Popes of the 20th Century: Paul VI

God bless Paul VI. He dispensed me from celibacy and the obligation of the Divine Office....but he refused to lable such as laicization. Once a priest always a priest. There are 40,000 as such who would be back at the altar tomorrow except for celibacy. I recall nine Popes were married and three popes were sons of Popes. Such a waste of talent

It appears that by yielding to those who desire the extraordinary form, Pius V / John xxiii Missal, the Archbishops of Rome, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have allowed a grounds for the re-introduction of other more ancient rites, like the Celtic Rite(s).

I want to be canonized after my death or even before. Do I have to be conservative? If I do need to be conservative then conserve me in watever form for a later date when liberalism is in the church. If never in the church then let me rot.

I think you have done a good job, Fr. McBrien, in delineating the contrasting elements of Pope Paul VI's personality. I hope that history affirms that the Holy Spirit was indeed at the Council, and that we continue to move forward in the development of theology and dogma in the Church. Politics is the name of the game, and the goal of Politics is what is "possible." I think that Pope Paul VI achieved what was possible without schism. However, down the line, some divisions within the Church will nevertheless occur as we strive to be true to the gospel imperative of proclaiming the good news of reconciliation to the world.

I have not read this, but, the very fact that it starts with saying that people consider JPII the greatest pope of all time turned me off. He has turned the church backwards and Benedict XVI is continuing the backward motion

I believe that Humanae Vitae was the low point of the 20th Century in our Church's history. He caved in to a small minority out of fear that papal authority would be comprimised..."Not on my watch..."
JR

What wonderful and succinct article! Thank you Father

I believe that Pope Paul VI will be judged more accurately by future historians, and will be given the credit that is his due. After all, even if all he had done was to produce Humanae Vitae in the face of the great error of his own Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, his papacy could have been viewed as a success. Fr. McBrien correctly points out that Paul VI provided the '"Explanatory Note" to be appended to the third chapter of the council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (also known by its Latin title, Lumen gentium).' But reading about the mechanics and development of the Council, one finds that there were many such additions and corrections by this pope (to the extreme dismay of the liberal European bishops) that ultimately kept Vatican II from becoming an even bigger disaster than it has proven to be. Also, and maybe even more importantly, an argument might be made that Paul VI laid much of the foundation upon which John Paul the Great and Benedict (the Greater) have been able to bring about the reforms that will nullify the satanic effect of a failed, pastoral Council which came close to ruining the Church.

Richard Mc Brien has once again offered us honest insights into the Papacy of Paul VI. Yes, Pope Paul would be clearly appalled by John Paul II and Benedict's approval of two liturgical rites. He would no doubt see all of these developments as a rejection of the true spirit of reform and renewal that was Vatican II. There has always been a virulent right wing block in the Catholic Church and they have always threatened schism as a sort of tool of blackmail. We must always remember their failed attempts to thwart every major reform of the Second Council. Fortunately, the pendulum is just starting to swing back toward the middle and the right wingers within the Catholic Church are about to become more desperate and contemptible if they do not get their way. This is when they are most dangerous not only to the Catholic Church but to the world at large. This is also when they show their true colors.

If Paul VI would have been appalled that his successors granted greater permission for the older form of the Roman Rite, I think it is equally true that John XXIII would have been appalled by the changes that Paul VI actually made to the liturgy.

The last sentence of this column reads: "Paul VI would have been appalled by John Paul II’s and Benedict XVI’s approval of two separate liturgical rites in the Roman Catholic Church."

There is one rite in Roman Catholicism, the Roman rite. This one rite, however, has two forms, the ordinary form and the extraordinary form. Surely Fr. McBrien, who I am a fan of, knows this.

A vocal minority of practicing Catholics desire access to the Tridentine Mass. Why deny them that access? Liturgical diversity is HEALTHY for the Church. The People of God are not called to a rigid, stifling uniformity, either in liturgy or in other such matters. If some Catholics do not find that their spiritual needs are met by the Novus Ordo, but are met by the Mass of Pius V, it seems sensible that Rome would allow them the option of going to their preferred Mass. Moderate and liberal Catholics needn't attend the Tridentine Mass if they, like I, prefer the Novus Ordo, but they should not insist that their personal liturgical preferences be enforced on all.

I am glad to see that Fr. McBrien has given Paul VI a reasonable, mostly balanced evaluation, rather than lazily reducing his entire pontificate to "Humanae Vitae" (as many Catholics on both sides do). For those of you who are interested in finding out more about the life and person of Paul VI, I recommend the Italian miniseries "Paul VI: The Pope in the Tempest", recently made available to US audiences by Ignatius Press.

As a "conservative" Catholic (that label is unnecessary, one is either Catholic or not, but since Father McBrien used it, I will as well), I do not "revile" the memory of Pope Paul VI. Indeed, he was one of very few people who recognized the danger to the Church posed by the hijacking of Vatican II (it was he, after all, who famously said "the smoke of Satan has entered the sancturary"). Further, Pope Paul VI had the tenacity, strength and courage to oppose the progressive voices who wanted him to alter the Church's consistent teaching on artificial birth control. (And, Father McBrien, just because people refuse to follow a teaching does not weaken or undermine that teaching, or cause the teaching authority to "collapse", as you erroneously suggest. The teaching stands, and those who fail to follow it engage in something called "sin". I'm sure, somewhere along the lines, you've heard of that term.)

Pope Paul VI did have his doubts and he was weak in the implementation of Vatican II, allowing the more progressive radicals among the College, the bishops, and the clergy and laity, to take far too much control over said implementation. This resulted in the perversion of the Council's mission: from being a council that sought to revise the manner in which doctrine is taught, it became a beacon allowing those who doubted or disagreed with the Church's teaching to openly dissent from it! That was never what was intended by either Blessed John XXIII or Pope Paul VI.

Pope Paul was like most of us, a human being with his own foibles, strengths and weaknesses. He did, I believe, the very best he could given the set of circumstanes he was handed upon his election (a Council he opposed calling; the coming sexual revolution, leading to the wholesale degredation of the gift of sexuality; wars and upheaval at home and abroad; the Cold War; and a radical progressive front in the Church devious enough to stop at nothing to get what they wanted).

Finally, just one more clarification: Pope John Paul the Great was not my favorite pope of all time. That would be Blessed Pope Pius IX (thought Saints Pius V and Pius X are right up there as well!).

Pope Paul VI greatest contribution to the Church was his promulgation of the document "Dignitatis Humanae". This document was the Magba Carta of Vatican. What it states is that no hierarch, no governor, no state, no legislative body, no king, no ruler may intrude on the indiviual's right to exercise freedom of conscience. This right is unalienable, it may neither be waived nor transferred to another. Dignitatis Humanae. was largely written by John Courtney Murray. S.J. This effort, alone, redeemed Paul VI's

"Paul VI would have been appalled by John Paul II’s and Benedict XVI’s approval of two separate liturgical rites in the Roman Catholic Church."

The Ambrosian Rite is a liturgical rite that's more or less under the nose of Rome (or above, if you prefer). It's a distinct rite within the western church that I'm sure a renowned ecclesiologist such as yourself is quite aware of. Never mind the various eastern liturgical rites that I'm sure no one here needs to make a case for.

But why leave an unqualified dangling statement such as the above if you didn't already have an ax to grind. Can't wait to see the entries on John Paul II and Benedict.

Any analysis of the Pauline pontificate must also mention the well-balanced encyclical Populorum Progressio (1967) on development and peace, which anniversary is always celebrated by his successors. Other encyclicals were indeed issued after 1968, and they brought in modest advances. These include Octagesima Adveniens with its further development of social teaching, and Evangelii Nuntiandi with its early promotion of evangelization. We should also not forget that Abp. Jadot was appointed nuncio to the United States during these years, and he was a key figure in the appointment of those bishops whom Fr. McBrien has celebrated in his recent columns.

This comment circulated during the time of Paul the VI. --"Pius XI wasn't a saint and knew it. Pius XII thought he a saint and wasn't. John XXIII was a saint and didn't know it. And Paul VI couldn't make up his mind."

Father O'Brien's last few articles about the Popes of the 20th Century have been most informative. During my life time I remained hopeful as each new Pope was elected, especially with the election of Pope JPII. I thought his experience living under communism and not being Italian would bring some new thinking, but sadly that would not be the case. My disappointed however, started with Pope Paul VI's decision about birth control. I'm looking forward to Fr. O'Brien's commentary on Pope John Paul II's papacy next week because his papacy is the one that troubled me the most and made it very difficult for me to remain hopeful. Pope Paul VI may have been a doubter, but to learn that Pope PJ II was always certain that he was right adds to my concerns of just what kind of personality Pope JPII was.

Paul VI was certainly controversial. However, let us remember his trips to the United Nations and to Jerusalem/Holy Land. Certainly paved the way for John Paul II Frequent Flyer program!

Fr. McBrien.

Excellent and balanced evaluation of Pope Paul VI. I guess he had human frailty in some areas, like all of us.

In the meantime, could someone please mention in a response to this article where a copy of the ancient Celtic rite (translated from Gaelic into English or French, which I would be able to read) could be obtained? I have been searching for it for years. Most sincere thanks.

he also sold off the papal tiara and gave the money to the poor

and wrote the best bumper sticker of all time

if you want peace work for justice

liberation

I would like Fr McBrien to comment on the "validity" or "invalidity" of the present papacy, that is, in view of the "loading of the episcopal dice" by the selective appointments of John Paul II, in view of the election of Benedict XVI by pre-prejudiced electors (Tridentine revisionists), and in view of the utter papal (episcopal) disregard for the sensus fidelium. If all the above points are wrong as represented here they should be exposed for their error.

Such reflection is wholesome and necessary for the good of the Church and of the people, even if politically risky. Surely, "truth" matters, especially in these times of troubling within the Church and under the urgent circumstances of cultural tumult. Jesus didn't hold back in speaking truth to officialdom of his time.

I think Paul VI did the best job he could under the circumstances. The real problem is the Vatican Council II itself. Personally, since it was a pastoral council not a doctrinal one, I think it should be annulled. The whole nonsense with collegiality in an ostensibly dogamtic document shows it is a farce. Collegiality is a heresy on its face! Why the ambiguity? Why not have documents with crystal clarity? The Pope is the supreme ruler of the Church - Defide. Look it up in the book of Catholic dogma!

Pope Paul VI was the worst.Happily some of his awful changes are being flushed down the bowl.Long live Pope Benedict XVI!

The Catholic Church will indeed change their teaching on BIRTH CONTROL. It has to or it will be one more nail in the coffin for the institutional Catholic Church. Paul VI made a huge mistake when he did not reform the Church's teaching on birth control. This was a fatal error and we are paying a heavy price for it as the world is so over populated that the next generations may not even survive. All popes are very human. Many are great, such as Blessed John XXIII. The right wing elements are increasing the speed of the decay of the imperial model of Catholicism. This model will not survive the next decade. The time for a Vatican III is just about at hand and I have no doubt that major changes and reforms that were not carried out after Vatican II, will be implemented. I see far right elements leaving to form their own "true" Church such as what happened in parts of France after Vatican II. I know we will see married priests, bishops and popes during this century. A return to the pattern of the first thousand years of the Catholic Church. I also believe we will see women priests and bishops and even a woman Bishop of Rome. It will happen. It must happen.

I an confident that the papcy, as we know it, is definitely not what Jesus intended. Our RC Church needs a thorough pruning. I suspect our present woes may just be an expression of judgement upon us.

Paul VI can be remembered for many ground-breaking efforts to open up the Church to the real world and the world to the real Church, and I think history can eventually judge him on that basis, but for the largest black mark on his record when he failed to heed the call.

The only way such a positive judgement of history can result is for enough Catholics to demand publicly that the Roman See admit that it is in error and to prove it is sincere by rescinding Humanae Vitae, the root of evil of our time which was the initial blow reversing the Church's modern efforts to minister to today's people of God. That would be a start to calling many former Catholics, perhaps even myself, back to the Church.

In April 1976, after Pope Paul VI had condemned homosexuality in a homily, French author Roger Peyrefitte accused him of being a closet homosexual.

In an interview with the Italian magazine Tempo, Peyrefitte, himself gay, a homosexual alleged that the Pontiff’s words were hypocritical.

Pope Paul VI took the unusual step of issuing a denial in a public speech from the balcony of St. Peters.

He called it "a horrible and slanderous insinuation".

Then he implored catholics to "pray for our humble person, who has been made the target of scorn, by certain press lacking dutiful regard for honesty and truth."

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/08/arts/roger-peyrefitte-french-writer-di...

Surely, there is no fundamental contradiction between the Montini/Ratzinger papacies. Benedict XVI habitually refers to Paul VI as a great pope, for example, he gave the following Angelus address at the Piazza Duomo, Bressanone on Sunday, 3 August 2008 (the reference to "contemplating the Face of Christ" deliberately identifies a theme of his own papacy with that of Paul VI):

"Now, dear friends, I ask you to join me in a devout and filial commemoration of the Servant of God, Pope Paul VI, the 30th anniversary of whose death we shall be celebrating in a few days. Indeed, he gave up his spirit to God on the evening of 6 August 1978, the evening of the Feast of the Transfiguration of Jesus, a mystery of divine light that always exercised a remarkable fascination upon his soul. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, Paul VI guided the People of God to contemplation of the Face of Christ, the Redeemer of man and Lord of history. And it was precisely this loving orientation of his mind and heart toward Christ that served as a cornerstone of the Second Vatican Council, a fundamental attitude that my venerable Predecessor John Paul II inherited and relaunched during the great Jubilee of the Year 2000. At the centre of everything, always and only Christ: at the centre of the Sacred Scriptures and of Tradition, in the heart of the Church, of the world and of the entire universe. Divine Providence summoned Giovanni Battista Montini from the See of Milan to that of Rome during the most sensitive moment of the Council - when there was a risk that Blessed John XXIII's intuition might not materialize. How can we fail to thank the Lord for his fruitful and courageous pastoral action? As our gaze on the past grows gradually broader and more aware, Paul VI's merit in presiding over the Council Sessions, in bringing it successfully to conclusion and in governing the eventful post-conciliar period appears ever greater, I should say almost superhuman. We can truly say, with the Apostle Paul, that the grace of God in him "was not in vain" (cf. 1 Cor 15: 10): it made the most of his outstanding gifts of intelligence and passionate love for the Church and for humankind. As we thank God for the gift of this great Pope [grande Papa], let us commit ourselves to treasure his teachings."

On overturning the church ruling on birth control. No need now. The people are speaking every day. Have countries reached a rate of childbearing that won't sustain their population through Church approved birth regulation or abstinence? I don't think so.

What percent of Catholic couples are following Church law? 5%? 2%?

Kevin

"About truth, people and institutions"
Are popes, people and Church well-served by the Jesuits?
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/shaken-so-we-can-pour-ourselves-out

I often wonder what Father McBrien thinks of the comments his articles provoke.

Does he care; does he read them; does he respond to any one at any time; does he find them humorous?

Besides giving us historical and theological tidbits is his underlying purpose to make us think?

"... Pius XII’s cause continues to languish."

Notwithstanding his being declared Venerable very recently, right? ...

I remember being disappointed that Paul seemed so weak compared to John and hoping for something better when he died. If we only knew... Ah well John Paul of happy memory probably was a lot better but he only lasted a month. Now if we had 12 years of him and then had 12 years of #2 perhaps we would be in a better place.
Alas, perhaps I have to much attachment to the institutional church. JP2 and Benedict certainly help one to focus on the kingdom. THAT'S where our hope should be ( but there is still the foolish hope that the church could live up to the promise of Vatican II).
Ah well refocus. Live Jesus in our hearts!

Evolution and MORAL RECIPROCITY: Earth gives back what Earth receives: we belong to Earth as Earth belongs to us.

http://justifiedliving.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978...

Paul VI will never be able to shake off the label of the Hamlet Pope, and Benedict XVI will always be known as the Panzerkardinal. Such is the power of labels, justified or not.

Does anyone realize all of the changes Pope Paul VI made during and after Vatican II, not including the Liturgy? The number is unbelievable. Just a few small examples; he eliminated 11 types of Monsignor's, eliminated the Galero in favor of the Biretta in the ceremony for new Cardinals, and eliminated the Palatine Guard and another order similar to it, leaving only the Swiss Guard. These are only three changes, there are many, many more. I do not stand in judgment of him or any Pope, it is not my place nor am I qualified. I just wish that I had been alive to see the Church as it was before all of the changes.

Paul VI, I think, goes down as something of the LBJ of the Catholic Church.

Like LBJ, Paul follows a popular, smiling leader named "John", beloved of the whole world, and suffers by comparison to him. Both Johns left messes to attend to after their deaths, and both LBJ and Paul--LBJ with Vietnam and Paul with Vatican II--suffered tremendous unpopularity on account of their handling of their respective challenges.

Someone once told me that he felt that Pope Paul VI "armwrestled" traditional Catholicism out of the Church. I wonder how accurate that is, but the era during which he presided over the Church does seem to have had that effect, to a degree. The sort of Catholic that was once considered mainstream is now considered fringe, and whenever Pope Benedict resurrects a bit of ermine here or a fiddleback chasuble there, he raises eybrows.