# Why Pope John Paul II's canonization has been speeded up
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 4, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845 "2005-06-04T05:35:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 18
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/21 "2005-06-08T15:24:43Z")
Probably for the same reason the Baseball Hall of Fame has one - to get past transitory emotions that could cloud the judgment of the decisionmakers, allowing more objectivity into it. But the waiting period can’t be too long, or memories fade.
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/22 "2005-06-08T15:25:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Well, I’ll take a shot at it:
>
> What is the purpose of the five-year waiting period?
So that the heat of the popular passions of the moment does not control. Kinda like the Senate.
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/23 "2005-06-08T15:25:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Well, I’ll take a shot at it:
>
> What is the purpose of the five-year waiting period?
“To allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment dissipate”
---
### Author:  [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/24 "2005-06-08T15:36:43Z")
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> Ratzi wants it done before a subsequent pope whose personal beliefs are a bit less in lockstep with his can say, “Gee, a lot of folks admired him and he had some good qualities, but a saint? I don’t think so.”
Except that a subsequent pope with a more liberal agenda would probably be at least as likely to support John Paul II’s canonization. It’s exactly the sort of thing an astute ‘liberal’ pope might do to reassure potential conservative opponents, not least because it’s a decision that won’t make any practical difference to papal policy on other matters.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 8, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/25 "2005-06-08T16:05:08Z")
Interesting point, but since I’ve already declared myself correct and, because the fifty-some hours in which you or anybody else did not post your disagreement means that there is a tradition of general acceptance that I was right, I’m invoking Poster Infallibility retroactively.
---
### Author:  [@Studs\_Murphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Studs_Murphy)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/26 "2005-06-14T02:46:28Z")
Dropzone, why did you use the name, “Ratzi”, after an objection? Were you hoping to offend and thereby provoke some reaction? Perhaps some day you will seek to provoke a positive response.
As for anyone who thinks that observing a five-year waiting period would see a more “liberal” Pope, well, that would seem to reply on a Papal conclave that bears no resemblance to the one in existence today.
I make no apology for admiring His Holiness Pope John Paul II and considering him to be the most outstanding individual of my lifetime. It also seems clear to me - as one humble Catholic - that the case for his sainthood is even more extraordinary than that of the Blessed Mother Theresa, who I also believe is a saint awaiting recognition.
As for a special case, I suspect that Sister Jacinta will also be recognised as a saint without the need to observe a five-year waiting period - and would be considered by many to be a living saint.
---
### Author:  [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/27 "2005-06-14T03:18:42Z")
> [@Studs Murphy](#):
>
> As for anyone who thinks that observing a five-year waiting period would see a more “liberal” Pope, well, that would seem to reply on a Papal conclave that bears no resemblance to the one in existence today.
Nobody has suggested waiting five years before electing a new Pope.
> [@](#):
>
> I make no apology for admiring His Holiness Pope John Paul II and considering him to be the most outstanding individual of my lifetime. It also seems clear to me - as one humble Catholic - that the case for his sainthood is even more extraordinary than that of the Blessed Mother Theresa, who I also believe is a saint awaiting recognition.
We’ve had a thread on her.
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318375&](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318375&)
> [@](#):
>
> As for a special case, I suspect that Sister Jacinta will also be recognised as a saint without the need to observe a five-year waiting period - and would be considered by many to be a living saint.
Why is there no need for a five year waiting period? What doctrine or law allows instant canonization? If the Pope can simply ignore procedure and canonize whoever he wants, what other doctrine and laws can he ignore because he feels like it?
---
### Author:  [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2005, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/28 "2005-06-14T07:22:00Z")
> [@Reeder](#):
>
> King James version…
> II Corinthians 5:10
>
> For we must **all** appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Not sure your interpretation of that line, but I see nothing of Judgement Day there. Just to give the correct line as it appears in The New American Catholic Bible : “For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.”
Sounds alike, but just curious why you not only offer an interpretation of it for Catholics to follow, but you use the King James version to offer the quote.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2005, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/29 "2005-06-14T11:51:22Z")
> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> Why is there no need for a five year waiting period? What doctrine or law allows instant canonization? If the Pope can simply ignore procedure and canonize whoever he wants, what other doctrine and laws can he ignore because he feels like it?
In one sense… he may ignore all canon laws.
The Pope is the source of all legislative, executive, and judicial power in the Church. The canon law exists because a Pope has promulgated it, and it specifically says that the Pope exercise immediate, full, and universal power in this regard.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2005, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/30 "2005-06-14T13:49:54Z")
> [@Studs Murphy](#):
>
> Dropzone, why did you use the name, “Ratzi”, after an objection?
I use “Ratzi” because the cute li’l nickname I had for him before, “Ratzo,” never caught on but “Ratzi,” created by somebody else, did and the name “Benny16,” while perfectly adorable, does not quite convey the same feeling of contempt I wanted in that post.
> [@](#):
>
> Were you hoping to offend and thereby provoke some reaction?
Heavens, no! Why, that would be trolling and we all know that’s against the rules here. :eek: I was merely hoping to offend without regard to reaction, as he offends me and other former Catholics pushed away from the Church by his predecessor, the one whom you find so “saintly.” John XXIII for sainthood? I can accept that. John Paul II for sainthood? No way.
> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps some day you will seek to provoke a positive response.
I’ve given up on that. Ask anyone here; the best I can manage is a neutral response. :rolleyes:
> [@](#):
>
> As for anyone who thinks that observing a five-year waiting period would see a more “liberal” Pope, well, that would seem to reply on a Papal conclave that bears no resemblance to the one in existence today.
A guy can hope for divine intercession, though. A little bit of, “What the hell were we thinking?” would be nice, though I agree unlikely.
---
### Author:  [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/31 "2005-06-15T16:05:37Z")
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> I use “Ratzi” because the cute li’l nickname I had for him before, “Ratzo,” never caught on but “Ratzi,” created by somebody else, \
I would like to state the obvious, and point out that in addition to these reasons, “Ratzi” is a perfectly legitimate shorting of his first name. **Ratzi** -inger, you see?
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/32 "2005-06-15T16:27:29Z")
Yeah, but it wouldn’t be as fun without the rat connection in English. Since “Ratzinger” just means “a person from the town of Ratzing,” “Ratzi” loses a lot of its offensiveness in German.
---
### Author:  [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/33 "2005-06-16T00:34:31Z")
> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> Why is there no need for a five year waiting period? What doctrine or law allows instant canonization?
Actually, the waiver of the waiting period to **start** the beatification **process** can be seen as a way to please the “Santo Subito” faction _without_ actually going for “instant canonization”.
Y’know what would be interesting would be to find out what is the record modern-times (say, post-Pius IX) quickest runs from dead to canonized (with AND without the waiting period) and from proceedings-opened to fully canonized. That would give uys some sense for what we should be looking at.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/34 "2005-06-16T15:20:57Z")
St Anthony of Padua holds the record at 352 days, but that was in the 13th century when things were mighty slack. Standards have improved, though, and St Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, founder of Opus Dei, holds the modern record with a thoroughly unimpressive 27 years.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/35 "2005-06-16T15:22:46Z")
Dammit! That was a chance to use the “but that was in the days before the lively ball” asterisk and I missed it!
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [June 16, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/36 "2005-06-16T16:04:38Z")
Meanwhile, on the saint front, the Pope is slowing down Leon Dehon’s canonization.
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061502305.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061502305.html)
Dehon was a French priest, who founded the “Priests of the Sacred Heart” religious order, and who was beatified in 1997. In February of this year, historians found some pretty anti-semitic writings of his.
---
### Author:  [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/37 "2005-06-18T02:55:16Z")
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> Standards have improved, though, and St Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, founder of Opus Dei, holds the modern record with a thoroughly unimpressive 27 years.
Which, IIRC, itself owed a lot of favor to JP2’s intense personal interest in exalting champions of the conservative wing. THAT was one controversial candidate (AND since his work has inspired parts of Dan Brown’s writings, he is also indirectly a sourge upon good literature) OK, so unless Benny-16 really cranks up the heat and breathes heavily down the Congregation’s necks to be loose about verifying miracles, AND lives longer than expected, the money is on his not being able to see it all the way through…
---
### Author:  [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845/38 "2005-06-18T03:21:03Z")
> [@Reeder](#):
>
> King James version…
That’s the answer I expected.
See…the take of the catholic church on this topic is based on a book that got dropped by the protestants.
Besides, your quote, as mentionned by other posters, doesn’t say anything about when people will find themselves in front of the judgement seat.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-pope-john-paul-iis-canonization-has-been-speeded-up/306845.md?page=1)