WI the Vatican became a quasi-constitutional monarchy?

proximefactum

Here's a write up a wrote for a Catholic discussion group Renegade Trads http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/. The writeup references an America magazine article from May 17, 2010. America is the national journal of the Jesuits in the U.S. The article referenced is at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12295

----

I'm going to take the reforms of the America editors a few steps further. Term limits alone won't stem the issue of favoritism. There needs to be more checks and balances in Vatican administration.

The editors of America suggest five-year Curial term limits. I'd grant one optional one to two year term extension for curial officials during "interregnum". Any member of the episcopate could serve in the Curia, not just cardinals.

Pope Paul VI successfully transitioned the papacy from a temporal kingdom to a spiritual see during Vatican II. The next step is the reform of the papal court into a quasi-constitutional monarchy. In brief, this is how it could work.

The Pope would hold a role similar to a modern European monarch, albeit with a greater degree of executive power since the Vatican is not a democracy. Spiritually his role would not change. He could still invoke infallibility, author encyclicals and motu proprio, and call and dissolve councils. He would maintain his titles.

A lower "House of Bishops" should be elected by the entire episcopate. This body would serve as the House of Commons to the Curial House of Lords. Direct election among bishops is possible in the Internet age. Episcopal legislators would reside in Rome for their term.

The Pope would lose some control of the Curia in two respects: money bills and absolute power over Curial appointments. All money bills would be in the hands of the lower house in consultation with the Curia. The Pope would have no veto over money bills. The lower house could veto Curial appointments for just cause, i.e. the appointment committed a legal crime or failed to administrate a diocese justly. The Pope could petition the lower house to extend a Curial term, but his petition could be refused. Like the House of Lords, the Pope and Curia would have only two vetoes against the lower house.

Every year the Pope would offer a throne speech to a joint session of the House of Bishops and the Curia. Similar to Parliament, the throne speech will be authored jointly by the two houses and will outline the administrative goals of the year. The Papal throne speech will be televised live.
 

Madrigal

I think the Pope has to retain considerable temporal power to validate his spiritual authority. These reforms would effectively emasculate the Pope. He would no longer have control of "the coinage and the courts" and would become a puppet figurehead for the bishops, leading to increasing fragmentation of the Church until Catholicism existed in name only. Decide for yourself whether or not you think this would be a good thing.
 

proximefactum

Madrigal said:
I think the Pope has to retain considerable temporal power to validate his spiritual authority. These reforms would effectively emasculate the Pope. He would no longer have control of "the coinage and the courts" and would become a puppet figurehead for the bishops, leading to increasing fragmentation of the Church until Catholicism existed in name only. Decide for yourself whether or not you think this would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Orthodoxy has thrived without a sovereign pontiff. I don't see how a greater expansion of episcopal collegiality would necessarily harm papal spiritual power. Would you call the Ecumenical Patriarch "emasculated"?

In my plan I took great pains to ensure that the spiritual authority of the Bishop of Rome would never be diluted by a reform of temporal governance. No one would be able to veto an encyclical. I'll add that no one other than the Pope would be able to dictate which archbishops get red hats. My proposal only desires to place checks on corrupt cardinals that might abuse their powers to cover up crimes or sanitize the actions of other bishops. John Paul II loved Maciel and the Legion of Christ, even after learning that Maciel was a long-term abuser. JP II used his Curial faves to thwart Cardinal Ratzinger and others who knew that Maciel and the LC were bad news. With some checks and balances there might be ways to take tough action on crime and corruption without having to go through the Pope or his curial inner sanctum.
 

Rediv

Well could a council of bishops really discipline the Legionnaries, or really do much of anything? I imagine the bishops would find themselves really overwhelmed by their new legislative role -- how would they have the time to oversee their own dioceses and also oversee the whole Church?

I'm worried that since the bishops can't devote themselves to running the universal Church, they'll need to rely on somebody else to sort of tell them what to do and run things in their absense, and then there will just be a new "shadow curia" that will be just as cliquish and defensive as the current one.

Also, I've got a question about the term limits. Is this for everybody in the whole curia, or just the heads of the congregations? And what happens after their terms end?
 

proximefactum

Rediv said:
Also, I've got a question about the term limits. Is this for everybody in the whole curia, or just the heads of the congregations? And what happens after their terms end?
Click to expand...

I believe Paul VI intended to place term limits on the heads of congregations.

Well, curial officials are all cardinals with titular sees. They might move on to other work within the congregations or simply retire. I suppose the Pope could grant them a metropolitan diocese upon the death of another cardinal. Bishops' Conferences might have difficulty with a unilateral papal decision to place a cardinal in a diocese.

This entire question boils down to the limits of collegiality and conciliarity.
 

Rediv

proximefactum said:
This entire question boils down to the limits of collegiality and conciliarity.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point. After all, I'm sure there are going to be some bishops who really don't want to make things more collegial -- not only curial types who dont want to lose their power, but also their allies, and even bishops who just believe that the Church is better served by a strong central govt/powerful pope.
 

jkay

Some tirade I read claimed Benedicts's already ignoring some check. So, he seems to have a positively late-Stuart-like 'tude toward checks and balances.

BTW, most Buddhist monastic rules include decisions by meeting-style democracy. Todaay, there are probably more Buddhist monks than any other major religion's. I feel Buddhist monasticism's even TOO successful in Tibet, because it's dragged in too the elites from other roles like business.

Hasn't there already been a Pope Guilty de Borgia - the man whom, arguably, did most to set the Reformation going? ;-)
 

Francisco Cojuanco

proximefactum said:
Here's a write up a wrote for a Catholic discussion group Renegade Trads http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/. The writeup references an America magazine article from May 17, 2010. America is the national journal of the Jesuits in the U.S. The article referenced is at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12295

----

I'm going to take the reforms of the America editors a few steps further. Term limits alone won't stem the issue of favoritism. There needs to be more checks and balances in Vatican administration.

The editors of America suggest five-year Curial term limits. I'd grant one optional one to two year term extension for curial officials during "interregnum". Any member of the episcopate could serve in the Curia, not just cardinals.

Pope Paul VI successfully transitioned the papacy from a temporal kingdom to a spiritual see during Vatican II. The next step is the reform of the papal court into a quasi-constitutional monarchy. In brief, this is how it could work.

The Pope would hold a role similar to a modern European monarch, albeit with a greater degree of executive power since the Vatican is not a democracy. Spiritually his role would not change. He could still invoke infallibility, author encyclicals and motu proprio, and call and dissolve councils. He would maintain his titles.

A lower "House of Bishops" should be elected by the entire episcopate. This body would serve as the House of Commons to the Curial House of Lords. Direct election among bishops is possible in the Internet age. Episcopal legislators would reside in Rome for their term.

The Pope would lose some control of the Curia in two respects: money bills and absolute power over Curial appointments. All money bills would be in the hands of the lower house in consultation with the Curia. The Pope would have no veto over money bills. The lower house could veto Curial appointments for just cause, i.e. the appointment committed a legal crime or failed to administrate a diocese justly. The Pope could petition the lower house to extend a Curial term, but his petition could be refused. Like the House of Lords, the Pope and Curia would have only two vetoes against the lower house.

Every year the Pope would offer a throne speech to a joint session of the House of Bishops and the Curia. Similar to Parliament, the throne speech will be authored jointly by the two houses and will outline the administrative goals of the year. The Papal throne speech will be televised live.
Click to expand...

Just not going to happen. Any reform has to have the approval of the Pope. And no Pope, in his right mind, would hand over effective supreme power over to a fractious Curia. You think the factionalism in the Vatican is bad? Try it where it's out in the open - it just wouldn't work. We're not the Church of England, we're the bloody RCC!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top