The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Vatican moves John Paul II and Pius XII closer to sainthood
'Two-for-one' strategy unveiled.
Dec. 21, 2009
Popes John Paul II and Pius XII
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionTwo instances of something may not constitute a trend, but they can at least suggest a strategy. Last week, an apparent Vatican strategy on turning popes into saints came into view: When you’re going to move a controversial pope along the path to sainthood, bundle him with a more popular pontiff – the PR calculation apparently being that acclaim for the latter may drown out negative reaction to the former.
Call it a “two-for-one” strategy, one that appears especially probable when the controversy concerns Jewish/Catholic relations.
The Vatican announced Dec. 19 that Pope Benedict XVI has approved decrees of heroic virtue for two of his 20th century predecessors: Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII.
A decree of heroic virtue is a finding that someone lived a saintly life. It allows the candidate to be referred to as “venerable,” and means the only hurdle left for beatification is a documented miracle, with one more miracle necessary for canonization, the formal act of declaring someone a saint.
The obvious parallel is to September 2000, when Popes Pius IX and John XXIII were beatified in the same ceremony. Among other things, Pius IX was known for corralling the Jews of Rome back into their ghetto and for the famous case of a Jewish child forcibly removed from his family and raised in the Vatican. John XXIII, on the other hand, was the popular “Good Pope John” of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). He was known for gestures of outreach to Jews, including removal of a reference to the “perfidious Jews” from the church’s Good Friday liturgy.
The similarity with Saturday’s announcement is striking.
Pius XII, of course, was the pontiff during the Second World War, whose alleged “silence” on the Holocaust has long been the subject of fierce historical debate. Whether one regards Pius as a hero or a villain, the progress of his cause will produce new tensions in Jewish/Catholic relations – even if the result has seemed a foregone conclusion, since Benedict XVI has repeatedly insisted that Pius XII did everything possible under the dramatic circumstances of the war to save Jews and other victims of the Nazi regime.
The tensions were not long in surfacing.
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League told the Associated Press, “We are saddened and disappointed that the pontiff would feel compelled to fast-track Pope Pius at a point where the issue of the record — the history and the coming to a judgment — is still wide open.” Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, called the decision “profoundly insensitive and thoughtless.”
Steinberg pointed out that the announcement on Pius XII came less than a year after Benedict’s decision to lift the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, including one who’s a Holocaust denier, set off a crisis in Catholic/Jewish relations.
Reports from Italy indicate that a planned visit by Benedict XVI to the Great Synagogue in Rome, the first such occasion after John Paul’s historic visit in 1986, may be at risk. A spokesperson for Rome’s Jewish community said the event is “under review” in the wake of the announcement about Pius XII. Italian Jewish leaders also released a statement saying they will never forget the deportation of more than 1,000 Roman Jews in October 1943, aboard a train, they said, “that left Rome’s Tiburtina train station for Auschwitz in the silence of Pius XII.”
By way of contrast, John Paul II is credited with revolutionizing ties between Catholic and Jews. In addition to the 1986 synagogue visit, John Paul is also the pope who visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem in 2000, leaving behind a note apologizing for centuries of Christian anti-Semitism.
To be sure, John Paul II’s outreach to the Jews is hardly the only aspect of his resume that merits consideration, and the same thing was true with John XXIII. Arguably, even if neither pope had ever done anything with regard to Judaism, they both still would have been compelling candidates for sainthood.
To say that John Paul II is a more popular figure is also not to suggest that there’s no controversy around his cause. Critics, for example, point to the fact that the sexual abuse crisis exploded on his watch as grounds for caution. Others object to the speed at which John Paul’s cause is moving; in a recent interview with 30 Giorni, Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels objected to the fast-track treatment for the late pope, saying that “holiness does not need to go through preferential channels.”
Indeed, some observers object to the whole business of sainthood for popes. The argument goes that either they all should be canonized – which, arguably, cheapens the value of the act – or the Vatican has to pick and choose, which runs the risk of seeming political. In any event, the point of declaring someone a saint is, in part, to lift that person up as a role model, something that election to the papacy has presumably already accomplished.
It’s not clear whether John Paul II and Pius XII, having been declared venerable together, will also be beatified together. Sources say the beatification of John Paul II could come as early as October 2010, while it’s uncertain Pius’ cause will move that swiftly. In part, the Vatican may look to reaction to Saturday’s announcement to gauge the likely fallout from moving forward quickly.
For now, however, the two pontiffs are linked, as was the case for Pius IX and John XXIII almost a decade ago. A key difference is that Pius IX’s history with Judaism was a sore point in Italy and among experts, while debates over Pius XII have more global resonance.
One indication of how well the “two-for-one” strategy is working should come on January 17. Assuming that Benedict’s visit to the Rome synagogue goes ahead, it will be revealing to watch how he’s received – and whether gratitude for John Paul II, or resentment over Pius XII, has the upper hand.
With all respect to Abraham
With all respect to Abraham Foxman (who is for Jews in the US what William Donohue of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights is for Catholics) the record of Pius XII is NOT "wide open." It is abundantly clear that through quiet behind-the-scenes diplomacy he did more during World War II to save Jews than any other person or institution. He received fulsome thanks from Jews at the time, and at his death -- when the NYTimes took 3 days to publish the tributes of rabbis in New York City alone. His alleged silence is a myth. For more information Google "Pave the Way Foundation" founded by the Jewish businessman, Gary L. Krupp, to document and correct a grave historical falsehood.
I googled Pave the Way
I googled Pave the Way Foundation and could not find the article you referred to. I would like to access it.
Carol
Source, please. "It is
Source, please.
"It is abundantly clear that through quiet behind-the-scenes diplomacy he did more during World War II to save Jews than any other person or institution."
Pure defacto boilerpoint! And now the anti is upped here with 'saving more Jews than any other person or institution'??
When statements become lies, that is preceded by exaggerations such as this.
At least come up with something original.
Harry Truman said, "The buck
Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here." Where was the popular JPII (the Great!) when the abuse was going on? Who was in charge? And where was Benedict?
Could it be that they didn't know?
Well said, Walter. Pius
Well said, Walter. Pius XII's cause needs to be put on hold until all the documents from his papacy are published. The same goes for John Paul the Great Enabler. His record on child sex abuse by priests is so dismal all the documents and emails from his papacy on this subject should be published before his cause advances.
Steve
I look forward to seeing
I look forward to seeing these two Spiritual giants canonised
Me too!
Me too!
Amen!
Amen!
If they are canonized, many
If they are canonized, many will not recognize them as true Saints, especially those who were sexually abused. It would be an insult to them to call JPII a Saint. If you had read your history about these two people, I doubt you would call them "Spiritual giants." PJPII is the Great enabler of pedophile priests and that really should not be overlooked. But, you are overlooking this Great enabling. You are in denial about the whole character and substance of the man, have cherry-picked what you like about the man we have come to know as Pope John Paul II. Sainthood should be reserved for those who truly deserve such recognition. There is too much testimony that exists against him being called a Saint. If he had put an end to the sex abuse and the enabling of it, then he would have done the morally correct thing. He did not do what was morally proper to do. Many were sexually abused because of his failure to act.
Pope Pius was so blind about who Hitler was, about the way that Jewish people were talked about for years. He did not speak out to prevent this great holocaust of the Jews. In the early 1930s when Hitler and his party of death came to power the Lutheran Minister Bonhoeffer was on the radio speaking out against Hitler and Hitler and his party of death took him off the radio air waves. Bonhoeffer spoke out. The Pope did not even when he had the chance. The Vatican Magisterium was rather for Hitler because they did not like the Communist. The Vatican failed miserably and so did the Pope and it was much later in the War that the Pope might have done something behind the scenes for a handful of Jews. It was much too late to save those already killed. It was much too late in the War. He had no vision to see what Hitler was up to. Saints have vision. Saints know the difference between good and evil. Saints have fortitude and prudence. The Pope had neither and was no different than many others who thought it best to back Hitler than to back any other Party because of their hatred for the Communist in Russia. Hitler and his group were Catholics and Christians. The Pope backed these Catholics. The Catholic Bishops supported Hitler for the most part, just as some of the Catholic Bishops backed GW Bush and his insane War in Iraq.
It is best not to declare Sainthood to either of these Popes for the obvious reasons stated above and it would be wise to wait a few more generations to study and gain the perspective needed to see them in their true light historically.
Pope Benedict does not have the perspective necessary to make a reasonable and sound judgment about Sainthood for these two Popes. He is being political and allying like-minded political forces together in moving to make these Popes Saints. The Pope is overlooking too many grave faults to make a political statement. He is too close to these Popes to see the forest for the trees. He is too close to Germany and the Magisterium to see the reality of the politics and spirituality that led to Hitler's rise to power, that led to the enabling of sexual abuse of our children by Catholic Priests.
Uche, you need to take the blinders off and detach from your idolization of these two Popes.
I am sorry, but this post is
I am sorry, but this post is full of so many inaccuracies and falsehoods about Pius XII that it must be responded to.
Pius was not blind at all as to who Hitler was. He did speak out against Nazi Germany, and Hitler. The Magisterium was not for Hitler, and did not fail miserably. Pius did not fail miserably.
Pius served as Secretary of State under Pope Pius XI in 1937. The Vatican, in an attempt to clarify the seriousness of the problems with Germany, issued an encyclical in GERMAN, rather than in Latin, to get the message across to Hitler and Germany. It was entitled, MIT BRENNENDER SORGE, the encyclical of Pope Pius XI on the Church and the German Reich. It addresses Hitler's reforms, stating, "Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds." Further it states that the reform in Germany "has produced unrest instead of light, destruction instead of construction, and more than once set up evils worse than those it was out to remedy."
Pius did not become Pope until l939. According to Joseph Bottum in his April 2004 work, The End of the Pius Wars, Pacelli in 1937 "warned A. W. Klieforth, the American consul to Berlin, that Hitler was “an untrustworthy scoundrel and fundamentally wicked person”; Klieforth wrote that Pacelli “did not believe Hitler capable of moderation, and . . . fully supported the German bishops in their anti-Nazi stand”. A report written by Pacelli the following year for President Franklin Roosevelt and filed with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy declared that the Church regarded compromise with the Third Reich as “out of the question”."
Quoting from Rabbi David Dalin, PhD, from February 2001, "In his meticulously researched and comprehensive 1967 book, Three Popes and the Jews, the Israeli historian and diplomat Pinchas Lapide, who had served as the Israeli Counsel General in Milan, and had spoken with many Italian Jewish Holocaust survivors who owed their life to Pius, provided the empirical basis for their gratitude, concluding that Pius XII 'was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.' To this day, the Lapide volume remains the definitive work, by a Jewish scholar, on the subject."
Dalin went further: "Pius XII publicly and privately warned of the dangers of Nazism. Throughout World War II, he spoke out on behalf of Europe's Jews. When Pius learned of the Nazi atrocities in Poland, he urged the bishops of Europe to do all they could to save the Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution. On January 19, 1940, at the Pope's instruction, Vatican radio and L'Osservatore Romano revealed to the world 'the dreadful cruelties of uncivilized tyranny' that the Nazis were inflicting on Jewish and Catholic Poles. The following week, the Jewish Advocate of Boston reported the Vatican radio broadcast, praising its 'outspoken denunciation of German atrocities in Nazi [occupied] Poland, declaring they affronted the moral conscience of mankind.'"
Why forget John XXIII?
Why forget John XXIII? Remember Vatican II, or is he to be forgotten because the work of Vatican II is being undone?
You, and everyone of your
You, and everyone of your opinion (there seem to be a lot of you lurking in these pages): Please name ONE thing that John Paul II or Benedict XVI have done to "undo" the Council. I guarantee you cannot document a single occurrence.
Ummmm ... Blessed John XXIII
Ummmm ... Blessed John XXIII was beatified on September 3, 2000, by Pope John Paul II. Hardly "to be forgotten."
Yes, I believe it is as you
Yes, I believe it is as you say. I don't get the impression that John XXlll's deep spirituality is appreciated by the powers that be (the very temporal powers that be). Very sad for The Church - very, very sad.
He is a blessed. As soon as
He is a blessed. As soon as he gets another miracle attributed to his intercession, he will be a saint. He is hardly being ignored. Indeed, the young generation is presently enthralled by both Bl. John XXIII and Ven. Paul VI, since they actually are reading what they wrote.
So is teh new equation
So is teh new equation Pope=Sainthood now? I feel Sainthood can not begiven out so quickly after a passing (JP II). More a feel good than letting time and fervent feelings settle the issue.
"time and fervent
"time and fervent feelings."
- these are not criteria for establishing sainthood. Just FYI.
For many non catholics like
For many non catholics like myself, the fast-track of Pius II only adds understanding to why Roman Catholicism is in decline in Europe and the United States. Turning his eye to reality and history will further the conviction of many that this brand of The Church is far from Truth.
Your sophomoric statement
Your sophomoric statement that "Roman Catholcism is in decline in Europe and the United States" is like spitting in the wind. [1] ALL religious denominations are "in decline in Europe," not just Catholcism. [2] Where is your evidence that Catholicism is in decline in the United States? What planet are you on? Pius XII and John Paul II are giants that certain intellectual and spiritual pigmies will never be able to appreciate. Finally, my dear anonymous, if you stand by your statement that "this brand of The Church is far from the Truth," why don't you draw the logical conclusions and look for another Church with the "real" Truth?
I hope they exercise caution.
I hope they exercise caution. JP II loved the spotlight, and favored those who worshipped him. Whenever I think of him, I think of a person full of self-righteousness and pride.
Pius XII may or may not have
Pius XII may or may not have done all he could have done to help the Jews. I'm not convinced he could have done any better in light of the circumstances of the time. Historians certainly need access to all the information in the Vatican archives.
JPII, on the other hand, is a different story altogether. He refused to heed the numerous complaints about Maciel and the Legionaries of Christ. I recall reading somewhere that this pope allowed this pervert cleric to share the papal stage on at least three occasions.
Why the rush?
JPII canonized the Opus Dei founder, and most people familiar with this cleric's attitudes about (and behavior toward) women regard the priest's canonization as a sham, a farce.
On the other hand, perhaps Benedict should go ahead and canonize JPII so that the entire process can be seen as the fundamentalist, rightwing-driven way of doing things we've come to expect of the Vatican over the past quarter of a century.
Talk about idol worship!
I concur with you about Pope
I concur with you about Pope Pius XII of happy memory. He was personally responsible for saving thousands of Jews during the years of the Holocaust by housing them in the Vatican, Castel Gandolfo, and other locations throughout Rome and its surrounds that were papal possessions according to the Concordat reached with Mussolini. He did so at great personal risk because he felt it the morally right thing to do. He was a great man who has been maligned by those who would seek to revise history for their own purposes.
As to the seeming "rush" to canonize John Paul II, in the earliest days of the Church, men and women were canonized by popular acclaim, not by papal action exclusively. Were we living in those times, John Paul II would have been canonized a saint on the day of his funeral when hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, clergy and laity alike, demanded that he be named a saint immediately.
I point this out merely to say that it seems as if the modern mode of canonization, after careful study, investigation, prayer and thought, is far more considered and far less reactionary than the ancient model. Moreover, many saints have had difficulties in their lives...Igantius Loyola was a soldier, Augustine was a public sinner and fornicator; Peter himself publicly denied Christ not once, but three times. Paul was an active persecutor of Christians. Did John Paul II perhaps act too slowly in regard to the question of the abuse by priests? Perhaps, but does that disqualify him to be a saint? Do we have any idea of the kind of penance he did in his last years? Do we know the state of his soul at the moment of his death?
Canonization says that a particular person is: 1) In Heaven, enjoying the eternal Beatific Vision, and, 2) a person whose life is worthy of emulation.
Karol Wojtyla was born in the years immediately following the first World War. His mother and brother died when he was young. He suffered, along with his countrymen, in the days of the Nazi, then Soviet, occupations. He studied for the priesthood at night in secret, while working at backbreaking labors during the day. He was nearly killed when he was run over by a truck. He was ordained and became a beacon around which young men and women were drawn; he led many men to the priesthood.
He was ordained a bishop, then a cardinal, and he worked tirelessly on behalf of his countrymen and their religious freedom, even when he was threatened by the Communist authorities. He was elected pope and devoted much of his papacy to bringing down the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, regimes that regularly persecuted and murdered believers. He never stopped working and preaching on behalf of human rights and dignity of all people and, along with President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher, formed a triumvirate who brought down the Soviet Union and its puppet states in Eastern Europe and returned those nations to freedom.
Along the way, he brought the Church back from the chaos of the post-conciliar days and imposed discipline and a sense of order, while implementing the actual and authentic work of the council. He fought day and night for the right of all human beings to life, from birth to natural death. He advocated peace and he worked for peace as well. He reinvigorated Catholic life and challenged millions of people, especially the young, to rededicate their lives to Christ Jesus.
He lived the last years of his life practicing what he preached. When it was suggested that he receive treatment derived from embryonic stem cells, he categorically refused, reasoning that his life was no more important than the life of the unborn child who would have to be murdered so that his disease might be cured. He gave public testimony to the notion that every person, even those who are afflicted with terrible diseases, have dignity as sons and daughters of God. And, at the end of his life, he quietly provided a beautiful and moving testimony on the dignity of meeting death as a Christian.
That sounds to me like a life worth emulating, even if his every moment was not without sin. After all, only the Virgin Mary and Our Lord Himself never sinned. It would greatly unfair of us to require that only those who are without sin be canonized.
Mr. Green, I think you make
Mr. Green, I think you make many good points about canonization and JPII.
That said, I must disagree on three matters:
a. There was no (in your words) "chaos in the post-conciliar days." I know
because, unlike you, I was there. To be sure, there was change, and many
people complained that it was coming too fast. Most folks, however, did
eventually acclimate to the renewed liturgy and to our new and healthier
understanding of church.
b. JPII did not (again, in your words) "reinvigorate[] Catholic life." He
did not "implement[] the actual and authentic work of the council." Far
from it, JPII was a benevolent autocrat: Do as I say, and I'll let my
favor rest upon you (or leave you alone), but cross me, and I'll make you
rue the day. Under his papacy, the CDF went after many good and
devoted Catholic theologians who offered us new insights about God and
man's relationship with God. Throughout his papacy, JPII knew how to use
his charisma to deflect attention from the crap he was imposing on the
church. As I like to remind people, JPII smiled toward the non-Catholic
world while cracking the whip within. He believed one man --- him --- had
the prerogative to countermand the clear trajectory set by the world's
bishops and a previous pope at Vatican II.
c. Whatever the merits of popular acclamation back in the day, too many
Catholics condemn the fundamental refusal of JPII to address clerical
sexual abuse. He turned his head. He did nothing. He embraced
his pervert friend to the astonishment and disgust of people well aware of
the abuse perpetrated by Maciel. Opposition to his formal canonization is
not based on his sinfulness per se (after all, every human being is a
sinner). It is based on the Lord's teaching that anybody who victimizes
the child should have a millstone tied around his neck and be tossed into
the sea.
JPII may very well be in heaven. This is not the issue. His refusal to intervene in the numerous and credible reports of clerical sexual abuse is the issue. His formal canonization would, indeed, be scandalous. Popular acclamation in the Eternal City at his funeral is not at all popular acclamation in the larger Catholic world.
There clearly were problems
There clearly were problems in the post Conciliar Church. Not right away but slowly but surely the worm turned. One only has to glance at this website and others like it to see the cancer within the Church. JPII started a process of bringing the Church back to its moorings. Pope Benedict continues this process. One day the Church will return to her glory as in the pre-Vatican era. Vatican II will be judged by history as a blip on the radar screen.
"He was personally
"He was personally responsible for saving thousands of Jews . . . . "
Can you provide a credible source for that claim?
The inclusion of Pius XII and
The inclusion of Pius XII and John Paul II.... and the deliberate passing over John XXIII is both sad and angering. At least, follow the past policy of not attempting such nonsense until people who remember their failures are dead or can no longer recall them.
again JOhn XXIII is a BLESSED
again JOhn XXIII is a BLESSED which is closer to canonization the VENERABLE. Nobody passed over BL John 23.
So what's the hold-up on the
So what's the hold-up on the canonization of Pope John XXIII, the holiest of the 20th century popes?
Good luck in getting an
Good luck in getting an answer, Anonymous.
Since when is John XXIII the
Since when is John XXIII the "holiest of the 2oth century popes"?
The process for the
The process for the beatification of John Paul II
should be suspended until there has been a full
independent investigation of why the Pope ignored the credible
claims of the victims that Maciel was a sexual
predator and chose instead to lavish praise and
privileges on him.
When considering the company
When considering the company of official saints into which these men would be shoehorned, neither qualifies. Oscar Romero, Dorothy Day and many others are way ahead of them.
Couldn't agree more.
Couldn't agree more.
Amen!!!
Amen!!!
So much for the value of
So much for the value of "canonization."
That and $3.00 will buy you a small low-fat latte --- and that's about these dubious actions are worth.
Although the attitudes about
Although the attitudes about or insensitivity to Jewish concerns is paramount in the article, for Roman Catholics and others in the ecumenical community there is another cloud wafting in with these two papal twinnings. It was clear to some of us in 2000 when John XXIII was paired with Pope Pius IX, after thousands had viewed Good Pope John at St Peter's in 1999 before his reburial there, that the subtext was "Vatican II cannot be seen as a revision of Vatican I and papal centralization." Pius XII, seen by some very rightist Catholics as the last legitimate pontiff, pulls John Paul II into that gravity of inertia in the pre-adjournamento Church. It will not be, after all, his appeal to youth or to far-from-Rome sectors of the world that will crown JPII, in this scenario, but his callous persecution of the icons of Liberation Theology and other extensions of the spirit of Vatican II. Perhaps the one whose canonization is being pursued is Cardinal Ottaviani, the gray eminence at Vatican II whose episcopal motto was "Semper Idem" (always the same).
Again...more male
Again...more male celibates...when will we get some married women saints?? Saints are supposed to serve as examples for us...we married women have few to none...
St. Gianna Molla, pray for
St. Gianna Molla, pray for us!
Married people are at the
Married people are at the base of the pyramid, Rachel. In the hierarchical thinking of the Catholic Church, married people are relegated to the role of breeders, and breed they must to avoid hell. That is the message they get to this day. Married people, particularly married women who are considered expendable with respect to reproduction, are the lowly of the low and therefore not canonization material.
That's just one of many reasons why the canonization process holds little to no credibility with the laity these days. It's rigged to reward power and control, pride and arrogance. That would describe the papacy to a tee.
Reading your words from a
Reading your words from a Jack Chick publication wouldn't really surprise me. The fact that they are coming from a Catholic saddens me greatly.
There are many married woman saints. You just have to be willing to set your anger and ideological blinders aside AND LOOK FOR THEM.
«There are many married woman
«There are many married woman saints.»
And they are....???? Who???? What woman saint is there who lived in a normal married relationship...not a widow, not married people who lived like brother & sister, not married folk who "agreed" to go to convents & monasteries to live...normal, married women...
Gianna Molla knowingly abandoned her 3 living children & her husband...how can we condone such an action???
I guess you aren't capable of
I guess you aren't capable of dropping your ideological blinders then. You didn't bother looking at the link I posted.
Who are they? Why don't you bother to look!?
I think you've described the
I think you've described the view of Opus Dei (and its "canonized" founder) toward women.
Canonization today seems to be nothing more than the rightwing element of the church admiring itself in the mirror.
St. Gianna Beretta Molla's
St. Gianna Beretta Molla's husband is still alive, as well as her daughter Emanuela, whose life she saved by giving up her own. St. Gianna was a doctor and pediatrician, a woman who loved skiing, music, dancing, beautiful clothes, mountain climbing and mothering.
Too bad we can't votes on
Too bad we can't votes on this issue?
And where is John the 23rd in this mix?
Protector of pederast
Protector of pederast enablers, a saint!
A Enabler! The way we treated
A Enabler! The way we treated these men without a trial;then they are out in the streets without any support was a terrible way we treated another human being..Jesus said " who will cast the first stone who has not sinned".The Holy Father was given info I am sure but full dis closure was not coming in.
John Paul did much for the Church and still is and some of you hsve the guts to put this wonderfl man down.
I've read a half-dozen books
I've read a half-dozen books on Pius XII's papacy and conclude that, while he could certainly have done more, his vice was imprudence in not speaking out more clearly and directly against Nazism and the Holocaust, as opposed to the immoral attitude of anti-Semitism w/ which his critics have often charged him. In that sense, I don't think there's a serious obstacle to his "spiritual" saintliness; although his being an exemplar moral leader on the global stage is certainly open to question. Thus, I believe it is imprudent on the Vatican's part to move ahead with his cause for sainthood when the archive records of his papacy are not yet wholly accessible to scholars. While Pope Benedict has urged the Vatican archivists to accelerate the process of organizing the documents from Pius XII's papacy, he should await the completion of that process, followed by sufficient time for scholars to analyze them, before taking a step that will generate further controversy and potentially undo much of the great good Pope John Paul II accomplished w/ respect to Catholic-Jewish relations.
While I disagree with some of
While I disagree with some of his politics, JP II was very good man, possibly holy. However, isn't it time a moratorium was placed on popes canonizing each other? At least wait until the body gets cold! It really reminds me of the Roman emperors proclaiming their predecessors to be gods. It would look a lot more seemly, and a lot less self-serving, to wait a few centuries to confer sanctity on every pontifex maximus. As an aside, it's really bemusing to me that such an obvious saint as John XXIII still awaits his full due.
The canonization of a
The canonization of a Catholic man or woman, priest, bishop or Pope is the business of the Catholic Church, not of people from other religious persuasions. We don't presume to tell the Jews or Muslims or Hindus whom they should immortalize in their religious faiths. It's the height of arrogance for outsiders to interfere in the inner life of a religious community and tell them what they should or should not say or do. Pius XII and John Paul II are two of the outstanding luminaries of our times. History will vindicate them both. "By their fruits ye shall know them." We mustn't be so politically correct that we dare not say these things.
I couldn't have said it any
I couldn't have said it any better.
Since the canonisation of
Since the canonisation of Escrivá de Balaguer, for me all this canonisation business has become completely worthless. It is pure self-glorification of the leadership of the church. And the way how miracles are "produced" to prove the sanctity is a shame. I am sure that Gods scale is completely different.
Agree. How can someone who
Agree. How can someone who BOUGHT a title of nobility be considered a saint?
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:KTWyXq_VHbgJ:www.independent.co.uk/n...
"Even Escriva is not what he seems: born Jose Maria Escriba Albas in 1902, the son of an Aragonese shopkeeper, he changed his name on the death of his father to the more Catalan and aristocratic Escriva de Balaguer, and is said to have bought the title of Marquis de Peralta to gain more clout."
Anyone want to be a Laird or a Lady? http://scottishlaird.com/?gclid=CNftqcux6p4CFQ975Qodmy5YKQ
Dear Friedrich: What
Dear Friedrich: What "leadership"?
The peole of God who knew
The peole of God who knew Pope St John XXIII during his short saintly pontificate have already cannonized him. In writings and speeches I spontaenously refer to him as Pope St John XXIII. He practiced the gospels to the letter. No Pope in recent history has been universally trusted and loved as he was. The only enemies he had were his coutiers who were uncomfortable with a saint around them. Whenever I passed through Rome in my travels I used to stop by to visit his grave and thank him for Vatican II and thank God for him. His tomb was always full of people. Those who knew him are a dying generation today and we hope and pray that the canonization process will not serve as a political weapon to obliterate him from history for having wanted the church to be once more the body of Christ. Viva Giovanni Magno, viva il Papa santo!
Aloy Pieris
For all of you asking, "what
For all of you asking, "what about John XXIII?" I suggest that you sit back, take a deep breath, and look at the facts! He is already beatified! He is ahead of these 2 on the ladder, so to speak! So, he was not "skipped over." In fact, if you understand how time works he came after Pius XII and was beatified way before him--in fact Pius XII is still a step away from beatification. To use your logic, it was he who was "skipped over." But why should the facts influence your comments on this topic, as they usually don't on any other. Stop looking to be a victim and cry oppression and move on with your lives.
Some of the writers seem to
Some of the writers seem to be not aware that Pope John XXIII is beatified already and that since then his body lies behind glass in St. Peter's Basilica
NO to sainthood for both JPII
NO to sainthood for both JPII and Pius X11,
JP11 was Pedophile Priests/Bishops Enabler, including ignoring the sexual predations of Legion of Christ founder. NO sainthood for this pope!
A sytemic huge sex scandal ignored and enabled, covered up all during his papacy.
Pius X11 lacked moral and ethical leadership and ignored, enabled the Holocaust murders of millions of Jews, gypsies, Catholic resisters of Nazis, and supposed homosexuals who all were murdered in concentration camps. NO sainthood for this pope.
No wonder the Catholic church is losing many members and its credibility.
NO sainthood for JPII and Pius X11. Benedict is destroying the church!
The Church is NOT losing
The Church is NOT losing members- it is gaining. Read the statistics.
It doesn't matter what YOU think about the canonizations.
Good point. And, of course,
Good point. And, of course, we know that there was not one single instance of abuse under John XXIII and Paul VI? You have to be kidding me. If we look at the facts we will see that the vast majority of abuse actually did occur under these 2--not John Paul II. But I guess the must not have known about it--is that the story now?
isn't pope john xxiii already
isn't pope john xxiii already elevated to sainthood and as such his body is now on display in St. Peter's, Rome in a glass coffin after being exhumed from the earth? Well I'm sure it was he that I saw.
His body was never in "the
His body was never in "the earth".
It was in a triple-lined lead and cypress coffin in a marble sarcophagus in a marble crypt in a cathedral.
http://www.omm.org/news/03-25-01-vatican-johnxxiii-exhumation.html
@ Anonymous Dec. 21,
@ Anonymous Dec. 21, 2009.
Catholicism or Christianity or Religion in general? Which is Which?
And if I may ask, what "brand of The Church or Churches is closer to the Truth"? Wishful thinking is a perfected domain of those who hate to see others thrive beyond expectations.
Please, visit some Catholic colleges, universities, schools, hospitals, dioceses and parishes, and your personal wishes will be proven otherwise.
PEACE BE WITH YOU!
okay, give me a clue
okay, give me a clue here!
Mr. Allen writes:
"When you’re going to move a controversial pope along the path to sainthood, bundle him with a more popular pontiff."
So like, which is which?
The predecessor clearly laid the ground work for the Second Vatican Council; the lseser successor destroyed that blessed foundation, and our Holy Mother Church.
So like, which is which?
just wondering
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
John the XXIII would make an
John the XXIII would make an excellent candidate for sainthood. John Paul II and Pius IX would be very poor candidates. John Paul II did not treat women in the church the way a saint would have. He also tried to destroy the gains that happened as a result of Vatican II. Pius IX candidate for sainthood is deeply offensive to Jewish people and broad minded Catholics. The entire system of declaring human beings to be saints, needs an overhaul. Let it be a local project for each diocese world wide. Get rid of the cheesy and difficult to swallow "miracles" requirement assigned to each candidate for sainthood. It's too much like a Hollywood fairy tale and quite difficult to believe such inventions. After all, aren't SAINTS really just ordinary followers of Christ who TRY A LITTLE HARDER to live the example that Christ sets? There should also be no requirement that the candidate be a Roman Catholic in order to be called a Saint. Many people such as Martin Luther King who was a Baptist Christian fit the Sainthood model for millions of people. Trying to elevate Pius IX and John Paul II to the status of Saint makes the entire process look cheap and fallacious. It's time to rethink the entire program or scrap it entirely.
"Pius IX candidate for
"Pius IX candidate for sainthood is deeply offensive to Jewish people and broad minded Catholics."
- I hear that making Thomas Aquinas a saint was deeply offensive to 'Manechian Catholics' too. How could we have been so offensive to their sensitivities! I mean as long as we are using your method of determining if someone should be excluded from being considered saintly, ie "Did anyone anywhere not like him?".
"Get rid of the cheesy and difficult to swallow "miracles" requirement assigned to each candidate for sainthood."
- Wow. A Catholic that doesn't like the idea of "miracles". I take it you must find the idea of the Incarnation to be 'cheesy and difficult to swallow' too, eh? Afterall, that was a WOZER of a "miracle". Do you think God can't give us proof of His saint's holiness if He wants?
"There should also be no requirement that the candidate be a Roman Catholic in order to be called a Saint."
- Congrats, you just displayed complete ignorance of the entire process and lost the last bit of your credibility.
I agree with canonization for
I agree with canonization for Pius XII but not for JPII. I would add that I do think JPII was a saintly man; both a scholar & a saint in his personal life. The problem is that a Pope has to be judged by a very high standard and in consideration of his papacy.
Some have made issues of Pius XII & the Jews of Europe during the Nazi regime. Maybe his prudential judgment wasn't the best in terms of how the Church should have dealt with all the issues out in the world at that time. This is debatable. The main one was the war itself. There was also the question of totalitarianism & the position of the Church in totalitarian countries. Personally, I think he did a pretty good juggling act under the circumstances but I can see other people of good will coming to a different conclusion.
The Church herself was in pretty good shape during his papacy, barring Burginni. Also, Pius XII was the one who initially removed Maciel from leadership of the Legion and placed him under investigation. So the worst that can be said about him is that his prudential judgment was flawed in terms of how the Church should have dealt with the world during the war years. This should not disqualify him from canonization.
In terms of the Holocaust issue per se, it has to be said that the question of the Jews in any sense does not trump all other issues for Catholics. Yes the Jews suffered during WWII in a particularly egregious way but suffering was the rule throughout Europe during the war years. The German people themselves suffered in many ways during the war years. Their sons were killed and maimed in large numbers. Their homes were bombed in Dresden. Many civilian Germans died of disease, cold & starvation. If the suffering of the German people can be ignored by the politically correct mindset, then the suffering of the Jews can be ignored as well by a politically incorrect mindset such as my own. The bottom line is that the canonization process should not be tailored in any way to appease the Jews.
JPII is a different story since there were problems in the Church itself during his reign, the abuse issue among them. He did not adequately deal with the problems in the Church herself. So for this reason alone he should not be canonized.
Canonization has become as
Canonization has become as political as the Nobel Peace Prize. Why be surprised that a former member of the Hitler Youth who bent over backwards to accommodate a holocast denying bishop should want to canonize Pius XII? Pius XII never excommunicated a single high-ranking Nazi--inlcuding Adolph Hitler. Yet, any Italian who voted Communist was automatically excommunicated.
As for John Paul II, it is important to remember that Ratzinger was his hatchet man. There is a principle in moral theology that he who acts through another is as guilty as his agent in perpetrating evil. So, the lack of intellectual freedom, due process, subsidiarity and opporession of women in the church must be laid at John Paul II's door...as must his looking the other way while pediphilia was running rampant in the Catholic Church.
Enough of the clergy's self-agrandizement through restricting canonization almost exclusively to clerics and religious. Why should we lait care? Why, for instance, is Matt Talbott still not canonized?
I hope no Pope receives
I hope no Pope receives "fulsome" praise.
Wow. I can't say I'm
Wow.
I can't say I'm surprised to see such hatred here for two good popes: JPII and PiusXII. How very CATHOLIC of all of you. Nice to see that so many of you can take the whole "judge not" thing regarding the state of others' souls and ignore it when it suits your fancy.
When reading the bile so many of you put out against PiusXII and JPII and then see you beam with delight on Bl John XXIII, it makes me realize that none of you really have read from nor really know anything about John XXIII.
John XXIII was truly a great pope, an intellectual and theological giant. But I'll bet I could snag some lines from a few of his writings, mislable them as coming from JPII, and many of you would attack them as 'dangerous fundamentalism' and 'destructive to the spirit of Vatican II'. I've done this before on other sites, and the result is always very revealing.
Post new comment