Criticizing Pope John Paul II

That Pope John Paul II should get a barrage of criticism from modernists is only to be expected. But he also comes in for unsparing criticism from so-called traditionalists; and that is what I want to discuss here.

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.
Thomas’] philosophy as her own" (AAS 15 [1923], 314).

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.)

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.

Here is the crux of the matter. One item here or there wouldn't make the pope a heretic. It's not a question of searching for typos or supposed mis-translations. (BTW, he really did say "hell is a state rather than a place." That's the meaning of the phrase he used. "More than" would be an overly-literal translation.) But what is the legacy of this pope, on balance?

Here is where we see writers like this author demonstrating an incredible amount of the bias of which they accuse others. Any objective analysis is going to compare the Church of 1978 to the Church of today, rather than focus on JPII's rock-star persona which is irrelevant at best, and a scandal at worst.

Objectively looking at the situation today, we see that JPII inherited a Church in crisis -- one that was doing badly and getting worse. Since that time he has 100% stayed the course and refused to make any significant changes in the Vatican II program. All of the vaunted talk of renewal has been just that, talk. There is no reality to it.

Those who think that he is somehow more conservative than his predecessor must have never lived during the pontificate of Paul VI. Paul VI was supposedly Mr. Arch-Conservative during the time that he was alive. It is only in retrospect that he's considered a liberal. For decades he was called the conservative alter-ego to John XXIII's liberal. But now in the hindsight of history, John XXIII may have been more conservative than either Paul VI or JPII.

So on balance we have seen 25 years in which the growing crisis in the Church has deteriorated steadily and there has been no leadership from the Vatican to correct the problems.

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.

I'm sorry but this is not the way the Church works. I cannot recall a single incident prior to Vatican II in which a pope came out and said, "I'm right and my predecessors were wrong." This is nothing but a prescription for anarchy. Once you admit this principle, then there is no longer any established doctrine in the Church. Each pope would be free to create his own religion.

we have seen 25 years in which the growing crisis in the Church has deteriorated steadily

On April 3, 2000 the Holy See released an annual statistical summary of the world's Catholic population. It shows an increase in the number of Catholics globally, with a slightly higher growth rate than in the overall world population.

There were 17.4 baptized Catholics for every 100 people in the world by the end of 1998. (About 1.04 billion Catholics).

World Catholics by Location:

Nearly 1/2 of the world's Catholics live in the Western Hemisphere
30 % in Latin America
15 % in North America
30 % in Europe
12 % in Africa
Asia, the most populous continent, boasts only 12 % with most of those Catholics in Southeast Asia.
1 % Oceania
Since 1978, Europe has fewer Catholics, Africa and Asia more.

# of Catholic Bishops:
Large Increase 4,439 up from 3,714 in 1978. Greatest increases in Africa.

# of Priests Worldwide:
Declined from 420,971 in 1978 to 404,626 today, especially high in Europe and North America.

# of Religious Order Priests:
Declined from 158,486 in 1978 to 140,424 today

# of Diocesan Priests:
Increased slightly 264,202 from 262,485 in 1978, with lively growth in vocations in Africa.

The decline in the number of priests may soon reverse because more are studying for the priesthood.

# of Seminarians:
Increased to 109,171 from 62,670 in 1978. Again, the growth is most visible in Africa, with Latin America not too far behind.

Thank You Lord, for our Priests and Seminarians who have answered Your call.

Our author says:

"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.""

The incriminated passage with context in the original Italian:

"Le immagini con cui la Sacra Scrittura ci presenta l’inferno devono essere rettamente interpretate. Esse indicano la completa frustrazione e vacuità di una vita senza Dio.
L’inferno sta ad indicare più che un luogo, la situazione in cui viene a trovarsi chi liberamente e definitivamente si allontana da Dio, sorgente di vita e di gioia."

Link to the Italian:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_it.html

Official Vatican translation into English:

"The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy."

Link to the English:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html

My understanding of the Italian (which I am completely fluent in) is exactly as rendered in the Vatican translation to English - "more than" in this case cannot be used. The Italian does not mean "hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy, AS WELL AS A PLACE" which is what our author was implying.

Moreover JP2 continues:

"This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033)."

and further

"Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6)."

We critics may be harsh with JP2 (and I have confessed this sin often), but his 'supporters' tend to fall into the cheerleader frame of mind ending up with what looks like Hero-worship (as mentioned by Aloysius above).

Thanks. Now I have some things to share.

We should remember this paragraph whenever there is talk of "reconciliation", "universal indults", and similar topics. The break from Apostolic tradition is likened to Cain breaking from the rest of the first family to do things his way. Is this not how Lucifer operated? He said "non serviam" and eventually was thrown out of heaven.

The offering of Cain is similar to that found in the novus ordo, "the work of human hands". Abel's offering was that which God have given him. Much like at Mass, where Our Lord gives Himself as the sacrifice to God.

It's so easy to recite the post-conciliar party line, always talking about people overreacting to aberrations which are in reality un-Catholic values, teachings, devotions, practices, and beliefs. Some of us would be doing a great disservice here and everywhere else for not constantly pointing out that Lucifer already got his foot in the door - right there with the heretical documents of Vatican II and the illegal novus ordo service.

I've seen all sorts of innovations in the post-conciliar church to the point that I see at least one a day. From the coffee non-Mass and the pontoon non-Mass to the jazz, "black culture", Caribbean, and beach non-Masses, there's division over there that's multiplying like wild fire. And yet there are people who say we should put up with it. Why? Doesn't this attitude put more souls in danger?

When Church teaching condemned the very things the post-conciliar church promotes, you have to wonder why the pot is calling the kettle black. At least I've seen things on both sides of the fence long enough to know who really has the warped minds. God is not the author of confusion. Why do we have to be bound by ambiguous (if not outright heretical) post-conciliar documents? Is the Wanderer going to tell me I have a warped mind because I noticed there was there was something heretical found in an encyclical, namely, that the chalice of the new and everlasting covenant was shed "for you and for all"? It was written that way in Latin, and I when I saw it, I knew one thing. Manifest heretics can not possibly hold office. There's a likelihood someone is in the Vatican pretending to be someone he's not.

When it comes to doctrine, morals, and tradition, it's an all-or-nothing game. The Wanderer would do well to look at it that way for at least a day. If those columnists succeed in doing that one small task, there may be hope.

Faith, morals, Mass, and sacraments go hand-in-hand. Lex credendi, lex orandi dictates that we can not expect our methods of praying and worship to change without altering out beliefs (why do you think Luther and Cranmer "got their revolution on"?). I'm not about to give up what I just found several months ago just to get on some person's right side. And despite disagreements between traditional groups and even between people in a single group, the one big problem we all agree on is still standing. It would be a lot easier if these folks from the Wanderer as well as like-minded people would rise up and say "enough!" to modernism and "enough!" to innovation and novelty. Nothing good came of it, so it should be dumped. Until Rome does a complete 180-degree turn, the status quo will be maintained.

It would be nice to agree on all things regarding faith and morals for once. Maybe Matt, Likoudis, Gutierrez, Hand, and others could join in and do their part in the battle.

What JP2 is saying

The pope's native tongue is not Italian. That would suggest to me that he did not write this himself in Italian. That raises additional questions:

Which language does the pope use to write his addresses?
Does he even write them, or are they dictated to someone else? If so, in which language?
Who translates them into Italian?
Who proofreads them?
Do they proofread them first in their original language or only in Italian?
How many weekly addresses has the pope delivered in the course of his 25 year pontificate?

As the journalist pointed out in the opening of his article:

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.

How many of his weekly addresses have you actually listened to ... correction ... read?

Are there any writings by this pope with which you do agree and if so, which ones?

Official Vatican translation into English:
"The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy."
*************************************

In this passage, John Paul is saying two things that seem to go against my understanding of Church doctrine.

1)
John Paul said that Hell is not a physical place, but just a spiritual separation from God. If that were the case, one who denied God in this life wouldn't have to wait to die, he would be in Hell right now, on Earth, because of his denial of God.

2)
John Paul said that "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted," and then interpeted Sacred Scripture in a way I haven't seen before. Does that mean that centuries of Church teachings were flawed?

In this passage, John Paul is saying two things that seem to go against my understanding of Church doctrine.

I'll pose the same questions to you, just in case you missed them.

The pope's native tongue is not Italian. That would suggest to me that he did not write this himself in Italian. That raises additional questions:

As the journalist pointed out in the opening of his article:

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.

How many of his weekly addresses have you actually listened to ... correction ... read?

Are there any writings by this pope with which you do agree and if so, which ones?

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.