The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionBeatification Q&A #5: Is it the pope or the papacy?
by John L Allen Jr on Apr. 28, 2011
ROME -- Whenever a pope is beatified or canonized, inevitably people wonder if the act amounts to an endorsement of his papacy. More cynically, there’s a tendency to suspect that what’s really going on is an effort to nail down a pope’s legacy – or, perhaps, to apply a sort of ex post facto spin to it.
When Pope John XXIII was beatified in 2000 alongside the 19th century Pope Pius IX, critics saw it as an attempt to domesticate the legacy of Pope John and, by extension, the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Likewise, the fact that John Paul II is being beatified so quickly has led to speculation that the act is a way of cementing his policies and whitewashing his record – especially given that the people in charge are mostly former John Paul aides and protégés.
Yesterday, for instance, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, the main advocacy group in the United States for victims of clerical abuse, issued a statement referring to the beatification as a “callous PR juggernaut.”
Politics can’t help but color the way people think about sainthood for popes. Liberals want to see John XXIII “fast-tracked,” while conservatives complain about a slow-down on the cause of Pius XII. In each case, the reactions often have more to do with what those papacies symbolize than with the pope himself.
So, here’s the question: Does the beatification of Pope John Paul II also imply a ratification of John Paul’s papacy?
Officially, the answer is “yes and no.” To qualify for sainthood, a pope needs to have been righteous while in office, but not necessarily right.
When Pius IX was beatified, for instance, officials stressed that it was not an endorsement of his stance on the “Roman question,” meaning his refusal to acknowledge the end of the papacy as a temporal monarchy, or his Jewish policy – which famously included herding the Jews of Rome back into their ghetto after a brief emancipation, and refusing to return a Jewish child to his parents after he had been secretly baptized.
At the time, Monsignor Carlos Liberati, the Vatican official responsible for the cause of Pius IX, insisted that one cannot judge Pius by the standards of today. In particular, Liberati said the beatification did not imply a rollback on subsequent improvements in Catholic/Jewish relations. Instead, it meant that Pius IX acted with integrity by the standards of his day – and that, not his concrete policy decisions, was the basis for the beatification.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
Certainly, no one ever suggested that a successful papacy is a requirement for sainthood.
Were that the standard, for instance, it would be hard to explain the canonization of Pope Celestine V, a pious Benedictine monk and ascetic elected to the papacy reluctantly in 1294. He resigned after just five months, citing “the deficiencies of his own physical strength, his ignorance, the perverseness of the people, [and] his longing for the tranquility of his former life.” Famously, Dante consigned Celestine to Hell for his “great refusal.”
Despite all that, Pope Celestive V was canonized in 1313.
At one level, therefore, the answer would be that John Paul’s beatification is not the same thing as declaring every element of his papacy beyond reproach.
Yet at the same time, the Vatican acknowledges that you can’t simply decouple a pope from his papacy. In fact, the official case for beatifying John Paul II leans heavily upon various aspects of his almost 27 years on the throne of Peter.
When a decree of beatification for John Paul II in January by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the text cited several elements of John Paul’s papacy as proof of his worthiness, beyond his prayerfulness and deep Marian spirituality:
• His “peace offensive” in an effort to head off the Iraq war
• His celebration of the Great Jubilee in 2000
• His attention to youth and sponsorship of World Youth Day
• His promotion of the Divine Mercy devotion of Polish St. Faustina Kowalska
In each case, however, the pitch wasn’t that these were necessarily the best policy choices available, and certainly not that they were all unqualified successes – after all, John Paul II did not stop the war in Iraq in 2003.
Instead, it was that John Paul’s motives reflected personal integrity and commendable aims. In the case of Iraq, for instance, the decree asserted that John Paul acted not only “in order to save people’s lives, but also to bring to a halt the growth of hatred and of the insane ideas about civilization clashes.”
Thus, in response to the question as to whether the beatification of a pope also implies the beatification of a papacy, the official answer is “it depends.” If one means that the pope did everything right, the answer is no; if it means that the pope acted on the basis of what the church traditionally calls “heroic virtue,” regardless of outcomes or even the practical wisdom of his judgment, then the answer is “yes.”
Bottom line: The papacy is obviously relevant, but what’s being beatified is nevertheless a man, not an administration.
Whether that answer will satisfy either the most ardent admirers of John Paul II, or his most determined critics, is of course another question.
More NCR coverage of the beatification of John Paul II
John L. Allen Jr.: Prelates defend John Paul II on abuse crisis
Maureen Fiedler: Beatifications and Politics
Michael Baxter: Biography of JPII raises questions about partiality
Michael Sean Winters: Weigel in JPII Heaven
John L. Allen Jr.: In death as in life, John Paul a sign of contradiction
Gerald Slevin John Paul beatification highlights dysfunctional monarchy
John Allen's Beatification Q&As
#1: What's the Rush?
#2: What’s the deal with miracles?
#3: Why make saints out of popes?
#4: What’s the Divine Mercy connection?
#5: Is it the pope or the papacy?
Dear John, The appropriate
Dear John,
The appropriate question is why make any pope a saint at least in his time. Why not wait a few hundred years. After all it took the Church 300 years to admit that the earth rotates around the sun. Time means very little when we think about the life of a Pope and eternity, yet when canonization is used for political motives, time may be of essence. For this reason why not wait at least 300 years before we even think of canonizing any Pope. Why subject the Church to such political matters. This may cause great scandal if more connections between Father Maciel and JP 2 are found or if there continue to be other connections between this Pope and enabling of pedophiles. It seems only prudent that the Church take more time. The RCC has a lot more to loose if more comes out about JP 2 to indicate that he understood much more about these scandals. We are living in a time when we get almost monthly bad news about further scandals. Is this Pope destined to be called John Paul the Great Enabler.
"Is this Pope destined to be
"Is this Pope destined to be called John Paul the Great Enabler?"
That question has essentially been answered in the affirmative:
http://www.thenation.com/article/160242/shame-john-paul-ii-how-sex-abuse...
JPII NOT RIGHTEOUS WHILE IN
JPII NOT RIGHTEOUS WHILE IN OFFICE. He was the Great Pederasts Enabler. He ignored, hid, sent out directives in writing to silence victims, to hide and to transfer CRIMINALS who were pedophile priests, bishops, archbishops so they could reoffend with new victims.
JPII silenced women ordination discussion and ignored the Pontifical Bible Study that there is no reason not to ordain women. He was NOT righteous and not right for the papacy. He has damaged the RC church and the world.
Jesus discussed and allowed arguments, requests of the people.... Samarian woman, Phoenician mom, hemorraging woman just a few examples. Jesus told us to make requests of God, not silence and blind obedience.
The wall came down due to historical developments in the world, NOT due to JPII. That is not the reason to make this terrible abusive, crimes complicit suppressor of religious truth a saint.
"...if it means that the pope
"...if it means that the pope acted on the basis of what the church traditionally calls “heroic virtue,” regardless of outcomes ..."
So how does firmly ignoring the sexual abuse crisis, rank as just another issue compared with
His celebration of the Great Jubilee in 2000
• His attention to youth and sponsorship of World Youth Day
• His promotion of the Divine Mercy devotion of Polish St. Faustina Kowalski
Of course, Mr. Allen, this
Of course, Mr. Allen, this will not satisfy the critics of (Soon-to-be) Blessed Pope John Paul II. The "liberal" Catholics will still see this as an attempt to canonize his policies, because it is impossible for them to divorce policy and person.
John Paul II was a man of heroic virtue and a man of deep faith, hope and love. He acted with integrity, he devoted his entire life to the service of God and his fellow man. He was an example of the Christian life for all he encountered, and hundreds of millions who he never met.
What more can be required of a saint?
Never mentioned in any of
Never mentioned in any of these articles by Allen is John Paul II's self-flagellation. That makes him weird. Is weirdness required of saints?
How about compassion for
How about compassion for those raped by his "holy, incapable of the sin of rape" priests?
Stopping the rape of
Stopping the rape of children.
Many wrote to him personally and begged for help, which was not just denied but completely ignored.
If sacrificing innocent children to the good of the universal Church (and their bankers) is the Catholic Church's idea of saintliness, then please at least be honest about it.
Stop trying to have it both ways by rewarding and celebrating evil, avarice, ambition, greed, megalomania, self interest and delusion yet pretending to be all about love, compassion, honesty and heroic virtue.
An interesting persepctive on
An interesting persepctive on the beatification of John Paul II.
The higher pre-Vatican II standards -- 3 miracles and the Devil's Advocate -- would have avoided the current skepticism re this beatification:
http://www.crc-internet.org/CCR/2011/103-1_A-sacrilegious-beatification.php
PERSONAL MORALITY-JPII
PERSONAL MORALITY-JPII ---Once again, John Allen, you try to rationalize John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla's immorality by equating it with a papal management failure only. It was immoral when he for decades knowingly permitted his agents to repeatedly rape children. It was immoral when he let his personal secretary ( certainly with his knowledge, if not at his direction) take bribes from Maciel, a known abuser over a 50 year period. This was immoral and sinful and all the spin by you, John Allen, or by George Weigel, Joseph Ratzinger and the rest of the pious apologists cannot change that. Anyone who repeatedly facilitated the severe sexual assault of innocent children to advance his warped personal theological agenda is no saint, even if he had been the best manager in history--which he clearly was not. John Allen has typically failed to address the disclosure yesterday by Cardinal Ruini that Cardinal electors were pressed during the last papal election conclave, and before any papal candidate had sufficient votes, to sign a commitment to canonize Wojtyla instantly and before any report of any miracle. Why raise this during an election? Obviously, the proponents (presumably Sodano and his curial conspirators) were signaling--you want our vote, then commit now or FORGETABOUTIT! (actually a Goodfellows' term Sodano must be familar with.) Ratzinger was elected so he must have committed he would do this to get elected. Now it is payback time--and we are getting an instant saint with an irrefutable immoral legacy.We don't even need to see the voluminous secret files the Vatican relentlessly hides. Ratzinger and his curial co-conspirators will get their desperately sought "saint's cover" on Sunday for their sins and crimes, but it is too late. The escalating winds of the criminal law will soon blow away the cover. Honest Catholics who support this farcical spectacle are facilitating more child abuse--plain and simple. This farce only reduces the chance of stopping the next rape of an innocent child and that, to speak like some of the traditional readers here enjoy, is a mortal sin. In further support of the above, please click on my article on the beatification cited above under John Allen's article, as well as my extensive comment entitled "The Basic Truth" to John Allen's Q&A #4 cited above (mine is the third from the top comment). See also the "must read" new article by Jason Berry, a 25 year veteran on child abuse reporting, readily available by clicking on http://www.thenation.com/article/160242/shame-john-paul-ii-how-sex-abuse... Too many Catholics have been brainwashed for so long that they are even willing to accept honoring evil rather than acknowledge, as in good conscience they should, that this papal fairy tale is just that--a fairy tale.
CORRECT JASON BERRY
CORRECT JASON BERRY LINK-----The correct link is http://thenationmagazine.com/article/160242/shame-john-paul-ii-how-sex-a...
Mr. Allen's series of
Mr. Allen's series of articles - well done, John! - on Pope JPII document the beatus as a sign of contradiction, as well as an instrument of division(s) within his church, divisions which are becoming increasingly hostile.
A house divided against itself, as A Lincoln and others have observed, cannot stand, at least for long.
Think ye that the house of God, called the church, can - or should - be an exception?
John, I have read all your
John, I have read all your Beatification Q&A #1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, etc. and the whole show seems to me so far removed from reality that it would be pitiful if it were not so brutal. So here come a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Today the name of the game for a good portion of our world is “survival”. Every 4 seconds one of “Our Father’s” children dies of hunger in our world today. The Vatican, which seems to delight in beatifying and sanctifying dead people has an annual GNP of US$350,000. Haití, which before last year’s earthquake and since then a full year of cholera epidemic, had a GNP of $650 in the year 2009. In Haití we have the poorest Americans on our continent where we “Latin Americans”, according to Vatican calculations, supposedly make up the greatest portion of the RCC in the world today.
Modern theology leaves little room for “proclaiming saints” today. The idea of “making saints” as we have experienced it in the past several papacy seems to respond to some arcane Vatican demiurge. At least our “Good Pope Juan XXIII”, all to his favor, had the good common sense to “bump” even my patron saint, “San Lorenzo Justiniani “ (formerly on Sept. 5) together with a good bundle of others from the “RCC calendar of saints”.
J.P.II, beatified the Spanish José María Escriva, founder of the “Opus Dei”, and practically beatified the living Mexican Marcial Maciel Degollado of “The Legionaries of Christ”.
We mestizo Americans have the cultural saying: “Fulano no es santo de mi devoción.” (“In my book “so and so” is not much of a saint.”)
For many of us, J.P.II (at least publicly) “covered up” the mysterious death of his immediate predecessor, Pope John Paul I, (Albino Luciani) who died in bed while he had in his hands radical plans to shake up the Vatican bureaucracy. ¿Questionable procedure?
J.P.II visited us in Nicaragua shortly after the triumph of our National Sandinist Revolution in July 1979. We had three R.C. functioning priests holding high positions in the Revolutionary Government. Our new government which had very little cash, “tiró la casa por la ventana” i.e. it rolled out the royal carpet for J.P.II. But J.P.II treated us as “his idea of communists”. The common people reacted with : “El Papa nos cagó”. (“The pope s--- on us”). Then J.P.II together with our local RC hierarchy and USA President Ronald Reagan together with his “Freedom Fighters” managed to bring our Revolution to its knees after the death of 50,000 of our young American Nicaraguans. J.P.II visited us again shortly before his death, but then our people responded with: “Oh, ¿he’s coming again?” and his visit passed quiet unobserved.
Finally the treatment that J.P.II and his Vatican showed and continues to show to our Salvadoran “San Romero de las Americas” before and after his martyrdom is really nothing to promote J.P.II’s cult locally.
Then of course we have to add to that the 35 years of open war by J.P.II and his intimate Cardinal Josef Ratzinger against our Liberation Theology and our best theologians who were giving a new lease on life to our Catholic Faith at the same time that the sexual abuse scandals en the USA and Europe began to empty Catholic Churches of millions there.
Well John L. Allen, as you probably know, for many of us, May 1 is still our “International Labor Day”, and that’s what most of our people will be celebrating this Sunday.
Justiniano de Managua
thank you Justiniano for a
thank you Justiniano for a wonderful chronicle here, and true! It is so good to read the truth here for once.
Here in Ciudad Juarez we also had a rather observation by ommission, while outside the CAthedral we received a huge and enthusiastic and very long parade of workers remembering the 125th anniversary of the police massacre of workers in Chicago, with what the entire world except the USA celebrates as Labor Day by marching workers reclaiming our rights. I took a lot of photos of the event and would love to share them with you, as no media in the monopolistic slave making USA would ever permit them.
Liberation is the heart and soul of our CHurch.
THanks for writing and please keep well.
How is Father Uriel Molina?
The Comunidades de Base?
"Famously, Dante consigned
"Famously, Dante consigned Celestine to Hell for his “great refusal.”"
Although this is very often said, and although the identification is widespread in commentaries on Inferno Canto 3 (where the phrase occurs), it is not the only possibility, and other suggestions have in fact been made. Celestine V is not identified, in any way, in that canto or or in any other part of the "Comedy" - nobody knows whom Dante intended. All he says is:
"I saw and recognised the cowardly soul of him who made the great refusal"
IMO, Pilate may well be intended. It is even possible, but unlikely, that Dante had no one person in mind.
Post new comment