Priests, nuns and proclaimed miracle workers, of course, dominate the lofty roster. A seamstress, a military general, and a pediatrician also joined the select sainthood league during the past 10 years.
Within that club, however, no person was perfect.
The 70 people sainted by the Catholic Church since 2001 all flashed human foibles -- including an accused conman who seemed addicted to the limelight. But their canonizations had nothing to do with achieving utter purity. In their own ways, all 70 were deemed to have used their earthly steps to mark distinct paths toward God.
That, in essence, defines a saint.
Such people are simply "sign posts," Monsignor Robert Sarno once told me from his office overlooking St. Peter's Square. The Brooklyn-born priest works in the Vatican's saint-naming wing. "Jesus is the road. How can we stay on that road until we get to heaven? ... A canonized saint is someone God chooses -- to whom God gave special grace, for all humanity to follow, to keep us on that road."
The notion of sainthood (though often called different names) spans Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and various Christian denominations. Across these beliefs, reaching that sacred threshold seems to require two basic boxes to be checked: the saints taught others how to pursue holiness, and -- in the eyes of the faithful -- they carried some version of an intercessory gift, a direct contact with the almighty, either in life or after death.
But in no religion is the idea of sainthood more painstakingly judged, nor more devoutly celebrated, than Roman Catholicism. The Catholics have the most rigid canonization rules (dozens), the most named saints (more than 10,000) and easily the most festive saint-naming parties (300,000 people sometimes wedge into St. Peter's Square for the events).
The Catholic doctrines on sainthood could eat up days of conversation. For the purpose of this post, I'll boil it down to two sentences. Catholics believe that a saint -- through his or her works or sacrifices -- offered occasional peeks at what God is like. The Church doesn't make saints -- only God has that power; the Vatican -- through its medical and theological experts -- merely identifies saints so folks may be inspired to emulate their contributions.
Nice concept.
Now the rub -- at least in terms of the Catholic bylaws.
In his zeal to promote the Catholic Church to new corners of the globe, Pope John Paul II re-wrote the Vatican's centuries-old, saint-naming canons. In 1983, he cut the number of miracles required for a Catholic canonization from four to two. (Today, in order for a saint to be named, the Vatican must investigate, vote on and agree that two supernatural events occurred after the saintly candidate's name was invoked in prayer). John Paul also eliminated the role of the so-called "Devil's Advocate" -- a centuries-old duty assigned to a Vatican official who raised questions about a candidate's virtues as well as about any alleged miracles said to have occurred in the would-be saint's name.
Armed with those radical changes, John Paul named 482 saints -- more than the number declared during the combined papacies of the past 500 years. This became sainthood's steroid era. Canonization campaigns were subsequently launched in China, India and Australia -- opening vital, new markets for the Church. But critics of the reforms loudly complained that John Paul had watered down what was supposed to be an exhaustive, exclusive system of gauging saintliness, and that he turned the Vatican into "a saint factory."
John Paul's backing of the late Capuchin priest Pio of Pietrelcina -- "Padre Pio" -- marked one example of this internal philosophical divide. Pio, who died in 1968, had been famous for his stigmata wounds, or spontaneous cases in which his palms allegedly exhibited bloody, Christ-like crucifixion holes. He developed flocks of followers. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, however, the Vatican investigated Pio as a fraud and barred him from saying Mass or hearing confessions.
John Paul's "saint factory" nonetheless canonized Pio in 2002.
Now, as a result of his own rule changes, John Paul is soaring toward sainthood faster than any person in Catholic history. His beatification -- the next-to-last stop on the road to canonization -- will take place May 1 in Vatican City.
This record-setting rush has raised one slippery question: Is John Paul truly worthy of sainthood?
Certainly, his life was built on the bedrock of good works: fueling a youth movement within the Catholic ranks and helping chop down communism, to name two biggies.
But John Paul's papacy will be forever tainted by the crimes of pedophile-priests during his tenure -- and, far darker, how his Vatican buried many of those sexual assault allegations.
What bad acts did John Paul ignore or fail to punish during his papacy? What did he know, when did he know it, and what did he do in response?
One fact to consider: On May 27, 2004, John Paul named ex-Boston Cardinal Bernard Law as head of St. Mary Major Basilica in Rome, giving him the title archpriest. That appointment came less than two years after John Paul accepted Law's resignation from his Boston post -- a move prompted by Law's repeated failure to remove pedophile priests from the ministry.
Sainthood, fundamentally, should be black and white. While no supporter of a saintly candidate can claim the contender lived a pristine life, they must make the case that all of their earthly contributions helped people -- and that they did nothing to potentially hurt people.
Just as critically, a worthy canonization cause should never be bathed in so many shades of gray.
Sainting John Paul would be an unholy blunder.
Bill Briggs is author of 'The Third Miracle,' released recently by Random House/Broadway Books. You can learn more here.
Follow Bill Briggs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/writerdude
Pope John Paul II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Paul II - Vatican: the Holy See
Pope John Paul II - The New York Times
John Paul II - The Millennial Pope | FRONTLINE | PBS
1.Human Rights: The pope promoted human rights around the world, but seriously restricted them within the Church -- particularly among the bishops, church theologians "and especially women."
2. Role of Women: "The great worshiper of the Virgin Mary preaches a noble concept of womanhood, but at the same time forbids women from practicing birth control and bars them from ordination." The result is an exodus of women from the Church.
3. Human sexuality: Although the pope preached against poverty and suffering, his policies on the birth control pill and condoms has made him "...more than any other statesman....partly responsible for uncontrolled population growth in some countries and the spread of AIDS in Africa." In the developed world, sexual policies of the church are being largely ignored by the laity.
4. Collegiality: Some of the main principle of Vatican II were collegiality -- i.e. power sharing -- and dialogue. This did not materialize. Bishops are selected by the pope according to their willingness to be "...absolutely loyal to the party line in Rome."
5. Sins of the past: Pope John Paul II did confess failures and transgressions by Roman Catholics in the past. But the apology was "vague, non-specific and ambiguous." Blame was placed on individual Catholics; the popes and the Church itself are regarded as innocent. "The half-hearted papal confession remained without consequences"
http://www.catholicarrogance.org/index4.html
That's certainly not a very christian notion of sainthood. It's also basically the opposite of what enlightenment is.
What's even more strange is how you believe you could hold people accountable for the failures of their underlings. It's terrible to accept terrible precedents. But it's even more terrible to fail to understand what makes a terrible precedent terrible.
The flaw is in the notion that people aren't themselves responsible for their wrong-doings. That's true even for saints, and Jesus and God - as far as the latter did anything wrong. It's certainly true for child molesters.
Don't look for scapegoats. If you do, don't be surprised that you disagree with the basic tenets of christianity. Because it is founded on the notion that there aren't any. That it doesn't work to look for them. That it's a myth that blaming others will make you feel better. It would take a god as a scapegoat for that to work.
"reaching that sacred threshold seems to require two basic boxes to be checked".
unfortunately those two boxes are not taught in the Bible. Paul addressed everyone in the church as "saints"
-----
This is why pagan Ireland took to it like a duck to water.
My personal favorite: Saint John Gualbert.
He redefined HEAVEN too.....it's no longer a place............HE SAID IT WAS A STATE OF BEING.
20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee approached him (Jesus) with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: “What do you want?” She said to him: “Give the word that these my two sons may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 Jesus said in answer: “YOU men do not know what YOU are asking for. Can YOU drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him: “We can.” 23 He said to them: “YOU will indeed drink my cup, but this sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father. End of reading.
And since God has not revealed who-who in Saintland – for man, it is an empty chamber in heaven! More importantly prayer in always directed to our Father in Heaven! And in prayer followers always should end by saying, “we ask all things in Jesus name – our King and Savior!”
36 Simon Peter said to him: “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus answered: “Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterwards.” 14 “Do not let YOUR hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God, exercise faith also in me. 2 In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I would have told YOU, because I am going my way to prepare a place for YOU. 3 Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for YOU, I am coming again and will receive YOU home to myself, that where I am YOU also may be. End of reading.
And no popes as of this posting!
Note: Since Jesus has not come again -- soon we all hope indicates -- these heavenly bound earthlings, followers of Jesus, are still a sleep, resting in God's blosom waiting for the Shepherd's voice to awaken!
Discuss........................
"St Gianna Beretta Molla was a physician, a working mom, professional woman, and a loving wife.
She has now been raised to the altar in heaven and provides particular inspiration to all those who experience the constant demands and confusing signals that our current culture places on us."
Certainly a model of love and the beauty of motherhood for today!! Veritas.
How convenient, as the Church Lady would say. The Vatican (the home of a large bunch of living men) indentifies saints... But without the church going through this process a saint would not be identified, therefore it seems to me that the church DOES make saints. Sounds like living humans pick and choose who will be a saint, otherwise why wouldn't God let us know without the investigation?
[By the way, does anyone find it odd that a saint (person whose worldy actions are to be emulated, like Mother Theresa or Saint Cecelia) may have been a woman but woman may not hold priestly roles in the Catholic Church?]
I do take your point that they are two separate roles in the Church. But for me that is all the more reason I am baffled. While it may be true that Jesus is not shown to have picked women as priests, (as a lay person outside of the Catholic Church) I still don't buy that its okay to acknowledge women in a lofty and important role after they have died, but not to allow the living to minister and act as an offically sanctioned earthly go between (excuse my lack of a better term) for congregations. (of course, I am aware of the role of nuns.)
I do appreciate your elucidation of how the Church and its followers view the issue.
Sainthood, fundamentally, should be black and white. While no supporter of a saintly candidate can claim the contender lived a pristine life, they must make the case that all of their earthly contributions helped people -- and that they did nothing to potentially hurt people.
Obviuosly this requirement would exclude Saint Paul. How could you ever know that nothing anyone did had no potentia to hurt someone? That is just plain impossible.
And JP II is a given and he will be a big moneymaker as he was very popular with the sheeple.
But seriously why was he de-sainted? I mean what was the "official" reason?
St. Christopher was not "de-sainted"
His feastday, July 25th, is no longer an obligatory celebration throughout the worldwide church. Very little is known about him, except he was a martyr. Veritas.
His feastday, July 25th, is no longer an obligatory celebration throughout the worldwide church. Very little is known about him, except he was a martyr.
Obviously you have a warped sense of the Faith. Sainthood has nothing to do with money. Saints are models and intercessors for us.
Hope this helps. Veritas.
See http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/demote0606.html
Actually, I feel an affinity toward St. Christopher and Saint Francis. As I mentioned, many of my childhood friends had medals and rings of St. Christopher. And as an animal lover, I keep a St Francis statue in the house. Oh, and lest I forget, my significant other (a firefighter and raised in the Catholic Chruch) keeps a prayer to St Florian on the dresser mirror.
Not sure if the money comment was directed at me or the original poster. My faith is fine; though, we would, I am sure disagree, on how to practice or express it. My statement regarding money stems from a combined cynical view I have about $$ in general and the history of indulgences in the Church. And I tend to be snarky about these things.
Hope we can share more ideas and learn from each other in the future...