A 'two-for-one' strategy in declaring popes as saints [John Allen]

[Catholic_Press]

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.

Two instances of something may not constitute a trend, but they can at least suggest a strategy. This morning an apparent Vatican strategy on turning popes into saints came into view: When you’re going to move a pope along the path whose cause is sure to cause friction in Catholic/Jewish relations, bundle it with a popular pope also seen as a friend to the Jews.

Call it a “two-for-one” strategy with regard to pope-saints.

Back in September 2000, that was the approach to the beatification of Pope Pius IX, who among other things was known for corralling the Jews of Rome back into their ghetto and for the famous case of a Jewish child forcibly removed from his family and raised in the Vatican. In the same ceremony, Pope John XXIII was also beatified, the popular “Good Pope John” of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Among other gestures of outreach to the Jewish community, John XXIII had removed a reference to the “perfidious Jews” from the church’s Good Friday liturgy.

More…

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The Vatican has just issued a statement calling Pope John Paul II “venerable” for having–so the statement maintains–practiced heroic virtue. This statement demands much clarification. We should note in the first place that it is *not *the same as a declaration of sainthood (i.e., a canonization).

As an individual Catholic, I must admit that this non-infallible (please note this, too) Vatican statement upsets me. Despite the fact that the previous Holy Father did many wonderful things for the Church (including his contribution to Vatican II and, above all, his publication of The Catechism of the Catholic Church), I cannot believe that Catholics are now obliged in conscience to agree that he practiced heroic, or saintly, virtue. One can do many admirable things without being a Christian hero or a saint.

One of the reasons for my respectfully disagreeing on this point is the fact that John Paul II condoned in a de facto manner the bishops’ scandalous and disastrous policy of refusing to excommunicate politicians who support the legalized murder of unborn children. Approving such a policy, which indirectly encourages abortion and its legalization (regardless of the Pope’s intentions), does not appear to me to be the mark of a saint. Please reason this out logically: if politicians who vote for legalized murder should not be excommunicated, then abortion simply cannot be murder. Nevertheless, as John Paul II correctly taught us (in section 58 of the 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae), abortion is nothing less than murder.

The purpose of this post is not to scandalize any other Catholics or to encourage them to fall into the Devil’s traps of disobedience or–worse–schism. Nor am I daring to judge the subjective state of John Paul II’s soul or conscience, for that is known to God alone. What I am doing instead is to make use of a right that John Paul II’s own catechism grants to Catholics as far as speaking out for the common good of the Church and for reasons of conscience is concerned: please see *CCC *907 and 1790.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[manygift1spirit]

You’re criticisms are reasonable and based on actual human foibles, but your logic is somewhat sloppy. The conclusion of practicing heroic virtues is not synonymous with practicing nothing but same. If that were the case, the Communion of Saints would be a mighty small crowd.

However your critiques are exactly the type of critiques that go into this process; that is (among other things) why there is a 5 year waiting period before official scrutiny begins: to minimize recentist psychological influence like surface popularity and such, and to get the scholarly scrutinization organized.

I would expect that exactly that type of point will be addressed, if it hasn’t been already. You do suggest though a parallel to Pius that even Allen missed (to be fair his whole thesis was one of contrast of course). Both pontiffs could be seen to have made decisions capable of being strongly second guessed (as you are doing), but which might have been improved if they only had more knowledge and familiarity with some of the cultural baggage involved in the pertinent part of the world. And that may only be a temporary comparison - I see Pius being exonerated by history of all but the most banal trivialities involving his controversy within one generation. I do not see that with John Paul that soon but I admit my own judgment is limited by an Americentric recentism, which I know to be quite intellectually dehabilitating.

Time will tell.

 

[JReducation]

There is a procedural point that has to be clarified here. When a candidate for canonization is officially declared venerable, this means that the process of studying his life is over and closed. In this case, there will be no further studies on the lives of these two men. The studies for the cause has been completed. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints has found these men to have lived heroic Christian lives or in plaine English, holy lives. When that happens, the Defender of the Faith (once called the Devils Advocate) rests his case and admits that he or she finds nothing objectionable in the life of the candidate. The way that the process works is that the Defender of the Truth makes a statement that says, he cannot deny the facts laid before him or her. He or she concedes the point to the promoter of the cause.

At that point, the documents and testimonies under study are sealed closed. They may not be reopened, except by order of the pope himself. The report is sent to the pope with the finding that this man lives a truly saintly or heroic life of virtue. It is then up to the pope to confirm or send everything back to the committee. If the pope confirms, as he has done in these cases, no one is allowed to bring forth any further aguments against the canonization of these men.

The next step is to study the alleged miracle or miracles attributed to their intercession. By the time that the case is presented to the pope for the title of Venerable, there has to be at least one alleged miracle. We use the word alleged, because the miracle has to be proven. This is the next step.

What will happen now is that whetever miracle is alleged will be studied by the same commission. Only this time, they will bring in scientific experts from outside of the faith community. Half of the experts must be non believers. This newly reconstructed committee will study the evidence and hear the testimonies regarding the miracle or miracles. However, the person’s life may not be brought up again. The stage now is about the miracle. If the alleged miracle can be proven, then beatification takes place.

There was a very good program on this topic by Fr. Benedict G. and a theologian who is working on Bishop Sheen’s case. The theologian who is an expert on this process explained how the steps work. I too thought that even though a person was declared Venerable, there was room for more questions about their life. Both Fr. Benedict and his guest, whose name I can’t recall, explained that this is not the case. Once the title is given, the study of the life is closed and the study of the miracle begins. The reason for this is because the Church does not want to drag this out and trusts the judgment of the pope when he confirms the findings of the committee.

In Pope John Paul’s case, the five-year waiting period was dispensed by Pope Benedict XVI. The rationale was that this waiting period is not a matter of faith, but law and that this law has been dispensed with beginning with Francis of Assisi in 1228 when Pope Gregory IX dispensed with the study, the beatification and the miracles. Pope Gregory canonized Francis based on his personal belief that the reporters of the miracles were credible and the miracles did not need to be proven, because he had known Francis personally. He proceeded to jump over the entire process and canonize him 18 months after his death without even a beatification, simply at the request of the Franciscans. Later, the Franciscans would make the same request for St. Clare. The pope would again dispense with the study, the beatification and the proof of the miracles and canonize her 15 months after her death.

The same happend with Mother Teresa. Pope John Paul dispensed with the time limitation based on his personal knowledge of her sanctity and encouraged the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to move quickly on her study and the alleged miracle. If I’m not mistaken, it was completed in less than three years. In any case, the five-year period was dispensed with.

The point is that Pope Benedict is taking advantage of what is considered to be a precedent that goes back to the 13th century.

I hope this clarifies some questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

You’re criticisms are reasonable and based on actual human foibles, but your logic is somewhat sloppy. The conclusion of practicing heroic virtues is not synonymous with practicing nothing but same. If that were the case, the Communion of Saints would be a mighty small crowd.

However your critiques are exactly the type of critiques that go into this process; that is (among other things) why there is a 5 year waiting period before official scrutiny begins: to minimize recentist psychological influence like surface popularity and such, and to get the scholarly scrutinization organized.

I would expect that exactly that type of point will be addressed, if it hasn’t been already. You do suggest though a parallel to Pius that even Allen missed (to be fair his whole thesis was one of contrast of course). Both pontiffs could be seen to have made decisions capable of being strongly second guessed (as you are doing), but which might have been improved if they only had more knowledge and familiarity with some of the cultural baggage involved in the pertinent part of the world. And that may only be a temporary comparison - I see Pius being exonerated by history of all but the most banal trivialities involving his controversy within one generation. I do not see that with John Paul that soon but I admit my own judgment is limited by an Americentric recentism, which I know to be quite intellectually dehabilitating.

Time will tell.

It is my understanding that the heroic level of virtue required for canonization has to be *comprehensive *and enduring--at least after the potential saint’s conversion–and that this full-fledged, permanent heroism is incompatible with certain scandals, especially a major failure to fulfill the responsibilities of one’s state in life. After all, a saint has to serve as a model for all other Catholics, especially those Catholics who share the same vocation and life circumstances.

It seems reasonable to me to think that the responsibilities of the papacy are so onerous that a correspondingly high level of heroism is required for the achievement of sainthood in that office. This may be one of the reasons why no Pope has yet been canonized for any of the centuries intervening between Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572) and Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914). In any case, any scandalous act or omission on the part of a Supreme Pontiff is correspondingly more serious, and more in conflict with heroic virtue, than it would be in a bishop, priest, or layperson, in accordance with the principle that John Paul II’s own catechism teaches in section 2285:

“Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized.”

Again, the hierarchy’s refusal, with the acquiescence of John Paul II, to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians, is one of the most egregious scandals in the entire history of the Catholic Church. This scandal encourages both abortions and their legalization. How can we expect the average person to take seriously the unspeakable sinfulness of abortion if the Holy Father and the bishops, in their daily governance of the Church, fail to do so?

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

There is a procedural point that has to be clarified here. When a candidate for canonization is officially declared venerable, this means that the process of studying his life is over and closed. In this case, there will be no further studies on the lives of these two men. The studies for the cause has been completed. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints has found these men to have lived heroic Christian lives or in plaine English, holy lives. When that happens, the Defender of the Faith (once called the Devils Advocate) rests his case and admits that he or she finds nothing objectionable in the life of the candidate. The way that the process works is that the Defender of the Truth makes a statement that says, he cannot deny the facts laid before him or her. He or she concedes the point to the promoter of the cause.

At that point, the documents and testimonies under study are sealed closed. They may not be reopened, except by order of the pope himself. The report is sent to the pope with the finding that this man lives a truly saintly or heroic life of virtue. It is then up to the pope to confirm or send everything back to the committee. If the pope confirms, as he has done in these cases, no one is allowed to bring forth any further aguments against the canonization of these men.

The next step is to study the alleged miracle or miracles attributed to their intercession. By the time that the case is presented to the pope for the title of Venerable, there has to be at least one alleged miracle. We use the word alleged, because the miracle has to be proven. This is the next step.

What will happen now is that whetever miracle is alleged will be studied by the same commission. Only this time, they will bring in scientific experts from outside of the faith community. Half of the experts must be non believers. This newly reconstructed committee will study the evidence and hear the testimonies regarding the miracle or miracles. However, the person’s life may not be brought up again. The stage now is about the miracle. If the alleged miracle can be proven, then beatification takes place.

There was a very good program on this topic by Fr. Benedict G. and a theologian who is working on Bishop Sheen’s case. The theologian who is an expert on this process explained how the steps work. I too thought that even though a person was declared Venerable, there was room for more questions about their life. Both Fr. Benedict and his guest, whose name I can’t recall, explained that this is not the case. Once the title is given, the study of the life is closed and the study of the miracle begins. The reason for this is because the Church does not want to drag this out and trusts the judgment of the pope when he confirms the findings of the committee.

In Pope John Paul’s case, the five-year waiting period was dispensed by Pope Benedict XVI. The rationale was that this waiting period is not a matter of faith, but law and that this law has been dispensed with beginning with Francis of Assisi in 1228 when Pope Gregory IX dispensed with the study, the beatification and the miracles. Pope Gregory canonized Francis based on his personal belief that the reporters of the miracles were credible and the miracles did not need to be proven, because he had known Francis personally. He proceeded to jump over the entire process and canonize him 18 months after his death without even a beatification, simply at the request of the Franciscans. Later, the Franciscans would make the same request for St. Clare. The pope would again dispense with the study, the beatification and the proof of the miracles and canonize her 15 months after her death.

The same happend with Mother Teresa. Pope John Paul dispensed with the time limitation based on his personal knowledge of her sanctity and encouraged the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to move quickly on her study and the alleged miracle. If I’m not mistaken, it was completed in less than three years. In any case, the five-year period was dispensed with.

The point is that Pope Benedict is taking advantage of what is considered to be a precedent that goes back to the 13th century.

I hope this clarifies some questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If Brother J.R. is correct in what he reports above about the canonization process, then it is all the more urgent that Catholic laypeople, in keeping with the right and the duty that they have under section 907 of the new catechism, speak out respectfully against the misguided efforts to canonize Pope John Paul II.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[JReducation]

If Brother J.R. is correct in what he reports above about the canonization process, then it is all the more urgent that Catholic laypeople, in keeping with the right and the duty that they have under section 907 of the new catechism, speak out respectfully against the misguided efforts to canonize Pope John Paul II.

Keep and spread the Faith.

The problem here is that the Holy Father has already closed the study of John Paul’s life. Therefore, there is nothing that can be done to reopen it. In other words, as far as the commission is concerned, John Paul II lived a heroic Christian life and the Holy Father has confirmed their conclusion. Therefore, all of us must accept that he is Venerable and address him by that title. There has never been a case where a pope has rescinded his decision on this matter. I doubt that Benedict XVI will do so given the fact that he knew John Paul II personally for so many years and certainly better than most of us.

There is also no reason to believe that this point was not brought up by the Defender of the Faith and proven to be incorrect by the Promoter of the Cause. This is not a dark hidden secret that Pope John Paul II and even Pope Benedict XVI have not promoted the public excommunication of such individuals.

The point is that Pope John Paul II never said that one could be a Catholic in good standing and support abortion. He is bound to believe and proclaim the moral truth, in this case, that abortion is a grave sin. He said this many times and declared it officially in Evangelium Vitae. As long as he believed and taught what is morally correct, he has complied with his moral obligation. Neither a pope nor a bishop are morally bound to excommunicate anyone. In the case of abortion, the excommunication may happen automatically, if all the conditions for excommunication are present. John Paul himself set up the conditions in the revised canon law of 1983. From what I’ve read and heard different experts say, all the arguments for sanctity weigh in his favor. Father Pacwa made a very good case for him on one of his programs. He said something to the effect that prudential judgments are not always the same as moral judgments and that many saints make incorrect prudential judgments. The action is not immoral and the intention is good, even if the result was disastrous. When I heard this I thought of parents. How often do parents make poor prudential judgments, yet their intentions are good and the action is not immoral. It’s the old thing about hindsight being 20/20. This applies to saints as well. Saints are holy, not perfect. Some may be perfect Christians, but not perfect human beings, big difference.

Finally, if any of the alleged miracles attributed to John Paul’s intercession are proven true, there is nothing that the pope can do. He must accept the miracle, becasuse he cannot deny truth. He does not have to beatify. But that does not mean that John Paul is not in heaven. If the miracle is proven true, then obviously the man is in heaven. How else can you have a miracle through his intercession? If the Pope does canonize John Paul II, then the canonization is an infallible act that cannot be denied by any Catholic. He must be venerated as a saint, even by those who disagreed with him. A decree of canonization has two parts to it. 1) There is no doubt that the person is in heaven and 2) he is to be venerated by the entire Church as a saint. What the Church will not demand is that you have a devotion to him. That’s a personal choice. The infallible part is the part that says that he is in heaven.

I failed to mention one more point. At this point, no one is allowed to present any more evidence against the person’s life, unless it’s some dark hidden secret that the commission was unaware of. What is being presented here is not a dark hidden secret. Therefore, it falls into the area of “inadmissible evidence” and the Church moves on with the process to the next step, the study of the miracles, not the man. That part is over and done with.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

These are all the people involved in the process to declare a person Venerable. It is highly unlikely that the point that is being made here about not excommunicating pro-abortion public figures went unnoticed by all of these people. These are very intelligent and well informed people. Let’s give them some credit and trust that this point was discussed and dismissed. What you’re saying here is not some dark secret that only the people on CAF know about.

**4. Once the diocesan investigation is finished, the acts and documentation are passed on to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The public copy used for further work is put together here. The postulator, resident in Rome, follows the preparation of the ‘Positio’, or summary of the documentation that proves the heroic exercise of virtue, under the direction of a relator of the Congregation. The ‘Positio’ undergoes an examination (theological) by nine theologians who give their vote. If the majority of the theologians are in favour, the cause is passed on for examination by cardinals and bishops who are members of the congregation. They hold meetings twice a month. If their judgment is favourable, the prefect of the congregation presents the results of the entire course of the cause to the Holy Father, who gives his approval and authorizes the congregation to draft the relative decree. The public reading and promulgation of the decree follows. **

catholic-pages.com/saints/process.asp

The public reading and promulgation of the decree is what was just issued. John Paul II is now Venerable John Paul II. As we see above, the report is complete, signed, sealed, delivered and approved by Benedict XVI. There is not going to be more study on this man. The next step is the following.

**"5. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the Servant of God, verified after his death, is necessary. The required miracle must be proven through the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues. This one too is concluded with the relative decree. Once the two decrees are promulgated (regarding the heroic virtues and the miracle) the Holy Father decides on beatification, which is the concession of public worship, limited to a particular sphere. With beatification the candidate receives the title of Blessed. **

I underlined the two decrees for the purpose of clarifying the process. There are two separate decrees: heroic virtues and the miracle. The first decree has already been made, based on the first study. This is what Fr. Benedict G. Fr. Pacwa and other theologians have been talking about. There are no more discussions after the decree. You move on to the next decree. In this case, the next decree will be about the alleged miracles, not Pope John Paul’s heroic virtues. That’s over and done with and we may as well get comfortable with that decree.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[canadianguy1143]

Neither a pope nor a bishop are morally bound to excommunicate anyone. In the case of abortion, the excommunication may happen automatically, if all the conditions for excommunication are present. John Paul himself set up the conditions in the revised canon law of 1983. From what I’ve read and heard different experts say, all the arguments for sanctity weigh in his favor. Father Pacwa made a very good case for him on one of his programs. He said something to the effect that prudential judgments are not always the same as moral judgments and that many saints make incorrect prudential judgments. The action is not immoral and the intention is good, even if the result was disastrous. When I heard this I thought of parents. How often do parents make poor prudential judgments, yet their intentions are good and the action is not immoral. It’s the old thing about hindsight being 20/20. This applies to saints as well. Saints are holy, not perfect. Some may be perfect Christians, but not perfect human beings, big difference.

Finally, if any of the alleged miracles attributed to John Paul’s intercession are proven true, there is nothing that the pope can do. He must accept the miracle, becasuse he cannot deny truth. He does not have to beatify. But that does not mean that John Paul is not in heaven. If the miracle is proven true, then obviously the man is in heaven. How else can you have a miracle through his intercession? If the Pope does canonize John Paul II, then the canonization is an infallible act that cannot be denied by any Catholic. He must be venerated as a saint, even by those who disagreed with him. A decree of canonization has two parts to it. 1) There is no doubt that the person is in heaven and 2) he is to be venerated by the entire Church as a saint. What the Church will not demand is that you have a devotion to him. That’s a personal choice. The infallible part is the part that says that he is in heaven.

I failed to mention one more point. At this point, no one is allowed to present any more evidence against the person’s life, unless it’s some dark hidden secret that the commission was unaware of. What is being presented here is not a dark hidden secret. Therefore, it falls into the area of “inadmissible evidence” and the Church moves on with the process to the next step, the study of the miracles, not the man. That part is over and done with.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks Br. JR that is an excellent post. I bolded the top because I am not sure that I totally agree with that statement. When Luther was excommunicated, I don’t know who the Pope was, but I would imagine that it was necessary to do so to prevent scandal. I think that if a person doesn’t excommunicate themselves, if the situation so warrants it, then the Pope or the hierarchy must excommunicate some.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Thanks Br. JR that is an excellent post. I bolded the top because I am not sure that I totally agree with that statement. When Luther was excommunicated, I don’t know who the Pope was, but I would imagine that it was necessary to do so to prevent scandal. I think that if a person doesn’t excommunicate themselves, if the situation so warrants it, then the Pope or the hierarchy must excommunicate some.

I must respectfully disagree with Brother J. R.

On the moral obligation of excommunicating those who are leading people into the “unspeakable crime” (Gaudium et spes 51) of abortion, I am forced, as a Catholic, to reject Brother J. R.’s opinion in favor of that of a canonized saint–and a Pope who merited canonization. When Pope St. Pius X, who excommunicated leaders of the heresy of Modernism, began his encyclical Pascendi, which condemned that heresy, he made a point of noting that a failure on his part to take action against those who threatened to destroy the faith of Catholics would have been a serious fault:

“Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office” (section 1).

John Paul II’s acceptance of his bishops’ horrendous policy of refusing to excommunicate politicians who promote the murder of unborn children under color of law was a failing in his “most sacred duty.” I must either come to that conclusion, or else deny that legalized abortion is mass murder. How can I, or any other Catholic, deny that legalized abortion is mass murder? How can we contradict the moral teaching of the Catholic Church or abandon the Faith?

Accordingly, my conscience forces me to say that the claim of John Paul II’s heroic virtue must be reopened for the good of the Church–and for the sake of the lives of millions of unborn children. As Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI has the right to reopen this issue, and, for the sake of those children, and for the sake of the Faith itself, we should pray that he will do so.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I honestly have trouble understanding the Church’s definition of “heroic” with respect to Pius XII. Even leaving aside the Holocaust controversy (and I’m willing to accept that Pius was not guilty of the indifference he’s accused of), I don’t understand how the standard of “heroic virtue” is applied to someone whose entire life was spent basically surrounded by the warm womb of Vatican bureaucracy. While I also share some misgivings as to John Paul II, at least he took on the Communist establishment – before and after becoming pope – at risk to himself, and was pastoral in times and places where that was difficult. But Pius? It doesn’t seem particularly “heroic” to take on Nazism from the safety of the sedia gestatoria surrounded by ostrich-plume ceremonial fans. Or I wonder if, for his purpose, the definition of “heroic” has more to do with the Marian dogma he proclaimed, that act being seen by some as heroic in nature because of its stand for traditionalism.

 

[JReducation]

I must respectfully disagree with Brother J. R.

On the moral obligation of excommunicating those who are leading people into the “unspeakable crime” (Gaudium et spes 51) of abortion, I am forced, as a Catholic, to reject Brother J. R.’s opinion in favor of that of a canonized saint–and a Pope who merited canonization. When Pope St. Pius X, who excommunicated leaders of the heresy of Modernism, began his encyclical Pascendi, which condemned that heresy, he made a point of noting that a failure on his part to take action against those who threatened to destroy the faith of Catholics would have been a serious fault:

John Paul II’s acceptance of his bishops’ horrendous policy of refusing to excommunicate politicians who promote the murder of unborn children under color of law was a failing in his “most sacred duty.” I must either come to that conclusion, or else deny that legalized abortion is mass murder. How can I, or any other Catholic, deny that legalized abortion is mass murder? How can we contradict the moral teaching of the Catholic Church or abandon the Faith?

Accordingly, my conscience forces me to say that the claim of John Paul II’s heroic virtue must be reopened for the good of the Church–and for the sake of the lives of millions of unborn children. As Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI has the right to reopen this issue, and, for the sake of those children, and for the sake of the Faith itself, we should pray that he will do so.

Keep and spread the Faith.

The point is that a pope does not have a moral obligation to excommunicate someone who has already excommunicated himself. He may do so. But he does not have to do so, because it’s been taken care of by the law. It becomes a prudential judgment.

Abortion is a horrible crime. Trust me, that’s my community’s life ministry, inspired by Evangelium Vitae.

But there is the point. Pope John Paul did address the issue of abortion. He addressed the moral truth about abortion. He never failed to speak out on it. He never wavered on his position. There is his virtue.

In the process for the study of his life, the Church is not interested in things that he could have done differently. That is not what the process is asking. There is only one question that is asked and the Devil’s Advocate has to prove his case, if he has one.

The question is: “Did John Paul II live a life of heoric virtue?” The answers must prove that he failed at virtue. Now that we have the decree of Venerable, obviously the Church is comofortable that he did not fail in virtue, but in fact his practice of virtue went over and above the rest of us. That’s where the word heroic comes in.

Heroic does not mean that he does anything outsanding. Therese did nothing outstanding. But the practice of the virtues was not only consistent, but unfailing. Even when a person sins, if he confessesa and converts and does penances, he is practicing virtue. The person’s desire and achievement of the virtue that he violated and confessed is a heroic act. Most people are not that perseverative and have to confesss the same thing over and over again.

Your desire that the case be reopen, I don’t think is going to come about. There was no secret that the Holy Father and the bishops did not excommunicate. Our current pope does not encourage it either. It is not morally biinding on them to do so. The practice of virtue is the practice of morals, holiness, prayer, penance, self-sacrifice for others (even in small things), fidelity, charity, hope, faith, prudence, etc etc.

When this question that you’re raising comes up, Rome is disagreeing with you. I’m saying disagreeing, because you’re not bringing up something that Rome does not know. You’re bringing up something that Rome knows, but does not support. Otherwise, the process would have ended with a NO VOTE.

Stop and think here:

1. There are thousands of pieces of information collected.
2. These are read by experts in the virtues.
3. A committe of theologians is convened to read all this again and vote.
4. All the Cardinals in the Sacred Congregation read the findings of the committee every two months until they are statisfied (not once, but every two months as long as it takes).
5. The findings of the Cardinals is sent to the Holy Father.
6. The Holy Father reads it again and if he agrees, he sends letter back to the Congregation to write up the decree so that he can sign it and issue it.

This has all happened. The chances of this all being reverted for something that everyone knew about, is unlikely. Because the question that you’re putting on the table, “Should he have excommunicated or forced the bishops to excommunicate,” does not, according to moral law and mystical theology, impugne his virtue. It only impugnes his virtue if he has a moral obligation and fails.

The same applies to Pius XII. His life of virtue, even in the little things was over and beyond that of the ordinary Catholic. Whether he should have said more or said less about the Shoah, is not a question. The reason it’s not a question is because he repudiated the Shoah. That was his moral obligation. As far as to how loudly he did it, that was a prudential judgment. But it was not a moral judgment. He did not condone the Shoah. It caused him great distress and he had to put himself in God’s hands during a very tough time in world history. He did so, apparently with great perseverance. That makes his practice of virtue heroic. It’s that peseverence when the rest of us would probably throw our hands up in the air or go out fighting, just letting my imagination roll here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I honestly have trouble understanding the Church’s definition of “heroic” with respect to Pius XII. Even leaving aside the Holocaust controversy (and I’m willing to accept that Pius was not guilty of the indifference he’s accused of), I don’t understand how the standard of “heroic virtue” is applied to someone whose entire life was spent basically surrounded by the warm womb of Vatican bureaucracy. While I also share some misgivings as to John Paul II, at least he took on the Communist establishment – before and after becoming pope – at risk to himself, and was pastoral in times and places where that was difficult. But Pius? It doesn’t seem particularly “heroic” to take on Nazism from the safety of the sedia gestatoria surrounded by ostrich-plume ceremonial fans. Or I wonder if, for his purpose, the definition of “heroic” has more to do with the Marian dogma he proclaimed, that act being seen by some as heroic in nature because of its stand for traditionalism.

Heroic means consistent. Look at St. Therese. She never left her cloister. But her life was one of conisent fidelity to virtue. She complied with every virtue that Christ taught. When she failed, she tried harder until she got it right. This is the same with now Venerable Pius XII. It’s the practice of virtue that has to be heroic. You do not have to do any heroic deeds. You have to practice virtue over and beyond what the average person does, meaning that you never waiver, even when you sin, your penance and your conversion back to virtue is for the love of God, not the fear of hell or because you feel guilty. When I explain this to my students I just use the word “holy”, because heroic has other meanings too and it can get confusing. I just say, “a holy life”. Most people understand that better.

I hope this helped.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[redrosetea]

Pope John Paul II was seriously injured and near death twice thanks to the efforts of the ungodly…He was hit by a truck once in Poland, I believe, and shot in Italy another time, reputedly at the behest of the Soviets…both times he lay near death…if he was just John Doe neither of these events would have happened to him…It was because he was God’s servant that he was attacked

How much more heroic can you get?

 

[miguel]

…The point is that Pope John Paul II never said that one could be a Catholic in good standing and support abortion. He is bound to believe and proclaim the moral truth, in this case, that abortion is a grave sin. He said this many times and declared it officially in Evangelium Vitae. As long as he believed and taught what is morally correct, he has complied with his moral obligation. Neither a pope nor a bishop are morally bound to excommunicate anyone. In the case of abortion, the excommunication may happen automatically, if all the conditions for excommunication are present. John Paul himself set up the conditions in the revised canon law of 1983.

I think JPII was tireless in his efforts to defend the unborn…in the CCC, the Gospel of Life, and his many travels where he never failed to bring it up. How do we know that JPII didn’t try to get individual Bishops to excommunicate? We don’t. And JR’s point about automatic excommunication in the case of abortion, could be seen as JPII’s end-run around Bishops who wouldn’t do their job. I always saw the CCC as an end-run from the Pope to me. It put in my hands an authoritative tool that can be pointed to when necessary to explain authentic Catholic teaching. Also, is the Pope expected to know the names of all the pro-abort Catholic politicians in every country? He’s Pope, not God. I do think it’s reasonable to expect that of the local Bishop.

 

[JReducation]

If Pope Benedict, the Cardinals on the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saitns, the committee of theologians and the promoter of the cause follow the logic that John Paul II should not be venerated because he failed to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians, then Pope Benedict is on very shaky moral ground. He too has refused to excommunicate and has not demanded that the bishops do so either. He has held the same line as John Paul II did. Those who support abortion should not approach communion. That’s not a decree of excommunication. He has also supported the fact that the law says that one excommunicates himself/herself, if one meets the criteria established in canon law.

We can open up all kinds of cans of worms. Mother Teresa’s cause was challenged because she accepted money that was acquired through corrupt means and when she found out about it, she did not return it. The commission, the Sacred Congregation and the pope, all decided that this was not her moral obligation, because she did not steal the money, nor did she ask for it, nor was it hers to give back, because money that is acquired by a religious order is not the property of any member of the order, even the superior.

No pope since St. Pius X has ever excommunicated anyone for Modernism. I don’t know if any bishops have either. The law has been left to stand on its own. But we do not impugn those bishops and popes that followed for not excommunicating. That’s why we have the law. This allows popes and bishops to cover many other patoral issues. Otherwise, they would do nothing all day long but write decrees of excommunication to everyone who commits an offense deserving such a corrective measure.

Again, the bottom line here is that this it is no secret that John Paul II and Benedict XVI have let the law take care of this issue and have openly denounced abortion, openly said that abortion supporters should not approach communion and openly said that this is the greatest moral issue of our time. For that position, they have taken a great deal of criticism and condemnation from many sides, even inside the Church. There is nothing on this thread that is a secret.

If such a large team of people have found no failing on the part of now Venerable John Paul II and Pope Benedict has signed and decreed that he is now to be known as Venerable, who are we to say that he is wrong?

If we were talking about some dark hidden secret that just came to light, that’s an entirely different matter and the Pope would have a moral obligation to reopen the study. But this is not such a case, because it was public knowledge. My guess (notice my wording) is that the people involved, including the Holy Father, find no fault here.

This now throws the burden on those who are scandalized. Maybe we are scandalized by somethign that we’re not understanding correctly. In that case, it is not up to the individual to refrain from causing scandal, but up to the person who sees the scandal to try to understand the issue from the Church’s point of view. Sometimes, we have to do that.

We don’t always see things from an insider’s point of view, at least I know that I don’t always do so. Then when I read further and ask questions of people who know about these things, I come away with a better understanding. Other times I just have to trust that since the Church cannot teach error, then her decrees on these matters are not flawed, no matter how they may appear to me. This requires great discipline and hope on my part.

In the end, if the alleged miracles are proven to be truly through the intercession of John Paul II, this entire argument is water under the bridge, because God will have spoken and the Church will have proclaimed the miracles to be true and the man will be beatified and canonized. If they are not proven true, the case comes to a standstill here. Unless the pope decides to dispense with the miracles, which he can do. There is a presedence for this. As I mentioned before, the earliest presedence that I know of was the founder of my own religious family, St. Francis. There was no decree except canonization. Pope Gregory IX said that he trusted the reporters of the miracles, because he knew Francis personally.

Pope Benedict knew Pope John Paul personally. His personal knowledge weighs heavily here. This cannot be disallowed, because as Pontiff, it is his call to move the process as quickly or as slowly as he believes it should go. We have to trust our Holy Father’s judgment on this one. To second-guess him is an exercise in futility. He dispensed with the five-year waiting period to begin the study, because he feels very strongly about this case. I doubt that he will back down because of our feelings or beliefs regarding the excommunication of pro-abortion politicians. He probably has many philosophical and theological explanations to every one of our concerns. He must have gone over them already, at least in his head, if not with the people involved in the study.

We need to find our peace in this matter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I think JPII was tireless in his efforts to defend the unborn…in the CCC, the Gospel of Life, and his many travels where he never failed to bring it up. How do we know that JPII didn’t try to get individual Bishops to excommunicate? We don’t. And JR’s point about automatic excommunication in the case of abortion, could be seen as JPII’s end-run around Bishops who wouldn’t do their job. I always saw the CCC as an end-run from the Pope to me. It put in my hands an authoritative tool that can be pointed to when necessary to explain authentic Catholic teaching. Also, is the Pope expected to know the names of all the pro-abort Catholic politicians in every country? He’s Pope, not God. I do think it’s reasonable to expect that of the local Bishop.

Everything that you say is correct. And there is no law that says that the bishops must excommunicate. Now, Venerable John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have said that such people should not approach communion. They did not say to the bishops, “Deny them communion.” That was not the mandate. The mandate was to remind these people not to approach. What happens when they disobey the mandate and they approach is a matter for each bishop to handle. Rome has never tried to micro-manage the bishops, at least not since the Middle Ages.

We can’t even accuse the bishops of not doing their job, because they were not told to excommunicate. They were told to remind these people not to receive communion. They have been doing this, some publicly and others through private conversations and letters. I don’t know who has not reminded a pro-abort politician not to receive communion. I’m sure there are bishops who have not done so. But who knows who they are. Just because the bishop does not tell us what he does in private does not mean he does nothing.

I agree with you, the best circle around the bishop who may not be pro-active is the law that has been put into place.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Neither a pope nor a bishop are morally bound to excommunicate anyone.

I think this is an important point. Excommunication is the Church’s final and ultimate punishment. The pope and bishops may hope against hope, in charity and mercy, that those acting for evil may repent without that ultimate punishment being inflicted. I don’t see how that is a failure of virtue, to stay one’s hand, though it may be a failure in judgement.

 

[JReducation]

I think this is an important point. Excommunication is the Church’s final and ultimate punishment. The pope and bishops may hope against hope, in charity and mercy, that those acting for evil may repent without that ultimate punishment being inflicted. I don’t see how that is a failure of virtue, to stay one’s hand, though it may be a failure in judgement.

You are correct. And as we know, virtue is what is measured for holiness, not judgment. Judgment is always 20/20 hindsight. But it is not so clear when one is in the middle of a situation. I’m remembering our own founder, St. Francis. He stole from his father. Sold what he stole and gave it to the Church. Then the bishop had to command that he give it back. However, that has never been assigned to him as a sin, even though the Commandments say, “Though shall not steal.”

The Church’s argument in Francis’ case has always been that it was an impulsive act of a man dirven by love for God. The impulse was to do something that he saw as good at the moment, not to do evil. In hindsight, the bishop realized that what Francis had done was not so prudent and ordered him to return the money to the father. But the hindsight was that of the bishop. Francis still did not understand what was wrong with his action. He obeyed the bishop, not because he understood, but because to him obedience to the Church was the highest virtue. My point is that just as in this case we take in all the facts, not just the isolated action, the same applies to all judgments made by the Church. Everything is looked at in context.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[miguel]

We can’t even accuse the bishops of not doing their job, because they were not told to excommunicate.

I agree. I don’t think we know one way or the other JPII’s marching orders to each Bishop relative to specific Catholic pro-abort politicians.