« XL-ent | Main | Ah, acrimonious debates in the comboxes »
February 09, 2006
It's All So Clear Now
One of our commentators has taken to trying to convince us all that Pope John Paul II was a bad pope. He's shown us how he erred in so many ways, from his management of the priest sex scandals, to kissing the Koran, and generally making proclamations and decisions that repelled good, honest, God-fearing Catholics.
Well, I've thought it over, and I can hardly come up with a reasonable point to disagree with him on.
Therefore, I confess it, Pope John Paul Ii was a bad pope...a lousy one even.
But such insight is not a good in and of itself. I must use this new clarity of vision elsewhere in my life. I must apply this knowledge.
Any leader who allows, nay, even repeatedly appoints corrupt religious leaders to offices of power is a menace to his followers and an abuser of his stewardship. Any leader who so scandalizes his followers as to repulse them and lead them astray clearly is not fit of the title of "great." Such a leader breeds dissension among the good and the orthodox. Any leader who would abandon those who obey him in order to curry favor with heretics and pagans clearly ought to go down in the history books as a flagrant betrayer of his duty.
Our friend Athanasius is quite right. Such a leader is a bad leader, and thus it follows that Jesus Christ was in fact the worst religious leader in the history of organized religion.
Indeed, how foolish and stupid of Christ to allow Judas Iscariot to go unpunished during his tenure as an Apostle. You could almost say he had that betrayal coming after letting such slime abuse the Apostolic title. Then, of course, there was that utterly ridiculous incident where he had to start telling people to eat him, which so scandalized his followers that the majority of them abandoned him. The mission to Gentiles? Please, what was he thinking? No wonder so many Jews felt uncomfortable accepting him as the Christ. If he had just stuck to the Law like he was supposed to, he would have left a much better Church behind.
And, of course, most of these problems extend just as well to Peter, who had the gall to actually announce that dietary laws and circumcision were unnecessary (the latter rule being stricken after a little prompting from Paul). So Peter seems like a pretty lousy pope as well.
So there you have it. Jesus. Peter. Pope John Paul II. What a devil's crew.
Posted by Peter Terp on February 9, 2006 at 10:15 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341d0c4b53ef00d834ca463169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's All So Clear Now:
Comments
Peter,
I'd really like it if you didn't use such vicious sarcasm: "Therefore, I confess it, Pope John Paul II was a bad pope...a lousy one even". It's not that I don't appreciate sarcasm, it's that I don't want a good site like this to be a hit when someone "googles" "Pope John Paul + bad".
Posted by: Matt | Feb 9, 2006 10:50:22 PM
Actually, not to be contrarian, this is exactly the type of a site you want to be a hit when someone googles "Pope John Paul + bad."
Posted by: Therese | Feb 9, 2006 11:22:44 PM
Well, Judas is undoubtedly a mystery, but he was only one man, and his sin was known only to Our Lord, not a source of public scandal (until Good Friday). Our Lord, being God, was also aware of the necessary part Judas would play in the Passion.
Peter's sins, which he atoned for through a number of positive achievements and his martyrdom, show us that a pope is just as susceptible to mistakes as any of us.
As for the rest of it, you seem to have generated the following syllogism (correct me if I'm wrong):
Major Premise: Jesus Christ scandalized certain people during his time on earth and He, as God, is the obvious pinnacle of perfection.
Minor Premise: John Paul II also created scandal.
Conclusion: John Paul II is emulating Christ admirably and in fact demonstrating his own progress on the path of perfection by generating scandal.
I think you can see the obvious problem here. I can plug in thousands of names of people who generated scandal who no one would consider saints(Pope Alexander VI, perhaps).
There is nothing intrinsically good about scandal. St. Thomas defines it as "something more or less rightly done or said, that occasions another's spiritual downfall." He goes on to present two types: active in which some action that is sinful causes another to sin and passive, when good or indifferent actions cause others to sin, such as through envy or hatred of another's goodness. Sometimes people are merely scandalized because of ill-will or poorly formed consciences, which is passive scandal. This was the case of the scandals generated by Our Lord. No Christian is scandalized by Christ. Any number of Christians have been scandalized by John Paul II. If we assigned the title "the Great" to every pope who generated scandal we'd have a lot more sainted popes, believe me(Pope Saint Alexander VI, anyone?). God does not change. Pope John Paul was thus bound to remain true to the unchanging nature of God. The Law is not subject to the whims of the pope. He was as bound by it as you or I. In fact, he was more bound. If it was wrong to kiss the Koran in 622, 1567, and 1910, it is still wrong now. Thus we have an example of active scandal.
And what is the good fruit that has been created by this scandal? Muslims converting in droves? Or has it merely generated confusion among many catholics about the respect that is due to false religions? I have in front of me a very basic catechism compiled in the 40's and 50's that says it is a sin to venerate false gods, to use sacred things for profane purposes or to be present at any non-Catholic service that is not a wedding or a funeral. Is that the impression given by John Paul II's Koran kissing or permitting Buddhists to place a staute of their false god atop a tabernacle or his countless other "ecumenical" activities? It is certainly not within the scope of papal power change the nature of the most basic sins against Faith.
Finally, in my last post I asked you to provide some real examples of concrete positive action by John Paul II, preferably something worthy of being called great. You have not done so in your response. I will not draw any conclusions from this and ask that you consider doing so in the future.
Thanks for the response. Keep 'em coming.
God Bless, Holy Mary Keep.
Posted by: Athanasius | Feb 10, 2006 1:29:07 AM
Of course, between the two of you typing "Pope John Paul + bad", our rank on the Google search for "Pope John Paul + bad" probably went up by three pages...five maybe, now that I just typed "Pope John Paul + bad"...whoops, just did it again!
Posted by: PeterTerp | Feb 10, 2006 1:30:46 AM
Oh, Athanasius, do you still not grasp what's going on here? None of us are silly enough to take up your little gauntlet. You may throw down as many gages as you like...no doubt you have more than enough time to rifle through some book here or some Website there to find some little bit of Twentieth-Century trivia to throw at us. You offer challenges, not conversation. You draw lines in the sand. You want so desperately to disparage the name of our Pope that I don't believe there would be any convincing you of his merits. You have consumed someone's twisted, biased, personal view of greatness, and you will not rest until we all share your opinion. But, frankly, we are not in the position to judge the man, for no matter how many more sources you have time to read denegrating the Holy Father, they are all written through the hazy, clouded intellect of fallen men...men with their own agendas and their own faults. Men who are probably projecting their personal issues onto a public Church figure. You have taken a dark path of the pessimist and the doubter. You count only the heads of those who have walked away, and you assign the pope blame for their failures. The scandals you rattle off, like the scandals of Christ, are really scandals made by the unbelievers.
Are your sources so wise as to know God's plan? Are your sources so wise as to know all God's secrets? In this age of rampant Marxism, nationalism, secularism, pluralism, hedonism, and materialism it is a miracle that Pope John Paul II got any Catholics out of the Twentieth Century at all.
Is greatness to be assigned only to some absolute numerical tabulation? Is a pope only great based on how many followers he gains or loses? Isn't greatness rather in the striving itself?
I'm more than willing to hail Pope John Paul II as a man who strove against some of the greatest adversities to ever confront the human race. Communism. Nuclear holocaust. Abortion. Radical Islam. I could go on.
So he did not topple them. So you don't agree with the way he addressed them. He still confronted them with dignity and valor.
You're probably itching to disagree with that. I can't stop you.
Like I said, you didn't come here to listen, you came here to convince. I'm here to defend the God's chosen successor to Peter.
Your desire to spit on the grave of your spiritual leader is worrisome to me. Your desire to tear down his funereal wreath is troublesome.
Why do you hate to hear your father praised? And why do you think we would be better off for loving our father less? Even if you should convince that he erred, faults do not deter love.
Have more faith in what you don't understand, Athanasius. Have more faith that Pope John Paul II did what he did as part of God's plan.
You'll be a happier fellow for it.
Posted by: PeterTerp | Feb 10, 2006 2:02:00 AM
Ummmmmm... no.
Jesus in his Holy perfection was and is incapable of causing or occasioning another's spiritual downfall.
The new Baltimore catechism says that attending the worship services of another faith is only a sin if the attender intends to identify him- or herself as a member of that faith.
Posted by: dave | Feb 10, 2006 3:07:03 AM
"Jesus in his Holy perfection was and is incapable of causing or occasioning another's spiritual downfall."
My point exactly.
What a person declares scandalous might have more to say about that person than whatever it is he tries to have declared a scandal.
Posted by: PeterTerp | Feb 10, 2006 9:28:46 AM
Good point about "Pope John Paul + bad" going up in the google rankings. Oh no! I said it! AH! I said IT again! Thats, that's 5 IT's!
Posted by: Matt | Feb 10, 2006 9:48:25 AM
I googled "Pope John Paul bad." You're not even near the top. (Commonweal is Number 1...)
Posted by: Pius | Feb 10, 2006 10:13:13 AM
What have I said that indicated hatred? When did I say Pope John Paul II is burning in the fires of hell. When did I say that he deserves no love. Have I not done my duty to him by praying for the repose of his soul much better than those who said "I won't even bother praying for him, I know he's already in heaven." I've seen published articles and statements from priests to that very effect. My point is not to generate hatred for the man, nor to diminish love. I am not talking about love at all, but infatuation. How much blind adherence to every word and action of this man is prevalent among catholics today? I am not presuming to judge the man, but his actions, objectively.
Nor is my point that he never said anything good. His verbal stance against abortion was admirable. However, he never made it clear that pro-abortion politicians ought to be forbidden Holy Communion, nor did he let the faithful know that it is a mortal sin to vote for such a politician. If John Paul II is deemed on the fast track to sainthood, then why not Pius XII, Pius XI, Leo XIII, Pius IX, Gregory XVI, and Pius VII? All of these popes attcked modern errors much more clearly and forcefully then John Paul II ever did.
All things are part of God's plan, which is why I do not despair at the current state of the Church. God's plan involves those things He wills and those things He allows. I am sure He willed the pontificate of John Paul II, just as He willed those of Alexander VI or Julius II. I know certainly, based on the Tradition of the Church, that He willed none of the actions I described as scandalous. And just because one is pope, does that mean he is worthy to be the object of a public cult?
"Jesus in his Holy perfection was and is incapable of causing or occasioning another's spiritual downfall."
I think perhaps I wasn't clear on passive and active scandal. Scandal that is given is active scandal, scandal that is received is passive. Passive scandal can occur even when no active scandal is given, such as through envy or hatred of a good deed. Thus, passive scandal could occur among those who heard Our Lord's words, though He would certainly not be guilty of active scandal. That people take scandal from Christ is their own fault, but they have taken it from Him nonetheless. That is what is meant by "occasions", rather than "causes."
"What a person declares scandalous might have more to say about that person than whatever it is he tries to have declared a scandal."
What does it say about me, if I think it wrong that other sects are put(at least to all apperances) on the same level as the True Faith?
"The new Baltimore catechism says that attending the worship services of another faith is only a sin if the attender intends to identify him- or herself as a member of that faith."
Right. You have made my point for me. This is a good one for all the "Nothing has changed since Vatican II!" people. This was considered a very basic sin against the First Commandment for the first 1900+ years of the Church's existence. Does Pope John Paul II have the right to change it? Has it really changed? Is it within his power to change it? Many English martyrs died rather than even attend a Protestant service. On the scaffold they refused even to pray with Protestants who tried to corrupt them at the last minute. Remember, a pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, or when he speaks through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which, being universal cannot contain novelty. Vatican I tells us "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles."
Another example of these doctrinal aberrations is John Paul II's mysterious neglect of the Justice of God. Certainly God is all merciful, as JPII frequently pointed out. However, this mercy is dependent upon the the contrition of the sinner, which he usually fails to point out. So, from looking at Redemptor Hominis and the two encyclicals immediately following it, its very hard not to come away with a universalist message. Our Lord constantly emphasized that God is both all merciful and all just.
JPII's neglect for Divine Justice rears its head again curious stance on capital punishment. There is nothing, anywhere, in Catholic Tradition that says that capital punishment is wrong or a necessary evil. Quite the contrary. The Catechism of the Council of Trent(ordered by that Council, edited by St. Charles Borromeo, and published by decree of Pope St. Pius V) says, "The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder." The point of such punishment is not merely to protect the innocent, but to dispense justice, which the state is welll within its rights to do. JPII ignores the entire justice part of the question.
Lastly be assured of no ill will on my part. I am not tearing through cyberspace looking to make everybody just as miserable and bitter as me, especially since I am neither miserable nor bitter. We have nothing to fear from the Truth, which is why I am interested in in discussion and debate. At the very least it helps me understand the Faith and my position better, and if somebody takes something good away from what I write, then that's good, too. But rational debate, which occasions more prayer, meditation, and study can only be a good thing. I am not interested in acrimonious personal attacks which is why I prefer presenting these arguments to people I know, rather than to random dudes on any old website or blog.
You all remain in my prayers.
God Bless, Holy Mary Keep.
Posted by: Athanasius | Feb 10, 2006 2:10:34 PM
Athanasius,
About the death penalty:
"If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’" (Evangelium vitae 56, qtd. in CCC 2267)
If it is in the CCC, then it is promulgated Catholic doctrine. Opposing it would meet the constituent requirements for mortal sin. If you believe that the death penalty is justly applied in modern society, you have probably--I am not a canonist--put yourself in a state of ipso facto latae sententiae excommunication. If this is true for you, I seriously advise you to seek God's infinite mercy in the sacrament of penance.
But to speak of it in historic terms, I suggest that you read some of St. Augustine's political letters dating from the late fourth and early fifth centuries. In 411 a group of Donatist conspirators brutally murdered and mutilated two priests. They had confessed to their crime after being beaten by the hands of the Roman authorities. Interestingly enough, St. Augustine explicitly condones this method, as opposed to more brutal forms of torture, which would seriously perturb Mark Shea. Despite the brutality with which the murders were perpetrated--moreover the Church’s (particularly St. Augustine’s) interest in suppressing the Donatist heretics--St. Augustine still implores the civil Roman authorities for clemency (St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter 133). In his letter to Apringius, proconsul of Africa whom had civil jurisdiction over the case, St. Augustine, “beg[s] and beseech[es] [him] now by the mercy of Christ…not to inflict equal treatment on them in retribution.” St. Augustine “would prefer to have them set free than to have the sufferings of our brothers avenged by shedding their blood.” In summation St. Augustine feels that criminals should be, “should [be] allow[ed] to live and have time to repent” (St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter 134). St. Augustine’s suggested that satisfactory punishment would be rendered if the criminals could be, “turn[ed]…from their present crazy restlessness to the peacefulness of sanity, or assign[ed] …away from harmful employment to serve useful work, while leaving them alive and physically unmutilated” (St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter 133). In other words: forced labor. Even within the then crumbling Roman Empire, acceptable alternatives to “protect people’s safety from the aggressor” clearly existed (CCC 2267).
The supposition that modern society is incapable of “protect[ing] people’s safety from the aggressor[s]” is laughable.
Bibliographical note: The Augustinian letters are being referenced from:
Atkins, E. M. and Dodaro, R. J. Augustine: Political Writings. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ISBN: 0-521-44697-X.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 10, 2006 4:04:40 PM
Looking at the time stamp on my last post leads me to conclude it's probably not the best idea to comment on the blog at two in the morning when suffering from an intense sinus headache. Man, that was a bad headache. I even took a painkiller and that didn't do any good. And I still haven't recovered the sleep yet.
Don't let yourself be disappointed or confused, Matt, when Athanasius throws half a dozen citations arguing against your point. Stick to your guns, man.
Fortunately, none of us sit on the Official Committee of Papal Greatness (I'm making that up, by the way), so really this all becomes an exercise in digital frustration...and an opportunity for me to display my still vibrant rhetorical plummage.
Posted by: PeterTerp | Feb 10, 2006 6:05:05 PM
I would not incur ipso facto latae sententiae excommunication. It doesn't work like that even if it were promulgated Catholic doctrine, which it is not.
I don't need a half a dozen citations. The one I already used will suffice. The Catechism of the Council of Trent defines capital punishment as a positive good. This work, as noted above, was ordered by a dogmatic council, edited by a sainted cardinal, and published by decree of a sainted pope. It would be hard to get much more authoritative than that. This is not a discplinary law, it is doctrinal with its foundations in the Tradition relating to the 5th Commandment. So, as noted above, JPII cannot just come rolling along and change this because he is uncomfortable with capital punishment. That would defeat the entire purpose of doctrine and Tradition and turn the pope into some kind of oracle. Simply ridiculous.
As to the contention that it is laughable that modern society cannot protect the safety of the people, I would ask only one question: Do prison inmates frequently kill and otherwise brutalize each other with any sort of regularity? One forfeits considerations about one's dignity when one takes the life of another human being, without just cause. Remember, justice is just as important a consideration as the safety of the citizenry.
St. Augustine's opposition to a particular case of execution is hardly an indictment on the entire system. And even if it was, he would have been overruled by a dogmatic council.
And finally, since I wouldn't want to disappoint Peter...
Here are my half dozen citations:
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God man was made." (Gen. 9:6)
"He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death." (Ex 21:12)
"But if thou dost what is evil, fear, for not without reason does it[civil authority] carry the sword. For it is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who does evil." (Rom 13:1-4)
"Hence if coiners, or other malefactors, are at once handed over by secular princes to die a just death, much more may heretics, immediately after they are convicted of heresy, be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die." (Summa Theologica IIa IIae, q. 11, art. 3)
"Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime." (U.S. Catholic Bishops' Statement on Capital Punishment, Nov. 1980. The point of their article is anti-death penalty, but this concession is important)
"The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians." (Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Capital Punishment)
Hope your headache recovery is progressing well, Peter.
God bless.
Posted by: Athanasius | Feb 11, 2006 1:07:05 AM
A good ruler dispenses justice. A great ruler knows when to temper justice with mercy.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2samuel/2samuel14.htm
Besides, I'll put more stock in the Vatican for evaluating John Paul II's merits.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4543501.stm
And while it is not yet approved, a first miracle might already have been detected in a nun who has mysteriously recovered frm Parkinson's disease:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_eu/john_paul_sainthood
Actually, if you would like to jump on the beatification bandwagon...a family member of mine was recently diagnosed Parkinson's, and if you could add a prayer for JPII's intercession in there, who knows what could happen...
I'm rather fond of plugging for the beatified when I get a chance...
Posted by: PeterTerp | Feb 11, 2006 3:41:33 AM
It's certainly true that clemency is called for in certain cases. I never said it wasn't. I just said that Tradition teaches us that capital punishment is not something wrong, but the right and duty of the state in dispensing justice.
That John Paul II is on the fast track to beatification only indicates the current attitude in the Vatican toward these processes. It's not a question of heroic sanctity any more; it's a question of popularity or of promoting certain agendas. If there was still a devil's advocate, he could really have a field day with JPII. For instance, one of the traditional early steps was to verify the unassailable orthodoxy of the subjects writing. JPII's writings, which are as vague as they are voluminous, would, at the VERY least, delay his beatification for years. I recommend reading about the traditional process in the Catholic Encyclopedia. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm ) It demonstrates a seriousness that no longer exists in canonization processes, which explains how it is that JPII managed to canonize more people than all of his predecessors combined (at least since creation of the Congregation for Rites by Sixtus V in 1588).
If you have the time, here is a rather long article on the subject for your consideration: http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2003_January/On_The_Canonizations.htm
Remember, the devil can make miracles, too.
Posted by: Athanasius | Feb 11, 2006 1:32:07 PM
Just because you have the right and the duty to do something doesn't always mean it is the best option.
David had the right and the duty to execute his son for murder, but there was something GREATer than right and duty to be done instead.
And while it wasn't until the early modern period that the pope finally cleared up the issue as to his authority to declare a person fit for veneration, many of our saints were canonized thanks to popular voice (vox populi).
Your conjecture that a devil's advocate would find Pope John Paul II's writings too vage is still conjecture. It may just as well be that a devil's advocate would find his texts to be as clear as day. It is also your opinion that the process of canonization lacks seriousness. On the contrary, I think the Church has been deadly serious with who it has canonized. The funny thing with opinions is that they really can't be proven or disproven...that's what makes them opinions and not fact.
That which can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied, as a friend of mine is fond of saying.
And, yes, the diabolic does have supernatural powers. That's why I said the case of the nun has not been approved yet.
But what will you do when Pope John Paul II is canonized? Disagree with the Pope who declares him a saint? Of course not.
Posted by: PeterTerp | Feb 11, 2006 9:14:56 PM
If its a duty, it means you have to do it. Or it's sinful. I conceded that in certain cases, and perhaps even more often than not, clemency may be called for, but this does not mean that capital punishment should be junked altogether.
I did not gratuitously assert that the Vatican did not take the process seriously. I gave evidence for this opinion, there is more below. As for John Paul II's writings being vague, this may have been a hasty characterization. Some of them are quite clearly heterodox. Such as Ut Unum Sint, in which he claims, among other suspect things, that non-Catholics can be martyrs. The problem with this ought to be obvious.
The article I linked discussed many of the issues you raised about canonization.
Vox populi "canonization" is in fact not really canonization. The application of the title saint is not in and of itself infallible. Only when the cultus has been confirmed and approved for the whole Church does the canonization take the force of law.
Recently the Vatican has played fast and loose with some of the requirements and processes. For instance, Fr. Kolbe was declared a martyr, thus reducing the required number of miracles, even though he was not a martyr. Andre Frossard, friend and confidant of JPII admitted,"Against the opinion of nearly all the experts, John Paul II decided to give him the title of martyr of the Faith." JPII had created his own criteria for martyrdom (which is also Unt Unum Sint as mentioned above). Thus, though I have no doubt about the sanctity, heroic virtue, and even heroic death of Fr. Kolbe, his process was unduly rushed.
The example most often cited, however, is Msgr. Escriva.
The Vatican manifestly refused to follow due process in his case. It was standard procedure to allow those who have problems with a particular cause to give testimony. It was not premitted in this case. Many former members of Opus Dei who had extended personal contact with Msgr. Escriva were forced to write an open letter to PJPII, in which they stated,
"...people who have intimately known Msgr. Escriva and who can testify to his arrogance, to his evil character, to his improper seeking of a title (Marquise of Peralta), to his dishonesty, to his indifference towards the poor, to his love of luxury and ostentation, to his lack of compassion and to his idolatrous devotion towards ‘Opus Dei’."
Now these accusations may or may not be true, but they should at least be thoroughly investigated, and that ivestigation considered in the process. There was no investigation. These voices were ignored.
I am morally certain that if due process is observed, John Paul II will not be canonized. If it is not, well it is a cult I will have no devotion to, and I will continue to have grave doubts about the canonization's validity.
God Bless.
Posted by: Athanasius | Feb 11, 2006 10:38:37 PM
Love and do as you like.
Posted by: PeterTerp | Feb 12, 2006 5:29:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.