Before The Canonizations

Something to think about. I know that a lot of folks are spending their time analyzing whether or not the act of canonization is infallible. I'd like to shift the discussion to what we should be considering in light of the fact that it's these two popes who are the ones being canonized. In doing so, specifically, I'm focusing on the most important part of the pope's job. It isn't to look good for the camera. It isn't to visit with secular leaders or any other such thing. It's to safeguard the deposit of faith. With that being said up front and with events stirring as they are today, what should we take away from this canonization?

First, let's look at John Paul II. If you were to think about JPII's magisterium, what would stand out the most? I suggest that it would be the focus on the immutability of the moral law and the unchanging nature of marriage and the marital act. These are precisely the items for which Pope Francis is currently being praised by the secular media because he is viewed, for whatever reason, as being decidedly non-Catholic on these issues.

Why would Pope Francis proceed with the canonization of a guy so opposed to his own alleged views? When you hear people say the Holy Father is going to abolish sin or sanction homosexual relationships, does that really seem likely after granting the Church's highest honor to this particular predecessor? Women priests, abortion, or divorced/remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion, you name the "Pope Francis will change that issue" and it's going to be something that was in JPII's wheelhouse for special condemnation. It would seem kind of hypocritical, no?

With regards to Pope John, this is an opportunity to re-present his magisterium to the world. Not the fabricated person that he's portrayed by heretics and schismatics. I'm talking about the stuff he actually wrote and believed in.

Whether it's liturgical Latin, the need for non-Catholics to convert, his stance on imposing ecclesiastical penalties for political views at odds with the Church, the authority of the Pope, the (lack of) authority of Vatican II, most people have no idea what this man actually stood for. A huge numbers of Catholics and non-Catholics would be utterly shocked if they read a JXXIII encyclical or apostolic constitution or whatever. You should do just that and encourage others to do so as well.

Here is our series of posts on John XXIII and our article about him at Unam Sanctam as places to start.

If you are disturbed by these events, pray more. Fast more. Stop reading the news.

Ecumenism And Blessed John XXIII

In a recent Zenit article, Bishop Brian Farrell, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had the following exchange:

Q: The pontifical council recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of its foundation. Is the spirit that inspired its birth with Pope John XXIII still alive?

Bishop Farrell: Yes, in fact, on this past Nov. 17, we held a solemn public ceremony to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, which John XXIII intensely desired and instituted along with the other commissions charged with preparing the Second Vatican Council. Convinced that the council's entire work had to be impregnated with the desire to re-establish unity, he wished, as a clear sign of that desire, to have the presence of observers from other churches and ecclesial communities at the council.

It seems almost like a miracle of Providence that more than 2,000 bishops came to Rome to start the council in 1962, many of them formed in a theology of "exclusion," according to which the Orthodox and the Protestants -- schismatics and heretics, in the terminology of that time -- were simply outside of the Church, and three years later they produced the decree "Unitatis Redintegratio," which recognizes a real, although incomplete ecclesial communion among all the baptized and among the Churches and ecclesial communities. This renewed perspective, in perfect harmony with the old ecclesiology of the Fathers, had enormous consequences for the new way that Catholics related to other Christians and with their communities, and for the irrevocable adherence of the Catholic Church to the ecumenical movement.

John XXIII spoke of a "step forward," a way of seeing the old tradition with new eyes, thus opening up new ways for the Church to move toward that visible unity that is her own. This transformation has largely been due to the intense work of the first president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Agustín Bea, and his coworkers -- along with the grace of the Holy Spirit, of course.

Basically, I'm not sure how the italicized portion is anything other than an insult to the thousands of saints, not to mention Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who stated time and time again that individuals ascribing to heresy and schism are, in fact, outside the Church. Apparently, these people (and every other Catholic) lived in darkness until the magnificent light of ecumenism was shone upon them, and we could all shed the errors of our "theology of exclusion."

Moreover, this is an insult to Blessed John XXIII himself. Let's take a look at the Pope's own words, from his own autobiography, Journey of a Soul (see page 5 of the linked chapter):

Meanwhile, this (his conversations with a young Protestant who had left Catholicism) has convinced me of my tremendous obligation to thank God for the great gift of faith: one has only to talk to a Protestant for a few hours to understand all the importance of thus (sp). Therefore, forever, "his praise shall be continually in my mouth" for this gift too, indeed for this gift above all else. AS FOR THESE POOR UNFORTUNATES OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, we must feel sorry for them, poor children pray hard for them, and work with all our hearts and strength for their conversion.

Well, geez, I guess Blessed John was infected with this same erroneous "theology of exclusion." Is Bishop Farrell even familiar with the summons to the Council, Ad Petri Cathedram? If you don't want to check out the whole thing, see our post here, which goes into a few details. Needless to say, it's chockful of the "theology of exclusion."

Something tells me that the "step forward" Bishop Farrell speaks of isn't what Blessed John was talking about. If anything, we know from his own hand that Pope John's dream was for the return of those outside of the Church to the Catholic Faith. This kind of mis-characterization is annoying and leads to the appearance of Vatican II as some sort of theological trump card for 2000 years of Church teaching.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of the above article's WooHoos regarding the accomplishments of post-conciliar ecumenism. I'll just say that Bishop Farrell must be observing a way different reality that what I've been looking at. Everyone agrees that Catholic Faith isn't even being taught any more (hence the new Pontifical Council for Re-Evangelization). It seems absurd to suggest that we are making all this progress on bringing those outside the Church back to the Faith, when we can't even get Catholics to buy into the Faith.

We Need Another John XXIII

Those comments from Bishop Willie Walsh of Killaloe Diocese. The problem is that Bishop Walsh seems to have absolutely no idea what sort of pope Blessed John actually was.

A Papal ban on discussing the ordination of women has been openly challenged by an Irish bishop.

The bishop, whose seat is at Ennis in County Clare, has also expressed sadness about the Catholic Church's attitudes to homosexuality and its policy of refusing the Eucharist to couples who have re-married.

The insistence on priests remaining celibate also needed to be discussed, he said.
Bishop Walsh has already challenged another Vatican rule that almost completely excludes Protestants from its Eucharist.

I think we must conclude that Bishop Walsh fits into our standard dilemma: Is he stupid, or just a liar?

Alluding to the papacy which ushered in liberal reform in the 1960s, Bishop Walsh said he wanted to see "another Pope John XXIII".

Such a pope would open up discussion, particularly the exclusion of women from the priesthood, he added.

Really? The Pope who forbade women from even lighting candles in the sanctuary would want to talk about ordaining them to the priesthood?

This is another instance where Cardinal Levada needs to get involved.

By the way, for a factual presentation of Pope John's views, check out the posts here.

The Summons To Vatican II & The Unity Of The Church

In kicking off what is sure to be a mammoth series on the Second Vatican Council, I will begin at the "sort of" beginning. The conciliar summons, Ad Petri Cathedram, was issued by Blessed John XXIII back on June 29, 1959. Fifty years ago this June. Long time, yes?

Originally, I wasn't going to start here, but after seeing the Rorate Caeli treatment of the subject, I changed my mind. For a bit of a primer, I also invite readers to check out our prior run of posts on Blessed John.

Now that that's out of the way, let's hit a few of the high points that a lot of the "spiritists" of Vatican II either intentionally forget or never knew about in the first place.

As We have said, it is possible for us to attain natural truth by virtue of our intellects. But all cannot do this easily; often their efforts will result in a mixture of truth and error. This is particularly the case in matters of religion and sound morals. Moreover, we cannot possibly attain those truths which exceed the capacity of nature and the grasp of reason, unless God enlightens and inspires us. This is why the word of God, "who dwells in light inaccessible,"in His great love took pity on man's plight, "became flesh and dwelt among us,"that He might "enlighten every man who cometh into the world"and lead him not only to full and perfect truth, but to virtue and eternal happiness. All men, therefore, are bound to accept the teaching of the gospel. For if this is rejected, the very foundations of truth, goodness, and civilization are endangered.

A couple of things present themselves here. First, we see the natural/supernatural distinction that so many have sought to blur and the Pius XII tried to protect in Humani Generis. Second, we have Pope John presenting the Gospel as the last, best hope for the world, and no hope of grasping God's Truth without God's grace.

It is clear that We are discussing a serious matter, with which our eternal salvation is very intimately connected. Some men, as the Apostle of the Gentiles warns us, are "ever learning yet never attaining knowledge of the truth." They contend that the human mind can discover no truth that is certain or sure; they reject the truths revealed by God and necessary for our eternal salvation.

Such men have strayed pathetically far from the teaching of Christ . . .

Anyone who consciously and wantonly attacks known truth, who arms himself with falsehood in his speech, his writings, or his conduct in order to attract and win over less learned men and to shape the inexperienced and impressionable minds of the young to his own way of thinking, takes advantage of the inexperience and innocence of others and engages in an altogether despicable business.

This last paragraph is a good synopsis of why Fr. Jenkins and the President should have been roundly condemned for their speeches at ND.

Some men, indeed do not attack the truth wilfully, but work in heedless disregard of it. They act as though God had given us intellects for some purpose other than the pursuit and attainment of truth. This mistaken sort of action leads directly to that absurd proposition: one religion is just as good as another, for there is no distinction here between truth and falsehood. "This attitude," to quote Pope Leo again, "is directed to the destruction of all religions, but particularly the Catholic faith, which cannot be placed on a level with other religions without serious injustice, since it alone is true." Moreover, to contend that there is nothing to choose between contradictories and among contraries can lead only to this fatal conclusion: a reluctance to accept any religion either in theory or practice.

How can God, who is truth, approve or tolerate the indifference, neglect, and sloth of those who attach no importance to matters on which our eternal salvation depends; who attach no importance to pursuit and attainment of necessary truths, or to the offering of that proper worship which is owed to God alone?

When folks start rambling about Pope John as the Prince of Ecumenists rather than as the Vicar Christ, introduce them to the above quote. I've been challenged many times to produce the source of the statement and been met with complete shock upon doing so. It's amazing that such a basic tenet of the Faith could cause such a reaction and for no other reason than heretics have constructed a fake Blessed John for the world to admire.

The next few bits of the encyclical go through some social justice themes, ranging from harmony in the home to peace on Earth. Of course, all of these things are tied to the acceptance and practice of the Gospel. Having discussed unity across these other realms, he then turns his pen to the unity of religion. What sort of unity might that be?

When the Divine Redeemer founded His Church, there is no doubt that He made firm unity its cornerstone and one of its essential attributes. Had He not done this—and it is absurd even to make such a suggestion—He would have founded a transient thing, which in time, at least, would destroy itself. For in just this way have nearly all philosophies risen from among the vagaries of human opinion: one after another, they come into being, they evolve, they are forgotten. But this clearly cannot be the history of a divine teaching authority founded by Jesus Christ, "the way, the truth, and the life."

But this unity, Venerable Brethren and beloved sons, must be solid, firm and sure, not transient, uncertain, or unstable. Though there is no such unity in other Christian communities, all who look carefully can see that it is present in the Catholic Church.

Take note. Unity already exists. It is the Catholic Church alone that possesses it. There is no "convergence of religions" or "meta-Christianity" Frankenstein Monster to be forged by cobbling together Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and whoever else into some of of syncretist fantasy. This is probably even more strongly worded than Cardinal Ratzinger's words in Dominus Iesus. Yet how much wailing and gnashing of teeth did we hear on that one? Weeks worth.

Yet Pope John's words are forgotten. He doesn't even stop there.

Indeed, the Catholic Church is set apart and distinguished by these three characteristics: unity of doctrine, unity of organization, unity of worship. This unity is so conspicuous that by it all men can find and recognize the Catholic Church.

It is the will of God, the Church's founder, that all the sheep should eventually gather into this one fold, under the guidance of one shepherd. All God's children are summoned to their father's only home, and its cornerstone is Peter. All men should work together like brothers to become part of this single kingdom of God; for the citizens of that kingdom are united in peace and harmony on earth that they might enjoy eternal happiness some day in heaven.

That's right. He just told everyone separated from the Holy See that they are defying the will of God by remaining in such a state. Note also that it's "this single kingdom of God." There aren't any others lurking in the bushes out there.

The Catholic Church teaches the necessity of believing firmly and faithfully all that God has revealed. . .

Whenever a man has wandered from this path, the Church has never failed to use her maternal authority to call him again and again to the right road. She knows well that there is no other truth than the one truth she treasures; that there can be no "truths" in contradiction of it. Thus she repeats and bears witness to the words of the Apostle: "For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth."

The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark.

Note that dissent is only for those things open for discussion. Pope John is nice enough to tell us what things aren't open for discussion, namely, that which is "contained in sacred scripture and in the oral and written tradition that has come down through the centuries from the apostolic age and finds expression in the ordinances and definitions of the popes and legitimate Ecumenical Councils."

This makes me wonder what Blessed John's reputation would be these days if he had written Humanae Vitae, rather than Pope Paul.

At this point, Pope John turns his full attention to the non-Catholics of the world. Ask yourself what would happen if Pope Benedict wrote something like this. Especially consider what your own priest, bishop, and/or fellow Catholics might say:

We address Ourselves now to all of you who are separated from this Apostolic See. May this wonderful Spectacle of unity, by which the Catholic Church is set apart and distinguished, as well as the prayers and entreaties with which she begs God for unity, stir your hearts and awaken you to what is really in your best interest.

May We, in fond anticipation, address you as sons and brethren? May We hope with a father's love for your return?

When We fondly call you to the unity of the Church, please observe that We are not inviting you to a strange home, but to your own, to the abode of your forefathers. Permit Us, then, to long for you all "in the heart of Christ Jesus," and to exhort you all to be mindful of your forefathers who "preached God's word to you; contemplate the happy issue of the life they lived, and imitate their faith."

There is in paradise a glorious legion of Saints who have passed to heaven from your people. By the example of their lives they seem to summon you to union with this Apostolic See with which your Christian community was beneficially united for so many centuries. You are summoned especially by those Saints who in their writings perpetuated and explained with admirable accuracy the teachings of Jesus Christ.

We address, then, as brethren all who are separated from Us, using the words of Saint Augustine: "Whether they wish it or not, they are our brethren. They cease to be our brethren only when they stop saying 'Our Father.'" . . .

The peace, then, which we must seek, which we must strive to achieve with all the means at our disposal, must—as We have said—make no concessions to error, must compromise in no way with proponents of falsehood; it must make no concessions to vice; it must discourage all discord. Those who adhere to this peace must be ready to renounce their own interests and advantages for the sake of truth and justice, according to the words: "Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice."

The only ecumenism ever envisioned by Pope John was the return of those separated to Rome and the Successor of Peter. No compromise. None.

Finally, I add this last bit because I think there is some Caritas in Veritate foreshadowing:

There is never any need, therefore, to turn to proponents of doctrines condemned by the Church; for they only draw men on with false promises and when they obtain control of the state, try boldly and unscrupulously to deprive men of their supreme spiritual goods—the Christian commandments, Christian hope, and Christian faith. Those who adhere to the doctrines these men propose, minimize or eliminate all that our present age and our modern civilization hold dearest: true liberty and the authentic dignity of the human person. Thus they attempt to destroy the bases of Christianity and civilization.

All, therefore, who wish to remain Christians must be aware of their serious obligation to avoid those false principles, which Our predecessors—especially Popes Pius XI and Pius XII—have condemned in the past, and which We condemn once again.

We know that many of Our children who live in want or great misfortune often protest that the social teachings of Christianity have not yet been fully put into practice. Private citizens, and more particularly public officials, must take steps to see that the Christian social doctrine which Our predecessors have often clearly and wisely taught and decreed, and which we have confirmed, is really given full effect. Although this will have to be done gradually, no time should be wasted.

Pretty neat, I think. If you want some other references to Church unity, check out Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum. Ad Petri Cathedram quotes Pope Leo about 8 times, I think, so Blessed John seems to have thought highly of him, and since he freaking rules anyway, you should give it a look.

Anyways, we're going to go through the other precursors to Vatican II, as well as the comments of its contemporary witnesses. We'll hit all 16 documents and take a close examination of what each says and doesn't say, as well as what it actually means in light of the footnotes and other Church teachings. Please join us and tell us where we're wrong.

"I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

The above quote is the latest in a series of asinine musings from Joe Biden regarding his (ahem) Catholicism. Yet somehow Palin is the one denounced as some sort of intellectual lightweight.

Joe, as usual, is trying to come up with ways to rationalize his support for the murder of the unborn. Thanks to Rocco Palma for these recent glimpses into the vacant mind of the Senator.

Catholics have this notion, it's almost a gradation.We have mortal sins, venial sins, well, up until Pius IX, there were times when we said, 'Look, there are circumstances in which it's wrong but it is not damnation. Along came Pius IX in the 1860s and declared in fine doctrine, this was the first time that it occurred that it was absolute human life and being at the moment of conception.

Can someone get Joe a Baltimore Catechism? Preferably one with the neat pictures in it. And maybe a history book that lets him know that abortion has always been a mortal sin. Come on, Joe. You've read Aquinas, or so you would have us believe. You should know this stuff. Unless, of course, you are a liar like your colleague Nancy.

One other thing, Senator. You don't know anything about John XXIII or John Paul II, so do us and yourself a favor and stop pretending that you have anything resembling a clue. Please. Try honesty instead. Admit your departure from the Church. You've been shacking up with heresy and schism for decades now. What harm is there in making it official?

Nobody's Perfect

I know some folks think that I am letting Blessed John XXIII slide on some things below. It wasn't my point to go into all sorts of details about the man. I was just aiming to show that he is usually held up as the patron saint of progressives when he publicly declared and authoritatively promulgated views that are diametrically opposed to what most people seem to think.

Discounting Christ and the Blessed Mother, history has taught us that nobody is perfect. Everybody has their warts and weaknesses. John XXIII was no different and folks on every side of the fences should acknowledge that. Sure, he was confirmed the decree of the Holy Office in 1959 to excom anyone who voted for a communist (which was actually more strict than Pius XII's position), but he then turned around and went in for the dealings at Metz (previously mentioned here) that withdrew any condemnations for communism at Vatican II. In fact, instead of condemning communism, he made occasional comments about attempts at "dialogue" with such philosophies, as though the Church has anything to learn from such delusions.

Sure, there was other stuff ("dialogue" with other errors, a seemingly soft position on religious liberty), but the issue remains that he is nothing like the caricature that is usually presented of him. I think he was a good and likable man, who liked the fact that he was liked and did things to cultivate that perception. It's why the Council was hijacked. He wanted for the bishops there to like him and so he let them get away with a lot of stuff right from the opening bell.

Nobody's perfect and hindsight is 20/20. Here ends our fair and balanced coverage of Blessed John XXIII.

Pope John Gave us the Blessed Gift of Vernacular

No, he didn’t. This one is my personal favorite. Of all the false progressive ideas attributed to John XXIII, this one is truly the most asinine and utterly refuted by the Pope’s own words.

The story goes that Pope John looked out upon the Church and heard the oppressed rabble crying out to be liberated from the fetters of the Latin language and the terrors of the Traditional Mass. Valiant Pope John then convened the company of heroes known as Vatican II with the express purpose of annihilating these horrific shackles and the archaic ideas that held them in place.

It makes for a good bedtime story for the progressives. Maybe it helps them sleep at night now that the Traditional Mass is making such a comeback. What they either don’t know or ignore, sucking their thumbs and clinging to their Hans Kung dolls, is that Pope John condemned this whole line of thinking. Allow me to introduce possibly the most ignored papal document of the last half-century (yes, even more ignored than Humanae Vitae). Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you Veterum Sapientia, the whole of which is devoted to why Latin rules and the vernacular sucks. It's also an Apostolic Constitution, which means that it carries the highest level of papal authority (e.g. it's the same thing that Pius XII issued when defining the dogma of the Assumption). How many Pope John devotees would be caught dead saying things like:

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws." She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the "knowledge and use of this language," so intimately bound up with the Church's life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons." These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church's nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church," and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Furthermore, the Church's language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic." It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure ... of incomparable worth." It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching.It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See's decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See's will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

Folks who espouse ideas like this in our day are considered lunatics or extremists. This was another example of Pope John’s “reactionism” for Blanshard. The best part is when you run into progressives who actually do know about this document. They start making all kinds of excuses, usually that Il Papa Buono was “strong-armed into writing it” by the Curia. So he was gutless, then? If the Curia really had that kind of stroke, then VII would never have gone down the way it did because Pope John would never have scrapped the original prep work.

Or was it that “he didn’t really mean it”? Yeah, because popes are always devoting entire encyclicals to things they don’t really mean. Or maybe he changed his mind. Really? Is that why VII says that Latin is to be preserved as the language of the liturgy?

Or maybe it’s that people who buy into this legend are full of crap and should accept the fact that they hate a lot of what Blessed John really stood for.

Pope John was the Pope of Social Justice

I think the stupidity of this comment is clear from the series we’ve had on Social Justice and the free market. At least, I hope it is. John XXIII wrote stuff about social justice. Good for him. Let’s ignore the fact that he was standing on the shoulders of Pius XI, Leo XIII, and a tradition going all the way back to the Fathers, though. The real issue here is that there are a bunch of jerks that have portraying the pre-conciliar Church as dead, corrupt, broken, whatever as their driving mission in life. Wills is a good example of this phenomenon. It doesn’t have anything to do with John XXIII. It has to do with trying to make his predecessors look bad. The message is that nobody cared about the poor or working classes until VII, when Pope John was the light that showed us the way. Pay no attention to the rest of that 2000 years.

Pope John Was About Unity!

Aren’t we all? Except when this ditty gets thrown out as praise of John XXIII, it’s usually to let us know that Pope John always knew that other Christians and religious were part of Christ’s Mystical Body and didn’t need to convert.


That must be why he called Protestants “those poor souls outside the Church” in his autobiography, Journal of a Soul. Paul Blanshard in his book on Vatican II regarded this as a blatant example of John XXIII’s “reactionary” nature. Of course, Blanshard was also a bigot, but the point stands.


John XXIII was so convinced of how salvific other religions could be that he said the following about 2 minutes into his papacy:

The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth.



Yeah, this guy was all about unity, just not the hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya-while-we-ignore-heresy-and-schism unity that so many folks seem to want these days. “Imperfect communion” anyone? If only the above comment at his coronation was the focus of modern ecumenism, how many problems in the Church would evaporate?

Pope John Humanized the Priesthood

Other variants of this statement is that he humanized the papacy by stepping down from all the trappings and pomp that went along with it.

Or not.

Granted, you maybe could say something along these lines if you talked about the Pope’s famous visits to the children’s hospital or the prison, but this idea of eschewing pomp is usually provided by people who want to de-sacralize the ceremonies of the Church (ie- The Mass) and like to say that Pope John was big into doing this.

Strangely enough, this man so averse to ritual and ceremony was the last pope to have the full-blown papal coronation ceremony and wear the traditional papal tiara. Frankly, I think that if a pope is going to confront the modern world, he should do so with all the symbols of his authority in clear view. Humility is a good thing, but humility doesn’t require denying objective reality, which is that the Pope has authority that exceeds the merely secular. Maybe Benedict will dust one off for old times sake in the near future.

The other thing you hear about Pope John’s “humanizing” of the priesthood was that he wanted to abolish the distinctions between priests and laity. This is another myth conjured up by heretics that want to abuse the man’s memory. Nowhere can they point to anything he ever did that gives credence to this idea, except to point to “his” revision of the Mass, making it a Mass of the people, rather than the priesthood. I’ll deal more with this in the last point, but suffice to say, there is nothing in his personal work that suggests anything of the sort. To the contrary, ever hear of the worker-priest movement? One reason you probably haven’t is because John XXIII helped squash it. This was another case of erasing the line between priests and laity by having priests work regular jobs on top of their clerical duties. Pius XII took steps to get rid of it, but its death knell was rung by John XXIII. Despite this, you have guys like Garry Wills excoriating Pius XII for his work in this area, while turning a blind eye to the involvement of John XXIII. But hey, when you’re arrogant enough to write a book called What Jesus Meant, why should you let facts get in the way?

Pope John Gave Us Vatican II

Umm. Yeah. He also died after the first session, so it’s tough to see why he should be getting all the accolades for this one. Of course, ascribing credit to Paul VI would mean that some kind of props would have to go to the guy who wrote Humanae Vitae and that sure as hell isn’t coming from the progressives any time soon.

The sad part is that Pope John did preside over the events that resulted in the hijacking of VII, namely the discarding of the three years of work that went into its preparation and the complete upheaval of its commission structure. Most accounts suggest that Pope John had no idea the miles that would be given up when he gave the bishops this inch. In fact, as we’ll see, there’s little (or nothing) to indicate that Pope John would have sanctioned anything like what emerged in the post-conciliar Church, yet the progressives will consistently invoke his name as their patron saint.

Il Papa Buono

No, it’s not the name of a rapper. It’s the handle frequently applied to Angelo Roncalli, Blessed Pope John XXIII. It means “The Good Pope.” As today is the 45th anniversary of his death, it seemed appropriate to reflect upon the question suggested by his nickname. What made him so good? For the most part, the answer depends upon who you are asking.

I don’t think there are many folks who would think that John XXIII was a bad person. To the contrary, pretty much everybody agrees that he was a very holy man. He was known for having a good sense of humor and fitting perfectly into the mold of the jolly old round Santa Claus-type that everybody knows as a stereotype. There’s no reason to think that the personality he portrayed was a fabrication. For those who may be screeching at this point, I’m not going to even touch some of the comments often given about this Pope belonging to certain reprobated organizations, etc. Such comments seem to me to be slanderous as they lack any sort of evidence at all and are so scandalous that I am simply not going to go there.

Anyways, amongst the heretics who professed the Litany that is currently making the rounds on this blog, there was one truly dishonest schmuck who related the following story. He was sitting in Mass one day back in 1958 and internally cried out to God, “Lord, I’ll never leave your Church, but I’m not having any fun here!” (because, of course, that’s what the Sacrifice of Calvary was all about). Only a couple of months later, he said with exuberance building in his voice, Pius XII was dead and “the man who changed the Church forever was elected pope.” Ignoring for a moment the rather ghastly jubilation over the death of an outstanding pope like Pius XII, let’s consider what this buffoon of an instructor (and most other “progressive” Catholics) like to hold up as the “good” qualities of John XXIII.

1. Vatican II.
2. He understood that the priesthood and the laity shouldn’t be considered as separate states of life.
3. He was clear that Protestants and other Christians had no need of conversion, removing all the “barriers” that the Church had placed in the way of “unity.”
4. He was actually concerned about social justice and the well-being of the faithful.
5. He updated the Mass by getting rid of Latin and turning the priest around to face the people.
How can he not be “good” with a resume like this?

Yeah, I know. It’s crap. This is the kind of idiocy that people trot out to justify their disobedience to the Church. I can almost guarantee that these folks either have no clue about anything John XXIII has ever written or they’ve bought into a popular caricature and don’t care what the Pope actually thought about things. Take note next time you hear a story about something John XXIII was supposed to have done, such as the famous line of “Now begins my council,” allegedly uttered after (fill in the blank with event, usually Leinart’s speech hijacking the council) demonstrative of the bishops finally understanding what the council was about. See if you can find a real source, rather than second or third hand accounts. Usually, they don’t exist.

More on these items as the day progresses.