Let me explain.

Measured by almost any set of human standards Pope John Paul II is the most important person of the twentieth century. He has led an institution comprising a fifth of the earth’s population for a fifth of the century. He had more to do with the demise of the century’s greatest standing evil — Communism — than any other person, perhaps excepting Ronald Reagan. (And the Pope’s weapons were not morally problematic, as was the nuclear deterrent Reagan deployed.) We know not yet the effects of the Holy Father’s trip to Cuba. But if he should find his way to North Korea, we may plausibly hope to some day see that he personally had a hand in eradicating the final bastions of Communism. Pope John Paul II is a man of immense personal charm and ability who, by his travels and by the electronic web around our global village, has touched millions of lives. Having lived under both Hitler and Stalin and being a truly gifted philosopher, this pope would be someone to listen to even if he held no office at all.

But he does hold an office — Peter’s. In that capacity he teaches with the authority of Christ, something no one else alive does. (Bishops possess a share in this unique charisma but they effectively exercise it only when joined to the Pope.) And this irreplaceable and unsurpassably important authority, the greatest service imaginable, depends not a wit on the Holy Father’s larger-than-life stature. It depends instead and entirely on the Lord’s promise to send the Holy Spirit upon the Church. As the Vatican II Fathers said, "this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his OFFICE." (Emphasis mine.)

Obviously, this pope’s unrivaled accomplishments have been made possible, in an important sense, by his office. Were he still (just) Cardinal Wojtyla, this wonderful man would not outstrip the likes of Churchill as a world historical actor. But, precisely speaking, he could have accomplished all the things listed above without the authority of Christ but, say, as the spiritual leader of a great number of the world’s people. And, mostly, he did: definitive teachings as such had relatively little to do with his trip to Cuba or with bringing down the Iron Curtain. His personal charisma is not dependent upon his charism.

The main point is that NO set of human qualities could ever justify —make reasonable, give good grounds for believing—what Catholics believe about the pope’s teaching office. Many popes have been, humanly speaking, pretty sorry men. Even the first incumbent got off to a rocky start, way back on the first Holy Thursday. This does not mean that our beliefs about the pope are unreasonable, or that we are fideists. There are good reasons to believe what we believe, but those reasons have to do with Who Jesus was, and with the trustworthiness of His promises.

Consider the many times in history when the successor of Peter was not, shall we say, all that he should have been. We see even then that the thread of continuity, the integrity, of Jesus’ saving message was preserved. Popes have, to be sure, taught and otherwise held some views that were false. That’s only human. What popes, even the worst of them, have not done is teach definitively anything but the truth. Or consider a different, more recent case where the Lord made good on his promise. The year was 1968. That was a tine when most, though not all, of the "human" signs pointed to a much anticipated relaxation of the received teaching on contraception. The Pope’s own theological commission advised in favor of it. Yet in the face also of great popular expectations Pope Paul VI stood fast. Faithful Catholic scholars still debate the arguments for the teaching of Humanae Vitae. They do not agree about how, exactly, the teaching can be proved to be true without reliance upon authority. But true the teaching is. It does not matter if we debate its rationale for years to come. Indeed, I do not know but my guess is that Pope Paul VI could not have convincingly defended his teaching against dissenting scholars. No matter. The truth of any proposition does not depend logically upon the arguments adduced for it. The teaching of Humanae Vitae is true due to the Lord’s promise, not due to human ingenuity.

Question: When Catholics around the world decide that the next pope lacks the human qualities of John Paul II — as they must —will they recall that the heart of any pope’s authority is the office, not its holder’s human qualities? I fear many will not.

It is surely no criticism of the present Pope that his extraordinary abilities have helped him command the world stage for two decades. Indeed, I firmly believe that he is heaven sent, the perfect man for the time. The fact is, however, that he has yet to solemnly define a teaching, even though it is apparent at a glance that the Church, at least in some Western countries, is barely this side of schism. The Pope has taught authoritatively often enough, but his preferred mode of promulgation is curious. With regard to woman priests and the sanctity of life, for example, the Pope has not defined the teachings but rather said that he considers the teachings already to have been infallibly proposed by the ordinary Magis terium. Since whether those conditions have been met is a question of fact, the faithful are presented with an unusual situation. What is the status (infallible or not) of the Pope’s statement (of fact, not morals or faith) that at another time a certain teaching was proposed infallibly?

I say none of this to engender wonder about the truth of the teachings on woman priests or the sanctity of life. Far from it. I am quite satisfied that these teachings have been, as the Pope says, infallibly taught by the ordinary Magisterium. They are therefore certainly true, and Catholics must accept them as such. I say all this instead to suggest one final service that this great, perhaps the greatest, Pope might perform. What if the Holy Father called all the world’s bishops to Rome, and convoked another council? And locked the doors behind them. And explained to them that no one would be permitted to leave until the bishops, in union with the successor of Peter, solemnly defined every proposition theretofore taught by the ordinary Magisterium. And then some.