Shortly after the death of Pope John Paul II on April 2, 2005, Henry Kissinger told NBC News that it would be difficult to imagine anyone having had a greater impact on the twentieth century than the Polish priest and bishop who, on the night of his election in 1978, had described himself as a man called to Rome “from a far country.” Kissinger’s assessment was all the more striking in that the former U.S. secretary of state – himself a consequential figure in modern history – had no religious or philosophical stake in the life, thought, and action of Karol Józef Wojtyła. A decade and a half later, it is still worth pondering just what Kissinger’s extraordinary tribute might mean. If John Paul II was indeed the emblematic human personality of the twentieth century, why was that the case? And what was the relationship between the achievement of the Polish pope – for both the Church and the world – and the heroic virtue the Catholic Church formally recognized in him when he was canonized as Saint John Paul II on April 2, 2014?
In a conversation in the papal apartment in March 1996, John Paul II said, of previous biographers’ efforts to tell his life story, “They try to understand me from outside. But I can only be understood from inside.” He knew by then that he was a figure a historic consequence. Yet his story, he insisted, was one that could only be read from the inside out through the prism of his soul, if those who sought to understand him and his accomplishment were to truly grasp what made him tick. So on this twentieth anniversary of the publication of Witness to Hope, revisiting the soul of St. John Paul II will set the story of his life through the year 2000 in its appropriate frame.
Karol Wojtyła, the man who became John Paul II, had an intensely Polish soul: not only in the sense of a personality formed by a particular ethnic experience, but in the larger sense of a soul formed by a distinctive history and culture. Born in 1920, he was a member of the first generation of Poles born in an independent Polish state since the late eighteenth century; but it was the Polish national experience between the elimination of Poland from the map of Europe in 1795 and the restoration of its national independence in 1918 that was decisive for forming the soul of John Paul II. For during those 123 years in the wilderness – years when “Poland” did not appear on any map of Europe – Poland-the-nation survived the vivisection of Poland-the-state through its culture: its language, its literature, and its Catholic faith….
The above comes from a May 8 story on Catholic World Report site. This essay is adapted from the preface to the 20th anniversary edition of George Weigel’s Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II, published by Harper Perennial.
A case could be made that St Pope John XXIII is the emblematic Pope of the 20th century. He called the Second Vatican Council and had a very positive impact on the world.
I do not doubt that the council was needed, but the fruit of that council seems to be sweet or bitter, depending on your point of view. What is undeniable is the huge loss of faith in the Eucharist and in the Church’s teaching on sexuality. Again, to some this is a good thing, who praise the council for its openness to the world and keeping up with the times, even if this was not the express intent of the Conciliar documents. Others argue such capitulation with many of the cultural currents is an unqualified disaster. What seems true to this reader is that there were forces working before, during and after the Council determined to throw off the yoke of the Church’s traditional ways in order to embrace a new freedom, which others then consider enslavement to the dictatorship of relativism.
FHK, glad to see you’re still in good health. Would you mind answering a couple questions based on what you posted last month (and never replied to)?
Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
You indicated you don’t “support” abortion, but, do you believe that intentional abortion is always wrong?
(Also, the Supreme Court has overturned 236 of its previous rulings. While not common, that averages about one for every year our nation has had our Constitution.)
Amen
Yes, John XXIII had a great influence on the Roman Catholic Church [some say mostly bad, others mostly good]. However, in my humble opinion, Jonh Paul II had a far greater influence on the secular world. While he certainly did not single-handidly destroy the Soviet Union, he most certainly helped topple the crumblling of the weakened Union. This resulted in greater freedom for many countries.
Why did Pope John Paul II kiss a Koran and why did he allow pagan worship at the Assisi meeting of world religions in 1986?
To say that I grew up in an ultra-conservative-high-church parish is an understatement. With eight years of being taught by ultra-conservative nuns and priests, being an altar boy for six years, and membership in church groups and Newman Club in college, I was taught to love the church, to love the priesthood, to obey the rules lest I go directly to hell. I was never taught to have a special relationship with the Lord, to truly embrace Him. Just follow the rules and you will get to heaven. Vatican II changed all that, and that was a good thing.
It is interesting to consider what might have happened to the Church if St Pope John XXXIII had not convened the Council. Perhaps the “damage” to the Church would have been more pronounced due to the lack of aggiornamento. The scandals (abuse and financial) might have been more devastating.
While he clearly believes the Council (itself) was a good thing, Pope-emeritus Benedict, when Father Ratzinger in the late 1960’s, wrote of his fellow theologians, “They changed wine into water and called it aggiornamento.” Tragically, many have used aggiornamento and “the spirit” of Vatican II to depart from the teachings of Christ and do great harm to the Church. The Vatican Council documents themselves contain many good, solid points. If only we applied and lived those out.
While Saint John Paul was not perfect, the Church and the world were blessed to have him as Pope. He is more emblematic of the 20th century than John XXIII due to, among other things, having survived two of the greatest horrors of the 20th century, Naziism and Communism, and bringing a non-Italian perspective to the papacy for the first time in nearly half a millennium. May all the Saints (and saints) of heaven pray for us all.
It is not that the VIl was not needed, but surrounding forces very much seemed to hijack the council for their own ends. Having read the VII documents, I am surprised how conservative they read compared to what was done in the “spirit of VII.” How aware was Pope John of the behind- the- scene players? Or Pope Paul, who complained of the smoke of Satan entering the church? I do not know. Would we have countless more or countless fewer problems with homosexual predation with the freeing up of church discipline after VII? Or are these matters even casually related? I don’t know that either. It is hard to imagine more damage to the Church than has been caused to date by clerics playing in the muck. I might add as a convert I have no knowledge of the legalistic rat-race described by anonymous at 11:21 a.m.
JPII should not have been hastily made a saint. The sex abuse scandal now infecting the worldwide church surged during his papacy. These cases of predominantly homosexual predation by priests and bishops were not forcefully confronted by JPII because these somehow went against the big ideas of his pet theological projects. These were the over-hyped and near cult-like idealization of sexuality (e.g., Theology of the Body, Love and Responsibility, etc.) and of the ministerial priesthood (e.g., Pastores Dabo Vobis, Gift and Mystery, etc.). By turning a blind eye to these developments, the gay mafia in the ranks of the bishops and priests grew in numbers and power and enabled this scandal to explode and its consequent cover-up. JPII promoted the global icon of this scandal, Theodore McCarrick, not just once but five times: Auxiliary Bishop of New York, Bishop of Metuchen, Archbishop of Newark, Archbishop of Washington, and Cardinal. The Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi founder, Marcial Maciel Degollado, another icon of this scandal who preyed upon his seminarians and priests and sired children, was favored by JPII with a preferential treatment and called him “a model of heroic priesthood.” George Weigel, in his hagiographical biographies of JPII (Witness to Hope, Lessons in Hope), tried defending this epic papal failure by rationalizing that JPII was disinclined to humiliate others which led him to misjudge others, even among bishops and priests. Weigel is either or both a big liar and/or just blinded by his hagiographical obsession. JPII humiliated, even crushed, a lot of bishops, priests, theologians he judged not toeing the line (picture JPII openly scolding Ernesto Cardenal at the tarmac of Managua airport). JPII should never have been hastily beatified and canonized.
John Paul II didn’t just scold comrade Cardenal, he rightly suspended him. Red Francis reversed the suspension. Big surprise there, eh?
Pius XII for me.
Anonymous: my experience was very similar to yours. Thanks be to God that as a result of Vatican II the People of God are encouraged to have a more personal relationship with Our Lord and Savior.
Still asking: I am a pro-life, practicing Roman Catholic through and through. How about you? Do you believe it is pro-life to lock children up in cages, treat migrants like sub-humans, offer up the elderly and sick for death for the sake of the wealthy, the economy and profits? If you are okay with any of the aforementioned you need to repent and go to confession.
Find me a single practicing Catholic who thinks those things are ok. You overstate and exaggerate to make a point. Show me examples of children in cages, migrants treated like subhumans as government policy or elderly and sick people offered up for the wealthy, unless you mean to say you disagree with tax or economic policy, which is a whole different thing. When you resort to disingenuous rhetoric like this you detract from the truth.
FHK, I will answer your questions. Will you answer my two?
Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
You indicated you don’t “support” abortion, but, do you believe that intentional abortion is always wrong?
In answer to what you asked me: no, no and no. Those who do such need to repent, go to Confession and make amends. (And, if I’d answered yes to any of your questions, I agree, I would need to repent and go to Confession.)
Now, will you answer my two simple questions?