Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace + Amen.

In the midst of the many ceremonies, public and private, at the Vatican and around the world, marking the death of Pope John Paul II, Ambrosius, Iacobus and Iosephus wish to state their view that to speak of “John Paul the Great” is a travesty which would have been deplored by the man himself. In part, we are responding to the over-reaction of other people. In part, our opinion is based on painful memories of many less than prudent actions of the late Holy Father. But most of all, our position is motivated by the force of considerations which obtain regardless of the particular details of the life of the man baptized as Karol Jozef Wojtyla.

At the beginning of a great article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, at the entry under “Pope St. Gregory VII“, the first words are the following: “One of the greatest of the Roman pontiffs and one of the most remarkable men of all times . . .” The fact that the author can say this, even though Gregory VII is not known as Pope St. Gregory VII the Great and few have heard of him today, is our first indication that the epithet “Great” is one which Holy Mother Church has been wary of assigning even to the most remarkable of her Pontiffs.

From Blessed Pius IX until the Venerable Pius XII, the Church and the world experienced a reign of truly remarkable popes: they opposed liberalism, fought against the principles of the Enlightenment and Freemasonry, and called the entire world to the Catholic Faith. This remarkable run of men includes a blessed (Pius IX), several venerandi (Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII), and the only sainted pontiff (Pius X) since the august reign of that terror and scourge of Annibale Bugnini and “liturgists” everywhere, Pope St. Pius V. Yet none of these men is known as “the Great.”

To bestow the title of “the Great” is a judgment which only history can make. Irrespective of the details of John Paul’s career, wonderful and storied as they might be, we are simply in no position to make the judgment that he ought to be known as John Paul the Great. We are not saying that this is an instance of the laity arrogating authority which it does not have. Neither are we suggesting that while we are not competent, yet that somehow someone else, perhaps a bishop or priest, is competent. Rather, it is our time considered as a whole; our generation in its fullness; this present epoch of mankind and the Church Militant dwelling therein that is simply not qualified to make such a claim on the behalf of Pope John Paul, the second of that name.

As Archbishop Chaput of Denver said not long ago, we do not yet know the full results and fruits (if there be any) of the Second Vatican Council. Chaput thinks that we do not know, at present, how the Council will be judged by history, whether it will be seen as good, bad, or fair. Yet the Council closed more than 40 years ago and countless persons have been actively assessing it ever since! We are entitled to our opinions, to be sure, but our human lives are too short to judge something so close to us in the great continuum of history. How can we, then, know the legacy of a man who was very much a son of that same Council — who defended it, quoted it endlessly, and thought that it had brought the Church into a better place — when we do not even have a final verdict on the Council itself?

Some will allege John Paul’s string of accomplishments: he defended life, he upheld the unity of the Church, he brought some to the Faith, he spoke before princes and powers, and he lived a holy life. Macte! But this does not make a pope “great”; at most, this makes a pope “fair.” This much, remarkable as such feats seem to us, is the minimum expected of each and every Universal Pastor of the Church: history, the Church, and the many sainted occupants of the See of Peter, have set the bar very high.

Of course, there are a few extraordinary elements of John Paul’s pontificate that might still seem to indicate some superlative in his title. The most obvious would be the tremendous length of his reign, the breadth and magnitude — in length if naught else — of his writings, and the resulting influence he has had on the Church and the faithful. What, then, of the recent Blessed Pius IX, or Pope Leo XIII, both of whom exerted a similar presence, yet were unaided by modern media? Also frequently cited is John Paul’s undeniably heroic stand against the demonic spectre of Communism and his role in its downfall. Yet can we honestly ascribe the fullness of this downfall to the Pontiff without giving credit to Reagan, Thatcher, and others? Or should they all be called the Great?

It seems that the core of these claims is this. Because great things were afoot and John Paul responded in some positive way, he is himself great. Surely John Paul was foremost among other leaders who made their name in the end of the twentieth century: he was great as a man who lives a Christian life in view of the entire world, but not great as the Church bestows this singular title. Nothing in his list of accomplishments makes him exceptional in the history of the Church; at the end of a thousand pages of vindication, we will at best agree that he did his duty.

Instead of “the Great”, Ambrosius, Iacobus and Iosephus propose the title, John Paul the Fair, and this for several reasons. First, such a title needs to be revived - not that it was ever applied to the popes - but it is a classy medieval title, one which we be loath to see completely abandoned. Second, with the stipulation that we do not yet have the perspective of history to aid our judgment, it seems clear that John Paul II did not allow the Church to disintegrate on his watch; this is expected of every pontiff, but perhaps we are living in exceptional times, in what many have called the greatest crisis in the Church since the days of Arius, and so what was normal in other ages may come to be regarded as heroic in our own. Third, there is no doubt that John Paul was an handsome, athletic man, suave, with the refinements of both an actor and of a great education; he was more popular and well-known throughout the entire world than any rock or movie star.

It is this final element which seems to have vaulted him, beyond the merit of his deeds, beyond the sober judgment which would defer to history, into ranks of men like Gregory, Leo, and Nicholas. So we add a voice of caution to the clamorous multitude at this time when we remember the death of John Paul the Fair.

go to main page