Blessed are you: John Paul II
How do we honor a pope whose complexities are still fresh in our memory?
As Pope John Paul II is beatified May 1 before hundreds of thousands in St. Peter’s Square, many will be recounting what made his papacy memorable: the throngs of young Catholics he gathered at World Youth Day; his many world travels that promoted a more robust place for Catholicism on the world stage; his long yet courageous physical decline that encouraged many suffering with similarly debilitating illnesses. There was a reason so many gathered beneath his window in those last days, and why they chanted “Santo subito!” (“Sainthood now!”) at his funeral.
At the same time Karol Wojtyla was a man of contradictions. Though a great champion of the Solidarity labor movement in his native Poland, he was a harsh critic of Latin American liberation theology. He promoted a renewed, inculturated liturgy when he traveled, but under his reign a rollback of the liturgical reform gathered steam. He regularly gathered bishops for synods on various topics but profoundly curtailed the ability of national bishops’ conferences to teach on their own.
Pope John Paul II gathered many faiths at a groundbreaking event in Assisi in 1986, but his outreach to the world’s religions was profoundly compromised by a document issued in 2000, Dominus Iesus, which forcefully insisted on the necessity of Christ and of the Catholic Church for human salvation. A friend to the world’s young people, he was slow to respond to crimes against children committed by his fellow priests.
It is a reasonable question to ask which Pope John Paul II we are beatifying: the man who reached out to the world with open arms or the one who, aided by a reign that lasted nearly three decades, reversed the course of the post-Vatican II church in many ways. It is an especially important one to ask, as many see his beatification as an affirmation of his papal program as well.
Worth remembering, however, is that when the church canonizes or beatifies someone, we hold up a person, not a political program or particular vision of the church or the world. The calendar of saints is full of women and men just as complex as Karol Wojtyla. St. Jerome was notoriously unpleasant to be around. St. Augustine had personal hang-ups that shaped Christian theology for centuries. The visions of some saints would get them institutionalized today, and a few saints were so zealous for their approach to truth that they persecuted those who disagreed. Some were just plain wrong: Pope St. Pius X, remembered for lowering the age of first communion, waged a harsh campaign against theologians he termed “modernists,” most of whose positions were rehabilitated by the church only a few decades later.
Indeed, the church’s saints and blesseds—Pope John Paul II among them—are a reminder that holiness is not the same as perfection. It is not always a sure defense against egotism, nor is it a guarantee of moral or intellectual rectitude. Saints make mistakes, sometimes terrible ones, but we honor them because we also see in them a heroic response to God’s offer of grace, even if that grace did not overcome whatever fatal flaw every hero seems to have.
Yet in every hero there is also much to admire, and that is no less true of Blessed Karol. First among the virtues of the late pope was his courage: “Do not be afraid,” he preached at the beginning of his long papacy—and he wasn’t, crossing barriers popes hadn’t crossed before, passing the thresholds of synagogues and mosques, stepping over disputed borders in the Holy Land, and facing down the communist political system that shackled his beloved homeland.
Pope John Paul II’s meeting in 1983 with his would-be assassin, Mehmet Ali Agca, showed the world the healing power of reconciliation. He even dared to be playful when the time was right: Who can forget the image of a diminished John Paul II accepting with good humor the sunglasses offered by U2 front man Bono?
Karol Wojtyla wasn’t afraid of being a larger-than-life Catholic—a good trait for any pope. But it’s a good trait for any baptized person, too. May Blessed Pope John Paul II encourage us in our efforts.
By Bryan Cones, managing editor of U.S. Catholic. This article appeared in the May 2011 issue of U.S. Catholic magazine (Vol. 76, No. 5, page 8).
Question to Bryan (and others)
By The Eminem Fan (not verified) on Monday, May 9, 2011Thank you for making this point, with which I agree:
"Worth remembering, however, is that when the church canonizes or beatifies someone, we hold up a person, not a political program or particular vision of the church or the world."
But the following statement causes disturbance to my mind:
"The visions of some saints would get them institutionalized today, and a few saints were so zealous for their approach to truth that they persecuted those who disagreed. Some were just plain wrong: Pope St. Pius X, remembered for lowering the age of first communion, waged a harsh campaign against theologians he termed “modernists,” most of whose positions were rehabilitated by the church only a few decades later."
I definitely can allow the possibility of a saint being "just plain wrong" about something. And although I think there's a major confusion in the Church over what's infallible and what's not (extraordinary magisterium, ordinary magisterium, discipline, etc) that I hope will be clarified by a later Council... I suppose that maybe I could conceive of even a pope like Pius X being wrong on a particular point.
But here's my dilemma: Pope Pius X made all priests, religious superiors, and professors solemnly swear to an Oath against Modernism. This same oath remained in place under 4 subsequent popes as well. Here's the text of it:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
Given Our Lord's warnings against taking oaths and swearing (cf. Matthew 5:34), even if 5 popes in a row could be wrong, is it *really* possible that *all* of the clergy of the Catholic Church could *solemnly swear* to an *error*?
This truly is not meant as a trick question, but a legitimate concern.
On the other hand...
By The Eminem Fan (not verified) on Monday, May 9, 2011Bryan honorably states what appears to be the truth, a truth which many would try to step around today... namely, that the errors once severely condemned as Modernism were rehabilitated later.
Many at the Vatican II Council (and even prior to it) assented to those positions condemned by Pius X. Most churchmen today probably also hold to those same positions.
Perhaps there really have been "about-faces" in Church teaching over the years. But has it ever happened -- other than in this example -- that *all* Catholic clergy would have to solemnly swear to something... to later have the Church reverse that to which they were swearing to? To my knowledge, priests in the past never had to take a solemn oath in which they condemned making interest on loans, condemned the Divine Mercy devotion, or sanctioned burning at the stake. But with Modernism, it seems a totally different league that we're talking about.
Is it really far-fetched to question whether or not those who embrace Modernism now are of the same religion as those who condemned it previously?
Does anyone have an answer? Anybody???
By The Eminem Fan (not verified) on Wednesday, May 11, 2011If so, I'm open to hearing it.
If Pius X really was wrong about Modernism...
Then for decades, all Catholic clergy solemnly swore to an error (the oath against Modernism).
Is it really possible for all Catholic priests throughout the world to solemnly swear to something wrong?
Couldn't this be considered equivalent to the Church defecting from Christ's promise to protect it?
Email from reader Charles Bolser, C.S.V. of Chicago
By Megan Sweas on Thursday, May 5, 2011John Paul II loved to canonize–it seemed like a saint a week, most unknown to the people of God. The process has little to do with perfection–it includes warts and weaknesses. But we tend to make saints into plaster of paris images.
One major problem that I have with John Paul II and Benedict is what I perceive as a strong, shared commitment to turn the clock back to the pre-Vatican II church of my youth. Their perception of the church is the Constantinian model of the Empire and the later model of the Divine Right of Kings–the pope and cardinals as royalty. They presume that they are the church and the paramount role of everyone is obedience. The role of service and the sense of the faithful has been ignored. The Holy Spirit speaks through all of creation and humanity–not just the few. The bishops are powerless–except to pass judgment on those who speak without the permission. The priests and the laity are powerless–or have simply walked away.
We now bring back the Latin and forget that you cannot accurately translate one language to another without considering the cultural context. We forget that we are all blind and need that dynamic life-giving presence of God. When our theology is not understood with the Jewish context of the writers, but only within the Greek/Roman philosophical context adopted by the European church, then we somehow miss the mark.
John Paul II and the ineffective curial officials were also blind to the sexual abuse scandal and lacked accountability. At the same time, a bishop from Australia has been dismissed because he dared to question the refusal to even discuss the ordination of women. It is an amazing church, full of contradictions, weak and blind at the top, but strong in those who see with their hearts and minds together.
Others see it much differently–we all see what we want to see and very seldom what is.
Miracles are the test
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, May 4, 2011The Pope did many good and bad things in his life as we all do. John xx111 is a saint as far as I am concerned. I do not think that proven miracles should be the criteria for sainthood.
Why shouldn't proven
By Steve (not verified) on Wednesday, May 4, 2011miracles be required? They are proof from heaven, since miracles can only happen with God's permission. What would you require, otherwise?
After reading this and the
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, April 30, 2011After reading this and the other articles about JPII's beatification, I am wondering what the purpose of beatification and canonization is. Are we saying this person is perfect, or are we saying that he, or she, is an example of how to work toward perfection?
To me saints, and that includes the blessed, not yet canonized, are those whom we should look up to and seek to emulate.
This would then, make many wonder why we would want to emulate some of the saints. And I see this as telling us something about the person saying this and not the saint in question.
When I think of JPII I think of him and the youth, yet he has been criticized for not doing anything to stop the priest sex abuse scandal. By the time it got to him, it was too late to stop it; it had already happened. Yet, no matter what JPII did or did not do, should not diminish the impact he had on youth. I know of, and know personally, many young people who have become more fervent Catholics because of the outreach to youth by JPII.
Then we can talk about his forgiving his would-be assassin. What an example of the mercy Jesus calls for from us. And his example of suffering; what a powerful example to those who are suffering or whose loved ones are suffering.
No, he was not a perfect man, but then neither are any of us who criticize him. But he is an example of how a person can strive for perfection.
The Saints are not
By Augustin56 (not verified) on Saturday, April 30, 2011those who were "perfect," but those who lived a heroically spiritual life. John Paul II is a slam dunk in this area.
The Pope is not in a position to personally supervise all 500,000+ priests, or even all 5000+ bishops. It's physically impossible. He has an ad limina visit with each bishop about once every five years, where he sets out guidance, etc. Many bishops go and nod and say, "Yes, Holy Father. Yes, Holy Father." Then they go back to their diocese and do what they please. The problem wasn't the Pope, but the bishops who didn't handle these situations properly.
The Church is not like the U.S. government. It has no army or force of marshals to go arrest bishops or priests who break the rules.
Thank God
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, April 30, 2011"The Church is not like the U.S. government. It has no army or force of marshals to go arrest bishops or priests who break the rules."
Thank God those days are over with!
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.

