My guess, although included that possibility... was more along lines of the monsignor not fully understanding what Calvin was driving at when that man wrote of predestination, and how that could be seen to fit with the rest of Calvin's own observations.
What Calvin meant in regards to utter depravity would need be understood -- what that meant, and what it did not, and how that consideration fit within the man's overall theological observations & construct.
I mentioned context.
Rather than view Calvin only within context of his own writings, to take a somewhat different approach, to perhaps better see what I think Calvin my have been speaking toward, I'll pose a question, something to think about;
Could one ever synergize with the Holy Creator that which is not Holy?
In Calvinistic sense of theological economy, as that comes across to myself, anyway, it seems to me that not only there is stress [emphasis] put upon what was widely agreed upon at the Council of Orange in way of ourselves not in initial response to God doing so by our own will, but still yet continuing on under those same conditions --- if anything we do be Godly --- that it be Him (and Grace itself, that unearnable forgiveness) at work within a soul which brings about the good work.
It appears to me that when our own wills and are attempted to be forged with, added to His own Holiness, the resultant by-products often are not of Him, for they cannot be unless somehow one would think their own will be Holy. If something, anything our own will be holy -- it was not ours from the beginning of our now restored relationship with God, and remains Himself, His spirit that He places within us, bringing us to life, deep calling unto deep, as it were.
One could perhaps say that Calvin was a careful student of the apostle Paul.
Some would say too carefully applying principles Paul wrote of, to everything about our (restored to life) relationship with our Creator?
As I take it that the monsignor fairly well agreed already (but not in so many words) there are far worse boogeyman bad-guys (even among Christian theologians) roaming the countryside, than little 'ol John Calvin.
I don't really know Msgr. Pope, so I don't know how deep his theological thought is. Certainly a major point like “double-predestination” is going to, so to speak, exercise force on all the other issues that a systematic theology will have to cover. And, at least for me, it takes a lot of just plain skull time to begin to see that.
It's funny. It's not just Xtians who deal with the issues of “ripples” in theology. A college friend has become an orthodox rabbi, and I have looked at some of his conversations. I discovered to my surprise that Maimonides is sometimes viewed with suspicion for his debt to Aristotle. Tertullian’s complaint about Athens and Jerusalem is not confined to Xtians!
As far as I know, every decent Catholic theologian, whatever he says about free will, will always agree that every single, itsy-bitsy, teeny-tiny good thing, thought, impulse, intention, desire, or act starts with God and is directed by God throughout. I certainly adamantly refuse to take credit for anything that might be considered good. That was so when I was a Protestant minister, and it remains to, by God's active grace, now that I'm a Catholic layman.