Replies

I reread your post and wonder whether I answered your question. You seem to indicate that you think Vat II gave more authority and power to the Vatican and the curia.Do I read you correctly?

If so,I disagree. I think that they gave much more power to the national conferences of bishops,perhaps without intent but nonetheless that was the result.It seems to me quite clear that the Pope and hiis staff have ordered and requested many actions that would get the church in the US in accord with Catholic teaching through the ages and the Americans have refused to obey.

I still stand by my original rsponse to you that while there are many of the curia who have another agenda the Vatican and/or curia are more in line with Catholic Truth than the gaggle of USCCB bishops and cardinals and bureaucrats.I see them as a useless corporation of middleman,who do nothing but impede the flow from the Pope to his Bishops,to us.If our bishops need a support group,I think it would be fine to meet once or twice a year It would be helpful to have different workshops that might assist them in different areas as well as silent prayer but this powerful quasi-official obstructionist body needs to go.IMO

I certainly agree that the changes gave much more power to local bishops through these useless and downright obstructionist and disloyal national Bishops Conferences. And I agree that even on a good day, they are probably worse than most of the Vatican.

But I think that one of the things that Americans tend to overlook when asking questions about things that have happened or are happening in the Church is the simple fact that "headquarters" does not function like an American corporation, but like an old-style European court (that is, not a court in a modern constitutional monarchy, such as England or Spain).

I don't think we have to get into Malachi Martin style speculations on plots and conspiracies, although I am sure, like any organization of this nature, the Vatican is probably rife with cliques, "groupies" gathered around powerful individuals, seekers of higher office, disappointed and resentful seekers of higher office, etc.

It would seem to me that the increasing tendency to deemphasize the Papacy - except in that referring to the charismatic gifts of this individual Pope, perhaps - would have the effect of creating a power vacuum at the top. Not only would this mean that there will be jostling and struggling to get in and fill that vacuum, but it also means that the Vatican will become somewhat more like a constitutional monarchy. That is, the Pope will be merely a symbol, like the Queen of England, and the Vatican "court" will become more powerful in decision making (since, unlike a constitutional monarchy, the Church has no parliament).

I'm not sure this has entirely happened yet, although the gathering of vultures who perceive the Pope as weakening - plus increased clamor from national bishops' conferences and groups like "Voice of the Faithful" - seems to indicate that they see an opening and that the power is perhaps not as consolidated as it once was.

I don't think this is the entire answer to the mysteries of the Vatican, but I do think that it's an aspect worth considering. Of course, for us it's probably more of speculative interest than anything else, since none of us here are members of the curia - well, I don't think any of us are, at least...