The facts that have come to light should absolutely delay the current effort to canonize him.

 :roll-laugh1:

The facts that have come to light?  What about all the facts that were already sitting in plain sight?  

This cononization is just one more nail in the Conciliar coffin.

ColdFusion,

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but this story is from January of this year. In addition, the story you posted is not at all an accurate presentation of the 1997 letter.

The following commentary gives a clear explanation of what this letter did and did not say. There is nothing in this letter that should, in any way, prevent the Venerable John Paul II from proceeding towards Sainthood.

God Bless.

http://www.vaticanradio.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=455528

Vatican clarifies 1997 letter to Irish bishops

Concerning a 1997 letter from Archbishop Luciano Storero, Apostolic Nuncio, to Irish bishops (remarks by Fr. Lombardi)

In the course of a recent television programme in Ireland, mention was made of a letter written in 1997 by Archbishop Luciano Storero, then apostolic nuncio to Ireland, to members of the country's episcopal conference. That letter has been given biased treatment by some media outlets, who have presented it as proof of an instruction, from the Vatican, to cover up cases of sɛҳuąƖ abuse of minors.

The letter – written on the basis of indications received from the Congregation for the Clergy – concerns a docuмent produced by an advisory committee of the Irish bishops, highlighting certain problematic aspects therein and indicating the need for a deeper examination which also takes account of similar situations in other countries, and which had to be conducted through dialogue and collaboration with the episcopal conferences of the countries concerned.

In the first place, it must be noted that the letter does not in any way suggest that national laws must not be followed.

Furthermore, the letter rightly emphasises the importance of always respecting canonical legislation, precisely in order to ensure that guilty parties do not have justified grounds for an appeal and thus producing a result contrary to the one desired.

Finally, it must be stated that the letter was written prior to the norms of 2001 which unified responsibility in this field under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a move which has certainly led to clearer guidelines and more effective procedures.

Thomas Droleskey wrote a long article about the bishops or "bishops" appointed by John-Paul II.  I doubt there is any slander in the article, but I don't want to provide a link to the article without being sure or fact-checking some things myself, since a lot of it is about bishops "protecting" child-molesting priests ( something that is hard to prove, since it's a sin of omission rather than commission ).  

Nevertheless, many of these "bishops" became and perhaps already were open heretics, many later proved to be ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, and JPII is responsible for bringing them to power.  It's one thing to make some mistakes of judgment, but it would be asking too much to believe that someone could make this many "mistakes of judgment" innocently.  Satan himself could not have done a better job choosing "bishops."  

Not only did he appoint them, but once these men revealed what they were, John-Paul II of course did next to nothing.  Men like "Bishop" Thomas Gumbleton got away with absolute murder, and there was nary a peep from "Santo Subito" --

"During his time as bishop, Gumbleton wore a mitre at a church service on which were symbols of the cross, a rainbow and a pink triangle."

Wojtyla favored heretics and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, and there's no question about this.  

Unlike others, I don't worry about his "beatification" because I'm well-aware it's not real.  A fake church can't beatify anybody.  But also, beatifications are not infallible anyway, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia --

"To sum up, beatification, in the present discipline, differs from canonization in this: that the former implies (1) a locally restricted, not a universal, permission to venerate, which is (2) a mere permission, and no precept; while canonization implies a universal precept."

And --

"Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step."

 
Probably the strangest beatification in the history of the true Church is that of Raymond Lully the alchemist by Pius IX, a man whose "rational mysticism" was condemned by Pope Gregory XI -- according to one source, though I don't know if it's accurate, no less than two hundred errors of his were condemned by this Pope!  Apparently he did much good evangelization work among the Muslims, but I personally find him a troubling choice.  

Santo, look at my post above. How can you say that JPII deserves canonization when some of the things he did were just downright liberal and modernist?

See Nominalism at work.  

It has come to light, in the ongoing investigations and litigations of sɛҳuąƖ abuses by Irish clergy, that the Irish bishops took part in a cover-up of the abusers specifically because of instructions from the Vatican contained in a 1997 letter, made public this week.
The Pope in 1997 was the widely popular and beloved John Paul II, who is currently being fast-tracked by the current pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, for sainthood.

Some Catholics are calling for a halt to that process, at least until all the information is made public about what role John Paul II played, not only in the letter to the Irish clergy, but in other cover-ups of predatory priests around the world.

"It is clear to an objective bystander that John Paul II was the leader of the Vatican's cover-up of sɛҳuąƖ abuse by clergy," said Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org. "The facts that have come to light should absolutely delay the current effort to canonize him."



Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/103226/20110120/sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-pope-priests.htm#ixzz1KlnpAy7U

I'm in denial, praying for a miraculous, last-minute intervention.  It seemed so far off, and now the time is coming up so fast.

Quote

The facts that have come to light should absolutely delay the current effort to canonize him.

 :roll-laugh1:

The facts that have come to light?  What about all the facts that were already sitting in plain sight?  

You're right; it should all be obvious.  I thought that this particular aspect of his papacy is indefensible with any level of mental gymnastics.