www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Sainthood for the Pope?

Dear Alice,

I can hardly think of a stonger opinion than that of God-hating.

I am sorry that you insist on characterizing my post as sarcasm, in particular after my explicit denial of that intention, together with the accompanying elaboration of the idea behind my use of the word melodramatic.

Short testimony about John Paul II,

He contributed to the freedom of my country, where we lived till 1989 under communism, with huge lacks, both material (as the daily bread), and spiritual.

He said to have no fear, but to open our hearts to our Lord Jesus Christ.

He visited my country 6 years ago (in May), and I hope that it will arrive a day in which all will be united again. I felt in him a man of the peace. And we pray for him and light candles in silence. If he will be sanctified, this only God knows. Meanwhile let us pray more and have true love.

In Christ, Marian

Dear DJS,

Perhaps my dear brother, we can BOTH lighten up with each other a bit?

I also ask that you please stop taking my comments and adjectives to heart so much! Maybe you just shouldn't read my posts from now on?

I sometimes feel that you have appointed yourself my personal censor!

Believe it or not, I did not use the word 'liberal' so as not to irk you, and now I must retract 'God hating'???

Okay, okay, so this is what I meant: they (the media) do not FEAR God, they do not uphold conservative ( am I allowed to use that word? *wink*) doctrine, and they do not elevate the CHURCH. When one smirks about religion and religious persons, which I have seen in some well known reporting personalities, and when traditional religous points of view are 'politically incorrect' then, I presume that one might be able say that such reporters are not God fearing?

Is that better?

If not, I beg your forgiveness, but I do think that my conservative ideas (ie: adhering to what the CHURCH teaches) are in the majority here.

By the way, if I may be so bold as to ask you for the sake of better understanding and communication between us in the future, are you part of the media?

Also, are you Catholic or Orthodox?

Thank you kindly for your responses,
and extending an olive branch to you,
Alice

P.S. I accept your clarification.

God always provides fodder for the thoughts at hand, Pope John Paul II a saint, looks like the indications are getting clearer...


Khaleej Times Online >> News >> THE WORLD

Pope�s private secretary saw �miracle�: report
(AFP)

10 April 2005


VATICAN CITY - The private secretary of the late Pope John Paul II saw the pontiff perform what could be claimed as a miracle, one of the key stages to becoming a saint, Italy�s La Stampa newspaper reported Sunday.

It quoted Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz as relating how an American who was seriously ill received communion from the pope, and was cured.

The incident happened in 1998, but Dziwisz, who was John Paul II�s closest confidant for 40 years, spoke of the incident three years ago to reporters, who revealed it Sunday.

According to the report, Dziwisz told how an acquaintance had asked him if an American friend who was very ill with a brain tumor could meet the pope.

The acquaintance said the dying man had only three wishes: to see John Paul II, go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and return to the United States to die.

�I remember him very well, his face showed he was ill,� Dziwisz said. �I also remember that he had no hair, which was clearly due to the chemotherapy (treatment) he was having.�

The pope, at the time at his Castelgandolfo retreat outside Rome, led a private mass at which the sick man received communion, the holiest part of the Roman Catholic ritual.

Later, Dziwisz�s acquaintance rang him to say that the man had been cured, �his tumor completely disappeared in just a few hours.�

In his account of the incident, Dziwisz did not speak of a miracle but of a sign of �the supreme power of God� which surpassed human understanding.

La Stampa, however, pointed to the clamour at John Paul II�s funeral Friday for him to be made a saint, and said it could be interpreted as a miracle.

If he were to be canonised -- he made more saints than all his predecessors combined -- his case must pass three hurdles.

First is a ruling that he has led an exemplary life. Next is beatification following proof of a miracle as a result of his intercession.

The final stage, canonisation, requires at least one more miracle.

Earlier this week, a Mexican teenager claimed the late pope had performed a �miracle� on him 15 years ago that cured his leukemia, while a nun in Colombia has said he cured her of an illness affecting her balance.

On Saturday, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls pointed out in answer to a question on sainthood that it was up to the next pope to decide.

He said any such decision lay �in the sole competency� of the next pope.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...eworld_April239.xml&section=theworld
found the link on http://www.spiritdaily.com

Dear Alice,

Thanks for your post. I wrote a response, but it seemed more like PM material. I'll send it that way, if that's OK with you.

Dear Alice,
Sorry to have been away for a few hours - such is life. Now to the matter at hand: I said that ROME does not recognize moral miracles; I did not say that I don't recognize such miracles! There is no need to convince me; I agreeed with you already. And I still do.
However, the more difficult parts of the assignment to promote someone's canonization are as follows:

a) get a serious movement of prayer going (this is the hardest part; to get people praying consistently for this intention over a nice long period of time),

b) publish all the relevant material - this would not necessarily apply in the case of John Paul II; his published writings alone are quite impressive, but one would also want the testimonials of those who knew him over long periods of time;

c) convince God (this requires prayer, obviously) to provide miracles which fit Rome's requirements (yes I know that's ridiculous; Rome making demands on how God should do things is a bit much, but again, I don't make the rules!). The standard variety is a miraculous healing, attested by the physicians. It's not easy to get these through the process, but obviously it can be done.

One good thing about all this - it emphasizes that a canonization is not a popularity contest. John Paul II would certainly have won a popularity contest hands down. But there is more to it than popularity. Probably most of the Catholic world had never heard of the Emperor Charles when John Paul II beatified him this past October (but he did fulfill the requirements and he certainly deserved it).

Alas, the miracle reported by Msgr. Dzivisz doesn't qualify - it must take place after the death of the candidate.

Please don't think I am objecting to the candidacy of John Paul II; I am not. I am only stating realistically what is involved. I rather think that this movement will continue, but that is not up to me either.

as ever,

Incognitus

I feel one could qualfy a legitimacy to the idea that overall the American mass media today is "God hating". Maybe too strong a word, but one that I think qualifies. The majority powers that be in the American media can at best be described as, if not "God hating", at least not "God fearing". I will follow that up by saying, the media, up until the final days of the Pope, usually "came across" as "Catholic hating", or at least "Catholic intolerant".

If they are Catholic hating or intolerant then they are Eastern Christian hating also and maybe even more so. I say this because the majority of Americans are uneducated when it comes to Eastern Christianity and the media for the most part ignores Eastern Christianity.

The American media jumps at the first chance to bash the Catholic Church whenever possible. My diocesan newspaper ran an editorial along these lines, mainly pertaining to the local papers, not too long ago. If I can find it, I will link it here later.

I could not believe the media coverage the Pope's final days and death received. I too found it miraculous, or at the very least dumbfounding! I have a funny feeling the media are now sitting on their haunches waiting to pounce on the next Pope about to be elected.

Bill

Here is a link to the article I mentioned in my last post above.

www.pittsburghcatholic.org/columnists_storys.phtml?id=733 [pittsburghcatholic.org]

I don't call the media "God hating," because I find it often a bit more "God indifferent," or perhaps "God baffled." Some journalists - I know I am on shaky ground with some for even using that term with non-print news people - seem to view us as kind of unwashed, uneducated, gullibles who believe in all that religious superstition. I would say the media is perhaps more condescending toward us than anything.

Dear Bill and Charles,

Indeed, you are both correct. Calling the media 'God hating' was not well thought out. Your terms were better thought out.

'Church hating' on the other hand....

Fondly,
Alice

I watched Father Groschel's program tonight. he led off with a short discourse about the New York City area newspapers and their Pope-bashing.

I am not surprised.

Last Friday, late in the morning, a saw, but did not hear well, a story about a young man from Boston who wanted to see the Pope but "was refused". The story was on CNN.
Now, Ted Turner no longer owns or controls CNN, but his legacy still lives there, and is is a nasty anti-Catholic.

Therfore, I waste none of my time watching CNN.

My personal thoughts on how all the media attention and coverage came about.

I remember I was flipping stations the day it was first reported the Pope passed away. The next thing you know, the report came that He hadn't passed away. All of the major media outlets were focused on Rome awaiting news of the Pope's passing. It all began to snowball from there, the mass of people gathering in St. Peter's Square, the concern being shown by people all throughout the world. The media had a story. I don't think they realized the dimensions the story would take on. I don't think they knew religion meant that much to the average person. The longer it took for the Pope to die the bigger the story became. They were there to report on the passing of the Pope, people were tuning in with a sense of concern and reverence I've never seen before in my lifetime. I think the media were totally blindsided by the outpouring of love and affection. If the Pope really had died when it was first reported I don't think the coverage would have been anywhere near as extensive as it turned out to be. I thought for sure I'd have to watch EWTN for any in depth coverage. The story took on a life of its own, and the secular media went along for the ride. Just my opinion.

Bill

djs,

Thanks for your post.

I don�t conflate �balance� with �bashing�. It is clear to those who are willing to see that the media bashes Christians whenever possible. This week they called it �balance�. I can recommend a good book on this subject (which documents media bias against Christians) if you are interested.

I agree with you that Pope John Paul II could stand forcefully for truth without dehumanizing. Unfortunately the media in our country does not seem capable of understanding that, let alone putting it into practice. They are always trying to recast every news event to suit their own agenda. As I noted earlier in this thread, this week the power and truth of the holiness of this man overwhelmed them.

Admin

Talking about a miracle, I think the BBC got it right. The biggest miracle happened the day of the Funeral. Rome, the chaotic Romans mind you, carried an event of that magnitude (and with such little time), off beautifully. Now that is truly a miracle, and I'm sure Pope John Paul II had a hand in it.

Oh how marvelous is our Lord. First he chastizes the Latin Church, especially by CNN, and then the same CNN shows repentance by glorifying His name with their extensive coverage of the Pope's funeral.

Isn't it amazing, these 'works' of our Holy Spirit.

Zenovia

Dear DJS,

You keep mentioning Terri Schiavo, and I can't help but wonder why her husband is not allowing her to have a Catholic funeral? Give me a 'logical' reason for that. I can't think of anything other than spite towards her parents as well as the RCC.

Also, I heard today that the three witness' that heard Terri say that she didn't want to live that way was her husband, his one brother and his other brother's wife. Her best friend, an objective witness, heard otherwise.

You know, I would just love to know how Michael Schiavo would feel if the circumstances were different and it was his daughter. Can one imagine a husband of a few years telling someone's parents if and when they can see their child. Even the Harvard law professor on TV winced at that.

Zenovia