While I was perhaps John Paul II’s greatest admirer, I understand why many think his beatification was rushed. Much has come to light since his death- the treachery of Fr Maciel, whom John Paul defended, the extent of hierarchal complicity in the clerical abuse scandal- that has revealed not only that he was not much of an administrator, but that he was not a good judge of character. And even during his lifetime it was apparent that he had allowed Catholic social teaching to be hijacked by neoconservatives. To be sure, he attempted to clarify matters, but after the media blitz following the publication of Centesimus Annus the damage was done.
But he is being canonized not for being an effective administrator nor for discerning hearts -indeed, Mother Teresa’s confessor turned out to be an abuser- but rather for his holiness, which was evident.
For even saints are flawed; the communion of saints includes preachers of holy war, defenders of capital punishment for heretics, narrow minded men and women, sometimes viciously attacking their (often sainted) enemies, and the rest.
God overlooks much, and humans are a dense lot.
John Paul II was a holy man, and one who accomplished much good for the Church and the world in spite of his flaws.
Blessed John Paul II, pray for us.
I thought about this last night after the discussion on Mac’s blog. The same things strike me, especially the fact that JPII was not a good judge of character.
I am not so sure it means that a saint can be flawed, in the sense of objectively morally blemished. I would rather say the saint is the perfection of this specific kind of human being. Some virtues effectively disallow others and at the very least some virtues inhibit the growth of others. JPII has the perfection of an intellectual/actor who grow up in Poland in the 1930s and led the Church in Poland under communism for 25 years before moving to Rome. Such a specific perfection will necessarily include certain blindspots and lacks.
I don’t see what one does with inquisitors under this explanation. But I’m still holding on to it.
I certainly did not mean that John Paul was “objectively morally blemished”; rather I meant only that his temperament precluded administrative skill and a suspicious view of particular humans.
Other saints, who exhibited the behaviors I mentioned, are a more problematic, and I would probably have to say that even objective moral blemish- like calling for Christian jihad (like St Bernard)- do not preclude holiness.
I have been asking myself why the speed of the process bothers me, and I think at bottom it’s actually a long-standing uneasiness about the whole canonization process, or the theology of it. As I understand it — correct me if I’m wrong — canonization represents a definitive pronouncement that the person is in heaven, and that strikes me as risky. The recent acceleration of the process increases my uneasiness–seems it would be easier to make a mistake. None of which is to say I have any doubts about JPII deserving the honor. But, to take a near-at-hand example, many people would have pushed sainthood for Fr.Maciel, and it isn’t hard to imagine that his crimes might have remained hidden for long enough for him to squeak by. I suppose one just has to trust that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from such an error just as she’s protected from serious theological error.
I would think, Francesca, that being an inquisitor could be in the category of “flaw” along the lines of being a bad judge of character, rather than an objective moral blemish–if the person was doing his best to administer that system fairly etc. Although ordering torture, which is now held to be a serious intrinsic evil…I don’t know…
Well, Maclin, if Maciel had been canonized and THEN his sins and crimes had come to light, that would pretty much blow the whole thing, wouldn’t it? What would be left but to become Orthodox? Or Quakers, for that matter.
As for saints who were inquisitors or jihadists (ie, crusaders), here is where I think that God cuts us a lot of slack. Human nature being what it is, not many people are able to transcend their culture to the point of seeing sin in things that are socially acceptable in their times. Hence the Old Testament saints, who not only had many wives but, as if that were not enough, concubines. And divorce on demand. And killed civilians with impunity ( even saying this was ordained of God).
But in the case of John Paul, all I see is a certain temperamental inability to be an efficient bureaucrat, and a tendency to underestimate evil in one who apparently had done so much good, all quite in keeping with one of a philosophical, dramatic, poetic frame of mind.
Indeed (to your first question). Maybe my uneasiness comes down to the idea that one is more likely to make a mistake when doing something in a hurry. But, like I said, we just have to trust the Holy Spirit.