get back together because, among other things, she was "born again".
She couldn't stop talking about Jesus and how he had changed her life in regards to "cussing:, being hateful, etc.
But when I decided to go to her "non-denominational Christian Church" to experience her life, virtually nobody welcomed ME because the congregation was 99.9% BLACK. I'll never forget how uncomfortable it made me feel that god -fearing blaqcks hate ME because of the color of my skin.
In short, I think an African Pope would do wonders.
If the most recogzizable representative of the Catholic Church were black, everyone would have to reconsider their beliefs.knon=denminational,
They shoild ve safe. i
Jerome,
There's no more segregated hour of the week than Sunday at 12, I'm sorry to say.
I would be ironic if the Church, which get flack for being "stuck in the 13th century", were to do something most modern states have not managed to do.
Jerome, I went to college in Scranton, was a member of the Scranton Jaycees for three years, and had a local girlfriend from Carbondale during my senior year, so I know what it was like up there. That said, I can also remember when the first black family moved into my little heavily Catholic small town here in New Jersey, right across the street no less. People on the block were very welcoming, but you always got the feeling they tried just a little bit too hard, and their smiles were just a little bit too forced.
I would be shocked if we see a black, Latino or third world pope in our lifetime. The Catholic church has always moved glacially slowly, which is why I've grown disenchanted with organized religion over the years. And having a father who's a deacon in the Catholic church, that's led to some interesting discussions at family get-togethers.
My condolences to the Catholic community on the loss of its leader, a good and decent man.
Ditto, and well said. I pray that the next Pope will be wise in how to hold on to the essential truths of the past while staying relevant to the culture of today.
Iowa Jim
My condolences to the Catholic community too on the loss of its leader. I didn`t know the Pope personally, therefore I can`t say if he was a good and decent man, only that I have serious problems with a lot of what he and the Catholic church preached in the past. Nevertheless, I am glad that his passing seemed to have been relatively painless and quick. He certainly had a full life.
Both is what Terri Shiavo didn`t get. My husband and me remember that also the Pope very much condemned the removal of her feeding tube - and I think it says a lot that at the end, the Pope refused to be taken to hospital. I can understand very well that he wanted a dignified death but that very much contradicts with the teaching that life has to be prolonged at all cost.
On the other hand, nobody deserves to die like Terri Shiavo - or to continue "living" in the state she was in for 17 years.
I'm old enough to remember the two papal elections in rapid succession, but John Paul II is the only Pope I've really known. It's going to be a little strange adjusting to new Popeness.
God grant him peace.
I also remember the two Papal elections in the same year (1978). I was at a summer camp when Paul VI died on Aug. 6. Then, at the end of September, John Paul died after just 31 days in office; and they started the selection process all over again.
I didn't really pay much attention to it at the time (in either case), but I remember how weird it seemed, after a lifetime of hearing the line "together with Paul, our Pope..." at mass, to suddenly start hearing it as "John Paul, our Pope." Of course, Paul had only been Pope since 1963, so when he died, only those 15 and under knew him as the only Pope of their lifetimes. It's quite a bit different with John Paul II, who was in for 26 years. That's an entire generation who only knew him.
By the way, if anyone's interested, John Paul took his name from his two immediate predecessors, John XXIII and Paul VI; and John Paul II took _his_ name from his immediate predecessor. I would doubt, however, that the next Pope will honor John Paul II by calling himself John Paul III. Not because he wouldn't _want_ to honor the late Pope, but because it might seem egotistical. It was different with John Paul I and John Paul II. The former wasn't in office long enough to really do anything.
I'm sure there will eventually be a John Paul III, however.
It's curious, though, that there have been 23 Pope Johns, and six Pope Pauls, but only one Pope named Peter (the first, Simon Peter). Wonder why that is. Can't be because St. Peter was a saint. So was St. Paul. And for all we know, the first Pope John (who is himself a saint) named himself for John the Baptist, also a saint. And both Peter and John the Baptist personally knew the prophet Jesus, so if that's the reason no one else took Peter's name, then by logic there should have been no Pope John at all.
By the way, part II, according to an AP story I read yesterday, while the College of Cardinals traditionally chooses the Pope from their own ranks, they can look elsewhere. Apparently any baptized male is elegible, though I assume the word "any" comes with a few caveats. Of course, the last time, the Cardinals looked outside their own number for a Pope was in the 14th century. The rules were probably a little looser then.
As to the rumor that the future Pope John Paul II had been married during World War II, there would be nothing wrong with that, assuming the marriage took place _before_ he entered the priesthood. While a Catholic priest cannot marry, a Catholic who had been married and is now a widower, can subsequently join the priesthood.
Likewise, a married member of the clergy of another Christian denomination can petition to become a Catholic priest. Decisions are made on a case by case basis, but these clergy do not have to give up their wives as a result. They are the exceptions to the celibacy rule, though they can't serve as parish priests.
I hadn't known that until a few years ago.
But getting back to John Paul II, himself, whether you agreed or disagreed with his stance on certain matters of church doctrine, you had to admit he made a strong impression on the world. We can only speculate how different the world might be today if John Paul I had lived.
Rick
My husband and me remember that also the Pope very much condemned the removal of her feeding tube - and I think it says a lot that at the end, the Pope refused to be taken to hospital. I can understand very well that he wanted a dignified death but that very much contradicts with the teaching that life has to be prolonged at all cost.
Well, the Pope did not teach that life had to be prolonged at all cost. Many of the folks who struggled with the Schiavo case believed that there was a fundamental difference between extraordinary means--heart/lung machines, etc.--and basic care (feeding, shelter).
I'm sorry to see a recent article by a doctor who used the Shciavo case to argue for the killing of Alzheimers patients by withholding food. If taht comes to pass I'm going to have to admit I was wrong to back the removal of Schiavo's tube. I guess we all have lines we don't want to see crossed and that's pretty far on the wrong side of mine (one reason I couldn't get to angry with the people backing Terri's family--they just had a different line).
As to the rumor that the future Pope John Paul II had been married during World War II, there would be nothing wrong with that, assuming the marriage took place _before_ he entered the priesthood. While a Catholic priest cannot marry, a Catholic who had been married and is now a widower, can subsequently join the priesthood.
I hope nobody thought I was being critical when I posted this unsubstantiated story. I just thought it was cool and would go a long way to explaining his passion in destroying communism, having lost so much to a totalitarian regime.
It's curious, though, that there have been 23 Pope Johns, and six Pope Pauls, but only one Pope named Peter (the first, Simon Peter). Wonder why that is.
there is an old legend that the first and last Pope will be named Peter, so taking that name would likely really get the paranoid nervous. It would also set some pretty high expectations. I hope the next guy picks something cool sounding, like Sixtus or Neo.
By the way, part II, according to an AP story I read yesterday, while the College of Cardinals traditionally chooses the Pope from their own ranks, they can look elsewhere. Apparently any baptized male is elegible
Oh! Well, I'd better get dressed and make sure the phone line is clear. :)
Well, it's certainly not my place to pontificate about the papable sense of sadness that lingers...
I hope the next guy picks something cool sounding, like Sixtus or Neo.
I give 10-to-1 odds that the Onion makes mention this week of a Pope George Ringo I.
TWL
Well, the Pope did not teach that life had to be prolonged at all cost.
I had seen some quotes from an article apparently from John Paul II, dated some time in 2003 iirc, that say that all measures *should* be taken to prolong life, regardless.
It was brought up mostly due to the fact it appeared that the Pope himself was likely to end up on such machines, and that his life could have been prolonged for who knows how long.
In all this talk about how dying allows Catholics to move on to "a better place", I honestly have to question why people here are so hell-bent against allowing their loved ones (ie, Terri Schiavo) to move on in the first place.
In all this talk about how dying allows Catholics to move on to "a better place", I honestly have to question why people here are so hell-bent against allowing their loved ones (ie, Terri Schiavo) to move on in the first place.
Believing in an afterlife doesn't mean one doesn't grieve for the loss of one's loved ones here on Earth.
If there is an afterlife I imagine it is as different from this reality as birth is to a fetus. I'd like to think of myself prancing around clouds with my beloved dead but that is probably thinking way too small. So I'll treasure each moment with the living. There will be time for whatever follows soon enough.
Well, the Pope did not teach that life had to be prolonged at all cost.
I had seen some quotes from an article apparently from John Paul II, dated some time in 2003 iirc, that say that all measures *should* be taken to prolong life, regardless.
You may be correct but the report by the AP states:
A 1980 Vatican document makes the distinction between "proportionate" and "disproportionate" means of prolonging life. While it gives room for refusal of some forms of aggressive medical intervention for the terminally ill, it insists "normal care due" must not be interrupted.
John Paul set down exactly what that meant in a speech last year to an international conference on treatments for patients in a so-called persistent vegetative state.
"I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory."
Given what I see as the immense growth of Christianity in Asia, I wonder likelihood there is of an Asian pope. (Especially North Korean or Chinese.)
I don't mean to cast aspersions on anyone's faith, but I wonder about the politics of the whole thing. What kind of Pope would most benefit the church at this time? (Desmond Tutu?) A Palestinian pope would certainly raise eyebrows (and hackles.)
I thought I once read that there was a specific advantage in choosing a polish Pope at the time they did, but I can't remember what.
Ah well, let me know if they ever choose a Jewish Pope (why not; this last one wore a kippa...)
Ah well, let me know if they ever choose a Jewish Pope
Actually, believe it or not, one of the front runners had a Jewish mother who was killed in the holocaust. According to some tradition, if your mom is Jewish, so are you.
"maybe George Bush could convert, and run for pope now.
... damn, I think I just scared myself!"
Don't even think it! You might give him ideas!
As a non-member of the church who was raised by two non-active members, I still have to say, I liked the Pope, any guy who rides in the the Pope-Mobile and blesses Ferraris is my kind of people... but seriously though, (Lord please don't smite me again!) I may not have always agreed with his ideas, but his heart always seemed in the right place...
Ra!
In reference to Jon's comment about Desmond Tutu, I'm not sure if *retired* Archbishops are really eligible for elevation to the Papal Throne, but it doesn't really make much difference in Tutu's case since he's an Anglican, not Roman Catholic, and is ineligible for the Papacy.
In reference to Rick Keating's musings about papal eligibility, I believe the biggest caveat is the nominee must be a male Roman Catholic in good standing (no women, heretics or schismatics need apply). I also believe there's been an upper age limit (80) set in recent years for the cardinals who elect the Pope, so it would seem to imply that they wouldn't be likely to elect a Pope who may be near or over that age (John XXIII, at 76, was the oldest elected Pope in the last two centuries).
While the Church doesn't really have any set guidelines (aside from "Catholic in good standing" and "preferably "under 80"), it has been suggested that an ability to easily communicate in Italian may be a prerequisite which would explain why JPII was the first non-Italian elected in 4 centuries. The Pope's full role includes being the Bishop of the Roman Diocese, Archbishop of the Roman Province and Primate of Italy. An inability to speak Italian would preclude his local duties (much the same way that an English-only-speaking Bishop wouldn't have much success in a diocese in Bolivia or Austria, and a Spanish-only-speaking Bishop wouldn't fare very well in a diocese in Canada or Australia). JPII was able to speak near-fluent Italian, as he proved in his first address to the Roman people.
TWL-
Do you have a microphone in our living room we don't know about or is it just a GMTA moment? Peter said the exact same thing last night.
Kath
Must be a GMTA moment, Kath -- though it's not original to me. I don't remember where I first heard it, but there have been Pope George Ringo jokes going back more than a decade.
Still pretty frightening, though. :-)
TWL
Tim Lynch wrote:
I give 10-to-1 odds that the Onion makes mention this week of a Pope George Ringo I.
TWL
They'd better not. That was _my_ 100 percent original, no way anyone else in the world could have thought of it, idea . I've been saying for years the next Pope should be George Ringo. I even had some characters in an unpublished story discuss the matter.
Actually, technically, this most recent Pope should have been George Ringo, as we'd already had a John Paul.
Rick
While I struggle with Catholic doctrine, had all Catholics been like this Pope, I suspect there would be a theocratic monopoly. He was a wonderful man.
For what it's worth, I recall variations of papal "George Ringo" jokes going back for years. I remember hearing about a souvenir T-Shirt related to one of his pastoral visits to the United States. It showed the heads of George Harrison, Pope John Paul II, and Ringo Starr, with the phrase "George John Paul and Ringo" beneath. (I don't think it's too presumptuous to conclude that this was not officially authorized apparel...) And, if memory (and internet research) serves, that would've been for his 1987 trip. So the joke's been out there as a meme for almost twenty years...
On antother topic, in times like these, I find it fascinating to hear about traditions and procedures and rituals. According to news reports, the pope's chamberlain gently struck the pope's head with a silver hammer, called out his birth name three times and, getting no response, declared him dead. (There were more modern medical diagnositcs done as well, but this had to do with the traditional ritual.) Then the chamberlain removed the pope's ring, smashed is with the hammer, and sealed the papal apartment. I don't know--I just find this stuff really interesting.
Actually, since we have had two Popes named John Paul, it is only fair that the next Pope be named Mick Keith.
Or "Roger Peter", though I'm not sure how many Catholics in the UK could keep a straight face on that one...
TWL
I can't believe he's gone. He'd been (almost wrote "he's been" in the past tense, before backspacing it to put it in the past tense) the Pope since I was about 4, and I have no concept of anyone being Pope other than him. When I first went to Italy at age 10, I was sixty feet away from him as my parents, sister and I sat and listened to him speak at St. Peter's square, and even then at that young age, I had an inkling as to how important this man was.
Kudos to him for trying to do the right thing by Galileo and Jews, even if I don't share his other conservative Catholic beliefs (I'm an agnostic now).
Have fun with it, go with Pope Judas Iscariot
Heck, why not Kaiser Soze (sp)?
As who will succeed as the next pope, the cardinals aren't stupid. John Paul II is being acclaimed for his travel, openess, and intelligence. These qualities will certainly factor into the choice. But will they choose a more progressive cleric to retain and recruit Catholics?
Speking as a Canadian, the media may very well be the message.
Nitpicking my earlier post, I now understand that there are conflicting information about to whether or not this silver hammer on the forehead thing is still a current papal practice (and what its purpose and symbolism is anyway.) Still, there's lots of ritual here that's fascinating...
As for this:
Posted by David
As who will succeed as the next pope, the cardinals aren't stupid. John Paul II is being acclaimed for his travel, openess, and intelligence. These qualities will certainly factor into the choice. But will they choose a more progressive cleric to retain and recruit Catholics?
It may be worth noting that John Paul II was an unsual selection for two reasons. One being that he was not Italian. The other being that he was comparatively young.
I suspect his sucessor might turn out to be neither of these things, or perhaps one of them, but not both.
Although I liked John Paul II, I think John XXIII was more important, theologically and historically. I only mention this because of all this talk of 'John Paul the Great' and making him a saint. Any Catholics out there care to comment?
I suspect his sucessor might turn out to be neither of these things, or perhaps one of them, but not both.
I may be cynical about the process, but I don't see how the college can dismiss John Paul II's tenure. Given how successful he was to laymen and non Catholics, do they risk taking a step back? Like they say, it's about putting bums in seats, in this case, pews.
Posted by David:
I may be cynical about the process, but I don't see how the college can dismiss John Paul II's tenure. Given how successful he was to laymen and non Catholics, do they risk taking a step back?
The whole process is shrouded in so much mystery (perhaps that should have a capital "M"...) that it probably doesn't make much sense to predict what'll happen. But, to my guess that the next pope might be neither non-Italian nor young, or perhaps one of those things, but not both, I note that many of the non-Italian possible popes being mentioned are already in their late 60s/early 70s. I could see the conclave deciding on a non-Italian-but-somewhat-older pope as something of a transitional figure from John Paul II. But I don't quite see them comfortable with breaking so much new ground as to have another non-Italian pope who's young enough to have such a long reign as John Paul II.
Then again, what do I know? It is fascinating to speculate, but largely irrelevant, and we'll know soon enough.
For those that lamented about that infamous memo going around, there's an article on CNN.com about it.
Apparently it was real, and, according to Senator Mel Martinez (R-Florida), it originated with an aide in his office, who has since been canned.
Now, we can debate how much Martinez *really* knows, but I thought we'd start with the facts first. :)
So while one may quibble with the wording of the original Wash Post story, which implied that this was a talking points memo made by the Party leaders and passed on to Republican senators, the fact that a staffer at Martinez'office wrote it should be a black eye for Republicans. I'm glad he got canned.
I'm sure that some die hard Republicans will complain that they are being held to a higher standard than Democrats--don't recall anyone getting fired over the memo that said Democrats should oppose Bush's minority judge nominations because it might cut into minority support for Democrats--but that's not how they should think. Republicans SHOULD have a higher standard. And it's not like that's a very high bar to climb...
So, you would then agree that DeLay should resign?
Sure, as soon as he is convicted of a crime...the same standard I'd give any congress member. That's fair, right?
Given his, to me, questionable practices, I'd rather see someone else in his position of power but until there is something concrete against him that mnight be difficult to pull off.
So... three rebukes by the House Ethics Committee, at which point, he basically retooled the committee's members to those that side with him, tried changing other rules so he wouldn't get his ass burned again, he's under investigation for multiple other things.
And let's not forget the possibility of his being indicted in Texas for one of these investigations.
They had witch trials for Clinton.
DeLay deserves worse.
And, Craig, if it turns out that all or any of these investigations show that he committed a crime, I hope he goes to jail.
If you want me to support witch trials just because you think that's what happened to Clinton, well, sorry. No can do.
If you want me to support witch trials just because you think that's what happened to Clinton, well, sorry. No can do.
Maybe not, but it shows the wonderful hypocracy of the Republicans, and the utter disregard they have for the American people.
"Maybe not, but it shows the wonderful hypocracy of the Republicans, and the utter disregard they have for the American people."
Well, for that to be true you'd have to first prove that Clinton was the victim of a witch hunt, which might be difficult since he pretty much brought his troubles down on his own head.(and of course "Witch Hunt" is in the mind of the beholder--it used to mean people who were innocent being railroaded but now people just use it to describe when someone they like gets caught). You'd also have to prove that Delay is guilty of everything you think he is. Time may take care of that for you. Then you'd have to show that the Republicans, despite his guilt, continue to support him. I suspectthey will drop him like a hot stone (witness what happened to Trent Lott) but Time Will Tell.
Well, for that to be true you'd have to first prove that Clinton was the victim of a witch hunt
You honestly believe what you just said? The Republicans did everything they could to try and get Clinton removed from power.
You'd also have to prove that Delay is guilty of everything you think he is.
This guy has more skeletons than some graveyards.
Here's DeLay's latest batch of utter bs:
"The judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people," DeLay said. "But I also believe the executive and legislative branches have neglected the proper checks and balances on this behavior ... Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric."
Last I checked, polls says the "will of the people" was for the government to butt the hell out of the Schiavo case.
I guess the "will" only counts for those that agree with DeLay.
Craig,
I know you believe what you write...but look at the above and tell me there is an argument there.
Saying that "The Republicans did everything they could to try and get Clinton removed from power" dosn't make it so. Believing that Clinton didn't bring on the majority of his problems won't change the facts.
And your example of Delay's guilt is just a stupid statement...which is not illegal.
And your counter argument isn't very good. If the Zogby polls are correct and most people are actually AGAINST what was done with Schiavo would that make Dely's statement any less foolish?
Right and wrong are not subject to the whims of polls, though popular opinion does hold weight in how best to implement policies.
Believing that Clinton didn't bring on the majority of his problems won't change the facts.
And what were the majority of his problems? A Congress full of power-tripping Republicans, the same lot that are still in power now and still causing havoc?
I don't recall the Republicans trying to string Gingrich up by his balls since Newt couldn't keep it in his pants either.
And your example of Delay's guilt is just a stupid statement...which is not illegal.
No, it's not stupid, it's entirely on the mark. This guy is a danger to our society and our government.
It's people like Bush & DeLay that are trying to seize control of this country, hoping that people are too damn ignorant to notice.
And, sadly, their hope is not misplaced.
Right and wrong are not subject to the whims of polls
Appparently they're not subject to the whims of politicians, either.
"And your example of Delay's guilt is just a stupid statement...which is not illegal."
"No, it's not stupid, it's entirely on the mark. This guy is a danger to our society and our government."
Just to clarify--I was saying that it was a stupid statement on the part of Delay, NOT that you were making a stupid statement.
And I'll say it again; Delay said something stupid. Which is not grounds for impeachment.
"I don't recall the Republicans trying to string Gingrich up by his balls since Newt couldn't keep it in his pants either."
Had he lied under oath about it maybe they would have had their chance--seriously, you think that the Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing if Newtie had given them the grounds? As it was he lost his power and influence among the party faithful and decided not to run again. As I recall, nobody tried to talk him out of it.
In contrast, Bill Clinton is still protected and defended by his fans, allowing him to continue to suck the air out of the room every time some other Democrat has a chance to take over. For which Republicans the world over thank you all.
"It's people like Bush & DeLay that are trying to seize control of this country, hoping that people are too damn ignorant to notice."
Something to look forward too--when Bush nears the end of his second term and the far left moonbats start to talk about his secret plan to suspend the constitution and stay in power--basically the exact same thing the far right wingnuts said at the end of Clinton's term.
And lest anyone think I'm coming to the defense of Mr Delay--I really hope he gets the boot. It would be good for the party. Much of what he did was technically legal but wrong--like Bill Clinton, he seems to think that he can do stuff just because he can.
Unfortunately, he raises a lot of money and probably has enough people in his pocket that they will fight for him. Too bad. If republicans have the same low standards as democrats they deserve the same electoral fate.
Just to clarify--I was saying that it was a stupid statement on the part of Delay, NOT that you were making a stupid statement.
Ahh.
For which Republicans the world over thank you all.
I don't think the Republicans being where they're at today is due to Clinton.
If Clinton could've ran a third term, Bush didn't stand a chance.
Gore? Well, I don't know what his problem was (beyond a really bad misquote), and last year it was gay marriage bans that carried the day.
Unfortunately, he raises a lot of money and probably has enough people in his pocket that they will fight for him.
Yet, there is some hope:
DeLay spent nearly $3 million in this last election campaign in Texas, and got 55% of the vote.
The guy who ran against DeLay only had like $500k and still got 41%.
DeLay can be beat. The Democrats realize that, and they're starting to look at their options in that district already.
"I don't think the Republicans being where they're at today is due to Clinton."
"If Clinton could've ran a third term, Bush didn't stand a chance."
I think that is probably true. Clinton was a much sharper debator than either Bush or Gore.
Then again, virtually everyone that Clinton actively campaigned for lately has lost. He was never good at transferring his charisma to other people--in fact, when people saw a politician with Bill they assumed he was as much of a sleeze (poor Erskine Bowles did everything he could to distance himself from BC but the Republicans just ran ad after ad showing the two together).
The facts speak for themselves--When Bill was elected the Democrats owned the House, ruled the senate, had most of the govornerships, controlled most of the state legislatures...they were unquestionably the dominant party, despite having difficulty winning the big enchilada.
After Clinton got elected the ONLY thing they could keep was the presidency--and even then, only with Clinton. The republicans have a good lock on the House, thanks to the fact that redistricting has protected all incumbants (the Democrats went along with much of this, looking out for numero uno). The senate and control of most states has fallen to the Republicans more often than not--even California and Massachusettes have Republican govorners. And the number of people who identify themselves as republicans has gone up while the number describing themselves as democrats went down.
maybe it's all a coincidence but one can certainly argue that Bill Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to the Republicans.
"The facts speak for themselves--When Bill was elected the Democrats owned the House, ruled the senate, had most of the govornerships, controlled most of the state legislatures...they were unquestionably the dominant party, despite having difficulty winning the big enchilada."
Which should make this next set of elections very interesting. If this indicates a pattern which we are about the repeat, we should see a dramatic shift from Red to Blue in the legislative houses, even if the White House stays Red for another term or two.
Then again, virtually everyone that Clinton actively campaigned for lately has lost
But Clinton didn't campaign for Gore, which some people said at the time is what probably cost Gore the election.
"Which should make this next set of elections very interesting. If this indicates a pattern which we are about the repeat, we should see a dramatic shift from Red to Blue in the legislative houses, even if the White House stays Red for another term or two."
Good point. So far Bush has defied predictions and managed to win midterm elections. If things like the Delay scandels gain traction there could well be a repeat of 1994. The Democrats will, of course, have to offer something as well--they keep thinking that they will be swept into office on a wave of voter anger. Apparently they aren't as angry as they thought.
"But Clinton didn't campaign for Gore, which some people said at the time is what probably cost Gore the election."
Sure he did. He wasn't as active as he could have been and that was a deliberate choice of Gore's, for better or worse, but he certainly campaigned.
A few blasts from the past:
" Gore and Clinton campaigned together in Monroe, Mich. a blue-collar swing district where they had appeared in their successful 1992 campaign. Gore thanked Clinton for the endorsement he delivered from the convention podium on Monday night. He noted the prosperity of the past eight years, and said, "we're just getting started. We're not turning back."
"President Clinton spent Sunday enthusiastically stumping for Al Gore in his home state of Arkansas, where the race between Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush is considered a valuable toss up."
"Clinton campaign
President Bill Clinton campaigned for Gore in Arkansas, telling volunteers there, "We've got to get the troops out."
"This state could literally determine the outcome of the election," he told civic leaders in Little Rock. "There are about 15 to 20 states that are literally within three points ... and no one knows what's going to happen. But what will happen is the people who want it bad enough will win."
Now granted, Clinton could have been used far more effectively. But the idea that he did not campaign and rasie money for Gore is a myth.
Odd. I seem to recall distinctly that Gore was intentionally distancing himself from Clinton, thinking that the impeachment would hurt him (Gore) in the long run.
But then, that was 4-5 years ago, and it's harder and harder to see through the haze of red that has affected my vision since Bush's 2002 State of the Union address. :)
Yeah, it does seem like 100 years ago, doesn't it?
And you're correct about Gore distancing himself, to a degree. And obviously, it was a bad idea. I mean, there's no way a last day visit to Florida by Clinton couldn't have netted more than 500 votes. meanwhile, he had BC campaign in California...like he was in any danger there...amazing...
Of course, we're all strategic geniuses after the fact...:)
So, Bill, do you think we're seeing a case of 'political suicide' unfolding with DeLay's? :)
Depends. A lot of people in the republican party would like to see him fade away but it's not likely. And if he goes nuclear...a lot of folks could go down with him.
Democrats have to be careful as well. The recent line of attacks over his using his family in paid positions within his campaigns is laughable--this is really a case of something EVERYBODY does and while it stinks to high heaven, if Harry Reid makes too big fuss over it someone might point out that his own family has profited tremendously from the Nevada gaming industry. Which is no shock--we're talking Nevada here fer Christ sakes. at any rate, Delay has so many real skeletons its nuts to try to make up bogus ones.
I guess it depends on whether the Republicans see this as a media witch hunt or not. With Trent lott they wisely cut him off at the knees, which contrasted favorably with the treatment the Democrats give Robert "Grand Kleagle" Byrd. They'd be wise to do the same to Delay but I'm not hopeful.
I'm more or less a religious retard, and as such, cannot possibly understand the lament of some of these more devout catholics out there.
All I can say is; it's a shame when ANY strong, moral leader dies, but in this case, I think the pope can be satisfied with a life lived to the fullest (he was the pope, come on!) and a clean, proud legacy left behind. (which, needless to say, hasn't been the case with certain catholic priests of late.)
As for Mrs. Shiavo, I have no idea how this became the media and political circus that it is.
decisions like this are made every day by people from all walks of life.
This case wasnt about Terry Shiavo.
This case was about people's OPINIONS, it failed to be about Shiavo long ago.
And, at the risk of sounding heartless, Im glad shiavo has moved on. She can have some peace in death, and we can have some fresh news stories that havent been harped on for three solid weeks.
(All respect to Mrs. Shiavo and her family.)
http://www.forbidden-planet.co.uk/acatalog/Battle_Pope__1.html
I know Todd would do alot for a buck, but this is just pathetic.
darrick, did you mean to leave a different link than you actually did? If not, I don't get it.
Fred
I just find it sadning and offensive. Of course, he has the right to publish it, but I just think that the idea (and re-releasing the first issue around the Pope's death) is very respectful.
Drudgereport today had a link to Cafepress advertising a t-shirt that said
Dear Tom Delay,
Please commit suicide.
Sincerely,
Everyone.
The link says it's unavailable now but if you go to cafepress and search under Delay it pops up. It's from the Goodwin art folks, who also sell a shirt that states simply "Bush is Vile". You have to marvel at the chutzpah.
All in the name of tolerant, progressive politics no doubt.
Despite this grotesque behavior, I STILL he think he ought to be bounced. Just because you have a witch hunt doesn't mean you have to sympathize with an actual witch. (apologies to any wiccans out there. It's a metaphor)
Battle Pope was originally published years ago. I preordered the tpb, which was due out a few months back and has yet to see the shelves. This new #1 has nothing to do with John Paul II, his papalcy or his death. Completely unrelated and merely coincidence that it is due to hit stands 2 months after the real world pope's death.
Fred
Just because you have a witch hunt doesn't mean you have to sympathize with an actual witch.
To paraphrase Monty Python:
"HE'S A WITCH!"
:)
"I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that dumb."
-Mel Martinez, Florida Senator, revealing that one of his aides wrote an unsigned memo last month citing the Terri Schiavo case as a "great political issue" for Republicans. From the April 18, 2005 Time magazine.