Pope Paul VI
Dear Professor and Friend,
I've received a packet of papers
that you sent, which, despite the pressures of pastoral and family obligations,
I have tried to look over. Let me make some brief observations on at
least two of these pieces: the first from NOR by a certain Erven Park,
entitled: "'Diabolic Disorientation' in the Church".
Regarding this article, I would only
point out that, at its outset, he presents a questionable exegesis of a passage
of Saint Paul. He writes:
"It would be prudent at this point to briefly revisit one of the Apostle
Paul's warnings
on the
End Times. 'For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound
doctrine, but, according to their own desires, they will heap up to themselves
teachers
having
itching ears and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth. . . (2
Tim. 4:
3-4).
By the
fact that the Apostle addresses 'sound doctrine' and 'teachers,' we know
he
is
speaking of the Catholic Church."
Certainly the "sound
doctrine" indicates the Catholic Church, but the words of Saint Paul do
not specify who the "teachers" are. They could be leaders of
sects, writers, atheists, or, in our own time, college professors, the media or
whoever. The Fathers generally assumed that they were propagators of
sects and heretics of various sorts: Gnostics, Manichaeans and the like (Cf.:
Saints Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, etc.).
The second piece was a book chapter
which did not carry the author's name. I assumed it was by that women
writer which you have mentioned.
A cause for canonization of Pope
Paul VI, has been introduced in the Congregation of Saints. This
author, on the contrary, tries to make the case, that Giovanni Battista
Montini, far from being a candidate for sainthood, was actually leading a
double life: on the one hand, as priest, bishop, cardinal and pope, but, on the
other hand, as a man, throughout his career, engaged in gravely immoral
conduct. She pretty much bases herself on an amalgam of gossip
columnists, gay web sites, biographies and auto-biographies of homosexual
exploits, as well as her own innuendoes regarding un-married men with whom
Montini, over the course of his lifetime, was acquainted.
If I had nine lives, maybe I could
dedicate one of them in responding to this character assassination gathered
from what she must consider reliable sources; but unfortunately, with only one
life, I don't feel that it can be spent in turning over these same rocks where
she came up with these stories.
What is it, then, that I could
contribute about this question, when admittedly I have no direct personal
knowledge of the alleged episodes nor the personalities and figures
involved? About the only thing I suppose I can offer you is a some
general principles which the faithful should use in these cases, "red-flag"
a few points where the author has been inconsistent, and express briefly my own
assessment of all this.
The author, first of all, does not
appear to be aware of the gravity of calumny and injuring a man's good
name. She may say that she is merely reporting the case that is already
in the public sphere, but she is assiduously building the case, adding to the
explosive stories new interpretations of things, as well as rumors and
speculations indiscriminately garnered from wherever or from whomever she could
find them, including from well known opponents of the Holy Father with a
history of grinding axes well before the advent of the morals charges, being
only to happy now to gain steam for their own contradictory position by
piggybacking onto salacious allegations. In them indeed is fulfilled the
prophecy of Jacinta of Fatima: "The Holy Father will have much to
suffer".
Our Blessed Lord has given a command
to the Pope: "Confirm thy brethren." (Lk. 22, 32). Those who
would try to undermine the trust of the faithful in their shepherd are
attacking the Plan of God.
The author, for example, adds the
attack of Abbé Georges de Nantes, a suspended French priest most known for his
repeated charges of heresy against Pope John Paul II. Thus by consciously
or unconsciously exploiting pre-existing bad feelings towards the pope for
other totally independent reasons, such as liturgical dissatisfaction, there is
a tendency to judge the Pope negatively regarding these sad accusations as
well.
What was the source of this media
episode? It consisted of an anonymous charge of immorality carried out
through the offices of one Roger Peyrefitte, probably the world's most
prominent and vocal defender of Pederasty, who had already to his name a
virulent work attacking Pope Pius XII. The author fails to inform her
readers of this background. It should be noted that after the media
covered the initial story, it died fairly quickly, leading one to believe that
there was nothing by way of corroborative material to report, causing it to be
pretty much ignored by the American press, not known to readily pass up an
anti-papal story. It has to be questioned, indeed, whether there was in
fact an actual accuser, given Peyrefitte's reputation for trying continually to
outdo, even himself, in coming up with scandalous stories. Peyrefitte is
said to have died with the Church's last rites; we should be praying for his
soul, not continuing his calumnies.
If the author were truly interested
in uncovering the reasons for the spread in the culture of the gay lifestyle,
perhaps she could begin by critiquing the works of any number of wildly
popular, and widely applauded and awarded French authors, rather than the
apostolic labors of good popes.
The author did not even have the
fairness to quote the Holy Father's own statement concerning these accusations,
but rather, in a footnote, contents herself with implying that the National
Catholic Reporter was singularly praiseworthy for covering the allegations in
the USA. Oddly enough, the National Catholic Reporter has been more
friendly to a gay culture than any similar Catholic publication in America.
Most of what the author presents in
her: "Case of Homosexuality Against Pope Paul VI" is actually just
the malicious speculations of suspicious minds anxious to give a bad
interpretation to what may well be, and should be assumed to be, perfectly
innocent facts: "Why do you think evil in your hearts?" (Mt. 9, 4)
Scripture warns: "Strike the
shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered" (Zac. 13, 7; cf: Mt. 26, 31;
Mk. 14, 27). We have been given, by a guidance of the Holy Spirit, a
living shepherd, and those who would try to weaken the confidence of the flock
in its shepherd, are certainly not doing the will of Our Blessed Lord.
The author's treatment of Pope Paul
VI and the Council does not reflect, moreover, the Church's doctrine. The
fact that this or that statement of a Pope or council was first mouthed by a
humanist, found in a socialist's book, or heard at a communist lecture, all
matters nothing. What is important is not the debate or the process or
even the intrigue which produced a teaching, but only what the teaching itself
is. It is the actual words of the Holy Father, or a Council united to the
Holy Father, that fall under the warning of Our Blessed Lord: "He that
heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that
despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me" (Lk. 10, 16).
The author writes that "It soon
became very clear that Montini was not a Marian priest. He was, in fact,
a Maritainist priest, an altogether different being", that Montini had
"an aversion" to the Rosary preferring a "more Christ-centered
approach to Mariology", and that he was criticized while at Milan for
neglecting Marian customs.
The Cardinal's Marian preaching
while archbishop of Milan was beautiful, often extraordinary, and is still
freely drawn upon by his successor in that important See, Cardinal Tettamanzi,
himself no stranger to powerful and elegant preaching. As Pope, he wrote
and spoke often and well on Our Lady and the Holy Rosary, including his encyclical
on the Rosary: CHRISTI MATRIS ROSARII, and, right from his first general
audience, repeatedly affirmed the Rosary to be a prayer truly Christ-centered,
("Christocentrique"). It was Pope Paul VI who introduced
the beautiful custom of traveling to Saint Mary Major's Square and the Piazza
di Spagna every year in the evening of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception
to pray at the foot of those two immense columns bearing statues of Our
Lady. It was Pope Paul as well who assembled all the Bishops attending the
Council at Santa Maria Maggiori in order to officially declare Mary the
"Mother of the Church".
The author here also denigrates at
the same time Montini's long time close friend, Jacques Maritain, whom even
"traditionalist" Cardinal, Giuseppe Siri, though differing with him
on various theological points, called: "a noble soul".
His voluminous and weighty works on Thomistic philosophy demanded the attention
of secular philosophers. The author presents a picture of
Maritain's thought, not, however, through his own words, but through the
shallow caricature and mis-representation of de Nantes and Caron.
This, paradoxically, is where the
thesis of the author suffers multiple implosions. Maritain actually
was a harsh but truly knowledgeable critic of the Council; yet nevertheless,
though openly critical of Vatican II, remained a dear friend of Pope Paul
VI. Similarly, though Maritain was the pre-eminent Thomist of his day,
Pope Paul VI, whom the author blames for "the attack on Thomistic Philosophy",
personally translated into Italian one of his works, lunched with him weekly,
while he was French ambassador to the Vatican, and, at the close of the
Council, publicly entrusted to him a "Message to the Intellectuals of the
World". Paul VI dedicated to Saint Thomas and the subject of
Thomistic Philosophy several specific documents.
Despite the accusation to the contrary, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI
affirmed the same position of the Church's magisterium on the place of Thomism
as did his predecessors, including Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII.
Pope John XXIII affirmed that the
Church considers Saint Thomas Aquinas as the "guide for those who work in
the spread of the truth".
In an address, of Oct. 8, 1965, to a
Canadian group working on the critical edition of Saint Thomas' works, Pope
Paul stated:
"The Thomistic system already recommends itself to the attention of modern
man
for
its pedagogic, speculative and spiritual merits. But the magisterium of
the
Catholic Church presents it, moreover, as the sure norm for the teaching of the
Sacred
Sciences."
In the same discourse, the Pope
points out that this does not imply an "exclusivism". The
Church, while indicating Thomism as the "norm", has always allowed
and profited by various other schools of thought such as Augustinianism,
Scotism, as well as impute from more recent thinking.
Both of these Pontiffs quoted Saint
Thomas continually in their sermons and discourses and spoke of him and Thomism
numberless times in their addresses.
In the famous Encyclical of Pope Leo
XIII, Aeterni Patris, encouraging the study of Saint Thomas, he as well pointed
out the value of other currents of thought, Patristic and Scholastic, and even
recognized the efforts of those attempting to deal with "the wealth of new
discoveries":
"We have no intention of discountenancing the learned and able men who
bring
their
industry and erudition, and, what is more, the wealth of new discoveries, to
the
service of philosophy; for, of course, We understand that this tends to the
development of learning."
The author makes a lot of a visit
that Maritain, in the company of an American "non-believing Jew",
made to the Milan residence of Cardinal Montini. We're reminded here of
the words of the scribes and pharisees: "This man receiveth sinners, and
eateth with them" (Lk. 15, 2).
The author writes: "In truth, the
theology of Battista Montini was anthropocentric not theocentric. It was
man-centered not God-centered." Here we see the total
ignorance of the author regarding the teaching of the Holy Father. The
only sense in which Paul VI's teaching is ever "anthropocentric", is
when referring to Our Blessed Lord, true man as well as true God, acting as a
bridge, as it were, by which man can reach God, the very purpose of the
Incarnation. Nor, indeed, was there anything particularly revolutionary
in this approach, being after all the difference between the approach of, for
example, Saint Bonaventure, as opposed to Saint Thomas.
Dominican Luigi Ciappi, "the
Pope's theologian", receives the approval of the author. Was it not
Paul VI who made this Thomist a bishop and then a cardinal?
The author
accuses Paul VI of trying to undermine the supernatural, but his Gospel
preaching belies this accusation. The Pope's evangelical preaching, testifying
to a lifetime of deep and serious study and meditation, remains as a patrimony
comparable in quality to the Church Fathers. When the Holy Father
preached of Jesus, it was delivered with palpable feeling, filled with
immediacy and actuality, overflowing with deep faith, and shining with a love
of Christ that revealed his own soul as well. Pope Paul had a specific
spiritual grace of being able to make his listeners a part of the Gospel events
and even involving them in the dialog with Our Blessed Lord. This was no
mere literary device, since it was based on the truth that Jesus does indeed
speak to all men and He, the God-man, is, in fact, the only one who can do such
a thing. Those listening to this Pope (maybe not the
self-righteous) could sense, though they be among thousands of others,
that he had carefully assembled his thoughts with them in his heart, and that
he had made a great effort to know what was on their mind.
Sadly, you have people, setting
themselves up as the norm of orthodoxy, turning the faithful away from this
Vicar of Christ. The magisterium of Pope Paul VI was a vigorous,
inspiring, solid and uncompromising presentation of the Faith.
Those who hardened their hearts to
the words of Paul VI, were themselves the losers, missing out on an unusual
grace that will not easily pass this way again. Montini, by a
special lifetime of preparation, was the one in that period capable of
shepherding the flock of Christ, and Pope Pius XII seems to have realized this
when sending him to shepherd the see of Milan, (after Rome, the most important
diocese in Italy) told him: "One day you will return to
Rome". Pope Pacelli, who was a good judge of a man, knew and
worked closely with Montini for decades, but some would rather trust rumors
from the dark side of the internet than the spiritual intuition of Pius XII.
Far from being insensitive to the
supernatural, Paul VI did not exercise the usual Vatican distance and reserve
in regard to apparitions, but joyfully received the young girl Concita, one of
the seers of Garabandal, and when, in fact, faced with the supernatural working
through Padre Pio, Pope Paul VI was the only Pope to be openly warm and
friendly with him. I believe that it speaks well of Pope Paul VI that
Padre Pio warned him in advance to prepare to be Pope! Throughout his
life, Montini was touched by the grace of having been baptized on the 30th of
September 1897, the same day the "Little Flower", Saint Theresa of
Lisieux, passed out of this life.
This is anything but a full and
worthy appreciation of "Papa Montini" and marred as well by the need
of addressing this distasteful topic. Paul VI is not the only pope to
suffer by the poison pen of this author, who takes particular aim at Pope John
XXIII as well. Instead of adopting a Machiavellian "rule of thumb",
the author might have been wiser to listen to that of Saint Louis de Montfort:
namely devotion to the Rosary. Angelo Roncalli, Pope John XXIII, both as
a Bishop and Pope, gathered with his household three times daily to recite the
Rosary.
Even Pope Pius XII, in the author's
often demeaning depiction, pales in comparison to the saintly ascetic and
towering intellect he truly was. Of recent Popes, Pius XI is about the
only one that comes off unscathed. She even makes shameful innuendoes against
the present Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, as well. It's really hard to
see how any faithful Catholic can keep such a book in his house. As Saint
Don Bosco teaches us: there are three signs that mark a true Catholic: Love of
the Eucharist, love of our Mother Mary, and love of the Pope.
It would be too difficult to go
over each and every point expressed in this piece. Naturally pontificates
are often filled with millions of words and thousands or hundreds of thousands
of facts. If, from the totality of information, the author has chosen to
"cherry pick", from the common canards of writers similar to herself,
certain opinions and interpretations in order to convey her personal viewpoint,
then it is only her own readers who are damaged by a partial, unbalanced or
outright misleading picture her subject.
Our Blessed Lord commands us to
follow the voice of the shepherd (cf.: Jn. 10), and yet in her treatment of
Pope Paul VI, it is difficult to find a single quote from the Holy Father's teaching;
instead we find the voices of Machiavelli, muckrakers, an infamous pederast,
and other hostile critics of the shepherd. Is the author one of
those, foretold in the prophecy of Saint Paul, who "will not endure sound
doctrine, but, according to their own desires, they will heap up to themselves
teachers having itching ears and will indeed turn away their hearing from the
truth." (2 Tim. 4, 3-4)?
Perhaps we could end here applying
to Pope Paul VI his own words which he spoke in Israel referring to Pope Pius
XII: "To remember him is piety, to thank him is justice".
Father
Thomas Carleton
Feast of Saint Margaret Mary, 2007