I’ve been struggling with my faith for a while now, not due to any real Theological reasons but to the Church’s scandals throughout history. This will be one of the few times this coincides. As a Catholic I’m supposed to trust the church on who should and shouldn’t be saint. However I can’t make peace with how John Paul the seconded completely mishandled the situation. I could separate the Church from Pedophile priests however how can that truly happen when we venerate the man that let it go on for so long. I love the Catholic faith with all my heart, but if I question his sainthood that I’m not in Communion with the Church but I can’t help questioning it.
A person doesn’t have to be perfect to be a saint. It seems you’re concerned about appearances and reputation. The Church has a different set of requirements for someone to be declared a saint.
“Completely mishandled the situation?”
I’m sorry but I’d like a little more information. He was Pope from 1978 to 2005. Exactly how, in all those years, did he ‘mishandle’ things? I’d like to know exactly what ‘things’, and exactly ‘where’ you got your information. As well, what do you know of the Pope’s life ‘outside’ of this ‘mishandling’? Are you going by the recent blurbs of the “McCarrick’ report or commentators, and nothing else?
Jesus, St Paul and St Peter all said there would be scandals and even bad people in the church. It even happens in the New Testament multiple times. Does that mean the church isn’t the true church? By the criteria you’ve set forth, given the biblical scandals, Christianity is false.
On the other topic of saints, as far as I’m aware it isn’t a dogma that you must believe x person is a saint. Communion with the church has a much different criteria.
Scandals are not a reason for a “faith crisis.”
Human life is a barrel of sinners. The Holy Catholic Church is a small part of that barrel, so is still full of sinners.
The Pope can do only so much to control others. And even then, however holy he is, does not affect what is true or not.
We just had a thread on this recently. Saints are not those who have made imperfect decisions or judgements in life. Saints are those who have exhibited heroic charity, who have laid down their life for Christ. This is why John Paul II is a saint.
The Church has fully examined his life, his teachings, his writings. Moreover, several miraculous cures due to his intercession were well documented and investigated. I haven’t read all the Church examinations for his cause of sainthood, have you? I trust Mother Church to make a correct decision. Evidently, you don’t. So why not investigate the matter for yourself.
Many, many people may be saints that we know nothing about. We may know in the future, but God is in charge of who He will make known as saints for our models here on Earth.
I’m not sure how old you are. Pope St. John Paul II was severely wounded in an attempted assassination in 1981, that is nearly 40 years ago now. That attempt (where he forgave the one who tried to kill him) led to a lot of health complications which he dealt with uncomplainingly. Later he developed Parkinson’s disease which further robbed him of his mobility, among other things, and yet he shouldered that burden as well —all of this while maintaining the papacy, while working to bring down communism, while teaching and preaching to the entire world, until the day of his death.
I’d like to know how you (since you seem to be a guy; I as a woman cannot be Pope) would handle his schedule and his accomplishments, all while suffering severe health problems, all those decades, with your main work being toward the spiritual health not just for those years but for all time for a billion Catholics as well as the entire rest of the world.
He is sainted also not just for his actions as pope, but for his ministry in Poland prior to his election to the papacy.
In Soviet-occupied Poland of the mid 1900s, the Holy Church was under persecution. Many priests, including at least one known to JP2, were murdered. Public ministry was banned.
The Communists built a new town without a church. The future JP2 went there and said Mass outside, in front of everybody.
Student faith groups were banned. The future JP2 formed “nature groups” that went into the forest, and said Mass there.
After his election as Pope, his contribution of Vatican resources to such leaders as Lech Walesa and Solidarnosc, arguably punched a decisive hole in Eurocommunism.
How many of us can say that we upheld the Holy Church at our own physical peril?
I have been looking at more secular news sources admittedly, like this article here https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/shame-john-paul-ii-how-sex-abuse-scandal-stained-his-papacy/
I am not a big fan of canonizing people within a decade or two of their death, and I would include in this both John Paul II and Padre Pio. This is to take nothing away from canonized saints of recent memory, it’s just my opinion — and opinions are like hearts, everybody has one.
I do not question that they have been legitimately canonized, and I notionally accept the fact that they are saints, but as a practical matter, I use their names without the “Saint” honorific. It’s just too soon. That’s my prerogative — I typically refer to “Aquinas”, “Loyola”, and so on.
When the next conclave takes leave of its collective senses and elects me Pope I’ll implement an immediate 40-year time limit on new canonizations (i.e., they will have to have been dead for at least 40 years, under my regime, St Pius X would have barely made the cut, but St Maria Goretti would have been safely within the “limit”). There will be other acta as well.
OP, we just had this discussion on the thread Limoncello posted. You might want to review that thread.
In addition, we have had a second thread about this here:
As for what Pope JPII did during his papacy, having lived through it, my biggest memory of him is him boldly standing against and helping to bring down communism in Eastern Europe.
He also inspired many people I know, including inspiring some to religious vocations. He especially reached out to young people.
He wrote Theology of the Body, which was greatly needed.
He instituted the Feast of the Divine Mercy and promulgated the Divine Mercy devotion.
He placed renewed emphasis on the Rosary and the importance of Mother Mary at a time when many in the Church were shoving these things aside.
He went through great personal risks and struggles in becoming a priest and serving as a priest in an area/ at a time when the Church was being oppressed.
These are just some of the things he did.
When he died, people yelled “Santo Subito” - saint now. That’s the impact he had on people.
It’s too bad that people who apparently didn’t experience this first hand are only going to read the media’s hatchet jobs on him decades down the line. To me, this sort of thing is the Devil’s work. People shouldn’t fall for it.
St Pope John Paul II, pray for us.
Peter mishandled the situation of Gentiles coming into the Church, vis-a-vis observation of the Mosaic Law. Does that mean that he shouldn’t be a saint?
Sainthood doesn’t mean “you led an error-free life.” If it did, then it would mean that there would be a grand total of two humans in heaven (Mary and Jesus), since we’re all sinners.
Observing a saint who made bad judgment calls, or who sinned, but who loved God and repented for his sins, isn’t a reason to leave the Church… but to embrace it in the joy of the recognition of God’s mercy to us!
Because after a careful research the Church recognized he died in state of grace
To understand what a canonization is, what is necessarily true about it, I think it’s helpful to look at the the very first “modern” canonization. Pope Alexander III decreed that St. Edward the Confessor “be honored and glorified with due rites upon earth, just as the Lord has already by His grace glorified him in heaven.” We glorify what God has glorified. The Church can’t err in this regard. To glorify a soul God has damned would be blasphemous and contemptuous of God’s judgment. On the other hand, to glorify a soul as God has chosen to glorify a soul honors Him. For the Church’s rites not to be incentives to impiety (as the Council of Trent has defined they can’t be), we need to get this right.
Beyond that, who is canonized or not is left to the Church’s discretion. There is no bright line as to how many sins or failings a saint might be permitted. There is no promise that the reasoning or the process for canonizing someone is without human weakness or error of or that there are aren’t mixed motivations. St. JPII had many virtues and certainly his own sins and failing as well. Clearly in this case the Church thought his virtues outweighed whatever mistakes he made. He publicly preached the mercy of God and we can give thanks that God has confirmed His mercy on him.
Saints are not perfect. Neither is the Roman Catholic Church. As someone else said, the Church has fully examined his life. Pope John Paul II should be a saint. His devotion to Our Lady is something we all need to emulate. He laid down his life for Christ. I for one can’t wait to give him a hug one day.
Ok, let me get this straight.
McCarrick, who is universally considered a manipulative master of deception, lies to St. John Paul II in order to save his own skin. Sadly, JP2 is decieved, as many, many others had been before him.
And now, simply because JP2 got conned by this slimeball, people are asking whether his canonization can be revoked? Of course they know that’s impossible. Canonizations are an exercise of the infallible magisterium. So they say, let’s semi-decanonize him by suppressing his cult. This conveniently establishes a precedent that while acts of the infallible Magisterium are irrevocable, the practice of those acts can be reinterpreted or even ignored.
And that explains why JP2 is the target. These folks want to go after his teachings. If he himself can be put down the memory hole in this way, so can, say, Evangelium Vitae and Veritatis Splendor… and the entire Catechism. The idea is basically, “Well, JP2 wasn’t smart enough to catch McCarrick so this other stuff was a mistake too.” Or worse, “JP2 wasn’t that moral so let’s question his moral judgments.”
This line of thinking also puts his role in the Fall of Communism…and thus the morality of Communism itself, in question.
What is truly scary is that the Vatican is helping this process along (whether knowingly or not) by throwing JP2 under the bus in the McCarrick report while buddying up to Communist China.
Red flags everywhere.
In short, he is a saint because God revealed him to be one. Politically and theologically he beat back communism and saved millions of souls. Perhaps he may be a powerful patron and intercessor even now with the scandals. Maybe he can intercede for the current pontiff and improve the way the Church is facing and dealing with these evils. Also, sure he may have been told of the situation. But take a look at Francis’ response when confronted with Chilean abuse claims! He denied them and spoke against the victims until he was made aware of reality of the situation. Unfortunately the Church is still blind and impotent to the problems. So we should rejoice that at JP2 is there to intercede and help now that he is fully aware of the sheer evil that exists. Better he help from heaven than be punished for something we don’t know the exact facts of. Because he is a saint we know he repented and atoned for any of his sins. Of which he himself would tell you there were many.
Jesus decided to leave the church His bride in human hands! Also, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come. The declaration that someone is a saint is an infallible teaching. The Holy Spirit makes it so not the humans!