Reforming the Vatican? What do you think?

[2Cosmic2Charlie]

Some structures at the Vatican have changed. It will be interesting over the next two decades to watch one thing. Vatican II called for more collegiality and synodality with the bishops of the world.

Accomplishing this has been regulated various degrees of importance over the years. But it is really moving to the forefront as some ecumenical discussions with our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters require a focus on the role of bishops.

That and some other things has moved it to the forefront recently. This potentially has some very profound effects of the set up of the Curia and the current dicastery systems. And may bring to a head some subtle issues between the Bishops and the Curial structure.

Davey, buddy, one more time like I four years old......

 

[pumpkin princess]

The Vatican hasn't been an absolutist monarchy for its entire existence.

how long has it been an abosulitist monarchy?

 

[Davidnic]

Davey, buddy, one more time like I four years old......

Vatican II wanted the bishops to have a greater role of governance along with the Pope. This would also be helpful in bridging part of the gap with our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters (at least somewhat on the role of Bishops...a little). It actually has been coming to the forefront in a bunch of ways lately. And Vatican II moved toward this for a number of reasons...but the form of the execution of it all has not manifested.

But the current set up, with so much authority in the Cardinal senate and their subdivision committees (The Dicasteries) ...often creates friction between the Cardinals and the Bishops synod.

I think that something in that dynamic will change in the next decade or so...with the Bishops Synod getting a stronger voice.

 

[D'Ann]

Interesting thread. Thanks.

 

[Technocrat2010]

I'm just waiting for Pope Benedict XVI to get a Facebook account...

 

[Fantine]

Those of you who are employed in corporate America have no doubt experienced the nightmares of micromanagement.

For those of you who haven't, read "Dilbert."

The Church survived for 2,000 years when communication was very poor, and handwritten letters took months to deliver.

It survived before the publication of the Gutenberg Bible, when monks painstakingly copied sacred documents.

It is surviving, even thriving, in areas of the world where there are few telephones and computers and transportation systems. It is surviving in parts of Africa that are only accessible by jeep and where there are no paved roads.

That's the Holy Spirit, guys.

So now there are some parts of the world where the Pope could keep the entire Church under constant video and audio surveillance.

But that doesn't mean he should.

And that doesn't mean the Church would be better if he did.

To me, the centralized, micromanaged Church indicates one thing--the lack of trust in God and the Holy Spirit, our ultimate guides, by all-too-human members of the Curiae.

 

[JoabAnias]

I think that something in that dynamic will change in the next decade or so...with the Bishops Synod getting a stronger voice.

I do too and this time in conciliarity with the majority of the East. At least I believe that is the Popes direction as he has commented in meetings with the EP's that he believes its time to make further concessions for the sake of unity (as well as alluded to by several of his predecessors) and I'm not saying this to open a can of worms with the EO. The ecumenical commission really has made great strides since they first opened its meetings. There are however many outposts (so to speak) of divergence (even among Catholics) that I think the Magisterium could reign in with modern telecom tech and even the USCCB could benefit with a tighter relationship sometimes and visa v the Magisterium could also benefit by being in closer touch with modern and cultural issues. I just envision a more cohesive or nearly a single global synod someday. (probably not soon in our life time though but within the up and coming generation).

 

[JoabAnias]

Those of you who are employed in corporate America have no doubt experienced the nightmares of micromanagement.

For those of you who haven't, read "Dilbert."

The Church survived for 2,000 years when communication was very poor, and handwritten letters took months to deliver.

It survived before the publication of the Gutenberg Bible, when monks painstakingly copied sacred documents.

It is surviving, even thriving, in areas of the world where there are few telephones and computers and transportation systems. It is surviving in parts of Africa that are only accessible by jeep and where there are no paved roads.

That's the Holy Spirit, guys.

So now there are some parts of the world where the Pope could keep the entire Church under constant video and audio surveillance.

But that doesn't mean he should.

And that doesn't mean the Church would be better if he did.

To me, the centralized, micromanaged Church indicates one thing--the lack of trust in God and the Holy Spirit, our ultimate guides, by all-too-human members of the Curiae.

Technology shouldn't be viewed as a vehicle to be under surveillance or to micromanage but one of conciliarity, cooperation and unity. (I understand how it is in the corp world but were talking about the familial world).

This later is the attitude of the Magisterium and the synods who are aren't suspicious of micromanagement from the Church and in many places cut off only by necessity.

Here is a practical example: A child grows up and achieves independence, does that mean he should no longer have healthy contact with his parents even though he may survive and even thrive without it?

Here is another: Families survived and remained families for generations without modern communications. (spent 3 yrs oversees in the 80's when a phone call home was $1 a min myself). Would I have been better off without having called though? Or, if the resource is available, why shouldn't I avail myself of it? Does this mean even if the resource is available, maybe I shouldn't? We are using techology right now.

 

[JoabAnias]

I'm just waiting for Pope Benedict XVI to get a Facebook account...

I bet he is already there and on Myspace too. (Though not actually himself. )

 

[Technocrat2010]

Those of you who are employed in corporate America have no doubt experienced the nightmares of micromanagement.

That's why micromanagement is generally stigmatized in the workplace. I work in a field where I come into contact with corporate-types and micromanagement is definitely not what describes them. But to each his/her own.

So now there are some parts of the world where the Pope could keep the entire Church under constant video and audio surveillance.

But that doesn't mean he should.

And that doesn't mean the Church would be better if he did.

The point being...?

To me, the centralized, micromanaged Church indicates one thing--the lack of trust in God and the Holy Spirit, our ultimate guides, by all-too-human members of the Curiae.

Can you explain further?

 

[Technocrat2010]

I bet he is already there and on Myspace too. (Though not actually himself. )

I guess Martin Luther was right when he talked about the hundreds of popes that would arise after he left...

 

[LivingWordUnity]

What the Church Can Learn from Other Institutions

What other organized institution has lasted 2,000 years?

 

[JoabAnias]

I guess Martin Luther was right when he talked about the hundreds of popes that would arise after he left...

Hundreds... of thousands maybe.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I dunno, the Church isn't a democracy and these ideas sound to me just like another Western-centric push to turn everything into a democracy.

That's what I think too.

 

[Technocrat2010]

I dunno, the Church isn't a democracy and these ideas sound to me just like another Western-centric push to turn everything into a democracy, despite the modern democracy having yet to prove it's long term viability and sustainability.

A similar push is being observed in the scientific community regarding so-called "intelligent design" proponents (IMHO, relabled creationists). There is this erroneous assumption that science should operate like a democracy and that all scientific claims, no matter how absurd, should be treated with equal validity.

 

[JoabAnias]

I dunno, the Church isn't a democracy and these ideas sound to me just like another Western-centric push to turn everything into a democracy, despite the modern democracy having yet to prove it's long term viability and sustainability.

Interesting statement Mrs. I learned in some history course somewhere that there has been no democracy which has lasted much more than two centuries. Seems were past that now but for how much longer may be anyones guess. I think our form of government is a hodgepodge of what has worked compared to those models though as Jefferson drew from many sources in his model such as the Magna Carte, Bible and Koran even though he was a professed agnostic. One could argue they see the signs of totalitarianism around the corner in the culture of death and others that imposing our model could be its downfall by alienating the world with arrogance but I think those are scare tactics.

Certainly the Church is not a democracy but this got me thinking about watching the Bishops conferences on TV. They do vote on most every thing. Even the Pope is elected in conclave and the Councils are run by vote as well. Its how issues are introduced that is not done by vote.

Wouldn't it be nice if all the various rites and cultures were linked someday technologically without the need to travel to Rome. I'm thinking of the cultural walls we in the body of Christ could hurdle ecumenically ourselves for I know Rome has no problem with this as evident by its commitment to diplomacy worldwide. As it stands, the synods are divided by culture and rite for the most part though and fall back on representatives to neighboring synods. This wasn't so in the beginning although autocephaly is a sanctioned Church practice and the Church does teach to preserve culture. So, I don't mean to over come culture at all but to span the divide of tensions that sometimes arise because of differences among peoples. For more of a multicultural and mutually understanding body of Christ through the benefits of being a better connected nuclear family so to speak.

It also got me thinking about the term democracy. I don't think thats what we have in the US either in the strict sense of the word. More like a republic for the most part as we appoint representatives to do the law making for us. The consensus of popular vote in government could stand for more imo. Especially on certain issues. Like senator benefits and pay raises for one example, and others like economy/taxes, social justice, how much government we want, etc etc... real grass roots politics that all would have a vested interest being involved in rather than special interest groups pandering to their agendas.

Peace.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

In Scripture, it seems that the early Christians were more collectivist than anything (at least two died for hiding and holding back some of their income)...Matthias isn't chosen through vote of the Eleven-but rather chosen through prayer and a casting of lots. Priests seemed to be chosen by the people, and approved by the apostles. Paul is not accepted by the disciples at first, but Barnabas intervenes explaining why they must accept Saul. During the council in Jerusalem, it seems that the end decsion on the matter at hand lies with James. When sending preists and Apostles to Antioch- there is approval of the whole Church to choose representatives, but it seems that the the choice of Judas and Silas lies with the Apostles and elders, and not with the people-but it is never specified how Judas and Silas are chosen--was it by casting lots or was it by vote?? We don't know.

My point,I guess, being that it is a misstep to talk about authority lying with the Bishops, when it essentially rests with God . The Church is a theocracy--there is ultimate authority and the belief that the Pope is the visible representative of that ultimate authority. The aspect which I think needs to be reconciled is the relationship of the Body to the HEad--which cannot act independently.

 

[Fantine]

The Vatican has, according to this article and other sources, become more centralized than at any other point in its history. And of course it can--it has the technological communications tools to do so.

This happened during the Council of Trent, too, and look what it brought us--the Inquisition and dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of different denominations starting.

The reaction of the Vatican to Luther's dissent, even though he was at heart a reformer who saw plenty of need for reform in the Indulgences scandal, created a reaction--dozens of new denominations across the world.

We will never know what would have happened if the Church had had the humility to listen and say, "Yes, we do need to reform in this area." (This is one reason why Pope Benedict's response to the clergy abuse scandal is so refreshing and healing.)

Some may say that centralization is a reaction to dissent, but I would say, just as strongly, that dissent is a reaction to overcentralization.

It is human nature to reject micromanagement.

 

[Technocrat2010]

The Vatican has, according to this article and other sources, become more centralized than at any other point in its history. And of course it can--it has the technological communications tools to do so.

This happened during the Council of Trent, too, and look what it brought us--the Inquisition and dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of different denominations starting.

The major Inquisitions occurred before Trent. And can you explain how Trent, not Martin Luther, was responsible for the splintering?

The reaction of the Vatican to Luther's dissent, even though he was at heart a reformer who saw plenty of need for reform in the Indulgences scandal, created a reaction--dozens of new denominations across the world.

We will never know what would have happened if the Church had had the humility to listen and say, "Yes, we do need to reform in this area." (This is one reason why Pope Benedict's response to the clergy abuse scandal is so refreshing and healing.)

Utterly ridiculous. The Church accepted and implemented nearly half of Martin Luther's proposed reforms. It was because of Martin Luther's call to reform that the Counter-Reformation occurred. To imply that the Church didn't listen to Luther is ludicrous.

Some may say that centralization is a reaction to dissent, but I would say, just as strongly, that dissent is a reaction to overcentralization.

It is human nature to reject micromanagement.

Generally, any disputes that occur doctrinally are to be resolved at the local level. If not, it goes higher up the ladder, until it goes to the Holy See itself. In the case of Martin Luther, this was the reason why it took many years until the Holy See itself responded directly to Martin Luther. Had the Church been as centralized as you claim, the Pope would have responded much more quickly rather than letting other bishops deal with it at first.