Philosophy Now Forum

When, or under what circumstances, is a promissor relieved of the obligation to perform what he promised?

"WARSAW, Poland — Pope John Paul II's secretary "did not have the courage" to burn all of the pontiff's notes after his death, and is now having some of them published, he said Wednesday.

The book, "Very Much in God's Hands. Personal Notes 1962-2003," comes out Feb. 5 in Poland, where the pope is still a much-loved authority. It contains religious meditations that Karol Wojtyla recorded between July 1962, when he was a bishop in Poland, and March 2003, when he was pope.

Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz told a news conference that in preserving some of the notes he was motivated by the "despair of historians" when the letters of Pope Pius XII were burned after his death, as he had wished.

In his last will, John Paul commissioned Dziwisz, his personal secretary and closest aide of almost 40 years, to burn his personal notes. Instead, Dziwisz kept them and is having them published before John Paul is declared a saint April 27 in Rome. They were made available to the Vatican in the pope's fast-track beatification and sainthood processes.

In his notes, contained in two bound notebooks, the pope "reveals a part of his soul, of his meeting with God, contemplation and piety and that is the greatest value," Dziwisz said in the southern city of Krakow, where he is archbishop and where Wojtyla was also bishop and cardinal.

He said he burned "those letters and notes that required burning," but said it would have been a crime to burn all the notes which give insight into the pope's soul.

"In keeping them I respected his will," he insisted.

At first, Wojtyla made notes only in Polish, but later also in Italian and Latin with Greek and Spanish inclusions, according to Henryk Wozniakowski, head of the Catholic publishers Znak.

The book's editor, Agnieszka Rudziewicz, said the notes are an "extraordinary record of a spiritual path" and a record of Wojtyla's "self-development and road to sainthood," but readers should not expect "sensation."

John Paul died in 2005 at the age of 84, after 26 years as pope." (Emphasis added)
http://www.startribune.com/world/241460901.html

I contend that the Cardinal's publication of the notes is not justified for the following reasons.
1. The Cardinal voluntarily accepted the commission to burn the notes, thus, creating a duty to comply after the Pope's death. He could have performed the commission promptly after the Pope died. Instead, by publishing the notes he submits them promiscuously to the world, an outrageous violation of the right of privacy..
2. The Cardinal owed the Pope a duty of loyalty both before and after the Pope's death.
3. The Pope obviously wanted to keep these notes (about deeply personal aspects of the Pope's interior life) private forever.
4. The Cardinal owes no duty to either "history" or "historians".

Much like they should have had a duty to have kept quite about the systematic abuse of children in their ranks?

Personally I think Catholics should have a lot more to be concerned with than notes about a late Pope.

Arising_uk wrote:Much like they should have had a duty to have kept quite about the systematic abuse of children in their ranks?
I agree. I'm appalled and I'm glad that my 7 year old grandson is in a classical academy, not a Catholic school. I'm appalled because I have the perspective of a prosecutor and one famiar with Catholic philosophy and theology. The Church is controlled by pederasts and pedaphiles and male homosexuals.

Personally I think Catholics should have a lot more to be concerned with than notes about a late Pope.

Wrong. This is a serious matter. A Cardinal is disregarding the instructions contained in the Pope's Last Will and Testament. It is the law in virtually every jurisdiction that valid instructions in a will must be followed by the agent.

Here is an example from my experience when I was practicing:

I read an article in the Minneapolis newspaper about some librarians against an administrator at the U. of Minn. Library.

The library contained an ornate reading room that contained a very valuable collection of childrens' literature. The reading room was established by a bequest in the Last Will and Testament of a deceased professor at the U.

The administrator had unilaterally decided and ordered that the reading room was thereafter to be used for new faculty receptions so as to "build collegiality"to
The librarians had protested to the Minneapolis newspaper.

As an attorney, I sent a letter to the Minneapolis newspaper. In the letter, I advised Minnesota attorneys to be cautious before they drafted a will containing a bequest to the University of Minnesota. I asserted that this case ("the lowly librarians vs. "the mighty administrator") indicates that the administrators at the U believed that they were not bound by the donor's intention as expressed in the will. I suggested that an attorney could be guilty of malpractice if he didn't advise the client against making such a bequest.

The newspaper prominently published my letter.

A week or so later I received a call from one of "the lowly librarians." She said that the administrator had promptly reversed his decision after the publication of my letter! It seems that attorneys in the Twin Cities had called members of the Board of Regents to also protest. And the Board of Regents had ordered the reversal. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO RISK LOSING ANY GIFTS OF MONEY IN BEQUESTS IN WILLS.

A will is a very important formal legal document.

For what it's worth tbeiter I think you are very much right. It's legally airtight your argument and more importantly morally airtight. If a last will asks you to do something, ie someone asks you to do something on "their death bed" it seems egregious if you then go against their last wishes on Earth no matter what your rationale. To put it in moral terms if you were present at the time when a person died and they asked you to give the letter in their hand to his wife and you promised to do so with all, and then you went and gave it to the national papers and had it published, it doesn't matter what the public interest would have been or who the person was, you violated a trust and a solemn oath.