Posted on 07/15/2005 1:19:04 PM PDT by dangus
I've done a lot of looking at the bishops around the world lately and I began to notice a pattern: It seems like early in John Paul II's pontificate, he picked a lot of fairly young priests to become bishops. But eventually, he started picking older and older men for the higher posts? Was it because as he got older, he trusted older men more? But then, towards the end of his pontificate, he reverted to picking younger men.
Then it occurred to me that Pope Benedict seemed to be picking either very old, or very young men for his positions. So I checked to see if my notion was true. An amazing pattern emerged: Very few men were being promoted who were selected between the close of the Second Vatican Council (1965) and the start of John Paul II's pontificate (1978).
Since June 1, for instance, fourteen men were promoted who had made their solemn professions in the twelve years from 1966 to 1977. But twenty-six men were promoted who had been promoted in the twelve years from 1978 to 1989. But it couldn't be explained just that "JP2's men" were simply the right age: Those priests who made their solemn professions before 1966 were being promoted faster, too! Eight men who had been promoted had been made priests in just 6 years leading before 1966.
Although priests ordained in those years have been notoriously liberal, Of those few bishops in America who were ordained bishops during those 12 years, many are among the most conservative leaders in America: Archbishops Meyers, Dolan, Burke and Chaput (although the list also includes Archbishops O'Malley and Gregory.)
But Pope Paul VI was pope from 1963 - 1978.
Yeah, but he didn't have free reign to destroy the Catholic Church until AFTER the council.
I'm slow, explain.
I thought a ping to the Catholic list might bring some interesting speculation. Anyone care to ping it?
The Church had always evolved its liturgy throughout the first millennia; it's doctrine was always rock-steady, though, being amended only by further and further clarification. But for almost a millennium, the liturgy was very, very stable. In fact, for 450 years, it had codified rock steady.
When drastic changes were made to the expression of the Catholic faith, people did not understand what sort of changes were permissable, and which were not. In the confusion, heretics among the ranks of the ordained made all manner of illicit innovation, and denials of licit and very blessed pieties. Before Vatican II, the congregation would have recognized them for what they were: apostates. After Vatican II, people just shrugged and supposed that it was all in the "Spirit of Vatican II."
To this day, there are many people who insist that Vatican II was not licit, in large part because they group all these outrages as part of the reform, just as the liberal heretics do. The truth is that these abominations are still forbidden under Vatican II.
Pope Paul VI permitted every manner of abomination, including the perversion of the priesthood into a homosexual meet club. Most people do not realize that in the first 15 years of POpe John Paul II's papacy, the sex-abuse rate fell 93%.
During those years, the laity expected that eventually there would be permissable contraception, abortion, maybe even premarital sex or homosexuality, divorce, female priests, an end to the doctrine of purgatory, no need for confession, maybe even an eventual abolishing of the priesthood. I suppose that Pope John Paul II could not find many men worthy of being promoted to bishop among those who went through the seminary in those years.
Following 1978, the seminaries were very slow to improve what they taught, but Pope John Paul II inspired a new cohort of priests who wanted to be Catholic, not Unitarian.
Post 6 was a little confusing. I'll fix it:
The Church had always evolved its liturgy throughout the first millennia; it's doctrine was always rock-steady, though, being amended only by further and further clarification. But for almost a millennium, the liturgy was very, very stable. In fact, for 450 years, it had codified rock steady.
When drastic changes were made to the expression of the Catholic faith, people did not understand what sort of changes were permissable, and which were not. In the confusion, heretics among the ranks of the ordained made all manner of illicit innovation, and denials of licit and very blessed pieties. Before Vatican II, the congregation would have recognized them for what they were: apostates. After Vatican II, people just shrugged and supposed that it was all in the "Spirit of Vatican II."
To this day, there are many people who insist that Vatican II was not licit, in large part because they group all these outrages as part of the reform, just as the liberal heretics do. The truth is that these abominations are still forbidden under Vatican II.
Pope Paul VI permitted every manner of abomination, including the perversion of the priesthood into a homosexual meet club. On the other hand, although most people do not realize it, in the first 15 years of Pope John Paul II's papacy, the sex-abuse rate fell 93%.
During Paul VI's reign, the laity expected that eventually there would be permissable contraception, abortion, maybe even premarital sex or homosexuality, divorce, female priests, an end to the doctrine of purgatory, no need for confession, maybe even an eventual abolishing of the priesthood. I suppose that Pope John Paul II could not find many men worthy of being promoted to bishop among those who went through the seminary in those years.
Following 1978, the seminaries were very slow to improve what they taught, but Pope John Paul II inspired a new cohort of priests who wanted to be Catholic, not Unitarian.
I should also be careful to note: Paul VI did not promulgate heresy. What he did was fail miserable to correct it. The former offense would make him a heretic amd an anti-pope, if it were even possible (and theologians debate whether it is possible). The latter only makes him out to be a lousy pope through whose failures, hundreds of millions were led into sin.
+
In his defense he did try to stem the tide early on but had many very powerful Cardinals lined up against him. The excesses of Vatican II didn't just happen as you are well aware, these tendencies were out there for many years waiting an opportunity to strike. An example told to me by Father John Hardon deals directly with Pope Paul's difficulties in this regard.
Within a few years of the Novus Ordo it became apparent to Paul VI that Latin was not being used for the Mass and he decided to do something about it. I am not sure what vehical he would have used, an encyclical or directive but the Pope made his desire known. Cardinal Suenens of Belgium then went into action. He contacted all of his friends (many many bishops) and they orchestrated an attack on the Pope. They did this by having a pre-appointed time for cables and telegrams to arrive at the Vatican threatening the Pope if he continued to press for Latin. Apparently enough did as Paul VI abandoned his effort to require the Mass be said in Latin.
Mind this was a conversation with Father Hardon and we did not get into particulars, my interest at the time was Cardinal Suenens and the power he wielded at the Vatican and in the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal. This episode was an example of his power, the man was well organized and responsible for almost defeating the Pope over contraception. And, I suspect he wasn't the only thorn in Paul VI's side.
Having said this I do agree that this Pope will be known as one who gave into the demands of many liberals, whether he wanted the changes they insisted on is another matter.
My impression of Paul VI has always been that he was a good man, but a very weak leader. I wasn't around, but it seems that there were plenty of opportunities to really teach and it just didn't happen.
Paul VI was known to spend much of his time in tears. He was obviously a good but weak and perhaps even gullible man, and didn't know how to deal with the situation. He was also surrounded by what appears to have been a giant nest of snakes, so even the few things he tried to do went wrong.
I blame him for many things, but at the same time, I have always felt sorry for him, because he was obviously not up to the job, or at least, he felt that he wasn't. God will judge, however.
My biggest disappointment was that JPII, because of his emphasis on "collegiality," didn't do more to correct the situation. In all fairness, he started out fairly agressively, but after the assassination attempt and his convalescence, he seemed to back off. Then he clearly decided that his calling was not to correct the Church, but to reach out to non-Christians. Maybe his media apostolate was right, maybe it was wrong - again, God will judge.
As for Benedict XVI (who was basically the person who, late in the pontificate of JPII, began to apply corrective measures), I certainly hope he has something against the priests - now bishops - who came out of the pontificate of Paul VI. He'd be foolish not to. But I bet he knows that...
Dolan is a great improvement over Weakland!
the pope doesn't merely pick priests. He gets a list from local authorities on which priests should be bishops, and then choses.
as for conservative v liberal: Cardinal Krol of Philly and Cardinal O'Connor of NYC were both very conservative and very active in fighting liberal changes. And some bishops like Cardinal Law are actually holy and conservative men, but like Law, they were too meek, so they bowed to the "experts" (which is how Law got in trouble with pedophilia: The worst priest was cleared by Johns Hopkins, and was a darling of the liberals since he worked with the poor)...
Cardinal O'Connor was certainly a very holy man, but he was not ordained during the pontificate of Paul VI, but rather 20 years earlier, in 1945. He was consecrated a bishop in 1979, appointed bishop of Scranton in 1893 and of New York in 1984, all by JP2.
Cardinal Krol was made bishop of Philly in 1961, by John 23.
Cardinal Law was a slick politician. I met him, long before the scandals, as I worked for a Catholic school in his diocese. The man made my skin crawl, and I had no doubt that his pro-life stance was just an act for the Pope. He was veeeerrrrrryyy liberal, just very duplicitous; He knew he could never become Pope if he was known to be pro-abortion, and he was sublimely ambitious.
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.