The Church in the second half of the 20th century was rife with scandal, heresy, and corruption. Are soon-to-be-saints John XXIII and John Paul II to blame?
John XXIII and John Paul II both reigned during a period in which the Church was undergoing a paradigm shift in the language and form of argumentation on issues of faith and morals. This was a cause of a good deal of the animosity toward both popes by some of the more traditionalist elements in the Church; for many, it was a matter of Church-dividing significance. The shift toward a personalist paradigm, though, was an important one in the aftermath of the horrors of the first half of the twentieth century. Indeed, the basic problem that led to those horrors had not been resolved with the end of the Second World War, but continued to threaten the world in the ongoing problems of secular totalitarian communist regimes, as well as nihilistic relativism in the culture at large. John Paul II described this problem in a letter to Henri de Lubac, S.J., in February of 1968. He wrote:
John XXIII may not have been able to name the issue, but I think he perceived it just the same. The whole question of the human person was at stake, because that was the question of the contemporary world, and unsatisfactory responses to that question would lead to terrible crimes against humanity – and more importantly, against concrete human beings. This problem is still with us today, and I remain convinced that the personalist approach is still the way forward.
It’s also true that both figures reigned in a time of tremendous public dissent in the Church – John Paul II far more so than John XXIII. The reasons for this are complex: John Paul II recognized that we were in the midst of a “culture war,” and his remarks about the assault on the inviolable mystery of the person have to do with this point. But there’s also a lot that he didn’t see – or didn’t see clearly enough or early enough to do anything about it. Neither pope really understood just how powerful mass media – and in particular, television and later the internet – were for the propagation of secularist, materialist philosophy and values. They also failed to realize how much more effective these media were for that end than they are for the propagation of the views and values of the Church. These forms of media are, on the whole, a force for evil, not because they must be, but because they are better suited as a tool for the promotion of evil than for the promotion of good. Catholics have never really been very media savvy, and that has cost the Church dearly. We need to be in the game, though, because otherwise, evil will be the only voice in mass media, and that would be a worse situation still.
But it’s also the case that the dissent that took root during the period of John Paul II came partly from within. On one side were those who wanted the Church to return to what it had been prior to the Second Vatican Council. This side included the Society of St. Pius X and also a few sedevecantist groups who claim that we haven’t even had a legitimate pope since Pius XII. The Society of St. Pius X doesn’t go that far, and neither do many of the disgruntled traditionalists who still attend Mass at their parishes and cringe at the sight of communion in the hand and female alter servers, felt banners, and guitars. All of this happened under John Paul II’s watch, and it led to a good deal of animosity from the traditionalists in the Church.