John XXIII and John Paul II to be canonized

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Reuters source here, although it misspells 'waived'. Canonizations expected 'by the end of the year'.

The fact that Francis is dispensing with the requirement for the second miracle in the case of John XXIII especially interests me.

[DC Al Fine]

Isn't it unusually early to be canonizing JP2? I'm not familiar with the process, but he's been dead for less than a decade. Shouldn't they wait slightly longer?

[TJ in Oregon]

Isn't it unusually early to be canonizing JP2? I'm not familiar with the process, but he's been dead for less than a decade. Shouldn't they wait slightly longer?

They normally do. In the case of JPII the push for his sainthood started basically right after he died from the laity and the Vatican is more or less going along with it. Personally, I agree they ought to wait longer.

[Blue3]

They should wait at least 50 years after death. JP was a good man, but I don't know about him being a saint.

[Lumine]

John XXIII deserves more recognition because of his personal qualities and his role in the early 1960's, so good for him. John Paul II, not so much... I'm not really satisfied with the things that happened with the Ambrosian Bank, the Opus Dei and some religious problems in Chile...

[DC Al Fine]

John XXIII deserves more recognition because of his personal qualities and his role in the early 1960's, so good for him. John Paul II, not so much... I'm not really satisfied with the things that happened with the Ambrosian Bank, the Opus Dei and some religious problems in Chile...

That may all be true, but it's hardly the correct measure of Sainthood.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Wasn't JPII's canonization reported years ago?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Wasn't JPII's canonization reported years ago?

No. You might be thinking of his beatification.

[windjammer]

They should wait for John Paul II. But after all with this decision, John Paul II was really a good pope.

[afleitch]

They should wait for John Paul II. But after all with this decision, John Paul II was really a good pope.

Was he?

[windjammer]

They should wait for John Paul II. But after all with this decision, John Paul II was really a good pope.

Was he?

A good pope.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They should wait for John Paul II. But after all with this decision, John Paul II was really a good pope.

John Paul II was a likable person, and may well have been a holy one, but his papacy had severe problems, some of which his policies caused or exacerbated.

[7,052,770]

The fact that Francis is dispensing with the requirement for the second miracle in the case of John XXIII especially interests me.

Considering how miracles aren't real, it would be smart to get rid of that "requirement" altogether.

Sainthood should just be an honorary title for especially good people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering how miracles aren't real,

O ye of little faith.

Even if one totally disbelieves in the supernatural, there can still be miracles.

Consider the miracles where Jesus fed the multitudes.  They could be explained as resulting from the example of his willingness to share causing those in the crowds who had had rhe foresight to being food to share and being an example of the miracle of compassion and charity.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This seems rather overdue to me.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This seems rather overdue to me.

John XXIII died fifty years ago. That's a normal length of time, although it can be expedited--as in, in this instance, the case of John Paul II, whose canonization I think is premature, not overdue.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This seems rather overdue to me.

Don't even get me started on JPII...

[7,052,770]

Considering how miracles aren't real,

O ye of little faith.

Even if one totally disbelieves in the supernatural, there can still be miracles.

Consider the miracles where Jesus fed the multitudes.  They could be explained as resulting from the example of his willingness to share causing those in the crowds who had had the foresight to being food to share and being an example of the miracle of compassion and charity.

Perhaps, but I've always assumed that story is merely symbolic, bread = Jesus's love, or something like that.  I do like your version though.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This seems rather overdue to me.

Don't even get me started on JPII...

Why not?  If you have something to say put it in a paragraph or two.  None of this news about John XXIII or John Paul II surprises you, does it?

[minionofmidas]

John XXIII was beatified by JPII in 2000 - an act the church had been officially deliberating on since 1970. Then again, it has been officially deliberating on doing the same thing to Pacelli since 1965. No progress on that at all during JPII, but there was under Ratzinger - no official beatification though.

High time to get John XXIII to be declared the saint he was, before the next bad pope actually goes ahead and beatifies Pius.

[Vosem]

They were both good men.

[TJ in Oregon]

Pope John XXIII was long enough before my time that I can't say I know a lot about the man other than him convening the Second Vatican Council.

He did respond when asked "How many people work in the Vatican?" with, "About half".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He did respond when asked "How many people work in the Vatican?" with, "About half".

FF, but we knew that (by which I mean history for the most part judges him as such) already.