The following article illustrates very clearly how even the most well-regarded Catholic intellectuals appear to miss the point about why people become saints, especially, about why Popes become saints. The qualities of sainthood have nothing to do with how a person may have carried out his job as long he was not an outright derelict. Popes do not become saints because they have done an excellent job as Pope, but because their personal life was saintly, and that whatever shortcomings and errors in their Pontificate were the result not of malice or evil intention on their part, but of administrative incompetence or wrong judgment. (Persons of writer Verrecchio's mindset might as well argue that John Paul I ought not to be considered for sainthood because in his 33 days as Pope, he did not have a chance to have any 'achievements' - never mind-that he was perceived by all those who knew him as a saintly man.)
Verrecchio also nakedly and opportunistically uses statements made by Joseph Ratzinger in 1969-70 to set up an attack on Paul VI, which is really what this article is about. But the effect is to say, "If Joseph Ratzinger saw a crisis in the Church after Vatican-II, that crisis was all due to Paul VI's incompetence. Then why did Joseph Ratzinger, as Benedict XVI, proclaim his heroic virtues?" QED, about the self-imposed tunnel vision of those who want to see only their point of view.
Fr. Ratzinger’s vision and
the Pontificate of Paul VI
By Louie Verrecchio
January 24, 2013
Pope Benedict XVI (more accurately, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger) is often quoted as saying that he envisions a day when there will be a “smaller, more faithful Church.”
Though not precisely verbatim, the quote is derived from a series of radio addresses given by the future Holy Father in 1969-1970, a print version of which is available in the book, Faith and the Future (Ignatius Press).
According to Ignatius Press, Fr. Ratzinger said that the church “will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes … she will lose many of her social privileges. …As a small society, (the Church) will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members.”
On that day, the 42-year-old priest-theologian predicted, ours “will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate… It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek …”
Ignatius Press describes Fr. Ratzinger’s commentary as “surprisingly prophetic,” but if his vision for the future belongs in the category of prophecy at all, one would perhaps do well to add the qualifier “self-inflicted.”
Let’s be honest, the current crisis in the Church, wherein priest shortages, empty pews, parish closings and bankrupt dioceses are commonplace, was all but guaranteed as Fr. Ratzinger wrote for a number of internal reasons, including, but certainly not limited to, the following:
[But all this is old hat - nothing new here by way of insight or information!]
• The Second Vatican Council had five years hence
['Hence'???? I think Verrechio means 'earlier]' adopted
a church-state policy modeled after the U.S. Constitution’s pluralistic approach to religious freedom, thereby setting in motion an Apostolic ceasefire wherein the Church relinquished any positive claim to its unique rights and privileges, effectively transforming the body Apostolic into a corps diplomatic. [Entirely Verrecchio's opinion and interpretation of facts about a gray area that does not necessarily resolve into the black-and-white dichotomy he sets up.]
•In 1964, a faction among the Fathers of this very same ecumenical council had surreptitiously declared mutiny through a contrived notion of “collegiality” so deliberately ambiguous that the Pope had to take the unprecedented step of inserting in
Lumen Gentium an explanatory note; though it ultimately did little to stem the rebellious tide going forward.
•The 1967 Land-O-Lakes Statement [by heads of the leading US Catholic educators in the USA], after meeting with little meaningful resistance from the Holy See, quickly became a manifesto for so-called Catholic institutions of higher learning that were determined to assert “freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind;” read, freedom from the Pope and whatever sanctions he may, or may not, impose.
[Apparently, this continues to trump John Paul II's 1990 Ex Corde Ecclesiae which laid down what must remain unequivocally Catholic in Catholic universities.]
•The Novus Ordo Missae had just been pressed upon the faithful of the Latin Rite, in spite of the strident objections of honorable churchmen like Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani who warned of the ill effects it was likely to have on the children of the Church.
What do all of these unfortunate episodes in the life of the Church, each of which played a part in practically inviting the firestorm of which Fr. Ratzinger forewarned, have in common?
They happened on the watch of Pope Paul VI, who, in no small twist of irony, was recently recognized for a life of “heroic virtue” by Pope Benedict XVI (making him a Venerable) on December 20, 2012.
News of Paul VI being “raised to the altar” sparked mixed reactions, about which the inimitable Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (better known simply as Fr. Z) posted some useful very insights on his excellent blog "What Does the Prayer Really Say."
For instance, he points out that “heroic virtue” and “doing heroic things” are not exactly the same thing, and yet, “some people… are saying things such as ‘Paul issued Humanae vitae! That sure was heroic! I’d canonize him for that!’”
While many Catholics simply accept the proposition that
Humanae Vitae is a great achievement on the part of Paul VI, a more sober assessment is that the circumstances surrounding its promulgation is
far more a “black eye” on his pontificate than it is a crowning glory.
There are several modes, or organs, of infallibility; e.g., ex cathedra statements given by the Pope, de fide teachings issued by an ecumenical council, and the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church. This latter mode refers to those doctrines that have been taught constantly and definitively over a period of many centuries by the bishops of the world, in union with the Roman pontiffs.
As an example of the latter, consider:
When a Dubium was sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994, asking whether or not the teaching given by Pope John Paul II in the Apostolic Letter,
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, concerning the restriction of the priesthood to males only, is infallible, Cardinal Ratzinger replied in the affirmative by virtue of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
According to numerous theologians, not the least of whom is the eminent moral theologian Dr. Germain Grisez, who also happens to have been a member of the commission appointed by Pope Paul VI to study the so-called “question of contraception,” the doctrine at hand had long since belonged in that very same category.
Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council, in the document
Gaudium et Spes, stated in 1965, two years before
Humanae Vitae: "Sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. All should be persuaded that human life and the task of transmitting it are not realities bound up with this world alone. Hence they cannot be measured or perceived only in terms of it, but always have a bearing on the eternal destiny of men (GS 51).
This being the case,
it would seem that in giving Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI wasn’t so much pressing the limits of Christian fortitude as simply reiterating that which was already infallibly taught, a doctrine ever moored to Tradition as evidenced by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. [I don't think anyone who was following the news at the time had any doubt of that! The news was not that he stood up for the traditional teaching of the Church, because that was his duty as Pope, but that he did so against the recommendation of an advisory council he had appointed. Why he called an advisory council to begin with, other than to show that he was open to listening to other viewpoints, is another issue.]
As such, I cannot help but ask an important question that few, to my knowledge, seem to be asking: What exactly moved the Holy Father to appoint a commission to study a doctrine that was already part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium?
When one considers how much the simple fact of the commission’s creation contributed to the atmosphere of anticipation that existed before
Humanae Vitae, and therefore also contributed in no small measure to the havoc that ensued in its aftermath (to say nothing of the Holy Father’s handling of the rebellion), the answer to this question would seem highly relevant.
Fr. Z states, “Some will scratch their heads saying, ‘But Father! Maybe Paul was personally holy, and he prayed and was sincere, but
can he have lived a life of heroic virtue if he wasn’t a very good Pope?’”
“In trying to make sense of this, in connection with Paul VI and what seems to many to be a lack of positive accomplishments according to his state in life, perhaps we have to take more and more seriously the circumstances in which he was Bishop of Rome,” he continued. “I don’t have an answer to this difficulty right now.”
I don’t have an answer either, but as I sit here today, it certainly seems to me that
a sober assessment of the pontificate of Paul VI gives the children of the Church far more to lament than to celebrate..
[The cause for Paul VI's sainthood has nothing to do with whether we celebrate his Pontificate or not, or whether he had a sterling record as Pope. Believing as I do that a Pope's saintliness does not depend on his 'work record' as Pope, I don't celebrate his Pontificate unequivocally, because i reproach him for what I consider an appalling surrender to the progressivists on his liturgical commission, but I do not question his personal holiness, nor do I think that he was less holy because he had bad judgment. To impugn the cause for his sainthood because of his judgment lapses as Pope is on the order of the objections expressed about John Paul II's cause because of what appears to be a major judgment lapse about Marcial Maciel.
If John Paul II publicly honored Maciel as late as 1994, does anyone think he would have done so if he really had known without a doubt that all the accusations raging against Maciel since the 1950s were founded? Even granted that he had enough information in 1994 but simply refused to accept the truth, does that judgment lapse detract from his personal holiness? Do we really think he never once prayed for guidance about this but somehow chose to ignore the Holy Spirit?
Popes are more vulnerable than other candidates for sainthood because their 'work record', so to speak, is more public than most, and everyone feels free to scour that record for any and all blots. If Humanae Vitae is the biggest blot Verrecchio can find against Paul VI, then how is that incompatible with saintliness? Advisory council or not, he upheld and presented Church teaching on this particular issue in a very forceful way, and in contemporary terms. Remember, it was occasioned chiefly by the new and universal over-the-counter availability of birth-control pills.]
As for Humanae Vitae specifically, rather than viewing it as an achievement of Paul VI, it is perhaps more appropriate to recognize it as solid evidence of the protection of the Holy Ghost who would allow no other outcome.
[That's really very petty of Verrecchio, who obviously sees nothing good at all about Paul VI... In some way, all this carping about the Popes being considered for sainthood also constitutes barely-veiled criticism of Benedict XVI who has approved the 'heroic virtues' of John Paul II, Pius XII and Paul VI, in that order. The Pope's approval simply means he confirms what diocesan commissions and systematic inquiries by the Congregation for the Causes of Sainthood have previously established - it's not his personal opinion, even if he personally may share the conclusions - up to and including any miracles certified that would lead to beatification and eventually, canonization... Do Verrecchio et al then believe that Benedict XVI is putting his stamp dishonestly and self-servingly on the 'heroic virtues' of Paul VI? And what makes them think they are more qualified to judge Paul VI on his saintly virtues than all the witnesses and testimonials from people who have known him all his life and do not judge him only on what he did or failed to do as Pope?
Petty-minded critics may even say, "Of course, Benedict XVI would exalt Paul VI who made him an archbishop and cardinal!" Which is precisely the same appalling level of pettiness with which Verrecchio et al quibble about the circumstances surrounding Humanae Vitae as reason enough not to consider Paul VI saintly in any way!]
P.S. One thing that the adherents of the mythical 'spirit of Vatican-II' (and critics of Paul VI who otherwise acknowledge the teachings of Vatican II as universal Magisterium) fail to appreciate is that Paul VI did preside over three-fourths of the Council, saw it to its conclusion, and had the great challenge of having to implement its teachings as best he could. at the very time when Western culture - and with it, the Catholic Churcn - underwent its greatest upheaval since the Industrial Revolution. As imperfectly as he undertook the initial implementations, his role in Vatican-II was not inferior, IMHO, to the divinely-inspired injtiative of John XXIII in calling the Council to begin with.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/01/2013 20:30]