Category: The Pope

After a long time with relatively few popes up for canonization, we’re now in an era in which there are a bunch of them (and there are some interesting theories on why that is, but that’s a subject for another day). One of these is Pius XII, who shephered the Church during WWII.

And who then was viciously slimed after the war.

Well, good for the Vatican for considering his canonization. Here’s some recent stories that have a bearing on that:

1) NEW BOOK DISCUSSES HITLER’S PLOT TO KIDNAP PIUS XII AND HOW IT WAS THWARTED BY THE DISOBEDIENCE OF A GERMAN GENERAL.

2) CARDINAL BERTONE’S SPEECH DEFENDING PIUS XII.

3) PERSPECTIVE ON CARDINAL BERTONE’S SPEECH.

4) JOHN ALLEN ARGUES THAT IT’S TIME TO BEATIFY AND CANONIZE PIUS XII.

Here’s the nut of his argument:

I’ll prescind from whether Pius XII actually merits sainthood. Instead, I want to remain in the realm of observable facts, which in this case seem to me to be the following:

• A significant block in the Catholic church, including much of its senior leadership, has a strong conviction that Pius XII is a saint and should be formally recognized as such;
• In other sectors of opinion, including much of the Jewish world, there is an equally strong conviction that Pius XII failed in his moral responsibilities during the Holocaust;
• No new evidence, or new historical perspective, is likely to alter those convictions;
• The primary force keeping this debate alive in the media, and making it a source of turbulence in Catholic-Jewish relations, is the question of possible sainthood.

Assuming those four premises are accurate, it seems to follow that there are only two ways out: Either Catholicism renounces sainthood for Pius XII, or we get it over with. Since the former is unlikely, the latter may be the best available option — and the sooner, the better. The alternative is allowing an endless cycle of point/counter-point exchanges to coarsen conversation and harden feelings.

An interesting exercise in ecclesiastical realpolitik, but if you’re in the "Pius XII should be declared a saint" camp, it goes to the issue of when it is prudent for him to be declared a saint.

Catholic News Service writes:

ROME (CNS) — The Rome diocesan office charged with promoting the sainthood cause of Pope John Paul II continues to distribute the official prayer cards for the cause and the only authorized relics, an office spokeswoman said.

"We receive dozens of requests each day and the distribution continues," she told Catholic News Service Feb. 26.

The relic is a small piece of one of the white cassocks worn by Pope John Paul.

The free cards and relics can be requested by letter, fax or e-mail, she said.

The e-mail address is: Postulazione.GiovanniPaoloII@VicariatusUrbis.org; the fax number is: (39-06) 6888-6240.

The mailing address is: Postulazione Giovanni Paolo II, Vicariato di Roma, Piazza San Giovanni in Laterano 6A, 00184 Rome, Italy.

I requested mine!

Don’t forget to put USA (or whatever your country is) at the bottom of your address!

CNS reports:

Pope John Paul II made more than 100 clandestine trips to ski or hike in the Italian mountains and was rarely recognized by others on the slopes, his former secretary said.

Polish Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz described the secret outings in a book of memoirs, "A Life With Karol," which was being published in late January. An excerpt appeared Jan. 23 in the Rome newspaper Il Messaggero.

The cardinal, who was Pope John Paul’s personal secretary for 38 years, wrote that the pope, an avid skier and hiker in his youth, often felt pent up inside the Vatican.

In the winter of 1981, the pope, his secretary and two of his Polish aides decided to make a "getaway" to the mountains from the papal villa in Castel Gandolfo.

They packed into a car owned by one of the priests, in order not to raise suspicions, and when they passed the Swiss Guard post one prelate opened wide a newspaper to hide the pontiff in the back seat.

Then they drove to the central Italian ski town of Ovindoli without an escort, winding through mountain towns and carefully respecting the speed limits.

Once they arrived, they chose a deserted slope and the pope was able to ski all day long. On the way back, the pope smiled and said, "We did it!" It was the first of many such escapes, the papal secretary said.

MORE.

I’ll be looking forward to getting Cardinal Dziwisz’s book when it comes out in English!

MORE HERE, ALSO.

GET THE STORY.

A reader writes:

I didn’t know who else to turn to.  My fiancé asked me a very interesting question which I don’t have an answer to.  I am hoping that you may be able to shed some light on this topic:

Is it possible for the Pope to convert to Islam?  I mean is he protected with special graces that would prevent him from accepting anything but Jesus as the savior of the world?  Can he have and make an opinion regarding his own personal conversion and what would that mean for the Seat of Peter? 

I personally think he can’t because he is guided by the Holy Spirit, but I am wondering if he could express an opinion regarding personal conversion?  Especially when he is not speaking Ex-Cathedra.  I am not interested the slightest bit in Islam or its violent ways of achieving peace.  I am a devout Catholic and support our Pope 100%

The pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, and when he speaks ex cathedra he is protected from binding the consciences of the faithful to believe error (i.e., he’s infallible), but this so far as we know there is not a charism that prevents–absolutely prevents–the pope from embracing error outside of ex cathedra situations.

We may hope that the Holy Spirit would never allow a pope to apostatize from the Christian faith, but we do not have the assurance of faith that he would not allow it to happen. The pope still has free will, and we do not have doctrinal assurance that he would be absolutely prevented from using this free will to commit the grave sin of apostasy (i.e., the total repudiation of the Christian faith).

In fact, some would argue that this actually happened once in the early days of the Church, during the time of the persecutions. Here’s an entry from the Oxford Dictionary of Popes by J. N. D. Kelly:

MARCELLINUS, ST (30 June 296-? 304; d. 25 Oct. 304). While nothing is known of his background, much the greater part of his reign fell in a period when the church enjoyed external peace. His sole recorded action in these years was, according to an inscription, to authorize one of his deacons, Severus, to carry out certain structural modifications in the cemetery of CALLISTUS. On 23 Feb. 303, however, Emperor Diocletian (284-305) issued his first persecuting edict ordering the destruction of churches, the surrender of sacred books, and the offering of sacrifice by those attending law-courts. Marcellinus complied and, probably in May 303, handed over copies of the Scriptures; he also, apparently, offered incense to the gods. Several of his clergy, including the presbyters MARCELLUS, MILTIADES, and SILVESTER, all three to become popes, were later said to have acted with him. The Donatists used these facts, of which they had documentary evidence, in their controversy early in the 5th cent. with St Augustine, who, while denying the allegations, did so in a perfunctory and embarrassed manner. Marcellinus’s guilt is borne out by the facts that his name was omitted from the official list of popes and that DAMASUS I completely ignored him when composing verse tributes to previous popes. By the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 6th cents. it is evident that his apostasy was frankly acknowledged, and efforts were being made to present it in a favourable light. Thus LP [the Liber Pontificalis or "Book of Popes"], basing itself on a now lost Passion of St Marcellinus, relates how he was ordered to sacrifice and proceeded to do so, but a few days later was filled with remorse for his weakness; he was then beheaded with three others on Diocletian’s orders. An independent account of his apostasy, and supposed avowal of it at the pseudo-council of Sinuessa (west of Capua), appears in the apocryphal acts (early 6th cent.). There is in fact no evidence of his martyrdom; no one in the 4th cent. seems to have had any inkling of it, and St Augustine made no reference to it when dealing with the Donatists’ charges. On the other hand, his surrender of sacred books disqualified him from the priesthood, and if he was not actually deposed (as some scholars argue) he must have left the Roman church without an acknowledged head. The date of his abdication or deposition is not known. He died on 25 Oct. 304, and was buried in the cemetery of Sta Priscilla on the Via Salaria; this was presumably chosen because it was private property of the powerful family of the Acilii Glabrioni, the church’s official cemeteries having been confiscated by the government at the beginning of the persecution. Because of the story of his execution at the emperor’s behest he came to be venerated as a martyr. Feast 2 June.

Needless to say, this was not an infallible papal canonization.

It is to be pointed out that J. N. D. Kelly is an Anglican, and this sometimes affects his take on things, but he  also acknowledges a great deal of the Catholicity of the early Church–so much so that his book Early Christian Doctrines played a significant role in my conversion. In his subsequent entries on Marcellus, Miltiades, and Sylvester he defends them against the charges that they–before they were pope–had apostatized (and then obviously repented), saying that the charges against them appear false, but the one against Marcellinus appears true.

The Catholic Encyclopedia defends Marcellinus against the charges, though its authors were Catholic and living in an age in which everything, including Church history, was viewed through the lens of apologetics, and that could skew their perspective.

I haven’t studied the evidence up close for myself, and it can be read both ways. The authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s best argument seems to be that if Marcellinus had apostatized then it would have been more loudly trumpeted by pagans, though I don’t know how much we have from this time period, and it was just before Constantine, at which point mention of an apostate pope would have become an embarrassment. Kelly points to attempts by his successors to suppress his memory, but this–if it happened–could have occurred for other reasons.

I bring up the subject because it is a potential datapoint in the argument that the Holy Spirit would not automatically prevent a pope from using his free will to apostatize, and that gives us all the more reason to pray for the pope.

As to what would happen if a pope did apostatize–today, in the global media age, with 24/7 satellite news and the Internet everywhere–well, obviously it would throw the Church into an enormous convulsion and gravely harm the Christian faith, far more so than would have happened before the advent of telecommunications and when the Church was still a persecuted, semi-underground organization.

Even back then, according to Kelly’s account, it looks like there was a significant problem. Here’s the beginning of his entry on Marcellinus’ successor, Marcellus:

MARCELLUS 1, ST (Nov./Dec. 306-16 Jan. 308). Because of internal divisions as well as the persecution, the Roman see remained vacant for just over three and a half years after MARCELLINUS’s apostasy. With the accession of Emperor Maxentius 306-12) and his adoption of toleration, an election became practicable. The man chosen, Marcellus, had been a leading presbyter under Marcellinus, and had probably played the key role during the vacancy. It is very unlikely that the Donatists’ later allegations that he had surrendered sacred books to the authorities along with Marcellinus were true, for he proved a merciless judge of such conduct and seems to have expunged Marcellinus’s name from official lists of popes.

Today it wouldn’t take three and a half years to get a new pope. The conclave would be as short as the cardinals could possibly make it, and they’d likely elect the most conservative of the papabile possible in order to send reassurances to the public about the stability and solidity of the faith. They wouldn’t want someone who over-nuance things and risk saying or doing something that would create a new wave of doubt after the Church had just suffered such a blow.

Efforts would be made for the former pope to be reconciled, of course. Assuming he returned to the faith, he would be treated gently, would make a public speech and issue a public statement explaining his moment of weakness and begging forgiveness, and then he would be whisked away to a life of private prayer and penance.

How this would be handled canonically is not clear, since canon law does not contain any provisions for a pope losing his office except by death or resignation. The way the law is written, he could not canonically be deposed if he apostatized. Nor would he automatically lose office the way the penalties section of the Code is written. It would, of course, start a fierce canonical debate if an apostate pope wanted–per impossibile–to somehow remain pope. However, if he had truly apostatized then it would be almost certain that he would resign, either de jure by announcing his resignation or de facto by walking away from the job.

His resignation might even happen like this: If the pope were kidnapped by Muslim terrorists and tortured and, in a moment of human weakness, he broke then, as soon as he was released, he would resign (if he didn’t already do so in the video the terrorists uploaded to YouTube), acknowledging that his moment of weakness made him an unfit leader for the Church, and then he’d whisk himself off to a life of private prayer and penance.

Or his resignation might be triggered automatically upon his capture. It is reported that, when Pius XII was expecting Hitler to seize the Vatican and kidnap him, he prepared a secret document specifying that he resigned his office upon the moment of his capture so that a new pope could be elected. For all we know, there may be such a secret document out there right now specifying a papal resignation in the event of capture by Muslims or others.

Let’s just pray that the Church and all its future popes are spared such horrors.

It’s the stuff that nightmares are made of.

Fr. Stephanos Pedrano was kind enough to translate from Italian the famous "Smoke of Satan" homily from Italian, allowing us to see the quote in its original context. I’ve put the entire homily in the below-the-fold part of this post, and I’ll offer some analysis of it here.

FIRST, HERE’S THE ORIGINAL ITALIAN FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO LOOK IT UP IN THE ORIGINAL.

Now for the analysis:

1) A strange thing about this homily is the way it is presented. It isn’t simply the text of his remarks, which is the normal way today for presenting the text of a papal homily. Instead, it’s a kind of narrative summary of what he said, with occasional direct quotations attributed to him. I’ve never seen this way of presenting a papal homily before, but perhaps it was the way they did it back in the early 1970s. It’s unfortunate, from my perspective, because the narrative summary format introduces a new layer of ambiguity into the document. If we don’t have the pope’s exact words, but someone’s narrative re-telling of them, or if we can’t tell precisely when we have the pope’s exact words and when we don’t, it makes it that much harder to determine exactly what the pope meant.

The phrase “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God” is, apparently, directly attributed to Paul VI, but it’s embedded in a big narrative block that narrates what he said in this part of the homily, but we don’t have–or can’t know that we have–his exact words. This means that there must remain a question mark over the correct interpretation of this phrase.

I hereby register my opposition to this manner of presenting papal remarks. Let the pope speak for himself.

2) Despite the above point, if the summary that is offered is remotely accurate, we can get a sense of what the pope meant. Here’s the paragraph in which the quotation occurs, as well as the following one:

Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father
affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan
has entered the temple of God.”  There is doubt, incertitude,
problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation.  There is no
longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who
speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him
and ask him if he has the formula of true life.  And we are not alert
to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula
of true life.  Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered by
windows that should have been open to the light.  Science exists to
give us truths that do not separate from God, but make us seek him all
the more and celebrate him with greater intensity; instead, science
gives us criticism and doubt.  Scientists are those who more
thoughtfully and more painfully exert their minds.  But they end up
teaching us:  “I don’t know, we don’t know, we cannot know.”  The
school becomes the gymnasium of confusion and sometimes of absurd
contradictions.  Progress is celebrated, only so that it can then be
demolished with revolutions that are more radical and more strange, so
as to negate everything that has been achieved, and to come away as
primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern world.

This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church.  There was
the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for
the history of the Church.  Instead, it is the arrival of a day of
clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty.  We
preach ecumenism but we constantly separate ourselves from others.  We
seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in.

In the next section the subject of the devil is further expounded upon:

How has this come about?  The Pope entrusts one of his thoughts to
those who are present:  that there has been an intervention of an
adverse power.  Its name is the devil, this mysterious being that the
Letter of St. Peter also alludes to.  So many times, furthermore, in
the Gospel, on the lips of Christ himself, the mention of this enemy of
men returns.  The Holy Father observes, “We believe in something that
is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to
suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the
Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness
its awareness of itself.  Precisely for this reason, we should wish to
be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God
assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers.  We should
wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord
gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this earth.”
Faith gives us certitude, security, when it is based upon the Word of
God accepted and consented to with our very own reason and with our
very own human spirit.  Whoever believes with simplicity, with
humility, sense that he is on the good road, that he has an interior
testimony that strengthens him in the difficult conquest of the truth.

From this–as well as other elements in the rest of the homily–a fairly clear picture emerges of what Paul VI meant. This can be summarized as follows:

The Second Vatican Council did its work to renew the Church and to bring a new day of light. However, the Council’s work has been frustrated by an attack by the devil by means of broader sociological currents that were present in the late 1960s and early 1970s, such as secular social experts and social movements and scientists who lack faith and political and cultural revolutionaries. These sociological currents ("the smoke of Satan") have infected the Catholic community and caused many to doubt and trust the Church and turn away from the eternal answers it has to offer and folow after passing modern ideas that are hostile to Christian thought. In this way the devil has thwarted the work of the Council in bringing in the day of joy and renewal that should have followed the Council.

3) It is thus clear–if the reportage of what Paul VI said is even remotely right, that he was not claiming that there were Satanists in the Vatican (as some have claimed), nor is he linking the "smoke of Satan" with the Second Vatican Council itself or the liturgical reforms that followed it or anything like that. He perceives the work of the Council as a good thing that has been thwarted–or partially thwarted–by the social crisis that was breaking out in the developed world at this time. In other words, he’s responding to the cultural crisis of the late 1960s and early 1970s and its impact on the Church using a poetic image and attributing it (rightly) to the work of the devil, but he is not making the kind of sensationalistic claims that some have used to interpret this phrase.

People who have been claiming the latter need to get their tin foil hats adjusted properly or go back on their meds.

Continue reading “The Smoke Of Satan Homily”

I am in need of a volunteer to translate a short (2,000-word) homily of Paul VI that is only available on the Vatican web site in Italian.

This is a very controversial homily that regularly crops up in apologetic discussions. In fact, it’s the famous "smoke of Satan" homily.

I’m looking for a translation that is as literal and accurate as possible so that we can finally see the quote in its original context and get a better idea of what the pope meant or didn’t mean.

I think it would be a significant service to the Catholic community if
we can get a good translation of it (not just a Babelfish machine translation), and I’ll post the results online
so that others can benefit from the results.

The volunteer can be either anonymous or nonymous. Feel free to e-mail me or comment in the combox.

Any takers?

UPDATE: I now have a translation of the homily in hand. More soon! Thanks to all who offered!

More evidence is surfacing that Hitler’s PopeVenerable Pope Pius XII, far from sitting around twiddling his thumbs during the Shoah, was on the front lines of rescue efforts to save Jews from the Nazis. The Tablet, a British Catholic publication somewhat analogous to the American National Catholic Reporter, notes that the diary of an Augustinian nun in Rome during the war chronicles that Jews were hidden in her convent on Pius XII’s directive.

"The anonymous author of the journal provides detailed names and dates of more than 10 Jews and non-Jews who were sheltered in the convent from September 1942 to June 1944. One of these was Amalia Viterbo, the Jewish niece of Palmiro Togliatti, one of the creators of the Italian Communist Party and secretary of the Comintern before the Second World War.

"The Augustinian sister writes that the Pope wished to save ‘his children [Catholics] as well as Jews’ and ordered that monasteries and enclosures should be opened up to those persecuted.

"Later, when the convent superior perceived that the SS were flouting the sanctuary of convent enclosures, she had false identity papers drawn up for her guests."

GET THE STORY. (Note: Evil registration requirement.)

Although John Paul II had longed to be able to beatify his beloved predecessor Pius XII, I think it would be especially fitting if the beatification takes place during Benedict XVI’s pontificate. (B16 has reverted to the traditional form of personally presiding only at canonizations.) If it happens, God willing, it will mean that Pius XII, who served before his pontificate as apostolic nuncio to Bavaria under Benedict XV, would be beatified during the reign of a Bavarian pope named Benedict.

JIMMY ADDS: The MSM would have stellar-level apoplexy if B16 beatified or canonized P12 ("What??? The new Hitler pope elevates the old Hitler pope!!! How SHOCKING!!!"). But B16 has already proved himself a man or moral courage and one who is willing to speak his mind regarding the Nazis and not kowtow to political correctness in this matter, so it could happen. Whether it happens in B16’s reign or not, I hope it happens soon. P12 has my vote not just for sainthood but for being a doctor of the Church. Not that I have a vote.

Sometimes I don’t know whether to smile or wince over the huckstering spirit of many American Christians. I used to think it was a mainly Evangelical thing, but I’ve had second thoughts lately. Exhibit A: The John Paul II Intercession Package. Yours today for the low, low price donation of $29.95 (not counting shipping and handling or applicable sales tax, no doubt):

"Financial needs, Health needs, Family needs … let us invoke Pope John Paul the Great!

"Claims of JP II"s interecession have poured in. As an article on www.Spiritdaily[.com] noted: ‘From lost son to cancer to headaches … claims of JP II’s intercession keep pouring in!’

"We can not ignore JP II as a POWERFUL intecessor for our needs!

"We believe he will prove to be one of the most powerful intercessors of this century!

"Let us INVOKE him to intercede for our needs … no matter if they be big or small! Financial needs, Health needs, Family needs … We all have something in our lives that we could use a little help with! I know I do!"

GET THE STORY.

It looks like the vendors of the John Paul II Intercession Package "could use a little help with" rounding up some exclamation marks. They seem to have used up their supply in this ad. Perhaps JPII will put in a good word for them for that need.

What exactly do you get in your Intercession Pack? Let’s see. Among other things there’s a "New, Exclusive John Paul II Intercession Prayercloth"; a "Special St. Peter (the first Pope!) oxidized silver medal from Italy"; and "Exclusive ‘Pope John Paul II Intercession Chaplet Beads’ with Special OFFICIAL Prayer for His Intercession!" And much, much more!

As someone with a special devotion to John Paul the Great — in part because of his providential passing on the same day as my natural dad — this kind of crass exploitation of a saintly man’s intercession annoys me. Although American Evangelicals are no slouches when it comes to turning a buck on the gospel message, this is just the kind of thing that raises specters in non-Catholic minds of Johann Tetzel‘s "peddling" of indulgences.

A reader writes:

My brother and I were talking and he was asking if I knew why some of the popes in history have the name “Pope Pius” and then the number but no “name” to speak of and he was also wondering what that title meant.  My answer was that the word pious means humble and that I would assume that they were trying to emulate that word into their being and how they worked within their pontificate.

However I am sure if this is the case it is only the tip of the iceberg.  Can you give me any information on this?

Sure thing!

This is a natural thing to wonder about since in the English-speaking world we don’t hear the name "Pius" very often, but it actually is a name, so popes who have the name Pius actually do have a name–just not one that we’re used to hearing in English.

The Italian version of this name is Pio. You may have heard, for example, of the famous Italian priest (now a saint) who in life was called Padre Pio ("Father Pius").

What we English-speakers tend to think of when we hear the name Pius, though, is not a name but the adjective pious, which we get from the Latin adjective pius (spelled the same as the name, but being used as an adjective).

In Latin, the adjective pius means things like "conscientious; upright; faithful; patriotic/dutiful, respectful; rightous; good affectionate, tender, devoted, loyal (to family); pious, devout; holy, godly."

Latin-speaking parents who wanted their children to be these things might thus name him Pius (or, if she was a girl, they might name her Pia, the feminine equivalent of pius), the same way that we might name a baby "Christian," hoping that he will grow up to fulfill his name.

The first pope to be named Pius was . . . well, Pius I (big surprise), who was the tenth pope and reigned between A.D. 140 and 155. In his day, popes didn’t take new names when they were elected, so Pius seems to have been his birth name.

That had changed by the time of the next pope named Pius (Pius II–again, big surprise) who was the 211th pope and who reigned between 1458 and 1464.

Presumably, he picked the name Pius partly in memory of the first Pope Pius but also because he wanted to display the virtue of being pious (i.e., piety) during his reign as pope.

Although in Latin Pius and pius are spelled the same (which could lead to confusion in some contexts), we have a handy way of distinguishing the name from the adjective in English. If you see Pius (capitalized and no O), it’s the name, but if you see pious (with an O, whether it’s capitalized or not) then it’s the adjetive.

Hope this helps!