Why some conservative Catholics want to stop Pope John Paul II being made a saint

[Seamus_L]

If the Devil’s Advocate was still around, I believe a rather strong case against canonization could be made.

 

[JKS]

Joe, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to highlight your lack of knowledge; I assumed that given the thread’s topic, the participants here would all know that the canonization process can only be started on dead people and that everyone here would get my joke. As to the rest: Belligerently attacking your opponent’s character and intelligence is rarely is an effective substitute for a substantive argument. Yes, I am a sinner but that doesn’t mean I don’t know who I should emulate. Many Catholics, some of them much less sinful than I am, are also scandalized at those several different aspects of JPII’s papacy I mentioned earlier. There’s also a gathering at Assisi that troubled many people but I haven’t read up on it, and some of his bishop appointments also.

Seamus, although the Devil’s Advocate was done away with for St. Escriva’s canonization process, Benedict has reraised the standards, see my link above. Hasn’t the Devil’s Advocate been put back in, then? (I don’t know and am asking, I’m not arguing it.)

Thanks to all for your prayers on my difficult childhood. My main point here is this: although I have managed to remain Catholic (I almost certainly would have left if it weren’t for the Eucharist), many of the other women from my childhood parish have left the Church, left Christianity, or left deism entirely. This one pastor probably fondled 100 or more girls; I once read a few articles with some statistics that I put together and came up with a rough estimate of 100,000 American former Catholics who left the Catholic Church because they or a loved one was abused (feel free to make your own rough estimate and continue the discussion with **your ** number). That they left the Church makes complete sense to me; I don’t think I can explain, but my reaction is “of course they left”. It isn’t just the pain, it’s that this 100K? people were more or less formed and catechized to be ex-Catholics.

Sooo, JPII’s apparent indifference to us has been noted. (And if he had a different outlook than the one he presented publicly, why in the world would he not tell us? I don’t get that.) And yes, if the Church declares that he is in heaven then I don’t see a reason to argue that it’s not so, since I’m a practicing Catholic. I am able to pray that my childhood pastor repented of his sins and that he is not in Hell, too. However, if the Church decides to proclaim to all that JPII is to be emulated, worthy of veneration etc, then the Church may as well admit She has no intention of seeking out those lost lambs. It would be seen as vindicating JPII’s behavior.

 

[Joe_5859]

Joe, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to highlight your lack of knowledge; I assumed that given the thread’s topic, the participants here would all know that the canonization process can only be started on dead people and that everyone here would get my joke. As to the rest: Belligerently attacking your opponent’s character and intelligence is rarely is an effective substitute for a substantive argument. Yes, I am a sinner but that doesn’t mean I don’t know who I should emulate. Many Catholics, some of them much less sinful than I am, are also scandalized at those several different aspects of JPII’s papacy I mentioned earlier. There’s also a gathering at Assisi that troubled many people but I haven’t read up on it, and some of his bishop appointments also.

I’m not sure why you are assuming I have a lack of knowledge of the canonization process. I am fully aware that the canonization process only begins after someone’s death. That’s why I thought you might be joking. However, the lack of emoticons, as well as the general tone of the rest of your posts on this thread led me to believe that you might not be joking. If joking around was typical of the rest of your posts, or if your post ended with a wink (), then I would have known better. I apologize for assuming that you were probably not joking. I shouldn’t have done that. Mea culpa.

I am sorry you mistook my post as “belligerently attacking” your character. That was not what I wanted to do. All I was (attempting) to do was to highlight some important parts of the CCC that I think we would all do well to keep in mind in such discussions. It was meant to be a (friendly ) general reminder, not a direct accusation. I don’t feel competent to offer any judgment on the state of your soul or the degree of your intelligence. That’s why I said your comments could fall under those areas, not that they definitely do. Admittedly, there are probably better, less ambiguous ways to make my point, though.

To put my point more clearly, we need to be very cautious and should be extremely hesitant about saying anything bad about any of our popes and bishops. I think this is generally a good rule of thumb in regards to how we approach anyone, but it is especially important for how we approach our Church leaders. We should exhaust every conceivable good option before we conclude malice or sinfulness on the part of our shepherds. Simply put, we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Now, I know that I have absolutely no idea what John Paul II knew or did not know about individual priests or bishops and their role in sex abuse scandals. Unless there is some concrete information I am missing, I would never want to imply that he was somehow a party to all of that. If someone lurking around here took such opining at face value, they could walk away with a very ugly picture of the Catholic Church, assuming that even the pope himself was party to this great scandal. I do not believe that is at all accurate.

In regards to other actions, such as kissing the Koran or particular appointments of bishops, again, I would remind anyone that it’s always a good idea to start with charity. I frequently quote Pope Benedict XVI’s intro to his book Jesus of Nazareth. In it he says: “I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.”

I think this sentiment is a key component to any discussion. Even Jesus selected Judas as an Apostle. I am not surprised if any pope’s episcopal appointments turn out less than ideally. I don’t think we can conclude negligence or ill will. The Pope doesn’t personally interview each potential bishop prior to his appointment. He has to rely on others to help him.

I could go on with other examples, but I should probably just leave it with my general desire that we first presume good will on the part of our Church leaders and only in the face of concrete, irrefutable evidence should we conclude otherwise. And even in those cases, we should only tell others of those shortcomings in *rare *cases where someone needs to know that information for their own benefit.

I hope that clarifies my thoughts on the matter. I didn’t mean to start a fight. :hug3:

 

[Dtmccameron]

. One priest I know grimaces every time his name is mentioned. “Oh, you mean, ‘John Paul the Great’,” he says,” rolling his eyes.

I do think the “Great” bit might be getting a bit old. I also dislike seeing his face plastered on every poster, dish, prayer card, candle, medal and plaque in the gift shop. Seriously fellows! There are other saints, y’know?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Seriously fellows! There are other saints, y’know?

That is the truth, I really wish there were a few more candles, medals and plaques with Pius IX on them. Though I do look forward to seeing John Paul II canonized, I am not particularly devoted to him.

 

[JKS]

So, the topic of this thread is why some conservative Catholics don’t think it’s appropriate for JPII’s canonization process to go forward now. Since I am a conservative Catholic who doesn’t think it’s appropriate for JPII’s canonization to go forward now, I spoke up and said that I agree with this article. But it’s calumny if I use examples to support my contention?

Joe, I generally avoid the use of emoticons. I figure people have successfully conveyed their ideas using the written word for quite a few years so if I choose my words carefully enough, I can probably get by. But for you, I’ll make an exception.

:banghead:

 

[Ridgerunner]

Seems to me we’re demanding a lot of John Paul II. What saint did not have failures of some sort? When one thinks about all the things he inherited, and all the resistance which he doubtless faced, one might be properly amazed that he was able to do as much as he did.

Sure, I was troubled that he didn’t see the homosexual priest crisis coming. But how many really did, and how many lies got told to him about it, I wonder. I was disappointed that he didn’t clean out more of the clerics who were abusive (of the Mass, of doctrine) than he did. But again, how many liars and scoundrels were protecting how many other liars and scoundrels? Pope John Paul II must surely have sometimes thought being Pope was like trying to swim in a pool full of molasses.

I trust the canonization process, and I’m not going to worry about it if he’s canonized. Undoubtedly, they will be able to study his life a lot more closely than I’ll ever be able to do.

 

[JKS]

Ridgerunner,
There have been over 200 popes, all of whom had difficulties with the world around them, and with the other bishops and later cardinals. JPII didn’t perform his job well. He made a lot of people feel really good about themselves and about being Catholic, but he neglected a lot of problems in the Church that BXVI is now fixing after only 4 years in the papacy. I’m sure Neville Chamberlain had really good intentions, but no one in the Sudentenland was voting for him as “bestest Prime Minister”.

 

[pnewton]

There’s something to be said for the old process where it took a couple centuries to canonise someone.

Likewise, there is benefit to the even older process of popular acclaim, when sainthood was fresh enough to be inspirational to those who knew the person. There are advantages and disadvantages to every method. I, for one, do not doubt his sanctity, his influence on world events or his legacy. I agree with Peter Kreeft who called him the greatest man of the worst century. Whether he is canonized or not, I will honor him as the great saint I know him to be.

 

[JReducation]

There are several points that we all have to keep in mind here. The most important one is that CAF is not representative of the Catholic world. We should all thank God for that. With all due respect, CAF posters tend to be more critical and more judgmental than most Catholics. I believe these threads don’t represent the faith of the Catholic people well enough to say with any degree of confidence that the Church feels that John Paul II is not a saint. If we were to use a real scientific method to get a census we would probably find that the larger number of Catholics in the developing nations had a spiritual bond with John Paul II. He did a great deal for the Church in the developing nations and for the younger generation in North America and Europe. He certainly inspired many new vocations to the religious life and the birth of many new religious families.

Second, some people want to pin the tail on the donkey, meaning that that they want to burden John Paul II with some of the blame for the sexual abuse scandal. But we have to look at this more carefully. The sexaul abuse scandal was not about homosexuality as some would like to paint it. Pedophilia is a horrible mental illness and an equally horrible crime to inflict on anyone. That being said, no amount of sanctity can cure pervasive behavior or anticipate where it’s going to show its ugly head. Pedophilia is not a proprietery illness of the clergy. In fact, the number of pedophiles among the clergy are less than among other populations. The sentationalism made it seem like it was a Catholic disease, which was not the case. I believe that one of the things that Cardinal Ratzinger tried to do was to sort through the sensationalism and the facts. This was not Pope John Paul’s doing. There are comments and memos by Cardinal Ratzinger in which he casts doubts on the prevalence of the reports, because of the media’s tendency to attack the Church at every chance. He said that he had not communicated the intensity of the problem, because of his doubt. When the facts were out and the frequency and intensity was worse than what was imagined, the battle was uphill. What we have to look at is not what he knew and when, but what he did when he knew. He did ask the bishops to fix the problem. That is the pope’s job, to demand that the bishops deal with problems in the local churches. It is not his job to run the local churches.

As far as the liturgy is concerned, that’s going to be an on-going debate for centuries. The liturgy is never going to please everyone. It never has.

Sometimes we have to be a little humble and admit that we do not have the answers. When we can do this, we can then allow others the space to be holy without having to be perfect.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

With all due respect, CAF posters tend to be more critical and more judgmental than most Catholics. …

If we were to use a real scientific method to get a census we would probably find that the larger number of Catholics in the developing nations had a spiritual bond with John Paul II.

Those are your opinions, not supported by any “real scientific method,” and frankly your comments about CAF posters sound pretty judgmental in themselves.

(JKS) He made a lot of people feel really good about themselves and about being Catholic, but he neglected a lot of problems in the Church that BXVI is now fixing after only 4 years in the papacy.

Sums up my own overall impression.

 

[Joya]

There are several points that we all have to keep in mind here. The most important one is that CAF is not representative of the Catholic world. We should all thank God for that. With all due respect, CAF posters tend to be more critical and more judgmental than most Catholics. I believe these threads don’t represent the faith of the Catholic people well enough to say with any degree of confidence that the Church feels that John Paul II is not a saint. If we were to use a real scientific method to get a census we would probably find that the larger number of Catholics in the developing nations had a spiritual bond with John Paul II. He did a great deal for the Church in the developing nations and for the younger generation in North America and Europe. He certainly inspired many new vocations to the religious life and the birth of many new religious families.

Second, some people want to pin the tail on the donkey, meaning that that they want to burden John Paul II with some of the blame for the sexual abuse scandal. But we have to look at this more carefully. The sexaul abuse scandal was not about homosexuality as some would like to paint it. Pedophilia is a horrible mental illness and an equally horrible crime to inflict on anyone. That being said, no amount of sanctity can cure pervasive behavior or anticipate where it’s going to show its ugly head. Pedophilia is not a proprietery illness of the clergy. In fact, the number of pedophiles among the clergy are less than among other populations. The sentationalism made it seem like it was a Catholic disease, which was not the case. I believe that one of the things that Cardinal Ratzinger tried to do was to sort through the sensationalism and the facts. This was not Pope John Paul’s doing. There are comments and memos by Cardinal Ratzinger in which he casts doubts on the prevalence of the reports, because of the media’s tendency to attack the Church at every chance. He said that he had not communicated the intensity of the problem, because of his doubt. When the facts were out and the frequency and intensity was worse than what was imagined, the battle was uphill. What we have to look at is not what he knew and when, but what he did when he knew. He did ask the bishops to fix the problem. That is the pope’s job, to demand that the bishops deal with problems in the local churches. It is not his job to run the local churches.

As far as the liturgy is concerned, that’s going to be an on-going debate for centuries. The liturgy is never going to please everyone. It never has.

Sometimes we have to be a little humble and admit that we do not have the answers. When we can do this, we can then allow others the space to be holy without having to be perfect.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

An insightful post. Thank you, Br. I am now in my mid 30’s and can attest to the spiritual bond I felt with JPII since I was a child. I am in agreement with the priest on Catholic radio who stated before JPII’s death that he was “one of the greatest men who has ever lived.”

 

[Tsuwano]

There are several points that we all have to keep in mind here. The most important one is that CAF is not representative of the Catholic world. We should all thank God for that. With all due respect, CAF posters tend to be more critical and more judgmental than most Catholics. I believe these threads don’t represent the faith of the Catholic people well enough to say with any degree of confidence that the Church feels that John Paul II is not a saint. If we were to use a real scientific method to get a census we would probably find that the larger number of Catholics in the developing nations had a spiritual bond with John Paul II. He did a great deal for the Church in the developing nations and for the younger generation in North America and Europe. He certainly inspired many new vocations to the religious life and the birth of many new religious families.

Second, some people want to pin the tail on the donkey, meaning that that they want to burden John Paul II with some of the blame for the sexual abuse scandal. But we have to look at this more carefully. The sexaul abuse scandal was not about homosexuality as some would like to paint it. Pedophilia is a horrible mental illness and an equally horrible crime to inflict on anyone. That being said, no amount of sanctity can cure pervasive behavior or anticipate where it’s going to show its ugly head. Pedophilia is not a proprietery illness of the clergy. In fact, the number of pedophiles among the clergy are less than among other populations. The sentationalism made it seem like it was a Catholic disease, which was not the case. I believe that one of the things that Cardinal Ratzinger tried to do was to sort through the sensationalism and the facts. This was not Pope John Paul’s doing. There are comments and memos by Cardinal Ratzinger in which he casts doubts on the prevalence of the reports, because of the media’s tendency to attack the Church at every chance. He said that he had not communicated the intensity of the problem, because of his doubt. When the facts were out and the frequency and intensity was worse than what was imagined, the battle was uphill. What we have to look at is not what he knew and when, but what he did when he knew. He did ask the bishops to fix the problem. That is the pope’s job, to demand that the bishops deal with problems in the local churches. It is not his job to run the local churches.

As far as the liturgy is concerned, that’s going to be an on-going debate for centuries. The liturgy is never going to please everyone. It never has.

Sometimes we have to be a little humble and admit that we do not have the answers. When we can do this, we can then allow others the space to be holy without having to be perfect.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree with you, Brother, and certainly concur with your opinion concerning the CAF world and the rest of the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The sexaul abuse scandal was not about homosexuality as some would like to paint it. Pedophilia is a horrible mental illness and an equally horrible crime to inflict on anyone.

And yet, the John Jay study established that the overwhelming majority of cases involved postpubescent young men. True pedophilia (abuse of prepubescent children) was involved in very few of the cases, and of those, most involved boys.

Very possibly one of the problems with rectifying this and preventing it in the future is the political correctness with which it has been and is approached. It is hard to doubt that some bishops, seemingly including Cdl Law, were drawn into then-prevailing notions about psychological “treatment” of perpetrators; “treatment” that later proved to be fruitless. One could not be greatly blamed for thinking of the abuse as more of a moral illness than a mental illness.

 

[Joe_5859]

So, the topic of this thread is why some conservative Catholics don’t think it’s appropriate for JPII’s canonization process to go forward now. Since I am a conservative Catholic who doesn’t think it’s appropriate for JPII’s canonization to go forward now, I spoke up and said that I agree with this article. But it’s calumny if I use examples to support my contention?

Joe, I generally avoid the use of emoticons. I figure people have successfully conveyed their ideas using the written word for quite a few years so if I choose my words carefully enough, I can probably get by. But for you, I’ll make an exception.

:banghead:

I guess I was not as successful as I hoped in clarifying my position nor in lightening the mood of our exchange.

I’m not trying to single you out or accuse you of sin. I’m really not. I understand that JPII’s “worthiness” of canonization is the topic of the thread, but my point is that it seems an ill topic from the get-go. It only invites speculation from us (and I include myself in this group) who really don’t have all the facts. And the facts that we do have can be taken in several different ways — some of them good, some of them bad.

Even if we do want to attempt such a discussion, I think we need to tread lightly and be cautious. Is there something wrong with giving someone the benefit of the doubt and not presuming ill intent or grave sin on behalf of a man who served as pope?

 

[JKS]

I am now in my mid 30’s and can attest to the spiritual bond I felt with JPII since I was a child.

I’m glad JPII made you feel good; I think it’s neato. But charisma isn’t a virtue; history is filled with charismatic who aren’t canonized saints.

Joe, I don’t go around badmouthing JPII at every opportunity. He led a virtuous life and I’m glad he helped Reagan and Thatcher bring down the Soviet Union. But when someone’s cause for beatification is going forward, it is exactly the appropriate time to discuss his flaws.

Br JR, you appear to be complaining that we have high standards for canonization? And my experience is that a lot of people are underwhelmed by John Paul the Gullible but people like you and Joe try to bully us into silence. So maybe people just aren’t willing to speak up around you. (I know I don’t speak up when I’m physically around people who support his canonization.) But I rarely hear more than “but he made me feel good” and “nobody’s perfect”. Makes me want to say, “Girlfriend, I’ll help you get that restraining order”

 

[Seamus_L]

JPII’s appointing Bernard Law to a post in Rome was shocking and disgraceful.

 

[Joe_5859]

Joe, I don’t go around badmouthing JPII at every opportunity. He led a virtuous life and I’m glad he helped Reagan and Thatcher bring down the Soviet Union. But when someone’s cause for beatification is going forward, it is exactly the appropriate time to discuss his flaws.

And I would agree with you 100%, if we were part of the canonization committee. The fact is, the canonization process will go forward (or not) regardless of any of our comments here on this internet forum. What good can come from speculating about JPII’s failings on this (public) venue?

Br JR, you appear to be complaining that we have high standards for canonization? And my experience is that a lot of people are underwhelmed by John Paul the Gullible but people like you and Joe try to bully us into silence. So maybe people just aren’t willing to speak up around you. (I know I don’t speak up when I’m physically around people who support his canonization.) But I rarely hear more than “but he made me feel good” and “nobody’s perfect”. Makes me want to say, “Girlfriend, I’ll help you get that restraining order”

I think you greatly mistake mine (and likely JR’s) intent if you think we are trying to bully people into silence. If you met me in person, I think you would laugh at the prospect that I am a bully! I’m simply encouraging caution and presuming the best about our former pope in the absence of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Only after we have exhausted all possible positive interpretations of his actions do I think we ought to entertain negative ones. Evidently, you disagree. That’s certainly your right to do.

 

[cthulhubryan]

*Disclaimer - I am not yet Catholic so please forgive my mistakes.

As a protestant we talk about pastors in several categories

1. Preacher - someone who can bring down the house with a sermon
2. Minister - someone who is there for his flock, who loves them all deeply and tries to help however he can.
3. Shepherd - someone who can keep his flock on the straight and narrow, who will abide no blasphemy to be knowingly passed off as “good”

The best pastors were all three. They are also very rare. When I think of JPII I look at the case along similar lines.

He was not an awesome preacher, but his writings were often moving and very powerful so I’d give him this one.

He was apparently an awesome minister who loved his flock. I saw apparently because I never really saw him doing any of this. By the time I became interested in Catholicism it was the days of the pope-mobile and his lagging health.

Shepherd. This is where I get bogged down. I didn’t understand many of his decisions (Bernie Law to the Vatican, canonizing Jose Maria Escriva, the issues with the Vatican Bank, over-emphasis on Polish issues, lack of formal response to the issues with pervert priests, and others) to me it boils down to this:

If we had a pastor who left our church smaller, more scattered, and less grounded in God’s word and law then I do not think we’d invite him back much less name the new building after him.

But as I say, I am a protestant who wants to be catholic and is very glad that Benedict XVI is pope.

 

[Joya]

I’m glad JPII made you feel good; I think it’s neato. But charisma isn’t a virtue; history is filled with charismatic who aren’t canonized saints.

I said nothing of the sort of JPII making me “feel good” nor did I state it was his charisma that attracted me to him. I did not witness his charisma as a ten year old the first time I learned about him when he made an apostolic visit to my hometown San Francisco in the late 80’s. I said I felt a spiritual bond with him and in my estimation there is a big difference between “feeling good” and having a spiritual bond with someone.

For those like yourself who are so bitter about JPII and his papacy, allow me to clarify what I meant by spiritual bond. He led me and millions others closer to God and the Blessed Mother through his teachings, homilies, encyclicals (which yes, my husband and I have read in our adulthood), was instrumental in helping us develop a richer, deeper prayer life. His relentless advocacy for the unborn got me involved in the pro-life movement. The list goes on.