Not long after John Paul II died, I received an apologetics question from someone who was corresponding with a hard-core Traditionalist—”probably SSPX” was how the Traditionalist was described to me. My inquirer reported that his correspondent believed John Paul II was “the worst pope ever,” but let’s allow the Traditionalist to put into his own words his position on the man who has since been canonized, and is now known to the world as St. John Paul II:

John Paul II didn’t just fail to do something about these errant bishops, he appointed them in the first place. He appointed the Weaklands and Mahonys of the world. For all his personal charisma, in spite of his kind face and the warm manner that made people fall in love with him, he was one of the worst popes in the history of the Church. He had thirty years to restore discipline, appoint good bishops, promote tradition, crack down on the Fr. McBriens of the world, oversee seminary formation, at least ensure that his own liturgist offered the traditional Mass as opposed to ones with dancing girls and half-naked “incense bearers,” etc.

But he did none of this. He traveled, spoke ambiguously, kissed Qur’ans, prayed in synagogues, kissed the rings of Anglican “bishops,” allowed altar girls, smeared Holy Mother Church with his needless apologies, toyed with even the holy rosary, appointed the worst men possible as bishops, and made sure (or at least did nothing as) traditional priests were treated like heretics and booted out. Bad pope.

My inquirer wanted to know how to respond to this.

I began by pointing out that the Traditionalist was engaging in what Catholic Answers’ Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin has termed buckshot apologetics: He has loaded his shotgun with a buckshot of charges, pointed it to the heavens, and hoped to hit something, somewhere, anywhere.

Does this person really believes that John Paul II deserves to be placed in the same league as Alexander VI, usually considered by historians to be the most notorious pope in Church history? The most charitable assumption I can make is that the Traditionalist was making a rhetorical flourish by saying that John Paul was “one of the worst popes in the history of the Church,” and did not think through the ramifications of his remark. After all, he did concede that John Paul was kind, charismatic, warm, and connected with people in a positive manner.

Perhaps this person might say that Alexander VI didn’t fiddle with doctrine and tradition, as he apparently believes that John Paul did, but Alexander VI’s papacy may well have been one of the triggers for the Protestant Reformation because of the scandal it gave to Europe. What, then, is worse? A holy pope who edified people of good will, Catholic and non-Catholic, around the world, thus raising the credibility of the Church in the eyes of untold millions; or a notorious pope whose scandal-ridden life may have been partly responsible for the shattering of Western Christendom?

We can certainly admit that John Paul made prudential mistakes during his pontificate. Indeed, John Paul may well have been the first to admit that he was not have been as firm a disciplinarian as he could have been. That does not mean that he was a “bad pope,” much less “one of the worst popes in the history of the Church.” Popes make mistakes and can be justly reprimanded, as Paul did to Peter (cf. Gal. 2:11); and they are sinful human beings like the rest of us, as Peter himself admitted (cf. Luke 5:8). One of the tests of a good pope is that a good pope admits his mistakes and failures, and John Paul readily admitted his own. The Pope of Apologies acknowledged his own need for forgiveness.

A new contender

I was reminded of this question-and-answer the other day after reading a post on the Traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli, titled Ten Tips on How to Survive a Calamitous Pope and Remain Catholic. Rorate Caeli, for those who don’t know, is the blog on which Jorge Mario Bergoglio was welcomed as Pope Francis on the very day of his election with a post titled The Horror! A Buenos Aires Journalist Describes Bergoglio. Since then Rorate Caeli has been part of the vanguard of Traditionalist websites stuffed to the brim with unremitting criticisms of Pope Francis since Day One of his papacy.

Couched though it is in terms of “hypothetical possibility,” the Rorate Caeli blogger nonetheless proposes that now is probably a very good time for Catholics to prepare themselves for papal calamity. But, hey, just because this is the same site where Pope Francis’s election was deemed to be a “horror” on the very day it occurred, and the critiques of every aspect of his papacy have continued to this day, that doesn’t mean the site’s writers have Pope Francis in mind or anything. Why would we possibly think that?

To be fair, several of the “tips” are, for the most part, unobjectionable. There is much to recommend suggestions such as “Keep calm,” “Do not give in to apocalyptic warnings,” “Do not generalize,” and “Do not support any schism.” On the other hand, given the context of the publication of this tip sheet, how are we to interpret warnings to Catholics against remaining silent (number 4), against obeying the Pope when you don’t like the instructions he gives (number 7), and withholding support from local churches in union with the Pope (number 8)?
All of this is predicated upon the idea that a hypothetically “calamitous pope” is currently reigning. Who decides that? Who judges that “the instructions of the Pope . . . [deviate] from the treasure of the Church”? Do we each become our own judge of what is part of the teaching magisterium of the Church? Or do we place our trust in bloggers on the Internet to tell us when it is time to withhold just obedience and support for the Church?
Like St. John Paul II before him, Pope Francis is coming under fire not for objectively evil deeds, but basically because he is not telling Traditionalists what they want to hear about the Catholic faith. They have preconceived notions of what constitutes doctrinal and moral orthodoxy, and a pope who contradicts these preconceived notions is considered suspect.

Truly bad popes

Out of over 200 popes, we can probably count the number of truly calamitous popes on two hands. So, who qualifies as a bad pope? Everyone knows about Alexander VI, usually the frontrunner in any mainstream listing of Worst Popes Ever, but who are some of the others? Googling “bad popes” brought up an interesting article from the Esquire magazine’s website. (Caveat emptor: The language is unnecessarily crude.)

If you go through Esquire‘s list, you may note that their list is remarkably apolitical for the secular media. We don’t find controversial popes of modern times, such as Pius XII and Benedict XVI, who we might expect mainstream journalists to dislike for any number of reasons. What we find are popes who are charged with truly evil deeds. For purposes of comparison with Traditionalist sources who consider John Paul II and Francis “the worst popes ever,” here are examples of popes who made the grade for Worst Ever on squire‘s list:

Stephen VI (896–897) held the “Cadaver Synod” of 897. [Angry] at his predecessor, [Stephen VI] dug up the rotting corpse of Pope Formosus and put it on trial. You know, like a crazy person. The former Formosus was found guilty of perjury, violating canon law, and performing bishop duties as a layman. The cadaver was thrice de-fingered and thrown into a river. Naturally.

A couple of centuries later, we find:

Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048) sold the papacy in 1044 to the highest bidder. After returning to office for a month, he sold it again in 1045 to marry his cousin. [Benedict IX] was accused of rape, adultery, homosexuality, and b*********. Pope Victor III claimed of Benedict IX, “His life as a pope was so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”

The most recent entry on Esquire‘s list was a pope who reigned five centuries ago:

Leo X (1513–1521) famously said when elected to office, “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.” And he promptly made it rain. His extravagant expenses angered Martin Luther and caused a gang of cardinals to plot his assassination. The alleged attempt failed, and a not-so-mysterious bout of food poisoning soon plagued the conspirators.

In contradistinction to Traditionalist nominees for Bad Popes, not one pope who made Esquire‘s list was condemned for upholding the doctrines and moral strictures of the Church for which many in the modern world ordinarily attack the Church. Whether or not Esquire‘s historical overview is entirely accurate, the popes who made their list were accused of objectively evil deeds.

How to deal with a pope you disagree with

I think Traditionalist complaints with John Paul II and Francis—and even, in some cases, with the Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI—boil down to disagreeing with a pope’s non-infallible interpretations of Church doctrine and the moral law, with his prudential judgments, and with features of his personality (e.g., in John Paul’s case, his showmanship; in Francis’s case, his informality). And it is within legitimate bounds for Catholics to have issues with an individual pope’s public remarks, with his actions on the world stage, or with his personality quirks. So let’s look at some legitimate responses Catholics might want to consider when faced with a pope they just dislike.

Maintain silence. Or as the old proverb my grandmother liked to quote went, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Unless a pope is engaging in objectively evil deeds like some of his predecessors named above, silence is a better response to disagreement than speaking out. It allows you to observe, to gather all of the available information, to allow time for surprises, before staking out a position that may well prove to be completely discredited by later events. Silence is also a profoundly Christological response to persecution.

Obey, even when you disagree. Catholics are not rugged individualists. Although some American Catholics tend to act as if authority in the Church consists of “me, the Pope, and Jesus,” this is not how authority is exercised or expressed in the Catholic Church. For Catholics, we are called to obey all those in the Church who, by virtue of office, exercise legitimate authority in the lives of the faithful. Obedience to lawful authorities in the Church is not conditioned on whether or not a Catholic agrees with what is required of him. Catholics are supposed to obey anyway, provided the action required is not a sin, and to trust that the authorities have wisdom gained from formation and/or ordination that goes above and beyond their own experience.

Support your priests and bishops. Continue to maintain communion with your local church, both at the parish and diocesan levels. Not only is support for the Church a precept of the Church that Catholics are bound in conscience to obey (CCC 2043), but doing so keeps you in the loop. You have channels through which you can respectfully ask for pastoral guidance and spiritual support. And you enable your local church to be able to continue to care for the legitimate needs of Catholics and non-Catholics in your area during difficult times. Just because you don’t like what a pope has to say on homosexuality, or because you disagree with a pope on who may receive Communion, that is no reason to deny fellow human beings the material support from the Church to which they have a right (either directly, by denying charitable funds earmarked for the needy; or indirectly, by impeding the ability of local pastors to respond to humanitarian crises because of lack of support from the faithful in the diocese).

Trust in God. Soon after my conversion, back when I was a baby Catholic, my mildly anti-Catholic father, just to be ornery, asked me what I would do if the Pope suddenly altered Church doctrine on some hot-button issue. My dad’s example, although he would have been the last person to agitate for feminist concerns, was women’s ordination. What would I do if the Pope suddenly started ordaining women?

I was not an apologist at the time, and my dad really was not asking about women’s ordination or papal infallibility anyway. He wanted to know what I would do if the Pope radically shocked me by doing something I was convinced the Pope could not do.

I thought for a minute and then reminded Dad of the old story of a man who fell off a cliff and managed to grab a branch on the way down. He yells for help, and a Voice from the heavens answers him. The Voice tells him to let go of the branch he is clinging to, and to trust he will be okay. The man thinks over the instructions, then yells, “Is there anyone else up there?”

“Sooner or later, Dad,” I said, “you have to trust and let go, even when doing so seems impossible.”
Because, after all, “to whom shall we go” (John 6:67–69)?

 

Written By Michelle Arnold

27 Comments

  • charbel says:

    I Believe this is wrong he had done so much good whoever wrote this i recommend you get the book Saint John Paul the Great by Jason Evert

  • Peter says:

    Well said. Thank you. I have seen a lot of this lately

  • Pope John Paul II, was just human and not God. He was sorry for some mistakes and asked forgiveness. He was forgiven by God, the proof were many people were miraculously healed through his intercession and is now beautified by Pope Francis as saint or blessed.

  • After so many bad popes, the Catholic Church still remains…because after all this is not a church of men (all men are sinful and imperfect); this is a Church of God. Men will stumble and fall; but God will continue to build us up and keep our church intact. This is true for the Catholic church, and all churches of all other Christian traditions around the world.

    • Erik says:

      Humans are just part of the body of God; Our Lord is the Head, sometimes the body will not cooperate..it happens..

  • To whoever you are good sir. RELIGION is not about TRADITION. It is… and always will be about FAITH and GOD. Act out your faith in mind and conduct.

  • Binoy says:

    If briefly read about the main contender for the title of ‘bad pope’, i.e. Pope Alexander VI, and I must say I’m humbled by the experience. While he might have done things which we could consider scandalous, two of his successors also mentioned that he was the most outstanding Pope, after St. Peter. The brief reading humbled me, because if this is the ‘worst’ Pope, he also seemingly died in holiness (having made a good confession, receiving the Holy Communion and the Anointing of the Sick), as noted in his Funeral Oration. Furthermore, during his lifetime, he had initiated many reforms which we see even today and moreover it is argued that if he had lived longer, we probably could have seen more reforms. He also had been a keen promoter of educational institutions (notably the University of Aberdeen and University of Valencia), arts (including works of Raphael, Michelangelo), he also welcomed the Jews, who were expelled from Spain and Portugal into the Papal States.
    We should not demonize a person, maybe Pope Alexander VI is sitting with CHRIST in Heaven now, for all we know (I guess hence GOD said don’t judge). We are living in a different era, viewing things in a different light and at no time are we aware what were the pressures and challenges the Pope had been facing at that time (it is said the Italian families disliked the Spanish Pope). While we do not say that Pope Alexander VI did everything as per GOD’s Will, lets not judge what was GOD’s Will and what was not. Most importantly, none of us are 100% perfect either. We all sin and we can’t expect the Pope to be GOD. CHRIST HIMSELF said, some yield 100 times, some 80, some 50, etc… What matters is that we should reach Heaven, nothing else matters.
    GOD Bless!

    • elvie says:

      I believe that all negative feedbacks about pope are black propaganda of protestant,,,,, because what i believe,, pope are infallible,, for God say what bind on earth was bound in heaven,,,,, we have same believe binoy,,, italian maybe fear of pope power that all people will donate all thier assets and properties to the holy see,,, lot of properties donared to the holy see and people in zealous ransacked and plunder properties in italy,,, and this luther feel greedy possess with demon he want what he want but not recognize,, so he go his way,,, now other people start to create demon thier selves,,,, what, i believe Jesus said to peter,,, even the hades cannot overcome my church,,, hades means death,,,

  • dhanica says:

    Whoever wrote this, definitely hates Catholics and is not a Catholic…

  • I am stunned by this person’s remarks about St. John Paul II who did more good for the Catholic Church by reaching out to others of different religious and ethnic backgrounds. Also forgiving the man who shot him on a plot that began in Bulgaria. John Paul was the main instrument who helped to.bring down the Iron Curtain and break up the Soviet Union. He stood firmly with his countrymen in Poland. This traditionalist whoever he is should keep his remarks to himself and take a look at his own life before demonizing a giant of a man who did so much good for not only the Catholic Church but for the world. Pray for me St. John Paul II and for the world.

  • Sharon Bane says:

    He did not promote weakland. Get your facts right,

  • 'Bode says:

    Why do you have a political campaign on this page?

  • sydneyguys says:

    Well many could rattle off a litany of men that were unsuitable to wear the Ring of the Fisherman, or become bishops , priests, brothers , monks , friars . Yet for twenty centuries the Church has survived and flourished. We should be grateful that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and Saint Joseph is the protector of the spotless Bride of Christ. We should bend our collective heads in shame for the time we have not defended or failed to fully appreciate what a gift we have been given.

  • jigz says:

    Catholic forever! Amen to the one true Church

  • Ifunanya says:

    The church of God is immortal. The gates of hell will never prevail against her. Trust and obey.

  • Im not a Bible Teacher but I have learned much from the Evangelical Pastors that it is written in the Holy Bible that ” even the righteous will fall seven times”, no one is perfect, all have sinned. Pope John Paul 11 was a very good pope, he did his job as best as he can but he could not perfect all because he was around with imperfect men though they are cardinals, bishops, priests and laymen, all serving God. We may not understand all but what is important listen to true and good church leaders and read the Holy Bible, it is all in there, our salvation is through our Lord Jesus Christ and not through these popes, we look up to them as church leaders and teachers the way we look up to our nations’ leaders and to our own parents but they are all human beings who can and will commit mistakes because of circumstances around them. There are good leaders with good hearts who follow and obey God faithfully but there are leaders who have wicked hearts and will do evil things just the way it happened among kings and servants of the Old Testament. Let us focus on Jesus Christ, our relationship with Him, we are saved by God’s grace, let God handle these men of God, He knows best. God would not allow evil and wicked men to rule and lead God’s people for long, God will get rid of them, bad popes, priests, pastors or ministers of any denomination, if they disobey God continously. We have to make a stand for God and not men and let us do our share of Jesus Christ mission, to share the Good News, and let God handle the rest of the problems, He is God Most Sovereign and All Powerful. He knows HIs plans for this troubled and chaotic world. God have mercy upon us all. ( I grew up as a Catholic but God sent me to other denomination to learn from them which is truly good and also shared with them what is good and true about the catholic church ).

  • Emilio S. De Alban says:

    Let us pray for the virtue of Prudence. In the Philippines, today (16 December 2015) we begin our 9-day Novena Mass for Christmas (25 December 2015). Any statement that intends to unduly cause “fireworks” is presumed to be an undue attempt “to catch attention”. We call it “kulang sa pansin”. . . . Instead, let us “repent and believe”. Get down “on your bended knees”. Period.

  • Paul says:

    Pope Francis should work hard to clean the leadership in Catholic church. For example, in Kenya we are facing many problems with the leadership of Cardinal John Njue who’s morals are just pathetic.
    How can a cardinal preach celibacy and he has a family??
    I have hard and seen in the media, the same cardinal fighting try to steal a multi billion St.Mary’s hospital which is meant to serve the poor.
    Where is the leadership??? Where is the pope Francisco ????

  • Benjamin S Parkinson says:

    Pope Francis is the worst. He gets an F- in Economics. “The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.” John Paul II

  • George A. Caminade says:

    Thanks so much for the clarification… it helps me so much… may God bless you.

  • ideally, Once the name Pope is mentioned, it is meant to convey good stories so inspiring to go on with the faith but now reverse is the case. Perhaps, the bible said “Look unto me (Jesus) the author and finisher of your live. that’s what I think Christians should do for no one can tell who the bad leader is! thank for the post.

  • romeo gumtang says:

    All what indeed in this world its GOD’s wished same as pope election, its GOD’WILL..NEVER criticized the pope, just pray for them for they heavily attack by evil spirits every evil deeds commited there always corresponding punisment same as doing good..

Leave a Reply Brethren !