Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CWOJackson
I'm not belittling him, but I am pointing out that he is not Pope John Paul II and in my opinion, which is the same as yours, an opinion, he never will be.

Yeah, sure. You didn't want to belittle him /sarc

He comes to the position too late in life, he comes from an entirely different background and he does not have the drive or energy that Pope John Paul II brought to the position (and age has a great deal to do with that).

But he was the most qualified for the position, and that's what matters now.

There is also a difference in style and approach, where Pope John Paul II immediately started reaching out to the world, in words and travel, this Pope will not; it isn't his style.

I'll grant you the fact that he's not as charismatic and personable as JP II, but he's a good man nonetheless. Popes are not elected to be divas. They're elected to lead the largest single religious denomination on Earth.

Through the efforts of John Paul II, again travel, words and deeds, the Catholic Church enjoyed major expansions in other parts of the world while it retreated in it's more traditional locations.

If charisma, personability and amount of travel were requirements to be a good pope, the Bill Cli(n)t(on) would be the best Pope ever.

There is a world of difference between the two men.

Weak arguments, overall... as expected from you.

68 posted on 07/26/2005 5:04:50 AM PDT by El Conservador ("No blood for oil!"... Then don't drive, you moron!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: All

I posted this article. I am Israeli. My home is in Netanya. I see a lot of reaction without much thought. Here is my take on the article.

The Pope gave a sermon. In it he condemned every major terrorist attack which had occurred in the previous two weeks save one: the suicide bomb attack in Netanya. Those of us who live here have to ask why and point out the effect, perhaps unintended, of the Pope's omission.

The Catholic Church has a long history of taking the Palestinian's side in the conflict. Yes, Pope John Paul II took some courageous steps to heal rifts between the Catholic and Jewish communities and I, for one, do appreciate that. However, his statements against Israeli government actions to defend our people were troubling.

Now we have a new Pope. His views on the Middle East are, so far, unknown. Nobody, not the Foreign Ministry, not the writers at Yediot Ahranot, none except a few overreacting here on FR, are calling the Pope and anti-Semite. He has done nothing to deserve that. The real problem is that he made what, in my view is a serious omission with serious consequences. This can be corrected and that is all the Foreign Ministry wants. That is all I, as a Jew and as an Israeli, want. Asking that does NOT make us anti-Catholic or bigots.

All we want is acknowledgement that our dead and injured are as valuable all all the other dead and injured. All terrorism is evil and should be treated as such.


69 posted on 07/26/2005 7:42:59 AM PDT by anotherview ("Ignorance is the choice not to know" -Klaus Schulze)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: El Conservador
"Weak arguments, overall... as expected from you."

Hardly drama queen.

72 posted on 07/26/2005 1:35:23 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: El Conservador
Actually, let's break this down for you:

Me: He comes to the position too late in life, he comes from an entirely different background and he does not have the drive or energy that Pope John Paul II brought to the position (and age has a great deal to do with that).

Your Response: But he was the most qualified for the position, and that's what matters now.

FYI: You are probably correct. It is usually the practise, when a dynamic Pope has passed, to follow them with one who is well up in age and less dynamic. The intention is for to be sort of a Papal place holder and a period of quiet for the next, more dynamic, Pope.

Me: There is also a difference in style and approach, where Pope John Paul II immediately started reaching out to the world, in words and travel, this Pope will not; it isn't his style.

You: I'll grant you the fact that he's not as charismatic and personable as JP II, but he's a good man nonetheless. Popes are not elected to be divas. They're elected to lead the largest single religious denomination on Earth.

FYI: Strange that you should say he's not as charismatic and personable as John Paul II, when the whole time I've been saying he is not a John Paul II. As for the reason he was elected, it wasn't to be dynamic or to compete with the memory of John Paul II. Also, the Pope is not the leader of the largest single religious denomination on Earth.

Me: Through the efforts of John Paul II, again travel, words and deeds, the Catholic Church enjoyed major expansions in other parts of the world while it retreated in it's more traditional locations.

You: If charisma, personability and amount of travel were requirements to be a good pope, the Bill Cli(n)t(on) would be the best Pope ever.

FYI: That is a silly arsed comment but consistent with your over reactions.

73 posted on 07/26/2005 2:11:46 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson