A rhetorical question if you wish but even if you say yes the brevity of time available to a person to implement even good ideas negates those efforts.
And who knows what a successor will do?
Which explains why I've never thought the Reformation was really a reforming as much as a struggle for power. As the fellow in “The Patriot” says about prefering one tyrant far away to having three hundred close at hand.(or something similar).
It was with those thoughts about the inevitable failure of human rulers in mind that I posted those threads about the Kingdom.
Cheers!
Pius "the infallible" condemned, separation of church and state. Said the church had power to use force, could be the only religion of the state, comdemned free speech, must be Catholic to be saved, etc...
It's about temporal power or at least it used to be. Vatican II buffed off the rough edges. Many of the statements in the "syllabus" that were condemned are now ignored.
A rhetorical question if you wish but even if you say yes the brevity of time available to a person to implement even good ideas negates those efforts. And who knows what a successor will do?
While there have been a few excellent religious rulers, it is true that most theocrats fail at good governance. It is often because of the conflicts between temporal and Christian (or other religious - Calvinists in both the Old World and the New, as well as Islamic come to mind) demands - and the number is few that have been trained to bridge that gap, and even fewer who can.
Your point about BXVI's successor is well taken.
Which explains why I've never thought the Reformation was really a reforming as much as a struggle for power. As the fellow in “The Patriot” says about prefering one tyrant far away to having three hundred close at hand.(or something similar).
I see that we have similar thoughts about both subjects.
Cheers!
Make mine a Guinness!!!!