Friday, December 21, 2012

Paolo Mesto Un Santo?

A bit much if you ask yours truly.

Meanwhile, perke Pio XII (l'ultimo vero romano, diciamo) non e' ancora proclamato beato (e perke ogni cosa in Vaticano diventa politica)?!  I have a hunch this is another Bertone thing.  The Salesians - an Italian order - go wild for Paul VI.

I have a profound respect for Paul VI.

Even though he bungled a lot, I am sure he was a saintly personage.

In any event, this is a bit silly, vero?

St. Paul VI?

Since when?  I mean, c'mon, guys.  Dai ragazzi.

This idea that every dead pope of recent memory should be canonized saint needs to stop.

Let's face it, Paul VI was not a strong character.  Too much too soon and liturgical abuses such as Holy Communion in the hand in the Latin Church will be judged severely by time and generations yet to be born.

To put it simply, too many saints have been canonized in recent memory (mostly founders of religious orders because they are the only ones with enough dough to put forward the big bucks for the "costly" process).

And anybody ever ask why Leo XIII's cause was never put forward?  I can't say, but evidently it was credible.

Popes live and die.  Many are holy.  Great.  They don't all need to be proclaimed canonized saints.  Neither does every great and holy person that we know who has passed before us.


  1. I couldn't agree more. Exactly my thoughts when I read the news that Paul VI was advancing in the process. Good Lord, must every recent pope now be canonized? Whose doing is this? I remember that Pope John Paul II seemed to break with millenia-long tradition by canonizing more saints in a relatively short period of time than any previous pope. And didn't he change some of the rules involved when determining canonization? I thought that was pretty cool back when I was a teenager, didn't know the Faith, and didn't know any better. But I expected sanity/common sense to return when Pope Benedict XVI became our Holy Father.

  2. Excellent! I will quote it in my own blog.

  3. The whole canonization process has been politicized for some time now. For JP2 everyone had to look the other way as the Maciel horrors were emerging so they could still ram rod through the beatification. Another one in recent memory that took the cake was Opus Dei throwing their money around to push the canonization of JM Escriva through as fast as possible.

    I hate to say it but money and politics go a long way in the Church.

  4. When St Pius X was canonized it was the first time a pope had been declared a saint in nearly 250 years. Suddenly every pope since Vatican 2 is up for a fast-track raising to the altars. What about other saintly popes such as Benedict XV -- why not them too? The whole causes and canonizations procedure needs to slow down and acquire a bit of historical hindsight otherwise it risks losing credibility.

  5. I am a convert to the Faith. My faith, by the Grace of God, really exploded a few years ago. I have studied the Church religiously since then. I have read much history, and much about the last Council. I have a very difficult time seeing Pope Paul VI as a Saint. He was a troubled man. He veered wildly from irrational exuberance to morose depression. You can read statements from him mere weeks apart that seem to come from two radically different persons, often contradicting himself.

    But the bigger problem is this need to canonize the recent Popes, especially the post-conciliar popes. There is no question this canonization has a huge political element. This is, in essence, an attempt to canonize the Council. It is an attempt to refute the evidence of 50 years and declare the Council a profound good. Which, it may have been, we really don't know yet as it's never truly been implemented, but with all the disaster in the Church, the exact opposite of the "new springtime" that Pope Paul VI repeatedly exclaimed, I think it wrong to move this quickly on this man. Even if he was a Saint, I think we need many more decades for a right interpretation of the Council to emerge before this canonization could be justified.

    But, we are in the 50th anniversary year of the Council, there are huge efforts afoot to promote it as being so wonderful (and, yet, where is the fruit?), so there has to be something done to declare the Council a positive good, in spite of the chaos. So, they declare the "Pope of the Council" - since the Council was far more Paul VI's than John XXIII's- a Saint, to make the whole thing good.

    I think it's a terrible undermining of the entire College of Saints. I think it reeks of desperation. And I think part of it, too, is an attempt to make the Council look better by providing a "conciliar Saint" when there are so few others. But most of all, it demonstrates how much Blessed John Paul II (who, too, has been promoted for political reasons) changed the very nature of canonization by taking away the devil's advocate role. I pray that role may return.

    It is frankly amazing to me that great men like Leo XIII, that you mentioned, have not advanced at all, and yet John Paul II and Paul VI -far more problematic - are far advanced in their cause. Let alone people of truly, truly heroic virtue - Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos, Clemens von Galen, etc - who have been "passed up" in this headlong rush to canonize popes.

    I think Paul VI is a bridge too far. JPII, I think most people can understand that, but Paul VI? Please. This must stop. It's too political, and, I think you're right, John, there will be a backlash over this "let's canonize every recent pope" routine.

  6. Sad Paul is right, John. His canonisation would be wrong for the Church in so many ways.

  7. Didn't he have a nervous breakdown(s)?

  8. Only Blessed John XXIII and Blessed John Paul the Great have been beatified; Venerable Pius XII and Venerable Paul VI are “venerable”; John Paul I is a “servant of God”. This lists the last 5 popes, and so far not a canonized saint among them.

    The first 35 bishops of Rome are recognized as saints… then comes Pope Liberius (d. 366) who is not recognized as a saint… then we have another 13 popes who are saints.

    If Holy Mother Church raises a Bishop of Rome to the altars, then we, the children of the Church, should rejoice! It is God who decides who is canonized and who is not. Remember that little 2-miracle rule? It is also God who decides who is pope, and He chose Venerable Paul VI for a reason. A pope may be the Vicar of Christ, but that does not mean he is omnipotent and omniscient. Let us trust in the One who is!

  9. He helped along unnecessary harm.

  10. When he is canonized (and I am sure he will be) we will know that he was indeed holy, because canonization is an exercise of papal infallibility which must be accepted. Far be it from me to question Peter who holds the keys. Your pontifications about Ven. Paul VI are judgmental, and in my opinion sinful. The Church will decide, not you, and not me.

  11. It's funny how when the Church advances the cause of someone we admire, the Church is doing right and it's about time. And when the Church advances the cause of someone we don't feel the same way about, what the heck is the Church thinking? It's politicized, the pope is losing his common sense, the proponents of the candidate are rolling their cause with huge financial contributions etc. Is the Pope and the Church faithful and just only when their counsels and decisions coincide with what we believe? I heard a Carmelite once blasted JP 2's canonisation of St. Josemaria Escriva as a foolish decision, saying that the pope sold out to Opus Dei's political maneuvering, and that the founder of Opus Dei was an earnest priest, but hardly a saint. (Not surprisingly, he didn't like opus dei) And then this same Carmelite complimented the same pope for raising St. Therese of Lisieux to be a Doctor of the Church, saying that the papal recognition was long in coming. As far as I know, the Congregation of the Causes of Saints support the opinion that the canonization of saints is an act of Papal Infallibility. Are we to adhere to the wisdom of the Church only when she canonizes our favourite Beati, and moan and grumble when she advances the cause of someone we judge to fall short in sanctity? Yes Paul VI certainly suffers much in image from many conservative quarters in the Church, but are we so sure that we know everything about the late pope that convinces us that his cause is purely political and misguided? Have we studied all the dossiers and documents pertaining to his life for us to rule that it is wrong for the Church to hold this man up as an example of faith? Can we not trust that the bishops and prelates in charge of his cause have been thorough, and are being thorough, and that Benedict XVI himself is careful and just in this matter? Or is it always a case of I know better than the Church, so when I disagree with the Church, I know the Church must be misguided. If only the pope would ask me what I think. Then I could enlighten the pope on this matter - which seems so blatantly obvious to me - because well, you know, how can Paul VI be a saint? He was this, this, this and he was also that.

  12. Canonisation is an infallible judgement. If it comes, it is the Will of the Holy Spirit.

  13. "Canonisation is an infallible judgement. If it comes, it is the Will of the Holy Spirit."

    I don't think it works that way. Infallibility simply preserves the pope from making an error in his declaring someone to be in heaven. That is, when a person is declared to be a saint, there can no longer be doubt that the person is in fact in heaven. However, it does not mean that declaring such and such a person to be a saint, and setting him or her up as an example to the faithful, is a wise or prudent thing to do. While on the one hand, it would be a cause for joy for Catholics everywhere if we were to learn with infallible certainty that Paul VI is among the saints in heaven, on the other, what does his example as pope say to us about what virtues the faithful should expect from the Church's pastors? Does he fit the description of a model pope?

  14. If he is a Saint, then he is a model pope, for the light and shadow that came over his life were, then, the choices of the Holy Spirit.

    The Saint is one who also remains struggling with weakness and darkness; not through his own fault, but the Spirit permits them to remain and makes use of that Holy One's battle with them.

    The measure of the darkness and light, the power and the weakness that God permits to rest, on the Saint, is known only to God.

    A Saint is one who gives the whole of the themselves to God, but as John Paul II said, "Holiness does not escape history." If Paul VI is a Saint, then he is a model pope, for he will have refused the Spirit nothing that He would Will or Permit. However, we may not be model judges. The Lord has observed all in Paul's life; if canonisation should come, there His Judgement would be known.

    In Christ, I am yours.

  15. "If Paul VI is a Saint, then he is a model pope, for he will have refused the Spirit nothing that He would Will or Permit."

    Unfortunately, this does not follow. A man who spends 500 years in Purgatory for his sins and then is released into heaven is a saint. It very well could be that a person who spends time in purgatory could be canonized after his purgation. The only thing that Papal Infallibility guarantees is that the person canonized is in fact already in heaven at the time of the canonization. A heathen murderer who sincerely repents on his deathbed and receives Baptism goes straight to heaven. He is in fact, a saint. But the Church would not have any interest in canonizing such a person, whose former life, up to the moment of his conversion, would be a source of terrible scandal to the faithful.