Is it just me wondering what this was all about? Seems not. Please ponder the following,,,,,,
The Sainthood Express Lane
Sunday, May 1, 2011, Karen Howe's, Eastern Rite
Pope John Paul "the Great" is being beatified.
Sunday, May 1, 2011, Karen Howe's, Eastern Rite
Pope John Paul "the Great" is being beatified.
A blog entry I wrote in 2008 regarding this farce says everything I'd still say today, so I'll reproduce it here:
According to Monsignor Slawomir Oder, it is "likely" that the late John Paul II will be beatified by the spring of 2009. Beatification is the first step in the process of officially declaring someone a saint, and Monsignor Oder (a Pole, surprise surprise) is the "postulator", or the person in charge of promoting the cause of the late pontiff.
In the case of John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI waived the rule that five years must pass after someone's death before the cause for sainthood can be taken up for him or her. In fact, the late pope was hardly in his tomb before the process was begun in May of 2005. Many Catholics were already howling for the mild-mannered former actor-turned-priest to be canonized. He's often touted by said Catholics as John Paul "the Great."
At this point, I'm going to ask: what did Pope John Paul II do that was so great? I'm not being sarcastic here, I really want to know.
There's a good reason to have the five year rule, and there was also good reason to have a "Devil's Advocate", who would bring up the reasons why a candidate for sainthood should be rejected (this position was likewise done away with-- by John Paul II, in 1983). The five year rule ensured that enough time would pass that canonization wouldn't be a hasty and purely emotional response (take note, all you "JP Two, We Love You" Catholics), while the Devil's Advocate ensured that candidates for sainthood were actually, well, saintly.
I'm not a canon lawyer, but I would like to bring up a few reasons why I believe John Paul "the Great" should not be canonized. I will play Devil's Advocate. While I won't deny that he did some good things, it is my belief that he also did a lot of damage. I also contend that he deserves little, if any, credit for much of the good work attributed to him.
Because I don't want this to turn into a book, I'm going to keep things fairly general, but give some specific examples.
#1. John Paul II is credited with doing things that he never really did.
For example, that he was involved with the Jewish Underground during World War II. This isn't really true... he was involved with people who were helping Jews escape, but he himself was busy with his seminary education. I guess you could call this credit by association?
In fact, while Poland was being invaded by the Nazis, and while Poles attempting to defend their homeland were being decimated, seminarian Wojtyla wrote a letter to a friend about how busy he was with his studies. This excerpt shows remarkable self-absorption in the face of his country's plight.
Then the pope, as Father Karol Wojtyla (he was ordained a priest in 1946), is also credited with being a tireless fighter of Communism. In fact, he never uttered a single word against Communism, in public or in private-- not even when his mentor, who did speak out against Communism-- was arrested. At this time, many priests were installed throughout Polish diocese as Communist spies. The fact that Father Wojtyla was monitored so closely and never got into any trouble is evidence that he never even criticized Communism, much less fought it. Not until he became Pope would he be forced to wag his finger at Marxists. In fact it was they who helped get him elected Pope.
#2. John Paul II turned a blind eye to corruption and suffering.
The day after John Paul I discovered dirty dealings going on in Vatican Bank and was going to launch an investigation, he just happened to die. John Paul II claimed he took the name of his predecessor because he planned to continue his policies, yet he put the kibosh on just about everything John Paul I had been planning to do-- including the investigation into the corruption in the Vatican Bank. Indeed, turning his head would be his standard response to pretty much all corruption in the Vatican.
John Paul II was also sometimes insensitive to the plight of persecuted Catholics. For example: in the early 80's, the government of El Salvador persecuted Catholic clergy and religious-- priests were being murdered and nuns raped. When priests there appealed to John Paul II for help, the pontiff suggested that they try dialoguing with the government (yeah, this would be the same government that was carrying out the above-mentioned atrocities). I mean, hello???
#3. John Paul II contributed to the growing confusion of the faithful.
While he preached faithfulness to the Church's teachings, he promoted religious relativism through his actions. Remember when he kissed the Qu'ran and allowed the Dalai Lama to "bless" him? He was obsessed with false ecumenism, and failed to censure proponents of modernism and heresy within the Church (though he didn't mind censuring Traditional-minded Catholics who followed Archbishop Lefebvre).
You can't pray with heretics and non-Christians and then wonder why documents affirming that the Catholic Church is the true Church are met with surprise and offense. That's what is known as a double message.
This is an extremely abbreviated list of reasons for Pope John Paul II not to be canonized, the first two of which can be delved into further in David Yallop's book The Power and the Glory: Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican. This is not a book that warm-n-fuzzy, novus ordo-loving, "John Paul the Great" Catholics will like, but truth is sometimes hard to face.
To be fair, he did have his good points; for example John Paul II was a strong promoter of the culture of life, and wouldn't even discuss women in the priesthood. John Paul I had apparently been considering relaxing the Church's position on artificial contraception in addition to cleaning up the Vatican. Maybe that was part of the reason why his papacy ended when it did; after all, the dogma of papal infallibility means that the Pope is prevented from formally teaching heresy in doctrine and morals.
I'm not trying to trash John Paul II here, but his faults as well as his virtues should be known. All of these Catholics who are yelling for him to be canonized are quite frankly doing so, I believe, for sentimental reasons: he was very charismatic. Let's, however, not confuse personal charisma and popularity with sanctity.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Editors Note; Thank you Karen for permission to repost your piece and will reiterate; I do indeed agree with each and every word. I am of the same thought as not in trashing his name and highly disagree on this "fast track" and also the abolition of the "Devils advocate".
To all those unaware of the 'Devils advocate' it simply means to just take the other side of a debate to see if it makes sense and in this scenario, in the eyes of God. To accomplish this you have to immerse your brain with the opposite view of you own. Once achieved you may still differ but all hearing you will have a very new perspective on the situation to be sure or what most would deem reality.
This has sadly been set aside in the Roman Catholic Church not on just this issue but in general, if they (the Vatican) brought back the 'Devils Advocate' on all issues confronting the world they would enjoy much more respect, that is if they actually discuss the issues.
I play the 'Devils Advocate' many times at work (and I use that phrase) as I deal with the membership of the UAW by making them think like the owners. When they put themselves into that view I am usually met with silence. As they say "silence is golden", this is not to suggest voicing one's opinion is bad but rather the one being silent is now thinking and that indeed is golden.
0 comments:
Post a Comment