Popes John Paul II AND Pius XII declared venerable.

[pnewton]

What great news! In this day and age, any great person will have detractors and nay-sayers. He will always be John Paul the Great to me. I will never forget the day I first heard our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI make that speech.

 

[JReducation]

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.

A saint is canonized because the Holy Spirit reveals to the Church that the person is in heaven. Up to this point we have two things.

1. A revelation that he lived a life of heroic virtue. That point is no longer up for disucussion. Once the decree of Venerable is made, it is never rescinded, nor is the person’s life ever looked at again. It’s like a trial. The findings are in and the Holy Father has made his judgment based on what what the Holy Spirit has revealed, that John Paul II lived a life of heroic virtue. This has nothing to do with emotional enthusiasm. This is truth that has been confirmed by the highest authority in the Church.
2. There are alleged miracles. These miracles will now be studied. If at least one is proven to have been through the intercession of John Paul II, it does not matter whether you beatify him the next day or the next century. You cannot undo what God has done. The logic that Pope Benedict seems to be following is to find the proof for at least one miracle so that he can issue the decree of beatification. If at least one of the alleged miracles is proven true, what difference does it make when the man is beatified? It really doesn’t change what God has done or revealed. Truth is truth. If no miracle can be verified, then you sit and wait, unless Pope Benedict decides to suspend with that requirement.

In reality, all a Pope needs for beatification and canonization is his own belief that the person is in heaven. The process was set up to help popes. There was a time when there was no process. Bishops canonized. It was later taken from the hands of the bishops, because of complications. Bishops are not infallible. Canonization was limited to the Pontiff. But there was nor formal process. The process, as we know it, was created in the 1100s. It was included in canon law much later, with the understanding that the process is not binding on the pope. Popes often canonized moved by the call of the people.

I think that we may be placing so much importance on the process that we are forgetting the role of the Holy Spirit and the infallibility of the pope. It is really between the pope and the Holy Spirit to decide where this all goes from here and how quickly it goes.

As I posted above, we have had another canonizations and beatifications that were much faster and no one seems to be objecting to the lightening speed. I sited two examples: Francis and Clare. But they are not the only ones. Mother Teresa’s beatification was rushed along too. The waiting period was dispensed. At the time of Mother Seton’s canonization they had a three-miracle requirement. One was finally dispensed with It was decided that the conversion of the faithful, through her example, was enough of a miracle. Then there was the decree of martyrdom for St. Maximilian Kolbe. The Sacred Congregation for the Saints, the theologians, the Franciscans all disagreed that Maximilian Kolbe was a martyr. They agreed that he was a saint, but not a martyr. On the morning of his canonization, everyone who was to concelebrate was taken by surprise when they walked into the sacristy and saw red vestments laying out. Pope John Paul revealed that it had been revealed to him in prayer, that Maximilian was a martyr. He canonized him under that title. There is a wonderful book about this called, FORGET NOT LOVE. It’s a biography on Max, based on the documents that were used for his study and canonization process. It gives all of these details of how quickly things changed when they fell into the Holy Father’s hands.

The point here is that we have many examples that point to the fact that the Holy Father holds the keys. We really do need to trust. God does not make mistakes. If this man is to be canonized, God will reveal it. Moving it faster or slowing it down will not change God’s mind. That’s the human element in it. In this case, the human element says that the pope wants these alleged miracles studied now, not later. Therefore, we obey and study them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lutheranteach]

The devil’s advocate, miracles, and five year period…all done away with in the last 30 years. Looks like a PR move. Get the two best known faces of Catholicism in the past 100 years, Mother T. and JPII to the highest level ASAP. It’s not a knock. Heck, it’s a brilliant move. I don’t see it as a particular negative although my view of both individuals may not be that of others.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

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

The Church *has *said that excommunication is a punishment. The Church says this clearly in section 1463 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty . . .]."

A penalty is a punishment. The fact that a punishment has a medicinal or corrective aspect does not mean that it ceases to be a punishment, as section 2266 of the new catechism points out.

 

[JReducation]

The Church *has *said that excommunication is a punishment. The Church says this clearly in section 1463 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty . . .]."

A penalty is a punishment. The fact that a punishment has a medicinal or corrective aspect does not mean that it ceases to be a punishment, as section 2266 of the new catechism points out.

I know what the CCC says. But I also know how the popes have used excommunication. All that I am saying here is simple, you have to look a this from their point of view to understand why Pope Benedict has decreed that Pope John Paul II lived the heroic virtues needed to merit him canonization.

This is not something with which we can disagree. While it’s not an infallible statement, until the decree of beatification is signed, it is an authoritative statement that allows no reproach from the faithful. This is one area of Church life that is not left up to anyone else, but the Holy Father himself. Even all those scholars, theologians and Cardinals no longer have a voice in the matter. The statement has been made and it will not be retracted.

If you are that sure that Pope Benedict is in error, the best you can do is to write the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. It is Cardinal Levada’s job to make sure that the pope is never in moral or doctrinal error. But to insist on it on a fourm such as this only serves to upset people, upset you, and will not change the decree. The faithful do have one appeal, to the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. But your letter must state why you believe the pope to be in error and you must also give your credentials for making such a statement. This is a normal procural requirement when one brings up charges against a pope. Otherwise, the Sacred Congregation would be forced to investigate every allegation that crosses their desk. What they do is to filter them out, based on the concern and the credentials of the concerned person. It does not mean that you must have a PhD in theology. That’s not the credentials they’re looking for. You must prove that you have studied the case, that you have scholars who agree with you and are willing to testify to the fact and you must provide them with references to your study and who your resources are. Otherwise, you will get back a nice thank you note from them and that’s the last you’ll hear of it.

You can begin with your bishop. If he supports your position, he’s a credible resource.

Otherwise, I would suggest that you relax. Leave it alone and let the Holy Spirit and the Holy Father work this out.

I don’t know what else I can tell you to help you feel more comfortable with this decree. To tell you that it’s not going away is futile, because you already know this. It won’t go away, unless someone with enough credibility brings something to light that the Sacred Congregation and the Holy Father did not know.

I guess this is the point here. You’re saying something that they already know and that they believe is not a problem. So now you have placed yourself in a position where it’s your position against theirs. But we can only have one decision. The decision was to proceed and close the study and declare the man venerable. As Pnewton says, you’re always going to have many opinions. But the Vatican has to be allowed to have the last word. That’s part of our fidelity to the Church.

I will tell you this. As a religious who works in Respect Life, we have not had a pope as vocal on this issue before John Paul II. There are many who believe that Pope Pius XII should have excommunicated all of the Catholic Nazis too. But his case has now been closed and he has been declared Venerable too. I don’t think that too many people believe that either pope is part of a scandal. Obviously, the Vatican does not believe this and their voice counts more than anyone else’s. Even with the right of the laity, the rights of the laity do not supercede the authority of the pope. This is an area where the laity has a right to an opinion, but not a vote on the final decision. The final decision has to be accepted by all, not just the laity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

A true saint doesn’t deny Jesus Christ in His most critical hour of life either. That would have been St. Peter, yet he was a great leader of our Catholic Christian faith.

No one is perfect. The Catholic Church doesn’t canonize people who lived perfect Christian lives, they canonize people who lived heroic Christian lives. There is a difference between the two.

 

[redrosetea]

A true saint doesn’t deny Jesus Christ in His most critical hour of life either. That would have been St. Peter, yet he was a great leader of our Catholic Christian faith.

No one is perfect. The Catholic Church doesn’t canonize people who lived perfect Christian lives, they canonize people who lived heroic Christian lives. There is a difference between the two.

Mother Angelica has said this many times…she said saints have faults just like anyone else

How many people would have met with their assassin in prison and told them they were forgiven and that God loved them? That is a very heroic thing to do

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

1. The Church, holding the fullness of truth and grace, not to mention Christ’s authority to BE the Church on the earth, is never desperate, even in the direst of situations, at least as the world reads things.
2. This isn’t the first time in her long years that the Church has “fast-tracked” some saints (as Br. JR has pointed out), such as St. Francis and St. Clare.
3. The Church never “needs” new heroes, at least not in the sense that you appear to mean it, because whatever she needs, Christ suppllies. She always HAS new heroes because there are saints in every generation. Those heroes simply have to be discerned and recognized.

I’ve thought recently about the complaints over the old Holy Father’s “fast tracking” and declaring a record number of saints. Some accused him of turning the Church into a “saint factory.” Well, that’s really what it is. Sanctification is our purpose on earth and we always “need” new models. Let me give you an example. St. Martin was once a “super star” saint across Europe. He was huge. Centuries passed and he’s not AS huge any more. He may not resonate with people today the way he did in the past. So other saints step up that do resonate, like St. Gianna Beretta Molla or St. Maria Goretti or St. Maximillian Kolbe or St. Edith Stein. And it isn’t that St. Martin isn’t relevant. He still is, becasue he’s a part of the “great cloud of witnesses” that surround us. We will always have “contemporary” saints because there will always be some who are faithful and will be held up as such.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

A true saint doesn’t deny Jesus Christ in His most critical hour of life either. That would have been St. Peter, yet he was a great leader of our Catholic Christian faith.

No one is perfect. The Catholic Church doesn’t canonize people who lived perfect Christian lives, they canonize people who lived heroic Christian lives. There is a difference between the two.

St. Peter bitterly repented his betrayal of Christ (Mt 26:75), and we may also infer that the first Pope repaired the scandal for which St. Paul found it necessary to reprove him openly (Gal 2:11).

Pope John Paul II, however, never repented–at least publicly–his having consistently refused to excommunicate politicians who promote the mass murder of unborn children through legalized abortion.

It is painful to have to say this, but we should face the fact that one of the reasons why legalized abortion has spread and become entrenched even in countries with large Catholic populations is that John Paul II and his bishops scandalized the faithful by refusing to use canon law to deprive pro-abortion politicians of the status of Catholics in good standing. If you can support the legalized killing of unborn children and still be a Catholic in good standing with the right to receive Holy Communion, then how on earth can abortion be murder (Evangelium vitae 58), and why should it be fought as an “unspeakable crime” (Gaudium et spes 51)?

I believe that Eric Giunta’s article entitled “Why Pope John Paul II Should Not Be Canonized” ought to have been written from a somewhat different perspective–I am a Catholic, not a “conservative”–but I recommend that it be read:

renewamerica.com/columns/giunta/090814

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[FK04US]

St.
It is painful to have to say this, but we should face the fact that one of the reasons why legalized abortion has spread and become entrenched even in countries with large Catholic populations is that John Paul II and his bishops scandalized the faithful by refusing to use canon law to deprive pro-abortion politicians of the status of Catholics in good standing.

Keep and spread the Faith.

You are the only Catholic that I know that has been “scandalized” by the actios of our dear Pope. Much more people came to the faith through him than by people aiming not to be “scandalized”. May the Lord bring peace to your heart.

Dear (Saint) John Paul II, pray for us

 

[Nec5]

You are the only Catholic that I know that has been “scandalized” by the actios of our dear Pope. Much more people came to the faith through him than by people aiming not to be “scandalized”. s

The rapid decline in religion worldwide and, consequently, the abandonment of Christianity and traditional morality here in the States stand in stark contrast to your statement. You may like the man, but the reality of his tenure is unavoidable.

Under his hand and the hand of the current pope, evil has been allowed to flourish without so much as a stern lecture via the avenues of media available.

Make no mistake. What Christ called for has not been defended in our modern age. As the leaders of the Church, the most recent popes have failed in that endeavor. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Just as a single example of its impotence, the priest/abuse abuse scandal was never sufficiently resolved. The Church’s leadership was tested and it never answered.

 

[pnewton]

).

Pope John Paul II, however, never repented–at least publicly–his having consistently refused to excommunicate politicians who promote the mass murder of unborn children through legalized abortion.

Pope John Paul II did not fight abortion in the way you think he should, but that matters little to the Catholic Church, or to God. The Canon Law that mandates the automatic excommunication for material cooperation in abortion was under his papacy. The CCC of the Catholic Church was under his papacy. He was an outspoken critic of abortion. As to specific individuals, the same Canon Law that provided for their excommunication allowed that such individuals could be re-admitted into communion even by a confessor priest. This makes any specific matters fall under the principle of subsidiarity and not a matter for the Vatican directly. I know this comes as a surprise to many Americans, but the Holy Father has a world of people to direct and not just Catholics in the United States. We like to think we are special and our problems are more important, but we are not a world power in the eyes of God. God does not see as man does.

 

[FK04US]

The rapid decline in religion worldwide and, consequently, the abandonment of Christianity and traditional morality here in the States stand in stark contrast to your statement. You may like the man, but the reality of his tenure is unavoidable.

Under his hand and the hand of the current pope, evil has been allowed to flourish without so much as a stern lecture via the avenues of media available.

Make no mistake. What Christ called for has not been defended in our modern age. As the leaders of the Church, the most recent popes have failed in that endeavor. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Just as a single example of its impotence, the priest/abuse abuse scandal was never sufficiently resolved. The Church’s leadership was tested and it never answered.

So now all the evil in the world is because of JPII? and also B XVI? Others will also blame it on Vatican II. Maybe climate change is also due to JP II.

It is time we, people, take responsibilities for our actions and not blame holy people that give their lives to make this a better world. Fortunately, our Church is wise and it is not you or me who decides who will be a canonized saint. However, I am certain that your cause is a lost one, since soon we will have an awesome new saint!

Dear (Saint) Jonh Paull II, pray for us

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The rapid decline in religion worldwide and, consequently, the abandonment of Christianity and traditional morality here in the States stand in stark contrast to your statement. You may like the man, but the reality of his tenure is unavoidable.

Under his hand and the hand of the current pope, evil has been allowed to flourish without so much as a stern lecture via the avenues of media available.

Make no mistake. What Christ called for has not been defended in our modern age. As the leaders of the Church, the most recent popes have failed in that endeavor. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Just as a single example of its impotence, the priest/abuse abuse scandal was never sufficiently resolved. The Church’s leadership was tested and it never answered.

**“Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more” (Lk 12:48; 1986 NAB).

How can Jesus’s warning not be applied to the Pope above all other Catholics?

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[pnewton]

I urge Nec5 to continue posting in the above vein.

***“Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more” (***Lk 12:48; 1986 NAB).

How can Jesus’s warning not be applied to the Pope above all other Catholics?
.

It does, of course. Yet he is still the Venerable John Paul II. Does that tell you anything?

 

[Corki]

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.

Canonization is not an evaluation of the success of the papacy. It is a declaration that the individual is in heaven. When it comes to popes anyway, popularity is usually the result of thier virtue not a detraction from it.

It is too early to declare him a saint, but only because there have not yet been two miracles certified. Whether that happens in the next few years or decades, it is in the hands of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JReducation]

***“Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more” (***Lk 12:48; 1986 NAB).

How can Jesus’s warning not be applied to the Pope above all other Catholics?

Keep and spread the Faith.

Steve,

What you’re doing is very wrong. I’m glad that you stand for the right of the unborn. But just as we can’t sacrifice the unborn for the sake of other interests, we can’t malign the good name of someone, especially by name and in public, because we believe they should have acted differently.

There were many wise people involved in this study. This was not a unilateral decision. This was teams of people who are well versed in theology, canon law, mystical theology, moral theology, church affairs, social sciences, psychology, medicine, history, and scripture.

You’re setting yourself up as an authority against this entire team of people, whom the Holy Father entrusted with this study and whose finding the Holy Father himself has endorsed with an irrevocable decree.

Now, with this post, you are encouraging dissent. This too is wrong. We cannot encourage dissent in the Church. To do so is to encourage division.

As I said before, there are many who believe that Pius XII should not have made it to this point either, because he did not excommunicate Nazi Catholics. But you have not mentioned him at all. What makes you target John Paul II as guilty of the holocaust of abortion and ignore Pius XII?

The inconsistency leads me to think that you have a bone to pick with John Paul II that goes beyond abortion. If I were going to accuse John Paul of looking the other way while Catholics politicians voted pro abortion, I would have to accuse Pius XII of looking the other way while Catholics supported Hitler. That would be consistent.

I don’t think you mean harm. But that’s the way it’s coming across. You’re coming across as one who has contempt for this man. That is wrong. We cannot have contempt for anyone, nor can we encourage others to thing less of someone who enjoys a good reputation among the faithful and to whom the Church officially attributes holiness. That is not the way of peace or the way of justice.

Even Paul when he presented himself before Peter did not malign his good name or accuse him of sinfun or scandalous behavior. He simply laid his case before Peter and subjected himself to whatever Peter decided. It was Peter who decided, not Paul. Paul, as the saint that he was, would have accepted whatever Peter handed down to him. That’s why he went to him in the first place, because he acknowledged the primacy of Peter. We too have to acknowledge the primacy of Pope Benedict. It was Pope Benedict who chose to declare John Paul II venerable. Llike Paul, we too must bow to his authority. But your posts are stating that Benedict is in error. That’s a big statement for a Catholic to make, especially when Benedict’s decree is supported by the best minds in the Church.

If you truly believe that he is in moral error, as I suggested before, write Cardinal Levada or go to your bishop. But don’t publicly malign the good name of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That is wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Canonization is not an evaluation of the success of the papacy. It is a declaration that the individual is in heaven. When it comes to popes anyway, popularity is usually the result of thier virtue not a detraction from it.

It is too early to declare him a saint, but only because there have not yet been two miracles certified. Whether that happens in the next few years or decades, it is in the hands of the Holy Spirit.

You’re right. This is a matter for the Holy Spirit. What the Church declares is that the person has lives a life of heroic virtue. In laymen’s terms, it means that the person has lived a holy life that goes over and beyond what most Christians do. This statement, the Church cannot retract.

As to the miracles, there are some alleged miracles. They remain alleged, until they are proven to be miracles by a team of experts. The team has to be made up of 50% Catholics and 50% non believers. If one is proven, the person is beatified. If two are proven, the person is canonized. However, the pope may dispense with the miracles. They are not a requirement for canonization. The only requirement is that the pope makes the decree from the Chair of Peter. All canonizations are made from the Chair of Peter. That would take care of that.

Personally, I do not beleive that Pope Benedict will dispense with the investigation into the miracles. I do know that he wants the investigation to begin immediately. He said this when he dispensed with the five-year waiting period to begin the study of John Paul’s life. The fact that Pope Benedict wants the investigation to begin immediately does not guarrantee that the miracles will prove to be true. He can command the investigation. He cannot command the outcome.

Something similar happened during the process for Elizabeth Ann Seton. The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints were waiting for a third miracle. At the time, the law required three miracles for canonization. They had only two confirmed. John Paul finally dispensed with the third and canonized her. Later the rule was changed to one miracle for beatification and one for canonization. But the rule is always subject to the Peter’s wishes, since these rules are not doctrines. Prior to the 1100s there were no rules. Canonization is not as old as we think. The apostles and the Church Fathers were never canonized. Niether were the prophets or the Blessed Mother for that fact. They were all canonized by the vox populi.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[didymus]

Maybe off-topic but I think the new process for canonisation went too far.
We should wait at least 50 years after the death of a Servant of God before the they are eligible for beatification. Beatification/canonisation of recent historical figures involves too much current politics, public relations &c.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Steve,

What you’re doing is very wrong. I’m glad that you stand for the right of the unborn. But just as we can’t sacrifice the unborn for the sake of other interests, we can’t malign the good name of someone, especially by name and in public, because we believe they should have acted differently.

There were many wise people involved in this study. This was not a unilateral decision. This was teams of people who are well versed in theology, canon law, mystical theology, moral theology, church affairs, social sciences, psychology, medicine, history, and scripture.

You’re setting yourself up as an authority against this entire team of people, whom the Holy Father entrusted with this study and whose finding the Holy Father himself has endorsed with an irrevocable decree.

Now, with this post, you are encouraging dissent. This too is wrong. We cannot encourage dissent in the Church. To do so is to encourage division.

As I said before, there are many who believe that Pius XII should not have made it to this point either, because he did not excommunicate Nazi Catholics. But you have not mentioned him at all. What makes you target John Paul II as guilty of the holocaust of abortion and ignore Pius XII?

The inconsistency leads me to think that you have a bone to pick with John Paul II that goes beyond abortion. If I were going to accuse John Paul of looking the other way while Catholic politicians voted pro abortion, I would have to accuse Pius XII of looking the other way while Catholics supported Hitler. That would be consistent.

I don’t think you mean harm. But that’s the way it’s coming across. You’re coming across as one who has contempt for this man. That is wrong. We cannot have contempt for anyone, nor can we encourage others to think less of someone who enjoys a good reputation among the faithful and to whom the Church officially attributes holiness. That is not the way of peace or the way of justice.

Even Paul when he presented himself before Peter did not malign his good name or accuse him of sinful or scandalous behavior. He simply laid his case before Peter and subjected himself to whatever Peter decided. It was Peter who decided, not Paul. Paul, as the saint that he was, would have accepted whatever Peter handed down to him. That’s why he went to him in the first place, because he acknowledged the primacy of Peter. We too have to acknowledge the primacy of Pope Benedict. It was Pope Benedict who chose to declare John Paul II venerable. Llike Paul, we too must bow to his authority. But your posts are stating that Benedict is in error. That’s a big statement for a Catholic to make, especially when Benedict’s decree is supported by the best minds in the Church.

If you truly believe that he is in moral error, as I suggested before, write Cardinal Levada or go to your bishop. But don’t publicly malign the good name of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That is wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

On the contrary, by no means are my posts encouraging dissent from Catholic doctrine, nor am I challenging the supreme authority of the Vicar of Christ over the whole Church. I pray that everyone on the planet will eventually embrace the Catholic Faith as the one true religion and accept the authority of the Pope.

I am merely disagreeing, not with Catholic dogma, but with a personal opinion of Pope Benedict XVI, and I am doing so in accordance with the dictate of my conscience. Heeding one’s conscience, even if it is in error, is, according to official Catholic teaching, one’s moral obligation (*CCC *1778 and 1790). In addition, I am making use of the right that Pope John Paul II’s own catechism explicitly grants in section 907: the layperson’s right to speak out, with respect for authority and without denying the Faith, on a matter that concerns the common good of the Church.

But thread participants should not take my word for the above points. Please study the Catechism of the Catholic Church for yourselves. The issuance of the new catechism, and not putative saintliness allegedly justifying beatification, is John Paul II’s true gift to the Church. Let us honor him by absorbing his great gift of the new catechism. Don’t read it–memorize it.

As for St. Paul’s reproof of the first Pope, St. Paul certainly did say that St. Peter had scandalized some of the faithful by misleading them into thinking that they were obliged to observe the kosher laws. Please read St. Paul’s words for yourselves:

***“So, when I found that they were not following the true path of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, Since thou, who art a born Jew, dost follow the Gentile, not the Jewish way of life, by what right dost thou bind the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:14; Knox) ***

Keep and spread the Faith.