Talk:Pope Paul VI/Archive 1

Archive 1

Debate from 2003.

"Montini had deep contacts with all the parties in conflict and developed an activity in diplomacy that has been defined as one of the most complex of all the Vatican history".

"ALL the Vatican history"? Has my learned friend (article Quirinale) not insisted that the popes have resided in the Vatican only since 1870?

Roman Catholic Church, as a political entity, is commonly known as "the Vatican", after the place in which from early times (3rd, 4th c.)Catholic rites were celebrated, and undoubtedly this is the most important symbolic place of this religion.

Despite a presumed easy life, popes don't spend their mornings in bed. We perhaps give an excessive attention to their daytime working place, rather than to where their beds once were. G

---

1. Montini was not a "Hamlet" at all: he was a very concrete man. He only had a huge experience in diplomacy, which allowed him to express soft and mild tones even when acting with decision.
2. Sister Pascaline - Suor Pasqualina - is nothing more than a urban legend. Any pope has been accused by anty-clericalists of something, but not all the popes are Borgia.
3. Alleged sexual behaviours of the pope and of the king are:
   1. unknown
   2. not proofed
   3. not backed by any - even journalistic - confirmation
   4. not probable, indeed
   5. not related with the birth of the Italian Republic
   6. not interesting, which is the point

Let's talk about what we really know --G

---

Allegations concerning Paul VI's orientation were widely published, for example, in detail in the 'Northern Whig' newspaper, and stated by a number of prominent anti-catholic protestant leaders, for example, in Northern Ireland. A number of names were even suggested as people which whom they claimed he had had a relationship, specifically a former aide to him prior to his election as Supreme Pontiff. As these claims, published in the United States, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and elsewhere coloured some people's perspective of him (for the most part those who were already hostile to Roman Catholicism), they are a matter of historical fact that needs to be faced, even if simply by pointing out that these rumours they may have heard came from extremely hostile sources, so clarifying the strength with which they should judge the rumours they may have heard.

As to Paul's indecisiveness, that it legendary, over a wide range of issues, so legendary indeed that no-one even questions it. In the notorious case of Cardinal Cody, he spent months agonising about whether to remove the cleric, about which major allegations of financial and sexual impropriety had been made. Under pressure from his aides to reach some decision, he decided to remove the cardinal and dispatched an aide, who got as far as the airport to fly out to meet the Cardinal before being contacted to be told to come back as His Holiness had changed his mind yet again and was not going to remove Cody. He changed his mind again later, only to change it another time. Though there was absolute certainly in the Vatican about the unfitness of Cody for office and membership of the College of Cardinals, Paul's constant indecision was the butt of jokes among his aides, as was his indecisiveness over what to do over Archbishop Lebevré, about which he changed his mind regularly.

There was utter shock when, after his election, Pope John Paul I began making decisions that Pope had agonised over for years and then never taken. Pope Paul's indecision over allegations made to him regarding the conduct of the Vatican Bank is also well documented. John XXIII, who admired Montini, nevertheless explicitly called him 'Our Hamlet' over his slowness of decision-making and what was mocked as his constant 'hand-wringing'.

As to the nun, she is no urban legend. Her influence extended to the Church in Ireland, where she is directly credited with controversial interventions in the selection or non-selection of Irish bishops, credited by the bishops themselves and by senior Irish church figures, including one retired bishop in an interview with me. None of them had anything positive to about her interventions. Pius's death came as a relief to them, as they resented the enormous power the nun had exercised in his last days. They compared her to Edith Bolling Galt, the second wife of President Woodrow Wilson, who became in effect acting president after her husband's stroke, the scale of his illness and the extent of her control, having been kept secret until the end of his second term. JTD 20:11 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

I am usually very prudent when expressing judgements on, or merely defining, other people's sexual habits, and this for a series of reasons, but mainly because, unless (unlikely) documents are produced, hardly ever there is a proof of eventual allegations. Very rarely chatters are backed by evidences, while there is often, instead, a potential interest in however producing "certain" informations.

I also have to take into account the consideration that sexual matters do have an importance for some cultures which would be quite unbelievable from this side of the fronteer. So, when I think of the many virtues that other countries can proudly present to the world's attention, I quietly consider that the Italian disordered mentality is at least often respectful in keeping private life aside from public life. Of course, speaking about people of political importance, how did they make their money is a public fact and is part of their public life. But how they spend their nights, might eventually regard respective partners and families. The rest - here - is only gossip.

But, as I'm never comparing countries or cultures in the aim of defining any prevalence or any classification, I only record that somewhere else, in the rest of the developed world, a great importance is given to celebrities' erotic preferences.

Okay. Briefly: let's suppose for a minute that he was involved with these matters and that this fact was publicly demonstrated. Then? Which is the consequence? Should we expect faithfuls to suddenly abandon their religion and/or destroy churches and aedicula? What is expected to happen, concretely? Which is exactly the historical relevance of all that? Was the man in Asia (Philippines, if I well remember) who tried to kill him with a kriss angry because of his suspected lack of purity? Or was anyone else brought to do something because of this eventually violated chastity?

If the whole refers to the fact that these arguments were used against Catholicism in some countries for propaganda purposes, we are in front of two alternative choices: either we report in all the other articles of Wikipedia what antagonist propaganda said about each figure (and no politician or ruler seems to easily have avoided to be object of one or more contrasting campaigns), or we otherwise use in this article the same method and the same "touch" that we successfully used in writing all the other articles, and - sorry - this point becomes so thin to be quite unperceivable.

Maybe this is just a language issue, but I don't remember Mons. Lefebvre as a controversial bishop: he was clearly against the reformed mass, he was undoubtedly against the council. He went so far in his themes that he started to promote himself as a new antipope.

Once again, we need to consider which were the interests that Vatican had to protect at the moment: the conservative position, not glad with the council's reforms, regarded really many faithfuls. For a strange case of the destiny, many of those who were against the abolition of the Latin mass, were also unable to understand Latin (who loves mistery, cannot remain without some misteries), so the expected effects of the council were not so immediate as proclaimed.

The conservative position was then not so easy to forget. It was a page that should have been turned slowly, very slowly, and like for any ancient book, with respect and care, and delicacy. If you wish, also because in this position there were many of the major contributors to the Vatican economy.

Paul VI was a patient mediator, and a man who knew that the Church could wait centuries to turn a page, dozens of centuries to turn an important page. Some - even from atheist world - find it's here the greatness, the power, the culture, the law, the security of Roman Catholic Church. Nothing was really representing an urgence for the Church: if debate is life, catholicism was alive and kicking. Nothing effectively needed to be done in a hurry, the Church always has the eternity in front of itself, at least in its vision. So Paul did the unavoidable minimum, playing like a cat with a mouse; the final defeat of Lefebvre was logical, foreseeable, and it later happened, in another age. This can legitimately be considered as an indecisiveness, but it can also be expression of a long experience in how to deal with serious issues.

More easily the current pope could rapidly close the affair: he had more important things to do - as we have seen - and an expelled dissident bishop is nothing in front of a defeated communism. He had other important pages to turn, so he soon forgot about the Latin mass (but it is discussed his eventual coherence with Vatican II).

There was once in Rome, a Roman dux, Quintus Fabius Maximus, that we surname the Temporeggiatore (sorry, I'm unable to translate it, but I'm sure you'll easily find a corresponding word). This is the figure which I usually think of when reflecting on Paul VI. But it's not the only one, and to keep to modern times, I can also think of Aldo Moro (what a coincidence: two close friends, two patient mediators, two masters in unintelligible communication...).

Nuns can be part of a pontiff's staff. If they are intelligent, they can receive important missions (abroad too), they can suggest important decisions. Sometimes Vatican is less sexist than supposed. But this is still not enough to suppose that she could have made Pius XII change his mind about his best pupil. Paul VI was esteemed and respected by any political wing, by any power in Italy and in Europe. There was no reason for the Church not to have him (an everywhere welcomed diplomat) in important roles. And the archbishop of Milan governs the Church of Northern Italy and influences Italian culture, economy and industry. This is actually more, more, more, more, ..., more than being a "simple" cardinal.

Where (or when) was Paul VI stopped by the nun?

Historically, there has been a nun nicknamed la popessa, as you said. She may have proposed important decisions (why not, but which ones?). But she was not Pius' lover, she didn't (practically) replace Pius and she wasn't against Paul. She was a nun, whose past influence is perhaps evident in Ireland, not around St.Peter's square, or not so clearly. --G

---

Actually Gianfranco, when anyone assumes high office, pressures of work reduce their public access. All such people have 'gate-keepers', people whose job it is to control access to them. They can be secretaries, private secretaries, aides, whomever. Ronald Reagan relied on Nancy more than any cabinet member. And she relied on astrologers! Vaticanologists talk about how John Paul II's ill-health is leading him to be increasingly out of touch with his own staff. (He is regularly in bed by 6pm!) An ever smaller group of people have direct access to him, which means he has to rely on an ever smaller number of people for advice. Queen Victoria was guided by her ghillie, John Brown and a couple of Indian servants more than her officials, her family, even the prime minister (to their fury.) When someone is seriously ill, the job of 'gate-keeping' can fall on whoever is nursing them; partner, spouse, nurse, close friend, aide, housekeeper. This nun assumed that role for the ailing Pope Pius.

The suggestion in the Vatican was that she used her position (quite legitimately) to influence church matters. If you were a cleric she knew and liked, and a formal recommendation came that you be made a bishop/archbishop/cardinal, the relevant documentation went to the top of the pile she brought to Pope Pius. if she disliked you, or in her view weren't the right person, you went somewhere near the bottom of the pile, knowing that the dying pope would not have had the mental strength to get to the bottom of the pile. The next day's recommendations would come in, be put on top, the pope would read some, but you'd find yourself stuck in the bottom of a pile that was getting larger and larger. Some strange appointments were made at that time; people expected to get a major appointment never got it, surprises cropped up. Devoted to her master, she simply 'guided' him in what to read, who to see, or as his closest living confidenté was able to put in a good word about Bishop 'x', raise doubts about Archbishop 'Y', It happens all the time; secretaries who are confidentés of their boss can have more day to day influence than a Board member; Edith Bolling Galt had more influence over Woodrow Wilson than his entire cabinet put together. Queen Victoria and John Brown, Irish President Hyde and Michael McDunphy, mistresses of various French kings, Nancy Reagan with Ronnie, it is quite common, particularly if like Wilson, Victoria, Hyde and Reagan, your health is failing, or you are cut off (aka Queen Victoria) for your gate-keeper or partner to exercise power far beyond what they should do.

Regarding Montini, the belief is simply that she didn't like him. She'd have known him because of his constant visits to Pope Pius. But for some reason, they seem not to have got on. Everyone expected that Montini would of course be made a cardinal. But in a period of constant surprises over who was appointed, who wasn't, where appointments were made and where to their astonishment, appointments were put on the long finger, Montini never got his red hat. No-one knew why, as it was widely known how highly Pope Pius thought of Montini. No-one could understand why the expected appointment didn't happen. The widespread suspicion was that the 'she pope' (as one frustrated wannabe cardinal called her in disgust) and stopped it. Maybe she suggested a reason for not upgrading Montini that Pius thought sensible; that he was too young (as a long-term pope, Pius would have known the frustrations of a long long papacy on the church and on the pope.) Excluding him from the next conclave by not making him a cardinal could well have been done in Montini's best interest, to let him be older before getting the papal tiara, as Pius always presumed he would some day. Maybe she highlighted Montini's indecision as a negative factor. Maybe said that he needed more pastoral experience in his archdiocese, having spent so much of his life as a diplomat, before allowing him to become papabile. Or the nun could simply have buried the documentary recommendations on Montini at the bottom of the pile. But for whatever reason, the one 'certain' appointment everyone expected Pius to make before he met his maker, making Montini a cardinal, didn't happen, ruling Montini out of the running for the papacy in 1958.

As to Lefebré, from the moment the archbishop began his rebellion, Pope Paul VI was being advised to clamp down on him before his rebellion spread. And as with Cardinal Cody, he changed his mind constantly, on those occasions when he made it up at all. Senior cardinals came out of meetings frustrated at Paul's indecision. That's why, for example, Albino Luciani, when he discovered seriously disturbing issues were being raised about the Vatican Bank and its role in the takeover of a local church bank in his archdiocese, didn't raise the matter with Pope Paul. He didn't expect any action from the indecisive pontiff. He raised it with others, and when he became pope, acted swiftly to clarify matters, only to die curiously before his decisions had been implemented. Finally, on Pope Paul's notorious indecision, as he aged, the pope talked about abdicating, arguing that the need for a vibrant pope, not an old man too ill to rule, outweighed the previous tradition of remaining in the office until death. Yet for all his talk, he never did abdicate, just talked about the idea endlessly, 'Our Hamlet', as John XXIII observed about Montini's all talk no action tendency. JTD 04:35 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

Once again, JTD, I wasn't able to let a concept pass through my words.

You seem to "undoubtedly" conclude that Montini was a master of indecision and a passive man.

I believe that facts might also have another explaination, or at least, another interpretation. I can refer to the one I know better, which is the one that is widely affirmed in these areas, where the facts and the people we are talking about happened and lived. Of course, this exposes me to the risk of being somehow biased on the topic, but I once more reflected on these concepts in order to look at them with the most neutral approach I was able to use.

We have 40 years of Democrazia Cristiana on our shoulders, and we are not at all surprised that some parts of the political life are not so brightly dinamic. This is perhaps part of our history, which ideally includes the history of the Pontiff States. External observers too, happen to agree that - with the exception of an even too much "dinamic" regime - the ordinary rhythm of Italian politics is quite slow. We do need a lot of time to take a decision, and we never take it completely. Because we have many things to consider, many interests at a time to be compliant with, many possibilities and doors to leave open at a time. Because, in a word, we are pragmatists.

It's funny, I think, that out of Italy many consider that we live of pragmatism (and they usually say this with a bit of disappointment), and then they are surprised if they discover that pragmatism is also made of care, deep and patient care, in taking a decision.

As previously posted, the Vatican's clock measures a different time. Nothing has ever (but maybe we could prudently consider a couple of exceptions) been really urgent for the Church. So, why an intelligent mediator, as Montini was, should have been a "decisionist"?

About Lefebvre, I would underline once again that "traditionalists" included some of the major financial supporters of the Church. No one expected that the "revolution" brought in by Vatican II would have satisfied everybody and immediately. Time, a relevant time should have passed before the new "popular Mass" could have been accepted by the generality of faithfuls. And pressures by those who are economically important, are heavy pressures. Important lobbies were against the new Mass, and for the traditional Latin Mass. Only the passage of time would have solved the question. I personally would not have expected Montini to immediately assume a strong position against the archbishop (who was - however - suspended a divinis, was forbidden to celebrate sacraments - not a secondary measure), because in this case, he would have risked to break the Church in two, to produce a new schism (Lefebvre was already talking about antipopes), losing a minoritarian part, but exposing the whole Church to another difficult position.

He instead waited, patiently and silently, for the rebels to calm down, to their claims to be weakened by an unbreakable inertial understatement and hopefully absorbed by other issues in which Vatican could have been more easily winning. This later happened with the fight against communism, brought to completion by the current pope. Very few people now remember about Lefebvre, but they know that communism was defeated.

Montini took time. Disoriented the "competitor" with leaving him the chance to eventually come back to his major home (as the lost sheep). And disoriented the "Christian people" by giving no answer to a question which was difficult to reply to without causing an unrevertable division. This is pragmatism, and this is in the traditional policy of the Church.

The same pragmatism we have recently seen applied (by another pope) with Mons. Milingo, the one who "took a tour" in Rev. Moon's religion, but with a differen ending: Milingo is now back to the Holy Roman Church, hidden in a monastery a few miles far from Rome.

I hardly remember the question with Cardinal Cody, but I remember that Count Ciano taught his father-in-law Mussolini (who didn't really need such a lesson) that people seldom notices when one changes his mind, and soon forgets that just a little time before one had expressed different ideas. Ciano was also the Italian ambassador to Vatican, in constant touch with Montini. Three masters of pragmatism.

Finally, it's quite funny to me to be somehow "defending" a man that I didn't really like so much, but the Gospel says: give Caesar what belongs to Caesar...

About Suor Pasqualina, no doubt that gate-keepers do have a certain influence, but I would consider that gate-keepers are usually attentively selected and every while controlled. Also, on important questions, especially on questions regarding strict co-workers, gate-keepers might suggest, as you say, but Montini was the closest "clerk" of Pius. I guess that Pius personally dealt with Montini's position and duties, with no possible filter. The facts in which Montini was involved at the time of the war had put him in a position which is well above any possible filtering mediation by a nun.

And about his charge, I repeat that some (not all) bishops are more, more, influential than a cardinal, more important for the general politics of Vatican, more crucial for the whole mechanism. Because they are more free to move and meet people, while a cardinal is always too much a public figure to appear in certain practices, because in case of diplomatic accident it is easier to remove a bishop than a cardinal without too much confusion.

We actually don't know why Montini became a cardinal so late, but he was named a cardinal, and later a pope. I only can think of an ancient proverb: nothing happens by chance in Vatican.

About Luciani, we can only conjecture that he was a genuine "priest", very far from Roman mentality, very coherent with his beliefs and little devoted to pragmatism. This is why many "see" in his early death the sign of a suspect manoeuvre (nothing by chance?). Anyhow, he reigned so little that we can't easily make a comparison between the respective governing policies, with the previous' and with the following's ones.

When Aldo Moro was in the Red brigades' prison, Montini wrote a letter to the "men of the Red Brigades". This was what public expected him to do, but was also a corageous act, with which he was besides recognizing political dignity to a terrorist group.

Let's leave an open door for the hypothesis that Montini was not (or not only, if you wish) a man of no action.

G

You miss understand me. Montini was not a man of no action. However at key moments, his indecision was legendary and openly talked about with despair by some the Church. Calling back an aide from the airport when he was about to fly out to meet Cody was classic Montini. He changed his mind constantly, even though there was overwhelming evidence of financial irregularities in his archdiocese, even though the American hierarchy were calling out for action, even though serious questions were raised about his relationship with a woman who even accompanied him to the Vatican where, to Pope Paul's embarrassment she appeared in a photograph standing behind cody and the Pope. The files in the Vatican on Cody were massive and all sides, Pope Paul VI's advisors, the American hierarchy, relevant Vatican secretariats, etc agreed that Cody needed at the very least to receive a severe personal dressing down from His Holiness, alongside an inquiry into his behaviour. (Many had already made up their minds that he was unfit for office and should be removed.) However His Holiness hesitated and hesitated, took a decision, sent an aide off to meet Cody, summoned the aide back, sent his off again, summoned him back again, changing his mind according to one aide three times one day.

Regarding Lefebre, all the advisors told His Holiness that he should act. Paul decided to act. Then decided not to. Then decided to act. Then changed his mind again.

Senior staffers who worked for the three popes (Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II) commented subsequently on the contrast between the decisiveness of the latter two and the Paul's inability to make up their mind. That does not mean that Paul VI was alwaus indecisive. But it was a characteristic he showed at certain times, as when he talked about abdication, had his aides check out the position in church history, canon law, etc, seemed on the brink of it, then backed away, talked about it again, had documents prepared, changed his mind again but kept every so often raising the issue again.

Regarding Sister (others called her Mother) Pasqualina, her controlling approach led to a virtual war among Pacelli's staff while he was in Bavaria. When Pacelli supported her against everyone else, some of his staff claimed that she and Pacelli had an improper relationship. The Vatican had to have an enquiry which dismissed those claims as 'idle gossip'. (Source: Pacelli's sister). Sr. Pasqualina remained a controversial controlling figure in his household from his days in Bavaria to his death in the papacy. She even influenced his choice of doctor (or more correctly, saw to it that his perferred choice was sacked. This man then got admittance to Pacelli on his death-bed, took photographs of the dying pope and then tried to sell them to the media!) Sr. Pasqualina was a superb 'gate-keeper' but an exceptionally controversial one, whose enemies (including cardinals) both bad-mouthed her and (as some of them later admitted) were terrified of her, because Pope Pius XII seem to trust her judgment on people absolutely. One said privately that most senior clerics resent the influence junior priests who are aides to a pope may have, with popes often relying on those around them (no matter how junior) to express opinions on a daily basis, while some senior cardinals may only get a fifteen minute audience with the pope once a month if they are lucky. But the fact that she wasn't even a priest but a 'mere nun' (in the words of one) and that she would have more contact with, and chances to discuss matters with, the Pope in one day than they might have in a month (in some cases a year), drove some cardinals to distraction.

As I have written, don't mis-understand me. I'm not suggesting that Paul VI was hopelessly indecisive, just that it was a character trait that occured notoriously some times. Similarly, I'm not suggesting that Sr. Pasqualina was the puppet master controlling Pope Pius, merely that she did have considerable influence. :-) JTD 20:52 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

I can't make sense of paragraph 3 of the article, and paragraph 2 is also somewhat unclear. AxelBoldt 00:46 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

"Many Virtues" NPOV?

"A man of many virtues" is hardly NPOV. -- Zoe

It's as NPOV as describing the Grand Canyon as Magnificent. This NPOV business is getting on my wick just a bit. It's being used all over the place to stifle descriptive writing, and that's not the intention of it. Arcturus 18:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paul and the Archbishop of Canterbury

The photograph

The picture of Paul VI meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury - surely that's Michael Ramsay in the picture and not his predecesor - isn't it? Arcturus 18:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right about your concerns, that's actually Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, not Michael Ramsey. Fisher was no longer Archbishop of Canterbury when Paul VI became Pope. This image needs some corrections. -- Shauri 15:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Pope Paul became the first pope to meet an Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury"?

This article says "Pope Paul became the first pope to meet an Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury", but the article on John XXIII says "He met the Most Rev. Geoffrey Francis Fisher, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for about an hour in the Vatican on December 2, 1960. It was the first time in 400 years, since the excommunication of Elizabeth I, that Canterbury had met with the Pope." So, which one's correct? -- Chowbok 01:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The account at this page is wrong. It was Pope John XXIII who first met the Archbishop of Canterbury after 400 years, who was at the time Geoffrey Fisher. Paul VI would later meet with Archbishop Arthur Ramsey, becoming the second Pope to meet with the Anglican Archbishop, not the first one. I'm editing that error now. -- Shauri 14:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of first section?

The first section above is a long debate from 2003. It replicates arguments that have been held on Usenet hundreds of times. I propose we delete it. Objections? Lawrence King 09:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is, nevertheless, quite interesting and in-depth. People must have taken pains to compose all the arguments. It shouldn't be deleted just because it's 2 years old now.

When I wrote about this I didn't understand archiving. It has now been archived, solving this problem.Lawrence King 03:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)