C
Cecilianus
Guest
Thank you for posting this. I was accused of libel when I made reference to such statistics - without knowing where to find them to back them up - on a different thread.
- Status
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Where do you get these statistics from? Also, just saying you are “Catholic” doesn’t mean anything if you don’t live a Catholic life. That is what my post was about - Catholics who claim to be Catholic and yet disavow the Church’s teachings.
E
estesbob
Guest
I got mine from Wikepedia but every source i checked showed a growth in the number of Catholics since John Paul the Great was installed. I hardly think it adds to the discussion when you demand we accpet you definition of what a Catholic is. Your numbers also do not prove anythnig unless we know what the number of those who did not meet your definiton of what a Catholic is prior to John Paul the II took over.
P
ProVobis
Guest
As did the number of ex-Catholics. In fact, it’s the largest denomination today. But no one person is responsible for that.
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
It might be said that the passage you underlined is merely a descriptive statement, rather than a statement of doctrine. As I noted in my post, I read a very good – and long – argument about the issue, and I must say that by the end I became convinced that we must answer the question in the negative. I can link you to that thread if you would like (it’s on another forum). The Qur’an, as I’m sure you’re aware, is not a holy book and it is certainly not from God.I personally agree with you, but Vatican II most definitely does not, and right now I am struggling with this dichotomy. I want to remain loyal to this Church which I love so much, and up until Vatican II, your posting was the teaching of the Church. At Vatican II, this was written in Lumen Gentium, paragraph 16:
…
John Paul II obviously believed this and was part of what motivated him. This would explain why he kissed the Koran. I am bringing this in prayer every day to our Lord and looking for answers. How can a religion which espouses the killing of all infidels, those who don’t believe as they do, be a true religion? How can the Jews be a true religion, when the Apostle Paul said they were not, and even wished himself accursed if it would save them? Yet, that is what we are told by Vatican II. I am very confused.
Even if Muslims do worship the true God, their worship is still false, or at least undue, because they do not worship Him in the manner that He has decreed (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), nor do they have right belief. All non-Catholic religions are false in some way or another, and Vatican II did not change this teaching, nor could it do so.
Alexander Roman,
He said, “May St. John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan.” Why not just say, “May St. John the Baptist protect all the people of Jordan”?
‘Islam’ is the name of the religion; ‘Muslims’ are the people of Islam.
As for the good in Protestantism and in other faiths, consider this passage:
“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The Muslims may not like it when their prophets are reviled, but it’s an objective fact that their prophets are false (because the Catholic Faith alone is true). We should aim at converting them, not simply having endless dialogue with them.
On that note, five disciples of St. Francis once said, “We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us” (Omer Englebert, Saint Francis of Assisi, A Biography, pp. 178-9; 1979).
St. Peter Canisius, St. Peter Mavimenus, Bl. Nicolas Tavilich, and St. George of San Saba (related by St. Alphonsus Liguori) all made similar statements:
“Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. Hence, he is truly a Christian thoroughly condemns and detests, the Jewish, Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects.”
“Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as was your false prophet Mohammed.”
“You Mohammedans are in a state of everlasting damnation. Your Koran is not God’s law nor is it revealed by Him. Far from being a good thing, your law is utterly evil. It is founded neither in the Old Testament nor in the New. In it are lies, foolish things, buffooneries, contradictions, and much that leads not to virtue and goodness but to evil and to all manner of vice.”
“But the holy monk (St. George of San Saba) having declared that Mahomet was a disciple of the devil, and that his followers were in a state of perdition, he also was condemned (to martyrdom) with his companions.”
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Absolutely, and I’m certainly not laying the blame on JP II. As I said, I believe he was a holy man who truly loved the Lord and most certainly had a deep devotion to our Blessed Mother. And I believe he is in heaven now. But I do question his actions while he was Pope because of what has happened in the Church. The Church is in a major crisis now, and I don’t mean just the priest scandal. From an article about Pope Benedict XVI:
nytimes.com/2005/05/29/weekinreview/29fisher.html
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Thank you so much for this post. And I would be very interested in the link you referred to.
P
PJM
Guest
So friend,
What would you have had His Holiness, John Paul II do, that he did not atempt to correct?
Have you read his Encyclicals and Apolostolic Letters. I have and it seems from My PEW that it was not for lack of effort; but even a Pope cannot command those who REFUSE to be commanded. ONLY God can do that.
What begain with the Open desent of Humanae Vitae, has not gotten better; indeed it is more “accepted” today than at any time in the Past.
Even the Pope is limited is what he can MAKE HAPPEN. is task is to teach and share thruth, which BOTH John Paul II and Pope Benedict have done. If one chooses t ignore same; what would you have His holiness do?
God Bless,
Pat
God Bless,
Pat
newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.vietnamese/2008-06/msg00878.html
This is not libel, these are facts.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
I think I put it in earlier posts. I would have liked JP II to concentrate on the Liturgy and deal with the abuses we have seen over the years. He should have given much more attention to the priest scandal, and definitely should have investigated Fr. Maciel instead of appearing with him and supporting him.
Those are the major points that bothered me. I have to say, as has been brought up in this thread, kissing the Koran was a major blunder and sent very confusing messages to people.
P
PJM
Guest
I was unaware that the Pope could Pronounce someone a Saint without going through the process that has been set up. Were can I get more information on this?Br. JR, OSF
I am of the opinion that the Pope can shorten the Proces time; but unable to share where I formed such an opinion.
God Bless,
Pat
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Catholics who don’t go to Church, Catholics who disobey they Church’s teaching on contraception, Catholics who believe abortion is okay - I don’t think those should be accepted as meeting the definition of Catholic.
P
PJM
Guest
I think I put it in earlier posts. I would have liked JP II to concentrate on the Liturgy and deal with the abuses we have seen over the years. He should have given much more attention to the priest scandal, and definitely should have investigated Fr. Maciel instead of appearing with him and supporting him.
Those are the major points that bothered me. I have to say, as has been brought up in this thread, kissing the Koran was a major blunder and sent very confusing messages to people.
Abuses in the Liturgy WERE addresed mutiple times in 1980 ALONE. They were ignored!
As for Fr. Maciel; the Pope like any Leader of a large Country or Business MUST rely on the infomation given to him in making decisions. Keep in mind that the good father, maintained a certain amount of secrecy; and the problem it seems to me, is with the Popes Advisors far more than with His Holiness, JP II.
As God has PERSONALLY signed off with a miracle; I am convienced that He who READS HEARTS, and knows EVERYTHING, has clearly pronounced both The holyness and judgements of Pope John Paul II.
It was neither lack of intent or lack of desire for change, BUT sinful disobedience of others, that is the REAL issue of complaint. At least that my take.
God Bless,
Pat
C
Cecilianus
Guest
The canonization process only started in the 11th century. There was no formal process for the glorification of all the saints that lived beforehand, nor for most of the saints of the East who lived afterwards. St. John Cassian of Rome is a saint because one Pope just ordered the word “saint” engraved on his tomb. Other saints were placed on the calendar by synods of bishops. Even today, the recognition of Orthodox saints is carried out by Rome permitting the bishops who came back into union with Rome to place them back in the synodikons - this is how St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. Gregory Palamas, who were never Papally canonized, ended up on the liturgical calendar for example.
P
PJM
Guest
THANKS SO VERY MUCH!
God Bless,
Pat
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
Picking exceptions out of a hat does not prove tradition anymore than laymen rushing up to the altar to consume the Sacred Species in the middle of Mass upon the death of a priest at the hands of intruders proves that this is “traditional” liturgical practice – etc., etc., etc.
There is good reason for the waiting period, and John Paul II sure produced a lot of things to consider carefully. Could that have really been done sufficiently in the amount of time that has been given? How many people were working on this, half the Roman clergy? What’s more, to be beatified or canonized implies “heroic” virtue in each of the virtues. Prudence? Come on…
In any case, those who have their qualms with the beatification should be reassured that it is not an exercise of the infallibility of the Pope.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not think what is being said is so much libel as it is the a viewing of the Church through a personal lens. The tendency I have noticed is that the critics of the Catholic Church from within criticize those actions and teachings they do not agree with, perhaps because they believe they have a superior grasp on Tradition than do the Church leaders, or because of some more personal slight or injury. The statistics are ambivalent. Also, in no human possesses the knowledge of how things could have been under a sterner, more liberal, more conservative or more lax pontiff.
This discussion is based on a flawed premise. The Church is not a political entity. It is a famiy. It is a body. It is anything but a committee. We would not conspire with our brothers over who would make a better father or speculate whether our mother should have been our cousin. This man was a father to us. Our job is to be good children so God doesn’t have to put us in time out.
J
JReducation
Guest
Cecilianus is correct in saying that canonization was centralized in the 11th century. It always existed. However, the process was very disorganized. It was done by the bishops. Once the bishop canonized, the notice was sent to the Pontiff who would ratify it. As I said, it was chaotic, because there was no system in place.
That being said, since the pope is the person who promulgates Church law, he can dispense with any Church law as well. This makes him the Law Giver. This is made very clear in Canon Law where it tells us that there is no appeal beyond the pope. He is the highest law, unless you go to the 10 Commandments. But they don’t speak about canonizations and such. The Pope remains the highest authority in this matter. Paul makes reference to the saints and so does John. We know that the early Church already believed in saints. John is much more graphic than Paul. But there is the acknowledgement that some people are saints before the death of the last Apostle.
Another point, popes have bypassed the law and the curia and they have canonized saints. The first time that it happened was with the three Franciscans: Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua and Clare of Assisi. Pope Gregory IX canonized Francis and Anthony. His nephew, Alexander IV canonized Clare. Gregory was a close friend of Francis and Anthony. Alexander had been appointed the protector of Clare and her sisters by his uncle Gregory IX, while Alexander was still a bishop. He and Clare became very close frieds. Both popes agreed with the popular opinion that these three people were saints. They needed no further discussion on the matter. Each of them was canonized in less than two-years and none of them was beatified.
To answer the question, where does it say that a pope can skip the whole process, the answer is, the precedent has been set by previous popes. The Franciscan saints were the first, but not the last to be canonized by popes, very quickly without the process.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
Does a mere attempt on the part of the pagans guarantee that it will be accomplished? I’m not quite sure where to begin with your positive assessment of the various Eastern religions. If their idea of God is so horribly distorted, can they truly worship Him? I must confess that I need to first reread the arguments I’ve seen on this issue so that I may better respond to you. There is a philosophical reason why we can say that non-Christians do worship the true God. I’ll have to get back to you on this point.
Praying that the Eastern Orthodox convert is much, much better than saying that the Catholic Church only “gradually” realized her necessity for salvation and that, in the past, it was wrong for her to admonish the Eastern Orthodox to convert for the the sake of their salvation. Yes, the PCPCU actually said this (Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past…, 1993).
As the Holy Trinity was not formally revealed before the Incarnation, the people of the Old Testament were not obligated to explicitly believe in the yet-unrevealed-doctrine. They implicitly believed in it by desiring to believe all that God had revealed. The necessity to explicitly believe in Christ and in the Trinity came into effect after the promulgation of the Gospel.
Continued…
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
Continued from previous post…
If there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the worship of the Eastern Orthodox, then what do we make of the words of various saints, councils and popes?
“Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ…He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (St. Cyprian, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).
“Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ” (St. Augustine, Council of Cirta, A.D. 412).
“[T]he unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).
Formerly, Catholics could only receive sacraments from a non-Catholic priest under grave conditions, one of which was: “[The sacraments] must be administered by a validly ordained non-Catholic priest who administers the sacrament by a Catholic rite without any mixing of the condemned rite (ritus damnati)” (Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus (Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907), vol. I, p. 231, n. 389 (1753) and p. 692, n. 1257, § 6 (1864)).
Otherwise, it was a sin for Catholics to attend and participate in non-Catholic worship (Protestant or Orthodox: see Revised Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, q. 205). Active participation in non-Catholic worship is “universally prohibited by natural and divine law…[from which] no one has the power to dispense …[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses” (Col. S. Cong., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729)). In fact, the rules were quite strict; Catholics could not attend Mass said by non-Catholic priests, even if those priests used the Catholic rite.
If it’s a sin for us to attend a schismatic Mass, then there must be something wrong with the Mass (probably because it’s done illicitly, outside of communion with Rome), even if schismatics cannot formally be found guilty of sin.
It’s important for me to note, however, that non-Catholic priests can confect the Blessed Sacrament, as Catholics may adore the Host if there is a procession performed by schismatics.
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved” (Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, n. 5; 27 May 1832: quoting Pope St. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, XIV, 5).
– The Sufi saints?! So now people can be saints regardless of what religion they belong to? I thought one of the qualities of a ‘saint’ was faith in Christ. My, how our religion has changed… “[N]o one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (Florence, Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).
God permits Islam’s existence, but He does not positively will it (just as He does not positively will people to go to Hell). God does not will evil or error. Moreover, I’m sure Islam can’t wait to take over Europe. Do you not know that they seek nothing less than the conversion of the whole world to Islam, and to subject all peoples under Islamic rule? They’ll be our allies now so long as it helps them, but once relativism has been defeated, they will undoubtedly set their sights on us next (as they did for so many centuries in the past).
If there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the worship of the Eastern Orthodox, then what do we make of the words of various saints, councils and popes?
“Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ…He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (St. Cyprian, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).
“Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ” (St. Augustine, Council of Cirta, A.D. 412).
“[T]he unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).
Formerly, Catholics could only receive sacraments from a non-Catholic priest under grave conditions, one of which was: “[The sacraments] must be administered by a validly ordained non-Catholic priest who administers the sacrament by a Catholic rite without any mixing of the condemned rite (ritus damnati)” (Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus (Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907), vol. I, p. 231, n. 389 (1753) and p. 692, n. 1257, § 6 (1864)).
Otherwise, it was a sin for Catholics to attend and participate in non-Catholic worship (Protestant or Orthodox: see Revised Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, q. 205). Active participation in non-Catholic worship is “universally prohibited by natural and divine law…[from which] no one has the power to dispense …[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses” (Col. S. Cong., vol. I, p. 100, n. 311 (1729)). In fact, the rules were quite strict; Catholics could not attend Mass said by non-Catholic priests, even if those priests used the Catholic rite.
If it’s a sin for us to attend a schismatic Mass, then there must be something wrong with the Mass (probably because it’s done illicitly, outside of communion with Rome), even if schismatics cannot formally be found guilty of sin.
It’s important for me to note, however, that non-Catholic priests can confect the Blessed Sacrament, as Catholics may adore the Host if there is a procession performed by schismatics.
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved” (Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, n. 5; 27 May 1832: quoting Pope St. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, XIV, 5).
- God can only be truly worshipped in the Holy Catholic Church.
– The Sufi saints?! So now people can be saints regardless of what religion they belong to? I thought one of the qualities of a ‘saint’ was faith in Christ. My, how our religion has changed… “[N]o one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (Florence, Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).
God permits Islam’s existence, but He does not positively will it (just as He does not positively will people to go to Hell). God does not will evil or error. Moreover, I’m sure Islam can’t wait to take over Europe. Do you not know that they seek nothing less than the conversion of the whole world to Islam, and to subject all peoples under Islamic rule? They’ll be our allies now so long as it helps them, but once relativism has been defeated, they will undoubtedly set their sights on us next (as they did for so many centuries in the past).
J
JReducation
Guest
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that our posts have failed to address the subject. The subject on the table is the beatification of Ven. John Paul II. So far, people have brought up points that they see as weaknesses in his leadership, poor choices, weaknesses in the Church during his papacy and some people are asking if it is prudent to beatify him at this time.
While these are all interesting topics for Church history, none of these points is of concern to the Magisterium in studying the life of a person who has been postulated for sainthood. The Church looks at very specific questions. She asks about the final disposition of the soul at the time of death. No one here has answered that question. However, the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints have answered it to the satisfaction of the only person whom they have to convince, the current pope.
The Church looks at the soul’s journey into God. No one here has described Pope John Paul’s spiritual journey. Once again, the Sacred Congregation has studied it and found it to be exemplary and heroic and Pope Benedict agrees. It’s a journey that we should all imitate.
The Church looks at the person’s fidelity to the faith and communion with her. None of us have proven that Pope John Paul was unfaithful or ever not in full communion with the Church. The Sacred Congregation has proven that he was a faithful Son of the Church and always in full communion with her.
The Church asks whether the soul has atoned for sins committed. Here again, the evidence says that he not only atoned for his sins, but went over and beyond what the Church ordinarily asks of penitents.
All of this information is gathered and used to make the first decree, “John Paul II lived a life of heroic Christian virtue.” Nothing else is relevant to this process. Because this process is not about what he did or did not. It’s about his sanctity.
If we were to examine the papacy of every other Successor of Peter who has been canonized, we can always find issues that are disconcerting. If we examine the leadership of many canonized religious founders, there too we can find disconcerting issues. That’s why the Church looks at the question of atonement. The important question is whether or not the person is materially culpable of sin and if so, did he or she atone for those sins. If the person atoned and was absolved, no one can hold them against him or her and they cannot be used against him or her in the process of canonization. To do so would be like saying that someone cannot be in heaven, because sorrow and absolution were not enough. That would be heresy. Absolution is enough, WHEN there is material culpability.
The other word that keeps coming up is “prudence”. “Is it prudent to beatify Pope John Paul now?” There is a problem here. My question to those who have raised this question is another question. What do we do with the miracle? Should we shove it under the carpet?
It would seem the answer to this question has been taken out of human hands by God himself. The Church did not confect the miracle. God did. He did it NOW. The Church has a moral duty to acknowledge this. Is it prudent? Prudence is the practice of virtue. To acknowledge the Glory of God is virtuous.
Given everything that the Church has examined and that Pope Benedict has approved as being true, including one known miracle, what is imprudent here?
Is there controversy around this man’s leadership? Yes. Was there controversy around the leadership of other popes and religious founders? Yes. Did the Church care about the controversy? Only if it could be proven that the person was materially culpable of sin and never atoned. Once that question was answered, the controversies are no longer part of the subject on the table. “Is the man in heaven?”
I think that we’re bringing too much to the table here. We’re bringing more to the table than the Church brings during the process of the study. The Defender of the Faith, formerly the Devil’s Advocate, is concerned with one thing, Truth. He and his team are assigned the task of protecting the faith from falsehood. If Pope Benedict decreed that John Paul II lived a heroic life of virtue and if Pope Benedict decrees that the miracle is a fact, this means one of two things: A) The Defender of the Faith is satisfied that everything is true and the faith has not been compromised, thus he conceded. B) Pope Benedict is convinced that this is God’s will now, not in a few years.
When push comes to shove, Pope Benedict’s word on the matter is the final word. As we have seen in the past, other men and women were canonized when the Curia believed that it was imprudent. It is the prerogative and duty of Peter to proclaim to the world that God has shown his Glory once again. We cannot tell God that his timing is off, because there are controversies that have to be clarified. He’ll think that we’re nuts. Maybe he does already.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
While these are all interesting topics for Church history, none of these points is of concern to the Magisterium in studying the life of a person who has been postulated for sainthood. The Church looks at very specific questions. She asks about the final disposition of the soul at the time of death. No one here has answered that question. However, the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints have answered it to the satisfaction of the only person whom they have to convince, the current pope.
The Church looks at the soul’s journey into God. No one here has described Pope John Paul’s spiritual journey. Once again, the Sacred Congregation has studied it and found it to be exemplary and heroic and Pope Benedict agrees. It’s a journey that we should all imitate.
The Church looks at the person’s fidelity to the faith and communion with her. None of us have proven that Pope John Paul was unfaithful or ever not in full communion with the Church. The Sacred Congregation has proven that he was a faithful Son of the Church and always in full communion with her.
The Church asks whether the soul has atoned for sins committed. Here again, the evidence says that he not only atoned for his sins, but went over and beyond what the Church ordinarily asks of penitents.
All of this information is gathered and used to make the first decree, “John Paul II lived a life of heroic Christian virtue.” Nothing else is relevant to this process. Because this process is not about what he did or did not. It’s about his sanctity.
If we were to examine the papacy of every other Successor of Peter who has been canonized, we can always find issues that are disconcerting. If we examine the leadership of many canonized religious founders, there too we can find disconcerting issues. That’s why the Church looks at the question of atonement. The important question is whether or not the person is materially culpable of sin and if so, did he or she atone for those sins. If the person atoned and was absolved, no one can hold them against him or her and they cannot be used against him or her in the process of canonization. To do so would be like saying that someone cannot be in heaven, because sorrow and absolution were not enough. That would be heresy. Absolution is enough, WHEN there is material culpability.
The other word that keeps coming up is “prudence”. “Is it prudent to beatify Pope John Paul now?” There is a problem here. My question to those who have raised this question is another question. What do we do with the miracle? Should we shove it under the carpet?
It would seem the answer to this question has been taken out of human hands by God himself. The Church did not confect the miracle. God did. He did it NOW. The Church has a moral duty to acknowledge this. Is it prudent? Prudence is the practice of virtue. To acknowledge the Glory of God is virtuous.
Given everything that the Church has examined and that Pope Benedict has approved as being true, including one known miracle, what is imprudent here?
Is there controversy around this man’s leadership? Yes. Was there controversy around the leadership of other popes and religious founders? Yes. Did the Church care about the controversy? Only if it could be proven that the person was materially culpable of sin and never atoned. Once that question was answered, the controversies are no longer part of the subject on the table. “Is the man in heaven?”
I think that we’re bringing too much to the table here. We’re bringing more to the table than the Church brings during the process of the study. The Defender of the Faith, formerly the Devil’s Advocate, is concerned with one thing, Truth. He and his team are assigned the task of protecting the faith from falsehood. If Pope Benedict decreed that John Paul II lived a heroic life of virtue and if Pope Benedict decrees that the miracle is a fact, this means one of two things: A) The Defender of the Faith is satisfied that everything is true and the faith has not been compromised, thus he conceded. B) Pope Benedict is convinced that this is God’s will now, not in a few years.
When push comes to shove, Pope Benedict’s word on the matter is the final word. As we have seen in the past, other men and women were canonized when the Curia believed that it was imprudent. It is the prerogative and duty of Peter to proclaim to the world that God has shown his Glory once again. We cannot tell God that his timing is off, because there are controversies that have to be clarified. He’ll think that we’re nuts. Maybe he does already.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status