Page 1 of 1

John Paul Sainthood

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:46 am
by ur-bane
www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/28/pop ... index.html

I for one feel that Sainthood for John Paul is well deserved. I wonder though how they will find a second "miracle" that can be attributed to him.

From the article:
If the Vatican then confirms a miracle has occurred after John Paul's death thanks to his intercession, he can be beatified. A second miracle is needed for him to be made a saint.
I wonder though how they will find a second "miracle" that can be attributed to him.

Because the "5 year waiting period" (sounds like we're on a season ticket list for a professional sports team) was waived, I think they'll find one.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:18 am
by Avatar
Hmm, a difficult one. Not being christian at all, perhaps I should not say anything. ;)

(Yeah, right.)

I'm all for sainthood for people to give them recognition for the good works they did while alive. The criteria of having to find "miracles" in which the deceased intervened from heaven afterwards, obviously strikes me as a bit dubious.

Shouldn't the criteria be what he achieved for the faith, and indeed for all peoples, while alive? Strikes me as a much more rational way of doing it, but hey, in that statement, I probably answered my own confusion. ;)

(BTW, what's happening with Mother Theresa's?)

--Avatar

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:33 am
by ur-bane
Avatar wrote: ...Shouldn't the criteria be what he achieved for the faith, and indeed for all peoples, while alive? Strikes me as a much more rational way of doing it, but hey, in that statement, I probably answered my own confusion. ;)...

--Avatar
I completely agree, Avatar. It is the life that was led on earth that should be the determinig factor.
Not to mention the fact that I find it very difficult to see how it can be decided that an event was indeed brought about by the hands of the passed JPII, or influenced from beyond the grave.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:15 am
by [Syl]
Considering a miracle is only something that has about a 1 in 1 million chance of happening (most people will witness a "miracle" about once every three months, though they probably won't realize it), and considering JPII had a worldwide scope... the chance of them finding a "miracle," if they're looking for one, is almost certain.

That which comes before determines that which comes after, not the other way around. But hey, it's not my religion. If they want to look for faces in the static, fine.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:54 pm
by Furls Fire
Well, I sent them documentation of Naeem's miracle which occured at the time I was in the Basillica for John Paul's funeral. Though I have not heard anything from the Vatican as of yet.

Personally, I already consider him (and Mother Teresa) saints. Whether or not the Church decides on sainthood for them.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:51 pm
by Creator
No disrespect to the Catholic religion meant by the following comment. [In fact I was raised Catholic.]

But I always was interested in how humans - even those believing in a Monothesitic religion - still have a parthenon of demi-gods and demi-goddesses. (e.g., angels, saints, etc.)

Are we truly monothesitic?

Just a thought as Sainthood is considered.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:22 pm
by Plissken
Creator wrote:No disrespect to the Catholic religion meant by the following comment. [In fact I was raised Catholic.]

But I always was interested in how humans - even those believing in a Monothesitic religion - still have a parthenon of demi-gods and demi-goddesses. (e.g., angels, saints, etc.)

Are we truly monothesitic?

Just a thought as Sainthood is considered.
There's an old thread on this subject a few lines down. If you want to get it started again, I'm sure that there are many who are willing to play with you!

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:25 pm
by Lord Mhoram
Creator,

Yes, I'd be willing to debate that with you. I firmly believe in the monotheism of Catholicism.

Regarding John Paul II's sainthood,

As has been said, it's gonna happen. What I find particularly interesting is the unprecedented speed with which his beatification is taking place.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:28 pm
by Plissken
Just out of curiosity, didn't there used to be a minimum waiting period for Sainthood? Like to ensure that everyone who actually knew the would-be Saint was dead or something?

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:32 pm
by Lord Mhoram
Plissken,

In fact there is, but JPII did away with it with Mother Theresa, which has apparently set the precedent for Ratzinger's beatification of the late pope.

I'd look it up for you Plissken (the time minimum), but I don't feel like it. :P

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:42 pm
by ur-bane
No need to look it up....it's 5 years.
And I think LM is correct...this would be only the second time that the waiting period was not adhered to....Mother Theresa being the first.

But...that's a waiting period to get the ball rolling. The actual process itself could take years. (There's that "miracle" thing again.)

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:44 pm
by Lord Mhoram
ur-bane,

Exactly. Thank you.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:58 pm
by High Lord Tolkien
Avatar wrote:
I'm all for sainthood for people to give them recognition for the good works they did while alive. The criteria of having to find "miracles" in which the deceased intervened from heaven afterwards, obviously strikes me as a bit dubious.
But people pray to Saints for intervention.
Saints are "active", I guess.
It's not just an honorary title.
I think waiting for the 1st mircle after death establishes a pattern to expect or hope for help from Heaven when asking for a Saint's help.
IMHO

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:38 am
by Avatar
Good point HLT. I suppose you're right, as far as christians are concerned, (and catholics in particular) that the saints are indeed active, and waiting for the "miracle" is intended to make them sure that asking for intervention from any saint will have the possibility of success.

Not being a christian, that seems a little, well...hypothetical to me. I was thinking of it more in terms of an honorific recognising past achievements, but as you rightly point out, thats not how they see it.

--Avatar

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:56 am
by ur-bane
A very good point, indeed, HLT.

But there has to be more to it than that. I mean, there has to be a reason why one would look for a miracle from a departed soul in the first place.
If I die and miracles happen, would I be thought of as a possible saint? I don't think so. (Even if I truly were influencing the world in the form of "miracles" from beyond the grave.) My life here does not warrant that kind of attention.

So the life led on earth has to influence the decision for sainthood--not just the expectation of hope from those who may eventually pray to that saint.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:27 am
by Avatar
Agreed, and the life led does have a significant impact on whether on not "sainthood" will be conferred. But it's not the "deciding factor" as it were, although I think that perhaps it should be.

--A

John Paul Sainthood

Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 7:10 pm
by Wosbald
+JMJ+

Pope Francis condemns ‘offensive, unfounded’ allegations against JPII
Image

Image
Pope Francis delivers his blessing as he recites the Regina Coeli noon prayer from the window of his studio overlooking St. Peter’s Square, at the Vatican, Sunday, April 16, 2023. (Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Medichini) | Pope St John Paul II. (Credit: Vatican News)

ROME — Pope Francis on Sunday criticized what he said were groundless and offensive accusations against his predecessor, John Paul II, after the brother of a missing Italian teen aired an audiotape with the allegations on national television.

Speaking to faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square for his Sunday Regina Coeli address, the pope noted that the day marked the Catholic feast of Divine Mercy, instituted by Pope Saint John Paul II in 2000.

“Certain of interpreting the sentiments of faithful from all over the world, I direct a grateful thought to the memory of Saint John Paul II, who in recent days has been the object of offensive and unfounded allegations,” he said.

Francis’s remarks marked the first time he has spoken out publicly about the allegations, which arose several days ago when Pietro Orlandi, the brother of missing Italian teen Emanuela Orlandi, gave Vatican prosecutors investigating his sister’s disappearance an audiotape containing the alleged testimony of an Italian mobster saying John Paul II used to go out at night with some Polish monsignors to harass underage girls.

Orlandi later had the tape aired on Italian television network La7, one of the country’s leading nightly news programs, sparking intense backlash not just from the pope, but several top Vatican personalities.

The daughter of a Vatican employee, Emanuela disappeared while returning from a music lesson in June 1983 at the age of 15.

Since her disappearance nearly 40 years ago, the case has become Italy’s most famous unsolved mystery and has been a source of countless conspiracy theories over the years, having been linked to the plot to kill John Paul II, to Vatican financial scandals, and to the Italian criminal underworld.

[…]

Orlandi was interrogated by Vatican prosecutors for eight hours on Tuesday as part of their inquiry into his sister’s disappearance, during which he handed over evidence and documentation pertinent to the case, including the audiotape with the mobster testimony alleging that John Paul II had molested teenage girls.

Soon after he gave an interview to La7 during which that portion of the audiotape was played, prompting the Vatican’s Editorial Director, Andrea Tornielli, to release a statement blasting the decision, saying the allegations were baseless and grounded on mere “hearsay.”

“Evidence? None. Clues? Least of all. Witnesses at least of second or third hand? Not even the shadow. Only anonymous defamatory accusations,” he said, calling it a “media massacre” and suggesting that a formal defamation complaint be made.

A full investigation into Emanuela’s disappearance is needed, he said, but insisted that “no one deserves to be defamed in this way, without even a trace of evidence, based on the rumors of some unknown character from the criminal underworld or some sleazy anonymous comment broadcast on TV.”

The allegations also drew criticism from John Paul II’s longtime secretary and the former archbishop of Krakow, Polish Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, who called the insinuations “rash” and “ignorable,” saying that far from credible, the allegations are in fact “ranting accusations, false from beginning to end, unrealistic, laughable border on comical if they weren’t tragic, indeed criminal themselves.”

Dziwisz criticized those who he said have sought to profit from Emanuela’s case and the media interest it has generated, voicing hope that the inquiries into her disappearance would be free from “the maelstrom of misdirection, mythomanias, and profiteering” that have dominated the search for the truth thus far.

He also suggested legal action be taken. In the wake of his and Tornielli’s statements, Orlandi’s lawyer, Laura Sgrò, who accompanied him to his deposition with Vatican prosecutors on Tuesday, to issue a statement walking the allegations back, saying Orlandi “did not intend to make accusations against any person,” and that his only interest was the unconditional search for the truth.

In the wake of the media firestorm the allegations generated, the Vatican’s Promoter of Justice summoned Sgrò back on Saturday, asking that she provide information on the source of the audiotape and evidence of the person’s credibility.

Sgrò did not provide the information, but rather invoked privilege, and in a statement afterward accused the Vatican’s formal information platform, Vatican News, of publishing false information in an article stating that she refused to give Vatican prosecutors the names they had requested, arguing that she was bound by privilege.

In response, the head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communications, Italian layman Paolo Ruffini, issued a statement Saturday evening saying he spoke with the Vatican’s Promoter of Justice, who confirmed that neither Sgrò nor Orlandi had provided the information requested about the audiotape.

Pope Francis’s defense of John Paul II Sunday marked his first public intervention in the matter, and his most direct response to a Vatican-related media controversy to date.

John Paul Sainthood

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:38 pm
by Skyweir
Well who knows, clearly Pope Francis doesn’t.

It’s an hierarchical oddity is it not? Sainthood? I mean wouldnt there be greater glory in god determining such a thing? Not the “church”?

mean let’s look at Mother Teresa

In 2013, in a comprehensive review[8] covering 96% of the literature on Mother Teresa, a group of Université de Montréal academics reinforced the foregoing criticism, detailing, among other issues, the missionary's practice of:
caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, [...] her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce".
She had a very cavalier perspective on those who struggle
1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?"

She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ.

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
With thoughts like these it is no wonder her hospitals lacked appropriate analgesics, didn’t sterilise needles prior to resuse and didn’t have any medical professionals on site.

So why do we care about beatifying humans? Surely god is the only one who KNOWS the heart of man, his thoughts, actions/deeds.

Surely a sainthood is more about mortals having heroes ~ than anything divine or godly.

In many ways it exposes these candidates to criticism and scrutinising investigation, not something all humans can stand up to.

John Paul Sainthood

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2023 12:04 am
by Savor Dam
Skyweir wrote: In many ways it exposes these candidates to criticism and scrutinizing investigation, not something to which all humans can stand up.
Few indeed.