THE TWILIGHT STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

One notes in passing the canonization of Pope John XXIII and John Paul II by the Catholic Church. 

As a Lutheran, I have no competence in evaluating the respective "credentials" of either of these men.  The elevation of some men and women to this outstanding level of sainthood is foreign to me and (putting it diplomatically) so beside the point.  At the very least, such elevation obscures Luther's teaching of simul lustus et peccator--that is, the Christian is both sinner and saint at the same time.  To be fair, the Catholic Church has long been decidedly cool toward this doctrine.  To add another not too fine point, Lutherans are decidedly cool to the whole notion of praying to the saints. 

Catholicism holds that praying to the saints has been practiced since the early days of the Church and upheld by tradition.  Catholicism also states that praying to the saints in no way undermines Christ as the sole mediator between God and man.  It is the same as asking the living to pray for you--there is no sin in asking the saints to pray for you to God.  In contrast, Lutherans object to praying to the saints is that it is nowhere to be found in Scripture--there is no command to do so nor is there any promise associated with praying to the saints.

As far as it goes, in discussions between Catholics and Lutherans, canonization to stand as a "proxy war" in the interminable argument on sola scriptura verses tradition. 

Certainly, the dispute between Scripture alone and Scripture and tradition will not be resolved anytime soon.  So canonization is more an entertaining curiosity--sort of like people watching.  We Lutherans may make comments among ourselves, critique the ritual, mark how horrible Catholics are at singing as a congregation; but are irrelevant strictly speaking--we are on the outside looking in.

The machinations within the Catholic hierarchy are a long running interest among some; but I myself have more interested in the reactions within the Catholic family.  Generally, the laity have been enthusiastic to the naming of John XXIII and John Paul II to sainthood.  (One might recall the many signs calling for the immediate canonization of John Paul II at his funeral.)  Among the Catholic chattering classes, reaction has been more thoughtful and (to put the kindest construction on it) often guarded.

OK. Given the proviso that this Lutheran's evaluation of the Roman canonization process has all the qualification of a baseball couch's insight into a lacrosse match, I cannot but note a few intriguing incongruences between the left and right canonization parties.

Both the left and the right have little objection to the canonization John XXIII.  Progressives have a favorable regard almost solely due to his calling of the Second Vatican Council.  They most commonly assume John XXIII's stamp of approval of what came out of the council although John himself did not live to see the deliberations and completion of its documents.  Progressives look to John's opening declaration of the council in which he stated the Church did not need to repeat or reformulate existing doctrines and dogmata but rather had to teach Christ's message in light of the modern world's ever-changing trends.  Given their proclivities, one can see how progressives would take this and run with it. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, see more of a continuity in John with the historic Catholic church--certainly no sharp break or turn from the Church's teachings.  They hold that it is altogether unlikely if not impossible John would have approved the directions the progressive wing has tried to take the Church after the Second Vatican Council.  In accordance with conservative proclivities, John's intentions are given the most benign construction in their telling.

What is puzzling is that, in these discussions among both conservatives and liberals, is that there is little mention of John's efforts during World War II to save as many Jews as he could from the clutches of the Nazi's--a surreptitious activity to which hundreds if not thousands of Jews owed their lives.  (Indeed, several prominent leaders within the Jewish community have proposed naming John as one of the "righteous gentiles".)  One would think this would be at least toward the forefront in discussing his canonization.

It is with Pope John Paul II that the long knives come out.  As clearly as can be seen, liberals dislike him and conservatives love him.  The reason is that John Paul II (along with Benedict XVI who followed him) soundly reasserted Catholic orthodoxy as the rule of faith with the Church.  Thus conservatives see him as one of their own.  Liberals, in turn, roundly criticize John Paul for his betrayal of Vatican II.

In short, John Paul II did not embrace or endorse the "progressive" agenda of the Catholic left.  Just the opposite.  He opposed that agenda at every turn; setting the progress of the Catholic left back several decades.  Certainly not to the Vatican I Church; but by their lights pretty close to it.

John Paul II forcefully condemned abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts as gravely sinful.  In a few short years, he dismantled Liberation Theology as a legitimate expression of Catholicism.  In addition, he foreclosed any reforms concerning accepting the "second marriages" of the faithful by the Church--including maintaining the withholding of communion from the divorced.  And John Paul also would not consider loosening sexual intercourse from the institution of marriage.  Thus any sexual behavior outside of marriage remained illicit.

Perhaps the gold standard for reform by many, John Paul II disappointed progressive hopes by refusing to abandon traditional theologies concerning the priesthood.   With the sole exception of married clergy from other Christian faith traditions converting to Catholicism and entering into its priesthood, he ruled out marriage for priests and maintained the rule of celibacy.  In addition, he rejected allowing women into the priesthood citing what he believed was the Church's lack of authority to do so.  Without such authority, all women priests would not be legitimate in the eyes of Christ.  (This concern for authority in this issue carries little water among most Protestants in Europe and North America.  But it seems very few Catholic progressives themselves bother to engage the question of authority in relation to women in the priesthood.)  John Paul strongly considered making the all-male priesthood an perpetual doctrine of the Church and pronouncing the question closed Ex cathedra.  In the end, he was dissuaded for doing so by the insistence of Joseph Ratzinger to show restraint.

If there is one aspect of John Paul II's pontificate which both Progressives and Conservative agree was a black mark against his tenure, it was the failure to address the emerging sex scandals within the priesthood and the cover-ups by bishops and the Roman hierarchy.  The reason John Paul II refused recognize the rising disaster was that pedophilia and adultery were routine charges Nazi and Communist authorities in the East leveled at politically troublesome priests.  When he first heard about the clerical abuses in the West, he thought they were a piece of the same persecutions against the Church.  To some degree, we look back on this time with 20/20 hindsight; yet one has to admit he mishandled the entire situation.  When he realized this charges were genuine, he summoned the bishops to Rome and read them the riot act.  Unfortunately, by this time, John Paul was suffering the ravages of Parkinson's disease and could not lead the cleansing himself.  It did, however, belatedly pave the way for the unprecedented houseclean by his friend and successor Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI).  Nevertheless, for many if not most, it was days late and many dollars short.

"Why rush to canonize a Pope who had installed the very bishops who were most guilty of protecting the worst sex offenders in the Church?" many have asked.  The response sometimes given is an analogy:  "I've yet to find any serious Christian who thinks let of Jesus for having chosen Judas as an apostle".  I myself don't find this very satisfactory nor do fair number of Catholics of all stripes; but then I (and they) don't get a vote.

Conventional wisdom is that the two Popes who passed away over forty years apart were canonized simultaneously so that Pope Francis hoped to please both the Progressive and Traditional wings of the Catholic Church.  It seemed so as Pope Francis purposely waived the confirmed "second miracle" requirement which had delay Pope John's recognition toward sainthood.  Pope Benedict himself had greased the rails for Pope John Paul II and so it seems this dual Canonization Mass had been in the works for some time.

Still, it rankles the Progressives that John Paul II was recognized for sainthood being that in their book he singlehandedly aborted needed reforms.  In addition, the belief is without a John Paul II there would have been no Benedict XVI.  This is puzzling.  The fact is Popes John, Paul, John Paul II, and Benedict had hardly the thin edge of a paper's difference regarding Catholic doctrine--including on moral doctrinal issues.  What is more, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both present at the councils and had significant hands in writing the sixteen separate documents which came to be known as Vatican II.  It stretches the imagine to believe that the writers of these documents somehow missed their "spirit". 

For those of us born after the nineteen-forties, the language of "addressing the Gospel message to the modern age" and finding ways to make Christianity "relevant" to contemporary peoples sounds only like so much boilerplate.  Nothing exception.  Sounds like what the Church has always done--if often hamfistedly.  But to Progressive and Conservative Catholics, it appears it was a departure from the idioms the Church had used in the past--marching orders for the one and regrettable misspoken to the other.

Even conservative Lutherans find there are a number of causes they find fellow-feeling with Catholic Progressives--particularly regarding contraception, and using the vernacular in worship.  On the other hand, progressive Lutherans took their cue from Vatican II and ran headlong into the "new".  Anyone who has had to bear with the ever new assortment of liturgies which are churned out every year (or so it seems) can have some sympathy for those Catholics who miss the Latin Mass.  One is tempted to that is the least of the abuses coming the Lutheran left except often the rewording of the traditional language of the "order of the mass" leaves one suspicious of what is meant or obscured. 

Both the Catholic and Lutheran left have long endeavored to wrap abortion into the bundle of contraception--making it just one possibility of a variety of contraceptive options.  (Admittedly, the Catholic left has had a tougher row to hoe on this one as most forms of contraception are already unlawful under established Catholic theology.)  For those Lutherans for whom abortion is a profound evil--a malicious injustice to the unborn--the spectre that future generations will sing to our graves a bitter song loams large.  

The Catholic Church's witness to the sacramental nature of marriage has stood as a bulwark against efforts within the Church to redefine marriage to include a menagerie of relational constellations as well as changing the meaning of the very institution itself.  In contrast, for Lutherans, the conception of lifelong heterosexual marriage had been so compromised (the "sexual revolution" of the sixties and seventies playing no small part) that resistance to new challenges has proved to be tragically anemic.

The April 27th Canonization Mass has closed and the crowds which stood from St. Peter's Basilica to the Tiber River have departed to the corners of the world.  This "proxy" battle of the struggle between the Catholic left and right is over--victory to the right on points.  But that "war" between the religious left and right will not see the defeat of one by the other for some time--and make no mistake, one will defeat the other.  For better or worse, ripples from what happens in the Church of Rome will always rock the little Lutheran rowboat.  What we make of them will always matter.