Tuesday, 26th January 2010 - 19:35CET
Pope John Paul flagellated himself, new book says
The late Pope John Paul flagellated himself regularly to imitate Christ's suffering and signed a secret document saying he would resign instead of ruling for life if he became incurably ill, a new book shows.
The book, called "Why he is a Saint-The Real John Paul II" was written by Monsignor Slawomir Oder, the Vatican official in charge of the process that could lead to sainthood for John Paul. It includes previously unpublished documents.
John Paul, who died in 2005, was shot and nearly killed in 1981, underwent several operations, including one for cancer, and suffered from Parkinson's disease for more than a decade.
He moved closer to sainthood last month when Pope Benedict approved a decree recognising that his predecessor had lived the Christian faith heroically.
The book, published today, reveals that even when he was not ill, he inflicted pain on himself, a practice known in Christianity as mortification, so as to feel closer to God.
"In Krakow as in the Vatican, Karol Wojtyla flagellated himself," Oder writes in the book, citing people in the late pope's close entourage while he was bishop in his native Poland and after he was elected Pope in 1978.
"In his closet, among his vestments, there was hung on a clothes hanger a particular kind of belt for pants, which he used as a whip," Oder writes.
When he was a bishop, he often slept on the bare floor so he could practise self-denial and asceticism, Oder writes.
Many saints of the Church, including St. Francis of Assisi, St Catherine of Siena and St. Ignatius of Loyola, practised flagellation and asceticism as part of their spiritual life.
"It is clear the aspect of penitence was present in the life of John Paul II," Oder told a news conference. "... it should be seen as part of his profound relationship with the Lord."
RESIGNATION DOCUMENTS
The book also confirmed that as his health failed, John Paul prepared a document for aides stating that he would step down instead of ruling for life if he became incurably ill or permanently impaired from carrying out his duties as pope.
He signed the document in 1989, eight years after the failed assassination attempt. Its existence had been the subject of many rumours and reports over the years but it has been published for the first time in full in the book.
John Paul wrote that he would resign "in the case of infirmity which is presumed incurable, long-lasting and which impedes me from sufficiently carrying out the functions of my apostolic ministry".
He wrote another text mentioning his resignation guidelines in 1994, two years after he underwent cancer surgery.
In the end, the Pope decided to stay on until his death, saying it was for the good of the Church. Had he stepped down, he would have been the first Roman Catholic pontiff to do so willingly since 1294.
The recent decree stating that he had lived the Christian life heroically was one of the key steps in the procedure by which the Church recognises its saints.
The next step will be the recognition of a miracle attributed to John Paul. It involves a French nun who was inexplicably cured of Parkinson's disease after praying to him.
After the Vatican recognises the event as a miracle, the late pope can be beatified, the last step before sainthood.
RSS
Comments
A miracle, by definition, is simply an event that makes one feel good, even if it cannot be explained. I'm absolutely at ease with this notion, which is perfectly innocent.
Here lies the glaring contradiction, however, and is annoying. Roman Catholics draw the conclusion that it was SaintX who committed EventY. Note how the "conclusion" overrules the element of inexplicability while the "miracle" remains and is elevated to great heights.
There is also, in my view, a degree of arrogance to say, look, natural laws cannot explain EventY, so I can go ahead and attribute EventY to SaintX. This is usually after claiming that SaintX is said to have committed, in fact, Events{Y1, Y2, …}. It's like 101 people saying: AC Milan is the best soccer club, except that we are all AC Milan fans.
I don't dismiss nor do I have difficulty with the supernatural. It's the systematic attempt to exploit the supernatural --by alleging unfounded cause-effects-- that gets over the top. Some call it "the absurdity of Christianity", but I think it's a little worse than that.
Quote.."What made you think I had never considered your points (1) and (2) --although not necessarily in that order and surely not with the creative ardour you expose?"
Fair enough, but it therefore appears that you agree with me that miracles are not evidence of the existence of the supernatural. So called miracles are most likely due to natural factors that we don't understand, but are natural anyway....not supernatural.
That is probably the reason why different cultures that evolved independently of each other all came up with some form of religion. Before the advances of science & medicine, humans couldn't explain famine, disease, natural disasters and many other things. We are pattern-seeking beings so we came up with religion to give order to the chaos around us. Diseases became curses by the devil. Floods and earthquakes were sent by God to punish us. Etc ... Religion helped people live in a highly chaotic and mysterious world.
However that still doesn't make religion true. There is no proper evidence for any kind of supernatural being. Jesus might have been a great philosopher but there is no evidence for all the hocus pocus miracles that he allegedly performed. There is no evidence that he is still alive as there is no evidence for Mohammed or Krishna.
Chris, it might be comforting to you to believe that there is some big God watching over you throughout your life but it still doesn't make it true.
What made you think I had never considered your points (1) and (2) --although not necessarily in that order and surely not with the creative ardour you expose?
Quote…. “that is why we have miracles ... to prove the sopra naturali”. I find it curious that so many people believe, or wish to believe in miracles and that these are the result of divine intervention.
Consider the following….
1) Virtually all miracles in the Catholic Church involve someone who is cured of a supposedly incurable disease, after praying to some saint or to Christ himself. However, there are literally millions of cases of terminally ill people who pray to God with equal fervour for a cure, but end up dying. Is it therefore not easier to conclude that “not well understood” but nonetheless natural body chemical defenses are the real reason for the so called “miracle cures”?
2) There is not one single documented case of a person who loses a limb (say a hand or a leg) and who, after appropriate amounts of prayer, sees his limb regenerated. Now if that were to happen, that would indeed be a miracle.
But possibly, God does not like amputees. Or more likely, so called miracle cures are due to completely natural causes and not sopra naturali.
That is a silly argument. By your logic we would then have to believe in ALL the Gods of ALL the religions just to play it safe. Hector, the only reason you believe in the Catholic God is because you happened to be born in Malta in this century.
Another thing. Believing and non-believing does NOT leave you with a similar ending. A non-believer will die in the knowledge that he lived seeking the truth. He would have died knowing that this life is the one and only chance he gets so he must make the most of it while he's here. This is in contrast to a believer who believes that his life is just a phase that will lead to the "real afterlife". He would have lived a lie and put all his efforts and goods into something that is essentially fiction.
I leave you with this thought. What if you are wrong and the real God is not Christ? What if Thor or Zeus or Buddha or Apollo is the real God? If it turns out that Thor is the real God and you were to die and stand in front of him, what then will your defence be for believing in Christ but not in Thor? Perhaps then you should believe in Thor just in case?
My dear Hector, there is NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY GOD, so why should I believe in any one of them? I might as well believe in Invisible Yellow Unicorns. Logic and reason however lead me to believe in none of them.
Imagine I am wrong (in believing God exist) and you are right (no God exist) - that leaves both of us with a similar ending.
But imagine at least for one short instance that I may be, just maybe right, and therefore you are a wee wrong ... what then?
You clearly don't read well, Mr Ellul: ""In Krakow as in the Vatican, Karol Wojtyla flagellated himself," Oder writes in the book, citing people in the late pope's close entourage while he was bishop in his native Poland and after he was elected Pope in 1978."(The Times)
Monsignor Slawomir Oder is reporting on the basis of first hand witnesses both inside and outside the Vatican. You may choose not to believe what Monsignor Oder is reporting if it doesn't fit into your frame of mind. It remains, nevertheless, a tangible fact no matter how much you will try to discredit the truth.
And if you feel that "JP2 tried his best to dutifully carry on his mission as a Vicar of Christ" than that is good for you but not for the hundreds of minors who suffered greatly in four dioceses in Ireland alone throughout the entire papacy --of some thirty years-- of this Vicar of Christ pope John-Paul II.
And if Monsignor Oder were a saint, as you expect him to be, he would not be discussing anything.
It is quite contradictory to state that what is hidden and written afterwards is all true and on the other hand than you question the relative elements of sainthood. Whatever the monsignor's position is .... such theories will have to be proven.... that is all... I for one will not negate that JP2 tried his best to dutifully carry on his mission as a Vicar of Christ, the question in this world should not relate to the mentioned detail but more to the objectives and their fulfilment... I do not think that Christ inflicted any pain to self as a method of prayer so in reality I do think it is rather superflous to mention, some people may exaggerate in testimony or even fantize.....I personally do not, but that is reality.... and I do read well ....thanks ... quoting non saints discussing a Saint requires tangible well proven facts Dear Sir ! that is why we have miracles ... to prove the sopra naturali
So I guess you were there 2000 years ago to see God as a man. Or is it perhaps that you got that silly idea from a 2000 year old book that was compiled out of a selection of writings by very primitive people. Oh by the way, since you seem to enjoy quoting the book and try to convince us that it's true because it says it is, I'll give you a quote myself. Your God in human form - Jesus told you specifically (as his disciple) that you could raise the DEAD. (Matthew ch 10 verse 8) So if you want to spare God the effort of revealing himself to us, you can always show us how much you believe by RAISING SOMEONE FROM THE DEAD. Jesus would never lie now, would he???
That the "athletic" pope flagellating himself has become public knowledge is thanks to official publications by Monsignor Slawomir Oder. If you read carefully you would know that Monsignor Oder is the Vatican official in charge of the process that could lead to sainthood for John-Paul. It is clearly implied that self-flagellation is viewed as a significant criterion to sainthood by Vatican officials. This may not be to your taste, Mr Ellul, but whether you like it or not it's a hard cold fact.
The real issue here, however, is this. A harder and a colder fact about pope John-Paul II is that while the "energetic" pope made a big issue on apologising for the heinous deeds committed by the RC Church (deeds which are by now well and truly in the history books) he never apologised --not even acknowledged-- rampant hemophilia in the RC Church under his own papacy. Monsignor Oder also seems to imply that concealed hemophilia present under the papacy does not hinder the respective pope to the sainthood.
Quote…. “What proof do you need (of God not the unicorn)?! You want God to appear and tell you hi I really exist.”
Actually, that would be a very practical solution for most of the world’s problems, especially if your God, i.e. Christ, were to appear to everyone on the planet. You see, while you believe that Christ is God (despite no evidence), the vast majority of people on Earth who happen to be non-Christian, reject Him outright. They believe that THEIR God is the true God. This is why, since time immemorial, the world has witnessed endless religious strife and horrors.
Had you been born in Saudi Arabia in a devout Muslim family, you too would almost certainly have been Muslim, and you would have definitely rejected Christ and Christianity. So, are 1.5 billion Muslims all wrong about Christ? But, would it not be very easy for all Muslims to “convert” to the real God if Christ were to appear and tell them, “Hi, I’m Christ and I am really the one and only true God”?
As for love stories in the Bible, I can send you a whole list of books of equally wonderful fiction.
That one's easy. Because ...
a) Religion is an easy target by such people. Especially when one uses logic and rationality. There is no real evidence to support faith in some supernatural being like God. Quoting the Bible doesn't help at all - just because something is written down in the Bible it doesn't make it true.
b) Religion is very powerful in Malta and it affects the lives of both believers and non-believers. Non-believers do not think its fair that they should live by the rules and morals of medieval supersitition.
On another point: someone mentioned that the God that the Catholics believe in is the same as the God Muslims and Jews believe in. This cannot be true as these different religions make give very strong and clear descriptions of who God is and what morality he imposes. The different definitions given by the different religions contradict each other and they cannot all be right.
Someone said if you love your family then you love God. Simply not true! "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?..." (Matt 5:46)
If you have any doubt that Jesus Christ, whose existence is historically proven, is truly the son of God, compare Exod 3:14 with John 18:5-8 and Mark 14:62. In the first instance when asked by Moses his name God replied I AM (meaning I who cannot not exist or without whom nothing can exist). This is not a real name as to name something implied ownership and who can own God?
Finally, allow me to suggest reading what I consider the best love story, read John 14-17.
Sorry Kevin. I messed up and you are absolutely correct !!!! The Invisible Unicorn is probably PINK. However, when he does reveal himself, we will then know for sure. In the meantime, we should all believe he is PINK, and live happily ever after with that comforting belief.
Don't be RIDDICULOUS!!!!! Everybody knows that the Invisible Unicorn is PINK!!!
Quote ...."Atheists don't really exist.......God is waiting for the right moment to reveal Himself"
Really ?
What if I said that people who believe in INVISIBLE YELLOW UNICORNS don't really exist, because these Unicorns are waiting for the right moment to reveal themselves? Surely I would be looked upon as mentally unstable? And yet, the lack of evidence for Invisible Yellow Unicorns is no different for God's existence.
Okay, so Invisible Yellow Unicorns don't likely exist. So, perhaps I should be waiting for Thor or Zeus to reveal themselves, or for the thousands of other Gods who have come and gone over the centuries? By your reasoning, it is not possible that one of them, rather than your Christian God, is the true God who will eventually reveal himself to many people? Who knows? In the meantime however, while nobody can conclusively disprove the existence of any of these Gods, people who use logic and reason can readily conclude that the existence of any of them is very highly improbable. Thus the reason why so many people today are genuine atheists.
It probably should read: "Anti-theists are all atheists." This because it would be contradictory for one to be "something" (for example, a proponent of the existence of a god who subjects his faithful to a catechism) while at the same time being actively against that "something". That would, ironically, amount to self-flagellation; which brings us all back to the original topic.
To make it a little clearer, try imagine an anti-theist flagellating himself just like JP2 because, as it turns out, he is not an atheist.
I agree that violence is never acceptable. So let me rephrase that sentence. Atheists often speak harshly about religion, not violently, but they don't go further than that (no physical violence or maltreatment, as opposed to religious fanatics, you know where I'm heading with this.) Now, is their harsh intellectual treatment towards religion acceptable? I believe so, because I do think that it is a case of self-defence. Atheists are a minority (although there are more atheists in the world than anything else except catholics, but most of them are hiding), and religion presses on matters that are so important in everybody's lives, that it;s impossible not to disagree with it on many bases.
Now, the difference between anti-theists and atheists is this. Atheists don't believe in any god of any kind. Anti-theists are anti-god. Anti-theists are all (or nearly all of them) atheists, but they go one step further. They don't only not believe in any god of any kind, but they also dislike the idea of a god.
I will explain the difference between the "ists", mainly Theists, Deists, Atheists, and Anti-theists. A Deist is a person who believes in the existance of a God but claims no knowledge on the God and no contact with him/her/it. A Theist in comparison, not only believes in a God but claims to know who he is and what he wants - implying the necessary contact of the God with the physical world. An Atheist is someone who does not believe Theist claims. An anti-theist by contrast not only does not believe theist claims but opposes them as harmful and thus fights against them (not necessarily physical fight but by argument). Religions are by definitions - Theists. I am both an Atheist and an Anti-theist because I don't just reject the Theist claims but see them as harmful and thus oppose them.
There is clearly a need here to explain your use of the word "violent" since violence is never acceptable neither physically nor otherwise (the exception being only in extreme circumstances such as self-defense). There is also a need to explain the difference between "atheists" and "antitheists" since the two (as you have implied) are not the same yet easily interchanged, causing confusion.
.....cont
If god exists but has no way of contact with the natural world, then we would not have any idea of what he is, let alone what he wants from us or wants us to do. Religions claim that they know who he is, and what he wants us to do. They claim their scriptures as written or insprired by god which basically means that god must have a contact with the natural world and while one cannot deny supernatural beings, one can easily prove or disprove natural things. So while an atheist can never prove beyond doubt that a god does not exist, just like he cannot prove an invisible pink unicorn does not exist, he can prove the religious claims wrong because they deal with natural things. If there is a claim in the bible that is proved wrong, then it must mean one of two things. Either the god of the bible does not exist or our idea of what he is and wants is wrong. Jesus said that his disciples could raise the dead in his name (Matthew ch 10 verses 7,8). Can you (or anyone else) do this?
You ask "what's wrong with blind faith?". Easy question. Blind faith means you believe something with no evidence. That means that you accept a claim as truth without even questioning it. It's irrational because you are believing one claim (Christianity) and refusing another (Islam for example) when there is no evidence for either. You are mixing faith with trust, when you give the example of parents, spouses and children. I trust my wife is faithful to me because I have evidence for it and no evidence against it. If someone gave me evidence that she was not faithful, and that evidence was justified - I'd lose my trust in her. There is no evidence for a god or gods. There is on the other hand evidence against a god or gods. Believers say you can't prove that god does not exist because he's supernatural and so you cannot touch, see or hear him. This is a self contradictory claim and I will explain why. .....cont/
I do know, thank you very much, that atheist comes from a-thos (without god). I do know that atheism means disbelief in a god. I don't believe in any god of any kind. Also, anti-theists such as Christopher Hitchens are atheists too as they don't believe in any god of any kind either. If you wish to know whether I'm an anti-theist, I suppose I am, as I agree with nearly everything that Christopher Hitchens says about religion (who is an anti-theist himself). Let it be known that atheists and antitheists are only violent intellectually, and not physically, unlike what many people think.
Blind faith is bad. I have faith that my parents will look after me through thick and thin because I trust them. Where did I gain that trust? Not from a rusty old book, but from experience. Some children do not trust their parents after all! Your point is invalid.
quote: "if i believe that something does not exist i don't even mention it let alone thank him for it"
so you can start now by stopping in mentioning christmas father, cinderella, snow white and the rest.
how can you say what an atheist believes in if you're not one? why is it impossible not to believe in god? i never said you were arrogant, but it seems you have come to believe so yourself! what i'm trying to say here is: you have the right to believe in what ever you want, but please have some respect for others who do not believe in what you believe. after all we both have no proof of what's in the after life! or do you?
I agree with you that only BLIND FAITH can make one believe in a loving personal God. But my question is :-What's wrong with that ? Do you think it's something stupid to have blind faith? Blind faith is an essential part of our lives especially in our loving relationships. What evidence have we got that that our parents, our spouses, our children and/or our best friends will always be faithful to us and never harm us? ( in fact sometimes they do! but where's the logic and reason to that?) We all believe that our parents will never harm us but where's the logic and reason to that? There's none- but only faith and love. Logic and reason is important when we want to invest our money somewhere or when we have to vote to choose our political leaders but not when it comes to loving relationships and the belief in the existence of God is actually that. Logic and reason have nothing to do with it. You yourself said that you'd love to believe in a loving personal God. Well the choice in what to believe is only yours. Noone can deny you that.
I think you ought to look up the definition of the word "atheist" in your dictionary. It says disbelief in the existence of God or gods-godlessness. People who believe in Allah, Thor, Krishna or Zeus are not atheists. (and by the way Allah is not a different god from ours so he shouldn't have been included in that list of false gods!) Are you people who believe there's no god or people who are anti-God? How can you be convincing in your arguments if you declare yourself as atheists without even knowing what the word atheist means?
Ofcourse I don't read the subconscious. I said that atheists believe subconsciously that there's a God because you/they thanked Him for it. If I believe that something doesn't exist I don't even mention it let alone Thank Him for it! I don't find it impossible to believe that other people don't believe what I do. But actually I didn't criticise indians worshipping a cow or Afghanis wearing a burqa! They are not atheists because they have a god. An atheist believes there's no God and that's different ! What I tried to say was -Yes- It's impossible to be an atheist (i.e. believe there's no God) beacuse even an atheist himself admits there is one (and moreove he thanks Him for it)! Finally, I beg your pardon. If you think I'm arrogant, I humbly accept your criticism but allow me to say - you fell in my same rut. You have no right to say that the only reason for my being catholic is that I was born in Malta. I can assure you that there's more to that . Having an experience with God (even if one is not necessarily catholic) is a growing process .
I just wanted to thank you for your quote from Christopher Hitchens, with which I completely agree.
What I find very hard to understand amongst believers is there reliance on Faith, even when there is no Evidence.......or indeed, even when the evidence points to the exact opposite of what they believe in.. How could one possibly believe in a loving /caring God when one sees the natural disaster in Haiti?
As Karl Sagan appropriately noted, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So, let me ask the obvious question. .What evidence is there for one's belief in Heaven, Hell, Angels and Demons, resurrection, eternal life, virgin births etc? These are indeed extraordinary claims...and yet, the evidence to support them is zero.
And yet,, billions of otherwise logical people persist in having faith in "holy" books written 2000+ years ago during which time scientific knowledge was at its infancy at best, and ignorance and superstition were rampant. Incomprehensible !!!!!!!!!!!
Will think twice before sending in a joke. I'm a believer after all.
Atheists please note: If you love your kids, partner, parents etc you are believing in God without knowing it!
Quote “……..atheists realize even subconsciously that it's impossible to believe that there's no God and they have to thank Him. It's no use dear wannabe atheists - God exists. He's there for us and you know it too!!!!!”
I admire your candour but I seriously question your line of reasoning. I was brought up Catholic in a very devout Catholic family. However, over many years, logic/reason and science led me to absolutely believe that God’s existence is highly improbable, and the existence of a Personal God (one who loves us, cares for us, listens to our prayers etc.) even more improbable. Mind you, I would love to believe that there is a wonderful God who will, after I die, resurrect me and reward me with eternal happiness in Heaven. But, logic and reason can only lead one to conclude that this is wishful thinking. Only BLIND FAITH can make one believe in a loving personal God. Atheists need evidence and there is essentially none.
As for you suggesting that we should thank God because he is there for us, you might want to ask the Haitians if He was there for them when the earthquake hit.
how do you know what we feel subconsciously? maybe you read the subconscious? another miracle worker? why do you find it impossible that there are people out there who do not believe what you believe? don't they have the right? why do you think that your beliefs are the only right ones? your beliefs are based on what you were thaught. if you were born in afghanistan, you would be wearing a burqa! if you were born in india, you would be worshiping a cow! but you were born in malta. that is the only reason why you are catholic!
Dear Hermann, even I meant my comment as a joke, and I was smiling when I wrote my comment. God Bless
Thank God I'm an Atheist sounds contradictory. You sound very religious, but it would be nice if you could take a joke!
Quote “………..we know many people who although lived as if God never existed they weren't happy………”
Wow! What a revelation!! We also know many people who although they live as if God does exist are very unhappy indeed. For example, the people of Haiti, most of whom are Catholic, are not exactly a happy bunch right now, if indeed they ever were given the extreme poverty and misery of that country. And presumably, God was/is on their side. Just imagine how even more dire the situation would have been for the Haitians if God was not on their side, or if they chose not to believe in Him. Who knows? ……perhaps 400,000 people would have died in the earthquake instead of just 200,000. But luckily, the Haitians are Catholic and God is on their side to protect them and make sure that they are happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is that all you've got, an "image"? Please consider the following about the real man. Here are his principal official apologies on behalf of the RC Church:
1) The miscarriage of justice in the legal proceedings of Galileo Galilei.
2) The African slave trade.
3) The burnings at the stake.
4) Wars following the Protestant Reformation.
5) The injustices committed against women.
6) The inactivity and silence during the Holocaust.
But these official apologies were ineffectual and came a little late. The one that mattered most, because it was pressing and ongoing under his own papacy for more than twenty years, is nowhere to be found. Pope John-Paul II is quoted to have said:
“An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.”
And the lie surrounding pedophilia in the Church, not only inside the Irish dioceses but also inside other dioceses in other countries, remained well guarded under his papacy. It would be inexplicable if he were not aware of the impropriety. But his awareness in all likelihood, together with an erroneous notion of vicarious atonement, may explain his self-flagellation as an "excuse".
1430 Jesus' call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, "sackcloth and ashes," fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.
2015 The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle. Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes:
He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows.
To those genuinely serious about the truth allow me to suggest a short reading list.
Psalm 35:13
Psalm 69:10
Matt 6:17-18
Luke 4:2
Since his mortifications were not known until now shows that it was for God's glory. Mad? Look at his life and teachings for the truth.
Pope John Paul 2 was not a hypocrate as many are, and what he showed from the outside was built in the interior...maybe its for that he had the courage to forgive, to speak against injustice and mafia, to go in Communist Poland etc...This elevates the Pope to sanctity, because to err is human, to forgive is divine.
You must hope only to be so holy that you can criticize other's holliness and maybe make fun of it, but than hope that in the hour of death one of same holliness is besides you to save your poor soul...Yes, no one will tarnish the image of Pope John Paul 2, who gave courage to the world, especcially to the Youths who materialism threw into rubbish. Pope John Paul 2 is truly a role model...thanks be to God
Quote..."No one can tarnish the image of Pope JP II." Really?
It seems that Monsignor Slawomir Oder did a perfect job doing precisely that. One can readily see how religion can warp the mind of otherwise normal and well educted people. If Pope John Paul genuinely believed that self flagellation was a way to get him closer to God, is it at all surprising that Muslim suicide bombers genuinely believe that committing mass murder is a fast way of getting them to Heaven?
"A Catholic priest, a Moslem imam, and a Jewish rabbi are atheists in relation to the other faiths and are only one god away from being atheist."
No, they are all theists, as they believe in a god. They may not believe in the same 'god '(although this is dumb as it's still the god of Abraham) but they still believe in a god and that means that they are not atheists. Atheists deny that there is any god figure, in the same way they deny the existence of the tooth fairy or the monster that hides under the bed - all of which are equally childish nonsense. But then brainwashing can happen at any age, provided the recipient has a week enough mind, just consider suicide bombers.
the iron curtain fell because m.gorbachov wanted it to fall not because of some pope's prayers! there were many revolts in east europe in the past and they were all crushed by soviet tanks. gorbi could have done the same but stood idle and sent a message to all eastern countries for them to follow their revolt to freedom. don't try to mess up history.
This man is too great for some people to recognize!!! Some people use their hatred to bash the Catholic church which, as it is made up of humans, can do mistakes but its glory remains the care of people who are forgotten by society.
True I agree with you. For me to flagellate oneself is just utterly stupid! And goes against all rules of nature.
Why do atheists care about this sort of thing? Because they pay taxes and indirectly subsidize the church, which doesn't pay taxes.
Also why not? Catholics are fellow atheists; they don't believe in a number of other gods that other religious people believe in. A Catholic priest, a Moslem imam, and a Jewish rabbi are atheists in relation to the other faiths and are only one god away from being atheist.
They understand perfectly why they reject each other's god so they should understand perfectly why others shun one more god than they do and thus shun all gods.
i thought the catholic church's belief was that christ suffered through other persons not by hurting himself! so how can you call this sick activity imitation of christ's suffering!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This pope, "JP2", was supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church and the sovereign of Vatican City for 26 years. Throughout all those years, countless boys in Ireland had been sexually abused by paedophile priests with impunity inside four Roman Catholic dioceses. Not until now the pope (Benedict XVI) summoned Irish bishops to address the issue.
For some reason you ask if JP2 was "omnipresent". That's for you to find out. What matters here is that the pope in the Vatican is responsible for his dioceses. The onus is on him to be informed on the conduct of every diocese -- that not one diocese should become errant. In the case of the Irish four dioceses, after some 20 years of continuous abuse --so much so that some of the abusers are now deceased-- it had to be the Irish media to bring the matter to the attention of the general community and of the police. From these revelations it should now be clear that the secrecy within the Church prevailed over all these years because, very sadly, the duty of pope John-Paul II was more concerned about self-flagellation rather than the proper conduct of his dioceses.
Are parents liable to all their children's actions? Was JP2 omnipresent? How immature!
Hopefully when the church itself point out clearly what is fact or fiction it it's teachings we common mortals starts learning how to distinguish between the two.
"It has served us well this myth of Christ"
Pope Leo X 16th Century
Anyway (1) JP II never publicized his self-flaggelation, so it cannot be "showing off"; (2) Mr. Adrian Galea uses the perfect analogy - just look at the athlete who pushes his body to the limit for a higher good (likewise: why diet if all foods were created good by God?).
History will prove what a great man John Paul II was.
Cheers
Quote…..“I ask one single question: Why do atheists bother about the church & our beloved Popes?” The more appropriate question would be “Why not?”
Like all major religions, the Catholic Church dictates what is right and wrong and thus, it has a HUGE influence on the lives of millions of people. It also exerts significant influence on many Governments, including secular ones.. However, what is right and wrong in one religion, is not necessarily so in another religion, and not necessarily so either amongst non-believers. Consider just one example…the Catholic Church dictates that condom use for birth control is wrong and sinful. Most rational people, including Catholics themselves, would say this is nonsense. Our planet of finite size/resources is teeming with billions of people (some 85 million are added to the Earth’s population ANUALLY). Surely the Catholic Church is incredibly irresponsible when it preaches this misguided “no condom” philosophy to the poor and ignorant.
You are free to live your life as you wish and believe what you want. However, because your religion, and other religions too have a huge impact on society generally, we should all be questioning the legitimacy of their so called “dogmas”.
Flagellated himself, that's just sick... a ordinary human will be given therapy and it's as if it's being sanctified here! Just Shocking!
On Saint Louis IX: In order to finance his first crusade, king Louis IX ordered the expulsion of all Jews engaged in usury and the confiscation of their property, for use in his crusade. King Louis IX also ordered, at the urging of Pope Gregory IX, the burning in Paris in 1243 of some 12,000 manuscript copies of the Talmud and other Jewish books.
On Saint Elizabeth of Thuringia: When Elizabeth died in Marburg, Germany on Nov.17, 1231 at age twenty-four, her pall-bearers and mourners noticed a "pleasant scent" rising up from her corpse. Her mortal remains were immediately taken possession of: scraps of her clothing, hair, nails, even her nipples were supposedly cut off by the crowds.
The latter should serve as a lesson to Roman Catholics who take self-flagellation too seriously.
Do you want us atheists to ignore the elephant in the porcellain shop? The Church interferes with our private lives every day! And we insist on criticising these things BECAUSE THEY MATTER!
Ara x'inhi l bicca taghkom x'kien jaghmel!!
Naqbel mija fil-mija mieghek! Mhux li kien Alla jzejjen lil pajjizna u lid-Dinja taghna b'nies simili ghal Gwanni Pawlu t-Tieni!
Most of us atheists do live our life as we think best, however due to the churches insistence on interfering , as it has a tendency to do, in matters of state and law making it does make it very difficult.
Nahseb li Gwanni Pawlu II huwa sinjal car li verament kien hemm l-Ispirtu s-Santu fl-ghazla tieghu, kontra kull mistennija hadd qatt ma kien jobsor li jilhaq Papa minn pajjiz kommunist, kienet daqqa li l-Unjoni Sovjetika qatt ma stenniet.
This pope kept a "particular kind of belt". He used it as a whip. In the meantime, boys were being sexually abused in Roman Catholic institutions across Ireland during every year of his papacy without anything ever being reported to the police. Does Oder write on how much Pope John Paul II knew about the continuing abuse in Ireland?
There is far too much pain and suffering in this world today. Deliberately inflicting pain on one's own body is sheer stupidity. Even if God does exist, why would He want us, in His name, to harm our own bodies which he supposedly created perfectly?
I do not think this is true, and I never heard or read about Pope John Paul mentioning this!
Nevertheless, I haven't read one comment that convinced me to change my mind. I consider self-inflicting pain, regardless of the reason, a serious mental illness.
If the Church considers this a good way to get closer to God, then it's a disgusting institution. Might I suggest a silent retreat?
Where are out censoring authorities when you need them? Rector, Chaplian!!!
Flagellation is a very serious form of self masochism and as far as I am concerned - even if these allegations about the late Pope are true - Monsignor Slawomir Oder should not have published such info in view of the fact that so many people still idolize Pope John Paul II. I fear many will consider imitating him in this pathological mental disorder rather than in the good things he did during his life.
I'm afraid what you say is pure sophistry. You cannot use two weights and two measures. Either self-harm is bad and the sign of a sick mind or it isn't.
And that goes for everybody.
What fanatics !
I have been sitting here trying to conceive how on earth a good whipping can be anyone close to enlightenment and god. I haven't come up with an answer.
Had the book been about work with the poorest people in India or Africa or a lifetime dedication to the sick.. then I would begin to understand enlightenment in view of suffering.
This is just plain showing off.
Oh, and by the way, if I started whipping myself this evening I'll be escorted to Mount Carmel. Even if I claim it's out of a deep love for Christ.
Make up your minds guys
Pope John Paul II's living "the Christian Faith heroically" does not start nor end with any corporal mortification and that is plain for everyone to see, even by reading the above article alone.
Besides, inflicting pain on oneself takes a variety of meanings and a unilateral consideration of it being "ill" is just limited for any intelligent or spiritual person. Pain and challenges spur resistance, humility and could provide an impetus for contemplation depending on one's spiritual disposition. Terrible? Indeed what is terrible is a masochism which is plainly the seeking of pleasure for one's own gratification, this is often done by a many teenagers recently who show it off as well. There is nothing of this sort here, the pain involved in Christian mortification is the opposite.
Whilst I wouldn't push myself to that limit for sure, I can at least distinguish between 'inflicting pain on oneself' due to psychiatric illness and doing the same for a 'higher', spiritual purpose.
In the former case, the person has no ulterior motivation, or else the motivation is a RESULT of a mental illness, whilst in the latter (like John Paul's), the act of self-pain is a spiritual and mental test that the person willingly submits to. There is a goal behind such self-pain and a target that the person wants to reach, whereas in the former the self-pain is the 'target' per se, not the means.
Hope this clarifies matters.
Logic and religion are like oil and water - they never mix.
Don't even TRY to understand.
May our beloved pope rest in peace and may he pray for us
I know this explanation may not be that convincing to everybody - but it is good enough for me. I personally have no doubt whatsoever that Pope John Paul was a very special person indeed. He deserves to become a saint.
it all depends on intent.
take an analogy...an athlete can suffer pain to improve performance.
Some people wear an orange awareness ribbon or wristband to encourage awareness of self-harm.
Deliberate self-harm is a very serious disorder and it is extremely sad to see that role models for lots of individuals willingly follow this type of practice. I wonder if modern religious teachings approve this type of degradation to the human body (which they believe is a gift from their God).
All things considered this does not make Pope John Paul a cruel person. His virtues greatly outweigh his faults but this goes to show that everybody has defects. Still, Pope John Paul remains one of the most (if not the most) person I have respect for in my life although I consider myself an atheist.