BishopAccountability.org
	Sainthood Now? No – Never! By James A. Turcotte Voice from the Desert March 29, 2010 http://reform-network.net/?p=3514 Foreword Let me make it clear, right from the start, that I am an 83-year-old Roman Catholic, dedicated to the Faith. I am one of eleven children raised by honest, sincere parents who taught us to be people of integrity. My concern is that the Vatican hierarchy appears to be pushing the effort to canonize the late John Paul II. In fact, there is insufficient evidence to warrant this honour. The claims of a potential cure of a nun from Parkinson’s Disease through John Paul’s intercession as well as other minor claims, has raised many questions by the laity about the one-sidedness of the evidence. The lure to sainthood is based on the former pope’s display of charisma and holiness during his world tours. However, there is no sign of an investigation into his behind-the-scenes activities that would further support or deny the claim for this very serious matter. I for one would be pleased to be part of a religion that could show the world clear evidence that yes! We did have a saint in our midst. But without a devil’s advocate to examine the facts meticulously, we cannot have the whole story. In fact, the position of devil’s advocate was introduced in 1587, during the reign of Pope Sixtus V, only to be abolished in 1983 by the very John Paul II to whom I refer. During his 27 years in the Vatican, over 500 new saints were canonized, while 1,300 were beatified, compared to only 98 during the previous part of the 20th century! This in itself casts doubt on the entire procedure. Since there is no devil’s advocate in the Vatican, I have appointed myself to this post. My findings are based on facts gleaned from Vatican sources as well as a wide variety of media sources. I would appreciate a reply. J.A. Turcotte U.E. — Sainthood for Pope John Paul II Hardly had John Paul II breathed his last breath when cries of “Sainthood Now!” were heard in the streets, and the media around the world adopted the message. Clearly the late pope was a much-loved man, but much of this affection seems to have been generated by the pomp and ceremony of the Vatican, and the awesome display of sanctity and purity on the pope’s world tours. But is this enough to warrant sainthood? Surely this should either be supported or denied by a careful study of the private life of John Paul II. This is how previous sainthoods were determined, often taking 100 years of study before the final decision was made. The curia seems to have no interest in delving farther into John Paul II’s background, no doubt because it fears revealing something negative. This is where the need for a devil’s advocate comes in. I liken this investigation to the marriage vows where the attendants see the visual acceptance of the marriage, but don’t see what happened behind the scenes leading up to the marriage. Then the priest says, “If any amongst you have just cause why this couple should not be joined together in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace.” Regarding this beatification and canonization, I feel compelled to “speak now or forever hold my peace.” Sainthood In the Catholic Register, December 27th, 2009, the front page displays a photo of Pope Pius XII with the headline “Sainthood Awaits”. On page 2, the headline says “Sainthood Causes Advance for John Paul II, Pius XII…” Pope Benedict XVI promotes these moves, declaring that both men had “heroic virtues”. They can be beatified once two or more miracles are attributed to their intercession. Church experts almost at once began studying the claim that a French nun was cured of Parkinson’s disease as a result of John Paul II’s intercession. The five step process for this study involved medical experts, theological consultants, members of the Congregation, and finally, Pope Benedict himself. Obviously, all of the members of Pope Benedict’s team are his choices. But who are these doctors and theologians and “members of Congregation.” The billion or so lay “members of the World Congregation” have not been consulted, however. With modern technology, we could have been asked to submit emails to express our thoughts on this matter. Such a democratic practice, however, might result in some information that would slow the Vatican’s determination to push through a process in two years instead of one hundred years. In 1962, Pope John XXIII issued a document called Crimen Solllicitations. This document ordered bishops around the world to cover up sex abuse by clergy, and threatened those who spoke out with excommunication. It even went so far as to instruct that incriminating documents should be destroyed when necessary. This infamous document which has been upheld with every pope since 1962 is loaded with less than “heroic virtues”. It permitted sexual criminal activities of priests to continue unabated during John Paul II’s 27 years. To me, these are “satanic vices” that safeguard clergy and fail to protect their victims, children of God whom his priests so salaciously attacked. When Crimen Sollicitations is carefully studied, the only conclusion for a sane reader is that it was inspired by Satan himself, not by God whom the priests claim to revere. The sad thing is that the Vatican hierarchy knew all of this, but still ignored its evil contents, and nominated John Paul II as a candidate for sainthood. John Paul assured his own future sainthood in the early 1980s when he abolished the office of Promotor Fidei (Promoter of the Faith). Often referred to as “the devil’s advocate,” this person has always been a cannon law lawyer appointed by the Church to argue against the canonization, thus assuring that all aspects of the candidate’s life would be examined equally. With that road block removed, John Paul II is certain of quick canonization based on information flooding into the Vatican about his “heroic virtues.” In addition to the claim of the French nun’s healing through his intercession, there have also been hundreds of similar claims from various sources. There has not been one negative comment reported so far, thus assuring that a fast-tracked sainthood. The man in charge of promoting the cause to declare John Paul a saint is Monsignor Slawomir Odor who himself has issued the hundreds of messages claiming healing by the deceased pope’s intercession. No doubt Odor was influenced by the humility that John Paul exuded during his world tours when millions watched him on television, or actually attended his open air masses. John Paul surrounded by government officials and throngs of children was indeed impressive. Dressed in a snow white robe, he laid hands on many, and prayed over them while leaning heavily on the golden staff topped with the symbol of Christ crucified on the cross. He showed the world the ravages of Parkinson ’s disease, and how he humbly carried on in spite of it all. No wonder the crowds cried out “Sainthood now!” This was Christ’s ambassador on Earth, leader of a billion Roman Catholics and CEO of 450,000 clergy around the world. During John Paul II’s 1984 trip to North America, bad weather forced the cancellation of a planned visit to the Dene Nation near Fort Simpson. He promised to return in three years, and he made good this promise. The aboriginal people were swept up by the aura of this man, dressed in white as he mingled with the elders, hugging and kissing everyone as he passed through the crowds expressing support for native rights, and calling for a new round of talks to address this burning issue. Of course the people of the North loved him. Now we can see why there was an immediate, emotional demand for “Sainthood Now.” The Devil’s Advocate Now it is the devil’s advocate’s turn to speak. After sifting through reams of material, it has become shamefully clear that John Paul II had total disregard for children, young people and families who were sexually violated by his army of criminal pedophile priests. Although he went out of his way to mingle with unharmed children and their families in remote areas and to show his personal interest in their well-being, he found no time to comfort the thousands of victims whose lives were devastated by the sexual onslaught of his priests. Did he not know about these abused families? If he did know about them, why did he remain silent? Did he know about Crimen Sollicitations? Of course he did; he was aware of its evil content and obviously supported it. As the most powerful representative of God on earth, why did he not abolish it, as he had the office of devil’s advocate? It was within his power to do so. When this secret document was issued in 1962 by John XXIII, it included an order that every bishop on the planet should receive a copy which should be locked away in a safe place, to be read and enforced only by bishops. The gist of it is the cases of sexual abuse against children or adults should be ignored, the guilty priest moved to another venue, and anyone who admitted to such a crime (victim or perpetrator) to be excommunicated. Under no circumstances were guilty priests to be turned over to civil authorities. The document was accidentally discovered by a journalist who found a reference to it in papers issued by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. You can read Crimen Sollicitations for yourself, in its entirety, by searching the internet. It is a priest’s passport to pedophilia. Any pope since John XXIII could have rescinded this document, but none has. So in all of the crimes that are now making headlines around the world, the Holy Office has clearly committed the crime of obstruction of justice as an accessory after the fact. What is an accessory after the fact? “Anyone who knows that a person has committed a crime and who receives comfort, or assists him in any way to enable that person to escape is himself {bishop} committing an offence. To convict a person of this offence, it is necessary to establish three conditions. 1) There must be a criminal offence committed by the person {clergy} assisted or harboured. 2) The alleged accessory {bishop} must have been aware that the person he harboured or assisted had committed the offence. 3) He must have been harbouring, or assisting, the principal offender for the purpose of concealing the crime or of preventing his {priests} being caught by authorities.” Under civil law, this would make the bishops and yes, even the popes, guilty of a multitude of crimes. In other countries, pedophiles and their accessories would be brought before the civil courts, tried and sentenced. The Church makes sure that this does not happen to its priests and bishops; the Vatican is a country with diplomatic immunity. Cases are heard by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF – formerly known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition) The press and the outside world know nothing of such cases because of documents like Crimen Sollicitations which surround such case with strict secrecy. Victims, accusers, witnesses and every person associated with such cases heard under cannon law are forbidden to speak of the cases, under threat of excommunication. Supposedly, the purpose of this secrecy is to protect all concerned, making it possible for them to speak openly before the CDF. To many, though, it seems that this secrecy is to prevent the leakage of any information about these cases. After being threatened with excommunication for 50 years if they reveal any sex abuse cases, how betrayed must the Irish bishops feel at now being raked over the coals by Pope Benedict XVI for failing to do just that! In 2002 John Paul II summoned eight American cardinals to Rome for a summit meeting. In a prepared text, he said “The Church herself is viewed with distrust….The abuse which has caused this crisis is by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society….It is an appalling sin in the eyes of God….People need to know that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young….” The naive might think that these comments support the cause for John Paul’s beatification. But what did he do to actually put a stop to the crisis? Nothing. It would have taken strong action for any remedy to be effective, for John Paul’s friendship with notable abusers could scarcely go unnoticed. For example, Archbishop Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles was infamous in his archdiocese, not only for spending lavishly on a cathedral locally known as “Taj Mahony,” but also for his abuse of young people and his protection of other clergy who performed abusive acts.. To help pay for his wild spending, he ordered the closure and sale of a small convent which had been happily serving the poor of the city for many years. Yet Pope John Paul praised Mahony as a fine example to young people! Then there was the Mexican priest, father Marcial Maciel Degollado who in 1941 founded the Legionaires of Christ. Before long Maciel was well-known within the Legionaires and throughout the Church as an abuser of young seminarians. In 1947 in Mexico, he approached handsome altar boy Juan Vaca to recruit him for the Legionnaires. “I am looking for boys like you,” he said. Two years later, when Juan was still only twelve, Maciel had him taken to his bedroom at night. He indicated that he had pains in his internal organs, and asked Juan to rub him stomach for him. “Do it lower, lower,” Maciel said until he had an erection. This was the beginning of more than twelve years of abuse. Juan Vaca was not the only young man molested by Maciel. The excuse was often that his doctor had ordered the release of a build-up of semen. He said that Pope Pius XII had given him a special dispensation for sex to relieve his chronic pain. This sick man often gave “absolution” to his victims when they expressed guilt over taking part in forced sex acts. He was absolving them from guilt that was rightly his, while at the same time telling then they would go to hell if they ever revealed these encounters. In spite of this he became a friend and advisor of John Paul II. They often travelled together, Maciel accompanying the Pope on trips to Mexico in 1979, 1990 and 1993. On the 50th anniversary of his ordination as a priest, John Paul II sent an open letter of congratulation praising him highly as “an efficacious guide to youth”. When this praise was reported in the press, nine former seminarians came forward to file charges against Maciel. Yet he continued to be John Paul II’s close friend. Although by this time Maciel’s sexual exploits had been well publicized, he accompanied the papal entourage in the summer of 2002 when John Paul made a trip to Mexico for the canonization of Juan Diego. He did not fly in the same plane as the pope, but he was among the clergy who took part in the beatification mass. Did John Paul not know about his friend’s reputation as a sexual predator? Not a chance. Yet he did not distance himself from the predator, or take any steps to chastise him. This makes John Paul II a hypocrite, not a saint. When a papal court investigated and confirmed the sexual crimes of Juliusz Paetz, Archbishop in Posnan, Poland, no one wanted to tell the pope. Some one close to him said “The news would kill him.” The pope seemed to believe that if he didn’t hear about these matters, they would simply go away. During his papacy, John Paul refused to even discuss let alone seriously consider several important matters that have long been causing problems within the Church. As the leader of Roman Catholics everywhere, it was his obligation to provide leadership in discussions of such urgency. These issues are birth control, the role of women in the Church, and celibacy. If these issues were at least put on the table for discussion, the Roman Catholic Church might have been brought into the 21st century, and given new life. Serious theological scholars who suggested such discussions were censured. Hans Kung who had devoted his life to Catholic theology was forbidden to teach this subject. So what about John Paul’s words – “It is an appalling sin in the eyes of God”, and “There is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young”, or “For even a single act of sexual abuse…the priest or deacon will be permanently removed from the ministry”? Laity all over the world waited for the expulsion of known clergy criminals, but it never happened. It is not happening today under Benedict XVI. In fact, some perpetrators have been rewarded with promotions. Others have been shielded in the Vatican where they are safe from the reaches of civil law. Every week we read of another sex scandal within the Roman Catholic Church. This has gone far beyond the point where the naive parishioner can say “Oh, it’s just one priest. There’s always one bad apple in the barrel.” While there are still godly, honest priests out there, their work is made more difficult by the multitude of priests who have betrayed their profession and their loyalty to the people they serve. Weak after-the-fact apologies do not make up for past wrongs, as victims and their families have often said. Genuine remorse might help a little, but we have not seen that, either. In the case of Father Charles Sylvestre (known as Sylvester the Molester) of London, Ontario, even on his death bed in prison attended by one of his victims who craved an apology, Sylvestre refused to admit that he had done anything wrong. Why has it come to this? Because popes like John Paul II and others before him failed to take stern action against priests who failed to live up to their oaths of purity and service to God. Yes, it would have been difficult and heart-rending for the pontiff, it would have depleted the Church’s great numbers of clergy, but as God’s representative here on Earth, isn’t that what they should have done? Turning a blind eye to the problem of sex abuse, as well as to the other issues that beset the Church has been the easy, lazy man’s way out. Christ didn’t take the easy way out, and neither should the popes. “Sainthood Now!” Definitely not. Canonization of this man would be a travesty of justice. His “heroic virtues”, if they ever existed, are badly tarnished by the unholy mess he has left behind. Those who speak of his suffering in later life from Parkinson’s disease forget that many other older men and woman around the world suffer from the same disease or others just as debilitating. It’s part of aging, and they all bear these sufferings heroically. Such suffering is not a prerequisite for sainthood. When Pope John Paul II was told about some of the cases of sexual abuse within the Church, he is quoted as saying ‘You’ll get no quick fix out of me.” This in itself should be enough to persuade Monsignor Slawomir Odor to back off from his promotion of the late pope as a saint. If in 100 years history proves that John Paul II is worthy of sainthood, so be it. However, in 2010 through the close-up lens of the telescope, his life certainly has not been a saintly one. If I could speak to Monsignor Slawomir Odor today, I would tell him that we have had enough hypocrisy from the Vatican. Sexual atrocities that have fuelled recent resignations of bishops and archbishops is clear evidence that they can no longer live in a sinful state and continue to serve the Church as permitted by John Paul II during his 27-year watch. I would tell him that I continue to remain within the Roman Catholic Church because I love it and the good priests who are faithful to God. The hypocrisy of our leaders has made the Church an international laughing stock. It is painful to see these stories played out every day on television, in newspapers and in magazines, the legacy left to us by John Paul II. If his beatification and sanctification go through, sainthood will no longer mean anything. Yours sincerely, J.A. Turcotte U.E.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.