ABCNews:
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).
I'm afraid that NYer's approach is the only valid one. Either the pope was misquoted, or he was teaching heresy (although perhaps not intentionally, and therefore not culpably).
If God is not utterly absent from hell, then the Resurrection is an illusion.
Anyone calling himself a Catholic cannot go around making statements on their own authority. I specifically challenged you to locate one official Church source for your "existential" theology. You came back with more personal statements of heretical beliefs (again, not intentionally, and so not culpably, but still objectively contrary to Church teaching).
Your vision of hell seems to be a compound of pagan and Jewish ideas. I invite you to think more seriously about what's implied by Christ's offer of life and freedom.
No amount of "thinking seriously" by me is ever going to come up with the truth of Heaven and Hell. I am totally incapable of it, so at least I recognize my limitations, and I stay away from private speculation on such subjects. Instead I turn to the Church, which teaches definitively. Here is what Venerable Louis of Granada taught in "The Sinner's Guide":
The sinner cannot comfort himself by saying, "After all, the only result of my depraved life will be that I shall never see God. Further than this, I shall have neither reward nor punishment." Oh no; we are all destined to one or the other -- either to reign eternally with God in Heaven or to burn forever with the devils in Hell!This book was published by the Venerable Dominican with an approval and an introduction written by the reigning pope, Gregory XIII, who said:God's greatness is apparent in all His works. He is God, not only in Heaven, earth, and sea, but in Hell and in every other place. He is God in His wrath and the justice with which he will avenge the outrages offered to His divine majesty.
Seeing, then, how cruel are the devil and his angels, will you not tremble with horror at the thought of being delivered into their hands? They will have the power to execute upon you the most terrible inventions of their malice, not for a day, or a night, or a year only, but for all eternity.
To strengthen this salutary fear let us reflect upon the duration of these terrible torments. Try to realize what a comfort it would be to the damned if at the end of millions of year they could look forward to any term of alleviation of their sufferings. But no, their sufferings shall be eternal; they shall continue as long as God shall be God.
Your sermons and writings, filled with sublime doctrine and practical piety, are unceasingly drawing souls to God. This is particularly gratifying to us, for all who have profited by your teaching (and their number is very great) may be considered as so many souls gained to Christ.
Sounds like one of the arguments put forth by the Sanhedrin when they confronted Jesus on his teachings.
Good! And it was intended that way!
Are saying Jesus was wrong in his choice of words and that we need Ratzinger to clarify?
The pope does not require anyone to shout KAROL; in fact most shout "Viva Il Papa!"
There is a charism about this man to which many are drawn. No one tells them to go, they choose to go, much like the crowds that were drawn to Our Lord when He traveled the countryside.
As for the ecumenism aspect of kissing the Koran, see my post #93 and, please follow the dialogue in the link. It is a very sound response by one catholic apologeticist to another. Here is a thought .... what do you suppose the reaction would have been if the pope had spit on the Koran?
(Che tempo fa a Roma? Qui, piove. Sono stanca della pioggia! Ciao!)
I would have been impressed. When Jesus found the money changers in the temple he didn't join them - he threw them out.
I didn't know and I most definitely don't like it. It is starting to coincide with some prophecies regarding the Vatican being destroyed or taken over by the Muslims. Much as some like to put aside the idea, it is their goal.
I live in Rome and see thing, hear things, notice things, happening everyday which really trouble me so I seek understanding. I am vigilant.
Thanks for sharing your observations. We have family and friends in southern Italy who tell us how bad the illegal immigration and Muslim problem has become.
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.