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

[Steve_O_Brien]

Most of the above comments regarding St. Francis of Assisi are not germane to this discussion at all inasmuch as St. Francis was neither a Pope nor a bishop. Consequently, he had neither the duty nor the power to excommunicate anyone to defend innocent human lives and to prevent a horrific scandal that misleads and confuses millions of Catholics and non-Catholics, and that endangers the lives of millions of children living in their mothers’ wombs. Nor was the legalized mass murder of unborn children an issue that St. Francis had confront head-on in his society to avoid the objective sin of abdication of responsibility for fulfilling the grave duties of one’s office.

John Paul II, however, was the Supreme Pontiff during a period in which such mass murder was a major issue–as it still is. Furthermore, John Paul II had the power, and the duty, to try to save innocent lives and to defend the moral doctrine of the true Faith by using the authority that Christ gave him (*Mt *18:17) for those very purposes. In connection with saving those lives, and protecting the Faith, the logic of the situation demanded that any Pope do much more than merely saying that abortion is wrong. What would the average person think of a Pope who merely said that infanticide is wrong, but refused to excommunicate Catholic legislators actively defending the killing of babies in neonatal units? Vatican II teaches us that both abortion and infanticide are “unspeakable crimes” (*Gaudium et spes *51).

Contrary to a widespread misconception and evasion of the question, politicians who vote for mass murder via legal abortion do not “excommunicate themselves” under canon 1398, which applies only to those who actually and immediately “procure” the abortion. Canonists will tell you that canon law penalties must be interpreted strictly, not broadly. Nonetheless, complicit politicians–those who pass and maintain laws that betray unborn children to death at the hands of abortionists–can, and should, be excommunicated publicly and by name under other canons (canons 1364, 1369, 1371, 1399, and 1752) and also under the general governing authority of the bishops and the Holy Father, who have, by the very nature of their pastoral offices, the obligation to protect the faithful from confusion and scandal.

Scandal is the the truly *relevant *issue in the present discussion, and John Paul II’s own catechism has much to say on this topic (sections 2284-2287). Neither a Pope nor the humblest Catholic can be a saint while continually giving grave scandal and thereby leading people into the sins of murder and its approval. Regrettably, scandals other than that involving the legalized mass murder of unborn children could be mentioned in the context of the claim that John Paul II can be canonized, but it may be best to focus on the Pontiff’s failure to urge his bishops to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians–or to excommunicate them himself. For the average Catholic still in firm contact with moral reality, that egregious scandal is perhaps the clearest proof of why Benedict XVI (who, it must sadly be admitted, is himself involved in this scandal) can and should reopen the investigation of the claim that his predecessor practiced heroic virtue.

I respectfully submit that we should be more concerned about dangers to the Faith and to the lives of our unborn brothers and sisters than about the bureaucratic details of the contemporary canonization process. As canon law itself states, the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls (canon 1752).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[JReducation]

Scandal is the the truly *relevant *issue in the present discussion, and John Paul II’s own catechism has much to say on this topic (sections 2284-2287). Neither a Pope nor the humblest Catholic can be a saint while continually giving grave scandal and thereby leading people into the sins of murder and its approval. Regrettably, scandals other than that involving the legalized mass murder of unborn children could be mentioned in the context of the claim that John Paul II can be canonized, but it may be best to focus on the Pontiff’s failure to urge his bishops to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians–or to excommunicate them himself. For the average Catholic still in firm contact with moral reality, that egregious scandal is perhaps the clearest proof of why Benedict XVI (who, it must sadly be admitted, is himself involved in this scandal) can and should reopen the investigation of the claim that his predecessor practiced heroic virtue.

I respectfully submit that we should be more concerned about dangers to the Faith and to the lives of our unborn brothers and sisters than about the bureaucratic details of the contemporary canonization process. As canon law itself states, the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls (canon 1752).

Keep and spread the Faith.

If Pope Benedict XVI saw this as you paint it, he would not have made the decree. Therefore he does not. Which means that he will not reopen this case and the process now moves to the next stage, the examination of the alleged miracles.

I pose this question. If the alleged miracles are proven true, do you still doubt the holiness of John Paul II?

Second, you say that Pope Benedict is himself involved in the scandal. Is that not a dangerous claim to make about a pope? It’s almost an accusation. Are you sure you want to go there? The moral conseuquences for tarnishing the reputation of a pope are grave.

Third, do you think that this has not already been discussed by all those people who had a hand in this process? Are they fools or heretics? Or could it be that they find no reason to believe that John Paul II violated any moral obligation and therefore truly lived a heroic life of virtue? Remember, this process is like a trial. When it gets to this point, it means that the person has been acquitted beyond any reasonable doubt by four levels of authority:

1. The promoter of the cause and those who gather the information.
2. The commission of theologians and the defender of the truth whose job it is to prove that John Paul did not live a heroic life of virtue, who obviously failed to prove his case.
3. The Cardinals of the Sacred Congregation who studied this every other month since the case was open three years ago.
4. The Holy Father himself who has to read every detail and affirm or veto. In this case he has affirmed, asked the Sacred Congregation to write the decree, has signed the decree and has promulgated it for the faithful to believe.

Rememer what the faithful are being asked to believe. We are being asked to believe that after careful study the Church finds that John Paul II lived a heroic virtuous life. We’re not at the sainthood stage yet.

St. Francis’ case is germain here. As is the cases of other saints. Every saint has prudential judgments that could have been better. But the Church does not hold those against them, because the Church makes a very clear distinction between virtue and prudential judgments. It may have been the prudent thing to excommunicate, but it was not morally binding. You cannot bind a pope using canon law. Once elected, a pope is above canon law unless he commits a crime by which he forfeits the papacy. In that case, the Chair of Peter becomes empty and the individual is subject to law. Since John Paul II did no such thing, the canons are not applicable to him, especially since the Code of Canon Law of 1983 was approved by him. He is the giver of the law.

Many will argue the same thing about Pope Pius XII. Why didn’t he excommunicate every Catholic Nazi? But such a claim was been disallowed by Pope Benedict. That question is not even allowed past the front door of the Vatican. The logic is simple. A pope does not have an obligation to use excommunication as a means of discipline, except when it is a given that it will produce the desired effect. Excommunication is a form of discipline, not a punishment. It’s purpose is to bring back the person who has sinned. This is what Benedict XVI said when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. He said that he was lifiting it, because it had not produced the desired effects. This begs the question, would excommunicating the pro abortion politician change his or her mind? If not, why use it?

The Church is not in the business of punishing, but of correcting. If a corrective measure show little promise that it will bring back the errant sinner, why use it?

Do you see what we’re saying here? It’s not simply a matter of excommunicating. It’s a matter of bringing back the person to the path of truth. Excommunication has a purpose, to correct, not to punish. It is an act of mercy toward the sinner, not his victims. It brings the sinner back. But given the arrogance of today’s politician, it is a shot in the dark to believe that they would feel corrected by a decree of excommunication.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manygift1spirit]

Your statement about scandal states as one of fact. OK, it is not strictly metaphysically impossible for it to be one. But as pointed out, the top Church people in the world of evaluating exactly such things in such contexts basically disagree with you. It would be prudent to at least entertain the possibility that yours is not a fact but only an opinion. I think JR’s story of Francis’ reaction to the Bishops is appropriate here.

Upon some reading and rereading of this thread, I am reminded of the following story:

I used to play competitive golf, and at one point early on did an exhaustive study of the rules of the game. One of the rules involves how to “drop”, to put a ball back into play, say after hitting it into the water, into a spectator’s dufflebag, etc (think of this as the golf equivalent of the throw-in in soccer/football). Part of the rule mentions how the ball must be dropped “as near as possible” to the particular spot dictated by the course of play up to the incident. A further rule describes the penalty if the player does not drop the ball according to the rules.

In a book about the rules I was reading, I read of a case involving the golfing great Arnold Palmer. Palmer was going to drop, and had marked the spot on the ground determined by the rules where he should drop with a golf tee. He then dropped, and was about to hit that ball when an official watching and advising the whole scene said “I am sorry, Mr. Palmer. If you proceed to play that dropped ball, I regret to inform you I will have to penalize you for dropping incorrectly.” Of course Palmer had no idea what he was talking about (you can be sure Palmer had dropped – correctly – thousands of times previously). He asked why not. “The rule states you should drop as near as possible to [the spot with the tee]. Well look. You’re ball is a few inches away from that spot. But then it is clear that you could have dropped the ball closer to that spot. Thus you did not drop the ball as near as possible, as the rule says you must.”

If I recall correctly, Palmer actually then followed the rule about what to do if you drop incorrectly, so as to avoid the penalty, which is basically to do it again. Well he did – and the official gave him the same ultimatum: you did it wrong and will be penalized if you play the dropped ball. Well, Palmer took a few more “corrective” drops, each with the same reaction from the official.

I do not remember what the resolution was. I dearly hope, for the sake of Palmer and all the golfers who might be impacted by the precedent potentially set by this official, that another official came over and applied the rule correctly.

The analogy between John Paul and Palmer should not be overlooked.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I pose this question. If the alleged miracles are proven true, do you still doubt the holiness of John Paul II?

Second, you say that Pope Benedict is himself involved in the scandal. Is that not a dangerous claim to make about a pope? It’s almost an accusation. Are you sure you want to go there? The moral consequences for tarnishing the reputation of a pope are grave.

Yes, Brother J. R., I most definitely do “want to go there”–i.e., into a candid, but respectful and non-schismatic, discussion of mistakes that can be made even by Popes and Vatican bureaucratic offices, especially in an age in which the human elements of the one true Church are enveloped in massive confusion. (I do not wish, of course, to confuse and scandalize further those whose faith is weak.)

Any Catholic who is in emotional denial, regardless of his or her sincerity, about the crisis in the human aspects of the post-Vatican II Church, should–I respectfully suggest–absorb Dietrich Von Hildebrand’s classic studies entitled Trojan Horse in the City of God and The Devastated Vineyard (although it is rather late in the day to read those works, or to awaken to the reality of what has been occurring in the Catholic Church for the past forty years or so).

As for any alleged miracles putatively proving John Paul II’s heroic virtue, we should remember that God can perform miracles at any time and in response to prayers offered by anyone or to anyone, even to someone who is not a saint. When St. James tells us that the “fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful” (*Jas *5:16; 1986 NAB), it does not seem to me that he is restricting the efficacy of prayer to prayer directed to canonized saints.

Those who thoroughly understand the Faith know that no Pope is infallible in any sphere other than his ex cathedra pronouncements. Still less is a Vatican department infallible. And there is certainly no question of a Pope’s impeccability, i.e., the non-existent incapability of committing sin, including grave sins of scandal. The inevitable consequence of those facts of Catholic doctrine is that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, without losing one iota of their unquestionable authority as Vicars of Christ, were and are capable of committing the sin of scandal–at least in the *objective *sense. (The question of subjective guilt is a matter, of course, for God alone to judge, and no one here is making any comment on that separate issue.)

It was because the Apostle Paul was aware of the above truths of the Faith itself that he was willing to “go there” by challenging the first Supreme Pontiff “to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Douay-Rheims)–inasmuch as St. Peter had scandalized and confused the faithful. Please see St. Paul’s dramatic narration of that incident in *Gal *2:11-16. One of the greatest of the Church’s theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas, cites this confrontation to confirm his teaching that even an inferior should challenge a superior when the Faith is in danger:

***“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly” (****Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 33, art. 4, reply to obj. 2). ***

Dear Brother J. R., the Faith–and millions or unborn children–are in danger. We, too, are in danger, because, as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said in a frightening statement:

“The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[JReducation]

Steve,

I admire your passion for the Gospel of Life, especially since I’m a Brother of Life. But maybe I did not make my question clear. Let me try again.

If the miracles that are going to be studied next are proven true and they are attributed to John Paul II and Pope Benedict agrees, he will then proceed with the beatification. He has already said this. It’s not a secret. He hopes it will be over by Oct 2010, so I heard. I’m not sure about the date. He has openly said that he wants this beatification to happen.

If this happens, are you going to deny that the miracles were through John Paul’s intercession or are you willing to conede that you may have been wrong about his holiness?

The other point was asked by another person. Can you concede that all of these scholars, Cardinals, theologians and the Pope himself may be right about John Paul’s holiness and you may be worng?

Because you seem set on them being wrong and you being right. In other words, you seem set in not giving these people the benefit of the doubt, as if they do not know something that you know.

That’s the position into which you’re painting yourself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Steve,

I admire your passion for the Gospel of Life, especially since I’m a Brother of Life. But maybe I did not make my question clear. Let me try again.

If the miracles that are going to be studied next are proven true and they are attributed to John Paul II and Pope Benedict agrees, he will then proceed with the beatification. He has already said this. It’s not a secret. He hopes it will be over by Oct 2010, so I heard. I’m not sure about the date. He has openly said that he wants this beatification to happen.

If this happens, are you going to deny that the miracles were through John Paul’s intercession or are you willing to conede that you may have been wrong about his holiness?

The other point was asked by another person. Can you concede that all of these scholars, Cardinals, theologians and the Pope himself may be right about John Paul’s holiness and you may be worng?

Because you seem set on them being wrong and you being right. In other words, you seem set in not giving these people the benefit of the doubt, as if they do not know something that you know.

That’s the position into which you’re painting yourself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother J. R., as we both know, regardless of any reported miracles, it is not the Holy Father who will ultimately determine whether Pope John Paul II will be beatified or not, but God himself. As a committed Catholic, I naturally accept the fact that it is God who will make that decision.

I hope and pray for Benedict XVI’s health and longevity–in accordance with God’s will–but let us take account of some realities. Our Holy Father is 82 years old, has suffered two strokes, and has a heart condition. These medical facts must be factored into our consideration of his possibleintention to beatify his predecessor next year.

When Benedict XVI, Deo volente, goes to the shrine of Our Lady of Fátima next May, is it not possible that the Mother of God will communicate to him in some manner, natural or supernatural, that his pontificate should reflect new orientations more in keeping with the message of her troubling Fátima apparitions? Is it not the case that one of those new orientations may be greater disciplinary firmness, with a concomitant realization that the postconciliar pontificates and hierarchy have not displayed such fortitude?

Please ponder a disturbing statement attributed to Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, the personal theologian to the three Popes from Paul VI to John Paul II:

***“In the Third Secret [of Fátima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” ***

Let us note that Blessed Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689) has remained only at the stage of “blessed” for the 53 years since 1956, and that, for the 212 years between 1744 and 1956, the process of his beatification was suspended. Furthermore, it is perhaps the case that Blessed Pope Innocent XI will never advance any farther along the path to canonization. Please read (cautiously) the following Wikipedia article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_XI

Perhaps it is God’s will that John Paul II should permanently remain at the stage of “venerable,” both for the sake of the Faith and for our own sakes.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[JReducation]

Brother J. R., as we both know, regardless of any reported miracles, it is not the Holy Father who will ultimately determine whether Pope John Paul II will be beatified or not, but God himself. As a committed Catholic, I naturally accept the fact that it is God who will make that decision.

I hope and pray for Benedict XVI’s health and longevity–in accordance with God’s will–but let us take account of some realities. Our Holy Father is 82 years old, has suffered two strokes, and has a heart condition. These medical facts must be factored into our consideration of his possibleintention to beatify his predecessor next year.

When Benedict XVI, Deo volente, goes to the shrine of Our Lady of Fátima next May, is it not possible that the Mother of God will communicate to him in some manner, natural or supernatural, that his pontificate should reflect new orientations more in keeping with the message of her troubling Fátima apparitions? Is it not the case that one of those new orientations may be greater disciplinary firmness, with a concomitant realization that the postconciliar pontificates and hierarchy have not displayed such fortitude?

Please ponder a disturbing statement attributed to Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, the personal theologian to the three Popes from Paul VI to John Paul II:

***“In the Third Secret [of Fátima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” ***

Let us note that Blessed Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689) has remained only at the stage of “blessed” for the 53 years since 1956, and that, for the 212 years between 1744 and 1956, the process of his beatification was suspended. Furthermore, it is perhaps the case that Blessed Pope Innocent XI will never advance any farther along the path to canonization. Please read (cautiously) the following Wikipedia article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_XI

Perhaps it is God’s will that John Paul II should permanently remain at the stage of “venerable,” both for the sake of the Faith and for our own sakes.

Keep and spread the Faith.

So it is possible for God to allow John Paul II to be canonized. Then we can all go home and let this go. I do not believe that it will do any harm to the faith. A canonization cannot do harm to the faith. It is impossible.

I do agree that the case can sit there for years as a Venerable. But I highly doubt that Pope Benedict is going to let that happen. He wants this beatificiation… He seems convinced of his predecessor’s holiness. He is not a man who often wrong. I certainly trust his judgment.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

PS. I should add, that I often feel that Pope Benedict knows something that we don’t about his case.

 

[miguel]

Excommunication is a form of discipline, not a punishment. It’s purpose is to bring back the person who has sinned. This is what Benedict XVI said when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. He said that he was lifiting it, because it had not produced the desired effects. This begs the question, would excommunicating the pro abortion politician change his or her mind? If not, why use it?

The Church is not in the business of punishing, but of correcting. If a corrective measure show little promise that it will bring back the errant sinner, why use it?

Do you see what we’re saying here? It’s not simply a matter of excommunicating. It’s a matter of bringing back the person to the path of truth. Excommunication has a purpose, to correct, not to punish. It is an act of mercy toward the sinner, not his victims. It brings the sinner back. But given the arrogance of today’s politician, it is a shot in the dark to believe that they would feel corrected by a decree of excommunication.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I thought your response to JKirkLVNV was lacking because it didn’t address the “medicinal” aspects of excommunication. But I’m happy to see that you address it here. You pose the question…“If a corrective measure shows little promise that it will bring back the errant sinner, why use it?” Well, we have no idea how any particular arrogant politician will respond to excommunication until they’re excommunicated. And the act of mercy is directed not only at the errant sinner but at the rest of the scandalized faithful. It sends a clear signal to all of us, unlike the Ted Kennedy funeral, that you can not favor abortion and live and die a Catholic in good standing with the Church and God. Right now, too many Catholics think you can.

 

[miguel]

Contrary to a widespread misconception and evasion of the question, politicians who vote for mass murder via legal abortion do not “excommunicate themselves” under canon 1398, which applies only to those who actually and immediately “procure” the abortion. Canonists will tell you that canon law penalties must be interpreted strictly, not broadly. Nonetheless, complicit politicians–those who pass and maintain laws that betray unborn children to death at the hands of abortionists–can, and should, be excommunicated publicly and by name under other canons (canons 1364, 1369, 1371, 1399, and 1752) and also under the general governing authority of the bishops and the Holy Father, who have, by the very nature of their pastoral offices, the obligation to protect the faithful from confusion and scandal.

Scandal is the truly *relevant *issue in the present discussion, and John Paul II’s own catechism has much to say on this topic (sections 2284-2287). Neither a Pope nor the humblest Catholic can be a saint while continually giving grave scandal and thereby leading people into the sins of murder and its approval.

I agree with everything you said up to this point.

Regrettably, scandals other than that involving the legalized mass murder of unborn children could be mentioned in the context of the claim that John Paul II can be canonized, but it may be best to focus on the Pontiff’s failure to urge his bishops to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians–or to excommunicate them himself.

We simply don’t know what JPII did here. We do know excommunication hasn’t been used. We can’t assume that JPII knew the identity of every pro-abort Catholic politicians in every Catholic country.

For the average Catholic still in firm contact with moral reality, that egregious scandal is perhaps the clearest proof of why Benedict XVI (who, it must sadly be admitted, is himself involved in this scandal) can and should reopen the investigation of the claim that his predecessor practiced heroic virtue

Again, we don’t know what BXVI did here either.

But I do agree that a public scandal is festering as we speak. And some Bishops are finally beginning to address it publicly.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I do agree that the case can sit there for years as a Venerable. But I highly doubt that Pope Benedict is going to let that happen. He wants this beatificiation… He seems convinced of his predecessor’s holiness. He is not a man who often wrong. I certainly trust his judgment.

My personal opinion is that Pope Benedict XVI ought to allow his successor make the determination as to whether to declare Pope John Paul II a saint. The two of them had a very close personal friendship, so there may not be objectivity in his judgement. I’m not saying Pope Benedict XVI couldn’t be objective in his case, but there would at least be the appearance of such.

 

[JReducation]

My personal opinion is that Pope Benedict XVI ought to allow his successor make the determination as to whether to declare Pope John Paul II a saint. The two of them had a very close personal friendship, so there may not be objectivity in his judgement. I’m not saying Pope Benedict XVI couldn’t be objective in his case, but there would at least be the appearance of such.

But you see, Benedict XVI may be acting on a precedent that was set before by two popes and two saints. As I pointed out above, both Francis of Assisi and Clare of Assisi were canonized by popes who knew them personally, who had worked with them and who were their advisors, protectors, spiritual guides and theological consultants. Both popes clearly stated that they knew enough about each of these saints so as not to need the process.

At leas Benedict is allowing the process. In the case of Francis and Clare neither had their lives examined, neither were ever made venerable, neither were ever beatifiied and the reports of their intercessory miracles were never investigated, because the popes believed that the reporters of the miracles were reliable. This was stated in the decree of canonization of St. Francis. That’s why St. Francis was canonized 18 months after is death and Clare on the one year anniversary of her death.

Since canonization is an infallible act, because it is an ex-cathedra statement, it makes no difference if Benedict beatifiies and canonizes John Paul II or Pius XII, even though he knew them both. Obviously, he was closer to John Paul. The reason that it makes no difference is the precedent set by the Franciscan canonizations. In both cases, the decrees of canonization were true. They have later been reaffirmed by several papal encylicals that refer to Francis of Assisi under such titles as: “Mirror of Perfection”, “the Perfect Christian”, “the Mirror of Christ”, the “Seraphic Father.”

The point is that he Holy Spirit makes no mistakes, regardless of how close a pope is to a candidate. The decree may come from the pope, but the inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit. And, if there is any doubt, we have these previous cases to prove that even with the perosnal involvement and close relationship between a pope and the candidate, the Church does not err on these matters.

We must place our trust on this truth. The Church does not err on these matters. If this man is a saint and he is openly recognized as such, through an act of canonization, it is not an error, not matter how close the pope and he were or how much they hated each other. The Holy Father’s personal feelings only serve to move the process along to a conclusion, one way or the other, but his feelings cannot influence the Holy Spirit.

We have to let go of this hesitation and let the Holy Spirit and the authorities in the Church do what ever is going to happen. We have no need to be afraid.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[miguel]

Correction: We can’t assume that JPII knew the identity of every pro-abort Catholic politician in every country.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Most of the above comments regarding St. Francis of Assisi are not germane to this discussion at all inasmuch as St. Francis was neither a Pope nor a bishop. Consequently, he had neither the duty nor the power to excommunicate anyone to defend innocent human lives and to prevent a horrific scandal that misleads and confuses millions of Catholics and non-Catholics, and that endangers the lives of millions of children living in their mothers’ wombs. Nor was the legalized mass murder of unborn children an issue that St. Francis had confront head-on in his society to avoid the objective sin of abdication of responsibility for fulfilling the grave duties of one’s office.

John Paul II, however, was the Supreme Pontiff during a period in which such mass murder was a major issue–as it still is. Furthermore, John Paul II had the power, and the duty, to try to save innocent lives and to defend the moral doctrine of the true Faith by using the authority that Christ gave him (*Mt *18:17) for those very purposes. In connection with saving those lives, and protecting the Faith, the logic of the situation demanded that any Pope do much more than merely saying that abortion is wrong. What would the average person think of a Pope who merely said that infanticide is wrong, but refused to excommunicate Catholic legislators actively defending the killing of babies in neonatal units? Vatican II teaches us that both abortion and infanticide are “unspeakable crimes” (*Gaudium et spes *51).

Contrary to a widespread misconception and evasion of the question, politicians who vote for mass murder via legal abortion do not “excommunicate themselves” under canon 1398, which applies only to those who actually and immediately “procure” the abortion. Canonists will tell you that canon law penalties must be interpreted strictly, not broadly. Nonetheless, complicit politicians–those who pass and maintain laws that betray unborn children to death at the hands of abortionists–can, and should, be excommunicated publicly and by name under other canons (canons 1364, 1369, 1371, 1399, and 1752) and also under the general governing authority of the bishops and the Holy Father, who have, by the very nature of their pastoral offices, the obligation to protect the faithful from confusion and scandal.

Scandal is the the truly *relevant *issue in the present discussion, and John Paul II’s own catechism has much to say on this topic (sections 2284-2287). Neither a Pope nor the humblest Catholic can be a saint while continually giving grave scandal and thereby leading people into the sins of murder and its approval. Regrettably, scandals other than that involving the legalized mass murder of unborn children could be mentioned in the context of the claim that John Paul II can be canonized, but it may be best to focus on the Pontiff’s failure to urge his bishops to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians–or to excommunicate them himself. For the average Catholic still in firm contact with moral reality, that egregious scandal is perhaps the clearest proof of why Benedict XVI (who, it must sadly be admitted, is himself involved in this scandal) can and should reopen the investigation of the claim that his predecessor practiced heroic virtue.

I respectfully submit that we should be more concerned about dangers to the Faith and to the lives of our unborn brothers and sisters than about the bureaucratic details of the contemporary canonization process. As canon law itself states, the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls (canon 1752).

Keep and spread the Faith.

The Devil sabotaged the above post (#21). In paragraph #1, I meant to write:

"Nor was the legalized mass murder of unborn children an issue that St. Francis had to confront head-on in his society to avoid the objective sin of abdication of responsibility for fulfilling the grave duties of one’s office."

I do not understand why Catholic Answers Forums do not allow indefinite correction of typos in posts.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…The Holy Father’s personal feelings only serve to move the process along to a conclusion, one way or the other, but his feelings cannot influence the Holy Spirit.

We have to let go of this hesitation and let the Holy Spirit and the authorities in the Church do what ever is going to happen. We have no need to be afraid.

You make a good point here and thank you for pointing it out. I do think that if the time for Pope John Paul II to be canonized is during Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, the Holy Spirit will make it happen.

I agree that that there certainly is nothing wrong with Pope John Paul II being canonized during Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate (if it happens). My statement was only that it could appear (not that it would be) to be non-objective. But, you are right that we need not to concern ourselves with such concerns as God knows when the timing is right.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I have just cleaned up this thread. CAF rules are very clear. Please check them out. You may not make any statement claiming that any member of the clergy, a parish or member of the hierarchy is acting contrary to the faith and name that person. Nor may you judge the moral character of an individual by name. You may not make statements that malign a person’s good name. This is a non negotiable rule.

If there are any more violations against charity on this matter, the thread can be closed without further warning and there can be penalties for the poster. Please be charitable in your disagreements and respectful of the hierarchy in your posts.

Thank You,

Thomas Casey
Moderator