Skip to main content

Pope John Paul II Was No Gaslighter, Vatican II Apologist Fr. Gaitley!

"It is supremely ironic, in fact, to hear the claimants of the Karol Wojtyla charism appealing not to reason and Revelation as he did, but resorting to Tradition Shaming instead.  If people have questions about Vatican II, why should they not be answered?  If divine mercy is as great and limitless as Father Gaitley and the current Bishop of Rome contend that it is, why do these clerics and others like them marginalize and stigmatize those with whom they evidently disagree?  And what does it tell us when we witness the proponents of the Amoris Option lapsing into abusive and indeed Communist/secularist tactics instead?" - Catholic Monitor

Sunday in his podcast, Taylor Marshall nails it.  He says he has had enough of people playing the “John Paul II Card,” in order to legitimize ambiguities in Vatican II (and not just in that Council’s implementation, or interpretation).  In Dr. Marshall’s own words (9:20 or so):

When I hear Bishop Barron using the ambiguities that I’ve heard over and over and over, and then it kind of, it just (sic) you know getting the glue stick out and cutting out a little picture or holy card of John Paul II and just stamping it on everything you say, to prove that it’s right, or to get a Mother Teresa holy card, get the glue stick, STAMP STAMP STAMP—to me, that’s just not convincing.

In a video released on Saturday, Father Michael Gaitley of the Divine Mercy Fathers does exactly that.  Explaining that he is making the video in response to the urging of a friend to address the craziness all around us, Father Gaitley responds that he will do so if he can talk about what is going on in the Church as well.  And I quote (8:45):

But amid them all the craziest is not the calls to defund the police or deface the Founding Fathers, but rather calls to repeal or reject Vatican II, as if it were some kind of mistake or tool of the Devil.  Now, in my opinion, that’s crazy talk and what’s even crazier is that an alarming number of Catholics seem to be believing it.

This popular young priest, well known for his “33 Days to Morning Glory” program and for his promotion of the Divine Mercy Devotion goes on to do exactly what Taylor Marshall says the “Barronites” are always going to do.  Asking where the true Council and its allegedly good fruits may be found, Father Gaitley responds (11:22):

I saw it in the future great saint, Pope John Paul II.

And that’s it.  There follows no serious discussion of any issues with the documents of Vatican II itself, only the whitewashing that Taylor Marshall justly identifies and rejects. 

The great irony here, of course, is that John Paul II never thought or behaved in the way that Father Gaitley and Bishop Barron do.  He never called people “crazy”--not even the Nazis or Communists with whom he had to deal.  He handled them as he did the young people he instructed during the time of his ministry in Poland and the crowds who gathered by the millions across the globe to catch a glimpse of him as Pope and to hear him speak—with a charity irrevocably grounded in the truth.  Hence his signature encyclical, Veritatis Splendor.

As the talk progresses, Father Gaitley does have the good grace to admit that there is some legitimacy to certain Catholics’ concerns, but by then it is too late; the name-calling has been accomplished up front, and the rest is just Father playing “good cop” to his own “bad.”  Conceding that it is “understandable” that people might feel queasy about the Council’s “failed implementation” and “false interpretation,” he affirms (9:17):

I’d like to help us see (Vatican II) not as a failure or mistake, but as a great gift of hope and mercy for our time.

Let’s just say, Father, that if this video is any indication, you’re not helping at all. 

It is supremely ironic, in fact, to hear the claimants of the Karol Wojtyla charism appealing not to reason and Revelation as he did, but resorting to Tradition Shaming instead.  If people have questions about Vatican II, why should they not be answered?  If divine mercy is as great and limitless as Father Gaitley and the current Bishop of Rome contend that it is, why do these clerics and others like them marginalize and stigmatize those with whom they evidently disagree?  And what does it tell us when we witness the proponents of the Amoris Option lapsing into abusive and indeed Communist/secularist tactics instead?

Now, it must be noted that--like Vatican II itself--certain words and deeds of Pope John Paul II are also deserving of closer inspection and even of principled criticism.  It honors that great man’s memory and example, rather than dishonoring it, to say so.  But in no case can one hide behind his legacy while calling concerned Catholics “crazy”—worse, somehow, than the atheistic ideologues burning churches and toppling statues of Padre Serra?  How, Father Gatiley?  Tell us exactly.  How? 

Pope John Paul II--whatever his faults—treated all interlocutors with respect, Father Gaitley.   If you think so highly of him, you would do well to follow his example in this, rather than implicitly joining the personality cult centering on, and principally promoted by, Bishop Robert Barron of “Word on Fire.”  The “fire” that Our Lord came to “cast upon the earth” (Lk. 12:49) and wasn’t that of a gaslight, after all.

Pope John Paul II was no gaslighter, Vatican II apologist Fr. Gaitley! 

Note: This was written by a good friend and one of the most intelligent persons I know. The Catholic Monitor is honored to post it.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of the Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

Comments

The Bear said…
Good one. Disappointing that the author of 33 Days to Morning Glory would take that tack, but on the other hand, True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort isn't too bad. (Sardonic Bear smile.) If we're going to judge by fruits, the Church has produced a bumper crop after Vatican II. However, this is old news. As for Pope John Paul II, there was a lot to admire in the man, but I don't have his rookie year holy card in my collection. In hindsight, the Cult of the Pope might not have been such a great thing for the Catholic Church. Sigh. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I have to reach back to Pius X to get excited about a pope. The exercise of the jus exclusivae by Emperor Franz Joseph against Cardinal Rampolla was perhaps divinely inspired, since there was evidently some cause for suspicion of yet another unsavory Swiss Connection. Or, who knows, perhaps the very same as the St. Gallen Mafia. If so, the Church failed to make full advantage of the chance.

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...