I don’t know what God has in mind here, but there has been an unnervingly close series of parallels between the popes and the U.S. presidents, at least since World War II. The following eerie coincidences between papal and presidential reigns strikes me as somehow significant.
Make of them what you will…
[one_half padding=”0px 20px 0 0″]
Pius XII (1939-1958)
Reigned during World War II. Widely criticized later for resisting Holocaust quietly, which he thought necessary to save lives. A clear-eyed opponent of international Communism. Church expanded and grew throughout his reign, in what seemed like a golden age.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”0px 0px 0 20px”]
Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Governed at end of World War II. Widely criticized later for using atomic bombs to end World War II, which he thought necessary to save lives. A clear-eyed opponent of international Communism.[/one_half_last]
Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Economy expanded and grew throughout his reign, in what seemed like a golden age.
[one_half padding=”0px 20px 0 0″]
John XXIII (1958-1963)
An unexpected fresh face, who was beloved by the faithful during his brief reign, despite a rather scant set of accomplishments. He set in motion an optimistic reform movement, which after his death degenerated into bitter controversy.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”0px 0px 0 20px”]
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
An unexpected fresh face, who was beloved by the electorate during his brief presidency, despite a rather scant set of accomplishments. He set in motion the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, which after his death degenerated into bitter controversy.[/one_half_last]
[one_half padding=”0px 20px 0 0″]
Pope Paul VI (1963-1973)
A moderate, anti-Communist liberal who came to be hated by liberals. He implemented broad changes in the Church, but stood firm on contraception, which his former allies considered unforgiveable.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”0px 0px 0 20px”]
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969)
A moderate, anti-Communist liberal who came to be hated by liberals. He implemented broad social programs, but doubled down on U.S. involvement in Vietnam, which his former allies considered unforgiveable.[/one_half_last]
[one_half padding=”0px 20px 0 0″]
Pope John Paul I (1978)
A likeable man whose brief reign left him no time to accomplish anything.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”0px 0px 0 20px”]
Gerald Ford (1973-1976)
A likeable man whose Nixon connection left him no political capital to accomplish anything.[/one_half_last]
Jimmy Carter (1976-81)
A likeable man whose utter lack of prudence left him unable to accomplish anything.
[one_half padding=”0px 20px 0 0″]
Pope John Paul II (1978-2005)
A visionary who saw the profound evils both of Communism and of the Western culture of death, who invigorated a generation of Catholics to rediscover the treasures of their faith. Shot by a Turk who might have been working for the KGB, but survived—with Parkinson’s caused by the shooting. Confronted the Soviet empire and helped to bring it down.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”0px 0px 0 20px”]
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
A visionary who saw the profound evils both of Communism and of the Western culture of death, who invigorated a generation of Americans to rediscover the values of our Founding. Shot by a Yalie who thought he was working for Jodie Foster, but survived—with Parkinson’s caused by the shooting. Confronted the Soviet empire and helped to bring it down.[/one_half_last]
[one_half padding=”0px 20px 0 0″]
Benedict XVI (2005-2014)
Overshadowed by the long, glorious reign of his predecessor, with a shyer and more retiring nature, this elite-educated intellectual tried to restore liturgical traditions and clean up the sex abuse crisis, with mixed results. He left office unexpectedly, after a brief term in office.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”0px 0px 0 20px”]
George H.W. Bush (1989-2004)
Overshadowed by the long, glorious terms of his predecessor, with a shyer and more retiring nature, this elite-educated policy wonk tried to cement Russian democracy and clean up the Middle East, with mixed results. He left office unexpectedly, after a brief term in office.[/one_half_last]
[one_half padding=”0px 20px 0 0″]
Francis (2014–)
A long-shot, surprise candidate who was immediately greeted as a world leader and honored around the world, before he had time to accomplish anything. Promised to correct fundamental injustices, especially those attributed to global capitalism. Gravely concerned about climate change.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”0px 0px 0 20px”]
Barack Obama (2009–)
A long-shot, surprise candidate who was immediately greeted as a world leader and honored around the world, before he had time to accomplish anything. Promised to correct fundamental injustices, especially those attributed to global capitalism. Gravely concerned about climate change.[/one_half_last]
We have seen no Nixon, no Clinton, and no George W. pope—at least not in our time, though if we dig back in the Renaissance we could surely find some.
For some things we should sit back and be grateful.
So the next pope is the antichrist and is a woman? 🙂
God gives us both the temporal and spiritual leaders we deserve?
This article is so dishonest it is actually lies.
Acts as if JP2 was not Pope when Carter was still President,
Puts Benedict with George H even though he was not Pope till after that presidency was over.
Only gives little footnote at the end to admit that it purposefully skipped Nixon, Clinton, and George W.
Cherry picking nonsense – little better than claiming Benedict was for condoms and Francis is pro-homosexual equality because one can twist the actual facts till they fit your predetermined outcome.
Shameful that this nonsense gets promoted at all.
Oh, please. It’s a series of speculative observations that are designed to be somewhat thought-provoking, not scientifically ironclad. “Make of it what you will” should be a pretty obvious disclaimer of that fact.
Not quite – traditionally Catholicism holds that the Cardinals are open to the voice of the Holy Spirit who moves them to choose a person who will lead the Church as a shepherd who always acts for truth and goodness. There is no such concept for a president who is popularly elected.
If one wishes to maintain that all human elections are merely the will of Jesus being enforced on the material universe than one needs to explain why Catholicism’s doctrine that humans have free-will is mistaken and why strict Calvinists are correct in saying free-will is an illusion.
The Popes are held to always lead the Church towards the good and the true (despite any personal imperfections) even a Calvinist would not say the same about a President of the United States – some rulers are held to be raised up to do evil to the followers of YHWH to bring them back to repentance.
“Make of it what you will” is presenting this as if it had any merit whatsoever when its dates have been finessed, facts overlooked, and truth obscured to attempt to make it look like the destiny of the Catholic Church is some how linked with the USA – when this is flatly nonsense and near heretical.
Look at the wording of the opening paragraph “What God has in mind here”; “unnervingly” ; “close series of parallels between the popes and the U.S. presidents”; “eerie coincidences between papal and presidential reigns”; “significant.”
Conspiracy theory rubbish.
The article could just as easily put forward that Jesus interfered with human will to bring about this or that President because he wanted war in Vietnam or wanted someone who wouldn’t stop arms being given to Iran. Or because he wanted to make sure there was no leader who would stop legal contraception or prevent the legalization of abortion or ensure its end.
Sorry this article is anti-Catholic in its Calvinistic conclusions.
The Cardinals are held to be open to the Holy Spirit and due to their closeness with him and the Church moved to cooperate with him to ensure a leader who always as Pope moves humanity towards the true and the beautiful. No office set up by mere humans is held to have the same guarantees.
The Catholic Church does not hold that human voting is always directed by divinity or otherwise places like the US state of Minnesota or the nation of Ireland would not have voted to allow their governments to expand the definition of marriage to homosexuals. The US Supreme Courts recent ruling on marriage should also reinforce the doctrine that Jesus is no respecter of persons or nations.
You’re basing a rather large argument on a flawed premise: that the Holy Spirit chooses the pope. Only this isn’t the case. Now, it’s certain that the Holy Spirit *may* influence a conclave, but only insofar as the men in it are open to the Holy Spirit.
Have you observed our cardinals in action? Have you seen how many openly schismatic prelates wear the red hat?
Cardinal Ratzinger was once asked this very question. His response:
“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.” Then the clincher: “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”
And of course there are. Stephen VI, Alexander VI, John XII, Urban VI…there’s quite a list, really. And that’s to say nothing of the 30 or so antipopes in history, who are only remembered because enough people thought they were the actual pope that their claim remained in force for some time.
St. John Eudes famously wrote, “The most evident mark of God’s anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them.”
If God is willing to abandon his people to bad shepherds out of wrath — and clearly, He has — why should He not abandon His people to the rule of unfit kings?
Of course, we know the answer from Scripture:
“And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them. And the people shall rush one upon another, and every man against his neighbour: the child shall make it tumult against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. … For Jerusalem is ruined, and Juda is fallen: because their tongue, and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty.” – Isaiah 3:4-5;8
“And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient…” Romans 1:23-28
Indeed, as Pope Pius XI warned in Quas Primas:
“What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”
We are a nation steeped in sin, and a Church in little better shape. God does not suffer offenses forever without withholding His grace.
The parallels here may or may not all have merit; again, this was a speculative piece, intended more to provoke thought and discussion than to uncover some deep and hidden secret.
But the current presidency and the current pontificate line up a little too nicely for many people’s liking. One needn’t see a conspiracy to see a confluence of influences.
The office is the thing in question not the individuals only one is held to be free from leading its charges astray and that is the papacy.
(If you want to hold that doesn’t apply here because some of the people in this article are anti-Popes and the Church is in a position of sedevacantism than the article should announce that as it would give the piece a different context. But even if one did that, then the piece should say “anti-pope” in front of those it holds were invalidly elected.)
One can put forward that Obama and Francis are liberal. But to imply that this is some kind of divine plan that these two men are given to us to punish the Church is a whole different thing.
It would be like saying that the people who led Israel astray before Isaiah got onto the scene where just as divinely placed there as Isaiah was. Which would make YHWH the author of evil, which the Church declares is impossible.
Singling out by saying “we are a nation seeped in sin” is also placing too much importance on America, the entire world is held to be seeped in sin – that some of us are Americans makes no difference to that truth.
Catholicism does not place any special role for America in Jesus’ plans, many of our fellow Americans full of jingoistic pride declare that our nation must be his new chosen ones. This goes against Catholicism as it acts as if we Americans are the new Israel rather than the members of the universal/Catholic Church.
“The office is the thing in question not the individuals”
Both are in question. This is a comparison of the personas and characters which have occupied these offices at comparable times. The zeitgeist, made more powerful by the forces of a global media, most certainly play a role in the parallels, as do the prevailing ideologies and social movements of the day in an age where ideas can disseminate rapidly and over great distances.
“If you want to hold that doesn’t apply here because some of the people in this article are anti-Popes and the Church is in a position of sedevacantism than the article should announce that…”
No. That’s not the assertion here.
“One can put forward that Obama and Francis are liberal. But to imply that this is some kind of divine plan that these two men are given to us to punish the Church is a whole different thing.”
I’m not going to speak for the author of this piece, but I can speak as the person who decided to publish it. And the scriptures I quoted to you shows that God sometimes allow men to suffer under wicked rulers (and wicked shepherds) exist. So whether or not this is a “different thing” does not make it an *untrue* thing.
“It would be like saying that the people who led Israel astray before Isaiah got onto the scene where just as divinely placed there as Isaiah was. Which would make YHWH the author of evil, which the Church declares is impossible.”
Where does the Church declare that this is impossible? To the contrary, one of her saints, Saint Claude La Colombière, writes in Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence:
“Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it. This statement must be taken absolutely of everything with the exception of sin. ‘Nothing occurs by chance in the whole course of our lives’ is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, ‘and God intervenes everywhere.’ I am the Lord, He tells us Himself by the mouth of the prophet Isaias, and there is none else. I form light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things. It is I who bring both death and life, I who inflict wounds and heal them, He said to Moses. The Lord killeth and maketh alive, it is written in the Canticle of Anna, the mother of Samuel, He bringeth down to the tomb and He bringeth back again; the Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth. Shall there be evil (disaster, affliction) in a city which the Lord hath not done? asks the prophet Amos: Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from God Solomon proclaims.”
“Singling out by saying “we are a nation seeped in sin” is also placing too much importance on America, the entire world is held to be seeped in sin – that some of us are Americans makes no difference to that truth.”
But the focus of this article is the American connection, and it was written by an American author. Surely, if men of other nationalities were to make similar comparisons, they might also find parallels.
But America is, and has been, the most influential nation in the world, bar none, for quite some time. So there’s reason to pay particular attention to its manifestations in this regard, since it has a singular impact on the affairs of men.
I have no idea what God’s role for America might be in the economy of salvation, but I’ve had people living in Europe tell me that America appears to quite possibly be the last, best hope for Catholicism. In Europe, Catholicism is cultural, taken for granted, and almost completely abandoned. In the third world, it is mixed in with superstition and ignorance.
But in America, Catholicism is a choice. Those who live in the United States and practice the orthodox variety of our Faith are doing it because they want to – not because it’s been handed on to them, or its what the American people do, or for any other reason.
America’s influence is waning, to be sure. But American Catholics remain a force to be reckoned with unlike many others in the world. I would neither put an excessive significance on American Catholicism nor an excessive dismissal on its role; it is important. How important remains to be seen.
Again you do not address the fact that this article in its omissions is being dishonest.
It states “coincidences between papal and presidential reigns” but then it places fast and lose with historical facts such as putting Benedict XVI with Bush Sr. when that Presidency was done when Benedict took the throne.
Your quotation of Saint Claude supports my position that you can’t say a person leading people into sin is placed there by YHWH as she clearly states “with the exception of sin.”
America only has 6% of the worlds Catholics so you seem to be confusing secular importance with importance to Catholicism.
Also secularly China would be of more importance to Catholicism because it has more people, and more individuals who have never heard the gospel, and a government that often interferes with the Church and sometimes persecutes it.
Nation States do not have any role in saving people.
Well, yeah. I, too, have noticed parallels between Popes and US Presidents.
I wished, though, that a small wedge had been given President Dubya who called Papa Bene, “Sir.” [Or did I hear, “Dad?”] That was cute.
God and the Devil both have a sense of humor.
I am sure most of the comparisons were made possible by omission of stark differences.
Take the case of JFK and Pope St. John XXIII. JFK was assassinated. The Pope was not. So what would be an important detail in the life of the president was omitted because there was no comparison to the Pope. Same is probably true for others as well.
One of the really striking comparison is probably of St. John Paul II assassination attempt May 13 1981, vs Ronald Reagan attempt March 30, 1981. Then again, one could say that the shooter of St. JP II probably got the final push by seeing the attempt on Reagan.
Leaders respond to the times. During the Cold War we needed to fight communism, both militarily and ideologically. Cultural changes inspire and require action from the leaders. When climate change becomes a threat, leaders must take it into account.