«“Anyone could have seen that coming,” the official said, “but no one thought to ask.”»
Why does it seem that this sentence can describe so many of the controversies that have come out of this papacy? It's not that everything has been bad or wrong or useless, but that everything seems rather improvised, rather like an interview en passant on an airplane.
Sometimes they didn't think to ask, but I think the root cause is that Francis and Tucho just don't care about what other people think and the problems they will cause. It serves their purposes to create confusion, because the confusion is cover for their allies like James Martin and the Germans to do clearly heretical actions that would never be allowed if clear statements were made. Pope Francis regularly praises James Martin, far more than the US bishops or cardinals. He knew Martin would conduct a formal liturgical blessing of a gay union as an inherent good in the wake of Fiducia Supplicans. The self-contradiction of the document and lack of consultation with other departments was part of the plan.
Totally foreseeable problems, but nobody thought to ask. Doesn’t this describe almost every major legal and doctrinal initiative under the Francis papacy?
And many in Benedict’s papacy (Williamson, for example)?
I think Pope Benedict XVI was a very reasonable and prudent man. If there were mistakes, they were just that: mistakes, not doctrinal problems causing confusion and distress.
This is what happens when you promote someone who thinks he's the smartest person in the room (when in fact he's not) to a position of real (or potential) power. +Fernandez clearly has an extremely high opinion of himself and his theological insights, an opinion that is not at all deserved, but, that's where we are. To a lesser degree, this is something you see in the US with someone like +Cupich. They can't cause that much trouble when in a minor see, but you give them a position of real prominence and power, and problems follow. Hopefully, the next pontificate, will let +Fernandez out to pasture.
I agree. But what if, by some human machinations, (and we have seen this often in the history of the papacy) another like the current bishop of Rome is elected?
"Beast" what an interesting word in this context. One dictionary definition defines the word as meaning "not having the gift of reason."
While I sure His Eminence has the gift of reason sometimes it is not in the forefront of his statements, interviews and "official" dictates." The Cardinal's statements and interactions with other Dicasteries seem to be chaotic and lacking in concrete "synodality."
No one knows "who's on first."
For all the talk in this papacy about decentalization, collegiality, transparency and synodality it seems like tje Vatican is having a go at bumper carsin a travelling carnival.
And the bishops in the West seem to be cowed by the threat of removal (a valid fear)
if they get too vocal in questioning the edicts from Rome.
Our best hopes are the bishops of the Southern Cone who state the Faith with respect but also with filial disagreement when dealing with Vatican machine. They are too busy trying to evangelize and grow their Churches. These Churches are not without their own problems but the handing on of the Faith seems to be the priority.
I read this article and all I could think of was Ed.'s self-deprecating description of himself in the last podcast: "Always in error, never in doubt." It is funny when Ed. says it because while hyperbolic, it is evidence of genuine humility. Sadly, +Fernandez seems to be of the ever growing cadre of bureaucratic leaders who believe that what you lack in competence can be more than made up for with excessive confidence. It's one thing to fake it until you make it (because it presupposes you are trying to learn and develop competence along the way), but once you make, if you are stilling faking it, God help us all!
My bad. I guess I was the one hyperbolizing by saying “always.” I do now recall you said “often.” It stuck with me because my wife thought it described me pretty accurately. I’ll leave you to decide which word I used when I told her the phrase.
Something tells me the next Pope will be very different from Francis. Seems he and his inner circle are ticking off everyone else around the Vatican. Surely many of those are voting Cardinals, even ones who won't currently speak out against this for fear of "disciplinary action for speaking to press without authorization." Just seems so unhealthy, who would want to live and work under those conditions?
An older priest, in conversation once, quizzed me: "What was Vatican II about?" Me being stymied, he answered: "Collegiality, collegiality, collegiality." This priest was VERY excited when Pope Francis was elected, and even predicted Cardinal Bergolio would be the one, when when few knew about him.
I wonder, today, what this priest would think of the present pontificate?
If the Holy Father and Cardinal Fernandez are trying to cement the former's legacy, I think they are ironically completely undermining themselves. Regardless of theological bend, I don't think any bishops outside of the inner circle like this manner of governance.
"“Cardinal Fernández doesn’t wait in line,” one official told The Pillar, “and he doesn’t ask for anyone’s opinion except the pope’s, which he solicits directly and personally.”
The same official described Fernández as “clearly enjoying the pope’s favor” despite the controversy he has generated. While those close to the papal appointment process have previously spoken about Fernández not being Francis’ first choice for the role, the official noted that there is no question the pontiff considers the cardinal a loyal ally."
I'm not sure there's anything else in the article that matters all that much. This is a papacy, and thus a curia, driven by the personality of the pope.
It’s Argentinian way of doing politics, but in the Vatican. Populist, sometimes impulsive, sometimes also imprudent, relying on personal sympathies instead of relying on competence, incapable of building a good foundation, confusing, divisive, authoritarian, contradictory… Not a good school of leadership.
I think another (admittedly more polemical framing) option is now that he's gotten a taste of power, he's drunk. He's rapidly becoming a careerist.
I begin to get the impression that he is not a team player.
«“Anyone could have seen that coming,” the official said, “but no one thought to ask.”»
Why does it seem that this sentence can describe so many of the controversies that have come out of this papacy? It's not that everything has been bad or wrong or useless, but that everything seems rather improvised, rather like an interview en passant on an airplane.
Your comment didn’t appear for me until after I posted my similar one!
Somehow an old Chris Berman ESPN football highlight call comes to mind, “Rumblin, stumblin, bumblin.”
Sometimes they didn't think to ask, but I think the root cause is that Francis and Tucho just don't care about what other people think and the problems they will cause. It serves their purposes to create confusion, because the confusion is cover for their allies like James Martin and the Germans to do clearly heretical actions that would never be allowed if clear statements were made. Pope Francis regularly praises James Martin, far more than the US bishops or cardinals. He knew Martin would conduct a formal liturgical blessing of a gay union as an inherent good in the wake of Fiducia Supplicans. The self-contradiction of the document and lack of consultation with other departments was part of the plan.
If the salvation of souls weren’t on the line this whole Curial drama would be comedic. It could even have the makings of a sitcom.
Totally foreseeable problems, but nobody thought to ask. Doesn’t this describe almost every major legal and doctrinal initiative under the Francis papacy?
And many in Benedict’s papacy (Williamson, for example)?
I think Pope Benedict XVI was a very reasonable and prudent man. If there were mistakes, they were just that: mistakes, not doctrinal problems causing confusion and distress.
This is what happens when you promote someone who thinks he's the smartest person in the room (when in fact he's not) to a position of real (or potential) power. +Fernandez clearly has an extremely high opinion of himself and his theological insights, an opinion that is not at all deserved, but, that's where we are. To a lesser degree, this is something you see in the US with someone like +Cupich. They can't cause that much trouble when in a minor see, but you give them a position of real prominence and power, and problems follow. Hopefully, the next pontificate, will let +Fernandez out to pasture.
The “Peter Principle” not infrequently makes itself known in the Curia
I agree. But what if, by some human machinations, (and we have seen this often in the history of the papacy) another like the current bishop of Rome is elected?
I think even then, he's gone. Whoever the next Pope is, will want basic competence. (I'm making an assumption there).
“I think it says something that everything [Fernández] does is framed as supporting the pope’s personal wishes or ‘magisterium’,” the official said.
I know so little, I shouldn't even comment, but my gut says he should be upholding/clarifying 2000 years of doctrine, not personal wishes.
"supporting the pope's personal wishes"
Sounds like he took "make a mess!" to heart, ran with it as his job description
"Beast" what an interesting word in this context. One dictionary definition defines the word as meaning "not having the gift of reason."
While I sure His Eminence has the gift of reason sometimes it is not in the forefront of his statements, interviews and "official" dictates." The Cardinal's statements and interactions with other Dicasteries seem to be chaotic and lacking in concrete "synodality."
No one knows "who's on first."
For all the talk in this papacy about decentalization, collegiality, transparency and synodality it seems like tje Vatican is having a go at bumper carsin a travelling carnival.
And the bishops in the West seem to be cowed by the threat of removal (a valid fear)
if they get too vocal in questioning the edicts from Rome.
Our best hopes are the bishops of the Southern Cone who state the Faith with respect but also with filial disagreement when dealing with Vatican machine. They are too busy trying to evangelize and grow their Churches. These Churches are not without their own problems but the handing on of the Faith seems to be the priority.
Do as they Rome says, not as they do?
Bisbee, I think we all know What's on second.
I Don't Know's on third...
I read this article and all I could think of was Ed.'s self-deprecating description of himself in the last podcast: "Always in error, never in doubt." It is funny when Ed. says it because while hyperbolic, it is evidence of genuine humility. Sadly, +Fernandez seems to be of the ever growing cadre of bureaucratic leaders who believe that what you lack in competence can be more than made up for with excessive confidence. It's one thing to fake it until you make it (because it presupposes you are trying to learn and develop competence along the way), but once you make, if you are stilling faking it, God help us all!
In fairness, I'm not *that* humble -- I profess to being "often in error" rather than always. But I am, it's true, never in doubt.
My bad. I guess I was the one hyperbolizing by saying “always.” I do now recall you said “often.” It stuck with me because my wife thought it described me pretty accurately. I’ll leave you to decide which word I used when I told her the phrase.
Cardinal Bigfoot has Bigfoot in Mouth disease.
Something tells me the next Pope will be very different from Francis. Seems he and his inner circle are ticking off everyone else around the Vatican. Surely many of those are voting Cardinals, even ones who won't currently speak out against this for fear of "disciplinary action for speaking to press without authorization." Just seems so unhealthy, who would want to live and work under those conditions?
An older priest, in conversation once, quizzed me: "What was Vatican II about?" Me being stymied, he answered: "Collegiality, collegiality, collegiality." This priest was VERY excited when Pope Francis was elected, and even predicted Cardinal Bergolio would be the one, when when few knew about him.
I wonder, today, what this priest would think of the present pontificate?
If the Holy Father and Cardinal Fernandez are trying to cement the former's legacy, I think they are ironically completely undermining themselves. Regardless of theological bend, I don't think any bishops outside of the inner circle like this manner of governance.
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
“But what that mission is, exactly, remains a mystery…Some speculate Fernández is…”
- Trying to build a legacy
- “Trying to prove himself…driven and hampered by personal insecurity”
- “Likes being the center of attention”
This would be an accurate description of most national politicians. Sadly, it may also describe Pope Francis.
And why can't all three be true?
"“Cardinal Fernández doesn’t wait in line,” one official told The Pillar, “and he doesn’t ask for anyone’s opinion except the pope’s, which he solicits directly and personally.”
The same official described Fernández as “clearly enjoying the pope’s favor” despite the controversy he has generated. While those close to the papal appointment process have previously spoken about Fernández not being Francis’ first choice for the role, the official noted that there is no question the pontiff considers the cardinal a loyal ally."
I'm not sure there's anything else in the article that matters all that much. This is a papacy, and thus a curia, driven by the personality of the pope.
A Peronist as a Pope, apparently.
It’s Argentinian way of doing politics, but in the Vatican. Populist, sometimes impulsive, sometimes also imprudent, relying on personal sympathies instead of relying on competence, incapable of building a good foundation, confusing, divisive, authoritarian, contradictory… Not a good school of leadership.