Posted on 06/06/2003 12:25:21 PM PDT by NYer
By JOHN YOUNG It is not that they recognize his great achievements, but think that an occasional statement or practical decision is wrong. The people I am referring to seem to go through papal statements in search of errors and scrutinize the Pope’s activities for inappropriate or imprudent actions. Here is a man who has fearlessly and devotedly promoted the truth for almost a quarter of a century as Vicar of Christ, who despite illnesses in recent years that would have forced most people into retirement has kept up a pace most fit individuals half his age would find daunting. He draws crowds of millions; he is listened to by young people all over the world. He is today’s great outstanding moral teacher, and seen as such by multitudes, including those of other faiths or none. Ignoring all this, the critics I am speaking of look for anything they can regard as a weakness or error, then publicly condemn it. Even if they were right about the matters complained of, they would be wrong in the lack of balance shown. But that lack of balance should alert us to the bias with which they approach John Paul, and warn us that their alleged statements of fact may be nothing of the sort. Take criticisms of the gathering of religions at Assisi, organized by the Pope. Horror is expressed at his alleged encouragement of Hindus, Buddhists, and others to pray to pagan gods. But that is not what he did. Certainly he encouraged them to pray. God is open to all sincere prayer, even though those praying may have confused and erroneous notions of who God is. Nor did the Pope join in prayer with them, as is sometimes insinuated. The groups prayed separately. John Paul is also charged with contradicting his Predecessors on the place of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy. He is supposed to have implied, in his encyclical Faith and Reason (n. 49), that the Church has no preferred philosophy. This would contradict previous Popes, including Pius XI’s statement in Studiorum Ducem, that "as innumerable documents of every kind attest, the Church has adopted his [St. In fact, John Paul’s sentence is badly translated in the English version of Faith and Reason. The encyclical highly praises St. Thomas in several places, including an endorsement of Leo XIII’s "insistence upon the incomparable value of the philosophy of St. Thomas" (n. 57). The Pope is also taken to task for saying, in his general audience of July 28, 1999, that Hell is not a place. But what he actually said is that Hell is "more than a place." (This is pointed out in a "Faith Fact" published by Catholics United for the Faith, and quoted by James Drummey in his Wanderer column, Catholic Replies.) The English translation of the Pope’s address rendered the Italian as "rather than a place," instead of the accurate "more than a place." Even had he said it is not a place, surely he should be understood to be highlighting what it is essentially (and the same applies to his similar remarks about Heaven). Instead the carping critics seize on sentences without regard for the context, don’t trouble to check the original, then complain that the Pope is wrong. What is the right approach if the Pope seems to be wrong? Well, first one must get the facts straight. In the case of a happening, such as the Assisi meetings of religions, what did he actually do and say? What was the intention of the gathering? Regarding statements that seem inaccurate, is the fault in the translation? Does the context throw light on the meaning? Secondly, a clear distinction must be made between doctrine and practices. The influence of the Holy Spirit in preventing the Pope from teaching error in faith or morals is in a different category from the help given him in practical decisions. There is no guarantee that he will act in the best way when dealing with administrative matters or in practical decisions relating to ecumenical activities or in dealing with dissident theologians. In these areas mistakes may occur due to inadequate information, personal psychological weaknesses of the Pope, and other causes. A good example, in my opinion, is the way Paul VI handled (or failed to handle) the controversy about contraception. There was never any possibility of the traditional doctrine being reversed, yet Paul VI took several years to make his definitive statement, and in the meantime left the impression that a change might be imminent. After his clear and beautiful teaching in Humanae Vitae, he rarely referred to the matter again in the remaining ten years of his pontificate, and failed to act decisively against the multitude of dissenters who rebelled against him. Should we, then, feel free to criticize the Pope in his practical procedures regarding such things as ecumenical approaches or tolerance of unorthodox theologians? While these matters are clearly in a different category from teachings on faith and morals, and don’t require the same allegiance from us, there is need for great caution before disagreeing. A point to remember (and which so-called traditionalists often ignore) is that John Paul may be right and his Predecessors wrong on a particular issue of this kind. Also, practical measures that worked in the past may not be effective now because of changed circumstances or a change in the general outlook. Perhaps this would apply in the question of whether the Church should have an index of banned books; possibly it was prudent in the past but would be so blatantly flouted today that it would do more harm than good. Several factors need to be kept in mind if we are inclined to think we are right and John Paul II is wrong. One is his vast knowledge, derived from a lifetime of varied experiences, including years under Nazism and then Marxism. As Pope he has met and talked to more people, and of more diverse views, than almost anyone else on earth. He has better sources of information than we have. A second consideration is his evident holiness. While we can’t see into another person’s soul, there is every indication that John Paul is a saint. The spiritual insight of a saint, endowed as he is with supernatural virtue in a high degree and with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, gives him a prudence and wisdom far exceeding what most of us are capable of. Also, he has the grace of state proper to his high office as Vicar of Christ. This is a divine help appropriate to his vocation. We can be confident, in view of his holiness, that he will not resist that grace. Putting all that together — almost unparalleled experience, saintly wisdom, a ready response to the grace of state offered him by God — we should be extremely reluctant to suppose we know better than he does what Christ wants for His Church. There is also the need for us to avoid scandal. Those who complain about the alleged scandal given by the Pope with the Assisi gathering of religions should ask themselves whether they give scandal with their readiness to condemn his actions. Will this stance lead other people to question papal authority? Will it tend to make them skeptical about pronouncements from Rome? Will it encourage them to see Vatican II as a major disaster? Will it weaken the allegiance of young people to the Church? Finally, the critics I am speaking of should ask themselves whether they, not the Pope, have a warped view. It is so easy for justified concern about the aberrations in Catholic affairs to cause an overreaction, with suspicion of quite legitimate changes. It must never be forgotten that Satan, who loves to provoke division, can appear as an angel of light and lead us astray. + + + (John Young is a graduate of the Aquinas Academy in Sydney, Australia, and has taught philosophy at the Vincentian Seminary in Eastwood, Australia. He is a frequent contributor to The Wanderer on theological issues.)
Thomas’] philosophy as her own" (AAS 15 [1923], 314).
Yeah they're not Catholics. Real Catholics are the ones wearing the miter as they Freep.
Not so simple. Hell is a place and so is heaven. This is the direct teaching of Jesus Christ Himself in so many instances that it would be impossible to quote them all. To deny this is to deny every fundamental of Catholic dogma, including Scripture, Tradition and the perennial teaching of the Magisterium. Start with the Creed, for one. "He descended into Hell."
Please demonstrate one instance in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium prior to Vatican II in which the Church has ever taught an "existential" understanding of Hell. Jesus taught that Hell was a place of fire. Do you think that you know more about the subject than He did?
Your list, perhaps it would be appropriate to tack it to a chuch door in Wittenburg.
The Remnant, The Angelus, Catholic Family News, or some other schismatic publication. Maybe Williamson wrote it. Nonetheless, it is but another unsubstantiated bit of gossip.
Jesus frequently teaches in language that's prophetic, which is to say, not literal, but conveying truths distant and hidden that are not apprehensible to the human mind. The everlasting fire of hell is the fire of utter destruction; the fire of the burning bush is a prophecy of the Resurrection.
Do you think that you know more about the subject than He did?
No indeed. Do you think you know more about how to interpret revelation than Vatican II?
It would be amazing if I could do such an impossibility. But the reality is that God is not absent from Hell. When has the Church ever taught that? Hell is the place of God's justice, which is equal to His mercy. When we see Christ's death upon the cross, and we reflect that God Himself came down from heaven to suffer in this way for us, then we realize the extent of His mercy. To contemplate His justice, and to be reminded that it is just as great as this mercy that He showed us on the cross, is a terrifying thought indeed.
But His justice does not consist of His absence. That would be an impossibility. Satan and his devils are already suffering what we will suffer for all eternity if we end up among the reprobate. But God is not absent from them. They live in God's creation just like all other creatures.
Jesus frequently teaches in language that's prophetic, which is to say, not literal
If that were the case in this instance, then it would not be too difficult to find a source in tradition which supports this non-literal belief in Hell. I challenge you to locate one traditional source among the patristics, Aquinas, the magisterium, etc. which supports your thesis.
The everlasting fire of hell is the fire of utter destruction
Wrong. The definitive teaching of the Church is that the fire of Hell lasts for all eternity and never consumes its subjects.
Do you think you know more about how to interpret revelation than Vatican II?
I can't say that Vatican II's intention was "to interpret revelation." But please cite one passage from Vatican II which states that "Hell is not a place." I'm quite certain that there is no such thing in the documents.
Not necessarily. He does not expressly say that one church is as good as another. It sounds like he is defining ecumenism as not proselytizing. Maintaining decent relationships with other denominations might be his aim here, and there are many benefits to the church that could result from such an approach, including evangelization.
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.