Posted on 06/09/2005 7:31:25 PM PDT by gbcdoj
KRAKOW, Poland --John Paul II's longtime private secretary defended on Wednesday his decision not to burn the pope's papers as the pontiff's will instructed, saying the pope had given him a "free hand" in dealing with the materials. ...
"The Holy Father gave me an absolutely free hand on the matter," Dziwisz said. "It is my responsibility what to keep. And I absolutely don't see that anything should be burned, destroyed," he said. "I think this belongs to the Church, to the society and to the general culture."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
so then what was the initial big story that the Pope told him to destroy his papers? Duh?
Evidently, Dziwisz isn't willing to shine too much light on the subject...
Can someone tell me ANY reason whatsoever the pope's papers should be burned?
If you can't get enough to beatify the Pope from everything else, hang it up now.
John Paul didn't change his will to allow for papers to stay around. Do the right thing and follow the letter and intent of the will.
It's nice to see you can't count on your friends to follow through, isn't it?
The only reason I can think of to burn a Pope's papers is because of his specific request. Otherwise they'd be good to have.
This "oh, that's what HE wanted" stuff is fine, if it's substantiated. ANYONE can say this, but proof is a different matter.
Because it was expressly stated in his will that he wanted his personal papers burned. As the executor of the will Dzis whatever his name is, should follow the written instructions of the will in which he was entrusted to carry out.
I might also add it is a traditional thing that pope's request their personal papers be burned. He has no right to go against the wishes of Pope John Paul, putting his own wishes as more important.
My question is not answered.
For what possible reason would a Pope want his papers burned?
"For what possible reason would a Pope want his papers burned?"
To make certain that they would not be misused. For example, if he had private letters regarding something sensitive (and he might), after his death there might be those who would reveal them. Modesty is another reason, a feeling that what he wrote was "straw" another.
Remember that we are going from Latin to Polish to English, and that the Dissociated Press reporting always seeks to put Christians in a bad light. Maybe JPII said something like "burn my personal papers unless you think they are useful for ..." or something like that.
Ok, so you have them sealed for 100 years. They haven't been misused so far. "Those who would reveal them" doesn't say much for the Vatican. The Pope certainly didn't keep his private papaers in a box under his bed. the church secured them throughout his whole life.He couldn't have "Protected" them 23/7.
Why not just seal them for a hundred years.? What is there to "hide"? He is the important figure of the Church.
"My question is not answered.
For what possible reason would a Pope want his papers burned?"
Diogenes provides some very good reasons why in a recent cooment on this. Note particularly where he draws attention to the problems that Pius XI's unpublished Encyclical on anti-semitism has caused to a fair assessment of the reign of Pius XII:
"Burn the notes, please
"No man is a hero to his valet." Or so the old saying goes. But it certainly appears that the late Pope John Paul II was, and is, a hero to his longtime confidential secretary, Archbishop Stanislas Dziwisz.
When Pope Benedict named him as Archbishop of Krakow---- where he had worked, years earlier, as secretary to then-Cardinal Wojtyla-- Archbishop Dziwisz announced that he hoped to serve the Polish archdiocese as "a witness to John Paul II."
If you were in a querulous mood, you must wonder whether it would have been better for the incoming archbishop to say that he planned act as "a witness to Jesus Christ." You might even wonder whether he might have given a bit more credit to Cardinal Franciszek Macharski, who succeeded the late Pope and kept the Krakow cathedra warm for 26 years.
But let's not be unreasonable. Pope John Paul was his hero.
So it's remarkable to learn, now, that Archbishop Dziwisz has ignored-- no, directly countermanded-- a last request from his old boss.
In his last will and spiritual testament, Pope John Paul II wrote, "Let my personal notes be burned. I ask that Father Stanislaw [Dziwisz] see to this…"
That's pretty clear, isn't it? No questions? Nor is there any question about the clarity or consistency of the deceased Pontiff's view on this matter. He wrote that instruction in March 1979, earlier in his pontificate, and never changed it. It is clearly what he wanted.
Yet now Archbishop Dziwisz discloses that he has not, and will not, destroy the notes. "Nothing has been burned," he says. "Nothing is fit for burning."
Does Archbishop Dziwisz mean to save the late Pope's legacy from the damage that could be done by excessive humility? Or is he ignoring a directive that is both prudent and understandable? Is this commendable loyalty, or crass insubordination?
WHAT THE MAN SAID
When he called for the destruction of his private papers, Pope John Paul may have been motivated by something more than modesty. He may have realized that the unpublished notes of a deceased Pope can become a source of confusion for the Catholic world.
Which one of us has not scribbled something down, set it aside, and later offered a prayer of thanks that no one ever read what we had written? The private notes of John Paul II may include ideas that the Pope himself would never have made public. Now those ideas could enter general circulation, not because the late Pope wanted it, but because Archbishop Dziwisz wants it.
In Catholic theology, the working papers of a Roman Pontiff carry no teaching authority whatsoever. The Holy Spirit preserves the Pope from error in his formal statements, not in his private musings. For all we know, it may have been the prompting of the Holy Spirit that kept the late Pope from turning his thoughts on a particular topic into a finished product.
Nevertheless the reality is that any thoughts expressed by Pope John Paul II-- however informal, however tentative-- would carry considerable weight with his many ardent admirers. How would you like to be the theologian, the bishop, or even the Roman Pontiff saddled with the task of debunking a theory put forth posthumously by the great John Paul II?
It would be naïve to dismiss the possibility that a Pope as prolific as John Paul produced some potentially dangerous thoughts: some ideas that he set aside as incomplete, poorly expressed, or just plain wrong. If those thoughts were published now, earnest Catholics could be led astray. It would not be the first time that the unpublished works of a deceased Pontiff were revived, after his death, to cause problems for his successor. A now-famous "unpublished encyclical" against racism and anit-Semitism, drafted but never promulgated by Pope Pius XI, is now sometimes cited by critics of Pope Pius XII, who question why the latter did not finish the project. Personally, I suspect Pope John Paul recognized this risk, and that is why he ordered the destruction of his notes. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are valuable insights in those notes, which should be preserved for posterity. But who should make that decision? With the death of John Paul II, the charism of papal authority passed to Benedict XVI, and maybe the new Pope could be trusted to decide whether or not to overrule his predecessor's request. But it is Archbishop Dziwisz, not the Pope, who now controls that legacy.
If anyone knew the mind of John Paul II, it was Archbishop Dziwisz, who served at his side for nearly four decades, discussing every project and polishing every statement. You might argue, then, that the archbishop knows which of the Pope's unfinished projects deserve publication, and which should be left undisclosed. You might say that he knows what John Paul himself would have wanted.
But if you said that, you'd be wrong. Because we all know what the late Pope wanted. He wanted the notes burned."
That's just it. we don't know. And unless they are archived properly, (and with 25+ years worth of material, that would take a number of years) we'll never find out.
As someone who used to work in an archives, those papers would be beyond valuable and a treasure trove of info, but at the same time, there are always things in there that the author wishes he or she hadn't written or will be taken out of context.
Let his public record speak for itself and burn them, if that was REALLY his wish.
We save the papers of Presidents for history, the President is not just an individual once he assumes the office. The Pope is even more not just an individual.
If you save the papers, they will be put in context of his whole life. The argument, someone may misrepresent them is not very good. They can do that with anything he says publicly too.
Someone posted that portion of his will on another thread (same story), it expressly stated, "burn my personal papers". You do not take someone's last written testament and say "you know, I think I'd rather keep them", they are HIS papers and he expressly stated "burn them".
It's a horrible breach of trust from the executor of his will (the secretary). Pope JP published many works, he DID NOT want his personal papers published. He DID NOT want to share his personal papers and very selfish of the secretary to go against his wishes. It doesn't matter what we think whether to burn them or keep them, what matters is what's stated in his will.
This Pope, even more than this predecessors was a writer. He wrote from an early age and was prolific. He published what he wished published - what was complete, what he felt was true and accurate and properly edited and worthy of publishing.
We can safely assume that what remained was one or more of the following:
What he didn't wish to be published
Incomplete, untrue
Inaccurate, not properly edited
Not worthy of being published
I hope that someone, Pope Benedict if it must be, makes certain that Pope John Paul's wishes on this - which was important enough to be explicitly requested in his short will - be carried out. I do not like to seem him betrayed in death.
Amen. I also liked the "straw" reference to Aquinas' writings on the Eucharist.
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.