Should John Paul II be made a Saint? I saw this poll recently on a news site, and though it would be a good "reasonable" debate for our forums. What say you members of Gamecomplex? (please, if you vote in the poll, please explain why with a post)
You can't just make someone a saint because they're well liked or had a big influence according to a lot of people. It doesn't work like that. In order to be a saint, you have to perform at least one physical miracle, last I heard. I have no evidence that the pope has done such, so I don't know.
Personally, I dont know. He was the most "travelled" Pope ever, among other things, helped bring an end to "major" communism in Russia. BUT, hes also had some controversial stuff happen in his his Papacy (cant pull the details off the top of my head, besides the whole "molestation" thing) I dont have a problem with it if he is made one, but I dont think I could put a yes vote behind it
I don't, because it's two miracles that need to have happened for him to become a saint. Saint John Paul? Sounds good to me.
In official Church procedures there are three steps to sainthood: one becomes Venerable, Blessed and then a Saint. Venerable is the title given to a deceased person recognized as having lived heroic virtues. To be recognized as a blessed, and therefore beatified, in addition to personal attributes of charity and heroic virtue, one miracle, acquired through the individual's intercession, is required. Canonization requires two, though a Pope may waive these requirements. Martyrdom does not usually require a miracle. http://www.catholic-pages.com/saints/explained.asp So I would vote "no."
Ahhh... but you forget my son that us Catholics like to harp on all the pointless shit.... we can't get enough of it! It's litterally ALL about the ceremony, ritual, and sacraments... that's what keeps our blood pumping and the followers not thinking!
