Fri 19th Sep 2014 | Last updated: Thu 18th Sep 2014 at 17:03pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Assisi alone is reason enough to beatify John Paul II

The Devil’s Advocate has a necessary task but the late Pope’s virtues outweigh his faults and errors of judgement

By on Thursday, 14 April 2011

Pope John Paul II attends an interreligious encounter in Assisi, Italy, in 1986

Pope John Paul II attends an interreligious encounter in Assisi, Italy, in 1986

The late John Paul II is soon to be beatified. With this in mind, a friend has kindly pointed out to me an article in The Remnant online for March 21 which challenges the whole basis for the beatification. Reading it I see that the traditional and necessary office of the Devil’s Advocate has been doing its work. The article does not deny the late Pope’s personal holiness, but raises a number of points which will all be familiar to readers of “Christian Order” over here (and I note that Rod Pead, the Editor of CO, has added his signature to the list of those opposing the beatification, at the bottom of the Remnant article.)

The indictment against John Paul II states that “in the exercise of his exalted office as Pope” he did nothing to stop the abuses of the liturgy; he did not take the proper steps to investigate the sexual scandals of the priesthood – in particular those connected with the disgraced founder of the Legionaries of Christ; he caused confusion by his “numerous theologically dubious apologies for the presumed sins of Catholics in prior epochs of Church history”; and he caused scandal by the gatherings at Assisi in 1986 and 2002, in which he prayed with animists and other pagans. The article even throws doubt on the miracle that was needed for the process of beatification to go forward.

The charges are grave and, as I said above, the task of the Devil’s Advocate is a necessary one. However, once everything has been weighed up, both in favour of John Paul’s pontificate and against it, and Rome has made its decision, is it not a little churlish at this late stage of the process to try to put a spanner in the works? Beatification does not assume impeccability; it investigates and assesses the heroic virtue of the candidate. In this case the late Pope’s virtues vastly outweigh, to my mind, his faults and errors of judgment.

What springs to mind when I think of the late Holy Father? He was a magnificent defender of the sacredness of human life, marriage and family, and the dignity of women, in a host of inspiring encyclicals and other writings: Familiaris Consortio, Mulieris Dignitatem, Evangelium Vitae come to mind, but there are many others. Indeed, he was a great teaching Pope. He was hugely instrumental, along with President Ronald Reagan, in bringing about the fall of Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. He was a wonderful communicator of the Faith to young people at the World Youth Days he instituted. How many young men and women have decided to dedicate themselves to the priesthood and religious life as a result of attending one of these occasions?

There is much more than could be cited in the Pope’s favour, but I will simply mention the Assisi gatherings.

I accept I might be biased here, as Francis of Assisi is my patron saint – but what is wrong with a Catholic leader praying alongside those of other faiths? I do not say you that pray ‘in unity’ with them as this is not possible; but to ask the Holy Spirit to come down and do His mysterious, grace-filled work at such a gathering: surely that is an act of charity towards those who, through no fault of their own, lack the fullness of truth?

This morning a Muslim lady taxi driver came to my house to take my daughter to her day centre. She happened to notice the tile stuck on the brickwork by the front door with the words (in Portuguese) “Our Lady of Fatima, bless this house”. “What does this mean?” she asked, pointing at the word ‘Fatima’. I explained that Our Lady had appeared at Fatima, adding I had once read that she had chosen to appear at this particular spot because the name ‘Fatima’ is very important to Muslims as the name of Muhammad’s daughter, and so that Catholics who reverence the shrine might pray especially for the followers of Islam. She was very pleased at this idea.

I then explained briefly (I was in my dressing –gown) about the Blessed Trinity, the role of Mary and the work of the Holy Spirit and we parted with much good will. I would gladly have prayed for her and alongside her if our dialogue had fallen out that way.

  • Anonymous

    And you don’t?

  • Anonymous

    Now THERE’S an idea!

  • padraig

    Correct and right my friend it should be correctly called the Great Starvation ie England under your great Queen Victoria starved the Irish people during this period,it is estimated that one million people starved to death and another million emigrated.The tenant farmers of Ireland lived almost entirely on potatoes,why?Because they had to sell their crops in order to pay the extortionate rent to their absentee landlords who largely lived in where? yes in England under the reign of the benevolent Queen Victoria.What was it that caused such cruelty from one country to another? One thing my friend,Irelands complete fidelity to the Catholic faith.

    Cecil Woodham-Smith, an authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845–1849 that no issue has provoked so much anger and embittered relations between England and Ireland as “the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation.” Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine.[fn 4]

    Christine Kinealy, a University of Liverpool fellow and author of two texts on the famine, Irish Famine: This Great Calamity and A Death-Dealing Famine, writes that Irish exports of calves, livestock (except pigs), bacon and ham actually increased during the famine. The food was shipped under guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland. However, the poor had no money to buy food and the government then did not ban exports.

    The following poem written by Miss Jane Francesca Elgee, a well known and popular author, was carried in The Nation:[63]

    Weary men, what reap ye? Golden corn for the stranger.

    What sow ye? Human corpses that wait for the avenger.
    Fainting forms, Hunger—stricken, what see you in the offing
    Stately ships to bear our food away, amid the stranger’s scoffing.
    There’s a proud array of soldiers—what do they round your door?
    They guard our master’s granaries from the thin hands of the poor.
    Pale mothers, wherefore weeping? ‘Would to God that we were dead—
    Our children swoon before us, and we cannot give them bread.[64]
    Speranza[fn 5]

    Charity

  • AJ

    Yes you are not a cult yet however, there are tradtionalist groups who have split from SSPX as being too liberal!!! You guys are experiencing what the protestants since the Reformation have been experiencing….split from split.

    Aside from the fact that Luther obstinately against the Pope and Church Authority same as you (SSPX), as Luther was ex-communicated so is your father Bishop Marcel Lefebvre was ex-communicated, as Luther didn’t accept the Council of Trent as Authoritative, same as you who didn’t accept the Council of Vatican II as Authoritative…pick and choose tactic?

    There you are can deny the similarities between you two.

  • AJ

    This is the problem Helen when we take a verse of the Bible out of context, mind you the protestants I debated with also cite this verse to prove that infallibility doctrine is false…hmmmm very similar indeed!
    Peter by his scandalous actions committed a personal sin and thus reprimanded by Paul however Peter already KNEW that one doesn’t need to perform Mosaic Laws in order to be a Christian – a follower of Christ. If you re-read that verse again, the error was made primarily due to Peter’s cowardice to the judaizers and not his Teaching office.

  • AJ

    EditorCT,

    No I’m not denying the doctrines of Purgatory and indulgences. I’m justt showing you by comparison on how lame is your position:

    The doctrine of Purgatory was formally ratified by Second Council of Lyon (1274), the Council of Florence (1438–1445), and the Council of Trent (1545–63) but because it was the main battlecry of Martin Luther that brought about the Great Protestant Reformation that did greatest damage to the Church, so to follow your logic EditorCT, therefore those Ecumenical Councils produce “bad” fruits” that gave rise to Martin Luther and protestantism.

    Therefore: Councils of Lyons, Florence and Trent is bad because they produce bad fruits.

    Another One:

    The Council of Nicea (400 A.D.) and the Council fo Chalcedon (451 A.D.) officially ratified and declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus and it fully promulgated the hypostatic union, stating that the human and divine natures of Christ co-exist, yet each is distinct and complete BUT IT ALSO brought forth some “bad” fruits” because it gave rise to heretical teachings of a Catholic bishop and priests named Nestorius and Arius. Arianism was the largest heretical group that spread almost half of Europe in the 4th century, so agaim folowwing your logic EditorCT therefore those Ecumenical Councils produce “bad fruits” too.

    Therefore: Council of Nicea is bad because it produce bad fruits.

    Therefore: Vatican II also has produced “bad fruits” by the rise of liturgical abuses of the few clergy.

    Another One: Anybody who has a little ounce of common sense could fill -it up.

  • AJ

    So what if Fr. Gruner is “showing” humbleness, even some heretics are humble. He is not obeying his superiors and obstinately published articles undermining the Church’s Authority about Fatima……a scandal by itself. Typical recalcitrant mentality that flock together. They think they are right and the Catholic church is wrong.

    Even Our Lady in Fatima honors the Holy Father but you guys are doing the opposite. Shame on you!

  • Anonymous

    Listen, you wouldn’t survive reading Bellarmine. His writings are so powerful, and won so many converts, that Queen Elizabeth I forbade reading his works under penalty of death. And none of HIS converts would be “weary” – they’d have been fired up with zeal for the Faith; to spread it and if need be,to die for it.

    St. Robert Bellarmine knew that it was essential to correct heresies and in so doing, he converted heretics, bringing them back into the Church. When the Catholic Church canonized him, she approved his methods, so it is not really up to you to denounce him. Holy Mother Church has said that St. Robert Bellarmine had practiced all the virtues to an heroic degree. Therefore, he acted according to charity, since it is one of the three theological virtues – faith, hope, and charity. He also acted according to justice and prudence since they are included in the four cardinal virtues: justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude. If his method of correcting heresies and winning converts was wrong, the Church would not have canonized him. Remember, the process for beatification and canonization was much more rigorous then than it’s turning out to be now. Nowadays, all you really need in order to be canonized, is to be dead.

    Cardinal Bellarmine and Gallileo were relatively good friends and St Robert Bellarmine died before the Galileo case was resolved, so I can’t see how you can argue that he “persecuted” Galileo. Those who persecuted Galileo big time were his fellow scientists. And as for this saint and Doctor of the Church burning heretics – please! You must know that the Church has never had the power or authority to burn people or hang people or whatever – that responsibility rests with the civil authority.

    But here’s an interesting thing that I once read (unfortunately can’t remember the source so you can legitimately dismiss it – as you would anyway, let’s face it.) Here goes…

    I once read (in a history of medieval times penned by a non-Catholic) that the severe punishments meted out to heretics on both sides, were not seen as too drastic. THE TRUTH was recognized as being of such central importance, that whether the culprit was a Catholic or one of the new Protestants, they were prepared to die for their beliefs, recognizing that (as the CCC teaches) “God willed that we be saved through knowledge of THE TRUTH” (emphasis in the CCC). Interesting, eh?

    But your refusal to read Cardinal Bellarmine is telling. Very telling. He is THE expert on the papal office. No Catholic can claim to be truly educated on this subject, without reading the writings of St Robert Bellarmine on the nature, extent and limits of a pope’s authority. Think again!

  • Anonymous

    Difference being, AJ, that the Pope doesn’t tell anybody not to do anything! He’s too busy engaging in dialogue with anybody and everybody – as long as they’re pagans, protestants or heretics!

    Imagine (indulge me in this daydream) if the chief of police called a meeting of bank robbers and murderers and then refused to tell me they were doing the wrong thing. Think of the public outcry! And imagine if only a few people here and there objected and were labelled “extremists”!

    Think, think, think, AJ. And when you’ve done that – think again!

  • Anonymous

    See my problem, DBMcGinnity? Wonderful people like you tell me to be tolerant of other people’s opinions and to be charitable towards everyone, but when I try to do that, I get it wrong again.

    I didn’t say I understood Hitler’s racial policy, just that I thought I might escape being called “uncharitable” again if I at least tried to understand it.

    I’m a very bad person DBMcGinnity and so blessed to have you to always keep me on the right path. Thank you again.

  • Anonymous

    You gotta be kidding. Vatican II guilty only of “the rise of liturgical abuses of a few clergy”????

    Where do you live AJ – I want to move there; like NOW!

    Vatican II has all but destroyed the Church humanly speaking. We have, as Our Lady foretold at Akita in 1973, “Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops opposing Bishops” and everywhere apostate Catholics who don’t know a doctrine from a doughnut.

    Wake up and smell the schism!

  • Weary Convert

    “You must know that the Church has never had the power or authority to burn people or hang people or whatever – that responsibility rests with the civil authority.”

    Dear Lady, if you believe that, I have, as they say, a bridge to sell you.

  • Helen Westover

    Doesn’t history mean ANYTHING to you? Bellarmine persecuted Galileo – Bellarmine is just a 17th century philosopher –
    You have not seriously addressed ONE fact that has been brought to your attention.

  • AJ

    Yes, Russia does not espouse repressive communistic regime anymore, there is a freedom of religion and christianity in the form of orthodox liturgy is flourishing. YES, Russia converted from its atheistic state to christianity or are you referring to your idea of a total mass convertions to Catholicism?

  • DBMcGinnity

    There seems to be a great deal of “Bon Ami” about because you have called me ‘friend’ as have a few others. I hope this was not in the ‘Stephen Potter’ context, but I am sure it was a genuine affirmation. Clearly, I have much to learn from someone like yourself who has travelled and seen things at first hand. I wish more people did the same.

    Please guide me on this point of present Canon Law. In the past month I have been to a SSPX Latin Mass (missa cantata). I have been to a Latin Mass Society (low Mass) and I have been to several Novus Ordo mass‘s. Also today I have been to The Anglican Communion Eucharist. A week last Saturday I visited and prayed in a Synagogue. Also I have attended The Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Communion, and I feel that God was equally present in all these Holy places. However, as a Catholic, and if I die will I go to hell

  • Helen Westover

    I don’t have any idea if you are going to hell. I have no idea if I am. But in the pre-Vat2 code, we were not to TAKE PART in non-Catholic services. If you felt close to God in a synagogue, I know what you mean. I used to go to numerous Bar and Bat Mitzvas of friends and students. But I never actually took part in the service. The idea is that there is only one God – He can’t be, and not be, The Trinity at the same time. The perennial Doctrine of the Church is Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus – outside the Church there is no salvation. (There is what is called Baptism of Desire, however). Christ said, “I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life – no one comes to the Father except through Me.” That is either true or false – but there is no inbetween. This is what the First Commandment states – there are no gods except Me.
    But what I hungered for was Truth. I found that Truth is not founded on my feelings, but on objective reality. I “felt” close to God when following Sai Baba. Once I looked at these things intellectually, I realized my feelings led me astray.
    Christ is either God, or not. That was the question I searched so long to settle. Was he just a prophet? (Baha’i and Mormonism) Was he just another Avatar?(Vedanta). Actually, my intellect led the way – my feelings came later.
    If He is God, I have no business in places that don’t believe that.
    The same with various Christian religions – the question is, is the Catholic Church the one Christ established or not? If it is, why would I go to a Church he did not found? It’s more complicated with the Orthodox – they deny the Pope, but their sacraments are valid.
    I hope I have been able to communicate my thinking clearly here.

  • Anonymous

    Heresy, Weary Convert, was a capital crime in those days. It’s always a mistake to make negative judgments about an earlier period of history, when they had different standards and laws. In our time, NOTHING merits capital punishment, and so it seems odd to us that people should ever have been put to death for something as unimportant as heresy. You see, that’s the nub of the matter. “if” said Father Faber “there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.”

    If we could grasp how much God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, hates heresy, we might begin to understand why it merits the death penalty.

  • Anonymous

    That explains it. Birmingham Oratory? I now understand.

    You’ll not find large families of 12 / 14 in your average diocese – that’s for sure.

  • Anonymous

    At a wild guess, I’d say Our Lady was talking about Russia converting to Catholicism. Yip. That’s what I think she meant…

  • Anonymous

    Now, there’s an idea. Why didn’t I think of that? I’d put YOU in charge of the Congregation for the Non-Conversion of the EW (Entire World). A very safe pair of hands, I’m sure…

  • Anonymous

    Please produce a link to the Formal Excommunication statement of Father Gruner. Won’t be easy, since he’s a priest in good standing in the Archdiocese of Hyderabad. Please don’t resort to lying. It can be irritating.

  • Anonymous

    Spot – absolutely – on. A most DISobedient bunch, the MuddyGorgie brigade. Well said.

  • Anonymous

    AJ, “The Catholic Church” has made no pronouncement on Fatima beyond the statements of individual popes. Most recently, at Fatima last year on 13 May, Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, Pope Benedict repeated what Father Gruner has said all along – that Fatima is NOT over, that those who think that, are “deceived.” Please keep up with the news, Sugar Plum.

  • Anonymous

    Petrus has more of a Catholic sense in his little finger – with all due respect – than you’ve got in your (I imagine) very large head.

    No offence meant, of course, merely a metaphor for “isn’t Petrus a well informed Catholic, while you, with all due respect, are not.”

  • Anonymous

    It seems like that to you, DBMcGinnity, because you can’t – with all due respect – think straight. (I hope I’m not offending against the diversity laws by saying that…)

  • Anonymous

    I meant AJ but he would certainly love you, as well.

  • Anonymous

    No, YOU read Padre Pio
    http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Oct2002/Padre_Pio_Spirituality.htm

    Although, frankly, I don’t think the penny will EVER drop for you. “There are none so blind” – they say – “as those who will not see.”

  • Anonymous

    A breakthrough at last!

    Pope Benedict is not teaching us to pray with pagans and protestants. This is his ( as it was Pope JPII ‘s) personal view of how to achieve world peace. ERGO we are free to rebuke him.

    Alleluia! You got there in the end, AJ – well done!

  • Anonymous

    Wrong AJ. A pro-choice Catholic politician is automatically excommunicated, as is anyone else who participates or facilitates, in any way, an abortion.

    You’re really hung up on “disobedience” but a child who disobeys his mother, isn’t, by virtue of that disobedience, saying “I am no longer your son” nor is the mother saying “I am no longer your mother.”

    You really do need to read a doctor – try Cardinal (Saint) Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church.

  • Anonymous

    Give ONE (just one) example from Tradition, of any of the things Pope John Paul II has done in the past few years, having been done by a previous popes, e.g. kissing Koran, praying with animists, having topless women reading at Mass, having a “blessing” on forehead from a Hindu woman” , sexy gyrations at WYD Mass – any ONE example of anything even remotely like any of these scandals will suffice.

    Thought not,. Then stop claiming that the Pope kept faith with Tradition. He didn’t.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, in the good old days before the horrors oops errors of Vatican II took hold, we were taught in school to distinguish between papal infallibility and papal impeccability. A crucial distinction which, if you don’t learn it, leads to papolatry – the idolising of a pope, believing that everything he says is true and must be blindly obeyed. It’s this false understanding of the papacy that puts well-meaning Protestant enquirers off the Faith.

  • Anonymous

    You keep on about the “full authority” re Vatican II but the Popes did not mandate ANYTHING in Vatican II. Pope Benedict is on public record saying that Vatican II was a MERELY pastoral Council.

  • Sprose

    You are a bungling idiot!

  • Anonymous

    “Inside The Vatican” – which is a good glossy, on the whole – has published a “tribute edition” to mark the beatification on May 1. I know time passes faster than it did, but that is a bit much – even the BBC doesn’t predict the future news that far in advance .

    The cause ought to be suspended until it becomes crystal-clear just how much the late Pope knew about the evil-living clerics whom he defended. If he is truly fit for beatification, a delay will do his cause & reputation no harm at all. Beatifying a Pope whose fitness for beatification is doubtful can do a very great deal of harm.

    And one has to wonder where there is continuity between the Assisi Abomination, & the severe terms in which so many previous Popes spoke against what the Pope did. There is genuine & serious theological & doctrinal problem here – not to address it, is a cruelty to many Catholics, because the Pope reversed previous teaching of very great weight, without so much as a “by your leave”.

  • Anonymous

    Did the Church exist before Vatican II ? Yes. Therefore, “[t]he Church did not start at Vatican II. It is not the supreme council and the be all and end all…” – as has been pointed out by an OP. It is one Ecumenical Council, out of 21.

    “The Catholic Church started the Vatican II…” – the OP wasn’t saying it didn’t; he was saying the Church did not start at Vatican II. Which is something different; & equally true. “Starting V2″ =///= “starting at V2″

  • Weary Convert

    Dear Lady – you have claimed – as the Church has regularly done in the past – that the burning of heretics is the responsibility of the “secular arm” as they used to say. But the secular arm in Rome when Bruno was burnt was, of course, the Church. More particularly this claim is one of the most contemptible made by the Church as the priests and bishops and Popes tried to escape from their responsibility. In modern terms it is like the claims of Holocaust deniers that poor Hitler knew nothing about the murder of 6 million Jews so it wasn’t his fault.

    You claim that I should waste my time reading the writings of a 17th century theologian who, as you state, lived at a time of different standards and laws. As I recall, I did read read J Brodrick’s biography years ago but was unimpressed. So, may I take your own attitude. When I quoted Peter Hebblethwaite’s moving description of Pope John’s death bed, in opposition to your strange claim that he died crying out “stop the Council,” the best you could do was to reply that Hebblethwaite left the priesthood and had 3 children – and that was it. What an extraordinary response to a question of fact when your own claim was so obviously nonsense (“source,” a priest close to Pope John, I think you said). However, for my convenience, I shall now follow you and state that as Bellarmine was clearly involved in the burning of Bruno, there is no point in reading him either.

    I find your comment that if we knew how the Trinity hates heresy we would understand why it merits the death penalty, even more extraordinary. What a nasty thing to say. It undermines the whole concept of a loving God with whom we might wish to spend an eternity. Your outlandish views are such as to give the image of Ultra-Catholic women sitting by the pyres, knitting like the tricoteuses during the French revolution, calling out “put on more faggots!! Burn the heretic – the Trinity will be pleased!”

    I have suggested before that it is about time the Ultras grew up and came to terms with the modern world and hence the real Church as it actually operates today – bringing comfort and hope to millions and millions of people and showing respect to honest people in other religions. Not the outdated, Latin-obsessed, nit-picking, regularly corrupt and hopelessly leaden-footed Church that you and your tiny group of supporters seem to want to impose on the rest of us.

  • Anonymous

    And what about you? What makes YOU think YOU know better than Petrus who is merely repeating Catholic teaching on the nature, extent and limits of papal authority which YOU think has no boundaries?

  • Anonymous

    The logic of your position is that you will have nothing whatsoever to do with any saints of the Church who lived in the middle ages. And that must include the popes whom you blame for the burning of heretics, as well. Leaves a big gap in time when the Holy Spirit went away. Wonder where He went?

    Weary Convert you have not been well instructed. If you can denounce men who are not merely canonized saints but who have been pronounced Doctors of the Church for their intellect and learning, and equate them with Hitler, there’s no point in me trying to help you.

    You have the Pentecostal emotional attitude towards God, typical of the touchy-feely religion of today. It’s not Catholic. God finds heresy offensive, because it insults Him. He has revealed the truth to us, and so anyone who distorts or undermines or misrepresents or twists that truth angers Him. Yip. God gets angry!

    WOW – but it’s not exactly breaking news as the Jesus with the whip cord in hand, reveals.

    Enjoy your religion, Weary Convert – but it is NOT Catholicism.

  • Weary Convert

    For my instruction, I suppose you should blame Farm Street (I await your tirade of abuse on how the Jesuits supported the Council). As to canonised saints, perhaps the dear lady should remind herself of Pius V, a canonised bigot, inquisitor and torturer. But really, why is it that the Ultras so hate what they call the “touchy-feely” approach to Christianity? I suppose that if the Ultras had been there when Jesus said “suffer little children to come unto me” they would have preferred the young ones to be given a strict lesson on morality, followed by a confimation-style slap on the face to make them remember it.

    “God finds heresy offensive” the lady tells us. How can anyone reduce such an overwhelming Being to something so petty? The universe is probably around 13.5 billion years old and is likely to continue much in its present form for that amount of time and much, much longer. But according to the lady, the God responsible for that incredible creation with its trillions of planets, stars and galaxies is “offended” by the views of some people (actually the vast majority of the Earth’s populaltion). This is the reduction of the nature of our God to that of a bad-tempered cleric. But then of course, the lady calls evolution a lie – so what does she say to the history of the universe? Does she agree with Archbishop Ussher’s 6000 years or so? If that is the case, perhaps she might be happier amongst the Southern Baptists.

    The lady tells me to enjoy my religion which is apparently not Catholicism: but if Catholicism requires the version that she peddles on this website, ignoring every piece of progress since the Council – in fact, since whenever – the vast majority of people calling themselves Catholics (who probably have far more sense than me in trying to bring some realism into this website), would no longer qualify if exposed to the inquisition of this Poperessa (or is it Popessa?).

  • Trying to be helpful

    If it is the “This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.” I think it’s more like the expression “I made this painting for its own sake” as opposed to “I painted this picture to give to my mother.” When God created animals etc, He created them in order to give them to man, but he didn’t create man to give to anyone, just like when you “paint something for its own sake” it’s not literally for the painting’s own good, it’s out of your own personal desire to paint. So, I interpret that part as to mean that God created Man out of love rather than for the sake of giving man to someone else, like he gave the animals to man.

  • DBMcGinnity

    Now then, what Catholicism needs today is a good court case like the “Scopes Monkey Trial“, held in Dayton Tennessee in 1925. The prosecuting council William Jennings Bryan was a narrow minded bigot and glutton who ate himself to death. The defending council the wonderful humanistic Clarence Darrow It was made into a wonderful film “Inherit the Wind”. starring Spencer Tracy and Frederic March. Names in the film were changed for legal family reasons and the film makers took some licence with the story but not with the ethos of the indictment or the courtroom scenes, that were virtually identical.

    Therefore, we can have a “Byzantine Bigots” versus “Monterey Modernists” court case. Judging by some of the attitudes and comments written in The Catholic Herald, the story would be a blockbuster. The court case would be a knockout. Imagine if some of the Catholic Herald bloggers met each other, what it would be like. It would be total mayhem!! Imagine shouts like: “I am right!!, No!, You are wrong!!, You have no brains!!, Look friend!! If you took the time to read!!!, etc, etc. “Maybe you should read….. “!!! “YAWN”.

    After all of that there is not one credible ounce of evidence that there is life hereafter (heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, angels, saints). I totally believe in God Almighty who is in ALL things, including protestants and jews.

  • Weary Convert

    I am not sure if you were recommending the Padre Pio site or not – this website gets so confusing with posts and counter-posts and the rest. So, for once, I read it. If your idea was to point out what superstitious rubbish surrounds Pio, I fully agree – the vapourings of a fanatic denying confession to girls in short skirts, refusing the new Mass without even seeing it, claiming that communists will take over the Vatican (in 1966 was it?) etc. etc. If, on the other hand you were recommending this nonsense – oh dear – I am afraid I totally disagree and wonder again about those who have claimed the man was a fraud. Canonisation cannot answer that question.

  • Anonymous

    You just will not believe anything that you don’t want to believe. I simply don’t have time to waste casting pearls, my friend. Goodbye.

  • Helen Westover

    Hey there AJ and Weary – did you read the Index?
    I forgot – you don’t read anything.

  • Helen Westover

    Weary, did you go through RCIA?

  • Montman

    You need to do more Vatican Two homework.

  • Weary Convert

    It hadn’t been invented. I see that Editor CT (I wonder what is “CT”?) made the predictable comment on Farm Street.

  • AJ

    @ Trying to help, absolutely spot on! This is the problem as with our protestant brethrens, they have a habit of “cherry picking” verses and passages of the Bible out of context. i also addressed this traditionalists’ objection on Gaudium et Spes, contains this gem in section 24, para. 3: from my post below.

    Thanks and God bless.

  • Anonymous

    I’m puzzled. I received a reply via Disquis to my comment above about heading for world war III by someone blogging as Pius XXX (who, unlike everyone else on this restless planet thinks the idea of world war III is hilarious) but I cannot find it on this thread.

    Pity – I had been looking forward to responding to him.

    Signed: Puzzled and Disappointed, Glasgow…

  • AJ

    The problem with your statement is your presupposition and outright assumption was considered true already!

    The Pope didn’t tell anybody not to do anything? Are you serious? The last time I heard from the pope in WYD is to follow Christ and not the secular world, materialism and lust. Then blame the man if his message is not followed, sigh! It’s like telling Jesus Christ he didn’t do nothing for the betrayal of Judas, get a grip, sis!