The secret letters of Pope John Paul II - BBC

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t think so, rather I think that’s the opposite of what we are called to. We can’t reject any part of the Body of Christ. In Theology of the Body I think the pope puts to rest the idea that being holy means giving up the occasional company of the opposite sex.

Exactly. I also think we are all very quick to view this sexually (and I am not denying that element), but the sexes support each other in many ways - they balance, compliment each other - emotionally, psychologically, different intellectual perspectives, etc., along with the physical attraction. (and of course, we cannot deny the spatting, tension element of the equation either )

As long as you are human, this will be a part of your life. To me, what is so beautiful about this is the fact that he balanced it - didn’t kill the relationship as part of his humanity, but just took the good from it, and stayed true as a devoted man of God.

I am inspired by it, not offended. We can’t put our priests or nuns in cages. That is where the trouble begins, and flourishes - not with this sort of thing.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Love means many different things. Loving someone is not morally wrong. There is not an automatic path that goes:
love → sexual temptation → sexual relationship

No one ever said anything about it being sexual. I don’t know anyone who thinks it was sexual. But even JP II wrote in the Theology of the Body that loving what is prohibited is wrongly ordered.

In the Theology of the Body, JP II teaches that our priests, monks, and nuns serve an eschatological function by giving himself or herself completely to the Church in the hope that Christ will give himself in the full truth of eternal life. It’s quoted in Lowery’s book.

The point is, the library should make all the letters available or non-Catholics will continue to attack the Catholic Church as they’ve already begun to over this.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Pierre Teilard de Chardin also had close women friends - I am a big admirer of him too. He also was a great man - of God. I am sure we could dig up a nun or two who returned the favor. I question the ‘horror of the opposite sex’ ‘completely cut off’ approach to celibacy - personally I think that is what makes it such a difficult, alienating, surreal experience. This is not about pure physical sexuality; it is more nuanced than that. Give these people some credit.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Pierre Teilard de Chardin also had close women friends - I am a big admirer of him too. He also was a great man - of God. I am sure we could dig up a nun or two who returned the favor. I question the ‘horror of the opposite sex’ ‘completely cut off’ approach to celibacy - personally I think that is what makes it such a difficult, alienating, surreal experience. This is not about pure physical sexuality; it is more nuanced than that. Give these people some credit.

What people? I don’t know any nun, and I grew up in a cloister with Carmelites, or any priest who would encourage a relationship if the other person said he or she was “in love” with them. They would be gentle about it, but they would cut it off then and there, for good.

No one has even remotely suggested that nuns and priests shouldn’t have platonic, less “intense” friendly-only relationships. I have them myself. One of my friends is author Michael Gaitley, and I do believe he would cut off our correspondence and meetings if I ever told him I was “in love” with him!

 

[Brendan_64]

No one ever said anything about it being sexual. I don’t know anyone who thinks it was sexual. But even JP II wrote in the Theology of the Body that loving what is prohibited is wrongly ordered.

But it is not prohibited to love a married woman. My sisters are married, I love them.

To love in a chaste fashion without sexual desire is not prohibited. To love one’s friends, be they male or female is not prohibited or wrongly ordered. That also includes loving friends who are married. If their is no sexual attraction involved, then there is no occasion to sin.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But it is not prohibited to love a married woman. My sisters are married, I love them.

To love in a chaste fashion without sexual desire is not prohibited. To love one’s friends, be they male or female is not prohibited or wrongly ordered. That also includes loving friends who are married. If their is no sexual attraction involved, then there is no occasion to sin.

That’s true, but I assume you know the wording in the letters, and those were just the ones people were allowed to see.

My sisters are married, and I love their husbands, but I would never write them an “intense” letter with romantic overtones.

A romantic thought that flits into one’s mind is not wrongly ordered. One that is acted upon, even in word, is. That’s why we ask God to forgive us for our sins in thought, word, and deed.

 

[Brendan_64]

That’s true, but I assume you know the wording in the letters, and those were just the ones people were allowed to see.

Your statement implies that the other letters contain some sort of scandalous revelations. There is no evidence that this is the case.

 

[FollowChrist34]

What people? I don’t know any nun, and I grew up in a cloister with Carmelites, or any priest who would encourage a relationship if the other person said he or she was “in love” with them. They would be gentle about it, but they would cut it off then and there, for good.

No one has even remotely suggested that nuns and priests shouldn’t have platonic, less “intense” friendly-only relationships. I have them myself. One of my friends is author Michael Gaitley, and I do believe he would cut off our correspondence and meetings if I ever told him I was “in love” with him!

My guess is he respected, understood and appreciated her perhaps more than we do - for good reason; the connection - though likely romantic in part - was essentially a deep one of shared experiences, thoughts, feelings, not just sexual attraction. (as opposed to what you and I see when we look at them; i.e., he saw beyond the ‘hussy’ we see)

Based on the evidence that the relationship was never illicit or in any way inappropriate, I trust his judgment - how he handled and balanced it with his life in the Church. In all probability the relationship served to nurture and stabilize him, not send him off the rails. They likely saw eye to eye, identified with each other, shared deep parts of their lives. He was very close to Mother Teresa too, right - they embraced frequently. I am sure Mother Teresa loved him and vice versa. Remember we do see God in others, right? We don’t objectify them.

 

[clem456]

Lily_Bernans:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[clem456]

giant snip

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[FollowChrist34]

clem456:
Thanks clem456 - well posted.

To my mind, this ‘furor’ speaks more to our deficiencies and limitations than his - in how we engage others in our life, sexual or otherwise.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

My guess is he respected, understood and appreciated her perhaps more than we do - for good reason; the connection - though likely romantic in part - was essentially a deep one of shared experiences, thoughts, feelings, not just sexual attraction. (as opposed to what you and I see when we look at them; i.e., he saw beyond the ‘hussy’ we see)

Based on the evidence that the relationship was never illicit or in any way inappropriate, I trust his judgment - how he handled and balanced it with his life in the Church. In all probability the relationship served to nurture and stabilize him, not send him off the rails. They likely saw eye to eye, identified with each other, shared deep parts of their lives. He was very close to Mother Teresa too, right - they embraced frequently. I am sure Mother Teresa loved him and vice versa. Remember we do see God in others, right? We don’t objectify them.

I don’t know where you get the idea that I see something sexual in them. I don’t. In fact, I see him trying to guide her away from the sexual. I’ve said literally about twenty times now I see nothing sexual in them on his part. What he repeats of what she said is different and far more romantic. If our priests are supposed to cut off anything like that, and they are, I think our Holy Father should.

I know of other women who were his friends and correspondents, but they were platonic. They did not travel with him, camp with him, ski with him, vacation with him, etc. I see those relationships as healthy. I think JP II was trying, out of compassion, to help someone who was suffering because of her love for him, but I do question his method. It kept her tied to him instead of setting her as free as she could be.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

clem456:
If that applies here, Clem, it also applies to Hillary Rodham Clinton. One can’t pick and choose who they will be charitable toward based on their liking or disliking of that person.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thanks clem456 - well posted.

To my mind, this ‘furor’ speaks more to our deficiencies and limitations than his - in how we engage others in our life, sexual or otherwise.

For me, it speaks to what I’ve learned from JP II’s teachings. And again, I see nothing sexual in what he wrote her.

The library could put the whole thing to rest by releasing all the letters. Why are they keeping some of them secret? To deliberately create a furor? A further split between Catholics and non-Catholics? Makes one wonder.

 

[Brendan_64]

My guess is he respected, understood and appreciated her perhaps more than we do - for good reason; the connection - though likely romantic in part - was essentially a deep one of shared experiences, thoughts, feelings, not just sexual attraction.

You say “not just sexual attraction” rather than “not sexual attraction”. Are you implying that sexual attraction was part of this relationship? On what do you base this?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t know where you get the idea that I see something sexual in them. I don’t. In fact, I see him trying to guide her away from the sexual. I’ve said literally about twenty times now I see nothing sexual in them on his part. What he repeats of what she said is different and far more romantic. If our priests are supposed to cut off anything like that, and they are, I think our Holy Father should.

I know of other women who were his friends and correspondents, but they were platonic. They did not travel with him, camp with him, ski with him, vacation with him, etc. I see those relationships as healthy. I think JP II was trying, out of compassion, to help someone who was suffering because of her love for him, but I do question his method. It kept her tied to him instead of setting her as free as she could be.

All I mean when I use the word sexual is opposite sex physical attraction, connection. A romantic attachment. I don’t deny the probability that this existed here; I think trying to do that is silly; the key is he handled it honorably and in accordance with his life in Christ, commitment to the Church. He loved her beyond romantic, right? I like the fact he didn’t just push her away based on a dismissal of her ‘dangerous lust’ - he valued and understood the whole thing far beyond that. He had more empathy, decency than that; he was incapable of belittling what this relationship meant to him.

Besides that I feel like we don’t know any of this for sure - it is not much more than gossip - as such, this is my last post; I withdraw and leave him in peace - on high, in the clouds, with his God.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

All I mean when I use the word sexual is opposite sex physical attraction, connection. A romantic attachment. I don’t deny the probability that this existed here; I think trying to do that is silly; the key is he handled it honorably and in accordance with his life in Christ, commitment to the Church. He loved her beyond romantic, right? I like the fact he didn’t just push her away based on a dismissal of her ‘dangerous lust’ - he valued and understood the whole thing far beyond that. He more empathy, decency than that; he was incapable of belittling what it meant to him.

Besides that I feel like we don’t know any of this for sure - it is not much more than gossip - as such, this is my last post; I withdraw and leave him in peace - on high, in the clouds, with his God.

I think a romantic attraction certainly existed on her part. I’m not so sure about his. JP II wrote:

"Reflecting on the importance of priestly celibacy, Pope John Paul II once wrote that it expressed “the church’s will” that “the church, as the spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ … loved her”.

That excludes any romantic feelings for women. It’s not that romantic feelings might have sprung up that bothers me, but that a nearly 40-year correspondence nourished them. Any priest who finds himself romantically attracted to a woman needs to gently put that woman out of his life. No exceptions. Platonic friendships are fine. If romance enters, they are not.

 

[clem456]

If that applies here, Clem, it also applies to Hillary Rodham Clinton. One can’t pick and choose who they will be charitable toward based on their liking or disliking of that person.

No comment on HC, I don’t know much about national politics, don’t know her personally, haven’t seen the records. NO COMMENT

Now, I could go on speculating about her character. Maybe I should do that. Confession is this evening after all and a little character detraction would be soooo satisfying, and I can cough it up to my priest.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

No comment on HC, I don’t know much about national politics, don’t know her personally, haven’t seen the records. NO COMMENT

Now, I could go on speculating about her character. Maybe I should do that. Confession is this evening after all and a little character detraction would be soooo satisfying, and I can cough it up to my priest.

No one’s trying to detract from his character. I’ve said repeatedly that I love him, revere him, believe if anyone should be a saint, it should be him. I just think maybe he didn’t understand that keeping up the correspondence was detrimental to the woman. He was honest with her and told her he could find no answer to her declarations.

As a lot of people have said, “Well, he was human.” So he could have had a slip in judgment.i I’m not as holy as JP II, so I’ve had many slips in judgment. I never said I loved him any less or thought any less of him. I don’t. His life had to be incredibly difficult. I don’t buy lonely, but incredibly difficult. I would be a hypocrite of the highest order if I held this one little thing against him, and I’m not a hypocrite, and I don’t. Can we just leave it at that? I think he was a great man, a holy man, the defining figure of the 20th century. I guess that’s why I care so much.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In this case, the “I belong to you” wasn’t used as a letter ending.
And I dunno about you, but I would use “yours truly” etc for letters to business associates and even strangers…but I can’t imagine writing “I belong to you”–at least with how it means in the English translation–to someone unless it was to a person I loved beyond everyone else.
Is that the kind of thing you yourself write every day? I don’t know if that’s a translation of something more benign in Polish. Have you checked?

fyi, I didn’t say it was “romantic”…just “intense.”

But…I do think it’s romantic. And that word doesn’t necessarily mean sexual or sensual.
As someone else said earlier, he seems to have a poetic nature.

.

I think she wrote “I belong to you” to him after the Vermont trip. She wrote him three letters, he says so in his reply to her, before he even replied, he states that, too, and he says the delay was caused because he had no answer to what she told him.

He wrote poetry, beautiful poetry, so he had to have a poetic soul. And he had a deep connection to nature.