John Paul II

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares13 Views

    Pope Leo’s Classmates Drew Ire of Church With Protest for Women

    by

    As the 17 young men preparing to be ordained as Catholic priests entered the sanctuary at St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church in Chicago, they each pinned a tiny light-blue ribbon to their white robes. The gesture was small but explosive: It signified their belief that women, too, should be allowed into the priesthood.It was April 1981, and the men were students at Catholic Theological Union, a divinity school founded in the 1960s and still on fire with the era’s radical spirit. Women’s ordination as Catholic priests was one of the most urgent topics for men and women on campus, the subject of constant discussion, organizing and, for many, optimism.One of their classmates was Robert Prevost, who was named pope last week. As Leo XIV, he now leads a global church that has firmly closed the door on the question of women as priests, but has left open the possibility that women could someday be ordained as deacons, the step before the priesthood. Robert Prevost as a student at Catholic Theological Union.Catholic Theological UnionThe men at St. Thomas in 1981 were there to be ordained as deacons. Many in the sanctuary that day recall it vividly decades later. First, the prelate presiding over the ceremony, Bishop Alfred Abramowicz of Chicago, refused to continue unless the men removed their ribbons. (At least one quietly refused, moving his ribbon to a less visible placement.)A woman in the choir joined the protesters halfway through the ceremony, her high heels clicking down the center aisle of the sanctuary. Then, as part of the proceedings, the bishop asked the men individually by name if they were “ready and willing” to serve.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 75 Shares123 Views

      in Elections

      The Dinner That Helped Save Europe

      by

      In 1979, during John Paul II’s first visit to the United States as pope, he met with President Jimmy Carter at the White House. Shortly after that, he invited Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, to dinner at the Vatican Embassy in Washington. Along with world affairs, Carter wanted to discuss declining morals with the recently elected pope, but Brzezinski had more practical subjects in mind.For the pontiff and the adviser, their mutual obsession was the Soviet Union. Over a simple meal at the Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See, they explored how they could together weaken Moscow’s grip over its captive nations. Brzezinski was stunned by the pope’s geopolitical knowledge. He joked that Carter was more like a religious leader while the pope seemed more like a world statesman. The vicar of Christ affirmed the quip with a belly laugh, Brzezinski noted in his personal diary, to which I acquired exclusive access.From that dinner onward, the two Polish-born figures — one the first non-Italian pope in 455 years, the other America’s first (and to date, probably the only) Polish-speaking grand strategist — became intimate allies.Their serendipitous relationship proved critical in late 1980 in dissuading the Soviets from invading Poland, where the Solidarity movement had just emerged as a serious challenge to the Communist government. It was a partnership sustained by a running dialogue conducted during Brzezinski’s visits to the Vatican, in long handwritten correspondence and over the phone. His White House speed dial had P for “pope.”John Paul’s relationship with Brzezinski is a vivid example of how diplomacy works when there is mutual trust. Good chemistry is rare but extremely productive. Sustained dialogue with both friends and adversaries in today’s volatile world is, if anything, even more critical. The ability at a tense moment to pick up the phone and know that you can trust the person on the other end is the fruit of constant gardening.Yet it is increasingly hard to find the time. Technology means that presidential envoys are always within White House reach to respond to the cascade of competing demands. The world is also a more complex place than it was 40 years ago, and U.S. diplomats have rarely been held in lower regard at home. Twenty-four-hour media scrutiny also makes secrecy far harder. Henry Kissinger’s covert visit to Beijing in 1971 to pave the way for U.S. rapprochement with Mao Zedong’s China is hard to imagine today.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares157 Views

      in Elections

      Francis Wanted a Church of the Poor and Put It Into Practice

      by

      Around St. Peter’s Square, the pope offered services to the homeless and migrants, in ways that often did not go down well with his fellow clerics.Throughout his papacy, Francis was an outspoken advocate for the downtrodden. Shortly after he was elected in 2013 he said, “How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor.”But Francis, who died on Monday at 88, didn’t just pay lip service.When the vehicle carrying his coffin pulls up at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, where he will be buried on Saturday, a group of “poor and needy” people will be waiting on the steps, the Vatican said this week. After all, the statement added, the pope “had chosen the name Francis to never forget them.” St. Francis of Assisi renounced his wealth to live in poverty.Marginalized groups will be present at the funeral, the Vatican said Friday.One of the first people to pay their respects when Francis was brought to St. Peter’s Basilica on Wednesday was Sister Geneviève Jeanningros, who until last year lived in a camper in a fairground outside Rome, serving those in need. She was in regular contact with Francis, who visited the fairground, and images of her weeping in front of his coffin moved many.Sister Geneviève Jeanningros, center in blue, was one of the first people to pay their respects to Francis.Pool photo by Alessandro Di MeoCloser to his own home, Francis “strongly supported” transforming the Vatican post office located on the right side of the colonnade of St. Peter’s Square into a free medical clinic for the homeless and for undocumented migrants. The clinic opened in 2018 and averages 100 visits a day, said its director, Dr. Massimo Ralli.“It’s putting the Gospel into practice because caring for people is one of the aspects of charity,” said Dr. Ralli. “So it absolutely mirrors the message of the Holy Father toward the least.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares142 Views

      in Elections

      Pope Francis and the End of the Imperial Papacy

      by

      Pope Francis, who passed to his reward on the morning after Easter at age 88, was a version of the liberal pope that many Catholics had earnestly desired all through the long reign of John Paul II and the shorter one of Benedict XVI — a man whose worldview was shaped and defined by the Second Vatican Council and whose pontificate sought a renewal of its revolution, a further great modernization of the Catholic Church.In one way, at least, he succeeded. For generations, modernizers lamented the outsize power of the papacy, the anachronism of a monarchical authority in a democratic age, the way the concept of papal infallibility froze Catholic debates even as the world rushed forward. In theory Francis shared those concerns, promising a more collegial and horizontally oriented church, more synodal, in the jargon of the Catholic bureaucracy. In practice he often used his power in the same way as his predecessors, to police and suppress deviations from his authority — except that this time the targets were dissenting conservatives and traditionalists instead of progressives and modernizers.But just by creating that novel form of conflict, in which Catholics who had been accustomed to being on the same side as the Vatican found themselves suddenly crosswise from papal authority, Francis helped to demystify his office’s authority and undermine its most imposing claims.That’s because the conservatives whose convictions he unsettled were the last believers in the imperial papacy, the custodians of infallibility’s mystique. And by stirring more of them to doubt and disobedience, he kicked away the last major prop supporting a strong papacy and left the office of St. Peter in the same position as most other 21st-century institutions: graced with power but lacking credibility, floated on charisma without underlying legitimacy, with its actions understood in terms of rewards for friends and punishments for enemies.Two rebellions, in particular, illustrate this shift. The first is the continuing resistance to the pope’s attempt to suppress, in the name of Catholic unity and the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, the faith’s traditional Latin Mass. After Vatican II in the late 1960s, when Pope Paul VI remade the church’s liturgy, he commanded enough deference that he was able to swiftly consign the Mass that every Catholic in the world had grown up with to the modern equivalent of catacombs — to church basements, hotel rooms and schismatic chapels.Whereas when Francis attempted a similar suppression, reversing the permissions granted by Benedict, only his most loyal bishops really went along, and the main effect was to stir resistance and complaint, garner new media attention for the old Latin Mass and increase traditionalism’s cachet among younger Catholics.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More