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.
Half a year ago or so, I heard some second- or third-hand information (fine, fine... a rumor), which seemed credible to me, that the pope was no longer able to gather the necessary force to write a full-length apostolic exhortation. Then, the synod ended, and what happened? Francis said that the final acts of the synod were sufficient and no exhortation would be forthcoming.
If we observe, as a canonist priest of my acquaintance once did, that this has been a lawless pontificate from day one — back when Il Papa actually did seem to be putting in the hours — then, one might muse, this current state of drifting chaos may be a well-earned denouement. But the history you retrace here forces us to appreciate that the first chapter in this disintegration of papal authority was not written in 2013, either. Which makes this a bigger problem than this particular failed pontificate.
We all know why cardinal electors usually prefer aged candidates for the tiara, sometimes even to the point of a man in obviously poor health: A lifetime office can leave a voter with a lot of time to repent his choice at leisure. Sometimes it doesn't always work out as planned, but you don't even have to look back to Leo XIII to see an example of this, as it's fairly obvious that not many cardinals in the 2013 conclave expected Jorge Maria Bergoglio to have ten years left on his odometer. But in an age in which modern medicine (even in Roman hospitals) can extend lives in ways rarely seen before, voting cardinals are going to have to not only do more homework on papabili, but also start thinking harder about whether this kind of entropy is really preferable to the risk of a younger pope that turns out to be an unpleasant surprise. Francis has shown that octogenarians can cause a lot of buyer's remorse, too.
There's a difference between a lawless pontificate, and an anarchic one. All anarchic pontificates are lawless, but not all lawless pontificates are anarchic. Yet the present events do force us to appreciate the situation.
It could be argued that 4 of the last 7 popes (if you want to include JPI in this discussion it skews the number lol) have had significantly long periods of lawlessness in their pontificates, though I'd argue this is the first anarchic pontificate in some time.
I'm not? Logical and charming with those you disagree with as always Hilary.
I mean I said right in the peice Benedicts self-assessment was wrong. I just have a policy of not attributing imbelicity to those I disagree with, that they may nonetheless have something interesting despite being wrong.
Luckily the Church isn't a democracy and is thus highly unlikely to elect a Trump, nor are such people likely to make it to bishop in this day and age.
Sure but I more meant that the winds change pretty quickly during a failure. For example, in 2022, there was talk of modifying the way a pope is elected, reducing the amount needed for an election, to secure a successor in the mold of Francis.
Now they realize such a move would almost certainly mean the election of someone able to reverse Francis' legacy with gusto, so all talk was rapidly abandoned.
Would you get a "trad"? Probably not. But you might get an unassuming man with a massive ego who is flattered by everyone telling him what a reformer he could be, if only he moved aggressively against the status quo. In short, you would get Jorge Bergoglio, with different ideological disposition.
I thought that it was ghostwriters who drafted any substantial Papal document? Though obviously the Pope should be sufficiently compos mentis to approve them.
Depends. A "ghostwriter" can be a pretty loose term. Some of them write large portions of the document. Some are considerably influentail on the thought, but the prose is unmistakably the popes. (For example, Leo XIII or JPII on fides et ratio)
Or even Lumen Fidei, which, despite being Francis, everyone understood was written by... Benedict. What stays the same is that even if he has people do the writing, the pope would be substantially involved in the process.
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.
Half a year ago or so, I heard some second- or third-hand information (fine, fine... a rumor), which seemed credible to me, that the pope was no longer able to gather the necessary force to write a full-length apostolic exhortation. Then, the synod ended, and what happened? Francis said that the final acts of the synod were sufficient and no exhortation would be forthcoming.
If we observe, as a canonist priest of my acquaintance once did, that this has been a lawless pontificate from day one — back when Il Papa actually did seem to be putting in the hours — then, one might muse, this current state of drifting chaos may be a well-earned denouement. But the history you retrace here forces us to appreciate that the first chapter in this disintegration of papal authority was not written in 2013, either. Which makes this a bigger problem than this particular failed pontificate.
We all know why cardinal electors usually prefer aged candidates for the tiara, sometimes even to the point of a man in obviously poor health: A lifetime office can leave a voter with a lot of time to repent his choice at leisure. Sometimes it doesn't always work out as planned, but you don't even have to look back to Leo XIII to see an example of this, as it's fairly obvious that not many cardinals in the 2013 conclave expected Jorge Maria Bergoglio to have ten years left on his odometer. But in an age in which modern medicine (even in Roman hospitals) can extend lives in ways rarely seen before, voting cardinals are going to have to not only do more homework on papabili, but also start thinking harder about whether this kind of entropy is really preferable to the risk of a younger pope that turns out to be an unpleasant surprise. Francis has shown that octogenarians can cause a lot of buyer's remorse, too.
There's a difference between a lawless pontificate, and an anarchic one. All anarchic pontificates are lawless, but not all lawless pontificates are anarchic. Yet the present events do force us to appreciate the situation.
It could be argued that 4 of the last 7 popes (if you want to include JPI in this discussion it skews the number lol) have had significantly long periods of lawlessness in their pontificates, though I'd argue this is the first anarchic pontificate in some time.
What is it specifically about Francis's pontificate that makes you characterize it as *anarchic*, rather than merely lawless?
Appreciate the views expressed. Good piece. Thumbs up, Kevin..
The Roman Catholic Church?
Or The One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church?
https://open.substack.com/pub/stevenberger/p/a-timeline-of-church-history?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1nm0v2
Good grief, Kevin. I never pegged you for a papal naif.
I'm not? Logical and charming with those you disagree with as always Hilary.
I mean I said right in the peice Benedicts self-assessment was wrong. I just have a policy of not attributing imbelicity to those I disagree with, that they may nonetheless have something interesting despite being wrong.
So.... help me out here?
Honestly... attributing "noble" motives to this monster...
Luckily the Church isn't a democracy and is thus highly unlikely to elect a Trump, nor are such people likely to make it to bishop in this day and age.
Sure but I more meant that the winds change pretty quickly during a failure. For example, in 2022, there was talk of modifying the way a pope is elected, reducing the amount needed for an election, to secure a successor in the mold of Francis.
Now they realize such a move would almost certainly mean the election of someone able to reverse Francis' legacy with gusto, so all talk was rapidly abandoned.
Would you get a "trad"? Probably not. But you might get an unassuming man with a massive ego who is flattered by everyone telling him what a reformer he could be, if only he moved aggressively against the status quo. In short, you would get Jorge Bergoglio, with different ideological disposition.
I thought that it was ghostwriters who drafted any substantial Papal document? Though obviously the Pope should be sufficiently compos mentis to approve them.
Depends. A "ghostwriter" can be a pretty loose term. Some of them write large portions of the document. Some are considerably influentail on the thought, but the prose is unmistakably the popes. (For example, Leo XIII or JPII on fides et ratio)
Or even Lumen Fidei, which, despite being Francis, everyone understood was written by... Benedict. What stays the same is that even if he has people do the writing, the pope would be substantially involved in the process.