The Root Cause of the Universal Impact of John Paul II
(Fundamentally, it is Our Lady)
1) Definitive Numbers of Attendance at Pope's Funeral
6,000 Media Personnel on Hand
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Three million people came to Rome to attend John Paul II's funeral rites, an event covered by 6,000 media personnel, the Holy See announced.
Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro Valls reported the data on the presence of the media and numbers of pilgrims toRome ,
from the moment of the Pope's death until the day of his funeral, April 2-8.
ZENIT already reported some of the preliminary figures last Sunday.
According to the Holy See's statement, theVatican
press office and the Pontifical Council for Social Communications accredited
6,000 journalists, photographers and radio and television agents for the media
coverage of the event.
The press note stated that 137 television networks in 81 countries notified the pontifical council that they broadcast the funeral. The real number was likely higher.
The funeral was followed on the Holy See's Internet web page by 1.3 million people.
The Mass was concelebrated by 157 cardinals. Seven hundred archbishops and bishops and 3,000 prelates and priests were present. Three hundred priests distributed Communion.
There were 169 foreign delegations present, as well as 10 monarchs, 59 heads of state, 3 heirs to the throne, 17 heads of government, 3 spouses of heads of state, 8 vice heads of state, 6 deputy prime ministers, 4 presidents of parliaments, 12 foreign-affairs ministers, 13 other governmental ministers, 24 ambassadors, and 10 presidents, directors-general and secretaries-general of international organizations.
Also present were delegations of 23 Orthodox andEastern Orthodox
Churches , 8 Churches and
ecclesial communions of the West, and 3 international Christian organizations.
In addition, there were several delegations and officials of Judaism, and 17 delegations of non-Christian religions and organizations for interreligious dialogue.
Citing data from the Italian Civil Protection, the Holy See reported that during the period the body of the Pope lay in state in St. Peter's Basilica, 21,000 entered the church every hour, or 350 a minute.
The average time necessary to see the Pope's mortal remains was 13 hours, with a maximum wait of 24 hours. The line extended for 5 kilometers (approximately 3 miles).
On the day of the funeral, 500,000 faithful were in St. Peter's Square and the Via della Conciliazione and were able to follow the funeral Mass, while 600,000 followed it on large screens in other parts of Rome. There were 29 large screens placed around the city.
Four hundred disabled persons followed the Mass in reserved places in the atrium of St. Peter's Basilica.
Some of the 10,000 volunteers distributed 3 million free bottles of water among pilgrims.
Twenty-one medical posts were set up and first-aid treatment was given to 4,000 people.
Themunicipality
of Rome sent 20 SMS
messages to the cell phones of 43,500 citizens with information on hospitality
for pilgrims and the traffic.
2) The reason for the unprecedented interest in John Paul II, beyond a secularist interpretation: Editorial by National Catholic Register:
6,000 Media Personnel on Hand
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Three million people came to Rome to attend John Paul II's funeral rites, an event covered by 6,000 media personnel, the Holy See announced.
Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro Valls reported the data on the presence of the media and numbers of pilgrims to
According to the Holy See's statement, the
The press note stated that 137 television networks in 81 countries notified the pontifical council that they broadcast the funeral. The real number was likely higher.
The funeral was followed on the Holy See's Internet web page by 1.3 million people.
The Mass was concelebrated by 157 cardinals. Seven hundred archbishops and bishops and 3,000 prelates and priests were present. Three hundred priests distributed Communion.
There were 169 foreign delegations present, as well as 10 monarchs, 59 heads of state, 3 heirs to the throne, 17 heads of government, 3 spouses of heads of state, 8 vice heads of state, 6 deputy prime ministers, 4 presidents of parliaments, 12 foreign-affairs ministers, 13 other governmental ministers, 24 ambassadors, and 10 presidents, directors-general and secretaries-general of international organizations.
Also present were delegations of 23 Orthodox and
In addition, there were several delegations and officials of Judaism, and 17 delegations of non-Christian religions and organizations for interreligious dialogue.
Citing data from the Italian Civil Protection, the Holy See reported that during the period the body of the Pope lay in state in St. Peter's Basilica, 21,000 entered the church every hour, or 350 a minute.
The average time necessary to see the Pope's mortal remains was 13 hours, with a maximum wait of 24 hours. The line extended for 5 kilometers (approximately 3 miles).
On the day of the funeral, 500,000 faithful were in St. Peter's Square and the Via della Conciliazione and were able to follow the funeral Mass, while 600,000 followed it on large screens in other parts of Rome. There were 29 large screens placed around the city.
Four hundred disabled persons followed the Mass in reserved places in the atrium of St. Peter's Basilica.
Some of the 10,000 volunteers distributed 3 million free bottles of water among pilgrims.
Twenty-one medical posts were set up and first-aid treatment was given to 4,000 people.
The
2) The reason for the unprecedented interest in John Paul II, beyond a secularist interpretation: Editorial by National Catholic Register:
“The truth is, his pontificate was perfect in a way — and it was
more than Karol Wojtyla was capable of.
Yes, Karol Wojtyla was a talented
man, but not that talented. As
a playwright, he learned about the importance of drama and the power of arresting
insights — but he wasn’t a great playwright. As a poet, he learned to reflect
the beauty of God’s creation in words — but he wasn’t a great poet. As a
writer, he was philosophically rich and theologically deep in a way that will
change the course of the Church — but he was a dense writer who is difficult to
read.
The sum total of the talents of
this Pole from Wadowice couldn’t possibly be credited with all that Pope John
Paul II did, any more than the fisherman Peter’s management expertise can be
credited with the Church’s success during its rocky beginnings.
Above all, God deserves our
praise and our gratitude for Pope John Paul II.
In the end, perhaps the one thing
the Holy Father did was at the same time the simplest and most difficult thing
he was asked to do.
He prayed. Deeply. Insistently.
For hours, every day.
As Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete once
said, the real secret of the Christian message is "All you have to do is
do what you’re supposed to do. The Pope has done what he’s supposed to do. And
boy, has he really done it."
It takes a profound love to do
what you’re supposed to do, day in and day out. John Paul had that love. That’s
what gave him an edge.
Even as an altar boy, he had done
what he was supposed to do. Even when the German army entered Poland in 1939.
"It was the first wartime
Mass before the altar of the crucified Christ and the scream of sirens and the
thud of explosions have remained forever in my memory," said Father
Kazimierz Figlewicz, who was a priest in Krakow
at the time. "Nonetheless Karol in his imperturbable way had crossed over
the bridge and walked to the cathedral because he was always observant in his
religious commitments."
When the Church made him a
priest, he continued to do what he was supposed to do — using his priesthood to
reach young couples and college students.
When the Church made him a bishop
in a land torn by communism, he did what he was supposed to do — he opposed the
communists in a fearless but careful way, maximizing the rights of the Church
and the power of his witness at the same time.
When the Church made him Pope in
a time of intense turmoil in the Church, he did what he was supposed to do
again.
It could have been different.
Karol Wojtyla could have insisted on being an actor. He could have insisted on
being a university professor. He could have become a full-time poet. He could
have clung to the things he thought were valuable in his personality and
asserted them. He may have made a mark on the world of some kind.
But instead he lost himself in
God’s plan, handed over his talents, did what he was supposed to do — and
achieved more than any man or woman in memory.
And at the end of his life, God
proved who deserves the credit for the Pope’s astounding success. The illness
that struck the Pope was marked by the way it targeted the very talents that
had supposedly accounted for his success.
As a speaker, the younger John
Paul could be very eloquent — but his speeches for almost the last decade of
his life were difficult to listen to as he strained and slurred his words.
The athletic, spry John Paul had
inspired people by his custom of bending down to kiss the ground of the nations
he visited, his sportsman pursuits and his vigorous character. At the end of
his life he could barely move, and his hands shook as he was wheeled around on
a podium.
The former actor’s face expressed
a range of emotions that helped him communicate with his audience. But at the
end, he couldn’t smile well, laugh, show concern or use his face much at all.
Yet, even when the talents of the
man faded, the people still flocked to see the Pope. They flocked to him at the
2000 World Youth Day in Rome , and he surprised
critics and fans alike when they flocked to him again in Toronto in 2002.
Karol Wojtyla had no charismatic
aura on his own. It was given to him by God, and it was charged to
incandescence by his fidelity in the simple obligations of his Christian life:
prayer, the sacraments, obedience to the Church.
It wasn’t Karol Wojtyla people
were coming to see. It was Peter — the one who was given a special grace by God
to be Vicar of Christ.
On our front page, we say,
"Pray for Us, Pope John Paul II." We repeat it here.
Pray for us, Your Holiness. Give
us the courage to follow your simple path of conversation with God and
acceptance of his will. Your life shows us where true greatness lies: In loving
God enough to do what we’re supposed to do. Pray that we learn this lesson and
do it.
Pray that we will be worthy of
you, John Paul the Great.
3) The above is certainly correct. But it fails to bring out the unique
development that was at the core of the Second Vatican Council and this Pope. I
refer to the uniqueness of the human person, the meaning of freedom as the
self-mastery, self-possession and self-gift of the “I” that is oneself. And how
that “I” is the unique gift that is not God’s gift, but “mine.” It is the
mystery of the relative autonomy – or “theonomy” – of my freedom to become
myself as image of the Three Persons.
Does this mean that God’s
causality is not primary and universal? No! Without Him we can do nothing. But
the mystery consists in the engendering of a free person, who is not merely an
instrumental cause or a secondary cause. Notice the Pope’s “definition” of
freedom: “The Crucified Christ reveals the authentic meaning of freedom; he lives
it fully in the total gift of himself and calls his disciples to share in
his freedom” (Veritatis Splendor
#85).
4) What everyone senses about John Paul II: he has made a radical gift
of self to each one of us. It is extremely personal. Persons, young and old,
interviewed while queuing up to pass by the body exactly why they came, explained,
without giving reasons, that they simply had
to be there. There was the sense of a most personal relation when
in fact extrinsically and empirically there was no such relation from the
outside. It makes one recall his first phrases of Redemptor Hominis:
“When
we penetrate by means of the continually and rapidly increasing experience fo
the human family into the mystery of Jesus Christ, we understand with greater
clarity that there is at the basis of all these ways that the Church of our
time must follow, in accordance with the wisdom of Pope Paul VI, one single
way: it is the way that has stood the test of centuries and it is also the way
of the future. Christ the Lord indicated this way especially, when, as the
Council teaches, `by His Incarnation, He, the Son of God, in a certain way united
Himself with each man. The Church therefore sees its fundamental task in
enabling that union to be brought about and renewed continually. The Church
wishes to serve this single end: that each person may be able to find Christ,
in order to that Christ may walk with each person the path of life, with the
power of the truth about man and the world that is contained in the mystery of
the Incarnation and the Redemption…
“Accordingly,
what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are
not dealing with the `abstract’ man, but the real, `concrete,’’ `historical’
man. We are dealing with `each’ man for each one is included in the mystery of
the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself for ever through
this mystery…. The object of her [the Church’s] care is man in his unique
unrepeatable human reality. The Council points out this very fact when,
speaking of that likeness, it recalls that ‘man is the only creature on earth
that God willed for itself. Man as `willed’ by God, as `chosen’ by Him from eternity
and called, destined for grace and glory – this is `each’ man, `the most
concrete’ man, `the most real;’ this is man in all the fullness of the mystery
in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one
of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a
sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of is mother.”[1]
The mystical reality is
that in giving himself to Christ, he gave himself to the Christ in me, and in
each person. People felt this with emotion. The NCR editorial
above touches on this but without having hit the key. It was God in John Paul
II and his obedience to do “what he was supposed to do.” But it’s not just
doing things as performances. He did drama, he wrote poetry, he became a
priest, he did philosophy and theology, he became Pope, and he traveled. He obeyed.
He did what he was supposed to do. But as Lorenzo Albacete said, “boy,
has he really done it." Or as the farmer in the Midwest remarked
after his first trip to the United
States , “Your Pope really knows how to
pope.”
It’s all in the “boy.” The obedience was not
compliance. It was free gift of his whole self. That’s what stirs the emotion,
creates the novelty, produces the greatness. The gift was spousal. It
was total and unto death. “He loved them
to the end.” On the world stage, he showed us how to live and how to die.
The poetry, the drama, the philosophy, even the papacy were the occasions and
the incarnations of the gift. But, again, not any gift. Not an object, but the
“I.” He could not do it without being loved
by God (which is called “grace”). But he was the agent of the gift of himself.
Only he could give himself. God could not do it since then He would violate the
very freedom that He gave us. It was his gift, and the content was himself.
Which, by the way, is the meaning of the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
Here he lives out what was the
key to the Council and the center of his understanding of the human person:
Made in the image of a trinity of Persons, “man, the only earthly being God has willed
for itself, finds himself by the sincere gift of himself.” This: “the only earthly being God has willed for
itself,” is his understanding of man as “an unfinished being, as indicated precisely by this `fissure’ in him
open to the infinite. According to this view, other natures in the world of
nature are in their own way `finished beings,’ while man, open to the absolute,
awaits his completion.”[2]
In August 1991 at Jasna Gora, Poland (after the collapse of
Communism), John Paul addressed the 1.7 million young people of world youth day
with the words of God’s Self revelation:
`“I AM” (The Word): behold the name of God. So
responds a Voice from the burning bush to Moses when he asked to know the Name
of God. `I am who am’ (Ex. 3, 14)… As evening drew near, before the Sabbath at
Passover, Jesus was taken from the cross and placed in the tomb. The third day
he came among his `startled and terrified’ disciples to say to them: `Peace be with you! ... It is I myself!’
(Lk. 24, 36-37, 39): the divine `I AM’ of the Covenant – of the Paschal Mystery
– of the Eucharist.
“Man was created in the image and likeness of God, to
be able to exist and to be able to say to his Creator `I am.’ In this human `I am’ is all the truth of
life and conscience. `I am’ before You, who `Are.’
“When God asked
the first man: `Where are you?,’ Adam responded, `I hid, (from you)’ (cf. Gen.
3, 9-10), almost trying not to be before God. You cannot hide, Adam! You cannot
help but be before him who has created you, who has made you in the way that
`you are,’ before him `who searches hearts and knows’ (Rom. 8, 27).”
5.) John Paul II, stripped of almost all his
objective powers, retains his subjective self-gift, and the entire world knew
it. He continued to “radiate fatherhood, and we continued to be affirmed.
The proof that it
was the “I” of John Paul II that was given and to whom the people, particularly
the youth of the world, were responding, was that piece by piece he was
stripped of gesture, facial expression, ambulatory power, and finally, word. He
never ceased to communicate his “I” nor the gift of it with mouth agape
attempting to speak from his window on his last Wednesday attempt. Struggling
to speak to the people in St. Peter’s Square and finding no sound, he put one
hand before his face and pounded the plastic lecturn before him. Everyone
understood. He had a clarity of consciousness and loved us “to the end.”
Previously, having lost most of his body as vehicle of communication, he
remarked facetiously that he ruled the Church “from the neck up.”
At Lourdes
last August, Cardinal Lustiger framed it this way: "The pope, in his
weakness, is living more than ever the role assigned to him of being the Vicar
of Christ on earth, participating in the suffering of our Redeemer. Many times
we have the idea that the head of the church is like a super-manager of a great
international company, a man of action who makes decisions and is judged on the
basis of his effectiveness. But for believers the most effective action, the
mystery of salvation, happens when Christ is on the cross and can't do or
decide anything other than to accept the will of the Father."
And when the Lord took the “I” at 9, 32 pm April 2,
2005, tens of thousands of people standing outside in St. Peter’s Square
dropped into an eerie, total silence and then to their knees, moved by profound
emotion. We all did.
3) The Key to the Mind of John Paul
II is Disclosing the “I” as the Ultimate Created Reality: Being As Opposed to
Consciousness.
Basically, he does what is called a
“phenomenological” description of what we have seen of Helen Keller discovering
her “I”as real being by naming the water (as Adam naming the animals).
“We
walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the
honeysuckle with which it was covered. Someone was drawing water and my teacher
placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand, she
spelled into the other the word water, first slowly then rapidly. I stood
still, my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers. Suddenly I felt
a misty consciousness as of something forgotten – a thrill of returning
thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then
that `w-a-t-e-r’ meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my
hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!
There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that could in time be swept
away.
I left the well-house eager to learn. Everything had a
name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. As we returned to the house
every object which I touched seemed to quiver with life. That was because I saw
everything with the strange, new sight that had come to me. On entering the
door I remembered the doll I had broken. [She had earlier destroyed the doll in
a fit of temper.] I felt my way to the dearth and picked up the pieces. I tried
vainly to put them together. Then my eyes filled with tears; for I realized
what I had done, and for the first time I felt repentance and sorrow.”
What had happened? Helen had exercised her subjectivity
as cause by “throwing” (Ballein) the “likeness” (sym): w-a-t-e-r at the wet
flowing object. She had experienced herself as cause, and therefore came to a
consciousness of herself as “self.”
Walker
Percy: “before, Helen had behaved like a good responding organism. Afterward,
she acted like a rejoicing symbol-mongering human. Before, she was little more
than an animal. Afterward, she became wholly human. Within the few minutes of
the breakthrough and the several hours of exploiting it Helen had concentrated
the months of the naming phase that most children go through somewhere around
their second birthday.”… 3
Karol Wojtyla’s fundamental discovery is the
experience of the “I” as being. Experience is always about reality, and
therefore about being. In modern thought, the “I” has been identified with
consciousness, or the thought about thinking. Reflective thought, not
experience, was the access. Wojtyla experiences himself as the cause of free
action. His “I” is not the result of reflection on the act of thinking or
willing. It is discovered as the cause of an experience of (free, not
instinctual or stimulus-response mechanism) self-determination as a free act. “But
as the need increases to understand the human being as a unique and
unrepeatable person, especially in terms of the whole dynamism of action and
inner happenings proper to the human being – in other words, as the need
increases to understand the personal subjectivity of the human being – the
category of lived experience takes on greater significance, and, in fact, key
significance. For then the issue is not just the metaphysical objectification
of the human being as an acting subject, as the agent of acts, but the
revelation of the person as a subject experiencing its acts and inner happenings,
and with them its own subjectivity.[3]
“The
experience of the human being cannot be derived by way of cosmological
reduction; we must pause at the irreducible, at that which is unique and
unrepeatable in each human being, by virtue of which he or she is not just a
particular human being – an individual of
a certain species – but a personal subject. Only then do we get a true and complete picture of the human being.
We cannot complete this picture through reduction alone; we also cannot remain
within the framework of the irreducible alone (for then we would be unable to
get beyond the pure self). The one must be cognitively supplemented with the
other. Nevertheless, given the variety of circumstances of the real existence
of human beings, we must always leave the greater space in this cognitive
effort for the irreducible; we must, as it were give the irreducible the upper
hand when thinking about the human being, both in theory and in practice. For
the irreducible also refers to everything in the human being that is invisible
and wholly internal and whereby each human being, myself included, is an
`eyewitness’ of his or her own self – of his or her own humanity and person.”[4]
Perhaps,
the analytical genius of Wojtyla comes to the fore precisely here.
The “I” is being, not consciousness. But
the experience which discloses the “I” as being is the work of
consciousness. He distinguishes the consciousness of the experience of sensible things
- which is taken from the experience (sensible perception) of the external
world: this pink cloud – from the consciousness of the experience of the
self (“I”) in the act of self-determination in the
moment of morality: responsibility or guilt. In its (non abstractive) mirroring
function, consciousness grasps the subject (not yet experienced as “I”), which
has been objectified by reflective
(not “reflexive,” in the terminology of Wojtyla) thought, and then “actualized”
(subdued/mastered) by itself. He distinguishes between the reflectiveness of the
mind turning back on its own act of knowing
things and the reflexiveness of consciousness which
captures both the reflections of the subject in potency to self-determine, and
in the act of moving itself. This
capturing both states of the self as pre and post self-determination,
as potency and act with respect to itself, constitutes the experience of the “I” as “I.” And he corroborates this when he remarks in Fides et Ratio #83 that “In a special way, the person constitutes a
privileged locus for the encounter with being, and hence with metaphysical
enquiry.”
He
remarks in the Acting Person: “The
consequence of the reflexive [not reflective] turn
of consciousness is that this object – just because it is from the ontological
point of view the subject – while having the experience of his own ego also has
the experience of himself as the subject. In this interpretation `refexiveness’
is also seen to be an essential as well as a very specific moment of
consciousness. It is, however, necessary to add at once that this specific moment
becomes apparent only when we observe and trace consciousness in its intrinsic,
organic relation to the human being, in particular, the human being in
action. We then discern clearly that it
is one thing to be the subject,
another to be cognized (that is,
objectivized) as the subject, and a still different thing to experience
one’s self as the subject of one’s own acts and experiences… This
discrimination is of tremendous import for all our further analyses, which we
shall have to make in our efforts to grasp the whole dynamic reality of the
acting person and to account for the subjectiveness that is given us in
experience.
Indubitably, Man is, first of all, the subject of his being and his
acting; he is the subject insofar as he is a being of determinate nature, which
leads to consequences particularly in the acting. In traditional ontology that
subject of existing and acting which man is was designated by the term suppositum
– ontic support – which, we may say, serves as a thoroughly objective
designation free of any experiential aspects, in particular of any
relation to that experience of subjectivity in which the subject is given to
itself as the self, as the ego. Hence “ suppositum” abstracts from that
aspect of consciousness owing to which the concrete man – the object being
the subject – has the experience of himself as the subject and thus of
his subjectivity. It is this experience that allows him to designate
himself by means of the pronoun “I.”
We know “I” to be a personal pronoun,
always designating a concrete person. However, the denotation of this personal
pronoun, thus….
Hence not only am I conscious of my ego (on
the ground of self-knowledge) but owing to my consciousness in its reflexive
function I also experience my ego. I have the experience of myself as
the concrete subject of the ego’s very subjectiveness. Consciousness is not
just an aspect but also an essential dimension or an actual moment
[but not the “I” itself] of the reality of the being that I am,
since it constitutes its subjectiveness in the experiential sense.”[5]
[1] Redemptor
Hominis, 13,14.
[2] Andre
Frossard, Be Not Afraid, St. Martin ’s
Press (1984) 95.
[3]
“Subjectivity and the Irreducible in the Human Being” in Person and Community, Lang (1993) 212-213.
[4]
“Subjectivity and the Irreducible in the Human Being,” Person and Community
Lang (1993) 214.
[5] The
Acting Person, D. Reidel Publishing Co. (1979) 42-46.
No comments:
Post a Comment