Vatican veteran on Pope's address: 'nothing like this has ever happened before' [CC]

[Catholic_Press]

The former president of the Vatican city-state governorate said that the December 22 address by Pope Francis to the Roman Curia was an unprecedented attempt to spur reform at the …

More…

 

[commenter]

I don’t doubt that the members of the Curia needed this sermon, towards their personal change. I also don’t doubt that I need a sermon, towards my personal change, for mostly different reasons. The question is, would the members of the Curia really benefit from overhearing the sermon addressing my specific sins? The answer is probably not. Then why would I benefit from overhearing the sermon intended to address their specific sins?
Or rather, how do the hundreds of millions of people who overhear excerpts of that sermon, taken out of context by the media benefit from that?

Several decades ago C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay “On the Dangers of a National Repentance”. He noted that average people love to hear about, and vicariously “repent” the sins of politicians, because it offers the the average person the feeling of something like repentance, but without the difficulty of the average citizen repenting their OWN sins, and changing their OWN life. It fosters the vice of spiritual pride in the average citizen.
Clergymen who call their congregation to repent the sins of “the nation” (or the sins of “the church”) do harm; those who call the congregation to repent their own sins do good.
During Advent we have the feeling we ought to do something like confession. Overhearing the sermon about the sins of OTHER PEOPLE (like cardinals, or politicians) and vicariously “confessing” those OTHER sins, gives average people the feeling their own Advent need has been met.

I’m not saying the pope’s sermon is bad for the Curia to hear, I’m saying this, like all sermons about others’ sins, are bad for me to overhear.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t doubt that the members of the Curia needed this sermon, towards their personal change. I also don’t doubt that I need a sermon, towards my personal change, for mostly different reasons. The question is, would the members of the Curia really benefit from overhearing the sermon addressing my specific sins? The answer is probably not. Then why would I benefit from overhearing the sermon intended to address their specific sins?
Or rather, how do the hundreds of millions of people who overhear excerpts of that sermon, taken out of context by the media benefit from that?

Several decades ago C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay “On the Dangers of a National Repentance”. He noted that average people love to hear about, and vicariously “repent” the sins of politicians, because it offers the the average person the feeling of something like repentance, but without the difficulty of the average citizen repenting their OWN sins, and changing their OWN life. It fosters the vice of spiritual pride in the average citizen.
Clergymen who call their congregation to repent the sins of “the nation” (or the sins of “the church”) do harm; those who call the congregation to repent their own sins do good.
During Advent we have the feeling we ought to do something like confession. Overhearing the sermon about the sins of OTHER PEOPLE (like cardinals, or politicians) and vicariously “confessing” those OTHER sins, gives average people the feeling their own Advent need has been met.

I’m not saying the pope’s sermon is bad for the Curia to hear, I’m saying this, like all sermons about others’ sins, are bad for me to overhear.

I honestly don’t think Pope Francis is focusing on repentence or shaming individuals at all. He has his mind on the big picture and getting this important ‘cleanup’ done without wasting time. 8 December next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the closing of Vatican II and in all those years there’s been so much resistence to one of the main goals of the council. That is to open up the windows of the Church and let in the fresh air. The Church remains steeped in bureaucracy and the Pope cosseted behind powerful Cardinals and PR machines. There is no real sense of office and its true authority and that is so evident at the moment with ordinary Catholics revealing how little faith they have in the new Popes direction. How can we really see the shield of the Holy Spirit around the office when there is the shield of the Vatican, security, publicity machine around him. He is even made to drive round with a perspex shield purpose built to a car.

Pope Francis is ditching all those shields and bypassing ‘the machine’ and connecting directly with the people. I suspect for him to be able to do that for example with his speech to the Curia… he has to have a good bit of support from good people on the inside who want what he wants. Openness, transparency, simplicity.

We know from the accounts of his history in priestly life and from the accounts of the Cardinals at the synod, that he is a priest of great humility, service to the needy, holiness, simplicity and doctrinal orthodoxy. Why do these facts not assure people of the safety of the Church in his hands?

 

[commenter]

I honestly don’t think Pope Francis is focusing on repentence or shaming individuals at all. He has his mind on the big picture and getting this important ‘cleanup’ done without wasting time. 8 December next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the closing of Vatican II and in all those years there’s been so much resistence to one of the main goals of the council. That is to open up the windows of the Church and let in the fresh air. The Church remains steeped in bureaucracy and the Pope cosseted behind powerful Cardinals and PR machines. There is no real sense of office and its true authority and that is so evident at the moment with ordinary Catholics revealing how little faith they have in the new Popes direction. How can we really see the shield of the Holy Spirit around the office when there is the shield of the Vatican, security, publicity machine around him. He is even made to drive round with a perspex shield purpose built to a car.

Pope Francis is ditching all those shields and bypassing ‘the machine’ and connecting directly with the people. I suspect for him to be able to do that for example with his speech to the Curia… he has to have a good bit of support from good people on the inside who want what he wants. Openness, transparency, simplicity.

We know from the accounts of his history in priestly life and from the accounts of the Cardinals at the synod, that he is a priest of great humility, service to the needy, holiness, simplicity and doctrinal orthodoxy. Why do these facts not assure people of the safety of the Church in his hands?

Given that Pope Francis has emphasized Advent as a time of repentance, one would think an Advent homily is relevant to that.
What benefits you more - you hearing sermons directed, in a loving way, to help you overcome YOUR sins;
or:
you overhearing sermons directed at someone else’s sins?

How does you overhearing a sermon directed at someone else’s sins help you, or me, spiritually towards conversion? We aren’t evaluating whether the pope’s sermon was good for the hearers.
I said it likely was good for them.
Was it spiritually beneficial to the overhearers (you and me, the hundred million people flooded by the media)? Vatican II is trustworthy, but do you trust the secular media more than the Catholic Church?

 

[LongingSoul]

Given that Pope Francis has emphasized Advent as a time of repentance, one would think an Advent homily is relevant to that.
What benefits you more - you hearing sermons directed, in a loving way, to help you overcome YOUR sins;
or:
you overhearing sermons directed at someone else’s sins?

How does you overhearing a sermon directed at someone else’s sins help you, or me, spiritually towards conversion? We aren’t evaluating whether the pope’s sermon was good for the hearers.
I said it likely was good for them.
Was it spiritually beneficial to the overhearers (you and me, the hundred million people flooded by the media)? Vatican II is trustworthy, but do you trust the secular media more than the Catholic Church?

There is really nothing to fear from transparency and accountability. In the past there has been a veil of secrecy between big organisation and the media, for example government, celebrity and even Church… that allowed evil to flourish. Think about the scandals of government leaders like the Kennedy’s compared to the exposure of Bill Clinton and other modern politicians being called to account for their vice and infidelity. Think of operation Yewtree in England uncovering the decades of abuse of kids and the vulnerable by celebrities protected from media scrutiny. Think of the sex abuse scandals within the Church allowed to thrive free from media scrutiny. A current Australian case of a Christian Brother being extradited from exile in NZ reports that the Church was aware of the sex abuse allegations in that order since 1919.

Ignatian spirituality depends on openness and transparency. The desire to hide things or keep them secret is profoundly associated with the work of the devil. Exposure can never hurt the innocent. Satan withers in the light. This type of openness is just so necessary for the change required and who truly wants there to be any repeat of the sex abuse malignancy the Churchs have experienced in that old atmosphere of secrecy?

 

[commenter]

There is really nothing to fear from transparency and accountability. In the past there has been a veil of secrecy between big organisation and the media, for example government, celebrity and even Church… that allowed evil to flourish. Think about the scandals of government leaders like the Kennedy’s compared to the exposure of Bill Clinton and other modern politicians being called to account for their vice and infidelity. Think of operation Yewtree in England uncovering the decades of abuse of kids and the vulnerable by celebrities protected from media scrutiny. Think of the sex abuse scandals within the Church allowed to thrive free from media scrutiny. A current Australian case of a Christian Brother being extradited from exile in NZ reports that the Church was aware of the sex abuse allegations in that order since 1919.

Ignatian spirituality depends on openness and transparency. The desire to hide things or keep them secret is profoundly associated with the work of the devil. Exposure can never hurt the innocent. Satan withers in the light. This type of openness is just so necessary for the change required and who truly wants there to be any repeat of the sex abuse malignancy the Churchs have experienced in that old atmosphere of secrecy?

The Media is constantly telling us how important and trustworthy the Media is. Well…

Instead of following, or obeying, the Media’s spiritual guidance, try looking at the Media.

Check out C. S. Lewis’ essay, “On the Dangers of a National Repentance”; it is found in a collection of his essays, “God in the Dock”, and probably other collections of his works.

 

[commenter]

There is really nothing to fear from transparency and accountability. In the past there has been a veil of secrecy between big organisation and the media, for example government, celebrity and even Church… that allowed evil to flourish. Think about the scandals of government leaders like the Kennedy’s compared to the exposure of Bill Clinton and other modern politicians being called to account for their vice and infidelity. Think of operation Yewtree in England uncovering the decades of abuse of kids and the vulnerable by celebrities protected from media scrutiny. Think of the sex abuse scandals within the Church allowed to thrive free from media scrutiny. A current Australian case of a Christian Brother being extradited from exile in NZ reports that the Church was aware of the sex abuse allegations in that order since 1919.

**Ignatian spirituality **depends on openness and transparency. The desire to hide things or keep them secret is profoundly associated with the work of the devil. Exposure can never hurt the innocent. Satan withers in the light. This type of openness is just so necessary for the change required and who truly wants there to be any repeat of the sex abuse malignancy the Churchs have experienced in that old atmosphere of secrecy?

Ignatius urges me to focus on confessing, and repenting, the sins of one person: me. Given the choice, it’s always more tempting to confess the sins of other people instead of mine. In Ignatian spirituality, transparency means I see my own sins clearly. In the talk-show generation, the Media urges us to be obsessed with the sins of others, and opaque to our own. Your post assumes the sins of Clinton or Kennedy to be of greater concern than - well, my sins, for instance, or the average person. Interesting.

Ignatius urges us to reject the spirituality or “standard” of “the World” - not because the World is worse than me, but because focusing on it – or “transparency” to it - causes me to be opaque to my own potential for sin, and miss opportunities for growth in holiness.

The problem with “the World” - or the Media - is not that it’s unspiritual. Actually the media and politicians that they control are preaching and moralizing more than ever, the secularists constantly talk about “spirituality”. Every act of evil is justified as “justice” or “equality”. Ignatius trusted church leaders, and distrusted the spirituality of the World. The media urges the opposite.

 

[LongingSoul]

In a new thread started by the news bot the following is reported…

"Some of the top allies of Pope Francis have defended the Pontiff’s harsh criticism of the Roman Curia, saying that the Pope has the full support of the College of Cardinals.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, a member of the Council of Cardinals, told reporters that Pope Francis knew when he was elected that reform was needed at the Vatican. He said that “Pope Francis is doing that with great energy, and he has our support.”

Cardinal O’Malley went on to suggest that the Pope’s address to the Roman Curia, which took the form of a suggested examination of conscience, was like a meditation by “a Jesuit novice master.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23610&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29

 

[shelby_sun]

The Pope cannot worry about what the media will do or say. He knows what he actually said as does the Curia, that is all that matters. This kind of things should have been said by every Pope throughout the Church existence. It is always the Pope’s responsibility and duty to guide the Curia and if it has come to the point where some scolding needs to take place, then good for Pope Francis.

I was not a big fan of Pope Francis for speaking up. It only tells me that things are far uglier then even I imagined. I always like it better when the leader of an organization or company is a part of the exposure of the corruption rather than a part of the cover up. I think the world will also have more respect for the Church because the Pope is heading this issue and including himself.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Ignatius urges me to focus on confessing, and repenting, the sins of one person: me. Given the choice, it’s always more tempting to confess the sins of other people instead of mine. In Ignatian spirituality, transparency means I see my own sins clearly. In the talk-show generation, the Media urges us to be obsessed with the sins of others, and opaque to our own. Your post assumes the sins of Clinton or Kennedy to be of greater concern than - well, my sins, for instance, or the average person. Interesting.

Ignatius urges us to reject the spirituality or “standard” of “the World” - not because the World is worse than me, but because focusing on it – or “transparency” to it - causes me to be opaque to my own potential for sin, and miss opportunities for growth in holiness.

The problem with “the World” - or the Media - is not that it’s unspiritual. Actually the media and politicians that they control are preaching and moralizing more than ever, the secularists constantly talk about “spirituality”. Every act of evil is justified as “justice” or “equality”. Ignatius trusted church leaders, and distrusted the spirituality of the World. The media urges the opposite.

Absolutely spot on. Everybody on Twitter is a paragon of virtue when it comes to condemning the acts of others in the spotlight.

Also have you noticed the way that the media include the references to how Jesus would be against Church laws and to be more “welcoming” and “DIVERSE”? I think Jesus would be more resolute in defending church teaching and would be judged by the media in the way they do with anyone who has a contrary opinion.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think a good manager praises his staff in public and admonishes them in private. While the curia may well need a private homily on their shortcomings, I see no value in putting it on the front page of every newspaper.

By their fruit you shall know them, it will be interesting to see what fruit Pope Francis’s unique management style yields.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The former president of the Vatican city-state governorate said that the December 22 address by Pope Francis to the Roman Curia was an unprecedented attempt to spur reform at the …

More…

Humility is a Christian virtue…

 

[commenter]

Cardinal O’Malley went on to suggest that the Pope’s address to the Roman Curia, which took the form of a suggested examination of conscience, was like a meditation by “a Jesuit novice master.”]
end of earlier post

No one is arguing against the value of the pope’s suggested “examination of conscience” to the people sitting in front of him - the challenge to examine their own consciences.

Do the people on CAF, or the readers of the secular media - benefit from from hearing OTHER PERSONS’ - persons who likely have a very different life from yours - suggested examination of conscience? Or would you benefit from guidance in examination of your own conscience?

I think the average novice master, after finishing with the novices, would lead the factory workers in the local parish in a guided examination of *their own *consciences, in their somewhat different circumstances of life. He wouldn’t entertain the factory workers by telling them the examination of consciences for the novices, nor would he entertain the novices by regaling them with the examination of consciences of the factory workers.
I don’t think he would “guide” or entertain either group, by gossiping about the sins of the cardinals.

In fact, “gossip” is one of the things Pope Francis has repeatedly warned against. This is the sin the Media wallows in; and some Catholics defend the Media. They are not really defending Pope Francis.

 

[LongingSoul]

LongingSoul;12604944:

Cardinal O’Malley went on to suggest that the Pope’s address to the Roman Curia, which took the form of a suggested examination of conscience, was like a meditation by “a Jesuit novice master.”

]
end of earlier post

No one is arguing against the value of the pope’s suggested “examination of conscience” to the people sitting in front of him - the challenge to examine their own consciences.

Do the people on CAF, or the readers of the secular media - benefit from from hearing OTHER PERSONS’ - persons who likely have a very different life from yours - suggested examination of conscience? Or would you benefit from guidance in examination of your own conscience?

I think the average novice master, after finishing with the novices, would lead the factory workers in the local parish in a guided examination of *their own *consciences, in their somewhat different circumstances of life. He wouldn’t entertain the factory workers by telling them the examination of consciences for the novices, nor would he entertain the novices by regaling them with the examination of consciences of the factory workers.
I don’t think he would “guide” or entertain either group, by gossiping about the sins of the cardinals.

In fact, “gossip” is one of the things Pope Francis has repeatedly warned against. This is the sin the Media wallows in; and some Catholics defend the Media. They are not really defending Pope Francis.

You clearly have a very rigid opinion of how the Pope should have behaved. I’m curious as to your belief about his actions. Do you think he is sinning or ignorant or not a properly informed Catholic like we are? How do you account for this terrible action?

 

[LongingSoul]

In fact, “gossip” is one of the things Pope Francis has repeatedly warned against. This is the sin the Media wallows in; and some Catholics defend the Media. They are not really defending Pope Francis.

Also if people ‘gossip’ about the Cardinals because of this are they completely exonerated of the sin of gossip… or bear just a small amount… the majority of culpability being on the Pope?

 

[Prodigal_40s]

LongingSoul;12604944:

Cardinal O’Malley went on to suggest that the Pope’s address to the Roman Curia, which took the form of a suggested examination of conscience, was like a meditation by “a Jesuit novice master.”

]
end of earlier post

No one is arguing against the value of the pope’s suggested “examination of conscience” to the people sitting in front of him - the challenge to examine their own consciences.

Do the people on CAF, or the readers of the secular media - benefit from from hearing OTHER PERSONS’ - persons who likely have a very different life from yours - suggested examination of conscience? Or would you benefit from guidance in examination of your own conscience?

I think the average novice master, after finishing with the novices, would lead the factory workers in the local parish in a guided examination of *their own *consciences, in their somewhat different circumstances of life. He wouldn’t entertain the factory workers by telling them the examination of consciences for the novices, nor would he entertain the novices by regaling them with the examination of consciences of the factory workers.
I don’t think he would “guide” or entertain either group, by gossiping about the sins of the cardinals.

In fact, “gossip” is one of the things Pope Francis has repeatedly warned against. This is the sin the Media wallows in; and some Catholics defend the Media. They are not really defending Pope Francis.

Your post proves that you’re not easily fooled and it’s to the point. There are two many people who claim to be Catholic who crave the media attention.

 

[shelby_sun]

commenter;12605326:

You clearly have a very rigid opinion of how the Pope should have behaved. I’m curious as to your belief about his actions. Do you think he is sinning or ignorant or not a properly informed Catholic like we are? How do you account for this terrible action?

I always find it interesting that people on this site who have never lived among the Vatican or Curia and who have certainly not been a Pope themselves seem to know how things should be handled there.

Pope Francis did not become Pope yesterday and although he was quick to make how and where he lived when he became Pope, he seems to have taken his time in learning how things are done their and what vices are out of hand before addressing such issue. There is no one on this site who can honestly know better how these things should be addressed.

The media will do what it will with the information it gets, but that can simply not get in the way of what the Pope feels is the best way to handle this issues that have been ignored, at least in public, for far too long. I believe and trust he knows what he is doing and I praise him for looking after the Church, especially when it seems, to me any way, that he wakes up everyday and checks his own behavior and actions before he looks at anyone else.

 

[commenter]

commenter;12605326:

You clearly have a very rigid opinion of how the Pope should have behaved. I’m curious as to your belief about his actions. Do you think he is sinning or ignorant or not a properly informed Catholic like we are? How do you account for this terrible action?

You haven’t read my posts; I haven’t criticized Pope Francis.

 

[Digitonomy]

I think a good manager praises his staff in public and admonishes them in private. While the curia may well need a private homily on their shortcomings, I see no value in putting it on the front page of every newspaper.

By their fruit you shall know them, it will be interesting to see what fruit Pope Francis’s unique management style yields.

I tend to agree with you. While some may criticize the media for reporting on the Holy Father’s address, he is the one who chose such a public format to air his sharp criticisms. This is not the approach that I probably would have taken.

However, as far as I know Francis was an effective leader back in Buenos Aires, and seems to be fairly media savvy. So he presumably had a good reason for his approach in making this address. What could it be?

Sometimes such a public rebuke can be used to hold people’s feet to the fire, so that the public will hold them to account in the following months. However, these are not public officeholders, and the work of individual cardinals and their underlings is hidden from the public.

More likely, he is making his case for a coming bloodbath of reorganization in the curia. He is trying to put the “gossipers” on their back feet, so that their efforts to undermine his reform will be less effective. If he pursued massive institutional change without making this case ahead of time, there would be incessant complaints that he was weakening the Church with such disorienting changes. But if the rotten curia is already weakening the Church… you see the line of thought.

So I think it’s basically a PR offensive which will allow his upcoming curial reforms to proceed more effectively. That’s not to say the scolding is completely undeserved - but scolding a big dysfunctional organization, or the members of a big dysfunctional organization, is not likely to bring about a repentant and suddenly functional body.

 

[FollowChrist34]

More likely, he is making his case for a coming bloodbath of reorganization in the curia. He is trying to put the “gossipers” on their back feet, so that their efforts to undermine his reform will be less effective. If he pursued massive institutional change without making this case ahead of time, there would be incessant complaints that he was weakening the Church with such disorienting changes. But if the rotten curia is already weakening the Church… you see the line of thought.

So I think it’s basically a PR offensive which will allow his upcoming curial reforms to proceed more effectively. That’s not to say the scolding is completely undeserved - but scolding a big dysfunctional organization, or the members of a big dysfunctional organization, is not likely to bring about a repentant and suddenly functional body.

Well, we can all agree there are problems in the Curia. That, along with personal health issues, was a big, big part of Benedict’s decision to step down. He realized the Church was in crisis and that strong, focused leadership was needed. We are talking about financial and moral corruption, right, in the Vatican’s banking systems, sex scandals and the handling and mishandling of them, an active gay lobby going way up, and many other institutionalized forms of cronyism and careerism at high levels in the Church. My guess is we don’t know the half of it.

I’ve worked in a number of law firms - probably not the best comparison , but I’ve watched big blowouts between managing partners. Firm wide meetings, partners storming out of the firm with associates and clients, you name it. Of course, it all depends on which side you are on (and, of course, I am always on the just side ), but, believe me, it is WONDERFUL to attend the first meeting with the new managing partner and his people you wanted there. Restoring order is ugly and painful and meets with incredible resistance. People feed off of organizations for their own benefit and cause much harm to others (often unfortunately winning many of these battles for overall control). To me, what the Pope is doing here is very healthy and very Christian, even causing a trickle down effect of new life and authenticity for us as laity. Frankly, I don’t agree with all of his agenda as I can see it, his priorities (i.e., communion for the divorced, etc.), but here I am with him 100%.