BishopAccountability.org
	A Hero of History Is Beatified New Oxford Review May 10, 2011 http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0511-notes-hero The Catholic world has been abuzz since it was announced that, after a nun’s miraculous cure from Parkinson’s disease was attributed to his intercession, Pope John Paul II would be beatified on the first day of May of this year. To some, John Paul’s beatification couldn’t have come at a more opportune time. To others, it came too soon. And to yet others, it shouldn’t have come at all. Even in death, the man whose pontificate spanned twenty-six years remains a polarizing figure. When Karol Wojtyla, cardinal archbishop of Krakow, Poland, assumed the throne of Peter in 1978, he was, to the majority of the Church, an unknown quantity. Yet, by the end of his pontificate, he had assumed a larger-than-life public persona — and he came to symbolize, for many Catholics, all that was wrong with the Church. He was either a modernist or a reactionary pontiff, depending on whom you asked. To traditionalists he was a pope whose recklessness and novel ideas sped the Church along the road to ruin. To progressivists he was a pope whose closed-mindedness and fear of change prevented the birthing of a new Church in the spirit of Vatican II. Either way, he was the wrong man for the wrong time. Naturally, the news of his beatification has been accompanied by a good deal of grumbling in both the traditionalist and progressivist corners of the Church. Although their lists of objections are long and varied — as are their theological disagreements — both think more time ought to have been devoted to study and discernment before his beatification was finalized. Consider these two quotes: - “We…implore the Holy Father to defer the beatification of John Paul II to a time when the grounds for that solemn act may be assessed objectively and dispassionately in the light of history.” - “The least the Church could do…is to let the perspective of time decide whether or not canonization is in order.” These quotes could have come from the same pen. But no: The first is from Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, a traditionalist publication. The second is from Sr. Joan Chittister (often referred to as “Pope Joan”) of the progressivist National Catholic Reporter. Both are spokesmen for groups who see eye-to-eye on almost nothing — yet it’s uncanny how alike Matt and Chittister sound. Finally, something has united these two warring groups: their mutual contempt for John Paul II. Chalk up another miracle for the Pope! It doesn’t stretch the imagination to think that underlying their calls for delay is the fervent wish that John Paul’s cause, which can now proceed to the canonization phase, would be shelved indefinitely — and ultimately forgotten. It is true that for John Paul, who passed on to his eternal reward in 2005, Pope Benedict XVI waived the customary five-year waiting period after a person’s death before investigation into his cause can commence. And once the investigation got underway, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (CCS) elevated it to its top priority. And so John Paul’s beatification became the fastest in modern history — just beating out Mother Teresa’s in 2003. Many wonder if the CCS failed to apply due diligence and instead cut corners in its haste to get this done. In response to such speculation, Angelo Cardinal Amato, prefect of the CCS, in an interview with Inside the Vatican (Feb.), insisted that the CCS “followed the rules very strictly.” John Paul’s cause, he said, was “subject to particularly careful scrutiny, to remove any doubt…. There were no concessions given here in procedural severity and thoroughness.” Likewise the miracle attributed to John Paul. The sudden healing of a French nun, Sr. Marie Simon Pierre Normand, in 2007 from Parkinson’s disease — the same disease from which the Holy Father suffered — was subject to rigorous examination by medical experts, and was found to have no natural scientific explanation. Sr. Marie and the nuns of her order had been praying for the late pontiff’s intercession on her behalf. According to Cardinal Amato, the investigation into Sr. Marie Simon’s healing “was treated the same way as other cases. There was no qualitative difference.” Moreover, he explained, members of the CCS “do not influence the medical council’s decision in any way.” Cardinal Amato’s reassurances aren’t likely to satisfy those whose hearts are hardened against the beatification of the Holy Father, coming as they do from a man who admits that he was “convinced of [John Paul’s] sanctity before his beatification process started.” Apart from the obvious axe-grinding both traditionalists and progressivists are given over to, they do voice some objections that are worthy of consideration. The primary objection, shared by both groups, involves John Paul’s response to the clerical sex-abuse crisis that erupted in the U.S. in 2002 — the peculiar indifference he exhibited toward this festering, Church-wide problem and his apparent lack of concern for the victims. Troubling too was the favor he showed toward that whited sepulcher otherwise known as Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the scandal-wracked Legion of Christ, who turned out to be a megalomaniac and an international sexual predator. One explanation given for John Paul’s massive blind spot vis-a-vis clerical sex abuse was that, by the time the crisis erupted, his declining health prohibited him from responding in an immediate and effective way to what proved to be a vast structural problem. This theory fails to hold water given that he was able to rouse himself and those around him in a valiant, though fruitless, effort to prevent the impending U.S. military invasion of Iraq around the same time (as he had done prior to the 1991 Gulf War). His action and inaction on these two fronts offer a glimpse into his priorities, perhaps helping to explain his failure to respond to the sex-abuse crisis — though certainly not excusing his failure to do so. He was, after all, a man who had lived through the devastation of his homeland in World War II at the hands of the Nazis, and its subsequent decades of struggle under the thumb of com­munism — miseries visited upon a sovereign nation by foreign powers. A more likely explanation is that John Paul was simply unable to believe that men called to Christ’s holy priesthood could be capable of such demonic acts as sexual abuse of children. John Paul seemed more comfortable — and more driven — when responding to global political crises than to internal ecclesiastical crises. It is here, in the venue of international politics, that we can come to understand the historical significance of John Paul’s pontificate. It has been said that his presence on the world stage had a greater influence than that of any other person (or persons) in advancing the collapse of European communism. For this reason, in 2001 President George W. Bush lauded him as “a servant of God and a hero of history.” As such, it is no coincidence that John Paul’s beatification would be celebrated on May 1. As many commentators have observed, this is the date of Divine Mercy Sunday in 2011. John Paul officially sanctioned the Divine Mercy devotion and in 2000 declared that the Sunday after Easter would be recognized henceforth as Divine Mercy Sunday. But the date of his beatification carries an additional significance that should not go unnoticed: May 1 is also International Workers Day (known as May Day in the U.S.). May 1 was a state holiday in most communist countries, where it was marked by grand parades and celebrations. It was also invariably the date of pro-communist demonstrations in non-communist countries. So it is fitting that the raising to the altar of the man who was in large part responsible for the demise of European communism should take place on the very day that once served to commemorate the alleged “triumphs” of this nefarious political philosophy. At times during his pontificate, John Paul seemed omnipresent on the world stage; it was easy to get the impression that he relished his role as Christ’s diplomat to the world more than his role as pastor of the universal Church. Who can doubt that speaking before cheering crowds is more alluring than the thankless task of facing down Roman bureaucrats? But John Paul’s beatification shouldn’t be construed as a disingenuous, posthumous pat on the back for successfully discharging his administrative duties. Neither should it be seen as a belated thanks for his role in stemming communism. Rather, it is a recognition that, apart from his larger-than-life persona, and despite his evident failures and apparent transgressions, he was a man of profound faith, a heroic exemplar of the cardinal and theological virtues who responded positively to God’s grace in his life. That John Paul II continues to respond to the grace of God is evidenced by the miracle attributed to him — a miracle verified by the very authority of the Church. Needless to say, not every prudential judgment John Paul made was excellent — but this is not a requirement for beatification or even canonization. And while arguments can and should be made about his negligent handling of the clerical sex-abuse crisis and other sticky subjects — the 1986 Assisi gathering, his alleged kissing of the Koran, the altar-girl concession, uninspired episcopal appointments, etc. — these in no way detract from the question of his personal sanctity. In the final analysis, can any of the objections voiced against his beatification stand up to the proof that God Himself intervened in the temporal world in response to the heavenly intercession of Pope John Paul II? Who among us has the hubris to argue against miracles?
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.