Who is in Charge of the Catholic Church?
Why it Matters
At the conclusion of Benedict’s pontificate (shortly before his abdication), there is a story of a close aide and ally of the pontiff asking him to act on something. A weary and defeated Benedict sighed, pointed at his desk, and said “my authority ends here.” In his eyes, the final years of his pontificate were a dysfunctional failure, and so he abdicated to give the Church a chance at some semblance of order and a strong leader.
Benedict came of age during a time when Pope Pius XII was essentially a prop for the final years of his pontificate thanks to ill health. He entered the theological mainstream during an era where a mentally defeated Paul VI went through what looks a lot like a deep depression psychologically, as chaos unfolded in the 1970s. He became the Mr. Fix-It of the Church during the last 15 years of John Paul II’s pontificate, where Parkinson’s and the effects of a failed assassination attempt turned Ratzinger into one of the pope’s principal caretakers, as the sickly and saintly pope transformed from a governor into a symbolic figurehead. The chaos of the Catholic Church in the 20th century had as one of its principal causes popes who reigned but did not rule, because they could not rule.
In this vein, Benedict’s abdication makes sense, even if one struggles to see its wisdom in hindsight. I for one think Benedict’s assessment of his authority was wrong. The Church was in deep crisis, but a large amount of the Church still trusted Benedict and his wisdom, even if Benedict didn’t trust Benedict and his wisdom. Instead, I think it can be argued that Benedict’s decision took upon a certain prophetic tone, as we are now seeing what it looks like when a Pope really has no authority. Several stories came out in the recent past that show while Francis is Pope, that doesn’t mean a lot. We are entering an area where, despite a man sitting on the throne, “there is no king…. everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (Judges 17:6)
The first news event worth mentioning is the affair surrounding Ariel Alberto Principi, a man found guilty by the Catholic Church of sexual crimes that warranted laicization. Principi had a legal avenue to appeal that sentence, yet chose not to do so. Instead, he went outside of that process, and seemingly appealed directly to the pope through another avenue. As a result of this appeal, the number two individual in the Vatican Secretariat of State issued a directive that the sentence of laicization was overturned, and that instead he was to accept what amounted to permanent exile, but still a priest. This was followed by the DDF (the proper venue for appeals) putting out its own decree declaring that the Sostituto’s declaration was null and void, and that Principi was still laicized. Since that day, the matter has died down, but nobody knows what exactly transpired, why the Sostituto felt it appropriate to act, or who Pope Francis ultimately favored. It is presumed the DDF won the day, because nothing else happened.
A second case involved a highly technical debate over what happens when Sundays take the place of what would normally be a Holy Day of Obligation. Lacking any clear guidance in Church law, a Bishop wrote to the dicastery that is responsible for interpreting Church law. They ruled one way. Within three months, the Vatican dicastery responsible for regulating liturgical matters put out their own decree, announcing that the previous instruction from the other dicastery was null and void. Why? Because his dicastery has never interpreted Church law that way. Presumably, the Pope favored the latter interpretation, yet there seems to be no evidence of his involvement in this very public dispute, nor has the dispute been settled with a sense of finality, as everyone just waits for another document if someone else’s argument carries the day.
It is not necessary to take a position in either of these disputes to point out that these are decisions where a Pope giving decisive and public voice on a matter would settle this matter definitively. To the extent people are paying attention, they now no longer know when a sentence passed down upon a sex criminal is effective, or when and how they can satisfy an obligation to attend Mass. The reality is people will mostly ignore what Rome is saying and go about their business, which is a problem in and of itself. Readers of this columnist (and others) will know that a world in which the papacy is less intrusive and less of a micromanager is a welcome one. However, there are instances where decisive and final leadership is required, and the current constitution of the Church requires the pope to be an active one.
While there are arguments that the Pope is in this position because he is a weak adminsitrator, we should also explore another alternative nobody wants to: the pope is in this position because he doesn’t have the capacity to govern anymore. At 88, his mind is remarkably sharp; it is his body that is failing. He is confined to a wheelchair for most of his day, having gained a significant amount of weight in the process. (Us men in desk jobs during the age of remote work can sympathize.) His attempts to function without the wheelchair have resulted in numerous falls, if the bruises on his face and slings/immobilizations of his arm in the past two months have told us anything. (A fall is always potentially fatal for an 88 year old even in good health.) In several instances during his pontificate, he has had crippling bouts with sciatica. He can no longer offer Mass in public, and he frequently is unable to finish speeches, handing off his prepared speeches to aides. Given all of this, it is reasonable to ask: is this a man who is working 8-12 hour days where he’s fully in the loop on what is going on in his Curia?
I say these things not to bully or humiliate the Pope. Even critics can find in that determination and suffering a noble impulse, and a very public reminder that frailty does not mean a loss of dignity. Putting aside those mystical/philosophical rationalizations, it is a disaster for the Church’s internal governance. One could even say that while Benedict might have been wrong about his own situation, he emphasized the reality of abdication precisely for this kind of moment, as an act of humility (no matter how difficult it may be) by the Pope realizing he just didn’t have what it took anymore. Forget shaping the agenda of the Church for the next generation: right now Pope Francis can’t even keep the lights on. Why are we to assume that people will trust judgements from Rome the rest of this pontificate? Just go about doing your own thing, and eventually “The Vatican” will issue guidance from another department telling you to ignore what happened by the previous. While these dicasteries fight it out, just keep your head down and do what you’re doing. We’re supposed to believe that’s not how the Church works, but from Fiducia supplicans to the dispute over holy days of obligation, that seems precisely how it works. To those fans of Pope Francis, remember that the United States just had a lengthy debate about what to do when a leader is obviously unfit to continue leading. The result of this debate was, in record time, a transition from the impossible, to the unthinkable, to the reality of Presidential Donald John Trump.
Very thought-provoking piece.
I think the absolute monarchy model of the papacy is part of the problem, together with the rock-star and authority-on-all-matters image that began with Pius XII and intensified under JP2. If a pope concentrated 90% of his time on picking really good bishops and let subsidiarity have its course, it wouldn't matter so much if he became less mobile, less able to work, etc.
Very engaging, as usual. I look back on Benedictus's post-abdication 'presence in the media' and, while there were certainly moments, for the most part he kept silent in his little room. Can anyone seriously imagine the prospect of F. keeping silent in his little room? particularly if his Successor is of a mind to do some serious editorial work.