John Paul II a "saint?"

Bill McEnaney said:

What about monarchy? Well, you may already know that I want to be the subject of a devout, holy Catholic one who reigns and rules.

Click to expand...

Ah, but the whole point of a monarchy is that you don't get to choose - you're stuck with whatever king you've got, be they Catholic, Muslim or Atheist, be they good, bad or indifferent. To say "I want to be the subject of a devout, holy,..." is pretty much to say you don't want a monarchy at all

ebia said:

Ah, but the whole point of a monarchy is that you don't get to choose - you're stuck with whatever king you've got, be they Catholic, Muslim or Atheist, be they good, bad or indifferent. To say "I want to be the subject of a devout, holy,..." is pretty much to say you don't want a monarchy at all

Click to expand...

Hi ebia,

Oh, heavens, no. If I move to Monaco, which I still hope to do, I'll know what prince I'll be a subject of. If I moved to England, I'd know that I'd owe my loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II to anyone who succeeds her, and to the crown. I know that I might get "stuck with" a lousy ruler. But that would mean that I'd need to resist him or her when the sovereign did something immoral. Since Our Blessed Lord tells us to obey our rulers, for a Catholic, there's no right to revolt against them. That's partly why I believe the American Revolutionaries were traitors. Besides, here in the US, although the chances may be slim, the Electoral College can overturn the popular vote. Even if most of us voted for someone we could and would support wholeheartedly, we still might end up with an incompetent, awful president because the EC gave us one. I couldn't vote for President Obama, even if I loved everything he stood for except abortion.

You seem to assume that monarchy is always hereditary, the kind of monarchy I prefer. But St. Thomas Aquinas and other 13th-century scholars, I think, advocated mixed constitutions that were part monarchic, part aristocratic, and part democratic. The catch is and was that, in his day, the one I wish I had lived in, although subjects could elect their rulers, the couldn't self-govern through them. If a ruler became corrupt and evil, there was a peaceful way to depose him or her, though revolution was forbidden. St. Thomas thinks, and I'm inclined to agree, that, to preserve national unity, a kingdom should have only one ruler at a time. Once Medieval people elected their sovereign, they needed to submit to and obey that one, unless peaceful deposition became a must. Once the royal ascended the throne, I think, she usually stayed there for life.

I hesitate to write you a tome on the Catholic doctrine about Christ's social Reign, partly because it might offend some who hate the idea that any country should adopt a state religion, i.e., Catholicism. As you may know from some posts I've written here, some Albion can point out if you like, I can be too, too frank sometimes. Although I despise political correctness and the scandalous way the Catholic Church's progressive prelates, including Francis, do ecumenism, I'm not here to insult anyone.

ViaCrucis said:

That we're all sinners, and our righteousness before God isn't determined by who we are or what we've done, but on what Christ has done in our stead. And that John Paul II, while sinner that he may be, and whatever mistakes he might have made, he still proclaimed Christ--and that regardless of whether he is canonized a saint or not, he remains a saint on account of Christ and His righteousness by the Gospel. Just like you and me.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Yes, ALL who are sanctified by Jesus sacrifice on the cross are SAINTS, the modern meaning of making someone who has done good works a saint is unbiblical.

Yeah, he is commendable in his stand against the commies, but the canonization of the guy is a travesty.

St. Paul said:

Is this a joke? In April he will become a "saint." The guy who helped protect thousands of child molesters? Is this your idea of a "saint?" What a disgrace and embarrassment! How do Catholics feel about this atrocity?

Click to expand...

How many Baptist leaders met face to face with victims? "helped protect thousands of child molesters" is a lie. You have no evidence.
scandals in the Baptist churches
take the log out of your own eye

Pope JPII laid the groundwork for the PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORS

Is there a Baptist equivalent? 80% of all cases did not involve children, but homosexual teens, but you say they were all children to add wood to the stake fires.

The Christian mission field is a “magnet” for sexual abusers, Boz Tchividjian, a Liberty University law professor who investigates abuse said Thursday (Sept. 26) to a room of journalists.

While comparing evangelicals to Catholics on abuse response, ”I think we are worse,” he said at the Religion Newswriters Association conference, saying too many evangelicals had “sacrificed the souls” of young victims.

“Protestants can be very arrogant when pointing to Catholics,” said Tchividjian, a grandson of evangelist Billy Graham and executive director of Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment (GRACE), which has investigated sex abuse allegations.
Protestants ‘Worse’ Than Catholics On Abuse

BOB JONES UNIVERSITY SCANDALS AND COVER UPS
There Is More Sexual Abuse In The Protestant Churches Than Catholic

It is ridiculous and anachronistic to expect modern treatment for cases that happened back in the 1960s and 1970s, when the standard treatment prescribed by therapists and psychiatrists of the time who were advising the Catholic Church as well as Protestants, Jewish leaders, teachers, coaches, fathers, uncles, etc. (who had equal or higher abuse rates) was to give them counseling and then reassigning them. Most bishops in the 1960s and 1970s (when the majority of the abuse cases occurred) were simply incompetent or unqualified to handle the situation. They were bishops after all. Instead, they simply followed the prescribed treatment given by the counselors and psychiatrists of the time: require the abuser to undergo counseling and move him to another assignment in an attempt to break the abuse cycle. Once again, this was the standard method of treatment for the era, not just for the Catholic Church, but for schools, sports teams as well as any other institution which had cases of abuse (including Protestants). Remember, until 1974, the APA (American Psychiatric Association) taught and treated homosexuality as a mental disorder.

The Catholic Church today is the model for the protection of children. The rates of abuse within the Catholic Church in the 1960s and 1970s was no different than any other religious group, including Jews and Protestants. The real reason why the Catholic Church was singled out, aside from her assets, is because of a hatred for her doctrine. The world cannot stand the Church's teaching on celibacy, an all male clergy, and her opposition to homosexuality. It is for these reasons, and these reasons alone, that the secular world will try and make the claim that celibacy led to the abuse scandal and that an all male celery makes abuse all the more likely to occur.
Campion

The latest audit of the Catholic clergy involved in the sexual abuse of minors shows that there were two new substantiated cases made during the period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 against 52,238 priests and deacons. That comes to .004 percent of the clergy.

Though the report does not mention it, we know of no other institution in the United States, secular or religious, which has a better record than the Catholic Church today when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors by adult employees.

Bonzobob said:

Yes, ALL who are sanctified by Jesus sacrifice on the cross are SAINTS, the modern meaning of making someone who has done good works a saint is unbiblical.

Click to expand...

That's not the "modern meaning".

St. Paul said:

I agree. I think he did turn his back on Christ by kissing a Koran and committing idolatry by bowing to a statue of Buddha.

Click to expand...

No, he didn't. He was abiding by diplomatic protocol and at the same time, following Iraqi custom. Over there, everyone kisses any gift they receive. Not kissing it would be the equivalence of spitting on it. American culture is not the one and only that all cultures are measured by.

It certainly wouldn’t be that he believes in Islam or believes that Islam is on a par with Christianity. If he believed either of these two things then he
(a) wouldn’t be the earthly head of the Christian faith and
(b) wouldn’t have approved the publication of Dominus Iesus, which asserts the salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.

Any attempt to represent him as thinking one of those things doesn’t even get out of the gate.

So what might he have been thinking?

We’re only speculating here, but two things spring to mind as what JP2 might have been thinking:

1) The Quran does contain some elements of truth (as well as grave elements of falsehood) and he might have wanted to honor the elements of truth it contains.

2) Showing respect in this way could foster world peace and interreligious harmony.

Of these two, I would conjecture that the latter would have been uppermost in John Paul II’s mind, though the former may not have been absent.

John Paul II was a man who was enormously concerned with world peace and interreligious harmony. As a young man he lived through the horrors of World War II, which had a permanent effect on him...
JP2 And The Quran

Did you cheer when he got shot, or are you too young to remember?

Islamic culture is curious, indeed. If you tell a Muslim that you like something of his, he is then obligated to give it to. This has no limits, not even his wife. Hence, women are secluded from the eyes of possible suitors.