S Paul VI? A Jigsaw.

Date: 
Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - 23:45
Article link: 
Fr. John Gallas said...

Dear Father,

Your points in defense of Blessed Pope Paul VI are well taken. One additional piece of the jigsaw that will also be helpful and instructive is this: What particular points demonstrate his sanctity? Normally canonizations are accompanied by piles of hagiographical anecdotes. And by evidence of public devotion. Can you recommend some popular books detailing the heroic virtues of Pope Paul?

Randolph Crane said...

Paul is a tragic figure, and one of the beati/Sancti I am struggling to accept. He has caused so much damage to the Church, whether willingly or unwillingly, that I cannot think of him as being a beatus. In ye olden times, it was enough to cause a little bit of skandalon for a bishop to be excommunicated; Popes were condemned because they didn't fight against heresy valiantly enough. And Paul, who might be the single destructor of the Latin Church and the Roman Rite, should be a beatus?

Declaring him a Saint would be a political move, especially considering Humanae vitae. But one doesn't need to canonize a Pope in order to give his words gravitas; he is/was the Pope, after all. He doesn't need later approval by the means of a canonization. He was not a great man. Being examplary in virtues, is a condition for beatification/canonization. You yourself, Father, say he wasn't your hero. Is he anyone's hero?

Who could deny the heroic virtues of a Saint Maximilian Kolbe, a Saint Roberto Bellarmino, a Saint Pius X?

Didn't His Holiness jokingly say he was only waiting for B16 and himself to be canonized, because being a Pope nowadays is enough for requirements?

Ben of the Bayou said...

Father H.,

It may indeed be that B Paul VI was a man of poor judgment and poor judge of character, lessening (perhaps) his moral responsibility for this current disaster of the last 60 yrs. It is also, undoubtedly to my mind, the case that this canonisation is being made so quickly to set a seal upon some rather questionable assertions of some Council documents. That cheapens and baldly politicises the cult of the Saint (unworthy at best, sacrilegious more likely). Still, all that being as it may be, is it not that a man must have demonstrated consistent heroic virtue? Obviously I haven't access to the position, but these are not in evidence to me (though granting unreservedly the one, stellar example of HV).

Are you aware of other examples?

DrAndroSF said...

I was a seminarian in Rome while Paul VI was pope. I remember vividly a line from one of his sermons I attended, either at the Lateran Basilica or Santa Sabina. He was lamenting all the problems that had arisen in the wake of the Council, all the competitions and conflicts, and at one point cried out, "Cosa posso fare? Non solo che un vecchio uomo!" "What can I do? I am just an old man!"

It was shocking then. And still is.

 
Anita Moore said...

I too have a hard time with this canonization, which seems to me purely political. I hope indeed that Paul VI did attain salvation after all, but raising him to the altar strikes me as grossly premature at best. I wish we’d reinstate the rule about requiring a certain number of decades to pass before a cause can even be opened.

There are those who argue that Humanae vitae alone merits sainthood for Paul VI; yet, in this age when most of the hierarchy seems devoid of faith, it does not seem to me that that is the reasoning behind canonizing him. Besides, to my way of thinking, his defense of the Church’s doctrine on contraceptives in the face of massive opposition has more to do with the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Church than the pope’s heroic virtue. I actually think Humanae vitae is a striking example of the charism of infallibility in action, one that ranks with the refusal of Pope Clement VII, another vacillating pope, to grant Henry VIII his annulment in the face of all the conventional “wisdom” of his day concerning papal authority. God created a system where it is possible for the wrong man to do the right thing; He uses weak and broken instruments to accomplish His will, precisely to show that the accomplishment is due to Him and not to the instruments.

Allen Maynard said...

This whole question is indeed an interesting one, I have myself long wondered how to reconcile the pope of Humanae Vitae with the pope of Novus Ordo Missae... Given the innately conservative nature of the Church in general - and specifically the papacy - one theory I’ve considered is that the utter disaster of the post-Conciliar liturgical revolution was indeed a loud and jarring wake-up call to Paul VI. As such the “po’ amletico” - wavering between the opinions of the “experts” (and, perhaps his own inclinations) vs. the perennial teaching of the Church, but finally “defaulting” to Tradition - probably has some truth to it.

Viewed from this perspective, one could suppose that he felt that that the promulgation of the New Mass was essentially a “conservative” act, intended to codify the remains of the liturgy in some recognizable form... As Michael Davies would say: "Well, it's a point of view!"

But even so the question of canonization troubles me deeply. There are plenty of saints who aren’t canonized, and as much as raising Paul VI would be “canonizing the Council” it would also be canonizing the disconnection between bad pope-ing and bad results. Even stipulating as to his good intentions and personal sanctity, is "he meant well" really sufficient unto the canonization of a pope? (and if so, there is no excuse whatsoever for further delay on the cause for Pius XII!)

 

Lenti said...

Ive read before that Paul VI was deeply conscientious man, who struggled for months to appoint bishops to even the most minor sees. I think this is a piece of the puzzle that explains why some people were able to manipulate him. Morever, he seems to have been willing to defend the faith when it was under direct attack -- HV, Mysterium Fidei (which always get forgotten), and other interventions during the Council. However, he seems to have largely bought the myth of the 60s that revising the liturgy would bring young people flooding in, even if he personally did not like the changes.

 
Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

It may be all well and good that because the Pope only reluctantly approved the destruction of The Roman Rite his culpability in its destruction is minimised but there can be no excuse for his praxis which resulted universally in the idea that use of the real Roman Missal was proscribed.

For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? I must say, quite openly, that I don’t understand why so many of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliations within the Church. (Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 416).”

Sacrosanctum Concilium with its Sound Tradition may be retained but...Latin is to be preserved but...Clerics are to retain the Latin language in the Divine Office but.. puissant progressive possibilities reminds ABS of sitting in his car outside of a Golden Corral and watching the long line of fat women departing the all-you-can-eat buffet tables and waddling towards their vans;

Both Sacrosanctum Concilium and the women exiting the Golden Corral represent long lines of ugly buts.

Michael Ortiz said...

I was born in the early 60s and it is hard indeed to look upon the man who signed into oblivion things that might have helped me growing up, though thanks be to God I reverted in my 20s. How many souls didn’t have such a chance? Still, I will accept the canonization out of obedience.

Michael Leahy said...

If the canonisation of Pope Paul VI strengthens the authority of Humanae Vitae, it will be worthwhile.

Alex Long said...

Canonization is more than about one's location in heaven. The canonization process is in as much as a crisis as the rest of the Church because it reflects the opinions and feelings of those who are now in doctrinal, liturgical, and moral confusion. It needs reformed.

In the meantime, let us refrain from calling these men "saints" and "blessed" as that would further spread confusion.

 ...

Fr. VF said...

A canonization is NOT a declaration by the Church that a person was flawless, or not a sinner. It is a declaration that a person is in Heaven. That's all.

I believe Montini was a very sinful man, and was at the time he was Pope, the worst Pope of all time. He is now the second worst Pope of all time.

For these reasons, I think he should not be canonized.

But he died with the Sacraments, and if the Church officially says he is in Heaven, then he is.

Anyone who says the upcoming canonization is in ERROR, is claiming to have CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE that Montini is in Hell. That is absolutely unknowable.

...

Michael Leahy said...

Father VF, while I accept what the Church says, saying that Pope Paul is not in Heaven is surely not the same as claiming he is in Hell. I make no claims, but we must not forget about Purgatory.

 ...

John Kennedy said...

"I have myself long wondered how to reconcile the pope of Humanae Vitae with the pope of Novus Ordo Missae..."

Simple. He didn't write either but allowed them to be issued under his name. From what I understand, he didn't like the blow back on HV from the progressives/hetrodox and therefore never enforced it or dealt with those who publicly and loudly rejected it.

 ...

 
Mark Chaplain said...

Pope Paul VI celebrated a Mass (largely) in the vernacular (Italian), versus populum, on a temporary "table altar" placed outside the sanctuary (where the main altar and tabernacle had been screened), and gave Holy Communion to parishioners who were standing [Ognissanti parish church, Rome] on 7 March 1965, little over a year after Sacrosanctum Concilium.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-50th-anniversary-of-paul-v...

Regarding the various anecdotes about Pope Paul VI weeping at the abolishment of the octave of Pentecost etc. - either these are not true or he was crying crocodile tears. Pope Paul VI was the central architect of the Novus Ordo Mass. Period.

...

 

john said...

Couldn't resist? He was the pope, he had final authority over everything.

...

john said...

Wrong, it is not saying he is in Hell, it's saying he did not live as an extraordinary example of saintly virtue. Any upcoming canonization of Montini would be erroneous.

...

Rubricarius said...

Paul VI, as Mgr. Montini, was regularly celebrating Mass versus populum at least two decades before March 1965. However, that does not make him the principle architect of the 1969 Ordo Missae. If one person was to be defined as its architect then Jungmann is a far more worthy recipient of that appellation.

Quite detailed plans for the reformed Mass had been laid out at the major liturgical congresses in the 1950s. Indeed if people care to look they will see one of Jungmann's first papers at Maria-Laach was on 'problems' with the anaphora.

Paul VI modified the reform somewhat. Without him there would almost certainly have been no vestments until the Offertory (c.f. the 1956 Good Friday rite) and the Roman Canon thrown out completely.

 

 

Own comment: 

Dubious canonisations bring with them a whole host of problems and they don't come much more dubious than that of Pope Paul VI's.

I am certainly not a fan of them man at all but we have to give the man his dues. One commenter writes that Pope Paul VI did not write Humanae Vitae but my understanding is that he actually did write it, and pretty much in Latin. This I got from the book "Sex au Naturell" by Patric Coffin, and given that the book is about the topic of contraception, it has to be seen as reliable.

Another error in the piece, and worse yet since it comes from a priest, has to do with canonisations. Actually it is two errors; the first being that canonisation simply states that someone is in Heaven, and the other being that if you refuse a canonisation then you are saying that the person is in hell. There is purgatory, of course, as another commenter pointed out.

More to the point a canonisation is not simply about someone being in Heaven but about the person showing heroic virtue on Earth, to be emulated due to the sanctity of his life on Earth. I have no problem believing that Pope Paul VI is in Heaven. By all amounts, he died a sorry man, regretful over much that he did as pope. We can therefore assume that he showed some regret with regards to the destruction he brought to the Church. It would be strange to think that he went directly to hell given that he died surrounded by priests who could give him his Last Rites.

Nothing about his life on earth was saintly on the other hand, and had he not shown so much hubris and narcissism we might not have ended up with the terriby destructive Novus Ordo running riot over the Church. He kept very scandalous company both before and after becoming pope, and there are serious questions regarding his sexual morality before he became pope.

The 'miracles' he allegedly interceded for are also doubtful at best.

The one good thing he did - Humanae Vitae - he did not enforce. Had he been as brutal in enforcing it has he had been with the Novus Ordo Missae then we would have been much better off but he wasn't. Furthermore, the only reason the document was issued is because he had allowed the confusion to metastatise and spread about in the first place. He gets absolutely no sanctity marks for repeating what every other pope had taught and what he had no power to change anyway.

Another error displayed in one of the comments is that if his canonisation strengthens the defence of Humane Vitae then so be it. This is erroneous on so many fronts, not least the fact that we cannot do evil so that good may come out of it. It is also easily provable as false since the canonisation of John Paul II has done nothing to advance his teaching - that is, the Church's unchanged and unchangeable teaching - in these Bergoglian times. The fact that St. Pius V and St. Pius V are saints, and great saints and true saints at that, did nothing to prevent the Novus Ordo Missae coming into being, at the hands of Paul VI, of course. The very fact that Christ Himself spoke against adultery has done nothing to prevent the Bergoglians and the Kasperites from promoting it.

Those who want destruction are not bound by etiquette, or reason, or even  doctrine.

We cannot by obedience or reason be forced to recognise Paul VI as a saint in any meaningful way. Obedience is subservient to truth, and to claim that Paul VI displayed heroic or saintly virtue is one lie.