By now, many of may have heard about those protesting the beatification of Pope John Paul II. There are signatories to a letter “A Statement of Reservations Concerning the Impending Beatification of Pope John Paul II.”
The impending beatification of Pope John Paul II on May 1, 2011 has aroused serious concern among not a few Catholics around the world, who are concerned about the condition of the Church and the scandals that have afflicted her in recent years—scandals that prompted the future Benedict XVI to exclaim on Good Friday 2005: “How much filth there is in the Church, even among those who, in the priesthood, should belong entirely to Him.” We give voice to our own concern in this public way in keeping with the law of the Church, which provides:
In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, the Christian faithful have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence towards their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons. [CIC (1983), Can. 212, § 3.]
We are compelled by what we believe in conscience to be the common good of the Church to express our reservations concerning this beatification. We do so on the following grounds, among others that could be brought forth.
The Real Question
We stress at the outset that we do not present these considerations as an argument against the personal piety or integrity of John Paul II, which ought to be presumed. The question is not personal piety or integrity as such, but rather whether there is, objectively speaking, a basis for the claim that John Paul exhibited such heroic virtue in the exercise of his exalted office as Pope that he should be placed immediately on the road to sainthood as a Pope to be emulated by all his successors…
A few points. First, I am on record questioning the speed at which the process for beatification and eventual canonization is moving. Jimmy Akin countered that it is really not all that fast. But he also made a great point with which I agree wholeheartedly:
On the other hand, precisely because they are such high-profile figures, to canonize them prematurely entails the greatest risks. It’s not like scandalizing a local area by promoting to the altars a local person who set a bad example. It would scandalize the entire world for a pope to be canonized and then have problems emerge. If there are charges that need to be dealt with, either well-founded ones or entirely bogus ones, they need to be dealt with up front.
One of the reasons that I prefer a slower pace, and that is all it is–a preference, is that time is insulation against such things. I still believe that a slower pace is preferable for a number of reasons, but I will not quote myself here. But this is a a judgment call.
Judgment calls.
That is what this beatification protest is really all about. Some people do not like some of the judgment calls that the Pope made during his pontificate. I suppose you can count me among them. But that is where my agreement ends.
The statement states “We stress at the outset that we do not present these considerations as an argument against the personal piety or integrity of John Paul II.”
Well. That’s it now. Discussion over. You either trust the infallible Church in this matter or you don’t. We are entitled to disagree about process and timing, and I do, but the occasional bad judgement call in a sea of good ones in no way diminishes heroic virtue.
I suggest that this statement may be a bad judgement call on the part of the signatories, but I am sure that some are very holy. We all make bad calls from time to time, or some might judge them that way. God may judge them differently. That Judas as Apostle thing might have seemed like a bad call to many, but it wasn’t.
I do not suggest that somehow the Assisi conference or kissing the Koran are somehow misunderstood. Those definitely seem like bad calls on the part of the Pope. But when they beatify Pope John Paul II, they will be the bad calls of the very holy Blessed Pope John Paul II.
His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Amato, Prefect of the Congregation of the Causes of Saints said “Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact on history or on the Catholic Church, but because of the way he lived the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love.” Amen.
Since baseball season has just started, let me indulge a baseball metaphor. There is not a man in the baseball hall of fame who hasn’t struck out from time to time.
Pope John Paul II may have struck out a few times, but he was as good as they get.
April 5, 2011 at 5:58 am
Bad calls? Imagine any Father or Doctor of the Church, any beloved saint of memory, any man, woman or child who died in witness to the creed of Christ's church, KISSING A KORAN. That's not a strike. That's putting an IED under the baseball field and blowing it up.
Game over.
April 5, 2011 at 10:45 am
As I see it, beatifications are nothing to do with the Church's infallibility, though canonisation is.
Therefore, every Catholic can legitimately disagree with a beatification, that to him has the same authority as a private revelation.
It is only when (and if) a person is canonised, that the decision binds all Catholics and can legitimately be seen as an expression of the Church infallibility.
The Catholic encyclopedia deals with this rather extensively. I have dealt with the matter here:
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/canonisation-beatification-and-papal-infallibility/
I fully agree with you and with Cardinal Amato, however, on how this beatification must be seen: as referred to the man, (emphatically) not the Pope.
Again, I have written about the matter here
http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/blessed-john-paul-ii-1-may-2011/
Mundabor
April 5, 2011 at 3:19 pm
The Lord Jesus let a weeping prostitute wash his feet and talked to a Samaritan woman. St. John Bosco would tip his hat to the devil himself – if the devil will let him snatch a soul from hell. St. Francis of Assisi kissed a leper. The Q'uran is pretty bad but perhaps the good Pope was thinking of saving all the Muslims who are coerced and imprisoned by this infernal cult so if he needed to smoke a turd, he would have done it too.
April 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Look, the ONLY thing that matters is this:
IS HE IN HEAVEN OR NOT?!
This is not a question of whether or not he made a mistake. It is simply a question of whether or not he is now in Heaven. If he is, then he is a saint already.
It is interesting to reflect upon how SLOWLY the Church and God often work. God calls upon a holy person to do something and then it takes their entire lifetime, or in the case of some (ex. St. Faustina), more than their earthly lifetimes to accomplish the goal. Then again, sometimes God moves quickly. It is not ours to understand.
Nevertheless, once the Church makes the call – that's it. Done deal. Keep in mind that there could be a very long lag between Beatification and Canonization. We don't know yet, do we?
This also depends upon the second miracle. (One for which I am personally praying.) If God allows for the second miracle…well then… what is left to say?
April 5, 2011 at 5:43 pm
On a personal level, our godson, John Paul will make his First Communion on the Feast of Divine Mercy, When JPII is Beatified. God is Good.
April 5, 2011 at 6:39 pm
I would like to point out to the writer of the article s well to all the readers of this blog that it was only a week ago today that the news reports claimed that the expected number of people coming was from 2.5 million to only 300.000 although the figures were from the numbers back in April 2005. I have seen on other blog sites that there just is not a whole lot of interest(even among the Poles)for the beatification. I have my own opinion but in the long run, enthusiasm of 2005 seems to have abated. The Royal Wedding is a case in point in that many British are not interested in it at all. Both are taking place at the same time May1
April 5, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Over the course of the last 2000 years, countless Christians have chosen torture and death rather than to honour a false god; yet JPII publically kissed the Koran, and allowed an idol to be placed on the altar. If he saw it as a bad call, then the least he could do, as Pope, would be a public renunciation of those acts; yet to my knowledge, nothing along those lines ever happened. This is not okay. His personal piety is, I think, inextricably connected to the fact that he was Pope; it was not enough, after extremely public actions that caused such widespread scandal, to have only a private repentance (if he did even that).
I know JPII did a lot of good things (his role in the fall of communism comes to mind), but I'm afraid this rushed beatification will do much more harm than good. A little distance and clarity over time would have been beneficial.
April 5, 2011 at 7:47 pm
It doesn't matter if it is Koran kissing, baby kissing or a– kissing. The only thing that matters is the question of whether or not he merited eternal life. That is not something that WE vote on.
Does anyone think they knew what was in his heart when he made that gesture better than God? (I presume that is was an effort to promote peace and cultural Muslims over the radical, deadly ones.)
Sure hope not – if anyone believes that they qualify as judge of what merits eternal life FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SOUL your pride gauge may need oil.
April 5, 2011 at 8:52 pm
You know, you're right. You've inspired me to kiss another man's wife today. But, in my heart… in my heart I am a fountain of unswerving loyalty and undying devotion. God sees that I'm cool on the inside. Pucker up, ladies!
April 5, 2011 at 11:56 pm
ridiculous.
April 6, 2011 at 1:12 am
"Look, the ONLY thing that matters is this:
IS HE IN HEAVEN OR NOT?!"
Franklin's got it exactly right. If the Church discerns that Venerable Pope John Paul II is in heaven, then he is a saint. God will have decided it for us.
April 6, 2011 at 3:05 am
Even if someone is in heaven, it does not mean that everything he did was right. The only reason why the spirit of Vatican 2 and the Popes therein was amicable is because it was pastoral in its approach. It looked at Muslims as future Catholics. But I will post Papal Proclamations about Islam that shows how wrong, evil, and vile this cult is. And those Popes were not wrong. Even our Pope Benedict has hinted that Mohammed is an anti-Christ. He has also condemned their blasphemy laws. cfr. http://divine-ripples.blogspot.com/2011/03/pope-identifies-antichrist-as-one-who.html
April 6, 2011 at 4:44 am
"IS HE IN HEAVEN OR NOT?!" is most certainly NOT the ONLY thing that matters. One does not need a canonization ceremony to get there. The question is should he be set up as an example to the entire Church and world of how a pope should act. He could very well be a saint right now; do we need to have it infallibly determined through the process of canonization? Canonization is an infallible declaration. That he should be canonized is a prudential judgment. His public kissing of the Koran, the idolatry and desecration of an altar at Assisi are not small slip ups. Pope Benedict criticized his actions at the time. Was there ever any public apology for these acts? No. He apologized to Jews, Protestants and everyone else for stuff he didn't even do. Why not set the record straight for the faithful? While numerous saints have made mistakes, this is beyond the pale. When Dominus Jesus was released, the whole 'ecumenical' world threw a hissy fit. Why? Was it because the pope had not been making this absolutely clear all along? Really, Dominus Jesus should have not come as a shock to ANYONE. Finally, the personality cult surrounding John Paul "the Great" (I MEAN REALLY, REAAAALY? ALA LEO MAGNUS AND SAINT GREGORY? I think not) should not blind people to the serious questions regarding whether his example should be set up for imitation by the faithful, which is why he would be canonized, NOT because he went straight to heaven and bypassed Purgatory. That's simply the absolute minimum requirement. All I need to see now is holy cards with a picture of him kissing the koran! I cannot see how one can make a sharp division between the pope's personal holiness and his exercise of the papal office. I think what Cardinal Amato must mean is that canonization should not be seen as an approval of everything he did as pope. The prudential judgment here, however, has to do with whether or not people will be able to make that distinction. One has to ask, how could such a holy man do something so scandalous? Allow open idolatry and sacrilege to occur under his watch and stay silent? How does his example of piety and virtue hold up in comparison with St. Pius X? Pius XII? Blessed John XXIII? It is not wrong to ask these questions.
April 6, 2011 at 2:53 pm
@Anon: You bring up really EXCELLENT points! Very well stated.
The question does remain one of faith in the Church. If the Church Canonized him, then what happens to your views of these issues? Will you then have the ability to view them in a different light? Or will you be faced with having to believe that the Church has showed her fallibility somehow?
I think there are other ways of looking at his actions. Just to take one of the issues: My view is that kissing the Koran (a book of real evil) was certainly NOT idolatry. This is why I asked whether or not we know what was in his heart. I sure wouldn't have done it, but on the other hand, could it be possible that he was showing us how to love the sinner on a deeper level?
The Pope was certainly trying to do all he could to promote peace and, knowing that Muslims view the book as an extension of who they are, perhaps his intention was only to show respect to THEM.
How about we put it this way. What if JPII had developed a habit of slipping away from the Vatican and hanging out at the local brothels and crack houses? What if he ignored all the holy Catholic blogger types and spent his time instead talking with terrorists?
Didn't Jesus do much the same? He spent his time talking to Samaritans, prostitutes, thieves, ("tax collectors") and so on. Keep in mind that the Samaritans of the time were detested by the Jews as utterly vile people who has subverted, twisted and used the Jewish faith. This partially explains the reaction of the Jewish Hierarchy to Jesus. He was "hanging out" with the LOWEST of the low! I suspect he did this to teach us something. Maybe it has been lost.
So – as shocking as kissing the Koran was, I think it was merely a sign of respect for Muslim people. What did he do right before that and right after that? Did he ever say, "I believe in this book?" Heck no! And NO ONE could reasonably assume that he did. Did he or did he not preach the Gospel and the Truth of turning from sin and embracing Christ as Our Savior? So then, much as Jesus embraced people who were Evil, he spoke the truth to them before and afterwards as well. "Go thou, and sin no more."
Point: There is more than one legitimate way to view ALL of his actions and, in time, I expect that we may understand them all better. I think it can be argued that what we think is a "mistake" may not, in fact, have been a mistake at all. Or maybe they were, in fact, mistakes.
But, it is NOT for us to decide whether or not someone should be Canonized! Period!
How would you feel if he had murdered someone? I suppose this would rule out Canonization too? What if he had ordered a Catholic to be beaten or thrown in jail, etc.? Makes sense that he would not be much of an example for us, right? What about that guy Saul? Didn't he persecute Christians? Do we know that none of them we killed? But is he not a great saint? (Yes, yes, I know there are differences here, but the point remains.)
Finally: "open idolatry and sacrilege"? WHEW! Those are some VERY strong words, and they do not fit here. If a kiss was idolatry then Judas would have made Jesus himself an idolater!
Pope John Paul II, an human and imperfect person, surely a sinner, gave us a TREMENDOUS body of writings and example of how to live our faith. And there is no problem in having this debate. In fact, it may turn out though, that he is not even a saint!
But does it make sense to worry about such things? We must be prepared to allow the Church to decide, and we must be prepared to follow our Mother Church's guidance and that is the Truth and the will of God.
-end of commentary. God bless you all!
April 6, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Dear Franklin,
Good points. When I spoke of Idolatry I was speaking about of one of the nearby Catholic chapels at Assisi being offered for use by the people organizing the fiasco to Buddhist monks for their prayers. They proceeded to place a Buddah on top of the altar, in front of the tabernacle and pray before it to their false god(s). Idolatry and sacrilege. It's been photographed and published. However, your main point stands. It doesn't really help to think about these things.