Vatican considers canonising John Paul II in 2015

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by TempleServant

It doesn't look good to canonise in haste in the case of JPII; it looks like it's a popularity contest, based on acclaim. Traditionalists don't like what happened under his reign; it would be seen by them as a vindication of Assisi and altar girls, etc. But it's mainly the pop-star image he had and the haste in the process. Doing it quickly and for lots of people (as happened recently) cheapens the concept. It leads to doubt: "canonisation was for the few in the past and now loads of people are getting it; what's going on?"

"Santo subito" - why? If he's in Heaven he doesn't need it and we on Earth, how do we benefit? I guess he's meant to be a model of virtue, to be imitated?

Canonization was once simply by popular acclaim. The Church has since developed a more formal, careful, centralized canonization process, but I think Pope Benedict still wanted some degree of responsiveness to the extraordinary popular acclaim his predecessor received. To my knowledge the process has not been sped up other than the waving of the initial five-year waiting period at the start of the process.

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

Canonization was once simply by popular acclaim. The Church has since developed a more formal, careful, centralized canonization process, but I think Pope Benedict still wanted some degree of responsiveness to the extraordinary popular acclaim his predecessor received. To my knowledge the process has not been sped up other than the waving of the initial five-year waiting period at the start of the process.

I think because of his popular acclaim, it is a done deal, and I understand that.

[Melchior_]

A quick note; canonization itself is infallible, and IMHO that isn't up for discussion. It's a declaration from the Pope that yes, we have total faith such a person is in heaven. We have no way of knowing for sure, outside of the miracles presented through post-death intercession. It's simply a matter of faith.

A public declaration of faith. Infallibility is now in play.

Originally Posted by TempleServant

It doesn't look good to canonise in haste in the case of JPII; it looks like it's a popularity contest, based on acclaim. Traditionalists don't like what happened under his reign; it would be seen by them as a vindication of Assisi and altar girls, etc. But it's mainly the pop-star image he had and the haste in the process. Doing it quickly and for lots of people (as happened recently) cheapens the concept. It leads to doubt: "canonisation was for the few in the past and now loads of people are getting it; what's going on?"

The canonization process was waved for Francis, Dominic, Anthony, and a few others due to how the Pope at the time new them personally. Essentially, he said "I can personally vouch for this fellow, they're in Heaven and displayed Saintly qualities", and it was done accordingly. Little to zero waiting. That's the benefit of sitting on the Chair of Peter, I suppose.

Originally Posted by TempleServant

"Santo subito" - why? If he's in Heaven he doesn't need it and we on Earth, how do we benefit? I guess he's meant to be a model of virtue, to be imitated?

We should certainly keep John Henry Newman a "Blessed" then. In fact, all "Blesseds" should remain such, right?

Why bother naming "Saints" at all? They don't need it, right?

[sw85]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

Alice von Hildebrand has also, I seem to recall, claimed that Theology of the Body is substantially the same as her own husband's teachings on the subject, which is high praise coming from her. Her problem was with Christopher West's presentation of ToB, not ToB itself.

I think you are right that ToB enthusiasts sometimes disregard the need for modesty in speech, falling into the trap of "the subject I'm talking about is a good, wholesome one, therefore it is good and wholesome for me to say this." We need to keep in mind context and the way other people might be made to feel uncomforable or even tempted to sin because of our words. But this verbal immodesty would be in contradiction to ToB itself.

Thanks for the clarification!

[asd72]

That is great. Bl John Paul II is a great inspiration to me.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

I would welcome this, as long as it isn't so rushed that there ends up being a scandal, like the miracle turns out to be a fraud.

The study of heroic virtue has been completed. It must be completed, signed and sealed before a person is declared venerable and it may not be reopened. The next step are the study of the miracles, not the person. We have one proven miracle, enough for beatification. We need to prove one more for canonization or the pope can wave it. Once the pope canonizes, there is no way for the miracle to be a fraud.

Originally Posted by Rich C

I agree that Bl. John Paul did and said things that were troubling to many Catholics, including myself, but I trust the Congregation to examine them properly. After all, this is an infallible matter, right? The Holy Ghost will take care of things.

A canonization is always infallible, because the pope is declaring that we believe that X is in heaven; therefore, we are raising him/her up to the altar and including him/her in the liturgical life of the Church. This leads to Lex Orandi. If you celebrate mass in honor of St. Francis, then you believe that he's in heaven. You can't celebrate the Eucharist in honor of someone with doubts about the merits of the person being venerated.

Originally Posted by Cristiano

Yes they were friends of Gregory IX and he decided that he knew them well enough to canonize them.

The relationship between Gregory IX, Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua and Dominic Guzman was very close, like that of John Paul and Benedict. In fact, Francis was Gregory's superior, before he became pope. Gregory was a professed Secular Franciscan. In this case, John Paul was Cardinal Ratzinger's superior.

St. Anthony's was the shortest canonization in history. It took 11 months. Francis was 18. Clare was 18 and Dominic was 25 months. These are the fastest. In each case, people were scandalized and offended. Cardinals were upset that they were not consulted. The curia was upset because the pope would not read their studies on the deceased. Pope Gregory's answer was always the same. "I believe that these miracles have happened, because I knew these men and they were my friends." In Clare's case, it is Gregory's nephew, Pope Alexander who canonizes her. He too argues that his uncle had great respect for her holiness and the has no reason to doubt the reports about miracles through her intercession. He brushes away all studies and committees.

The Holy Spirit has a way of surprising all of us.

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

Yes, this is how I personally feel. Sainthood doesn't mean that every action in the saint's life was above reproach.

In fact, I wonder if the infallible part of canonization is the fact that the saint is in heaven. Perhaps the "heroic virtue" part is not infallible.

I don't know... just thinking out loud.

+ PAX

Yes, the decree of heroic virtue becomes an infallible part of the canonization, because that is the reason that the person gets into heaven in the first place. If you take away heroic virtue, it raises the question, based on what are we saying that we belief that a person is in heaven? The devil can work miracles too. The two miracles don't stand alone. The heroic virtues are the driving force behind a canonization. The miracles are a confirmation of a heroic life of virtue.

Everyone seems so concerned about rushing this and scandal. I can't understand who would be scandalized. I'm sure that some people will be, but that's their problem, not the pope's. Let's not make someone's sensitivities the pope's problem. The man has enough on his plate. Let's respect his right to exercise his pontificate as the Spirit guides him.

We don't even know if this is true. This is not an official statement. Let's assume that it's true that the Pope wants to canonized in 2015, there is still one more requirement, even if they prove another miracle. That would be that Pope Benedict lives until 2015. The man is not a spring chicken.

There is a lot of speculation and reaction to something that is not official and to something that we don't know if it will happen, given the Holy Father's age. If he dies before 2015, his desire to canonize does not bind the next pope.

On the flip side, if he wants to canonize, a) It's his right to do so, b) It's for the glory of God, not the saint and c) It's another role model for Catholics.

I know that many Traditionalists are on the spectrum between total hatred of John Paul II to polite tolerance, hopefully most are on the positive side of the spectrum. But the truth is that his ministry to youth increased the number of vocations to the sisterhood and brotherhood by three times what it was when he came to office. In the USA alone, he approved the founding of five new religious communities, all very young and very vibrant. He also created the secular institute of which we have several hundred of them with consecrated secular men and women. He created the societies of apostolic life, of which we have many for secular priests, laymen and consecrated men and women. No pope in modern history did as much for vocations as he did and no other pope did as much for youth as he did.

Each pope is human. As human beings, each has his gifts and his agenda that he brings to the table. It's too easy to point to his weaknesses and ignore the gifts, which outdo the weaknesses, especially because his weaknesses were administrative, not moral and doctrinal. He was not an administrator. He was an actor, poet, philosopher, preacher, professor of theology, and an avid youth minister from his early days.

Let's get real. We elect someone with that resume and then we expect him to be as efficient as Donald Trump? Ain't gonna happen. The Holy Spirit knows why he allowed the cardinals to elect him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Yes, the decree of heroic virtue becomes an infallible part of the canonization, because that is the reason that the person gets into heaven in the first place. If you take away heroic virtue, it raises the question, based on what are we saying that we belief that a person is in heaven? The devil can work miracles too. The two miracles don't stand alone. The heroic virtues are the driving force behind a canonization. The miracles are a confirmation of a heroic life of virtue.

But someone can be in heaven without "heroic" virtue. A deathbed confession with last rites and an absolution and then time in purgatory with lots of prayers from those on earth = heaven. A person of mediocre virtue, or even low virtue, can get to heaven this way, yes?

I know that many Traditionalists are on the spectrum between total hatred of John Paul II to polite tolerance, hopefully most are on the positive side of the spectrum.

This is true. I think traditionalists feel that under his pontificate so many things were going wrong and that some of his actions helped that, especially as regards ecumenism (Assisi, etc). The fear is that someone would be able to point to John Paul II as a saint for justification for those things to continue. At least, that's how I perceive it.

Each pope is human. As human beings, each has his gifts and his agenda that he brings to the table. It's too easy to point to his weaknesses and ignore the gifts, which outdo the weaknesses, especially because his weaknesses were administrative, not moral and doctrinal.

The biggest complaints I've heard about JPII from trads are not administrative, but moral and doctrinal.

The Holy Spirit knows why he allowed the cardinals to elect him.

I absolutely agree, but his status as pope is different from his status as saint. The Holy Ghost has allowed some pretty terrible Catholics to be elected Popes in the past. Please don't misread into this that I'm saying that about Blessed John Paul II. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out that, despite what we would hope and pray for, we can have terrible popes.

+ PAX

[Melchior_]

If you ask me, someone who forgives somebody who tried to murder them is a good indicator of their heroic virtue. Plus courage in the face of death.

In what will probably be a unpopular question; I wonder how many people wish that the assassination attempt was successful.

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by JReducation

The study of heroic virtue has been completed. It must be completed, signed and sealed before a person is declared venerable and it may not be reopened. The next step are the study of the miracles, not the person. We have one proven miracle, enough for beatification. We need to prove one more for canonization or the pope can wave it. Once the pope canonizes, there is no way for the miracle to be a fraud.



A canonization is always infallible, because the pope is declaring that we believe that X is in heaven; therefore, we are raising him/her up to the altar and including him/her in the liturgical life of the Church. This leads to Lex Orandi. If you celebrate mass in honor of St. Francis, then you believe that he's in heaven. You can't celebrate the Eucharist in honor of someone with doubts about the merits of the person being venerated.



The relationship between Gregory IX, Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Padua and Dominic Guzman was very close, like that of John Paul and Benedict. In fact, Francis was Gregory's superior, before he became pope. Gregory was a professed Secular Franciscan. In this case, John Paul was Cardinal Ratzinger's superior.

St. Anthony's was the shortest canonization in history. It took 11 months. Francis was 18. Clare was 18 and Dominic was 25 months. These are the fastest. In each case, people were scandalized and offended. Cardinals were upset that they were not consulted. The curia was upset because the pope would not read their studies on the deceased. Pope Gregory's answer was always the same. "I believe that these miracles have happened, because I knew these men and they were my friends." In Clare's case, it is Gregory's nephew, Pope Alexander who canonizes her. He too argues that his uncle had great respect for her holiness and the has no reason to doubt the reports about miracles through her intercession. He brushes away all studies and committees.

The Holy Spirit has a way of surprising all of us.




Yes, the decree of heroic virtue becomes an infallible part of the canonization, because that is the reason that the person gets into heaven in the first place. If you take away heroic virtue, it raises the question, based on what are we saying that we belief that a person is in heaven? The devil can work miracles too. The two miracles don't stand alone. The heroic virtues are the driving force behind a canonization. The miracles are a confirmation of a heroic life of virtue.

Everyone seems so concerned about rushing this and scandal. I can't understand who would be scandalized. I'm sure that some people will be, but that's their problem, not the pope's. Let's not make someone's sensitivities the pope's problem. The man has enough on his plate. Let's respect his right to exercise his pontificate as the Spirit guides him.

We don't even know if this is true. This is not an official statement. Let's assume that it's true that the Pope wants to canonized in 2015, there is still one more requirement, even if they prove another miracle. That would be that Pope Benedict lives until 2015. The man is not a spring chicken.

There is a lot of speculation and reaction to something that is not official and to something that we don't know if it will happen, given the Holy Father's age. If he dies before 2015, his desire to canonize does not bind the next pope.

On the flip side, if he wants to canonize, a) It's his right to do so, b) It's for the glory of God, not the saint and c) It's another role model for Catholics.

I know that many Traditionalists are on the spectrum between total hatred of John Paul II to polite tolerance, hopefully most are on the positive side of the spectrum. But the truth is that his ministry to youth increased the number of vocations to the sisterhood and brotherhood by three times what it was when he came to office. In the USA alone, he approved the founding of five new religious communities, all very young and very vibrant. He also created the secular institute of which we have several hundred of them with consecrated secular men and women. He created the societies of apostolic life, of which we have many for secular priests, laymen and consecrated men and women. No pope in modern history did as much for vocations as he did and no other pope did as much for youth as he did.

Each pope is human. As human beings, each has his gifts and his agenda that he brings to the table. It's too easy to point to his weaknesses and ignore the gifts, which outdo the weaknesses, especially because his weaknesses were administrative, not moral and doctrinal. He was not an administrator. He was an actor, poet, philosopher, preacher, professor of theology, and an avid youth minister from his early days.

Let's get real. We elect someone with that resume and then we expect him to be as efficient as Donald Trump? Ain't gonna happen. The Holy Spirit knows why he allowed the cardinals to elect him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Is the validity of these miracles an actual matter of Church teaching? If so, I had not known that.

Also, do you have a Magisterial source for the idea that canonization is infallible or are you expressing a private (if extremely common) opinion? I know it's a common theological position and has been for a long time (St. Thomas Aquinas taught it, I believe) and I have no objection to it, though I still don't fully understand how something not contained even implicitly in the teachings of the Apostles could become an infallibly defined tenet of faith. However, I did think the infallibility of canonizations was a subject that debate was still permitted regarding, and that the debate was indeed ongoing among orthodox theologians. I would welcome correction.

[Aelred Minor]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

The biggest complaints I've heard about JPII from trads are not administrative, but moral and doctrinal.

These complaints often don't stem from anything the pope wrote, but from ecumenical and interfaith gestures he made. I would highly recommend reading this analysis of one commonly cited incident by Jimmy Akin. I think it's a very reasonable look at one particular incident and a model for approaching other incidents of a similar nature.

http://jimmyakin.com/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html

Note the photograph in the blog post unfortunately isn't showing up at least on my screen, though if you click on it you should be able to see it.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

But someone can be in heaven without "heroic" virtue. A deathbed confession with last rites and an absolution and then time in purgatory with lots of prayers from those on earth = heaven. A person of mediocre virtue, or even low virtue, can get to heaven this way, yes?

Of course. Think of a saint as a hero. There are many good citizens and patriots, but not all are heroes.

The biggest complaints I've heard about JPII from trads are not administrative, but moral and doctrinal.

This is where people get derailed. The man never did anything immoral that we can call out of the ordinary and he never taught heresy.

I absolutely agree, but his status as pope is different from his status as saint. The Holy Ghost has allowed some pretty terrible Catholics to be elected Popes in the past. Please don't misread into this that I'm saying that about Blessed John Paul II. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out that, despite what we would hope and pray for, we can have terrible popes.

+ PAX

Of course we've had popes who were rascals. Think Borgia.

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

Is the validity of these miracles an actual matter of Church teaching? If so, I had not known that.

Only the Church can confirm whether something is a miracle or a hoax and only the Church can confirm if the miracle is from God or from that other guy. That's why it's important to answer the question about heroic life of virtue. Once you prove that a person has lived such a life, then there is no question about the miracle coming from God through the intercession of the person.

[quote]
Also, do you have a Magisterial source for the idea that canonization is infallible or are you expressing a private (if extremely common) opinion? [/neither]

The Church has never felt the need to define this anymore than she feels the need to define Apostolic Succession, because canonization has always been part of Catholic tradition dating back to Peter. The early Christians, while Peter was still alive, you gather to celebrate the mass over the tombs of the martyrs. That's where we get the tradition of putting relics into altars.

It has always been understood that if Peter gave such veneration his nod of approval, nothing more was necessary. As centuries went by, we went from a nod of approval to a more formal ritual. At first, it was done by the bishops and then ratified by the pope.

There was so much confusion and so much debate over it that about the year 1100, give or take 10 years, the Church centralized canonization back to Peter.

In other words, it had been allowed to the patriarchs of the different churches, but there was conflict, especially between East and West. The Europeans did not want to venerate the Eastern saints and the Easterners did not want to venerate the European saints.

Today, the situation has been fixed. Every Church has its own liturgical calendar, every diocese within the Churches has its own liturgical calendar. And the five major religious orders of men have their own liturgical calendars. This way, everyone gets to venerate their saints. There are only 365 days in a year. That was the only way to make it fair.

I know it's a common theological position and has been for a long time (St. Thomas Aquinas taught it, I believe) and I have no objection to it, though I still don't fully understand how something not contained even implicitly in the teachings of the Apostles could become an infallibly defined tenet of faith. However, I did think the infallibility of canonizations was a subject that debate was still permitted regarding, and that the debate was indeed ongoing among orthodox theologians. I would welcome correction.

There are a few orthodox theologians, such as Cardinal Dulles, who believe that we may have misunderstood the early Church's deference to Peter on this issue.

But the Church's practice and the words that she uses at the canonization make it very clear that she believes that this is a decree of faith, a command given to the faithful, by Peter from the Chair of Peter. The wording is very important. We go back to Lex Orandi. If we believe what we pray, then there is no doubt that this is an infallible decree.

Look at the decree of the canonization of St. Francis of Assisi and observe the language.

Therefore, since the wondrous events of his glorious life are quite well known to us because of the great familiarity he had with us while we still occupied a lower rank, and since we are fully convinced by reliable witnesses of the many brilliant miracles, we and the flock entrusted to us, by the mercy of God, are confident of being assisted at his intercession and of having in heaven a patron whose friendship we enjoyed on earth. With the consultation and approval of our Brothers, we have decreed that he be enrolled in the catalogue of saints worthy of veneration.

9. We decree that his birth be celebrated worthily and solemnly by the universal Church on the fourth of October, the day on which he entered the kingdom of heaven, freed from the prison of the flesh.

10. Hence, in the Lord we beg, admonish and exhort all of you, we command you by this apostolic letter, that on this day reserved to honor his memory, you dedicate yourselves more intensely to the divine praises, and humbly to implore his patronage, so that through his intercession and merits you might be found worthy of joining his company with the help of Him who is blessed forever. Amen.

Popes cannot command error against the faith. If they command you to bet on a specific race horse, go ask your bookie. But if a pope commands you to venerate and pray to a saint, forget the bookie.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[Big_Feet]

Not only do I believe that Blessed John Paul II is a saint (one in heaven, in the presence of God), I believe he will be declared a Saint by the Church. I also believe that in time, the Church will recognize him as a Doctor of the Church.
What a good man he was, and is. His teachings were and are stupendous! Truly a man that we should all look up to and try to emulate in our own lives.

[severus68]

Originally Posted by TimothyH

I hope I live to see it.

The children and teens must be shown this, and taught how special this man was.

And we all must appreciate how incredible it is that we can see a man go from sitting Pope to Saint within our own lifetimes. Very few have been that fast. It is historic.


-Tim-

Excellent news. He was special - very kind, forgiving and more.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Big_Feet

Not only do I believe that Blessed John Paul II is a saint (one in heaven, in the presence of God), I believe he will be declared a Saint by the Church. I also believe that in time, the Church will recognize him as a Doctor of the Church.
What a good man he was, and is. His teachings were and are stupendous! Truly a man that we should all look up to and try to emulate in our own lives.

I can see him being named a Doctor of the Church. His writings have a great deal to teach, especially Evangelium Vitae.

Originally Posted by severus68

Excellent news. He was special - very kind, forgiving and more.

It's ironic, his greatest virtue was also the greatest weakness of his papacy. He was very forgiving and hopeful. He always believed in man and in man's capacity to change for the good. He was always willing to wait a little longer. Many people don't realize that this was part of his holiness, not a defect. It may have been a defect for a CEO, but not for a saint. Saints are people of great faith in man and God. They suffer for that faith, because men often betray them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[severus68]

Originally Posted by JReducation

I can see him being named a Doctor of the Church. His writings have a great deal to teach, especially Evangelium Vitae.



It's ironic, his greatest virtue was also the greatest weakness of his papacy. He was very forgiving and hopeful. He always believed in man and in man's capacity to change for the good. He was always willing to wait a little longer. Many people don't realize that this was part of his holiness, not a defect. It may have been a defect for a CEO, but not for a saint. Saints are people of great faith in man and God. They suffer for that faith, because men often betray them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Yes, certainly not a defect. He was following the example of Christ.