The Humanism of John Paul II

On January 17, 2001, CNS News reported the following: "Pope John Paul II issues Call for Ecological Conversion . . . The world's people need to undergo an 'ecological conversion' to protect the environment and make the earth a place where all life is valued and can grow in harmony, Pope John Paul II said" http://www.creationethics.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=webpage&page_id=81.

Yes, that's how far we've come. Pope John Paul II, idly standing by as the Church in the USA has been infiltrated by homosexuals and perverts, calls us to convert ecologically. Pardon my human way of speaking here, but what the heck is the Pope doing beating the environmental drums while the Church is going to hell??!! Don't you think that's a bit of "misplaced priorities" here? Did Our Lady of Fatima appear in order to convert people ecologically so that natural disasters would be prevented?? Or did she not rather appear to ask for the conversion of sinners, that we turn from sin, so that God's punishment would not be meted out on the world? Now, Our Lady appeared in 1917 for the first time. May I ask: has the world gotten any better since then in terms of its sinfulness?

A response to that need hardly be given. But the Church, starting from the top on down, has become totally twisted. We have a Supreme Pontiff now who, after all his scandals, sacrileges, blasphemies, and heresies now calls the faithful to ecological conversion. Yes, you got it: we have a "green" Pope! Just when you think you've heard and seen it all from John Paul II, something like this comes along. That's the same Pope who invited a Voodoo witchdoctor to share his thoughts on peace with Catholics. Beautiful. Surely, this must be the "new springtime" we keep hearing about. The Church has so blossomed in this "springtime" that worry about heresy can be replaced by worry about environmental issues. Heck, who cares if people are going to hell because they have followed a false gospel, as long as the trees are green! Of course there is no time to deal with the Novus Ordo bishops covering up for homosexual predator priests, when North Dakota's ladybugs have arthritis!

In Australia, the bishops there have already called for a "green church." Salvation, they say, is not just for mankind, but for all of creation. I'm telling you, if this is not the Great Apostasy, then I sure don't want to be around when it gets here. You can read the story about the Australian green hippies here: http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/02/sep/15/02.html.

Folks, ask yourselves: What's next? An encyclical on animal rights? A motu proprio on the dignity of flowers? An apostolic exhortation on how to avoid emitting carbon-monoxide? Please don't say it can't happen or it would be too ridiculous - since 1958, we've pretty much seen and heard it all. What Pope Pius XII would have insisted could never, ever happen is now considered "conservative." So, please.

Anyway, I needed to give you this shocker because it's just unbelievable what we read about every day, coming from the Vatican, from the bishops, and from the other high offices in the Church. Now, after 14 installments of the humanism of our Pope, you probably wonder by now just what the reason might be for John Paul II's humanistic (and now ecologistic??) teachings. Just why humanism? Why not orthodox Catholicism? Why is John Paul such a humanist?

I suppose only God and perhaps John Paul II can answer this question satisfactorily. However, we can at least make an attempt at understanding the possible motivation that lies behind his strange theology. As always, a messed-up theology originates in messed-up philosophy. When we look at John Paul II's philosophical interests and upbringing, we see that he admired and/or was influenced by Edmund Husserl, Max Scheler, Jacques Maritain, Henri de Lubac, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) was a mathematician and logician who became extremely well-known by inventing a new method of philosophical investigation known as "phenomenology," a method that would focus on--and be restricted to--investigation of what appears to consciousness. His two-volume work Logical Investigations (1900/01) introduced this new method. The way Husserl defined his phenomenology and the way he wanted it to work, it is not acceptable for a Catholic, because, among other things, it sets aside issues of reality and truth and falsehood. However, some people, even Catholics, have attempted to modify Husserl's phenomenology such that it could be used fruitfully in philosophical and theological investigations. Having studied the issue for quite a while, I must say that I find it to be, at best, nothing other than utterly verbose sophistry with little substance. But that would mean it is seriously harmful to a sincere search for the truth because it clouds the intellect and thereby inhibits its pursuit of truth and wisdom. Consider, for example, terms like "penetrating" and "reflecting"--some of the favorite buzzwords in phenomenology--in connection with phenomenological investigation. I'm sorry, but I just don't think there's much meaning behind them. And as a concrete example, I have yet to see a difference--in practice--between reflecting on a subject and reflecting on it specifically phenomenologically.

For his Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy (1953), John Paul II (as Karol Wojtyla) wrote on the ethics of Max Scheler. While critical of Scheler's conclusion, Fr. Wojtyla was intrigued by Scheler's use of the phenomenological method to reflect on and "penetrate" Christian ethics.

Now, John Paul II certainly loved Scheler's phenomenology, and this left a lasting impression on John Paul's thought. But John Paul did not only have a love of phenomenology, but also of anthropology, the study of man. Now, put the two together and you get phenomenological anthropology - and, I think, this is what we've been seeing in the encyclicals and homilies and other writings of this Pope. Fancy words and highly complicated expressions, spanning lots of pages, while saying very little, and constant references and allusions to man. I don't know about you, but that's how I experience John Paul II's writings.

Just in his latest apostolic letter, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, we once again find his incessant and utterly unprecedented identification of Christ with man in general. Thus, for instance, the subtitle that begins paragraph 25 is "Mystery of Christ, mystery of man." He then says that the Rosary has "anthropological significance," and he claims, as he already did at the very beginning of his pontificate in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, that Christ's life reveals "the truth about man." Once again, John Paul's humanism is easily visible. Last time I checked, Christ didn't come to reveal truth about man but only truth about Himself and about God and about salvation. That Christ's teaching has implications for what is true about man, that's no doubt true. But John Paul treats it as though we would somehow have to discover something about man, as if man were the focal point. No pre-Vatican II Pope to my knowledge ever talked about there being some "big truth about man" that Christ came to reveal or that we have to glimpse. This is utterly novel, and wasn't made possible until Vatican II, the council of man!

The Pope admits as much when he says that it was Vatican II that taught that "it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man is seen in its true light" (Gaudium Et Spes #22). Isn't that sickening? I mean, what the heck is this talking about! "Mystery of man"? Why is everything after Pius XII, and especially since John Paul II, a "mystery"? It is unbelievable. I think this is the phenomenological spirit that the Pope has picked up, which ends up mystifying everything. In the end, there is no more reality but only "profound mystery" to be "penetrated" and some "richness" in it all that ought to be "reflected on." Hello? Are we on the same planet here?

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to banalize Sacred Doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed that our minds could never even grasp - really grasp - the essence of a fly! However, at the same time, St. Thomas taught clearly, with authority, and with God's and the Church's approval, that we can have real knowledge of real things, not just earthly things but also things in the spiritual and metaphysical realms. While having a healthy respect for man's limited knowledge, St. Thomas nevertheless was an epistemological optimist.

Jacques Maritain (1889-1973) was another enormous influence on the thought of Wojtyla/John Paul II. Maritain taught what he called "integral humanism," as opposed to false or secular humanism. On top of that, he also spread "personalism," the notion that personality and personhood are a key to interpreting reality. In other words: it's all about man.

Now, there's no way I could possibly go into all the different philosophies discussed here, but at least I wish to scratch the surface a bit. Another man I mentioned is Fr. Henri de Lubac, who, I believe, was made a cardinal by John Paul II. De Lubac is the "father of the New Theology" - he was a real liberal and modernist. The Society of St. Pius X has graciously made available online a little compendium about all the main figures of the New Theology, i.e. the New Apostasy, and de Lubac is featured prominently in the series "They Think They've Won!" You can view this here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_December/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartIII.htm.

The same compendium includes an installment precisely on John Paul II, his novel theology, and his influence by the liberals, including the heretical Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. View it here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1994_August/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartVII.htm.

Basically, since Vatican II, and especially in the writings of John Paul II, instead of a clarification of teaching, we find obfuscation of the old and invention of novelty, together with plenty of convoluted phrases. Interestingly enough, it was Pope St. Pius X who, in his letter "Our Apostolic Mandate," observed that "evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are none the less nefarious."

Even before this warning of a very attentive Pope, the First Vatican Council had already made clear that "the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected" (Denzinger #1800). Yet, in my opinion, the present Pope is drawn to do just that: "develop," reinterpret, improve upon, add on to, and transform our received Faith, especially "in light of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council," as he would say.

It is clear why this wicked revolution in the Church could never have taken place without a council. There would have been no basis for any theologian, prelate, or even the Pope, to base their novelties on.

With Vatican II came the turn from proper Catholic philosophy and theology to humanism under the guise of personalism. Fr. Richard Hogan, in his book ironically called Dissent from the Creed, tries to make us understand the novel thinking of Karol Wojtyla this way: "The future Pope used the truth of our Creation in God's image in a new way. Since we are all created to be like God and since we are all unique in reflections of God, our own experiences, properly understood, reveal something of God. Since we are images of God, our experiences should reveal something about God" (p. 319).

Let me at this point again refer to the New Catechism's paragraph 675, which says that there will be a "supreme religious deception [which] is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh."

Before the Great Deception can fully install man in the place of God, there necessarily has to be a "gradual shift," and I think this is done by the "personalism" and humanism of the New Theology. After all, if the Innovators were immediately putting man in God's place, everyone would notice. So, now they're using complicated-sounding heretical musings that many people will simply think are the conclusions of a "profound philosophical mind, a gifted intellect, a great thinker."

And what are the practical applications and conclusions of this "personalism"? Well, we've seen it all: religious liberty, Assisi, indifferentism, blasphemy. Once we turn to man in order to "see God," the line into idolatry has been crossed. Certainly, we can look at man and praise the Creator who has created such a marvelous being. We can gather by looking at man that God is incredibly intelligent and all-powerful. That's fine. But the New Theologians have totally perverted this and made man a way to God. "Man is the way for the Church," said John Paul II in his 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis (#14). He suggests that by God's revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ, He has revealed man to himself; that by showing us who He is, He shows us who we are - what utter nonsense, and utter blasphemy. Here we see a continual identification of man with God. Not fully yet, of course, because there's the always-present "in a sense" and "to an extent" and "if properly understood," but you get the point.

"Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being - in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind - this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption," the Pope continues further.

"Man the fundamental way of the Church" - folks, this is utterly novel, unprecedented, never heard-of in the Church until Vatican II and especially John Paul II. It is the fruit of phenomenology, personalism, and humanism. I reject it with every fiber of my being.

In his 1987 encyclical Dominum Et Vivificantem, John Paul II wrote: "The 'first-born of all creation,' becoming incarnate in the individual humanity of Christ, unites himself in some way with the entire reality of man, which is also 'flesh'--and in this reality with all 'flesh', with the whole of creation" (#50). This borders on pantheism! Pantheism is the wicked heresy that God and reality are one, that is, that everything, all of creation, is divine. Surely, the defenders of John Paul II would point to the phrase "in some way" as a way out in order not to reach the pantheist conclusion. But folks, what is this? A cat-and-mouse game? Why is the Pope playing hookey-dookey with us?

I'm glad that John Paul II is so hard to understand - this way, many people will not be misled. On the other hand, other innovators can simply introduce more novelties and claim that John Paul II encourages this or calls for this in one of his writings. You know, the typical "that's what the Pope said" excuse. This is what has largely been done with Vatican II (e.g. "Vatican II says….." when many people have no idea what Vatican II actually said), where we can already see this kind of language, the kind that St. Pius X condemned so long ago.

Basically, as I see it, what John Paul II has given us in his encyclicals is phenomenological personalism - his own philosophical musings mixed with some Catholic doctrine and plenty of novelty. But the Supreme Pontificate is no playground, no testing ground for philosophical theories. We don't want to hear the personal philosophy of Karol Wjotyla applied to Catholicism. We want to hear Catholic truth, unmixed with error. And that is our right.

In an article in The Remnant, Dr. Thomas Woods aptly observed: "What the entire dispute ultimately amounts to is the First Vatican Council's description of the Pope: the guardian of the Church's moral tradition, not its author or innovator. He has no right to impose his personal opinions on the universal Church in the face of thousands of years of testimony to the contrary. To be perfectly frank, the present Pontificate appears to have had a mesmerizing effect on otherwise sensible Catholics, who now believe that Church tradition is whatever the Pope says it is" ("Justice Scalia, the Pope, and the Death Penalty" in The Remnant, 2002).

What's left for me to say? Let me give you a good book recommendation. Fr. Johannes Dormann has written a trilogy about John Paul II called "John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi," first published in 1994. It is available from Angelus Press (1-800-966-7337). See more about it here: http://www.angeluspress.org/sspx_modern_crisis_2.htm#dormann.

You can furthermore find more information on personalism, its philosophical origins, and the whole mess of Vatican II and John Paul II's encyclicals, right here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/Magisterium%20Vat2.htm.

This concludes my series on the humanism of Pope John Paul II. Much evidence has been left untouched, but one can only do so much. You will certainly hear more of John Paul II's horrendous and humanist/personalist statements in future articles on this site.

Or perhaps you're grasping at straws. Here is a person who gave her life in conformity to the suffering of Christ, endured horrors we can't imagine with an unshaken devotion to Jesus, and you think it was all a conspiracy to to "baptize" Husserl.

I admit I could be wrong about her. And you cannot blame a person for the way that she is later used by others after her death. But first of all, dying in a concentration camp does not make you a Catholic saint. I was glad to learn more about St. Maximilian Kolbe, for example, because at first it seemed as though simply dying in a concentration camp was the cause of his canonization. But after learning more, I realized that was the least of his claims to sanctity.

Secondly, it is well admitted by all that JPII creates these canonizations in order to have saints for various ethnic groups and causes. Like Blessed Gianna (or is she now St. Gianna?) being the patron of the pro-life movement. Edith Stein seems to be the saint of Jewish converts and the personalist philosophical movement. That doesn't mean that she wasn't truly holy, but it makes me suspicious.

I admit that I should look into her situation more deeply before passing any judgements, but I turned against her after hearing a program on EWTN with Alice von Hildebrand in which she made Stein into the patron saint of feminism. Perhaps that was a misrepresentation, but von Hildebrand is even considered a traditionalist, so I'm not sure why she would have exaggerated these things.

he is speaking gobbledegook . . . But JPII doesn't speak literally, he speaks in circumlocutions at best.

So this is, in many ways, a matter of taste.

So it's us, not God; WE'RE supposed to lead the Church--this is the literal sense of the passage.

No it isn't.

when I read it I see the words "route" and "path" not "lead" or "leader".

Christ went to the poor, the sick, the lame, those who were in their sins.

He followed the path of fallen man, healing them, succouring them, calling them to repentance.

If the Church is to emulate Christ's deeds then it emphatically means searching out the route of suffering humanity, not withdrawal from man and the world.

Doesn't it make one wonder WHY all those previous popes didn't do so?

Sometimes if I think about it. I don't know why exactly they didn't make themselves more accessible to the common persons. Some of it was due to the court protocols of the times. Part of me thinks that they may have thought they were too high and mighty to rub elbows with ordinary people. It just wasn't done for whatever reasons.

Perhaps it wasn't appropriate for their role and position?

That's a human construct. Fortunately Jesus seemed to think differently. Going to the people was the norm for him. Sometimes it got to be too much and he had to break away. Sometimes the people came to him. It seemed to be a two-way street.

Were the previous couple hundred pope all wrong, and did this pope finally figure out the right formula?

I don't know if there is a right formula. It's not written in stone anywhere how a pope should relate to the people.

And if so, then when are we going to see the fruits of this new discovery about the pope's primary responsibility?

I think there are good fruits when you see how eagerly the people prepare for and welcome the pope on one of his visits. It sends the message that he cared enough to go out of his way for them. Maybe the pope likes all that. If it were me, I'd love to go on those jaunts, but I'd want to be able to wander off incognito and see the sights. The pope didn't get to do too much of that.

In former times, the exigencies of travel weren't something anyone could readily undertake. Travel was rigorous and took a lot of time out from one's schedule. Not that sleeping on a plane is good for anyone. The pope never seemed to suffer from jet lag. I almost envy him for that.

Having said all that, I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong about the pope's going and coming. People probably think it's wrong because it's different.

I'm more concerned with trying to comprehend what he is telling us, and I must say most of it is confusing and some of it just plain doesn't make sense. But then I guess Jesus taught the common people in parables, and those didn't make sense to anyone except those who "have ears to hear."

Since I went this far, I will say that I don't see anything wrong with making teaching statements about the environment so long as it doesn't displace the other important things that need to be dealt with. In other times, environmentalism meant broken pottery and unsanitary cesspools, I suppose. Today some of the issues like pesticides, nuclear/toxic waste, etc., are real threats. If they impact physical life, there is somewhat of a corresponding impact on spiritual life. Monasteries are traditionally pretty environmentally-friendly places as well as spiritually-friendly places, unlike chamber pots that used to be dumped on city streets and what horses left behind. I don't think there was ever much said about any of that in the past though because it was biodegradable and nature took care of it. Nature takes too long to take care of plastic bags. I doubt if the pope ever went shopping and carried anything back to the Vatican in a plastic bag. I would like to see him do something like that, too. That's the kind of humanism I'm into.

I do think God said something in scripture about the environment. He said he would destroy those who destroyed the earth. He ordered human waste to be buried outside the camps. Jesus said that a sparrow didn't fall but what the Father knew. He said not to muzzle the ox while it is treading the whatever that process was called. He said not to wound animals in the legs. That tells me he is concerned about the creation as well as the creatures.

I'm conflicted and confused about some of the things he does and says, too, and this is my way of trying to sort it out.

I'm looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, but I think it is important to take care of the one we have now because if we don't, people and animals will suffer more than need be.

You originally wrote: "Not from "the pope" per se, but from Karol Wojtyla whom he considers to be invalid." I responded: "Luckily, Mario Derksen's personal considerations of validity and invalidity have no theological or moral weight." And now you tell me it's irrelevant? Why did you make that point if you did not want it addressed?

I posted a "ping" to the article which mentioned only the philosophical issues and the fact that young people like Mario Derksen were putting such an incredible amount of effort into investigating these subjects. Neither the article nor my ping mentions the topic of sedevacantism. My statement that about Derksen's position on Wojtyla was simply to clarify the facts for someone (was it you?) who launched right into the sedevacantist issue.

Of course, but I don't think anyone was arguing that the Pope was commanding Catholics to commit sins.

But that's not the point is it? The point was whether a soldier has to wait for some higher authority before withholding his obedience. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong on that point.

But as far as whether JPII actually is "commanding Catholics to commit sins," for me the rubber really meets the road with the marriage issues. Since nearly every Catholic eventually ends up getting married, and sins in this realm are by definition "grave matter," any mistakes in this area lead straight to the brink of hell for the vast majority of Catholics. And in this realm I believe that the phenomenological personalism of JPII (and others) has undermined all 3 of the foundations of marriage: fruitfulness, faithfulness and permanency.

1. He has taught "responsible parenthood" involving "family size regulation" through natural rather than artificial means, instead of the traditional Catholic teaching of generosity, fruitfulness and reliance on God's divine Providence.
2. He has undermined the "order of love" which provides the structure of marriage by denying the Catholic teaching on wives' submission to the authority of their husbands.
3. He has presided over an unprecedented explosion of annulments, which has resulted directly from his personalism, according to Msgr. Cormac Burke of the Roman Rota. Catholics are now divorcing in equal numbers with non-Catholics under the confident assumption that they are virtually guaranteed an annulment.

These are the sorts of things that originally made me come to the realization that I could not obey what he taught. God made the eternal salvation of the souls of my wife and children my responsibility, and I realized that following his new model of marriage would be fatal. I had to discover traditional Catholic marriage philosophy as articulated, for example, in Casti Connubii.

And lest you think that JPII's teachings on marriage are not contradictory to Casti Connubbi and other traditional Catholic teachings, just the other day on this forum Bai MacFarland was taking me to task for not changing my view on marriage to be consistent with the current pope. She said that wives' submission to their husbands used to be the teaching of the Church, but now the current pope has changed that doctrine and that all Catholics are required to change their view to coincide with his new understanding. She, by the way, is the wife of Bud MacFarland, the founder of Catholicity, and they are in the process of getting divorced.

If the pope writes something that seems odd, I ask myself - "does this have an orthodox interpretation?" I don't think - "Hmm, this sounds odd, therefore the Pope is an apostate and not really the Pope." The Pope is a legitimate object of charity as well.

This is true up to a point. If a pope who is clearly an orthodox Catholic writes something that is ambiguous, then one is required to give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret it in the most charitable possible way. But after 40 years of the "post-conciliar Church," and after 40 years of the "new springtime of the Faith," and after 40 years of deconstructing Catholicism and replacing it with an ersatz substitute, then one has to come to the conclusion that this or that statement is not merely less than clear, it is part of an overall program.

The pope has been eminently clear that he does give 100% support to the new model of the Vatican II Church. When he was invited by his hand-picked interviewer to offer even the tiniest reservation or criticism of Vatican II, he resolutely declined. So one must interpret his statements within that context, the context he himself has established.

I won't give you any argument about the disastrous practical consequences of the Council, but I'm interested in exploring charges against the Council itself -- the documents.

This is too big a topic to take up on this thread, but I come down firmly on the side that the fault lies in the documents themselves, not in their implementation. As you take these documents to bed and read them, tell yourself, "I am a member of the Consilium like Rembert Weakland [shudder], or I am a member of the ICEL like Fr. Stephen Somerville, and I am committed to a process of "creative destruction" on the model of the Hegelian dialectic. What do these documents tell me? Do they give me permission to undertake a full-scale 'auto-demolition' of the Catholic faith?"

Viewed from that perspective, which is the perspective of the people whose first action at the council was to throw out the schema prepared by the curia and substitute their own agenda and their own documents, it soon becomes clear that the documents of Vatican II gave them carte blanche to replace Catholicism with a new religion.

It was only when I finally realized that something was fundamentally wrong

I hear you. Even apart from the scandals, there is something else that just doesn't seem like the way things should be going. I'm all for a kindler, gentler church, but not at the expense of compromising the gospel.

I applaud the church for holding the line on certain issues, unpopular though they may be in some quarters; however they seem to look the other way when it comes time to do anything in the way of discipline that will make people sit up and take notice and understand that this is not merely church gobbledygook as some political figure put it re his annulment. I think it was some Kennedy.

Most of what gets said goes in one ear and out the other and the people are starving, but to the point that they are anorexic and in denial.

Sometimes ultima ratio hits the nail on the head, so I cannot dismiss his post as mere rantings of a schismatic.

On another thread there is another discussion about something the church has been too permissive about imo, and in trying to come to terms with it, what do I find but a book I would like to read. I think the author is one of those wayward traditionalists, Vennari. Can I find anything about the subject by a respected novus ordo priest? Nyet. Zero. Zip. Nada. Or affirmation. Nothing about the potential dangers and to the effect that maybe they ought not to be allowing it. Like a novus ordo nun once told me, "Just because the church allows it doesn't necessarily mean it is a good thing." She also told me to throw Father Gobbi's book away which was good advice and I got rid of it. But what to replace it with?

Back to the trad book. Traditionalists to the rescue about some issues that happen to matter very much for me. The official church? Mostly silence and permissiveness. Draws the crowds. That's not the way things ought to be. There are some of us who yearn for purity in our religion if it can be had.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.