First published in The Reign of Mary, Issue #137
By Rev. Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI
Just one week before Christmas there was significant news from the Vatican: Benedict XVI had just signed a decree acknowledging that his predecessor John Paul II had practiced virtue in a heroic degree. Such a decree is preliminary to beatification and eventual canonization.
There never was any doubt in the minds of informed observers that John Paul II would be canonized. Even before his death 5 years ago his adoring fans had dubbed him “John Paul II the Great.” The throngs that attended his funeral guaranteed that his case would be given special consideration. And so Benedict XVI, shortly after his election in April, 2005, expressed his desire that he would be able to canonize John Paul II soon. Consequently, he declared that the normal waiting period before a canonization inquiry could begin would be waived.
Previous to Vatican Council II canonizations were few and far between. The bar was raised so high and so much was required that many otherwise deserving servants of God remained uncanonized. Many candidates for canonization were rejected for what might appear minor deficiencies. Then John Paul II revised the requirements of the canonization process (in 1983). Whereas the process could not begin until well after the death of the servant of God, now it could begin soon after his death. Fewer miracles were required, and the evidence became easier to demonstrate.
Then came Benedict XVI. In his eagerness to canonize John Paul II, he moved up the process. The modernists would have their saint, and nothing would stand in the way. But not all are in favor. Let us listen to the words of a modern Catholic observer, who expresses concern over this pending canonization. (Remember that, being a member of the Conciliar Church, this blogger does not even touch upon the subject of heresy, which would be for us of paramount importance.)
“The allegations highlight what for all too many Catholics is the elephant-in-the-room when discussing the ills which beset the modern Church: the extent to which the late Pope John Paul II was an enabler of these perversions, from sexual and liturgical abuse to theological dissent and the scandal of Catholic politicians who support the most immoral of social policies with the tacit or express blessings of their Church. …His Pontificate, by all accounts, was a glorious failure. …Though Catholics and others are loathe to admit it of an otherwise beloved Pope, John Paul II oversaw a church which deteriorated in both its inner and outer life. His callous indifference toward the victims of priestly sexual abuse in refusing to meet personally with a single one of them, and his stubborn refusal to compel the resignation from office of any of the bishops who aided, abetted, and covered-up the abuse, are testamentary to his utter failure: not as a Catholic or a theologian, but as a Pope. And this is precisely why he should not be canonized” (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2009/07_08/2009_08_14_Giunta_WhyPope.htm).
So how has the Vatican dealt with this and similar objections? They have resorted to the same tactics used for the beatification of John XXIII. In the year 2000 John XXIII, who initiated Vatican II and allowed modernism to come into the Church, was beatified in the same ceremony as Pope Pius IX. Is that not a contradiction? The greatest foe of liberalism is beatified together with one who overturned his condemnations! In fact, this tactic was a masterstroke of diabolical genius, for all the outcry that one might have expected at the elevation of John XXIII was instead focused on the person of Pope Pius IX. How could the Vatican canonize someone who was so insensitive, who railed against modern progress, and so on? Amidst all the print given to a discussion of the merits of Pope Pius IX, the elevation of John XXIII passed under the radar of scrutiny.
Now the enemies of religion have resorted to a similar tactic in the approach to the eventual canonization of John Paul II: in the decree accepting the heroic nature of his virtues, those of Pope Pius XII were also acknowledged. Once again, the scrutiny that might otherwise have been given to the life of Karol Wojtyla has been shifted to that of Pope Pius XII: Did he do all he could for the Jews in World War II, etc.? So under this microscope, the defects of John Paul II are ignored. Furthermore, such a joint declaration implies that both Karol Wojtyla and Eugene Pacelli were birds of a feather. But nothing could be further from the truth. The difference between Pope Pius XII with all that he stood for and accomplished AND John Paul II, with all that he achieved, is like the difference between day and night.
Make no mistake about it — the day is not far off when John Paul II will be beatified, and shortly thereafter he will be canonized by the Conciliar Church. And when that happens, those who are members of that church will have to face the reality that a modernist who consistently promoted religious liberty, ecumenism and interfaith gatherings of all kinds, is considered by their church to be a saint. No amount of efforts to pair him with Pope Pius XII (and all the pre-Vatican II popes) will be able to obscure that fact.