JPII's Beatification

Hello Readers,

For those of you expecting NFL Draft analysis, we're taking a postponement for a day to examine the beatification of JPII. This is a major issue in thinking about symbolism of the Church, and its future philosophy so NFL Draft coverage will continue later this week. Also, I want to write about this issue as JPII's philosophy has done a lot to get me where I'm at in my current track of studying theology. So in homage to someone who would probably want a good challenge, here we go.

In thinking about beatification, we must think about the symbolism we are sending in proclaiming the holiness of a certain individual. We must think about a person's thoughts, actions, and dispositions very carefully before coming to a clear decision about beatifying a certain individual. Of course, an in-depth study is not possible in the confines of this blog, so I'm going to give a brief summary of the pros and cons of beatification and give some reflection at the end.

Pros:
JPII stood up to a lot of people in defense of the faith. This fact cannot be denied. He celebrated Mass in a country where communism was trying to snuff out the Church. His masses on rafts in the woods, or in the Soviet city which was built to have a city without God, testify to this great defiance. Personal authenticity is something I always encourage and his life is a testament to his belief in his faith; regardless of whether one agrees with him or not.
JPII went to the people. In an office that before his reign as pope was seen as isolating, namely Popes didn't do much travel or have a whole lot of exposure, he left the Vatican. Pope John Paul II traveled the world, even in failing health. If we're talking about the Church as the People of God in line with Vatican II, then this extraordinary witness in traveling is a real sign of engaging the People of God. Even before his papacy, he traveled a lot with lay people and engaged them in the life of the Church as well.
Regardless of whether we find him right or wrong, he tried to create a teaching on sexuality which dignifies the life of people. Now, some of this analysis will be done below when we look at the symbol we've created. However, when we look at how he traveled with the people and engaged their lives, we have to at least give him credit for a best effort.

Cons:
JPII's record on the sexual abuse crisis is suspect at best, and this is putting it lightly. To be blunt, if he didn't know anything he's almost as much as fault as if he did. Reason being, if you're in that high of a position of power and don't notice when problems are arising, especially as people are reporting them and priests are being moved around, then that's vincible ignorance. Also, his record with Fr. Maciel of the Legionaries of Christ creates a problem when thinking about his sainthood. JPII took a lot of money and gave a lot of praise to this man. It's possible he didn't know about the major problems of sexual abuse which arose later, but someone had to know. The fact that nothing was done to stop the abuse at the time and that we're finding out about this 30-40 years later is appalling. (And I'd say the same about any place in dealing with the sex abuse crisis, as this has not been an transparent issue by any means.)
In granting beatification to JPII, we are changing what we value as Church, over and against Vatican II, at least with what we see in his modern life. Vatican II talked a lot about collegiality, openness, and a sharing of authority with bishops. JPII made decisions which hinder this collegiality. When every bishop has to be nominated by the Pope, it creates the potential for a Pope to select just people he likes, or people who think like him. In his own papacy, he didn't do this (namely, he selected Cardinal Walter Kasper to a prominent position and these two men think very differently). However, in building this system, people who follow can use this system irresponsibly to promote an agenda, and that has happened, especially in America. Also, we have come to oversymbolize sex and evangelization over and against anything else in the practice of the faith. To be fair, this isn't actually JPII's fault. But in creating a cult of JPII, people often oversimplify what has happened in a life to a few specific ideas. Rushing judgment on someone's thought and action builds a symbol which will affect the Church for hundreds of years to come. Also, the beatification of JPII in some minds will overpower the intended effect of Vatican II, which in doctrinal thought, should not happen. An ecumenical council is always supposed to have more authority than the life of one individual pope, and that is not happening right now.
Finally, if we're going to take seriously that JPII wrote all his own encyclicals, and was the major voice behind them all, then we have to deal with the fact, that at the end of his life we are symbolizing a man who became bitter and mean in his later writings. The tone of Redemptor Hominis, Laborem Exercens and his earlier encyclicals was one of "critical correlation" (Kasper, Jesus the Christ). He examined the world for what was good and bad in it to promote the Gospel message. He also talked about a variety of issues in his early encyclicals and founded it on an anthropology based in Scripture and Christian Tradition. (Again, regardless of his sometimes sloppy scholarship, and whether we agree or not, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that he was trying.) This is a strong case for speaking to many people. However, his later encyclicals, particularly Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae present a much different tone. These encyclicals are more condemning of culture and don't do a lot to work with the culture to make change. If he wrote these encyclicals, then we have to deal with the fact that we are symbolizing that we can do whatever we want in evangelizing peoples. This is not the tone Ad Gentes takes from the Vatican II documents, or the tone of Gaudium et Spes with its appeal to conscience (Cardinal Newman is also a strong voice in this tradition.)

However, we also have to think about what if JPII didn't have fuller voice in his later encyclicals because of his Parkinson's disease. This illness may explain the dramatic change in tone, especially if others had a part in writing these later encyclicals. I haven't done enough scholarship to fully test this theory, but I think there's some possibility here. People may change thoughts and opinions over time, I know that I have, but there are certain dispositions which don't change as easily and come clear in examining writing, speaking, and thinking. For example, I once was a Catholic who thought very in line with JPII. JPII is actually an influential reason for me staying in the Catholic faith past childhood as he engaged my thought. However, as is clear from my writing, I don't think completely like him anymore. One thing that hasn't changed though is my sometimes aggressive nature in dealing with issues. I try not to lack charity, but I'd much rather deal with stuff at its earliest point, rather than dealing with a massive mess later. This aggressiveness also shows up in how I deal with people in authority. If people are promoting a system, or acting in ways that I think are against the common good, I am going to say something. JPII's influence has some effect on me here too. But even though my thoughts changed, this disposition hasn't. Of course, this isn't always the case, but if JPII was influential in Vatican II, and he engaged the people as much as he did in his ministry, then something is not completely adding up from the information we have available to us.

In conclusion, I want to say that by beatifying JPII, I fear what we are symbolizing as a Church in haste. JPII is a holy man, and deserves a lot of attention for what he did in his life. But, by expediting the process for him to become a saint, we're not honoring his life. Beatification, unfortunately, says more about the priorities of the people in power, then it does about the holiness of a person, especially an expedited one. And note what's being emphasized, how he evangelized people, how he promoted dignity through his sexual teaching. Very little is said about he started World Youth Day, or how he supported the Solidarity movement in Poland from the main people supporting his cause. No one talks about his preliminary use of phenomenology in his works (even though to be fair, he never really cites anyone either. For example, in Redemptor Hominis he gives a reflection on technology which is very identical to Heidegger's reflection on the goods of technology in his Introduction to Metaphysics, but JPII never cites Heidegger at all in this work.)
JPII is a complex person, and we lose that complexity when other people want to get their motives and objectives more power. Community always wants to shape a meta-narrative to support its own existence, and ideologies in particular communities are no exception to this phenomenon. JPII's beatification shows how ugly this reality is in our current Church, and we are symbolizing the good of this greater polarity by how we go about beatifying him. The event has already happened at the time of this posting, but we have to be really wary going forward about what we are seeing from the people beatifying him, and also the response given by many parties. I think JPII should be a saint, but maybe not as quick as the pace for this beatification suggests. Also, if JPII is a saint, Archbishop Romero should be a saint as well, for both men worked with the people, albeit in different ways. This is what our Church should be about, and this is in line with what Vatican II says about the Church being the People of God.