Posted on 11/23/2004 3:54:04 PM PST by siunevada
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Recent weeks have seen yet another round of speculation about "who's in charge" in the Vatican. A Nov. 5 piece in The Washington Post, picking up on a cover story in L'Espresso by Italian Vatican writer Sandro Magister, pointed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's top doctrinal official, as an increasingly important behind-the-scenes force (as well as potentially the next pope). Meanwhile, Roman gossip continues to tap Archbishop Stanislaw Dzwisz, John Paul's private secretary, as virtually a "vice-pope."
First, no one, not even the pope, is ever "in charge" in the sense of making all the decisions in the Catholic church. The worldwide membership of the Catholic church is around 1.1 billion, while the total work force of the Roman Curia is 2,659, according to the 2003 Annuario Pontificio. That's a ratio of one official in Rome for every 413,689 Catholics in the world. To get some sense of proportion, this figure is roughly equivalent to the size of many American congressional districts. Imagine if a member of congress had to handle the affairs of that district alone -- no staff, no advisors, no district offices. Simply put, the Roman Curia has neither the personnel nor the infrastructure to provide anything other than a very thin veneer of global coordination; it could not routinely micro-manage the church, even if it wished.
Despite its reputation as rigidly hierarchical, Roman Catholicism is remarkably decentralized. The vast majority of decisions that shape the daily lives of Catholics are made at the local level, from parish budgets to school curricula. Hence when the pope weakens, it does not automatically mean a slowdown in most areas of church life, and does not create the need for "vice-popes" in Rome.
Second, even inside the Vatican, the pope is not "in charge" in the sense of making all the decisions. The Vatican has a president/prime minister structure, in which the pope is the head of state, but much of the day-to-day work of running the church is carried out by the Secretary of State, currently Cardinal Angelo Sodano. Once again, this means that when the pope is ill or otherwise occupied, the machinery of government continues to clank along.
It's a structural reality of the Vatican that no one fills the pope's shoes when he isn't wearing them. By design, there is no "vice-pope" who steps in and exercises the full range of papal powers. Instead, as the pope weakens, his authority is spread around among a variety of officials in different areas of competence. To ask "who's in charge" is therefore meaningless as stated; it's necessary to specify, "in charge of what?"
As John Paul weakens, there is a natural desire to protect him from unnecessary burdens. Hence, matters that might once have been referred to the pope are today being resolved at the level of individual departments. Cardinal Francis Arinze at the Congregation for Divine Worship, for example, tends to call the shots on liturgical matters, while Sodano and his aides are crafting foreign policy, and Ratzinger and his team are handling doctrinal matters. Cardinal Walter Kasper is largely running the show on ecumenism. To some extent this has always been the case with John Paul, who has never taken a strong personal interest in the nuts and bolts of government. The new situation imposed by the pope's health thus amounts to a change in degree, not in kind.
None of this means that Vatican officials are careening off in directions contrary to the pope's will. As spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls says, if a CEO has been running a company for 26 years, he doesn't have to be in the office every day to ensure that it operates according to his design.
For all that, the reality is that decisions are increasingly being made at the departmental level, at times with only a cursory reference to the papal household.
Is this bad for the church? I can see three potentially negative consequences.
First, it poses the risk of incoherence as departments begin to pull in different directions, with only nominal coordination.
Second, there is a risk of paralysis, not so much with routine business, but on big-picture questions that would require the personal initiative of the Holy Father. Some observers believe the lethargic response of the Vatican to the American sex abuse crisis is a case in point.
Third, this situation could eventually undermine the authority of the Holy See. In normal times, it is assumed that the Vatican acts at the request of the pope, so that particular documents or policy decisions are presumed to reflect his will. If that presumption is called into question, it could weaken the confidence Catholics have in Vatican decisions.
On the other hand, some observers argue that John Paul is providing a precious witness about the inherent dignity of human life from beginning to end, and is a powerful symbol for elderly and suffering people. Moreover, it is perhaps no bad thing that Catholics learn to distinguish between the juridical powers of the papal office, and the spiritual witness of the papacy. Even if John Paul becomes incapable of giving direction (a state which he has not yet reached), he would still be a spiritual father to 1.1 billion Catholics. Perhaps the realities of his condition will help Catholics shift from a corporate-political model of the papacy, to one based more on theological and spiritual considerations.
In any event, John Paul's decline will increasingly raise difficult managerial questions. What it will not do is result in a "vice-pope." The plain truth is that when the pope is not "in charge," in the sense that only popes can be, nobody is.
* * *
November 01, 2004, 12:30
Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian president, is gradually recovering from serious illness after a weekend of treatment and tests at a French military hospital, Palestinian officials said today. French medical sources are more cautious, saying nothing can be ruled out, until doctors release the results of the tests, which will determine the length of Arafat's stay in the hospital southwest of Paris.
He's recovered the normal colour of his face
"He is recovering gradually. He is in very good care and (having good) treatment from our friends in France and therefore we thank France for all the attention they gave to Mr. Arafat," Ahmed Qurie, the Palestinian prime minister, said in Ramallah. "I had a telephone call this morning with the brothers in Paris and they told me that his health is better," Nabil Shaath, the foreign minister said. "He's recovered the normal colour of his face... There is progress every day."
This is so true. He's so frail looking, you just instinctively want for him to be protected at all costs. He looks a lot like my Father, so it can be especially poignant for me when I see him. And the last time I heard John Paul speak, his voice was very weak.
Again, I'm reminded of that Scripture that Thor76 made known to me concerning St. Peter, and Christ's warning to him that as Peter aged, people would dress him, and lead him where he did not wish to go. I don't know how much longer Pope John Paul wants to live, but I pray the Lord grant him whatever number of years he hopes for, if he hopes for any at all.
In any event, John Paul's decline will increasingly raise difficult managerial questions. What it will not do is result in a "vice-pope." The plain truth is that when the pope is not "in charge," in the sense that only popes can be, nobody is.
I believe this is true only in the short term. When a Pope becomes incapacitated for a long period of time, there may not be a vice-pope, per se, but the power struggle for control has to exist, and such a power struggle would not yield an equilibrant.
Some whom I correspond with here on Freep are devoted to the pope; some are opposed to his policies; others are convinced that he has ceased to be pope for various reaons (or was never validly elected).
AS for myself this is my opinion: he is Peter. Be he a good pope or not, he is the man who Christ has willed - for Christ's puposes - to be on the Throne of Peter in this day. Whether or not I agree with that choice is irrelevant. He could either be a reward or a chastisement to the church. And some of that is entirely subjective.
Yes, JPII has made mistakes in office. Of this I have no doubt; perhaps serious ones. My opinion of his potificate is, when reckoned on a purely human basis, a failure. Why? Because he has made the conscious decision to allow the autodestruction of the Church to essentially continue unabated. He has made the decision that it is not reformable by human means.
For any true reform required God's intervention - and His grace, in abundance. That is simply not present now.
What good he did early in his pontificate has been eroded by the "leading about where he wouldnot go" by those in the Vatican Curia who are not of the mind of Christ.....who would misuse the pope to serve their nefarious purposes. And twist his words........or cause them to fall to the ground as useless seed.
What few are willing to try to comprehend is that JPII's job is to preside over the autodestruction of the church. That is his sad duty. He has no choice in this; it is his misery. But at the same time his job is also to hold on.......to try desperately to hold on and stay alive, and in doing so maintain some semblence of a fragile unity within the church, while everything is falling apart around him.
Imagine JPII as an organist in a ruined, abandoned church.....playing "Holy God We Praise Thy Name", as the wrecking ball is repeatedly smashing against the side of the building. Can I possibly paint a more poignant - and descriptive image?
In addition to that, many refuse to accept the very fact of the diabolic disorientation of the mind of man which presently afflicts the society of nations at large, and each man in particular. Who is right? What is right? There is so much confusion and diversion from the truth. If it afflictc you and I , it surely must in some manner affect the Holy Father. Clerics come at him from all sides seeking his favor......trying to deceive him, in every way possible.
Regardless of one's personal opinion of JPII and his pontificate, it is the will of Christ that he sit on the throne of Peter now. In the same manner that it is Christ's will that a certain man be mayor, governor, president......or that you were born on a certain day to a certain set of parents. This is called the will of God. It is not the will of man - and is typically antithecal to God's will. Nothing......absolutely nothing in heaven or on earth happens that is not within the ambit of God's will. Period!
So this frail, elderly man has the job of waiting upon the will of Christ. Make no mistake.....regardless of your opinion of JPII, he knows prophecy in refernce to himself, the church, and the society of nations for the near future. He is trying to delay the inevitable chastisements - which will be worse then our imaginings, and which have already started. JPII does desire that order and unity be preserved in the church, and has valiantly if feebly to do what he can.
JPII knows what is right around the corner. But he also knows that there is an ultimately happy ending. With God, there alwasy is one. Like Moses he will not live to see it, for like Moses such is not God's will.
But there will be a chapter of evil, of greater or lesser length which we will have to endure first.
"...the boy crawled over and peered into the bombed out crater. In it an old, frail priest - the Pope was saying mass. There were only a few people dressed in rags there. They were crying. He himself was dressed in ragged vestments. The chalice was a broken cup; the paten was a chipped old plate. When he elevated themn, a great light came down from heaven and shone upon them. A great sign appeared in the sky - a woman, clothed with the sun. She smiled upon the priest and the people, and gave them strength".
I think John Paul has a tremendous love for Man, I don't remember noticing that quality in his immediate predecessors. He is not the least bit misanthropic, which naturally draws people to him. And which is a quality I do admire. So many Clergy suffer more than a bit from misanthropy.
The problem that can arise from that is the practice of Humanism. A word and/or concept that John Paul seems to be very fond of. This practice may not be by design, merely by default, but either way it raises man and lowers God. It's a seduction that may prove to be the Church's total undoing.
In addition to that, the concept of 'inculturation' which I believe is also his offspring, has a tremendous potential to find no difference irreconcilable, and that seems to me to be a perfect breeding ground for an onslaught of syncretism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.