Jump to content

Talk:Beatification of Pope John Paul II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyberbot II (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 26 January 2016 (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCatholicism C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconBeatification of Pope John Paul II is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Deletion

This article is exactly the same as what is in the article about the person himself. I would put the deletion template up if I knew how. Spartan S58 (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly the same. This article is a lot longer and contains more information and references than the corresponding section in the main Pope John Paul II article (which is supposed to be a summary of this page)
This daughter page was created, because the main article, Pope John Paul II, was getting very long.
The idea was to add any extra information to this page (in full) and keep a summary of this page in the corresponding section of the main article, keeping it short.
Regards Marek.69 talk 15:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Marek69. Keep it. User:doctorwho295 —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
could we at least delete the section about the DVD? It's completely irrelevant to the canonisation process 123.243.174.95 (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the Film and Museum sections. They don't mention his beatification or canonisation at all - I'll be bold andremove them. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to delete the section on titles. It has nothing directly to do with the beatification process and the titles are common to any modern day pope. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad, Unsourced Polemics

The following is wholly out of place with the rest of the article.

"Also, the Pope has been especially criticized (more than perhaps any other issue, including the bans on birth control and on women priests) for not recognizing the full severity of the sexual abuse crises until they erupted in America in 2002. This is related to the criticism he has faced because of the fact that he was Pope for many of the years that diocesan bishops- who all answered to him despite the fact that they are the heads of their regional churches- allowed those pedophile priest molesters to be transferred from parish to parish. The late Pope took a good degree of heat for not recognizing the dual life of the late Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder and then-head of the Legionairies of Christ, who had abused seminarians, among his other misdeeds. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, is having to deal with these issues and much remains to be done."

There's a complete disjoint in this paragraph, listing rambling, unsourced charges against John Paul the Great; does the sexual abuse crisis really affect the beatification bid, or is this wishful thinking from those who dislike his stance on abortion and sexuality?

I'd do it myself, but I don't have a Wikipedia login and don't care to create one for just one edit. That would look suspicious and would likely result in the changes getting undone. 67.181.184.247 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a whole article on Criticism of Pope John Paul II, with sources. It seems like it would be a good idea to summarize some of that material here, at least insofar as the sources explicitly comment on his canonization prospects. For example, here is a Newsweek article that explicitly discussion criticism of JP-II's rapid beatification in light of the emerging sexual-abuse scandals. I agree that the current one-paragraph summary in the article is inadequate, however, and is especially lacking citations. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Beatification

I notice that this follwing section was 'Blanked' fromt he main article I think it should still be there - though it could clearly do with tidying up and more references I am aware it is very likely to upset supporters of the beatification - but I think we need to bear in mind that the article is meant to be from a neutral point of view. EdwardLane (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Beatification

There has been criticism of the rapid beatification in light of the sexual abuse scandals[1] The Pope has been criticized (more than perhaps any other issue) for not recognizing the full severity of the Catholic sex abuse cases until they erupted in America in 2002. He has also been criticized for not recognizing the dual life of the late Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, and for allowing diocesan bishops to transfer pedophile priests from one parish to another instead of reporting their crimes to the authorities.

Two words: WP:BEBOLD! Though there is an article dedicated to the criticism of the pope, the news sources I've been reading have been mentioning criticism of the beatification itself due to the scandals. - Yk (talk | contrib) 14:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Yk being bold coming up.EdwardLane (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Marie Simon-Pierre

I just created an article describing Sister Marie Simon-Pierre and I've copied a bunch of text from this article. I think this article would be improved if I trimmed out most of that. I'm going to be bold and do it.EdwardLane (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some misrepresentation of Catholic teaching in the "criticism" section

The criticism section talks of "the Catholic Church who enjoin Christians to use all medical means to prolong life." However, this is not accurate. There is a distinction made between "ordinary" and "exstraordinary" means. In the October 2005 issue of This Rock, Fr. Frank Pavone explains that "Ordinary means include any treatment or procedure that provides some benefit to the patient without excessive burden or hardship. Ordinary means must always be used.... Extraordinary means are optional... The distinction here is not between "artificial" and "natural." Many artificial treatments are ordinary means in the moral sense, so long as they provide some benefit without excessive burden." I think it's unfair to say he may have violated Catholic Church teaching based on a misrepresentation of Church teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.239.9 (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Time magazine reported that "Catholics are enjoined to pursue all means to prolong life." [[1]] - and perhaps Time Magazine has misrepresented the Church teaching - but if you think that's the case, please add a line explaining that into the criticism section, and cite references. I can't say I know much about the euthanasia policy of the Catholic church, but I think Time magazine suggests that the Pope was complicit in chosing not to have a feeding tube inserted for several days, which it seems to me might have reasonably prolonged his life (indeed from that article '"The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary means of preserving life," said the Vatican ruling') EdwardLane (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beatification JPII.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Beatification JPII.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect of canonisation

This article is presently titled "Beatification and canonisation of Pope John Paul II", but it is only really concerned with his beatification. There is no indication of when and if he might later be canonised. What is the timetable? What are the necessary steps of the procedure which either have or are yet to be fulfilled? This information should be added, or the article renamed. Credulity (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Between WP:NOTCRYSTAL and the fact that the current article has no information about future canonization, the title should be changed. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Beatification of Pope John Paul II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Newsweek article criticizing the beatification
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beatification_of_Pope_John_Paul_II&oldid=701850887"