John Paul II being beatified for holiness, not his papacy, speakers say

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Geremia

Guest
John Paul II being beatified for holiness, not his papacy, speakers say


Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints’ Causes, speaks at a conference about Pope John Paul II in Rome April 1. (CNS/Paul Haring)

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) – Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact on history or on the Catholic Church, but because of the way he lived the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love, said Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints’ Causes.

“Clearly his cause was put on the fast track, but the process was done carefully and meticulously, following the rules Pope John Paul himself issued in 1983,” the cardinal said April 1, during a conference at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome.

The cardinal said the church wanted to respond positively to many Catholics’ hopes to have Pope John Paul beatified quickly, but it also wanted to be certain that the pope, who died in 2005, is in heaven.

Cardinal Amato said the sainthood process is one of the areas of church life where the consensus of church members, technically the “sensus fidelium” (“sense of the faithful”), really counts.

“From the day of his death on April 2, 2005, the people of God began proclaiming his holiness,” and hundreds, if not thousands, visit his tomb each day, the cardinal said. A further sign is the number of biographies published about him and the number of his writings that are translated and re-published.

“In the course of a beatification cause, there is the vox populi,” he said, which must be “accompanied by the vox dei (voice of God) – the miracles – and the vox ecclesiae (voice of the church),” which is the official judgment issued after interviewing eyewitnesses and consulting with historians, physicians, theologians and church leaders to verify the candidate’s holiness.

Beatification and canonization are not recognitions of someone’s superior understanding of theology, nor of the great works he or she accomplished, he said. Declaring someone a saint, the church attests to the fact that he or she lived the Christian virtues in a truly extraordinary way and is a model to be imitated by others, the cardinal said.

The candidate, he said, must be perceived “as an image of Christ.”

Cardinal Amato said, “the pressure of the public and of the media did not disturb the process, but helped it” because it was a further sign of Pope John Paul’s widespread reputation for holiness, which is something the church requires proof of before it moves to beatify someone.

Joaquin Navarro-Valls, who served as Vatican spokesman under Pope John Paul, told the conference that the late pope’s voice, his pronunciation, his use of gestures and his presence at the altar or on a stage all contributed to his success as a communicator.

But the key to his effectiveness was that he firmly believed that each person was created in God’s image and likeness, Navarro-Valls said. “I think this was what attracted people even more than the way he spoke.”

People felt he was sincere in his recognition of their dignity and of their destiny to be with God, he said.

“He was a man profoundly convinced of the truth of those words in Genesis – ‘God made man and woman in his image and likeness.’ This gave him optimism even when he could no longer walk, and then even when he could no longer speak,” Navarro-Valls said.

The Spaniard, a member of Opus Dei, said he had the blessing of personally knowing three saints: Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, founder of Opus Dei; Blessed Teresa of Kolkata; and Pope John Paul.

What all three have in common, he said, was a good sense of humor, a ready smile and an ability to laugh.

As for those who question beatifying Pope John Paul only six years after his death and those who say the explosion of the clerical sex abuse scandal during his pontificate casts a dark shadow on his reign, Navarro-Valls said people must remember that beatification is not a judgment on a pontificate, but on the personal holiness of the candidate.

The key question, he said, is: “Can we be certain he lived the Christian virtues in a heroic way?”

END
 
Is not this dangerous because it could open the way for saying “Catholic” politicians can lead a double life and privatize their faith? They could then live a holy private live but unholy, abortion-, contraception-, and homosexual “marriage”-supporting political lives.

This is a theme of Shakespeare’s Richard II: Can a political leader (a Church leader in this case) live a double life? Pope John Paul II’s papacy is part of who he was; can one judge part of him to the exclusion of another part?
 
This is a theme of Shakespeare’s Richard II: Can a political leader (a Church leader in this case) live a double life? Pope John Paul II’s papacy is part of who he was; can one judge part of him to the exclusion of another part?
There was much out of his control. His holiness and wisdom is beyond reproach. His writings and his life testify to this. He may have gaffed when he kissed the Koran. His choice of papal liturgists was questionable and his handling of the homosexual scandal in the church could have been better. But I can’t judge him because I don’t have all the facts. Who am I to judge him–the sinful dimwitted ignorant buffoon that I am? Even those things I question, I can still see in them a man at the very least, put himself at the service of others.
 
This is saying he is being beatified not because of how good his papacy was or due to the fact that he was Pope.Many popes were not beatified.There saying he led a very holy life.I think many Catholics critisize popes too harshly.Popes often do thiings which the average Catholic sees as heretical or just bad judgements.The main purpose that drives their decisions is to bring as many people as they can into the Catholic Church and save souls.Remember their actions are guided by the Holy Spirit.If a pope kisses the Quran and says he worships the same God he’s simply saying there is only one God just like Quran.It doesn"t mean to say they are not confused in who they are worshipping.They don’t worship Jesus just Allah.Allah is the god of Abraham.So is Jesus.I think it would be wrong to denounce Muslims and make a point,“you don’t worship Jesus”.I think it would just stir up the pot.Pope Benedict played it very coolly I thought.
 
Many popes were not beatified.There saying he led a very holy life.I think many Catholics critisize popes too harshly.
Actually there have been 76 canonized Popes out of a total of 265. And, since many Popes took decades and centuries for such recognition, we don’t know how many more of the other recent ones eventually will be. Compare that with the number of Cardinals who have been canonized. Only 11 (!!!) so far. Stats speak for themselves.
 
Actually there have been 76 canonized Popes out of a total of 265. And, since many Popes took decades and centuries for such recognition, we don’t know how many more of the other recent ones eventually will be. Compare that with the number of Cardinals who have been canonized. Only 11 (!!!) so far. Stats speak for themselves.
But how many of those Popes were also Cardinals? If the 'best" Cardinals keep getting elected Pope, it kind of messes up the stats.
 
Is not this dangerous because it could open the way for saying “Catholic” politicians can lead a double life and privatize their faith? They could then live a holy private live but unholy, abortion-, contraception-, and homosexual “marriage”-supporting political lives.
Um, JPII did not support any of the things you mentioned above.:confused: In fact he held the line on all of those topics, in a very difficult secular culture. The Catholic Church is one of the few left standing on these important moral issues.

I can understand concerns over whether he should have or could have fixed various liturgical issues or better handled of the abuse scandals etc. Those aren’t automatic objective mortal sins, like in your quote above. One of the factors that we will likely never know in this life is to what extent was there opposition working against him.
 
Um, JPII did not support any of the things you mentioned above.:confused: In fact he held the line on all of those topics, in a very difficult secular culture. The Catholic Church is one of the few left standing on these important moral issues.
Yes, I realize that. He definitely did not. I was just making the point that if his papacy is irrelevant to his life, so could “Catholic” politicians’ public careers be divorced from their “private Catholic” lives.

For example, was the papacy of Pope St. Pius X irrelevant to his beatification? Contrariwise, his excellent, courageous leadership during the Modernist crisis (e.g., with the issuing of the Oath Against Modernism) definitely contributed to his beatification. What about Pope John Paul II’s papacy shows his courage, virtue, and love of Christ? Why aren’t we focusing on that? His papacy was the most important part of who he was.
 
His holiness and wisdom is beyond reproach. His writings and his life testify to this. He may have gaffed when he kissed the Koran. His choice of papal liturgists was questionable and his handling of the homosexual scandal in the church could have been better.
You state his wisdom is beyond reproach, then you question his wisdom in kissing the Koran, choosing papal liturgists, and the scandal…:confused:
40.png
Geremia:
Yes, I realize that. He definitely did not. I was just making the point that if his papacy is irrelevant to his life, so could “Catholic” politicians’ public careers be divorced from their “private Catholic” lives.
…What about Pope John Paul II’s papacy shows his courage, virtue, and love of Christ? Why aren’t we focusing on that? His papacy was the most important part of who he was.
His papacy had a great deal of courage, virtue, and love of Christ. That doesn’t mean he was a good manager. I don’t think that managerial style, or other abilities like logic, storytelling, cooking, composing are essential for sainthood. If a person can use such gifts for the good of the Church, so much the better, but I don’t think their lack should be disqualifying.
 
I am looking forward to his eventual canonization. He will always be John Paul the Great to me, ever since I heard His Holiness, Benedict XVI utter those words. He was a wonderful, holy man; truly the right man for the time. The fact that he continues to have detractors after his death does not deter my affection in the least for him. They are a minority. The Church as a whole loves this man.
 
You state his wisdom is beyond reproach, then you question his wisdom in kissing the Koran, choosing papal liturgists, and the scandal…
His homilies and writings are how we should judge him more than his choice of papal liturgists and his mistake kissing the Koran in my opinion. I think he kissed it without really thinking about what he did. It was an oversight, nothing more or less. It didn’t mean that the pope was acknowledging the Koran as worthy of reverence.
 
Is not this dangerous because it could open the way for saying “Catholic” politicians can lead a double life and privatize their faith? They could then live a holy private live but unholy, abortion-, contraception-, and homosexual “marriage”-supporting political lives.
Actually it says the opposite. It says that just because you are a great politician that’s not as important as living your faith. Just because you can solve economic and international issues it doesn’t mean you’re not answerable for how you live your life.
 
his mistake kissing the Koran in my opinion. I think he kissed it without really thinking about what he did. It was an oversight, nothing more or less. It didn’t mean that the pope was acknowledging the Koran as worthy of reverence.
In my opinion, he knew exactly what he was doing. He was not a fool nor one given to doing wrong. He properly acknowledged the Qu’ran as the holy book of Islam and as such, worthy of reverence.
 
On John Paul’s 11 holiness and the beatification I object to this on the basis of how he dealt with the founder of the legionaries. This man was never given the sentence that other priests have received to date…it almost gives one the opinion of a cover up. I am sorry but I do not agree with John Paul’s beatification nor will I acknowledge it. P.Pius XII has been given the third degree and yet with all the abuses that were reported when JP was pope he is rushed through:blush:
 
I would listen more to the Church than The Remnant. They are not exactly fair and balanced on the subject of John Paul II. Even their name suggests that they are a small group with a narrow view, and darn proud of it.
I wouldn’t listen to anything The Remnant says.

Per the review by CatholicCulture.org, a thoroughly orthodox Catholic site:

"This website is the home of the Remnant Newspaper and contains information about the publication, as well as articles and commentary. The editors claim that their newspaper upholds and defends the “infallible teachings and immutable traditions of the Catholic Church.” In order to defend these teachings, they cry out against the abuses within the Church’s hierarchy, liturgy, recent council, and clergy, saying, “Catholics cannot leave the Church, nor are they free to lambaste and deny the Pope at will for things like his ‘Altar Girl Permission’ or the ‘Assisi Ecumenical Affair’ or the convening of the Second Vatican Council.”

However, the Remnant’s articles prove the contrary. Not only have they defended and supported schismatics such as SSPX founder Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX clergy, but they have continually rejected most of the teachings in Vatican II and entirely rejected the Novus Ordo Mass. Thus, though the Remnant does have many articles which defend the teachings of the Church, the value of these is compromised because of the publication’s dissidence regarding these noted errors."

A word to the wise.
 
In my opinion, he knew exactly what he was doing. He was not a fool nor one given to doing wrong. He properly acknowledged the Qu’ran as the holy book of Islam and as such, worthy of reverence
If any catholic, especially the pope, kisses the Koran out of reverence is foolish to say the least in my opinion. In catholic/orthodox culture, kissing an object is reserved for those things which are sacred.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top