Criticizing Pope John Paul II

The Wanderer Press ^ | May 10, 2003 | JOHN YOUNG

[NYer]

  Criticizing Pope John Paul II

By JOHN YOUNG

  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.)

 

[Theosis]

Oh puleeeze ultima... do you think I just fell off the SSPX wagon yesterday? Most of these were refuted long ago, (including by Fr. Gerald Murray personally in the Latin Mass Magazine). However, rather than reinvent the wheel, Shawn McElhinney, another former SSPX adherent for over ten years, did a good job gathering and providing the context.

[pascendi]

"Yawn!"

Argument by exhaustion? lol. Only slightly less effective than argument by authority.

"As for myself personally, I'm too busy frequenting our local indult, sending my tithes etc. etc. etc. ...to give your question much thought."

Well gee whiz, I'm not sspx either; I go to the local indult, even though an indult isn't needed. Are... you assuming something?

Please, answer my question? Thanks in advance.

[Theosis]

I go to the local indult, even though an indult isn't needed. Are... you assuming something?

Yes. It obviously is not our indult chapel since our elderly French priest would have sent you for remedial catechesis by now.

[ultima ratio]

* ("The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them." Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 26 [APPENDIX II]

Sounds to me like precisely the situation faced by the Archbishop. Can you say with a straight face the "goods for natural or supernatural life" are not threatened by today's Church? Come on, even Vere in the Wanderer admits as much almost every time he lifts his pen.

[Theosis]

* ("The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them." Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 26 [APPENDIX II]

You want me to accept the definition of the SSPX who are obviously biased in this case and who to my knowledge have no licensed canonists among their ranks? LOL! Get real; either tell me what document the SSPX are quoting or cough up a quote from a real Church document.

[ultima ratio]

Neither was I born yesterday--who, precisely, did a backflip besides Lara--(and why wouldn't they, once the Vatican knives were out)? Do you think the SSPX has many friends in the New Church who are ready to stand up to the Pope once he determines they must side with him? --I don't think so. It's a pretty one-sided fight--though the truth is powerful as well--and it's all on the side of the Society. Read the canons. They are operative only if a subject acts out of culpability or malice. The bottom line is that the Archbishop acted to defend the traditional faith. He deserves canonization, not opprobrium.

[pascendi]

"Yes. It obviously is not our indult chapel since our elderly French priest would have sent you for remedial catechesis by now."

Alright, let's run with that one then. Please answer:

1. What is it about anything I said is in error and
2. What is the correct and remedial position to take?

If you yawn, I'll just assume you can't answer... because see, now you are lapsing into the only traditionalism known to post-conciliars, which is traditional false accusation and ad hominen nonsense.

You are accusing me of having a position against the Church? Lay it out for me then; I'll hold you to it.

[ultima ratio]

You are making much of very little. Here is the law--pretty clearly written, I would say.
____________________________________________________________
"Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
____________________________________________________________

Here is an even more relevant precept:
____________________________________________________________
Can. 1321 §1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.



____________________________________________________________

[NYer]

How do you reconcile Vere's opinion with the fact that Rome has said the faithful can attend the SSPX Masses to fullfil their Sunday obligation?

Thus, before a Catholic may legally approach a non-Catholic minister within a Western Church in which the sacraments are valid, he must meet the further requirements of certain circumstances defined in nn. 130 and 131 of the Eceumenical Directory.  These circumstances are danger of death or permission of the local ordinary in accordance with local or regional legislation (n. 130), and/or the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or the Catholic Church (n. 131).  Because the norm specifies Church in the universal sense, and not Church *sui iuris* (i.e., Latin Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church, Melkite Catholic Church) this norm cannot be interpreted in the sense that the Catholic is unable to approach a Catholic priest of his own liturgical rite.

With regards to the SSPX, this prohibition has been confirmed first by the Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI in protocol N. 117/95 as follows:

2. The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2).   The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

Hence, we see that the Ecclesia Dei Commission, to whom has been delegated the power of authentic interpretation of Can. 844 §2 in this instance, does not consider the lack of opportunity to assist at a Tridentine Mass sufficient cause to receive the sacraments from a Lefebvrite cleric.  Thus in light of Canons. 16-17, as well as the Norms 130-132 of the Eceumenical Directory, one cannot invoke Can. 844 §2 in order to receive the sacraments from a Lefebvrite priest simply because a Tridentine Mass is lacking.

Furthermore, as the SSPX claim no jurisdiction, the Catholic Church is not certain at the present whether the SSPX constistutes a Church like the Eastern Orthodox or the Polish National Catholic Church, or whether the SSPX is simply a loose federation of acephalous (independent) priests and episcopal vagantes (wandering bishops) like the Old Catholic Movement in North America.  Thus where to classify the SSPX schism at the moment represents an internal dilemna for the Church, as noted by the Pontifical Commission for the Propagation of Christian Unity in Protocol Number 2336/94 as follows:

[Theosis]

The bottom line is that the Archbishop acted to defend the traditional faith.

That's funny, my traditional Gasparri catechism tells me that to be a Catholic one must submit to the Roman Pontiff.

He deserves canonization, not opprobrium

No, Bishop Rangel deserves canonization; Lefebvre deserves whatever his just reward is. For the sake of his immortal soul, I pray that he recanted of his schism in his dying breath.

[pascendi]

"...unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing"

Hey, that sounds like me. In a city of two million, I believe I have found perhaps three priests who seem to be in good standing, from what I can tell.

[Theosis]

You are making much of very little. Here is the law--pretty clearly written, I would say.Yes, when canons 16 and 17 are taken into account, namely, laws are interpreted according to the mind of legislator. Pope John Paul II's mind is pretty clear. Lefebvre should have known it since the Holy Father forewarned. It doesn't surprise me, however, that you would attempt to proof-text canon 1323. That's what Protestants do. Additionally, why don't you quote the actual canon?

[Theosis]

Furthermore, as the SSPX claim no jurisdiction...[snip]"

Unfortunately, here is where I must disagree with Vere. In my opinion, he was likely still operating under his SSPX bias when he wrote this. While the SSPX deny their bishops claim jurisdiction, I don't think anyone we can deny that defacto Williamson exercises jurisdiction in North America and Fellay, with election to Superior General, exercises it over the entire SSPX. As an aside, it was the latter that caused me to bail. Additionally, they consecrated Rangel a bishop to exercise jurisdiction over Campos. (Of course, Bishop Rangel, God bless his soul, died licitly exercising this jurisdiction.)

I've tried arguing this with Vere, but he sides with PCILT over the PCED when it comes to this issue. While I normally would agree with him that PCILT is the higher authority, I think in this case the PCED opinion should prevail because they are dicastery to whom the Holy Father has entrusted this particular issue.

[ultima ratio]

Laws may be interpreted according to the legislator--but they never were officially that I know of. The Pope made an announcement in passing in a letter granting an indult, that was all. Moreover, not even the pope may rescind the canon in question, based on divine law, proscribing punishing the innocent who act without culpability or malice. Such a recision would be overtly tyrannical and would transcend the limits of papal power and would be invalid.

But all this is splitting hairs. If the Pope would act to destroy Catholic tradition in this way, then he should be disobeyed. That is clear as a bell to anyone with an ounce of common sense. The Pope is not the Church, he is not the faith--he is the steward, one who is keeper of the keys of the kingdom, not the king nor the kingdom itself. He may not build his own church, inventing a new faith as he goes along. So you go along with Assisi I and II and the youth rallies and the fake canonizations and the elevations of apostates and the new Paschal theologies and the new protestantized Mass. I'll take my chances with Lefebvre who stuck to the old faith according to the lights of all the pontiffs and councils that went before the modernist revolution.

[Aloysius]

The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

...and Monsignor Perl of the same Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI, in January 2003 stated with respect to attending SSPX Masses that "If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

Do you have anything more recent than January of this year from Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI which contradicts this?

If not, I must rely on the most recent communication from the Commission.

[ultima ratio]

"Additionally, why don't you quote the actual canon?"

I did. It is the actual canon.

[Theosis]

I did. It is the actual canon.

That's odd. I have my copy of the authoritative text as promulgated by the Roman Pontiff, and that is not what the canon says.

[Theosis]

Oh alright ultima, I will give you another clue since you obviously are having a hard time figuring out why what you quoted is not the authoritative text of the canon. Basically, Pope John Paul II didn't promulgate the code in English translation.

[ultima ratio]

I took what I cited from the online text. The entire '83 text is there.

[NYer]

The English translation of the Novus Ordo was produced by the liberal ICEL. Its justification for translating pro multis as "for all men" derives from the curious researches of a LIBERAL Scripture "scholar" whose name is Joachim Jeremias of the University of Gottingen [Germany].

Translation
Question from Paul Myers on 01-02-2003:

I understand changing some of the words to eliminate archaic english. But some changes in translation don't make sense. In the old missals the words at the Chalice Consecration ended with "For you and for many". In the new missals it reads "For you and for all men". Which translation is correct? I don't know enough about latin to know but it does seem to mean two different things.

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 02-06-2003:

This issue was raised in 1970 with the Holy See, which responded:

Question: In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating the wine, the words "pro multis" are translated thus: English, "for all"; Spanish, "por todos"; Italian, "per tutti."

a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing in this variant and if so, what is it?

b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" to be considered superseded?

c. Are all other versions of the biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?

d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?

Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:

a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by "pro multis" has as its meaning "for all": the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying "Christ has died for all." The words of St. Augustine are apposite: "See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ's blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that it has been given for them alone are proud" ("Enarr." in Ps. 95, 5).

b. The teaching of the "Catechism" is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ's death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.

c.d. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation. [Notitiae 6 (1970) 39-40, no. 28]