www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News John Paul the Great's Beatification site

The Holy Spirit will do what He wills. He doesn't need a fan club or a media blitz directing Him, I think. Time will tell. I wouldn't be surprised to see the canonization take place, and who knows when. But there is a lot of hysteria surrounding this because of emotional attachment to the person of JPII. For example, all the "John Paul the Great" claims. History may determine that he deserves that title, but it may look back on his pontificate and view it differently. One can never know about such things. I think we are too close to this for a rational examination to take place. Too many are so emotionally involved at this time that such an examination would be extremely difficult. Even if I wanted JPII canonized - and you don't know that I do or don't - I would want that canonization based on verifiable events and rational arguments, not on emotional attachment to the man. And what's all this talk about the rosary? It's a fine Latin devotion with a long, distinguished, and verifiable history.

Dear Charles,

I'm happy that you admire the Rosary!

Your arguments for rational, calm consideration are duly noted.

But the voice of the people will be heard. St Francis of Assisi was canonized a saint just a few years after his death, I believe and there are many other examples.

The appellation of "the Great" is something that is now widely used, why not?

The only reason why the rule for time to elapse before a canonization takes place was to allow for people to pray and experience the benefit of miracles through someone's intercession - this still happens in a formal way on Mt Athos and I won't go into that.

But the person of Pope John Paul II is, thanks to the media and his universal fame, known to all of us.

I stood in his presence once, as well.

This is also why Mother Teresa was beatified so quickly as well - she was known and honoured as a saint during her lifetime.

I think there always will be excitement surrounding the person of Pope John Paul II.

Two of my Orthodox cousins in Ukraine went to attend the Papal Mass when he was there.

They are both now Ukrainian Catholics - and they told me about many others who not only became EC's after this experience, but who are now training to be priests.

I think there is good reason to be excited and "shakin' all over!"

(Don't you have "holy-rollers" where you are?)

Alex

Alex, I am delighted to be in 100% agreement with you, for once .
Those who don't think John Paul II had a good effect on the Church, even in this country, have very short memories. It is true the Church is paying the price for the horrible things that happened, mostly in the 60s through the 80s, but there has been and is a genuine renewal of faith and enthusiasm in the Church. I remember when I returned to the Church in 1979 [story here [caelumetterra.typepad.com] ] -at the Pope's Mass on the mall in DC- being a young Catholic was an abysmal prospect. Practically anyone who experienced grace in his or her life ended up as an Evangelical or Pentecostal, almost by default. There was little in the way of apologetic response, there were no Catholic radio stations, devotions like Eucharistic adoration and the rosary were seen as outdated, seminaries were, most of them, moral cesspools, etc etc.
All that has changed, radically, mostly because of John Paul. He cannot be canonized quickly enough, in my book!
-Daniel

Dear father Daniel,

And neither can you, I would say!

Alex

Alex,

If you were in charge of the beatification effort, John Paul II would have been canonized already.

You have spoken eloquently and beautifully.

With deepest respect from this Latin of Polish descent,

Thank you!

(still waiting for you to make it to Uniontown!)

Dear jw,

I"ll get there eventually!

And let's not forget the holy Pope's designations as "the Great" and "Doctor of the Church!"

We've got ambitions, you and I!

Happy Canada Day!

I'll try and focus on completing my akathist to Pope John Paul the Great . . . He'll be made a Saint before I'm done with it, it would seem . . .

Alex

I have a peculiar and novel idea. Why don't we let the Church canonize him since it alone has the authority to do so? You would think from some of these posts that if enough noise is made and enough publicity is generated, it will be a done deed. I don't think the process works quite like that.

I hesitated at first before I decided to post this comment of mine. In the end I thought it was important to listen to both sides of a story before making up ones mind (which I have NOT made).

On this forum titles like "Saint Pope John Paul II" and "Pope John Paul the Great" have been used. Personally, I found the Pope to be a good pope in many ways but I hesitate to call him a saint.

The most obvious item of concern is the Pope�s failure to deal with the church's sex-abuse crisis. This failure alone raises questions about his "holiness" for me. Also his systematic changes to (small 't') traditions in the Church combined with departure of traditional liturgy again raises many questions about the Pope.

There are books like Vows of Silence [amazon.com] which have been written about the Pope which directly place him responsible for the perpetuation of Sex Crimes. Now just because two guys from the Anti-Catholic newspaper Boston Globe make a claim against the Pope doesn�t mean it is true.


I really wish the Pope did not eliminate the Devil's Advocate in the investigation of Saints. I would have more faith in the process.

I say let�s wait until the Church makes him a Saint before we start calling him Saint John Paul the Great.

Obviously, I agree. It's too soon to tell, although some do seem to have a habit of announcing what the Church should do, then trying to drag the Church into agreement. Since JPII was a Slav, many other Slavs seemed to think he deserved canonization 25 years ago because of his ethnic origins. JPII was a marvelous evangelizer, but much of the liturgical and doctrinal chaos in the Latin Church ran rampant for 26 years while he was off evangelizing. Could anyone have effectively evangelized and managed the Church at the same time? I don't know. That would be almost an impossible task for any individual to pull off. As for being a Doctor of the Church, sometimes he taught clearly and lucidly, but sometimes he rambled and lacked a clear focus in some of his writings. At times he reached out to others almost to the point of syncretism and one could almost call him a universalist. On the other hand, sometimes he was clearly consistent with traditional Catholic teaching. There was both good and bad to his pontificate. In 50 years, who can know how he will be viewed? How can such a complex and complicated individual be accurately analyzed so soon after his death? It looks to me like it will take a few years to even begin to understand the man and his thoughts.

It isn't that I'm not enthusiastic.

I do acknowlege John Paul II's great qualities, his apostolic zeal, his desire to reach the people and to be near them.

My comments were mostly related to the Vatican Ostpolitik and the way many governments used the Pope's visit to their benefits.

I was reading the newspapers about John Paul II's first visit to Mexico in 1979: "Pope praises achievments of our working-class State", "Pope supports social reform in Latin America of which Mexico is pioneer".

The Vatican refused to canonize Father Pro and oher martyrs of the Christer War (until very recent times) and the anti-communist cruzade in order to avoid problems with the PRI regime.

They even collaborated with the government to build the new basilica for example (an enormous iron structure devoid of religious significance) while the beautiful baroque basilica was closed and many years later, opened as a museum. At that time many of the Roman bishops had actualy dismantelled their dioceses and the religious patrimony of the people was put in serious danger.

On the other side, John Paul II's visits did strenghten the faith of the people, they felt that he was close to them. He produced great writings during his last years as Pope, he condemned the "new bolshevism" (abortion, eufanasia, homosexuality, global capitalism.

When - if - the Church declares John Paul II to be a saint, that's what I'll believe. Meanwhile, I remain at liberty to observe that this Pope presided over a collapse of orthodoxy and orthopraxis without precendent; that his interreligious stunts (koran kissing, etc.)gave practical encouragement to the radical indifferentism that has become mainstream in the Church in the West; that he did everything in his power to encourage the "cult of the Holy Father" according to which the objective content of the Catholic faith has become identified in the minds of many good people with the ideas and attitudes of the reigning pontiff; that his practical refusal to govern the Church has contributed in large part to the hideous sexual scandals laying wast to the material and spiritual goods of the Church.

John Paul the Great? A great human being certainly, a great saint perhaps. A Pope of the calibre of Ss. Leo and Gregory? Let's wait a while, shall we?

Yes, he presided over a collapse of orthodoxy, but was it his fault? It was heading south well before he became pope. It might have been worse, if he hadn't made the stand he did on some things.

He didn't deliberately or directly contribute to the way the sex scandal unfolded. But he did deliberately appoint very poor choices of bishops (weak and spineless). He did that, so that he thought, they would be 'obedient and subservient' to Rome. In fact, they followed Rome, but because they were weak and ineffectual (by his choice) they didn't have the characters required to be good bishops of their dioceses. It was a deliberate effort to weaken the role of local bishop and enhance the role of the papacy (and its monster curia), by appointing weak and ineffectual bishops that would look for direction from Rome at every turn. It back fired in the way they dealt with discipline and so indirectly he caused the sex scandal.

Kissing the Koran was a silly mistake, and he should have known better than that. Eastern Christians were (and are still) shocked by that.

Encouraging the cult of the papacy (ultramontanism) is a heresy, and will probably delay canonization. The present Pope (Benedict) seems to be drawing a more orthodox and careful line in that regard.

Personally, John Paul II was a good, holy and prayerful person. But the papacy, a universal pastorate as he wanted it to be, is probably not possible. We need to return to a more orthodox model of the papacy.

So how will he be canonized? As a person of personal holiness? ...two miracles will prove this.

As a confessor, theologian and teacher, worthy of the title "the great"? ....all his writings must be carefully scrutinized and reviewed, and that will take decades. He wrote too much, to make canonization on that ground possible. And there is the questions of ultramontanism, and humanism yet to be fully evaluated.

So, if they stick with 'personal sanctity' and leave aside the question of his orthodoxy, he may be on the faster road. But still, probably not as fast as some would like.

Nick

But for an orthodox Christian, how one can be both personally holy, and un-orthodox at the same time, is problematic.

From these posts, I find it hard to believe that we are observing the same Church, or knew the same pope!
It amuses me that everyone wants the Pope to respect local hierarchies until there is a big unresolved problem, then they criticize him.
The late Pope had nothing to do with the sex scandals; that was the local ordinaries' responsibility.
And Alex- if they canonize me then we will know they have gone too far!
Local veneration of saints is all well and good, but historically this led to abuses: politically minded bishops would "canonize" unworthy rulers for thier own ends, and locals sometimes "canonized" local false mystics [remember that there is a small movement today in Russia to canonize Rasputin!]
The reform of the process was necessary, but it resulted in a disproportionate number of religious order members and royalty [for years practically the only laity] getting canonized. This led to the idea among the faithful that real holiness was rare, and only for the religiously consecrated. John Paul broke the stranglehold of the religious orders and made it evident that holiness was not such a rarity. Indeed in my own life I have crossed paths with numerous people that may well be canonized someday, from the obvious [Blessed Mother Teresa, John Paul, Fr Benedict Groeschel, Fr John Hardon] to the obscure [a nun in the South Bronx who started a home for unwed mothers, friends who demonstrate heroic generosity, etc] John Paul's canonization of a record number of saints is for me a sign of his wisdom, not an impediment.
-Daniel