It’s not an uncommon sickness of bureacracy. Have you ever seen the English sitcom “Yes Minister” where politicians lose site of ‘the people’ they serve in pursuit of climbing the political ladder? I can imagine that a group of men in the Curia could easily fall victim to the same sickness. The Pope makes a fine example to other institutions of man in identifying the sicknesses that detract from the main purpose and mission.
Perhaps the previous Popes should have addressed this issue, going all the way back to the Mass reformation, royalties collected from translations, and other areas addressed in the 60’s, if not before? Just a thought.
He does, but a future Pope can override or suppress everything he is doing or saying today as well. Just sayin…
Why don’t you ask poster JohnPaul? He has several excellent posts that actually expresses my thoughts better than my own words. And as far as “taking care of his flock,” I completely agree with JohnPaul that these statements of his are more of “finger-pointing” than of any constructive criticism. Are you aware that Pope Francis has changed the rule for awarding the honorific title of “monsignor” to only men who are 65 or older? It was an attempt of his to curtail “careerism” in the Church. A former pastor of ours has been a monsignor for many years. He is one of the most sincere and devoted priest that you will ever meet. He is also very intelligent, holds a couple of degrees and serves in several capacities, not just for his own parish, but for the diocese. I certainly hope that Pope Francis isn’t speaking to him because he couldn’t be more wrong. When one paints with a broad brush, one tends to get paint everywhere.
Jim, true. He also has the authority to denounce his own sins. This was my original point.
I don t thing you are wrong in bringing this up , the issue is that Francis being nearly thr age of my dad , I tend to think wow ! I just get tired by looking at all the things he does , the variety of ñeople and cultures he speaks to daily and in italian which is not even his.mother tongue with media following all over…and I think I am demanding more than my own dad or Pope Francis in this case can give. And it is a lot already.
Really? Do you not recall when Pope Francis said “who am I to judge?” when speaking about homosexuals and the media frenzy, as well as some Catholic circles, who thought that he was basically saying that it is no longer a sin to be a practicing homosexual?
By the way, I really like this perspective!
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1067
Being very Ignatian in my spirituality, I am one who has never been worried about anything that Pope Francis says. He himself said, "I am a son of the Church.…"
I thought this was interesting:
I am perfectly aware of what Pope Francis said and how he meant it. What is so bad is that there are many who do not parse his words and arrive at erroneous conclusions about the topic. Do you think it better for the pope to sit back and just say to himself “I am right” while there are legions of people confused by what he said? As pope and pastor to the world, he should be as clear as possible in the things he says so as to avoid any confusion. Is that really too much to ask?Being very Ignatian in my spirituality, I am one who has never been worried about anything that Pope Francis says. He himself said, "I am a son of the Church.…"
And, the comment “who am I to judge” was completely taken out of context by people who want things to change in regards to Church teaching on all matters of sexuality.
If you dig a little deeper into the comment, Pope Francis was talking about homosexual, yet chaste, members of the clergy, who have a terrible cross to bear, but are trying hard to live their life in accordance with the Church. What is so bad about that?
The problem with “monsignor” is that is is not a job description. A priest celebrates Mass, a pastor manages a parish, a bishop manages a diocese, a cardinal elects pope. What does monsignor do? The title used to be conferred as recognition of contributions for the organization. Here’s a problem though: why the contributions towards the organization should be recognized, and those towards the mission should not? Fr. Marian Zelazek SVD made enormous contributions towards the mission (to the extent of being nominated to the Nobel Prize); yet, he has never received any ecclesiastical titles. On the other hand, Abp. Paul Marcinkus rose to the position of archbishop by pushing papers and performing shady financial transactions. And if you rate contributions towards the organization higher than those towards mission, then your employees will work for the organization rather than for the mission. To use an extreme example: if someone covers up an abuse scandal, what they are doing is very valuable for the organization (protection of assets and public image) but extremely damaging to both the victims and the mission. If you have wondered how all this could have happened – well, that’s how.
What?
agreed.Pope Francis is doing what his namesake Saint Francis of Assisi was told to do by our Lord…rebuild my house (church)…our Holy Father knows better than anyone what is happening behind closed doors in the Vatican…he was in fact chosen by the Holy Spirit to guide the church of Jesus Christ…if some Catholics don’t like the way he is doing things maybe they need to take it up with the Holy Spirit
I would agree with you to a point. Among other things is he trying to weed out the bad apples or does he want to restructure the entire Vatican for all time?
I have no idea. I have no problem with weeding out bad apples but the thought of restructuring the entire Vatican for all time scares me. If things were so bad, then why didn’t Popes John Paul and Benedict (especially Benedict since he has been in Rome for so long) do something about it? As Pope, all they would have had to do is say the word and it is done. Likewise, Pope Francis, having the same authority, could just say the word instead of dancing around the edges. Often times, there is a vast difference between the ideal and the real. You can’t always force one into the other.
Not according to this quote: "Photos of the meeting show a room full of long-faced prelates. Reports indicate that the Pope received only sparse, tepid applause. The mood of the pre-Christmas meeting was anything but joyous."
In the past, it was on the recommendation of a bishop that a priest be awarded the honorific title “monsignor.” I am not the one to ask why one priest receives the title and one doesn’t; perhaps one local bishop is more generous with acknowledging one’s contributions than another. My point, though, is that it is a little silly to think that some high-minded priest would use the title monsignor as a rung by which he intends to climb the curial ladder. Again, the patron saint of “careerism” in the Church would have to be Pope Pius XII. If it was good enough for him, it should be good enough for others.