When the Vatican recently announced its new candidates for sainthood, there was a remarkable name on its list: Pope Paul VI.
On December 20, 2012, Pope Benedict declared Paul a Christian of “heroic virtue,” granting him the title, “Venerable.” Paul VI is now one approved miracle away from beatification, and a second from formal canonization.
The response has been both surprise and confusion: many people didn’t even know Paul VI was up for sainthood, and to the extent they did, expressed very uneven feelings about him.
Assailed by both progressives and traditionalists alike, and having reigned during a tumultuous era, Paul VI remains, in death, almost as controversial as he was in life.
In light of all that, the now-Venerable Paul VI deserves a much-needed second look; Catholics need to discern what really drove him, and why the Vatican has advanced his cause.
In looking for answers beyond the usual divides—and hoping to explore Paul on a deeper level—I spoke with Father John Langlois, the Vicar Provincial for the Dominican Province of St Joseph in New York. Born the same year Paul VI became pope, and holding degrees in theology and history, Langlois is in an excellent position to asses his pontificate, since, as Father mentioned, “I grew up with Paul—he was the first pope I knew; and as a Catholic and future priest, I followed his pontificate closely, amidst all the turmoil going on.”
Father Langlois welcomed the Vatican’s decision, and explained why Pope Paul is so worthy of the honor: “He was a missionary, a reformer, an upholder of tradition, and on a personal level, someone who had a profound understanding of the priesthood, and the theology of the Cross.”
Consider the name he chose after being elected pope—“Paul.”
“That was of great significance,” said Langlois, “because, like St. Paul, the new pope saw himself preaching the Gospel to the whole world.”
Pope Paul did more travelling than any of his predecessors—visiting six continents—setting the stage for the international journeys of Blessed John Paul II, and Pope Benedict.
Paul was determined to spread the Gospel to a global audience: the documents of his pontificate are suffused with evangelical fervor, and his words remain as inspiring as ever. “We wish to confirm once more,” he proclaimed in Evangelii Nuntiandi, “that the task of evangelizing all peoples constitutes the essential mission of the Church.” He continued:
It is a task and mission which the vast and profound changes of present-day society make all the more urgent. Evangelizing is in fact the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize, that is to say in order to preach and teach, to be the channel of the gift of grace, to reconcile sinners with God. . . . Anyone who rereads in the New Testament the origins of the Church, follows her history step by step and watches her live and act, sees that she is linked to evangelization in her most intimate being.
What is especially impressive about Evangelii Nuntiandi, said Father Langlois, is how it applies the call for evangelization to the Church itself. Paul wrote:
The Church is an evangelizer, but she begins by being evangelized herself. . . . She is the People of God immersed in the world, and often tempted by idols and always needs to hear the ‘mighty works of God’ which converted her to the Lord; she always needs to be called together afresh by Him and reunited. . . . this means that she has a constant need of being evangelized, if she wishes to retain freshness, vigor and strength in order to proclaim the Gospel.
Pope Paul’s insight about the Church’s need for self-evangelization, highlights his next strength: a commitment to reform. When John XXIII died in 1963, Pope Paul could have tried to slow Vatican II, or even halted it altogether. But wisely—and providentially, Father Langlois believes—Paul gave his full backing to Blessed John’s Council, and shepherded all its decrees and documents to their conclusion. For doing so, he was criticized by both the Left and Right, the former claiming he didn’t go nearly as far as he should, the latter saying he was much too progressive. Neither of the critics are correct says Father Langlois. “If you actually examine the documents carefully, there is nothing in them that sustains either reactionary thinking, or a revolutionary agenda.” As Pope Benedict has declared, there is certainly a call to reform, but reform within a hermeneutic of continuity.
In fact, Dignitatis Humanae—one of the Council’s most famous documents, on religious liberty—made that clear, in its opening paragraph, when it described how the Council Fathers , “in accord with truth,” searched “the sacred tradition and teaching of the Church, from which it draws forth new things that are always in harmony with the old.” (emphasis added)
Once the Council ended, Paul VI began implementing its reforms with care and dedication. He reorganized the Vatican curia and bureaucracy, set up several important post-Conciliar commissions, expanded collegiality with synods of bishops, increased the role of the laity, reached out to the larger Christian community, solidified the Church’s relationship with the Jewish community, made impassioned appeals for peace and on behalf of the poor, and undertook major reforms of the liturgy.
The latter was undoubtedly his biggest challenge. Paul VI’s introduction of the Novus Ordo caused a considerable stir, and still does within some circles today. But whether one prefers the Old or the New Mass, Father Langlois, as a church historian, made it a point to underscore that “liturgical reform—including major liturgical reform—has always been part of Catholic tradition. The traditional Latin Mass is quite different than the Mass as it was celebrated in the primitive Church, and, yes, so too is the Novus Ordo (though only in form, not content). Paul VI, acting as the Vicar of Christ, wanted to bring the sacred liturgy closer to the faithful, and he sincerely believed his liturgical reforms would accomplish that.”
That said, there can be no doubt that certain Catholics, after the Council and Novus Ordo, took liberties which were never authorized, and at times made a mockery of Catholic teaching. These scandals grieved Paul VI deeply—he reportedly spoke about the “smoke of Satan” having entered the Church—as did the wide-scale collapse of religious life, which Father Langlois believes had “far more to do with the tremendous upheavals and rebellions occurring within the wider culture, rather than any papal or hierarchical decisions.”
Yet, it was precisely at that point, when the Church seemed lost in a maelstrom, when Paul VI’s true character and spirituality came to the fore. Against a world (and even Church) largely seduced by the errors of the sexual revolution, Paul published Humanae Vitae, the most prophetic papal document of modern times, and certainly one of the bravest. He upheld and championed priestly celibacy; re-affirmed and explained the importance of an all-male priesthood, while advancing the true dignity of woman in all other ways; issued a clear declaration on sexual ethics, and a decree against abortion and on behalf of life. Both John Paul II and Benedict built upon his teachings, and extended them to the modern world.
Pope Paul VI has been called a weak and indecisive pope, but no one who lacked true courage could have issued the powerful statements he did, or done so under the circumstances he faced. And far from being a broken or dejected man at the end of his life—as some critics maintain, the better to make their case against him seem plausible—Paul VI was carried and sustained by something much stronger than anything in this world, his faith. He knew, as long as he retained that, nothing in this life could cause permanent damage, no matter how bad any situation became. His confessor, Father Paulo Dezza, revealed the pontiff’s life-long secret. Venerable Paul, Dezza once remarked, “was a man of great joy.”
It is a lesson all Christians should take to heart, as we, too, look forward to that day, in hopeful and joyful anticipation, of receiving Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
William Doino Jr. is a contributor to Inside the Vatican magazine, among many other publications, and writes often about religion, history and politics. He contributed an extensive bibliography of works on Pius XII to The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
“‘Humanae Vitae’ Author Pope Paul VI Moves Toward Sainthood,” Catholic News Agency, December 20, 2012
Evangelii Nuntiandi, Apostolic Exhortation of Paul VI (1975)
Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (on priestly celibacy), Encyclical Letter of Paul VI (1967)
Populorom Progressio, Encyclical Letter of Paul VI, 1967
Humanae Vitae, Encyclical Letter of Paul VI (1968)
Declaration on Procured Abortion, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Paul VI, 1974
Persona Humana, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Paul VI, 1975
Inter Insigniores, Declaration on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Paul VI, 1976
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Much damage has been done to our society, but I am hopeful that the wheel has turned as more and more people recognize the truth of his words, and we can continue on a path towards healing and a celebration of life.
Having lived at that time as a young married man, I recall very clearly how strong the forces for dismissing the Church's millenia-old condemnation of contraception were, in the culture and within the Church. However, this teaching remains true and beautiful, and the truth must win under the Spirit's direction, as it did in 1968 with the issuance of this encyclical. The falsehood of the movement to void this teaching was like a spiritual balrog, against which Paul VI set his staff, and was, in a certain way, martyred in so doing.
May God grant his abundant reward.
As a convert coming into the Church when Paul VI was pontiff, I'd suggest that he is not responsible for the failure to recognize contraception for what it is (a denial of life), clerical celibacy, priestesses, or empty pews. Rather it appeared to me that "Catholics" had acquiesced to the culture of that time. One of the defining positions of that culture was a willingness to adhere to self-selected, non-traditional values at the expense of the truth.
I would note that churches which have surrendered to the current sexual mores, and to liturgical churches which ordain priestesses and elevate female bishops, at the practical denial of whatever caused them to come into being, based on some understanding of scripture, are dying.
The Episcopalians are an excellent example of denying everything to marry the zeitgeist of the day.
I have to believe a continual effort to renew the liturgy, and priests who are not afraid of Catholic truths that will preach to those truths, the Church will once again find lines at the confessional and people hungry for God.
As a layman I have a place for my own efforts in this regard. My response to you is one of those efforts.
That is a comparison I have made myself when praying for Paul VI all these years. Whatever criticisms can be justifiably made, he stood, when almost no one else would, at the crucial pass of the next 200 years. On the day he died, I went to chapel and read the account in Acts of St. Paul's address to the Miletus Presbyters, wherein he proclaimed that he had given to them the Gospel in full and, as he never expected to see them again in this life, they would have to account for whether or not they followed. He gave us truth and we now must account (and not just Catholics) for following or not. It was fitting that he died very near the day of the birth of the first "test-tube baby". I have always believed that his long, long suffering helped prepare the Church for the counter-attack launched by John Paul II.
Listen to Janet O'Connor as she refutes the "persuasion is the only criteria" presumption of Pope Paul VI's critics. And she's humble, she could have picked a much greater example of unpersuasiveness. We are told in John 6:60 "Then many of His disciples who were listening said, 'This saying is hard; who can accept it?' "
Now I know why the Church is in the terrible state it is.
I do need some help, however. Given that Paul VI appointed a Commission whose majority opposed the position of Humanae Vitae, I have never understood the basis on which the majority of the Commission reached its conclusions and the basis on which Paul Vi rejected that conclusion.
Can anyone help me?
I still don't understand what the Commission's majority was, and on what intellectual basis.
Can you or someone else help me.
Again, thank you very much.
As I understand it, the Commission was NOT established to prepare recommendations for the Pope's approval, but to gather and summarize the best philosophical and theological arguments on both sides of the issue for the pope's review. See the difference? (Similar to the way in which those being considered for sainthood have a side producing evidence FOR the sanctity of the candidate and a "devil's advocate" searching for dirt and evidence to the contrary.)
From an academic approach, it is very intellectually honest and thorough to be sure to bring in enough commissioners able and willing to argue the "opposition" case. But what Paul VI did not foresee was the potential for this commission to overstep its bounds and take it upon themselves to proclaim a winner (which was never their job). Then it appears that the dissenters (as one might expect) were willing to be sources for the press while those supporting church teachings were content to allow the pope to speak for the church.
I wish I had the citations handy, but much of the above I got from testimony of a priest who was there. Probably you can find it with a bit of web search.
Thank you. Believe it or not, web searches that I have previously tried have not been as clear as you are.
Aquinas said that lust clouds reason. Seems to me that this discussion illustrates this (rather obvious) notion. Our "culture" was descending into an especially sex-crazed period in the '60's. Thank God our Vicar's reason was not clouded.
Yes, he is falsely maligned by the extreme progressives and the traditionalists -- but, the genuineness of his character and his sanctity shine forth from his words and his loving actions -- his support of the poor and the disadvantaged of the world.
Paul’s inability to protect and proclaim the church’s traditions and body of teaching from error in the pastoral council of Vatican II , saw all faiths accepted- not matter how ridiculous – because they all contain parts of the Divine Truth.
This is heresy!. But for argument, lets assume it was true. Then all Paul's predecessors were wrong and what the church taught was wrong. Therefore the Holy Spirit could not have been guiding the church for the past 1900 years.
Paul’s mantra was the civilisation of love, and the glory of man. This view of a near universal religion, based on man, is contrary to everything the church stands for. This “culture of love and charity” accepted all teaching and actions in all religions: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Protestantism, no matter how heretical and contrary to revelation.
This new orientation is contrary to his predecessors, it destroyed the need for Christ’s entry into human history. Why come to redeem is man has it all anyway? Why have the Sacrifice of the Mass if salvation is everywhere? Why practice religion, if truth and salvation is purely found in your own conscience. If truth is found in all cults and religions, then the Incarnation and crucifixion were a deception.
The liberal motto of Paul and his council was: liberty, free conscience and acceptance of all - the Good Samaritan in action. This is contrary to the teachings of Pope’s Pius X, Pius XI Pius XII of Leo XIII and Benedict XV. who all warned, of such religious relativism, this liberal Catholic confusion. These Pope saw the danger of Paul's philosphy and warned that such liberalism, such false understanding of God's plan, would undermine the church, plant confusion in the minds of the faithful and lead many into apostasy. That is what has happened.
