church

A Stalwart Defender of the Catholic Tradition
Traditionalists criticized him for his ecumenical leanings and his dialogue with the modern world. Progressives attacked him for presumably being closed off and for “being like Hamlet.” “Today we can say, with humble and firm conscience, that we have never betrayed ‘the holy truth.’”

by Andrea Tornielli

He died almost unexpectedly, alone, in the summer heat of Castel Gandolfo, twenty-five years ago. He was a pontiff who was able to enter into dialogue with the modern world, able to suffer for the Church, able to defend to the last the essential parts of Catholic tradition in the dramatic years after Vatican Council II.
Unfortunately, the figure of Paul VI today appears somewhat “squeezed” between those of his predecessor, Blessed John XXIII, and his successor, John Paul II, who came after the meteor of Pope John Paul I. And when he is not forgotten, he is the object of posthumous attacks from both the right and the left. The so-called “traditionalists” continue to attack Paul VI for having ratified liturgical reform, for his ecumenical leanings, and for his frank, sincere dialogue with the modern world, pretending not to know about the many, precise documents Paul VI issued to defend the depositum fidei.

Paul VI’s “brake” on abuses
Some so-called “progressive” circles, on the other hand, criticize Paul VI for seemingly being closed off to certain ideas and for being “melancholy,” forgetting that until today, he has been the only one of Peter’s successors to have written a document devoted entirely to Christian joy, the apostolic exhortation Gaudete in Domino, published in May 1975. In this second case, Paul VI is assigned responsibility for failure to accomplish the Vatican II reforms, accusing him of in some way “braking” the course started by Vatican Council II and not letting the new energy of the Council be expressed to the utmost. Thus, the progressives end up comparing the “open” John XXIII–who with great courage and hope initiated the Council–to the “closed” Paul VI, who had to guide three of the four Council sessions and bring into port the ship that his predecessor had launched on the open sea, accusing him of not having lived up to expectations. It is fairly evident in this case that his critics are referring here to how Vatican II should have been and not to how it was. They refer-complaining about Paul VI’s “braking”–to the “spirit of the Council” that still today is evoked in order to contradict its letter, the “spirit of the Council” that is used to justify abuses of every sort (also, but not only, in the liturgical field), pretending to forget what is written in the Council documents.

The fumes of Satan in the temple of God
In order to understand Paul VI, it is first necessary to get rid of ideological blinders or the distortions caused by prejudice. From the beginning of his pontificate, distinguished by the firm decision to continue the Council in the same direction marked out by his predecessor and the Council fathers themselves, Paul VI was faithful to his task as guardian of the Tradition. This is demonstrated by his precise interventions in the course of the Council; his encyclical Mysterium fidei, in which he reiterated the Eucharistic faith of always; and the crystalline clarity of the Creed of the People of God, by which he wanted to express what the Church believes in an age marked by doubt and uncertainty. It is demonstrated by his reiteration of the rule of priestly celibacy and the dramatic, deeply felt stance taken in the encyclical Humanae vitae, the one that in 1968 confirmed the Church’s condemnation of artificial contraceptives, putting this condemnation in a framework that emphasized the dignity of women. It is demonstrated by the terrible words he uttered on June 29, 1972, when he stated his “feeling that the fumes of Satan had come through some crack into the temple of God. There exist doubt, uncertainty, problems, restlessness, dissatisfaction, confrontation. People do not trust the Church.… Doubt has entered our consciences and it came in through windows that should instead be opened to the light.… In the Church, too, this state of uncertainty reigns. It was thought that after the Council, a sunny day would have dawned for the history of the Church. What came instead was a day of clouds, storms, darkness, seeking, uncertainty.... We believe in something preternatural (the devil) who came into the world precisely in order to disturb and smother the Council’s fruits.”

Filled with joy in every tribulation
The Pope who looked at the crisis of the Church with such realism is the same one whose ecumenical openings would go on to distinguish his papacy. He is the same great reformer of the Roman Curia and the papal court, the same man who courageously moved ahead in his encyclical Populorum progressio. His eagerness for dialogue was all of a piece with his missionary eagerness and came from his observation of the process of de-Christianization now going on in so many countries. Millions and millions have moved away from the faith. The Council, reforms, the dialogue were all instruments to be used to present, to people who no longer believed in the Church, her truest and most essential face.
Paul VI would confess on June 29, 1978, a month before he died: “Here, brothers and sons, is the untiring, vigilant, unrelenting intention that has spurred us in these fifteen years of papacy: today we can say Fidem servavi! (I have kept the faith), with the humble and firm consciousness that we have never betrayed the holy truth.”
Paul VI himself, in a personal note of 1975, revealed how confined he felt by certain clichés that had been pinned on him. “My state of mind? Hamlet? Don Quixote? Left? Right?.... I do not feel they understand me. I have two feelings: superabundo gaudio. I am full of consolation, pervaded with joy in every tribulation.”

From Paul VI to John Paul II: Toward a Real Ecumenism (a Miracle of Unity)
In recent years, great attention has been paid, in the Catholic Church and the other Christian churches and communities, to the courageous statement made in John Paul II’s encyclical Ut unum sint. In this text, published in 1995, the Pope says that, in order to foster Christian unity, he is open to discussing the forms in which the primacy of Peter is exercised. Among Paul VI’s handwritten notes, contained in the archives of the institute in Brescia, Italy, which bears his name and contributes to keeping his memory alive, an interesting note on ecumenism and the role of Peter’s successor has been found. It provides an effective explanation of Paul VI’s position on this topic.
“ Rome (Pope):
The great obstacle to ecumenism?
- yes, if by ecumenism is meant irenic pragmatic pluralism, which leaves aside the real and univocal Truth of the revelation, of the Word of God, and if the Church is conceived of as an agglomerate, a parliament of arbitrary interpretations of the Gospel, etc…
- and if the Pope is seen as a despotic, self-centered authority, and adherence to the Pope and his authority felt to be a defeat to one’s personal prestige.
- no, if one recognizes the Pope as the beginning, the foundation, the bond of the communion and unity that ecumenism is seeking.
(cf Lumen gentium, nos 18, 22, 23)”