1. Has the beatification of John Paul II been a rush job, as some have charged?
No one said that the beatification of Mother Teresa was rushed, despite the calumnies against her work and reputation promoted by Christopher Hitchens. This process hasn’t been “rushed” either. The only procedural exception Pope Benedict XVI made was the same exception John Paul II made for Mother Teresa: He allowed the investigation to begin without the normal five-year waiting period.
Advertisement
The investigative process produced a massive, four-volume study that offers far more detail into the life and accomplishments of Karol Wojtyła, Pope John Paul II, than the American electorate was offered about the life and accomplishments of Barack Obama, or the British electorate was offered about the lives and accomplishments of David Cameron and Nick Clegg. The people complaining about a “rush” are typically “progressive” Catholics who never had much use for John Paul II because he didn’t turn Catholicism into another liberal Protestant denomination; or ultra-traditionalists who lament the fact that he didn’t restore the French monarchy, impose the Tridentine Mass in Latin on the entire Church, and burn dozens of German theologians in the Campo dei Fiori; or ill-informed journalists who can’t stop playing “gotcha” with the Catholic Church. Their criticisms are not taken seriously by serious people.
And in any case, the people of the Church spoke on April 8, 2005, with their chants of Santo subito! (“A saint now!”). The official judgment of the Church is now catching up with that spontaneous popular acclamation. It’s rather ironic to see people who are usually clamoring for “more democracy” in the Catholic Church complaining in this case about the verdict of the Church’s people.
2. How did the beatification process assess John Paul II’s life? How does his record as pope bear on that assessment?
The purpose of this beatification process, as with any such process, was to determine whether the life under study was one of heroic virtue. Over 100 formal witnesses were consulted and the four-volume study includes their testimonies, as well as a biography of the late pope and an examination of what were termed “special questions” — issues that arose during the beatification process itself, such as the charge (likely planted by former Stasi operatives) that young Karol Wojtyla had been involved in the assassination of two Gestapo agents during World War II. The charge was ridiculous, and it was refuted.
Evidently, the overwhelming judgment of those responsible, including Pope Benedict XVI, was that this was indeed a life of heroic virtue. I think that judgment is correct. It doesn’t mean that, as pope, John Paul II got everything right. No pope does. The question is whether he made his decisions prudently, according to his best judgment, and without fear or favor. In The End and the Beginning, the second volume of my biography of John Paul II, I explored that question over some 90 pages. My judgment is that John Paul consistently used his best judgment, without fear or favor, even in decisions I think he got wrong.
3. What were the chief qualities of John Paul II? What were his principal faults?
John Paul II’s radical Christian discipleship, and his remarkable capacity to let that commitment shine through his words and actions, made Christianity interesting and compelling in a world that thought it had outgrown its “need” for religious faith. He was a man of extraordinary courage, the kind of courage that comes from a faith forged in reflection on Calvary and the murder of the Son of God. He demonstrated, against the cultural conventions of his time, that young people want to be challenged to live lives of heroism. He lifted up the dignity of the human person at a moment when the West was tempted to traipse blithely down the path to Huxley’s brave new world of manufactured and stunted humanity. And he proclaimed the universality of human rights in a way that helped bring down the greatest tyranny in human history.
He was, like many saintly people, too patient with the faults of others. His distaste for making a spectacle of anyone, and his willingness to give people a second, third, and fourth chance, were admirable human qualities that arguably worked against the efficiency of his governance.
Of course John Paul II should be canonized. For nearly two-thousand years, there have been a great many saints who did not have the immense
qualifications of Karol. And although I thought my esteem could not have been higher for him yesterday, and even though you say it is not true, even if he had in fact taken out two Gestapo agents, my admiration for him would now be even higher. There are many un-canonized American saints who did exactly the same thing in World War 2.
We did not, after all, "pray" the Nazis to death. God loves soldiers too. And, without our victory in that war, Pope John II may have never been there to thwart the the Russians in the subsequent Cold War. Happy Easter.
Your comments in this website do not address the main points that serious Catholics have in mind when it comes to the Beatification of Pope John Paul II. I am afraid that you have not touched on any of the main issues and you have labeled ultra-traditional Catholics as those that "wanted to restore the French Monarchy" as well as those that want to "impose the Traditional Latin Mass on the whole Church" as you commented.
Anyways, in short, I would have to say that you have no understanding of what it means to be Catholic according to the Ancient Rite - therefore, you have no understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
You should stick to writing about political ethics and policy instead of writing a criticism of those who are seriously trying to grow in and recover the True Catholic Faith.
While Dr. Weigel brings up some good examples where Pope John Paul II’s leadership and managerial decisions come into question, I’m more concerned about some of the specific acts that our Holy Father has committed which flies in the face of the Church’s mission of saving souls for Christ. One example that most Catholics are completely unaware of is when our Holy Father kissed the Koran as a matter of “respect” in 1999. External Link
Whenever, I see this photo I keep thinking of our American Supreme Leader bowing to the thugs of the world…
This "beatification" is non sense. The lone medical "miracle" is dubious at best. Coincidentally, it used to require two miracles until JP2 changed it to 1.
The topless woman giving a reading, the praying at mosques and synagogues kissing the koran, all a load of bs. History will prove rightly that this was beatification was false and sheer damage that the man did to the Church was very real indeed.
Wiegel's juvenile dismissal of serious, faithful, non "dissenting" Catholics appalled at the massive damage done to the Church during JP2's feckless, feeble, camera-chasing, disastrous reign reveals much. Nobody called for public burning, merely well-deserved excommunications. Well aware of the grave substance of their charges, and unwilling to engage them, he prefers to wave them away.
See here for the many problems with this beatification:
The ultra-traditionalists, who loathe the dissent of the progressives, seem not to realize they are mirror images of them. They are the same. Either I believe the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus Christ promised that "...even the gates of hell will not prevail against..." or it is not. If it is not, then both the traditionalists and the progressives should form their own Protestant denominations. Or the traditionalists could become Calvinists with ceremony and the progressives could bond themselves to one of the many dying leftist 'mainstream' Protestant denominations.
As for me, I give thanks for the great Pope John Paul II who both revitalized the Church which Christ founded - and for his firm insistence on an accurate interpretation of what Vatican II meant for the life of the Church, which was most assuredly not that we are all liberal Protestants now who can make gods in our own image.
Incorrect, Carney. Your gripe is not on what JPII insisted; it is that what he insisted on was not what you would have insisted on.
JPII did not make a liar of Christ by allowing the gates of hell to prevail against His holy Church. Your complaint against JPII is the same as the liberal Catholic progressives complain: that JPII did not remake the Church in your image. Thus, by your own terms, you must condemn yourself.
I have, at times, been uncomfortable with the Church's decision to canonize early and often. But in fairness, the recent trends are more in keeping with the history of the Church. In late-antiquity and medieval Europe, canonization was not a formal process begun, continued, and ended by the institutional Church, but the recognizition by the Church of a local cult. Sometimes these developed during a Saint's lifetime, sometimes immediately after his or her death.
Jeremiah, you posit an obvious false choice. A Pope can be a feckless, weak leader, who allows heresy and scandal to run riot within the Church to its generations-long detriment, without violating Matthew 16:18. It's happened before, it happened with JP2 too.
Both the pathetic neo-Catholic "new springtime!" cheerleaders amid the ruins, and the sedevacantists, are wrong.
But I still think of JPII as "The Pope". He, Reagan, and Thatcher wrested Poland from the Soviets and the rest of the Warsaw Pact soon followed.
You know what? If millions of people suddenly becoming free to worship God without fear due to the forced collapse of the evil empire of the 20th Century doesn't qualify as miraculous, then what does? Or was that a small, piddling matter?
It is obvious the Kremlin tried to have Wojtyla killed through Bulgarian lackeys. They were right to fear HIM when he told the Poles "Be not afraid."
Also, kudos to JPII for going down to South and Central America and telling the bishops, "Knock off the 'liberation theology' garbage."
Actually Mr Wiegel, we never fantasized for a moment that JP2 would re establish the French Monarchy or Impose the Latin Mass on everyone, that job falls into the very capable hands of the NEXT pope. Deo Gratias!
George you forgot one other group who are complaining about this beatification: the thousands of children who's world indeed was changed by paedophipes as JPII turned a blind eye.
But then, those children were all liars anyway - weren't they?
I get a little whiff of you trying to wash your own hands of the Maciel affair - you too were duped by him and defended him blindly, but you also knew the accusations.
I will not be celebrating this beatification - JPII may indeed be in heaven, but he is still representative of the destruction of many children.
I do think this is happening too quickly and time needs to pass for a full evaluation of Pope John Paul II life and his works.
This is not Saint idol or X factor, these decisions should not be rushed.
I do think George Weigel is quick to brush over the child abuse issues. More study needs to be done here. one scandal we never hear about is the level of child abuse and other sins carried out by missionaries and nuns in Africa and South East Asia even up to recently. I attended NUIM in Ireland and even there priests in the seminary were discussing things that happened in Africa such as having a wife and kids etc
Also the Pope ignored the abuse carried out in the national seminary by its head of young vulnerable men starting out on their vocations.
John Paul was a good and decent man but was he a saint ???
The main force of objection to JPII' beatification come from non-Catholics whose opinions don't matter in the slightest.
Those ignorant of how the Episcopate work try to disparage him from child abuse scandals. Bishops run their own Diocese with little oversight. They're entrusted with vast authority and the due process of review against them is narrow, cumbersome, and slow. The Vatican is a city-state in the middle of Rome. It's primary functions are making sure Church dogma, doctrine, and discipline aren't corrupted or mistranslated. The Vatican is long on Leadership and short on Management.
Within Catholic ranks you draw a healthy number of non-Church-goers with poor formation in the faith. They suffer from the same ignorance of the Episcopate and complain about things like the lack of female clergy. Then you get some self-styled traditionalists raging at JPII for not revoking the 2nd Vatican Council and for excommunicating the leads Society of Saint Pious the X.
It's hard to imagine a Pope who did so little about so many basic responsibilities, and was responsible for promoting so many bishops with grave problems, being beatified.
The more one learns about the Faith, the more one sees what is missing here. Charisma, popularity, certainly were there. But what is that? Where were the hard decisions, the clear messages, that might have cost him some of the former, but fulfilled the responsibilities that come with the office?
Too much minimalism, and generality. . . too little clear teaching in areas where people needed to hear the message, whether it was about modesty, chastity, family, the Eucharist. . . so many vices were let be, and only a general message pleasing to almost all ears sent out.
And then there were the clear breaks with the past, that were not explained, but applauded without thought and so scandalized many. The whatever JPII did was automatically good fan club did its job in the press. But was that truly beneficial to him or anyone?
That kind of press, that can see nothing wrong.. at all, ever.. and never admit it. Well. We need clear sighted talk, not blind idolotry. That kind of view can be the true lack of faith, because it's too much in the man, and too little in the Church.
The proof is in the pudding. The pudding right now is very rotten. Apostasy in the west, complete break down of values, little to no reverence for the holy Eucharist or the holy Sacrifice of the mass. The priest abuse scandal which grew into a thermonuclear core breach which Pope Benedict then had to clean up. Okay, so remind me what what JP2 "the great" did besides open up communism to the whole world?
Because unless, right is now wrong, or up is down I'm only seeing a lot of BAD FRUITS.
Sure he had a warm and fuzzy persona, great, what did it do for anyone and why the relentless destruction of the Church?
I'm neither a traditionalist nor a progressive. I'm a homeschooling mom who tends to fall into the middle of these extremes. But anyway, while I admire and love JPII and found him very inspirational, I do have a certain level of discomfort at this seemingly quick beatification. I rejoice in it but at the back of my mind I'm thinking there is a something a little unseemly about it.
Here are my thoughts: From what I understand, many of the cardinals and folks working on his beatification were hired by him! They owe him their position. If the Church had waited on this, this would not be the case. Many saints took a long time for beatification. So be it! I don't think it 'harms' the saint to wait. Not in the least! And waiting avoids the appearance of a 'conflict of interest.' The canonization of Mother Teresa does not compare in this regard. She didn't appoint people to the Vatican!
Secondly, I think this is insensitive to those who were harmed by the Church under JPII's reign. All those abused by priests, those bishops who covered up the scandal and perpetuated the grave injury, the followers of Marceil who were so duped. There is real pain there! Terrible pain and to say 'oh well, he wasn't perfect,' seems to me to be dismissing their wounds. Like I said, if after some time has passed and JPII becomes beatified, at least it wouldn't be rubbing salt in a still open wound.
Thirdly, this beatification seems to bring out the political extremes of those who are Catholic. It is the very issue of it happening so soon that is causing yet another divisive event in our Church. Not good.
Rushing it does seem to smack of the cult of personality.
Now I'm sure after all this, it sounds like I didn't really appreciate JPII. But I truly did/do. I read your biography Mr. Weigel. I've read various things written by JPII. I even have a book of his poetry. I watch EWTN for goodness sake and sobbed during his funeral! I think he was a wonderful Pope, in spite of his missteps. I think he should be a saint.
I just don't think rushing the process is prudent.
You hit the nail right on the head. I agree. To all my fellow Catholics out there, if you believe the "Church" is the the church that Christ started through Saint Peter and when Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. You must have faith and trust that it is God's Will that JPII is to be blessed. I choose to trust in God's Church and his divine providence that what ever happens must be God's will.
Remember that Christ picked 12 guy's that were sinners. one was a tax collector, one denied him three times, one betrayed him, One doubted him, they all fled. Men are not perfect. JPII was not perfect. Yes the scandals are bad. Does anybody remember when JPII publictly said that the Church should beg for forgiveness for the sins of her Son's and Daughter's. Is that not enough?
Do you believe or not? Remember, if you persecute the Catholic Church you persecute Christ. If you do then you are a prodestant.
