But what the institutionalists care about is that he stood up to the Marxists and whipped the Liberation Theology wing back into line. JP2, much like Reagan, has been cast among that group as that having "won" that ideological battle nothing else matters.
The base, OTOH, indeed respond to that he made such a huge outreach in person and that for all his political/doctrinal conservatism he had a vision for the active life of the church happening out among the faithful (so long as they remembered the lines of doctrine and authority) rather than keeping it locked up in the episcopates.
Their organization, their rules, their heroes. Whatever. Those of us not trapped in the Middle Ages are free to ignore and/or dismiss all that holy nonsense, and I certainly do.
But it’s still worth considering these people’s effects on the real well-being of real people everywhere, since the organization really does have major impact on the real world. Wojtyla does have his organization’s support of child rape to answer for, along with its institutionalized sexism, even though it’s unfair to hang things they no longer do on his neck. But he did do a great deal to reconnect his organization with the world of real people it affected, a process Bergoglio is advancing.
The main thing I see to admire Wojtyla for is something that doesn’t often get discussed: His role in ending the Cold War. Granted, much of that came from simply being Polish, and thereby representing an alternative leadership for the people of Eastern Europe. He had no fear of the Communist leadership, which would never have dared act against a pope, and was able to make numerous public appearances in his homeland because of that. I do think that helped inspire Poles to think they didn’t need to fear the Communists either. Authoritarian regimes, as we know, cannot survive the loss of fear as a ruling weapon. In truth, that gives credit to the cardinals who had the courage to choose not only a non-Italian but an eastern European more than to the man himself, but even so, he did what they may have wanted him to.
I hope so, but that’s not really the point. That someone is in heaven is a necessary condition for canonization, but it shouldn’t be a sufficient one. The point of canonizing someone isn’t to benefit them (if they are in heaven, they’re already enjoying perfect felicity, and I’m sure they don’t care). It’s to benefit us, by giving us examples of holiness to aspire to. If John Paul II was in some very deep ways a deeply flawed model of holiness, and if more people following his example would in some ways be a bad thing (especially WRT covering up scandals), and if canonizing him would weaken the moral authority of the church by making it seem as though they haven’t purged themselves from the legacy of the scandals, then canonizing him would be a bad idea.
He might be able to get past the Glory of the Moon and into a Celestial Kingdom, but he’ll probably be level capped and won’t be able to hit full exaltation because he wasn’t sealed in a celestial marriage.
Not Catholic here, but I don’t in any way credit that ‘institutionalized sexism’ is an accurate way to describe the Catholic Church, and I do admire that John Paul II was willing to defend Catholic teaching against the mob. His record on the sex-abuse scandal, not so much.
Authoritarian regimes can rely on a lot of other tools besides fear, and a lot of them are genuinely popular.
The Soviet regime collapsed more for economic reasons than for anything else.
Didn’t the Catholic Church used to have a 25-year period after someone’s death before they could be canonized? Or is that my faulty memory?
Either way, it seems to make more sense to wait until someone’s been dead long enough that the passions surrounding them in life have a chance to have died down as well, and the passage of time provides a fuller picture of the candidate’s life and virtues (or lack thereof) and a bit more perspective as well.
Regardless of the worthiness of JPII for sainthood, it would seem that a too-hasty process would in general get the Church a lot of saints that they’ll eventually wish they hadn’t canonized.
But hey, it’s not my church, and they can run it however they want to.
No problem. We’ll just seal him to Mother Theresa posthumously and wait for him to accept the Mormon missionaries teachings as he cools his heels in Spirit Prison.
I think popularity is as good a test as any other for sainthood. There aren’t actually any real ways to determine whose souls have gone on to heaven, so that frees those making the determination from any constraints of rigor.
I believe that the ‘waiting period’ is 5 years after death to begin the canonization process, though this can be waived by the current Pope; Benedict XVI did so in the case of John Paul II.
I am Catholic, and I agree that it’s a bit premature to be canonizing John Paul II, for precisely the reasons you state. If he is deserving of sainthood today, then he should be deserving in 5 or 10 years; I don’t see any pressing reason that he needs to be canonized now, other than the fact that he’s still ‘popular’.