April 02, 2005
The pope has died
Sorry for the lousy link.
might be updated soon.
11 years ago
Probably died yesterday but they didn't like the April Fool's Day date.
Perhaps now the news in the US can be something other than what it has been the past two weeks: "Someone is about to die! Let's watch them bedside and report 24 hours a day on whether that person is dead or alive!"
Yeah, they can move on to more important things. Like the Michael Jackson trial. Seriously, though, I don't know what you're supposed to say here, so I'll just shut up. No matter what you believe, death is never fun.
I know I'm supposed to feel sad but I'm just dreading the orgiastic news coverage that has only just begun and will continue for what seems like forever. I'm staying away from all news channels for the next couple of weeks. To all those who loved the pope and mourn his passing, my condolences.
As a Catholic who doesn't practice because I don't agree with the doctrine of the church, I hope the new pope will make some changes.
. I say . For the dot says it all . Yep .
. (who started this whole '.' thing anyways?)
I'm not catholic jccalhoun, but I too hope the new pope will shake things up. Opening the priesthood to women and removing the celebacy stricture would be two needed changes.
Or, you know, condoms. That would be a step in the right direction.
Indeed. Condoms for everyone!
Seriouslly, though. The Catholic church is too big and powerful to continue it's rabidly irresponsible views on STDs (especially AIDS) and family planning.
Condoms, and a revision of the whole "gay people are going to hell" stance would be, y'know, nice.
Actually, you know what? Better than everything, renounce Papal Infallibility. It's only been around for 135 years as a dogmatic concept, so it's not like there's the inertia of centuries of tradition behind it. Get the possibility of free thinking back into the Church, so that there can actually
debates. To rudely and crudely and very broadly paraphrase felix betachat and jmd82's wise commentary
, this Pope dragged the Church kicking and screaming into the 19th century. The next has the chance to bring it even further forward.
I think I *will* watch the news channels over the next couple of weeks, if only to learn more about the process of electing a new Pope. It's been a quarter century since the last one, and from what I've heard it's a quite complex and very traditional procedure. As for hopes of a more liberal-minded Pontiff, I don't hold out much hope. All but three of the 117 Cardinals eligible to vote were appointed by JP2, so presumably they have similar traditionalist views.
You could probably find loads of info about the papal electoral process on that there interweb too.
I have nothing even remotely civil to say about the pope, so I'll just say I expect the next one will be just as bad, if not worse. Bringing the Catholic church up to date would require more than a few thousand time machines, so best give up on that pipe dream.
Odds for the next Papal appointment
*pours a bottle of communion wine on the ground for his dead homie*
The Pope isn't like infallible infallible. His pronouncements are only infallible when he says they are. It's not an automatic thing, he has to wave the "infallible" flag to mark them as such.
Infallible, the Catholic Godwin
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
The Deafening Silence of Pope Karol Wojtyla.
For anyone interested in a dead old man's thoughts and what impelled him to act as he did.
Just went to cnn.com. The pope is still dead. Will check for an update when I get up tomorrow.
...but the trouble is, nobody knows what the "infallible" flag looks like. So it's kind of hard to tell when he's being infallible infallible, or when he's just being all "I'm not infallible right now (but my Church still is)". There's no "this is an ex cathedra" moment. Oy.
"Infallible doesn't mean infallible"; "Yes I know but there's a lot of confusion and in the popular conception it does" - the Catholic "Godwin's doesn't mean what you think it does"; "Yes I know but you're still a Nazi bastard".
I'm with jccalhoun ... as a lapsed/ex-catholic I hope the next Pope is a liberal ... but as rocket88 said, many of the leading candidates are pretty traditionalist so I think it's unlikely that a liberal Pope will be elected ... and it would be fully in keeping with the mindset of an embattled organisation to elect someone even more reactionary, especially as fundamentalism and extremist religions of all hues seems to be gaining so much ground elsewhere in the world. On a personal note - I got married yesterday (hurrah!) it was a civil service, no mention of god whatsoever! But many of my close relations are very Catholic so the Pope dying in the middle of the wedding appears to have a strange relevance ...
I've been watching a certain amount of the Dead Pope Show (as my friends and I have been calling it... we're all going to hell, aren't we?), mostly because I'm really interested, like rocket88, in the process and pomp that I'm not familiar with. I also hope the next guy is more liberal and hates women and gay people less. *sigh* I'm not holding out too much hope, though. To derail a bit, I can legally marry people (the internet not-a-church says so!) -- as I'm sure many of us monkeys can. So, if you want a non-traditional service headed up by a silly monkey girl....
Congratulations, dickdot! May your marriage outlive many a pontiff!
! Best wishes to ye both.
There's no "this is an ex cathedra" moment.
The only statements of the Pope that are infallible are statements that either reiterate what has always been taught by the Church or are
solemn definitions (which can never contradict what has formerly been taught)
Yup, but the ambiguity still lies in working out exactly when the Pope is speaking
. While all Catholic scholars agree that the Pius's 1950 Assumption of Mary definition was an infallible,
statement, they go a bit confused beyond that. As it was defined in 1870 -
"when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church"
- it could seem to apply extremely widely; that it has not been so applied to the many, many encyclicals of John Paull II is as much a recent adjustment to both his particular papal style, and to the greater ease of worlwide communication, as it is a rigorous interpretation of the doctrine. And of course, it ain't just the Pope who's infallible, it's also the Holy See and, at an even greater scale, the whole Church. But they're a
type of infallible, naturally. As a result, it's hardly surprising that the perception of Papal and Catholic infallbility amongst the laity is a confused one, and one which in many cases presumes a far greater level of infallibility than is perhaps warranted.
one which in many cases presumes a far greater level of infallibility than is perhaps warranted.
That's the only point I wanted to make.
Dignum et justum est.
Congratulations, Dickdotcom! One thing about the Pope's death which has surprised me is the absence of any discussion about whether the powers of his office need some amendment to make the Church less dependent on a single man. You don't have to be a radical democrat or conciliarist (is that the word?) to see the disadvantages in having everything depend on a single man who may well become enfeebled, unpredictable, or frankly senile. But it seems to be taken for granted that the new pope will have the same autocratic powers which the Pontifex Maximus has exercised since pre-Christian times.
I should mention that I have sent in my CV to the Vatican. If there are any Cardinals here, please vote ME.
Quidnunc the First? Sounds nice. Or, should they turn you down, how about running for Anti-Pope?