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

[pnewton]

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)?

No. I didn’t say that anyone should be criticized for disciplining more harshly or with greater mercy. It was you who was criticizing John Paul II. I just said that this isn’t the only way to practice heroic virtue. The truth is, we know nothing of what was said in private to any of the bishops. I do not know about your diocese, but mine has undergone profound changes because of the scandals, even though many of the criminal acts occured decades ago.

Again, there is more than one way to be a saint. To use your own analogy, this same St. Paul also bopped John Mark because he left them on one of their journeys. Thankfully, Barnabas was able to act withmore compassion and he took Mark with him, instead of alientating him. Mercy sometimes works. Thus, we have the gospel of Mark and Paul later asked for his company near the end of his life.

Besides, I thought this thread was about John Paul II, not abusive priests. Sainthood has only to do with the virtue of one man. I not only believe he will be a saint soon, but later generations will call him John Paul, the Great. Peter Kreeft calls him the greatest man of the worst century.

But hey, everyone has their own opinion. Even Jesus had his detractors, so why shouldn’t his saints.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

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.

Pope John Paul II was able to read English and other languages, and the Vatican can have newspapers delivered to it from all over the world, including the United States. If the late Holy Father had read only The Wanderer, he would have learned plenty about the sexual abuse of minors by priests, and about the failure of his bishops to confront this scandal, one of the worst in the whole history of Catholicism. And he would have learned much more besides.

Let’s honor John Paul II by studying his catechism and using it to defend and spread the Faith. This document is a great gift to the Church, and we should be grateful to the late Holy Father for promulgating it. But let’s not try to defend John Paul II’s approach to the daily governance of the Church. It just can’t be defended.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

But let’s not try to defend John Paul II’s approach to the daily governance of the Church. It just can’t be defended.

I do believe it can. Check out this article from This Rock magazine:

Why Doesn’t the Pope Do Something about “Bad” Bishops?

 

[chicago]

Pope John Paul II was able to read English and other languages, and the Vatican can have newspapers delivered to it from all over the world, including the United States. If the late Holy Father had read only The Wanderer, he would have learned plenty about the sexual abuse of minors by priests, and about the failure of his bishops to confront this scandal, one of the worst in the whole history of Catholicism. And he would have learned much more besides.

Perhaps Pope John Paul II ought to be rewarded for his virtue in avoiding the Wanderer whines.

 

[Jedinovice]

JPII is something of a hero to me. If he has not displayed heroic virtue no pope has.

The fact is, I reckon, that JPII faced a horror of problems in the Church when he took on the Papacy. He had the cold War with Communism on one hand, he had laxity in the West and thin congregations in the East, he had secularism in Europe and ‘liberation’ theology in the South Americas.

So what did he do? He took on the Cold War right on the front line and WON - by God’s grace! He faced down liberation theology and WON - by God’s grace. He endeavoured to engage with the young, with mixed results but look at their turn out at his death!! He produced numourous encyplicals or huge theological weight in a pastoral style the modern world could grasp. No other Pope has ‘sold’ the papcy to the modern world like JPII.

He engaged with other faiths and, yes, had the Assisi meetings. Horror to many, I know, but consider the threat of the age - the bomb. JPII was showing that religion = peace to the world. (Consider now the rise of Dawkins and Al Quaeda undoing that.) What JPII realised (and what we should!) is that you can’t fight a war on multiple fronts. It is far better to pick one war, put your resources into it effectively and win and then move onto the next battle while not alienating your allies. JPII picked Communism and Liberation theology as his battle grounds and he worked with the laity to get orthodoxy maintained. OK, I think he got the youth motivated but not educated. But the thing is, he tried! A saint is not a success story! I mean, St Stephen was flat out failure in a sense. The fact is that JPII tried and he fought multiple fronts heroically! He also showed devotion in prayer, heroic virtue in the attempted assassination, and in his grim determination to keep going despite failing health. I’ve been ill for months and I feel how great JPII was in this! He worked so hard to get the Orthodox reconciled. The guy busted a gut on so many fronts and he worked to get the laity through lay communities to do a lot of the work he physically could not. Given the battles JPII took on I can forgive him for not worrying about the Liturgy! That was the least of his problems and he prioritised according to the information and problems he had at the time.

 

[Jedinovice]

Cont…

He made mistakes and things went wrong. Name any company or project that has run 100% smoothly. As JPII died the East and Africa wa/is booming with conversions, communism is all but dead, Liberation theology is dead, bridges have been built with the Orthodox and other religions (which we need frankly!) He blew it on the priestly scandals but I think he was simply overloaded and didn’t register the problem properly. It wasn’t turning a blind eye, I think he simply didn’t understand. A failing? Sure. But not an act of wilful sin. The poor man was human and ill for a long time! So he didn’t solve every problem in the Church in the entire world!! Well, I for one am shocked! Shocked I say!

Bear in mind, also, that we interpret the signs of the time according to our experience, in the secularised West. Because we don’t experience the revivals of Africa, South America, the Far East, we see failure. But JPII was not beholden to the West alone. Now we have Benedict who is fighting for the West and the forces of radical secularism. Now we’re no longer worrying about communism and Liberation theology we have luxury, in a sense, of worrying about liturgy and the problems of our time.

I pray for the moral courage of Karol Wotjika on occasion. I really do.

 

[pnewton]

But JPII was not beholden to the West alone.

I think a lot of Americans can get tunnel vision and view the Church as “my local parish” or “yes, but what have you done for me.”

When considering this man’s sainthood, one must also look beyond the papacy. We also have tremendous conversion of Poland under his leadership. He studied for the priesthood at a time when it would have cost his life. I think it is hard to view this man as one who lacks courage.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Yes I most certainly do believe in purgatory. Considering the suffering toward the end JPII life my own personal opinion is that if there was a need for him to be in purgatory that it would have been brief. Of course I am not God, nor do I have the authority of the Church. That’s just my opinion.

Yes, and he suffered his entire life, and most of his suffering was for the Catholic church. I wonder, Steve O’brian, have you read any of the books on JPll’s life, or seen any of the movies? Am I wrong in thinking JPll inherited the sexual scandals of the USA? How would have you handled it if you were pontiff, how do we know he wasn’t doing every thing that he believed he could do with the knowledge that he had about these matters. Having read many books on JPll life, seen him in action all of my adult life, and seen the fruits of his ministry(the collapse of wall in Berlin, his ministry to the youth, his extensive writings, etc.) and having read many of his books, I have no doubt he is a saint. If he’s not a saint-God help me-and all of us.
When you capitalize WHY? in your thread title, it seems to me you are setting yourself up as a judge. I don’t mean to be uncharitable when I say this, I just find it unfathomable. I LOVE JPll and respect him and his memory, and frankly find this hurtful.

 

[st_lucy]

I like what Father Corpi says about these matters. If you are wondering why there is so much scandel in the Church than we should first look at ourselves before looking at everyone else. If I where truly a good Catholic than all those I come in contact with will also be drawn into becoming good Catholics.

So Steve O’Brian instead of stomping your foot in protest at what YOU think the Pope did or did not do. Why don’t you stop and think where you Steve O’Brian a good Catholic, so that you could have been a living example of God here on earth to those fallen away priest.

I think it is a shame when we have to resort to finger pointing. I find that often enough when that finger starts pointing at someone else the real person to blame is often the one pointing.

My two cents!

Oh yeah and I believe JPII is the reason for my coming back to the faith. It was his wonderful witness to the faith that had me thinking that I too can make a difference, by following Gods call.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Another thread on a completely different subject matter directed me to the writings of St. Francis de Sales. While reading those writings, I came across something which I felt would be appropriate for this thread.

St. Francis de Sales was asked to address the situation of the scandal caused by some of his brother priests during the 1500s and 1600s. What he said is as important for us today as it was for his listeners then.

He stated, “Those who commit these types of scandals are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder,” destroying other people’s faith in God by their terrible example. But then he warned his listeners, “But I’m here among you to prevent something** far worse for you**. While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal - who allow scandals to destroy their faith - are guilty of spiritual suicide.”

 

[st_lucy]

Another thread on a completely different subject matter directed me to the writings of St. Francis de Sales. While reading those writings, I came across something which I felt would be appropriate for this thread.

St. Francis de Sales was asked to address the situation of the scandal caused by some of his brother priests during the 1500s and 1600s. What he said is as important for us today as it was for his listeners then.

He stated, “Those who commit these types of scandals are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder,” destroying other people’s faith in God by their terrible example. But then he warned his listeners, “But I’m here among you to prevent something** far worse for you**. While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal - who allow scandals to destroy their faith - are guilty of spiritual suicide.”

[SIGN]AMEN![/SIGN]

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Am I wrong in thinking JPll inherited the sexual scandals of the USA? How would you have handled it if you were pontiff? How do we know he wasn’t doing every thing that he believed he could do with the knowledge that he had about these matters?

In keeping with the right acknowledged for all Catholics in CCC 907, I’d like to take the liberty of answering the above questions by stating my opinion:

As soon as Pope John Paul II and his bishops had become convinced that a priest had committed an overt sin of unchastity against a minor (anyone below the age of eighteen), the Pope and the bishops should have laicized that priest. Such a priest should have been laicized even if the sin happened only once, or even if it happened many years ago.

This policy should have been adoped–and should still be adopted–for the good of all concerned: the victimized minor, the minor’s family, the sinful priest, the Catholic Church, and society at large. The common good of both the Church and society *demands *this policy.

“But this policy is too harsh!” Is it any harsher than having a millstone hung around one’s neck and being sunk in the open sea? Please see the words of Christ in *Mt *18:6-7.

Please note that this policy does not exclude forgiveness for the sinful priest in the sacrament of Penance, forgiveness for him from his victim and the victim’s family, pastoral and psychological counseling provided for both the victim and the victimizer, criminal proceedings against the priest, financial assistance for the priest from the Church while he finds new employment, and ongoing contact between the Church and the laicized priest to help ensure that he does not sin against other minors.

But the bottom line is this: the sinful priest can no longer serve God as a priest and, in this capacity, represent the Catholic Church. We hope and pray that the scandal-giving priest will obtain forgiveness from God and save his soul, but he must now save his soul as a layman, not as a priest.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Another thread on a completely different subject matter directed me to the writings of St. Francis de Sales. While reading those writings, I came across something which I felt would be appropriate for this thread.

St. Francis de Sales was asked to address the situation of the scandal caused by some of his brother priests during the 1500s and 1600s. What he said is as important for us today as it was for his listeners then.

He stated, “Those who commit these types of scandals are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder,” destroying other people’s faith in God by their terrible example. But then he warned his listeners, “But I’m here among you to prevent something** far worse for you**. While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal - who allow scandals to destroy their faith - are guilty of spiritual suicide.”

I’d like to thank Sir Knight for drawing our attention to the powerful words of St. Francis de Sales.

We should never allow ***any ***scandal in the Church to destroy our faith.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You’re welcome

 

[CatholicCid]

Am I wrong in thinking JPll inherited the sexual scandals of the USA?

I was wondering that two while reading through this… I thought the bulk of the scandals happened in the past 35-60 years ago and that they were first coming to light in the new millenium. I just remember reading about how a lot of accused ‘predators’ are actually dead and buried to say the least.

 

[prodigal-sun]

The above post does not answer any of the three points made in post #1 on this thread.

Question: does anyone deny that the three items listed in post #1 are scandals?

Please let me take the liberty of urging my fellow Catholics to read the section on scandal in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was promulgated by Pope John Paul II. The sections are 2284-2287.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Yes it does… indirectly!

What I’m saying is that your opinion of whom the church beatifies is irrelevant. So are the supposed scandals you are trying to present.

The only scandal I’m getting a wiff about is your insistence that we go against the church in the event that they make JPII a saint.

Peace to you and all in your household!

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

I was wondering that two while reading through this… I thought the bulk of the scandals happened in the past 35-60 years ago and that they were first coming to light in the new millenium. I just remember reading about how a lot of accused ‘predators’ are actually dead and buried to say the least.

Yes, this is my understanding also. And as I said previously, how do we know what JPll did, if he did or did not take action. For all I know, the scandals came to light because of the great light that was shining from the chair of Peter.

 

[Eliza10]

…
… 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. …

You’ve made your judgement already it seems. Is it possible, though, that your wisdom and learning is limited and imperfect? That you could have jumped to a wrong judgment of God’s chosen vicar? Is it possible you don’t have enough information?

You can be sure that odds are real good that those reviewing his case for beatification have more information, more knowledge, and more wisdom that you.

But they have more. They have the commission of Jesus Christ and the inspiratin and guidance of the Holy Spirit (Who *does *have the whole picture.)

You must know: things aren’t always what they seem.

Maybe you’ll be surprised. You may yet realize that you misjudged.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Pope John Paul II was able to read English and other languages, and the Vatican can have newspapers delivered to it from all over the world, including the United States. If the late Holy Father had read only The Wanderer, he would have learned plenty about the sexual abuse of minors by priests, and about the failure of his bishops to confront this scandal, one of the worst in the whole history of Catholicism. And he would have learned much more besides.

Let’s honor John Paul II by studying his catechism and using it to defend and spread the Faith. This document is a great gift to the Church, and we should be grateful to the late Holy Father for promulgating it. But let’s not try to defend John Paul II’s approach to the daily governance of the Church. It just can’t be defended.

Keep and spread the Faith.

And when he’s named a saint, I hope to be dancing (not liturgically, mind you) in Saint Peter’s square.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Another thread on a completely different subject matter directed me to the writings of St. Francis de Sales. While reading those writings, I came across something which I felt would be appropriate for this thread.

St. Francis de Sales was asked to address the situation of the scandal caused by some of his brother priests during the 1500s and 1600s. What he said is as important for us today as it was for his listeners then.

He stated, “Those who commit these types of scandals are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder,” destroying other people’s faith in God by their terrible example. But then he warned his listeners, “But I’m here among you to prevent something** far worse for you**. While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal - who allow scandals to destroy their faith - are guilty of spiritual suicide.”

Maybe - but, it’s irrelevant to the intended canonisation of a Pope whose pontificate was such a mix of good and evil.​

If St. Francis had been consoling his correspondent about an intended canonisation of (say) Alexander VI, who was by any normal moral standard an outstandingly frightful pope (fond as he certainly was of his offspring), the quotation would be more applicable.

Do you have a reference for the quotation BTW ? It’s one of those that “every Catholic knows”, but seems never to be properly referenced.

In reply to an OP or two or three:

If he were any old pope (Innocent X or Alexander VII, say, neither of whom was conspicuously ghastly, even if they were not outstanding in holiness either), there would be no problem, because they aren’t being given a going-over with a fine tooth comb, as it is not suggested they are outstanding in holiness. It is, by contrast, suggested that JP2 is outstanding in holiness; so it is entirely right to expect the holiness allegedly shown by him to be outstanding. So it is not unfair to think it would come through in his activities: which includes his activity as Pope. The problem is, that some features of his pontificate are counter-evidence, whether one likes saying or hearing this or not. Suppressing the questionable stuff is in any case dishonest: a real saint’s reputation should not & does not need to be wrapped in cotton wool; it is solid enough to stand all criticisms. Is his reputation so fragile it will shatter into smithereens if he is criticised ? That’s another reason why there is a canonical process​