John Allen of the National Chismatic Reporter (NCR) in an interview by RealClearReligon said the following which should be very heartening to Catholics who want a Catholic identity rooted in the Tradition of the Church, what some call the hermeneutic of continuity:
"I think this was clearly, and self-consciously, the most anti-establishment conclave of the last 150 years. I think you'd probably have to go back to the election of Leo XIII in 1878 to find a conclave where the Cardinals understood themselves so clearly to be voting for a change. In this case it wasn't a rejection of the substance of Benedict XVI's papacy, but it was a rejection of the methods of management and governance."
I have said all along that in Pope Francis we see the Argentinian who is also very Italian and therefore quite an interesting mix, but less dramatic than the Italian, Scottish Canadian, reared in the Protestant south than yours truly, who is his own man and is clear on where he wants to lead the Church.
He has rejected outright much of the style of Pope Benedict and I suspect it has to do with "management and governance, which we are only beginning to see emerge from Pope Francis. It has nothing to do with the substance of Pope Benedict's papacy which in teachings is substantial and which goes way beyond even his papacy!
So Pope Benedict's Achilles tendon was "his management and governance" of the Church which at his renunciation of the papacy he stated that he "could no longer govern" due to old age. He was tired and old. I think he realized that he allowed others that were incompetent and perhaps disloyal the leeway to govern the Church and they did a poor job and undermined his papacy which led to his resignation. This is simply my opinion, so I could be wrong. I have no inside information.
Pope Benedict was more keen on writing books, reading and teaching. Governance he left to others but then I think he really began to realize the disaster that was brewing and tried to govern himself but it was too late. I think this was especially true after the "butler" was found guilty and sentenced to prison time.
But look at the trappings of governance that Pope Benedict took upon himself to exert his power but just too late. We know he brought back many of the elements of the "imperium" of the papacy that at one time would have come from the monarchical court which would be symbols of authority. The last he was to introduce was the "fannon." Was all this to shore up in sign what he lacked in ability?
Look how he led on liturgical matters, not by fiat or mandate, except for Pontificum Summorum for which the cardinals who advised him were not too thrilled, but by example. This was clearly confusing and led many bishops to shake their head when their priests introduced elements of what Pope Benedict modeled but never mandated and thus they may have seen this as divisive in their diocese and parish. For example one priest wanting to celebrate Mass ad orientem and another not doing so--what does that do to a parish?
Authority is weakened when everyone becomes his own bishop.
Pope Francis has stripped himself of the outerwear of monarchical authority but in doing so may become the most monarchical pope since Pope Pius X! I've said that before and I say it again.
And monarchy isn't bad when properly exercised by the Supreme Pontiff who hasn't yet used that term, just good old "Bishop of Rome" in his parlance.
In an article on Vatican II written in America Magazine in March of 1963, the following was said about the monarchical structure of the Church and it was very complimentary:
"What seemed to please the Holy Father immensely (Pope John XXIII), however, was the attention the Council received from the outside world. There is now hardly a section of the globe where the reading public does not realize that there is room for freedom of conscience within the Catholic Church. It was this liberty that first impressed the non-Catholic observers who were given such favorable treatment at the Council. It also demonstrated once and for all that, although the Church has the structure of a monarchical society, it is not, like our modern totalitarian states, a monolithic monster bent on controlling both the thought and action of its members."</i>
This interview of Cardinal Pell sums it up best:
6 comments:
"Was all this to shore up in sign what he lacked in ability?"
Absolutely not. I don't think that H.H. Benedict was incapable. I think that Pope Benedict resigned because he felt that his age was a factor, but it shouldn't be a surprise, he had said this all along.
Benedict's vision was crystal clear and the elements you speak of are proper to the pope. The fact that the Church resisted (in whatever form) shows a lack of obedience. If the pope is a monarch (as you, yourself say) then he has regalia to distinguish himself as such and should avail himself of that regalia. As I've said before, we don't expect Elizabeth II to sell the crown jewels or the Emperor of Japan to cease his State functions, but we have that expectation of the pope, who is just as much a monarch as either of those two.
My personal opinion is clear on the matter, I have stated it before, but I think that in answering the question at hand, the answer to your question, Fr. McDonald is no, H.H. Benedict did not lack ability. He lacked obedience from those who are bound by it. And those who were obedient were labeled as divisive and anti-progressive.
Perhaps this is the biggest ecclesiastical coup since Leo XIII, but honestly...for those of us who champion traditonalism, we'll just keep on keepin' on. Because as much as the libby's would like it, that horse is out of the barn.
I think Pope BVII finally realised the enormity of the whuppin's he needed to hand out when his secretary betrayed him. He thought people would do the right thing if the right thing was put before them to do. I think the same flawed mentality was used by the hierarchy extended to the way they limp wristed the sex abuse responses and even the Nuns on the Bus. He knew that what needed to be done would take some time and persistent pressure. Even if it can happen in a year or two, BVII knew his days were numbered and, like Spirit Warrior he is, looked to make the mission succeed no matter what the cost to himself. I think Pope Francis may be in the same mentality. The whole thing about his 'informality' is both a ruse and a lesson. He is in the CEP of acceptability, he is using it not only to demonstrate the latitudes of acceptability, but set himself close to those who need correction from the Left and draw them into range for correction. BVII did the same thing with SSPX. Too bad they didn't take the hint. I expect Pope Francis will eventually smack down the Lefties and his admonishment will carry full weight and validity in their eyes. Certainly some will try to dissemble his message, just like the SSPX. It will ring hollow and everyone will see it for what it is.
I still maintain that this pope is an unknown entity. Much of this is speculation and wishful thinking.
There is so much contradictory info on this pope that one hardly knows who to believe or what to consult.
I will make no pronouncements or speculations either way on the Jesuit pope. He is the ultimate enigma among world leaders and we won't begin to understand him for some time.
I suspect that much of the insider, theoretical parts of the reform of the Curia has already been done. I suspect the dossier that Francis received from his Predecessor is chock full of information and recommendations and ideas.
So really, had Benedict been younger at his election, we might well be seeing the same things that we will be seeing even now that Francis is Pope, as far as reform of the Curia is concerned.
In the context of a discussion of divisiveness Father McDonald asks in his post: “For example one priest wanting to celebrate Mass ad orientem and another not doing so--what does that do to a parish?”
Why does this have to be divisive? Why should it not rather be regarded as inclusive?
Anon, 1:03pm, I don't think he is all that unknown. He has operated at lower level, but has solved problems on a personal level. He has not excluded Traditionalists and has apparently released malfunctioning priests as well as help some out the door to more reflective assignments. What he did not do was filter very much through a Diocesan staff that he could do on his own. In fact, it appears he made the hard calls in person. That is hard core Jesuit.
ytc, I think you are right. What I think is brilliant on his part is that BVI knew that he could not rely on getting the information to his successor through anyone but himself. So he played a card no one expected and that no one could play against.
A2, I agree in principle, but I can attest from experience that people are too stiff necked to let it happen easily. It takes an extraordinary Priest to pull it off to any degree, and you will still lose a few to their egos. People walked out of one parish when the Priest read the Bishops Letter and the Health Care bill. For many of us our religion is still not God centered and we are superstitious in our beliefs.
Post a Comment