From CNA:
Holy See says beatification of John Paul II not imminent
Vatican City, Nov 4, 2009 / 04:49 pm (CNA).- The Holy See’s press office has denied a report published by the Italian daily La Repubblica, which made claims that John Paul II will be beatified in 2010 and that Rome and Krakow are locked in a dispute over which city will host the ceremony.
Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office said Pope John Paul II “will surely be beatified,” but the process must be completed, including the decree certifying a miracle.
Lombardi also denied the reported tension between Rome and Krakow, Poland. “The Pope is the Pope and he belongs to the universal Church,” he said.
Loading ...
Father Lombardi is a seer, a prophet, then; is he? How can he be sure that the late Pope will surely be beatified? The Vatican Press Office makes a mockery of the beatification process.
Has the Servant of God in question been declared Venerable? So, how can Fr. Lombardi replace the judgement of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints and of the present (long may he reign) or future Pope who will have to approve any potential decree on heroic virtues?
And further, even if the late Pope is declared to have displayed heroic virtues and is named Venerable (and I would just like to say that I personally believe that the Pope displayed heroic virtues, but that is a personal opinion) how can we be sure that the miracle that is a precondition for beatification will be verified and declared proven?
I mean, God does not choose all his Saints that are in heaven to be public witnesses of the Faith. Surely, there are many more Saints in Heaven than canonized Saints. Because canonized Saints are the outstanding examples of holiness, revealled by God. And God reveals that a certain person is without doubt a Saint, to the point of canonization, by allowing miracles to take place upon that Saint’s interecession. So, we may be quite sure that someone led a very holy life, but we cannot be sure that someone is indeed a Saint in heaven, and is indeed to be canonized and venerated as a model of holiness unless and until miracles happen.
And how can Father Lombardi, the official spokesman of the Vatican, who is not there to indulge in personal opinions but to speak with the Vatican’s official voice towards the media, be sure that the Church will ascertain miracles in the case of the late Pope JohN Paul II.
Ergo, Fr. Lombardi simplistic statement makes a mockery of the proceedings, as if everything were just a formality, a kind of “show trial” with a pre-determined result. Disgusting.
Why would the Vatican beatify a Pope who for decades allowed the Church’s Liturgy to disintegrate, doing next to nothing about it. A family will never prosper from a father who refuses to discipline his children. Lets us pray that Pope Benedict has paddle behind his robes. (“Great”will never be added to John Paul II’s name…he wasn’t)
thouart,
While “the Great” may or may not ever be added to his name, there are a lot of people out there, including the present Pope, who disagree with your contention he wasn’t.
I think, in this day and age of infinite superlatives (everything is better, the best, greatest…..everyone gets a standing ovation, no one should receive a failing grade, praises abound for mediocrity, updates and upgrades give the impression of ever-improvement, etc….) we should be slow in the canonization process and slow to call some one “Great.” Time will tell if this Pope was “Great” or is a “Saint”.
Resist the urge for immediate gratification and entrust this cause to God’s Will in His good time. Remember, the Church operates on the order of centuries, not years (or months!).
It is certainly no impediment to the cause of JP2’s fast track elevation that he himself abolished the role of the Promotor fidei (advocatus diaboli and thereby rendered the entire process dubious.
If there is any justice to be had from the current so-called Promotor iustitiae, then Newman and Pacelli should be seated at the celestial epulation long before an invitation is issued to Wojtyla.
Quis autem ego qui vituperem? Incipiatur spectaculum mannorum canumque. (But who am I to criticise? Let the dog and pony show begin.)
I for one hope to see the day that John Paul II is beatified and eventually canonized. He is the first Pope I remember in my life and he served as a moral beacon and steady guide in a world that in the last 25 years seemed to be constantly changing (and not always for the better). Even before I became Catholic he struck me as a model of holiness, santity and courage. I was proud to have been confirmed into the Catholic Church during his pontificate. I was just as saddened by his passing as were many lifelong Catholics.
Having said all that, I don’t want his cause rushed or corners cut. If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing right. The Church will be all the much stronger if his cause follows all the proper courses and is done with the throughness and prayerful attitude needed.
It’s disturbing to think that the beatification process now appears to be no more deliberative (at least in the amount of time taken) than the baseball Hall of Fame.
As much as Pope JP2 was a popular pope, and granted he did alot of good, I sincerely hope they discern his beatification as much as is needed. Before I start my thought, I found JP2 to be a wonderful theologian, and a model of prayer life
That being said :
There is much speculation, including from myself, what was done on his part to safeguard the liturgy. Lets face it, frankly I think he delegated way too much out. A pope, could depose anyone from any post at any given time. The fact that certain people held posts throughout his pontificate, suggests either there was a lack of knowledge, or lack of interest. Also alot of the goofiness with Life Teen, the “Charismatic Renewal” , the Legioneres, and other items, happened under his watch. Plus I fear he will forever be labeled the pope who was responsible for the Priest sex abuse crisis, even though that had obviously been going on for years (a similar thing is in st louis. Since St. Stans was founded there have been points of contention between the diocese and parish, yet Burke was pictured the “bad guy”)
Finally, in the event the blessed day does happen, it should be in rome, or whereever the Pontiff, whoever he may be, decides. It is no one’s decision except his, and anyone who tries to lampoon the process, frankly is no friend or servant of the church.
I just finished reading “God’s Choice,” by George Weigel. It’s about half a retrospective on Pope John Paul II, and half an introduction to Cardinal Ratzinger and the election process, and what kind of pope he was likely to be. The author is clearly a fan of JPII, even praising things like World Youth Day, yet he lists several problems that plagued his papacy, many of which we’re still dealing with.
Were it up to me, I couldn’t get past the sexual abuse scandal, and the fact that he was either clueless about something many of his bishops were very aware of, or was complicit in the denial and cover-up. I have a hard time seeing past that. (Which kind of points out why these decisions should wait until the people making them aren’t emotionally involved.)
Ultimately, I trust the Church to get this right, and if she decides that JPII’s personal holiness and theological writings trump the bad aspects of his papacy, I’ll accept it. But I think it’s easier to get something like this right if you wait and get some distance from it, at least long enough that the people making the decision weren’t close personal friends (or enemies) of the man in question.
Let’s keep in mind that it’s possible to be even an abject failure as a Pope but still be a saint. Look at Pope St. Celestine V. If I remember my Divine Comedy right, Dante had him in hell. The Church disagreed.
But I don’t think JPII’s cause for sainthood should be fast-tracked. First I would like to see Pope Pius XII raised to the altar.
(And by the way, Bl. Margaret of Castello has only been waiting, oh, 700 years or so…)
TNcath.
Whether John Paul was great or not isn’t the question so much as whether he deserves “the Great” – i.e., is he as great as Leo and Gregory?
But between the liturgical and sexual abuses that took place under his reign (though it’s unclear how responsible he could be held for the latter), I’m doubtful that he can be compared favorably to Leo or Gregory. Few popes have overseen more erosion of the Church’s standing and of Catholic identity. He either contributed (which would make him John Paul the really bad) or was simply unable to do anything about it (which would make him not great). After all, Leo didn’t just let the Huns sack Rome.
The title “saint” is another problem. Since there are many more people have the title saint than “the Great,” it’s certainly less problematic, but still, a little bit of discretion and deliberation is in order. Just because he passed out canonizations like candy on halloween doesn’t mean we should do the same to him.
I often wondered if Bl. Teresa of Calcutta was rushed, granted there probably wasnt a more saintly woman, but still Others like Padre Pio, took 50 years. Max Kolbe took 50+ years.
Perhaps since she died IN the age of information, just like JP2 , their writings and such are more easily accessible? I know that is one item they look at. Maybe that’s the reason for the expediated pace?
I would not like to say whether John Paul II should be beatified or not but what I cannot understand the unseemly rush that this process has been given from the beginning. Wasn’t the last pope to be canonized S. Pius X? — and that process took decades. I assume there is a lot of pressure on the Vatican from the Polish church but surely the right approach would be to take time, to pray, to make a thorough investigation and then to let the Holy Spirit guide the Church to the right conclusion.
Assisi, Chennai, Damascus…unanswered questions on the former Pope’s seeming relativistic attitude towards pagan and other false religions. Token or even serious actions caused much confusion among people seeking the Truth of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. I cannot imagine Gregory the Great, or Leo the Great bending the knee to idols…
I suspect that’s one reason people think it can or should be sped up. We certainly can investigate the facts of someone’s life or writings much faster now than when it meant sending people by carriage to track down and interview in person the people they knew, and read the surviving copies of things they wrote. That part can be done much more quickly now. But facts are tricky things if not looked at objectively, which is what the passage of time adds to the process.
The US Postal service understands it, having a rule that no living person can be on a stamp. (I think that rule still exists, anyway.) Even sports leagues understand it. More than any other institution, the Church should take the long view, that there’s no hurry when it comes to declaring eternal truths. If John Paul II is in heaven, he’ll still be there a century from now, when people can judge his case more fairly.
“Assisi, Chennai, Damascus…unanswered questions on the former Pope’s seeming relativistic attitude towards pagan and other false religions. Token or even serious actions caused much confusion among people seeking the Truth of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. I cannot imagine Gregory the Great, or Leo the Great bending the knee to idols…”
Another very good point. I often wondered why he revered the Quran the way he did, in that one famous photo the sede vacanists like to parade. True, one could say they worship the same God. But so did the Arians, the nestorians, and so forth, yet you would never see a pope revere the Nag Hamadi writings.
Incidently, I know they attempted the same thing with B16 in new york, who thank God almighty was less willing to appease people.
Thomas More, who was executed in 1535 because he insisted on the papal primacy, had to wait until 1935 to be ordained. John Paul II canonized more saints in his pontificate (including two woman who worked in the Vatican laundry who are still alive) than any of his predecessors. The whole subject has become a joke! JP II protected Marcel Maciel for 50 years until JP II died and Benedict set the record straight. Benedict is also working with the local ordinary to shut down Medugorje which should have been shut down decades ago!
Wow. People are being rather discreet, but you can’t read this thread without getting the impression the majority are against Pope John Paul’s beatification.
Personally I think pinning the sex abuse scandal and liturgical abuse on the Holy Father is more than a little silly, as these things were full-blown before he was ever elected. In which case, do you think things would have been better or worse with another 25 years of Pope Paul VI?
And the charges of relativism because of Assisi and the Koran, as misguided as they may have been, are beyond stupid as far as I’m concerned.
*(And by the way, Bl. Margaret of Castello has only been waiting, oh, 700 years or so…)*
You know… this may be on purpose. I believe she’s recently been getting more attention. God may want her to be canonized in these times so that she will get more attention. Her life is a powerful witness against the Culture of Death.
*(And by the way, Bl. Margaret of Castello has only been waiting, oh, 700 years or so…)*
You know… this may be on purpose. I believe she’s recently been getting more attention. God may want her to be canonized in these times so that she will get more attention. Her life is a powerful witness against the Culture of Death.
You may well be right on the purpose behind the delay. But it was a good thing that the citizens of Castello, who acclaimed Little Margaret a saint upon her death in 1320, had no idea just how long they’d have to wait for Rome to make it official!
I hope that Pope John Paul II is not beatified, for reasons that have already been mentioned in previous comments.
Celebrity and charisma are not sanctity. I am not making a judgment about his sanctity. I am merely stating that celebrity and charisma are not sanctity.
And yes, kissing the Koran is a deal breaker for me.
Comments like these are one of the reasons I don’t visit this blog as regularly as I once did.
“And yes, kissing the Koran is a deal breaker for me.”
I’m so tired of hearing this one. It is Polish custom to kiss a gift upon receiving it. The Servant of God Pope John Paul the Great was not a “closet Muslim”! Read his amazing writings. He was a Vicar of Christ through and through. I also highly recommend reading “My Life With Karol” by Stanislaw Cardinal Dziwisz.
Santo Subito! Ioannes Paule Magne, ora pro nobis!
“John Paul II canonized more saints in his pontificate (including two woman who worked in the Vatican laundry who are still alive) ”
Your source for this assertion?
(I know that the self-proclaimed “seer of Bayside” Veronica Leuken informed her followers that the Blessed Mother had ordered them to address her as “St Veronica of the Cross,” but I’m not aware of any other claims that one could be canonized before death.)
Geoffrey,
The only mention I can find of this Polish custom is by those who wish to defend His Holiness’ kissing of the koran. I am not saying it does not exist, but I could find no mention of it in, for example, at http://www.polishamericancenter.org/Customs&Traditions.htm. If you could provide a citation, it would be appreciated. It would also help your case if you could identify cases where he kissed other objects that were presented to him as gifts.
That being said, do you not think it appropriate for an individual to supress their cultural customs for the sake of their Catholic identity? Kissing a gift may very well be a Polish custom to show appreciation, but to a Catholic kissing an object means veneration of what the object represents. At the very least, this act was a severe blunder and shows lack of judgement. Either he was unaware of the Catholic tradition of kissing objects and what it means, or he did not care what it meant because he was acting as a Pole and not the Pope, or he forgot about the Catholic Tradition, or, heaven forbid, he really was a relativist who believed that one religion was as good as another.
Much has been written, and is written here, as to whether or not the late Pope John Paul II should or should not be “raised to the altar.” The presumption is that a candidate is judged for sainthood according to his effectiveness as an administrator, or his prudential judgement. While these things are closely examined in causes, they take a back seat to whether the candidate led a life of “heroic virtue.” History has known numerous popes who were good at keeping the house in order, but who were not necessarily saintly. History has also known popes who were quite unprepared for the burdens unique to the papacy, but who led very virtuous lives.
People think that because we endure a time of crisis, it is because a pope “let this happen.” Much of what we associate with liturgical disarray had gained considerable steam by 1978. It would have been extraordinary for any pope to keep matters from getting worse. In the case of John Paul II, they did not get worse, but abated somewhat, enough to make it possible for his successor to be even more effective.
Add to this that the man once known as Karol Wojtyla admitted openly at the offset, that he was not an effective administrator. As the first non-Italian pope in centuries, he would have been a fish out of water in the face of an entrenched Roman Curia.
The above having been said, it is premature — dare I say, irresponsible — for Church-related institutions to be named “John Paul the Great” so soon after his death, especially since he has yet to be canonized. The chances are realistic, that such an investigation associated with canonization causes could discover that he might have been good, but maybe not so great.
I don’t know why the late Pope kissed the Koran. I don’t know why he “allowed” the sexual abuse crisis to unfold as it did. I don’t know why he “allowed” liturgical abuses.
But I do know this. None of you know why either. “But isn’t it obvious?” you say. If it were, a decision on his sainthood would be fairly open-and-shut, would it not? But it isn’t, because it’s not, which is why you don’t.
Reigned too long and wrote too much to be canonized this fast. If you ever want to be canonized, not become pope and don’t write too much
Jonn Paul II a Holy man, but a weak Pope. The Church suffered much disunity while he reigned.
I’ve heard about the Polish custom of kissing a gift upon receiving it from Polish people themselves, I have nothing in print to cite, and have been looking for this very purpose! It might perhaps be wise to abandon such a personal custom as Pope, but (1) I am not about to say what is proper for a Pope to do or not do and (2) if doing this for 50+ years, it could be a very tough habit to break.
As far as the liturgy is concerned, let us not forget John Paul the Great’s final encyclical on the Eucharist, which addressed liturgical abuses and then the CDW’s document Redemptoris Sacramentum. These paved the way for the Year of the Eucharist, Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Summorum Pontificum, and the “reform” of the Roman Rite the Holy Father is currently encouraging.
Everyone should also consider another thing. The Pontificate of John Paul the Great is still bearing fruit: the up and coming so-called “JPII Priests” who are worrying the so-called “Vatican II Priests”! The Servant of God inspired a whole generation, myself included… just wait and see what they do!
What private people can do may not be what a Pope can do in the limelight of the global press. Whatever a Pope does or says is of import for the entire Church, as well as for the secular world. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, the Pope, ex cathedra, but the very fact that we have a statement of infallibility indicates that not everything a Pope may do is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Also, personal charism is not necessarily a sign of holiness, as seen in the hundreds of saints who completely lacked the ability to wow the world around them. Just think of Louis de Montfort or John of the Cross, two very holy men who were persecuted in their lived by either secular or religious groups.
As to thinking that the misguided emphasis on ecumenism is “stupid”, let us look towards the real ecumenism of Pope Benedict, the Pope of Unity, who understands that the Catholic Church is the one instituted by God Himself. Dare I refer to “Dominus Iesus”? There are only two religions founded by God, and the first one, that of the Jewish Covenant, has been surpassed by the New Covenant. Only the Catholics and the Orthodox have kept Faith. Thanks to the present Pope, we can discuss religion and false ecumenism openly.
May I add that one may think of the Popes who have either been canonized or beatified in recent times, and make comparisons–especially Pius IX, Pius X and Leo the XIII? Sometimes I think that the media complicates a life of holiness, rather than clarifies such.
Re the alleged Polish custom of kissing gifts: according to my neighbors, a couple born and educated in Poland, though from different areas (they met and married here), there is no such general practice. They allow it might conceivably be some sort of rural custom, though neither of them has ever encountered it. They think the Coran-smooching was bizarre as well. Actually, un geste saugrenu is what Pani said in her delightful and flawless French.
In any event, JP2 ought to have had sufficient appreciation of the position he held and enough sensitivity to appearances to have refrained from reverencing a manifesto which reduces the Crucifixion to an illusion and denies the Resurrection. He most certainly was not a rustic, but such a gaucherie hardly enhances his urbanity.
Is it a show-stopper for beatification? Probably not. Let’s just be thankful the Hindus didn’t present him a copy of the Kama Sutra.
“…let us look towards the real ecumenism of Pope Benedict, the Pope of Unity, who understands that the Catholic Church is the one instituted by God Himself. Dare I refer to ‘Dominus Iesus’?”
And let us recall the secular media’s outcry that Cardinal Ratzinger promulgated “Dominus Iesus” behind John Paul the Great’s back, resulting in the Pope’s public endorsement of the document he had commissioned.
One cannot criticize intentions, but at the time, many of us Catholics wondered why John Paul II did not promulgate “Dominus Iesus” under his own name, which he could easily have done. The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was asked to write and publish the document may have been a sign to some that John Paul II trusted and was even promoting the man who would follow him as pope. However, many Catholics, including theologians, dismissed the document because it was not John Paul’s own work. In fact, the debate as to the “infallibility” of the document arose because it was not promulgated by John Paul II, who could have either added his name to it, or written it himself.
I work in a Catholic college, and to this day, some professors ignore the document as not worthy of study, as it is not in the JPII “canon”. As to this being connected to beatification, I would add that saints are never concerned with popularity, which this one action may show. The endorsement, as you correctly point out, was given, but by that time, the Pope’s Rottweiler had taken the public scorn for the document, not the popular John Paul II.
And, as long as we are all having an honest appraisal of the work of the late Pope, may I add that if I were on a beatification panel, I would be questioning the entire corpus of John Paul II regarding the “theology of the body”, which I find heavily influenced by modern, secular thought, and a deviation from tradition Catholic teaching on the relationship between soul and body, spirit and material, and the long tradition of placing the physicality of the marriage act as on a lower spiritual hierarchy than celibacy, and especially, the vow of celibacy. Not all of the great corpus of writings by the late Pope are equal in greatness.
JPII ventured into the World with the highest of aspirations, he, or ‘The Church’, elevated all to sainthood upon death. Unfortunately, upon his travels he did not make fast the door of the house and allowed the ‘demons’, therein, create further havoc.
The kind of comments JPII attracts on this site always tire me – too many things are confused.
Shall we try to get some structure in this topic, for a change?
A. On canonization/beatification:
1. Is being a good administrator a condition for beatification? Answer: no. Celeste V being the classical example, but there are more.
2. Is the person to be beatified required to be without sin? Answer: no. Actually, the last Person without sin to walk this earth did so around 2000 years ago…
3. Is anyone able to ‘rush’ canonization? Answer: no, since the miracles required depend on God.
Conclusions from these 3 observations: in the end, JP was human, with the flaws that come with that. Somehow his flaws are often presented as an insurmountable hurdle, but almost regardless of what they are, they don’t mean he cannot be / was not a saint. Forgiveness is also available to those later raised to the altar. To express the hope that his flaws will impede his canonization is, in my opinion, not very charitable – both to the late Pope as well as to those involved in the process. To ‘bicker’ amount the order / speed is something I’d regard as having less confidence in the Holy Spirit then appropriate. The process will go on – or not – in God’s own good time.
B. On the suffix ‘The Great’
Since this title is conferred rather ad hoc and to the best of my knowledge unofficial, one can take any position – and there are arguments on both sides. However, I do get the impression the biggest ‘danger’ to JPII going down in history does not lie in his own (in)actions, but rather in the fact his successor (long may he reign!) is well on course of being an (even) better pope, at least in terms of administration and perhaps many other fields besides.
B. On the suffix ‘The Great’
Since this title is conferred rather ad hoc and to the best of my knowledge unofficial, one can take any position – and there are arguments on both sides. However, I do get the impression the biggest ‘danger’ to JPII going down in history does not lie in his own (in)actions, but rather in the fact his successor (long may he reign!) is well on course of being an (even) better pope, at least in terms of administration and perhaps many other fields besides.
Comment by Phil_NL — 6 November 2009 @ 6:48 am
Amen. The fear of that on the part of Weigel etc is palpable …. Not to mention some people who do even like the Church.
…, but of course, that is what we absolutely must do, we must do the impossible; even more it’s our vocation. To quote Sponge Bob (a cartoon) “Good luck with that…”.
The famous “many theologians” argument: hallowed as a locus theologicus since Humanae vitae. A variant is “most Catholics” or even “most faithful Catholics”, because in the end, it’s what we feel that matters here.
No, saints run around making as many enemies as possible, criticizing their betters for every action they do, and generally making themselves disagreeable. That’s how people come to recognize their sanctity. At least, that’s what St. Francis of Assisi always said (didn’t he?).
For a less legendary account of his role in Dominus Iesus, cf. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion (Ignatius Press, 2005), pp. 209-252). Ratzinger, as cardinal and head of the CDF, is very explicit about his role in the Papacy of John Paul II. Christus Dominus was intended to be a status quaestionis which does not reflect Ratzinger’s personal opinions, but is a consensus of the views of all the members of the Congregation, after hearing from their consultants. It was published with the approval of the Pope.
mpm,
No document from the SCDF is merely the opinion of the Prefect. It has been approved by the members of the Congregation (Bishops) as well as the Congregation’s Consultors.
A consultor is different from a consultant. The group of theological Consultors also vote on the document.
robtbrown,
No kidding.
1. I wouldn’t say that Teresa of Calcutta’s cause was rushed. The process was changed to allow for processes to be completed sooner.
2. The pope can canonize whomever he wants. The miracle(s) are required in the process, but he is not bound by the process. When Fra Angelico was beatified, the criteria were not fulfilled.
3. Although being a good administrator is not necessary to sainthood, pastoral prudence is. Celestine V was canonized because he had been a holy hermit and founder.
No kidding.
Comment by mpm
Are you saying you already knew the distinction between consultor and consultant?
No headlong rushes please. It is crucial to bring back the ‘devil’s advocate’. What about JP2 or any other of the Church’s Suffering for that matter simply waiting in line? We Californians have been patiently waiting to call Fr. Junipero Serra a saint forever. Revisionist history has not been kind to him, as it has not been kind to Pope Pius XII, but both their days will come. The Truth will out. Fr. Serra walked with ulcerated leg from San Diego to above San Francisco carrying out the missionary work of the Church. At least JP2 had a popemobile. There are so many more I could mention waiting for sainthood. Our greatest saints waited centuries. Why the rush? Without the Devil’s Advocate, only his friends are heard from! And what can be the outcome of that? Having said as much, I sometimes pray to JP2. But I do honestly think his own incredible popularity may have been a stumbling block for him. Pray for him.