Pope John XXIII's skepticism about saints

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tis_Bearself

Patron
Let me start out by saying that I do not dislike Pope John XXIII, don’t mind that he became a saint, don’t have a problem with him in general. My mother liked him and he seems to me to have been a nice down-to-earth Pope. I also realize that he was Pope for a relatively short time and took a lot onto his plate, when people just sort of expected him to fill the chair because he was pretty old when elected.

Having said that, I am wondering why Pope John XXIII seems to have had so many problems with at least two of our current great modern saints, namely St. Faustina and St. Pio. I understand that he received wrong/ biased information about both of them, including a bad translation of St. Faustina’s writings and a negative report on Padre Pio from leaders of his order who were upset that he wouldn’t turn over funds he’d raised for his hospital, which they wished to use for another purpose. (It seems that these persecutions of saintly people for refusing to turn over money happen all the time - soon-to-be-Blessed Fulton Sheen went through similar with Cardinal Spellman. )

What I don’t understand is why a Pope would take this wrong/ biased information at face value without trying to get to the bottom of the possible problem or motivation. It seems to be assuming the worst of holy people. It was also pretty quickly corrected by later Popes (Pope Paul VI revoked the sanctions on Padre Pio and Pope JPII straightened out the Divine Mercy business and canonized St. Faustina.) And in the case of Padre Pio, he’d already been investigated by several previous Popes and was being allowed to continue on his way with no problem, when Pope John XXIII revived the previous concern.

I am sure they are all having a good chuckle in Heaven about it now, but it’s rather annoying to me that Pope John XXIII didn’t do some more investigating before deciding to limit or penalize great saints. Why would he just believe what he was told, apparently?
 
Last edited:
I doubt that any Pope – much less one involved in a major Council – has time to investigate everything they’re told. We now know that St. Faustina and St. Pio were being judged unfairly. But how was he to know to pick them out of the fake visionaries, disobedient religious, problem priests, etc., that he may have been told about?
 
Intel is important when it comes to most everything. Without good intel how can anyone be asked to make a well-informed decision about anything. That is why making sure that all the facts come out is important.
 
According to Patricia Treece’s book, “Meet John XXIII,” Pope John intervened favorably on behalf of Padre Pio on at least one occasion. When spurious reports of sexual impropriety, faked photographs which were circulated by enemies of Padre Pio, reached the Vatican, Pope John consulted Archbishop Andrea Cesarano, who knew Padre Pio personally and vouched for his innocence. Convinced that the photos were forgeries, Pope John had Archbishop Cesarano repeat his findings to Cardinals Ottaviano and Tardini, who were investigating Padre Pio, resulting in these charges being dropped. It was well known, however, that several religious authorities looked on Padre Pio with suspicion, and Pope John himself was reportedly not a fan of clerics who caused a sensation.
 
Last edited:
Didn’t he remove St Christopher and St philomena from the calender too
 
I think someone had to mistrust them so they can be investigated and the church to later on decide if they were saints or just poor deceived souls.
The Church is very skeptic of prophesies and alleged visions, especially after 2,000 years of existence and theological study. Their skepticism is completely inline with the teaching of the Apostles who opened themselves up for investigation also in front of their followers (the Church back then). The Church also doubted the apparitions at Fatima, Lourdes etc.
During the investigations they collected many information and those who have doubts about the sainthood of investigated people did nothing by obey the Apostles and thus Christ in expressing their doubts as those who recognized the sainthood also did nothing but obey the Apostles and Christ.
Joyful charismatic acceptance of anyone who behaves strangely or invents a new prayer, or says they have revelations simply never was the way of the Church from the start. We just have a wrong misinterpretation of it because we can never experience how Christ and God are connected with the priests and bishops who investigate these matters because we don’t have their charisma.
 
That was Paul Vl; and he removed many more saints than those two in 1969.
 
Some don’t believe in Divine Mercy. I have a friend who thinks Faustina made it up; yet at the same time reads Poem of the Mangod.
Both were condemned for years. I don’t know exactly how a writing goes from being condemned for thirty years to being encouraged occurs but that’s beyond my pay grade.
 
Contrary to popular belief, most Popes are not micromanaging things and even many things that go out in their names they sign as a formality (as happens in many large organizations).

Furthermore, for better or worse, during that time the Church’s approach–and especially that of the Holy Office, which was going the real work in cases like this–had been much more strict and cautious in general when it came to things like this (and pretty much everything else too for that matter).
 
Last edited:
Yes, I understand the Church being skeptical of mystics generally, but Padre Pio had already been the object of suspicion by Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI and the subject of multiple medical and psychological evaluations and an Apostolic Visitation in 1921. Then Pope Pius XI changed his mind and began to lift the restrictions against him in 1933, and Pope Pius XII encouraged people to visit him. Then Pope John XXIII comes in and starts up with the skepticism all over again. I’m also not seeing where St. Pio was doing anything other than saying Mass and hearing confession and answering mail he got. He certainly wasn’t on TV or radio encouraging everybody to visit him.

I realize the Devil attacks holy people and one way is by trying to hide their goodness and make them have trials in life like being disbelieved and disrespected, but I am a little baffled as to why a Pope would start all over again what previous Popes already massively investigated and found in the end to be all right.
 
Last edited:
This snippet is from a book on Padre Pio by Bernard Ruffin:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

From afar, it might look like these “pious women” were like groupies to rock stars, which would certainly raise eyebrows.
 
Yeah, the Padre Pio groupies continue to be somewhat annoying today even after he is long deceased.

Still, I would think the order would remove them because Padre Pio obviously is not encouraging their behavior and doesn’t want them there and they’re disrupting the daily life of the order. It’s not somehow his fault because some unmannerly women are barging into a monastery where they do not belong.
 
It is the sudden change of heart that I think was part of investigating Padre Pio, to surprise him and see how he reacts. 😔 The Church is usually interested in checking up on obedience because self-entitled mystics usually crack in on this issue and easily start criticizing the hierarchy and thus show their interest in presenting those visions to the world may be more about vainglory and politics in the Church than about the glory of God. So it was like Pope John XXIII was the bad cop, trying to get a honest response from Padre Pio when least expected.
Plus it’s not just the Church that researches these people claiming to be saints, but God Himself. God allows attacks from the demons to clarify our faith (like it is said in the Psalms, that we will be clarified through fire like silver and gold). He has done so from the OT and has continued to do so in Christianity as well according to Christian mystics.
I think that if we think in God’s time, eternity, that the Church has access to, she is no hurry to sanctify anyone ever, because she has all the time to do so, should there be a saint God decided to put in the calendar. 😃
 
I think maybe it’s that apparent cult of personality which Pope John found worrisome. It does seem a little embarrassing to me that the friars let themselves be pushed around like that, but I guess maybe they saw openness to the faithful as part of their ministry. Or maybe they just lacked backbone. It makes me think of charismatic priests today like Fr. Mike Schmitz, who seems to have an especially devoted following. I’m sure he has to be careful of who he lets get too close.
 
Last edited:
What you see as skepticism perhaps in fact was an expression of patience and prudence. His approach may have been “What’s the hurry? Go slow and get it right.” Somebody needs to take that position.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
christofirst said:
It makes me think of charismatic priests today like Fr. Mike Schmitz, who seems to have an especially devoted following. I’m sure he has to be careful of who he lets get too close.
Click to expand...
You don’t even have to be handsome like Fr. Mike or former priest Jonathan Morris to have priest groupies. The women who cluster around Fr. Heilman creep me out a bit, and he is rather elderly and obese. I like to pray and be part of the group but I’m not running up there to get a picture with Father like he’s my favorite rock star. I pray for the priests who end up in that position that their heads don’t get turned by celebrity.

Padre Pio seems to have been quite unmoved by that sort of thing though. Like I said, he wasn’t sending out newsletters, transmitting purported messages from God, or doing anything much other than hearing confessions, saying long Masses, and in his later years collecting money for the hospital project. Other than that he just prayed for people and did the normal things Capuchins do like help the poor people in the area. I read that his fellow friars at one point bugged his confessional because they were trying to get dirt on him. And yet now the order is quite happy to capitalize on his sainthood. It is mindboggling. It would take a man with the holiness of a Padre Pio to put up with it.
 
Last edited:
Thomasbradley312 said:
I don’t know exactly how a writing goes from being condemned for thirty years to being encouraged occurs but that’s beyond my pay grade.
Click to expand...
It was condemned because the Vatican had received bad translations, and they could not confirm it was in line with Church teaching. After Cardinal Wojtyla started the initial process for canonization, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was able to obtain original documents that weren’t available to it in the late 1950’s, with the Cold War in full bloom. Based on these documents, they withdrew the earlier condemnation.
 
With this all said, we need to remember Padre Pio was still alive when John XXlll was pope. When did he die 1968 I believe. Maybe he just didn’t care for things he said but never really looked into it. Peoples lives are much more researched after they are deceased and weighed out more as a full.
 
Maybe John XXIII was suspicious of the hospital started by fascist money that had led to Pio being dispensed from the characteristic Franciscan value, poverty?

Maybe St Faustina’s writings seemed tinged by antisemitism and out of step with the Church’s liturgy? John expressed suspicions about “prophets of doom” so it is not surprising St Faustina did not immediately connect with him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top