Pope John Paul II swooning thread

[MithLuin]

Well, I warned you all on one of the other threads that I might do this . Of course, I really don't intend to act like a fangirl; I mostly just wanted to have a place to post cool stuff about him. You can interpret swooning as hoping he will be canonized soon

• ****

So, first thoughts come from my sister's graduation. She gets props for having the coolest graduation speaker I've ever heard. Instead of telling the graduates what they ought to do with the rest of their lives, he told his life story in anecdotes. Surprisingly, this worked. Perhaps it went over well because he was Irish - a fun accent .

He was a bishop (my sister went to a Catholic college). He spent about 8 years in Nigeria when he was first ordained a priest, but then was wounded and had to return to Rome. He worked at the Vatican, where he was eventually asked to be the personal secretary to Pope Paul VI. So, that was cool... he had some neat stories about him. One interesting one was that his favorite feast was the Transfiguration - August 6th. Two of his encyclicals were issued on that day (in different years)... and he died on that day. This guy was with him at that time.

He also stayed on as secretary to Pope John Paul I, who was pope for just 33 days. Apparently, he was a very humble man who was convinced he shouldn't have been elected. He mentioned several times that they should have elected someone else...and once said that it should have been "the man sitting in front of me" (though he didn't say who that was). Apparently, he knew his time would be short (he had a heart condition, I think), so he mentioned that he would not travel and that plans should be saved for his successor.

When John Paul II was elected pope, this guy stayed on as his secretary for about 5 years, and then became Master of Ceremonies for papal liturgies. Eventually, he was ordained a bishop by the pope and sent back to Ireland. One of the first things he did as Master of Ceremonies was to go to the Archives and check out the seating arrangement of the first conclave of 1978 - sure enough, the man who was elected John Paul I was seated behind Karol Wojtyla of Poland, the future John Paul II.

But he started out his talk by mentioning that the graduation was on May 13th, the feast of Our Lady of Fatima. This was also the day on which Pope John Paul II was shot by a Turkish assasin (thought to be paid by Communists). You knew his version of the story was going to be a bit unique when he said, "As the pope was being loaded into the ambulance, he said to me, 'John, do not worry - this injury will not end in death.'" True, he had just watched two popes die before his eyes, but it was nice of JPII to reassure him while he himself was bleeding from a serious gunshot wound!

Anyway, these stories probably don't sound nearly as cool when retold, but it certainly was interesting to hear them first hand. He did a good job of painting the personalities of the men he worked with, and of course he had humorous asides.

More to come later....

[truehobbit]

Well, I did think "cool" when I read the last story!

I'm not exactly swooning over John Paul II., but I think he's admirable and, well, cool.

It's pretty amazing how much he was loved - swooned over really is the apt description. I mean, you can expect Catholics to like their Pope, a lot even, but this was quite unprecedented, I think. He was like a pop-star sometimes.
Personally, I find I like all the Popes I've known so far, but my heart still most goes out to John Paul I.

One can't help wondering about the veneration John Paul II. received, when so much he stood for was directly opposed to modern lifestyles, don't you think?
But maybe it's exactly that which made him so popular with young people?
In a way, he was a rebel, too - rebelling against the dictates of modern views and insisting on following his own heart/mind/conscience alone.
I don't agree with all of the things he stood for (though I don't disagree with all, either), but I'm awed at his never bending to the mentality of the time.

I also think he has the greatest merits when it comes to healing old wounds and making peace with other faiths.

I'm a bit doubtful about the "fashion" of canonization that he started, and hence don't quite see the merits of having him canonised, too, I must admit. It's an old issue I have with saint-status in general. I've always struggled with the concept.
On the other hand, I've recently heard someone argue against the criticism that creating saints at the rate John Paul was going only demeaned the value of sainthood, and this guy (don't know who he was) said that canonising these people brought saints closer to the believers - that it's not only martyrs of the early church or people who for other reasons have nothing in common with you. That it's simply people who put their lives in the service of their God, something everyone can do.
I liked that point, it did give me a new appreciation of the idea.

I also admired how John Paul II. went on with his job throughout his illness, down to the very end.

[Parmamaite]

Is it okay for non-catholics to post here?

Pope John Paul II is one of the very few world leaders that I respect, he seemed to always follow his conviction instead of being political, and just as important: he genuinely wanted to make the world a better place for all of us, never dividing people in "us" and "them". He was basically A Good Man.

[Sassafras]

He was basically A Good Man.

That he was.

From this non-believer's perspective, his integrity was impeccable. I admired and respected him very much. And yes, I think you could say that I felt a sort of love for him.

[MithLuin]

Yes, everyone is welcome in this thread!

I agree that he was able to touch all sorts of people, not just Catholics. In a way, he was like Mother Theresa, just radiating this presence that people loved. I have never heard him accused of being an actor or politician, even though he was both those things - he was too sincere to be faulted for kissing babies . There was something about him, some charisma, that made it easy for people to accept him, even if they did not particularly agree with what he stood for.

Hmmm, what to add...

I was able to see him twice. When I was fifteen, he came to a nearby city, so my whole family went to the stadium for Mass . I remember being very excited, and listening carefully to his homily...which in a couple of ways, spoke directly to me. Of course, I also remember being freezing cold all morning waiting (we were in the shade), and reading The Hobbit to my brother on the busride down .

In 2002, I watched most of World Youth Day in Toronto on TV. It was painful to see him laboring so hard to be there and to hold his hand steady, but he got through. You could still understand his English. It was clear how important to him it was, and also how much he was loved. Having experienced WYD myself since then, I can understand how that works .

After that, I was able to go to Rome for Easter, so I saw him again, but this time I was the traveler. It was interesting (to say the least!) to attend Easter Vigil Mass at St. Peter's Basilica. He was no longer able to get around very well, but he still gave the blessings outside and presided at mass and all of that. They told us about 10 times (several times in English) not to take flash pictures at the beginning of mass (it's supposed to be dark except for the Easter candle), but everyone ignored that and did anyway. Everyone wanted to be close to him, to see him, to get a picture. Everything was in Italian or Latin, so I didn't understand anything he said apart from the Liturgy, but when I got home, I realized I had been present when he signed Ecclesia de Eucharistia, his last encyclical, on the Eucharist in the Church.

I of course never got a chance to meet him or speak to him or anything like that, but it was neat, when I went home, to be able to read what he had said.

I guess I admire him a lot. He is like a grandfather, very wise, very warm, offering good advice, speaking from a depth of experience that I don't share. And his sincerity and devotion are plain to see. I guess...well, I do miss him. He died on the Feast of Divine Mercy (a feast that he added to the calendar, of course!), and that to me is the best way to sum up what he stood for. He wanted to live mercy, and offer mercy. He offered love to others, expected that of people. But not in a naive way. More in...well, a fairly amazing way, for someone who had come through the Holocaust and the Communists in Poland. He had a great respect for people's dignity, but not a solemn kind of dignity that could not smile or laugh or sing .

[Lurker]

Pope John Paul is still my hero!
I too, pray he gets canonized soon, hoping that we (me and my wife) can afford to make another trip to the Vatican when that happens. Might as well start saving now! I had to explain to the partners and my wife's bosses/HR why we had to take time off to get to the Vatican during his funeral, I cited everything from freedom of religion to bereavement (entitled to three days off! ) in my letter. They told us three days that's it, good luck in purchasing a ticket, we did get tickets. We left a day before the funeral itself cost us an arm and a leg but it was worth it.

Anyways, I'll post again on this thread. It's time to hit the sack for now!

[MithLuin]

Well, my brother got me George Wiegel's 900-page biography of JPII for my birthday. I sent him to the bookstore with a whole list of books (most of them Tolkien-related), and that was what he came back with .

It was much appreciated, though!

The book is called Witness to Hope, and I think that does speak to who he is. He offers hope to people who are discouraged and think things are bleak and irreparable. I haven't finished it yet, but I think the best part is leading up to him becoming pope. The pope has such a big job, and so many things going on, that it is hard to keep it all straight. The end of communism in the Soviet bloc does look different from this perspective, though!

Just a brief story.... He had a network of friends that he formed as a young priest. These were young people from the parish, university students, etc....sorta a very large extended family. He went on hiking and kayaking trips with them, but some were also involved in a choir at his church. [Youth groups were not permitted in Communist Poland] Anyway....they called him "Uncle" (Wujek in Polish). When he was named a bishop, he reassured them that Wujek would remain Wujek. Later, when he had returned from Rome (the time John Paul I was elected), they had a party and invited him, and that was what the banner said: "Wujek will remain Wujek" (though now he was Archbishop of Krakow and a Cardinal). Somehow, that was true of him - you could make him pope, and he was still just a normal guy who was very interested in hearing from people and getting to know them.

And now I too must go to bed.

[Lurker]

Is this a new book, Mith?
I have most of the books he wrote and written about him. If I have time I'll browse through his poetry and post it here. I also have a CD of JPII leading the prayers given to me by my parents. It's really great to pop it up in the car and listen to it during long drives or when I'm flying. It's a discreet way of praying without offending other passengers.

Have you seen the TV movie they did about his life? I want to get hold of a copy of the DVD. I haven't had time yet to go looking for it.

Anyways, I was at this used bookstore one time after he died and I forgot what book it was I picked up but when I got home and browsed through it an old prayer leaflet (laminated) with a picture of a young JPII on the other side was in between the pages. I swear!!! Man, when I saw it I had goosebumps all over. I just looked up and said "Thank you!" I often ask for signs when I pray esp. if I have an important decision to make, most of the time it works. My wife teased me that I should send a letter to the Vatican about that. I go maybe I will.

I apologize if non-Catholics might find my latter post weird or offensive.

[Frelga]

I apologize if non-Catholics might find my latter post weird or offensive.

Why would it be? I thought it was beautiful.

[MithLuin]

Witness to Hope: Review

The book came out in 1999, I think. So, it isn't "new" but it is very, very well done. He did his research, and he was able to interview JPII (and his secretary [Dziewitz?]) to clarify points on several occasions.

I saw the first half of the recent made-for-TV movie, and it seemed well done. There have been (I think) 2 other movies of his life made.

The people in charge of the Causes of Saints get many, many such letters . There is no harm in sending it, to let them know what impact he has had on you. I think a letter from a woman from France is being considered for the miracle required for Beatification.

[truehobbit]

Different Pope, I know, so maybe it's the wrong thread, but I'm currently reading "Salt of the Earth", an interview with Joseph Ratzinger conducted in 1997, and am finding it thoughtful and really worthwhile, so I just thought I'd recommend it.
Here's the link to the US Amazon page for the book:

[Lurker]

I apologize if non-Catholics might find my latter post weird or offensive.

Why would it be? I thought it was beautiful.

Thank you, Frelga.
I don't want to start a religious discussion here but some people find it weird or offensive when you ask for favours from Saints or "would be Saints". How do I explain this? I pray to God first of course, but sometimes when I get "busy signals" up there I try to go through another "channel". You know, it's like talking to a friend for me, I go "JPII, I know you are up there, can you relay a message to God for me....yadda...yadda..." It's hard to explain to a non-Catholic cause I tried, I really tried, and yet the ones I talk to don't get it. Please if you have any derogatory comments on what I said refrain from doing it in this thread. I can attest to the fact that it does work most of the time. All you have to do is believe.

Mith,
Thanks for encouraging me, I know it's not as extraordinary like curing cancer but I just can't explain the fact that I will find the "sign" in a non-religious book with a young JPII picture (the prayer was for the Lord to guide JPII when he was alive) inserted in between the pages. I love to track down the previous owner.

[MithLuin]

Well, Hobby, I think it is clear that Joseph Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla had similar (though not indentical) visions of the world. So, it is fine to put it here I also thought it neat that his "homecoming" visit to Germany was to all the places I went while I was in Bavaria. Of course, we went to those places because of him . But it is kinda funny that I've been to Marktl Am Inn and Altoetting .

Another anecdote....when JPII was elected, one of the other cardinals, an Italian, had to go out on the balcony and announce his election. He turned and asked someone how Voy-tee-wa's name was spelled, and on being told [Wojtyla], said, "what an unfortunate spelling" . I agree!

[spd]

Hello everyone. I saw this thread and knew I had to post this here. "This" is the editorial I wrote for the magazine I edit, Gilbert Magazine, after JPII died. Gilbert mag is a literary magazine devoted to the English writer G.K. Chesterton. Chesterton, who died in 1936, converted to Catholicism in 1922, so is considered by many to be a Catholic writer. However, Gilbert mag is not a "Catholic magazine" per se. We try to keep it secular, mainly because Chesterton appeals to people across the spectrum. Though I, the publisher, and all the top editors are Catholic, our contributors include a Methodist minister and a member of the Baha'i faith.

Anyway, enough background. This editorial ran a couple of months after JPII died. I thought this thread was the perfect place to share it.

Right When We Are Wrong

During the course of his long pontificate, Pope John Paul II wrote volumes of apostolic letters, encyclicals, and other documents exhorting the members of the Church on various matters of the Faith: strengthening their prayer life; adhering to Catholic teaching on abortion and artificial contraception; having a proper reverence for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist; having a proper understanding of Catholic social teaching (Distributism); adherence to Catholic moral teachings; the importance of reason as a complement to Faith; and so on.

How much of an effect did they have? Well, there doesn’t appear to be any revival of St. Thomas Aquinas. Catholics are still aborting and contracepting at the same rate as the general population. What we’ve been reading about church-going pro-abortion Catholic politicians indicates to us a rather casual approach to the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist these days. And we have seen nothing to convince us that Catholics are any more knowledgeable about subsidiarity or Distributism than anyone else.

So it might seem reasonable to conclude that John Paul had little influence over his flock, despite his huge popularity.

Of course, the full impact of John Paul’s twenty-six year pontificate can only be judged by history, but already we detect a paradox that G.K. Chesterton would have appreciated: The fact that John Paul’s extensive teachings are profoundly ignored is not a sign of the papacy’s weakness. Swimming against the tide is a sure sign of vitality.

It brings to mind something Chesterton wrote when discussing his own conversion: “We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. We want a religion that is right where we are wrong.” If there is anything that the extensive writings of John Paul demonstrate, it is this: that the papacy is often in the right not only when the world is wrong but even when Catholics are in the wrong.

The Church’s detractors, Chesterton wrote, “merely take the modern mood and then require any creed to be cut down to fit that mood.” What kind of modern moods? Taking a cue from feminism, the moderns see the male-only priesthood and demand that the Church ordain women, because the all-male priesthood is a throwback to a less enlightened age. But they forget (or perhaps don’t know) that the pagan cults the first Christians encountered everywhere they went were dominated by priestesses, and that an all-male priesthood seemed just as odd to the moderns of 2,000 years ago as it does to the moderns of today. Or perhaps the moderns of today aren’t really so modern.

In his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, John Paul made it clear that women could not be ordained as priests because, as he said, his Church has no authority to do so. In other words, he could not change the teaching of his Church. It did not matter what women wanted or what fashion called for. This pope did not give into fashion. There were many people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, who screamed in outrage. But he was right when they were wrong.

Similarly, the pressure continues to grow for the Church to relax her teachings on artificial contraception, and even on abortion. Conventional wisdom says that by relaxing her teachings the Church would finally catch up with the modern world, though the moderns once again probably aren’t aware that the first Christians to reach Rome found a society where abortion, contraception and even infanticide were widely practiced (we wonder: what is it about the moderns that makes them modern?).

Against this tide, John Paul released his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, which reiterated once again the teaching of the Church on abortion and contraception: that the taking of an innocent human life in the womb is evil; that separating what God has joined together with regard to the marriage act is detrimental to love and to life. This didn’t sit well with the moderns, but they were wrong when the Pope was right, and one way we know he was right was that he was repeating a teaching that dates back to the first century, when the moderns then were wrong too.

So it was with this Pope throughout his pontificate. He was that living thing that goes against the stream of dead things. It was true at the outset when he initiated the downfall of Communism just by telling his fellow Poles they were free regardless of whatever political system they lived under, defying a world that said Communism would not fall save by massive military intervention. And it was true at the end, when in his dying days he gave witness to the dignity of suffering while the judicial and political establishments of the United States conspired to rob Terri Schiavo of her life for other no reason than that she was an inconvenience.

“It is in those cases,” Chesterton writes, “that we get the real grapple of religion; and it is in those cases that we get the peculiar and solitary triumph of the Catholic faith. It is not in merely being right when we are right, as in being cheerful or hopeful or humane. It is in having been right when we were wrong, and in the fact coming back upon us afterwards like a boomerang.”

Requiesce in Pace, John Paul: you were right when we were wrong.

(Copyright Gilbert Magazine, www.gilbertmagazine.com, published in the June 2005 issue)

[Lurker]

That's a really enlightening editorial, SPD. Can I share it to the youth group I once lead back in Toronto? I don't live there anymore but they could discuss it during the youth meetings. Thanks!

I just want to comment on this:

So it might seem reasonable to conclude that John Paul had little influence over his flock, despite his huge popularity.

I think he might have little influence over the "older" Catholics but I regularly read "The Messenger", a Catholic newspaper and it states that the # of young people attending mass has gone up because of JPII's World Youth Days. I've been very active with the youth group in my former parish and I noticed it, too eversince he came to Canada in 2004, our members have increased every year. A least three young people in our parish has entered the priesthood because they were inspired by JPII.

I think most Catholics would agree to an all "male" priesthood. I think those who criticize it are those who are non-Catholics, since I haven't heard a Catholic complain about it. Yes, I do understand there is a shortage of priests but female priests is not the solution. I know in third world countries a lot of young men would like to enter the priesthood but unfortunately the seminaries are too expensive for farmer's kids. In fact, our youth group was supporting a couple and sometimes the funds we send is not enough.

[spd]

Lurker, thank you for your kind words, and yes, you absolutely may share it with your former youth group. Since it's a published editorial, all I ask is that you include the copyright and publication information. I inserted it in the above post to make it easy for you.

I fully agree with you on the "generation gap" in the Catholic Church today, and it's a phenomenon that few commentators may be aware of. I think, as time goes by, it will be seen that John Paul left two enduring legacies, which I think are related. One is his Theology of the Body teachings, which came early in his pontificate and which people have just started to notice and talk about over the past few years. I don't know if this thread is the appropriate place to go into that, but it is truly sublime.

The other is his evangelization of youth. I think there is a clear difference between many Catholics who came of age in the 70s and early 80s, and the younger generation who knew no other Pope besides John Paul. Of course there are always exceptions, and I don't mean this as a blanket statement (I myself am 40 and fall somewhere between the two generations). But from what I can see, younger Catholics, those, say, about 35 and younger, do not buy the snake oil regarding dissent from Church teachings on faith and morals that was such a regrettable fallout from the misinterpretation of the Vatican II documents.

While many in the older generation fit the mold of what have come to be called "cafeteria Catholics," i.e., picking and choosing which dogmas and teachings they'll follow, the younger generation likes to gleefully say, "The cafeteria is closed." Do some surfing around the Catholic blogosphere to see what I mean (I can find links if you like). Younger Catholics -- and I think this is a direct result of John Paul's influence, and his tireless work with youth -- tend to marry younger than their parents did, have more children, are more informed not only on Church teachings, but why those teachings are what they are, attend Mass with greater regularity, are more steeped in popular devotions like the rosary and Eucharistic adoration, and so on. As editor of Gilbert I constantly come into contact with young people like this. It is truly a remarkable phenomenon.

[truehobbit]

Thanks for sharing that, spd!

I wouldn't go so far as to say who is right and who is wrong, and even though I'm a Catholic I don't always agree with everything the Church says (I might be one of those "cafeteria Catholics" ) - but I also think that "swimming against the tide" is one of its greatest merits.
Not giving in to calls to adapt to the fashion of the day has my greatest respect.

[nerdanel]

I think most Catholics would agree to an all "male" priesthood. I think those who criticize it are those who are non-Catholics, since I haven't heard a Catholic complain about it. Yes, I do understand there is a shortage of priests but female priests is not the solution.

Non-Catholics...or former Catholics, including former Catholic little girls who learned to ask as early as four years old why they couldn't grow up to be priests because of how they were born.
By the way, I sense that this is a thread only for people of a certain mindset, which is why I would not normally post here. However, after spd's article, it seems relevant to remark on Church policies that discriminate against and alienate (in my case, "former") members of the Catholic community, when it is suggested that only non-Catholics object to those policies.

[Faramond]

I don't think swimming against the tide should be confused with being right.

If you are right, then you may have to swim against the tide.



I wonder which Catholic policies a non-Catholic may object to, and which he or she mayn't object to without being considered a interferer in private affairs? I think a non-Catholic may object to the official Catholic birth control position, for example, because this has consequences for the entire world. It's obvious that non-Catholics have every right to be outraged at Catholic policies regarding predator pedophile priests. On the other hand, I think it is busybodyish if a non-Catholic objects to the policy on the priesthood, though.

But wait, there's more! A former Catholic isn't a non-Catholic. The church's teaching did have an influence on that person's life ... perhaps positively or negatively, and those opinions on private church practices carry more weight.

[MithLuin]

My sister was 5 when she informed us that she wanted to be a priest when she grew up. Our local priest thought that was wonderful, and encouraged her. [How he found out: every year, he would introduce himself to the first graders, and during the visit, he'd ask, "does anybody want to be a priest someday?" He had had boys raise their hands in the past, but she was the first girl to do so .]

Maybe he secretly thought women should be priests, but I doubt it. More likely, he thought it was wonderful that she was thinking about what she could do to help people and serve the church at such a young age. After all, young children may have an idea of what they want to do, but they have plenty of time to sort out the details. He didn't ask the boys thinking they would all become priests, but just to foster any calling that was there.

My mother would ask her if maybe she wanted to be a nun? But she said, no, she wanted to say mass. So, she was pretty set on it. But she was, again, 5-10 years old.

Now, she is a youth minister. She works for the Church. She hopes to get engaged soon. I think she is happy with how her life has panned out, and does not 'miss' the opportunity to get ordained. As far as I know, she has never resented the all-male priesthood (though, obviously, she questioned it). Since practically everyone else who works for the Church is a woman, I've never minded that the priests had to be men. I kinda like it, actually .

But I agree that it isn't only non-Catholics who question the reasoning behind maintaining an all-male priesthood. I don't like knee-jerk reactions of "but it's always been this way!" so I think it is educational to question why it is that way. The Church's explanations satisfy me, especially when placed within the context of JPII's Theology of the Body.

I agree that post-Vatican II produced an upheaval in the Church, and it took some time to get that sorted out. With young people now, that's mostly settled down - we don't remember a Latin mass, and don't expect things to be changed on us every year. I agree that the youth tend to be a bit more "traditional" than you might expect, but some of it is idealism - we haven't had a chance to go out into the world and try our wings, so we don't know what these ideas look like in reality. We're learning to live it, but we aren't there yet.

Whereas those who are older - have had to figure out what their faith looks like now - it isn't theory, any more. I think that is why you see more picking-and-choosing among older people (they have dropped things that just didn't work for them). There are plenty of things that are good, but not necessary - such as the Rosary. Prayer is necessary...and if you find a different prayer style that works for you, fine. But the rosary is (in this sense) optional.

Not all doctrines are optional, obviously. Many of the things that are most trying are protested precisely because there is no leeway granted. At some point, a person maybe should consider changing religions, if it just isn't working out.

But since this thread is for JPII

He was a man of conviction, and his faith shaped all of his actions. He struggled with his burdens in prayer, and wrote all of his papal documents in the chapel. I think there is a sense that he really was a pastor to the whole Church, and I think he took people's concerns seriously.

I mentioned that I am reading Weigel's biography. On JPII's first visit to the US (as pope), he stopped in DC and spoke to a gathering of a national group of nuns (I forget what it was called). The introductory address (by the president of this group) very pointedly brought up the issue of female ordination. Weigel claims that JPII was courteous in his response - he didn't get ruffled by the criticism (and since Weigel was actually there...he is likely to have gotten that right ). (Here is what he said, if you can read Italian) JPII was concerned about doing the best for the Church, but he wasn't interested in getting into squabbles with people over how things should be done. He mostly let the Curia run itself, and tried his best to be available to as many people as possible. People always got the sense that he was 'with' them, not tuning them out while focusing elsewhere.

One could argue that more people saw him (in person) than have seen any other person in history. I don't have the numbers to prove that, but I'm pretty sure he beats out most musicians for the sheer size of the crowds he drew. And he did a lot of traveling, spanning a 25-year-pontificate.....

• His Travels