Suppress the Cult of JPII - National Catholic Reporter

This was certainly an appalling read. Not really sure what to say, but I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts.

What can I say? JP II messed up big time on Maciel and McCarrick. That’s undeniable. I like to think it was from blindness and not malice.

. . . .


I wouldn’t say it’s appalling. Maybe the request to the bishops is a little unrealistic and rhetorical, but isn’t that the nature of an editorial like this.

I don’t think the request is entirely without merit either. In addition to that, I’ve always thought that it was strange that some people called JPll “the great” before he was even dead.

1 Like

I read it. Not quite sure what to say.

On the one hand, going in, my default disposition was a defiant “No!”, because JPII’s theology of the body indirectly brought me to Catholicism, helped me hope that God promised more for me than the messed up life I was living.

On the other hand, I do see the point that there are still-living victims of priests that JPII (however naively and with good intention) trusted and bureaucratically mismanaged. I can see the concern about beatification happening so shortly after death.

Does anyone know if actual victims of McCarrick or Maciel have spoken up to say they personally want JPII’s cult suppressed? Or is the author of this editorial just presuming this is the sort of thing they imagine a victim would want?

Honestly I think that sort of specific voice, from actual victims, might be helpful here. To hear whether the actual, real victims of McCarrick and Maciel blame JPII, or whether they actually draw a distinction in their minds.

Overall I don’t have too much more to offer the conversation.

National Catholic Reporter… :roll_eyes:

Whelp, can’t take this seriously.


Bishops: take “Catholic” out of your name
NCR: No way!
NCR: Suppress the cult of JPII
Bishops: No way!



Frankly, he has been canonised, which is an infallible act. There’s no suppressing that.


Cult suppression happens all the time, most notably in 1969 when Pope Saint Paul VI enacted a large-scale reform of the General Roman Calendar.

What it means in practical terms is that liturgical commemorations of the suppressed saint are prohibited. Mass, Liturgy of the Hours; the saint’s name is removed from the calendar, and either replaced or left as a feria.

Perhaps there is a broader issue. Maybe the older, higher standards for canonization should be restored, with two miracles and a Devil’s Advocate.


Pope St John Paul II was one of the greatest figures of the 20th century; an exemplary priest, bishop, and pope, a true defender of the Faith, who spoke the Truth with the end goal of the salvation of the world and the sanctification of the Christian faithful.

The National Catholic Reporter is not Catholic, is not approved by the Church, and should be entirely disregarded in its content. It does not speak for the Church. I am more concerned about America, the magazine of the Society of Jesus, which is published by the Jesuits themselves and in which concerning and unacceptable theological opinions are sometimes promoted.


Mostly I agree (especially about Fishwrap) and I could add his heroic virtue in the face of Parkinson’s disease, but it is impossible to ignore a couple of things which were not examplary:

  • Assisi
  • McCarrick
  • Kissing the Koran
  • Excommunicating Abp Lefebvre

I think that Abp Lefebvre’s incident was very unfortunate, insofar as the elderly archbishop desired only Catholic truth and the Mass of All Ages, however, we must remember that St John Paul II did not excommunicate him personally, it was rather the revised Code Of Canon Law which dictated that one who consecrates bishop without Pontifical mandate is excommunicated. Considering the Vatican’s many negotiations (they planned to allow him to consecrate the bishops and Cardinal Ratzinger made this clear), I think Abp Lefebvre made the wrong decision to proceed.

However, I think it is very sad that the SSPX, who only want Catholic orthodoxy, are still ‘irregular’ when some canonically regular priests get away with saying borderline heretical things.

I think St John Paul II’s ecumenism was not a problem, insofar as he desired the reunion of the Christian people in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; I do not judge him either for kissing the Koran. I would not have done it, but he made the decision to do so.


Yawn, it’s the National Catholic Distorter, printing their usual drivel. Who Cares?

Nobody’s going to suppress any cult of St. Pope John Paul II.

St. Pope John Paul II, pray for us!


Canonizations in general still require 2 miracles these days unless the person is a beatified martyr, in which case they only need 1. It’s kind of hard to argue with beatifying a martyr.

Besides, Pope JPII had two miracles to his credit before he was canonized. And I’m betting there were a bunch more to choose from beyond the two that were relied upon for his process.

1 Like

Apparently this was something which could be overridden by a Pope, since Benedict XVI did exactly that, for the surviving SSPX bishops, without any concessions or retractions on their part.

1 Like

Then don’t. They are a faux Catholic website.

As you can see here, not everyone would even agree as to what his greatest failings were. The four items listed above were rather educational, in my opinion. He had his critics on the left and right, and that is within the Church. Suppress him? Not in my house where we call him St. John Paul the Great.


I know for most of us here the National Catholic Reporter isn’t a viable source for Catholic news, but I do try to keep the habit of reading a wide range of Catholic media, including NCR from time to time, because it’s useful to know what kind of information other Catholics are being fed.

While a lot of content from the National Catholic Reporter website disturbs me, this recent plea for US bishops to suppress the cult of John Paul II is beyond the pale, but obviously not beneath them. Many liberal minded pro-LGBT Catholics have never been keen on JPII, because of his reinforcement of Church teaching in areas of marriage and the traditional family. He basically didn’t ‘budge’ on these issues, and that bothered them. Trying to insinuate that he knowingly accepted sexual abuse and should therefore not be considered an honourable figure, is downright disgraceful. ‘Oh the snakes’ was my first thought when I saw the title on their page.

Here is a snippet from the article if you don’t wish to read it in full.

This man, proclaimed a Catholic saint by Pope Francis in 2014, willfully put at risk children and young adults in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and across the world. In doing so, he also undermined the global church’s witness, shattered its credibility as an institution, and set a deplorable example for bishops in ignoring the accounts of abuse victims.

1 Like

Already a thread going on this.


This was already posted in the OP.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit