Vatican declares Popes John Paul II and John XXIII saints

[tomyummer]

The biggest contribution of John Paul II was to support Solidarity and break 54 years of communism in Poland with all other countries to follow next.

Much, much more.

He was the first non-Italian Pope in 400 years!

He was the first Pope openly speaking out against Commies.

He was the first Pope travelling the Earth extensively.

He was the first Pope taking a bullet for his openness.

He actually was the first Pope with the guts to apologize to the Jews

which was doubly courageous by being a Papa and a Pole.

I see your passion. But only your first statement holds water. Being the 'first' in your other claims doesn't make for a good argument. How many popes have there been since the existence of communism, airplanes, guns (and global public appearances), and the Holocaust?

[uptheos]

Haven't really been following it.

What were the 'miracles' ascribed to them and how many officially = a sainthood?

[boomerangutang]

Here's a partial list of people I would vote for - to be further ahead of the queue toward sainthood, than the two Popes:

Jane Goodall (anthropologist)

John Muir (Environmentalist, with the same b'day as me)

Jimi Hendrix (guitarist/philosopher)

General Sheridan (used his troops to keep Yellowstone wild)

John Cleese (comedian/atheist)

Ram Das (philosopher)

Conan O'Brian (comedian, satirist)

Mahavishnu John McLauphlin (enlightened guitarist)

Lama Tharchin (Tibetan rinpoche and personal friend)

my granma, Sarah (joyful person)

Ramakrishna (enlightened being from Dakshineshwar, India)

[cooked]

Anyone searching 'Pope John hell' on Youtube will see some shocking stuff. Whether he deserves to be a saint will be questioned for ages given his 'do nothing' stance on child molestation in the church.

Have to wonder what the real reason Benedict decided to leave his post. Anyone?

That was the first thing I thought when I saw his foto the first time.

[GentlemanJim]

Haven't really been following it.

What were the 'miracles' ascribed to them and how many officially = a sainthood?

I think you have to clock up two miracles, all a bit more easier to claim 1000 years ago when the large majority of people could not read or write were stupid. Pope John Paul allegedly did two, these were : healing a French nun who was stricken with Parkinson’s disease and a Costa Rican woman who suffered a brain aneurysm. Both women insist that John Paul II heard their prayers.

Frankly If it's true, I find it pretty piss poor that God's number 1 on earth chosen to be the main honcho cures less people than the Doc down the road here and gets a Sainthood for it.

However, John XXIII has only been credited with one miracle. Instead, the decision to canonize him is based on his huge popularity, and on his role as the "founder" of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), according to experts. His miracle was to cure another Nun (these Nuns are all getting preferential treatment), who had had 14 operations for a problem in the abdomen and another Nun put a 'relic' of the now dead Pope (he died 3 years before the miracle he performed) on the sick Nuns stomach. Within 3-days she had a vision and was cured and all her scars were gone . Pope Francis said one miracle was enough for Pope John XX III and gave him a bye into Sainthood.

So there you are, could make a good idea for a new book in the popular series "Sainthood for Dummies".

Edited May 1, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[folium]

Q. Why is the Vatican recognized in the UN, and not Tibet?

A. Power politics

Both are seats of great religious organizations. Both have defensive forces, their own postage stamps, intricate traditions/customs going back 2,000 years (for Vatican) and 5,000 years (Tibet).

Both have their respective religious head men.

Neither has oil reserves, though Tibet has a wealth of precious metals and minerals.

Differences: Tibet is 100,000 X larger, and has its own language.

But main difference: Tibet was militarily taken over (in the 1950's) by a more powerful country.

So I ask again: Why is the Vatican recognized, and not Tibet?

For the same reason that Malta is a member of the UN while Wales is not, or Nauru is while Western Sahara is not. Size is immaterial, it's about sovereignty.

[boomerangutang]

If any would-be saints want to rack up miracles, they can go to Philippines. There are all sorts of back-alley 'healers' who will rub their hands on a person's body, and pull out chicken guts, ....whoops, I mean tumors. The saint-wannabe can rent out a room, get a bucket of chicken guts and start racking up miracles. Did I mention, there's never any hole or scar on the patient's body - just smooth skin where the psychic incision was.

[boomerangutang]

Q. Why is the Vatican recognized in the UN, and not Tibet?

A. Power politics

Both are seats of great religious organizations. Both have defensive forces, their own postage stamps, intricate traditions/customs going back 2,000 years (for Vatican) and 5,000 years (Tibet).

Both have their respective religious head men.

Neither has oil reserves, though Tibet has a wealth of precious metals and minerals.

Differences: Tibet is 100,000 X larger, and has its own language.

But main difference: Tibet was militarily taken over (in the 1950's) by a more powerful country.

So I ask again: Why is the Vatican recognized, and not Tibet?

For the same reason that Malta is a member of the UN while Wales is not, or Nauru is while Western Sahara is not. Size is immaterial, it's about sovereignty.

Wales!? How about dolphins?

[ABCer]

Any Religion has apart from Faith issues some Moral standards. Use them or not but do not blame the others for consequences.

I can see the bigger picture than you or the Popes.

I am not a member of any religion, but if some groups of people make the world a worse place, than it affects me and others. If I care about the planet and its species, it becomes my business.

Any group of people who procreate willy nilly, are making a mess. Each new child brings tens of tons of trash in his/her wake. Overpopulation of our one species spells extinction for many other species. If a person only wants to focus on people issues (as if people are the only species that matter), then that's applicable also: No condom use spreads STD's, which directly and indirectly adversely affects tens of millions of people.

In Biblical times, it made practical sense to encourage women to pop out as many babies as physically possible. Nowadays, it's selfish, callous and harmful to do so.

Well, that is a bit presumptuous. Modesty, my friend, modesty. Try not to blow trumpet up your own ...

I am also not a member of any religious group. And I agree with you about irresponsible procreation.

Question of condoms however is a dubious one. Imagine people not screwing around. This also would take care of AIDS, STD's and unwanted pregnancies.

Maximum I allow for you is to have your own opinion. Denying the same for any religious group is a recipe for your Personal Greatness and Sainthood. Sorry, but you sound childish.

[boomerangutang]

Any Religion has apart from Faith issues some Moral standards. Use them or not but do not blame the others for consequences.

I can see the bigger picture than you or the Popes.

I am not a member of any religion, but if some groups of people make the world a worse place, than it affects me and others. If I care about the planet and its species, it becomes my business.

Any group of people who procreate willy nilly, are making a mess. Each new child brings tens of tons of trash in his/her wake. Overpopulation of our one species spells extinction for many other species. If a person only wants to focus on people issues (as if people are the only species that matter), then that's applicable also: No condom use spreads STD's, which directly and indirectly adversely affects tens of millions of people.

In Biblical times, it made practical sense to encourage women to pop out as many babies as physically possible. Nowadays, it's selfish, callous and harmful to do so.

Well, that is a bit presumptuous. Modesty, my friend, modesty. Try not to blow trumpet up your own ...

I am also not a member of any religious group. And I agree with you about irresponsible procreation.

Question of condoms however is a dubious one. Imagine people not screwing around. This also would take care of AIDS, STD's and unwanted pregnancies.

Maximum I allow for you is to have your own opinion. Denying the same for any religious group is a recipe for your Personal Greatness and Sainthood. Sorry, but you sound childish.

That's ok, I've been called worse.

Where I draw the line, is what causes harm. If an authority figure counsels people to not use condoms or birth control, the result is harm, in the form of STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Over 22 million Filipinos, or 40% of the population reside in slums. In Manila alone, around 1.2 million children are homeless and live either by peddling or begging on the streets. Philippines is Catholic and very much influenced by Popes and their harmful edicts. That's just one country suffering from crappy decisions handed down from the Vatican. Shall I list some others?