CANONICALLY AND THEOLOGICALLY the postconciliar “Church” needs all the help it can invent. Above all it needs “official” approval, as in speedy canonization of it’s imposing authorities. So the antipopes are placed under the microscope, and their sterling qualities are to be certified by the appointed officials. Since we know that this (1) is impossible, and (2) will be done in Rome, let us examine the methods and mindset of the examiners, as reported of the Postulator who has presented the basis for Wojtyla’s beatification.
By Anita S. Bourdin and Sergio Mora (selections)
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 7, 2011 (Zenit.org)
John Paul II died April 2, 2005 ... The cause for his beatification began on June 28, 2005, after Benedict XVI waived the customary five-year waiting period before a beatification process can begin. He will be beatified May 1 in Rome. (He has even been assigned a Feast Day.)
ZENIT interviewed Monsignor Slawomir Oder, postulator of the Pontiff's cause.
ZENIT: Is the canonization process following the normal route?
Monsignor Oder: Yes, absolutely. The only dispensation … was … from the [five-year] waiting period. But the process itself was carried out, absolutely, in full observance of the canonical norms. There was no preferential treatment, in this sense. [But] the practice … is to [proceed] with cases that, in addition to the [declaration of] heroic virtue, already have a miracle ... Normally, … [after] the diocesan investigation the documentation is transmitted to the Congregation for Saints' Causes, where the positio (proof of heroic virtue) is prepared, then subjected to the discussion of theologians and cardinals. This discussion normally awaits the necessary miracle.
[For John Paul II] … the paperwork on the miracle was submitted to the Congregation the day before the documentation on the virtues ...
ZENIT: Did you discover things previously unknown to you about John Paul II -- a private side never shown in public?
Monsignor Oder: In the context of the process of beatification, nothing stood out in the sense that Wojtyla was the way we knew him in public. There was no split personality, but rather a perfect transparency of the person. Undoubtedly, however, the process did bring to light many aspects.
ZENIT: Is there an aspect that you didn't know and that particularly struck you?
Monsignor Oder: His close, personal and profound relationship with Christ. "He lived in the presence of God, let himself be guided by the Holy Spirit, in constant dialogue with the Lord, and built his whole life around the question [asked to Peter]: 'Do you love me?'" (cut)
ZENIT: Being a mystic, he often found himself alone...
Monsignor Oder: The encounter with the Lord is always a solitary path. We are, clearly, supported by the Church, by brothers in the faith, but then every one of us must travel on that path. Moreover, his relationship [with Christ] was truly personal and individual, and very profound. Those who worked with him would often recount that they would have a clear sense of being before a moment of what we could call a "raptus mistico," in which [John Paul II] was in such a profound dialogue with the Lord that the only thing one could do was to stand back and let him live this moment. (When my attention flags and I fail to reply, it is often diagnosed a “senior moment,” or “Silence is olden.”)
ZENIT: And in that dialogue, was there something that for John Paul II was a cross? For example, he spoke often about the suffering of solidarity. Were there things on this point that troubled him at times?
Monsignor Oder: Look, a man with as great a sensitivity as his could not be indifferent in the face of the sufferings of the world. He was very vigilant, attentive to anything that happened in the world. He was not afraid to say things not in line with the common way of thinking. … Undoubtedly, what he always had in his heart as a great concern was the silent genocide that goes on with abortion. The question about the richness of human life from conception was certainly a constant cross and a suffering in his life.
(His “position” demanded effective action, but displayed criminal omission.)
ZENIT: When John Paul II became Pope at the age of 58, the Church was facing a series of grave challenges that seemed to have no solution, and by the end of the pontificate so many steps had been taken to unite the Church and to resolve these problems.
Monsignor Oder: Yes, he was a Pope who providentially brought to his Petrine ministry the energy of a young man; he was a young Pope. He was also a Pope used to living a situation of confrontation with hostility: the Church in Poland in confrontation with Communism. [He was] a Pope of great intellectual, cultural and scientific preparation, a Pope of great sensitivity, including aesthetic, and mindful of so many values. (Silly proposition, sillier reception!)
And he was able to give back freshness to the Church, always referring to the freshness … given by the Second Vatican Council. He was the Pope who actualized the thought of Vatican II. And … he took ever so many steps, he undertook so many activities which were able, somewhat, to restore (to what?) the boat of the Church.
ZENIT: One sees that the Church took a big step forward during the time of John Paul II's Pontificate. (Right or left? “My direction is forward.”)
Monsignor Oder: Certainly a renewal of the faith, of evangelical enthusiasm.
ZENIT: The Pope used to say that he was Pope because he was the bishop of Rome. How did he live this out?
Monsignor Oder: He always maintained a particular interest in the diocese (from which he strayed far and often, costing those visited half a billion dollars for security).
ZENIT: There were two moments in which I saw the Holy Father almost angry: during an address in which he defended the family and once when he spoke out against the mafia in Sicily. In both cases was it because the value of life was at stake?
Monsignor Oder: Certainly, because of the value of life, but also because at stake was the truth about man. He was a Pope who built his pontificate in a very humanistic key, in the evangelical sense. His first encyclical, "Redemptor Hominis," gives a correct perspective on how to understand precisely the centrality of man who has, at the center of his existence, Christ himself. His was a Christian humanism. This concern of his for human life in all its dimensions stemmed from the Christian concept that he had about the value of life, for which the Savior gave his life (and has recently realized His purpose?).
ZENIT: It seems as if holiness ran in the family. Are there plans to begin the cause for the beatification of John Paul II's father [also named Karol Wojtyła], who was an extraordinary paternal figure who truly marked his son?
Monsignor Oder: Absolutely. (From the horse’s mouth? Seriously, what prominent non-Catholic has the postconciliar “Church” not proposed for canonization?) To see this family is to see how the Lord worked. …
ZENIT: It was John Paul II who wanted the beatification of the parents of Thérèse of Lisieux. Did he learn from his own family the value of the beatification of spouses?
Monsignor Oder: No doubt he had an extraordinary example [of holy spouses] in his life.
ZENIT: How did John Paul II react to the sexual abuse crisis, which took place mostly toward the end of his reign.
Monsignor Oder: It is enough to think of his reaction when the problem surfaced, such as the convocation of American bishops here in Rome to address the problem. When these painful situations came to his direct knowledge, one saw him overwhelmed and determined to give an appropriate answer. (So he assigned the problem to Ratzinger, who continued to bury it for another six years. Who can believe that the best-informed man on earth knew nothing of this huge scandal?)
He was the one who promulgated the new rules (where the old rules, if applied, sufficed) in regard to this type of crime, as a juridical instrument (seldom if ever applied) to resolve these situations.
ZENIT: What can you tell us about the sacrifices he made throughout his pontificate?
Monsignor Oder: The suffering caused by his illness was an aspect that at the end of his days became almost an icon of his pontificate. (If his job was too much, was he not morally obliged to resign?)
ZENIT: He founded the Good Samaritan Foundation for patients with AIDS.
Monsignor Oder: He created the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry (to take credit for the genuine charity practiced in the Church from the first).
ZENIT: There has been talk of the Holy Father's spiritual legacy of mercy. What was John Paul II's understanding of mercy?
Monsignor Oder: There are so many interventions of his that relate precisely to this aspect of mercy, of magnanimity, of the capacity to imitate the greatness of the love of God who bends down before mankind, who is weak and fragile. He said that forgiveness is the foundation of all true progress of human society. (True progress lies in fulfilment of Christ’s mission and mandate to make disciples of all nations; now officially flouted and terminated by St. Peter’s supposed successors.)
ZENIT: What is the impact of John Paul II's beatification on the Church in Poland?
Monsignor Oder: This is a milestone in our history, but John Paul II is not a Polish phenomenon. John Paul II was a gift for humanity.
He inspired others to recognize their own identity, history, and roots (and apologized for replacing their savagery with conversion). … He brought about this new sentiment in the Church of feeling oneself a child of God, and a brother to others (thereby replacing the knowledge revealed to all baptized into the Church from its first day that we are children of God and must love one another).
At the moment of the election in St. Peter's Square, you could hear shouts in Polish, "Long live the Pope!" This truly made me understand the faith of the people of Poland. It had really grown and matured next to this great Pope. (So much for the preceding millennium!)
(So far no mention of the field day the Devil’s Advocate may have had with Wojtyla’s contributions to and signatures on modernist and heretical Vatican II documents.)
We hear that Wojtyla’s beatification rests on heroic sanctity, and has nothing to do with his exalted position. That we can surely understand. For when he was elected, most Catholics attended “Mass” on Sundays and Holy Days, and we still could cite the canon laws which the postconciliar “Church” continued to violate. He not merely neglected his responsibilities; he abolished them – and the ordinary means of salvation and sanctification.
What must we say of the legitimacy and motives of the “papacy” which beatifies or canonizes such specimens?