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).
You may not have experienced this, but I have.
While I've never "denied God," I've certainly had ebbs in my relationship with God. And, when I did, I sought refuge in drink, in spending money, in "noise." I couldn't stand to be alone with myself, or to endure silence. All the while, I knew exactly what was happening, and I was saying "no."
One of the best books I've ever read is "The Hound of Heaven," by Francis Thompson. It details how Christ pursues us, in every facet and corner of our lives, until He forces us to confront Him.
"Yes" or "No" is a decision we're constantly making, not only with God, but with our wives, our children, our work, our involvement with causes outside ourselves.
Often, like St. Paul, the very thing we would not want to do, we do, and we don't do the thing we should.
And we're miserable afterwards. It's hellish.
The number of Catholics here on earth is a non-issue. The number of Catholics who make it to Heaven is what matters.
There are many people who respond to pollsters as Catholics who haven't stepped foot in a Church in years. The numbers are meaningless.
Let's compare Bishop Williamson to:
Cardinal Bernadin (homosexual), Bishop Loverde (covers for homosexual priests), Bishop Ryan (homosexual and still administering the Sacraments - thanks to Cardinal George), Cardinal Law (covers for homosexual rapists who happen to be Catholic priests), Bishop Curlin (covers for homosexuals priests and teachers and lies about it); Cardinal Mahoney (the list is too long - but look at his new cathedral for starters); Bishop O'Brien (covers for homosexual rapists who happen to be Catholic priests and then lies about it); Bishop Grahmann (covers up for homosexual rapists who happen to be Catholic priests); Bishop Murphy (covers for homosexual rapists who happen to be Catholic priests); Archbishop Elden Curtiss (covers for homosexual rapists who happen to be Catholic priests).
Who is in charge of all of the 'men' listed above?
Please, bring out the letters of Bishop Williamson and let's compare notes.
Ah, thus your devotion to the clamor and commotion of the Novus Ordo.
Where's Satan in all of this?
Very well said.
No can do, pal. Bishop Williamson was dragged out the other day as a comparison to the pope, since the SSPX don't have one. If you are going to do an apples to apples comparison, then we will have to agree to what constitutes valid comparisons. I'll put forth Cardinal Arinze or Ratzinger .. who do you want to submit?
Not sure what you are referencing since the SSPX recognizes Pope John Paul II as the Bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ.
The clergy of the SSPX are grounded enough to realize that, like all other men, the Pope make mistakes. The fan club, on the other hand, can't handle the fact that John Paul II is actually human. When his faults are pointed out (and they should be because he has millions of souls whose salvation depends upon his guidance and leadership) the fan club goes off the deep end.
ANYONE ON THIS FORUM WHO BELIEVES THE POPE IS ABOVE CRITICISM, SHOULD NEVER CRITICIZE A BISHOP BEAUSE THE POPE APPOINTS THE BISHOPS AND HE IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS!
WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?
But was it true?
Incorrect. The 'Church' changing the very words that Christ spoke to mislead the faithful is trying to change capital 'T' Tradition.
If you change enough of the little 't' tradition, you will lead the faithful to doubt the capital 'T' tradition, which is where we are now.
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.