Why Pope John Paul II should not be canonized
Well, well, well, someone is finally paying attention to our humble weblog the John Paul II Millstone and proving our point that John Paul II MUST not be called a “saint” by American children and in American soil!
Well, someone is paying attention finally to our humble weblog the John Paul II Millstone and proving our point that John Paul II MUST not be called a “saint” by American children and in American soil! Opus Dei through Benedict XVI is speeding up the canonization of John Paul II because he is their GAY Holy Father mystically married to their other Holy Father St. Josemaria Escriva – see our earlier posts and images. Opus Dei cannot stand the Jesuits who work with the poorest of Christ and so they expel and silence them form the Vatican Radio and shut down the Vatican Observatory run by the Jesuits. The Opus Dei bishop of el Salvador silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino because he dared criticised the theatrical papacy of John Paul II in his book Witnesses to the Kingdom: the Martyrs of El Salvador and the Crucified People
August 14, 2009
Why Pope John Paul II should not be canonized
By Eric Giunta
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/giunta/090814
Once again, the Catholic world has been rocked by yet more allegations of sexual impropriety by Legionnaires of Christ founder, the late Fr. Marcial Maciel. It seems the now-disgraced founder-cum-pervert fathered more children than previously suspected; the latest claimants to his paternity purport to have evidence that the late Pope John Paul II knew of Maciel's sexual dalliances, and turned a blind eye to them. (If true, it would confirm the prior journalistic scholarship of author Jason Berry.)
The allegations highlight what for all too many Catholics is the elephant-in-the-room when discussing the ills which beset the modern Church: the extent to which the late Pope John Paul II was an enabler of these perversions, from sexual and liturgical abuse to theological dissent and the scandal of Catholic politicians who support the most immoral of social policies with the tacit or express blessings of their Church.
One does not need to deny or disparage the personal sanctity, thoughtful conservatism, or religious orthodoxy of the late Pontiff in order to acknowledge that his Pontificate, by all accounts, was a glorious failure. Yes, he aided in the fall of Eastern European Communism, but the Pope of Rome is not primarily a mover and shaker of state politics, but a Christian pastor whose mission it is to save souls, convert the lost, and govern his church in such a way that it resembles, as best as possible, the city on a hill, the light of the world whose radiance cannot be hid under a bushel-basket.
In terms of raw statistics, the Catholic Church shrank under the late Pope. Catholics comprised 18 percent of the world's population in 1978, the year Karol Wojtyla assumed the Chair of St Peter. At his death Catholics comprised 17 percent.
It'd be foolish, of course, to let such numbers stand alone as leading Catholic indicators, but in terms of the quality of world Catholicism the evidence, while not as quantifiable, is no less apparent or tangible. If one is looking for the fruits of the Wojtylian pontificate, several studies of the modern church paint a representative picture: Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda, The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal, Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, and the pioneering work of Dr. Richard Sipe and Roman Catholic Faithful. These sources approach their subject matter from very varied ideological backgrounds, but they all paint a very bleak, but well-documented, picture of the prior pontificate.
Though Catholics and others are loathe to admit it of an otherwise beloved Pope, John Paul II oversaw a church which deteriorated in both its inner and outer life. His callous indifference toward the victims of priestly sexual abuse in refusing to meet personally with a single one of them, and his stubborn refusal to compel the resignation from office of any of the bishops who aided, abetted, and covered-up the abuse, are testamentary to his utter failure: not as a Catholic or a theologian, but as a Pope.
And this is precisely why he should not be canonized. For in the Catholic (and popular) understanding, canonization is not simply a technical decree indicating one's everlasting abode in Paradise; it is, in addition, the Church's solemn endorsement of a Christian's heroic virtue. The question the Catholic Church must ask herself is: Was John Paul II a model of "heroic" papal virtue?
Contrary to leftist media reportage, the late Pope was not an authoritarian despot, bent on enforcing Catholic orthodoxy on an unwilling church. Quite the contrary: theological liberals and dissenters flourished in all of the Church's structures, from lay politics and Catholic universities, to the ranks of priests and bishops. Not a single pro-abortion Catholic politician has been excommunicated from the church; only a handful of openly heretical priests were asked to stop teaching theology, but were otherwise permitted to exercise their priestly ministry unhindered. The Church in Austria openly dissents from orthodox Catholicism with papal impunity. Fr. Richard McBrien, Sr. Joan Chittiser, Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, Hans Kung, Charles Curran, Notre Dame University, dissenters galore: the overwhelming majority of prominent far-leftist, theologically modernist Catholic organizations, speakers, and theologians are Catholics in good standing with their church, and are frequently given an official platform at church-sponsored institutions and events. To give just two more examples, several Catholic parishes and universities flaunt themselves as "gay-friendly" in a directory published by the Conference of Catholic Lesbians. These speakers and institutions are in just as good standing with the Church as so-called "orthodox" Catholic pundits and writers.
After John Paul II, the Catholic Church is virtually indistinguishable from the Anglican Communion. Everyone has their seat at the table, liberal and conservative, high church and low. The "official" teaching of the Church may lean toward religious conservatism, but this is just one option out of many which a loyal Catholic may avail himself of and remain in good standing with his Church.
The late Pope's governance of his church was laissez-faire, he personally adhering to conservative Catholic orthodoxy but not wishing to impose such on Catholic clergy or institutions. Ironically, the Papacy has been rather critical of governments who take such approaches to their economies; should it be the model for a church which regards itself as the one true religion?
The canonization of Pope John Paul II is an issue which concerns not only Catholics, but all traditionalist conservatives. For better or for worse (depending on one's religious outlook), the Catholic Church is the largest religious institution on the planet, and historically regarded as a fairly conservative one. The Washington Times recently named Pope Benedict the de facto leader of world conservatism. Just as conservatives do not wish to see their foundational principles redefined by the nomination and election of conservatives-in-name-only, so the canonization of the late Pope would represent (among other things) his church's influential imprimatur on a model of Christian pastorship that has eroded the foundational conservative principles of one of the world's oldest and most venerable conservative institutions.
As noted earlier, the Papacy is the third-rail of orthodox Catholic discourse. The respect Catholics have for the Papal institution renders the living or recent claimants of that seat virtually impervious to criticism, as if such critique automatically rendered one implacably uncharitable or schismatic. When civil society regains its conservative bearings, history will not be kind to what any unbiased observer must regard as the gross pastoral negligence of the 21st century's first Pope; if Catholics want to come out of the present cultural quagmire with their intellectual integrity intact, they must fearlessly shed the light of truth on that Pontiff's pastorship, and be sure to end up on the right side of history's verdict.
© Eric Giunta
Comments to this article are BLIND to the reality of the Octopus Dei http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/08/an-argument-against-john-paul_comments.html
Observer
August 14, 2009 10:38 PM
He may have been great in some ways, but his feet were of clay here, and canonizing him would send the message that his and the Church's response to this situation was somehow not a real problem.
Well said, Tumarion.
John Paul himself will suffer nothing if he is not canonized. Perhaps the analogy to Junipero Serra is apt here. Serra may have been a good guy, but his canonization would send a certain message (in his case about colonialism) which might not be appropriate. JP was undoubtedly a good guy too, but I don't think the Church should send the message that denial is the proper response to the horrible things that have happened.
David F. (the most ignorant of them all -- John Paul II saved NO ONE)
August 15, 2009 10:24 AM
The Person - The former Pope was clearly a highly educated man beloved by his flock. His legacy will never be defined by one issue, nor should the most important be ignored. How many pages of the “posito” deal with the sexual abuse of children by priests? I would appreciate it if the investigators would answer two questions for me.
What is the most important thing JPII did to stop the negligent supervision of abusive priests by his highest level employees?
What is the most important thing he did to show care, concern, and compassion for the tens of thousands who were raped by his employees, and betrayed by his hierarchy?
Is it just me, or do you have the feeling that when they’re done, documentation will show that no one on the planet saved more kids from sexual abuse.
Observer
August 15, 2009 12:44 PM
Is it just me, or do you have the feeling that when they’re done, documentation will show that no one on the planet saved more kids from sexual abuse.
It's just you. Unless you mean this statement ironically, or to imply that the "documentation" will fall somewhat short of reality.
thomas tucker
August 15, 2009 1:30 PM
David- you may be right. We can't know at this point. One quibbe- JPII did not see his fellow bishops as "employees." His model of Church governance, which has its flaws a swell as its benefits, was much more in the mode of first among equals. In addition, he was not a micromanager and delegated responsilbility, rightly or wrongly, to others.
Furthermore, I honestly cut the Pope a lot of slack on this issue for two additional reasons- as the Scandal began unfolding, he was rapidly aging and becoming ill in health. I think played a large part in how much he was able to dela with this problem. Secondly, don't underestimate how much someone at the top knows about what his happening in other places and how much info is given to him. And don't overestimate how much of the story is known to and correctly reported by the media. All I'm saying here is that you have to be very careful in judging how much someone knew and how culpable they werein dealing with it- there are many variables.
In the meantime, I give JP great credit for his evangelization, Theology of the Body, and laying of groundwork for the rising number of vocations with orthodox seminarians that we are now seeing- this began under his pontificate. He ably sageguarded the Deposit of Faith and was an inspiration to literally millions.
Now, let the mosquitos resume their biting.
Pentimento
August 15, 2009 4:30 PM
Saints are canonized for their holiness, not for their good judgment about temporal matters, or even sometimes about spiritual matters.
Thomas R
August 15, 2009 5:05 PM
"I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the Giunta essay." RD
TR: I know one should assume good faith, but I think it's highly unlikely you disagree more than agree with the essay. You left the faith largely because of anger over things during his Papacy. Also I don't think you've ever have linked to a case for his canonization and I'm skeptical you would be emotionally able to do so.
Anyway ideally canonization is a matter of meeting the requirements, some or most of which involve miracles beyond our say-so. I agree with those saying it shouldn't be rushed and that maybe JPII canonized others too fast. If and when he meets the standard he meets the standard. It's not up to me or you or anyone here to say he must never be canonized. (And for any Orthodoxers poo-pooing some Catholic saints may I just say Tsar Nicolas II.)
Personally Pope John Paul II means a great deal to me and even many non-Catholics I know admire him. His ability to reach out to other religions without compromising core principles is very inspiring to me. I understand the anger someone like him or you feel, but I don't share it. The lack of that rage makes me maybe insensitive to something, but I think it has its positives.
Jason
August 16, 2009 9:20 AM
Fortunately for Catholics the process of canonization is more of a supernatural process than a political one.
Observer
August 16, 2009 11:15 AM
Fortunately for Catholics the process of canonization is more of a supernatural process than a political one.
Kind of.
However, the promotion of a Cause down here on Planet Earth requires quite a lot of money. The people best situated and motivated to spend this money are the religious orders. As a result, the calendar of saints is heavily weighted towards founders of religious orders, even and including some pretty obscure people. Married people (who did not manage to get martyred) and other ordinary people are very much underrepresented.
One could draw the conclusion that being married and having a family is a sort of second-class Christianity, that according to the Catholic Church the "laity" is only there to "pay, pray and obey" while the heights of "real" holiness are accessible only to religious.
In fact people have drawn that very conclusion from this data. Religious and priests are especially fond of this take on the data, but they're not th only ones. After all, remember, religious life is "the state of perfection." Which makes my life "the state of imperfection," which it is, but not in the way they mean.
If you think this process is mostly "supernatural" you should buy into the idea that God agrees. (Also, I have a bridge to sell you.)
Jason
August 16, 2009 1:44 PM
Observer, apparently you have not been observing the Church for the last forty years post Vatican II in which She has stressed the role of the laity. With regard to your comment about selling me a bridge, "for those who have the gift of faith, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, no explanation will suffice." Please be assured I will keep you in my prayers.
David J. White
August 16, 2009 4:11 PM
Aside from the early martyr popes, relatively few popes have been canonized
Of course the early martyr popes, and other saints from the early centuries, were not "canonized" in anything like the modern understanding of the term.
Who cares if the Roman church "canonizes" one more dead saint?
We Catholics care a great deal, Siarlys.
Fortunately for Catholics the process of canonization is more of a supernatural process than a political one.
According to a cousin of mine who is a diocesan priest, it is very much a political -- and financial -- process. That's why so many members of religious orders are canonized, according to him: the orders have the funds to keep the cause open and to advance it.
Siarlys Jenkins
August 16, 2009 10:09 PM
David J. White:
You Romans are welcome to care, within your church, about what your church does. That is your freedom of religion, ethically and, in this nation, constitutionally. My point is, why should a self-professed Greek Orthodox care, why should a true blue Protestant, and proud of it, care, why should an atheist care, why should secular media care, why should any government anywhere care? It is indeed a private internal matter of your church, and of no significance to anyone else, either to object to or take note of. I had only one comment on the selection of Ratzinger as Bishop of Rome: "Thank God for the Reformation."
Thomas R:
Let the Russian Orthodox worry about Bloody Nicholas. The rest of us don't have to revere the autocrat. If there is a hell, I'm sure he is burning in it right now. I hope his children are not suffering for the sins of their father.
Siarlys Jenkins
August 16, 2009 10:10 PM
David J. White:
You Romans are welcome to care, within your church, about what your church does. That is your freedom of religion, ethically and, in this nation, constitutionally. My point is, why should a self-professed Greek Orthodox care, why should a true blue Protestant, and proud of it, care, why should an atheist care, why should secular media care, why should any government anywhere care? It is indeed a private internal matter of your church, and of no significance to anyone else, either to object to or take note of. I had only one comment on the selection of Ratzinger as Bishop of Rome: "Thank God for the Reformation."
Thomas R:
Let the Russian Orthodox worry about Bloody Nicholas. The rest of us don't have to revere the autocrat. If there is a hell, I'm sure he is burning in it right now. I hope his children are not suffering for the sins of their father.
Thomas R
August 16, 2009 11:07 PM
I shouldn't have painted all Orthodox with the brush of what the Russians do or don't do.
Still I intended a larger point. Most religions have saints who are "questionable" in some way. Even in the case of the Humanists I'd think several of those named "Humanist of the Year" had qualities that not all Humanists find admirable.
It bothers me to overly pick on a religion for having a questionable saint or to focus in only on the moments a saint had bad judgement. I think non-Catholics care about this as it's a way to bash or praise Catholicism. I would say non-Catholics are more likely to admire John Paul II than castigate him, from what I remember of polls, but for ex-Catholics and secularists his canonization is a big deal relating to their anger at the Church. (Of Popes considered for canonization John XXIII and Pius IX would likely be the ones that would cause some unease for me.) So I think that's why it matters to other religions even if I might agree it should be none of our business.
Your Name
August 17, 2009 9:45 AM
Siarlys- if you don't care, then why comment on this post?
Just to be inflammatory, or rude?
Siarlys Jenkins
August 17, 2009 11:00 PM
http://siarlysjenkins.blogspot.com
Since you asked, Your Name, no, I didn't comment to be inflammatory or rude. The post itself strongly suggests that the canonization of JPJP is a matter of broad concern, and examines arguments why or why not. I initially responded by saying that I have a very different understanding of what a "saint" is -- based on very early church history, and modern Protestant usage. In the sense I understand the word, canonization is either redundant or a nullity. A sincere, devout, Christian of the Roman branch explained that to him, and to his co-religionists, whether JP is canonized makes a great deal of difference. I acknowledged that, internal to their denomination, that is entirely up to them. I know of course that, according to orthodox Roman understanding, my saying that is a bit of an insult, since that denomination still claims to be the ONLY "Church," and their canonization process the ONLY way to "sainthood." I don't, incidentally, mind seeing Bishops of Rome playing modest roles as peacemakers in the world, as long as they don't reach for the kind of secular powers which have in many centuries corrupted their bureaucracy. But my comments are a legitimate observation on the significance of JP being "made a saint." Nobody has any obligation to agree with me. I hope we all know that God will do as God chooses, regardless of what any of us opine here.
Well, someone is paying attention finally to our humble weblog the John Paul II Millstone and proving our point that John Paul II MUST not be called a “saint” by American children and in American soil! Opus Dei through Benedict XVI is speeding up the canonization of John Paul II because he is their GAY Holy Father mystically married to their other Holy Father St. Josemaria Escriva – see our earlier posts and images. Opus Dei cannot stand the Jesuits who work with the poorest of Christ and so they expel and silence them form the Vatican Radio and shut down the Vatican Observatory run by the Jesuits. The Opus Dei bishop of el Salvador silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino because he dared criticised the theatrical papacy of John Paul II in his book Witnesses to the Kingdom: the Martyrs of El Salvador and the Crucified People
August 14, 2009
Why Pope John Paul II should not be canonized
By Eric Giunta
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/giunta/090814
Once again, the Catholic world has been rocked by yet more allegations of sexual impropriety by Legionnaires of Christ founder, the late Fr. Marcial Maciel. It seems the now-disgraced founder-cum-pervert fathered more children than previously suspected; the latest claimants to his paternity purport to have evidence that the late Pope John Paul II knew of Maciel's sexual dalliances, and turned a blind eye to them. (If true, it would confirm the prior journalistic scholarship of author Jason Berry.)
The allegations highlight what for all too many Catholics is the elephant-in-the-room when discussing the ills which beset the modern Church: the extent to which the late Pope John Paul II was an enabler of these perversions, from sexual and liturgical abuse to theological dissent and the scandal of Catholic politicians who support the most immoral of social policies with the tacit or express blessings of their Church.
One does not need to deny or disparage the personal sanctity, thoughtful conservatism, or religious orthodoxy of the late Pontiff in order to acknowledge that his Pontificate, by all accounts, was a glorious failure. Yes, he aided in the fall of Eastern European Communism, but the Pope of Rome is not primarily a mover and shaker of state politics, but a Christian pastor whose mission it is to save souls, convert the lost, and govern his church in such a way that it resembles, as best as possible, the city on a hill, the light of the world whose radiance cannot be hid under a bushel-basket.
In terms of raw statistics, the Catholic Church shrank under the late Pope. Catholics comprised 18 percent of the world's population in 1978, the year Karol Wojtyla assumed the Chair of St Peter. At his death Catholics comprised 17 percent.
It'd be foolish, of course, to let such numbers stand alone as leading Catholic indicators, but in terms of the quality of world Catholicism the evidence, while not as quantifiable, is no less apparent or tangible. If one is looking for the fruits of the Wojtylian pontificate, several studies of the modern church paint a representative picture: Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda, The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal, Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, and the pioneering work of Dr. Richard Sipe and Roman Catholic Faithful. These sources approach their subject matter from very varied ideological backgrounds, but they all paint a very bleak, but well-documented, picture of the prior pontificate.
Though Catholics and others are loathe to admit it of an otherwise beloved Pope, John Paul II oversaw a church which deteriorated in both its inner and outer life. His callous indifference toward the victims of priestly sexual abuse in refusing to meet personally with a single one of them, and his stubborn refusal to compel the resignation from office of any of the bishops who aided, abetted, and covered-up the abuse, are testamentary to his utter failure: not as a Catholic or a theologian, but as a Pope.
And this is precisely why he should not be canonized. For in the Catholic (and popular) understanding, canonization is not simply a technical decree indicating one's everlasting abode in Paradise; it is, in addition, the Church's solemn endorsement of a Christian's heroic virtue. The question the Catholic Church must ask herself is: Was John Paul II a model of "heroic" papal virtue?
Contrary to leftist media reportage, the late Pope was not an authoritarian despot, bent on enforcing Catholic orthodoxy on an unwilling church. Quite the contrary: theological liberals and dissenters flourished in all of the Church's structures, from lay politics and Catholic universities, to the ranks of priests and bishops. Not a single pro-abortion Catholic politician has been excommunicated from the church; only a handful of openly heretical priests were asked to stop teaching theology, but were otherwise permitted to exercise their priestly ministry unhindered. The Church in Austria openly dissents from orthodox Catholicism with papal impunity. Fr. Richard McBrien, Sr. Joan Chittiser, Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, Hans Kung, Charles Curran, Notre Dame University, dissenters galore: the overwhelming majority of prominent far-leftist, theologically modernist Catholic organizations, speakers, and theologians are Catholics in good standing with their church, and are frequently given an official platform at church-sponsored institutions and events. To give just two more examples, several Catholic parishes and universities flaunt themselves as "gay-friendly" in a directory published by the Conference of Catholic Lesbians. These speakers and institutions are in just as good standing with the Church as so-called "orthodox" Catholic pundits and writers.
After John Paul II, the Catholic Church is virtually indistinguishable from the Anglican Communion. Everyone has their seat at the table, liberal and conservative, high church and low. The "official" teaching of the Church may lean toward religious conservatism, but this is just one option out of many which a loyal Catholic may avail himself of and remain in good standing with his Church.
The late Pope's governance of his church was laissez-faire, he personally adhering to conservative Catholic orthodoxy but not wishing to impose such on Catholic clergy or institutions. Ironically, the Papacy has been rather critical of governments who take such approaches to their economies; should it be the model for a church which regards itself as the one true religion?
The canonization of Pope John Paul II is an issue which concerns not only Catholics, but all traditionalist conservatives. For better or for worse (depending on one's religious outlook), the Catholic Church is the largest religious institution on the planet, and historically regarded as a fairly conservative one. The Washington Times recently named Pope Benedict the de facto leader of world conservatism. Just as conservatives do not wish to see their foundational principles redefined by the nomination and election of conservatives-in-name-only, so the canonization of the late Pope would represent (among other things) his church's influential imprimatur on a model of Christian pastorship that has eroded the foundational conservative principles of one of the world's oldest and most venerable conservative institutions.
As noted earlier, the Papacy is the third-rail of orthodox Catholic discourse. The respect Catholics have for the Papal institution renders the living or recent claimants of that seat virtually impervious to criticism, as if such critique automatically rendered one implacably uncharitable or schismatic. When civil society regains its conservative bearings, history will not be kind to what any unbiased observer must regard as the gross pastoral negligence of the 21st century's first Pope; if Catholics want to come out of the present cultural quagmire with their intellectual integrity intact, they must fearlessly shed the light of truth on that Pontiff's pastorship, and be sure to end up on the right side of history's verdict.
© Eric Giunta
Comments to this article are BLIND to the reality of the Octopus Dei http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/08/an-argument-against-john-paul_comments.html
Observer
August 14, 2009 10:38 PM
He may have been great in some ways, but his feet were of clay here, and canonizing him would send the message that his and the Church's response to this situation was somehow not a real problem.
Well said, Tumarion.
John Paul himself will suffer nothing if he is not canonized. Perhaps the analogy to Junipero Serra is apt here. Serra may have been a good guy, but his canonization would send a certain message (in his case about colonialism) which might not be appropriate. JP was undoubtedly a good guy too, but I don't think the Church should send the message that denial is the proper response to the horrible things that have happened.
David F. (the most ignorant of them all -- John Paul II saved NO ONE)
August 15, 2009 10:24 AM
The Person - The former Pope was clearly a highly educated man beloved by his flock. His legacy will never be defined by one issue, nor should the most important be ignored. How many pages of the “posito” deal with the sexual abuse of children by priests? I would appreciate it if the investigators would answer two questions for me.
What is the most important thing JPII did to stop the negligent supervision of abusive priests by his highest level employees?
What is the most important thing he did to show care, concern, and compassion for the tens of thousands who were raped by his employees, and betrayed by his hierarchy?
Is it just me, or do you have the feeling that when they’re done, documentation will show that no one on the planet saved more kids from sexual abuse.
Observer
August 15, 2009 12:44 PM
Is it just me, or do you have the feeling that when they’re done, documentation will show that no one on the planet saved more kids from sexual abuse.
It's just you. Unless you mean this statement ironically, or to imply that the "documentation" will fall somewhat short of reality.
thomas tucker
August 15, 2009 1:30 PM
David- you may be right. We can't know at this point. One quibbe- JPII did not see his fellow bishops as "employees." His model of Church governance, which has its flaws a swell as its benefits, was much more in the mode of first among equals. In addition, he was not a micromanager and delegated responsilbility, rightly or wrongly, to others.
Furthermore, I honestly cut the Pope a lot of slack on this issue for two additional reasons- as the Scandal began unfolding, he was rapidly aging and becoming ill in health. I think played a large part in how much he was able to dela with this problem. Secondly, don't underestimate how much someone at the top knows about what his happening in other places and how much info is given to him. And don't overestimate how much of the story is known to and correctly reported by the media. All I'm saying here is that you have to be very careful in judging how much someone knew and how culpable they werein dealing with it- there are many variables.
In the meantime, I give JP great credit for his evangelization, Theology of the Body, and laying of groundwork for the rising number of vocations with orthodox seminarians that we are now seeing- this began under his pontificate. He ably sageguarded the Deposit of Faith and was an inspiration to literally millions.
Now, let the mosquitos resume their biting.
Pentimento
August 15, 2009 4:30 PM
Saints are canonized for their holiness, not for their good judgment about temporal matters, or even sometimes about spiritual matters.
Thomas R
August 15, 2009 5:05 PM
"I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the Giunta essay." RD
TR: I know one should assume good faith, but I think it's highly unlikely you disagree more than agree with the essay. You left the faith largely because of anger over things during his Papacy. Also I don't think you've ever have linked to a case for his canonization and I'm skeptical you would be emotionally able to do so.
Anyway ideally canonization is a matter of meeting the requirements, some or most of which involve miracles beyond our say-so. I agree with those saying it shouldn't be rushed and that maybe JPII canonized others too fast. If and when he meets the standard he meets the standard. It's not up to me or you or anyone here to say he must never be canonized. (And for any Orthodoxers poo-pooing some Catholic saints may I just say Tsar Nicolas II.)
Personally Pope John Paul II means a great deal to me and even many non-Catholics I know admire him. His ability to reach out to other religions without compromising core principles is very inspiring to me. I understand the anger someone like him or you feel, but I don't share it. The lack of that rage makes me maybe insensitive to something, but I think it has its positives.
Jason
August 16, 2009 9:20 AM
Fortunately for Catholics the process of canonization is more of a supernatural process than a political one.
Observer
August 16, 2009 11:15 AM
Fortunately for Catholics the process of canonization is more of a supernatural process than a political one.
Kind of.
However, the promotion of a Cause down here on Planet Earth requires quite a lot of money. The people best situated and motivated to spend this money are the religious orders. As a result, the calendar of saints is heavily weighted towards founders of religious orders, even and including some pretty obscure people. Married people (who did not manage to get martyred) and other ordinary people are very much underrepresented.
One could draw the conclusion that being married and having a family is a sort of second-class Christianity, that according to the Catholic Church the "laity" is only there to "pay, pray and obey" while the heights of "real" holiness are accessible only to religious.
In fact people have drawn that very conclusion from this data. Religious and priests are especially fond of this take on the data, but they're not th only ones. After all, remember, religious life is "the state of perfection." Which makes my life "the state of imperfection," which it is, but not in the way they mean.
If you think this process is mostly "supernatural" you should buy into the idea that God agrees. (Also, I have a bridge to sell you.)
Jason
August 16, 2009 1:44 PM
Observer, apparently you have not been observing the Church for the last forty years post Vatican II in which She has stressed the role of the laity. With regard to your comment about selling me a bridge, "for those who have the gift of faith, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, no explanation will suffice." Please be assured I will keep you in my prayers.
David J. White
August 16, 2009 4:11 PM
Aside from the early martyr popes, relatively few popes have been canonized
Of course the early martyr popes, and other saints from the early centuries, were not "canonized" in anything like the modern understanding of the term.
Who cares if the Roman church "canonizes" one more dead saint?
We Catholics care a great deal, Siarlys.
Fortunately for Catholics the process of canonization is more of a supernatural process than a political one.
According to a cousin of mine who is a diocesan priest, it is very much a political -- and financial -- process. That's why so many members of religious orders are canonized, according to him: the orders have the funds to keep the cause open and to advance it.
Siarlys Jenkins
August 16, 2009 10:09 PM
David J. White:
You Romans are welcome to care, within your church, about what your church does. That is your freedom of religion, ethically and, in this nation, constitutionally. My point is, why should a self-professed Greek Orthodox care, why should a true blue Protestant, and proud of it, care, why should an atheist care, why should secular media care, why should any government anywhere care? It is indeed a private internal matter of your church, and of no significance to anyone else, either to object to or take note of. I had only one comment on the selection of Ratzinger as Bishop of Rome: "Thank God for the Reformation."
Thomas R:
Let the Russian Orthodox worry about Bloody Nicholas. The rest of us don't have to revere the autocrat. If there is a hell, I'm sure he is burning in it right now. I hope his children are not suffering for the sins of their father.
Siarlys Jenkins
August 16, 2009 10:10 PM
David J. White:
You Romans are welcome to care, within your church, about what your church does. That is your freedom of religion, ethically and, in this nation, constitutionally. My point is, why should a self-professed Greek Orthodox care, why should a true blue Protestant, and proud of it, care, why should an atheist care, why should secular media care, why should any government anywhere care? It is indeed a private internal matter of your church, and of no significance to anyone else, either to object to or take note of. I had only one comment on the selection of Ratzinger as Bishop of Rome: "Thank God for the Reformation."
Thomas R:
Let the Russian Orthodox worry about Bloody Nicholas. The rest of us don't have to revere the autocrat. If there is a hell, I'm sure he is burning in it right now. I hope his children are not suffering for the sins of their father.
Thomas R
August 16, 2009 11:07 PM
I shouldn't have painted all Orthodox with the brush of what the Russians do or don't do.
Still I intended a larger point. Most religions have saints who are "questionable" in some way. Even in the case of the Humanists I'd think several of those named "Humanist of the Year" had qualities that not all Humanists find admirable.
It bothers me to overly pick on a religion for having a questionable saint or to focus in only on the moments a saint had bad judgement. I think non-Catholics care about this as it's a way to bash or praise Catholicism. I would say non-Catholics are more likely to admire John Paul II than castigate him, from what I remember of polls, but for ex-Catholics and secularists his canonization is a big deal relating to their anger at the Church. (Of Popes considered for canonization John XXIII and Pius IX would likely be the ones that would cause some unease for me.) So I think that's why it matters to other religions even if I might agree it should be none of our business.
Your Name
August 17, 2009 9:45 AM
Siarlys- if you don't care, then why comment on this post?
Just to be inflammatory, or rude?
Siarlys Jenkins
August 17, 2009 11:00 PM
http://siarlysjenkins.blogspot.com
Since you asked, Your Name, no, I didn't comment to be inflammatory or rude. The post itself strongly suggests that the canonization of JPJP is a matter of broad concern, and examines arguments why or why not. I initially responded by saying that I have a very different understanding of what a "saint" is -- based on very early church history, and modern Protestant usage. In the sense I understand the word, canonization is either redundant or a nullity. A sincere, devout, Christian of the Roman branch explained that to him, and to his co-religionists, whether JP is canonized makes a great deal of difference. I acknowledged that, internal to their denomination, that is entirely up to them. I know of course that, according to orthodox Roman understanding, my saying that is a bit of an insult, since that denomination still claims to be the ONLY "Church," and their canonization process the ONLY way to "sainthood." I don't, incidentally, mind seeing Bishops of Rome playing modest roles as peacemakers in the world, as long as they don't reach for the kind of secular powers which have in many centuries corrupted their bureaucracy. But my comments are a legitimate observation on the significance of JP being "made a saint." Nobody has any obligation to agree with me. I hope we all know that God will do as God chooses, regardless of what any of us opine here.
posted by Paris Arrow | Wednesday, August 19, 2009
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home