I admit that it ill accords with the hyper papalism which has been the order of the day since Vatican I, but it has the virtue of being true. Normally the popes have given wise leadership, which over twenty centuries is unprecedented in the history of Man. However, every now and then, as history teaches us, we have a real rotter as Pope, and then it is Katie bar the Door. I confess to feeling little of the anguish of many good Catholics over this, since I have always approached the institution of the papacy as a historical study, my normal approach to looking at most things in life.
We Get A Bum Pope Every Now and Then Father
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Papal primacy and even infallibility are supportable.
The papal supremacy/totalitarianism we have now is not. It’s ahistorical as well as poisonous, and can only work if there is a self-denying Saint at the top.
Which means, of course, that it does not work. What’s left of Catholicism in the 2100s is going to prune the office back.
I recall decades ago when my theology teacher, a priest with a rather skeptical view of the world in general, told us of the unsatisfactory popes in history. He did note that most of these tended to be quite conventional theologically. Alexander VI, was about as disreputable as they come, but was a staunch defender of tradition and orthodox theology. Unfortunately, we now have a tendency to adapt the Church to the zeitgeist rather than the reverse.
The worst popes as a group were the sorry collection known as the Pornocracy, scattered across about 850-950. The Cluniac Reforms, which reduced secular influence, gave us better popes in the High Middle Ages. The changes of Trent went further, and we are unlikely to have an Alexander VI, Julius II, Leo X or Paul III. While restricting papal voting to select high-ranking clerics has its own flaws, it’s better than what went before. We’ve had a good run from Pius VII (beginning 1800) until now: decent, orthodox men at least, even if we question some policies. Francis seems to be sneaking laypeople back into decision-making positions, reversing the changes of a millennium. Lay influence at that level represents the influence of the rich laity (right now, wealthy Germans and Americans trying to buy their way out of the Sixth Commandment, and ChiCom fans wanting a new Ostpolitik to cover their slave profits). Why would we want back what experience tells us we’re well rid of?
[…] CATHOLIC’S ‘NON-HYPER-PAPALIST’ DON MCCLAREY THINKS FRANCISES HAPPEN BECAUSE […]
If I approach the institution of the papacy as a historical study, I am still a part of the story- cannot detach myself or my 17 grandchildren- I can not be a. disinterested observer. We watch and pray.
Here’s a thought I cut and pasted from OnePeterFive just now
“ Augustine of Hippo, by the way, in explaining the Johannine account of the “cleansing of the Temple” (and it might have happened twice, once at an earlier Passover pilgrimage) says that Christ’s reaction teaches us how to deal with evildoers:
Prohibe quos potes, tene quos potes, terre quos potes, quibus potes blandire; noli tamen quiescere… Stop those whom you can, restrain whom you can, frighten whom you can, allure gently whom you can, do not, however, rest silent (tr. Io. 10.9).”