JOHN PAUL II: THE GREAT RESTORER

By Leonardo Boff Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

RIO DE JANIERO, Apr 1 2005 (IPS) - The fundamental characteristic of the long and complex pontificate of John Paul II was a restoration of traditional conservative values and a return to internal Church discipline, writes Leonardo Boff, a liberation theologian who was punished by the Vatican doctrinal authorities in 1985 with \’\’obsequious silence\’\’. In this analysis, Boff writes that the pontificate of John Paul II was not a reformation but a counter-reformation, an attempt to halt a process of modernisation that erupted in the church in the 1960s . A major contradiction lay between his actions and teachings. To the outside, he presented himself as a champion of dialogue, of liberty, tolerance, peace, and ecumenism, but within the Church he shuttered the right of expression, banned dialogue, and created a theology with powerful fundamentalist overtones. In John Paul II it was the religious mission of the church and not its social mission that was dominant. He had a limited and simplistic understanding of the liberation theology prevalent in Latin America when he became Pope. He saw it as a Trojan horse for marxism, which he was obliged to denounce because of his experience of communism in his native Poland. He convinced himself that the danger in Latin America was marxism, when the real danger has always been savage and colonialist capitalism and its anti-populist and retrograde elites.

The long and complex pontificate of John Paul II should be considered in the broad context of specific issues that have long concerned the Catholic Church. Its fundamental component was a restoration of traditional conservative values and a return to Church discipline.

John Paul II presided over not a reformation but a counter-reformation. He represented the attempt to halt a process of modernisation that erupted in the church in the 1960s and which concerned all of Christianity. In this way he deferred the settling of accounts that the Church is engaged in with regard to two serious problems that have afflicted it for four centuries.

The first is tied to the rise of other churches in the wake of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, which shattered the unity of the Roman Catholic Church and obliged it to tolerate other churches that it considered heretical and schismatic.

The second major question relates to post-enlightenment modernity and the rise of reason, science and technology, civil liberties, and democracy. This new culture was a threat to the revelation which the Church considered itself the exclusive bearer of and denounced its institutional organisation as an absolute spiritual monarchy in contradiction with democracy and respect for human rights.

With regard to the evangelical churches, the Vatican pursued a strategy of reconversion with the goal of restoring the ancient ecclesiastical unity under the authority of the Pope. Its relation to modern society was critical: it condemned its project of secularisation and emancipation and sought to recreate cultural unity under the aegis of Christian morals.

Both strategies failed. The other churches grew and flourished on every continent. Modern society, with its freedom, science, and technology, became the paradigm for the entire world. The Church saw itself transformed into a bastion of religious conservatism and political authoritarianism.

The convocation of an Ecumenical Council to address these unresolved matters was a product of the good sense and daring of Pope John XXIII. In effect, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) assumed the motto: understanding, not anathema; dialogue, not condemnation. It initiated an ecumenical dialogue with other churches which presupposed the acceptance of their existence. With regard to the modern world, it undertook a reconciliation with the spheres of work, science, technology, liberty, and religious tolerance.

But a third settling of accounts remained undone: that with the poor, who constitute the vast majority of humanity. It was the Latin American church that recognised there is not only a modern developed world but also an underdeveloped underworld. This observation raised an awkward question: How do you proclaim God the Father in a world of misery? Doing so makes sense only if we are capable of converting this bad reality into good.

This is precisely what was done by the most dynamic sectors of the Church in Latin America, animated by certain prophets like Dom Helder Camara. The credo was: for the poor and against poverty.

This development spurred many Christians to enter social liberation movements and even armed groups, while many bishops and cardinals assumed a prominent role in combating military dictatorships and defending human rights, which were understood primarily as rights of the poor.

John Paul II was elected Pope when this process was well underway. From the beginning, his pontificate was grounded in the countercurrent to these then-dominant tendencies. Clearly his Polish origins and the circles of the Roman Curia, marginalised but not defeated by Vatican II, contributed significantly to this attitude.

In Rome the new Pope met with the Vatican bureaucracy, which is conservative by nature and of the same mind as he. And so an historic and powerful Pope-Curia bloc was established with the goal of imposing a restoration of Church identity and ancient discipline.

The personal traits of John Paul II made it possible for him to carry out his project successfully, using his charisma, his undeniable energy, and his media savvy.

To realise his restoration plan, the new Pope made use of the proper instruments. He rewrote canon law to encompass the entire life of the church. He published the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church and thus made official the imposition of a single mode of thought within the institution. He withdrew the decision-making power of the Sinod of Bishops and brought it entirely under papal authority, thus limiting the power of the Continental Conferences of Bishops, national episcopal conferences, and religious conferences at every level national and international. He marginalised decision-making power of the laity. And he denied full ecclesiastical citizenship to women, who were relegated to secondary functions, always far from the altar and the pulpit.

Together with his principal advisor, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the Pope advanced an Agostinian vision of history in which only that which passes through the mediation of the church, the bearer of supernatural salvation, has real importance. According to this vision, that which is created by man and history does not reach a divine level and is insufficient before God.

This stance rendered John Paul II fundamentally incapable of understanding Latin America’s liberation theology, which held that liberation must be the work only of the poor themselves and that the Church is merely an ally that can support and legitimise their struggle. For Cardinal Ratzinger, such liberation is merely human and lacking in any supernatural importance.

It is important to note that this Pope had a limited and simplistic understanding of this type of theology, which he interpreted through the logic of its detractors. Today we know from information that the CIA provided him, particularly regarding the influence of the liberation theologians in Central America, that he saw it as a Trojan horse for marxism, which he was obliged to denounce because of his experience of communism in his native Poland. He was convinced that the danger in Latin America was marxism, when the real danger has always been savage and colonialist capitalism and its anti-populist and retrograde elites.

In John Paul II it was the religious mission of the Church and not its social mission that was dominant. Had he said, ”Let’s support the poor and commit to the Church through reform in the name of the Gospel and the prophetic tradition”, the political fate of Latin America would have been very different.

Instead, he organised the conservative restoration of the entire continent: he replaced prophetic bishops with others that were distanced from the day-to-day life of the people; he closed theological institutions and penalised their instructors.

There was a major contradiction between the actions and the teachings of John Paul II. To the outside, he presented himself as a champion of dialogue, of liberty, tolerance, peace, and ecumenism. He apologised on various occasions for ecclesiastical errors and condemnations of the past and met with leaders of other religions to pray for world peace. But within the Church he shuttered the right of expression, banned dialogue, and created a theology with powerful fundamentalist overtones.

The political-ecclesiastical project of the Pope did not solve the problems relating to reform, modernity, and poverty. Rather, it made them worse, deferring a true settling of accounts.

The limitations of his style of church government did not prevent John Paul II from attaining a high level of personal sanctity, however. He did, in the context of an ”old-style” religion with great devotion to saints and especially to Our Lady, reliquaries, and places of pilgrimage. He was a profound orator. During prayer he was transfigured, would blanche and at times emit sighs and tears. He was once found in his chapel extended on the floor in the figure of the cross as if in ecstasy.

Who will have the last word on the pontificate of John Paul II? History and God. We can only accede to history, which will determine what his true significance was to Christianity and the world in this era of shifting paradigms and the change of millennia. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)