 |
| (source) |
About a week ago I had a long conversation with an old friend of my wife's who was complaining about some bad habits of Tradistanis, in particular the mindless aphorism that a good Catholic should "Be like the saints." What about St. Simon the Stylite, she wondered, who lived the last few decades of his life upon a pillar? Should we also live on a pillar until our deaths, or should we arbitrarily choose another saint to imitate? The question was provocative, but it made the point that it is rather absurd to advocate the imitation of the saints without being somewhat more specific about the ways in which we are to imitate them.
It used to be that sainthood was a glory bestowed on certain of the faithful departed who had lived a life of extraordinary virtue in some manner worthy of admiration and imitation. They needed to be publicly recognized so that we could learn from their spiritual fruitfulness and also so they could be called upon for intercession with the Most High. God especially loves those who love him, and is more willing to be swayed by their requests.
Christians could learn what makes a good pope from Gregory the Great, what makes a good penitent from Augustine, what makes a good monk from Benedict. Martyrs teach a simple though difficult lesson, but the lessons we are supposed to abstract from most of the more recently elevated are ambiguous. What shall we learn from Teresa of Calcutta: that we may permit pagans to die unbaptized? Shall we learn from Mary Faustina Kowalska how to feminize Our Lord? Can Josemaria Escriva teach us how to terrorize our subordinates? Was John Paul's particular virtue popularity? When the virtues desired for imitation are not specified, the faithful are left to assume that those canonized are perfect through and through without any shade of turning, and will perform extraordinary feats of mental gymnastics to maintain this pious fiction.
Adding P. Paul to the very kalendar he created is fitting, if not edifying. We do not yet know how Pontifrancis intends to laud his progressive predecessor. One wishes we had reason to hope for the best, but one also knows better.
It seems that from J23 onward, popes have been canonized for their papacy. JP1 simply didn't have time to leave his mark on the world as a pope so he doesn't even get to be beatified.
ReplyDeleteGod's influence in these matters seems practically non-existent...
Actually, there *is* an effort underway to beatify John Paul I. Don't be surprised if he is raised to the altars, too.
DeleteJ., Very sad news, though delivered in a well-written post.
ReplyDeleteA priest I know who worked in the Vatican (the Pont. Council on Culture) said back in the '90's that Paul VI could never be canonized due to the record of his episcopal appointments alone. Neither that priest nor any of us foresaw that all the strictures for canonization would be chucked out, or in some cases virtually made into a mockery.
Frankly, Paul VI was dubious, at best, in his personal associations; extremely imprudent in many of his decisions; and infamous for signing his name at least once to something proximate to heresy.
And of course, the traditional hallmark of all non-Martyr Saints--the working of miracles--has been diluted to the point of absurdity in these "canonizations."
Capreolus, by "something proximate to heresy," are you thinking of the first edition of the GIRM and its dubious definition of the Mass?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, A. D. A more orthodox age would also have taken strong exception to the complete omission of the eternal punishment of hell in his "Credo of the People of God."
Delete@Capreolus
Delete"He ascended to heaven, and He will come again, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead: each according to his merits—those who have responded to the love and piety of God going to eternal life, those who have refused them to the end going to the fire that is not extinguished."
From the Solemni Hac Liturgia, a.k.a. Credo of the People of God.
Marko:
DeleteA circumlocution at best; but your point is valid.
At the time, and afterwards, remark was made of the absence of "hell" and condemnation in the final part of the "Credo," during the exposition of the resurrection of the dead, etc.
Without diminishing Paul VI's many useful reiterations of Catholic dogma here, we can still note a certain "accommodation" to the Post-Conciliar spirit.
But if it said Hell some people would probably argue it's not clear enough because there are now people who don't imagine Hell as a place of fire...
DeletePapal incumbency and 'sainthood'seem now rather like eminent British Parliamentarians being made Life Peers and re-appearing in the other place.
ReplyDeleteLook on the bright side - at least it is Paul VI, basically a good man tormented by his conscience, and not his mentor, old Papa Pacelli, getting the award.
I’m not sure that the quotation from St Faustina is entirely fair, and the baptism of Hindus in Kolkata by St Teresa is complicated. But I agree with the thrust.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that JPI was holier than Paul VI and that JPII’s suffering in the end is what brought him to the altars.
The point is that these recently canonized are very much a mixed bag, and the official reasoning given for their canonizations is both sparse and vague. We can speculate about the best lessons to glean from their lives (JP2's great suffering is a reasonable one), but this is being left to individual piety. I thought the point of canonization was so we could all venerate the saint in a unified fashion.
DeleteTheology of The Body; Pope Saint John Paul II; That is manifested above all in that stage in which man ('adam) is definitively created as male and female (‘is-‘issah).
ReplyDeleteIt is Catholic Dogma that Jesus is of Adamic origins, so, is Jesus a hermaphrodite?
I suspect that John Paul's passage could be read in other ways, but it is rightly observed that this is at least needlessly ambiguous.
Delete