A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Some very interesting thoughts on the canonizations of JPII and John XXIII July 10, 2013

Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam doesn’t post a lot, but when he does, it’s almost always gold.  He has a habit of bringing up points that almost all others miss, including yours truly.  He has a post up regarding the upcoming canonizations of Blessed John Paul II and John XXIII. I know I have some readers who have been…….perplexed?……..that I would express any question or register any concern regarding these canonizations. And I know there are people who have also just gone off the rails angry about them, including some folks claiming their going into sede vacantist land due to this move. 

Leaving all that aside, Boniface brings up a hugely important point for consideration.  Every reputable source I have found is in agreement that the Church’s claim of canonization is an infallible one. If the Church says a given person is a Saint, all Catholics are required to believe that person is in Heaven. That is not up for debate in this post. What is up for debate is the meaning of canonization, because canonization has a dual meaning, one aspect of which has tended to be almost totally forgotten in all the commentary on JPII and John XXIII.  Yes, canonization is a statement that a soul is in Heaven, but as Boniface notes below, it is also a statement that the soul in question evidenced heroic virtue in the conduct of their apost0late/office and is worthy of emulation in that office. And it is that point which I think deserves some serious thought by all Catholics.

First, Boniface notes some of the concerns with Blessed John Paul II (quoted words in italics, I add emphasis and comments):

I do not intend to spend a lot of time going over the reasons why I personally believe the canonization of John Paul II is imprudent, but it is necessary to mention them in passing to put some context to what I will say here. The Assisi meetings were scandalous and confusing to the faithful; I don’t care how you try to explain it away, they simply were. The kissing of the Koran and referring to it as the word of God, praying with animists in Togo, allowing pagan Aztec priestsesses to bless him, and all such activities were equally scandalous, inexcusable and unprecedented in papal history. What about asking St. John the Baptist to protect Islam? How about the disintegration of Catholic life across every category and rampant dissent throughout the Church with almost nothing done to stop it. Priest sex abuse scandals covered up or left unaddressed. Administrative chaos. The list could go on. Maybe John Paul II was not personally responsible for all of these things; I am not suggesting the degree of personal culpability attributable to the late pontiff. But, they happened on his watch and so they are laid at his doorstep. For these reasons and others, I do not believe it is a good idea to canonize this man.

Here’s where people chime in and say, “C’mon! Saints aren’t perfect! Sure, the man had flaws. Every saint has flaws. You are being too critical.”

Saints aren’t perfect. I agree. Saints are not perfect. But we are falling prey to a subtle bait and switch if we accept the rationale that “saints aren’t perfect” therefore it is appropriate to canonize someone with so much questionable baggage……

But here is the distinction: It is one thing to say a saint has flaws; it is another thing to say he did something fundamentally harmful to the faith or contradictory to the nature of his office. We see St. Francis, with the zeal of a new convert, going beyond the boundaries of prudence and giving away his father’s silks without permission. We can understand this. We sympathize. We, too, know the experience of being too overzealous about something and inadvertently hurting someone else because of it. This is not a real strike against Francis’ sanctity. It just demonstrates his human side.

We must remember, when we canonize a person who holds an office, we are also approving the manner in which he administered that office. One of the biggest misunderstandings modern Catholics have about canonization is that it is simply a declaration that someone is in heaven. I’m so sick of hearing that! “What’s the big deal? All it means is that he’s in heaven.” If that were all it was, then we could canonize a death-row murderer who maintained his impenitence until a moment before death when he suddenly decides to accept baptism one minute prior to execution. After all, he’s in heaven! Clearly this is too simplistic.

Whenever we canonize someone, we are not just affirming they are in heaven, but we are affirming that they have done deeds that are worthy of emulation. Furthermore, tf this person holds an office, like a bishop, priest, pope, or king, then we are also affirming that what they did in that office is worthy of emulation – that they were not just a holy man or woman, but an ideal abbot, abbess, king, queen or whatever. Has it ever been otherwise? Do you know of any saint-kings who were personally holy but terrible kings? How about sainted bishops who were personally holy but made awful bishops? How about sainted popes who were personally holy but the Church went down the toilet under their administration?……. [Some may rebutt with the classic example of St. Peter, reminding how he ran away and denied Christ. First, that occurred before he received the Holy Spirit, before the Resurrection and Ascension.  Secondly, this was a failing, something Peter deeply regretted and publicly apologized for, not something he held up as good and normal. If you bring up St. Paul rebuking St. Peter over refusing to eat with gentiles when in the presence of Jews, which was after Pentecost, once again, this was a failing, and something Peter ceased doing after being called to account. It was a mistake, the kind of mistake all Saints make, not a deliberate and repeated action like the two Assisi gatherings or the repeated acts of scandal regarding receiving “blessings” or other symbols of supporting/recognizing other faiths, even faiths so twisted as voodoo and animism]

To canonize an office holder is to canonize the manner in which they held the office. St. Gregory the Great is a saint not just because he was personally holy but because he was a model pope, St. Charles Borromeo because he was a model bishop, St. Francis because he was a model mendicant, St. Thomas because he was a model teacher and theologian. Nothing is more contrary to the tradition of the Church and the meaning implicit in canonizations than to draw a distinction between someone’s personal holiness and the manner in which they fulfilled their vocation. The two are united. In fact, one’s personal holiness is directly contingent upon how one fulfills one’s vocation. One cannot become a sainted bishop while simultaneously having failed in the most fundamental aspects of an episcopal vocation.  [I can’t think of any.  St. Anthony Marie Claret was personally incredibly holy, but he was also an amazingly faithful bishop and willing to suffer tremendously for the good of the souls in his charge. There were Saints who were misunderstood and persecuted in their times, but I cannot think of any who actually gave great scandal at some point.  But I could be misremembering.  I will say that the removal of the office of “devil’s advocate” from the canonization process has made it very possible to gloss over actions which are scandalous or otherwise detrimental to the cause in consideration, and I think that office very badly needs to be restored. Pope John Paul II is the one who removed that office]

I have been giving extreme examples, and I am certainly not saying John Paul II was a fundamental failure as a pope. I have no qualms, however, about saying that John Paul II was not an ideal pope, much less is he worthy he being called “the Great.”  [I am afraid I have to agree, even though I know my doing so may turn a good number of readers off.  Both Popes will be canonized, it seems, and I will accept that they are in Heaven. And I pray Blessed John Paul II had good, holy reasons for many of his actions which are so difficult to understand in relation to the constant practice of the Faith, and which would have scandalized his predecessors tremendously. But I cannot say that I don’t see grave problems in all this ]  The reasons for me saying this are those common to most traditionalists, and I will not argue each point here. But the important thing is to realize that to canonize John Paul II is to canonize his scandals. The faithful will have no way to distinguish between the praiseworthy and the scandalous in his pontificate, especially since those pushing the cause of John Paul II have never offered an official explanation for these scandals……

———————————End Quote——————————-

I thank Boniface for the most thought-provoking post.  Even though I flesh out some of the arguments made above, I am still churning on all this, mentally.  This is one of those hot-button topics that tends to elicit very strong reactions – some may be scandalized by my posting this, and I regret if that is the case. But I think these are very important points that need to be considered, and I have not seen them as well fleshed out anywhere else.  None of the above means that I won’t have joy in my heart that two more souls have been added to the constellation of Saints, but I would not be completely honest if I did nto say that I worry what kind of precedent is being set, or if any motives aside from the edification of souls may be driving these canonizations.

Your thoughts are most appreciated.