Friday, May 13, 2005

Benedict XVI Announces Cause of Beatification of John Paul II

VATICAN CITY, MAY 13, 2005 (VIS) - Benedict XVI today announced the opening of the cause of beatification of John Paul II, waiving the normal waiting period of five years after the death of a Servant of God. The Pope made the announcement in the course of a meeting with the Roman clergy in the basilica of St. John Lateran.

The rescript - or document authorizing the act - is dated May 9, 2005 and is signed by Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins and Archbishop Edward Nowak, respectively prefect and secretary of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

This morning, after traveling by car to the Vicariate of Rome, the Pope, in a ceremony in the Hall of Conciliation, greeted the staff who work there and visited the pontifical apartments.

Benedict XVI then went to the basilica of St. John Lateran where he met the clergy of his diocese. After a brief greeting pronounced by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, vicar general for the diocese of Rome, the Pope delivered his address.

He said that "the extraordinary experience of faith that we experienced with the death of our much-loved Pope John Paul II, has shown us a Roman Church profoundly united, full of life and rich in enthusiasm; all this is the fruit of your prayers and your apostolate."

After underlining the need "to always go back to the roots of our priestly calling," in other words, "Jesus Christ, the Lord," Benedict XVI pointed out that as priests "we are charged not to say many words, but rather to echo and to be bearers of a single 'Word,' that is the Word of God, made flesh for our salvation. ... We have to be His true friends, to share His feelings, to want what He wants and not want what He does not want."

The Pope invited the priests to make their own these words of John Paul II: "Mass is, in an absolute way, the center of my life and of each of my days." Speaking of obedience to Christ, he recalled that this "takes concrete form in ecclesial obedience, which for a priest is, in everyday practice, above all obedience to his bishop."

Benedict XVI also recalled what he had said in his homily prior to the conclave, when he referred to "holy restlessness; a restlessness to bring everyone the gift of faith." After highlighting that Christ "calls us to be His witnesses," the Pope mentioned the necessity of "being with God," of seeking "intimate communion with Christ," in order "not to give in to fatigue, but to resist and, even more so, to grow as people and as priests."

"Time to be in the presence of God is a true pastoral priority," he continued, "in the final analysis, the most important priority. John Paul II demonstrated this to us in the most tangible and luminous of ways in all the circumstances of his life and his ministry."

The Holy Father affirmed that "our personal response to the call of sanctity is fundamental and decisive. This condition is essential, not only for our personal apostolate to be fruitful but also, and more broadly, for the Church's face to reflect the light of Christ."

"My ministry as bishop of Rome follows in the footsteps of my predecessors, in particular taking up the precious heritage left by John Paul II. Dear priests and deacons, let us walk together along this path with serenity and trust."

After his address, Benedict XVI listened attentively to questions and reflections presented by various priests and religious, and thanked them for the remarks. He then returned to the Vatican by car.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Brilliant! Yet again Benedict has done the right thing. We are blessed to have had these two wonderful men as leaders of the church. Pray that Benedict will be granted many years of health to fulfil his potential as a great and transparently holy Pope.

Louis E. said...

So John Paul II is set to be a beneficiary of the debasement he inflicted upon sainthood (cutting the miracle requirements,eliminating the argument against evidence from the process,etc).This was predictable but is disappointing.
John Paul I was "saintly"...John Paul II was very different.It is a mistake in general for someone to be beatified/canonized soon after death,their lives are too fresh a memory and their flaws far from forgotten.Let it be future generations,not their own contemporaries,that make people saints!

Christopher said...

I just wanted to post a quick note to say how much I've enjoyed discovering this blog. No offense, but I'm gratified to fine a few more pope-geeks out there who pour over the details of the new pope's coat of arms, and research the history of the pallium! It s aguilty pleasure, and I hope to be a faithful reader, and occassional contributor, to it. Thanks for creating it.

kee said...

I'm not sure you can have 'too many' saints. Surely it's more encouraging to have someone whose life you can remember or at least know something about begin on the road to sainthood than someone who lived 5 centuries ago and about whom there are only sketchy details left.
Anyway, 'by their fruits' and all that. No one is going to be made a saint without being worthy of it. The important thing is that ordinary people like me are inspired and encouraged that we are ALL capable of being saints. John Paul II has already helped me to be a more truly CHRISTIAN person, even though I would have considered myself before to have been a 'devout' Catholic.

Anonymous said...

Is the Devils Advocate still a part of the process of beatification?

Louis E. said...

JP II abolished the Devil's Advocate.
The easier a distinction is to get the less meaningful it is to get it.

P. Jeremy Stevens said...

It is breath-taking to see the venom that this simple yet profoundly significant act of our clearly wise AND holy new Pope has stirred up amongst those "Catholics" who seem to think themselves more Catholic than the Pope and more enlightened than he regarding the direction in which Christ wishes His Bride, the Church to go.

If you check the Freerepublic.com site, for instance, you will fine such excellent "Catholics" as "MarineMomJ" and "Canticle_of_Deborah" posting snide remarks like "Benny's Discount House of Worship" and asking "Fries with your new Saint"?

Then try to defend the Pope on that self-proclaimed "Premier Conservative Forum" (AS IF!) and you're attacked by the likes of "telucis", a poster whose source of magisterial wisdom is a schismatic bishop obsessed with women's fashions (Williamson of the SSPX).

More than ever, I thank God that we have the guarantee of Christ regarding the perpetuity of His Church and of what the new Holy Father has called, so humbly and yet so powerfully, his "Petrine Ministry as Bishop of Rome."

The Archbishop who was the heraldist for the new coat-of-arms spoke of the three bars on the mitre as representing "order, jurisdiction and magisterium."

It is clear that Pope Benedict XVI, heretofore brilliant as the theologian Joseph Ratzinger, will now be no less brilliant but also a strikingly vivid icon of the Good Shepherd: strong yet gentle (as St. Francis de Sales would say), with a tongue of gold and a will of steel (like St. John Chrysostom), a completely different personality from his beloved Predecessor yet in perfect continuity with his magisterium and in the pastoring of the Lord's flock.

Vivat Benedictus XVI!
Tu illum adiuva!

DD said...

Ahh, the sniping from the crowd begins. The Devil's Advocate position is redundant if one is truly examining the life of a blessed person. And in this modern age, where so many leave a paper trail, it is easier to examine someone's life without the historical blinders that once made the DA position necessary.

To criticize the Holy Father for his rapid move to beatify Pope JPII is petty. Did those same people criticize JPII for fast-tracking Mother Teresa?

He lead his life in the public eye for the greater part of 85 years, with an extensive body of writings, letters, videos, and witnesses. That obviates the need for the scrutiny other candidates for sainthood needed.

And it ignores the historical precedent for how saints were made, by popular acclaim. I pose the question that if Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II are NOT in heaven as we speak, who of us can hope to get there?

But I suppose nothing Pope Benedict will do will satisfy some people. Or do they not consider that maybe Pope Benedict witnessed things we did not during a 24-year close friendship with an incredibly holy man that may have spurred him to take this action?

And if feeding and nursing lepers, and forgiving ones assassin and leading a life of constant purity and prayer are the easy route to sainthood, that "easy-come, easy-go" attitude about the devil's advocate might have had some bearing. Their examples don't cheapen the title of Saint. Nor make them too easy to obtain. One wonders if it's so easy, why more aren't doing it? Hmmm.....

P. Jeremy Stevens said...

Actually, I think what got some of the Freepers upset - those who were quick to dump all over Pope Benedict (and with taglines quoting Bishop Williamson) - was my question to them: "Will the four SSPX Popes now decide that it's time to become Bishops again?"

And I added (perhaps imprudently!:-)):

Oh wait! They were hoping for a different announcement from the central loggia of Saint Peter's. Something like:

"Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:
habemus Papam!
Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum,
Dominum IESUM,
Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae CHRISTUM,
qui sibi nomen imposuit
Lefebvrii Primi!"

I think you're quite right: Were Jesus Christ himself to become not only the Invisible but the Visible Head of the Church on earth, not even HE would be able to please that crowd!

No doubt there would be something OF GREAT IMPORT amiss: like his coat-of-arms! :-)

vbspurs said...

Boney and Jimbo, it's a delight to see your blog still humming along, after the sad and yet marvellous weeks we all experienced in April.

Although as you know, I stopped blogging on a cotidian basis about the Pope, I did add my comments on Friday about the beatification process. It's called...

Santo Subito!

Don't let naysayers, skeptics, malcontents and other unbelievers get us down.

If John Paul II was not a saint, who is?

Cheers,
V.

Anonymous said...

I don't see the harm in waiving the five-year waiting period in someone with such documented personal holiness and faithfulness to the faith, especially on a practical basis. When you are dealing with an 85-year-old man, the people who actually knew him during his early years are also very old. To wait five years to begin the official investigation into his life would risk losing personal witnesses.

But rest assured, had this wonderful saintly man had feet of clay, the tabloids would have announced it decades ago. Fast-tracking what billions of people already feel in their hearts denigrates no process. I wonder at the sour grapes attitude.

Louis E. said...

I see a certain "conflict of interest" angle to "personal witnesses" rather than making a point of leaving ANYONE'S AND EVERYONE'S sainthood to future generations.A basic philosophical matter I suppose.

melissa said...

It's only the waiting period that's been waived. What's the problem with that?

Fr Julian said...

I was going to write something here but I see that DD and P Jeremy Stevens have said most of what I wanted to say. Just a brief word on fast tracking. I'm thinking a few centuries back... to the twelfth century to be precise. St Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, after his murder in the cathdral, was canonised less than three years after his death. Less than six years later, there was already a Church dedicated to him as far away as Salamanca in Spain (it is still there by the Diocesan Seminary). Well if that's not fast tracking I don't know what is. It goes to show that there is a real tradition in the Church for declaring very promptly the sanctity of those whose lives are evidently holy.

It seems that it is always liberals who are complaining about these inspirations of the Spirit to dispense from earthly made rules. Yet they are happy to discuss and promote the complete rejection of divine law. Praise God that at least our Holy Father Pope Benedict is open to the Holy Spirit in an authentic way.

PS Glad that Christopher was amused by my musings over the pallium.

Chan C. said...

Question: Since canonizatons are (at least considered to be) infallible, is it possible for Benedict XVI to canonize JPII wrongly? Would Benedict have a heart attack at the ceeremony, or would JPII become a saint retroactively because of the canoonization?

Chan C. said...

Question: Since canonizatons are (at least considered to be) infallible, is it possible for Benedict XVI to canonize JPII wrongly? Would Benedict have a heart attack at the ceeremony, or would JPII become a saint retroactively because of the canoonization?

DD said...

Well, the answer would be behind door number two. Christ's words to St. Peter were, "Whatever you hold bound on earth is held bound in heaven." So if the Holy Father declares a saint, God would put that person in heaven immediately so the Church would not be in error. It's all part of the contract.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but JPII is no Mother Theresa!!

DD said...

No, he wasn't. Mother Teresa was a woman.

Isn't God wonderful to give us many ways to serve Him, so as to spend eternity with Him forever! I'm sure both Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II appreciate Anonymous's keen powers of observation. Might have been hard to tell them apart, both of them wearing white and all....

God bless you, Anonymous!

Anonymous said...

The differences are more than physical. Mother Theresa was a true saint. Don't get me wrong, I loved JPII, but he was no saint.

Anonymous said...

Why would you claim JP II was no saint? Do you have some inside information denied to the majority? He seems to have lived an exemplary life and accepted his considerable suffering heroically and in public. Could you elaborate please?

DD said...

Anonymous, do you forget the attempted assassination on him? The miracles of modern medicine were able to save a man on the verge of death who would have surely died 50 years before, under the same circumstances. The fact that he lived through the horrendous attack is immaterial.

There was a conspiracy to kill him. Which would make John Paul II a martyr, as the assassination attempt was carried in a "odium fidei" (hatred of the Faith).

One is sure Vatican officials would consider this during the. In the case of martyrdom, the procedures are simplified and faster. Moreover, no miracle is required. Though I'm sure we'll be in no short supply of those.

The icing on the cake is that Pope John Paul II forgave the man who did that to him. If that doesn't take sanctity, I don't know what standards would be required to be considered a saint.

Anonymous said...

Although I disagree with many of John Paul's positions, in particular those that fail to meet the only moral test of value, to wit, "love your neighbor as you would love yourself," I'm sure that he acted within the limitations of his malformed conscience, and therefore will not be adversely judged by God, and share enternal life. Nevertheless to officially elevate him to sainthood because he managed to make it through the pearly gates is scandalous.

DD said...

Ahhh.... it's perfectly clear. You don't think he is a saint (even though you say he made it through the pearly gates, which is the very definition of a...saint) (?!)

And you don't think he's a saint because... you disagree with him. Aha! Does everyone who disagrees with you have a malformed conscience, or just the Pope?

And you disagree with him because his moral stance doesn't meet your test of loving your neighbor as yourself. Hmmm... Let's examine this. His stance on the dignity and sanctity of human life does not fall under your penumbra of loving your neighbor as yourself? Does your neighbor not deserve to live as you do? If not, I'm glad I don't live next door to you. Or I'd put bars on my window.

He preached sexual self control and chastity. Oh! I see. You want to be able to love your neighbor the way you love yourself! And the pope said not in that way! Please keep your hands off your neighbor. And his wife. We can't control how you love yourself, but please don't tell us the details.

Anonymous, people who despise the pope because he urged them to live a life worthy of a Christian are a dime a dozen. Your harsh judgment of him when all he had to offer you was the Truth tells us far more about you than it does about him. I'm sure he's praying for you from His Father's House. God bless you.

Anonymous said...

If you reread my message I think you will see that I said that he is a saint, if we define that term loosely, as anyone who enters heaven. Official recognition of one's sainthood, however, in my opinion should be reserved for those who demonstate extraordinary qualities of holiness. In my opinion Pope Benedict was simplying pandering to the masses to somehow elevate his lackluster popularity. Oh the required miracle or two will occur...how could they not, with millions of crazed and frenetic JP2 fans someone will undoubtedly undergo a "cure."

Nor did I state the specific positions on which I disagree with him or more generally, the specific positions of the organized catholic church with which I disagree, and which, he, as pontiff, had the power to change but did not.

In point of fact I don't disagree with any of the examples which you seem to attribute to me (viz. chastity and the dignity and santity of human life).

But let me give you one example of an actual disagreement. Perhaps you can tell me how the Catholic position falls into line with Christ's teaching "love your neighbor."

Suppose a family has had several children despite practicing the rhythm method. The method obviously does not work for the woman. Nevertheless, the Church requires her to abstain from sex or to continue having children, with the ultimate result of impoverishment.

Now tell me how does this rule comport with Christ's mandate to love your neighbor? Is this how you would treat your neighbor if you were in charge of the rules? Or do you just blindly follow the rules that are given regardless of what your conscience and common sense tells you?

DD said...

This is a fine example of showing true love for your neighbor. If you care to help them and have the power to employ, how about offering Daddy a better job, enabling them to take care of his children?

Reall, though, this whole scenario is supposed to pull on people's heartstrings and make the Roman Catholic Church seem cruel and inequitable, while offering the mother a faux solution that is truly lacking in charity.

Your choice, I suppose:
1. Here, Mother. Pump yourself with chemicals that, if you read the three pages of tiny print, will imperil your health. It will render you semi-infertile, and should you accidentally conceive, it will kill the very tiny child within you without you ever knowing it was there. And make you a complete object of your husband's sexual demands even if you're exhausted from taking care of the other eight kids all day.

2. Here, Mother. I have a vaccuum syringe. We'll extract the little critter. Just don't tell its brothers and sisters. They might begin to wonder what their fate would have been if they hadn't been born before you were offered this enlightened choice, courtesy of your loving neighbor.

3. We'll snap your Fallopian tubes and render you as infertile as your dog. Pray nothing untoward happens to any of your current children, or that you don't have a change of heart or financial circumstances that would cause you to regret this permanent decision and wish for another child. Because only God can see the future. (I know a mother whose children were killed in a car accident, and she had her tubes tied, so no more children.)

4. Here's MY loving neighborly advice. Mother, try NFP. It's not the old rythm method your loving neighbor has ridiculed. It makes use of God's plan for your body and your fertility. It has no chemicals to cause you physical problems or blood clots. (My sister is a cardiac nurse. Every woman under 40 she sees for strokes has been on the pill).

Moreover, for the relatively few years of fertility you have in your lifespan, it requires you and your husband to bear the burden and gift of your JOINT fertility together and equally. It will teach your growing children the example of living with self-control in a sex-saturated world. And they will learn the lesson that loving ANYONE doesn't have to involve reproductive organs. Else Christ wouldn't have been the World's Greatest Lover.

Is it too much to ask people to spend several days a month refraining from intercourse? I say it lacks charity to view your neighbor as someone who is more animal than human, and incapable of free will. And there are many who live for years without exercising their sexual functions, due to illness, widowhood, divorce, or being single. The Holy Father, whom you think isn't really so holy, set a perfect example that a life of chastity doesn't equate to not loving his neighbor. And his love was returned billion-fold at his death. All those people who loved him dearly, and he didn't sleep with one of them. Imagine!

I love my neighbor enough to offer them the truth, not a lie that feels good and solves the problem short-term but is morally and physically fatal in the long-term. Step up to the plate, Anonymous. You can do it too!

DD said...

And by the way, I didn't mean to ignore your statement about the Pope having the power to change the rules.

He does not have the power to change God's order in the universe. Everyone mocks the Church for it's wrong stance that the earth was the center of the universe. The Pope did not have the competence to make that reality.

In our modern age, he does not have the competence to say what you want him to say: That our sexual organs are the center of the universe. Christ told us to "Love one another as I have loved you." That did not involve the unfettered intercourse the world seems to want to make the center of existence.

The Holy Father is the steward of Christ's truth. It is his job to hand it to us. Not skim off what he doesn't like and give us the leftovers. And don't be so sure PBXVI is the victim of flagging popularity. But that would happen if he turned the Catholic Church into another empty cathedral to self-absorbed modernism.

And check your idea of what constitutes "impoverishment". I was one of seven children. I don't think about the toys I did or didn't have growing up. But as an adult, I have six best friends in the world who love and stand by me like no one else. That's an inheritance my parents gave me that makes anything else pale in comparison. I say many "wealthy" children grow up impoverished in their souls for not having had what I do.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that the Catholic Church (the hierarchy)has misunderstood God's truth.

It has placed unnecessary and impossible burdens upon the people.

You have repeated some of the thoroughly discredited arguments of Humana Vitae.

Some of your other comments, such as, give the father a better job are simply unresponsive. Further, my hypothetical clearly was not meant to suggest that the wife is justified in having an abortion or rendering herself permanently infertile. Also, even if artifical birth control is dangerous, the Church teaching prohibits the use of a condum, which clearly is not dangerous. Further you defined impoverisment to suit your view, when I was obviously referring to grueling poverty.

The hypothetical was set up as a "hard case" to test the validity of the doctrine. The doctrine clearly fails because it results are nonpastoral.

In fairness to you, in the end, I believe that you are answering this "hard case" hypothetical by requiring the couple to abstain from sex until the wife reaches menopause.

This is what the Church teaches. I doubt if it is what God teaches.

DD said...

Anonymous, this thread really belongs on another topic, but I will give you the courtesy of a response, one item at a time:

1. The problem is that the Catholic Church (the hierarchy)has misunderstood God's truth.

And you know that...how? You are more in tune with God in your 70-minus years of existence than 2000 years of Magisterial wisdom? Entertain for a brief moment the possibility that your desire to use condoms blinds you to God's truth.


2. It has placed unnecessary and impossible burdens upon the people.

Is it a burden for a person to live a level of life higher than a barnyard animal, scratching whatever itch they have at the moment, pleasing themselves, and without a moment's thought to consequences, except how to avoid them?

You say it is unnecessary to be burdened with self control. Voila! We have what is completely wrong with our country from corporate heads on down to cheating students. (I suppose you are also outraged at Enron executives. But they were just scratching their financial itch, and reaching for financial condoms to cover it. Oops, the accounting condom broke, and people suffered. No biggie!)

Would you like it if your neighbor felt it was impossible not to take advantage of your spouse, sister, or daughter in your absence, and thought a condom was the answer?
Does your idea of morality breed a climate of personal responsibility and accountability, or just do whatever feels good?

Sin has social consequences. No condom can stop that.

3. You have repeated some of the thoroughly discredited arguments of Humana Vitae.

Discredited by whom? The last 35 years of spiralling divorce rates, unwed pregnancies, 40 million plus abortions, forced sterilizations, teenage suicide, venereal disease and AIDS epidemics. I assure you, those are not generally problems faced by those who accept and live according to Humanae Vitae. So is an argument discredited by the people who don't follow its precepts? Or if your solution to Humanae Vitae is the world I've just described, I like the Pope's alternative a lot better!

4. Some of your other comments, such as, give the father a better job are simply unresponsive.

Oh, building a just social order where a worker earns a living wage is non-responsive? That's what we are called to do in Vatican II's document Lumen Gentium. You are in favor of Vatican II, aren't you? Or have you read the documents and what they're really about?

5. Further, my hypothetical clearly was not meant to suggest that the wife is justified in having an abortion or rendering herself permanently infertile.

Just pump her with hormones to make her temporarily infertile so you can use her to your satisfaction? Wow, I can see you're all for the dignity of women!

6. Also, even if artifical birth control is dangerous, the Church teaching prohibits the use of a condum, which clearly is not dangerous.

Nor is it clearly reliable. But that's beside the point. But it could be dangerous if the user thought it would prevent AIDS. Google condom and microns and read up!


7. Further you defined impoverisment to suit your view, when I was obviously referring to grueling poverty.

One man's grueling poverty is another man's reasonable existence. The Church never insisted couples have more children than they could provide for. In fact, it gives them credit for having intellect and being able to determine the number they could responsibly care for. The manner in which they do so is up for debate.

Just like the Church says parents should provide for their children. But they don't give you permission to rob banks and steal cars to do so.

8. The hypothetical was set up as a "hard case" to test the validity of the doctrine. The doctrine clearly fails because it results are nonpastoral.

I disagree. The validity of a church teaching doesn't rest on how easy or difficult it is to follow.

To twist your metaphor.... Say a priest finds it absolutely impossible to keep his hands off the altar boys. By your reasoning, it is cruel to keep him from defying God's law and "loving his little neighbor." I'm sure you would offer him a condom in charity to make things safe.

The fact is, what he is doing is fundamentally wrong, no matter how hard it is for him to follow. Are you outraged at the example? Well, there is a link between those priests whom you think are "pastoral" in telling the lay people to do whatever they want, and those priests dispensing themselves from God's law personally. Why are you shocked when they're just living by the same credo you want them to tell you to live by?

I suppose telling my children not to play in the street would make my response to their desire to do something dangerous 'nonmaternal'.

9. In fairness to you, in the end, I believe that you are answering this "hard case" hypothetical by requiring the couple to abstain from sex until the wife reaches menopause.

Not at all. NFP works. I know from personal experience. And there is something to be said for a couple proving to each other that they are capable of self-control. It makes separations and deployments and other times of chastity much easier to bear. (The real world sometimes imposes more obstacles to intercourse than the Catholic Church ever would.) A method of birth spacing that builds mutual trust and respect is only good for a marriage.

10. This is what the Church teaches. I doubt if it is what God teaches.

God told us to go forth and multiply. In fact, He seems eager to hand out babies. So I'm not sure where your doubts come from.

Christ said, "Suffer the little children to come to me."

At the end of your life, what will you have as a testament to your love of God? Children who love Him too? Or a wastebasket of used condoms?

Again. Pope John Paul II is a saint because he tirelessly promoted the will and word of God in the face of hostility from a world that didn't want to hear it. I'm sure his final sufferings and agony were offered to God in remission for our sins. You owe him a debt too.

kee said...

Well done DD for speaking out like this. I would say 'speaking the truth', except that what you and I consider the truth is obviously very different from other people's views.
And YES Natural Family Planning DOES work. It takes a little more time than popping a pill or putting on a condom, and SHOCK HORROR, requires that you don't give in to every earthly desire for just a few days a month. But it works.
It's interesting that the only people who deride NFP never seem to have tried it themselves.
I feel it should be promoted far more than it is. I am writing from Ireland where there is nothing said about it. On my 'pre-marriage course' a couple of years ago it was referred to, briefly, but they were promoting it more as a useful way of finding out your fertile days in case you were trying for a baby!? If this is the only way people are informed about it how are they ever going to make the leap to using it to space their children, when taking a pill is so much 'more reliable' and 'convenient'? And this was supposedly a Catholic Church-sanctioned orgnisation.
You are right, a lot of priests take the easy way out, often fearful that they will lose more parishioners in already small congregations. But is our faith really about 'keeping up the numbers' or about doing what is right.
I find it so hard to understand why people think the Church is 'behind the times' and should get in line with the modern world. Whose authority is the Church following? Christ's. Whose authority is the world following? ........

novice1 said...

It has come to the point were the Church has began to cheapen the meaning of sainthood. If John Paul II is beatified right away it will be a great injustice to the Church. The Church just doesn't beatify anyone. Plus, we must remember the whole sex scandal issue come about during JPII's papacy. Also, the faith of the world has never been so low. We need to ask ourselves, " are we proties?" Do we canonize every person who we think is the most holy man in the world? JPII was a very weak pope when we look through the eyes of our 2000 year old tradition. Plus, what's the rush? If he is a saint it will surely be shown to us by a few miracles. For miracle to be recognize it must be immediate and lasting. Christ will show us if he is a saint or not. He is the final judge. And apparently canonizations are not infailible, just ask St. Christopher. "Oh we can't he's not a saint."

loser said...

I think you have hit upon something. JP2 could replace St. Christopher as the patron Saint of Travelers. The traditional Christopher medal could be replaced with a "Popemobile" medal. Instead of having Christ in the vehicle, he could have a maching gun mounted on it, depicting him shooting down and running over liberal Catholics who oppose the ban on birth control and girl alter servers.

novice1 said...

Hey Loser,
That wouldn't be too bad... A pope who could be a cursader as well as the Holy Father. Too bad it wasn't JP2. He was as liberal as they come. Plus, if a Catholic wants to use birth control I believe he's in the wrong church. I think the lutherns might take ya. See ya.