Have we put too much on the Pope's plate?

[twf]

The centralization and bureaucracy we see today didn’t exist for much of Church history. Some of it is very recent. The Pope plays a vital role in our faith, but he is not the sole guarantor of faith and unity. The bishops are also vicars of Christ and tradition is their guide, as it is the Pope’s.

 

[babochka]

Bishop John Ireland set us on the way to being Catholics in the US, rather than ethnic Catholics, i.e., “Irish” Catholics or “German” Catholics or “Polish” Catholics. Because of that, while some people lament the loss of the Catholic “Ghetto”, we’re more of a universal church in the US than ever.

Don’t forget about the major schism brought about by Bishop Ireland’s attitude and implementation of his vision.

Universal does not mean uniform. There is no need to squash out cultural and ritual differences in order to have a universal church. The church encompasses all of these differences, which can enrich, rather than impoverish, a church, which is something that Bishop Ireland utterly failed to see in his zeal for an American Catholic church.

 

[Yeoman]

Don’t forget about the major schism brought about by Bishop Ireland’s attitude and implementation of his vision.

Universal does not mean uniform. There is no need to squash out cultural and ritual differences in order to have a universal church. The church encompasses all of these differences, which can enrich, rather than impoverish, a church, which is something that Bishop Ireland utterly failed to see in his zeal for an American Catholic church.

A point well put.

A great man, but a man whose mistakes had great magnitude to them as well.

 

[Yeoman]

So you deny the concept in the northeast mothers who are non-Catholic condemn Catholics?

Absurd.

The Oprah couch potato fan club hate Catholic families, “oh I would like so never be like that family and get my kid molested by a priest”

^ happens all the time

I don’t deny that some hold those views. More importantly, I don’t deny that many who hold those views are new to those views, and that those who committed the acts which cause such scandal haven’t injured us greatly.

But I’m aware that there’s never been a time, ever, when to be a Catholic was to be free of condemnation. There never has been in my lifetime, and I’ve lived over half a century. There has never been such a time. And we shouldn’t imagine that things average Catholics hear from non Catholics now weren’t barely below the surface to start with in many instances. Plenty of people who say such things now would have said something negative to start with.

This is hardly the worst we’ve seen it. It might get worse for that matter. But for the most part, if what most Catholics have to do today is actively defend their faith and why they hold it, we’re doing better than eras when to be a Catholic meant you couldn’t go to an Ivy League school (as a practical matter), you weren’t going to be hired in certain jobs and you weren’t going to to have members of the general public come into your establishment, all things that were actually common not all that long ago. Our parents’s parents had to fight for their faith. If we have to keep our faith on track, well we have a lot of good ancestral company to assist us.

 

[Yeoman]

The president formulates an agenda, the congress and the bureaucracy carry it out. Maybe.

FWIW, that’s not how that’s supposed to work. Congress is supposed to legislate the agenda and the Executive branch executes it. It’s the failure of Congress to occupy its Constitutional role that has lead, in part, to an Imperial Presidency.

Not that this really has an analogy to the Church. The Church isn’t a democracy.

But the structure of the Church does allow for Bishops to have wide leeway. For that matter, leeway is sufficiently wide that we have more than one rite. There’s no reason to believe that the Church couldn’t function with more Bishops. The question would be what those Bishop’s roles were. Let us not forget that there was an era when Rome had little actual contact with remote Bishops, but the Church didn’t fail to act as the Church.

 

[Augustinian]

But I wonder, are we asking too much of the Pope?

No, and I’ll tell you why.

The Pope has all kinds of trusted assistants, staff, other prelates. He only has to deal with a small amount of things. He trusts those who are under him to vet who will be the auxiliary bishops in backwater areas or other details.

Before 1870, the Popes even had more duties, armies to command, streets to plow, criminal justice to administer, when the Popes rules over the Papal States. Technically speaking I guess, if there was a pothole on a road in Bologna or Lucca, it was the incumbent Pope’s responsibility, but others were trusted to take care of it.

 

[babochka]

Sure it is. You decentralize the Catholic church more and more, and it takes on the model of the protestant churches. The farther you get away from a central authority, the more diluted the faith will become.

Besides, the pope has a bureaucracy that is tasked with carrying out the running of the church. It’s a bit like the U.S. presidency. The president formulates an agenda, the congress and the bureaucracy carry it out. Maybe.

This post rather perfectly illustrates your misunderstanding of the historical role of the papacy and your misunderstanding of the constitutional roles of the branches of the US government.

 

[Genesis315]

The bishops are also vicars of Christ and tradition is their guide, as it is the Pope’s.

Honestly, despite Vatican II really emphasizing this role, I think the lack of bishops who act like true vicars of Christ for their particular Churches, rather than as vicars of the Pope or bureaucratic middle managers, is a major problem. Of course, there are some who understand their office and take it seriously, but somehow we really need more.

Ideally, the Pope would rarely need to intervene outside of Rome because his brother bishops would maintain the perfect unity of faith and charity among the churches themselves. But human nature being in the state it is, unity often requires a more active service.

At the First Vatican Council, some bishops worried about the Pope’s jurisdiction being considered “ordinary” not in the sense of “not-delegated” (which is what the word means in Pastor Aeternus) but rather routine. The deputatio de fide (responsible for doctrinal explanations to the council fathers), addressed their fears as follows:

Certainly, if the sovereign pontiff, having the right to perform any properly episcopal act in whatever diocese, were, so to speak, to multiply himself every day without any regard for the bishop (nulla habita ratione episcopi) abolishing what had been wisely laid down, he would be using his power non in aedificationem sed in destructionem, and confusion in spiritual leadership would ensue. But who could imagine such an absurd hypothesis? All of us, then, should set our minds at rest. We should trust in the moderation of the Holy See and rest assured that its authority will serve to sustain episcopal power rather than weaken it (laesioni).37

This played on the old axiom that the Pope’s power is “ad aedificationem non ad destructionem ecclesiae.” (to the building up, not the destruction of the Church). By taking over the role of the other bishops, who are part of the divine constitution of the Church, he would be destroying the Church.

Here’s a great academic article on how these issues were hashed out at the First Vatican Council:

http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/40/40.1/40.1.1.pdf

 

[CRM_Brother]

But I wonder, are we asking too much of the Pope? Not only this Pope — but the modern papacy in general? He is Bishop of Rome. He is pastor of the Church. He is chief teacher. He meets with heads of state. He is a world leader. He is involved in the governance, not only of the universal church in general, but with particular churches as well — such as appointment of bishops, etc. He is the focus of media.

Spiritually? No. He is who he is - the Pope.

Politically? I don’t think so. Juggling world politics has been part of the Papal duties since Christianity was made legal in 313. I do think that we expect too much of him on that regards, as if the Pope can just touch a problem and it is resolved (although that does happen from time to time through the intercession of the Holy Spirit)

Socially and through the Media? Definitely. He is an old man (usually, JPII was in his fifties when elected and there was a 20-something year old Pope in the Dark Ages). Plain and simple. He can only do so much and can only act with the information presented to him.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Sure it is. You decentralize the Catholic church more and more, and it takes on the model of the protestant churches. The farther you get away from a central authority, the more diluted the faith will become.

Church history has varied.

The early church had a Pope, but the office was no where near as centralized as it is today.

Maybe, one could argue, it should be centralized. But circumstances alone (geography, communication methods) in the early Church prevented it from being so. So we can’t pretend there is “one way.” In the earliest days, the Bishop of Rome was the chair of Christian unity. And he was the chief teacher: by 2nd century people (e.g., Irenaeus) were saying that all churches must agree with Rome in matters of faith.

But how this is sorted out, and the management of it all, has varied.

 

[joeybaggz]

This post rather perfectly illustrates your misunderstanding of the historical role of the papacy and your misunderstanding of the constitutional roles of the branches of the US government.

I’ll pass on even responding to a criticism, how can I put this charitably, so totally off the reservation. *(best I could think of)

 

[graciew]

Are we asking too much of one (usually elderly) man?

I would say so,yes. And I started realizing the weight of it when I saw then Cardinal Ratzinger covering for then very elderly and ill Pope John Paul. I do not know why,but it struck me as something that had to be sustained from above…For both then.
And now,when I see Pope Francis walking with difficulty and sciatica, and having just one lung,I do not know how he does.
Popes are elderly men and they really give a lot .
I do not know if we put too much on their plate but I realize sometimes we expect. from them what we wouldn’t demand from a parent their age .On the contrary,it is an age when we try to take some weight off their shoulders.
My personal point of view of course.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

What would be the benefits to having a younger Pope?

I realize that it’s more “dangerous” to choose a younger Pope, because that may mean the individual has not been as well “vetted” and may lack experience (say, as a bishop).

I think we don’t expect younger Popes, just because of the look of it all.

 

[graciew]

It isn t about the Popes having the wrong age,it is about us appreciating what that age brings .
Realistically. And being grateful and considerate.
They must be surrounded by a lot of good persons who facilitate their work,most of them probably unnoticed doing the little things for them.