2nd Papal Election

[KingChris]

The candidates:

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo: Born in what is currently New England, he became a Cardinal for the Mayo Empire. Later, with the collapse of the Mayo and the rise of the Fasci, the Cardinal was imprisioned for being a Catholic. However, after Selenarctos managed to defeat the Fasci when the Fasci made many, many, many declarations of war, the Cardinal was released and assigned to the Vatican. He became Dean of the College shortly after Joseph Olmbright resigned, and he was where he is today. He is 60 year old.

His opinions: "On the Krieg War, I think that it was unnecessary. I have no opinion on whether or not it arose from a just cause, but I do believe that the countries needed to handle the situation more diplomatically.

On the Schism, I sided with John Paul III. He was the true Pope. Enough said.

On the HRE, both sides were at fault here. Even though the HRE claimed to have planned to take land without force, we already have enough Empires. Meanwhile, the opposers declared war, sparking a continental war that had the potential to kill billions."

Cardinal Christopher Nguyen: He was born in Texas, and raised by a devout Catholic family. Finding his vocation at the age of 14, he became ordained at 22. Many years later when he was 44, he was appointed Camerlengo by Pope John Paul III shortly before the Pope passed away. Although very young, Nguyen has proved that he has all the exceptional qualities of a Pope in his writings and encyclicals. Some Cardinals predict that he will become the next Pope because most think that he is in contact with the Holy Spirit more often than any of the other Cardinals.

His opinions: "On the Kreig War, I saw nothing that the Krieg Empire did wrong, and the other Europeans acted wrongly by trying to declare war on it.

On the Schism, anyone who declares the Pope an Antipope while that Pope is still reigning isn't Catholic. A full investigation after a Pope's death must be held, and it must prove that the Pope was an Antipope.

On the HRE, there's nothing wrong with wanting more land as long as no force is used. The others overracted and declared war, but hopefully, everything has been forgiven."

Bishop Charles Létourneau: Charles Létourneau was born on 23 June 1946 at Trois-Rivières, Quebec, Canada. As a child, he was raised religiously by his parents, and was rumoured to have a strong faith in God even as a child. At the age of 16, when he was still in high school, his father died of a heart attack. During that personal crisis, he turned to God for guidance, and decided that he will dedicate his life to the Lord. He studied at a local seminary, and was ordained as a priest on 19 August 1973, at the age of 27. He was eventually ordained as the Bishop of Trois Rivières in 1986. When the Disparuean capital was moved from Eterna to Jubilife, and the formation of the Diocese of Jubilife, he was appointed as the Bishop of Jubilife on 10 August 2009. He is 63 years old.

His opinions: Opinion about the recent Schism attempt:

"I personally think that the recent attempt by Archbishop Patrick Wood to replace the legitimate Pope is shameful...very shameful. He was talking about replacing a so-called "antipope", despite the fact that his Conclave in Cruachan will actually create the antipope he is speaking against. We all know that an antipope is an alternative pope opposing the legitimate pope!

I stood by the true Pope of the Roman Catholic Church during the Schism, which was Pope John Paul III, legitimately appointed by the College of Cardinals."

Opinion about the wars in Europe:

"Since Disparu was not involved in any of the conflict in Europe, and DNN did not broadcast any of the conflicts, I do not have a position on most of the wars.

However, the HRE's attempt to create a "Holy" nation under the guise of a Catholic empire is shameful. I personally think that it was blasphemous."

Andrej Sokolov: No bio available. He is 73 years old.

His positions: On the recent Schism attempt:

The world is threatening to burn, the signs are everywhere. Narrowly averted war in Europe. Nations threatening each other with force without even considering diplomacy. The Valkyrie of Peace stepping down. At this time, people would turn to the Church, and yet the Archbishop preaches strife where unity is required, threatening to undermine the same institution he swore his devotion and fealty to.

Such an action is as inappropriate and unbefitting of a man of his rank as it is inexcusable. Were i to be made Pope, i would call for the Archbishop to be removed from office, to be replaced by a man thinking less of himself and more of the faith he swore to be a servant of. The Archbishop should not be expelled however unless by his own choice, as the purpose of this penance is to start anew to relearn the basics of the path he has strayed from.

On the wars in Europe:

The Church is not a nation, and I would leave the matters of nations to nations. We would provide support, both physical and spiritual, to those struck by whatever strife man brings upon their brothers and sisters, but the Church exists for a purpose, and it should never lose sight of it or we would risk blinding ourselves from the smoke of the ruins.

I did not see a problem in the resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, as long as said Empire would still recognize the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church. I am however more concerned about the recent title of 'God Empress' bestowed upon the Haruhiist Empire, though i pray this too can be solved through dialogue.

Personal matters:

If the recent assassination attempts have proven one thing, it is that our enemies are legion, and in fear of us. For this reason, i wish to reintroduce the institution of the Knights Hospitaller to the world again, an army of those tending to the sick and needy, providing shelter and safety to those that come to the Church in search of it, acting as a Shield of the Faith... Naturally, in this day and age we do not seek a repetition of the Crusades, and so their services would be open to those of any religion, if one but asks for it.

Also, for added protection i would introduce new vestments strengthened with Kevlar to the Pope and the Cardinals, as they are in a position that warrants it.

Cardinals, the candidates have been presented. You may now cast your vote. A candidate needs a 2/3 majority to become Pope. Voting ends in 24 hours.

[KingChris]

Cardinals DiNardo and Nguyen are available for questions. Debating over which candidate should be voted for are also welcome.

[Amyante]

Sokolov will be available for any questions, and is open to debate. In an attempt to get things going, he has offered to bring up the first topic of debate, the relationship between science and religion.

When asked about his point of view on how religion related to science, Sokolov gave the following reply:

- "Back when he still lived, i asked my own father that same question. I have always remembered his reply, and i will give it now: A long time ago, it was scientifically proven that the Earth was flat, simply because no one fell off. Several centuries ago, it was scientifically proven that the Earth was round. And now, in the Space Age, man has discovered that Earth is actually elliptical... My point is thus, science can only be based according to what one knows, and most of the great scientifical breakthroughs were made by disproving what others took for granted. Now, compare this to Faith. Faith is, by definition, believing in something that you cannot prove to be true or false. Thus, any attempts to scientifically prove there is a God are destined to fail, as proof and faith are opposites. Note that Science is not evil, it is merely man wanting to know more about their own origins."

- "Does this mean the Faith is flawed? No, far from it. Ask a scientist to explain one of the oldest and most universal emotions known, the one that is perhaps the most important to Christianity, that of love. He would explain about chemical processes in the brain and pheromones and such, but try as he might he cannot guarantee two people meeting will fall in love. This is because, much like the example of the Earth, he simply does not have all the knowledge available to him. Science is a process of Trial and Error, and rather than prove our faith to them all we need to do is wait for them to reach the same conclusion the Holy Bible had almost two thousand years ago. That is what Faith is, believing you have the right answer already, and waiting patiently for science to disprove itself. And on that day, we shall welcome them to the flock with open arms."

[KingChris]

DiNardo replied, "Science and religion has always been a heated debate. In my opinion, religion is far more superior to science. However, science has been used to develop certain ideas and provve and disprove miracles."

Nguyen said, "Ok, I'm going to get to th epoint. Science is facts. Religion is belief. Why the heck are we arguing about this? The only time they come in contact is through morals and ethics, in which religion should always prevail."

[Pikachurin]

Charles Létourneau shall also answer any questions.

On the relationship between religion and science:

"Even though scientists and theologians may argue that science and religion cannot be intertwined, I shall summarize my opinion by quoting a great genius, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I shall further explain my opinion. I personally think that science and religion CAN exist side by side harmoniously, and even work together. Of course, some of you may think that this is an impossibility, I shall dissect Albert Einstein's quote in order to prove my point.

Let's start with "religion without science is blind". In the past, the Church and other Christian sects harassed philosophers who attempted to prove that the Earth was a sphere, not flat. Of course it has been proved several times that the Earth is indeed spherical, first proved by Ferdinand Magellan during the first circumnavigation, and eventually by satellites that were launched into orbit. The same thing can be said with the Church's affair with Galileo Galilei; despite the proof that Earth revolved around the Sun, nor is it in the centre of the universe, the Church imprisoned him for heresy.

These two cases hindered the progress of our knowledge. The Church at that time was blinded with the misinterpretation of our faith, and corruption. Had we not proved that the Church was wrong, we would have been blinded by the Church's previous corruption and misinterpretation, and we would have never progressed. Hence the reason why religion without science is blind.

Now let's talk about the first part of the quote, "science without religion is lame". There are two most used definitions of "lame"; disabled and a modern slang term for boring. We shall use the former, more archaic definition.

One can say that we humans are good at breaking our own laws, whether that be political, scientific et cetera. Some of science's earliest breakthroughs were caused by philosophers and scientists attempting to show that some of the Church's "scientific" interpretations of the Bible were flawed. One can say that religion was indirectly the cause and engine of the Scientific Revolution. Had religion not existed, science would have never taken off in the correct time. Hence the reason why science without religion is lame.

That is my opinion on the relationship between science and religion. Thank you."

Edited August 28, 2009 by Pikachurin

[Subtleknifewielder]

"What are the candidate's views on the compatibility of biblical beliefs and the ideas of (macro)evolution?"

[Pikachurin]

"What are the candidate's views on the compatibility of biblical beliefs and the ideas of (macro)evolution?"

Charles Létourneau thought about the question before replying,

"Again, we can use both science AND religion in order to answer this opinion question.

According to science, the universe was created by the Big Bang, and it took billions of years before stars, galaxies and everything natural you see in the sky. Science also states that the Solar System, including Earth, used to be a gigantic dust cloud before gravity began to pull things together in order to form the celestial bodies we all know. This process also took millions of years.

Of course, the Bible states that the Universe was formed within seven days. This is where science and religion will begin to conflict, but only if you interpreted the Bible literally, which the original Catholic Church did. Unfortunately, the Bible was not written to be interpreted literally. Genesis was written in a way that a human of that time would easily understand. Had a scientist from today recorded Genesis, we would have a different version of it. A more scientific one. If you look at it from the knowledge we know today, we can assume that the first part of Genesis is actually talking about the formation of the Solar System. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." This could be a description of the dust cloud that was said to be the source of the Solar System. However, in my opinion, it has been simplified in order to make it...understandable for the early human. The same can be said for the part about "seven days", it was probably not meant to be understood literally. Seven days could have been a way to say "a really long time".

The same thing could be said about evolution and creationism. Perhaps God actually induced evolution in order to bring life on Earth, eventually reaching the point where we are now. However, it has also been significantly simplified in order to make sure that it can be understood by the early human. Surely an early human wouldn't have been able to understand evolution. It would have been dismissed as crazy, and no one would have believed in our faith.

That is my opinion."

[KingChris]

Dinardo: "Ok why are we even discussing this? How the universe was formed or how people were formed has nothing to do with faith in Christ. No comment."

Nguyen: "I have to agree with my brother here. Genesis was written so that the Hebrews could understand it. So in actually, a day could have possibly meant a billion years,or it could have meant a day. The Big Bang is only a theory. As to evolution, we don't know how we were created, but all that matters is that we were created in His image. Other than that, Catholics should be free to believe in Creationism or Evolution or a mixture of the two."

[Subtleknifewielder]

OOC: I see several pieces of logic in that opinion that...are less than satisfactory to me, but that is a personal opinion. I did expect an answer like that after all when I asked that. I look forward to seeing what the last one has to say.

PM me if you want to hear my opnion indepth.

[rufustfirefly]

I think we should hold the Mayo, not the election. Who's idea was it to have a paypal election anyway. You're all a bunch of crooks.

[KingChris]

Been 13 hours, once again Sokolov is in the lead but doesn't have even a simple majority.

[king of cochin]

The Catholic Church of Cochin is in favor of Sokolov as the next Pope.

[Amyante]

"What are the candidate's views on the compatibility of biblical beliefs and the ideas of (macro)evolution?"

Sokolov - "As you know, Adam and Eve are the first man and woman according to the Bible, and from them sprang forth mankind. Looking around, there is a great diversity in height, skin tone, hair color, eye color and other distinguishing traits. Since God created us all in His own image, would the concept of evolution not simply be God adding a little variety to His creations?"

[KingChris]

OOC: So why does so many people like Sokolov? He's actually more Orthodox than the other candidates.

[KingChris]

The ballot has ended. Once again, there has been no candidate elected. The next one will start immediately, and questions and debates are still welcome.