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.
I thought that Lourdes disallowed any neurological disease cure because they change. It's a mind boggling to think that the Vatican is more relaxed about authenticating a miracle than the folks at Lourdes.
ReplyDeleteI too look askance upon all this "hurry up rush job" aura that the canonization process has assumed. What's the point of that?
ReplyDeleteI will pray for him.
ReplyDeleteIf you read this magazine online by Fr. Luigi Villa (commissioned by St Padre Pio to fight Freemasonry then you will know why JPII should NOT be beatified. I bought the magazine from Our Lady of Good Success website and it is shocking in detail and pictures.
ReplyDeletehttp://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Karol_Wojtyla_Beatified_.html
I do not know all the details about everything you mentioned in the articles, nor have I voted for or against Pope John Paul's canonization. Never-the-less, as it does seem that Pope John Paul did allow a woman to appear in her native costume, which seemed to be topless for that culture, I can think of another well known actor on the right, who says he is Catholic, but never-the-less appeared -- as one aquaintance said to me -- butt naked in a movie. Was Pope John Paul responsible for him, too, or was his bishop, who was reportedly schismatic at the time responsible? Before we go judging Pope John Paul too harshly, we should think about that one, and how much control does any parent have over their children, or those who have separated themselves from the Church, especially when they are adults. We do know that a privious Pope, Pope Paul, spoke out against the birthcontrol pill and all the immorality it would cause, and he was right, but many did not listen.
ReplyDeleteMary Ann, Pope John Paul II made some mistakes that I am sure he probably did penance for, and many of us have prayed for him after his death. Never-the-less, he had a big heart and truly loved much, including the man who shot him. As far as his "rock stardom", one of the young musicians he helped was a man born without arms or hands, Tony Melendez. Also, if the miracle credited to Pope Pius turns out to be true, it also shows the humility of John Paul pointing to another that he thought God wanted as the intercessor. I think perhaps you answered your own question about whether John Paul should be canonized when you mentioned how you and other family members climbed a tree to see him -- Zacchaeus like.
ReplyDeleteYour Latin tutor must be the Arlington priest I recently heard trying to "say mass" (the operative word being "trying") in Latin and was absolutely clueless about the language It's "sensus fidelium." Please don't tell me you "pray" in this language when you don't know simple vocabulary. Give us some real conservatives in the Church who know the Tradition and not people who hang the Christmas ornaments of faux Latin and chapel veils and "ad orientem" and think they are being faithful to the Faith of our Fathers.
ReplyDeleteGosh, Anonymous, thanks for picking up my typo. It'll be changed in a minute.
ReplyDeleteI noticed you left out a period, by the way. Guess you aren't perfect either. But I won't presume you don't know how to write an English sentence.
Mary Anne, I like your answer to anonymous at 10:58 PM. Next he will be picking on my misspelling of "previous" at 5:55 PM. I guess we ALL make mistakes, right along with Pope John Paul II and another well-known actor. Perhaps we should be a little more forgiving of one another.
ReplyDeleteIn my post of 5:55 PM., I was just trying to say that we cannot always judge by appearances alone. In some cultures a topless woman is the usual and just ignored. I do not know exactly what took place, or whether it was prudent of John Paul to allow such a woman in a procession, or whatever, if he did so. If he did, evidently he looked upon the issue as nothing different than a National Geography type of situation. Just as a man posing for the statue of David was not necessarily immoral, what bothers some people and some cultures does not necessarily bother others. There is a stature of Our Lady of Leche which some Americans might find slighty offensive while others would not. On the other hand, the picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe in a bikini that is supposedly in a museum in the United States is just plain offensive to all good and faithful Catholics. From what I have heard, it way over the line.
ReplyDeleteMary Ann, there are also websites that say it is slanderous when the SSPX websites write under a video that Pope John Paul II received the mark of Shiva on his forehead from a Hindu woman. They say the truth is that the Holy Father was receiving a tradtional East Indian blessing from a Catholic East Indian woman and not a Hindu woman at all. I believe them when they say she was Catholic and no paganism was involved. Some of these things are being passed around by anti-Catholic Protestants, too. We need to be careful what we write and get all the facts as many have tried and try to smear Pope John Paul II. Some Protestants have said he worships Satan merely because he has an upside down cross on one of his chairs. Although Satanists put the cross upside down, they do it to dishonor the Holy Cross, whereas John Paul's use of an upside down cross was in honor of St. Peter who was crucified upside down. Catholic tradition says St. Peter did not think he was worthy of being crucified rightside up like the Lord Jesus, so the upside down cross in papal use stands for St. Peter as the pope sits in the seat of St. Peter.
ReplyDeleteRegarding my last post, I believe the articles said that it is a typical East Indian greeting, which is a type of blessing, and the one giving it was a Catholic woman. Let us remember that there are only so many types of symbols and rituals in the world and often religions share them. We know that symbols such as the rainbow can be used properly (as a symbol of God's promise to Noah) or misused. Incense can be used properly by Christians although pagan religions use it too, so let us get all the facts before making our judgments, and then we will see clearly to make righteous ones.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't uspet at all by the photos of JPII and the native women. New Guinean women go topless unless they live in town and Bantu women are almost completely naked on a normal day. A naked tribal woman is merely unclothed. Nobody thought anything of it until Europeans came and told them it was bad. Lady Gaga rolling around nude in a video is trying to incite lust which is a whole 'nother thing. As for the Indian woman, maybe she was Catholic but the red dot blessing is Hindu. I don't fault JPII for that. Some Indian bishop or priest shoud've stepped in.
ReplyDeleteActually, the statue to which I should have referred is Our Lady of La Leche, not Our Lady of Leche. The websites about them are different.
ReplyDelete@Dymphna: The process at Lourdes is very restrictive. IIRC, they will not recognize anything that has also been treated by a doctor. The Vatican's methodology is still top notch, often employing non-believing scientists in double-blind tests to verify what has been seen.
ReplyDelete@Mary Ann: Your post reads as if the reign of John Paul II caused the problems, which is unfair in my opinion. From the outside, I would say there were things he could've done to stymie many of the problems but most of them were well underway before he took office. From my understanding, few people knew of John Paul II's administration of the church as well as his current successor. If he is willing to beatify him with what he knows, that is good enough for me.
Although some Catholics certainly have the right to play Devil's Advocate (a term used for those who might rightly criticize a canonization), I recommend everyone read the article by George Weigel on CNA called "Geoge Weigel slams critics of John Paul II's fast track to sainthood". I found it very interesting and informative.
ReplyDeleteI have felt that all the saints declared in my lifetime have been false or politically correct/ politically motivated--rush to create/declare saints from U.S. and other countries etc. That and rush to canonize Pope John Paul II makes me inclined to view sainthood as some kind of Catholic medal of honor or something conferred by men not God.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day
ReplyDeleteAh, the age old hypothetical question: "Is the Pope Catholic?"
ReplyDeleteI guess a lot of you reply: "Not Catholic enough."
"They say the truth is that the Holy Father was receiving a tradtional East Indian blessing from a Catholic East Indian woman and not a Hindu woman at all."
ReplyDelete"As for the Indian woman, maybe she was Catholic but the red dot blessing is Hindu. I don't fault JPII for that. Some Indian bishop or priest shoud've stepped in."
It wasn't a red-dot blessing or any kind of blessing, actually. All it was was a traditional Indian greeting called an "aarti," which is commonly given among Indian Catholics but really has no religious significance at all. Aarti is used to greet the main celebrant of a Mass or other liturgical function and also to greet a child after he returns home from his First Communion.
Dave, thank you for clearing that up for me. I was writing what I had seen on some websites from memory, and I believe you are right that it is not an actual blessing but a typical Indian greeting. Those of us who are of European descent need to realize that we, too, are often accused of paganism just for using the term Easter, and that we took some pagan ideas and Christianized them just as the Jewish people did for their religion. English-speaking people still use the pagan titles for the days of the week such as Monday-- Moon's Day; Tuesday -- Tyr's Day; Wednesday -- Woden's (Odin's) Day; Thusday -- Thor's Day, etc. Does that mean we Catholics worshp those gods. Of course not! Also, as far as the woman from New Guinea, all missionaries have had to be careful how they change things in a country that has not been Christian. It has to be gradual or one is apt to get shot with a poison arrow because one has insulted a tribal leader, etc. I have a medal of Fr. Serra, and although he is very well covered, the young Californian Native Indian next to him is only wearing a large loin cloth. I think the Californian tribes probably wore even less before the Spainards came because the climate was so hot for the most part. Their style of clothing was changed gradually. I orignally brought this up because I knew what was probably going to be mentioned next as this has been floating around the websites for a long time.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous of April 26 at 2:57 PM, what about St. Gianna Beretta Molla, a Catholic physician, wife and mother who spent her life helping others and who chose to die rather than abort her child? What about the parents of St. Therese of Lisieux? I think Pope John Paul II beatified or canonized many really great saints for our time.
ReplyDelete