Is Pope John Paul II a saint?

[Sétanta]

Should we in the Catholic Church consider Pope John Paul II to be a saint? Did he have enough worldy "miracles" to be considered one of those closest to Jesus?

Is he a Saint? Should he be a saint? If not, why?

And what do our Orthodox and Protestant friends think about this matter?

edit: I know he isn't a saint yet. But I am asking if he should be?

[Ulyaoth]

He's not a saint, but I believe he has a good chance of becoming one. There has to be miracles credited to him after he's dead now though.

[RZZZA]

I dont remember John Paul parting any seas, walking on any water, or feeding the masses with one fish...so no, he shouldnt be a saint. But Christianity has lied, mythologized and exaggerated plenty of times before, whats one more time?

Supposedly people say he was a great man...*shrug*, maybe I'm just too young but I dont remember him doing anything really great...he just travelled around a lot and was a good diplomatic pope...but, for instance, his handling of the preist child molestation thing left much to be desired. And he still kept much of the church's backwards views on things such as contraceptives, etc...etc...

[the_mango55]

I dont remember John Paul parting any seas, walking on any water, or feeding the masses with one fish...so no, he shouldnt be a saint. But Christianity has lied, mythologized and exaggerated plenty of times before, whats one more time?

Supposedly people say he was a great man...*shrug*, maybe I'm just too young but I dont remember him doing anything really great...he just travelled around a lot and was a good diplomatic pope...but, for instance, his handling of the preist child molestation thing left much to be desired. And he still kept much of the church's backwards views on things such as contraceptives, etc...etc...

He was known for his opening of Catholicism to the world, and a lot of reparations between science and religion. He was also known for his "culture of life," which opposed war whenever possible, and stood against abortion and the death penalty.

I'm not a Catholic, but I would be dissapointed if he weren't sainted, as I had great respect for him.

[RZZZA]

He was known for his opening of Catholicism to the world, and a lot of reparations between science and religion. He was also known for his "culture of life," which opposed war whenever possible, and stood against abortion and the death penalty.

I'm not a Catholic, but I would be dissapointed if he weren't sainted, as I had great respect for him.

He was known for his opening the world to catholicism? Are you sure about that? I think catholicism was widespread globally long before John Paul...Hell, Africans were already being converted into Christianity before Pope John Paul. The Spanish had already converted the natives in the new world, the christian pilgrims in America had long ago already introduced christianity to the native Americans. They didnt seem to take to it though.

Reperations between science and religion? That must be a joke...if its not, its still funny, because I'm laughing right now.

And last but not least...he opposed war? Well I hope so, he wouldn't be much of a modern day religious leader if he didnt oppose war. Warmongering popes have gone out of fashion, every pope from now on will be a peaceful pope, I'd bet on that.

[bdh]

Reperations between science and religion? That must be a joke...if its not, its still funny, because I'm laughing right now.

Why? Can you cite examples? If I recall, he did support evolution. :wink:

[the_mango55]

He was known for his opening the world to catholicism? Are you sure about that? I think catholicism was widespread globally long before John Paul...Hell, Africans were already being converted into Christianity before Pope John Paul. The Spanish had already converted the natives in the new world, the christian pilgrims in America had long ago already introduced christianity to the native Americans. They didnt seem to take to it though.

Not the world to Catholocism, Catholocism to the world, There is a difference. He repaired a lot of tensions between the other major religions and the Catholic church, by changing the view of current Catholics. Basically the stance before was, "We are right, and if you don't agree you are our enemy" and he changed it to more of a "We still think we are right, but that shouldn't stop us from working together to make a better world."

And the pilgrims were Puritans, not Catholics.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

I dont remember John Paul parting any seas, walking on any water, or feeding the masses with one fish...so no, he shouldnt be a saint. But Christianity has lied, mythologized and exaggerated plenty of times before, whats one more time?

Supposedly people say he was a great man...*shrug*, maybe I'm just too young but I dont remember him doing anything really great...he just travelled around a lot and was a good diplomatic pope...but, for instance, his handling of the preist child molestation thing left much to be desired. And he still kept much of the church's backwards views on things such as contraceptives, etc...etc...

Being a sain dosent require you to part the red sea, or build a giant boat. Being a saint is about being a good person, living your life accodring to the church,being a diplomat and trying to avoid confrantation and treating others as well as you would yourself. Thats why Mother theresa is going to become a saint, and thats why John Paul the II should be a saint.

John Paul II was one of the biggest contributors to the fall of communism in the 80's and worke with lech walesa to remoce the USSR from poland. John Paul forgave Mehmet ali agca, the man who tried to kill him in 1981. He also apologized on behalf of the cathloic church for things such as the inactivity of the church in the holocaust, the persecution of galileo, the Buring at the stake of many women during the inquisition, Etc.

[rez]

Well far be it from me to discredit the actions of the former pope. but im fairly sure he didnt perfom any miracles. He managed many a good stance on science and war but there are specific things a saint must do and if we just hand it out to anyone it will lose its potency. Thats pretty central to the saint thing. It would be like making me a divus just because im cool, i dont fill out ANY of the requirements but im just so amazing people would want me to get it.

(Massively joking there - no ego over here, quite the oppisite)

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[ZaPPPa]

He apologized for Pope Urban persecuting Galileo and Supported the sciences. He even endorsed evolution, which even though it's a no brainer and was part of the church belief before, people didn't expect it.

PS. Do you know that what John Paul II did was not even an apology to Galileo, it was an apology for the way the case was handled. Galileo is still officially a heathen. The only thing John Paul II did was stand by the decision of Benedict XIV in 1741 that said that nothing in Galileo's work is contrary to the Catholic's faith or morals... The magic word being contrary.. It is kind of admitting that the other party is right, without admitting you are wrong.

[Scar Face]

Rzza you dont need to perform miracles to become a saint. There are a couple saints (dont know the names) that were...sainted because they converted many christains in britain. Clearly a long time ago...but you know.

[rez]

In my opinion neither are deserving but it appears the notion of a saint as an incredibly holy person with miracles under their belt has been diluted.

[humvee2800]

Well this is from the point of view of a person who is growing increasingly anti religous but ill give my opinion.

IF the title of saint is so prestigous too your religion it would make sence that it be carefully chosen whether or not too be given out but i beleive as with most saints a hundred years from now he'll be sainted(as they always do a hundreds years after the person realy wouldnt care )

[Spiff]

Perhaps it has been diluted.. but i guess thats for the church leaders to decide on. The church honouring someone like John Paul II who devoited his entire life to that church doesnt seem like such a bad idea in terms or respect and policy, and what possible reason is available to disagree.. i dont think it's offending or upseting anyone

[the Black Prince]

good god no!!

i realise many people will find my comments offensive, but my personal opinion is that, given the unchristian, prejudiced judgemental attiture of his papacy, and the terrible acts committed condoned even sanctioned by his church under his papacy, i think there's a damn good chance he ended up in hell not heaven.

make no mistake, this man was a good man, and he tried to provide spiritual leadership to his people. he did a fairly good job and he did a lot of good acts. but he also committed a great deal of evil, or condoned, and acted, at times, in a manner i find to be highly unchristian
where is jesus' tolerance when the papacy condems gays (not to mention that jesus says anyone who condemns anyway is going to hell, because that is reserved for god to do)
where is jesus tolerance and love when the church orders and condemns people to lives of poverty illness and disease because basic medical technology that could prevent the spread of disease is banned by the church
where was jesus forgiveness and tolerance when a 13yr old girl was made pregnant by rape, and then had herself AND her family excommunicated at a time when they needed their church most because the girl had to have an abortion or BOTH would have died.

where is the love in john pauls papacy? where was the tolerance, the forgiveness.
where was the christian message?

and you call this man a saint? i don't even call him, or his entire church, christian

[Turbo]

good god no!!

i realise many people will find my comments offensive, but my personal opinion is that, given the unchristian, prejudiced judgemental attiture of his papacy, and the terrible acts committed condoned even sanctioned by his church under his papacy, i think there's a damn good chance he ended up in hell not heaven.

make no mistake, this man was a good man, and he tried to provide spiritual leadership to his people. he did a fairly good job and he did a lot of good acts. but he also committed a great deal of evil, or condoned, and acted, at times, in a manner i find to be highly unchristian
where is jesus' tolerance when the papacy condems gays (not to mention that jesus says anyone who condemns anyway is going to hell, because that is reserved for god to do)
where is jesus tolerance and love when the church orders and condemns people to lives of poverty illness and disease because basic medical technology that could prevent the spread of disease is banned by the church
where was jesus forgiveness and tolerance when a 13yr old girl was made pregnant by rape, and then had herself AND her family excommunicated at a time when they needed their church most because the girl had to have an abortion or BOTH would have died.

where is the love in john pauls papacy? where was the tolerance, the forgiveness.
where was the christian message?

and you call this man a saint? i don't even call him, or his entire church, christian

The ideas that you advocate - acceptance of gays and embracing abortion may be socially desirable in your eyes but they are clearly not Christian. Homosexual has been considered evil by the Church since Christ time and the bible clearly states that homosexual is evil. You can not live a life in mortal sin and expect forgiveness if you do not repent and change your ways. Abortion involves the termination of life - a distinctly unchristian concept.

The Church is expected to hold the ideals of Christ and his message not to be a mirror reflection of whatever society prefers. The Church must take a strong position to the Christian faithful and prevent the tainting of the its legacy just to be socially acceptable to people such as you.

Pope John Paul II like all the other popes was the leader of a poweful "organization". The amount of influence and money the catholic church has makes them quite a powerhouse.
They have always been involved in politics one way or another. They had much more "direct" power in the past but it is my belief that they still back regimes, organizations or similar to protect their interests. What are their interests? wealth and power of course.

That is ofcourse how secular unbelievers look at any church or religious institution, because they know nothing of faith or spirtuality. I suppose the Church is suppose to be passive while the rights of Christians are routinely violated and ignored by secular governments. Taking unpopular positions such as anti-abortion or its stand on homosexuality are not exactly giving it wealth or power. These positions however do strengthen the Church as a rock of faith unmoved by the outside world.

[RZZZA]

The ideas that you advocate - acceptance of gays and embracing abortion may be socially desirable in your eyes but they are clearly not Christian. Homosexual has been considered evil by the Church since Christ time and the bible clearly states that homosexual is evil. You can not live a life in mortal sin and expect forgiveness if you do not repent and change your ways. Abortion involves the termination of life - a distinctly unchristian concept.

The Church is expected to hold the ideals of Christ and his message not to be a mirror reflection of whatever society prefers. The Church must take a strong position to the Christian faithful and prevent the tainting of the its legacy just to be socially acceptable to people such as you.

This is horrible, its partly why I cant take Christianity seriously.

So in order to be faithful, you must consider homosexuals as sinners? This contradicts another part of the bible where it says that judging is reserved for only God. This contradicts that, and that contradicts this, and what youre left with is a book that excuses any faulty belief imaginable as "faith". Any old racist, or bigot, or hatemonger can cite the bible and wipe his hands clean of his misdeeds. Christ didnt hate anyone...remember? Christ didnt condone hatred of anyone.

[Turbo]

This is horrible, its partly why I cant take Christianity seriously.

So in order to be faithful, you must consider homosexuals as sinners? This contradicts another part of the bible where it says that judging is reserved for only God. This contradicts that, and that contradicts this, and what youre left with is a book that excuses any faulty belief imaginable as "faith". Any old racist, or bigot, or hatemonger can cite the bible and wipe his hands clean of his misdeeds. Christ didnt hate anyone...remember? Christ didnt condone hatred of anyone.

Gee, Rzzza, it wouldn't be that you are a member of S.I.N. -- the anti-religion group would it? You are however completely objective -- please...

I am not condemning anyone to hell as you falsely imply. The lifestyle is considered evil by the Church and by the bible. Evil acts as a barrier between you and Christ and will cause you to ignore Christ's message of salvation and reject his gift of the holy spirit. Christ however continues to offer the gift until your death and never withdraws it. It is not my responsibility to judge others.

OT - Leviticus 22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion.

NT - Romans 1: 26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Either disprove that this is an incorrect interpretation of homosexuality within the confines of the Christian faith, or drop it.

[Turbo]

The bible's translations of what you currently have as homosexuals would be things like "Man-bedder" which could be female to, and do to limited social understanding until what? 1750? 1820? Villifying them is no different than any other supersition we found in early Christianity. At which time they found they could not find any objection outside of archaic texts.

If in fact you don't like homosexuals, it seems this is a good religion to choose, but not after lookin' into it.

So in order to be faithful, you must consider homosexuals as sinners? - RZZZA - Ponder this, would they consider it if it was Asian or blacks?

Well, I understand my faith and you apparently know nothing of Christianity. If you disagree with something I am saying about the Christian faith, then prove it within the confines of Christianity, not with secular mouthwash.

The Church considers homosexual acts as sinful. Of course homosexuals are sinners, because everyone is a sinner. Being a homosexual is not a sin, it is not a sin to find males attractive, just like it is not a sin for me to find my friend's wife attractive. However, if either of us were to act on that attraction, we would be commiting a sin, and one is not worse than the other.

Good post Mango55. You did a good job of explaining what I was struggling to put in words. Thanks.