VATICAN CITY — “You will encounter traffic when you exit to the crypt.” The young and very bright preceptor warned as we left the underground tomb of the first pope and entered the crypt of St. Peter’s, where most of the popes are buried. We were almost swept away by a crowd of Polish pilgrims, singing loudly (and on key) as they marched to the tomb of John Paul II. He is their great folk hero, and their enthusiasm is justified.
Yet I wonder about the other great pope of the end of the 20th century — Blessed John XXIII. He has been beatified but no one seems greatly concerned about his canonization. Yet in fact, the church has never in recent centuries had a leader who attracted so much positive attention to the church. There are people crowded around his tomb in the Aula of St. Peter’s. Some of us are not too old to remember either the revolution he created by summoning the Second Vatican Council or the impact of his style on the whole world and on the Catholic world.
Pope John was a reforming pope — as every pope should be under the dictum Ecclesia Semper Reformanda (“the Church must always be reformed”). The unchanging church could in fact change, fresh winds blew through the arid dicasteries of the Vatican Palace. The church was not afraid of anyone or anything. The pope could dialogue with anyone. He could reopen any question. He could listen to any proposal. He tugged the Council out of the hands of the curia and gave it to the bishops of the world.
It was the most dramatic Catholic era in 1,000 years. We were young and alive, and the church was also young and alive. This old man, filled with the vitality of faith and hope had turned the Church upside down and inside out. Under “Good Pope John” it was impossible to be anti-Catholic.
It was all too good to be true.
One would have thought that he had established a model for a religious leader of all the world — “A hopeful Holy Man who smiles,” I had written. A few more popes like that, popes filled with the hope and love of the Gospel, and the pope would have become de facto the most important religious figure on the planet. Yet he had terrified the men who would succeed him and those who would elect such successors, good men, pious men, sincere men. Nervous men.
The pope is not an actor, not a comedian, not a joker. He was vicar of Christ, the heir of Peter the fisherman. He had to be serious. He had to defend the deposit of faith from those who were attacking it. Pope John had almost ruined the Church, many of the curialists were whispering. It was time to restore order, clean up the mess and protect the church from those who took Pope John’s Council seriously.
As the years went on it became necessary to double-think what the Council had accomplished — it was more about continuity than about change. It was not a reformation. The church would creep back into its suspicions of the world and become hostile and defensive. You could not fight off those who were opponents of the Church’s “teachings about life” by laughter and a ready smile.
Some of the more recently ordained priests claim that they are not Vatican II priests but John Paul priests, a position which, taken seriously, is close to heresy.
The Tablet, an English Catholic publication, said that John Paul II had “aborted the reform.” Both popes were saints, one was correct about the “signs of the times” and the other not. The Church still needs reform. Desperately. More than ever.
6 users commented in " Church needs to revive its stalled reform "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI’m slightly confused. I see JPII and John XXIII as similar. I think Second Vatican II was grossly misinterpreted during the 60s and 70s. JPII and Pope Benedict XVI are simply forcing people to interpret the work in the right light. How could JPII and Benedict XVI be against 2VC if they participated in the Council?
You have to expect an ebb and flow in personalities, leadership and dogma. To expect and even demand that progress be made in a steady stream of change is to expect too much and ask for errors. We need to pray that things that need to be changed are changed, and that things that need to remain, remain. Unfortunately, those who demand progress by any means lack such subtlety. They will sacrifice the forest to save the tree.
Anyway, I need you to be more clear in exactly what changes you want. Otherwise your commentary comes off as simple arm-chair quarterbacking.
Dear Father Greeley;
I don’t think that John Paul II “aborted the reform”. The mass is still in English and we are still building ugly churches!
John Paul II was, a more conservative pope than John XXIII but I feel that it was necessary to have someone who was a little more traditional after the upheavals of the late 60′s and early 70′s. The church lost a lot of people at that time (I think that would have happened regardless of what the church did) but returning to some of the old traditions was a comfort to many and anchored us after so much turmoil.
You Father Greeley, as a priest, are surely aware of the need for tradition and ritual.
So what would you have liked to see? Married priests? women priests? a change in some of the teachings? I don’t think the church is ready to absorb those things yet. I think that all those things may happen but in God’s time. This is God’s church and I believe that if He or She (as you say) wants something to happen in the church that God will make it clear to us that this is what He/She wants. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” is not a wish – it is reality. God’s will shall be done despite you, me and all the popes, cardinals and bishops now and yet to come.
John XXIII is already a saint though not yet cannonized and I am sure that he and John Paul II (also a saint) are praying for the church which they love and for the earthly saints (like you and me) who may be saints but I fear will never be cannonized!!!
As you once commented, Fr Greeley, about the Three Johns of your youth, I had the Three Johns of mine: John Fitzgerald Kennedy, John XXIII, and my beloved, Uncle John “Babe” Haney. I miss them all…
I, too, grew up in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Divine Infant parish.
And I remember the Vatican II changes and how John XXIII wanted to throw open the windows and allow the Holy Spirit to blow some fresh air into the Church. I remember studying the Council documents in my High School religion class and praying for these changes.
And I remember watching things “unravel” in the years since that time.
While visiting my Sister and her parish (Joliet), I was surprised that so many of the practices of my pre-Council youth have returned. Yes…I love liturgy and tradition. Continuity is good. But not as an empty exercise meant to provoke corporate holiness or, worse, as a means to control the faithful laity.
Jesus was a radical. He upset the religious order of the day. He spoke to the hearts of men and women, stripping away the trappings of empty religiosity, so the fresh air of His Spirit could blow through and quicken them, freshen them.
it would appear that the Church has been trying to encase Him is granite ever since…
I loved John XXIII. In my mind, he, my Uncle, and JFK are intrinsic to my youth. They all died within a few years of one another and, with them, something of hope died too. It would seem that the granite of inertia has overtaken their hopes and dreams as well; like dead men’s tombs, encasing their memories, their legacies.
Here’s my thing, I was born in 1978, so I have no personal connection to the radical shift that must have happened in all the churches. I was born in 1978, and I’m a convert/lapsed atheist. I’m this way because both my parents were raised Catholic and the 2VC caused both to drift away from the Church.
Yes, PJXXIII wanted to open the Church doors and let the Holy Spirit reinfigurate the old Church, unfortunately the Holy Spirit was not the only force that entered the Church. A whole bunch of nonsense entered as well.
As I stated earlier, JXXIII and JPII are the same in my opinion. They both did what was right for the Church.
Also, as someone born in 1978, who didn’t convert to Catholicism until he was 25, I look forward to the Latin Mass. Shocking! I know, but what can I say. Like Jesus, I’m a bit of a radical.
In this day an age, there’s nothing more radical and countercultural than being a strict Roman Catholic. The “catholics” of the 60s and the 70s are long past their due date.
A sustained campaign to canonize Good Pope John would be an excellent way to counter the stifling spirit of gloom being purveyed by the traditionalists. In the process the original impetus of the Council can be re-illuminated and re-invigorated in the joyful smiling manner of its greatest progenitor. The amazing insights of the scholars involved , and their considerable struggles, could be the clarion call to again take up the banner of ongoing reform and never put it down ! This could be an ongoing Festival of Faith that would be so engaging and alluring that it would again be impossible to be Anti- Catholic. The Orientals have a Laughing Budddha , how many truly charismatic role models do we establish in this vein. Fr.Greeley is exactly right, these nervous nellies sat on the reforms until they could muster a response to reinsert their options, in direct opposition to the will of the Holy Spirit. This tack is doomed to failure . It can be countered to limit the great suffering being inflicted . It is our choice.
In Quebec, the term “Quiet Revolution” describes the rapid secularization that occurred there in the 1960′s. The Church, once both dominant and dominating, receded rapidly as a force in the everyday lives of the Quebecois. A mass (pardon the pun) exodus occurred as Quebeckers left the Church in droves. Several years ago, some thoughtful analysts penned a document aimed at recommending reforms for the Church there. One of the recommendations evidently was “perhaps we should sell all our churches and go back to meeting in homes.” The rescissionists, those who would rescind what Vatican II initiated, do not go back far enough. If they did, they would find a Church much more reminiscent of small Christian communities instead of the corporatized Church that is of more recent vintage. Monastics term their continual learning in faith “on-going formation.” Yes, Fr. Greeley, the Church needs continued reform or, might we call it, on-going re-formation. Thank you for your comments