So on Friday B16 named JP2’s personal secretary, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, to be the new archbishop of Krakow–the post Karol Wojtyla held before he became JP2.
Cool. A reward for a career of faithful service, no?
But on Saturday something emerged calling into question the precise degree of faithfulness that was involved: Archbishop Dziwisz announced that he had failed to burn all of JP2’s private papers, as called for in his will!
EXCERPTS:
Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, who worked with the pope from 1966 until his death earlier this year, told Polish state radio there are "quite a lot of manuscripts on various issues," but he offered no details.
"Nothing has been burned," Dziwisz said. "Nothing is fit for burning, everything should be preserved and kept for history, for the future generations – every single sentence."
"These are great riches that should gradually be made available to the public."
Dziwisz did not say when or how that might happen.
In Saturday’s radio interview, Dziwisz suggested that some of the notes could prove useful in the late pontiff’s beatification process.
Now, I don’t know if Archbishop Dziwisz was himself charged with burning the papers, nor do I know if he was ordered not to do so by someone with the authority to give this order (e.g., B16), so I don’t know how to appraise his role in this.
Still, my feelings about this revelation are profoundly . . . mixed.
As they were when it was announced that JP2’s will called for all his private papers to be burned. I recognized that this represented a huge loss to historians, but on the other hand it was JP2’s will–and in his will–and you don’t disobey what someone says in his will.
I also have some sympathy for JP2’s desire. There have been people who’ve been badly burned historically by folks rumaging through their papers and the misrepresenting them.
It happened to Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. After he was institutionalized, his anti-Semitic, German-nationalistic sister went through his papers and "edited" them for publication. She also promoted what she proclaimed as "his" philosophy, which was really her own and which served to make Nietzsche an inspirational figure for Hitler and the Nazi party (contrary to what Nietzsche himself would have wanted).
While one hopes that the proper scholarly controls will be employed in any evaluation of JP2’s private papers, the potential for mischief is significant.
For one, we have no idea what state those papers are in. It may be that it will be hard or impossible to determine what was authored by the late pontiff and what wasn’t. People may have sent him drafts of things that found their way into his private papers, and some of these might be assumed to have been authored by the pope himself. Others’ (potentially lame-brained) ideas thus might end up being ascribed to JP2.
Also there is a fact that someone’s private papers are things that–by definition–the person did not intend for publication. Private papers frequently represent efforts individuals make at "trying out" ideas or ways of approaching a subject, only to have the individual himself conclude that this was a bad start that was unworthy of publication.
There may even be things in a person’s private papers where he tries to write out the strongest case he can make for a position he disagrees with–so that he can use this brief as a foil for later knocking down the position.
And then there is the danger of sensationalism–of an individual gaining (or claiming to have gained) access to the "secret" JP2 private papers and publishing books erroneously purporting to give his "true, private views" on matters.
Try to imagine what "historians" have done to Pius XII being done to JP2 to get an idea of what this could involve.
So while I am, on the one hand, pleased that JP2’s private papers are not lost to historians, I am simultaneously apprehensive about the use and misuse that might be made of them and concerned about the apparent violation of a clause of his will.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
Abp D is absolutely right. DONT BURN THEM.
If JP2 has private papers, they should be clearly identified as such. Then follow his will.
But almost EVERYTHING a pope writes is NOT personal, it’s official, as in related to his office. Were early drafts of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson’s personal papers? I don’t think so.
I was worried about this as soon as I heard about it, esp. given JP2’s vagueness about certain legal categories. If there is the slightest doubt about the character of the writing (eg, if the note is not something like “Dear Aunt Flo, the meatloaf pie was really yummyy. Love, your nephew, the Pope.” DO NOT DESTROY IT.
There’s also the embarassment potential for other world leaders- JPII probably did quite a bit of self-censorship in his public missives. Could you imagine what it would be like to see the headline in the New York Times: JPII- What He Really Thought About “X”?
At this time no-one knows the content of those private papers – except perhaps Bp. D. If JP2 felt it was okay to keep the papers for posterity he would not have requested their destruction. He did a heap of writing by way of encyclicals, books etc., and through them gave to the world what he wished to be in the public arena.
IMO his wishes should be carried out and the papers burnt. Even as Pope, he had and has a right to privacy, and this expressed wish in his WILL should be carried out.
I too, have mixed feelings about this, but they err on the side of PJII’s request. I’m not sure quite how to get my head around Dziwisz disinclination to do that which the then Holy Father, had instructed him to do.
things that make you go hmm…
God Bless.
P.S. As an aside…my own parent’s have requested me to have them cremated when they pass on…I may just do a Dziwisz…
Kafka asked that all his writings be burned. We’re lucky they weren’t. (Though, I too have a little ambivalence about this; one wonders if there was a specific reason JP2 wanted them burned…)
I don not have mixed feelings. While I think it would be nice to be able to read through his unpublished writings, it is clear that he did not want others to do so. Who knows how well he developed his ideas. Maybe that why he doesn’t want them published. He may not have fully edited them to say what he wanted to say. So if anyone reads them, they may be reading something that is not what he actually believed on a particular subject at all. There is more potential for harm than good.
Please forgive the slight non sequitur, as well as the impropriety of comparing higher things with lower (i.e., Catholic theology with pagan literature), but the whole thing reminds me a bit of the Aeneid. Virgil left instructions in his will that the Aeneid be burned (we are not entirely sure why; it is most likely because the poem was unfinished). These instructions were overruled by Augustus, who ordered Virgil’s literary executors to publish the poem – were it not for the emperor’s intervention, one of the three or four most important works of Western Literature would have been lost. (And that’s not even to think of what the effect would have been on other works which followed. What form would The Divine Comedy have taken if there had been no Aeneid? I can’t even imagine.)
Now, I don’t know what is in H.H.’s private papers – it may be, as H.E. has indicated, material of great spiritual value, or it may be notes to his aunt about meatloaf – and there is always the chance (as many have pointed out) that the materials will be manipulated by those with wicked purposes. But the question is: should the deisre of the deceased *always* outweigh the societal benefit?
I say they should BURN.
The pyromaniacs 😉 in our midst are overlooking a crucial question: what constititutes “private” papers? That’s what my post is about, that the scope of the word “private” is unclear, and burning, as opposed to saving, will render the question insoluable.
Personally, whatever any individual states in a will certainly should be adhered to. I have specific requests and would feel betrayed if my family were to do other than what I put in writing. Our beloved Holy Father must have had his reasons for this request and like others, I fear they could well get into the wrong hands. God bless.
But what if someone states something in a will which will clearly cause harm? Would we not agree that it should be disregarded then? Say, for example, I die in the possession of $100 million in cash, and order that it be burned. Should my request outweigh the negative social side-effects? (the poverty of my children; the lack of charitable donation that might have been made; whatever). And what if I decided that I wanted to bequeath it to some wicked cause?
I think that H.E. is essentially saying that it would do harm (in a somewhat broader social sense) for the thoughts which H.H. put down in these papers not to be disseminated. Now, whether we agree with H.E.’s assessment is an entirely separate question (I too am concerned about the possibility of misuse, but this is an entirely different issue from whether what an individual states in a will should be adhered to.)
“Say, for example, I die in the possession of $100 million in cash, and order that it be burned.”
When you burn it, nothing of economic value is actually lost by society. There is no net loss except for the nominal cost of printing a similar amount of money. Burning currency however may be against the law in some places.
“That’s what my post is about, that the scope of the word “private” is unclear”
The scope of the word would be the scope that the Pope had in mind when he wrote it. If it’s not clear if some particular thing falls under it, a reasonable judgment should be made as to what the Pope would have wanted done in cases which were not clear. A failure to make said judgment and to indiscriminately decide that anything that is not clearly within the scope is to be published would not honor his wishes nor respect his privacy.
Well, the comparison to the Aeneid makes me think BURN BURN BURN too… 😉
“nothing of economic value is lost by society”
This seems to be dodging the issue. I’m not talking about economic theory (although, if I were, under the current system it is arguable that losing $100 mil worth of consumer power actually is detrimental). I am talking about the actual harm done to my now-disinherited children, or to the poor to whom the money might have been given. I find it very difficult to believe that the U.S. Mint is going to print up another $100 mil and just give it to them (even less the cost of the print run). So the point is: is it better to burn the money as I requested, or let it go to someone who needs it?
And Virgil gets ridiculed while Kafka escapes unscathed? What’s that all about? 😉
I too have mixed feelings about this.
One thing that is absolutely certain is that JP2 was an incredibly humble man.
The papers may or may not be priceless.
If the money burns, doesn’t that mean we all get some?
Burn baby burn!
Should we stop you from burning the money while you’re alive?
Should we stop you from having someone else burn the money while you’re alive?
If it’s a sin to burn my corn crops across the street from a group of starving people, then it’s a sin to burn my million dollars in cash.
1. This is JPII’s property. It is not the Archbishop’s property to dispose of as he sees fit. Therefore we know the Archbishop neither respects property, nor is he a loyal friend and servant, for the Archbishop’s desires won out over the stated last testatment of his Master and friend. 2. This says the Archbishop is a man of little or no Honor. 3. How is it that we know the Archbishop has not burned the Papers? What need have we to know such things? That this ‘story’ gets loose in the public domain strikes me as a heads-up to somebody unrevealed, a warning, or a telegraph because the surest way to keep a secret is to keep the bloody thing quiet, and not obeying the tenets of a Last Will and Testament is generally not something you crow about – ergo – this announcement is not for me or thee, but meant for someone else.
I’m not sure what the problem is:
– JPII clearly willed to burn his private papers.
– He owns them.
– We ought to respect his will.
– As a prolific writer, he has already published the thoughts he want published (have we read those yet?)
So let’s burn them. It’s not ours.
But make a backup first.
“although, if I were, under the current system it is arguable that losing $100 mil worth of consumer power actually is detrimental”
There is no net loss in consumer power.
Burning 100 million dollars will make the estate 100 million dollars poorer, but it will also make the rest of society taken together 100 million dollars richer. The actual value that currency per unit posseses at a given time, ceteris paribus, depends on the volume of currency in society.
“the poor to whom the money might have been given”
There is no net loss in society’s ability to help the poor. If he hadn’t burned it, some of it may have been given to the poor. But it’s equally true that all those who are now collectively 100 million dollars richer may each give more to the poor than they would have otherwise.
“actual harm done to my now-disinherited children”
This would be a moral issue but it does not reflect any net economic harm that is done to society. Morally though, if the man had 100 million dollars to burn, he probably also had fixed assets that would be more than enough for his children.
“If it’s a sin to burn my corn crops across the street from a group of starving people, then it’s a sin to burn my million dollars in cash.”
If there are 100 people in a society and 1 of them has 1 million dollars in currency, as it so happens all in cash, and and the other 99 each have only 1000 dollars in currency; and the millionaire burns his 1 million dollars, he would actually make the other 99 people taken together 1 million dollars richer. Per person he would make them each about 10,000 dollars richer. It would be the same as if he personally gave 10,000 dollars to each of them instead of burning it all.
This holds true regardless of the size of the society.
However, in real societies, the other 99 people are not all uniformly poor and so burning the million would help the affluent among them as well as the poor among them.
The real value of currency per unit at a given time, ceterius paribus, varies depending on the volume of currency present in society.
Just a reminder that the ends do not justify the means. If it’s wrong to disobey a direct order from the Holy Father in his will to a trusted friend, then it doesn’t matter how great the work of art or value of the papers are. (Overlooking the straw man case of secret papers that save someone’s life or something, which ain’t the case here.)
Let’s not be proportionalists.
I had not intended to get bogged down in arguments about monetary theory. So, vinegar, I am rescinding my previous parenthetical about the loss of consumer power (which, as you point out was incorrect), and am not going to get into my own belief that the basic monetary theory equations are too simplistic to reflect accurately the behavior of real people. I am conceding the argument about money, because, frankly, it is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
I had been trying demonstrate that there is a big hole in the assumption that “it’s his property, so whatever he decided must be done.” This is clearly not always the case; I offered a couple of situations that I hoped would provide a concrete example of this (disinheriting my children, destroying wealth rather than giving it to the poor, making a donation to a wicked cause) – perhaps I chose my examples poorly. I had at the time been considering money as a thing of value in itself (the way that most normal people do, when they aren’t talking to economists, and even some economists do, when they’re not at work). Maybe the example of the corn crop & the starving neighbors is a better one. My only point was that there are more factors that must be taken into consideration besides the deceased’s property rights (and in light of this, to say that H.E. “is a man of little or no honor” seems just a bit uncharitable).
I should note, though, that this does not necessarily mean that I don’t think they should be burned. I am personally of the opinion that the late Holy Father would have known better than anyone if there was anything of value in the papers, and am inclined to trust his judgment on this one. I was simply trying to point out that the attempt to frame the debate in terms of property rights is flawed. As it seems that I have convinced few people, I’m just going to drop it.
Maybe this is the reason…
” ‘Given that, according to the legal dispositions, all the writings attributed to him must be collected, with this edict we order all those who are in possession of them that they send with due diligence to the same tribunal any writing that has the servant of God as its author, unless it has already been handed in to the postulation of the cause,’ says the edict.”
Source : http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=71715
A bit late jumping in on this, but the story reminds me of St. Thomas Aquinas. At the end of his life, he had a vivid dream of heaven and felt that his writings were so much straw in comparison and wanted to burn them. His brother friars, thank God (literally), prevented him doing so.
If Aquinas had left instructions at his death to burn all his writings, we would not have had the Summa Theologiae. His brother friars would have been justified in ignoring his desire, because as a friar committed to poverty his writings belonged to his order. Perhaps in JPII’s case, Abp. Dziwisz can make the case that JPII’s writings belong to the Church (especially because the Church is now investigating a cause for sainthood for JPII).
Have to agree here with Dr. Peters. If there is doubt about the importance of the papers, the papers should not be burned.
Now, speaking as a non-Catholic who has let quite a bit slip his mind, I may be off base a bit here, but…
As the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, did not John Paul II–as a “man of the Church” (to borrow from Origen)–essentially give up a right to privacy in the way you or I understand it? This is not to say he gave up a right to dignity; to do so would be contrary to Christian practice. But are not his actions, words, and writings part of the “body of Christ” in the Church? Where would we be right now if the epistles of St. Peter or St. Paul were burned after their death? Where would we be *if* the writings of Origen remained extant in their full Greek?
As an heir from a Holy Apostle, John Paul II entered into the ecclesial body in a profoundly richer sense than you or I will ever enter into it. He became part of a body of tradition that dates back through 2,000 years with a future that will see no end until the Second Coming; his life *in* the Church becomes an element of the life *of* the Church–his participation in that life does not cease with his departure to the City of God but remains, both in spirit and in his material contribution.
While I can sympathize with JPII’s request for his papers to be burned, I stand by the belief that he has no right to that request and that refusal for that order to be carried out was an ethical act of defiance for the preservation of not simply history, but the light and life of the Church itself.
Anyhow…
I think there is an explanation that absolves all parties. Perhaps the Archbishop burned the personal notes in accordance with the will, but saved the manuscripts.
So, do we KNOW that JPII had $100 Million that Dziwisz is refusing to burn?
Well, my mother always said if you want something done the way you want it done you’d better do it yourself! (Which is why she, an artist, goes through her work periodically and burns them, regardless of whether we like them or not.) If he had reeeeeeaalllly wanted them burn he should have had some assistant or other do it before he left us;) Meanwhile I’m with Samuel J. and absolve all parties.
Besides the other issues, we’re talking potential relics here. And as we all know, when it comes to relics, the claims of popular piety trump a saint’s wishes in every case!
I bet Archbishop D’s mother forbade him to burn ’em….
i was just surfing online and found your post so i thought i’d comment. when we are dealing with last wills and testaments, we are dealing with the law. the law’s (canon law’s) perspective on this is that the executor of the will (dziwisz) is bound to comply with the wishes of the deceased (canon 1301 paragraph 2). however, canon law also gives room for the executor to alter the obligations of the will for pious reasons and upon consultation with those most concerned (canon 1310 paragraph 2).
wrote more about this here:
http://voicefromeden.blogspot.com/2005/06/so-should-we-burn-archbishop-dziwisz.html
thanks for the post,
vox