Saint John Paul II Institute studies both late pope and his Polish homeland
“The story of Poland and the story of St. John Paul II are deeply intertwined—to pursue one is to discover the other,” says institute director Dr. John Hittinger.
St. John Paul II greets throngs of Poles waiting for a glimpse of their native son at the monastery of Jasna Gora in Czestochowa during his 1979 trip to Poland. (CNS photo/Chris Niedenthal)
It’s sometimes said Pope St. John Paul II was the most intellectually gifted occupant of the See of Peter ever, but inasmuch as the line of popes stretches back two millennia and includes some known to history only by their names, there is no realistic way of verifying that.
What is certain, though, is that Karol Wojtyla was an original thinker who made important and lasting contributions to the Catholic intellectual tradition.
Partly his intellectual stature reflects the time he spent in the 1950s and 1960s as a member of the philosophy faculty at Poland’s University of Lublin—an era when, one commentator remarks, the Lublin philosophers were considered to be “among the most creative anywhere.”
And in part it reflects not just the remarkable volume of his output as pope—14 encyclicals as well as literally hundreds of other important documents—but also its highly original contents. One thinks, for instance, of the Wednesday audience addresses in which he set out a new, much discussed “theology of the body” as well as the many expositions of his distinctive personalism.
Born in 1920 and elected pope 43 years ago this month, John Paul died in 2005 and was canonized in 2014. Perpetuating and propagating his heritage while situating it in the indispensable context of Polish history and culture are the twofold mission of a new project—the Saint John Paul II Institute at Houston’s University of St. Thomas.
The Houston program (which is not related to the John Paul II Institute for Studies of Marriage and Family in Washington, D.C.) takes its inspiration from something John Paul said:
I am the son of a nation which its neighbors have condemned to death several times but which has survived and remained itself. It has kept its identity in spite of partitions and foreign occupations by relying on its culture.
“The story of Poland and the story of St. John Paul II are deeply intertwined—to pursue one is to discover the other,” says institute director Dr. John Hittinger. A veteran philosophy professor, Hittinger has lectured and published extensively on the thought of John Paul II. The institute’s assistant director is Dr. Piotr Przybylski, a Krakow native who is first vice president of the Polish-American Council of Texas.
Now in its third year, the Saint John Paul II Institute houses two distinct but related areas of study—one covering the thought of John Paul II, the other devoted to Polish studies. The “flagship” of the John Paul studies is an online MA program—35 students now enrolled—and also includes a certificate program. Both areas of study offer undergraduate minors as well.
Speaking to a meeting of the institute’s newly established advisory board (disclosure: I am a member), University of St. Thomas president Richard Ludwick called John Paul II’s life and work “one of the greatest stories that we could ever tell.”
The institute’s goals are indeed praiseworthy as well as ambitious. But it has its work cut out. In 1998, near the end of Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), which some regard as his greatest encyclical, John Paul said a fundamental result of the “collapse of rationalist optimism” in the face of the 20th century’s “terrible experience of evil” was that “one of our greatest threats is the temptation to despair.”
The Polish Pope’s life and work stands as a bulwark against that temptation. The Saint John Paul II Institute aims to do its part to ensure that his powerful words and deeds continue to resonate.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Denver Newsroom, Oct 18, 2022 / 14:47 pm (CNA).
Twenty years ago, St. John Paul II published the apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, adding five Luminous Mysteries to the traditional 15 meditated on in the rosary.T… […]
Archbishop Zbigņevs Stankevičs of Riga, Latvia (left), speaking during a Catholic conference in Warsaw in May 2022 on the natural law legacy of John Paul II (right.) / Photos by Lisa Johnston and L’Osservatore Romano
Warsaw, Poland, Jun 9, 2022 / 09:17 am (CNA).
Constant cooperation and dialogue among Catholic, Lutherans, Orthodox, and other Christian denominations have been crucial to protect life and family in the Baltic nation of Latvia, Archbishop Zbigņevs Stankevičs of Riga, Latvia, said during a recent Catholic conference in Warsaw.
In his speech, Stankevičs shared his personal ecumenical experience in Latvia as an example of how the concept of natural law proposed by St. John Paul II can serve as the basis for ecumenical cooperation in defending human values.
The metropolitan archbishop, based in Latvia’s capital, is no stranger to ecumenical work and thought. In 2001, he became the first bishop consecrated in a Lutheran church since the split from Protestantism in the 1500s. The unusual move, which occurred in the church of Evangelical Lutheran Cathedral in Riga, formerly the Catholic Cathedral of St. Mary, signaled the beginning of Stankevičs’ cooperation with the Lutheran church in Latvia, a cooperation that would ultimately become a partnership in the cause of life and the family. Since 2012, the archbishop has served on the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
“I would like to present this ecumenical cooperation in three experiences in my country: the abortion debate, the civil unions discussion, and the so-called Istanbul convention,” Stankevičs began.
Entering the abortion debate
Ordained as a priest in 1996, Stankevičs struggled to find proper consultation for Catholic couples on natural family planning. It was then that he decided to create a small center that provided natural family planning under the motto “let us protect the miracle [of fertility].”
This involvement in the world of natural family planning would lead him into the heart of the abortion debate in Latvian society, and, ultimately, to the conclusion that moral discussions in the public square benefit from a basis in natural law, something emphasized in the teachings of John Paul II.
“I knew that theological arguments would not work for a secular audience, so I wanted to show that Catholic arguments are not opposed to legal, scientific, and universal arguments, but rather are in harmony with them,” Stankevičs said.
“[A] few years later our parliament introduced the discussion to legalize abortion. No one was doing anything so I decided to do something. I consulted some experts and presented a proposal that was published in the most important secular newspaper in Latvia,” the archbishop said.
Stankevičs’ article, “Why I was Lucky,” used both biological and theological arguments to defend human life. He noted that his own mother, when pregnant with him, was under pressure to get an abortion; “but she was a believer, a Catholic, so she refused the pressure.”
After the Latvian parliament legalized abortion in 2002, the different Christian confessions decided to start working together to protect the right to life and the family.
In Latvia, Catholics comprise 25% of the population, Lutherans 34.2%, and Russian Orthodox 17%, with other smaller, mostly Christian denominations making up the remainder.
“We started to work together by the initiative of a businessman in Riga, a non-believer who wanted to promote awareness about the humanity of the unborn,” the archbishop recalled.
“Bringing all Christians together in a truly ecumenical effort ended up bearing good fruits because we worked together in promoting a culture of life: From more than 7,000 abortions per year in 2002, we were able to bring it down to 2,000 by 2020,” he said.
Map of Riga, the capital of Latvia. Shutterstock
Ecumenical defense of marriage, family
Regarding the legislation on civil unions, another area where Stankevičs has rallied ecumenical groups around natural law defense of marriage, the archbishop said that he has seen the tension surrounding LGBT issues mount in Latvian society as increased pressure is brought to bear to legalize same-sex unions.
Invited to a debate on a popular Latvian television show called “One vs. One” after Pope Francis’ remark “who am I to judge?” was widely interpreted in Latvian society as approving homosexual unions, Stankevičs “had the opportunity to explain the teachings of the Catholic Church and what was the real meaning of the Holy Father’s words.”
After that episode, in dialogue with other Christian leaders, Stankevičs proposed a law aimed at reducing political tensions in the country without jeopardizing the traditional concept of the family.
The legislation proposed by the ecumenical group of Christians would have created binding regulations aimed at protecting any kind of common household; “for example, two old persons living together to help one another, or one old and one young person who decide to live together.”
“The law would benefit any household, including homosexual couples, but would not affect the concept of [the] natural family,” Stankevičs explained. “Unfortunately the media manipulated my proposal, and the Agency France Presse presented me internationally as if I was in favor of gay marriage.”
In 2020, the Constitutional Court in Latvia decided a case in favor of legalizing homosexual couples and ordered the parliament to pass legislation according to this decision.
In response, the Latvian Men’s Association started a campaign to introduce an amendment to the Latvian constitution, to clarify the concept of family. The Latvian constitution in 2005 proclaimed that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but left a legal void regarding the definition of family, which the court wanted to interpret to include homosexual unions.
The Latvian bishops’ conference supported the amendment presented by the Men’s Association, “but most importantly,” Stankevičs explained, “we put together an ecumenical statement signed by the leaders of 10 different Christian denominations supporting the idea that the family should be based on the marriage between a man and a woman. The president of the Latvian Jewish community, a good friend, also joined the statement.”
The Freedom Monument in Riga, Latvia, honors soldiers who died during the Latvian War of Independence (1918-1920). Shutterstock
According to Stankevičs, something strange happened next. “The Minister of Justice created a committee to discuss the demand of the constitutional court, and it included several Christian representatives, including three from the Catholic Church, which worked for a year.” But ignoring all the discussions and proposals, the Minister of Justice ended up sending a proposal to parliament that was a full recognition of homosexual couples as marriage.
The response was also ecumenical: Christian leaders sent a letter encouraging the parliament to ignore the government’s proposal.
According to Stankevičs, the proposal has already passed one round of votes “and it is very likely that it will be approved in a second round of votes, with the support of the New Conservative party. But we Christians continue to work together.”
Preventing gender ideology
The third field of ecumenical cooperation mentioned by Stankevičs concerned the Istanbul Convention, a European treaty which the Latvian government signed but ultimately did not ratify.
The treaty was introduced as an international legal instrument that recognizes violence against women as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women.
The convention claims to cover various forms of gender-based violence against women, but Christian communities in Latvia have criticized the heavy use of gender ideology in both the framing and the language of the document.
The word “gender,” for instance, is defined as “the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men,” a definition that allows gender to be defined independent of biological sex and therefore opens the document to the question of whether it really is aimed at the protection of women.
Christian communities also question the biased nature of the committee designated to enforce the convention.
The governments of Slovakia and Bulgaria refused to ratify the convention, while Poland, Lithuania, and Croatia expressed reservations about the convention though it was ultimately ratified in those countries, a move the government of Poland is attempting to reverse.
“When we found out that the Latvian parliament was going to ratify it, I went to the parliament and presented the common Christian position,” Stankevičs explained. As a consequence of that visit, the Latvian parliament decided not to ratify the convention, Stankevičs said, crediting the appeal to the unity provided by the common Christian position argued via natural law.
“In conclusion,” the archbishop said, “I can say that in Latvia we continue to defend the true nature of life and family. But if we Catholics would act alone, we would not have the impact that we have as one Christian majority. That unity is the reason why the government takes us seriously.”
“What would men be without women? Scarce, sir… mighty scarce.” — attributed to Mark Twain Fifty years ago, only rogue philosophers bothered to ask, “What is a woman?” It seems so simple, until suddenly it […]
JPII should never have been hastily canonized. George Weigel’s appellation was premature. JPII was not great after all. During his papacy the clergy homosexual predation sex abuse scandal erupted to become widely public and he did not do anything significant to turn back its surge. Today the Church is still suffering the ill effects of this absence of pastoral leadership during his reign. He had a misplaced hyper idealization of the priesthood (e.g. Pastores Dabo Vobis, Gift and Mystery, Holy Thursday letters to priests, etc.) and of sexuality (Theology of the Body, Love and Responsibility, etc.) that proved to be his blind spots in dealing with the emerging scandal. He had a preferential friendship with the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi founder and serial sex abuser who sired children Marcial Maciel Degollano calling him a “heroic model of the priesthood.” JPII promoted Ted McCarrick four times: Bishop of Metuchen, Archbishop of Newark, Archbishop of Washington, and Cardinal.
This would be the Cardinal McCarrick rehabilitated by Francis (who knew of his crimes) for the express purpose of delivering the Chinese Church into the clutches of the Communist Party. Among JP II’s worst moves were his promotions of Bergoglio. We are certainly suffering the ill effects of those blunders.
Long time ago, he has been judged. No Pope, including the current one, has been effective in the scandal.
That he made some bad decisions, promoted bad prelates and engaged with questionable people; that is reality and what saint can you absolutely confirm was spotless in that regard? That was a prime charge against that little nun from Albania…and it was absurd.
The early Church – for centuries – declared saints quickly.
‘What is bound on Earth, is bound in Heaven’….maybe not?
Pope John Paul II made monumental contributions with his encyclicals and exhortations. His teaching of the ‘Theology of the Body’ alone is a masterpiece and continues to be studied. He kept Eastern European countries together spiritually and physically with the Solidarity Movement that was a prime factor in the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
The Apostles made bad choices, too. But their belief in Christ, especially after Pentecost, allowed them to build His Church on earth. Their Faith and subsequent achievements surely surpassed what they failed in.
Regardless of the haste in declaring John Paul II a saint, was his failures such that his Canonization is null and void?
All matters of record and hindsight now, and also irrelevant. Canonization has to do with personal holiness, and (possibly unfortunately?) not with 100-percent good judgment in the management of unlimited affairs.
You speak of “the Church still suffering the ill effects…”, and this is true. Yet, St. Pope John Paul II might have shown our era how to suffer when he carried on with his debilitating Parkinson’s Disease, to the very end, as a sign against both our abortion culture and culture of euthanasia. As for pastoral leadership, his misjudgments in management in Rome (a nearly intractable cesspool, apparently) was the flip side of his personal evangelization by visiting 129 countries. And, then, of course there’s his role in the historic dismantling the Soviet Empire.
Your admiration for “Pope Francis the Greater” is perplexing, given your highlighting of John Paul II’s ill-advised friendships, and in light of Francis’ hobnobbing with the likes of homosexual enabler James Martin, Aztec Nancy Pelosi and gender theory/abortion czar Jo Biden.
These are imperfect times in an imperfect world, inhabited by imperfect people including clerics. And yet, a few inspire as saints under the specific criteria applied. And, oh yes, including the testimony of miracles. John Paul performed his first miracle on a French nun with Parkinson’s disease in June 2005, several months after he died, while he performed the second miracle on a Costa Rican woman with an aneurism in 2011, six years after his death.
Wondering here, surely with you, if the criteria for deciding personal sanctity and sainthood could be supplemented by consultation with yourself? Not even possible until you sign your one-sided commentaries with your actual name. CWR readers and the Vatican await your generous response.
Yes! Thank you!
JPII should never have been hastily canonized. George Weigel’s appellation was premature. JPII was not great after all. During his papacy the clergy homosexual predation sex abuse scandal erupted to become widely public and he did not do anything significant to turn back its surge. Today the Church is still suffering the ill effects of this absence of pastoral leadership during his reign. He had a misplaced hyper idealization of the priesthood (e.g. Pastores Dabo Vobis, Gift and Mystery, Holy Thursday letters to priests, etc.) and of sexuality (Theology of the Body, Love and Responsibility, etc.) that proved to be his blind spots in dealing with the emerging scandal. He had a preferential friendship with the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi founder and serial sex abuser who sired children Marcial Maciel Degollano calling him a “heroic model of the priesthood.” JPII promoted Ted McCarrick four times: Bishop of Metuchen, Archbishop of Newark, Archbishop of Washington, and Cardinal.
This would be the Cardinal McCarrick rehabilitated by Francis (who knew of his crimes) for the express purpose of delivering the Chinese Church into the clutches of the Communist Party. Among JP II’s worst moves were his promotions of Bergoglio. We are certainly suffering the ill effects of those blunders.
Long time ago, he has been judged. No Pope, including the current one, has been effective in the scandal.
That he made some bad decisions, promoted bad prelates and engaged with questionable people; that is reality and what saint can you absolutely confirm was spotless in that regard? That was a prime charge against that little nun from Albania…and it was absurd.
The early Church – for centuries – declared saints quickly.
‘What is bound on Earth, is bound in Heaven’….maybe not?
Pope John Paul II made monumental contributions with his encyclicals and exhortations. His teaching of the ‘Theology of the Body’ alone is a masterpiece and continues to be studied. He kept Eastern European countries together spiritually and physically with the Solidarity Movement that was a prime factor in the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
The Apostles made bad choices, too. But their belief in Christ, especially after Pentecost, allowed them to build His Church on earth. Their Faith and subsequent achievements surely surpassed what they failed in.
Regardless of the haste in declaring John Paul II a saint, was his failures such that his Canonization is null and void?
All matters of record and hindsight now, and also irrelevant. Canonization has to do with personal holiness, and (possibly unfortunately?) not with 100-percent good judgment in the management of unlimited affairs.
You speak of “the Church still suffering the ill effects…”, and this is true. Yet, St. Pope John Paul II might have shown our era how to suffer when he carried on with his debilitating Parkinson’s Disease, to the very end, as a sign against both our abortion culture and culture of euthanasia. As for pastoral leadership, his misjudgments in management in Rome (a nearly intractable cesspool, apparently) was the flip side of his personal evangelization by visiting 129 countries. And, then, of course there’s his role in the historic dismantling the Soviet Empire.
Your admiration for “Pope Francis the Greater” is perplexing, given your highlighting of John Paul II’s ill-advised friendships, and in light of Francis’ hobnobbing with the likes of homosexual enabler James Martin, Aztec Nancy Pelosi and gender theory/abortion czar Jo Biden.
These are imperfect times in an imperfect world, inhabited by imperfect people including clerics. And yet, a few inspire as saints under the specific criteria applied. And, oh yes, including the testimony of miracles. John Paul performed his first miracle on a French nun with Parkinson’s disease in June 2005, several months after he died, while he performed the second miracle on a Costa Rican woman with an aneurism in 2011, six years after his death.
Wondering here, surely with you, if the criteria for deciding personal sanctity and sainthood could be supplemented by consultation with yourself? Not even possible until you sign your one-sided commentaries with your actual name. CWR readers and the Vatican await your generous response.