Pope JP2 a Liberal?

[Genesis315]

This thread is reminding me of something we rarely think about in terms of sanctity, while Our Lord places a top priority on it–and that is forgiveness of another’s sins. We’re forgiven our sins as we forgive others.

I am reminded of Pope John Paul II meeting with and forgiving the man who shot him in an attempt to murder him. Then I see people here publicly railing John Paul for his alleged sins well after his death for no other reason than to judge whether or not he was a “liberal.” The disparity speaks for itself…

 

[latinmasslover]

The scandals during his watch are more to blame on the bishops that on him. Does anyone imagine that bishops showed up for their ad limina visits and told him,“Oh, and by the by, I’ve been shifting paedeophiles from place to place and letting them continue to molest children. Wanted to run that by you and see what you thought?” As for Fatima, here we go again! Sr. Lucy said what the Holy Father did met with the request.

Is that why the Vatican shut her up? Family members she talked to said otherwise. The results are obvious, it hasn’t been consecrated.

When the scandals in the Church became public knowledge, what did he do about them?

 

[latinmasslover]

This is just outrageous and nonsensical.

I choose to see John Paul II’s reaching out to other religions as “mission work” rather than “sin.”

Actually, the abortion example was perfect; it only put your view in light.

Any Catholic who encourages another to sin, to pray to a false God (a sin) isn’t a good missionary. Doing that gives the others the opinion that there’s no need to convert because we “all pray to the same God.” That’s not reaching out, it’s kissing up with the Western mindset.

 

[latinmasslover]

If JPII had joined the voodoo practitioner in casting a spell or whatever, then I would be alarmed. QUOTE]

You sure about that?

 

[scylla]

Yes the Pope didn’t “rule” as he should have have, he didn’t stand up for truth all the time. (the abortion example is a good example, Pope’s can sin horribly) Even the very Holy can sin.

I am not convinced this is truly his fault…

Would the dissident Bishops have listened? Would the Jesuits listen? Would the disobedient Priests listen? Would they grow more rebellious? Did Pope John Paul personally plan his liturgies, his participation?

What I saw was a Pope who saw that he had to unify the Church, and he carefully worded things to make the dissidents happy and tried to keep it all together. Yes he wasn’t perfect but he did unite the Church and promote the Papacy.

Would we have these people defending the Pope if he didn’t unify us? If he just ruled then the next Pope after him would just have more people not listening to him, instead we now have a Pope who can put down some rules and more will listen.

It is a chess game sometimes. I agree that Pope John Paul did some questionable things but he did lead us through a terrible time in the Church when I am not sure if anyone else really could have done it. The Church emerged from his pontificate wounded but still together and I believe more united “under” the Pope than before. Not just calling themselves Catholic but actually listening to the Pope. (sure there are still dissidents) But it looks like he strengthened the Papacy.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

JP2 was in charge during the decay of the Church the last forty years. His allowing of altar girls, allowing the charismatic movement, participating in non-Catholic religious ceremonies is all liberal. Anyone who rejects the Son also rejects the Father. The non-doctrinal documents of V2 state otherwise (Nosta Aetate), which is fact. JP2 chose a pc attitude toward many issues making him beloved to the world, but perhaps in being disobedient to God, and His Church.

The Charismatic movement is a passing phase in the Church and in our cultural history. We had to go through it as the world changed, but things are getting better. I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with the Charismatic movement, and it has in fact produced a lot of very orthodox Catholics. Look at Steubenville for instance. The Charismatic movement is fine for well catechized Catholics, but for the non-catechized it can lead to Protestantism and Liberation Theology as we have seen in South America.

If Pope John Paul II had been a liberal then he would have allowed the Bishops and Priests promulgating Liberation Theology to continue unhindered. Instead he squashed it.

 

[latinmasslover]

This thread is reminding me of something we rarely think about in terms of sanctity, while Our Lord places a top priority on it–and that is forgiveness of another’s sins. We’re forgiven our sins as we forgive others.

QUOTE]

Oh, we forgive him; just trying to understand why others justify his mistakes and sins, that’s all.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Yes the Pope didn’t “rule” as he should have have, he didn’t stand up for truth all the time. (the abortion example is a good example, Pope’s can sin horribly) Even the very Holy can sin.

I am not convinced this is truly his fault…

Would the dissident Bishops have listened? Would the Jesuits listen? Would the disobedient Priests listen? Would they grow more rebellious? Did Pope John Paul personally plan his liturgies, his participation?

What I saw was a Pope who saw that he had to unify the Church, and he carefully worded things to make the dissidents happy and tried to keep it all together. Yes he wasn’t perfect but he did unite the Church and promote the Papacy.

Would we have these people defending the Pope if he didn’t unify us? If he just ruled then the next Pope after him would just have more people not listening to him, instead we now have a Pope who can put down some rules and more will listen.

It is a chess game sometimes. I agree that Pope John Paul did some questionable things but he did lead us through a terrible time in the Church when I am not sure if anyone else really could have done it. The Church emerged from his pontificate wounded but still together and I believe more united “under” the Pope than before. Not just calling themselves Catholic but actually listening to the Pope. (sure there are still dissidents) But it looks like he strengthened the Papacy.

God Bless
Scylla

I don’t see how you can say that the Church came out wounded from JPII’s pontificate. If you look at things in context I don’t really see how any other man could have led us through the evolution of the Mass media, the sex abuse scandal, Liberation Theology in South America and the advancement of the globalists agenda throughout the world which capitalism is used for the betterment of a specific few without regards to the rights of the whole person. God sent us a leader who could use the cameras to promote the church’s message of salvation, peace and love in a time when if we did not have him the world could have easily been destroyed with nuclear weapons. Instead, one man who grew up in a war torn Polish ghetto changed the world and squashed Soviet Communism through forgiveness and charity with the help of Reagan and Thatcher.

 

[scylla]

I don’t see how you can say that the Church came out wounded from JPII’s pontificate. If you look at things in context I don’t really see how any other man could have led us through the evolution of the Mass media, the sex abuse scandal, Liberation Theology in South America and the advancement of the globalists agenda throughout the world which capitalism is used for the betterment of a specific few without regards to the rights of the whole person. God sent us a leader who could use the cameras to promote the church’s message of salvation, peace and love in a time when if we did not have him the world could have easily been destroyed with nuclear weapons. Instead, one man who grew up in a war torn Polish ghetto changed the world and squashed Soviet Communism through forgiveness and charity with the help of Reagan and Thatcher.

I am no saying that he wounded the Church, you must agree that the dissent, scandals, abuses, etc, wounded the Church.
I agree he did better than anyone else really could have in that mess, he had to deal with a lot and the Church came out wounded but still together. Plus the belief in Christ with unity under the Pope became more clear under Pope John Paul II.
What you are saying is pretty much part of the point I am trying to make.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[latinmass]

If you don’t see the Church wounded and JP2 being a part of it then your heads are in the sand. I see some of you saying that the end justifies the means. There is never a reason not to speak the truth always, and the pc talk of JP2 had a bad outcome anyway. There is so much confusion about what is truth in the Church. No salvation outside the Church is just one example. JP2 changed the world? It is more like he made the Church more in line with the world. All of us must speak the truths of Jesus, there is no excuse not to, don’t enable anyone by making excuses for not doing their responsibility, to do so, is the sin of compliance. Our Church will overcome.

 

[Sure]

I am no saying that he wounded the Church, you must agree that the dissent, scandals, abuses, etc, wounded the Church.
I agree he did better than anyone else really could have in that mess, he had to deal with a lot and the Church came out wounded but still together. Plus the belief in Christ with unity under the Pope became more clear under Pope John Paul II.
What you are saying is pretty much part of the point I am trying to make.

God Bless
Scylla

I think you would have to agree that the seminaries, liturgies, number of vocations, orthodoxy of bishops are ALL much much better today than they were in 1978.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The youth argument again; it’s getting a bit old. What exactly are our ages? (and please, no smart remarks). Your comments (as well as the comments of some others) in this regard are very presumptuous. You’re actually proving our point quite well.

Then grow up and I won’t be forced to comment. Look at your rude remark to Dixieagle regarding the Pope making a voodoo offering. “You sure about that?” That’s inflammatory and infantile.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Is that why the Vatican shut her up? Family members she talked to said otherwise. The results are obvious, it hasn’t been consecrated.

When the scandals in the Church became public knowledge, what did he do about them?

You’ve bought into an absurd conspiracy theory, probably centered around Fr. Grunner. The Archbishop of Moscow, heading to become the Archbishop of Minsk, recently gave an interview in which he discussed three meetings he had with Sr. Lucia, in which she talked about a gradual conversion of Russian (or did our Lady give YOU a specific timeline?). I’ll try and post links to the interview (though I doubt you’ll believe them, if you’ve already believed that the Holy See shut Sr. Lucia up)

And once again, do we believe the Holy See, Sr. Lucia, etc. or you, with your years of wisdom?

And popes don’t micromangage the Church. He knows as much as the bishops tell him. Pope Benedict, before his election, believed that the media exaggerated the scandals (which have always been present in the Church).

 

[scylla]

I think you would have to agree that the seminaries, liturgies, number of vocations, orthodoxy of bishops are ALL much much better today than they were in 1978.

I live in California and have seen some horrible stuff here close to Los Angeles, so I have a tainted overall view. My parish has gone from pretty faithful back in about 1980 to some crazy stuff in the last few years. Overall, I would have to rely on you guys.

I have heard about improvement over the last 5 or so years, but I believe that is because of the public good actions of Pope John Paul II, the increased use of Catholic radio, Catholic Television and lay apostolates promoting fidelity to the Church. Even though Pope John Paul II didn’t lead us perfectly or do everything right, he did do a pretty good job of holding it all together and uniting the Church. As someone else said Popes don’t micromanage the Church, there have been some pretty darn good Bishops and some rotten ones. We need to pray for all of them.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I live in California and have seen some horrible stuff here close to Los Angeles, so I have a tainted overall view. My parish has gone from pretty faithful back in about 1980 to some crazy stuff in the last few years. Overall, I would have to rely on you guys.

I have heard about improvement over the last 5 or so years, but I believe that is because of the public good actions of Pope John Paul II, the increased use of Catholic radio, Catholic Television and lay apostolates promoting fidelity to the Church. Even though Pope John Paul II didn’t lead us perfectly or do everything right, he did do a pretty good job of holding it all together and uniting the Church. As someone else said Popes don’t micromanage the Church, there have been some pretty darn good Bishops and some rotten ones. We need to pray for all of them.

God Bless
Scylla

You’re point about California is VERY well taken! Every time I visit there (beautiful state, I love the missions, the coast, etc.), Mass is an ordeal (lay sermons, paraphrased canon of the Mass, scads of EMHC’s disproportionate to the size of the congregation, etc. I’ve started to wonder if their isn’t something in Californian seminaries water supplies!

And not only DON’T Popes micromanage the Church, they CAN’T.

 

[Sure]

I live in California and have seen some horrible stuff here close to Los Angeles, so I have a tainted overall view. My parish has gone from pretty faithful back in about 1980 to some crazy stuff in the last few years. Overall, I would have to rely on you guys.

I have heard about improvement over the last 5 or so years, but I believe that is because of the public good actions of Pope John Paul II, the increased use of Catholic radio, Catholic Television and lay apostolates promoting fidelity to the Church. Even though Pope John Paul II didn’t lead us perfectly or do everything right, he did do a pretty good job of holding it all together and uniting the Church. As someone else said Popes don’t micromanage the Church, there have been some pretty darn good Bishops and some rotten ones. We need to pray for all of them.

God Bless
Scylla

Wow. California is bad. Fortunately, the rest of the country is not. Here in the midwest, seminaries are actually growing and the men being ordained are very orthodox.

Hang in there!..or, of course, move!

 

[MilesXpisti]

Yes the Pope didn’t “rule” as he should have have, he didn’t stand up for truth all the time. (the abortion example is a good example, Pope’s can sin horribly) Even the very Holy can sin.

And yet people would seek to have his cause open before CCS, to give him veneration at the altars along with the likes of Pius V, St. Padre Pio, and all those martyrs that transmitted the faith in whole without fear of death let alone fear of a bad reputation! And why shouldn’t we, it’s not as though he’ll have any difficulty, what with no Devil’s Advocate to bring all the questions to bear. I would ask all those that feel the weight and pain of these glaring scandals to pray with me. Mai santo.

scylla:

I am not convinced this is truly his fault…

We are each of us responsible for what we do. Those within the hierarchy even more so. This is the essence of giving cause of scandal. I mean we live in a civilized world now, don’t we? What danger is there to communicate the faith unblemished by not wanting to make others feel bad?

scylla:

Would the dissident Bishops have listened? Would the Jesuits listen? Would the disobedient Priests listen? Would they grow more rebellious? Did Pope John Paul personally plan his liturgies, his participation?

And his just right would’ve been to excommunicate them publicly. Children that do not fear their parents do not love them, and are incapable of acting properly

scylla:

What I saw was a Pope who saw that he had to unify the Church, and he carefully worded things to make the dissidents happy and tried to keep it all together. Yes he wasn’t perfect but he did unite the Church and promote the Papacy.

Would we have these people defending the Pope if he didn’t unify us? If he just ruled then the next Pope after him would just have more people not listening to him, instead we now have a Pope who can put down some rules and more will listen.

He unified through compromise, and compromise always leads the victor (for there is not question that the Church is to be victorious) to be diminished. As it said, give and inch, lose a mile.

scylla:

It is a chess game sometimes. I agree that Pope John Paul did some questionable things but he did lead us through a terrible time in the Church when I am not sure if anyone else really could have done it. The Church emerged from his pontificate wounded but still together and I believe more united “under” the Pope than before. Not just calling themselves Catholic but actually listening to the Pope. (sure there are still dissidents) But it looks like he strengthened the Papacy.

God Bless
Scylla

I have a sincere problem with that statement. There is no room for gamesmanship in the office of the papacy. The Pope exists to a singular purpose, to strengthen the faithful. If we want to evangelize those that dissented, he should’ve sought to show the Church to be the immovable bulwark of Truth that it is, not a social club.

He did absolutely nothing. Except publish a scores of encyclicals on worldly problems, while ignoring the blatant rot in the body of Christ! He did nothing but prostitute Catholic character so as to be thought well of by other men. This is reward of abandoning the role of the Pope as a temporal, earthly power; you have damaged his place as a leader of men, while seeking to keep his role as the pastor of faith.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And yet people would seek to have his cause open before CCS, to give him veneration at the altars along with the likes of Pius V, St. Padre Pio, and all those martyrs that transmitted the faith in whole without fear of death let alone fear of a bad reputation! And why shouldn’t we, it’s not as though he’ll have any difficulty, what with no Devil’s Advocate to bring all the questions to bear. I would ask all those that feel the weight and pain of these glaring scandals to pray with me. Mai santo.

We are each of us responsible for what we do. Those within the hierarchy even more so. This is the essence of giving cause of scandal. I mean we live in a civilized world now, don’t we? What danger is there to communicate the faith unblemished by not wanting to make others feel bad?

And his just right would’ve been to excommunicate them publicly. Children that do not fear their parents do not love them, and are incapable of acting properly

He unified through compromise, and compromise always leads the victor (for there is not question that the Church is to be victorious) to be diminished. As it said, give and inch, lose a mile.

I have a sincere problem with that statement. There is no room for gamesmanship in the office of the papacy. The Pope exists to a singular purpose, to strengthen the faithful. If we want to evangelize those that dissented, he should’ve sought to show the Church to be the immovable bulwark of Truth that it is, not a social club.

He did absolutely nothing. Except publish a scores of encyclicals on worldly problems, while ignoring the blatant rot in the body of Christ! He did nothing but prostitute Catholic character so as to be thought well of by other men. This is reward of abandoning the role of the Pope as a temporal, earthly power; you have damaged his place as a leader of men, while seeking to keep his role as the pastor of faith.

What does “mai santo” mean?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m reminded of the crowd in Rome that attempted to pitch Blessed Pius IX’s body into the Tiber. Yet today, he is beatified.
I think history will tell a different story than some here would like and we WILL someday see St. John Paul the Great.

 

[HenryV]

JP2 was and is holy man. Was he a holy pope? That’s the question. He faulted himself with that he didn’t GOVERN the Church. A Liberal? Yes and the best one.