Along with the release of the first encyclical of Pope Francis' pontificate this morning, it was announced that Blesseds John XXIII and John Paul II will be canonized, probably sometime before the new year. I have only gotten the my hands on the new letter, entitled Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith), but I'll get going on reading it and giving you my thoughts soon. But for now, I just want to express joy at this announcement, and reflect on the early reports in the secular press.
As one might expect, John Paul Paul II is getting most of the headlines. His was the more recent and longer pontificate. As for "Good" Pope John, much is being made of the fact that Pope Francis dispensed with the usual requirement for a second miracle before the canonization can proceed. First, the Church makes the rules, and the pope can dispense with these requirements as he sees fit, (like when Pope Benedict dispensed with the five year waiting period to begin the process almost immediately after JPII's death). This time around it was done on the recommendation of the cardinals and bishops handling the case. Before the 1600's there was no canonization process, the pope simply declared someone a saint based on his or her reputation, and sometimes the acclamation of the people from where the candidate was from. And dispensing from this requirement is not unheard of. St. Thomas More was canonized without any miracles attributed to his intercession; his martyrdom was seen as sufficient proof of heroic virtue.
As for John Paul "the Great," most of the secular stories I read couldn't finish without mentioning the child sex abuse scandals that erupted in the final years of his pontificate, as if these should disqualify him from being raised to the altar. A few observations:
1. In the spirit of Pope Leo XIII, we should neither hide the truth nor lie about the past. It is a historical fact that the scandals blew up during John Paul's pontificate. Questions must be asked concerning how the Church, and the pope himself, handled the situation. But we are declaring a person a saint, not divine. All saints had faults, short comings, blind spots and failures. All you need to do to figure this out is to read Gospels and observe the behavior of the Twelve. The question is not if John Paul II was perfect, but was he faithful to his call to a heroic degree until he drew his last breath.
2. The scandals themselves predate JPII's pontificate, with some cases reaching back to the 1940's and '50's. This would mean that John XXIII should be receiving the same scrutiny, especially since the majority of cases are from roughly the '50's to the '70's (Pope John served from 1958 until 1963).
3. Some see the dual canonization as a way of balancing out these concerns over John Paul's suitability, by placating both "progressives," who tend to idealize Pope John and "conservatives," who are devoted to John Paul. One article I read tried to paint it that Pope Francis is more in line with those progressives who see Vatican II as a clear break from the past as opposed to Pope Emeritus Benedict who had tried to stress the continuity of the Council with the development of the faith through the centuries; thus, again, pushing the placate scenario. In a word, rubbish. You could make just as strong an argument that canonizing both men together is a way of reinforcing this notion of continuity (which I espouse): the pope who called the council canonized with the pope who spent almost 30 years interpreting the reforms after their initial implementation by Pope Paul VI.
I have to get back to the work of the parish, at this point. But I'll certainly have more to say of the great event, and Pope Francis' first encyclical.
No comments:
Post a Comment