Pope JP2 a Liberal?

[DanteAlighieri]

I think there are Catholics on this site who refuse to agree to certain things he said about evolution for instance as too liberal for them. Also his ecumenism is offensive to some as too liberal. He seemed genuinely inamored of science.

I’d appreciate your explanation of how Vatican II has been misunderstood. Did JPII misuderstand it as well? I’d never heard this before. I’ll be interested in your proofs.

Sorry, not prepared to get into this debate. As far as interpretation of VII goes, I’m regurgitating what I’ve read in other posts and quotes from Church documents saying that VII was not an attempt to liberalize the Church, and that it doesn’t contradict VI or any other Church council. I’m afraid I’m not equipped to back that up, so I guess I must concede the point on logical grounds – not to say that I’m changing my position, however.

Regarding his being “enamored of science” – can you explain? I’ve never heard that before. Have you any examples?

(Yes, I’m aware of the irony of my declining to back up my assertion and then in the next breath asking you to do so. I’m just curious; not trying to pick a fight.)

Peace,
Dante

 

[latinmasslover]

Sorry, not prepared to get into this debate. As far as interpretation of VII goes, I’m regurgitating what I’ve read in other posts and quotes from Church documents saying that VII was not an attempt to liberalize the Church, and that it doesn’t contradict VI or any other Church council.

It doesn’t, really. The choice of words though isn’t always clear and thus leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. That’s the main problem with the Council.

 

[The_Catholic]

This is all too confusing I’m glad I just simply trust my Church, or God you might say, and try to dwell on that.

 

[MagicKirk]

“I define a liberal as someone who believes that human beings have rights which it is the function of the State to protect.”

You state that you are not a liberal. Do you let liberals define you? Perhaps you should let them define what they are for themselves. I don’t wish to offend you, but I respectfully suggest that your definition is not accurate as most would consider anarchists as being leftists, yet they certainly wouldn’t fit into your classification.

 

[dixieagle]

Being old doesn’t make you right. Look at the old traditionalists and the charismatic youth. Pride goeth before the fall. You’d do well to keep that in mind before you make your arrogant and uninformed remarks.

Of course being “old” doesn’t make one right. However, Catholics who have been around more than a couple of decades, studied Catholic theology, lived their vocations, raised Catholic children, observed JPII through all his papacy (perhaps even met him, as have I) have earned the right to respect. This has nothing to do with pride, nor is it an “arrogant” or “uninformed” statement.

It is still astonishing to me that someone yet inexperienced at life could presume to state that John Paul II “wasn’t a good Catholic.”

 

[Formosus]

Well John Paul definetely did some questionable things… was he a leftist theologically? Probably not. He probably used modern philosophical terminology that gave off the impression that he was theologically liberal, and his over ecumenicalness adds onto that image. He definetely was not liturgically traditional and his ecumenicisim is troubling to say the least.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Of course being “old” doesn’t make one right. However, Catholics who have been around more than a couple of decades, studied Catholic theology, lived their vocations, raised Catholic children, observed JPII through all his papacy (perhaps even met him, as have I) have earned the right to respect. This has nothing to do with pride, nor is it an “arrogant” or “uninformed” statement.

It is still astonishing to me that someone yet inexperienced at life could presume to state that John Paul II “wasn’t a good Catholic.”

The arrogance of youth has been mentioned more than once on the forums. I also find it a constant source of astonishment that they presume, at the ripe old age of 20-something, to sit in judgment of the Vicar of Christ. For them to accuse anyone of being arrogant and uninformed is the height of irony. You can comfort yourself that in almost all cases, life itself teaches them a much needed lesson in humility.

 

[dixieagle]

The arrogance of youth has been mentioned more than once on the forums. I also find it a constant source of astonishment that they presume, at the ripe old age of 20-something, to sit in judgment of the Vicar of Christ. For them to accuse anyone of being arrogant and uninformed is the height of irony. You can comfort yourself that in almost all cases, life itself teaches them a much needed lesson in humility.

What’s that saying…“when I was 18 I couldn’t believe how ignorant my father was; when I was 25 I was amazed at how much he’d learned?”

While one doesn’t want to discourage earnest discussion, it is always a shock to see some so young so confident in their opinions - and about whether the Pope was “a good Catholic” yet! Good grief!

That is so true about life teaching humility - don’t we know it!

God bless!

 

[Formosus]

1 Timothy 4

12 Let no man despise thy youth: but be thou an example of the faithful in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity.

If you disagree with what they are saying, then do not just write it off as “the arrogance of Youth” rather prove their assertions wrong with logical reasoning.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

“I define a liberal as someone who believes that human beings have rights which it is the function of the State to protect.”

You state that you are not a liberal. Do you let liberals define you? Perhaps you should let them define what they are for themselves. I don’t wish to offend you, but I respectfully suggest that your definition is not accurate as most would consider anarchists as being leftists, yet they certainly wouldn’t fit into your classification.

No. Linguistic categories are for use by the whole community. An organisation like, say, the British Humanist Association, of course has a membership which they define, and they can say how they use the term “humanist”.
Their definition is
“anyone who tries to lead a moral or ethical life and makes decisions on the evidence rather than on the basis of religious doctrine.”

Well that’s not nonsense. But the first thing we’ve got to do is replace “tries” with “claims to be trying”. Then maybe we should add “and doesn’t deny being a humanist”. Or maybe we shouldn’t? If we can find one such person, someone, somewhere is incompetent to define his own philosophical position.

Anarchists I’d say are not really liberals, neither are / were Marxists. Neither are animal liberation people. They are all the intellectual descendants of liberalism, but not the same thing.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

1 Timothy 4

12 Let no man despise thy youth: but be thou an example of the faithful in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity.

If you disagree with what they are saying, then do not just write it off as “the arrogance of Youth” rather prove their assertions wrong with logical reasoning.

The arrogance of youth is seen in HOW they say it. I’m fairly certain Timothy wasn’t doing this to St. Peter or the other Apotles. Note in the verse YOU quote the bit about “conversation.”

 

[latinmasslover]

The arrogance of youth has been mentioned more than once on the forums. I also find it a constant source of astonishment that they presume, at the ripe old age of 20-something, to sit in judgment of the Vicar of Christ. For them to accuse anyone of being arrogant and uninformed is the height of irony. You can comfort yourself that in almost all cases, life itself teaches them a much needed lesson in humility.

I’m rather astonished at the arrogance of age. “I’m older therefore I’m right,” is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever heard.
Life offers many lessons in humility but some just don’t get it. Your criticism could be given a little merit if it was only the youth who pointed out inconsistancies of the Holy Father’s behavior. Since it’s not only the youth, your comment, as well as some of the comments of others, are simply foolish. You provide one document that says the pope cannot make a mistake and I, as well as others I’m sure, will apologize for our ignorance. Until then, please stop making the Pope out to be a god. It only makes Catholics look like “papists,” which we’re not.

Provide Church documents. Until you do, your opinion is just that: an opinion, accepted by the majority (which is usually not a good sign).

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Being old doesn’t make you right. Look at the old traditionalists and the charismatic youth. Pride goeth before the fall. You’d do well to keep that in mind before you make your arrogant and uninformed remarks.

Well said.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I think there are Catholics on this site who refuse to agree to certain things he said about evolution for instance as too liberal for them. Also his ecumenism is offensive to some as too liberal. He seemed genuinely inamored of science.

I’d appreciate your explanation of how Vatican II has been misunderstood. Did JPII misuderstand it as well? I’d never heard this before. I’ll be interested in your proofs.

Pope Paul VI said it best here regarding VII:

Paul VI also stated that Vatican II was not infallible when he concluded it:

“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. …] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of* **pastoral ***charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m rather astonished at the arrogance of age. “I’m older therefore I’m right,” is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever heard.

**But no one has said that. And if that were the most pathetic thing you’ve ever heard, then you’ve only demonstrated that you haven’t lived long enough. **

Life offers many lessons in humility but some just don’t get it. Your criticism could be given a little merit if it was only the youth who pointed out inconsistancies of the Holy Father’s behavior. Since it’s not only the youth, your comment, as well as some of the comments of others, are simply foolish. You provide one document that says the pope cannot make a mistake and I, as well as others I’m sure, will apologize for our ignorance. Until then, please stop making the Pope out to be a god. It only makes Catholics look like “papists,” which we’re not. And no one has said any of these things EITHER, so your comments here are hardly germane.

Provide Church documents. Until you do, your opinion is just that: an opinion, accepted by the majority (which is usually not a good sign).

**The majority of the world thought John Paul II was too conservative. They may have felt an affection for him, but it was on the lines of an affection one might feel for a terribly conservative grandfather. He was constantly critiqued by the left for that and from the far right for being too liberal. **

 

[Steeltemplar]

Was John-Paul II liberal? I am quite certain that he was not. There has been other evidence here, so I will not repeat what has been said.

Here is my contribution: Many liberals disliked him and still do dislike him.

Yes, there are some liberals who try to claim he was “progressive” in his ideas.

However, by and large, the people prominent in liberalism were very much against John-Paul II and his ideas. If he were a liberal, for instance, would we have seen Sinead O’Connor tear his picture on camera? Probably not.

I recall reading the transcript of a talk given by a heterodox homosexual Priest. He spoke of John-Paul II with notable venom. His comments were such that I could not consider them to be unbiased.

So I do not think he was a liberal and, I suspect, most liberals also don’t think he was a liberal.

 

[dixieagle]

I’m rather astonished at the arrogance of age. “I’m older therefore I’m right,” is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever heard.
Life offers many lessons in humility but some just don’t get it. Your criticism could be given a little merit if it was only the youth who pointed out inconsistancies of the Holy Father’s behavior. Since it’s not only the youth, your comment, as well as some of the comments of others, are simply foolish. You provide one document that says the pope cannot make a mistake and I, as well as others I’m sure, will apologize for our ignorance. Until then, please stop making the Pope out to be a god. It only makes Catholics look like “papists,” which we’re not.

Provide Church documents. Until you do, your opinion is just that: an opinion, accepted by the majority (which is usually not a good sign).

To get back to what started this…I was reacting to your statement that “in some instances he (JPII) wasn’t a very good Catholic”, and nothing else. This is an astonishing pronouncement, no matter who is saying it and, to me, even moreso when coming from someone with limited life experience.

BTW…where did you get the notion that Catholics are not “papists”? The term, though usually derogatory, refers to followers of Roman Catholicism and supporters of the Pope (papacy), coined originally to differentiate, in an insulting manner, between Catholics and Protestants. It has nothing to do with “making the Pope out to be a god.” I’m a papist…

 

[latinmasslover]

To get back to what started this…I was reacting to your statement that “in some instances he (JPII) wasn’t a very good Catholic”, and nothing else. This is an astonishing pronouncement, no matter who is saying it and, to me, even moreso when coming from someone with limited life experience.

BTW…where did you get the notion that Catholics are not “papists”? The term, though usually derogatory, refers to followers of Roman Catholicism and supporters of the Pope (papacy), coined originally to differentiate, in an insulting manner, between Catholics and Protestants. It has nothing to do with “making the Pope out to be a god.” I’m a papist…

So John Paul II was, as far a Catholicism goes, perfect in every way? My life experience, or lack thereof, makes no difference in matters of truth. As I said above, it’s not only the youth who make these statements so that argument goes out the window. St. Peter was publicly rebuked, St. John wasn’t. The older was wrong, the younger wasn’t. just an example.

When I said “papist” I was referring to its negative association, as used by anti-Catholics to imply that we take the Pope over Jesus Christ. In that sense, I am not a papist. I am a Roman Catholic Christian and my loyalty lies with the Church and Her teachings, not the “good inspired feelings” of men. When a pope practices what canonized popes condemned I look into the matter. If he’s correct now, they were wrong then (in some matters). If that’s the case, no “traditionalist” can be condemned for holding a different view. Someone is obviously not correct. Pope SAINT Pius X, or Pope John Paul II? Pope SAINT Pius V, or Pope Paul VI? Vatican II doesn’t endorse condemnations so if one is faithful to Vatican II one cannot condemn a fellow Catholic who disagrees, esp. on noninfallible matters.

 

[latinmasslover]

But no one has said that. And if that were the most pathetic thing you’ve ever heard, then you’ve only demonstrated that you haven’t lived long enough.

And no one has said any of these things EITHER, so your comments here are hardly germane.

I should’ve said that’s the lamest justification I’ve ever heard, and believe it or not, I’ve heard a lot. Growing up around lawyers and paralegals, my siblings and I heard quite a bit. True, those things weren’t said outright, but they were said nonetheless. It’s the mentality behind the statement. I’m sure nobody here believes that the pope is a god, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s implied, in a manner of speaking. By saying he cannot make a mistake in matters of the Faith and Morals, or Catholic practice (aside from ex cathedra pronouncements) is giving him a power he doesn’t have. Vatican I defined papal infallibility, and anathemizes those who contradict it.

 

[chrisb]

I don’t believe Blessed Pope John Paul II (in blest memory) was ‘liberal’ but perhaps ‘Univeralist’ in the the Classic Christian sense (St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximos the Confessor).

Although I don’t hold “Universalist” views I recognize that several key Fathers have held such views without recrimination by the Church.