Saturday, May 16, 2009

The Pope Versus The Vatican

If you haven’t already, be sure to read George Weigel’s “The Pope Versus the Vatican,”which appeared last month in the British magazine Standpoint:

It is unlikely that Joseph Ratzinger accepted his election thinking of himself as another Leo XIII, who created the modern papacy and died in 1903, after a 25-year reign, at the ripe old age of 93. Always conscious of his health, Benedict XVI in all likelihood imagined his as a short pontificate. Thus the question of Curial reform could be deferred until he was gone, for several reasons. He knew that bold administrative restructuring was not his forte. And given the assumption of a short papacy, he probably thought it papal bad manners to saddle his successor with a long bench of youngish, senior Curial officials just getting adjusted to a new system. So he would find someone he had worked with comfortably in the past—Cardinal Bertone—to keep the machinery running, while he would concentrate on the work he knew he did well—the compelling proclamation of Christian truth to both the Church and the world.

Yet as the events of recent months have made painfully clear, Curial incapacity can impede and even damage the evangelical mission of the most intelligent pope. It was nothing short of a tragedy that a world-class Catholic theologian like Ratzinger, who had spent 50 years explaining Christianity’s debt to Judaism to his Christian co-believers, should find himself saddled with the charge that he had reconciled a Holocaust denier to the Church. Yet that is what happened, because no one in whom Benedict XVI reposed trust had the sense to find out about Richard Williamson, and because the Curial culture of the day did not encourage those who did know the facts to warn the superiors. The entire Lefebvrist mess was preventable: if the pope had insisted throughout his pontificate on competence and had taken forceful measures to rectify incompetence; if those whose sole purpose is to give effect to the pope’s will had done their jobs better; or if Benedict had reached outside the apostolic palace to take private soundings as to the likely effects of his gesture of reconciliation.

The world, not simply the Church, needs a Benedict XVI working at the top of his form and being enabled to do so by his closest associates. Whether the question is challenging Europe to pull out of the demographic death-spiral caused by its debonair nihilism, or inviting Muslim leaders to seek an Islamically-faithful rapprochement with political modernity, or defending the dignity of human life against the dangers of a brave new world of bio-technically manufactured humanity, there is no substitute for the combination of insight and institutional authority that Pope Benedict brings to the world table. Yet he now faces a crisis in his papacy, for the wisdom of his voice is being muted by the decline in his authority attendant on the managerial incompetence of the Curia.

17 comments:

midnight rider said...

There it is. What we've been saying in our hamhanded way.

This Pope is getting bad advice.

Carlos Echevarria said...

It is a great article, very thorough and indepth...

You are totally right MR!

Reliapundit said...

bad advice!?!? and thta's suppoesed to ba an excuse!?!?
and one carlos agrees with!?!?!

sheesh.

the pope is the boss.

ratzinger has been a big shot in the vatcian for decades.

there is no excuse.

he is a failure whose failings are hurtiung the chuirch and the west.

Reliapundit said...

insead oif defensding the weak and innefective and couter-effective pope, carlos

you shouold pray he finds the copurage to do what is right.

why is he silent on obama's trip to south bend!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

silence aids the enemy.

his silence hurst the FAITH.

he is not defending the faith.

he is hurting it.

Pastorius said...

RP,
What the article says is, very apparently, true.

If Benedict is a failure, then he is a failure as a manager, not as a human being.

He is, to be sure, not managing those within the Vatican well enough.

Additionally, I believe he has softened his rhetoric against Islam out of fear of having his Priests and Nuns murdered in Muslim countries. The problem with this is we are in a war, and the Catholic Church is, in my opinion, at the center of that war, in the sense that the Jihadists want to destroy the Church. The Pope ought to be aware of this and realize that, in such a time, his Priests and Nuns are on the frontline, and are therefore called to martyrdom. If that is what is needed to continue to get the truth out, then that is what is needed.

And, it is.

So, in that way, Benedict is failing, in my opinion.

In fact, that is my primary criticism of him.

I'm hoping he will turn it around, but he does not seem poised to do so.

Rebellious Kafir said...

Please pray for the Pope's health and protection from those who wish him ill.
Personally I meet with St. Michael often about this very subject.

Carlos Echevarria said...

Reliapundit, Pastorius and I exchanged this article yesterday, I read it over a month ago.

If you take the time to read it, it deals primarily with the curia (the bureaucracy) which has been a problem in other Papal reigns, as well.

Wiegel, a staunch Roman Catholic, has given us a indepth glance into the Vatican hiearchry, as well, such as Cardinal Bertone, the new Papal Spokesperson, and others which play key roles.

It also delves into Cardinal Ratzinger's mindset and actions prior to being elected Pope, as well as the divergent factions.

Lastly, my comment, the second one in the thread, is in agreement with Midnight Rider...

The Holy Father is constantly in my thoughts and in my daily prayers...

Reliapundit said...

"If Benedict is a failure, then he is a failure as a manager, not as a human being."

you guys are in denial: he is a failure as a pope.

what has he said or done about obama's honor at notre dame!?

her ain't done shit.

face the truth.

i know it hurts, but it's better than denial.

LOOKIT: he is not a neophyte in the vatican.

he's been there for decades.

he knows his way around.

so excusing his ineptness is asinine.

Reliapundit said...

you guys defending him are pathetic.

i am praying benedict finds courage.

and praying you see the light.

Pastorius said...

When I say he is a failure as a manager, it is the same thing as saying he is failing in his duty as Pope. However, the way you attack him displays an edge of attacking him as a human being. If he is a weak leader it does not mean that he is a morally weak human being. George Bush was not a morally weak human being, but he was not a good enough leader. He has left us with the legacy of Obama, the current economy (which would be almost as bad under Bush as it is now), and Iran. Does that mean Bush was a failure as a human being, or a failure as a leader/manager?

The stone is too heavy to lift, RP. (Read Zechariah 12.)

And, that's why Benedict ought to stay out of the ME situation.

Reliapundit said...

YOU'RE ACTUALLY RECOMMENDING THE POPE REMAIN SILENT ON THE ME!?!?

SHIT THAT IS FUCKING INSANE.

LIKE RECOMMENDING THE POPE IN 1945 REMAIN SILENT ON THE HOLOCAUST DURING WW2.

INFUCKINGSANE AND IMMORAL.

I AM FUCKING SHOCKED.

UNBEFICKINGLIEVABLE!

Pastorius said...

RP,
So, what you're saying, then, is that the Pope should speak out on the inequitable media coverage of the ME conflict, and on the fact that Iran is conspiring with Hizbollah and Hamas to try to "wipe Israel from the map".

You are right. The Pope should speak out against that. His voice would be valuable, especially considering there is no other major politician, other than Bolton, who has made such statements.

It would be a shock to the world to hear the truth for once.

However, I do think the Pope should shut up on the ME conflict in the sense that I do not think he should offer his opinion on solutions.

There really is no solution. The Iranian/Palestinian/Hizbollah Axis wants to murder Jews.

At that point, there is no solution short of war.

Blogger Yid With Lid believes Obama actually wants Israel to attack Iran.

I don't agree with Sammy, but I hope he is correct.

I think Obama will use an Israeli attack on Iran to attempt to force concessions on Israel which will greatly weaken her.

I think Obama does not have Israel's best interests at heart, to say the least.

Sadly, I don't think Israel can look to anyone for help at this point. As I've said before, the West's last chance at a peaceful solution was the first Hizbollah war, when Bush was all but ordering Israel to attack Syria. It seemed Bush was looking for an excuse to widen the theater.

But, after that war ended as it did, all the wind went out of the sails. And, we are left only with catastrophic war as an option, though everyone wants to deny it.

Reliapundit said...

THE POPE MUSTN'T REMAIN SILENT WHEN EVIL ATTACKS GOOD.

HE MUST SPEAK OUT AGAINST PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS AND JIHADOTERROR AND CREEPING SHARIA IN EUROPE.

HE HAS DONE NONE OF THE ABOVE.

ZERO.

NADA.

HE IS A FAILED POPE. SO FAR. AND VERY DISAPPOINTING.

AS FOR OBAMA/ISRAEL - READ MY LATEST POST BASED ON A NYTIMES PIECE WHICH FEATURES CHAS FREEMAN AS KEY INTERPRETER OF EVENTS.

Reliapundit said...

U R CORRECT: THE POPE DOESN'T HAVE TO GET INVOLVED POLITICALLY.

BUT THE M.E. IS NOT MERELY A POLITICAL CONTEST.

IT IS ALSO A MORAL ONE.

THE WEST IS SOON GOING TO EQUATE HAMAS WITH THE DEMOCRATIC G.O.I. AND HAVE THEM IN NEGOTIATIONS.

THAT IS IMMORAL.

THOSE WHO DON'T SPEAK OUT AGAINST IMMORALITY AND INJUSTICE ARE CO-CONSPIRATORS.

Reliapundit said...

I HIT THE POPE ONLY AS HARD AND AS BLUNTLY AS I HIT BUSH AND OLMERT AND LIVNI AND ANYONE ELSE WHO DESERVES IT.

IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR ME NOT TO HIT HIM AS HARD WHEN HE'S AS WRONG.

TREATING HIM LIKE ANY OTHER LEADER IS MORAL.

GIVING HIM SPECIAL TREATMENT OR DEFERENCE WOULD BE IMMORAL.

Pastorius said...

I've criticized him for what I have thought he has done wrong. It does seem to me that he should, as I have done, speak out on the inequitable way in which Israel is treated in the world's media and political sphere.

Honestly, I can't figure out why none of our world's leaders have spoken out about the truth of the ME conflict.

I guess it's because they favor "dialogue" which translates as compromise, or splitting the difference with evil.

Anonymous said...

they want israel to attack to beat back the persian / shia threat. then they attack israel in "retaliation."