St. JP II Thoughts?

Hello hello,
As you all might know, Pope John Paul II's sainthood is just around the corner.
There are however some people opposing it, due mainly to his slowness/reluctance to do anything about the sex abuse problem.
Do the members of this forum ( Catholic or not) have an opinion about this?
I myself think the idea of naming anyone a "saint" is somewhat questionable, this coming from a Catholic born and bred.
 
Click to expand...
He, like Benedict after him, kept those kiddie fiddlers from harm's way for way too long. Granted, poor John Paul was senile and in very frail health for the last ten years of his reign but still. I like this new Francis guy, he's a chill dude. If he kicks the bucket they can make him a Saint for all I care. The ones that came before him I'm not so keen on.

Not a Catholic here but about to marry into a Catholic family. Like their symbolism and the various Saints allow you to pick whoever's your favorite. It's kinda like Hinduism with their Pokemon-like approach to deities and saints. I dig that. And like with Pokemon, the number of saints keeps growing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Takayuki Yagami and Holdek
I don't follow the activities of the Catholic church, but I'm curious; what COULD he have done about the sex abuse problem? It's not something that goes away just by telling the offenders (priests, I assume) to stop. Unless he hopped into the Popemobile and dealt with it personally, I don't see how his influence would have changed anything.
 
Well, it finally happened.. and Im not totally on board with it either.
Varis, to answer your question, he could have done quite a bit more, if he had a mind to. He could have ordered his bishops around the world to turn into the police ( or at least strip of their office) priests guilty of sexual molestation. Even if he didn't have a clear idea for most of his pontificate, he definitly knew after the 2002 revelations.
But even after he knew he gave the infamous Cardinal Law curator of one of Rome's most important cathedrals, Santa Maria Maggiore ( Ive been there for the record. In spite of its manager it is one pretty church!)
Im saying I object 'cause he had more power than anyone in the world to put an end to the sex abuse stuff, but it seems he did not even try to until the Media forced him to say something about it. He also refused to meet with abuse victims up until his death...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holdek and Varis
I was raised catholic, my paternal family is all up in them catholicisms, so even though I dont believe anymore, I have a pretty good idea on their thoughts and feelings are on the matter. Doesn't speak for all catholics, of course, but its a small sampling.

from what i can tell, a good number of catholics in my family are actually super psyched about JP2 being a saint. I think for a lot of catholics, the sex-abuse era is relegated to Benedict XVI (considering he had a direct role in defending and covering up for the pedophiles before he was a pope) while JP2 is seen as this benevolent figure who led the church through some really crazy times. A lot of catholics need a morale booster after the PR disaster that was Benedict's entire papacy, and as much as everyone loves Francis, a good ol' sainting never hurts.

So I guess my feelings on this are kind of determined by the following question: Is this sainthood's most important function honoring the memory of the dead? Or is it to help the spirits of Catholics who feel really terrible about their religion right now? If it's the former then fuck it, I really don't have all that many fond memories of JP2. If it's the latter, it might be a pretty good thing overall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Varis
I remember JPII very well. He was the Pope for nearly my entirely lifespan. I always deeply admired him, outlasting the Nazis, and playing a substantial part in bringing down the Iron Curtain. He seemed like such a kind, grandfatherly old man, and probably did care about fostering ties between religions and helping those who were suffering. Yet it in all likelihood, he knew about all the sex abuse that happened ( or was happening). Whenever he was given an opportunity to deal with the sex abuse issue, he just kind of ignored until he couldn't possibly do so anymore.
Sainthoods purpose is neither to honor the dead or help spirits ( though it may inadvertantly fill those functions.) It's purpose is to declare that someone is definitly in heaven and to promote that person as an example for the faithful to follow. Thing is I like John Paul II a lot. I like most everything about him, except for his pretty big flaw of doing nothing about the sex abuse stuff..
 
Whether it's a PR move by the Vatican or a genuine push for a guy that's (to a majority) well-beloved, I'm glad it happened. He meant something to the people, be it Christians or not; he was a tangible and strong bridge between the Vatican and the laity. That he fucked up (badly, I have to say) with not getting a handle on the sexual abuse shouldn't entirely override the good work he did as well. People are going to appreciate his sainthood and I think that'll draw some of them back.

so yeah tl;dr hooray sainthood
 
I dunno. I suppose first one should read up on the Marcial Maciel situation, which he covered up for a long time. But, uh, the prerequisite for sainthood is two verified miracles, and miracles are impossible and quite frankly that serious people would be investigating them in the 21st century is pretty embarrassing.

Really, the criteria for sainthood should be redefined.

I should add, JP II actually blocked Benedict from investigating Maciel when Benedict was a cardinal. So although JP II is more beloved, Benedict was actually the more decent of the two, if only by a few degrees.
 
Benedict may have been better by only a few degrees, but he still was awful, compared to the standards of other people. Francis is awful as well.

Why do I say this? Because not one bishop has been shamed or suffered real consequences for allowing predator priests in his diocese (let alone losing his seat for doing so.) Francis has pretty much dodged this issue for over a year, even though it is the hottest, most pressing issue the Catholic Church faces. As to why, I can only reason that if he forced his bishops to expel more priests and punished those who hid them, hed have to do quite a bit of punishing.

While US bishops have more or less instituted safety measures, the same can´t be said of third world catholic diocese ( and Francis aint pushing it either). Doing so would mean exposing the church to more "shame" and reducing its power in places where it is growing (Africa) or where it has long held power (Latin America.

I highly recommend reading the works of Father Thomas Doyle. He is sort of an ex priest, who has written extensivly on all of this, and what needs to be done. He first warned the US bishops about all of this back in 1984, when public awareness of child sexual abuse was just starting to emerge. He said if the bishops dont do anything about it, they could face lawsuits that would force them to pay 1 billion dollars. The price has now exceeded 3 billion. Id check him out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holdek
I don't really care one way or t'other. Despite the kiddie diddling thing he seemed like a decent enough fellow.
 
FifthColumn said:
Benedict may have been better by only a few degrees, but he still was awful, compared to the standards of other people. Francis is awful as well.

Why do I say this? Because not one bishop has been shamed or suffered real consequences for allowing predator priests in his diocese (let alone losing his seat for doing so.) Francis has pretty much dodged this issue for over a year, even though it is the hottest, most pressing issue the Catholic Church faces. As to why, I can only reason that if he forced his bishops to expel more priests and punished those who hid them, hed have to do quite a bit of punishing.

While US bishops have more or less instituted safety measures, the same can´t be said of third world catholic diocese ( and Francis aint pushing it either). Doing so would mean exposing the church to more "shame" and reducing its power in places where it is growing (Africa) or where it has long held power (Latin America.
Click to expand...
I dunno. I give Francis a pass on the first year because he's had to set a new tone and put the right people in place. For example, he's formed a select committee to investigate the Vatican Bank in order to do an end run around the Roman Curiae. If another year goes by and there isn't any movement on the pedophile stuff, I'd say there's a problem. To be honest, though, I'm not sure which priests and bishops need to be defrocked that haven't been already, or are dead by now. I mean most of the abuses seemed to happen during the JP II era and before, before they started getting exposed and the Church started getting sued left and right.

FifthColumn said:
I highly recommend reading the works of Father Thomas Doyle. He is sort of an ex priest, who has written extensively on all of this, and what needs to be done. He first warned the US bishops about all of this back in 1984, when public awareness of child sexual abuse was just starting to emerge. He said if the bishops dont do anything about it, they could face lawsuits that would force them to pay 1 billion dollars. The price has now exceeded 3 billion. Id check him out.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks. I've heard of him, but I'll have to read up more.
 
Holdek said:
"Pope Francis Says Three Bishops Under Investigation For Abuse: Likely O'Brien, Wesolowski, And Contreras"
Click to expand...

Three bishops is quite a lot if they themselves are pedophiles. Very rarely could a pedophile rise so high in a reputably good organization with high moral standards, except the Catholic Church apparently. Pope John Paul II promoted two prolific pedophiles to high positions in his organization, Fr. Maciel Maciel and Cardinal Hans Groer of Vienna. I am still waiting to see what serial pedophiles served in Ronald Reagen or Maggie Thatchers' cabinets. These arent the only ones btw. Im still waiting to see cardinal law's cardinalship removed. It is pretty outrageous that not one bishop/ cardinal has been removed from office for sheltering and shuffling around known abusers. If one was removed for that reason the other bishops would get the hint. They certainly would be removed if they depended on the congregations for their power and positions. Since it hasn't happened, Im still not sure the hierarchy takes this whole thing that seriously, or can be expected to act without extensive litigation/ media coverage.
 
Litigation? The Vatican are their own secular independence. That's what makes any sort of action against them so difficult; To escape prosecution an offender needs only to turtle up in Vatican City or be relocated where they won't be found or in a place with shifty extradition practices. It's usually only up to an acting Pope to decide if any action will be taken, regardless of the evidence. That's the shitty world we live in.
 
A-Stump said:
Litigation? The Vatican are their own secular independence. That's what makes any sort of action against them so difficult; To escape prosecution an offender needs only to turtle up in Vatican City or be relocated where they won't be found or in a place with shifty extradition practices. It's usually only up to an acting Pope to decide if any action will be taken, regardless of the evidence. That's the shitty world we live in.
Click to expand...
Well, they have dioceses and personnel all over the world. And Catholic priests don't get diplomatic immunity.
 
Holdek said:
Well, they have dioceses and personnel all over the world. And Catholic priests don't get diplomatic immunity.
Click to expand...

They do if the Vatican wants them to. Check out this guy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...child-abuse-dominican-republic_n_3875222.html. Pope Francis has had more than a year to tackle the abuse issue head on. The fact that he has barely mentioned it speaks volumes ( in my mind) about his commitment to child protection. He could easily order all bishops to turn over their molesting priests or face the consequences,but has chosen not to. From what I have discerned it seems every Catholic over the age of 40 had at least one molesting priest in their parish as a child, ( including both of my parents, though thanfully neither was victimized.)

EDIT: It also seems like 1/2 the people of Ireland were molested/beaten up/emotonlly abused by a priest a monk or a nun
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back