Demos II
Our very own Japanese young lady, 雲水, aka Lain, asked on the previous post: "What's going on at the Vatican?"
The subject of this post may help shed some light on this.
A Catholic outlet based in Italy called The Daily Compass published an open letter written by someone claiming to be a cardinal of the Church in collaboration with other cardinals and bishops. The article, titled "A Profile of the Next Pope" criticises the pontificate of Pope Francis as a “catastrophe.”
The author decries the pope as an autocratic ruler who accepts no dissent
and blasts him for using papal authority at his discretion. They encourage
other cardinals to get to know each other to understand one
another’s perspectives better before the next conclave.
“The Vatican Tomorrow” also acknowledges the strengths of the Francis papacy: “the added emphasis [Francis] has given to compassion toward the weak, outreach to the poor and marginalized, concern for the dignity of creation and the environmental issues that flow from it, and efforts to accompany the suffering and alienated in their burdens.”
The text also argues that the flaws of the current pontificate “are equally obvious” and serious, with damaging effect. As a result, “the task of the next pontificate must therefore be one of recovery and reestablishment of truths that have been slowly obscured or lost among many Christians.”
Here's the full text:
The Vatican Tomorrow
In March 2022, an anonymous text appeared – signed “Demos” and
titled the “The
Vatican Today” – that raised a number of serious questions and criticisms
regarding the pontificate of Pope Francis. Conditions in the Church since that
text appeared have not materially changed, much less improved. Thus, the
thoughts offered here are intended to build on those original reflections in
light of the needs of the Vatican tomorrow.
The concluding years of a pontificate, any pontificate, are a
time to assess the condition of the Church in the present, and the needs of the
Church and her faithful going forward. It is clear that the strength of Pope
Francis’ pontificate is the added emphasis he has given to compassion toward
the weak, outreach to the poor and marginalized, concern for the dignity of
creation and the environmental issues that flow from it, and efforts to
accompany the suffering and alienated in their burdens.
Its shortcomings are equally obvious: an
autocratic, at times seemingly vindictive, style of governance; a carelessness
in matters of law; an intolerance for even respectful disagreement; and – most
seriously – a pattern of ambiguity in matters of faith and morals causing
confusion among the faithful. Confusion breeds division and conflict. It
undermines confidence in the Word of God. It weakens evangelical witness. And
the result today is a Church more fractured than at any time in her recent
history.
The task of the next pontificate must therefore be one of recovery
and reestablishment of truths that have been slowly obscured
or lost among many Christians. These include but are not limited to such basics
as the following: (a) no one is saved except through, and only through,
Jesus Christ, as he himself made clear; (b) God is merciful but also just, and
is intimately concerned with every human life, He forgives but He also holds us
accountable, He is both Savior and Judge; (c) man is God’s creature, not a
self-invention, a creature not merely of emotion and appetites but also of
intellect, free will, and an eternal destiny; (d) unchanging objective truths
about the world and human nature exist and are knowable through Divine
Revelation and the exercise of reason; (e) God’s Word, recorded in Scripture,
is reliable and has permanent force; (f) sin is real and its effects are
lethal; and (g) his Church has both the authority and the duty to “make
disciples of all nations.” The failure to joyfully embrace that work of
missionary, salvific love has consequences. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians
9:16, “woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel.”
Some practical observations flow from the task and list above.
First: Real authority is damaged by
authoritarian means in its exercise. The Pope is a
Successor of Peter and the guarantor of Church unity. But he is not an
autocrat. He cannot change Church doctrine, and he must not invent or alter the
Church’s discipline arbitrarily. He governs the Church collegially with his
brother bishops in local dioceses. And he does so always in
faithful continuity with the Word of God and Church teaching. “New paradigms”
and “unexplored new paths” that deviate from either are not of God. A new Pope
must restore the hermeneutic of continuity in Catholic life and reassert
Vatican II’s understanding of the papacy’s proper role.
Second: Just as the Church is not an
autocracy, neither is she a democracy. The Church belongs to
Jesus Christ. She is his Church. She is Christ’s Mystical Body, made up of many
members. We have no authority to refashion her teachings to fit more
comfortably with the world. Moreover, the Catholic sensus
fidelium is not a matter of opinion surveys nor even the view of a
baptized majority. It derives only from those who genuinely believe and
actively practice, or at least sincerely seek to practice, the faith and
teachings of the Church.
Third: Ambiguity is neither
evangelical nor welcoming. Rather, it breeds doubt and
feeds schismatic impulses. The Church is a community not just of Word and
sacrament, but also of creed. What we believe helps to define and sustain us.
Thus, doctrinal issues are not burdens imposed by unfeeling “doctors of the
law.” Nor are they cerebral sideshows to the Christian life. On the contrary,
they’re vital to living a Christian life authentically, because they deal with
applications of the truth, and the truth demands clarity, not ambivalent
nuance. From the start, the current pontificate has resisted the evangelical
force and intellectual clarity of its immediate predecessors. The dismantling
and repurposing of Rome’s John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and
Family and the marginalizing of texts like Veritatis
Splendor suggest an elevation of “compassion” and emotion at the expense of
reason, justice, and truth. For a creedal community, this is both unhealthy and
profoundly dangerous.
Fourth: The Catholic Church, in
addition to Word, sacrament, and creed, is also a community of law. Canon law
orders Church life, harmonizes its institutions and procedures, and guarantees
the rights of believers. Among the marks of the current pontificate are its
excessive reliance on the motu proprio as a
tool for governance and a general carelessness and distaste for canonical
detail. Again, as with ambiguity of doctrine, disregard for canon law and
proper canonical procedure undermines confidence in the purity of the Church’s
mission.
Fifth: The Church, as John XXIII so
beautifully described her, is mater et magistra, the
“mother and teacher” of humanity, not its dutiful follower; the defender of man
as the subject of history, not its object. She is the bride of Christ; her
nature is personal, supernatural, and intimate, not merely institutional. She
can never be reduced to a system of flexible ethics or sociological analysis
and remodeling to fit the instincts and appetites (and sexual confusions) of an
age. One of the key flaws in the current pontificate is its retreat from a
convincing “theology of the body” and its lack of a compelling Christian
anthropology . . . precisely at a time when attacks on
human nature and identity, from transgenderism to transhumanism, are mounting.
Sixth: Global travel served a pastor
like Pope John Paul II so well because of his unique personal
gifts and the nature of the times. But the times and circumstances have
changed. The Church in Italy and throughout Europe – the historic home of the
faith – is in crisis. The Vatican itself urgently needs a renewal of its
morale, a cleansing of its institutions, procedures, and personnel, and a
thorough reform of its finances to prepare for a more challenging future. These
are not small things. They demand the presence, direct attention, and personal
engagement of any new Pope.
Seventh and finally: The College
of Cardinals exists to provide senior counsel to the Pope and
to elect his successor upon his death. That service requires men of clean
character, strong theological formation, mature leadership experience, and
personal holiness. It also requires a Pope willing to seek advice and then to
listen. It’s unclear to what degree this applies in the Pope Francis
pontificate. The current pontificate has placed an emphasis on diversifying the
college, but it has failed to bring cardinals together in regular consistories
designed to foster genuine collegiality and trust among brothers. As a result,
many of the voting electors in the next conclave will not really know each
other, and thus may be more vulnerable to manipulation. In the future, if the
college is to serve its purposes, the cardinals who inhabit it need more than a
red zucchetto and a ring. Today’s College of Cardinals should be proactive
about getting to know each other to better understand their particular views
regarding the Church, their local church situations, and their personalities –
which impact their consideration of the next pope.
Readers will quite reasonably ask why this text is anonymous. The
answer should be evident from the tenor of today’s Roman environment: Candor is
not welcome, and its consequences can be unpleasant. And yet these thoughts
could continue for many more paragraphs, noting especially the current
pontificate’s heavy dependence on the Society of Jesus, the recent problematic
work by the DDF’s Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, and the emergence of a
small oligarchy of confidants with excessive influence within the Vatican – all
despite synodality’s decentralizing claims, among other things.
Exactly because of these matters, the
cautionary reflections noted here may be useful in the months ahead. It is
hoped that this contribution will help guide much needed conversations about
what the Vatican should look like in the next pontificate.
Demos II
Traditionally cardinals are not supposed to discuss who they want as a successor of the present pope until after he has died but Francis has caused such shocks in the Church that debate has already begun about how to regain confidence in the authority of the Holy See and the Magisterium.
One very pro-Francis Catholic website had this to say about the letter:
These opponents have demonstrated a blatant willingness to ignore Church norms and lobby outside a conclave that could theoretically elect one of them pope. Their misguided attempt to influence a future conclave sabotages the legitimacy of that papal election ...
The seedy affair further tarnishes the reputation of the Church at
a time when trust in all institutions is crumbling.
The Church is in no need of dishonorable cardinals who play power games to elect a potential future pope who has neither courage nor integrity. The anonymous authors have sullied their vocations, tainted the next papal election, and contributed to the culture of corruption. Such a person has no business voting for pope or becoming one.
Another more balanced website observes:
The anonymity of the text, however reasonable its motives, inevitably weakens its effect and opens it to criticism. But given the nature and scope of today’s problems in the Catholic Church, the substance of “The Vatican Tomorrow” can’t easily be dismissed. One can hope that at least some of its concerns will inform the thinking of the next conclave.
A lot to digest, but one thing which immediately jumps off the page is the absolute brass neck of the people behind Where Peter Is to complain about " a blatant willingness to ignore Church norms and lobby outside a conclave." I don't recall any complaints on their part when a Jesuit was elevated to the papal throne in flagrant defiance of the order's constitution not to seek or accept office unless ordered to by a higher authority. In the absence of a reigning pope, who exactly ordered the then-Cardinal Bergoglio to accept the papacy? The Church, like the world, has a left wing, and like the world, the left in the Church never seems to see the need to hold itself to the same standards it demands of the right.
ReplyDeleteAs to the body of the letter, I tend to agree with it. The first duty of a Christian is the salvation of his own soul, and the Church is the vessel which is supposed to bring us to Heaven. It can't do that if it's taking day trips up the Amazon to save the rain forests, or along the Rio Grande to help the illegals breach the US border. That is simply not its place, and any future pope would do well to remember that.
Sorry about the italics. I meant to limit them to the name of the website, Where Peter Is, but I seem to have made a bags of it and there's no way to correct on this site.
DeleteNot to worry ,,,
DeleteActually, on balance, I think the letter is pretty accurate about the poor leadership of Pope Francis which has become ever more apparent of late.
DeleteThere have always been factions vying for power and influence in the Vatican and for the Chair of Peter. It's nothing new. Anyone knowing Church history will be aware of this. What's new however, is for cardinals to be so blatantly, publicly opposed to the pope and to use a website in this way. It's a sign of the misuse of social media.
For cardinal(s) to behave in this manner is unacceptable and damaging for the Church and undermines the faith of the laity. We just don't need it!
I'm not sure I agree with Jack on this one. There is a section in Thomas Aquinas which speaks about rebellion. He's referring to civil revolt against the secular power, but it might just as easily apply to the Church. Aquinas holds that, even where the prince is a bad ruler, it's better to suck it up and wait for the next guy to take over. HOWEVER...if a rebellion IS necessary, then it should be led by the subordinate nobles, what John Calvin would later term "the lesser magistrates", as they have a responsibility for the public good.
DeleteNow, I'm not suggesting rebellion, but rather, my point is that the "lesser magistrates" of the Church -- the cardinals and bishops -- do actually have a responsibility to try to correct the ship when it's capsizing, maybe even if that means publicly opposing Francis. How blatantly they oppose him is, of course, a matter of opinion, but there are times when inaction is not an option. If this is one of those times, then maybe we actually DO need it.
But we're not protestants and Pope Francis may be a poor leader but a heretic he isn't - though some of his closest advisors may be. The disquiet from the more conservative wing of the Church has been building steadily since AL and finally erupted over FS.
DeleteReally, the only part of the "Where Peter Is" article I completely agree with is on the loyalty owed the pope by cardinals.
The Profession of Faith and the oath of fidelity by new cardinals:.
"I, N., Cardinal of Holy Roman Church, promise and swear, from this day forth and as long as I live, to remain faithful to Christ and his Gospel, constantly obedient to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, become members of the Roman clergy and cooperate more directly in N. and his canonically elected successors, always to remain in communion with the Catholic Church in my words and actions, not to make known to anyone matters entrusted to me in confidence, the disclosure of which could bring damage or dishonour to Holy Church, to carry out diligently and faithfully the duties to which I am called in my service to the Church, according to the norms laid down by law. So help me Almighty God."
The rest of their article is worth a read for the insight into the opposing position on Pope Francis.
I'm not sure exactly how the Demos II article breaks the pledge Jack quotes. There is such a thing as fraternal correction. And I don't think the article actually uses the word "heretic," nor do I claim Francis is one. Let us both agree that Francis is not a good pope, and by this I mean he is not proficient in the direction he's taking the Church and the papacy, not necessarily that he is not personally a good man. The problem is that good men generally make appallingly bad leaders. Pius XII was a great man and a great pope. But was he a GOOD man? This is much more contentious. Inasmuch as he discharged the office he was entrusted with in the best possible way in impossible circumstances, even, perhaps, at the cost of personal contentment, you might argue he was a good man. On the other hand, Michael Foot is generally regarded as a decent human being, but is today remembered as one of the worst leaders the Labour Party ever had. Do you see the problem?
DeleteOne commenter asked on the previous post: "What's going on at the Vatican?"
ReplyDeleteI've been unpersoned!
I think this all quite neatly sums up how divisive this papacy has been - a Great Leap Forward if one is a 'progressive', and a disaster if one is a traditionalist. But I also wonder how much of this is unique to Francis, and how much of it is business as usual, but with social media and the internet allowing every movement of the Pope to be immediately subjected to worldwide scrutiny and the chattering of the blogosphere. One wonders what would have happen during the pontificates of, for example, John XII or Alexander VI had the internet existed then.
"I've been unpersoned!"
DeleteIsn't the modern term "gaslighted"? Difficult to spell 雲水, but I'll amend the article.
This is the long-standing divisions within the Church since before Vatican II playing out. Pope St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI held a balance between the factions and exercised stronger leadership over matters of doctrine.
"One wonders what would have happened during the pontificates of, for example, John XII or Alexander VI had the internet existed then."
Total meltdown! And in those days the papacy was a stitch-up between rival families. By comparison Demos II is a single raindrop. However, neither pope taught heterodoxy or sought to change liturgy - probably because they were too busy with other "affairs".
Much improved!
DeleteIsn't the modern term "gaslighted"?
Gaslighting is manipulating someone to make them doubt the truth or their own sanity, particularly when they're pointing out some wrongdoing by the perpetrator. It comes from Patrick Hamilton's 1938 play Gas Light:
----
The play is set in fog-bound London in 1880, at the upper middle class home of Jack Manningham and his wife Bella. It is late afternoon, a time that Hamilton notes as the time "before the feeble dawn of gaslight and tea." Bella is clearly on edge, and the stern reproaches of her overbearing husband (who flirts with the servants in front of his wife) make matters worse. What most perturbs Bella is Jack's unexplained disappearances from the house: he will not tell her where he is going, and this increases her anxiety. It becomes clear that Jack is intent on convincing Bella that she is going insane, even to the point of assuring her she is imagining that the gas light in the house is dimming.
The appearance of a police detective called Rough leads Bella to realise that Jack is responsible for her torment. Rough explains that the apartment above was once occupied by one Alice Barlow, a wealthy woman who was murdered for her jewels. The murderer was never found.
Jack goes to the flat each night to search for the jewels, and lighting the apartment's gas lights causes the lights to dim in the rest of the building. His footsteps in the supposedly empty apartment persuade Bella that she is "hearing things". Rough convinces Bella to assist him in exposing Jack as the murderer, which she does, but not before she takes revenge on Jack by pretending to help him escape. At the last minute she reminds him that, having gone insane, she is not accountable for her actions. The play closes with Jack being led away by the police.
-----
In modern use, gaslighting is something like telling people who complain about weekly antisemitic marches in the capital that the real problem is their own racism.
However, neither pope taught heterodoxy or sought to change liturgy - probably because they were too busy with other "affairs".
I wonder if modern communications have contributed to this. No other pope's 'supreme, full, immediate and universal power' has been able to be exercised quite so immediately.
I do wonder, too, where the line is drawn between teaching heterodoxy and allowing it to be taught. Does there come a point where 'it's not my fault that so many people are interpreting my ambiguously worded documents in an heretical fashion' is the equivalent of simply outright teaching falsehood?
I could understand that there would be problems initially moving from Pope Benedict's very precise and almost forensic theology and Francis' much more loosely worded and often spontaneous statements, but that such things are still happening after so long and that there is so little corrective action taken, leads me to wonder how innocent it all is.
I think your last point is covered well by the third point in the Demos II letter: Ambiguity is neither evangelical nor welcoming.
DeleteThis concluding remark also:
"And yet these thoughts could continue for many more paragraphs, noting especially the current pontificate’s heavy dependence on the Society of Jesus, the recent problematic work by the DDF’s Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, and the emergence of a small oligarchy of confidants with excessive influence within the Vatican – all despite synodality’s decentralizing claims, among other things."
I understand this to be saying there is a small group of cardinals and advisors pulling Francis' strings and that he is ignoring the college of bishops and other cardinals.
Perhaps there are a group pulling the strings, the question is how willing the puppet is to dance, to continue the metaphor. History has given us popes held hostage (sometimes literally) by their advisors, but it's given us some popes who are quite happily bad, too.
DeleteIn any hierarchical system, the person at the top will inevitably be indebted to those who put him there - my support comes with the understanding that you'll oil the wheels for me when you're in charge. Of course, this shouldn't happen in a church, but I don't think we're naïve enough to think that human nature changes because it puts on a red hat. If compromised cardinals elect a compromised pope, who then stacks the deck by making more compromised cardinals, I'm not sure how you ever get out of that vicious circle.
Time may be the answer. Right now, the deans of the seminaries around the world are quietly voicing frustration with the quality of the men entering them. By this I mean the devotion of these men to the traditions of the Church. Until relatively recently, if you were found, say, reciting the Rosary, or attending benediction, they'd find a way to get you out. The problem they have now is basically the absolute desolation and emptiness of the new doctrines they're trying to impose on the faithful. The faithful won't have them because they're not Catholic, and it's the faithful who provide the seminarians. The kind of people who like the kumbaya Church don't actually attend, much less believe to the point of giving their lives to it. Right now, it requires the fanaticism of St Paul to become a priest, and those are the only kind of men actually going forward. Simply put, the aging sixties hipsters who are currently in charge, personified in Francis, just can't keep them out any longer. That means that, in turn, they'll become bishops because there is no one else to choose from, then cardinals, and eventually, a pope will emerge from their number. Already, I'm noticing that younger priests are tending towards a more conservative outlook. The question is, how much damage can the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd do before they're bred out of the system?
Deletehttps://youtu.be/b7H4HumAbTU?si=POplc8hYnHOjErnx
ReplyDeleteHappy Saint Patricks Day Jack ! I still remember all the words to this one. ....Rall
Thank you Cressie, much appreciated.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/E8gVXz8ZlHI?si=lKKBu9LcCPNs4O-j
ReplyDeleteWould be good to join you for a Guinness and a bit of Irish dancing . Hope you are wearing your green jacket and tie to Mass this Sunday:).....Rall
Oops Rall is my poetry blog name.....Cressida
ReplyDeleteAny C of E insiders here? Is this a Spectator journalist’s exaggeration for dramatic effect, or is it simply the plain truth about the Church Commissioners and their latest wheeze?
ReplyDeleteIf it’s true, then why are they singling out Africa as the victim of the Church’s missionary efforts? Why not issue a grovelling apology, at the same time, to the pagan Ephesians, Corinthians, Thessalonians and others who were the victims of evangelization in an earlier period?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-the-c-of-e-about-to-say-sorry-for-christianity/
From the Church of England:
Delete>>In response to a media enquiry about one of the recommendations of the recent report of the Oversight Group to the Church Commissioners on African chattel enslavement, relating to missionary work, a spokesperson for the Church of England said:
“This recommendation addresses complex matters of history and theology and can be interpreted in a variety of ways but we do not believe it calls for the Church of England to apologise for spreading the Christian gospel around the world. However, we need to be transparent that appalling abuses took place in the past, supposedly in God’s name, which have absolutely nothing in common with the gospel of God’s love. For 2,000 years Christians have sought to share the gospel around the world, as Jesus commissioned his disciples to do, and will continue to do so.”
The question relates to recommendation 32 of the report.<<
Here's recommendation 32:
32. Penitence: We call for the Church of England to apologise publicly for denying that Black Africans are made in the image of God and for seeking to destroy diverse African traditional religious belief systems. This act of repair should intentionally facilitate ongoing and new sociological, historical and theological research into spiritual traditions in Africa and the diaspora, thereby enabling a fresh dialogue between African
traditional belief systems and the Gospel. This work should reach beyond theological institutions and be presented in ways that will enable all Africans, especially descendants of the enslaved to discover the varied belief systems and spiritual practices of their forebears and their efficacy. We recommend the Commissioners work with all faith-based communities to which descendants of African chattel enslavement belong.
@ Ray S.
DeleteWorth reading this and linked article:
https://virtueonline.org/cofe-going-apologize-christianity-over-evils-slavery-are-british-christians-islamophobic-cofe-givers
[Quote:] “We call for the Church of England to apologise publicly for … seeking to destroy diverse African traditional religious belief systems.”
DeleteIs it possible for missionaries to convert pagans to the Christian faith while preserving intact those pagans’ traditional religious belief systems? The Church Commissioners sound very confident that the answer is “Yes, whyever not?”. Some people might cast doubt on that assertion.
The Church Commissioners are evidently as good with theology as they are at finance. It's possible to 'baptise' elements of local culture, but you can't simply import one religious belief system into another (although in the pluralist mess that the CofE is descending into, maybe you can). They seem to also forget that it's quite often converts themselves who destroy their old idols and renounce their old rituals.
DeleteThere have been times when Christians have forcibly converted people, and this was wrong. But the belief systems they replaced were also likely forced on people by conquest at some point, just as Roman gods and emperor worship were transplanted onto existing Celtic deities, and Norse ones after that, and so on. Where does one stop? There is also another large global religion that has been far from shy in compelling conversion among subjugated people, but nobody wants to talk about that.
Hope you don't mind but I posted your comment on
Deletehttps://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/the-fund-for-healing-repair-and-justice-a-discussion/comment-page-1/#comment-453914
That's ok, my syndication rates are quite reasonable ☺️
DeleteSend the invoice to:
DeleteMr Happy Jack
Crannoggy Island
Mists of Time
Great Britain
Inasmuch as the Church desperately needs an uncompromising, visionary pope who truly believes that there is no salvation outside, this, from Gavin Ashenden, is relevant
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/kT-pIPYcxFo?si=oCVogVcCjcpY7Yrt