“Late Pope Could Be Saint Soon.” How? WHY?

[st_lucy]

The Sunday Times of London has published a report claiming that Pope John Paul II is nearing sainthood:

newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20070121-15225800-bc-vatican-saintpope.xml



I don’t understand how or why it would be possible for the Catholic Church to beatify or canonize John Paul II.

As Catholics, let’s pray for the repose of the soul of our deceased Holy Father, and let’s be grateful for his issuance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the greatest contribution of his problematic pontificate. But let’s ask God to help us come to grips with the fact that John Paul II presided over horrific scandals, without taking adequate actions to end them. This fact makes his beatification impossible. I’m referring to these scandals:

1. The scandal of the general post-Vatican II disintegration of the human elements of the one true Church. By failing to use the authority that God gave him, John Paul II permitted attacks on faith and morals within the Church–attacks emanating to a large extent from a grievous misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council, which did not annul, but reaffirmed, all the traditional teachings of the Church.
2. The scandal of the bishops’ failure to excommunicate politicians who support the legalized murder of unborn children. How can abortion be murder if it’s possible to defend its legalization and at the same time receive Holy Communion as a Catholic in ostensible good standing? It doesn’t take a doctorate in theology to see the blatant contradiction involved in this scandal.
3. The scandal of not preventing the commission of sexual sins by priests against minors. This scandal alone–one of the worst in the entire history of the Church–should lead Catholics to the conclusion that John Paul II cannot be beatified.

Keep and spread the Faith.

You do understand that canonization does undergo a rather rigurous procedure. There is a reason why My Aunt Ida is not a canonized saint. I personally think that she is in heaven, but the fact is I don’t know. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to reveal these matters. You may have all your questions and doubts but I am sorry it is your thoughts against the Holy Spirits, I think He knows what He is doing. It is not up for debate on who goes to heaven and who doesn’t.

It is my belief that the Holy Spirit will guide His Holy Church in the light He thinks is right and so I believe that our beloved holy father is with Our Heavenly Father, because this exactly what the Holy Spirit is revealing to His Holy Church.

I thank God every day he doesn’t give me the authority to run His Church, because I have noticed that there is no shortage of those who wish to take over that position.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

You do understand that canonization does undergo a rather rigorous procedure. There is a reason why My Aunt Ida is not a canonized saint. I personally think that she is in heaven, but the fact is I don’t know. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to reveal these matters. You may have all your questions and doubts but I am sorry it is your thoughts against the Holy Spirit’s, I think He knows what He is doing. It is not up for debate on who goes to heaven and who doesn’t.

It is my belief that the Holy Spirit will guide His Holy Church in the light He thinks is right and so I believe that our beloved holy father is with Our Heavenly Father, because this is exactly what the Holy Spirit is revealing to His Holy Church.

I thank God every day he doesn’t give me the authority to run His Church, because I have noticed that there is no shortage of those who wish to take over that position.

A crucial misunderstanding must be dissipated: when the Catholic Church canonizes someone, she is not merely declaring that that person, now dead, is in heaven. No. Canonization means much more than that. It means that the person in question displayed the practice of ***heroic virtue ***while he or she was alive on earth, and that this heroic virtue is an example and model for all other human beings.

In a Pope, heroic virtue implies taking heroic steps to safeguard, defend, and spread the one true Faith. Such steps necessarily exclude giving scandal to the whole Church and the world beyond, including the scandal of allowing other bishops and priests to give scandal. Again, please read what John Paul II’s own catechism says about the sin of scandal (sections 2284-2287).

And please consider what Christ says about scandal in *Mt *18:6-7–verses especially applicable to the horrific scandal of the sexual abuse of minors by priests. Please consider how many people have abandoned the practice of the Faith because of this scandal, and how many people are being prevented from accepting the Faith for the same reason.

If John Paul II felt that a Catholic’s expressing his or her opinion on who should be canonized is usurping God’s right to run the Church, then our deceased Holy Father would not have included the catechism section (907) in which Catholics are urged to express their views on such issues for the good of the Church.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Sunday Times of London has published a report claiming that Pope John Paul II is nearing sainthood:

newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20070121-15225800-bc-vatican-saintpope.xml



I don’t understand how or why it would be possible for the Catholic Church to beatify or canonize John Paul II.

As Catholics, let’s pray for the repose of the soul of our deceased Holy Father, and let’s be grateful for his issuance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the greatest contribution of his problematic pontificate. But let’s ask God to help us come to grips with the fact that John Paul II presided over horrific scandals, without taking adequate actions to end them. This fact makes his beatification impossible. I’m referring to these scandals:

1. The scandal of the general post-Vatican II disintegration of the human elements of the one true Church. By failing to use the authority that God gave him, John Paul II permitted attacks on faith and morals within the Church–attacks emanating to a large extent from a grievous misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council, which did not annul, but reaffirmed, all the traditional teachings of the Church.
2. The scandal of the bishops’ failure to excommunicate politicians who support the legalized murder of unborn children. How can abortion be murder if it’s possible to defend its legalization and at the same time receive Holy Communion as a Catholic in ostensible good standing? It doesn’t take a doctorate in theology to see the blatant contradiction involved in this scandal.
3. The scandal of not preventing the commission of sexual sins by priests against minors. This scandal alone–one of the worst in the entire history of the Church–should lead Catholics to the conclusion that John Paul II cannot be beatified.

Keep and spread the Faith.

You could have added that he didn’t help matters by choosing whom he did as bishops. If people are justified in blaming their bishops for all sorts of things, those bishops were in many cases put in place by him. And by no one else.​

And you could have added the disgraceful business of Assisi - that by itself should be more than sufficient to make any ideas about canonising him or even beatifying him, utterly fantastic. As for 3 - absolutely !

It would in any case be far better to wait a generation so that his pontificate can be assessed with something more like detachment than at present - a balanced appraisal of it and him is not really possible, when he has died so recently. This sort of detachment is all the more important now that the canonical process for the causes of saints has been revised to take more account of the history of the candidate. The old provision that no cause should begin until 50 years after the death of the candidate was a very wise one. These days, we seem to have canonisation by conveyor belt, almost as though saints were packets of groceries. Particularly under the late Pope. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. ##

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

You could have added that he didn’t help matters by choosing whom he did as bishops. If people are justified in blaming their bishops for all sorts of things, those bishops were in many cases put in place by him. And by no one else.​

And you could have added the disgraceful business of Assisi - that by itself should be more than sufficient to make any ideas about canonising him or even beatifying him, utterly fantastic. As for 3 - absolutely !

It would in any case be far better to wait a generation so that his pontificate can be assessed with something more like detachment than at present - a balanced appraisal of it and him is not really possible, when he has died so recently. This sort of detachment is all the more important now that the canonical process for the causes of saints has been revised to take more account of the history of the candidate. The old provision that no cause should begin until 50 years after the death of the candidate was a very wise one. These days, we seem to have canonisation by conveyor belt, almost as though saints were packets of groceries. Particularly under the late Pope. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. ##

Michael, I appreciate your support on this issue.

I don’t understand why many Catholics don’t see what you see.

Your point about the appointment of bishops was implicitly included in the first scandal that I listed.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Catholic Church doesn’t make anyone a saint–either they are in heaven and lived such lives of heroic virture that they were able to intercede miraculously and verifiably for people after their deaths or not.

I don’t know the answert to whether John Paul II did that or not. I think the Catholic Church should move to make him a saint only if they KNOW the answer to that question.

The question of a Pope’s sainthood should never come down to whether or not you like all his decisions–if that were the criteria all popes would never be recognized as saints.

 

[pnewton]

In church history, many saints have been canonized by popular acclaim. I believe it is this sense of the faithful that is drivng this issue. Since the Holy Spirit indwells all believers, this is a valid means of recognizing His will.

There is more than one way to display heroic virtue. It is not all about bopping people on the head. Mercy is also a virtue. When our Holy Father was shot, his mercy and love toward his attacked was heroic. So much of his latter life he suffered greatly as his health declined. Yet through all his suffering he continued as our faithful leader. He poured his life out slowly, not all at once, for the church he shepherded. What can be more heroic than that?

Oh yes, bopping people on the head.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

On the appointment of bishops, the old Holy Father should be given a walk. Popes don’t personally vet episcopal appointments; I would wager that they don’t know 99% of the men they appoint. Bishops compile lists of “worthy” men in their dioceses or surrounding dioceses, in the case of a metropolitan archbishop. Then names are sent to the Apostolic Nuncio, who looks into the men’s background and weeds through them. This is done again at the Holy See, by the Congregation for Bishops, who then give the names to the Holy Father. That’s how bishops have been picked for at least as long as the Holy See has had a diplomatic corps, if I’m not mistaken. Now, if you’re a bishop, whose name will you be forwarding to Rome via Washington? Men of like mind. That’s great if the bishop putting the men forward is Archbishop Burke or Bishop Bruskewitz or Archbishop Chaput (all of whom were appointed, incidentally, by the Servant of God, John Paul the Great, God hasten the day that he is raised to the honors of the altar), not so much for other bishops who shall remain nameless. And don’t forget the Apostolic Nuncio has a hand in who is forwarded to Rome.

Popes don’t micromanage the Church. They can’t and they’re not supposed to. That’s why we have bishops (an apostolic office, whose holders are also the successors to the Apostles), not simply Apostolic Visitors.

 

[BOBKAT]

**On the appointment of bishops, the old Holy Father should be given a walk. Popes don’t personally vet episcopal appointments; I would wager that they don’t know 99% of the men they appoint. Bishops compile lists of “worthy” men in their dioceses or surrounding dioceses, in the case of a metropolitan archbishop. Then names are sent to the Apostolic Nuncio, who looks into the men’s background and weeds through them. This is done again at the Holy See, by the Congregation for Bishops, who then give the names to the Holy Father. That’s how bishops have been picked for at least as long as the Holy See has had a diplomatic corps, if I’m not mistaken. Now, if you’re a bishop, whose name will you be forwarding to Rome via Washington? Men of like mind. That’s great if the bishop putting the men forward is Archbishop Burke or Bishop Bruskewitz or Archbishop Chaput (all of whom were appointed, incidentally, by the Servant of God, John Paul the Great, God hasten the day that he is raised to the honors of the altar), not so much for other bishops who shall remain nameless. And don’t forget the Apostolic Nuncio has a hand in who is forwarded to Rome. **

Popes don’t micromanage the Church. They can’t and they’re not supposed to. That’s why we have bishops (an apostolic office, whose holders are also the successors to the Apostles), not simply Apostolic Visitors.

Thank you so much. I have been searching for this information and you helped me greatly.

God Bless
Kathleen

 

[Fergal]

[Apologies if I am injecting a mundane question into this hot topic]

Three? I thought only two miracles were required?


tee

I though so too. A Priest friend of mine said that the requirement is two miracles for a martyr and three for those not martyred.

All the miracles must be performed after death.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

In church history, many saints have been canonized by popular acclaim. I believe it is this sense of the faithful that is drivng this issue. Since the Holy Spirit indwells all believers, this is a valid means of recognizing His will.

There is more than one way to display heroic virtue. It is not all about bopping people on the head. Mercy is also a virtue. When our Holy Father was shot, his mercy and love toward his attacker was heroic. So much of his latter life he suffered greatly as his health declined. Yet through all his suffering he continued as our faithful leader. He poured his life out slowly, not all at once, for the church he shepherded. What can be more heroic than that?

Oh yes, bopping people on the head.

Should St. Paul be excoriated for “bopping people on the head” because he reproved St. Peter “to his face” for scandalizing the faithful (Gal 2:11)?

Shouldn’t Pope John Paul II have followed St. Paul’s example by reproving many bishops “to their faces”? Shouldn’t he have “bopped” the bishops who allowed priests to molest minors?

And, with great respect for all those who suffer from the terrible cross of illness, I must ask whether merely having Parkinson’s disease is an indication of heroic virtue.

Dear Catholic brothers and sisters, please face reality! Please respect the logic of the Faith! Let’s avoid self-delusion and psychological denial! Look–really look–at the state of the human elements of the Catholic Church!

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

On the appointment of bishops, the old Holy Father should be given a walk. Popes don’t personally vet episcopal appointments; I would wager that they don’t know 99% of the men they appoint. Bishops compile lists of “worthy” men in their dioceses or surrounding dioceses, in the case of a metropolitan archbishop. Then names are sent to the Apostolic Nuncio, who looks into the men’s background and weeds through them. This is done again at the Holy See, by the Congregation for Bishops, who then give the names to the Holy Father. That’s how bishops have been picked for at least as long as the Holy See has had a diplomatic corps, if I’m not mistaken. Now, if you’re a bishop, whose name will you be forwarding to Rome via Washington? Men of like mind. That’s great if the bishop putting the men forward is Archbishop Burke or Bishop Bruskewitz or Archbishop Chaput (all of whom were appointed, incidentally, by the Servant of God, John Paul the Great, God hasten the day that he is raised to the honors of the altar), not so much for other bishops who shall remain nameless. And don’t forget the Apostolic Nuncio has a hand in who is forwarded to Rome.

Popes don’t micromanage the Church. They can’t and they’re not supposed to. That’s why we have bishops (an apostolic office, whose holders are also the successors to the Apostles), not simply Apostolic Visitors.

Suppose that the CEO of a corporation permits the appointment of managers whose ability parallels that of many of Pope John Paul II’s bishops. Suppose, too, that the corporation goes bankrupt, and that the stockholders demand the CEO’s resignation. Will the CEO’s disavowal of “micromanagement” save his job?

And how will the stockholders react if it’s revealed that the CEO has permitted his managers to overlook widespread sexual harassment of the corporation’s employees?

As Catholics, we can’t as easily demand that a Pope resign, but we can pray that he alter his policies regarding the appointment of bishops. And, after his death, we can resist suggestions that he be canonized.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[aimee]

I hope John Paul II will be canonized…I think he is extraordinary and I love and miss him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

On the appointment of bishops, the old Holy Father should be given a walk. Popes don’t personally vet episcopal appointments; I would wager that they don’t know 99% of the men they appoint. Bishops compile lists of “worthy” men in their dioceses or surrounding dioceses, in the case of a metropolitan archbishop. Then names are sent to the Apostolic Nuncio, who looks into the men’s background and weeds through them. This is done again at the Holy See, by the Congregation for Bishops, who then give the names to the Holy Father. That’s how bishops have been picked for at least as long as the Holy See has had a diplomatic corps, if I’m not mistaken. Now, if you’re a bishop, whose name will you be forwarding to Rome via Washington? Men of like mind. That’s great if the bishop putting the men forward is Archbishop Burke or Bishop Bruskewitz or Archbishop Chaput (all of whom were appointed, incidentally, by the Servant of God, John Paul the Great, God hasten the day that he is raised to the honors of the altar), not so much for other bishops who shall remain nameless. And don’t forget the Apostolic Nuncio has a hand in who is forwarded to Rome.

Popes don’t micromanage the Church. They can’t and they’re not supposed to. That’s why we have bishops (an apostolic office, whose holders are also the successors to the Apostles), not simply Apostolic Visitors.

True - and yet, if the Pope wants to claim “supreme, full, immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church” (and this fullness of jurisdiction was dogmatised at V1) - then he can’t hide behind the details of the administration of the Church.​

The buck stops at the top - the Pope can’t have the authority, yet evade the blame for the exercise of that authority when things go wrong. He is responsible for his subordinates - including their misdeeds. And trying to vindicate the degree of jurisdiction, while insisting on the lack of responsibility, merely puts the Pope in a very bad light, by making Papal power no different from any other irresponsible autocracy.

Maybe it’s time for some of the authority to leach back to the plebs sancta Dei

Or haven’t you ever watched “Star Trek” ?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I though so too. A Priest friend of mine said that the requirement is two miracles for a martyr and three for those not martyred.

All the miracles must be performed after death.

One miracle for Beatification and one miracle for Canonization with the exception that *“a martyr – someone who died for their religious beliefs – can be beatified WITHOUT evidence of a miracle.” *(Source)

So, in effect, a martyr would require only one miracle for sainthood …

First of all, one becomes a saint by imitating Jesus. When the Church declares someone a saint, the Church is saying we are sure, beyond doubt, that this person was holy on earth and is now in the presence of God. We add this person’s name to the canon, or list, of known saints. Hence the word canonization, a process that became formal during Christianity’s second millennium.

The process of canonization has changed since it was instituted in the 10th century. Pope John Paul II last updated the process in 1983 by eliminating the “devil’s advocate” from the review process and modifying the requirements for miracles, among other changes.

In most cases, supporters must wait five years after a person’s death before mounting a campaign in favor of sainthood. This permits a more objective look at the candidate’s life. (Pope John Paul II waived this rule in the case of Mother Teresa.) After the waiting period, the local bishop looks for examples of “heroic virtue” in the person’s life. Theologians and cardinals associated with the Congregation for Cause of Saints reviews that evidence and, with their approval, the candidate receives the title of “Venerable.”

Beatification comes next. To be beatified, the person in question must be credited with a miracle that occurred after his or her death, and the Vatican must confirm the miracle. Martyrs are exempted from the requirement of a miracle. A second posthumous miracle is required for formal sainthood. These miracles are evidence that the saint is in the presence of God.

… americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj072302.asp

 

[Ceil-1]

The OP:

I pretty much knew you traddies would be coming out with your typical arrogance on this issue. It’s as if a Saint of the
Church has to follow YOUR personal guidelines to qualify.
Face it, you don’t like him because he did not bring back the Mass in your beloved Latin. If he had, you would be satisfied.
Oh, you’ll deny that of course.

The scandals of the Church will always be there. What do you know of any of these things outside what you read in the traddie papers and books? The Mass wasn’t in Latin for the first several hundred years. If you are such purists, why don’t you insist on it being said in Greek. I bring this up because that is what this is really all about once you take off the disguise. Had he done that for you, you would have been satisfied. If you are so in love with the Mass, why have you not become priests and religious?

At best, you are being disingenuous, rationalizing your opinions with your pharasitical point of view. At worst, you are purposely fomening dissent and divison within the Body of Christ which is a serious sin. I vote the latter, based on my experinces with your type. And the fact that you have your buddies write in to corroborate with you is another old trick. It’s as if you all take a class in it, or something.

It reminds me of the politicians that relentlesslyattack the president. Same mindset. Excommunicate the politicians, yes, but excommunicate the schismatic-minded rabble-rousers, too.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The OP:

I pretty much knew you traddies would be coming out with your typical arrogance on this issue. It’s as if a Saint of the
Church has to follow YOUR personal guidelines to qualify.
Face it, you don’t like him because he did not bring back the Mass in your beloved Latin. If he had, you would be satisfied.
Oh, you’ll deny that of course.

Huh?

I know the guy who started this thread, and he’s no “traddie.” He’s just a Catholic. Do a search on his other posts.

One of the components of the first scandal listed in my original post is Pope John Paul II’s failure to insist on compliance with the rubrics of the post-Vatican II liturgy. Had he done so, much of the wind would have been taken out of the sails of the schismatic “traditionalist” movement.

One of the first things that the late Holy Father could have done was to admonish priests, in accordance with Vatican II’s document on the liturgy, not to alter one word of the liturgy on their own authority.

The real solution to the turmoil in the human features of the post-Vatican II Church is not schismatic “traditionalism,” but fidelity to all aspects of the one true Faith.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Should St. Paul be excoriated for “bopping people on the head” because he reproved St. Peter “to his face” for scandalizing the faithful (Gal 2:11)?

Shouldn’t Pope John Paul II have followed St. Paul’s example by reproving many bishops “to their faces”? Shouldn’t he have “bopped” the bishops who allowed priests to molest minors?

And, with great respect for all those who suffer from the terrible cross of illness, I must ask whether merely having Parkinson’s disease is an indication of heroic virtue.

Dear Catholic brothers and sisters, please face reality! Please respect the logic of the Faith! Let’s avoid self-delusion and psychological denial! Look–really look–at the state of the human elements of the Catholic Church!

Keep and spread the Faith.

How do you know the Pope didn’t rebuke bishops, on their ad limina visits, for example?

Not setting aside one’s office, one’s cross, WHILE suffering from such a disease, giving witness to the dignity of life and the redemptive value of suffering, is an indication of heroic virtue, at least to my mind (but I try not to engage in arm chair popery).

And YOU need to face reality. There are some rather silly elements in the Church that think the Pope can wave his pastoral staff and say, “Make it so!” or “So let it be done!” Again, popes do not micromanage the Church and they COULD NOT if they wanted to. The state of the Church, of the “human elements” of the Church, particularly in the West, is not the fault of John Paul the Great, any more than it’s the fault of Vatican II or the Novus Ordo Missae. We have a whole generation of Catholics influenced by the “spirit” of Vatican II (to be distinguished from the real thing), we had whole decades when the “flower children” were in power. John Paul sought to correct that (and did correct a great deal of it, though the West refused to submit. I suppose to satisfy some, he could have laid the entire continent of North America under interdict, but I doubt that would have made anyone suffer, but the faithful).

How old are you? I’m old enough to remember, toward the beginning of his pontificate, the old Holy Father in Central America, shaking his finger at a priest kneeling before him who had joined the socialist governtment of Nicaragua as a cabinet minister, in public, and telling him that he had to straighten out his position with the Church. I can remember the Sandinistas trying to shout him down during an address and the Holy Father thundering, “SILENCIO!” right back at them.

The Servant of God, John Paul the Great, will more than likely be a saint. There are already miracles and the current Pope has asked that we pray for his canonization. I should attempt to adjust to that, were I you.

 

[Fergal]

One miracle for Beatification and one miracle for Canonization with the exception that *“a martyr – someone who died for their religious beliefs – can be beatified WITHOUT evidence of a miracle.” *(Source)

So, in effect, a martyr would require only one miracle for sainthood … … americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj072302.asp

I thought so too but from newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

The miracles now remain to be proved, of which two of the first class are required in case the practice of virtues in the heroic degree has been proved, in both ordinary and Apostolic inquiries or processes by eyewitnesses – three, if the eyewitnesses were found only in the ordinary processes; four, if the virtues were proven only by hearsay (de auditu) witnesses. If the miracles have been sufficiently proven in the Apostolic processes (super virtutibus) already declared valid, steps are taken at once to prepare the documents with regard to miracles (super miraculis). If in the Apostolic processes only general mention has been made of the miracles, new Apostolic processes must be opened, and conducted after the manner already described for proving the practice of virtues in an heroic degree.

Our very dear and late Holy Father, John Paul II is, at present, referred to as ‘Servant of God’ since his cause for sainthood is open.
He is not yet ‘Venerable’ since the practice of virtues in the heroic degree has not yet been proven. Therefore it seems that three miracles are required.

---

Ah!! This the above was the old way!!

I have just read the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the new guidelines, introduced by JPII, have reduced the number of miracles required by 1 for both stages.

So I guess after all that 2 are required for Beatification and three for Canonization.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Suppose that the CEO of a corporation permits the appointment of managers whose ability parallels that of many of Pope John Paul II’s bishops. Suppose, too, that the corporation goes bankrupt, and that the stockholders demand the CEO’s resignation. Will the CEO’s disavowal of “micromanagement” save his job?

And how will the stockholders react if it’s revealed that the CEO has permitted his managers to overlook widespread sexual harassment of the corporation’s employees?

As Catholics, we can’t as easily demand that a Pope resign, but we can pray that he alter his policies regarding the appointment of bishops. And, after his death, we can resist suggestions that he be canonized.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Two distinct and different issues. The CEO would normally KNOW, probably quite well, the men he appoints. The Holy Father must rely on bishops in the field, as it were, to forward the names of men through his Apostolic nuncios or legates, who does background checks, etc. The names then go to the Cong. for Bishops, who does the same thing.

Do you honestly think that most of these men are going to throw a monkey wrench into it by saying, “Oh, by the by, I’ve a boyfriend who’ll be taking up residency in the episcopal palace with me” or “I absolutely ADORE liturgical innovation, I’ve some ideas for a liturgical dance curriculum that I think should be incorporated into seminary education, I’d love to run it by you” or “the best way to deal with a paedophile is to make him the Diocesan Vicar for Youth?”

And on the predation crisis, who do you think the pope has to rely on for information? The bishops, the same bishops who we have seen to have been involved in coverups. He only gets the information he’s given. It’s like when a principal comes in to observe in a classroom. You can bet the principal is going to see the best effort, the “shining,” as it were, even from conscientious teachers. He or she would have to go and park themselves in a classroom to get even a remote idea of the instructional environment. Principals simply cannot do that, and a pope can’t either.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I thought so too but from newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

The miracles now remain to be proved, of which two of the first class are required in case the practice of virtues in the heroic degree has been proved, in both ordinary and Apostolic inquiries or processes by eyewitnesses – three, if the eyewitnesses were found only in the ordinary processes; four, if the virtues were proven only by hearsay (de auditu) witnesses. If the miracles have been sufficiently proven in the Apostolic processes (super virtutibus) already declared valid, steps are taken at once to prepare the documents with regard to miracles (super miraculis). If in the Apostolic processes only general mention has been made of the miracles, new Apostolic processes must be opened, and conducted after the manner already described for proving the practice of virtues in an heroic degree.

Our very dear and late Holy Father, John Paul II is, at present, referred to as ‘Servant of God’ since his cause for sainthood is open.
He is not yet ‘Venerable’ since the practice of virtues in the heroic degree has not yet been proven. Therefore it seems that three miracles are required.

---

Ah!! This the above was the old way!!

I have just read the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the new guidelines, introduced by JPII, have reduced the number of miracles required by 1 for both stages.

So I guess after all that 2 are required for Beatification and three for Canonization.

This conflicts with …

… At present, candidates for beatification must be shown to have performed at least one miracle after death by curing the terminally ill in response to prayers of intercession. For sainthood, evidence of at least two miracles is required. Claims of miraculous cures are examined by a panel of five medical experts at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints … (Source)

… and this …

The Archbishop of Salerno, Gerardo Pierro has announced publicly that a medically inexplicable cure of a lung cancer victim is a miracle which will move late Pope John Paul II closer toward being declared a saint in the Catholic Church. “There is medical proof otherwise I wouldn’t have dared bring up the case. The recovery has lasted - a year and a half later, the inexplicable remains confirmed,” Archbishop Pierro told the Il Mattino newspaper Thursday.

After the lung-cancer victim was diagnosed with the dreaded disease in 2005, his wife prayed for his healing asking the deceased Pope to pray for her husband’s healing as well. Catholics believe that after death the souls of the deceased, if they are in heaven, are able to hear earthly requests and aid their prayers to God for healings.

The wife related that the late Pope appeared to her in a dream reassuring her that her husband would get well. ANSA reports that a few days after the dream doctors noted a marked improvement and within a few weeks the cancer had inexplicably disappeared.

The miracle, if counted as such by Church authorities which examine such matters, will move one of the greatest pro-life leaders of the twentieth century a step closer to being declared a saint.

The process of declaration of sainthood in the Catholic Church requires two documented and confirmed miracles to take place. The miracles which would have to be attributable to John Paul’s intervention would be seen as a testimony from God assuring that the soul of the departed is in heaven. Should the current miracle be approved, John Paul could be beatified, or declared ‘blessed’, after which another miracle would be required for sainthood.(Source)

… note bolded statements.