Pope Paul VI to be Beatified in October
(05-10-2014, 04:19 PM)maso Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 10:32 AM)J Michael Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 08:08 AM)maso Wrote:
(05-09-2014, 04:22 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(05-09-2014, 04:07 PM)maso Wrote:
(05-09-2014, 10:05 AM)J Michael Wrote:
(05-08-2014, 05:50 PM)maso Wrote: I am afraid that there will be a terrible scandal once Paul VI is beatified and even more once he is canonized because sooner or later the homosexuality of pope Paul VI will be brought up by the media and then the gay lobbies inside and outside the Church will not restrict themselves saying:
"We got a gay pope who is now in Heaven, therefore let's rejoice: The catholic Church has okayed the gay way of life, alleluiah!"

You might be right, but I think that's a bit of a red herring.

Just as the canonizations of JPII and John XXIII are canonizations of two individual men, and not a "canonization" of some pastoral council, any canonization of Paul VI would be the canonization of the man, not a supposed "way of life".  I know that's a fine distinction for many people to understand, especially non-Catholics, so maybe when we come across such a misunderstanding we need, with love and charity, to offer some teaching.

I don't know if Paul VI was "gay" or not.  And I really don't care.  If he was "gay" and actively engaged in homosexual acts, he obviously sinned.  Did he repent and receive absolution?  Only God, Pope Paul VI, and his confessor know for sure.  If he was "gay" and lived a life of abstinence and chastity, what, in the long run, does it matter?  Does it present a PR problem?  Probably.  Is the Church bigger than negative PR about an allegedly "gay" Pope?  If it's not, we're in BIG trouble, methinks.  If the "gay" lobby and it's water-carriers want to claim some kind of "victory" if Paul VI is beatified and subsequently canonized, I say let them.  It would be a Pyrrhic  victory, anyway, based in their total immersion in the things of this World and in subservience to it's prince, because, in the end we know that they will lose big time and the gates of hell shall not prevail.   Are there other saints who have been "gay"?  Heck, I don't know, and again, don't care really.  A saint is a saint is a saint, regardless of what their earthly sexual orientation may have been.

If the man is a saint, should the Church bow and submit to the opinions of those who are not members of it and would see it destroyed?  I, for one, hope not!  Anyway, it's way above my pay-grade to determine whether or not Paul VI is a saint.  If the Church deems him to be so, then so be it!

And, please.....do not take this as any kind of defense of or attack on the man himself and/or his saintliness--cuz it ain't!

J. Michael, I agree, but you are forgetting that the second purpose of a canonization is to expose the life of the canonized person as an example of virtue to be proposed to the faithfuls for their personal sanctification.
If not, why not  to canonize the pope Borgia Alexander VI, so far as he probably repented from his many and huge sins?

Well, you're right about what I forgot.   :blush:  But like I said, IF Paul VI carried the cross of same-sex attraction AND lived a life of chastity and abstinence, that really would be an example of virtue, doncha think?

As for Alexander VI, well, I don't know very much about him, so can't comment.  If he is a saint, God certainly knows it, whether the Church recognizes him as such or not.  Given the name "Borgia", I kinda suspect he might not be, though  :grin:. 

I never meant to imply that *anyone* should be canonized solely because they have repented from many and/or huge sins.  If you read that into what I wrote, you misread me.  :)

J. Michael,
You say: " IF Paul VI carried the cross of same-sex attraction AND lived a life of chastity and abstinence, that really would be an example of virtue".
All the issue lies in the "IF...he lived a life of chastity and abstinence ".
You must acknowledge that the concept of holiness of the canonized people was seriously damaged when pope John Paul II decided to abolish the "Devil's advocate" job. Indeed, the D.A. had the power to block forever the canonization of men and women whose life could have been, like that of Paul VI, only suspected, so scarcely be it, of an immoral behaviour, not speaking of some heretic statements they had.
John Paul II got rid of the DA job only with the aim to canonize an unprecedented number of saints according to his will, and he succeded.

I understand what you're getting at, maso.  I also wasn't aware that JPII abolished the D.A. job.

You say, "All the issue lies in the "IF...he lived a life of chastity and abstinence ". "  Do you know, without a shadow of a doubt,  that he did not?

As for the holiness of canonized people, well...if they're canonized they ARE holy.  Doesn't mean they lived their whole lives in a state of holiness.  Just look at St. Augustine!  How many saints were drunkards, reprobates, sex addicts, murderers, whatever, before their metanoia?  That's all I'm trying to say here, regardless of what JPII did or did not do.  If Paul VI engaged in homosexual activity without repentance, confession, absolution, then no, he doesn't deserve to be canonized.  Is there some irrefutable evidence (not just rumor, innuendo, speculation, gossip)  that that is the case?  I ask because I really do not know.

Or, are there other *facts* about his life that would disqualify him from sa


If by "irrefutable evidence" you mean the written testimony of a direct eyewitness, certainly this will be hard to bring out.
But there has been a police report  about Mgr Montini caught in a gay brothel in Milano when he was archbishop there.
You may find this info (with many others) and make yourself an opinion in reading three books in which one may get some in depth aspects of Paul VI's odd personality:
- "The rite of sodomy" (Randy Engel)
- "NichitaRoncalli, controvita di un papa" '(Franco Bellegrandi)
- "Paul VI Beatified" (Father Luigi Villa)
The two last ones are downloadlable free of charges on the net. There are also some chapters of the first one available.

Well, if you're going to make allegations about someone, anyone, having something like "written testimony of a direct eyewitness" (or witnesses), or a verifiable paper trail or something like that goes a loooonnnnng way to substantiating your claims.  Otherwise, it ends up being more like gossip, slander, innuendo, etc.  Now, if one's purpose is solely to discredit another, often times that is more than enough.  It is, however, not very Christian.

Okay, so there's a police report.  Again, my question becomes.....what happened afterwards?  What was his verifiable behavior like from that point onwards to his death?  If it was, in fact, consistently immoral and scandalous, without repentance, confession, absolution and subsequent cessation of that pattern of behavior, then he is probably totally unfit for canonization.  If otherwise, well.....In any event, it isn't my call, or yours, though we're certainly entitled to have opinions about it.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt and I try (though not very well many times  :blush: ) to withhold judgment about others until I have all the necessary and verifiable facts about them or a particular situation concerning them.

I'll check out those books, though.  Thanks for pointing them out to me!
Let's face it that Pope Francis is dismantling the Catholic Church, the reign of the anti-Christ must be damn close. Saint Francis was asked to restore the Church, Pope Francis is destroying it. They will canonize Vatican II, why the hell do they not canonise de Lubac, Congar and all those rats

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)