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

[RNRobert]

One thing I will say in JPII’s defense. The Catholic Church is immense- over a billion members. I think it would be well nigh impossible for him to be aware of everything that goes on or to be able to control everything that happens.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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

Please explain.

 

[Seamus_L]

If you do a search, their appears to be no shortage of articles stating the reasons why Pius IX and Pius XII should not be canonized, yet when one attempts to cite reasons John Paul II should not be made a Saint it always creates a firestorm. I think a simple explanation of that, is that is merely a reflection of the times we live in. A heavy focus on ecumenical outreach and feel good photo opportunities wins out by a wide margin over upholding traditional church teaching in very difficult times.
John Paul II seemed to be afraid of offending Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Bhuddists, Animists and Athiests. Pretty much everyone except Traditional Catholics. Pius IX on the other hand, didn't care who he offended, so long as it wasen't his Saviour.

 

[pnewton]

If you do a search, their appears to be no shortage of articles stating the reasons why Pius IX and Pius XII should not be canonized, yet when one attempts to cite reasons John Paul II should not be made a Saint it always creates a firestorm. I think a simple explanation of that, is that is merely a reflection of the times we live in. A heavy focus on ecumenical outreach and feel good photo opportunities wins out by a wide margin over upholding traditional church teaching in very difficult times.

The firestorm also starts when one talks about why he should be made a saint. Your cynicism has nothing to do with reality. The reasons you give as “winning out” have nothing to do with his cause for sainthood and have not be postulated by anyone I have seen as justification. I have seen them as the fake complaints of groups in the Church that did not get their way during his papacy and are now free to spit on his grave.

 

[Joe_5859]

If you do a search, their appears to be no shortage of articles stating the reasons why Pius IX and Pius XII should not be canonized, yet when one attempts to cite reasons John Paul II should not be made a Saint it always creates a firestorm. I think a simple explanation of that, is that is merely a reflection of the times we live in. A heavy focus on ecumenical outreach and feel good photo opportunities wins out by a wide margin over upholding traditional church teaching in very difficult times.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I would say the exact same things I have said in this thread if you subbed out JPII’s name for Pius IX or Pius XII.

John Paul II seemed to be afraid of offending Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Bhuddists, Animists and Athiests. Pretty much everyone except Traditional Catholics. Pius IX on the other hand, didn’t care who he offended, so long as it wasen’t his Saviour.

This is an example of a comment that I would greatly caution people against making. Were any of us so close to John Paul II that we could confidently say that his behavior was based on fear of offending people? Shouldn’t we first look to other explanations? Maybe he actually had a good reason for his actions?

 

[JKS]

This is an example of a comment that I would greatly caution people against making. Were any of us so close to John Paul II that we could confidently say that his behavior was based on fear of offending people? Shouldn’t we first look to other explanations? Maybe he actually had a good reason for his actions?

“Shut up unless you agree with me,” Joe explained once more.

There are lots of topics I don’t think should be discussed. I don’t discuss them. But you did, until you started losing the argument. I think this is a useful discussion, as it shows just how shallow the arguments are for JPII’s canonization.

jpnewton,
“fake complaints of groups in the Church that did not get their way during his papacy and are now free to spit on his grave”? False innuendo against me is a poor substitute for a substantive response.

Joya,
I’m not bitter about JPII’s papacy, but I don’t think he deserves canonization. He successfully carried out some of his responsibilities,and I’m really glad he increased your devotion to the Immaculate Conception. But there are, as I said before, somewhere around 100K former Catholics to counter you and your family. There’s a passage about the Good Shepherd with 99 sheep who goes out to find the 1 lost one.

You know, I hear Alexander VI was a great administrator, and nobody’s perfect. He went to Confession just before celebrating Mass-every time! (annually) and he made sure his daughter was properly married in the Church.

 

[Joe_5859]

“Shut up unless you agree with me,” Joe explained once more.

There are lots of topics I don’t think should be discussed. I don’t discuss them. But you did, until you started losing the argument. I think this is a useful discussion, as it shows just how shallow the arguments are for JPII’s canonization.

Considering you won’t give the pope the most charitable understanding of his actions possible, I suppose I should give up expecting you to give my posts a charitable reading…

I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about now. I am not attempting to argue for JPII’s canonization at all, so I’m not sure how or when I “started losing the argument.” I’m simply advocating charity. I’m not sure why that’s so problematic.

 

[pnewton]

Considering you won’t give the pope the most charitable understanding of his actions possible, I suppose I should give up expecting you to give my posts a charitable reading…

Unfortunately, too many people are willing to assume the worst of all, including their faithful fellow Catholics. If we do now know what is in the Pope’s mind, chartiy and Catholic moral teaching tells us to assume the best, if we are to assume at all.

 

[JReducation]

Whether it’s the canonization of John Paul II, Francis of Assisi, Jose Maria Escriva, or another person. The process is not based on what the person achieved or failed to achieved. The process asks one question and tries to answer that question. “Did the person live a heoric life of Christian virtue?”

It does not ask did the person make mistakes or do harm or good. That does not even come up in the process. What is on the table is whether the person is in heaven. A person gets to heaven by his life of virtue, not accomplishments.

I know this is not the topic of this thread, but I don’t understand why someone questioned the canonization of Jose Maria Escriva. The point is this. Pope John Paul canonized him. Therefore, his sanctity becomes part of the faith of the Church. There can be no error in this matter. To bring that up as a reason to question John Paul’s sanctity is actually against the faith. Popes can canonize and they need not ask anyone to do so. Once it’s done, it’s like Pilate said, “What is written is written.”

In 1228 Pope Gregory IX refused to open a study on the life of St. Francis. He refused to beatify Francis of Assisi. At that time the canonization process was very young. Francis of Assisi would have been what we would call a first generation canonized saint. First generation in the sense that he would have belonged to the first generation of saints canonized under the process as we know it. There were canonizations before that, but they were done by bishops, by public acclaim or by other means.

Anyway, the point is that some felt that Pope Gregory was influenced by his personal relationship with Francis when he was Cardinal Hugolino and Francis was under his protection. Gregory traveled to Assisi and canonized Francis and stated that “HE KNEW” Francis was in heaven. Once it was done, the discussion was over. So, now we have Jose Maria Escriva. The Holy Father has declared that he is in heaven. There is nothing to discuss. The Holy Father cannot err on this. This is not speculation. This is knowledge that comes from the Holy Spirit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

As for myself, I **DO **believe that Pope John Paul was **THE GREAT. **

 

[pnewton]

As for myself, I **DO **believe that Pope John Paul was **THE GREAT. **

That **is **what Pope Benedict called him.

 

[JReducation]

There is something important here too. While many people seemed very enthusiastic when Pope Benedict published Summorum Pontificum, when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops and when he pushed forward his plan to review and revise the translation of the English language missal, the same crowd does not seem that supportive of his enthusiasm for the beatification of John Paul II.

Let’s look at some facts.

1. It was Pope Benedict XVI who called John Paul II, “The Great”
2. It was Pope Benedict XVI who dispensed with the waiting period and kicked off the investigation into John Paul II’s life.
3. It was Pope Benedict XVI who celebrated a public mass on the anniversary of John Paul’s death praying for John Paul’s canonization.
4. It was Pope Benedict XVI who knelt in prayer to John Paul II, at his tomb, in front of millions.
5. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who dealt with much of what some blame on John Paul II and who first said that he was not too concerned about the sexual abuse reports in the USA, because the media could not be trusted to treat the Church fairly. He still holds that position about the media.
6. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who spear-headed the doctrinal investigations on the work and life of St. Jose Maria Escriva, whom John Paul II canonized, and found nothing lacking in Jose Maria Escriva or the Opus Dei.

My strong feeling is that if we trust Joseph Ratzinger in so many different situations, then we should also trust his judgment on this one too. It seems that he is convinced that John Paul II is truly in heaven. He often refers to this as a fact. The first time was at his funeral mass when he said that the John Paul the Great was looking down upon us from his place in heaven. I can’t recall the exact wording; but those who saw the mass may remember better than I can.

In any case, my point is that we allow the Holy Father to do his job and trust. Sometimes we tend to be too lacking in the basic trust that is so important to the life of faith. There is something to be said for a humble and childlike trust in the Church and her leadership. If nothing else, as St. Francis said, “It is pleasing to God and man.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ Still not convincing.

Intelligent people can differ in their perspectives, judgments, and opinions. You’re not going to succeed in convincing the entire participants of CAF, let alone the entire Catholic population. I agree: what will happen will happen, regardless of personal opinion (lay and clerical). People were just offering their opinions, and many just do not agree with yours, which apparently you’re having a hard time accepting.

 

[JReducation]

^ Still not convincing.

Intelligent people can differ in their perspectives, judgments, and opinions. You’re not going to succeed in convincing the entire participants of CAF, let alone the entire Catholic population. I agree: what will happen will happen, regardless of personal opinion (lay and clerical). People were just offering their opinions, and many just do not agree with yours, which apparently you’re having a hard time accepting.

I’m not sure if you’re speaking to me or not. But if you are, I think you may have misunderstood something. The part that I’ve highlighted is not the case at all.

Did you notice the initials after my name? We don’t have opinions that we hang on to. The Franciscans of Life, Franciscans of the Renewal, Franciscans of the Eternal Word, Franciscans of the Immaculate, Franciscans of Peace, Franciscans of Christ the King, Franciscans of the Eucharist, all follow the same rule written by St. Francis in 1209. According to that rule, we do expect anyone to agree with us on anything or even to take us seriously. We are what we are before God and nothing else.

We take our positions very seriously. But from the moment that we enter the postulancy until we make solemn vows, six years later, we are reminded that we are nothing and no one of consequence. It is OK for people to disagree with us and it should never take away our peace. We are here to preach, not to convert. That part is the grace of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

We don’t have opinions that we hang on to

…except that you’ve been hanging onto yours for many posts here, rather lengthily, telling people who object or who have potential objections that they should let others decide. The question was not whether others could or would decide. (Of course they will.)

So although you apparently believe that you have disinterested opinions, i.m.o. your words and repeated attempts show otherwise.

Yes, we get it. People outside the Vatican will not be the ultimate determiners of canonization -of anyone, for that matter. (Note, however, that there is an element of popular appeal in many canonizations.) Nevertheless, people can have opinions, and it’s not necessary to keep telling them that their opinions don’t matter. (It also comes across as a little condescending.)

Maybe I’m the only one who perceives this, and if so, I’m sorry for my lone opinion.

 

[pnewton]

…except that you’ve been hanging onto yours for many posts here, rather lengthily, telling people who object or who have potential objections that they should let others decide. The question was not whether others could or would decide. (Of course they will.)

So although you apparently believe that you have disinterested opinions, i.m.o. your words and repeated attempts show otherwise.

Responding to other posts is allowed, you know. It is neither condescending or inappropriate, if done with charity.

 

[JReducation]

…except that you’ve been hanging onto yours for many posts here, rather lengthily, telling people who object or who have potential objections that they should let others decide. The question was not whether others could or would decide. (Of course they will.)

So although you apparently believe that you have disinterested opinions, i.m.o. your words and repeated attempts show otherwise.

Yes, we get it. People outside the Vatican will not be the ultimate determiners of canonization -of anyone, for that matter. (Note, however, that there is an element of popular appeal in many canonizations.) Nevertheless, people can have opinions, and it’s not necessary to keep telling them that their opinions don’t matter. (It also comes across as a little condescending.)

Maybe I’m the only one who perceives this, and if so, I’m sorry for my lone opinion.

Maybe I’m not making myself clear enough. It’s not that my opinions are interested or disinterested. That is not what I’m trying to say. What I was trying to share was something that we learn from the time that we enter our community.

You have disagreed with my opinion and I was trying to say that this is perfectly fine, because it does not take away one’s peace and inner sense of discipline. From the first day that we walk into the door of our friary the first thing that we are reminded of us that we are nothing and that nothing that we have nothing to offer. Therefore, whether someone accepts our opinion or not is not important to us, because it is to be assumed that if you are an insignificant human being you should not expect much in return. You must be like the master who was reduced to nothing on the cross. The disciple must never aspire for more accetance than the master. Therefore, we do not aspire for a greater acceptance of our opinions either.

I hope that helps clarify the point I was making.

As to condescending, there is some truth here that we have to accept. It is not I or those individuals who tell us to let something go and let those who have the authority and knowledge take over who are being condescending. The infrastructure of the Church can appear to be very consdescending to the modern mind, because it is not a democractic system and decisions are made by those in power without much thought for those whom they govern, because that’s not why they are in power. They are in power to discern and teach the truth, not to listen to the masses.

Therefore, they will listen when they believe that it’s convenient and necessary and they will ignore when they believe that what the masses have to say does not add anything to the truth that they have to proclaim.

In that regard, the system is condescending. But condenscension is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it’s just the way something functions. It’s like the parent who tells the child “this is my house and my rules.” That’s consdescending. But it’s also true.

I’ll share a simple example with you. I’m on our formation team. This next week I have to meet with two novices. My role on the team is to determine if these young men have been called by Christ to lvie our way of life. My position is final and speaks for the Church. This is a condescending system, if you will, but it works. God has used it for 800 years for a good purpose.

The point is not everything that is condescening is bad. It’s only bad if it’s oppressive and deprives someone of his or her rights. When we do not have certain rights, there is nothing wrong with being reminded of that fact.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

The point is not everything that is condescening is bad. It’s only bad if it’s oppressive and deprives someone of his or her rights. When we do not have certain rights, there is nothing wrong with being reminded of that fact.

But in this context, this forum, and this thread, we weren’t talking about “rights.” We were talking about opinions, and in the context of opinions, it’s my perception that your continually reminding us that we have no “rights” was both off-topic and, yes, condescending. (We’re not members of your friary, so we do get to have opinions, and we do get to express them. )

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have come to a point as a member of this forum that I do not like to get into protracted discussions or arguments, whatever you care to call them. I have observed that many who continue the arguments are some who do not have the educational background in things “Church” as does Brother JR. That being said, I would make a simple suggestion that people do not get their dander up so easily. Remember, the Church IS NOT a democracy. The truth it teaches is that - TRUTH, which is one, singular and immutable. Our discussing opinions as to whether someone is great or not is opinion. The underlying question, is what is that opinion based upon. Is it based upon a solid foundation of the Churches infallible teachings or is it formed by the secularism which is so prevalent with some who profess to be Catholic. I put these thoughts only as a guide for self reflection and not in any way wanting any protracted discussion.
God Bless.

 

[Seamus_L]

If he’s made a Saint in my lifetime I doubt it will really effect me. I certainly won’t devote the rest of my life to debunking his canonization. On the otherhand though he will be one of those canonized who I never bother with.