Saints Alive! The Fast-Track Examined

[Guest fountainhall]

As the crowds who flocked to Rome to hear the Pope’s Easter message finally drift away, new and much larger crowds are preparing to descend on St. Peter’s Square for another mega-event taking place next Sunday. The Vatican authorities are even erecting tent cities to house them, stocked with millions of bottles of water (and hopefully more than a few toilets!), in preparation for an inrush expected to number more than 300,000.

 

Responding to the calls of the faithful who shouted “Santo subito” (Sainthood now) during the open-air funeral mass for the late Pope John Paul II in 2005, the Vatican is proceeding on a path which would not have been possible had John Paul himself not thrown away the rule book. For he axed two key rules in use for centuries, which would have delayed next week's 'event' for a very long time to come and permitted with the benefit of hindsight a much closer historical examination of his record as Pope.

 

The first rule to go was the sainthood process itself. This had always taken many decades, if not centuries. It decreed there must be a lapse of 5 years after death before any proceedings can commence. Then 4 steps need to be carefully completed. First, a group of the Church hierarchy meets to go through the candidate’s life and works. If considered suitable, the name goes forward to the Pope. Secondly, if persuaded by the evidence, the Pope declares the candidate ‘Venerable”. Step 3 – often lengthy – is for another group to prove that the candidate has been responsible for a posthumous miracle. The Pope may then decide the candidate is worthy of ‘canonisation’. The last step, the appearance of a second miracle, elevates the candidate to consideration for full sainthood.

 

Pius XII, often called Hitler’s Pope, had been super-glued to Step 1 for more than half a century. Had it not been for the intervention of the present Pope – dare I add, a member of the Hitler Youth in his early years? – Pius XII would still be there. But 2 years ago, Pope Benedict suddenly found a tube of acetone and dragged him up to Level 2.

 

Back to John Paul II. This process was far too lengthy for him. When Mother Teresa died, he waited 5 years, but then dropped Steps 1 and 2. Just 5 years after she died, she landed firmly on Step 3.

 

John Paul II’s second ‘fix’ was equally radical. For 500 years the Church had demanded the appointment of a Devil’s Advocate in the sainthood process, a lawyer who would deliberately take a skeptical view of the candidate’s character and argue that any miracles so attributed were fraudulent. For John Paul II, this was just another waste of time. At a stroke, he abolished it in 1983. Then – surprise! surprise! - the flood gates opened. As Pope, he pushed more candidates on to the sainthood ladder than all his predecessors put together since 1588! No wonder many people now talk less about "the convocation of the saints" and more about “the inflation of the saints”.

 

So, next Sunday Benedict XVI will shove John Paul II from nowhere up to Step 3 alongside his beloved Mother Teresa.

 

But as an article in today’s Observer notes, those crowds who cried for this fast-track to sainthood are meeting some opposition.

 

Some experts are questioning whether John Paul is fit for sainthood at all, pointing to his poor record in handling the sex abuse allegations against priests that came to the fore during his 26-year papacy. "I oppose this beatification and predict history will look unkindly on John Paul, who was in denial as the worst crisis since the Reformation happened in the church," said Father Richard McBrien, a theology professor at Notre Dame University in the US.

 

"My doubts are about John Paul being beatified by his successor, Pope Benedict," said the Catholic historian Michael Walsh. "It appears incestuous and akin to the habit of deifying one's ancestors" . . .

 

The ramifications of the sex abuse scandal will continue as an internal Vatican report on predator priests in Ireland reportedly lands on Benedict's desk, ahead of the publication next month of an Irish government report on the scandal. It is expected that the report will shed light on whether the abuse was ignored by Bishop John Magee of Cloyne, a former private secretary to John Paul.

 

John Paul's unwavering support for Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican priest and morphine addict who ran the powerful Legion of Christ movement, has also sparked concerns. Maciel has been accused of abusing seminarians, fathering up to six children and allegedly pacifying the Vatican through large donations, despite complaints about his behaviour dating back to the 1970s. "John Paul clearly safeguarded Maciel," Walsh said. Benedict was quick to banish Maciel to a life of penitence in 2006 after his election as pope.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/23/protests-john-paul-beatification

 

But after Sunday, there will be no time for further investigation, no Devil's advocate formally to present damning evidence and to dissect questionable miracles. Like it or not, Saint John Paul will soon be part of the "inflated". And no doubt Pius XII, who refused to condemn the Nazis and turned a blind eye when confronted with evidence of what was happening to the Jews, will be up there with him soon enough. (What miracles will they be able to attribute to him, I wonder?)

 

Note: I am neither Catholic or Jewish. I just find the above seemingly self-serving actions - shall we say - questionable and worthy of discussion.

[Guest]

Step 3 – often lengthy – is for another group to prove that the candidate has been responsible for a posthumous miracle.

Were the catholic church to be run by decent, intelligent & rational people, this last step would be of infinite duration.

 

Also, how could someone responsible for discouraging birth control be considered as anything less than a sinner?

[KhorTose]

"Also, how could someone responsible for discouraging birth control be considered as anything less than a sinner?"

 

Well said, if this world does survive it will be because we do learn to control our population, and people will look back on these Popes and condemn them to the judgement of history.

[Guest Hedda]

Note: I am neither Catholic or Jewish. I just find the above seemingly self-serving actions - shall we say - questionable and worthy of discussion.

 

Not being a Catholic or Jew hardly means someone's not a bigot from another persuasion. Frankly, when you gratuitously labeled one pontiff as "Hitler's Pope," and another as a member of Hitler's Youth, I figured this effort wasn't all about the alchemy of making holy ghosts. Since you say you're not Catholic, however, nor am I, I have to ask why either of us should feel entitled to judge how, when or why the Catholics choose to turn dead popes into saints. That strikes me as something that non-believers like us could hardly expect to judge in the absence of faith - if that's what this is all about.

[Guest fountainhall]

I suggested this was a topic worthy of discussion and put forward some of my own views. Although I have not used flattering terms in some of my post, I hasten to add that the term “Hitler’s Pope” is definitely not mine. It has been used by many before, notably by the Catholic scholar John Cornwell in the title of his thoroughly excellent book Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII. I have read this a couple of times and thoroughly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Papacy’s pre-war and wartime activities. You may know that a vast number of Catholics are incensed that Pius XII is a candidate for sainthood.

 

Further, many thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands) of media articles about Joseph Ratzinger, both before and after his elevation to the Papacy, openly mention his membership in the Hitler Youth. It’s even on many of his on-line biographies. So how you can label my use of either term as “gratuitous” defeats me.

 

My comments were not simply about “how, when or why Catholics choose to turn dead people into saints.” They were remarks prompted by an article in one of today’s newspapers. In my post, I frankly list the criteria used by the Church for centuries. What I was questioning was one recent Pope’s decision unilaterally to abandon two of the key rules. I happen to find this interesting. And, as I outlined, given the fast-tracking this now permits, I believe it opens the process up to the possibility that, no matter how much good a Pope or potential future saint may have done, those who have adopted singularly unsaintly practices or positions in their lifetimes will more easily pass the tests.

 

As I say, I find this worthy of discussion. I do not think Catholic or Jewish issues are solely of interest to Catholic and Jewish people - as any discussion about population control makes clear. I’m glad you have made a contribution with a differing viewpoint.

[Guest anonone]

Well, I was raised Catholic and I was not offended at all by any of Fountainhall's remarks.

 

I would be considered a "fallen" Catholic, as I no longer attend services nor consider myself catholic in any regards nor beliefs.

 

The many instances of child abuse by members of the catholic church is bad enough, but the outright cover-up by the church administration is reprehensible. By any definition, the church is guilty of conspiring to allow pedophiles access to their victims. They also used great influence to prevent families from seeking redress.

 

In my mind, they have no moral authority or compass. I do not care about their process to declare Saints. Their actions speak much louder than their words....and I do not like what their actions say.

[kokopelli]

My sentiments are the same as Hedda. I really don't understand how this post and the crucifixion post have anything to do with Thailand? For me it is Catholic bashing much the same as the Israel/Palestine bashing that takes place on Baht-Stop. Not worthy of discussion.

 

PS-The photo on the cover of the book was taken years before Pius was Pope; at the time of the photo he was apostolic nuncio to Germany

[Guest fountainhall]

For me it is Catholic bashing much the same as the Israel/Palestine bashing that takes place on Baht-Stop. Not worthy of discussion.

I respect your opinion. I do not read Baht-Stop and so can not comment on what I do not know.

 

As far as Catholic-bashing is concerned, I totally disagree. In the crucifixion post, you could at a pinch say it is Christian bashing, as I at no time mention Catholicism. To be fair, the quote fromThe Guardian does mention it once, but in my next post that same quoted article gives comments from representatives of the Catholic Church agreeing with much of what I wrote! I fail to understand how that can be construed in any way to be Catholic-bashing!

 

As to the topic about the creation of saints, this is an issue that will be front and centre of the worldwide media in only a matter of days. The points I raised are, I believe, relevant - especially about Pius XII. How can this be regarded as Catholic-bashing when my comments are in tune with large numbers of Catholic historians and lay people? They are also in tune with the feelings of many Jewish people around the world. Many believe that the contentious issue of Pius’ sainthood should be delayed, at least until those who were affected by the Nazi regime remain alive. The former Pope put proceedings aside during the entire 27 years of his Papacy. I find it interesting that the present Pope reversed that.

 

PS-The photo on the cover of the book was taken years before Pius was Pope; at the time of the photo he was apostolic nuncio to Germany

Absolutely correct, as the back cover of the book makes perfectly clear. Presumably the book publishers decided on that photo since much of the book - for which the author (a staunch Catholic who started out convinced that in writing the book he would vindicate Pius’ pontificate, and who was granted special access to the Vatican archives) - deals with the period when the future Pope was based in Berlin and his relations with the Nazis thereafter. All that is a matter of historical record.

 

As to whether the two threads are appropriate on a Gay Thailand Board, that is a matter for the owner and the moderators. Both threads originated as a result of news items in a respected British newspaper not known for sensationalism. Neither can be posted in the Beer Bar as posters are instructed first to make all posts in this forum. I for one will be delighted if more members post issues dealing with 'gay' and 'Thailand'.

[Guest]

Having had religion rammed down my throat for years at school, I've earned the right to pass comment on anything the church says.

Other members may feel the same.

 

The more people on the planet who peacefully campaign for a secular society, the better it will be for all.

[KhorTose]

Having had religion rammed down my throat for years at school, I've earned the right to pass comment on anything the church says.

Other members may feel the same.

The more people on the planet who peacefully campaign for a secular society, the better it will be for all.

 

Truer words were never spoken.

[Guest Hedda]

Having had religion rammed down my throat for years at school, I've earned the right to pass comment on anything the church says. Other members may feel the same.The more people on the planet who peacefully campaign for a secular society, the better it will be for all.

 

Before one gets too carried away with bashing religion with the notion that a secular society is somehow going to be more humane, one might consider that three of the most maniacal regimes in human history, led by Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, were all inspired by a totally secular philosophy. Who’s to say what the history of the world would have been like for the last 20 centuries, if Pontius Pilate had called in sick that week and Jesus had gone home to Galilee after spending a relaxing Passover in Jerusalem. Is it not delusional to think that all those wars would never have happened?

 

You might be interested to know that John Cornwell, the guy who bestowed the dubious title of “Hitler’s Pope” on Pius XII in 1999, had his own second thoughts about the whole issue. Read these comments made in the Economist in late 2004, on the occasion of Cornwell’s publishing a biography of Pope John Paul II.

“Devil's advocates were supposed to be fair-minded, and in the past Mr. Cornwell, a prolific writer on Catholic matters, has at times been anything but. As he admits, “Hitler's Pope” (1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. “I would now argue,” he says, “in the light of the debates and evidence following ‘Hitler's Pope', that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans. Chastened by this experience, Mr Cornwell is now a better biographer.”

http://www.economist.com/node/3471137?story_id=3471137

 

Like Monday morning quarterbacks, history is littered with critics who spend their time second guessing what might have been done to avert senseless tragedies. The bigger the tragedy - and it doesn’t get much bigger than the Holocaust - the more the need to spread the blame around. For some, organized religion is too big a target to ignore in the blame game for all that misery.

 

The fact that virtually none of the world’s secular and religions leaders, Jews included, ever publicly condemned the Nazis for the Holocaust while it was being perpetrated, has not stopped critics from unfairly singling out Pope Pius for special blame, usually decades after the events, when history’s second guessers come out to play. It’s far more important to see and judge what was being done and said at the time.

 

Did you know that the New York Times in 1941 called Pius XII a "...lonely voice of protest against Hitler,” while Hitler’s government itself accused the Pope in his 1942 Christmas message of “clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews...virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews.” In that message, the Pope had declared: "Humanity owes this vow to those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or gradual extinction." * A half century later, detractors like John Cornwell would criticize the Pope because the word “Jews” was not specifically included in the speech, as if the implicit meaning of the message was not understood by all at the time.

 

Could the Pope had done more to stop Hitler and the Holocaust? Perhaps, but then what Christian, Jewish or secular leader then alive and not already a victim of the Nazis, could not have also done more, in retrospect. But the people who demand to know why this one man did not speak more loudly against the Nazis might also ponder why the world itself was largely mute as millions went silently to the slaughter like trees falling in empty forests.

_______________________

* Pope Pius XII: A Righteous Gentile or Hitler's Pope? | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/pope-pius-a-righteous-gentile-or-hitlers-pope-a280824#ixzz1KWaYXXws

[Guest fountainhall]

Thank you for a very fair reply showing there is indeed always more than one side to a story. I agree entirely with Hedda's comments about the balance between religion v. secular philosphy. Clearly there can be extremes on both sides, and a world without one does not necessarily mean the other - although I would not like to see that proved!

 

But as far as Pius XII is concerned, there is surely a better way than "second guessing" - and that is to open up the Vatican archives. Benedict XVI met with leaders of Jewish communities in 2008 and was specifically asked not to proceed with the beatification of Pius XII for the time being. He agreed to give the matter "serious consideration." Yet, just a year later, on the same day he beatifies John Paul II, he re-starts the process for Pius XII. Clearly he had his reasons. As for the rest of us, we can only speculate - in which case doubts will forever remain, at least until those Vatican archives are opened and the truth about the goings on relating to Pius and the Nazis can be fully revealed.

 

For those interested in this matter, in today's Bangkok Post, there is another damning Opinion article by Maureen Dowd (presumably syndicated from The New York Times) which raises several issues, not just about Pius XII but others about John Paul II which I specifically decided not to air yesterday. (I am unable to get internet service at home today as our area is without phone lines thanks to a True cable having been severed, and so I cannot provide the link. It is on page 13 on the right side.)

[KhorTose]

 

For those interested in this matter, in today's Bangkok Post, there is another damning Opinion article by Maureen Dowd (presumably syndicated from The New York Times)

 

Allow me: The title is "Hold the Halo"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/opinion/24dowd.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd

[Guest fountainhall]

Having been accused of Catholic-bashing and, to a certain extent, of bigotry, let me append a link from today's BBC website. This is a purely factual summary for those interested of what will happen this week-end in Rome re John Paul II - and why it is happening. It is written by John L Allen Jr., a senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter and author of The Future Church: How Ten Trends are Revolutionizing the Catholic Church

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13207940

[kokopelli]

[billyhouston]

The late Scottish Cardinal Whining (sic) cast doubt on John Cornwell's suitability as a biographer by noting that the cover photograph, shown earlier above, was incorrectly dated. This was perfectly clear to anyone who read the book.

 

For a Jewish perspective on the matter you might care to look at 'The Last Three Popes and the Jews' by Pinchas E. Lapide.

[Guest fountainhall]

The late Scottish Cardinal Whining (sic) cast doubt on John Cornwell's suitability as a biographer by noting that the cover photograph, shown earlier above, was incorrectly dated.

Perhaps a bit strange given that it is the publishers who choose a cover, not the author. Also perhaps strange because John Cornwell was given access to some of the secret archives. He was, remember, a trusted figure at the Vatican, having earlier been entrusted with the search through the same archives to find out the truth about the death of the late Pope John Paul I (published as A Thief in the Night: Life and Death in the Vatican). John Paul I was called "The Smiling Pope" because he seemed a breath of fresh pastoral air after the somewhat austere papacy of Paul VI, but died after not much more than 40 days in office.

 

As Hedda points out above, John Cornwell did change his views on Pius XII - but only partially. He is quoted in an interview in Philadelphia in 2008 as saying:

 

"While I believe with many commentators that the pope might have done more to help the plight of the Jews, I now feel, 10 years after the publication of my book, that his scope for action was severely limited and I am prepared to state this," he said. "Nevertheless, due to his ineffectual and diplomatic language in respect of the Nazis and the Jews, I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did."

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Hitlers-Pope-Against-Germany/product-reviews/0895260344/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=2&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

 

I wonder what the late Cardinal of The Philippines, Cardinal Sin, would have said about the controversy.

[Guest fountainhall]

I Absolve You . . .

Bless you, father!!!

[Guest frequentflier]

My sentiments are the same as Hedda. I really don't understand how this post and the crucifixion post have anything to do with Thailand? For me it is Catholic bashing much the same as the Israel/Palestine bashing that takes place on Baht-Stop. Not worthy of discussion.

 

PS-The photo on the cover of the book was taken years before Pius was Pope; at the time of the photo he was apostolic nuncio to Germany

There is enough trouble in the world without Catholic bashing.Whats this got to to with Thailand?

[Guest fountainhall]

There is enough trouble in the world without Catholic bashing.Whats this got to to with Thailand?

Please note the comments made earlier.

 

I really don't understand how this post and the crucifixion post have anything to do with Thailand?

As to whether the two threads are appropriate on a Gay Thailand Board, that is a matter for the owner and the moderators. Both threads originated as a result of news items in a respected British newspaper not known for sensationalism. Neither can be posted in the Beer Bar as posters are instructed first to make all posts in this forum. I for one will be delighted if more members post issues dealing with 'gay' and 'Thailand'.

This subject would have been perfectly appropriate in the The Beer Bar thread. See my response above and other comments from other posters. I repeat again, this is a valid news story. You may not like it, but you can't hide the fact that it is all over the world's media this week-end and it has nothing whatever to do with Catholic bashing.

[Guest xiandarkthorne]

Personally, I feel that one pope speed-sainting another is a typical example of canonical nepotism - a bit incestous, too. And then to rub the noses of the millions of devout Catholics further in it, I suppose in one of those typical examples of papal wisdom, he will eventually be declared the patron saint of child abusers and people who purposely spread AIDS - or even better as PR for Nazi Ratsy and his minions - the patron saint of abused children and AIDS victims.

 

I wouldn't put it past any of them.

[Guest fountainhall]

Let me try and add a bit more balance, this time with part of an article from the Herald Tribune. It illustrates the good feelings many Jewish people have for the efforts of reconciliation initiated by John Paul II, whilst again calling for a freezing of the proceedings relating to Pius XII - until more information is forthcoming from the Vatican archives.

 

"We have a high respect, a unique respect for John Paul," Yossi Peled, a retired Israeli general, said Friday. "He is not just another pope for us" . . .

 

In honor of John Paul's beatification and legacy, the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance is installing a permanent exhibit about John Paul, the center's founder and dean, Rabbi Marvin Hier, told The Associated Press in Rome.

 

John Paul "chartered a new course in the relations between the Catholic church and the Jewish people," Hier said in a phone interview. "No other pope did what he did to repair those relations" . . .

 

Still in debate is the possible beatification of World War II Pope Pius XII, accused by some of failing to speak out forcefully against Hitler's Final Solution. Both John Paul and Benedict have called Pius a great pope.

 

"Holocaust survivors are deeply moved by the beatification of Pope John Paul," Elan Steinberg, vice-president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, said in a statement. Still "we feel compelled, however, on this occasion to renew our plea that steps toward the sainthood of Pius XII be frozen" until relevant documents in the Vatican archives are opened and examined, he said.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110429/API/1104291057?p=2&tc=pg

 

I do ask that Scooby reconsiders opening up the other Boards. I can fully understand why some new posters are confused that matters such as this are posted on a Board titled "Gay Thailand", when I suggest they are far better suited to the old Beer Bar general forum.

[Guest fountainhall]

Since this thread is mostly about the elevation of Pius XII to sainthood, there is recent news that adds to the discussion. A rabbi. a close friend of the new Pope Francis, is convinced that Francis will open up the Vatican archives so that the facts about Pius' life and actions during the Nazi era can be cleared up once and for all.
 

 

Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who has known the Argentine former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio for 20 years, said he had discussed the role of Pius XII – the man long dubbed as "Hitler's Pope" – at length with the new pontiff.

 

The Rabbi, who recently co-authored On Heaven and Earth, a book of interviews with his friend, said he had made clear that he thought Pius's legacy ought to be "investigated thoroughly".

 

"It's a terribly sensitive issue, but he says that it must be investigated thoroughly," he said. "I have no doubt that he will move to open the archives."

 

In an interview with The Tablet, Rabbi Skorka said he was convinced his friend – who he predicted would be a "revolutionary" Pope – favoured opening the archives to clarify once and for all Pius's role.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10004609/Francis-will-open-files-on-Hitlers-Pope-says-friend.html