While I sincerely believe that the pain and suffering of those who are victims of sexual abuse is both real and a crime that cries to God for justice, I also believe that John Paul’s sanctity is a separate issue. I will not go into your or anyone else’s personal pain with abuse, because it’s inappropriate for an internet forum.
However, I feel that I must explain what the Defender of the Faith looks at in these cases. He looks for material participation. If a person is not materially complicit in a sin, he is not culpable of that sin. There are two ways to be materially complicit. The obvious one is that you are the person who commits the sin. The second is that you endorse it in some way or another.
Any action that a person may have taken that proved ineffective or any information that the person did not have available at the time cannot be used against him. That would be contrary to moral law. Therefore, the person is not morally culpable. I am sure that this question was raised by the Defender of the Faith. It is his job to do so.
I have read, from Pope Benedict himself, that there were many things that Pope John Paul did not know until the year 2000. According to Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul took what he considered to be the best course of action at the time. That’s all that is required for moral innocence. Pope Benedict speaks about this in the book Light of the World when asked what they knew and what they did. One of his more interesting remarks is that he was in shock and incredulous. He could not believe that this could be possible. He’s speaking about himself. It was his job to take it to the Holy Fathere. When it finally became obvious that it was real, the Holy Father did give orders to Cardinal Ratzinger to do whatever was necessary to deal fix the problem, as well as to the bishops involved.
Along with the fact that Pope Benedict himself has defended the moral innocense of Pope John Paul, which would make him the most credible witness in this process, there is a miracle that won’t go away. Miracles can only be performed through the intercession of saints. Saints are people who lived lives of extraordinary and heroic virtue.
While we may say that Pope John Paul’s intervention was ineffectie or insufficient or even defective, we have to accept that there are credible witnesses who testify, under penalty of excommunication, including the pope, that he was innocent. We also have to accept that we have the testimony of the current pope that John Paul was a holy man. Finally, we have the testimony of scientific and theological experts who swear that there is a miracle that can be traced to John Paul’s intercession.
There have been many cases where saints have been remotely connected or even directly connected to great human suffering, but were not morally culpable. Had Pope John Paul known what else to do abou the abuses, he would have done it. That’s the point that the promoter of the cause had to prove to the Defender of the Faith until the Defender of the Faith could pose no more arguments. Obviously, he succeeded. Until the Defender of the Faith concedes, the cause does not go forward to the cardinals at the next level. They too have to be convinced, before it goes to the pope. The pope has to be convinced before it goes to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints. That’s when the decree of Venerable is issued. Then you have to proceed to prove the alleged miracle.
What we have here is layers of experts who are sincerely convinced that John Paul did not sin in this regard and that whatever he did, was the best that he could do; and if there was anything that he failed to do and he became aware of it, he did extraordinary penance for it. We do not know what John Paul may have done wrong with full knowledge and consent. That will never be revealed. That’s part of the internal forum. But we do have the word of men who are noted for their expertise in Christian Spirituality that John Paul did extraordinary penance for his sins. It is said that his acts of penance themselves were heroic, including flagelation of the body. I wouldn’t know, I did not see it. I’ll have to take the word of those who say they know it.
The conclusion is that while there was suffering during his reign as pope, this did not begin under his reign. It went back prior to the Middle Ages. He did not endorse it. He did not participate in it. He acted in good faith with the information that he had at his disposal and used the resources at his disposal.
Finally, we have a miracle that we cannot ask God to take back. We have to acknowledge the Glory of God. It becomes very important in tough times such as this to remember that God can show his glory and his mercy through very fallible people. It is a statement of great faith to say that someone may have been part of my suffering and yet, God’s grace never left that person.
Our veneration of Blesseds and Saints is ultimately an act of worship of God.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
