I remember in 1978 when a lot of kids like me were confused by the disturbing rapidity with which the pictures of the Pope in the anteroom of Our Lady of the Rosary, Kenmore changed. The passing of Pope John Paul II has been noticed on a number of blogs, so I won’t add to the attempts to assess his life and work. If the inimitable Dreadnought is to your taste, he promises to continue his extensive coverage. I will observe that any human death is saddening, and that the death of such a prominent figure inevitably stirs up emotions. But I will also make a few other quick observations.
The Catholic Church well understands the power of symbolic representation, and it would be a very interesting sign if the next Pope were to come from a developing country.
Secondly, it struck me – just as many of those who have tipped the next Pope predeceased John Paul II – how newspapers such as The Australian published tribute supplements before the Pope had actually died. While on one level understandable, as quite a few papers have no Sunday edition, and it’s a slow day in the news market, this seems to me a touch undignified and tacky. Of course, few pronouncements of “Habemus Papam” are as premature as that by this schismatic group, the existence of which is itself a sign of sorts of the state of the Church…
A related point is that the rush to canonise John Paul II and accord him the title “John Paul the Great” is somewhat premature. John XXIII strikes me as a saintly figure and he’s been dead for some decades without being canonised. One of the things John Paul II was criticised for was the speed and number of the saints he made, and I think the traditional policy of judicious and rigorous reflection and examination has a lot to recommend it. I suspect the verdict of history will show John XXIII to have been the more significant figure.
There’s no question that John Paul II was a restorationist in ecclesiastical matters (a position with which I largely disagree though I applaud almost all of his stands on issues such as poverty and war) – and the Church is at somewhat of a crossroads. In this context, while I think that calls for Pope to be democratically elected miss the mark (implementing the Vatican II principles of subsidiarity and collegiality and curial reform would be more to the point), it’s important not to lose sight of voices such as Hans Kung’s, who provides this typically rigorous and uncompromising assessment of the state of the Church in Der Spiegel. He’s part of the People of God, too, as are all Catholics, and not just conservatives like Cardinal Pell, whose statement that there are “no young liberal Catholics in Australia” might reasonably be said to brand him as an ideologue rather than as a pastor. One temptation the universal Church must avoid is retreat into apocalyptic fantasies about being “the saving remnant”. Nothing could be less true to Christ, nor for the most part to the spirit of John Paul II. Vale, Karol Karol Woytyla.
Lux aeterna luceat eis, Domine: Cum sanctis tuis in aeternum, quia pius es.
Elsewhere: Miss P also has some thoughts at piss’n'vinegar, as does Rowen at Sailing Close to the Wind.
Remnant is the right word to describe truecatholic.org:
It’s a bit sad really when you read some more of the site.
As a liberal atheist, I thought John Paul II was on the wrong side of just about every moral and ethical debate within Western societies. But on the huge political battles of the twentieth century, the battles that mattered more than any other, against Nazism and against communsim, he was undoubtedly on the right side, and very significantly on the right side in the case of communism. For that at least he deserves an honourable place in history.
It’s interesting how few people (myself included) interested in politics agree with the Pope consistently – possibly because his position (while consistent) was articulated from very different premisses. Some of his social conservative admirers are embarrassed by his social justice views, for instance.
I think when looking at the Pope’s perspective on social justice issues, it’s important to criticise the process for electing the Pope first and foremost, not the man himself who has just passed away. It’s probably true that the Pope’s views were not truly representative of Catholics generally, due to the fact that he was originally elected by the world’s cardinals alone.
Guy, that’s where the religious logic of truth rubs up against the secular logic of democracy. It’s not necessary for the Pope to be representative of the opinions of Catholics, the theological argument would go, as his function is to lead them into the truth.