|
Post by guillaume on Jan 14, 2011 14:32:36 GMT
Vatican announced that JP the Second will be beatified on the 1st of may coming. There is already a vast debate in leforumcatholique.org (French) against it or for it. The SSPX faithful are totally against while many are in favour. Apparently one miracle had already been recognized via the intercession of (soon) Saint JP II.
What do you think ?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 21, 2011 17:55:40 GMT
Personally I think it is a bit early. My own view is that John Paul II was a man of unquestionable personal sanctity but that his governance of the Church - especially on the abuse issue - left much to be desired. OTOH, if God really wishes to work miracles through hisa intercession, it is not for me to question that.
The SSPX view is predictable, given that they take the view that it is impossible anything good can come out of the post-Vatican II Church. I am told that while they believe Padre Pio was indeed a saint because of his traditional style of piety, they refuse to acknowledge his canonisation because it took place within the post-conciliar church and under the revised procedure! (Bear in mind that revering a common calendar of saints is one of the major marks of unity - so much so that one of the major obstacles in reunion with the Nestorians and Copts has been that the former will not cease to acknowledge Nestorius as a saint and refuse to accept his accuser Cyril of Alexandria as a saint - let alone a Doctor of the Church - while the Copts while prepared to accept that the differences between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christology can be bridged, will not give up on "St Dioscorus the Great" or accept the sanctity of St. Leo the Great and St Flavian. The SSPX refusal to accept post-conciliar canonisations is one of the stromgest indications of their schismatic mentality.
I suggest we continue this discussion omn the old "John Paul II - great or not" thread, which I have just reopened.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Jan 22, 2011 2:31:52 GMT
I was appalled and disgusted to hear this news. Out of charity I shall resist the temptation to give my opinion on the man himself and his legacy but one really must ask what planet the Vatican is on. The Church is in the middle of an enormous sex abuse scandal. They need to be sensitive to that and not give any signal that the Church is treating abuse complaints with anything less than 100% seriousness. This move totally sends out the wrong message.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jan 22, 2011 18:07:47 GMT
I was appalled and disgusted to hear this news. Out of charity I shall resist the temptation to give my opinion on the man himself and his legacy but one really must ask what planet the Vatican is on. The Church is in the middle of an enormous sex abuse scandal. They need to be sensitive to that and not give any signal that the Church is treating abuse complaints with anything less than 100% seriousness. This move totally sends out the wrong message. Shane, is it not a case of separating out the two issues of this debate. His success as a charismatic and holy Pope and his apparent failure in governance of the Church? After all the abuse in the Church started to peak in Ireland for example in the 1970s; he wasn't to become Pope until 1978 so can hardly be labelled as a cause of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 24, 2011 12:41:31 GMT
Assisi: The issue is not whether JP II caused the problem - the question is whether he mishandled it and made it worse, either by omission/negligence (not intervening to deal with the question - and the abuse scandal really began coming to light in America in the mid-80s, so he should have been aware of it) or by commission (failing to intervene when he was directly notified - as he is known to have been by Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia, for example - dismissing out of hand accusations against Fr Maciel Degollado which are now known to have been correct). Assisi's point that personal holiness and effective governance are separate to some extent is correct (Pope St. Celestine V is the classic example) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestine_VNevertheless, there is a question of giving scandal, as Shane's response shows. If John Paul II is a saint now he will be a saint in a decade or two, and it might have been better to wait until this had been fully thrashed out. Otherwise, even if John Paul was personally blameless, there is the risk that it will lead to people being alienated from the Church by the perception that (as claimed by the epically nasty Diarmuid Doyle in yesterday's SUNDAY TRIBUNE) this represented the "beautification of a protector of paedophiles". [I do not agree with Mr Doyle, but a lot of people will.)
|
|
|
Post by shane on Feb 1, 2011 18:30:08 GMT
I don't think The Sunday Tribune will be a problem for much longer.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 3, 2011 11:27:17 GMT
The SUNDAY TRIBUNE has indeed sunk - this morning's IRISH TIMES reports that the receiver will not be bringing out issues while looking for a new buyer. This break in continuity makes it even more likely that it won't survive. No great loss - the sneering anti-Catholicism of some of the contributors had to be seen to be believed. I remember a couple of weeks ago their radio critic sneering at Dana for disapproving of "killing lickle babies" thereby conveying that to such a sophisticated person as herself (the critic) it was utterly childish to disaprove of killing babies. No doubt she will soon take the next step and hail Dean Swift's MODEST PROPOSAL as the work of a long-forgotten visionary... I am sorry to say that there are plenty more outlets for this sort of guff. Only last Saturday I remember an IRISH TIMES columnist, when asserting her claims to adulthood, asserting as one of them that "I gave up being Catholic ages ago", thereby asserting that to be Catholic is to be childish. How adolescent of the Paper of Record.
|
|