When a pope makes mistakes ...

[Tabby]

… How do you think Catholics should respond? For example, I very much love and admire John Paul II, but I think it is possible he made prudential errors. I won’t go into specific actions that concerned me because that is outside of the focus of this thread, and I would appreciate it if those who respond to this thread also refrain from rehashing litanies of alleged papal mistakes.

My question is this: How do we as Catholics respond to mistakes a pope might make (any pope, not just JPII)?

Do we grumble privately but refrain from airing our concerns publicly to avoid making the Church look bad to non-Catholics and non-Christians? Do we try to understand why the pope did what he did, hoping that there is some logical reason for the action that is presently not on our own radar? Do we publicly challenge such actions with articles and books that may make us feel better but don’t really change anything and may cause scandal?

What do you think?

 

[Genesis315]

If you know the pope personally and can respectfully address the concern in a manner proper to your state, then do so.

Unless you can do that, as you pointed out, the other methods amount to nothing more than backbiting or detraction–especially after the person’s death.

Since a higher spiritual authority can only be judged by a superior, and the highest can only be judged by God, bring your grievances to His court. Pray, pray, and pray and do many penances.

I highly recommend St. Catherine of Siena’s Dialogue. It provides the proper response to scandalous prelates (I am not accusing anyone in particular here). You have to get the unabridged version because the abridged versions for some reason leave those parts out (there are abridged versions online; Paulist Press’ Classics of Western Spirituality puts out the unabridged).

We should neither grumble publicly nor privately, but rather pray with holy compassion. As for seeking to understand, we should definitely do so. Here is the advice given in the Dialogue (speaking generally of sinners here):
The Dialogue:

Another thing is necessary for you to arrive at this union and purity, namely, that you should never judge the will of man in anything that you may see done or said by any creature whatsoever, either to yourself or to others. My will alone should you consider, both in them and in yourself. And, if you should see evident sins or defects, draw out of those thorns the rose, that is to say, offer them to Me, with holy compassion. In the case of injuries done to yourself, judge that My will permits this in order to prove virtue in yourself, and in My other servants, esteeming that he who acts thus does so as the instrument of My will; perceiving, moreover, that such apparent sinners may frequently have a good intention, for no one can judge the secrets of the heart of man. That which you do not see you should not judge in your mind, even though it may externally be open mortal sin, seeing nothing in others, but My will, not in order to judge, but, as has been said, with holy compassion. In this way you will arrive at perfect purity, because acting thus, your mind will not be scandalized, either in Me or in your neighbor. Otherwise you fall into contempt of your neighbor, if you judge his evil will towards you, instead of My will acting in him. Such contempt and scandal separates the soul from Me, and prevents perfection, and, in some cases, deprives a man of grace, more or less according to the gravity of his contempt, and the hatred which his judgment has conceived against his neighbor.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I would not express myself to another about the disagreement unless in a forum dedicated to that sort of discussion, specifically asked by someone, (and here I would determine whether the forum was proper to give an open response), or else I felt the need that someone was being led astray by attributing too much authority to the pope’s action (in which case I might not even need to say I think he was wrong, although I might, rather I would only need to remind the person that “the pope did X” does not equal “the Church teaches X/Y/Z.”

 

[bear06]

If you have some way of giving (name removed by moderator)ut to the Holy Father then great. If not, then it’s really just spitting in the wind. Just like you’ve really already pointed out, we need to think about what the outcome of our comments will be. For example, if we feel that kissing the Koran is scandalous, what can we hope from bringing this up over and over again.

Now, I have direct access to my bishop. Our area has been able to evoke change by following canon 212. That said, we were able to get to the Holy Father with our concerns and he did something for us. If we rant and rave just to rant and rave, what’s the outcome going to be. If we are not in a position to get Rome, the ones who can truly make the changes, then what’s the point?

Most Popes have made mistakes at one point or another. There’s a difference in making a mistake against canon law, a truth of the Church, etc. and committing an act that really isn’t sinful but might be perceived wrong There’s also a heavier burden on the popes of the internet era. Never in the history of the Church has an action by the Pope been able to be seen by the world. Quite frankly, I think it rather unwise to criticize everything we see as the worst thing ever because we’ll never know for sure how many other Popes have done something similar. They simply didn’t have the burden of the modern popes. In short, how bad do we want to make our popes look.

Take again the Koran incident. I would have never known about it save for radical Traditionalist websites. And, I found out about it years after it happened. How does this help the Church?

 

[bpbasilphx]

The doctrine of papal infallibility does NOT mean that the pope might not make prudential or pastoral errors in judgement.

The Koran kissing incident is obviously a case of simply trying to be polite to the other people, not that he was expressing any particular idea about the Koran.

 

[bear06]

The doctrine of papal infallibility does NOT mean that the pope might not make prudential or pastoral errors in judgement.

The Koran kissing incident is obviously a case of simply trying to be polite to the other people, not that he was expressing any particular idea about the Koran.

I’d agree but since so many bring it up, it’s a good example.

 

[Walking_Home]

The doctrine of papal infallibility does NOT mean that the pope might not make prudential or pastoral errors in judgement.

The Koran kissing incident is obviously a case of simply trying to be polite to the other people, not that he was expressing any particular idea about the Koran.

---

Our late Pope could have been polite by some other manner—and NOT by kissing a false gospel.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Our late Pope could have been polite by some other manner—and NOT by kissing a false gospel.

As has been mentioned ad nauseum, he was informed that that was how one received a gift in that culture.

 

[lucybeebee]

I’ve often thought about how the Internet has changed the way we look at the pope. Prior to about the mid to late 19th century most Catholics didn’t even know what the Holy Father looked like. Today, laypeople get into online debates about the significance that the brand of shoe that the pope happens to be wearing at any given time. The power of the media means that the Holy Father (whomever it is) is being observed in a way that he wasn’t for much of the papacy. I wonder if previous pope made mistakes of the type that are mentioned (e.g., questionable episcopal appointments, vague doctrinal statements, odd gestures to non-Catholics), but we just don’t know about them because there weren’t bloggers, hordes of cameramen, or 24-hour news?

 

[Walking_Home]

As has been mentioned ad nauseum, he was informed that that was how one received a gift in that culture.

---

One can excuse until blue in the face—yet a false gospel does not stop being a false gospel.

 

[Kristen]

Quote: My question is this: How do we as Catholics who clearly see ourselves as “more Catholic than the pope” respond to mistakes a pope might make (any pope, not just JPII)?
Do we commit the sin of detraction by exposing another’s “fault” without good reason, while at the same time scandalizing any Catholic or non-Catholic listener? Do we hold fast to our own superior understanding of the Faith and our own apostolic judgment, substituting it for that of Christ’s Vicar? Do we make fools of ourselves and try to make Our Holy Father appear a doddering old fool to the world, too?

I hope from this tongue-in-cheek reply that my disdain for this whole topic is evident. When one asks such a question, does s/he realize how astoundingly presumptuous it sounds to the average faithful Catholic reading it?! Let us faithfully defer to Christ’s Vicar, because of His Office and the graces granted to him, and because of his depth of experience!

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:My question is this: How do we as Catholics who clearly see ourselves as “more Catholic than the pope” respond to mistakes a pope might make (any pope, not just JPII)?
Do we commit the sin of detraction by exposing another’s “fault” without good reason, while at the same time scandalizing any Catholic or non-Catholic listener? Do we hold fast to our own superior understanding of the Faith and our own apostolic judgment, substituting it for that of Christ’s Vicar? Do we make fools of ourselves and try to make Our Holy Father appear a doddering old fool to the world, too?

I hope from this tongue-in-cheek reply that my disdain for this whole topic is evident. When one asks such a question, does s/he realize how astoundingly presumptuous it sounds to the average faithful Catholic reading it?! Let us faithfully defer to Christ’s Vicar, because of His Office and the graces granted to him, and because of his depth of experience!

---

Discussing the actions of our clergy —even our Pope—does not make one --“more Catholic than the Pope”. Since the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church – his actions have ramifications thru out the Church----affect each and every one of us–and to some extent–affect all christianity. The Pope is in the public eye—so it is not “detraction” to discuss actions which affect the Church and the people in it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

One can excuse until blue in the face—yet a false gospel does not stop being a false gospel.

I’m not saying it was a great idea and I’m not saying it’s not a false gospel. I’m saying that we should (from the Catechism) “**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.” **Do you have firm evidence that Pope John Paul apostacized from the faith and became a Moslem?

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m not saying it was a great idea and I’m not saying it’s not a false gospel. I’m saying that we should (from the Catechism) “**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.” **Do you have firm evidence that Pope John Paul apostacized from the faith and became a Moslem?

---

Now JKirkLVNV—where did I say JPII turned apostate. I just don’t try to make excuses for the kissing of a false gospel.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Now JKirkLVNV—where did I say JPII turned apostate. I just don’t try to make excuses for the kissing of a false gospel.

I gave an explanation, not an excuse. I can only think of two reasons he might do it:

A) He was receiving the gift the way locals receive gifts.

B) He turned Moslem.

Hence the question.

 

[Walking_Home]

I gave an explanation, not an excuse. I can only think of two reasons he might do it:

A) He was receiving the gift the way locals receive gifts.

B) He turned Moslem.

Hence the question.

---

You explanation A----has the flavor of an excuse.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

You explanation A----has the flavor of an excuse.

But which is true? See, nobody’s saying that if A is the reason, it was a FANTASTIC idea. Nobody at all. It simply goes back to the quote I posted from the catechism. Prudentially, I think it was a stumble. Not enough to dump all over him forever and I hope I live to see the day when he is canonized.

 

[Genesis315]

The question in the OP asks what the proper response is–it does not ask us to keep dredging up over and over and over again the same apparent missteps–although, maybe that is what some people think the proper response is. To such individuals, I suggest a study of the lives of the saints. See how many continually dredge up the sexual indiscretions of this or that “bad” pope in their letters over and over and over again, especially after the death of that pope. The fact is, none do. You know who does? Protestant controversialists and polemicists.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
You explanation A----has the flavor of an excuse.

But which is true? See, nobody’s saying that if A is the reason, it was a FANTASTIC idea. Nobody at all. It simply goes back to the quote I posted from the catechism. Prudentially, I think it was a stumble. Not enough to dump all over him forever and I hope I live to see the day when he is canonized.

---

The reason really makes no difference—it is the act. The act of kissing a false gospel.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

The reason really makes no difference—it is the act. The act of kissing a false gospel.

It goes directly to reason and motive. He shouldn’t have done it, IMHO, but reason really does make a difference when we are assessing anyone’s behavior in any given incident.