Paul VI The Forgotten Pope?

[Doom]

This is the name of a recent book published in German (still untranslated) but I found the title intriguing.

In a way, Paul VI is forgotten because he comes sandwiched between two monumental Popes John XXIII who is revered by the progressives (even though he was quite traditional and the belief of the progressives that if he had lived he would have implemented their full agenda, allowing abortion and contraception, ordaining women, etc are a classic case of self-delusion) and John Paul II, the most significant Pope in 500 years or more. Stuck between these two big Popes, Paul VI can seem small and insignificant by comparison. But his 15-year reign was probably far more important than John XXIII's 4 1/2-year pontificate, which I think seems more important than it was due to all the mythologizing.

Yet there seems to be a renewed interest in Paul's pontificate, with several major new books about him published since 2018, including "The Divided Pope" by Yves Chiron, Saint Paul Vi by Matthew Bunson, and the republication of Peter Hebblethwaite's 1993 tome "The First Modern Pope" the first real attempt at a biography, and of course "The Forgotten Pope" by Karim Schleckins that inspired my thread title.

It seems the Forgotten Pope may be forgotten no more.

[anawim]

I was in 3rd. grade when he became pope. I was 24 when he died. Not forgotten, but certainly made more of a splash in the 60's than in the 70's. He seemed to get quite after a while. Either that, or I stopped paying attention.

[Doom]

Popes, like Presidents, generally only have a short window to be active and to make major achievements, after that, they just mark time, waiting for the election of their successor.

[Riverboat]

Hah! Forgotten? The pope who promulgated Humanae Vitae ? Not likely. Heaven knows the libertines have never forgotten - or forgiven - him. When he warned of a general lowering of morality, one has only to make a cursory glance around him to realize how prophetic he was.

[Doom]

I don't think Humane Vitae is even on the top ten list of his significant accomoplishments

[Riverboat]

By all means, post a list. HV is on MY list.

[peregrinator]

I was in 3rd. grade when he became pope. I was 24 when he died. Not forgotten, but certainly made more of a splash in the 60's than in the 70's. He seemed to get quite after a while. Either that, or I stopped paying attention.

He was very quiet in the latter half of his Papacy.

[peregrinator]

I don't think Humane Vitae is even on the top ten list of his significant accomoplishments

How are you defining significant accomplishment?

[Doom]

I think publishing the new liturgy would be the single most important thing he did as Pope. That's the one thing he did that will remain with us for centuries.
Second, would be the inauguration of the ecumenical l movement, all the big ecumenical "dialogues", between Catholics and Orthodox, Catholics and Anglicans, Catholics and Lutherans etc. started on his watch.

Among his encyclicals, Popularum Progresso was more important than Humane Vitae.

I think the fact that to American Catholics, the only thing they know about Paul VI is that he issued Humane Vitae is a rather sad state of affairs.

[Doom]

If the only thing Catholics know about Paul VI is that he issued Humanae Vitae then he really is the forgotten Pope.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I was in 3rd. grade when he became pope. I was 24 when he died. Not forgotten, but certainly made more of a splash in the 60's than in the 70's. He seemed to get quite after a while. Either that, or I stopped paying attention.

He was very quiet in the latter half of his Papacy.

This is often attributed to the negative reaction to HV.

[BobCatholic]

I always thought that John Paul I was the forgotten Pope. Paul VI was more memorable and JP2 was definitely memorable.

[Doom]

I was in 3rd. grade when he became pope. I was 24 when he died. Not forgotten, but certainly made more of a splash in the 60's than in the 70's. He seemed to get quite after a while. Either that, or I stopped paying attention.

He was very quiet in the latter half of his Papacy.

This is often attributed to the negative reaction to HV.

It is more due to old age and poor health, as well as the normal intellectual, and physical decline that comes after age 75, he became Pope comparatively late in life, at age 67, and by 1970 he was already past his prime. The most significant thing he did post-1970 was his imposition of retirement ages for bishops at age 75 and cardinals at age 80 in 1971, a move he made to get rid of certain Vatican bureaucrats who were getting in his way. Peter Hebblethwait (The First Modern Pope 1993) says that Paul's biggest mistake was his decision not to remove the curial officials left over from John XXIII and Pius XII right away and replace them with his own people but rather tried to make his reforms not only without the support of anyone in the Curia but with their active opposition.

[peregrinator]

Well, most of his reforms shouldn't have been made (simply because of the sheer number of them) so I can't say I'm sorry that he encountered resistance.

[Doom]

Well, most of his reforms shouldn't have been made (simply because of the sheer number of them) so I can't say I'm sorry that he encountered resistance.

No Pope ever openly criticizes his predecessor, but to a certain degree whenever a new Pope changes a policy or changes emphasis on this or that it is an implicit criticism of the previous pontificate.

So the fact that even nearly 50 years after his death, no Pope has continued in Paul’s direction is a sign that his reforms had few defenders is a sign that most agree with that.

There was an immediate and fairly dramatic shift in direction and priorities when John Paul II took over with several major policies being overturned.


The biggest and most obvious shift was in foreign policy towards the Soviet Union. John XXIII and Paul VI pursued a policy called Ostpolitik, which was, in the minds of its critics, a weak policy of appeasement and accommodationist approach, stop condemning communism, stopped protesting communist persecution of Christians, and in return, the Church got..... nothing, just a slight thawing of relations, and barely even that. John XXIII made a deal with the communist bloc if they allowed bishops behind the Iron Curtain to attend the Council, he would make sure that the Council didn't condemn communism. In the mind of critics, this was as bad as Pius XII not making any explicit public condemnations of the Holocaust until after the war.


Another big shift was in Paul's lack of discipline, he had allowed dissident theologians to do whatever they liked without any kind of protest or rebuke. An "investigation" of Hans Kung started in 1972, and by 1978 nothing had really been done. Dealing with the Kung affair was one of John Paul's major priorities and the issue was resolved in 1979 with Kung having his license to teach Catholic theology revoked.

[peregrinator]

So the fact that even nearly 50 years after his death, no Pope has continued in Paul’s direction is a sign that his reforms had few defenders is a sign that most agree with that.

I would say that Francis has definitely taken Paul VI's direction in the Church as his own. Or at least his perception of that direction.

[Doom]

So the fact that even nearly 50 years after his death, no Pope has continued in Paul’s direction is a sign that his reforms had few defenders is a sign that most agree with that.

I would say that Francis has definitely taken Paul VI's direction in the Church as his own. Or at least his perception of that direction.

I don't agree, one of the most important key aspects of Paul's reign was his abject refusal to answer critics, act decisively against dissent or enforce Church discipline. In some ways, Francis has been even more aggressive about those matters than John Paul II who while he was often criticized from the right for not being more assertive (a criticism he admitted was true in his book "Come Let Us Be On Our Way") on the left he was often attacked for alleged "authoritarianism", oddly enough both criticisms were correct. Anyway, Paul VI never would have forced the resignation of Cardinals, as Francis has, and he certainly wouldn't have gone after Vigano and other internal critics as Francis has done.

[peregrinator]

Ehhh, Paul VI did try to discipline Lefebvre while not (as you say) acting decisively against dissent. So there was a similar approach to Church governance as today, which was to view schism as the worst possible threat to Church unity, while leaving heresy unchecked (which inaction foments schism).

But as far as direction goes, I meant more the propensity for introducing change.

[Doom]

Ehhh, Paul VI did try to discipline Lefebvre while not (as you say) acting decisively against dissent. So there was a similar approach to Church governance as today, which was to view schism as the worst possible threat to Church unity, while leaving heresy unchecked (which inaction foments schism).

But as far as direction goes, I meant more the propensity for introducing change.

Yes, Paul went after Lefebvre because he had no choice, much as in the Vigano matter, Lefebvre was incredibly stubborn, obstinate, and rather vicious in his attacks on the Papacy. Much like with Vigano, Lefebvre brought it on himself, and he eventually self-excommunicated himself by committing the schismatic act of consecrating bishops without approval. Lefevbre, like Vigano, was an act of self-immolation.

Now some on the Progressive Left are as obviously bad as Lefebvre and Vigano and will do things like attempt to ordain women. And when they do that, they are treated the same.

But the real problem is that most Progressives tend to endorse crazy schismatic things like Sedevacantism, the way the dissident right does. Indeed, the Progressives are skilled at doubler talk, they have a truly amazing ability to mouth the exact right words to sound orthodox while undermining orthodoxy. Few Progressives are as bold as Hans Kung and just come right out and say crazy things like "The Council of Nicea was wrong" (yes, Kung wrote an entire book explicitly denying Nicea). Most Progressives are like Karl Rahner, skilled at obfuscation, arriving at conclusions that sound heretical, but if you go back and trace their reasoning to find out where they went wrong you are at a loss. It is hard to charge them with a specific heresy because their writings are obscure and you aren't sure what they are trying to say, and the few clear things all seem completely orthodox. Where exactly is the heresy? It is very difficult to tell. Thus is the exact quality that frustrated Piux X in his battle against Modernism.

The classic case of the nebulous heresy is Hans Urs Von Balthazar in the only book of his that is known to general audiences "Dare We Hope", the actual thesis seems wrong, a universalist heresy, but if you look at the details of what he says, good luck figuring exactly where he denies or casts doubt on any—dogma or figuring out exactly where the heresy is.

Bertrand Russell once said of the ontological argument of St Anselm "it is easier to say that the argument is invalid than it is to explain what the error is".


Oh to have heretics like Arius or Luther again, who would just come right out and say what they mean, it would be make the job of Pope easier.

[peregrinator]

Paul went after Lefebvre because he had no choice

Nope, of course he had a choice.