If this is true and this man gets his way, one can only imagine the pain this will cause to everyone who had hope in the incomplete attempts by Benedict XVI to bring some transparency into the Church.
The Ordinariates may be in some difficulty if the Papacy goes that way.
 | georgestaelens on Schism in the Name of Tra… |
| georgestaelens on The Simple Priest |
 | Fr Anthony Chadwick on The Voice of God |
 | passionatecollector2… on The Voice of God |
 | frmarkbourgogne on Schism in the Name of Tra… |
| Fr Anthony Chadwick on Schism in the Name of Tra… |
 | CLD on Schism in the Name of Tra… |
 | J on Schism in the Name of Tra… |
| Fr Anthony Chadwick on Schism in the Name of Tra… |
 | Stephen K on Schism in the Name of Tra… |
| Fr Anthony Chadwick on Schism in the Name of Tra… |
 | Michael Gray on Schism in the Name of Tra… |
 | Max on Returning to Writing |
| Fr Anthony Chadwick on Returning to Writing |
| Max on Returning to Writing |
The Blue Flower 
One of the problems with Kasper, like so many radical liberals, is that in some points he seems to make perfect sense, such as his (supposed?) support of collegiality over supremacy; but one does wonder how much of this he really believes and perhaps most likely only supports such ideas when the liberals seem to be on the losing ground. If the liberals win this victory, one may conclude that it will be back to the persecutions of the 60s, 70s, and 80s for any priest with, especially liturgical, traditional leanings. I personally know a very wonderful old priest who was deprived of his living in the 80s for refusing to give communion in the hand! One may also notice, and I have found this evident from many who support the marriage of clergy, that they tie this into the ordination of women; which is very much like mixing apples and oranges, and tends to derail the conversation.
In the end, since the whole of a billion-strong church is fundamentally the expression of a single individual, the whole of the future direction of Rome seems to be simply a question of if a liberal or a traditionalist holds one position in the whole organisation. The oft-spoken of divisions of Continuing Anglicanism does not, in retrospect, seems so bad after all.
Logically, a pope has to go in continuity from his predecessor, to underline the implicit infallibility of the office. Benedict XVI stands between John Paul II and whoever comes after like a sore thumb. In the eyes of the media and so forth, either the next Pope will have to roll back Benedict XVI or continue rolling back the Konzils Ungeist. It’s a tricky choice, and the aura of infallibility is gone.
You are right – the lot of a Continuing Anglican doesn’t seem so bad after all!
Yes, that is the trouble with the Roman system. There’s a certain appeal to the idea that one man may be able to speak and act authoritatively, a certain feeling of safety and stability, and of reliable answers to troubling questions, and over time many have taken comfort in such a notion. One does see a wide variety of religious movements that revolve around such a central figure, not only the Roman Church, but also such movements as Islam, Mormonism, and a multitude of tiny sects and cults. I once belonged to a Pentecostal denomination that said very similar things about its General Overseer to what Rome claims for its Pope. In any one of these cases, if the claim of divine favor were to be true, the comfort of knowing what is right and what is wrong would be immeasurable. If any one of these claims were to be true, two things would follow: first, that none of the others could likewise be true, and second, that one would need to submit to the one that actually was – but there’s the rub. How is one to know, really know? How is one to be sure one has not bought into a serious error or even a lie? In such a structure, it all really does depend upon the one leader. If his claims are true, then nothing else really matters. If they are not, well, disaster lurks. Lord Acton, himself a good Roman Catholic, famously asserted that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The truth of that has been demonstrated over and over again, both in politics and in religion. In politics we need only think of such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or a host of petty dictators. In religion, the failure of so many personality dominated cults over the centuries is both obvious and sad.
With regard to the Roman Church, If the Pope, as successor to Peter, really does have the limited infallibility claimed by Vatican 1, and the essentially unlimited immediate jurisdiction and decision-making power over ever member of the Church, well, it would be essential for Christians to accept his role and position. Does he? Are the claims so? I can’t see history as giving a whole lot of reason to suspect that to be the case, but rather I seem to see Acton’s principles all too well illustrated. It doesn’t appear to me that the centralization of power has always resulted in a godly outcome. I’m afraid that I’m a bit perplexed about the agonizing within the RC church over what kind of Pope will be elected. It would seem to follow that, if the claims are true, the Holy Spirit will so direct the Conclave that God will have the Pope He wants. Does the worrying seem to indicate an abiding faith that this is so? Personally speaking, there’s nothing here that inclines me toward acceptance of the Papal system.
In reality, this whole thing is political: conservativism vs. liberalism, curialism vs. consultation and democracy. As I see things at present, there is no winning and no losing. The universal Church subsists in the local church, and all we need are bishops and priests and continued knowledge of the Tradition of the Fathers. This whole thing could prove that to the world. The only point for those of us who are not (no longer) Roman Catholics to knowing about what’s going on, who is going to get elected, is knowing the general orientation of things.
For us Anglicans, it will make a difference of more Anglicans being enticed over, or a system that so persecutes “traditionalists” that Rome may no longer be a “safe haven”. I don’t see any candidate who is anything other than a “politician” – or a puppet of politicians in the case of the German / Brazilian Scherer promoted by Kasper and the present Curia old guard.
But, I’m not sure of anything any more.
Jesus loves you. You can be sure of that.
I trust we will have a new Holy Father who will continue in Benedict XVI’s vein.
We can only hope so, so that the many good things Benedict XVI begun may be brought to a successful conclusion, especially the clean-up of the clergy, the cause of the liturgy and the good future for the Ordinariate folk. That is my sincere prayer intention.
Father, I get your point about the whole thing being an issue of conservatism or liberalism, curialism vs democracy etc. What I don’t get is why you think a progressive papacy will necessarily undo any attempts at transparency. Perhaps we use such terms at risk of meaning different things. In my book, progress means doing things better. What sort of papacy would continue to devolve and open up, if not progressive? If you mean by “progressive”, “modern” or “liberal” or “leftist, then I would have to disagree if only to the extent of suggesting that obscurantism, secrecy, manipulation or oppressiveness are capable of being shown by their philosophical or theological opponents. I do think there will be over the next few generations further changes to papacy and general church governance in the direction of wider participation and maybe even some retreat eventually from a doctrine of “papal” infallibility, but any such change will have to come from people and popes with spiritual insight and humanity, whatever, or in spite of, their political emphases. The merit of transparency and collegiality should be now undeniable and there should be no question of ever going back…..in theory.
Stephen, of course “a progressive papacy will necessarily undo any attempts at transparency.” as will a “conservative papacy”, UNLESS there is a conscious and steadfast effort to get rid of the intensely bureaucratic structure that has been in place for centuries. Bureaucracy and real openness simply do not co-exist. If you think “liberals” or “progressives” do any better on that score, just take a look at TEC, ELCA, of UMC in the US, or CofE for that matter, in all of which almost everything of importance seems to be done under cover. Regardless of the ideological stance of members of the Curia, the secrecy and back room politicking will continue unless a strong and tireless effort is made to dismantle many of the structures. If whoever is Pope next truly desires to do that, he’d best be prepared for hard work and lots of pain. It will come if he doesn’t play the existing game. That’s what top-heavy machinery always does.
ed, there is really no argument between us here. What you say seems reasonable to me. The thrust of my post was simply to challenge (politely) what I thought was an incorrect implication in Father’s post, that a progressive Pope would necessarily dismantle efforts to be transparent. I thought that opening up the church was a “progressive” thing to do, and hence, any Pope who continued to do so would by definition be “progressive”.
What many people call “progressive” is theological modernism or liberalism etc. These have certain technical meanings. A modernist is not quarantined from being oppressive etc. But in historical context, the push for transparency and democratisation is coming from people who are anti-centralist and these do not include today’s crop of the neo-orthodox who are very “Roman” and “Papalist”. I do not say that calls for subsidiarity cannot sit with traditional doctrine or liturgy, but anything that represents “base community” Catholicism is not looked on favourably by people who see truth as something than can be controlled and filtered and must be.
I do agree with your conclusion.
In the view of what both of you said, the problem is not so much with the ideology (conservative / progressive) but the way by which one side, when it is in power, persecutes and “ethnically cleanses” the “other side”. I also think of the priests deprived of their ministry because they continued using the eastward-facing altar and gave Communion on the tongue. Another form of this “dictatorship of relativism” is seen in the American Episcopal Church. Oppose gay marriage or women priests and Ms Schori will tell you to leave TEC and above all the parish’s property and assets. Liberalism and progressivism are something like Molotov and Von Ribbentrop – they are both aspects of the same thing, giving in to the Third Temptation!
I wonder if the real solution for every denomination and its form of oversight isn’t the recovery of an active laity that ensures the proper check and balance to bishops (dioceses) and priests (parishes). The real priesthood of all believers. That would also include a real deaconate where deacons do the administrative, financial, works of charity duties and leave the priests to focus on being preachers, pastors, etc.
Whether we call it clericalism, bureaucracy, domination by bishops, the cult of the local pastor, etc., the problem arises when the system of authority is out of balance. When we come to rely on one orderor person at the exclusion of others. We, the laity, have to be willing to properly challenge those in authority to explain the what they are doing and the why, and to demand to have access to the information that substantiates both.
The real problem is the unwillingness of the laity to inform themselves, advocate for the ability to apply their responsibilities and gifts, and then be willing to do the work that is necessary and appropriate for them. That takes real time and effort. And is a life-long activity. So laity need to make strong vestries, parish councils at the local level as well as doing the equivalent at the diocese, regional, and national levels. For all denominations.
But transparency and proper oversight in the real world is so amazingly difficult. Just look at governments. Businesses. Labor unions. Non-profits. NGOs. Etc.
Yes, Michael, I think you express the challenge very well.
Michael,
So pleased to read your comment: it is for this (amongst others, admittedly) very purpose that the Church of England took shape: as an instrument of clarity in contrast to the hidden corruption that was seen to be extant in the Church of Rome! We as the descendants of those idealists, might be better able to adjudicate on the results: has reformed Catholic Christianity fared better than the unreformed Roman Catholic – or have both failed?
Over the years, I have had to find constants that one finds in all churches, political parties, large businesses, organisations of lawyers, royal courts, you name it… The problem is not ideology, as in Protestant / Catholic, conservative / progressive, right wing / left wing, whatever. The problem is that of power and human nature, and is particularly apparent in large organisations like churches, politics, business, law, perhaps also the Armed Forces.
Ideals fade away very quickly as human expediency, self interest, pack dominance and lack of empathy come in. We then get lust for domination and money, cronyism and lack of accountability.It happened to all empires and kingdoms, and now it is happening to the Church as it has happened before. Sometimes, ideals come back in and little Christian communities decide to get their act together and do something good.
There is no hard and fast rule. Committees of committed laity and bureaucracies can be as bad if not worse than autocratic popes, kings, emperors, archbishops of Canterbury – – – or the boss you have to work for each day. Revolutions usually produce something worse than what they reacted against.
Ideals involving the faith and the common good have to be kept alive, and that is the only constant that brings good and the right purpose to anything that calls itself a church.
Father, I think we’d all agree with your statement: “The problem is that of power and human nature, and is particularly apparent in large organisations….” We live in a fallen world and we are sinners. Thus we know that no organization, the Church included, will be perfect and sinless in all her members and all that it does. But we can’t just throw up our hands. The issue seems to be taking a mess and making it better, not perfect. And the bored laity who let clergy do everything isn’t part of the solution. Not cowed sheep, but willing workers in the vineyard, doing what they are called to do. We know solutions in the Church come through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and we must always and everywhere over time ask for that guidance.
I’m not necessarily even talking about in the area of faith or morals. Take administration and oversight. It seems so amazing that the Vatican continues to have such serious isssues involving financial oversight problems. Is it because they lack the accounting tools? Accountants? Inspectors? Computers & paper? Or is it because they don’t want to create a system that has the necessary oversight and checks & balances, likely best done by lay experts in various fields of finance, regulatory oversight, & accounting? They, bishops & other clergy, have created and sustained a system that appears all but designed to facilitate corruption and misconduct. From small things, big things can come….
… actually, the one part I am inclined to disagree with is this: ” and is particularly apparent in large organisations like churches, politics, business, law, perhaps also the Armed Forces.” Yes, large organizations are a place where such abuses are frequently found and become very obvious indeed, However, I’ve seen altogether too many small organizations that have become the expression of petty power on behalf of a charismatic leader (or, indeed, of a power-hungry leadership group) — I have been ensnared in more than one for that matter. Size may be one of the factors that facilitate an abuse of power, but human nature is such that the power-hungry will find ways to be fed. Church history is littered with ‘spiritual directors’ exercising dominance on a small scale, and with congregations setting out to destroy their clergy. “Be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary the devil goeth about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist steadfast in the faith.” Watchfulness is required of us – but so is hope, for Scripture and Tradition witness that, in the end, the Church does not fail its mission, no matter how messed up it be along the way.
You could well be right. Continuing Anglican Churches aren’t “good because they are small”. Perhaps John Bruce is right and we should convert to the local run-of-the-mill Novus Ordo parish and blow the whistle on our “bogus” priests and bishops. If that is so, I’ll give church a miss!!! There are bad “micro churches” too, and often because the “laity” gets too much power.
I sometimes wonder if we are really redeemed or left to wallow in our sin!
Or perhaps we can ourselves do some good…
Sounds like a Luther epiphany, simultaneously just and a sinner? Wheat and tares? Unfortunately, sanctification and theosis don’t work as we’d like, either with ourselves and certainly not with others? The awesome mysteries of God.
“I sometimes wonder if we are really redeemed or left to wallow in our sin!”