Catholic Church bestows sainthood upon John Paul II...

[fairsheet]

and at the same time, they've done the same for John XXIII. That may go over most people's heads, but not mine. And, I think this is just one more testament to our new Pope Francis.

 

[JackDallas]

Well then, when he gets his official letter he can take it over to the local Denny's and show it to them with a $1.50 and get a free cup of coffee.

 

[fairsheet]

Well then, when he gets his official letter he can take it over to the local Denny's and show it to them with a $1.50 and get a free cup of coffee.

Alas...the both of them are dead.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I'd say it's a testament to the meaninglessness of "sainthood".

 

[Arkady]

and at the same time, they've done the same for John XXIII. That may go over most people's heads, but not mine. And, I think this is just one more testament to our new Pope Francis.

It's a bit embarrassing in the modern age. It requires "proof" of miracles. And yet that usually just means a spontaneous cancer remission. or something of that sort... something that happens on a regular basis to people of all faiths and to people of no faith. There's no attempt to test these "miracles" scientifically (e.g., showing higher disease remission rates for people who pray to Pope John Paul II than for people who pray to some other random person). That would make too much sense. Instead, a religion with about a billion adherents just puts the law of averages to work -- sooner or later some person will randomly have some disease inexplicably go into remission and will claim a vision of the dead pope or something like that, and boom, you've got your "miracle."

 

[NightSwimmer]

Christianity is torn between claiming the unique power of performing supernatural miracles and denying that the Christian faith relies upon the supernatural nature of their foundational scriptures and Church dogma in order to remain relevant in the modern world.

You can't really have it both ways. Either the Church possesses magical power, or it doesn't.

Jesus very clearly instructed His followers that they would be granted the power to perform the same miracles that He performed after He left this Earth. As a matter of fact, He instructed them to consider anyone incapable of the performance of such miracles to be false prophets, rather than true followers of the faith.

By that measure, there are no longer any true Christians, much less "Saints".

 

[fairsheet]

This one sort of reminds me of how put out some non-Catholics tend to get, around the Sacrement of Reconciliation (confession). They like to laugh about how "bogus" it all is - like right.....some man in robes, can wipe another's slate clean, just like that!

On the other hand though...I can't help but wonder why in the hell a non-Catholic would even give a shit? After all....no one is forcing them into the confessional and no civil law is founded on Catholic Reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is that they're not entirely convinced that it's bogus and they think it's unfair that Catholics can ditch their sins so easily.

Anyway.....was Abraham Lincoln "just a man"? I guess I would have trouble understanding someone who answered yes to this question, since most of us probably think of him as a pretty godamned special man! So, might Lincoln be considered a "saint"? He probably wouldn't be..since he wasn't Catholic and all that. But, might he be considered something along the lines of a "saint", even as he wasn't one? Does all this come down to what we might choose to call someone, if not a "saint"?

As far as I'm concerned, Pope John XXIII performed all manner of "miracles", even as they may not have fit with the official definition of "miracle". Identifying some specific individual "miracle" was merely a formality. His history of actual miracles, is a matter of plain and non-sectarian history. What difference does it make of he's a judged a "saint", or a "grand poobah", or a "founder", or a "knight", or just a damned fine Pope?

 

[NightSwimmer]

This one sort of reminds me of how put out some non-Catholics tend to get, around the Sacrement of Reconciliation (confession). They like to laugh about how "bogus" it all is - like right.....some man in robes, can wipe another's slate clean, just like that!

On the other hand though...I can't help but wonder why in the hell a non-Catholic would even give a shit? After all....no one is forcing them into the confessional and no civil law is founded on Catholic Reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is that they're not entirely convinced that it's bogus and they think it's unfair that Catholics can ditch their sins so easily.

Anyway.....was Abraham Lincoln "just a man"? I guess I would have trouble understanding someone who answered yes to this question, since most of us probably think of him as a pretty godamned special man! So, might Lincoln be considered a "saint"? He probably wouldn't be..since he wasn't Catholic and all that. But, might he be considered something along the lines of a "saint", even as he wasn't one? Does all this come down to what we might choose to call someone, if not a "saint"?

As far as I'm concerned, Pope John XXIII performed all manner of "miracles", even as they may not have fit with the official definition of "miracle". Identifying some specific individual "miracle" was merely a formality. His history of actual miracles, is a matter of plain and non-sectarian history. What difference does it make of he's a judged a "saint", or a "grand poobah", or a "founder", or a "knight", or just a damned fine Pope?

So then, in your opinion, a "Saint" is nothing more than a celebrity?

 

[fairsheet]

So then, in your opinion, a "Saint" is nothing more than a celebrity?

I suppose that response makes sense......if you consider Lincoln and John XXIII nothing more than celebrities. And of course, you do have a "right" to that feeling!

 

[NightSwimmer]

I suppose that response makes sense......if you consider Lincoln and John XXIII nothing more than celebrities. And of course, you do have a "right" to that feeling!

What do you consider them to be? Demigods?

 

[fairsheet]

What do you consider them to be? Demigods?

I choose Pres. Lincoln as my analogy, as opposed to someone more obscure, so's to avoid this sort of diversion.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I choose Pres. Lincoln as my analogy, as opposed to someone more obscure, so's to avoid this sort of diversion.

How was that supposed to work? Was Lincoln superhuman?

 

[Arkady]

This one sort of reminds me of how put out some non-Catholics tend to get, around the Sacrement of Reconciliation (confession). They like to laugh about how "bogus" it all is - like right.....some man in robes, can wipe another's slate clean, just like that!

On the other hand though...I can't help but wonder why in the hell a non-Catholic would even give a shit? After all....no one is forcing them into the confessional and no civil law is founded on Catholic Reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is that they're not entirely convinced that it's bogus and they think it's unfair that Catholics can ditch their sins so easily.

Anyway.....was Abraham Lincoln "just a man"? I guess I would have trouble understanding someone who answered yes to this question, since most of us probably think of him as a pretty godamned special man! So, might Lincoln be considered a "saint"? He probably wouldn't be..since he wasn't Catholic and all that. But, might he be considered something along the lines of a "saint", even as he wasn't one? Does all this come down to what we might choose to call someone, if not a "saint"?

As far as I'm concerned, Pope John XXIII performed all manner of "miracles", even as they may not have fit with the official definition of "miracle". Identifying some specific individual "miracle" was merely a formality. His history of actual miracles, is a matter of plain and non-sectarian history. What difference does it make of he's a judged a "saint", or a "grand poobah", or a "founder", or a "knight", or just a damned fine Pope?

The problem with the myth of Reconciliation is that, as with any lie, it can shut down the search for the truth. A person who has done something bad to his fellow man shouldn't have the slate wiped clean in his mind by some pointless ritual administered by a Church employee. He should think long and hard about WHY he did that thing, in order to work on improving his own behaviors, so he doesn't do it in the future. He should be thinking about that, not driving thought out of his brain with mantra-like repetitions of the Our Father and Hail Mary. And he should be dedicating his time to rendering some restitution to those he has wronged, not wandering through the stages of the cross, which helps nobody. Moreover, he should be digging down deep to decide what is right and wrong in the first place, rather than relying on some priest of ancient taboos to tell him. I'm sure a priest, for example, has a view on whether it's sinful to use contraception, but a principled moral inquiry will probably give you the exact opposite answer -- that often it's immoral NOT to use contraception. Old myths provide easy answers for questions that deserve hard thought, and that's a problem.

 

[fairsheet]

The problem with the myth of Reconciliation is that, as with any lie, it can shut down the search for the truth. A person who has done something bad to his fellow man shouldn't have the slate wiped clean in his mind by some pointless ritual administered by a Church employee. He should think long and hard about WHY he did that thing, in order to work on improving his own behaviors, so he doesn't do it in the future. He should be thinking about that, not driving thought out of his brain with mantra-like repetitions of the Our Father and Hail Mary. And he should be dedicating his time to rendering some restitution to those he has wronged, not wandering through the stages of the cross, which helps nobody. Moreover, he should be digging down deep to decide what is right and wrong in the first place, rather than relying on some priest of ancient taboos to tell him. I'm sure a priest, for example, has a view on whether it's sinful to use contraception, but a principled moral inquiry will probably give you the exact opposite answer -- that often it's immoral NOT to use contraception. Old myths provide easy answers for questions that deserve hard thought, and that's a problem.

Thank you for filling us in on the myth of reconciliation. Your contribution is especially special, in that we weren't charged for it.

 

[NightSwimmer]

On the other hand though...I can't help but wonder why in the hell a non-Catholic would even give a shit?

Personally, I don't give a shit.

Now that we have that out of the way, I am curious as to whether you personally believe that it actually, you know, works.

 

[Arkady]

Thank you for filling us in on the myth of reconciliation. Your contribution is especially special, in that we weren't charged for it.

If you'd like, I can send around an offering plate.

 

[nfp guy]

The problem with the myth of Reconciliation is that, as with any lie, it can shut down the search for the truth. A person who has done something bad to his fellow man shouldn't have the slate wiped clean in his mind by some pointless ritual administered by a Church employee. He should think long and hard about WHY he did that thing, in order to work on improving his own behaviors, so he doesn't do it in the future. He should be thinking about that, not driving thought out of his brain with mantra-like repetitions of the Our Father and Hail Mary. And he should be dedicating his time to rendering some restitution to those he has wronged, not wandering through the stages of the cross, which helps nobody. Moreover, he should be digging down deep to decide what is right and wrong in the first place, rather than relying on some priest of ancient taboos to tell him. I'm sure a priest, for example, has a view on whether it's sinful to use contraception, but a principled moral inquiry will probably give you the exact opposite answer -- that often it's immoral NOT to use contraception. Old myths provide easy answers for questions that deserve hard thought, and that's a problem.

What makes you think that your description is an accurate one, i.e., a mindless ritual? Why can't the penitent have performed, oh, an examination of conscience, and have true contrition? What you have described as the antithesis of reconciliation is, I think, what most who are going experience.

 

[fairsheet]

Personally, I don't give a shit.

Now that we have that out of the way, I am curious as to whether you personally believe that it actually, you know, works.

Good question! If you're asking if it magically wipes one's slate clean, no. But, the exercise of considering one's sins and "confessing" them to another human being, CAN be a positive.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Good question! If you're asking if it magically wipes one's slate clean, no. But, the exercise of considering one's sins and "confessing" them to another human being, CAN be a positive.

So then, a psychologist or other secular counselor would get you the same results?

 

[fairsheet]

So then, a psychologist or other secular counselor would get you the same results?

Why would someone pay a psychologist or "other secular" counselor, for that they can have for free? Anyway....the confessional's diffrent from the psychologist's office - very different. In the former case, one acknowledges and considers his issues for himself. The "confession" is more of a spur for them to collect their thoughts and come to some sort of conclusion around them.

The psychologist is way more about telling an expert one's problems, in hopes of their arriving at a solution.