John Paul II to be made a saint?

alex73

efb wrote: »

Yes, I have acknowledged that the RCC have now apologised (but the Catholic hierarchy not accepting blame- blaming the regional admin)

As quoted I asked foe JP II's apology- he hadn't, therefore I believe this glaring omission is a huge blot on his record. I

You make it sound like JPII stood back and did nothing about Child Sex abuse.

What about the Child Abuse in the Church of England, Has the Queen ever Apologized as governor of the Church?

Look Child abuse goes against everything the church stands for. Pope JPII took measures to protect children against such abuse in the Church.

The Child abuse scandal very much became apart in the last 10 years of his Papacy.

The Church needed to be purged of the individuals that covered up this abuse and the Pope left it to those in charge of local church's to handle the cases.

alex73

Pope against the Mafia - I remember the bombs then in Rome after this speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXif6Wwr5DU

georgieporgy

gregers85 wrote: »

I was raised catholic but am closer to being an atheist then anything at the moment but I think that if anyone is to become a saint it should be mother theresa!! she did real work on the ground helping people, devouted her life to it!! Def think it should be her!!

Mother Teresa was beatified in 2003, six years after her death.

ubertrad

Pope John Paul II was aware that Communists often used to make up stories and spread lies about clergy to undermine the Church. The Nazis launched similar smear campaigns. That is perhaps why JPII didn't realise the reality and scale of the problem.

fryup

a man who did next to nothing about child abuse in the catholic church

a man who ignored the plight of muslims being massacred in the Baltic's

a man who was vehemently oppossed to the use of condoms despite the huge spread of aids throughtout the third world

and this man should be made a saint? ya right

Nodin

alex73 wrote: »

You make it sound like JPII stood back and did nothing about Child Sex abuse.

.

Compare the thorough manner in which "liberation theology" and dissident priests were rooted out of the church, in Latin America in particular, with the treatment regarding offending priests and those who covered for them. You'll find there's rather a stark contrast.

Manach

fryup wrote: »

a man who did next to nothing about child abuse in the catholic church

a man who ignored the plight of muslims being massacred in the Baltic's

a man who was vehemently oppossed to the use of condoms despite the huge spread of aids throughtout the third world

and this man should be made a saint? ya right

1> Being addressed by other posters.
2> Surely Balkans. Catholics were themselves being subjected to ethnic cleansing by the Serbs, hardly unlikely the Vatican did not protest.
3> AFAIK, the Church's policy is that promoting abstinence or monogamy is the better long term goal to prevent STDs transmission.

r3nu4l

lmaopml wrote: »

...and who cares about politics anyway, certainly not the saints.

This isn't about politics, it's about the leader of the Roman Catholic Church (at the time) refusing for 10 years until his death to apologise for the wrongs done by those in his organisation!

He left it up to his regional representatives to investigate and take action, yet over those years very little happened. A real leader anywhere else would have been all over his 'troops' ensuring that the cancer was cut from the organisation.

It looked to me at the time that he was deliberately doing nothing, allowing the investigations to drag on. No comment on it, no apology! That was wrong.

PDN wrote: »

I am not a Roman Catholic, and I don't recognise the authority of the Church in Rome to make anyone a saint.

Having said that, most political commentators and historians would recognise that John Paul II played a pivotal role in the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the freeing of millions of people from its oppression.

Again, he did some amazing work and should be honoured for that work but against the most serious challenge to his Church, entrusted to him by Jesus (as Roman Cathollics believe) he did relatively nothing and as such, abusers continued to act, continued to be shipped from one parish to another and continued to rape children. I can't come to terms with that at all and as such despite the great work he did, his greatest failing is enough for me to say that he should never be made a saint.

I've battled with my Faith enough over the years and with some of the more unpalatable beliefs of my Church but this was the most damaging to my Faith by far.

If he's made a Saint then I will know that Sainthood is actually more about politics (lmaopml) than anything else. If he's made a Saint, it makes a mockery of those who believe in the office of the Pope.

all of this is of course my opinion only, just how I feel so don't sweat it if you don't agree with me

georgieporgy

It's so easy, for anyone who is interested, to look up what the Church teaches about the subject of canonization. If one hasn't received a complete education in the faith it would be better to retcify that ommission prior to jumping to a rash conclusion.

efb

Michael Smith sheds another light on this. WYB tomorrow.

r3nu4l

georgieporgy wrote: »

It's so easy, for anyone who is interested, to look up what the Church teaches about the subject of canonization. If one hasn't received a complete education in the faith it would be better to retcify that ommission prior to jumping to a rash conclusion.

Well obviously you have a point to make, do so, please, enlighten us all with your wisdom but I encourage you to use layman's terms for the uneducated!

If being canonized is merely about having two miracles attributed to you and no blemish on your record then JPII should not be canonized. However, if there is more or if there are reasons why a dead, unapologetic Pope is somehow free from certain restrictions then please let us know.

marty1985

I think there is a lot of politics involved.

I have read before that Chinese bishops/priests/martyrs etc are regularly beatified on days of Chinese holidays for maximum publicity in China as a form of "up yours" to the government there.

Words in quotations are mine, and not those of the RCC.

Nodin

This may be somewhat relevant to the debate. Its on tonight on RTE1 at 10.35.....

Just when the Irish bishops were beginning to come to grips with how to deal with the clerical sexual abuse problem, Rome intervened and tried to enforce Vatican policy which put the interests of the priest, not the victim, first.

In a strictly confidential letter seen by WYB, the Vatican threatens the Irish bishops that if they follow their new child protection guidelines it would support the accused priest if he were to appeal to its authority.
The letter tells the Irish bishops that the Vatican has moral reservations about their policy of mandatory reporting and that their guidelines are contrary to canon law.

http://www.rte.ie/tv/wouldyoubelieve/

ubertrad

Nodin wrote: »

This may be somewhat relevant to the debate. Its on tonight on RTE1 at 10.35.....

http://www.rte.ie/tv/wouldyoubelieve/

Bear in mind this is RTE propaganda and spin at its best. I would take a lot of this with a pinch of salt. After trying, unsuccessfully, to bring down the Irish Episcopacy, they are now targeting Rome. The Irish bishops are now the friends of RTE, whilst the bad guys were actually in Rome all along!

hotmail.com

ubertrad wrote: »

Bear in mind this is RTE propaganda and spin at its best. I would take a lot of this with a pinch of salt. After trying, unsuccessfully, to bring down the Irish Episcopacy, they are now targeting Rome. The Irish bishops are now the friends of RTE, whilst the bad guys were actually in Rome all along!

Targeting Rome? Did you not look at the substance of what is being alleged?

ubertrad

hotmail.com wrote: »

Targeting Rome? Did you not look at the substance of what is being alleged?

There's nothing new here. It's just spin on matters that have been addressed elsewhere.

hotmail.com

ubertrad wrote: »

There's nothing new here. It's just spin on matters that have been addressed elsewhere.

Does it alter your opinion of John Paul.

dooksgolf

Having read the posts earlier,I'm curious as to why 1 poster was warned re his posts while others on the other side of the argument were not warned-specifically the poster who posted
......."if you're not Catholic,,don't post here etc".I would have expected the moderators to warn about the above post.
My background,born into Catholic faith but renounced as a teenager.
People have to realise that questioning JP2 is not necessarly questioning the Church,however I would have a massive problem wth JP2 & Bendict & can say vrtually nothing +ve about them(granted JP2 was obviously charismatic).I would contrast my opinion about them wth my opinion re JP1 who was incredible.His attitude & liberalism was in stark contrast to his 2 successors.
The great tragedy for the world(& the Church) was the brevity of his papacy.

Fanny Cradock

dooksgolf wrote: »

Having read the posts earlier,I'm curious as to why 1 poster was warned re his posts while others on the other side of the argument were not warned-specifically the poster who posted

Because not all posts are the same and are not dealt with in the same manner. I corrected the one member by specifying who was allowed to post on this thread - everybody - while I deleted the repeated off-topic ramblings of another. If hotmail.com or your good self has a problem with this then there is a process to follow - as has already been pointed out.

ubertrad

hotmail.com wrote: »

Does it alter your opinion of John Paul.

What I think is irrelevant. I wasn't there and am not privy to the facts.

dooksgolf wrote: »

People have to realise that questioning JP2 is not necessarly questioning the Church,however I would have a massive problem wth JP2 & Bendict & can say vrtually nothing +ve about them(granted JP2 was obviously charismatic).I would contrast my opinion about them wth my opinion re JP1 who was incredible.His attitude & liberalism was in stark contrast to his 2 successors.
The great tragedy for the world(& the Church) was the brevity of his papacy.

Many people who dislike BXVI or JPII usually have underlying issues with Church sexual teachings. Or else they would be of a Traditionalist slant. The latter I can identify with but the former hasn't a leg to stand on.

Canonising a Pope recognises his holiness, not that everything he did as Pope was perfect or things couldn't have been done differently.

Lot of crap is spewed forth about JPI. I don't know much about him either way, but if he was a liberal, then he didn't get doing much damage. The Holy Spirit took care of that. I can't say either way, and I don't think you can either to be frank.

Slav

r3nu4l wrote: »

If he's made a Saint then I will know that Sainthood is actually more about politics (lmaopml) than anything else. If he's made a Saint, it makes a mockery of those who believe in the office of the Pope.

Although not being a great fan of JPII myself and definitely not seeing him as a saint, I think the issue of him not making apology, or doing other wrong things all pretty much irrelevant as far as his canonisation is concerned. In Christian mind saint is not equal to sinless; they are the same sinners as the rest of us. Sainthood criteria are something completely different to scoring points whether the proposed saint was a good guy or a bad guy.

ubertrad

Slav wrote: »

Although not being a great fan of JPII myself and definitely not seeing him as a saint, I think the issue of him not making apology, or doing other wrong things all pretty much irrelevant as far as his canonisation is concerned. In Christian mind saint is not equal to sinless; they are the same sinners as the rest of us. Sainthood criteria are something completely different to scoring points whether the proposed saint was a good guy or a bad guy.

If JPII is in heaven, then he is a saint. One doesn't have to be canonised to be a saint. There are loads of unknown saints in heaven. I hope to be one of them.

antiskeptic

From the Irish Times today.





Madam, – I am conflicted on hearing the news that Pope John Paul II is to be declared “Blessed” on May 1st, Divine Mercy Sunday (World News, January 15th).


I truly admire the late Holy Father and don’t doubt his greatness in so many ways. However, he showed very little understanding of the scandals that have harmed the church so much and displayed no compassion for the victims of predators among the clergy.


He refused to meet victims when asked, unlike Pope Benedict XVI, who has done so on numerous occasions. Is it not too soon to beatify John Paul II? Our tradition is that the path towards sainthood takes much longer than just five years.


The One Who is Divine Mercy seeks those wounded by abuse in the church to comfort them and heal them. John Paul II did not. Beatifying him so soon sends the message to survivors of clerical sexual abuse that the institutional church still does not comprehend the extent and depth of the multi-levelled harm, inflicted by clergy abusers on their victims. – Yours, etc,


Fr PATRICK McCAFFERTY,
Lower Rathmines Road,
Dublin 6.


I can't say there's much arguing with his point.

fryup

fryup wrote: »

a man who was vehemently oppossed to the use of condoms despite the huge spread of aids throughtout the third world

Manach wrote: »

AFAIK, the Church's policy is that promoting abstinence or monogamy is the better long term goal to prevent STDs transmission.

:rolleyes: ya well, thats been long proven not to work....the RCC hierarchy are not living in the real world

efb

fryup wrote: »

:rolleyes: ya well, thats been long proven not to work....the RCC hierarchy are not living in the real world

They can't even get chastity right within their own ranks!!!

georgieporgy

In Scripture we read how St Peter chopped the ear off somebody who came to arrest Christ. Yet we still call him St Peter. Committing a sin doesn't mean you won't go to heaven. Not repenting and mending your ways is the usual obstacle.
For my part, I intend to trust the competent authorities whose job it is to decide on these matters. They are the ones with all the accurate info and the responsibility. All we have to go on is The Irish Times and RTE (etc) and the usual objectors.

Among other things, the fact that it was JP2 who instituted the Feast of Divine Mercy (first sunday after easter), and subsequently died on that feastday and is now being beatified on the same feastday might bring people's attention to the significance of the meaning of Divine Mercy.
That's usually the reason behind things like this.

ubertrad

antiskeptic wrote: »

From the Irish Times today.





Madam, – I am conflicted on hearing the news that Pope John Paul II is to be declared “Blessed” on May 1st, Divine Mercy Sunday (World News, January 15th).


I truly admire the late Holy Father and don’t doubt his greatness in so many ways. However, he showed very little understanding of the scandals that have harmed the church so much and displayed no compassion for the victims of predators among the clergy.


He refused to meet victims when asked, unlike Pope Benedict XVI, who has done so on numerous occasions. Is it not too soon to beatify John Paul II? Our tradition is that the path towards sainthood takes much longer than just five years.


The One Who is Divine Mercy seeks those wounded by abuse in the church to comfort them and heal them. John Paul II did not. Beatifying him so soon sends the message to survivors of clerical sexual abuse that the institutional church still does not comprehend the extent and depth of the multi-levelled harm, inflicted by clergy abusers on their victims. – Yours, etc,


Fr PATRICK McCAFFERTY,
Lower Rathmines Road,
Dublin 6.


I can't say there's much arguing with his point.

My guess is that JPII will be beatified but not canonised until a more opportune time.

antiskeptic

ubertrad wrote: »

My guess is that JPII will be beatified but not canonised until a more opportune time.

By 'opportune' you mean 'when the dust has settled on JPII's response to the abuse crisis' (assuming Fr.Mac is correct in his assessment)

georgieporgy

The following links provide good info
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9518 this one deals with the entire question of Beatification in general, and JP2 in particular. Looks long but well worth the read if anyone wants to understand the process.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=755
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=756
these are 2 shorter commentaries which touch on some of the objections raised in this thread.

Thomas828

I'm a bit skeptical about this. In the first place John Paul II has only been dead six years. Second, he held a lot of views that I disagree with, especially about family and contraception.