P
- Status
L
ljubim
Guest
How exciting!
B
barb_finnegan
Guest
I’m sooooo excited-yay! : :extrahappy: :dancing:
Padraig-you must also be happy because Blessed Brother Andre of Montreal will be canonized, too!
: :extrahappy: :dancing:Padraig-you must also be happy because Blessed Brother Andre of Montreal will be canonized, too!
L
LindaSK
Guest
How deserving! An early Christmas gift to the Church!!
M
mjroth5
Guest
It certainly is good to see both Pius XII and John Paul II declared venerable. I do hope the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and Pope Benedict take time in investigating their causes for beatificaton. John Paul II died only a few years ago so many writings have yet to be reviewed. Also, someone is bound to criticize Pius XII for his role in the Holocaust (against the historical record though) so just to be fair (and so it has all the facts) the Vatican should go over that issue again.
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
Regrettably, during a pontificate that lasted twenty-six years, Pope John Paul II never once wavered in his *de facto *approval of his bishops’ policy of refusing to excommunicate politicians who support the legalized killing of unborn children.
F
FK04US
Guest
This is a great day for the Church. An excellent Christmas gift for all of us, the JP II generation 
He brought the young back to the Church. He is a true saint!!!
He brought the young back to the Church. He is a true saint!!!
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
A true saint does not permit one of the worst scandals in the history of the Catholic Church: the refusal to excommunicate politicians who endorse the legalized murder of children waiting to be born. Further, commendable actions, such as bringing young people back to the one true Church, do not justify the scandal of failing to use papal authority to defend the lives of the unborn.This is a great day for the Church. An excellent Christmas gift for all of us, the JP II generation
Please allow me to suggest respectfully that we should review what Pope John Paul II’s catechism teaches about the sin of scandal objectively committed by those in authority:
***“Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized” (2285). ***
I cannot help wondering how many innocent lives may have been saved had John Paul II invoked his authority to insist that his bishops impose the spiritual penalty of excommunication on politicians who support legalized abortion.
As a friend of mine in the pro-life movement has observed, how can we expect legislators to use the state’s laws to protect the unborn if the Church’s hierarchy refuses to use the Church’s laws to protect them?
Keep and spread the Faith.
F
FK04US
Guest
That is your opinion which I consider wrong. You may have it, but it does not make it true. Others may also think that a saint would never use the Holly Eucharist as a weapon against fellow Catholics. I am in the middle of the road, but I would never consider this a criteria to be used to proclaim a saint. And, as you can see, our Pope B XVI does not agree with you either.
You can keep trying to spoil our party with your particular statements, that´s your choice. I don´t mind. In my case, I will keep celebrating and praying with the rest of the Church for the canonization of this wonderful man, our dear and beloved (Saint) John Paul II, the greatest evangelizer of the XX century.
J
JReducation
Guest
As I already pointed out to Steve in another thread on the same subject. There were steps before we reached this points. Allow me to spell them out here too.
Normally the first step above is not allowed to take place until five years after the death of the person. But Pope Benedict dispensed with that, because he believes in John Paul’s case. He ordered the investigation to begin 18 months after John Paul’s death. We also have to remember, that Pope Benedict knew John Paul personally. He is not only making a decision on reports that he’s reading, but he too is an eye-wtiness to this man’s holiness.
To say that John Paul did not live a life of heoric virtue is to say that all of these people and all of this research are wrong and that I am right. I would never encourage anyone to take that position.
To argue that John Paul could have saved lives of unborn children by excommunicating pro abortion politicians is speculation. Given the arrogance of these politicians, they probably would not have cared.
Finally, the purpose of excommunication is not to punish. You may not excommunicate for the purpose of punishment. Excommunication is for the purpose of bringing back the sinner. What guarrantee do we have that these politicians were going to change their minds if they were excommunicated? Therefore, John Paul, nor Benedict XVI who does not excommunicate for this reason either, are morally correct in saying or believing that the excommunication is not going to bear fruit, but will only cause divisions.
Benedict XVI himself said, when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops, that he was lifiting it, because it had not worked. He said that the purpose of excommunication is to bring back the person in error. Since it had not worked, he was lifting it. So where does that leave us with pro abortion politicians? Do we excommunicate today only to lift the excommunication in 20 years because it was ineffective? How does doing something that is most likely going to be ineffective make a man a saint?
The pope has no obligation to excommunicate or demand that his bishops excommunicate, especially if the desired results are not likely to happen. What’s the use of using that method of discipline? Therefore, there was no lack of virtue or violation or scandal.
Scandal has to sides. The person who causes it and the person who sees scandal where none is given. In the case of the latter, the person who sees the scandfal where none is given has the moral obligation to correct his perspective in justice to the person whom he is accusing of giving scandal.
Given the fact that John Paul’s life has been examined by so many wise people and finally given the seal of approval by the pope, unless you can find a hidden skeleton in his closet, the person who is scandalized owes John Paul an apology, in justice.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- The Postulator who is also known as the promoter of the cause gathers the data and examines it very carefully, with a lot of help. He or she does not work alone. If he believes that there is heoric virtue he writes his report and attaches all of his documents. These include writings by the candidate, testimonies of people who knew him and many other things.
- All of this is picked up by a committee of theologians. I believe they are nine. I could be wrong about that number. Anyway, they are experts in three areas: moral theology, systematic theology and mystical theology. They study the evidence. One of them serves as the Devils Advocate. He is called the Defender of the Faith. It is his job to prove that the candidate did not live a heroic life. It’s like being on trial. He may bring in as many witnesses as he wants and also bring in any new documents and information that has not already been presented. These theologians then vote, just like a jury. If they vote is in favor of John Paul, the Defender of the Faith must concede the point. He may not bring any more information to the table. The discussion is closed. The findings and everything that they have gathered to support their findings are bound and sent to the every Cardinal who makes up the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints…
- In this third step, the Cardinals must meet every two months until they unanimously agree that the person has indeed lived a heroic life of virtue or they agree that they can’t reach an agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement, the case dies there. End of story. If they unanimously agree that John Paul did live a live of heoric virute, then they send the recommendation to the Holy Father, which is what happened back in October.
- Not begins step four. The Holy Father and his advisors study the reports. If the Holy Father does not like something, he can send it all back. If he agrees that John Paul did live a heroic life of virtue he asks the same Congregation for the Causes of the Saints to write the decree stating so. They write it and send it back to him. If he likes it, he signs it and makes it public, which is what he did. Once this is made public, John Paul now becomes Venerable John Paul II. The study of his life is now complete and closed. It cannot be opened, except by order of the Pope.
Normally the first step above is not allowed to take place until five years after the death of the person. But Pope Benedict dispensed with that, because he believes in John Paul’s case. He ordered the investigation to begin 18 months after John Paul’s death. We also have to remember, that Pope Benedict knew John Paul personally. He is not only making a decision on reports that he’s reading, but he too is an eye-wtiness to this man’s holiness.
To say that John Paul did not live a life of heoric virtue is to say that all of these people and all of this research are wrong and that I am right. I would never encourage anyone to take that position.
To argue that John Paul could have saved lives of unborn children by excommunicating pro abortion politicians is speculation. Given the arrogance of these politicians, they probably would not have cared.
Finally, the purpose of excommunication is not to punish. You may not excommunicate for the purpose of punishment. Excommunication is for the purpose of bringing back the sinner. What guarrantee do we have that these politicians were going to change their minds if they were excommunicated? Therefore, John Paul, nor Benedict XVI who does not excommunicate for this reason either, are morally correct in saying or believing that the excommunication is not going to bear fruit, but will only cause divisions.
Benedict XVI himself said, when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops, that he was lifiting it, because it had not worked. He said that the purpose of excommunication is to bring back the person in error. Since it had not worked, he was lifting it. So where does that leave us with pro abortion politicians? Do we excommunicate today only to lift the excommunication in 20 years because it was ineffective? How does doing something that is most likely going to be ineffective make a man a saint?
The pope has no obligation to excommunicate or demand that his bishops excommunicate, especially if the desired results are not likely to happen. What’s the use of using that method of discipline? Therefore, there was no lack of virtue or violation or scandal.
Scandal has to sides. The person who causes it and the person who sees scandal where none is given. In the case of the latter, the person who sees the scandfal where none is given has the moral obligation to correct his perspective in justice to the person whom he is accusing of giving scandal.
Given the fact that John Paul’s life has been examined by so many wise people and finally given the seal of approval by the pope, unless you can find a hidden skeleton in his closet, the person who is scandalized owes John Paul an apology, in justice.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
I don’t have a horse in this race, but as an outsider I can say this. The fast tracking of JPII toward sainthood, setting aside centuries old tradition and policy, smacks of an institution in desperate need of new heroes.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, if the man is a saint, there is no fast tracking. The Church can’t make him a saint. The Church can only declare what is revealed. What is being sped up is the study. If the study reveals that he is a saint, that is not of human doing.
We have the same situation with our two founders, Francis and Clare. In both cases the studies were dispensed with, the miracles were dispensed with, and the beatifications were dispensed with.
Francis was canonized 18 months after his death and clare one year after her death. In both cases two different popes said there was no doubt about their sanctity. There was not need to study their lives or writings nor to question the alleged miracles attributed to their intercessory prayers. The popes believe the miracles were truly through their prayers. They were never subject to scrutiny. In both cases the popes new the two people personally and had served as their spiritual guides for many years before becoming popes. So they knew them.
In this case, Pope Benedict has known John Paul II since the 1960s. They were colleagues first, during Vatican II. Later they were boss and subordinate for 25 years.
There is little about John Paul’s faith that Benedict doesn’t already know. He just wants another opinion. He is convinced that the man is in heaven. He is the one who labeled him John Paul the Great at his funeral and referred to him as being in heaven and who started to celebrate masses to pray for his canonization.
I don’t think that we need more heroes than the ones we have. We do have many you know.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
Please excuse the partial quote. First let me say I support the cause of JPII.To argue that John Paul could have saved lives of unborn children by excommunicating pro abortion politicians is speculation. Given the arrogance of these politicians, they probably would not have cared.
Finally, the purpose of excommunication is not to punish. You may not excommunicate for the purpose of punishment. Excommunication is for the purpose of bringing back the sinner. What guarrantee do we have that these politicians were going to change their minds if they were excommunicated? Therefore, John Paul, nor Benedict XVI who does not excommunicate for this reason either, are morally correct in saying or believing that the excommunication is not going to bear fruit, but will only cause divisions.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I do take exception to your statements about punishment for pro-abortion. I view punishment as not only trying to correct their ways but also as a prevention of their example leading others astray.
There is entirely too much relativism regarding abortion. Public figures want to have very vocal positions that support abortion that is their choice. The church needs to send a very clear and public message of disagreement right back at them.
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
Sadly, Pope John Paul II’s entire twenty-six-year pontificate is identified with the scandalous and disastrous policy of consistently refusing to use his God-given papal authority to defend the lives of unborn children by excommunicating pro-abortion politicians. Consequently, if the Church were to canonize him, she would be saying to the world: “Look, abortion is serious, but it is not so serious that you cannot still support its legalization and simultaneously present yourself as a Catholic in good standing.” Such an incoherent implicit statement encourages both abortions and their legalization, thus resulting in one of the most egregious and frightening scandals in the entire history of the Catholic Church.
If, however, legalized abortion is mass murder, then how can the Church permit herself to be viewed as making that incoherent and scandalous statement? Moreover, if any Pope, for whatever reasons, makes such an incoherent and scandalous statement, how can he be said to possess the heroic virtue necessary for sainthood?
In point of fact, legalized abortion *is *mass murder, as John Paul II himself rightly taught in section 58 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae. On this point and its practical consequences for the daily life of the Church, let us listen to Christ speaking through the Magisterium of John Paul II and the bishops (*CCC *87), not to John Paul II’s inconsistent laissez-faire refusal to draw a necessary conclusion from his own correct teaching. Let us adhere to the teaching, not to the bad example, in accordance with the words of Christ:
***“******The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” (*Mt 23:2-3; 1986 NAB).
In simple, human, down-to-earth terms, we cannot tell the average woman and man not to murder their unborn child when they see pro-abortion politicians being allowed to call themselves Catholics and receive Holy Communion. Logically, there is no way out of this dilemma except using the spiritual penalty of excommunication to make clear to the entire world beyond any possibility of doubt that abortion is, in fact, murder.
Keep and spread the Faith.
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
While I feel that the church needs to be tougher on pro-abortion so-called Catholics; I disagree with you when you say JPII’s entire pontificate is identified with failure to excommunicate. I feel he was a great man and a great Pope and I support his cause.
R
rep140
Guest
I feel he was a great man and a great Pope and I support his cause
I think that it is too early to declare JP2 a saint. How does someone evaluate a papacy?
Is JP2 a saint or just a very popular man? If you waited a generation or 2 the popularity issue would diminish and sainthood could more accurately be ascertained.
I think that it is too early to declare JP2 a saint. How does someone evaluate a papacy?
Is JP2 a saint or just a very popular man? If you waited a generation or 2 the popularity issue would diminish and sainthood could more accurately be ascertained.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is true. However, we must remember that the Church herself has said that excommunication is not a punishment. It is a corrective measure. This is not my definition of excommunication. This is the definition of canon lawyers and popes. Pope John alluded to it when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. He referred to it as a corrective measure.
It is true; the Church must send a strong message to the Catholic politician who supports abortion. You won’t get any disagreement from me on that.
I’m simply saying that the logic behind John Paul’s and Benedict’s resistance to do this may well be their vision of what excommunication is about. In their minds, based on what they have said, excommunication is not meant to punish. Also, based on what they have said, they do not want to punish these politicians. They want to urge them to place distance between themselves and abortion. Using their language is how I came up with my response above.
I hope this is more clear now. I’m sorry if I was not clear enough before.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
pnewton
Guest
LOL - In light of that last statement, you don’t exactly come across as unbiased.
- Status