One criticism we often hear from other Christians about Mormonism is that they sometimes focus on JS instead of Jesus.

I can say as a Mormon I never prayed to or actually worshiped a prophet (dead or alive) or general authority but I'm certain some Mormons do elevate the status of Mormon leaders to having better access to godly powers.

Today on CNN I happened to catch the story about a Catholic lady and her comments about the now dead pope JPII (related to the push for beatification no doubt.) Here is a quote from the lady:

"All I could think about is to pray to Pope John Paul II. I just felt him with me and I knew he would be the one that would heal my son," said 67-year-old Joanna Lukasik of Chicago, who grew up near the late pontiff's hometown of Wadowice, Poland. "I was driving to the hospital and I was begging him and crying and begging him to save his vision and that's what happened."

The article now posted on CNN (link below) states that:

"Lukasik's story is one of thousands of testimonials being collected through a website set up by the Diocesan Tribunal of the Vicariate of Rome. It was created to help Pope John Paul II with his candidacy for Beatification and Canonization."

So, I would like to point out that Mormons are not anywhere near this level of elevating their leaders, IMO. I cannot see how Catholics have any room to criticize Mormons for admiration of their leaders.

The "Prophet" worship might seem silly to us but compared to Catholic Saints and Popes, Mormons don't seem so bad on this point. It seems like they fill the same rolls to me.

Did you ever pray to a dead prophet? I didn't, and in fact would have considered it inappropriate.

Here's the link to the story I'm quoting:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/30/chicago-family-credits-pope-john-paul-ii-with-personal-miracle/?iref=allsearch

John Paul was very popular and charismatic,but I doubt anyone feels that way about most popes, especially Benedict.Maybe John XXIII. Even though John Paul was popular, Catholics for the most part, especially in the US ignored his views on birth control and other things they disagreed with.He was personaly popular but not widely obeyed.Popes are widely criticzed by many Catholics with little repercusion. Their every word is not treated as if it came from the lips of God. Besides when you go to mass, the pope is almost never mentioned. Kids don't sing songs about following the pope.There are a lot of differences

If you read carefully what catholics believe, you'll find it is customary for catholics to ask for a saints help...it's customary to pray to a saint for help..

John Paul was a popular pope and as said ignored by american catholics who by and large do what they want..

The only thing that catholic kids learn about saints id about their lives and what they do...

You really need to study the catechism of the church and then you'll find out catholics don't worship popes or saints.

stormy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2011 05:51PM by stormy.

stormy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you read carefully what catholics believe,
> you'll find it is customary for catholics to ask
> for a saints help...it's customary to pray to a
> saint for help..
>
> John Paul was a popular pope and as said ignored
> by american catholics who by and large do what
> they want..
>
> The only thing that catholic kids learn about
> saints id about their lives and what they do...
>
> You really need to study the catechism of the
> church and then you'll find out catholics don't
> worship crag popes or saints.
>
> stormy

Agreed. They venerate saints and worship God and the fact is, it is their right. Those who find it weird, don't have to do it.

Then people like that woman on TV who is obviously a devoted Catholic doesn't seem to match your comments. It's always the same defense: You just don't understand the "correct" beliefs of Catholics.

Maybe that woman and the thousands of Catholics referred to in the article should study the catechism of the church because they CLEARLY do worship popes or saints.

I have friends who went to Catholic school and they certainly have told me tales about being taught to follow the Pope's views.

All I'm saying is that Mormons aren't really that different. You get some that are really extreme but lots of them make up their own minds and blow off what they don't like. Catholics should cut Mormons some slack. Mormons are neophytes (not the Catholic meaning of the word) by comparison.

And yes, I agree with bona dea it is their right to do what they want. However Catholic apologists here come across as hypocrites to criticize Mormons when they deny the their own religion is rife with the same kinds of things.

Maybe Catholics treat their saints more like lucky rabbit's feet. And also I agree with bona dea that probably not too many will be praying to Benedict.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then people like that woman on TV who is obviously
> a devoted Catholic doesn't seem to match your
> comments. It's always the same defense: You just
> don't understand the "correct" beliefs of
> Catholics.
>
> Maybe that woman and the thousands of Catholics
> referred to in the article should study the
> catechism of the church because they CLEARLY do
> worship popes or saints.
>
> I have friends who went to Catholic school and
> they certainly have told me tales about being
> taught to follow the Pope's views.
>
> All I'm saying is that Mormons aren't really that
> different. You get some that are really extreme
> but lots of them make up their own minds and blow
> off what they don't like. Catholics should cut
> Mormons some slack. Mormons are neophytes (not the
> Catholic meaning of the word) by comparison.
>
> And yes, I agree with bona dea it is their right
> to do what they want. However Catholic apologists
> here come across as hypocrites to criticize
> Mormons when they deny the their own religion is
> rife with the same kinds of things.
>
> Maybe Catholics treat their saints more like lucky
> rabbit's feet. And also I agree with bona dea that
> probably not too many will be praying to Benedict.


I stand by what I said. I do not think you really understand Catholic beliefs. ANother point is that this woman was from Poland which is the most Catholic country in the world.They are extremely devout there partly due to the Communist persecution. She is also older and no doubt remembers those days. The Poles are also devoted to JPII because he was a fellow Pole and was instrumental in binging the about the fall of Communism. The Polish people cannot be compared to the American Catholics or Catholics in most other countries. Besides, this was one woman. The whole church cannot be judged because one woman or even a group goes a bit overboard.There is also a difference between worship and veneration. It is subtle but it is there. Look it up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2011 06:20PM by bona dea.

A few more comments then I'm done. Readers will judge for themselves.

OK I did look up veneration vs. worship. The word PRAY was associated with worship. I would say Mormons show veneration for their leaders also.

Also, the woman who now lives in Chicago's son had the same views. I recognize people of Polish heritage might especially connect to JPII.

Your comments also apply to Mormons. Utah is Utah Poland. Many Mormons have a Utah connection, so you would expect the same kind of devotion for the same reason.

Lastly, the article said her "story is one of thousands of testimonials being collected through a website set up by the Diocesan Tribunal of the Vicariate of Rome" so it is not just one person.

These people associate supernatural powers with JPII. Now that's what I call extreme veneration. But then, I couldn't possibly understand the Catholic nuances the way Catholics claim to understand Mormons.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe that woman and the thousands of Catholics referred to in the article should study the catechism of the church because they CLEARLY do worship popes or saints.

No, sorry. They're venerating (thinking very highly of) certain popes or saints, not worshiping them as if they were God. People are made saints in the Catholic church because they were considered to be exemplary Christians. As exemplary Christians, they are presumed to want to continue to help people in the afterlife by interceeding with God. In some ways it resembles the Buddhist concept of a bodhisattva, except that the saints continue to help others from the spirit plane, not by reincarnating on earth.

It might help to understand how Catholics think of prayer. They think of it as having a conversation with someone. It just so happens that the someone in question is in spirit form. Just as you might go to someone that you think highly of for their wisdom and assistance, so do Catholics go via prayer to people on the other side for their wisdom and assistance.

As Bona Dea pointed out, there is a range of how Catholics view various popes. Some are beloved (Pope John XXIII, who was regarded as being a very kind, loving leader,) Some are respected (Pope John Paul II, who was hard-working and the most well traveled pope in history,) some are tolerated (Pope Paul IV,) some are despised (Pope Pius XII,) and some are virtually unknown (Pope John Paul I.) Regardless of the pope, the average cafeteria Catholic (that is to say, most of them) takes the current pope's pronouncements with a large grain of salt.

Now as to how the Catholic view of popes compares to the Mormon view of the prophets, I can't say. Catholics would never dream of singing something like, "Follow the Prophet." This would strike them as being creepy. Catholics listen to their pope, but then make up their own minds, rather like how you might listen to your parent or someone else you respect, but then form your own opinion. (Yes, they are taught otherwise, but the vast majority ignore those teachings.) Mormons, it would appear, are not often encouraged to form their own opinions.

I think the best comparison would be if most of the Mormon church suddenly went NOM-ish, and most members were suddenly indifferent as to whether they went to the temple or not. They would refuse callings, etc. They would form an opinion about the current prophet, not always favorable, and not be shy or worried about sharing it. If the bishop asked them to clean the church on a regular basis, they would ask him if he had lost his mind, and then they would form a committee to figure out how to pay for it. Catholics take their religion seriously, but they are not obedient, mindless followers.

More like guardian angels than lucky rabbits feet.

Just like bic mormons most cradle catholics don't know all the history or catechism of the rcc..

And just like mormons they often speak without knowledge or thought..

Also their education level will influence what and how they comment.

stormy

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then people like that woman on TV who is obviously
> a devoted Catholic doesn't seem to match your
> comments. It's always the same defense: You just
> don't understand the "correct" beliefs of
> Catholics.
>
> Maybe that woman and the thousands of Catholics
> referred to in the article should study the
> catechism of the church because they CLEARLY do
> worship popes or saints.
>
> I have friends who went to Catholic school and
> they certainly have told me tales about being
> taught to follow the Pope's views.
>
> All I'm saying is that Mormons aren't really that
> different. You get some that are really extreme
> but lots of them make up their own minds and blow
> off what they don't like. Catholics should cut
> Mormons some slack. Mormons are neophytes (not the
> Catholic meaning of the word) by comparison.
>
> And yes, I agree with bona dea it is their right
> to do what they want. However Catholic apologists
> here come across as hypocrites to criticize
> Mormons when they deny the their own religion is
> rife with the same kinds of things.
>
> Maybe Catholics treat their saints more like lucky
> rabbit's feet. And also I agree with bona dea that
> probably not too many will be praying to Benedict.

Not unless he is made a saint and even then, I doubt he would be that popular. He isn't a charismatic person such as John XXIII or JPII. Besides, he is too conservative for many American Catholics. You pray to saints and most popes aren't saints.

As a Catholic, I'm having trouble understanding what you see here as worship. As has already been said, Catholics do pray to saints as a form of veneration or help-seeking: not worship. Part of the canonization process for saints in the Catholic Church is to prove that through the power of God, the person in question for sainthood or beatification performed a miracle--usually a healing miracle. And it's not just former Catholic leaders: the same applies to the sainthood process for all candidates including Mother Teresa and others. This woman certainly believes that God endowed Pope John Paul II with a power to heal, but I don't see her worshiping him here. I also don't see any way in which she is elevating him above other already-canonized saints--either lay or clerical. Just some thoughts.

bona dea is right, but also keep in mind that there are an awful lot of Catholics out there who are clueless about their own faith . . . while it is both biblical and traditional to venerate (honor) saints and ask them for help or to pray for you (by praying to them and asking them to), many Catholics think you can actually pray to them as you would God.

The biggest stumbling block to ecumenism between the Catholic faith and the Protestant/Evangelical faiths? Language. Just because we are using english doesn't mean we are saying the same things . . . Just like the Mormon Jesus is not the orthodox Christian Jesus . . . one word, 80 bazillion different meanings!

I totally agree here: language is the greatest barrier to ecumenism. When non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians think of prayer, it automatically means worship as opposed to the broader Catholic and Orthodox interpretation of the term. So many other issues too could be resolved easier, I believe, if language weren't so limiting. Another similar issue where language is a problem: the idea that Mary is theotokos, or "mother of God." Lots of people think that Catholics believe Mary is mother of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit when in fact it's only a reference to her motherhood of God the Son. When I'm teaching my theology students, I find more and more than communication gaps are what prevents us from understanding each other's faiths.

I'd say a lot of Mormons are clueless about their religion also. I wonder if the proportion is the same from religion to religion when it comes to adherents having "misinterpretations" about the "correct" doctrine (as defined by apologists or history usually).

Since religions adapt over time, maybe the clueless ones really do define the religion. "Truth" in religion is fluid after all.

If I were Christian, I would be disowning the Baptist hell fire beliefs but that is a reality for a lot of Christians. They just don't use the right language or something.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2011 07:00PM by dagny.

Hi Danny. Nice to see a posting from you! While I agree with both you and Bona Dea on this topic (sounds contradictory, I know), I do think that many people--be they Mormons, Catholics, or others--tend to doubt their own capabilities and therefore want/need some source for support to keep them doing what they are doing (religion in a nutshell, right?). It would be nice if people took responsibility for their own actions instead of praising God (if things go right) or blaming the Devil (if things go wrong), but I'm probably hoping against hope that that will ever come to pass.

That said, I find this much less alarming than http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,181805,181805#msg-181805 which (hopefully) leads to a message I posted earlier today. I think having a religion to enforce women to become nothing more than baby factories is much more problematic than whether or not Joseph Smith or Jesus Christ (the Christian one) or Muhammad or anybody else is prayed to or venerated.

I certainly agree with you and I acknowledge the points made above by the other posters.

I had missed your thread! Thanks for the link. You made good comments and it was an interesting article. Isn't religion about perpetuating itself foremost? Religions thrive by having a faster breeding rate.

The bottom line is that when the pope is an openly gay woman maybe I will think they are serious about being progressive instead of it always being "Catholics who don't really care what the pope says" defining what is progressive.

That is another great similarity between Catholicism and Mormonism: male priesthood. It is about female repression no matter how they try to polish that turd.

The issue is that the pope isn't the church. He may be the leader, but Catholics do not fall all over themselves to follow his every whim.They are perfectly free to disagree. If he were to tell people to limit piercing to one and not to have tattoos, most Catholics would pretty much ignore it.Those who didn't like piercing or tattoos would not take this as God's word although they might agree. Those who did like them would ignore it.A few fanatics might rip out their earrings, but they would be the distinct minority. Not the Mormons.A local example. A conservative priest mentioned in his homily that it was showing respect to dress up in church. He said that you didn't have to spend a lot of money, but that you should wear your best. The next week, nothing had changed. People were still wearing jeans, shorts and sweats.

Very true, bona dea. A little-known fact about the Catechism of the Catholic Church: it teaches primacy of conscience as well as the importance of being faithful to tradition. Therefore, if a person's conscience is well-informed and he/she still disagrees with certain formal teachings, the church actually teaches that he/she is obligated to follow conscience in such a circumstance.

Yes they do...and a well informed Catholic knows and understands this.

stormy

And flip flops, don't forget the flip flops.

It was warm tonight and summer is coming and so are flip flops..better to be at Mass in flip flops than not be there at all. If God truly cares what we are wearing...then I'm in trouble...along with many others.

stormy

The only time I was ever asked to cover my shoulders was when I was visiting St. Peter's in Rome many years ago. Even then, with a sweater quickly thrown over my shoulders, I was good to go. First stop -- Michelangelo's "La Pieta." Wow!

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only time I was ever asked to cover my
> shoulders was when I was visiting St. Peter's in
> Rome many years ago. Even then, with a sweater
> quickly thrown over my shoulders, I was good to
> go. First stop -- Michelangelo's "La Pieta." Wow!
The church iin Italy does demand that shoulders and knees be covered and that men wear long pants, but it isn't always enforced and they couldn't care less about women wearing pants, or jeans or flip flops. The rules are a bit over the top IMO, but when you consider the number of tourists who visit and how some tourists dress, I can see why there are rules. People on the Italy Forum who attend services in the country, say that worshippers in many churches there wear what they want. One claimed in her parish that it isn't unusual to see girls in spaghetti straps and short skirts. They are even participants who give the reading or who bring the gifts to the altar dress that way. At any rate, if St. Peters demanded that people wear burkas, I'd do it in order to see the Pieta and the Sistine Chapel.

Just as many Mormons venerate, no, worship, heavenly mother. They get up on fast and testimony Sunday, go to the front of the chapel and cry over how much they love heavenly mother.
Also, there are hymns that venerate, no, worship, Joseph Smith. In actual fact there are more Mormon hymns that weep over how wonderful Joseph Smith and the other prophets were/are than Mormon hymns that adore Jesus the Christ.
There are also hymns written by non-Mormons (isn't that ironic) that do make mention of Jesus, and of his Daddy, but not so much Mormon hymns.
Maybe we all have wrong anyway and it was actually Joseph Smith who died for our sins? Maybe Brigham Young decided that Joseph Smith should die for our sins after all. Well, someone's sins, anyway!

And don't forget: the Pope is only infallible when teaching 'ex-officio'--that is: on matters of doctrine. When he teaches on matters of faith ('ex cathedra') he is subject to scrutiny by the whole of the church through it's councils (think Vatican II, et. al.).

The last time a Pope spoke infallibly? In the 1800's, the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

Which is why if the Pope were to say 'only one set of piercings for ears!', most Catholics would say:'huh?' and go on about our business. But those Catholics who do know their faith would probably wonder why he would say that and check out the Catechism and scripture then go on about their business . . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2011 10:40AM by nwmcare.

And just to add a bit onto that, the Pope has only EVER spoken infallibly twice--to declare the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. And even so, as nwmcare also says, ex cathedra pronouncements are supported by the voice of the faithful. In other words, these doctrines declared infallibly true for the first time are not new: they are doctrines the faithful have believed for years already. The infallible pronouncement only makes it "official."

I have to say what you are describing is indeed very similar to what I was taught as a Mormon.

On one hand, I was taught strongly that my personal conscience and personal revelation was my primary source of direction. But I could go to leaders for guidance and direction. On the other hand, as part of the religious double-speak, conflicting teachings were out there suggesting that instructions came from top to bottom.

It's basically the same as finding in the Bible whatever views you want since conflicting views on practically every topic are in the Bible if you look for them.

Plus, the Mormons are not as refined as Catholics of course but their parallel to the infallibility issue is the "speaking as a man" trump card. "Thus sayeth the Lord" is similar to saying it was "official." After 2000 years of saying things that were damaging, you can bet Mormons would be doing exactly what Catholics do.

We mostly complain about the die hard Mormons here but there are plenty of laid back ones. There are massive numbers of Mormons with multiple piercings who still believe. So, like the Catholics you describe they are just using their own judgment and think the prophet (and GAs) are out of touch.

The portion of Mormons who marry a non Mormon, don't really care about the temple, drink coffee, etc., but still defend the Mormon religion seem to be the counterpart to the Catholics you are describing.

We can find very dogmatic Catholics who have huge families, and take the traditional teachings very seriously. Those would be the counterpart to the temple-going Mormons.

Overall, yes, there are differences. And believe me, after being here in tornado-torn Baptist and Protestant Alabama I'd have to say the two Catholics I work with seem to be the most sane.

That said, your comments have clarified the differences in one way but enforced in other ways that the Catholic organization is a giant Mormonism on steroids. Again, compare what the Catholic Church was like when it was the age of Mormonism. Not that I think Mormonism will ever become like Catholics in 1500 years- they will merge into the other layers of American Christians. I know from studying world mythology the patterns religions follow and what important roles they hold in the culture.

I see why Catholics would want to make some into Saints. I can even say JPII did perform a miracle: he covered up child abuse and got away with it, receiving adoration on top of that!

I see Mormonism as a cheap knockoff of more established religions like Catholicism only without any of the rich history, tradition, art, architecture or music. I disagree with Dagny about Catholics worshiping saints. Praying to saints to influence God isn't the same as worshiping them. There are doctrinal differences between religions.

That being said, religions are all the same in that they use supernatural explanations to make sense of natural occurrences. It's really only a matter of degree.

My ex-Catholic friend says that I could substitute the word "catholic" whenever I say "mormon" and his growing up experiences in the Catholic church would be identical to mine. Our ex-Mormon experience is "common as dirt" as Brother of Jerry says. It's true. Mormonism is a particularly virulent strain of religious enslavement, but in the end they're all the same.

This has been an interesting discussion. I'm certainly not implying that Catholicism is perfect, but I also wouldn't say that Catholics who don't agree with certain "traditional" teachings are the only ones who dissent. My experience (as one of those progressive dissenters ;) ) has been that even the so-called traditionalists tend to disagree with certain parts of official church teaching. For example, the Catholic Church also has a long tradition of social justice teaching. I know so many "traditionalist" Catholics who prefer Latin Mass and praise Benedict XVI for upholding traditional ideas, but in the same breath decry the Church's statements that the Iraq war is unjust and that health care is a universal human right as demonstrated by the gospel. I have met very few (if any) Catholics who agree with every minute detail of official teaching. I've never been a Mormon, but from what I have studied and heard about Mormonism, dissent isn't as tolerable.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to say what you are describing is indeed
> very similar to what I was taught as a Mormon.
>
> On one hand, I was taught strongly that my
> personal conscience and personal revelation was my
> primary source of direction. But I could go to
> leaders for guidance and direction. On the other
> hand, as part of the religious double-speak,
> conflicting teachings were out there suggesting
> that instructions came from top to bottom.
>
> It's basically the same as finding in the Bible
> whatever views you want since conflicting views on
> practically every topic are in the Bible if you
> look for them.
>
> Plus, the Mormons are not as refined as Catholics
> of course but their parallel to the infallibility
> issue is the "speaking as a man" trump card. "Thus
> sayeth the Lord" is similar to saying it was
> "official." After 2000 years of saying things that
> were damaging, you can bet Mormons would be doing
> exactly what Catholics do.
>
> We mostly complain about the die hard Mormons here
> but there are plenty of laid back ones. There are
> massive numbers of Mormons with multiple piercings
> who still believe. So, like the Catholics you
> describe they are just using their own judgment
> and think the prophet (and GAs) are out of touch.
>
> The portion of Mormons who marry a non Mormon,
> don't really care about the temple, drink coffee,
> etc., but still defend the Mormon religion seem to
> be the counterpart to the Catholics you are
> describing.
>
> We can find very dogmatic Catholics who have huge
> families, and take the traditional teachings very
> seriously. Those would be the counterpart to the
> temple-going Mormons.
>
> Overall, yes, there are differences. And believe
> me, after being here in tornado-torn Baptist and
> Protestant Alabama I'd have to say the two
> Catholics I work with seem to be the most sane.
>
> That said, your comments have clarified the
> differences in one way but enforced in other ways
> that the Catholic organization is a giant
> Mormonism on steroids. Again, compare what the
> Catholic Church was like when it was the age of
> Mormonism. Not that I think Mormonism will ever
> become like Catholics in 1500 years- they will
> merge into the other layers of American
> Christians. I know from studying world mythology
> the patterns religions follow and what important
> roles they hold in the culture.
>
> I see why Catholics would want to make some into
> Saints. I can even say JPII did perform a miracle:
> he covered up child abuse and got away with it,
> receiving adoration on top of that!

One difference is that the pope claimed infallibilty exactly twice and made it clear that that is what he was doing. The prophet is considerd so infallible on everything that if he said you should paint your face green and walk on your hands, many Mormons would not hesitate to do just that.If you took the percentage of Catholics who follw everything blindly and Mormons wo follow everything blindly, I'm betting the Mormon percentage would be much higher, especially if exclude those who are members in name only.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> On one hand, I was taught strongly that my
> personal conscience and personal revelation was my
> primary source of direction. But I could go to
> leaders for guidance and direction. On the other
> hand, as part of the religious double-speak,
> conflicting teachings were out there suggesting
> that instructions came from top to bottom.
>

But there is no clause in Catholicism to say that, if you disagree, you need to align your thinking with that of the pope. There is nothing to say that when the pope speaks, the thinking has been done.

In my humble opinion all religions are crazy. Some just more than others. Mormonism in bat crazy!
Trish

You must remember that any story has been translated by a journalist.

It is not unknown for a journalist to accidentally misinterpret what someone told them or to just MSU (Make Sh** Up) if they feel it makes a better story, or emphasises a point they feel needs boosting.

I knew a journalist who used shorthand but was so crap at it that if he did not write the story up within the hour he could not read his shorthand notes. And so would it be a long step to misremember "pray through" to "pray to?" For example? Unless of course the journalist has a recording of what she said?

And even then, a 100% accurate record -audio or paper- is no guarantee of accuracy! Let me elucidate:

I was interviewing a local politician who said something that was totally at odds with what I knew their beliefs to be. I asked them if they realised what they had just said?

They asked me to read back my notes and realised that they had accidentally said something that was 100% against what they had thought they were saying.

Also, there could be a language difference. Even people who have spoken a second language for many years often use the grammatical form of their original language when speaking their second language. I have noticed this with people who speak English as a second language, having grown up in Wales and Ireland.

matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You must remember that any story has been
> translated by a journalist.
>
> It is not unknown for a journalist to accidentally
> misinterpret what someone told them or to just MSU
> (Make Sh** Up) if they feel it makes a better
> story, or emphasises a point they feel needs
> boosting.
>
> I knew a journalist who used shorthand but was so
> crap at it that if he did not write the story up
> within the hour he could not read his shorthand
> notes. And so would it be a long step to
> misremember "pray through" to "pray to?" For
> example? Unless of course the journalist has a
> recording of what she said?
>
> And even then, a 100% accurate record -audio or
> paper- is no guarantee of accuracy! Let me
> elucidate:
>
> I was interviewing a local politician who said
> something that was totally at odds with what I
> knew their beliefs to be. I asked them if they
> realised what they had just said?
>
> They asked me to read back my notes and realised
> that they had accidentally said something that was
> 100% against what they had thought they were
> saying.
>
> Also, there could be a language difference. Even
> people who have spoken a second language for many
> years often use the grammatical form of their
> original language when speaking their second
> language. I have noticed this with people who
> speak English as a second language, having grown
> up in Wales and Ireland.

The article quoted one woman and said thousands echoed her views, but it didn't quote them. So what part of her views did the echo? Maybe a lot of them don't think the pope is going to heal their sick relatives but are happy for his beatification. There are probably all sorts of degrees in thesr thousands.

bona dea Wrote:

> The article quoted one woman and said thousands
> echoed her views, but it didn't quote them. So
> what part of her views did the echo? Maybe a lot
> of them don't think the pope is going to heal
> their sick relatives but are happy for his
> beatification. There are probably all sorts of
> degrees in thesr thousands.

Hmmm. This is very sloppy journalism! You cannot take one example and make such an extrapolation. I am symbolically holding my red pen in my left hand!

Well, I **WAS** holding it in my left hand, but our African Grey Parrot who is sat on my right shoulder just barked like a dog, grabbed my pen and flung it across the room! ;oD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2011 04:57PM by matt.

As a Catholic, I can tell you we believe in the intercession of Saints, praying to those in heaven along with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. But the pope or saints should never be venerated above the Trinity. The Saints are holy, historical figures that represent unparalleled faith in the church and whom should be our examples. And like mentioned before, not every Catholic agrees to the letter of what the pope decrees. That's like saying every American blindly follows the president.

A main difference between the prophet and the pope is that the pontiff does not meld God's word into scripture that applies solely to them to advance their purposes, as Mormonism does.