Today's canonisation of 2 Popes

jimd2

Anyone agree that today's canonisation of past popes John 23rd and John Paul a bit of a farce?


Like, is there evidence of miracles from either of the two men?

The church can go ahead and change the rules for canonisation if it wants but it then should be open to changing other rules like allowing priests to marry, female ordination etc.

I have a particular problem with John Paul being canonised as I feel that he must have known of child abuse in Ireland and other places. I also feel that he could have been more outward thinking and inclusive and the church would be in a better state now if he had.

Benny_Cake

Mod: If we could avoid this becoming "The bad teachings of the Catholic Church, Mk2“,or another abuse scandal megathread, that would be terrific. Stick to the canonisations themselves and the process involved.

Flippyfloppy

jimd2 wrote: »

I have a particular problem with John Paul being canonised as I feel that he must have known of child abuse in Ireland and other places. I also feel that he could have been more outward thinking and inclusive and the church would be in a better state now if he had.

I absolutely agree. Ever since I first heard of these canonisations I've thought the exact same thing.

It's like some bizarre parallel world where the Vatican weren't complacent in covering up abuse & allowing things such as magdalene laundries.

Quite discrediting to previous saints. Just having a ceremony for the sake of it!

jimd2

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Quite discrediting to previous saints. Just having a ceremony for the sake of it!

That's what I thought also. What about many of the existing saints, were some of the canonised at the behest of the particular papal regime at the time?

Also, these particular popes never canonised previous popes to themselves so there would never have been an expectation anyway.

I wouldn't have a major issue if it was part of a programme of reform of other areas. It is a a bit like the changes to texts within the mass (and with your spirit etc) and out of touch with the bigger issues.

Manach

A moving ceremony that recognises both the importance of the impact both man have made to one of the world's great institutions and inspired the many millions of Catholics to better lives. Hopefully this will act as a fillip to the clergy and inspire them and the laity to a more closer Church community.

jimd2

Manach wrote: »

A moving ceremony that recognises both the importance of the impact both man have made to one of the world's great institutions and inspired the many millions of Catholics to better lives. Hopefully this will act as a fillip to the clergy and inspire them and the laity to a more closer Church community.

Do you think canonisation of these two ex popes is appropriate and within the rules of the church? As far as I recall my religious education 3 verified miracles were required.

I am not sure if John Paul 2nd inspired the many millions of Catholics to better lives, he certainly influenced many people but his failure to act on the many abuse issues cannot and should not be ignored.

Manach

And neither should the excellent work that the Church provided to the poor in the face of Government indifference and the states own human rights violations to the prisoners, juveniles and the elderly.


As for the Church rules, would not be an expert enough to comment on the regulations or precedents.

Woodville56

Not particularly impressed with this canonisation thing but it strikes me from my limited knowledge of Catholic politics and policy that these popes would have had very different outlooks on catholic teaching and practice. From what I read , John xxiii was a reforming pope whose Vatican council reforms etc was a modernising and people centred approach to Catholicism and from all accounts appeared to be a gentle soul, while John Paul 's papacy was one of conservatism and tradition, rolling back and unpicking the ideals of his predecessor John xxiii, as well as his non action on the child abuse issue and his blacklisting of the liberal theology movement. Just seen snippets of the ceremony on TV earlier and this whole relic thing seems a bit naff really - next thing they will be parading them round the world for veneration ! I'm not anti catholic but the gaudiness oh this whole relic thing is off putting . I do think John xxiii was on the right track in his opening up the church in making it more accessible but his successors, perhaps until the current Pope ?, seem intent on rolling back the years !

ryan101

I often see slurs thrown around about Pope John Paul II, I guess it's even easier to do that to a dead person, especially when they can't defend themselves. Hitchens et al, tried that with Mother Teresa as well, waiting until she died. Thankfully, there are excellent counter books available exposing his scam.

Thankfully, in the real world, rather than the kangaroo court world here, the Irish and international justice system works on the golden thread of justice, is that everyone is entitled to their good name, and is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law. It's interesting that some people only want that principle applied to themselves, but not to others.

In case there is anyone here genuinely interested in Pope John Paul II, reading a reputable book of John Paul II life story is well worth doing, he was a most remarkable man, who triumphed over one of the most difficult and poorest upbringings, against all the odds.

jimd2

ryan101 wrote: »

I often see slurs thrown around about Pope John Paul II, I guess it's even easier to do that to a dead person, especially when they can't defend themselves. Hitchens et al, tried that with Mother Teresa as well, waiting until she died. Thankfully, there are excellent counter books available exposing his scam.

Thankfully, in the real world, rather than the kangaroo court world here, the Irish and international justice system works on the golden thread of justice, is that everyone is entitled to their good name, and is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law. It's interesting that some people only want that principle applied to themselves, but not to others.

In case there is anyone here genuinely interested in Pope John Paul II, reading a reputable book of John Paul II life story is well worth doing, he was a most remarkable man, who triumphed over one of the most difficult and poorest upbringings, against all the odds.

I am not saying that he didnt achieve a great deal. I am sure that he did.

I have 3 main points on this thread.
1. Why are the church canonising him when they are almost certainly breaking their own rules in doing so? Nobody seems to be able to justify this. Just because he did loads as Pope does not elevate him to sainthood (the last time I checked anyway).

2. I wouldnt have as much an issue if this re-working of the rules was part of a larger review of the rules and allowing the church to ordain married men who were, say, retired early and had a long association with the church. Also, if they were to review the rules on female priests and I am sure that there are other rules that could be considered. To canonise these guys without looking at issues that are bigger to the general populae is head in the sand stuff.

3. I have a particular problem with John Paul II being canonised at this stage he was almost certainly aware of many cases of abuse around the word and did precious little about it that I have observed and does not seem to have commented on it in a significant way.

So, no one has really explained to me or justified this ordination today. Perhaps some priest or bishop could come on here and justify it.

ryan101

jimd2 wrote: »

I am not saying that he didnt achieve a great deal. I am sure that he did.

I have 3 main points on this thread.
1. Why are the church canonising him when they are almost certainly breaking their own rules in doing so? Nobody seems to be able to justify this. Just because he did loads as Pope does not elevate him to sainthood (the last time I checked anyway).

2. I wouldnt have as much an issue if this re-working of the rules was part of a larger review of the rules and allowing the church to ordain married men who were, say, retired early and had a long association with the church. Also, if they were to review the rules on female priests and I am sure that there are other rules that could be considered. To canonise these guys without looking at issues that are bigger to the general populae is head in the sand stuff.

3. I have a particular problem with John Paul II being ordained as he was almost certainly aware of many cases of abuse around the word and did precious little about it that I have observed and does not seem to have commented on it in a significant way.

So, no one has really explained to me or justified this ordination today. Perhaps some priest or bishop could come on here and justify it.

I was't replying to you in particular, but I'll give it a go.

Without checking, as far as I know there was only one established miracle, and the rules state a Pope has discretion where this is the case, and Pope Francis used this discretion.

As for your point 3, see the principle of civilised justice I referred to above, that also protects you from people making slurs about you. An easy thing to do to anyone. It doesn't take any talent or ability.

As for sainthood, it's very possible for everyone, that's what Christ called everyone to, after all everyone in heaven is officially a saint according to Catholic teaching.

Woodville56

I hear on the News that Enda Kenny was in Rome for the canonisation ceremony today !
I wonder which hat was he wearing today - a Taoiseach who happens to be a Catholic or a Catholic who happens to be Taoiseach ??
Is it a gesture of reconciliation, given his earlier views on the Catholic Church or is it just being populist ? Either way it's another cost on the taxpayer. Could our ambassador to the Vatican not represent us ??? Do we need representation at Head of Government level at this event ?

ryan101

Woodville56 wrote: »

I hear on the News that Enda Kenny was in Rome for the canonisation ceremony today !
I wonder which hat was he wearing today - a Taoiseach who happens to be a Catholic or a Catholic who happens to be Taoiseach ??
Is it a gesture of reconciliation, given his earlier views on the Catholic Church or is it just being populist ? Either way it's another cost on the taxpayer. Could our ambassador to the Vatican not represent us ??? Do we need representation at Head of Government level at this event ?

This would be the same guy that ranted about the Church, closed the Vatican Embassy, and then opened the Vatican Embassy ?

There wouldn't be local elections coming up by any chance ?

Manach

Woodville56 wrote: »

I hear on the News that Enda Kenny was in Rome for the canonisation ceremony today !
I wonder which hat was he wearing today - a Taoiseach who happens to be a Catholic or a Catholic who happens to be Taoiseach ??
Is it a gesture of reconciliation, given his earlier views on the Catholic Church or is it just being populist ? Either way it's another cost on the taxpayer. Could our ambassador to the Vatican not represent us ??? Do we need representation at Head of Government level at this event ?

It could be presented simply as an opportunity to network? There are numerous other state representiatvies present and this thus would allow the Taoiseach to interact with them and raise Ireland's profile on an international stage in one of the oldest diplomatic centres in the world: a similar reasoning with the recent visit of the President to the UK.

Woodville56

Manach wrote: »

It could be presented simply as an opportunity to network? There are numerous other state representiatvies present and this thus would allow the Taoiseach to interact with them and raise Ireland's profile on an international stage in one of the oldest diplomatic centres in the world: a similar reasoning with the recent visit of the President to the UK.

I don't think the UK visit of President Higgins is comparable - UK is our nearest neighbour & trading partner. While the Vatican visit may have a networking aspect I think there is a populist agenda too - Kenny trying to smooth troubled Church/State waters and gain public appeal in the face of upcoming elections . Meanwhile back at the ranch, his buddy Ruairi Quinn sniping away at the catholic school education system as usual ! All seems a bit two faced to me !

Benny_Cake

ryan101 wrote: »

I was't replying to you in particular, but I'll give it a go.

Without checking, as far as I know there was only one established miracle, and the rules state a Pope has discretion where this is the case, and Pope Francis used this discretion.

I thought that there was one established miracle in the case of John XXIII, but multiple claims of miracles in the case of John Paul?

Either way, although I find the whole process a bit hokey in any case, I'm not sure that any rules are being broken. The speed is a bit unseemly in the case of John Paul, but even if Francis had reservations about the speed of the process it was far too late to do anything by the time he became Pope. Besides, if he had slowed it down Poland would probably have invaded the Vatican!

ryan101

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I thought that there was one established miracle in the case of John XXIII, but multiple claims of miracles in the case of John Paul?

Either way, although I find the whole process a bit hokey in any case, I'm not sure that any rules are being broken. The speed is a bit unseemly in the case of John Paul, but even if Francis had reservations about the speed of the process it was far too late to do anything by the time he became Pope. Besides, if he had slowed it down Poland would probably have invaded the Vatican!

What exactly was 'hokey' about it, if you're going to throw that about someone, have you any proof it was ?

Flippyfloppy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10787986/Pope-John-Paul-II-was-no-saint-but-man-who-covered-up-sin.html



Fairly interesting article by the telegraph regarding the canonisation

Manach

With a more positive article by the same paper:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10788640/Popes-John-Paul-II-and-John-XXIII-declared-saints.html

Manach

On one hand, the Pope should have known as the rate of such offences was similar at a national level to other non-Church organisations.As well with any distributed organisation there was a tendancy to try to save face instead of owning up to the issue and not reporting them to higher up in the organisation. Unique as well to the Church from an institutional view-point was the belief in the effectiveness offenders' treatment and they once repentance was made, then the offender could start again with a blank slate. That this was deeply flawed, but also echos non-Church organisations trust in other discredited theories on say eugenics or mis-application of statistics that also devastated families.

Re the speed of the sainthood not being a canon lawyer, my imperfect analogy would the rules on canonisation are equivalent to by-laws which might be altered somewhat on an circumstantial basis: but still seems to have done rather rapidly.

Benny_Cake

ryan101 wrote: »

What exactly was 'hokey' about it, if you're going to throw that about someone, have you any proof it was ?

Right, well I'm not throwing anything around about John Paul, a man of many fine qualities, although he displayed poor judgement in a few areas. I'm referring to the trawling around for miracles that goes on in the run up to declaring someone a saint, as well as bringing the remains of someone on tour afterwards for veneration. If that's the way Catholics want to do it, that's their privilege and good luck to them. Personally, I find it distasteful but that the just my opinion.

ryan101

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Right, well I'm not throwing anything around about John Paul, a man of many fine qualities, although he displayed poor judgement in a few areas. I'm referring to the trawling around for miracles that goes on in the run up to declaring someone a saint, as well as bringing the remains of someone on tour afterwards for veneration. If that's the way Catholics want to do it, that's their privilege and good luck to them. Personally, I find it distasteful but that the just my opinion.

What trawling around ? Either there was one, or there wasn't one, and yes Catholics are entitled to their beliefs and faith the same as any other denomination, just as other denominations have the right to do things their way. I don't mind what you or others believe, but I don't believe its very fair to make unsubstantiated allegations about other people or their faiths. You wouldn't like it yourself I'm sure.

Benny_Cake

ryan101 wrote: »

What trawling around ? Either there was one, or there wasn't one, and yes Catholics are entitled to their beliefs and faith the same as any other denomination, just as other denominations have the right to do things their way. I don't mind what you or others believe, but I don't believe its very fair to make unsubstantiated allegations about other people or their faiths. You wouldn't like it yourself I'm sure.

If you're looking for a debate with someone with an axe to grind against Catholicism, well, that's not me unfortunately. I was raised a Catholic and I still value many aspects of Catholic spirituality even though I've gone a different path. With regard to sainthood, I would have thought a holy life would be enough to go on (Vincent Twomey mentioned sanctity as the most important aspect in an interview the other day). Having to confirm this by tracking down a miracle seems unnecessary to me. You know what though? That's just my opinion. Every group of Christians has aspects which are peculiar to them, my own no less than anyone else.

ryan101

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If you're looking for a debate with someone with an axe to grind against Catholicism, well, that's not me unfortunately. I was raised a Catholic and I still value many aspects of Catholic spirituality even though I've gone a different path. With regard to sainthood, I would have thought a holy life would be enough to go on (Vincent Twomey mentioned sanctity as the most important aspect in an interview the other day). Having to confirm this by tracking down a miracle seems unnecessary to me. You know what though? That's just my opinion. Every group of Christians has aspects which are peculiar to them, my own no less than anyone else.

What tracking down ? Many were reported, of all the ones reported only one as far as I know was verified. No you don't need miracles for Sainthood, that's why the teaching of Catholic Church considers everyone in heaven a Saint, but the Church prefers to have one before they will declare someone a Saint and venerate them. So what if they do ? I think you'll find you're the one that was throwing out the allegations, and still is, and the only axe to grind is you're own. Would you like it if someone came on here deriding your new denomination, I don't think you would, I would imagine your new denomination asks you to treat people as you'd like to be treated yourself.

Benny_Cake

ryan101 wrote: »

I think you'll find you're the one that was throwing out the allegations, and still is, and the only axe to grind is you're own.

Since you seem to be determined to take offence where none was intended, I'll leave there so.

ryan101

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Since you seem to be determined to take offence where none was intended, I'll leave there so.

Nope, just don't like people making unsubstantiated allegations and running down other peoples faith. I don't imagine you'd like the same yourself, best of luck with your new faith.

downwesht

Was in Galway in 1979 and watched while John Paul II said mass with Bishop Casey and Fr. Michael Cleary ..........to think that he didn't know their background then might be possible, but by not excommunicating them when the truth did emerge doesn't do much for me and a saint......rules are still being bent as we are still seeing today.

Mrs OBumble

I think that it's a real shame that John XXIII has been overshadowed by JPII - totally missed the chance to mark just how important the former was.

Easing the "not 'til you've been dead 50 years" rule was a serious mistake, IMHO. It takes that long for the air to clear around the dirty laundry that pretty much everyone has.

ryan101

Well as for the JPII Haters, Haters are always going hate. That's all they are good at.
It takes zero talent and ability to run someone down and make allegations about them when they are dead.

Right or wrong, it was inevitable he was always going to overshadow John XXIII.

He was an absolutely phenomenal man in every way, his less well known early life story is something else, and well worth getting a good book on.

People forget the huge significance of making a Polish man, a non Italian, the Pope, the first in 455 years, never mind a man from a communist country, behind the Iron curtain, and the huge influence he had in bringing it crashing down.

"I will never forget his words about Europe. 'Europe,' he said, 'must breathe with both its lungs.' " - Gorbachev

Gorbachev also said the collapse of the iron curtain would have been impossible without JPII

Then coming back to life from a close range assassination attempt, meeting his attacker in prison and forgiving him.

The most travelled Pope in History, so many counties and so many people have very special personal memories of JPII and his visits.

I'm very proud to have his picture on my wall.
For me, and many of my generation, he will always be the defining Pope.
An absolute inspiration in every way.

Mrs OBumble

ryan101 wrote: »

An absolute inspiration in every way.

Are you really inspired by overlooking sex abuse of children?

Agree he did some good stuff. But he did a lot of other stuff too.

ryan101

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Are you really inspired by overlooking sex abuse of children?

No, I'm inspired by the golden principle of justice, that everyone, including you, me, and JPII, is entitled to their good name until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That's the way the justice system works.

Flippyfloppy

ryan101 wrote: »

No, I'm inspired by the golden principle of justice, that everyone, including you, me and JPII, is entitled to their good name until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That's the way the justice system works.

The head of the church must be held accountable for the doings of his servants. End of.

ryan101

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

The head of the church must be held accountable for the doings of his servants. End of.

All managers should, they should also be entitled to the principles of justice the same as everyone else.

Evenstevens

I actually can't believe this took place. Imagine being one of those poor kids who was abused and seeing that the head of the organisation that did this to you is now considered a Saint. It beggars belief and frankly it's a kick in the teeth for all those innocent people who lost their childhoods.

Flippyfloppy

ryan101 wrote: »

All managers should, they should also be entitled to the principles of justice the same as everyone else.

It's been proven time and time again that members of the church abused kids and were merely moved parishes during the time that St John Paul was Pope.

ryan101

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

It's been proven time and time again that members of the church abused kids and were merely moved parishes during the time that St John Paul was Pope.

Yep, and Bishops guilty of that should be absolutely be dismissed, no question, and many have. You also have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone is guilty before you remove them, it's called the principle and system of justice, that everyone, including you, is entitled to.

Flippyfloppy

ryan101 wrote: »

Yep, and Bishops guilty of that should be absolutely be dismissed, no question, and many have. You also have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone is guilty before you remove them, it's called the principle and system of justice, that everyone, including you, is entitled to.

So bishops are the ones guilty, and not the head of the organistion. No, he becomes a saint, even though he did nothing about any of it!

ryan101

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

So bishops are the ones guilty, and not the head of the organistion. No, he becomes a saint, even though he did nothing about any of it!

As I said everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, you can keep ignoring the guiding principles and systems of justice, otherwise anyone who didn't like you could easily accuse you of anything as well and try to smear your name at every opportunity.

Flippyfloppy

ryan101 wrote: »

As I said everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, you can keep ignoring the guiding principles and systems of justice, otherwise anyone who didn't like you could easily accuse you of anything as well and try to smear your name at every opportunity.

Unfortunately that doesn't apply to this situation, because several priests have been found guilty, under JPII.

PopePalpatine

You have to be wilfully ignorant to believe John Paul II had no role in covering up clerical abuse. Open your eyes and read about his good friend Fr Maciel.

ryan101

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Unfortunately that doesn't apply to this situation, because several priests have been found guilty, under JPII.

More than several, along with quite a few Bishops who did not deal with the cases correctly, but due process has to be followed, investigations have to be held and evidence gathered, people are always innocent untill proven guilty, justice must follow proper principles. Priests and Bishops found guilty have been dismissed, you might as well argue that President Higgins or Enda Kenny is guilty of not doing enough about Gardai corruption etc. etc. etc. Child abuse will always occur in society and clerical society is not different, all steps should be taken to both prevent and prosecute, but it's always going to be there, no one for one minute should ever think it can never happen again, especially when your're dealing with an organisation that ecompasses 1 billion people. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Anyways isn't there a proper thread for dicsussing all this stuff ? We could easily fill a thread discussing it all, no problem.

PopePalpatine

Yes, there's a clerical abuse megathread here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692

jimd2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You have to be wilfully ignorant to believe John Paul II had no role in covering up clerical abuse. Open your eyes and read about his good friend Fr Maciel.

I agree.

I dont really blame Pope Francis for this farce, the wheels were put in motion during Benedicts reign and Pope Francis probably just went along with it. Whe you are trying to implement reforms you have to pick your battles.

antiskeptic

ryan101 wrote: »

As for sainthood, it's very possible for everyone,

True.

that's what Christ called everyone to,

He did?

after all everyone in heaven is officially a saint according to Catholic teaching.

And every Christian here on Earth according to the apostle Paul.

katydid

Definitely a farce. As you said, they can change the rules when it suits them, but not when it comes to really important things like the equality of women.
Not only did JPII know about child abuse in Ireland and other places; he championed a known child abuser, Marcial Maciel, despite being informed of his appalling record. He befriended him, promoted him, and spoke well of him. (The first thing Benedict did when he got into office was to deal with this guy, and strip him of all the honours JPII had bestowed on him) JPII was a seriously flawed person, no way a saint in any shape or form.

This canonisation is part of what the "opium of the masses" that Marx described religion as; it give religion a bad name.

katydid

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I absolutely agree. Ever since I first heard of these canonisations I've thought the exact same thing.

It's like some bizarre parallel world where the Vatican weren't complacent in covering up abuse & allowing things such as magdalene laundries.

Quite discrediting to previous saints. Just having a ceremony for the sake of it!

Mind you, the process has been abused for quite a while now. JPII single handedly canonised more saints than all the popes put together in the past several hundred years. I think it was three hundred or so "saints" he made. That alone made a farce of the whole process.

katydid

Manach wrote: »

A moving ceremony that recognises both the importance of the impact both man have made to one of the world's great institutions and inspired the many millions of Catholics to better lives. Hopefully this will act as a fillip to the clergy and inspire them and the laity to a more closer Church community.

I agree with you on John XXIII. But let's look at JPII's contribution; covering up for sex abuse, promoting a known abuser, disrespecting women by issuing a diktat that their equality was not to be discussed, telling African women whose philandering husbands were HIV positive that it was a sin to use condoms...

Could you explain to me how that would qualify someone for sainthood? How it would inspire anyone to lead a better life, knowing that the criteria for sainthood are so low? Surely it's counterproductive?

katydid

jimd2 wrote: »

Do you think canonisation of these two ex popes is appropriate and within the rules of the church? As far as I recall my religious education 3 verified miracles were required.

I am not sure if John Paul 2nd inspired the many millions of Catholics to better lives, he certainly influenced many people but his failure to act on the many abuse issues cannot and should not be ignored.

It seems the rules of the church can be altered when it suits.

katydid

Manach wrote: »

And neither should the excellent work that the Church provided to the poor in the face of Government indifference and the states own human rights violations to the prisoners, juveniles and the elderly.

.

Absolutely. But that wasn't done by popes, it was done by ordinary laity and clergy on the ground. How many of them are made saints?
.

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

I often see slurs thrown around about Pope John Paul II, I guess it's even easier to do that to a dead person, especially when they can't defend themselves. Hitchens et al, tried that with Mother Teresa as well, waiting until she died. Thankfully, there are excellent counter books available exposing his scam.

Thankfully, in the real world, rather than the kangaroo court world here, the Irish and international justice system works on the golden thread of justice, is that everyone is entitled to their good name, and is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law. It's interesting that some people only want that principle applied to themselves, but not to others.

In case there is anyone here genuinely interested in Pope John Paul II, reading a reputable book of John Paul II life story is well worth doing, he was a most remarkable man, who triumphed over one of the most difficult and poorest upbringings, against all the odds.

He didn't even try to defend himself when he was alive. He was told - by Ratzinger and others - about Marcial Maciel's philandering, child abuse and drug habit, and he still remained friends with him and promoted him up the ranks.
Just because someone is dead doesn't mean that the facts die with them, or that you ignore the facts. Do you think it's ok for someone who promoted a piece of scum like Maciel to be made a saint, even ignoring all the other negative facts?

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

No, I'm inspired by the golden principle of justice, that everyone, including you, me, and JPII, is entitled to their good name until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That's the way the justice system works.

But it HAS been proven

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/two-popes-to-be-canonised-did-nothing-about-maciel-allegations-1.1718344
http://www.newsweek.com/father-marcial-maciel-and-popes-he-stained-62811
So....where does that leave you, now you've had your head taken out of the sand?