Search This Blog
Monday, January 17, 2011
Leon Podles on the Beatification of Pope John Paul II
The point of canonizing someone a saint in the Church is to offer them as a role model for the faithful. As Podles says, JP II failed to carry out the duties of his state in life. So how can he be a role model to others even if he was personally holy? Good question. Read the article here and pray for our poor Church. Will the beatification of John Paul encourage others to cover up evils in the Church? It's a hard time to be a Catholic when so many shepherds, even the pope, fail to protect the flock. Remember, it was Pope John Paul II who raised most of the bad bishops to the episcopacy. God help us!
Posted by Mary Ann Kreitzer at 10:07 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I was just speaking to my oldest daughter this afternoon about this proposed beatification and how far we've come from the days of Saint Bernadette, for example. In Saint Bernadette's time, the Church required proof and, plenty of it, before raising anyone to the level of "Blessed." Canonization required multiple miracles and authenticated documentation thereof. I agree with what you have written here. It is my humble opinion that Pope John Paul II needs our prayers and not the celebrity that seems to be driving the push for his beatification. Saint Joseph, protector of the Church, pray for us.
Maryanne, reception of Communion in the hand is not a sin, even if it is not the norm. Altar girls are not a sin, even if they are overused in most places. Please be careful of your damaging comments. Do you only attend Latin Mass?
It is an out-and-out lie to claim that Pope John Paul II failed to carry out the duties of his state in life. Could he have done a better job? Yes, but then again, one could say that about anyone in any situation -- no matter how well anybody may do something, they could always do better. Podles' article is devoted to His Holiness' handling of the sex abuse situation in the Church. How does he, or you for that matter, know that he did nothing and ignored the problem? He may very well have taken action behind closed doors; I mean, the Vatican doesn't call press conferences to broadcast such things. Even so, during his years in Communist Poland, the Communists often slandered priests by falsely accusing them of sexual impropriety. So if His Holiness was slow to believe such charges about any given priest, can you really blame him? As for allegedly raising most of the bad bishops in question to the episcopacy, do Podles or you know for certain that he was aware that some of those whom he was appointing weren't going to be good bishops? Even if he was aware, did it ever cross your mind that maybe he chose the ones he chose because there was literally NOBODY better at the time? But then again, remember that Our Lord chose Judas to be one of His disciples. He also chose Peter, who denied Him three times, and the other disciples, who, except for John, were nowhere to be found during His Passion. One might as well accuse Our Lord of doing a terrible job of choosing disciples.
In closing, I want to say to you, Mary Ann, but also Kindred Spirit, that if the Church does indeed beatify and/or canonize John Paul II (I say "if" because anything could happen between now and May 1), I hope you will humbly submit to the Church's judgment (and believe me, the Church makes sure to do its homework when it comes to the causes of saints), especially if he gets canonized, as canonizations are infallible.
Anonymous, you misunderstood my comment about Communion in the hand and altar girls. I did not say they were sinful; I said their approval was rooted in disobedience. If, as a parent, I reward disobedient behavior which is what the pope did, I can be sure I'll get more of it. Pope John Paul II rewarded dissenters and he also rewarded bad bishops.
Dave says maybe he didn't know. I find that hard to believe because he used Fr. Hardon as a special envoy and I have no doubt that Fr. Hardon told him clearly what was happening in the U.S. because I heard him speak a number of times about work he was doing for the pope at his direct request.
Dave, I wonder what you think about those who study the history of the Church and comment unfavorably about past popes. I know there are people who think it is always wrong to criticize clerics. I think that's one of the reason so many children were abused. Everybody wanted to believe the bishops who "promised" they were taking care of it.
And, no, I do not generally attend the Latin Mass although I attend an annual retreat with a priest from the FSSP.
With regard to doing the duties of one's state in life, you're right, Dave, none of us does it perfectly. Which is another reason rushing to canonize people is imprudent. A little time gives a better perspective.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, canonization is only infallible with regards to the one canonized being in Heaven. And so, if JP II is canonized it will mean we can be absolutely certain that he's with the Lord and has the beatific vision (which I would have no problem believing). It would not mean we have to hold he was a competent pope (which I would struggle with). Yes he was a wonderful evangelist, and charismatic and prayerful, etc. But there are just too many questions that people from across the Church spectrum are asking for me to be comfortable with a quick canonization. You have not addressed in a reasoned manner why JP II favored a monster like Maciel (who also attracted many good vocations by the way) or took so very long to address the abuse crisis. What's that? He may have done so behind the scenes? Hmmm, any evidence or fruit of that? No bishops have come forward to claim this was so.
Forgive me if it seems to me that a cult of celebrity seems to have taken hold and is preventing good, solid Catholics to ask hard questions. Questions that were pro-forma in cases of proposed canonization in years past.
To the Anonymous poster who included weblinks to several blogs attacking Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI I have a message:
I will not post links to blogs that make wild accusations with absolutely no evidence.
If you have evidence, such as links to testimony given in trials, etc. I'll be glad to post. But if the information is just a screed of accusations based on nothing, I will not post it.
The fact that someone makes an unbacked up accusation on an anonymous blog does not pass the rule of evidence.
I also found it preposterous that one of the "crimes" of the pope was canonizing a 19th century Italian priest who supposedly raped women the night before their marriage. The evidence? The Red chinese government said so. Now there's a reliable witness!
I am still aghast at the pictures of the late Pope kissing the Koran at the Assisi Prayer meeting.
The Apostles emphasized that anyone who does not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God is not a Cristian.The Islamic religion considers Our Lord a lesser prophet.
If actions speak louder than words, and the late Pope is canonized,what are we left to think?
Post a Comment