Vatican considers canonising John Paul II in 2015

[Aelred_Minor]

Well, there are some Catholics who are afraid that a canonization would put a stamp of approval on some of Pope John Paul II’s more questionable actions.

• PAX

This is an understandable fear. However, I don’t think we need to approve of every action of every saint, even if the saint is a Pope. I have great misgivings about St. Pius V excommunicating all Catholics who acknowledged to rule of Queen Elizabeth I, but he’s still a great saint because of the other aspects of his papacy. Also there was apparently an ugly incident with Bl. Pius IX regarding custody of a Jewish boy who had been baptized without his parents’ consent, but this did not prevent the Church from beatifying him. I think it’s ok to say “this saint made a bad judgment here.”

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Ahhh, yes…
the “more Catholic than the Pope” crowd.

It depends on what you mean by “more Catholic.” If by “Catholic” you mean a member of Christ’s Church, than a lay person and the Pope are both equally Catholic. If by “Catholic” you mean sanctity and holiness, then it is certainly possible for a lay person to be more “Catholic” than the Pope (I’m thinking of Popes like Alexander VI and Julius II, for example). If by “Catholic” you mean authority and jurisdiction, then no, no one can be more “Catholic” than the Pope.

When someone has questions over the public actions of a Pope, they are usually not questioning whether or not he is a member of the Catholic church or whether or not he has authority and jurisdiction. Thus they are grounds where a quick retort like “you think you are more Catholic than the Pope” does not apply.

Please note that I am simply clarifying why Catholics might feel differently, since you said you couldn’t believe some would. I’m not really part of that camp (I’m rather indifferent to the particulars, honestly, but rejoice in any saint), but I do understand where they are coming from.

• PAX

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Ahhh, yes…
the “more Catholic than the Pope” crowd.

I don’t think it necessarily means being part of the “more Catholic than the Pope” crowd.

To take a single example, considering what has been revealed about the Legionaries of Christ, especially about their founder, it’s easy to see in retrospect that an investigation should have been started many years earlier. Of course, Bl. John Paul II did not have the benefit of this hindsight and presumably tried to make the best decision possible.

My point is that even saints and blesseds, and even great popes, sometimes make mistakes. I don’t think we need to allow this to make us either refuse to recognize the mistakes or fail to venerate the person for their life and ministry as a whole.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

This is an understandable fear. However, I don’t think we need to approve of every action of every saint, even if the saint is a Pope. I have great misgivings about St. Pius V excommunicating all Catholics who acknowledged to rule of Queen Elizabeth I, but he’s still a great saint because of the other aspects of his papacy. Also there was apparently an ugly incident with Bl. Pius IX regarding custody of a Jewish boy who had been baptized without his parents’ consent, but this did not prevent the Church from beatifying him. I think it’s ok to say “this saint made a bad judgment here.”

Yes, this is how I personally feel. Sainthood doesn’t mean that every action in the saint’s life was above reproach.

In fact, I wonder if the infallible part of canonization is the fact that the saint is in heaven. Perhaps the “heroic virtue” part is not infallible.

I don’t know… just thinking out loud.

• PAX

 

[TrueLight]

In fact, I wonder if the infallible part of canonization is the fact that the saint is in heaven. Perhaps the “heroic virtue” part is not infallible.

I don’t know… just thinking out loud.

• PAX

That’s an interesting point. I’d love to hear clarification on that issue. I heard someone say the exact same thing a couple of days ago.

 

[Armyvet007]

Well, there are some Catholics who are afraid that a canonization would put a stamp of approval on some of Pope John Paul II’s more questionable actions.

• PAX

Frankly that’s on them. Saint /= perfect or sinless. St. Augustine being a saint doesn’t mean the Church put its “stamp of approval” on his rather unsaintly early life.

 

[sw85]

Well, there are some Catholics who are afraid that a canonization would put a stamp of approval on some of Pope John Paul II’s more questionable actions.

• PAX

Mmmm. I was not a Catholic during his papacy. His death is an historical event for me, given that I was barely even self-aware as an adult at the time. Reading about his pontificate now I am frankly not impressed by it. There seem to have been a lot of blunders. And, as I remarked recently, I am very much not a fan of the unpleasant style of writing he carried on, from which a lot of people seem to have extracted unwarranted (and sometimes heretical) conclusions he did nothing to correct.

I understand the euphoria – it’s natural to love one’s father, including one’s spiritual father, and to forgive him his shortcomings out of that love. It’s quite another thing to pretend that there were no shortcomings, which everyone seems to be doing. I’m not sure where that comes from, that lack of clarity surrounding him. I get he was considered a rockstar while he lived, but… why? I think perhaps the best that can be said about his pontificate was that he inherited a total mess and prevented it from getting substantially worse. That’s open to debate, though.

Granted, though, I lack the perspective of one subjected to him during his lifetime, so wiser heads can surely chime in here. And perhaps it’s just my vague trad sympathies showing. And of course I am not sufficiently knowledgeable enough of his personal life or the miracles attributed to him to comment with respect to those, so I suppose these are more general concerns about the example that might be set by his canonization than by the validity of his canonization.

Part of what makes Blessed John Paul II the Great so great, is his teaching on Theology of the Body. Theology of the Body is a major achievement in the history of the Church and the Church will only come to understand how great that teaching is after we are long, long gone.

I have my doubts about that, too. This is a difficult thing to talk about because the obsession is always about whether or not it is technically orthodox (i.e., “It contains no error you schismatic jerk!”), which I think misses the point. A thing can be technically orthodox and still imprudent. ToB may be theologically inoffensive (the most that infallibility assures us) but it doesn’t follow that it was a good thing, had good effects, should have been done, etc. I am not sufficiently familiar with ToB itself to comment on it but it seems to have engendered a number of unhealthy attitudes, including a general abandonment of discretion in talking about sex, the concordant loss of our sense of revulsion toward scandal and indecency in thought, word, deed, and environment, and an increase in impiety toward the historical Church by ToB enthusiasts who laud the demise of the Church’s historical prudishness toward sexual matters. Dietrich von Hildebrand’s widow has been heavily critical, for instance, of Christopher West for the indecency, impiety, and scandalous nature of his works. Now perhaps it’s the case that West has simply perverted ToB; again, I don’t know it well enough to comment. It is alarming, though, that if that is the case, ToB lent itself so readily to being perverted.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Yes, this is how I personally feel. Sainthood doesn’t mean that every action in the saint’s life was above reproach.

In fact, I wonder if the infallible part of canonization is the fact that the saint is in heaven. Perhaps the “heroic virtue” part is not infallible.

I don’t know… just thinking out loud.

• PAX

It’s commonly claimed, including by some serious theologians, that canonizations are infallible, but I don’t think there’s any formal Church teaching defining that to be the case, and as I recall I think recent theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles rejected the idea (I hope I’m not mixing him up with someone else who took that position).

I’ve never heard anyone claim a declaration of heroic virtue to be infallible. However, whether the Church teaches something at all has more practical importance for the likes of you and me than whether the Church teaches it infallibly. If the Church sees fit to set someone before us as a saint and a model of virtue, that’s how we ought to regard them.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I have my doubts about that, too. This is a difficult thing to talk about because the obsession is always about whether or not it is technically orthodox (i.e., “It contains no error you schismatic jerk!”), which I think misses the point. A thing can be technically orthodox and still imprudent. ToB may be theologically inoffensive (the most that infallibility assures us) but it doesn’t follow that it was a good thing, had good effects, should have been done, etc. I am not sufficiently familiar with ToB itself to comment on it but it seems to have engendered a number of unhealthy attitudes, including a general abandonment of discretion in talking about sex, the concordant loss of our sense of revulsion toward scandal and indecency in thought, word, deed, and environment, and an increase in impiety toward the historical Church by ToB enthusiasts who laud the demise of the Church’s historical prudishness toward sexual matters. Dietrich von Hildebrand’s widow has been heavily critical, for instance, of Christopher West for the indecency, impiety, and scandalous nature of his works. Now perhaps it’s the case that West has simply perverted ToB; again, I don’t know it well enough to comment. It is alarming, though, that if that is the case, ToB lent itself so readily to being perverted.

Alice von Hildebrand has also, I seem to recall, claimed that Theology of the Body is substantially the same as her own husband’s teachings on the subject, which is high praise coming from her. Her problem was with Christopher West’s presentation of ToB, not ToB itself.

I think you are right that ToB enthusiasts sometimes disregard the need for modesty in speech, falling into the trap of “the subject I’m talking about is a good, wholesome one, therefore it is good and wholesome for me to say this.” We need to keep in mind context and the way other people might be made to feel uncomforable or even tempted to sin because of our words. But this verbal immodesty would be in contradiction to ToB itself.

Faced with growing sexual immorality and misrepresentation of the Christian (and indeed, simply human) understanding of sexuality as mere unthinking prudishness, I think it was necessary and good that there be theological development in this area.

 

[TempleServant]

It doesn’t look good to canonise in haste in the case of JPII; it looks like it’s a popularity contest, based on acclaim. Traditionalists don’t like what happened under his reign; it would be seen by them as a vindication of Assisi and altar girls, etc. But it’s mainly the pop-star image he had and the haste in the process. Doing it quickly and for lots of people (as happened recently) cheapens the concept. It leads to doubt: “canonisation was for the few in the past and now loads of people are getting it; what’s going on?”

“Santo subito” - why? If he’s in Heaven he doesn’t need it and we on Earth, how do we benefit? I guess he’s meant to be a model of virtue, to be imitated?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It doesn’t look good to canonise in haste in the case of JPII; it looks like it’s a popularity contest, based on acclaim. Traditionalists don’t like what happened under his reign; it would be seen by them as a vindication of Assisi and altar girls, etc. But it’s mainly the pop-star image he had and the haste in the process. Doing it quickly and for lots of people (as happened recently) cheapens the concept. It leads to doubt: “canonisation was for the few in the past and now loads of people are getting it; what’s going on?”

“Santo subito” - why? If he’s in Heaven he doesn’t need it and we on Earth, how do we benefit? I guess he’s meant to be a model of virtue, to be imitated?

Canonization was once simply by popular acclaim. The Church has since developed a more formal, careful, centralized canonization process, but I think Pope Benedict still wanted some degree of responsiveness to the extraordinary popular acclaim his predecessor received. To my knowledge the process has not been sped up other than the waving of the initial five-year waiting period at the start of the process.

 

[TrueLight]

Canonization was once simply by popular acclaim. The Church has since developed a more formal, careful, centralized canonization process, but I think Pope Benedict still wanted some degree of responsiveness to the extraordinary popular acclaim his predecessor received. To my knowledge the process has not been sped up other than the waving of the initial five-year waiting period at the start of the process.

I think because of his popular acclaim, it is a done deal, and I understand that.

 

[Melchior_1]

A quick note; canonization itself is infallible, and IMHO that isn’t up for discussion. It’s a declaration from the Pope that yes, we have total **faith **such a person is in heaven. We have no way of knowing for sure, outside of the miracles presented through post-death intercession. It’s simply a matter of faith.

A public declaration of faith. Infallibility is now in play.

It doesn’t look good to canonise in haste in the case of JPII; it looks like it’s a popularity contest, based on acclaim. Traditionalists don’t like what happened under his reign; it would be seen by them as a vindication of Assisi and altar girls, etc. But it’s mainly the pop-star image he had and the haste in the process. Doing it quickly and for lots of people (as happened recently) cheapens the concept. It leads to doubt: “canonisation was for the few in the past and now loads of people are getting it; what’s going on?”

The canonization process was waved for Francis, Dominic, Anthony, and a few others due to how the Pope at the time new them personally. Essentially, he said “I can personally vouch for this fellow, they’re in Heaven and displayed Saintly qualities”, and it was done accordingly. Little to zero waiting. That’s the benefit of sitting on the Chair of Peter, I suppose.

“Santo subito” - why? If he’s in Heaven he doesn’t need it and we on Earth, how do we benefit? I guess he’s meant to be a model of virtue, to be imitated?

We should certainly keep John Henry Newman a “Blessed” then. In fact, all “Blesseds” should remain such, right?

Why bother naming “Saints” at all? They don’t need it, right?

 

[sw85]

Alice von Hildebrand has also, I seem to recall, claimed that Theology of the Body is substantially the same as her own husband’s teachings on the subject, which is high praise coming from her. Her problem was with Christopher West’s presentation of ToB, not ToB itself.

I think you are right that ToB enthusiasts sometimes disregard the need for modesty in speech, falling into the trap of “the subject I’m talking about is a good, wholesome one, therefore it is good and wholesome for me to say this.” We need to keep in mind context and the way other people might be made to feel uncomforable or even tempted to sin because of our words. But this verbal immodesty would be in contradiction to ToB itself.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[asd72]

That is great. Bl John Paul II is a great inspiration to me.

 

[JReducation]

I would welcome this, as long as it isn’t so rushed that there ends up being a scandal, like the miracle turns out to be a fraud.

The study of heroic virtue has been completed. It must be completed, signed and sealed before a person is declared venerable and it may not be reopened. The next step are the study of the miracles, not the person. We have one proven miracle, enough for beatification. We need to prove one more for canonization or the pope can wave it. Once the pope canonizes, there is no way for the miracle to be a fraud.

I agree that Bl. John Paul did and said things that were troubling to many Catholics, including myself, but I trust the Congregation to examine them properly. After all, this is an infallible matter, right? The Holy Ghost will take care of things.

A canonization is always infallible, because the pope is declaring that we believe that X is in heaven; therefore, we are raising him/her up to the altar and including him/her in the liturgical life of the Church. This leads to Lex Orandi. If you celebrate mass in honor of St. Francis, then you believe that he’s in heaven. You can’t celebrate the Eucharist in honor of someone with doubts about the merits of the person being venerated.

Yes they were friends of Gregory IX and he decided that he knew them well enough to canonize them.

The relationship between Gregory IX, Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua and Dominic Guzman was very close, like that of John Paul and Benedict. In fact, Francis was Gregory’s superior, before he became pope. Gregory was a professed Secular Franciscan. In this case, John Paul was Cardinal Ratzinger’s superior.

St. Anthony’s was the shortest canonization in history. It took 11 months. Francis was 18. Clare was 18 and Dominic was 25 months. These are the fastest. In each case, people were scandalized and offended. Cardinals were upset that they were not consulted. The curia was upset because the pope would not read their studies on the deceased. Pope Gregory’s answer was always the same. “I believe that these miracles have happened, because I knew these men and they were my friends.” In Clare’s case, it is Gregory’s nephew, Pope Alexander who canonizes her. He too argues that his uncle had great respect for her holiness and the has no reason to doubt the reports about miracles through her intercession. He brushes away all studies and committees.

The Holy Spirit has a way of surprising all of us.

Yes, this is how I personally feel. Sainthood doesn’t mean that every action in the saint’s life was above reproach.

In fact, I wonder if the infallible part of canonization is the fact that the saint is in heaven. Perhaps the “heroic virtue” part is not infallible.

I don’t know… just thinking out loud.

• PAX

Yes, the decree of heroic virtue becomes an infallible part of the canonization, because that is the reason that the person gets into heaven in the first place. If you take away heroic virtue, it raises the question, based on what are we saying that we belief that a person is in heaven? The devil can work miracles too. The two miracles don’t stand alone. The heroic virtues are the driving force behind a canonization. The miracles are a confirmation of a heroic life of virtue.

Everyone seems so concerned about rushing this and scandal. I can’t understand who would be scandalized. I’m sure that some people will be, but that’s their problem, not the pope’s. Let’s not make someone’s sensitivities the pope’s problem. The man has enough on his plate. Let’s respect his right to exercise his pontificate as the Spirit guides him.

We don’t even know if this is true. This is not an official statement. Let’s assume that it’s true that the Pope wants to canonized in 2015, there is still one more requirement, even if they prove another miracle. That would be that Pope Benedict lives until 2015. The man is not a spring chicken.

There is a lot of speculation and reaction to something that is not official and to something that we don’t know if it will happen, given the Holy Father’s age. If he dies before 2015, his desire to canonize does not bind the next pope.

On the flip side, if he wants to canonize, a) It’s his right to do so, b) It’s for the glory of God, not the saint and c) It’s another role model for Catholics.

I know that many Traditionalists are on the spectrum between total hatred of John Paul II to polite tolerance, hopefully most are on the positive side of the spectrum. But the truth is that his ministry to youth increased the number of vocations to the sisterhood and brotherhood by three times what it was when he came to office. In the USA alone, he approved the founding of five new religious communities, all very young and very vibrant. He also created the secular institute of which we have several hundred of them with consecrated secular men and women. He created the societies of apostolic life, of which we have many for secular priests, laymen and consecrated men and women. No pope in modern history did as much for vocations as he did and no other pope did as much for youth as he did.

Each pope is human. As human beings, each has his gifts and his agenda that he brings to the table. It’s too easy to point to his weaknesses and ignore the gifts, which outdo the weaknesses, especially because his weaknesses were administrative, not moral and doctrinal. He was not an administrator. He was an actor, poet, philosopher, preacher, professor of theology, and an avid youth minister from his early days.

Let’s get real. We elect someone with that resume and then we expect him to be as efficient as Donald Trump? Ain’t gonna happen. The Holy Spirit knows why he allowed the cardinals to elect him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Yes, the decree of heroic virtue becomes an infallible part of the canonization, because that is the reason that the person gets into heaven in the first place. If you take away heroic virtue, it raises the question, based on what are we saying that we belief that a person is in heaven? The devil can work miracles too. The two miracles don’t stand alone. The heroic virtues are the driving force behind a canonization. The miracles are a confirmation of a heroic life of virtue.

But someone can be in heaven without “heroic” virtue. A deathbed confession with last rites and an absolution and then time in purgatory with lots of prayers from those on earth = heaven. A person of mediocre virtue, or even low virtue, can get to heaven this way, yes?

I know that many Traditionalists are on the spectrum between total hatred of John Paul II to polite tolerance, hopefully most are on the positive side of the spectrum.

This is true. I think traditionalists feel that under his pontificate so many things were going wrong and that some of his actions helped that, especially as regards ecumenism (Assisi, etc). The fear is that someone would be able to point to John Paul II as a saint for justification for those things to continue. At least, that’s how I perceive it.

Each pope is human. As human beings, each has his gifts and his agenda that he brings to the table. It’s too easy to point to his weaknesses and ignore the gifts, which outdo the weaknesses, especially because his weaknesses were administrative, not moral and doctrinal.

The biggest complaints I’ve heard about JPII from trads are not administrative, but moral and doctrinal.

The Holy Spirit knows why he allowed the cardinals to elect him.

I absolutely agree, but his status as pope is different from his status as saint. The Holy Ghost has allowed some pretty terrible Catholics to be elected Popes in the past. Please don’t misread into this that I’m saying that about Blessed John Paul II. I’m not saying that at all. I’m just pointing out that, despite what we would hope and pray for, we can have terrible popes.

• PAX

 

[Melchior_1]

If you ask me, someone who forgives somebody who tried to murder them is a good indicator of their heroic virtue. Plus courage in the face of death.

In what will probably be a unpopular question; I wonder how many people wish that the assassination attempt was successful.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The study of heroic virtue has been completed. It must be completed, signed and sealed before a person is declared venerable and it may not be reopened. The next step are the study of the miracles, not the person. We have one proven miracle, enough for beatification. We need to prove one more for canonization or the pope can wave it. Once the pope canonizes, there is no way for the miracle to be a fraud.

A canonization is always infallible, because the pope is declaring that we believe that X is in heaven; therefore, we are raising him/her up to the altar and including him/her in the liturgical life of the Church. This leads to Lex Orandi. If you celebrate mass in honor of St. Francis, then you believe that he’s in heaven. You can’t celebrate the Eucharist in honor of someone with doubts about the merits of the person being venerated.

The relationship between Gregory IX, Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua and Dominic Guzman was very close, like that of John Paul and Benedict. In fact, Francis was Gregory’s superior, before he became pope. Gregory was a professed Secular Franciscan. In this case, John Paul was Cardinal Ratzinger’s superior.

St. Anthony’s was the shortest canonization in history. It took 11 months. Francis was 18. Clare was 18 and Dominic was 25 months. These are the fastest. In each case, people were scandalized and offended. Cardinals were upset that they were not consulted. The curia was upset because the pope would not read their studies on the deceased. Pope Gregory’s answer was always the same. “I believe that these miracles have happened, because I knew these men and they were my friends.” In Clare’s case, it is Gregory’s nephew, Pope Alexander who canonizes her. He too argues that his uncle had great respect for her holiness and the has no reason to doubt the reports about miracles through her intercession. He brushes away all studies and committees.

The Holy Spirit has a way of surprising all of us.

Yes, the decree of heroic virtue becomes an infallible part of the canonization, because that is the reason that the person gets into heaven in the first place. If you take away heroic virtue, it raises the question, based on what are we saying that we belief that a person is in heaven? The devil can work miracles too. The two miracles don’t stand alone. The heroic virtues are the driving force behind a canonization. The miracles are a confirmation of a heroic life of virtue.

Everyone seems so concerned about rushing this and scandal. I can’t understand who would be scandalized. I’m sure that some people will be, but that’s their problem, not the pope’s. Let’s not make someone’s sensitivities the pope’s problem. The man has enough on his plate. Let’s respect his right to exercise his pontificate as the Spirit guides him.

We don’t even know if this is true. This is not an official statement. Let’s assume that it’s true that the Pope wants to canonized in 2015, there is still one more requirement, even if they prove another miracle. That would be that Pope Benedict lives until 2015. The man is not a spring chicken.

There is a lot of speculation and reaction to something that is not official and to something that we don’t know if it will happen, given the Holy Father’s age. If he dies before 2015, his desire to canonize does not bind the next pope.

On the flip side, if he wants to canonize, a) It’s his right to do so, b) It’s for the glory of God, not the saint and c) It’s another role model for Catholics.

I know that many Traditionalists are on the spectrum between total hatred of John Paul II to polite tolerance, hopefully most are on the positive side of the spectrum. But the truth is that his ministry to youth increased the number of vocations to the sisterhood and brotherhood by three times what it was when he came to office. In the USA alone, he approved the founding of five new religious communities, all very young and very vibrant. He also created the secular institute of which we have several hundred of them with consecrated secular men and women. He created the societies of apostolic life, of which we have many for secular priests, laymen and consecrated men and women. No pope in modern history did as much for vocations as he did and no other pope did as much for youth as he did.

Each pope is human. As human beings, each has his gifts and his agenda that he brings to the table. It’s too easy to point to his weaknesses and ignore the gifts, which outdo the weaknesses, especially because his weaknesses were administrative, not moral and doctrinal. He was not an administrator. He was an actor, poet, philosopher, preacher, professor of theology, and an avid youth minister from his early days.

Let’s get real. We elect someone with that resume and then we expect him to be as efficient as Donald Trump? Ain’t gonna happen. The Holy Spirit knows why he allowed the cardinals to elect him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Is the validity of these miracles an actual matter of Church teaching? If so, I had not known that.

Also, do you have a Magisterial source for the idea that canonization is infallible or are you expressing a private (if extremely common) opinion? I know it’s a common theological position and has been for a long time (St. Thomas Aquinas taught it, I believe) and I have no objection to it, though I still don’t fully understand how something not contained even implicitly in the teachings of the Apostles could become an infallibly defined tenet of faith. However, I did think the infallibility of canonizations was a subject that debate was still permitted regarding, and that the debate was indeed ongoing among orthodox theologians. I would welcome correction.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The biggest complaints I’ve heard about JPII from trads are not administrative, but moral and doctrinal.

These complaints often don’t stem from anything the pope wrote, but from ecumenical and interfaith gestures he made. I would highly recommend reading this analysis of one commonly cited incident by Jimmy Akin. I think it’s a very reasonable look at one particular incident and a model for approaching other incidents of a similar nature.

jimmyakin.com/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html

Note the photograph in the blog post unfortunately isn’t showing up at least on my screen, though if you click on it you should be able to see it.