Pope John Paul II to be beatified on May 1st

[LilyM]

Actually Mary Mackillop was NOT legally excommunicated and therefore, technically, not excommunicated at all. And, in any case, that was never an obstacle to her sainthood.

I wasn’t making a point about the legality or otherwise of her excommunication, which anyway was rescinded by the same bishop who purported to excommunicate her, and so doesn’t matter in and of itself, even if it were legal.

I was using the episode as an illustration of the fact that she had plenty of critics at that time and indeed later in her life too (false rumours were spread about her that she was alcoholic, for example).

The excommunication happened partly for that reason - she did things that were unpopular with Bishop Sheil and members of his staff. And the rumours happened because she did things that were unpopular with at least one or two of her sisters, who then started the rumours.

And she had a falling-out with her initial mentor, Fr Julian Tennison Woods.

My whole point is that popular approval or disapproval of one’s actions doesn’t mean a single thing in terms of sanctity. Many people were highly critical of Our Lord, who was indeed, as many of His saints were, a ‘sign that will be contradicted’.

This rush to make John Paul II a saint is as unwise as it is unseemly, IMO.

No more of a ‘rush’ than Mother Teresa, whose process took about the same length of time.

Both she and JP2 wrote and spoke so extensively and publicly during their lives, especially about their spirituality, that I think it wouldn’t take much extra time to get a good picture of the state of their souls.

In any event, it certainly doesn’t compare to St Peter of Verona, who was canonised (not just beatified) within about 18 months of his death. Mind you, he was a martyr.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

No more of a ‘rush’ than Mother Teresa, whose process took about the same length of time.

And look at the controversy that caused because it was based on a highly disputed miracle cure. [The attending doctor denied that the patient had cancer, even the patient’s husband said she did not, and the hospital staff claimed they were being pressured by Mother Teresa’s order to declare the cure a miracle] Again, a rush where traditional caution might have been more prudent. That and the re-instatement of the post of devil’s advocate so peremptorily dispensed with.

And where sainthood is concerned, surely it is a person’s actions rather than what they write or say that should be the determining factor?

 

[LilyM]

And look at the controversy that caused because it was based on a highly disputed miracle cure. [The attending doctor denied that the patient had cancer, even the patient’s husband said she did not, and the hospital staff claimed they were being pressured by Mother Teresa’s order to declare the cure a miracle] Again, a rush where traditional caution might have been more prudent. That and the re-instatement of the post of devil’s advocate so peremptorily dispensed with.

Well, both Mother Teresa and JP2 had voluminous criticism of them in their own lifetimes, they didn’t just have one Devil’s Advocate, but dozens each, if not multitudes.

Again, many saints are signs of contradiction, as was Our Lord. Lots of Anglicans weren’t happy with Thomas More’s canonisation, numerous people didn’t like Josemaria Escriva’s elevation to the ranks of sainthood, and so on.

hAnd where sainthood is concerned, surely it is a person’s actions rather than what they write or say that should be the determining factor?

Look at the episode where JP2 kissed the Koran. The fact that he did so is indisputable. The rightness or wrongness of that action, however, depends almost totally on what was going through his mind at the time. And so it continues to be the subject of debate.

Did he mean it simply as a gesture of respect for the giver (I’m told it’s a fairly common thing to do in the middle East)?
Or as a gesture of agreement with all the contents of the Koran and by extension the Islamic faith?
Or perhaps did he simply not know what the nature of the book was that he was given and so mistakenly thought it was something else?

Well, from his writings we can get an idea of his attitude and form an educated opinion about his motives.

For one thing, in Dominus Iesus JP2 used the phrase ‘gravely deficient’ in regards (if memory serves) all faiths other than the Catholic, so we can be fairly certain he wasn’t turning Muslim or semi-Muslim, even though he did embrace ecumenism much more than his predecessors or his successor.

We also know that he nowhere recorded that he thought the book was anything other than a Koran, so that explanation is unlikely too.

So that leaves us with the first option - as a gesture of respect for the giver.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

Well, both Mother Teresa and JP2 had voluminous criticism of them in their own lifetimes, they didn’t just have one Devil’s Advocate, but dozens each, if not multitudes.

Again, many saints are signs of contradiction, as was Our Lord. Lots of Anglicans weren’t happy with Thomas More’s canonisation, numerous people didn’t like Josemaria Escriva’s elevation to the ranks of sainthood, and so on.

Look at the episode where JP2 kissed the Koran. The fact that he did so is indisputable. The rightness or wrongness of that action, however, depends almost totally on what was going through his mind at the time. And so it continues to be the subject of debate.

Did he mean it simply as a gesture of respect for the giver (I’m told it’s a fairly common thing to do in the middle East)?
Or as a gesture of agreement with all the contents of the Koran and by extension the Islamic faith?
Or perhaps did he simply not know what the nature of the book was that he was given and so mistakenly thought it was something else?

Well, from his writings we can get an idea of his attitude and form an educated opinion about his motives.

For one thing, in Dominus Iesus JP2 used the phrase ‘gravely deficient’ in regards (if memory serves) all faiths other than the Catholic, so we can be fairly certain he wasn’t turning Muslim or semi-Muslim, even though he did embrace ecumenism much more than his predecessors or his successor.

We also know that he nowhere recorded that he thought the book was anything other than a Koran, so that explanation is unlikely too.

So that leaves us with the first option - as a gesture of respect for the giver.

The episode with the Koran is trivial (and was never an issue as far as I’m concerned) and it pales into insignificance compared with his persistent lack of action on the issue of child abuse.

Would you say that reading the works of Marcial Maciel you would get an idea of his attitude and form an educated opinion about his motives? Words are cheap: actions cost.

 

[Nec5]

I would argue that the criticisms of John Paul II generally center on his inaction rather than anything he did. All of Europe abandoned Catholicism (and Christianity in general) during his tenure. He did nothing. No righteous indignation. Nothing. There is so much desire to believe he was saintly and a superb leader, but the realities speak otherwise. A bad man? No. A good leader? No.

All of us sheep looked for leadership and a shepherd and there was really only silence. It’s similar to today’s leadership. All the tools of communication just waiting for a Pope to use to proclaim the Gospel and confront the evils of our day and, again, nothing.

It’s a crying shame. It isn’t merely leadership style. Christianity in the West is rapidly becoming a historic artifact and the top of the Church does not do as Paul did: boldly and plainly speak the truth in the face of evil. The continual failure to directly confront the evils of the child abuse problems are just a symptom.

 

[JReducation]

Here is the problem as I see it. None of the positions against this beatification have anything to do with the state of the man’s soul. When the cause for canonization is postulated, the postulator must convince the Defender of the Faith that the person’s soul was that of a saint. He proves this by showing that the person lived a life of virtue that was over and beyond what is usual. We call this heroic.

He must also prove that the person has atoned for his sins. Saints are not sinless, they are penitents. The Defender of the Faith must be convinced that the person did more than enough penance for his sins.

He must prove that the person always acted in communion with the faith and never deviated or if he did, he reverted and did penance.

He must prove that the person had an intimate relationship with God through prayer and sacraments. This life of prayer should be above the usual and customary.

Finally, he must prove that the person died a son or daughter of the Church.

Given all of these points, there was not a single one that the Defender of the Faith could find fault with. He had to concede that John Paul did live a saintly life. He then presented his conclusions to a committee of theologians who looks at the postulator’s points and the Defender’s points. If they find nothing that suggests that the person lived less than a saintly life, they pass the case on to a commission of cardinals. They do the same thing. They pass the case to the Holy Father with their recommendation that he close the case and declare the person Venerable. The pope reviews the case. If he finds no fault in the case, he has several choices. He can decree that the person is Venerable (lived a heroic life of virtue), which means that the lived the life of a saint. He can then wait for a two miracles to canonize or he can proceed directly to canonization without the miracles, based on his own knowledge that the person is in heaven. This has been done in cases where the popes knew the individual personally, such as is the case with Benedict and John Paul.

In this case, Pope Benedict chose to wait for a miracle. A miracle has been proven and it cannot be refuted. Once the pope says that it is a miracle, no matter what any doctor says, he (the doctor) is wrong and the pope is right. Only a pope can declare a miracle. This was the issue with Mother Teresa’s case. The pope declared the case a miracle. It had nothing to do with the sisters. The sisters can push all they want. If the Holy Spirit does not move the pope to declare a miracle, there is no miracle. The determination if something is a miracle is based on several theological criteria, not just scientific facts. A person may be cured by a wonder drug. But it may be possible to prove that the wonder drug worked because of the intercession of the saint.

Finally, when there is a second miracle, the pope declares, Ex Cathedra, that the person is in heaven and that all Catholics are bound to venerate him or her. They don’t have to have a devotion to him or her, but they must treat and think of him or her as a saint with all the privileges and honors that go with that title.

In this case, the protests are all about issues that are external to the soul and the relationship between the soul and God. One would have to prove that the things of which one is accusing the former pope were impediments to a relationship with God. The only way to do that is to prove that they were grave sins and that the person committed them with full knowledge and consent and never repented.

Given how John Paul II suffered before his death and how he dealt with suffering, it is very difficult to sustain that he did no penance in his lifetime. It is also very difficult to prove that he committed grave sins, with knowledge and intent, without atonement. If there is a single doubt, the man Defender of the Faith would not have yielded to the Postulator. It is his job and his team’s job, under penalty of grave sin and excommunication, to defend the faith. Therefore, he must defend the nature of sanctity itself. To give a non-saint a pass is serious.

For the Holy Father to say that John Paul worked a miracle, when this is false, is very serious business. Either there was a miracle or the pope does not know his theology. Basically, that’s what these critiques are suggesting. Let us remember, this is not about the world around the pope, but about the relationship between the soul and his God. If he is not the cause of the evil around him, then there is nothing immoral to be condemned. The other immoral act would be sins of ommission. Again, there has to be grave moral evil, full knowledge, and the desire to do nothing. A peson who does nothing or little in the face of evil, because that’s the best he can do is not culpable of omission. All criticisms are about external matters, not matters of the soul. Since we have a miracle, it’s hard to argue that we are right and God is wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[barb_finnegan]

Thank you, Brother JR, for your brilliant comment!

I’m still happy at the news of John Paul II’s beatification!

 

[Yellow_Belle]

Once the pope says that it is a miracle, no matter what any doctor says, he (the doctor) is wrong and the pope is right.

Since when has papal infallibility extended to medicine?

 

[JReducation]

Since when has papal infallibility extended to medicine?

The pope is not speaking as a physician, he’s speaking as Peter. As I explained above, there are theological criteria that the pope follows. If the situation meets that criteria, then he has a moral duty to declare it a miracle. Failure to do so would be to deny God’s activity and God’s glory, at best an atempt to hide it. A pope cannot do that even under normal circumstances. The Church is protected from such error. The pope can only proclaim what is truth in matters of faith. He need not invoke infallibility to do so. In other words, a pope cannot proclaim a miracle that has not happened. That would be to teach falsehood. It is a given that the Holy Spirit will not allow such an error to be made.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Yellow_Belle]

The pope is not speaking as a physician, he’s speaking as Peter. As I explained above, there are theological criteria that the pope follows. If the situation meets that criteria, then he has a moral duty to declare it a miracle. Failure to do so would be to deny God’s activity and God’s glory, at best an atempt to hide it. A pope cannot do that even under normal circumstances. The Church is protected from such error. The pope can only proclaim what is truth in matters of faith. He need not invoke infallibility to do so. In other words, a pope cannot proclaim a miracle that has not happened. That would be to teach falsehood. It is a given that the Holy Spirit will not allow such an error to be made.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Then why bother with a process? Or a panel of physicians? Or a Defender?

If the Pope already ‘knows’ from theological criteria, why bother with all the formalities?

 

[JReducation]

Then why bother with a process? Or a panel of physicians? Or a Defender?

If the Pope already ‘knows’ from theological criteria, why bother with all the formalities?

The alleged miracle must be presented and defended by two sides. On one side, you have the skeptics and on the other you have the theologians.

If the answers to the theological questions are satisfactory, then the pope proclaims the miracle.

On the other hand, if the arguments of the opposing side ourweight the arguments of the theologians, the alleged miracle is dismissed.

However, the process is not required by Tradition. It is a canonical requirement. A pope can proceed without it. He is the final voice for Christ and for the Catholic people on all matters of faith and morals. Currently, this is the process in place. It has been in place for many centuries. However, it has been bypassed on a number of occasions. I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[4HisChurch]

Brother,

I didn’t know there was any controversy about the miracle of Mother Teresa.

I would think that, now that we have all the medical advances available to us, that a miracle would be somewhat more straightforward to prove these days than in the past (as long as the accompanying spiritual sanctity and needed penance was present.)

You said, “The alleged miracle must be presented and defended by two sides. On one side, you have the skeptics and on the other you have the theologians.”

I would think, when it comes to determining if something was an “unexplained cure” that you would have the skeptics on one side and the non-skeptic scientists on the other. The theologians, would be a separate process when it comes to the scientific/medical determination. Is that not true or did I misunderstand your explanation?

Respectfully,

4HisChurch

 

[JReducation]

Brother,

I didn’t know there was any controversy about the miracle of Mother Teresa.

I would think that, now that we have all the medical advances available to us, that a miracle would be somewhat more straightforward to prove these days than in the past (as long as the accompanying spiritual sanctity and needed penance was present.)

You said, “The alleged miracle must be presented and defended by two sides. On one side, you have the skeptics and on the other you have the theologians.”

I would think, when it comes to determining if something was an “unexplained cure” that you would have the skeptics on one side and the non-skeptic scientists on the other. The theologians, would be a separate process when it comes to the scientific/medical determination. Is that not true or did I misunderstand your explanation?

Respectfully,

4HisChurch

The reason why you want skeptic scientists on one side and theologians on the other side is because you don’t want a scientific report that is skewed. You want a report that theologians can say, without the shadow of a doubt that there has been a miracle here, because even the skeptics cannot agree.

Even if you have one or two people who say that this can be explained, it’s not enough to say that. The theologians will demand that they show them. They want to see observable proof that the cure is possible, not just a medical opinion or speculation. Eventually you come out with a group of experts divided. Some who say that there is no possible human way that this cure can be and others who say that it is possible, but they cannot prove it. In other words, you have a cure that has no explanation, even if you have people who say that it can be explained, because they failed to do so.

It does nothing for the theologians to have people who will present a skewed report in favor of a miracle. What you want is a report that says no explanation available, even if someone says “there has to be an explanation.” Well, “there has to be an explanation, but you don’t have one.”

What theologians do is they look a the alleged miracle and examine several points:

1. Is this something that God would do?
2. Would it be an act that would serve to increase the faith of the Church?
3. Does it inspire greater charity?

The devil can also work miracles that scientists cannot explain. The difference is tha the devil’s miracles do not bear good fruit. God’s miracles always bear good fruit: especially an increase in charity and faith.

I’ve never served on such a committee. I’m not an expert in phenomenology or in miracles. I know something about it from theological studies. I’m sure that there are many questions that the theologians ask of the examining team and of themselves before they reach the conclusion that they are dealing with a heavening intervention and they proceed to write the report that they will submit to the pope whom they must convince… Before the report reaches the Holy Father’s desk it passes through cardinals who are theologians. By the time the reports reach the Holy Father, there is little doubt in anyone’s mind. But it is through the Holy Father that the Holy Spirit will confirm the miracle. Once it is confirmed, it is no longer an alleged miracle. It is now a fact.

In the cases of John Paul II and Mother Teresa, once the pope confirmed the miracle, it ceases to be an allegation and becomes a fact. God has acted through the intercession of this person. This person is worthy of the title Blessed, because he or she has been blessed with the grace to intercede for us.

From this point forward, the Church usually waits for a second sign. When that comes, then the person is elevated for universal veneration. This is what we call canonization.

The difference between a Blessed and a Saint is that the blessed has limited veneration, usually a particular diocese, country, religious community, or region. The Saint can be universally venerated in public.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kentuckyliz]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the radtrads were lying about the alleged falsity of the Mother Teresa miracle. So eager to cast aspersions on others. They probably hate her because the sari habit isn’t a proper traditional nun’s habit. Modernist! Syncretism!

You can’t deny a Parkinson’s healing miracle. You can’t undo permanent neurological damage absent a miracle! So I don’t even want to hear the haters doubt this miracle.

I would love if we just did the whole shebang–beatified, canonized, The Great, 34th doctor of the church.

I think my parish is going to throw a big party May 1 and if they don’t, I will!

 

[JReducation]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the radtrads were lying about the alleged falsity of the Mother Teresa miracle. So eager to cast aspersions on others. They probably hate her because the sari habit isn’t a proper traditional nun’s habit. Modernist! Syncretism!

You can’t deny a Parkinson’s healing miracle. You can’t undo permanent neurological damage absent a miracle! So I don’t even want to hear the haters doubt this miracle.

I would love if we just did the whole shebang–beatified, canonized, The Great, 34th doctor of the church.

I think my parish is going to throw a big party May 1 and if they don’t, I will!

I have never heard anyone say that they hate Bl. Mother Teresa. It is true that she never wore a European habit, because Jesus did not want it. He explicitly told her that he wanted Indian Sisters and Brothers. Her brothers don’t wear any habit, because the typical dress of Indian men is a white shirt and slacks with sandals. But hat was the Lord’s wish.

However, I had never heard any Traditionalist critique the sari of the sisters or the shirt and slacks of the brothers. Another curious thing about her community of men is that she never allowed the priests in the community to be called Father. All of the male Missionaries of Charity are called Brother. She borrowed that from the ancient Franciscan practice when we called everyone Frater or Friar. She had a great devotion and admiration for St. Francis and St. Benedict. But I have never heard Traditionalists object to the use of Brother for all the religious men, ordained or not.

My own community has priests, but they are not allowed to use the title Father. They go by Brother. The Traditionalists in our area always refer to them as Brother. They get a little confused, because our superior is called Father, but he’s not a priest. The Missioanries of Charity call their superior Brother. When the founders died, their successors decided to drop the Father Superior and Mother Superior titles. They go by the Brother Superior and Sister Superior or simply the Superior General.

It has to be understood that they are not a European congregation and will not follow European customs. Even when they pray, their posture is very Hindu. Their chapels are very much like a Muslim mosque. There is no furniture. The only furniture is the altar. You use mats on the floor. Mother blended customs from both the Hindu and Muslim cultures in India, without sacrificing the Catholic customs of religious life. The only custom of religious life that she disapproved of was fasting. Her argument was very simple. Jesus told her that her sisters and brothers did not need to fast, because they gave up enough when they entered the Society, more than other religious do. This is true. They are probably the most ascetic and the poorest religious in the Church.

Again, I don’t think that Traditionaliss are opposed to the differences in Mother’s congregation. You may find many critics. However, they are not critics because they are Traditionalists. They are critics because they a critical people. As St. Dominic Savio once said, “Some people can always find a fault in others.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[4HisChurch]

The reason why you want skeptic scientists on one side and theologians on the other side is because you don’t want a scientific report that is skewed. You want a report that theologians can say, without the shadow of a doubt that there has been a miracle here, because even the skeptics cannot agree.

That’s what I thought. I misread your original post that the skeptical scientists would not be included. Thanks for the clarification.

Even if you have one or two people who say that this can be explained, it’s not enough to say that. The theologians will demand that they show them. They want to see observable proof that the cure is possible, not just a medical opinion or speculation. Eventually you come out with a group of experts divided. Some who say that there is no possible human way that this cure can be and others who say that it is possible, but they cannot prove it. In other words, you have a cure that has no explanation, even if you have people who say that it can be explained, because they failed to do so.

It does nothing for the theologians to have people who will present a skewed report in favor of a miracle. What you want is a report that says no explanation available, even if someone says “there has to be an explanation.” Well, “there has to be an explanation, but you don’t have one.”

What theologians do is they look a the alleged miracle and examine several points:

1. Is this something that God would do?
2. Would it be an act that would serve to increase the faith of the Church?
3. Does it inspire greater charity?

The devil can also work miracles that scientists cannot explain. The difference is tha the devil’s miracles do not bear good fruit. God’s miracles always bear good fruit: especially an increase in charity and faith.

Thanks so much for this thorough explanation of the process. It is difficult and confusing to hear people question the miracles in the sainthood process.

Respectfully,

4HisChurch

I

 

[Prague]

Well, I think it is terrific and on April 27th I leave for Rome too attend his Beatification.

Anyone else going to be able to go?

I Love Being A Catholic