JPII Mistakes and Pastoral Approach
#1
"Another responsibility that certainly forms part of a pastor's role is admonition. I think that in this regard I did too little. There is always a problem in achieving a balance between authority and service. Maybe I should have been more assertive. I think this is partly a matter of my temperament. [see my posts here: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33797022] Yet it could also be related to the will of Christ, who asked His Apostles not to dominate but to serve. Obviously a bishop has authority, but much depends on the way he exercises it. If a bishop stresses his authority too much, then the people think all he can do is issue commands. On the other hand, if he adopts an attitude of service, the faithful spontaneously listen to him and willingly submit to his authority. So a certain balance is needed.

"I do think, though, that despite my reluctance to rebuke others, I made all the necessary decisions. As the metropolitan of Krakow I tried very hard to make those decisions in a collegial spirit, that is to say I consulted my auxiliary bishops and other coworkers. Every week we met for curial sessions during which all matters were discussed in the light of the greater good of the archdiocese. I used to put two questions to my coworkers: 'Which truth of faith sheds light on this problem?' And then: 'Whom should we approach for assistance?' Finding a religious motivation for our action and the right person for a particular task was a good beginning, offering hope that our pastoral initiatives would bear fruit."

From Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way, by Bl. John Paul II, 2004, pp. pp. 49-50.
Reply
#2
I find it disturbing that John Paul II acknowledged this issue, examined it, and came away with this evaluation that his level of admonition was only a little too low and overall was informed by an Apostolic spirit, whereas I find it hard to reconcile that evaluation with the actual letters and examples of the apostles and earliest bishops such as Ignatius and Polycarp. It negates much of the argument from ignorance many, including myself, have often used as a recourse to excuse grave pastoral faults of his papacy.
Reply
#3
A major theme of Iota Unum, which I strongly recommend, is abdication of authority by the hierarchy, including the pope.

The book can be purchased here:  http://angeluspress.org/Iota-Unum?filter...ota%20unum.
Reply
#4
One big mistake of the Novus Ordo  pastors is NOT to admonish those Catholics who are pro-abortion.  It should be preached from the pulpits that abortion is murder and you can't give a woman the right to commit murder.  Those Catholics who say that they are against abortion but they give the woman the right to choice are illogical.  You can't give a person the right to do a wrong. 
Reply
#5
(10-17-2012, 12:27 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: A major theme of Iota Unum, which I strongly recommend, is abdication of authority by the hierarchy, including the pope.

The book can be purchased here:  http://angeluspress.org/Iota-Unum?filter...ota%20unum.
Very, very true.
Reply
#6
I would only add that personal responsibility goes both ways. While the Pope admits he did too little, we can't give the other actors a pass. The man in the pew, the bishops, the sisters, etc. -- none of them have a pass for their personal choices. As Fulton Sheen would say, we can't blame grade B milk or insufficient playgrounds. We worship in a religion of personal responsibility. There needs to be more mea maxima cupla, and less tua maxima cupla. (Note, I am not saying we can't critique, but we should also self-accuse and take responsibility for our part.)
Reply
#7
(10-17-2012, 11:47 AM)Cordobes Wrote: I find it disturbing that John Paul II acknowledged this issue, examined it, and came away with this evaluation that his level of admonition was only a little too low and overall was informed by an Apostolic spirit, whereas I find it hard to reconcile that evaluation with the actual letters and examples of the apostles and earliest bishops such as Ignatius and Polycarp. It negates much of the argument from ignorance many, including myself, have often used as a recourse to excuse grave pastoral faults of his papacy.

This.  It's almost worse to recognize a problem and choose not to improve than it is to just be clueless.
Reply
#8
(10-17-2012, 07:46 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote:
(10-17-2012, 11:47 AM)Cordobes Wrote: I find it disturbing that John Paul II acknowledged this issue, examined it, and came away with this evaluation that his level of admonition was only a little too low and overall was informed by an Apostolic spirit, whereas I find it hard to reconcile that evaluation with the actual letters and examples of the apostles and earliest bishops such as Ignatius and Polycarp. It negates much of the argument from ignorance many, including myself, have often used as a recourse to excuse grave pastoral faults of his papacy.

This.  It's almost worse to recognize a problem and choose not to improve than it is to just be clueless.

I don't think it is warranted to take his words and conclude he choose not to improve problems and just be clueless. I think that is to place on him willful dereliction of duty, like an absentee father. He says he sought balance and believes he made "all the necessary decisions". Even if we disagree with his assessment, I am sure we know good fathers that had wayward children. One does not necessarily prove the other.
Reply
#9
I have always doubted that JPII wrote anything ascribed to him beyond the year 2000.  He was so diminished by Parkinson's, I doubt he had any of the coherence needed to accomplish serious writing.
Reply
#10
(10-17-2012, 08:06 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-17-2012, 07:46 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote:
(10-17-2012, 11:47 AM)Cordobes Wrote: I find it disturbing that John Paul II acknowledged this issue, examined it, and came away with this evaluation that his level of admonition was only a little too low and overall was informed by an Apostolic spirit, whereas I find it hard to reconcile that evaluation with the actual letters and examples of the apostles and earliest bishops such as Ignatius and Polycarp. It negates much of the argument from ignorance many, including myself, have often used as a recourse to excuse grave pastoral faults of his papacy.

This.  It's almost worse to recognize a problem and choose not to improve than it is to just be clueless.

I don't think it is warranted to take his words and conclude he choose not to improve problems and just be clueless. I think that is to place on him willful dereliction of duty, like an absentee father. He says he sought balance and believes he made "all the necessary decisions". Even if we disagree with his assessment, I am sure we know good fathers that had wayward children. One does not necessarily prove the other.

He flat out admits that he did too little.

I never said he was clueless -- rather, he had a clue and decided not to act on it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)