F
FickleFreckled
Guest
Correction to my previous post; I meant Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, not Hindu.
- Status
S
Shin
Guest
In the preceding instruction we have spoken of interior mortification: we shall now speak of external mortification, or the mortification of the senses. This species of mortification is also necessary, because on account of sin our flesh wars, as the Apostle said of himself, against reason, and is an enemy to our salvation: I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind? " That is," says St. Thomas in his comment on this passage, “the concupiscence of the flesh that is struggling with reason.” It is necessary to understand that the soul must bring the body under subjection, or the body will trample on the soul. God has given us senses that we employ them, not as we please, but as he directs; hence we must mortify the desires that are contrary to the divine law.
*They that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. *Hence the saints have been so careful to macerate the flesh. St. Peter of Alcantara purposed never to give any indulgence to the body, and observed his resolution till death. St. Bernard maltreated his body to such a degree, that at death he asked its pardon. St. Teresa used to say that “it would be silliness to imagine that God admits to his friendship persons who seek their own ease and convenience;” and in another place she says: “Souls that truly love God cannot ask for comforts.” And St. Ambrose has written that he who does not cease to indulge the body shall cease to please God. According to St. Augustine, he who subjects reason to the flesh is a monster that walks with his head downwards and his feet upwards. We are born for a more noble end than to be the slaves of the body, said the pagan Seneca. How much more should we say it, who know by faith that we have been created to enjoy God for eternity? St. Gregory says that by gratifying the desires of the flesh we only nourish enemies.
St. Ambrose weeps over the misfortune of Solomon, saying that this unhappy king had the glory of building the temple of God, but that it would have been far better for him to preserve to God the temple of his body, for the gratification of which he lost his body, his soul, and his God. A man mounted on a furious horse must always keep the reins tight: it is thus we must treat the body. St. Bernard says that we ought to treat the flesh as a physician treats a patient who seeks what is noxious and refuses what is conducive to health. Were a physician, in order to please a sick man, to give him what should cause his death, would he not be guilty of cruelty? And in like manner, let us be persuaded that to indulge the body is not charity, but the greatest act of cruelty we can commit against ourselves; because, for a momentary indulgence of the flesh, we condemn the soul to an eternity of torments. Such is the language of St. Bernard: “Such a charity destroys charity; such mercy is full of cruelty; for in such a manner the body is served, but the soul is destroyed.” In a word, we must change our palate, and follow the admonition of our Lord to St. Francis: “If you desire me, take what is bitter as sweets, and what is sweet as bitter.”
Let us now attend to the fruits of external mortification.
First, it satisfies for the pains due to the pleasures in which we have indulged: these pains are far milder in this than in the next life. St. Antonine relates that an angel proposed to a sick man the choice of remaining three days in purgatory, or of being confined for two years to his bed by the infirmity under which he labored. The sick man chose the three days in purgatory; but he was scarcely an hour there when he began to complain to the angel that his purgatory, instead of continuing for three days, had lasted for several years. What! replied the angel, your body is still warm on the bed of death, and you speak of years! “If you do not wish to be punished,” says St. John Chrysostom, “be your own judge chastise and amend yourself.”
Secondly, mortification detaches the soul from earthly pleasures, and gives her a facility of flying to God, and of uniting herself with him. St. Francis de Sales used to say that “if the flesh is not mortified and depressed, the soul will never be able to raise herself up to God.” St. Jerome has said the same: “Only by mortification can the soul rise to heavenly things.”
Thirdly, penance merits for us eternal goods, as St. Peter of Alcantara revealed from heaven to St. Teresa, saying: “O happy penance that has merited for me so much glory!”
*They that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. *Hence the saints have been so careful to macerate the flesh. St. Peter of Alcantara purposed never to give any indulgence to the body, and observed his resolution till death. St. Bernard maltreated his body to such a degree, that at death he asked its pardon. St. Teresa used to say that “it would be silliness to imagine that God admits to his friendship persons who seek their own ease and convenience;” and in another place she says: “Souls that truly love God cannot ask for comforts.” And St. Ambrose has written that he who does not cease to indulge the body shall cease to please God. According to St. Augustine, he who subjects reason to the flesh is a monster that walks with his head downwards and his feet upwards. We are born for a more noble end than to be the slaves of the body, said the pagan Seneca. How much more should we say it, who know by faith that we have been created to enjoy God for eternity? St. Gregory says that by gratifying the desires of the flesh we only nourish enemies.
St. Ambrose weeps over the misfortune of Solomon, saying that this unhappy king had the glory of building the temple of God, but that it would have been far better for him to preserve to God the temple of his body, for the gratification of which he lost his body, his soul, and his God. A man mounted on a furious horse must always keep the reins tight: it is thus we must treat the body. St. Bernard says that we ought to treat the flesh as a physician treats a patient who seeks what is noxious and refuses what is conducive to health. Were a physician, in order to please a sick man, to give him what should cause his death, would he not be guilty of cruelty? And in like manner, let us be persuaded that to indulge the body is not charity, but the greatest act of cruelty we can commit against ourselves; because, for a momentary indulgence of the flesh, we condemn the soul to an eternity of torments. Such is the language of St. Bernard: “Such a charity destroys charity; such mercy is full of cruelty; for in such a manner the body is served, but the soul is destroyed.” In a word, we must change our palate, and follow the admonition of our Lord to St. Francis: “If you desire me, take what is bitter as sweets, and what is sweet as bitter.”
Let us now attend to the fruits of external mortification.
First, it satisfies for the pains due to the pleasures in which we have indulged: these pains are far milder in this than in the next life. St. Antonine relates that an angel proposed to a sick man the choice of remaining three days in purgatory, or of being confined for two years to his bed by the infirmity under which he labored. The sick man chose the three days in purgatory; but he was scarcely an hour there when he began to complain to the angel that his purgatory, instead of continuing for three days, had lasted for several years. What! replied the angel, your body is still warm on the bed of death, and you speak of years! “If you do not wish to be punished,” says St. John Chrysostom, “be your own judge chastise and amend yourself.”
Secondly, mortification detaches the soul from earthly pleasures, and gives her a facility of flying to God, and of uniting herself with him. St. Francis de Sales used to say that “if the flesh is not mortified and depressed, the soul will never be able to raise herself up to God.” St. Jerome has said the same: “Only by mortification can the soul rise to heavenly things.”
Thirdly, penance merits for us eternal goods, as St. Peter of Alcantara revealed from heaven to St. Teresa, saying: “O happy penance that has merited for me so much glory!”
S
Shin
Guest
Hence the saints have endeavored to mortify the flesh continually, and to the best of their ability. St. Francis Borgia said that he would die without consolation on any day on which he had not mortified his body by some penitential work. A life of ease and pleasure on this earth cannot be the life of a Christian.
. . . Holy priests are accustomed to practise some painful penitential works, such as the discipline, or the use of little chains. Some despise these things, saying that sanctity consists in the mortification of the will. But I find that all the saints have thirsted after penitential austerities, and have sought to macerate the flesh to the utmost of their power. St. Peter of Alcantara wore a hair-shirt of punched iron, which kept his shoulders constantly lacerated. St. John of the Cross wore a waistcoat armed with iron points, and an iron chain, which could not be removed after his death without taking with it a piece of the flesh. This saint used to say that a person who should teach lax doctrine regarding the mortification of the flesh ought not to be believed, even though he confirmed it by miracles. It is true that interior mortification is the most necessary; but exterior mortification is also indispensable. To a person who wished to dissuade him from macerating his body, by saying that sanctity consists in conquering self-will, St. Aloysius Gonzaga replied, in the words of the Gospel: These things you ought to have done, and not leave those undone. To Mother Mary of Jesus, of the Order of St. Teresa, our Lord said the world is destroyed not by penitential works, but by pleasures.
"Mortify your body and you will conquer the devil says St. Augustine. The remedy of the saints, particularly in temptations against purity, was the maceration of the flesh. In temptations contrary to chastity, St. Benedict and St. Francis rolled themselves among thorns. Father Rodriguez says, “If a person had entwined round him a serpent, which by its poisoned bites would seek to kill him, surely if he could not take away its life he would at least endeavor to draw its blood and diminish its strength, in order to render it less able to injure him.”
. . . Holy priests are accustomed to practise some painful penitential works, such as the discipline, or the use of little chains. Some despise these things, saying that sanctity consists in the mortification of the will. But I find that all the saints have thirsted after penitential austerities, and have sought to macerate the flesh to the utmost of their power. St. Peter of Alcantara wore a hair-shirt of punched iron, which kept his shoulders constantly lacerated. St. John of the Cross wore a waistcoat armed with iron points, and an iron chain, which could not be removed after his death without taking with it a piece of the flesh. This saint used to say that a person who should teach lax doctrine regarding the mortification of the flesh ought not to be believed, even though he confirmed it by miracles. It is true that interior mortification is the most necessary; but exterior mortification is also indispensable. To a person who wished to dissuade him from macerating his body, by saying that sanctity consists in conquering self-will, St. Aloysius Gonzaga replied, in the words of the Gospel: These things you ought to have done, and not leave those undone. To Mother Mary of Jesus, of the Order of St. Teresa, our Lord said the world is destroyed not by penitential works, but by pleasures.
"Mortify your body and you will conquer the devil says St. Augustine. The remedy of the saints, particularly in temptations against purity, was the maceration of the flesh. In temptations contrary to chastity, St. Benedict and St. Francis rolled themselves among thorns. Father Rodriguez says, “If a person had entwined round him a serpent, which by its poisoned bites would seek to kill him, surely if he could not take away its life he would at least endeavor to draw its blood and diminish its strength, in order to render it less able to injure him.”
- St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, ‘Dignity and Duties of the Priest’
F
FickleFreckled
Guest
Shin,
If you had lived in the times and customs you seem intent on glorifying, you would never have had the temerity to publicly criticize a pope’s decisions or even to think about questioning them.
If you had lived in the times and customs you seem intent on glorifying, you would never have had the temerity to publicly criticize a pope’s decisions or even to think about questioning them.
S
Shin
Guest
Actually, I don’t think any time would have trouble criticizing bishops who tear up altars, and destroy liturgy, let the seminaries fall to ruin, and pass around sexually deviant priests or are themselves deviants.
There is plenty of precedent for criticizing that throughout the Church’s history. Though I might add, I take the care to give as much potential leeway and excuse as I can towards whatever interior faults allowed this hideous practice of appointments.
F
flameburns623
Guest
There was nothing to discuss, no ‘doubts’ and certainly no rudeness.
To the best of my knowledge, we have only the news article of the OP to substantiate the claim that His Holiness JPII practiced self-flagellation. News articles can report incorrect information, for any of a variety of reasons.
I am not the only person in the thread to have advised reserve.
And such advice does not of itself consitute any sort of accusation or insinuation about the character of anyone.
It is doubtful that anyone who might have personal knowledge of JPII’s private spiritual practices posts here, or would be so uncouth as to discuss the late Pope’s private spiritual practices publicly on this sort of forum.
Even if someone professes to have such personal knowledge, neither I nor anyone else on the site have any way of verifying such intimacy. Posts on this sort of forum simply do not consititute any sort of authentication.
I stand by my advice that one need not assume the report is true. I am not denying it is true. I simply am not assuming so at this juncture in time
As the saying goes, “On the Internet, no one knows that you’re really a dog”.
And . . . . my questions remain unaddressed.
N
nlm
Guest
It is quite sad that all this fuss is being made of such a great person as Pope John Paul ll.
Penance,regardless of what form it takes ,is good for the soul.When it takes the form of fasting no one seems to have anything to say.Self-mortification by monks has existed for centuries.Having been a monk I have seen small sized instruments of flagellation.I must say that they were stored away and had not been used for many ,many years.Some of these posts make this practice sound barbaric, but it is not.I know of hair shirts.Seems to me John the Baptist wore one as a form of penance.The form I am most aware of was the use of the cilice. It is a chainlike device made of smooth metal circles.It has small metal points protruding from these rings.It straps onto one’s upper thigh under one’s clothing.It is a very private means of sacrifice and penance.I have, for a VERY short time, worn a cilice. I also know of individuals who will simply not remove a small stone in their shoe as a means of penance. I say all this to point out that many people not necessarily monks or religious, practice these forms of penance quietly and discretely without anyone knowing.I agree with Br.JR that some of these practices should be practiced under the guidance of a spiritual director of some kind.One could severely injure one’s self if one became carried away. That is never the intent.They are all forms of discipline.I did not read the article being referred to in an earlier posts ,but IF the source of this information is indeed a nun who may have been a part of Pope John Paul’s household, then this as a MAJOR breach of confidentiality on her part.My prayer is that this post will not get blown out of proportion, because of who it has as it’s focus.If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, why not discontinue this thread altogether.No good can come from it and much misunderstanding and ridicule will. God Bless NLM
Penance,regardless of what form it takes ,is good for the soul.When it takes the form of fasting no one seems to have anything to say.Self-mortification by monks has existed for centuries.Having been a monk I have seen small sized instruments of flagellation.I must say that they were stored away and had not been used for many ,many years.Some of these posts make this practice sound barbaric, but it is not.I know of hair shirts.Seems to me John the Baptist wore one as a form of penance.The form I am most aware of was the use of the cilice. It is a chainlike device made of smooth metal circles.It has small metal points protruding from these rings.It straps onto one’s upper thigh under one’s clothing.It is a very private means of sacrifice and penance.I have, for a VERY short time, worn a cilice. I also know of individuals who will simply not remove a small stone in their shoe as a means of penance. I say all this to point out that many people not necessarily monks or religious, practice these forms of penance quietly and discretely without anyone knowing.I agree with Br.JR that some of these practices should be practiced under the guidance of a spiritual director of some kind.One could severely injure one’s self if one became carried away. That is never the intent.They are all forms of discipline.I did not read the article being referred to in an earlier posts ,but IF the source of this information is indeed a nun who may have been a part of Pope John Paul’s household, then this as a MAJOR breach of confidentiality on her part.My prayer is that this post will not get blown out of proportion, because of who it has as it’s focus.If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, why not discontinue this thread altogether.No good can come from it and much misunderstanding and ridicule will. God Bless NLM
T
Tradycja
Guest
Americans are always shocked about the use of the discipline. This is mostly due to secular culture which is hedonistic. They think that if someone is using the discipline they are doing it for some sick pleasure or something. Puritanism might also have an influence on American Catholics being shocked by the use of the discipline. Most of the traditional orders have this practice. People make such a big deal about it because everything in America is centered around comfort.
Conrad Baars deals with this issue in his book “Feeling and Healing your Emotions”. As long as the use of physical penance is not viewed as some belief that flesh is inherently evil, it is a health practice.
Conrad Baars deals with this issue in his book “Feeling and Healing your Emotions”. As long as the use of physical penance is not viewed as some belief that flesh is inherently evil, it is a health practice.
S
Shin
Guest
Yes, they are familiar with the sensual passions and so suppose all people do things for these motivations, when in fact it is with the exact opposite motivation that this sort of mortification is undergone.
R
redrosetea
Guest
Thank you…I think Opus Dei uses this cilice. also…I once heard a women talking about it…but she didn’t keep it on continually…I think she wore it for an hr on Fri or something like that
I saw a picture of one on line…It looked like it would be a bit uncomfortable but not something that would be grueling to wear
Of course you wouldn’t catch me doing it…I am far too much a coward
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to remember that this is a spiritual exercise, not one that is to do harm to the body or the mind. That’s why the Church is very careful not to give carte blanche on this practice.
As someone posted before, you do not give free reign on fasting to someone who has an eating disorder. They’re probably not healthy enogh to fast in the first place. By the same token, you do not hand a discipline to someone who has engaged in bodily injury or someone who has obsessive thoughts. The discipline in such hands can do more harm to the mind, body and soul than we can ever imagine.
In our own community, you must meet certain requirements to use the discipline.
It is not a practice that is taken lightly, not is it a practice that is meant to do damage. It is a reminder of our call to conversion and to offer our lives with Christ’s sufferings of the cross. It should never be so blown out of proportion that it becomes a cultic practice or some form of massochism. If that were to happen, it would lose its meaning and itent.
No one is supposed to use the discipline without spiritual direction.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
As someone posted before, you do not give free reign on fasting to someone who has an eating disorder. They’re probably not healthy enogh to fast in the first place. By the same token, you do not hand a discipline to someone who has engaged in bodily injury or someone who has obsessive thoughts. The discipline in such hands can do more harm to the mind, body and soul than we can ever imagine.
In our own community, you must meet certain requirements to use the discipline.
- It is used only on Fridays.
- Your spiritual director and the Guardian of the community must both approve.
- You must be in solemn vows.
- You must show spiritual and psychological maturity.
It is not a practice that is taken lightly, not is it a practice that is meant to do damage. It is a reminder of our call to conversion and to offer our lives with Christ’s sufferings of the cross. It should never be so blown out of proportion that it becomes a cultic practice or some form of massochism. If that were to happen, it would lose its meaning and itent.
No one is supposed to use the discipline without spiritual direction.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
flameburns623
Guest
Thanks JReducation: the portion I highlighted answers my question nicely.We have to remember that this is a spiritual exercise, not one that is to do harm to the body or the mind. That’s why the Church is very careful not to give carte blanche on this practice.
As someone posted before, you do not give free reign on fasting to someone who has an eating disorder. They’re probably not healthy enogh to fast in the first place. By the same token, you do not hand a discipline to someone who has engaged in bodily injury or someone who has obsessive thoughts. The discipline in such hands can do more harm to the mind, body and soul than we can ever imagine.
In our own community, you must meet certain requirements to use the discipline.
Obvioiusly, no one sits there and gives you a psychological examination. But between the time that you enter the community and the time that you make solemn vows, at least eight-years have elapsed. That is enough time for your superior and spiritual director to know you well. Sometimes it can be longer. Formation can extend up to 10 years.
- It is used only on Fridays.
- Your spiritual director and the Guardian of the community must both approve.
- You must be in solemn vows.
- You must show spiritual and psychological maturity.
It is not a practice that is taken lightly, not is it a practice that is meant to do damage. It is a reminder of our call to conversion and to offer our lives with Christ’s sufferings of the cross. It should never be so blown out of proportion that it becomes a cultic practice or some form of massochism. If that were to happen, it would lose its meaning and itent.
No one is supposed to use the discipline without spiritual direction.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re most welcome. What you highlighted in green is very important to remember. In the past, we did not have all of the tools of psychology and psychiatry to understand some of these behaviors. Often they were confused with either holiness or madness. Thanks to the groundwork done by William James and those who followed him, such as Fr. Benedict G., we have a better understanding of religious psychology. We can discriminate between what is healthy spirituality and toxic faith.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Middleman
Guest
This is shocking and disturbing.
J
JReducation
Guest
Why is that? John Paul II was a mystic. This is common knowledge among those who know the inner workings of the spiritual life. One just has to observe his behavior, read his writings, and study his prayers. He was a very healthy man (not physically), but emotionally. In other words, he had a stable personality. These exercises were spiritual exercises, not those of disturbed mind.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Middleman
Guest
I guess I’m out of the loop for what you call “common knowledge”.
I find the whole concept alien and unhealthy sounding.
J
JReducation
Guest
Let’s begin with the first point, common knowledge. When the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints was doing the study of the life of John Paul II, everyone whom they interviewed, every writing of his that they scrutinized and every video and recording in their libraries that hey could observe on him and with him in them, reveal a man who is deeply connected to the Spirit of Christ. It seems that he was a man who had a much higher and intimate communication and communion with Jesus Christ than the average Catholic. His much more akin to a person like Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross.
What the study has revealed is that he prayed without words, without images, without the senses. He entered into the presence of the Divine, as did the great mystics before him. There were reports of times when he would spend hours in a daze before the Blessed Sacrament and not realize the passage of time. One report says that he left an important diplomat waiting three hours for dinner. He had told his guest that he wanted to stop into the chapel for a minute. He came out three hours later. No one was able to bring him out of the trance in which he was praying. That’s just one report of many regarding the depth of his prayer life.
That by itself can be explained as hypnosis. But hypnosis does not bear fruits of great charity and great penance, because hypnosis is human and can be imposed by the individual or another. But when a man enters into such deep prayer and the result is that he comes out of it exercising greater charity toward God and man, and more aware of his sinfulness and his gratitude for God’s redemptive work in his life, that is mysticism at its noblest level. That is the spirit of a saint.
Notice that the person comes out of this prayerful encounter with God with a profound awareness of his sinfulness and his worthlessness before God and a greater awareness of Christ’s redemptive act, including the pain and suffering of that act, to the point that the person aspires to unite himself to Christ’s redemptive suffering. This was the same experience that Francis of Assisi had when he prayed. When Francis prayed he could see Christ’s suffering on the cross. One day, he could bear it no longer. He prayed, “Lord, grant me the grace of suffering in my body what you suffered on the cross.” The prayer was one of love. This is the kind of prayer where the sinner says to God, “Let me be like you.” He is responding to Christ’s call in the Gospel, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The person is not looking for pain. He is looking for God. He realizes that he cannot match God’s goodness, but he can join the Son’s suffering for his sins and those of the world.
Thus, the person, with the persmission and guidance of a spiritual director, takes on the practice of the discipline. Among Franciscans we call it The Culpa. Because we recall our faults against the Rule of St. Francis while we’re doing it. Culpa means fault. Anyway, the person realizes his faults, because he has seen them through the eyes of the soul when the soul has been deep in prayer. It is only when the soul reaches a certain depth of prayer of the heart that it can physcially see not only Christ on the cross, but the actual suffering. This is the remarkable part of it. The sould can see pain. Most of us can feel pain, but not see it. The mystic can see it. He realizes that he is one of the many who have caused the pain. He enters into a reflection on justice. He realizes that in justice, it is he, the sinner, who should be suffering the pain, not the holy Son of God. Since he cannot be perfect as God is perfect, not in this life, he can at least enter into the suffering of the Son by joining the son. Thus he enters into the practice of the culpa.
Let us remember. The culpa is not a wild attack on the body as some imagine it to be. It is a measured discipline that is prayerful and seeks only one thing, to discover in the body what Christ experienced on the cross. It is an act of love that seeks union with the beloved in a most imperfect way, but the closest that the person will ever get to the cross, unless he is martyred.
Now that the case for John Paul’s holiness is settled and closed, we can rest easy knowing that these culpas, if they did happen, were part of a heroic life of charity, not illness. How do we know this? The Sacred Cogregation for the Causes of the Saints is proposing or nominating him for canonization. The Sacred Congregation only does this when they believe that they have come to the end, when there is nothing else to be said about a person’s life. The miracles that are required are not about the person’s life. They are merely confirmations that God gives us that the person is in heaven. They are not necessary, because canonization is an infallible act by the pope. Even without the miracles, if the pope declares John Paul a saint, then he is. The decree is not based on the miracles, but on his life. We have it on the word of good authority that his life was heroic and holy.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
Jan_Bolbot
Guest
The politics of this are interesting. This has been leaked at a time when the late great Holy Father is being considered for sainthood. There is a suggestion that the decision is relatively close (close in Church time that is). 
There were and still are many who despise John Paul II–and not just outside the Church–for what he did and what he represented. And of course our faith is under heavy public attack for being “too extreme” on issues like abortion, gay marriage, euthenasia, etc.
Hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this is a strange story to appear, whether true or not. As some of the less informed comments on this thread show, a story like this is a good way to divide and upset the faithful and undermine the legacy of a great and holy man.
Think carefully before accepting this story at face value.
jb
There were and still are many who despise John Paul II–and not just outside the Church–for what he did and what he represented. And of course our faith is under heavy public attack for being “too extreme” on issues like abortion, gay marriage, euthenasia, etc.
Hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this is a strange story to appear, whether true or not. As some of the less informed comments on this thread show, a story like this is a good way to divide and upset the faithful and undermine the legacy of a great and holy man.
Think carefully before accepting this story at face value.
jb
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe it, because it is very consistent with the life and behavior of mystics. I don’t see this as politics at all. The press brought this to the attention of the public, because the other facts that have come out of the study are not as interesting. How many people are going to pay to read that John Paul II was a man of great charity or of deep prayer? There are tons of those stories that came out of this story. But that does not sell, even among Catholics.The politics of this are interesting. This has been leaked at a time when the late great Holy Father is being considered for sainthood. There is a suggestion that the decision is relatively close (close in Church time that is).
There were and still are many who despise John Paul II–and not just outside the Church–for what he did and what he represented. And of course our faith is under heavy public attack for being “too extreme” on issues like abortion, gay marriage, euthenasia, etc.
Hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this is a strange story to appear, whether true or not. As some of the less informed comments on this thread show, a story like this is a good way to divide and upset the faithful and undermine the legacy of a great and holy man.
Think carefully before accepting this story at face value.
jb
This was not a leak, by the way. This story was allegedly told by two people who lived with John Paul. The one good thing about the investigation into the holiness of a person is that it is the one study in the Church that cannot take place behind closed doors. It has to be open to the public and anyone who has anything to report can request a hearing. Remember, this is a public trial. The man’s soul was on trial, that’s how the procedure works.
When I was working on my STD in Mystical Theology, one of the required courses was investigation into mystical allegations and the holiness of life. What you learn to do is to put the soul on trial. The object of the process is to prove that the soul is not saved. It is not to prove that the person is in heaven. The Postulator of the Cause tries to prove the person led a heroic life. The Defender of the Faith challenges in every way possible to prove that this was not the case. The court always rules in favor of the Defender of the Faith, until it can rule no more, becaues the defender of the faith can no longer defend. It’s a very interesting process. It comes to an end when the Defender of the Faith declares that he or she (it can be a woman theologian) surrenders, because if he does not surrender he would be sinning against faith. Isn’t that awesome?!!
Everything is written up and sent to the pope for his signature. If he signs it, the deal is sealed. The person has lived a heroic Christian life. There is no more to say. Just sit and wait for the miracles, if the pope so desires.
In this case, those who do not like John Paul or have doubt about his holiness will have to surrender those doubts or slip into heresy if he is canonized. The choices are simple. Until he’s canonized, they can believe whatever they want about him. Unless they have a point that the pope considers valid, the study of the person’s life is not reopened again. In other words, this is not an on-going investigation until the day of canonization. This is the first and most important step. The rest is protocol, which can be done away with by the reigning pope.
But the bottom line is that when the person is canonizes, it becomes a de fide declaration and it cannot be denied. Those who do not like John Paul will have to come up with something that catches Pope Benedict’s attention to keep him from signing the declaration of holiness.
We need to learn to be gentler with others. Some day someone will be passing judgment on our lives.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
nlm
Guest
You point out that this information was brought forth by two people who lived with John Paul ll.
I have no doubt what you say is correct. My question then becomes, Is there no rule of confidentiality for those who surround the Pope so closely? I understand very well why Discipline is practiced.I practiced a few forms of it myself.I am not surprised at all that a man such as John Paul ll would practice it.I do wonder about the confidentiality issue however.
As I said in my last post, why not end this thread? Not to hide anything but to not confuse those who have difficulty understanding the practice.I really do believe this thread including it’s title has the potential to do more harm than good.I respect the one who initiated the thread but I must say it could have perhaps been written in a less dramatic way.Pope John Paul ll was a great man.Our Pastor has made very positive comments about him in his sermons on several occasions.God Bless.NLM
I have no doubt what you say is correct. My question then becomes, Is there no rule of confidentiality for those who surround the Pope so closely? I understand very well why Discipline is practiced.I practiced a few forms of it myself.I am not surprised at all that a man such as John Paul ll would practice it.I do wonder about the confidentiality issue however.
As I said in my last post, why not end this thread? Not to hide anything but to not confuse those who have difficulty understanding the practice.I really do believe this thread including it’s title has the potential to do more harm than good.I respect the one who initiated the thread but I must say it could have perhaps been written in a less dramatic way.Pope John Paul ll was a great man.Our Pastor has made very positive comments about him in his sermons on several occasions.God Bless.NLM
- Status