The disappearance of the figure of the "devil's advocate" in the canonization process. The Vatican bureaucracy has taken an increasingly critical element to events and actions in case they are charged to the same obedience obedience. Religion as a fundamental aspect of people who have decided to follow it, should be a source of hope, strength and internal growth in reverence to a god, not limitation in obedience irrational and even less when creating role models to imitate, such as the figures of saints.
The figure of the devil's advocate as "questioning" of the sanctity of the "new saints" should be fundamental. But has ceased to be, but we all know is different, the leadership and bureaucracy to the parish church and the people forming a church. Like many facts of everyday life the establishment of a "processed" or "law" does not solve the compliance or need and less convinced of the rightness of his background.
could make a thorough analysis of each of the decisions that have led to the altar many questionable figures of recent times. But why do it? It really is a debate that generates fertility. Not in all cases, even creates barren land in the vast majority, as radical and makes ideas contrary to the most radicalization are accepted excuse or chase.
But in the case of Karol Wojtyla, is my view point to be discussed at least in the people of the church but "the leadership" has already presented as a fait accompli.
The reasons are many and only set out the most obvious.
is the historical predecessor, administrative and ideological current state of things both in the Catholic religion, "official" as in many Western countries influenced by the same religion. Even Wojtyla's successor whoever he authorizes the title of "holiness" is not an accolade given to other himself, being a minister Ratzinger critical in this administration?
There is a lack of administrative crisis of vocations, credibility, support theological belief masses and even questioning the moral authority of the priesthood that extends to the papacy, because of the actions that began and reached its climax in the reign John Paul II.
I do not have the resources that would have a devil's advocate, but there are many questions to answer to the impending canonization of John Paul II, will try to explain briefly some of them.
1) Is not considered a sin of omission, which in their eyes is to develop a network pedophile?. "And even the support of dioceses such as Chicago or Los Angeles. O the founder of the association of "the Legionaries of Christ"?. How many of the times I came to Mexico came to settle financial matters with Maciel?
2) Is it not the responsibility of the figure of the successor of Peter to "order in the churches" that have been linked to money laundering, drug trafficking and other scandals. In the mouth of his own bishops?.
3) is different from tolerance to acceptance, nobody calls the Catholic Church "accepted" behaviors, which are not raised under the microscope of history and theological serious analysis. But does that is different from persecution?. Some ideas and behaviors were openly persecuted and treated with a kind of zero tolerance, with a very thin border to eradicate by force. As the new ideas of the church itself (Hans Kung), left-wing ideas (liberation theology), as well as Communists, homosexuals.
4) The behavior in the pontificate of John Paul II Do not mean a reversal of the Second Vatican Council? Where they argued that the church and its domes are imbued with the reality that involved living in these times. Was not it a mass pontificate without ideas, that will bring growth of the church in faith and hope?
5) Did not Pope John Paul II policy support end of the Cold War or even logistical and economic development in the fall of socialist states, which later evolved into a tit for tat and growth of mafias?.
6) Is not he a blind eye can do more than lukewarm critical to wildlife actions like the war in Serbia, etc attacks against Muslim countries.?
I do not think that Pope John Paul II is a model of holiness. His behavior sponsored persecution and intolerance. Too much "media" asked to build an image of "good father" but better a stern father to protect their children to a "soft" to allow the violation of their children. John Paul II was not a holy man was a statesman, perhaps charismatic but nothing more.
I think more than ever, humanity needs the smile of God, but I also believe that the church should never have removed the "devil's advocate."
The figure of the devil's advocate as "questioning" of the sanctity of the "new saints" should be fundamental. But has ceased to be, but we all know is different, the leadership and bureaucracy to the parish church and the people forming a church. Like many facts of everyday life the establishment of a "processed" or "law" does not solve the compliance or need and less convinced of the rightness of his background.
could make a thorough analysis of each of the decisions that have led to the altar many questionable figures of recent times. But why do it? It really is a debate that generates fertility. Not in all cases, even creates barren land in the vast majority, as radical and makes ideas contrary to the most radicalization are accepted excuse or chase.
But in the case of Karol Wojtyla, is my view point to be discussed at least in the people of the church but "the leadership" has already presented as a fait accompli.
The reasons are many and only set out the most obvious.
is the historical predecessor, administrative and ideological current state of things both in the Catholic religion, "official" as in many Western countries influenced by the same religion. Even Wojtyla's successor whoever he authorizes the title of "holiness" is not an accolade given to other himself, being a minister Ratzinger critical in this administration?
There is a lack of administrative crisis of vocations, credibility, support theological belief masses and even questioning the moral authority of the priesthood that extends to the papacy, because of the actions that began and reached its climax in the reign John Paul II.
I do not have the resources that would have a devil's advocate, but there are many questions to answer to the impending canonization of John Paul II, will try to explain briefly some of them.
1) Is not considered a sin of omission, which in their eyes is to develop a network pedophile?. "And even the support of dioceses such as Chicago or Los Angeles. O the founder of the association of "the Legionaries of Christ"?. How many of the times I came to Mexico came to settle financial matters with Maciel?
2) Is it not the responsibility of the figure of the successor of Peter to "order in the churches" that have been linked to money laundering, drug trafficking and other scandals. In the mouth of his own bishops?.
3) is different from tolerance to acceptance, nobody calls the Catholic Church "accepted" behaviors, which are not raised under the microscope of history and theological serious analysis. But does that is different from persecution?. Some ideas and behaviors were openly persecuted and treated with a kind of zero tolerance, with a very thin border to eradicate by force. As the new ideas of the church itself (Hans Kung), left-wing ideas (liberation theology), as well as Communists, homosexuals.
4) The behavior in the pontificate of John Paul II Do not mean a reversal of the Second Vatican Council? Where they argued that the church and its domes are imbued with the reality that involved living in these times. Was not it a mass pontificate without ideas, that will bring growth of the church in faith and hope?
5) Did not Pope John Paul II policy support end of the Cold War or even logistical and economic development in the fall of socialist states, which later evolved into a tit for tat and growth of mafias?.
6) Is not he a blind eye can do more than lukewarm critical to wildlife actions like the war in Serbia, etc attacks against Muslim countries.?
I do not think that Pope John Paul II is a model of holiness. His behavior sponsored persecution and intolerance. Too much "media" asked to build an image of "good father" but better a stern father to protect their children to a "soft" to allow the violation of their children. John Paul II was not a holy man was a statesman, perhaps charismatic but nothing more.
I think more than ever, humanity needs the smile of God, but I also believe that the church should never have removed the "devil's advocate."
0 comments:
Post a Comment