If only Catholic media and commentators had made this distinction clear from the start instead of getting tied up into disputes over whether the obvious failures during a Pontificate, which was also marked with great successes, should not disqualify - or at the very least, raise questions about - the beatification of John Paul II, and that therefore, the supposed 'rush to judgment' by the Church is uncalled for. Now that Cardinal Amato has done so, a Vaticanista like Paolo Rodari has picked it up, and brings up other pertinent considerations...
The Church is beatifying
Karol Wojtyla for his personal holiness
not for his Pontificate
by Paolo Rodari
Translated from
April 6, 2011
As the date for the beatification of John Paul II approaches, the Vatican wants the world to be clear that Karol Wojtyla is being beatified, not his Pontificate.
It is a distinction made by Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, at a news conference in teh Pontifical University of Santa Croce
[and in an article in L'Osservatore Romano] earlier this week.
"The cause for beatification did not get to this point because of the impact of his Pontificate on history but for the virtues of faith, hope and charity that characterized the life of Karol Wojtyla".
He also pointed out that in agreeing to the request made by then Cardinal Vicar Camillo Ruini of Rome to waive the usual five-year waiting period to begin the beatification process for the late Pope in May 2005, one month after he died, Benedict XVI was responding to a widespread popular acclamation of John Paul's saintliness
[not to mention a letter signed by several cardinals before the 2005 Conclave to the same effect].
As for his Pontificate and its problems, that is a different matter. So much so that one could even read Joseph Ratzinger's Pontificate as an attempt to set straight a certain disorder that had been left behind by his predecessor.
[Rodari should have been much more explicit: His Pontificate and its problems, indicating his shortcomings as an administrator and probably some errors in judging others, have nothing to do with John Paul's personal holiness. If he had never become Pope, he would most likely now be a candidate saint nonetheless. History will judge his Pontificate, not the Congregation for Saints.
However towering their achievements as Pope, Leo the Great and Gregory the Great would never have been proclaimed saints if each had not been, above all, a model of Christian living, and, as Benedict XVI said Sunday of John Paul II, "a great witness for Christ'.]
Controversies about John Paul II's Pontificate are not few, some of the criticism coming from the Roman Curia and other ranking prelates.
It is known for instance that Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini refused to make a deposition to the Congregation of saints in his behalf because he had been a critic of his international travels, claiming they meant great sacrifice for the host churches.
Likewise, Cardinals Angelo Sodano and Leonardo Sandri had both initially refused to present their own written depositions, because they were not in favor of the time waiver granted to the process.
In the Roman Curia, there is strong partisan feeling among the Pacellians - those who think that Pius XII deserved beatification ahead of John Paul II.
[Really? Where have they been all these years with all the attacks against Pius XII? To my knowledge only Benedict XVI has and Pius XII's postulator have ever spoken up! And I, too, pray that the possible 'beatification miracle' for Pius XII reported by Andrea Tornielli last year will soon be certified. In this respect, it must be noted that it took Benedict XVI to advance the cause of Pius XII's beatification in 2009 even if it had been first proposed by Paul VI in 1965. By all accounts, Pius XII's personal holiness was unassailable, and yes, he deserves beatification ASAP so the cause for his canonization can proceed.]
Among the cardinals away from Rome, a critical voice has been that of Cardinal Godfreed Danneels, former Primate of Belgium. In an interview with the magazine 3O GIORNI, he said: "I think the normal processes should have been followed. If the process itself proceeds expeditiously, then fine. But sainthood does not need preferential treatment. The process should take all the time needed, without making exceptions. The Pope is a baptized one like every other Christian. Therefore the process should follow the same course as for all baptized Catholics. I was not happy about the shouts of 'Santo subito' in St. Peter's Square on the day of the funeral. It was inappropriate. There was even talk that it had been organized - and that is unacceptable. To create a beatification by acclamation which was not spontaneous is unacceptable".
First, I wish Rodari had chosen some other person to say the above. Danneels has not exactly come out smelling of roses and incense for his virtual inaction on sex abuses by priests during his two decades as head of the Church in Belgium.
Second, did he make this objection about Mother Teresa in her time? If he did not, then he is 'in estoppel' from saying this about John Paul II.
Third, it is true that the Focolari movement in Rome had come to the funeral Mass with streamers reading SANTO SUBITO, but when they started to shout out the slogan, most Italians in the crowd took it up. Crowd psychology maybe, but a spontaneous reaction to the initiative nonetheless.
Leaving aside the objections to this beatification, and/or the speed of it (none of which seriously question the late Pope's personal holiness, which is what saintliness is about), we can be sure that Benedict XVI - who is calmly methodical and rational in everything he does - prayed sufficiently over his decision to waive the waiting period, and I have no reason to think he mistook the devil for the Holy Spirit in making his decision.
Danneels goes on: "The Pope with whom I felt the greatest affinity was Paul VI, who named me a cardinal. With him, I felt at home. Benedict XVI has the same qualities: he does not shout, he proposes things quietly but with confidence. He is not an athletic model like Papa Wojtyla who was a different kind of Pope. Of course, he was important. But different from Paul VI."
[More gratuitous remarks by Danneels. John Paul II may have been 'an athletic model' but that does not mean he imposed his views on anyone. His power of communication was obviously far more physical than verbal, whereas Benedict XVI, despite his modesty, strikes an excellent balance between the impression of his very presence - warm. friendly and spiritual - and the power of his words and thought.]
No one in the Church doubts the holiness of John Paul II. Yesterday, Cardinal Vicar Agostino Vallini praised him for having taught everyone how to die, and therefore, how to live".
The critics have focused on some aspects of his Pontificate, with two dominating issues: A kind of defensive ditch that was dug when cases of priest abuses started coming out, and the often murky activities of the Vatican bank.
These are two issues that Benedict XVI has been working with great commitment to resolve, despite the difficulties. Issues that the Vatican believes have nothing to do with the cause for John Paul II's beatification and eventual canonization.
And there are three issues about which militantly vocal Catholic 'conservatives' have been exercising themselves these days to show that they are, if not holier, than more Catholic than the Pope]: John Paul II's beatification, the Assisi meeting, and the forthcoming Instruction on the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. In all three issues, unwarranted, almost offensive, presumption is ostentatiously displated by otherwise intelligent people who somehow think that Benedict XVI is too dense or naive to see what they themselves see.
Their well-intentioned but no-less sanctimonious huffing and puffing has obviously been in vain - in the first case, because it's a done dea:, John Paul II will be beatified, not because Benedict XVI has decided so, but because the Congregation for the Causes of Sainthood has done its work, found no impediments, and certified a miracle.
In the other two cases, Assisi and the SP Instruction, the 'conscientious objectors' simply assumed the worst - ignoring everything known about Benedict XVI and his record - to raise all-hands-on-deck alarums and to actually address written appeals to the Pope to drop the Assisi project and not to 'water down' his own Motu Proprio!
Other than blind ego, it's hard to see what motivates their sanctimonious frenzy. Surely they should have more trust in the Pope as defender of the faith, not to mention his plain common sense! Certainly, Joseph Ratzinger ought to be the last person they must lecture about how to be Catholic! Go figure...
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 07/04/2011 21:27]