Saturday, January 23, 2016

Failure of executive power in the Church: from John XXIII to John Paul II

In "Failure of the Executive Power" (Super Fluma Babylonis), the author assumes that at all times each pope (John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II) acted in what he regarded as the best interests of the Church; hence the criticisms he offers are not intended to reflect on the personal integrity of these popes. Yet, he says, it is possible for a saint to err. What he claims, accordingly, is that each of these popes played a part in the abdication of the Church's authority -- an authority that must be restored if the Church is to exercise the fullness of her sanctifying role in the world.

[Hat tip to Sir. A.S.]


John L said...

The actions of Paul VI that the author describes are not failures to exercise authority at all, but exercises of it; they were just exercises that betrayed the Church and those loyal to it.

Chuck Martelowski said...

Thank you John L for pointing out the absurdity of the proposition that the most powerful man in the Church somehow always manages to fail to exercise power.

So called "failures to act" are, no less than actions, the products of decisions. A pope, even one who has benefitted from feverish efforts at canonization, should be called to account for his decisions, but never is, because ultramontanism doth make cowards of us all.

Anonymous said...

I hope this is not a surprise to anyone. I am 61, I don't remember a "good" Pope.