FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Santo Subito!! for JPII
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
He will be a Saint in the NewChurch...

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/05/...1%7C193638

Pope John Paul II Closer to Sainthood, Though Sex Abuse Critics Disagree


Vatican experts have attributed a miraculous healing to the intercession of the late Pope John Paul II, a ruling that appears to push the beloved Polish pontiff a crucial step closer to sainthood even as criticisms of his lengthy reign have mounted since his death in 2005.

A leading Vatican-watcher, Andrea Tornielli of the Italian daily Il Giornale, reported this week that medical and theological experts with the Vatican congregation charged with overseeing the canonization process have affirmed that a French nun was cured of Parkinson's disease -- an affliction similar to the one that claimed John Paul's life -- and there was no medical explanation.

The experts at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints determined that the cure was a miracle and resulted from the nun's prayers for the intercession of John Paul. Cardinals and bishops on the committee are to meet in mid-January to vote on the report from the experts before sending it to Pope Benedict XVI for final approval, and no delay is expected. Church policy decrees that two verified miracles are required before someone's sainthood is formally confirmed.

(According to Catholic doctrine, all Christians in heaven are considered saints; canonization is the church's formal declaration that a person is indeed in paradise and that their memory is worthy of veneration, and that Catholics may pray to that saint to intercede with God on behalf of some cause here on earth.)

In 2009 Pope Benedict declared that John Paul was a person of "heroic virtue," the first step to sainthood, and the verification of a miracle due to his intercession would pave the way toward beatification, the last step before canonization, which would require a second miracle.

Yet even as crowds at John Paul's funeral in 2005 chanted "Santo Subito!," demanding the Vatican make him a saint right away, the intervening years have not been as kind to the memory of the late pontiff, whom some conservatives were already championing as "John Paul the Great." Reports of how badly John Paul managed the clergy sex abuse crisis, for example, have made some Catholics view the prospect of his imminent beatification with alarm.

"This is madness," writes Michael Sean Winters, a columnist for National Catholic Reporter, a leading Catholic periodical. "After years of being frustrated at the slow pace with which the Vatican embraces change, in this one instance where haste could spell disaster, they appear to be rushing."

Many other commenters echoed that unease.

The Vatican has a five-year waiting period after a person's death before a cause for sainthood can be launched, thus allowing passions and grief to cool into genuine veneration and sober analysis of the deceased's virtues. That can also mean centuries will elapse before someone is declared a saint, as happened with Joan of Arc, for example.

But popes are increasingly becoming prime candidates for sainthood -- a new and often problematic trend, as I have noted elsewhere -- and sometimes even the Vatican is overwhelmed by the emotions of the day and waives the five-year waiting period, which Benedict XVI did for John Paul within weeks of his death.

Since then, however, details have emerged about John Paul's management, or mismanagement, of many aspects of church affairs, clouding his once haloed legacy. And there could be more, as Winters warns.

"It would be a shock to the very idea of beatification if, shortly after Pope John Paul II was beatified, especially damning evidence of corruption close to the papal throne emerged," he writes.

Tornielli of Il Giornale suggested that John Paul could be beatified as early as April 2, the sixth anniversary of his death, or on May 18, his birthday. But NCR's John Allen, another top Vaticanista, believes Oct. 16, the anniversary of John Paul's historic election in 1978, is more likely "given the logistical challenges of organizing what is likely to be the most massive public gathering in Rome since the events following the death of John Paul II in 2005."

Apart from further revelations on the sex abuse front, questions could also emerge in the intervening time about the miracle attributed to John Paul's intercession.

The French nun who reported the cure is Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, who was diagnosed with an aggressive form of Parkinson's disease in 2001. The nun said she wrote the late pope's name on a piece of paper one night in June 2005 and awoke the next morning cured and able to resume work as a maternity nurse.

Media reports earlier this year suggested that Sister Marie may have had a relapse, and at least one physician questioned the original diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. But the Vatican experts have apparently put those doubts to rest, whether others will or not.
I agree with the five year waiting period, but I have to remind you that JPII isn't even beatified yet. If he is beatified he could be in that state for a long, long, long time. Maybe indefinitely. I think the NCR crowd are becoming nervous prematurely. Just my opinion. 

My other opinion is that I agree with the writer when he talks about the "new and problematic trend" of canonizing Popes. I also don't care for it for a variety of reasons, but I can't get into it at the present moment. I probably won't get into it at a future moment either because I could be wrong.
(01-05-2011, 06:58 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]My other opinion is that I agree with the writer when he talks about the "new and problematic trend" of canonizing Popes. I also don't care for it for a variety of reasons, but I can't get into it at the present moment. I probably won't get into it at a future moment either because I could be wrong.

I would simply ban all non-martyr popes from being canonized, considering that the Pope is responsible for all canonizations these days.
Strange world when trads and Distorters come down on the same side of an issue.
God makes the saints, not men. It's up to the Church to recognise them.

I don't believe John Paul II will ever meet the due criteria unless the process of canonization is so screwed up that it would make any such proclamation irrelevant.
(01-05-2011, 07:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]God makes the saints, not men. It's up to the Church to recognise them.

I don't believe John Paul II will ever meet the due criteria unless the process of canonization is so screwed up that it would make any such proclamation irrelevant.

Aren't canonizations considered infallible?
(01-05-2011, 07:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]God makes the saints, not men. It's up to the Church to recognise them.

I don't believe John Paul II will ever meet the due criteria unless the process of canonization is so screwed up that it would make any such proclamation irrelevant.
Good point. If John Paul II is recognized as a Saint -and there doesn't seem to be anything too loosey-goosey about the process- I'd be prepared to accept that, despite my disagreements with some of his actions (or lack thereof).  
Wasn't the "old" period 50 years?  Bring that back.  That way, anyone with a dog in that fight is dead, and likely can't have emotional arguments for it.

It's way too soon for JPII to be considered a saint, in my opinion.
(01-05-2011, 07:57 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't canonizations considered infallible?

I thought that was the case too; does anyone know the answer?  Is a canonization an infallible proclamation by the Church that someone is in Heaven?  I guess it must be, otherwise the Church would be leading people astray if someone raised to the altars who wasn't actually in Heaven.........?
(01-06-2011, 03:20 AM)CatholicMatthew Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-05-2011, 07:57 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't canonizations considered infallible?

I thought that was the case too; does anyone know the answer?  Is a canonization an infallible proclamation by the Church that someone is in Heaven?  I guess it must be, otherwise the Church would be leading people astray if someone raised to the altars who wasn't actually in Heaven.........?

Most theologians would agree as the old Catholic encyclopedia states but it seems to stop short of saying it's an absolute certitude.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
A beatification being only a step in the process is not infallible.
Here's more:
"Papal infallibility and canonization

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no. eight ), many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

(Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)

There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).

This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as "Glossa" [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p. 4, no 98; Turrianus on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

C.
Pages: 1 2 3