John Paul II

Saturday April 2, 2005

“Many Are Called but Few Are Chosen”

I was among some eighty American priest students at the graduate house of the North American College in Rome when on November 22, 1963 at 8:45 PM the news of John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s assassination reached our ears. We had just entered the refectory for the evening meal when Karl Mengling rushed into the room and with tears in his eyes and shouted, “Our president has been shot!” Karl was a practical joker and never lost an opportunity to pull a fast one on someone or on all of us together. But we knew he would not blaspheme our president with such an outrageous announcement.

A pall fell upon the room and within seconds we made our way to the TV room to witness the replay of tragic event that in one instant traumatized the world.

The regularly scheduled radio and TV programs were suspended. Somber music filled the airwaves interrupted only now and then by announcements of special services and updates on arrangements taking place in Washington DC. All of Rome, indeed, all of Italy fell silent. I stood near the sanctuary of the Basilica of Saint John Lataran, the Cathedral Church for the Diocese of Rome, for the solemn requiem celebrated by the Vicar of Rome.

The next morning, every newspaper carried the headline news, “IL PRESIDENTE KENNEDY E MORTE!” – The President is Dead! “KENNEDY ASSASSINATO!” Kennedy Assassinated!

Not since that occasion has the death of one man had such an impact as the announcement on Saturday that John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the universal Church had died.

The world fell silent at approximately 3:00 PM on April 2nd as the news circulated by radio, TV and e-mail that the vigil was over. John Paul “the Great” as he has already been crowned by his admirers, had succumbed to the illness that has plagued him for years and which in recent weeks had signaled that the end his long career was near. He passed peacefully in the presence of those who were closest to him in life – his papal secretaries, housekeepers and closest friends.

On my return from the first annual SNAP Latino Conference in Totowa, I turned on the TV. Most of the commercial and standard cable channels were broadcasting interviews – ready to go—which I assume had been prepared long before the announcement. Though the interviews were spontaneous, the script was predictable. Who could or would say anything that would even hint at criticism of a man who in many ways had become an icon to people of every race and nation. Even those who believed that the fall of communism should not be credited to him single-handedly were nonetheless generous in their attributions and praised the tenacity of this fearless spiritual warrior in defense of freedom.

I watched for over an hour as anchormen and women interviewed political and religious personages of prominence while in the background cameras panned the brightly lit façade of St. Peter’s and the large ‘circular’ square embraced by the Bernini columns

It was truly a moment of pride for the Catholic Church in America, indeed, throughout the world; pride not in his death but in his life and the legacy that he has left to millions.

However, at a certain point, I began to feel as if I were watching an staged and scripted drama orchestrated with liturgies and flashbacks of papal trips throughout the world, albeit a veritable kaleidoscopic review of the life of an extraordinary pope but also of an ordinary man whose rise to greatness was catapulted by extraordinary events not of his own making.

Despite my desire to honor him for his greatness, there was within me a visceral need to validate the cause of those whose needs this generous pope could not satisfy. No human is without his or her ‘Achilles heal.’ Not even the Pope of Rome, the “Vicar of Christ” can lay claim to perfection on this earth. His greatness is not in his earthly power but in his spiritual lowliness before the world. In truth, the “servant is not greater than the master.”

The repetition of anticipated tributes from politicians and the praise of pious Catholics became monotonous after a while. I needed to know more about the man whom I admired greatly but with whom I sometimes disagreed. I found comparisons with Ron Reagan just a bit excessive. No two figures could have been further apart on issues of poverty and justice and of war and peace.

As I surfed channels, I came upon a rebroadcast of ‘Frontline’ on PBS that was already in progress. Produced three or four years ago, it was not a eulogy or even a tribute to the Pope but a forthright review of his papacy with snippets of his early career in Poland. I suppose the latter could be described as his ‘hidden’ years in preparation for his election as Bishop of Rome. But to the people of Poland, they were far from hidden.

The interviewees, both men and women, ranged from students of theology and history as well as ordinary folks in the street. They spoke of the ‘man’ Karol Woytola, poet, playwright, athlete and actor and humanist. But they also spoke of a man with an agenda. Driven by power but not to privilege or prestige I think he believed it was his destiny to free his countrymen from the oppression of communism. He pursued that cause relentlessly not with weapons of war but with words that enabled the common people to recognize their God-given freedom. He empowered them to take back what was rightfully theirs – the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Little did he know that these were the qualities that would lead him to the ‘throne’ of Peter.

Frontline was not about a hero or a living saint. It was a careful review of the life of a religious leader whose words and deeds impacted on global affairs, both religious and political, for good and for bad. It was about a man to be reckoned with not only for the strength of his personal convictions but also for his influence on the weak and the strong.

It was the only program that included interviews with dissident reformers such as Bishop Tom Gumbleton and former priest and author, Jim Carroll as well as prominent defenders of papal primacy all of whom contributed to the portrait of a complex man who was a mixed blessing to many and who appeared sometimes taciturn and at other times playful.

John Paul II has been called “the great communicator” but he was not always the greatest listener. It would probably be more accurate to state that he was a confident communicator – confident that what he said and what he wrote were authorized by higher authority, indeed, by divine authority. Though others attempted to declare them so, every word he spoke or wrote was not infallible. Moreover, despite the efforts of Vatican bureaucrats to prevent discussion and dissent, such prohibitions served only to foment discussion and dissent. John Paul II was a realist and seemed to have been able to take it in stride, preferring instead to take a longer view of the Church, appointing bishops and cardinals who would adhere strictly to dogmas, doctrines and disciplines that he was convinced were rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

He was willing to gamble with time and take the risk that over time divisions would be healed by the firm and clear leadership of his appointees. The risk of course is that these leaders may not conform always and everywhere to those dogmas, doctrines and disciplines without the adaptation that is inevitable through enculturation. But John Paul knew his history and he also trusted in the work of the Holy Spirit. He knew that the Church was not his to control but his to lead. The Church belongs God. Its shepherd is Christ and its driving force is the Holy Spirit. Defined by the Fathers of Vatican II as “the People of God,” all have a share in its earthly definition and divine destiny.

As I watched Frontline, I was fascinated by the extraordinary strength of JP II and his versatility as he moved around the globe – the most traveled Pope in history. With few exceptions, he drew more crowds than any celebrity and with ease spoke whatever language was proper for the country or region.

At the same time, I was also puzzled by his disposition toward the Church in Latin America, in particular, his position on Liberation Theology. His impatience with totalitarian rule in Poland under communism was not translated into impatience with totalitarian governments in Central and South America. A particularly disturbing exchange between Archbishop Oscar Romero and the Holy Father one month prior to Romero’s assassination left me with an empty feeling that indeed John Paul’s understanding of the mission of the Church to the poor was relative to the need of the Church to remain in power. In truth, it was his fear of the influence of Karl Marx on Liberation Theology that resulted in his demand that priests remove themselves from direct involvement in politics and government. Some might see in this a double standard – one for Poland another for Latin America. This is probably simplistic but the comparison is probably not without justification.

The early death of his mother left Karol Woytola with only one woman of any strong influence in his life. She was the Virgin Mary. His devotion to her is without a doubt unsurpassed by any pope in modern times to say nothing of any other religious leader. His devotion to Mary was not overly pietistic. Though the term may appear chauvinistic, his disposition toward Mary was ‘manly,’ that is to state that he related to Mary as a mature man relates to his own devoted mother with deep respect and affection.

The downside of the absence of women in his life has shown up in his reticence to view the role contemporary women in society or in the Church in anything but very traditional categories. His defense of the restriction of ordination – to the diaconate and to the priesthood – as doctrinal rather than disciplinary is unyielding. This prohibition will probably remain so for several more pontificates.

The rule of celibacy for priests in the Western Church (it is not forbidden in the Eastern Roman Catholic Church) with the exception of converts from other Christian churches remains a sore spot not only for priests but more so for Catholic laity who for many years have expressed their willingness, indeed their desire that celibacy be optional.

On balance, John Paul II will be remembered for his childlike – not childish – faith. His faith was simple and uncomplicated. It was the staple of his life. He would give his life for his faith and in many respects, he did. Undoubtedly it was his simplicity of life-style despite the formal trappings that surrounded him that endeared him to the hearts of millions and constituted his universal appeal to the young. He inspired the young and the old to goodness and therefore to ‘Godness.’ One does not have to be of the same faith or of the same political persuasion as he to be inspired by his witness.

He was prophetic in that he called our attention to important issues. Whether or not we agreed with his stand, we could not be indifferent to the deplorable condition of the world’s poorest nor to the casualness with which we often deal with life issues. His frequent references to the ‘culture of death’ were not without justification on many counts. Although the nuances in many real life situations may require exceptions, scholars will testify, “exceptions make bad law.”

He was a champion of freedom of conscience, and in his deference to sincere believers of other traditions, he unwittingly fostered the independence of Catholic conscience within the fold. This has been a thorny issue among Catholic moralists and surely among Catholics in the pew. For example, Catholics have overwhelmingly resolved their consciences in favor of artificial birth control. I doubt that there is a moderate but sincere Catholic anywhere or even a moderate and sincere priest who defends the ‘traditional’ ban on birth control. Although John Paul II attempted to strengthen the monarchical control on the conscience of Roman Catholics, his words have fallen on deaf ears with regard to this and other sensitive life issues, not least among them, decisions about what constitutes extraordinary and artificial means to prolong life such as tubal feeding and hydration.

Not only young people, even the adult ‘faithful’ who have stood among the crowds during the Holy Father’s visits around the world, do not base their moral decision on authority alone but on the combination of experience, sound advice from counselors and spiritual directors/confessors. In other words, the faithful form their conscience on a broad data-base that includes all of the above.

Divorced Catholics in second marriages who have found it impossible to resolve their intolerable situation through the Church courts have found a resolution in the form of their conscience which has allowed untold numbers to continue to remain full communicants and practice their faith with integrity.

It is to John Paul’s credit that the traditional Catholic teaching on the priority of conscience can also support the freedom of these ‘conscientious’ Catholics in exceptional situations. No less authority than Saint Thomas Aquinas supports these exceptions.

It is also interesting that John Paul II was a champion of truth. Yet, many of those who now praise him for his relentless defense of truth-telling, including some bishops, have not been paradigms of virtue in this regard. It is interesting that when the Holy Father tells the truth, everyone listens, whether or not they agree with him. When others of lower rank tell the truth, they are marginalized by lesser authorities.

I would like to have been able to state that John Paul championed the case and casue of thousands of boys and girls abused by trusted clergy, religious and lay ministers of the Church, most of whom have not and may never come forward. I believe he apologized to Jews, to Protestants, to Moslems and to a host of others inside and outside the Church for the past sins of the Church, and rightly so. However, somehow, victims of abuse received hardly more than a nod. Undoubtedly, he has never heard the stories from the lips of these souls, many of whom still remain ‘children’ in many respects. It would not be unfair to state that those who surround him ‘protected’ him from exposure to these shocking stories. I have no doubt that had he heard the stories, he would have invited victims to Rome and would have washed their feet on Holy Thursday as “Servus, servorum Dei”—Servant of the servants of God.

Although John Paul II participated fully in public debate on issues affecting global justice and especially the rights of the poor, especially in his open criticism of unbridled capitalism and unwarranted preemptory invasion of sovereign states, many of those who will be standing in the front row of Saint Peter’s have not heeded his words, preferring instead to ‘market’ their own policies which in many cases favor the rich over the poor.

If I may return to the media before concluding this commentary, I am intrigued by the media hype and find it curious that the same official and unofficial Catholic churchpersons who criticized the media for bashing the Catholic Church during the sex scandal have taken full advantage of the media hype on the coverage of John Paul’s death and burial rites. If the truth be known, news coverage is a big business. Church communications personnel have done their homework and the media has responded.

The media are ware that the majority of viewers want to see it all – to see every face and to hear every word. We live in an age in which technology allows us to ‘be there.’ This is all to the good. Media experts also know that this is its opportunity for redemption for what appeared in the minds of many Catholics to have been excesses during the media blitz on the scandal. Of course, the bottom line is always the bottom line – economics. Please do not think me cynical. I mean no criticism of the media or of ecclesiastical public relations officers. Archbishop John Foley, Pontifical Secretary of Communications for the Vatican is a colleague and friend. I felt a surge of pride as I watched him last evening on “Meet the Press.” Were I to have had the opportunity to speak with him after his appearance I would have chided him for a couple of inaccuracies in his observation about what Jesus did and did not teach about priestly celibacy. Now, how’s that for arrogance!

Let me say that I have counted members of the media among my closest friends and colleagues. I have found their respect for truth exceptional, far beyond what I have experienced in Church circles. So lest you think me unfair, be assured that the media is performing extraordinarily well doing what they do best.

In many ways, John Paul II was a kindred spirit within media circles. He knew how to get the best out of them. Conversely, they also knew how to get the best out of him. It’s a good combination.

Within the week, reporters will go home to meet new deadlines. Cameras will be packed away and the press will go to press with new stories. That’s life and that’s death.

There is an very old Latin phrase which I have yet to hear during this time of mourning and it’s this, “Sic transit gloria mundi” which is translated, “So goes the glories of this world.” It is chanted upon the death of the Pope. Perhaps it was chanted in the chambers of John Paul II. If not, it surely was chanted ‘in pectore’ (in his heart) as he passed into eternal glory.

And so in the providence of God, it was his time to move on to a larger realm in which he will now share God’s vision for the Church. He will come to know the mind of God in all its fullness as he has never known it before. Even as he attempted to be a pope for all seasons, he will now be a man for all seasons and take his place with Peter and all the great popes of history most of whom despite their human frailties led the ‘People of God’ with faith and courage and love until the very end.

We have been reminded in recent times that we are only in the early stages of this Christian movement and still in the formative years of Church life. We are neophytes in our understanding of God’s way. John Paul II has sown his seeds but others will follow to provide the water. God will provide the growth in God’s own time.

John Paul II was a man touched by grace who responded to grace and who was an occasion of grace for millions.

“Blest of all who die in the Lord. Let them rest from their labors for their good works go with them.”

May he rest in peace!

Recent Articles

Seventh Sunday of Easter 'B'

Living the Mystery at the town square As I walked recently to the Green in the center of Morristown after my…continue reading...

Sixth Sunday of Easter 'C'

In all things, charity It continues to astound me how the Scriptures come to life over and over again under different…continue reading...

Sixth Sunday of Easter 'C'

In all things, charity It continues to astound me how the Scriptures come to life over and over again under different…continue reading...

Fifth Sunday of Easter 'B'

Let’s stay connected. It’s not unusual to hear family members or close friends at the departure gates of life say to…continue reading...

Fourth Sunday of Easter 'B'

Watch out for the leopards! When my sister and I were kids, my father would whistle for us when it was…continue reading...