• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Pope Benedict resigns.

Also, he won't be the Pope the moment he resigns on the 28th - that's the point. He'll just be an old guy.
He will never be "just an old guy" Just like the President or King of any country, when the term ends or a stepping down the said person is still a major figure. So just like that the Pope will stay in a prominent place and have a large voice in matters. Even if it is all unofficial it will still happen.

So a man steps down from a meaningless post. Nothing lost or gained from where I'm sitting.
I fail to see how the seat of the leader of the Catholic Church (and by extension head of state of Vatican City) is in any way meaningless.

I fail to see how it's meaningful, so I guess that's where we differ.

He is the head of one of if not THE largest religion in the World, how is not meaningful? The Pope is one of the most important positions in the entire world. One could say he rules the largest country in a way except China and India have more people I think but close enough. So would you say the same if any other world leader stepped down? Just because it is a religious post doesn't mean it just affects those that believe in the said religion, in this case Catholicism.

And how can you say the Papacy isn't meaningful? Go check out what Pope John Paul II did and see if that changes your mind. He was one of if not THE biggest world leader of the past 50 years. I could go on and on about what he did. So honestly while yes you are entitled to your own opinion it is just not reasonable at all. Whoever the Pope is becomes one of the most revered world leaders, and the office of the Papacy is the longest standing office. I don't know about some of the other religions so I might be wrong there but I don't think so.

So yeah even if you don't believe in the faith doesn't mean the Pope is a meaningless person in a meaningless office.
 
Whoever the Pope is becomes one of the most revered world leaders, and the office of the Papacy is the longest standing office. I don't know about some of the other religions so I might be wrong there but I don't think so.

The only one I can think of is the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism. He's technically "retired", but only as the political head of Tibet. He's still the religious leader.
 
I think "meaning" must be read with some context.

I think the position the Pope has is pretty meaningless as of today. That doesn't mean I don't think he doesn't wield extreme influence. I just think it's a pretty meaningless position to have. All it does is hold on to ensure that the narrow, dogmatic views in one of the biggest religions in the world are reinforced by an bunch of old men pulling the strings. Of course, that's just my opinion as an observer, believers would obviously have another opinion.


But in short, influence =/= meaning. You could make all the fancy titles in the world, and have all sort of people listen to you. Doesn't make it meaningful in any sense of the word.
 
Whoever the Pope is becomes one of the most revered world leaders, and the office of the Papacy is the longest standing office. I don't know about some of the other religions so I might be wrong there but I don't think so.

The only one I can think of is the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism. He's technically "retired", but only as the political head of Tibet. He's still the religious leader.
The Dalai Lama only started in the 1400s, the Pope goes all the way back to 0(or 33 depending on which you look at)

I think "meaning" must be read with some context.

I think the position the Pope has is pretty meaningless as of today. That doesn't mean I don't think he doesn't wield extreme influence. I just think it's a pretty meaningless position to have. All it does is hold on to ensure that the narrow, dogmatic views in one of the biggest religions in the world are reinforced by an bunch of old men pulling the strings. Of course, that's just my opinion as an observer, believers would obviously have another opinion.


But in short, influence =/= meaning. You could make all the fancy titles in the world, and have all sort of people listen to you. Doesn't make it meaningful in any sense of the word.
You have a fair point there H-con. And yes our opinions will differ but I still feel the need to respond.

I can see that. But the Pope is very meaningful to us. He is the head of our church so to us he has all the meaning. And sure meaning=/=influence but it can come close.

And it is not "an bunch of old men" sure the main higher up people are older but don't the older you get the wiser you become? At least most of the time. And there are plenty of younger men. I know one who is like 21 and is just entering the seminary(the school for becoming a Priest). Heck I'm even considering it, though I have a while.
 
1) Willingly speaks to the relevant authorities about everything he knows and learned about the scandal during his time as the Pope.
Or if that doesn't happen:
2) More controversially, he is arrested and made to answer questions.
.
Neither of these will happen. The very notion of this is ridiculous. You don't arrest a papal figure, the controversy surrounding such an action protects him. In the future, you'll probably see a lot more come to light concerning this, but to start calling for his arrest? Off base.
Sure, to do so while he is currently the Pope would be impossible from a PR stand point (and possibly even a political one considering how the Vatican is its own country), but surely he'd have zero legal immunity once he's quit?

Maybe it will happen a few months down the line when the attention is away from him, but it needs to happen.

Technically, he wouldn't have any legal immunity. But there's no country in the world that has the... guts... to attempt to arrest / interrogate the former Pope. The only country in the world who'd have the ability to even consider it (the US) would never do it because of the uproar it would cause (both inside the US and outside with our European friends and trading partners). And the UN wouldn't be able to do it because the US would veto any decision like that.

The truth can and should come out eventually. But it's not going to happen by attempting to strong arm a pope. That wouldn't end well.
 
The Dalai Lama only started in the 1400s, the Pope goes all the way back to 0(or 33 depending on which you look at)

I fail to see how how long it's been going as relevant in any way. You really can't justify something over something else by stating that it have been going on for a longer time.

I can see that. But the Pope is very meaningful to us. He is the head of our church so to us he has all the meaning. And sure meaning=/=influence but it can come close.

Which is fine. A person can hold a lot of meaning to one person, but be "meaningless" to others.

And it is not "an bunch of old men" sure the main higher up people are older but don't the older you get the wiser you become? At least most of the time.

Not really. It might be an old saying, but it doesn't make it true, and I don't buy it at all. Not that I don't respect old people or anything, but wisdom is a term that can easily vary from person to person, to what they put into "wisdom". I certainly wouldn't trust old people and their vaunted wisdom in making potential life changing decisions based on their interpretation of scripture and dogma.



As for what Mako is implying, I'm glad we live in a society where people can get away from a legal system by simply being (or have been) in a powerful position. Not saying anything on this particular case (doubt he was personally involved, but it could have been interesting to find out how much he actually knew. However, I don't think there is enough evidence to get him involved), but to say that the Pope should be exempt for something simply because he's the ... pope is just rubbish. Of course, the reason should be good, but that should apply to everyone else as well, so it doesn't really make a difference either way.

And being the leader of an organization that hides the abuses does carry some responsibility. You can't just brush that aside by feigning ignorance.
 
Last edited:
This thread is not what I was expecting.

I'm having difficulty thinking of how the Pope could be made to answer by legal authorities for issues like child abuse in parishes. These problems fall heavily on parishes and dioceses. Perhaps there's evidence thoroughly implicating Holy See in cover up efforts that I have not seen.
 
This thread is not what I was expecting.

I'm having difficulty thinking of how the Pope could be made to answer by legal authorities for issues like child abuse in parishes. These problems fall heavily on parishes and dioceses. Perhaps there's evidence thoroughly implicating Holy See in cover up efforts that I have not seen.

Even if there were that evidence it would still be very difficult to prosecute the Head of one of the most if not the most powerful organization on the planet.
 
We need a new vision for the church. Sadly Pope John Paul II did a through job in making sure the top hierchy of the church would be socially conservative so the choices will continue to have the same direction as the current one.
 
We need a new vision for the church. Sadly Pope John Paul II did a through job in making sure the top hierchy of the church would be socially conservative so the choices will continue to have the same direction as the current one.

Problem is they can't with out violating the bible as it says in it the infallible word of god and must taken that way literally word for word and as result such things as lifting the ban on gay marriage is bad, the same for contraception and woman as clergy etc would be impossible as a result
 
The Dalai Lama only started in the 1400s, the Pope goes all the way back to 0(or 33 depending on which you look at)
Ah, I thought you were talking about longest held religious position after attaining it. Such as, the Pope usually has it until he dies, and the Dalai Lama usually has it from a young age.


For the people saying that the position of Pope is meaningless, that would be like saying that Archaic's position is meaningless. Both are the heads of their organizations, the Pope is the head of Catholicism (one religion out of many), and Archaic is the head of Bulbagarden (one fanbase out of many). It may seem like a wild comparison, but if the Pope were to step down and another wasn't appointed, then Catholicism would go crazy. There would be too many high ranking officials to make an effective administration. Same with Bulbagarden. Bulbapedia would start drifting apart in how it connects so well with Bulbanews and the forums, because everything has its own system of administration that eventually links back to Archaic and how he wishes for things to run. Obviously that won't happen since another webmaster would be chosen, just like another Pope will be chosen, but anything this large has an impact. Catholicism is one of the largest religions in the world. Bulbagarden is one of the largest Pokemon fan organizations/collective Pokemon websites in the world, if not the largest.
 
Problem is they can't with out violating the bible as it says in it the infallible word of god and must taken that way literally word for word and as result such things as lifting the ban on gay marriage is bad, the same for contraception and woman as clergy etc would be impossible as a result

The Catholic church isn't fundamentalist. Reality is that most people in the Holy See are just conservative.
 
As a catholic, i think the reason whyhe quit is because the pope knows the other shoe is going to drop and to get out while the good get going. also the vatican getting stuck by lightnong tice also makes me wonder if this is a sign og something big about to go down...
 
As a catholic, i think the reason whyhe quit is because the pope knows the other shoe is going to drop and to get out while the good get going. also the vatican getting stuck by lightnong tice also makes me wonder if this is a sign og something big about to go down...

Tall buildings get struck by lightning all the time.
 
As a catholic, i think the reason whyhe quit is because the pope knows the other shoe is going to drop and to get out while the good get going. also the vatican getting stuck by lightnong tice also makes me wonder if this is a sign og something big about to go down...

Is your keyboard broke or something?
 
Personally, I think that the fact that there was lightning strike on the Vatican not that long after the Pope resigned was purely coincidental, the Vatican Palace has a lightning rod on the top, and tall buildings, even churches, get struck by lightning all the time, so it's nothing special.

What is being talked about now is a long time doomsday prophecy called the Malachy Prophecy (or as Wikipedia calls it, the "Prophecy of the Popes"), which people are claiming that the next Pope might be the last Pope, the legendary "Peter the Roman". Though to be honest, I don't think it's true, considering the fact that 90% of the time, doomsday prophecies always end up being untrue, how many of Nostradamus's prophecies actually happened, and let's not forget the recent advent of the Mayan Calendar last year.

Even Wikipedia says it:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, an independent American research company, has said that, even if the prophecy is genuine, which it doubts, there may still be many Popes between Peter the Roman and his predecessor on this list.

The chance of the next Pope being the last one is a VERY small chance. And lets not forget that there are religions other than Catholicism, such as Orthodox Christianity, Shia and Sunni Islam, Buddhism, and countless others.
 
Eh, I'm sure that there's more going on behind the screens. But, it's his prerogative. Still, at least with Queen Beatrix, you know she's leaving someone competent on the throne ... The next pope? I'm pooping my pants.
 
Problem is they can't with out violating the bible as it says in it the infallible word of god and must taken that way literally word for word and as result such things as lifting the ban on gay marriage is bad, the same for contraception and woman as clergy etc would be impossible as a result

The Catholic church isn't fundamentalist. Reality is that most people in the Holy See are just conservative.

Exactly - they don't take the Bible literally when it comes to evolution (official Vatican doctrine is that evolution happened, it's conservative Protestant churches that reject it). They also almost changed their mind on contraception with Vatican II.

The next pope? I'm pooping my pants.

This should be the eighth deadly sin.
 
Please note: The thread is from 11 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom