Is Canonization of popes for name sake? And what about Mother Teresa?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3335
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
3

3335

Guest
The recent sexual abuse scandals have injured the Catholic Church and its priests’ reputation.

And now Cardinal McCarrick. Pope John Paul II . . . could’ve called for a formal investigation into McCarrick’s life when concerns were raised by Cardinal O’Connor of New York and others. . . .

These types of things raise question about John Paul . . .

There were so many people before Popes John Paul II whose canonization took more than 100 years. Then why so fast for these people?

Mother Teresa also became a saint quickly, and some have raised concerns about her life.

What are your view on this?
 
Last edited:
I think you have the right intention in starting this thread but be prepared to be criticized for suggesting such things.
 
Ok, I believe that I have just asked a question.
Can you explain why will people criticize me and if they criticize me then they are doing for my good.
Keep your critics near you and listen to what they are saying. They can cleanse you without water and soap.
 
3335 said:
So my question is that the canonization of Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II done only for name sake (nothing saintly in there life just for giving some high status in church become a saint). There were so many people before these Popes whos canonization took more than 100 years then why so fast for these people?
I believe there is some fraud in it ? Mother Teresa also became a saint as traveling in a bullet train ?
Click to expand...
This is very disrespectful of you.

The Church doesn’t canonize saints just for “name’s sake” and doesn’t canonize people who have “nothing saintly in their life”.

Saints are not expected to be perfect people and sainted Popes are not expected to be all-knowing and never make any kind of human error in judgment during their lives or reigns as Pope.

Pope John Paul II did a LOT of extremely holy and saintly things. He inspired many vocations - I know people personally who were directly inspired by him. He likely kept many people from leaving the Church. The fact that he received bad information about McCarrick or did not fully understand a problem that, frankly, most people in Western society did not understand very well and did not handle very well at the time he was in office does NOT make his life less holy.

As for Mother Teresa, she was renowned world wide for her holiness.

You say you are Catholic, why do you not accept God’s judgment regarding who the Church makes a saint? You should not insult great saints like Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa. I pray to them every day and find them good examples of holiness. Do YOU ever ask their intercession?
 
You know quite well I meant “canonization”. You are splitting hairs.

I am muting this topic as I have said all I need or want to say on it.
 
So I’ll start by saying I’ve raised an eyebrow about all this recently too. But I do think it’s possible to be holy - even saintly - and have been manipulated or deceived. In the past I really think folks - and maybe even Popes - thought the kinda welcoming spirit of come-as-you-are would spontaneously blossom into this new springtime of holiness, even as spiritual assists were tossed out the back window. A starry-eyed dream perhaps, but hindsight is 20/20. I think JPII was genuine. Craftier minds than his may have intentionally misled him. Am I being too generous in thinking he was unaware? I don’t know. I remain disturbed by the sudden slew of saints pushed through the process at such high speed. Was there a desire to “prove” to the faithful that the Vat II changes produced saints? Might we otherwise have doubted it?? Why the rush?

I look forward to hearing what others have to say.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
You say you are Catholic, why do you not accept God’s judgment regarding who the Church makes a saint? You should not insult great saints like Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa. I pray to them every day and find them good examples of holiness. Do YOU ever ask their intercession?
Click to expand...
I appreciate Tis may not see this having muted the thread, but this is more of a general response to the original question and this part-post:

I’ll admit to being a little uncomfortable with the speed of some recent canonisations but accept the Church’s judgement - whether or not She erred will be revealed all in good time - to my understanding it wasn’t an ‘infallible’ decree? Personally I don’t ask for the intercession of either but I expect they don’t take it personally!

No doubt JPII inspired many vocations and steered the church well, but, for me, it was Pope Francis that inspired my Conversion…and, based on this forum alone, I doubt he’ll ‘officially’ reach those higher echelons. 😇
 
Don’t watch Sedevacantist videos from channels like MHFM. They are extremely dangerous to your soul. Why not ask the Lord for His help if you have doubts?
 
3335 said:
done only for name sake (nothing saintly in there life just for giving some high status in church become a saint)
Click to expand...
Cecilia2017 said:
Church’s judgement
Click to expand...
Canonization happens under influence of Holy Ghost.

It is not just a mere bureaucratic process to make some people “respected”, but rather an urge from Heaven itself for Earth to recognise a certain person as truly holy.

All such threads “b-but… why did he become a saint”? indicate the ignorance of the one asking the question of what it actually means to canonize and to be a Saint and then to draw too hasty, shallow conclusions here in the forum.

I am sending you and OP, @3335 to a similar answer I gave to a similar topic:
48.png
Saint Constantine, really? Spirituality
Do you understand that we are not the ones who decide “who is and who isn’t” the saint? Canonisations are brought by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the Church. All saints were sinners. (except Our Lady Mary the Mother of God) And there were many saints who committed adultery (St Augustine, King David), there were those who murdered many people (St Paul). But they stopped, and then stood closer to God than most of us will ever be able to. And the question “Saint Constantine, really?” im…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It’s possible to believe the church has been infiltrated and is even dripping with sin like a saturated sponge… and not become a sedevscantist. Look back through the Old Testament at examples of Gods Chosen People going full-in on sin! But God never told them it was okay to leave the community of Gods People as a result. Stay and pray / fast!!
 
3335 said:
There would be something wrong in the church. They call it the Church infiltration.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit protects the Church, so it could not fall into heresy. The Lord Jesus even promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church.

Matthew 16:18

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

@3335, please stop listening to sedevacantist videos. They are very dangerous to your soul.
 
3335 said:
And now Cardinal Mc Carrick , Pope John Paul ii knew that he shared a bed with young seminarians.
Click to expand...
Let’s just clear up this assertion first. Pope St. John Paul II did not know that McCarrick was abusing seminarians. There had been accusations against him at the time, but he swore to Pope St. John Paul II that the accusations were not true. Not only that, but several other bishops who were close to McCarrick also told the saintly Pope that the accusations were false. Can one fault Pope St. John Paul II for believing them?

I know little to nothing of Pope St. John XXIII, so can’t comment on his saintliness. Pope St. Paul VI, however, was greatly admired by other saintly men in his time. Ven. Fulton Sheen, for example, shortly after Paul VI’s death, publicly said he believe Paul VI should be canonized because, having known him personally, he knew how saintly he was.

As far as these “bullet train” (I like that phrase 🤣) canonizations are concerned, they’re not completely without precedent. To my knowledge, St. Francis of Assisi still holds the record for fastest canonization (I believe within a year of his death).

I think we often make the mistake of believing that because a saint is canonized he or she must’ve been perfect (without flaw, never made a mistake, never had a lapse in judgement, etc.). This is simply not the case. Some saints made some very egregious mistakes. As an examples, St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his zeal to combat what he perceived to be heresy, failed to fully comprehend Nestorius’s theology, gathered a council that condemned Nestorius without giving him the chance to defend his own theology, and ultimately created a schism in the Church that lasts to today. I’d call that a whopper of a mistake.

Saints aren’t perfect. They are simply sinners like you and I, but they are sinners who continued on the path of repentance throughout their life. I love the story of a young monk who encountered a desert hermit. He asked the hermit, “What do you do out here in the desert?” The hermit responded, “I fall down and I get back up. I fall down again, and I get back up.” That pretty much sums up the lives of the saints.
 
Jen7 said:
But I do think it’s possible to be holy - even saintly - and have been manipulated or deceived.
Click to expand...
This is almost certainly the case, as there have been saints who were deceived during their lifetimes and suffered as a result. I am sure it has happened many times with martyr saints who trusted the wrong person and were betrayed to the authorities or killed. An example would be the sister in Italy who was in the news for being martyred by Satan-worshipping teenage girls in a park. The girls lured her to the park by saying one of them needed her help. She trusted them and was killed by them when she arrived. I think often a holy person may be more inclined to be charitable and want to think the best of people or try to help them.

Also, an issue like sexual abuse is complicated by the number of people who didn’t report information or covered it up or simply didn’t understand the seriousness of the problem.

Finally, we have to allow for the possibility that the McCarrick report is trying to spread blame onto those who are deceased in order to help deflect blame from those who are still living. I hate to say that, but the Church has a history of being less than transparent on this issue and it’s very convenient to blame it on deceased Popes and bishops who aren’t here to defend themselves.
 
Last edited:
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I know little to nothing of Pope St. John XXIII, so can’t comment on his saintliness.
Click to expand...
He was almost universally beloved and considered holy in his time, according to all the older Catholics I have known who remember him. He was sort of the Pope JPII of his day, except he didn’t travel and he didn’t reign very long. In recent years, many people see Vatican II as a negative so he gets blamed for that and also, since he reigned for a short time and those who remember him have mostly died off, he’s been forgotten a bit.
 
Last edited:
Jen7 said:
Craftier minds than his may have intentionally misled him. Am I being too generous in thinking he was unaware? I
Click to expand...
I would go for “unnecessary” before “too generous.” He was a saint and also did the wrong thing. I don’t think it needs to be explained away. I think our tendency to assume everything a saint says, writes, and does is correct, wise, or holy is the problem, not canonization itself. We’ll probably have to face this more and more as the modern world records the minutiae of our lives in ways previously impossible.
 
Ok. But there must be some problem that’s why these types of people exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top