This morning I read Phil Lawler's article in the March issue of Catholic World Report titled
God's Man, about the upcoing beatification of Pope John Paul II. It isn't currently on-line so if you want to read it you'll have to buy or beg a copy. Lawler is always worth reading and he supports the process and the decision. He wound up his analysis by saying critics are either conspiracy theorists or disbelieve in miracles. That, I think, is simplistic, and I cannot agree.
On the other side of the beatification debate comes
an article from The Remnant expressing concerns and disagreement with the beatification. They make a number of salient points.
I know, I know...some of you are rolling your eyes. But there certainly are some issues that can lead one to be....mmmm....uneasy? about the haste to raise John Paul to the honors of the altar ahead of so many other worthy popes. I suggest you read The Remnant article - after all, there's a devil's advocate in the canonization process for a reason.
These are my own concerns:
1) Pope John Paul II was charismatic, warm, and charming. But there was an element of American Idol hooplah accompanying his globe-trotting and crowd-pleasing events. Dare I call it theatrical? The media often spoke about his rock-star appeal. Is that what was illustrated by the chant of "Santo subito!" rather than the sensus fidelium? How many of those calling for instant sainthood accept the fullness of Catholic doctrine? In the U.S. ninety percent reject Church teaching on contraception. 70% disbelieve in the Real Presence. What does "Santo subito!" mean coming from modern Catholics? Was this, I ask again, the sensus fidelium of the Catholic people or the equivalent of American Idol's vote?
2) John Paul II definitely won the popularity contest over other popes like Pius XII and Leo XIII, but the devastation to the faith during his 26 year reign doesn't reflect well on his governance. Ah, but it's not about his governance, they say, but his personal holiness. That seems specious to me, as if a dad can let his children run amuck, and even provide assistance for their misdeeds, while being personally pious and holy. He had some good advisors like Fr. John Hardon, S.J. That didn't prevent him from giving some of the worst clerical dissenters in the U.S. mitres and red hats.
3) But there's a miracle, you say. Yes, and, according to the remnant article, the miracle is less explicit than those for previously beatified popes. I also read an article that other cures submitted, cancer for example, were not used because they require a longer wait time to make sure the disease hasn't just gone into remission. But could that not also be the case with Sister's Parkinsons? One doctor suggested that it could be another neurological condition that sometimes goes into sudden remission. It will be interesting to see if Sister's cure persists.
3) The pope's cause was introduced under the relaxed standards the pope put in place himself. Isn't that a conflict of interest?
4) Why the hurry? Despite the assurances that nothing is different about the rigorous investigation, one wonders why there was such haste and rush to judgment. It all seems so... politically correct. Meanwhile, the cause for Pope Pius XII lies dormant despite what appears to be Pope John Paul II's own witness to his predecessor' sanctity.
See here...
There are certainly things I admired about Pope John Paul: his love for Our Lady and the rosary, his wonderful pronouncements on life, his contageous smile, the way he kissed the earth when he arrived in a place, his obvious love for children, his devotion to St. Faustina and Divine Mercy. When he came to Washington and Baltimore we took our family to see him. We went out to Andrews airport for his farewell where we climbed a tree like Zaccheus to catch a glimpse of him on the tarmac and climbing the stairs to board the plane. Nevertheless, a slower process would have better served all of the faithful which includes those of us who are fighting the dismal results of John Paul's reign.
For those who want to accuse me of lacking fidelity to the Church for daring to raise these questions, I can only say, nonsense... it's not an ifallible teaching. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia most theologians believe that canonization is covered by the protection of infallibility. Beatification is not. Those who wish to venerate and pray to Pope John Paul II have the freedom to do so. Those of us who are less enthusiastic over the results of his pontificate have the option to pray
for him instead. I wonder which he would prefer.
