The secret letters of Pope John Paul II - BBC

[Lily_Bernans]

This is why I was asking about the definitions for “occasion of sin” and “causing scandal”–two phrases I have seen a lot on this forum.
Going out to many dinners, etc, with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are very attracted and physically tempted by when you and they are married, for example, puts you in an “occasion of sin”, right?
Or going to a same-sex wedding even if you do not agree with it causes “scandal”, yes? At least, this is what I read.

Does encouraging someone, as you say, mean someone is doing the above?

.

Here is a definition of “occasion of sin”:

“In Roman Catholic teaching, an occasion of sin is an external set of circumstances—whether of things or persons—which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.”

To me, a 30-plus year correspondence with someone who loves you romantically when you’ve promised to avoid such things does constitute an occasion of sin, on both sides. She was married and knew JP II was unavailable for marriage. However, not knowing the circumstances, none of us can really say if any occasion of sin existed or not.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I agree.
I want to know more about him and someone like M-Teresa…not just what he or others chose to show the public.
I think having a fuller picture of what they went thru, their struggles and loves, helps others. And helps all of us continue having a deeper understanding of human nature.

.

I do, too. You could get Mother Teresa’s book in which she details her struggles with faith.

Here it is:

amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Private-Writings-Calcutta/dp/0307589234/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455738329&sr=8-1&keywords=mother+teresa

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I guess not so private…since the woman obviously wanted them out there, or she wouldn’t have sold the letters and given permission for them to be published. And we might find out that JP-2 agreed for her to release them and gave his blessing on it. I’m curious if he did. Has anyone seen anything on that?
That would be very interesting if he did.

Lily…would you feel differently if so?

.

I don’t know if I would feel differently or not, DG. Probably not. The Vatican sources say he destroyed her letters to him after he responded to them. So I guess we’ll never know what she wrote.

 

[FollowChrist34]

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?

From the article:

His response to Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka’s declaration when he was a cardinal showed he could be every bit as unconventional in his private life. Far from ending the relationship, as a more prudent prelate might have done, he gave her one of his most treasured possessions - an item of devotional clothing known as a scapular.

He later told her that it allowed him to “accept and feel you everywhere in all kinds of situations, whether you are close, or far away”.

It also seems that she made a further declaration of her feelings for him while he was there, **because the letter he wrote to her afterwards suggests he was struggling to make sense of the relationship in Christian terms. **He tells her she is a gift from God, and goes on: "If I did not have this conviction, some moral certainty of Grace, and of acting in obedience to it, I would not dare act like this."

I am deducing from this and from what we know about the length and character of the relationship that there was likely a struggle on some level with elements of romantic feeling - I do not believe these feelings were acted upon in the conventional sense and I believe the true significance of their relationship was beyond that - she was ‘a gift from God’ to him. My suspicion is that the relationship rose above conventional romantic attachment for both of them.

 

[pepipop]

From the article:

I am deducing from this and from what we know about the length and character of the relationship that there was likely a struggle on some level with elements of romantic feeling - I do not believe these feelings were acted upon in the conventional sense and I believe the true significance of their relationship was beyond that - she was ‘a gift from God’ to him. My suspicion is that the relationship rose above conventional romantic attachment for both of them.

Why should that infer romanticism and/or the letters/friendship itself - it would hardly be a gift from God to a priest called to lifelong celibacy. It could mean numerous things and as a ‘gift from God’ to a Pope, that would not be attached to thoughts/feelings of romance.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

From the article:

I am deducing from this and from what we know about the length and character of the relationship that there was likely a struggle on some level with elements of romantic feeling - I do not believe these feelings were acted upon in the conventional sense and I believe the true significance of their relationship was beyond that - she was ‘a gift from God’ to him. My suspicion is that the relationship rose above conventional romantic attachment for both of them.

I don’t think anything was acted upon in the conventional sense, either.

I think it did rise above convention, at least for him, and given what he wrote, I don’t think he would have continued the relationship had he not risen above the romantic. Maybe it did rise above that on both sides. I do believe she declared her love for him, though I don’t believe he did for her. I believe that’s what caused the delay and his rising above, he could be a friend without loving her. Romantically, at least. I’m sure he loved her as a child of God. I think he loved everyone that way.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Awful thoughts?*
Lily didn’t express any “awful thoughts” about Pope JP.

.

Thank you for recognizing that! I actually love and revere him, believe he was one of the most sainted men in the 20th century.

Big hug to you for understanding!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I read it when it came out!

.

Great! I’ve not read it. No time yet. My reading list keeps getting more and more backed up.

 

[LongingSoul]

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

Yes, there is always a thorough investigation of every aspect of a persons life during the canonisation process. These letters would have been subjected to deep scrutiny by the Vatican committee and obviously found to be perfectly innocent and perhaps even relevant to the holiness of the saintly man. They have been in the public domain for a long time.

 

[LongingSoul]

He…destroyed them??
You mean…threw them out or, like, *burned *them or something?

Do the Vatican sources mention that it was his habit to destroy all his incoming letters after reading, or just hers?

I wonder if her kids have copies of everything. She might have made copies of her own letters before sending them, them–tho why would she have. I wish her children would say a little something about the letters and their relationship. But I think they are not commenting, right?

.

Being a faithful Catholic family it is likely that they aren’t into destroying the Church but gossip and innuendo.

 

[LongingSoul]

From the article:

I am deducing from this and from what we know about the length and character of the relationship that there was likely a struggle on some level with elements of romantic feeling - I do not believe these feelings were acted upon in the conventional sense and I believe the true significance of their relationship was beyond that - she was ‘a gift from God’ to him. My suspicion is that the relationship rose above conventional romantic attachment for both of them.

And adding to this, she is not up for canonisation and the tenor of her feelings is not relevant to the canonisation process of St JPII.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

He…destroyed them??
You mean…threw them out or, like, *burned *them or something?

Do the Vatican sources mention that it was his habit to destroy all his incoming letters after reading, or just hers?

I wonder if her kids have copies of everything. She might have made copies of her own letters before sending them, them–tho why would she have. I wish her children would say a little something about the letters and their relationship. But I think they are not commenting, right?

.

That’s what a Vatican spokesman said, that JP II destroyed her letters after replying to them. I read that she made copies of them and saved them, though. They also said they did not know if these letters were available for evaluation prior to JP II’s canonization. It makes sense that they would not be if he destroyed hers and she did not make her available. I don’t know for sure when she sold them to the library, but I think prior to his canonization. If she really loved him, I don’t think she would have sold them. It’s a betrayal of all he did for her.

I haven’t read that her children have said anything at all.

 

[LongingSoul]

For anyone like myself whose stomach is violently turned by the tenor of this thread… here is an article to give truth and balance.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/those-letters-between-john-paul-ii-and-a-woman-not-so-secret-actually-52016/

 

[Lily_Bernans]

He…destroyed them??
You mean…threw them out or, like, *burned *them or something?

Do the Vatican sources mention that it was his habit to destroy all his incoming letters after reading, or just hers?

I wonder if her kids have copies of everything. She might have made copies of her own letters before sending them, them–tho why would she have. I wish her children would say a little something about the letters and their relationship. But I think they are not commenting, right?

.

According to this article, she sold them in 2008, and they were not a part of the process of his canonization.

“The letters were part of a trove of documents Dr. Tymieniecka’s estate sold to the National Library of Poland in 2008. The BBC reported that the library had kept the letters out of public view, partly because of John Paul’s path to sainthood, which was fast-tracked by the church. But on Monday, a library official, Julia Konopka-Zolnierczuk, said the letters would be made public.”

Also, when reached by telephone, one of her children, a son, said something like, “I don’t know what to say to you.”

JP II said to her, “God gave you to me and made you my vocation.” Geez, I thought Christ was! The Church! The billion-plus Catholics! That’s the point for me.

And, the library says the letters will be made public. This article doesn’t mention when.

I still think it was wrong, wrong, wrong. There almost surely no physical relationship, but to keep them out of the canonization process, and to carry on a romantic affair, just wrong. I’m not judging the man, just the act. Maybe I feel so strongly because I have been a JP II apologist for years, and he’s been one of my primary role models.

nytimes.com/2016/02/16/world/europe/letters-from-pope-john-paul-ii-show-deep-friendship-with-woman.html?_r=0

 

[Brendan_64]

For anyone like myself whose stomach is violently turned by the tenor of this thread… here is an article to give truth and balance.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/those-letters-between-john-paul-ii-and-a-woman-not-so-secret-actually-52016/

Yes indeed. There seems to be a suggestion on this thread that there is somehow more to this story than has been made public.

Pope John Paul II had a very close, but purely platonic friendship with a woman who happened to be married, and he cared deeply for her, loving her as a very close friend. That is it, nothing more. The woman was not his ‘girlfriend’, she was just a friend, a very close friend, but just a friend.

I too find the tone of this thread quite unsavoury and seems to imply that somehow there was a ‘relationship’ that is being covered up.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yes indeed. There seems to be a suggestion on this thread that there is somehow more to this story than has been made public.

Pope John Paul II had a very close, but purely platonic friendship with a woman who happened to be married, and he cared deeply for her, loving her as a very close friend. That is it, nothing more. The woman was not his ‘girlfriend’, she was just a friend, a very close friend, but just a friend.

I too find the tone of this thread quite unsavoury and seems to imply that somehow there was a ‘relationship’ that is being covered up.

Well, neither one of you has to read it if you feel that strongly. I’ve been avoiding the political threads for the same reason. None of us is forced to read any thread. You are free to read or not read. I don’t see where anyone has said anything that isn’t in the letters, though. If there was something romantic, it’s because we read it in the excerpts of the letters. No one is making anything up.

For me, finding out that the man I considered the most saintly and holy of the 20th century was writing and receiving romantic letters for thirty-plus years, while exhorting priests to “stay away” from any such relationship and not even ride alone in cars with women makes me want to cry. I’m so disappointed. Just sick.

If you don’t see it was more than strictly platonic, you aren’t reading. And I do not mean sexual. I’ve always said I didn’t think it ever spilled over into that realm.

 

[LongingSoul]

I still think it was wrong, wrong, wrong. There almost surely no physical relationship, but to keep them out of the canonization process, and to carry on a romantic affair, just wrong. I’m not judging the man, just the act. Maybe I feel so strongly because I have been a JP II apologist for years, and he’s been one of my primary role models.

There is a saying in Australia about ‘white-anting’. It’s when a person claims loudly to be on a team as a loyal member but is actually boring little holes in the foundations of the house by spreading supposed ‘innocent’ speculation based on conspiracy theory and tabloid lies.

There are millions of us who have been and always will be avid apologists for the Saint who don’t do what you do. Don’t use loyalty as your excuse.* I’m* loyal hence I believe the Church rather than tabloid muck rakers.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yes indeed. There seems to be a suggestion on this thread that there is somehow more to this story than has been made public.

Pope John Paul II had a very close, but purely platonic friendship with a woman who happened to be married, and he cared deeply for her, loving her as a very close friend. That is it, nothing more. The woman was not his ‘girlfriend’, she was just a friend, a very close friend, but just a friend.

I too find the tone of this thread quite unsavoury and seems to imply that somehow there was a ‘relationship’ that is being covered up.

There’s no suggestion of anything, Brendan. What others and I have discussed has come directly from the letters themselves.

And now the library says they will be made public, so if all of them are, we will be able to read for ourselves and not have to depend on the BBC.

 

[Brendan_64]

Well, neither one of you has to read it if you feel that strongly. I’ve been avoiding the political threads for the same reason. None of us is forced to read any thread. You are free to read or not read.

And I am also entitled to comment on what I have read. St Pope John Paul was one of the greatest popes the Church has ever had and is a saint, and it seems that things are being implied on this thread that are quite unsavoury. I am entitled to comment on this.

 

[clem456]

Well, neither one of you has to read it if you feel that strongly. I’ve been avoiding the political threads for the same reason. None of us is forced to read any thread. You are free to read or not read. I don’t see where anyone has said anything that isn’t in the letters, though. If there was something romantic, it’s because we read it in the excerpts of the letters. No one is making anything up.

We are free to read etc…
We are not free to speculate at the expense of a person’s reputation.