As part of its extensive one sided adulation of JPII's 20th anniversary, National Catholic Register printed this report which quoted extensively from Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the former secretary of JPII.
It failed to make it clear that Dziwisz was an utterly corrupt man whose actions cast another shadow over JPII's legacy.
Not only was Dziwisz involved in receiving corrupt payments from the appalling Marcial Maciel, abuser, embezzler and head of the Legionaries of Christ. Since his retirement as Archbishop of Krakow, Dziwisz has acquired a boyfriend and bought him an apartment. In his decades of working in close association with Dziwisz, did JPII never notice anything suspect about the guy?
There is loads more stuff that might make anyone have second thoughts about JPII. Like abolishing the Promoter of the Faith to enable mass production of saints. Kissing the Koran. Assisi 1986, though his defenders say he did not approve of some of the wackiest stuff which happened there.
Portions of this comment are deeply inappropriate for this website. You should remove the calumnies from your comment. The websites you provide as citations are blogs and are not citations as such.
This Newsweek article does not address the rumors you spread in your comment.
As to blogs not being references: they cannot be by their nature. They are not news sources and are not subject to libel laws. Anyone can write anything on their personal blog. By your logic anything anyone has ever written on the internet can be referenced as true by the mere fact that they wrote it down. This is a very silly way to view the internet.
Blogs are de facto alternative news sources, whether you like it or not. As for reliability, when I consider all the unbelievable drivel I have seen and read on the "respectable" media, from the Guardian to the BBC, I am happy to judge blogs on their credibility. Cardinal Diwicz and his multipurpose "protege" (driver, doorman, secretary, butler) Andrea Nardotto appear on various Polish social media pages holding hands, on the beach and at Nardotto's ordination as a deacon in April 2019. The various ribald comments include "Congratulations to the happy couple!" and "At least it is not a minor".
Blogs are not alternative news sources. You can decide for yourself whether or not a news organization is trustworthy. However, you should not repeat rumors on the internet without a source that has any kind of claim to credibility. The blog cites no sources so it cannot be used as a source. Think of it like Wikipedia if that helps you. May it be true? Yes. Is it true because I read it there? Not necessarily. Should I repeat it in public without another source? Only if I’m fine looking like a fool. Is it a sin to gossip about people and things I don’t know? That’s between you and your confessor.
I know nothing about the cardinal’s personal life so I won’t comment on it. Neither do you, so neither should you.
The Pillar should remove the offending portion of your comment.
Some of the best news sources I know are intelligent blogs. Again, you are free to judge whether a blog is credible or not. I first saw the story about Diwicz and his boyfriend, with an accompanying photograph, in a newspaper article which I cannot yet trace. It contained indignant comments from a Polish Catholic politician.
As for the Cardinal's private life, he inevitably becomes a valid topic for comment after serving as Cardinal of Krakow. As did the late Cardinal Keith O'Brien in Scotland.
Whether blogs are intelligent or provide reliable news is incidental. They cannot be news sources unless they provide their sources. They are sources of hearsay.
I am willing to accept that you read a Polish paper that stated what you say. However, because you cannot provide evidence of what you state as fact you shouldn’t repeat it. I do not disagree that the cardinal’s private life can be commented on merely that it is appropriate to do so without providing real sources. Without doing providing proof you are merely repeating rumors - particularly repellent ones. The catechism has something to say about that - it’s not positive.
Like it or not, blogs are part of the world wide news culture. Here is a list of British political blogs alone, any of which I would be happy to quote from.
Yes, many are hugely biased and arouse huge passions. Rather like religious writings of all kinds. If they quote from a politician's indiscreet conversation, with no written backup....well, that comes down to the credibility and veracity of the reporter, as all through history in all kinds of media.
Seeing that there are numerous Poles laughing their heads off at the Cardinal's lifestyle, I doubt that anything I say will have much effect on his reputation.
Load of calumny from a radtrad, seemingly. Accusations of homosexual activity are plainly difficult to prove. especially given the deliberate capture of many seminaries by perverts enabling corruption of these institutions. We live with the effects of this horror still. It is naive in the extreme to wrap yourself in the robes of a judge to blame St Pope John Paul 2 for failing to fix this problem. Let God deal with it as only He knows the full truth and extent of perhaps the worst wound suffered by Christ's Body on earth.
The canonization of any person is an infallible exercise of the Petrine ministry. Regardless of anyone’s opinion, God’s will was made known in the canonization of John Paul II.
It is not my understanding. It is magisterial teaching. If you do not wish to honor John Paul that is fine. However, no man’s opinion/understanding is greater than the infallible exercise of the Petrine ministry when a canonization occurs.
If you dispute the fact that a canonization is an infallible act of the Petrine ministry, then you are simply a cafeteria Catholic. We already have too many such people.
Almost 50 years of travel back and forth to rural Spain where now 20 or so octogenarians gather weekly for Mass celebrated by a young, heroic Colombian priest who holds together about 10 parishes makes me remember with longing the time of St. JP 2 having our backs.
The article brought tears. I am none too sanguine about the current hierarchy and the Socialist-communist machine. It is very hard to think the sainted pope still has our backs. My weakness no doubt.
“The abuse crisis is certainly a stain on his legacy. What’s your view?
He acted as best he could with the information he had.”
Did any of his hallmark writings or discourses in this stream address the issue as an abject violation of natural law?
As part of its extensive one sided adulation of JPII's 20th anniversary, National Catholic Register printed this report which quoted extensively from Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, the former secretary of JPII.
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-john-paul-ii-20-years-later-he-lives-in-hearts
It failed to make it clear that Dziwisz was an utterly corrupt man whose actions cast another shadow over JPII's legacy.
Not only was Dziwisz involved in receiving corrupt payments from the appalling Marcial Maciel, abuser, embezzler and head of the Legionaries of Christ. Since his retirement as Archbishop of Krakow, Dziwisz has acquired a boyfriend and bought him an apartment. In his decades of working in close association with Dziwisz, did JPII never notice anything suspect about the guy?
https://notesfrompoland.com/2020/11/10/polish-cardinal-and-former-papal-secretary-accused-of-ignoring-sex-abuse/
https://www.theeponymousflower.com/2024/12/popeski-secretary-living-with-boyfriend.html?m=1
There is loads more stuff that might make anyone have second thoughts about JPII. Like abolishing the Promoter of the Faith to enable mass production of saints. Kissing the Koran. Assisi 1986, though his defenders say he did not approve of some of the wackiest stuff which happened there.
Portions of this comment are deeply inappropriate for this website. You should remove the calumnies from your comment. The websites you provide as citations are blogs and are not citations as such.
Since when did blogs not count as references? Here is a Newsweek article - unless that does not count as a citation either.
https://www.newsweek.com/father-marcial-maciel-and-popes-he-stained-62811
This Newsweek article does not address the rumors you spread in your comment.
As to blogs not being references: they cannot be by their nature. They are not news sources and are not subject to libel laws. Anyone can write anything on their personal blog. By your logic anything anyone has ever written on the internet can be referenced as true by the mere fact that they wrote it down. This is a very silly way to view the internet.
Blogs are de facto alternative news sources, whether you like it or not. As for reliability, when I consider all the unbelievable drivel I have seen and read on the "respectable" media, from the Guardian to the BBC, I am happy to judge blogs on their credibility. Cardinal Diwicz and his multipurpose "protege" (driver, doorman, secretary, butler) Andrea Nardotto appear on various Polish social media pages holding hands, on the beach and at Nardotto's ordination as a deacon in April 2019. The various ribald comments include "Congratulations to the happy couple!" and "At least it is not a minor".
Blogs are not alternative news sources. You can decide for yourself whether or not a news organization is trustworthy. However, you should not repeat rumors on the internet without a source that has any kind of claim to credibility. The blog cites no sources so it cannot be used as a source. Think of it like Wikipedia if that helps you. May it be true? Yes. Is it true because I read it there? Not necessarily. Should I repeat it in public without another source? Only if I’m fine looking like a fool. Is it a sin to gossip about people and things I don’t know? That’s between you and your confessor.
I know nothing about the cardinal’s personal life so I won’t comment on it. Neither do you, so neither should you.
The Pillar should remove the offending portion of your comment.
Some of the best news sources I know are intelligent blogs. Again, you are free to judge whether a blog is credible or not. I first saw the story about Diwicz and his boyfriend, with an accompanying photograph, in a newspaper article which I cannot yet trace. It contained indignant comments from a Polish Catholic politician.
As for the Cardinal's private life, he inevitably becomes a valid topic for comment after serving as Cardinal of Krakow. As did the late Cardinal Keith O'Brien in Scotland.
Whether blogs are intelligent or provide reliable news is incidental. They cannot be news sources unless they provide their sources. They are sources of hearsay.
I am willing to accept that you read a Polish paper that stated what you say. However, because you cannot provide evidence of what you state as fact you shouldn’t repeat it. I do not disagree that the cardinal’s private life can be commented on merely that it is appropriate to do so without providing real sources. Without doing providing proof you are merely repeating rumors - particularly repellent ones. The catechism has something to say about that - it’s not positive.
Like it or not, blogs are part of the world wide news culture. Here is a list of British political blogs alone, any of which I would be happy to quote from.
https://feedly.com/i/top/uk-politics-blogs
Yes, many are hugely biased and arouse huge passions. Rather like religious writings of all kinds. If they quote from a politician's indiscreet conversation, with no written backup....well, that comes down to the credibility and veracity of the reporter, as all through history in all kinds of media.
Seeing that there are numerous Poles laughing their heads off at the Cardinal's lifestyle, I doubt that anything I say will have much effect on his reputation.
Load of calumny from a radtrad, seemingly. Accusations of homosexual activity are plainly difficult to prove. especially given the deliberate capture of many seminaries by perverts enabling corruption of these institutions. We live with the effects of this horror still. It is naive in the extreme to wrap yourself in the robes of a judge to blame St Pope John Paul 2 for failing to fix this problem. Let God deal with it as only He knows the full truth and extent of perhaps the worst wound suffered by Christ's Body on earth.
An extraordinary man and Pope but in my opinion not worthy of sainthood.
The canonization of any person is an infallible exercise of the Petrine ministry. Regardless of anyone’s opinion, God’s will was made known in the canonization of John Paul II.
That is your understanding.It is not mine
It is not my understanding. It is magisterial teaching. If you do not wish to honor John Paul that is fine. However, no man’s opinion/understanding is greater than the infallible exercise of the Petrine ministry when a canonization occurs.
Still not mine
Sir,
If you dispute the fact that a canonization is an infallible act of the Petrine ministry, then you are simply a cafeteria Catholic. We already have too many such people.
Seems like the Petrine ministry is not the only one infallible.
Almost 50 years of travel back and forth to rural Spain where now 20 or so octogenarians gather weekly for Mass celebrated by a young, heroic Colombian priest who holds together about 10 parishes makes me remember with longing the time of St. JP 2 having our backs.
The article brought tears. I am none too sanguine about the current hierarchy and the Socialist-communist machine. It is very hard to think the sainted pope still has our backs. My weakness no doubt.