[Mobius]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/opinion/dowd-a-saint-he-aint.html?referrer=

WASHINGTON — There were some disturbing elements to the Easter Mass I attended at Nativity, my childhood church.

The choral director sang “Amazing Grace” to the tune of “Danny Boy.” The pews were half-empty on the church’s most sacred day.

My sister reminisced about my christening, when the elderly Monsignor Coady turned away while he was dedicating me to the Blessed Virgin and I started rolling off the altar, propelling my gasping mother to rush up and catch me.

But it was most upsetting as a prelude to next Sunday. In an unprecedented double pontiff canonization, Pope John Paul II will be enshrined as a saint in a ceremony at St. Peter’s Basilica.

The Vatican had a hard time drumming up the requisite two miracles when Pope Benedict XVI, known as John Paul’s Rasputin and enforcer of the orthodoxy, waived the traditional five-year waiting period and rushed to canonize his mentor. But the real miracle is that it will happen at all. John Paul was a charmer, and a great man in many ways. But given that he presided over the Catholic Church during nearly three decades of a gruesome pedophilia scandal and grotesque cover-up, he ain’t no saint.

Sometimes leaders can be remarkable in certain ways and then make a mistake so spectacular, it overshadows other historical achievements. Lyndon Johnson deserves to be secularly canonized for his work on civil rights, but he never will be because of the war in Vietnam.

Just so, John Paul deserves major credit for his role in the downfall of Communism. Even though neocon Catholics who idolize and whitewash John Paul don’t like to dwell on it, he also directed consistent and withering moral criticism at the excesses of capitalism long before Pope Francis did. During his first tour of America as pope in 1979, the rock-star pontiff spoke in Yankee Stadium and warned about “the frenzy of consumerism.” (Although John Paul did encourage the royal lifestyle among his own cardinals.)

Perhaps trying to balance the choice of John Paul, who made conservatives jump for joy because he ran a Vatican that tolerated no dissent, the newly christened Pope Francis tried to placate progressives by cutting the miracle requirement from two to one to rush John XXIII’s canonization. That pope was known as “il papa buono,” the good pope. He reached out with Vatican II, embraced Jews and opened a conversation on birth control.

“This is a political balancing act,” said Kenneth Briggs, the noted religion writer. “Unfortunately, the comparisons are invidious. John opened up the church to the world and J.P. II began to close it down again, make it into a more restricted community, putting boundaries up.”

John XXIII, whose reign lasted from 1958 to 1963, comes out “free and clear,” Briggs noted, while John Paul has a “cloud hanging over his papacy.”

One of John Paul’s great shames was giving Vatican sanctuary to Cardinal Bernard Francis Law, a horrendous enabler of child abuse who resigned in disgrace in 2002 as archbishop of Boston. Another unforgivable breach was the pope’s stubborn defense of the dastardly Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, a pedophile, womanizer, embezzler and drug addict.

As Jason Berry wrote last year in Newsweek, Father Maciel “was the greatest fund-raiser for the postwar Catholic Church and equally its greatest criminal.”

His order, the Legionaries of Christ, which he ran like a cult and ATM for himself and the Vatican for 65 years, denounced him posthumously in February for his “reprehensible and objectively immoral behavior.”

The statement followed a United Nations report upbraiding the church for turning a blind eye to child abuse by priests and the sins of Father Maciel, who had serially abused adolescent seminarians, some as young as 12, and had several children with at least two women. His sons also claimed he abused them.

It is wonderful that John Paul told other societies, Communist and capitalist, to repent. But his tragedy is that he never corrected the failings of his own society, over which he ruled absolutely.

His defenders say that the pope was kept in the dark, and that he believed that the accusations were phony ones, like the efforts to slime the church in his homeland, Poland, during the Cold War.

Given the searing damage the scandal has done to so many lives and to the church, that rationalization doesn’t have a prayer. He needed to recognize the scope of the misconduct and do something, not play the globe-trotting ostrich.

The church is giving its biggest prize to the person who could have fixed the spreading stain and did nothing. The buck, or in this case, the Communion wafer, doesn’t stop here. There is something wounding and ugly about the church signaling that those thousands of betrayed, damaged victims are now taken for granted as a slowly fading asterisk.

John Paul may be a revolutionary figure in the history of the church, but a man who looked away in a moral crisis cannot be described as a saint.

When the church elevates him, it is winking at the hell it caused for so many children and young people in its care.

A big holy wink.

As Rome gets overcrowded with an extra one million tourists expected for John Paul II and John XXIII's canonization (the Polish carrier LOT even planned charter service using their new B787s), somebody on the other side of the Atlantic writes a number of reasons why JPII shouldn't be referred to as a saint.

[Luis Dias]

A man was crushed to death when a giant crucifix dedicated to Pope John Paul II collapsed and fell on him, ITV News reports. The accident came just days before a historic canonization that will see the late pope declared a saint.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/new-saints/pope-john-paul-ii-crucifix-falls-crushes-man-death-n89546

God is trying to give the Vatican the hint.

[InsaneBaron]

In the interest of fairness, here's the opposing viewpoint.

http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2014/04/remembering-man-who-told-modern-world_2.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/25/day-four-popes-expert-weighs-in-on-canonization/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-set-to-canonize-revolutionary-pontiff-along-with-john-paul-ii/

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-04-21/news/0204200465_1_confutes-american-cardinals-mandatory-celibacy

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/vatican-study-on-sex-abuse-the-passion-s-casting-director

There apparently are clear cases of JPII taking action against the abuses in question.

Actually, the page Luis posted is quite interesting. Scroll down and you'll find a lot of articles from both sides, ranging from what Mobius said to this:

‘A great reformer’

George Weigel, NBC News’ Senior Vatican Analyst, disagrees. He doesn’t think John Paul II was made a saint too quickly, or wrongly. “John Paul II was a great reformer of the priesthood. And when he had the information he needed, he acted decisively in response to the crime and sin and clerical sexual abuse,” said Weigel.

“Hundreds of thousands of people were baptized or freely joined the Catholic Church at Easter; that suggests that reports of the church's ‘image problem’ are greatly exaggerated,” Weigel added. “Pope Francis has, among many other things, reminded the world that it needs a pastor, whether the world knows that or not.”

An estimated 1 million Catholics who share Weigel’s view have already arrived in Rome to celebrate the pastor John Paul once was, and the saint he is about to become.

[Dragon]

Yeah, JPII, upon finding out about pedophilia and child abuse, took steps against them. However, keep in mind that while the Catholic Church is an absolute monarchy, it's also horribly bureaucratized. Cardinals do wield a lot of power, too, and it's incredibly difficult for one man, even the Pope, to make changes to something like that. Those things came to light under JPII's pontificate, but were hardly new phenomena. It's just that before, they were not even spoken about. The Church's way of handling this was pretty bad, but to say John Paul II did not take action against them would be unfair. He certainly did not endorse this, and did condemn that behavior.

Personally, John Paul II was a great Christian, and a great man overall. He famously forgave a man who nearly assassinated him, opened the Church towards other religions and brought it towards young people. He was the Pope during an incredibly difficult time, and had a very big role in fall of the Communism. We should not forget the great things he did just because he did not handle the pedophilia scandal as well as he could have.

I believe he is worthy of being a saint. He was not perfect, but neither were the other saints. Was he good enough, though? Well, the committee seems to think so, and they did investigate the matter closely, precisely because of the controversies. What can't be denied that he changed a lot, I think that mostly (but not exclusively) for the better.

[Scotty]

What miracles did he perform, again?  I could have sworn that "being a good man (or woman)", while not something to be disparaged, was hardly the defining requisite for sainthood.

[swashmebuckle]

Didn't he come from behind to beat the 1980 Soviet men's hockey team?

[Dragon]

What miracles did he perform, again?  I could have sworn that "being a good man (or woman)", while not something to be disparaged, was hardly the defining requisite for sainthood.

Healings. Most miracles these days are those. In his case, it was Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, cured of Parkinson's disease. Also, there was another case with Floribeth Mora Diaz, from Costarica, who was bed-ridden after a hemorrhage damaged her brain. She prayed very hard holding JPII's picture, and she got healed. It has been after his death (on the day of hie beautification, to be exact), but it was also attributed to him. IIRC, this was enough under Benedict XVI's new rules for declaring sainthood.

Miracles in general are a bit controversial topic these days, but Vatican's way of determining what is a miracle generally seems reasonable. Sainthood used to require two confirmed miracles, but Benedict XVI changed it to just one, partly because he really wanted to make JPII a saint.

[Scotty]

So then the question remains does John Paul II deserve to be a saint?  It took a rules change to make him eligible for it, so I still end up in the 'no' camp.  Especially since one of the two miracles that would have qualified him happened after he was dead anyway.

[InsaneBaron]

Dragon, I think the end of the world is coming, because you're posting on GenDisc and I'm agreeing with the majority of what you're saying (I mean this in a friendly way, of course)

As for me, I'm a definite fan of Pope John Paul II, for a lot of reasons, most of which were already listed in this thread. I'm going to be watching eagerly tomorrow.

Scotty, to answer your question, the requirements are pretty complicated. Admirable behavior in general is required, your writings (if any) need to conform to church teachings. Then you need to be declared "Venerable" (This happened to JPII a few years back.)  Once you're Venerable, people can pray to you. If people pray to you and there's a confirmed miracle, you get Beatified, and if after you're Beatified, there's at least one more miracle, then you can be Canonized and become a Saint. The miracles are actually supposed to happen after you're dead, that's the point: to decide if the Church can safely declare you to be in Heaven. At any rate, despite the fast-tracking he appears to have satisfied the original requirements anyway.

[SypheDMar]

I'd like to think that if the Catholic idea of heaven exists, John Paul II will end up there. And the definition of a saint, whether or not the Holy See canonizes someone or not, is simply someone being in heaven, right?

[InsaneBaron]

I'd like to think that if the Catholic idea of heaven exists, John Paul II will end up there. And the definition of a saint, whether or not the Holy See canonizes someone or not, is simply someone being in heaven, right?

That's correct. A "saint" (small s) is by definition anyone in heaven. The specific title "Saint", with a capital S, is something the Church gives to people who it believes it can confidently identify as being in heaven.

[Nuke]

obligatory nuke the vatican.

nuke everything else too just to be fair.

[Dragon]

Dragon, I think the end of the world is coming, because you're posting on GenDisc and I'm agreeing with the majority of what you're saying (I mean this in a friendly way, of course)

Probably so. Though here, I happen to be in the majority, which is a rare occurrence, especially when talking religious matters. In fact, the matter of his canonization was about the only thing I agreed with Benedict XVI about. Fitting, I suppose. John Paul II brought together people of different religions, ages and worldviews, prayed at mosques and buddhist temples, apologized for many historical wrongdoings of the Church and even forgave his would-be assassin. Few people did more for world peace than he did. This might be, in fact, his greatest achievement, rather than anything he did to the Church itself.

Regarding rule change, it is perhaps the most controversial part of his canonization, but in the end, it should only matter to religious people, shouldn't it? I don't believe in miracles, what I do believe in is placebo effect and that there are things medicine has yet to discover. JPII certainly had enough "mundane", but very tangible achievements to best most other saints canonized in the old days. This wouldn't be the first time rules were changed, and it all boils down to what you need to feed to the bureaucracy. It is a valid theological question, but remember that the rules were changed by a Pope. By definition, the current Pope is always right in matters regarding faith, so the rule change seems justified. On the other hand, this rule has to be officially invoked to count, I don't know if it was (if it wasn't it is still an open question).

[karajorma]

Just out of interest, who was the last pope who didn't become a Saint?

[InsaneBaron]

John Paul II brought together people of different religions, ages and worldviews, prayed at mosques and buddhist temples, apologized for many historical wrongdoings of the Church and even forgave his would-be assassin. Few people did more for world peace than he did.

Just out of interest, who was the last pope who didn't become a Saint?

Pope John Paul I, the pope before JPII. Not that he did anything wrong, he just died before he had the chance to do much.

There have been a lot of non-canonized Popes (and, quite frankly, some that the Church itself acknowledges as pretty bad).

[Aesaar]

Let's not forget JPII's lies about how condoms spread AIDS.  How many Africans are dead because they believed his bull****?

[Dragon]

Source? I don't remember him saying anything like that. I recall some cardinals holding this view, but I don't recall this being officially endorsed.
Also, even if he did said so, I think that he technically wasn't lying. He might've been wrong, but he wouldn't say such a thing without actually believing in it, too. That's a dumb thing to believe in, but he wouldn't be the only one, unfortunately. Nor the first, for that matter, such dumb myths have been springing up since AIDS came around, usually spread by people opposed to artificial birth control.

[InsaneBaron]

Let's not forget JPII's lies about how condoms spread AIDS.  How many Africans are dead because they believed his bull****?

First of all, when and where did he say this? I don't recall hearing this. Second of all, depending on his words, this might not necessarily be a lie on his part so much as a misinterpretation. And finally, (again, depending on exact words) there ARE indirect ways in which birth control items can encourage the spread of STDs.

[The E]

JP2 didn't personally claim these things, IIRC. People under his employ did, and he certainly wasn't disapproving those messages. On the contrary, his stance on the topic of safe sex was definitely not helping to contain the spread of HIV and other STDs throughout Africa.

[Phantom Hoover]

And finally, (again, depending on exact words) there ARE indirect ways in which birth control items can encourage the spread of STDs.

In much the same way as the existence of chemotherapy encourages smoking, yes.