In theory the Pope is an absolute monarch. That is not true in actual fact, although many popes have believed the theory. One of many problems with this is that it tends to produce a Rupnik debacle where a pope comes a cropper because he believes that if he wants something he can get it simply because he wants it, justice and other factors be hanged.
[…] – 7M/CC Skepticism Over Pope’s About-Face in Rupnik Case – Elise Ann Allen at Crux Pope Francis & the Rupnik Synod – Donald R. McClarey, Esq., at The American […]
An example for future Popes?
Just maybe the ambiguous mumblings and pronouncements put forth by this pontificate will become an infamous example for future Popes, to speak with clarity and boldly defend Holy Catholic Church without vitriol and without shame, to a culture who demands change from a divine universal Church who’s foundation will never crack, never adulterate or never fail in the mission to baptize everyone in The Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Evangelizing is our calling through our actions of love of neighbor. Enabling our neighbors to continue in their sin is neither love nor compassion, yet defending the faith in charity is laying down your life for a stranger. We don’t play along just to get along. Eternity is forever.
We lead with Christ the King.
He is the Truth – the Way – and the Life.
Anything else is insufficient and ineffective to everlasting Life.
Rupnik’s and any other religious, who’s past activities that are unbecoming of a son of God, should be addressed via investigation.
Dirt swept under the carpet just creates more filth. Unfortunately a deep cleansing is still needed… even after the 2001 Clergy Odyssey.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255850/vatican-releases-synod-on-synodality-report-proposing-larger-role-for-laity-in-church
He can cosplay the “absolute monarch” thing if he is exercising his role properly and has a proper understanding of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But until then…
Most Popes in my lifetime, for better or worse, relied more on persuasion and example to bring about their will. They actually believed in collegiality, whereas Francis merely pays it lip service.
But relying on persuasion and example not only takes time and patience and a willingness to work with those who disagree; it requires that one have the integrity and the intellectual rigor to be persuasive. Francis’ word salad speeches and writings are never going to persuade his opposition because they are palpably dishonest and absurd.
So Francis has to fall back on “because I say so”. Which is why his papal court is stuffed with sycophants and amoral hacks and worse— because men with integrity have no place there.
He’s a stupid, petulant, shabby little man who’s reign has contributed nothing to the Church. His attempt to correct God’s mistakes and redesign His Church to model Francis’ own preferences will ultimately collapse because only his circle of cronies support him, and that’s only because miming support is their meal ticket.
Francis’ reign would be just a bad joke if it weren’t for the fact that souls are at stake. That contemptible little man will have a lot to answer for one day…
Clinton – “relied more on persuasion and example” – There’s really something to this. I’d say they were democrats, or part of the Enlightenment tradition, or liberals, but each of those terms seems wrong and almost insulting.