Francis sends strong message to the Curia and the Vatican high life
A last-minute no-show by Pope Francis at a concert where he was to have been the guest of honor has sent another clear signal that he is going to do things his way and does not like the Vatican high life.
Amid allegations of mismanage-ment erupting in
the Vatican, and accusations of impropriety shaking the Vatican bank – both
problems blamed on the secretive administrative body, the Roman Curia - the new
Pope has been asked to usher in major reforms that would decentralize power.
Pope Francis has already signaled his independence from some of the Vatican’s traditional channels, and his biggest governance move, as yet, has been the creation of an advisory group of eight outside cardinals to help him usher in Curial reform. He specifically stated that the Curia should be at the service of the church, the bishops and the pope — not vice versa.
Pope Francis has already signaled his independence from some of the Vatican’s traditional channels, and his biggest governance move, as yet, has been the creation of an advisory group of eight outside cardinals to help him usher in Curial reform. He specifically stated that the Curia should be at the service of the church, the bishops and the pope — not vice versa.
But he has hinted that bigger changes could be
coming, including possible structural changes to the conferences of bishops -
the synods. He also pointedly warned that certain departments in the Curia,
when functioning poorly, risk ‘becoming institutions of censorship’. ‘For too
long’, he said, ‘the people in the pews have felt distanced from their priests,
bishops and the Vatican. That is not the gospel of love and service that Jesus
preached and shared with the world in word and deed’.
He has attacked his own church leaders. He said
'Heads of the church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by
their courtiers. The Curia is 'Vatican-centric', serving its own interests and
neglecting the world around us. I do not share this view and I'll do everything
I can to change it'.
His comments could have been describing SA
leadership, especially in the light of the decisions made in the Howard
Hospital issue. The Curia has its equivalent in the Salvation Army in the
General and his ‘inner circle’ of Commissioners at IHQ. They, too, forgot the
suffering world around them in the choice of serving self and Army first, and
in not considering the plight and human dignity of the Chiweshe people.
If the world leader of 1.2billion members of the
Roman Catholic church can contemplate a much-needed change in leadership style –
a style on which TSA leadership is modeled, why can’t our own leaders grasp the
nettle and instigate change? God knows, change is long overdue in our quaint,
old-fashioned institution – called by God in the 19th century, and still
holding fast to many of its rules today, especially those of leadership.
SALVATIONIST
IUKT
IUKT
20 comments:
It's clear - the FSAOF continue to deliver leaving our own and other SA related bloggers far behind!
Relevant church news linked to our own SA's brand of of worship, mission and leadership - all the news that's fit to print! Keep up the good work, Canada SA
I applaud this fellowship and its quality of articles. This should replace The War Cry!
I am wondering where you find such top class wordsmiths?!
The SA lost some absolutely excellent communicators when some of you left the ranks; and they really need to catch up.
New York
Bravo IUKT Salvationist.
When this first appeared as a comment I applauded it, and do so again. Wouldn't it be great to have a leader who is just not more of the same. We are long overdo for change in many aspects of the system and way of doings things in TSA.
General Andre Cox was quoted in the Oct. issue of the Canadian Salvationist magazine as saying, "One of the things that I'll be looking at is our administrative structures to see how appropriate those are. Our administration only exists to support the front-line ministry; I want to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy."
Well, IHQ failed the front- line ministry of the HH badly in 2012 and continues to fail the people of Chiweshe, but surely with this stated priority by a new General, he can have no problems apologizing to the people of Chiweshe for IHQ's past failure having removed their front-line surgeon, and can have no problems apologizing to Dr. Paul and Pedrinah Thistle for failing to support their front-line ministry as officers of TSA.
Next the General should look into making amends, but apologizing is in order first. Can someone apologize for the actions of another person? Yes, indeed - present leadership of organizations, corporations, governments, do it on behalf of previous regimes and administrations in power. It is very advantageous because it deomonstrates a break with the past way of doing things and signals intent to do things differently.
I don't for one second question the holiness, integrity or authenticity of Pope Francis as his personal humility, lack of concern for pomp and circumstance and ministry to the downtrodden, as a Priest, Bishop, Cardinal and now Pope seems to have remained pretty consistent and Christ-like throughout the decades.
However, when people start implying in articles and other commentary on this blog (and in some cases out and out accuse) all of the leadership of the Army as being totally corrupt, power hungry and completely lacking whatever it is they now think the new Pope has, that's where I feel I have to step in and throw in my two cents worth before the whole darn thing gets way out of hand.
First of all people have ALWAYS been the same. Human nature does not change. Everyone knows, or at least should know this, once the ability to think critically kicks in after about the age of 23. If someone doesn't know this, they're living in a fool's paradise. Whenever people make it to the top levels of leadership in any organization there's always going to be a few stuck up snooty characters here and there who thrive on all of the trappings of status and power. It's part of human nature and it comes with the territory. (no pun intended.)
Another important point related to this scenario is that ecclesiastical organizations when running their day to day business operations will (granted sometimes unfortunately even!)act every bit as much as any secular corporation will---if they want to survive, that is!
Also, no one makes it to the top of any corporation--or in the case of an occasional fluke stays there very long--without having first proved themselves to be able bodied administrators---which requires one to have the hard nosed resolve and ability to tell other people when and where to get off when the administrator feels the need to do so.
So in the same way that the FSAOF site will from time to time have formers writing in telling about their "ill" treatment at the hands of some hard nosed DC or TC, one can also bet their sweet booty that in the course of Francis' climb to the top of the Catholic hierarchy, the man, only being a fallible human himself, has acquired his slew of malcontent detractors whom he's told off along the way too! Otherwise he would not be Pope!
Throw into the mix that every corporation at every level (including churches) have on staff PR people who are there to protect the images of the top brass and I for one can't help but take anything written about anybody at the top of anything with anything other than at least a grain of salt!
So, I reiterate: Pope Francis may very well be a prophetic voice in the world today but just like all of the top brass in TSA from Booth onward, you can bet the man has been less then cordial in his dealings with a few people here and there along the way, or he never would've made it to Pope--and all anyone needs to prove it is to read a good book on church history!
(I need to continue with one more shorter posting.......)
Daryl Lach
USA Central
I appreciate your very good balanced view, Daryl!
Continuing......
O.K. So based on 2000 years of church history let me take a stab at 1. Why Francis became Pope in the first place and 2. How it will all probably play out in the end:
1. It's no secret that Pope Benedict (and to a bit lesser extent Pope John Paul II)were quintessential Popes who made no qualms about their being hardliners on doctrine and tradition, etc. Add to this the Vatican financial scandals and the priest pedophile scandals of the past decade or so and no doubt it had become obvious to the RC hierarchy that the church was in grave need of another Pope John XXIII if the institution was ever going to restore integrity to its image, especially in this age of fast moving communications.
As a result we have the election of a Cardinal in South America who has both proven his worth and value as an able bodied administrator (Always a required basic!)and yet at the same time has a humble, prophetic side where upon his election he even becomes the first Pope to take on the name of Francis of Assisi. (Has anyone ever stopped to think why no one else ever picked the name of Francis before??!! It doesn't exactly convey an image of status and power, now does it?)
2. How exactly will Francis' election play out in the long run? (I admit that I could be wrong--but based on 2000 years of ecclesiastical history I'm probably not) Everyone will be both inspired by and love this Pope. (I even love him and I'm not Roman Catholic!) He'll institute some reforms in the Vatican and the church as a whole, even influencing some Protestant hierarchies to do the same---while still keeping if not all, then most of the power, or at least the most important aspects of power, firmly in the hands of the clergy and specifically the upper hierarchy where it has always belonged.
One day Pope Francis will be Promoted to Glory. He will then receive the RC church's equivalent of TSA's Order of the Founder which is Beautification and Sainthood. Of course it will require at least two old ladies claiming to have been healed of diverticulitis after praying to him but just how hard can that be when one has 1.2 billion constituents to choose from? (I can still recall my own grandmother back in 1978 claiming that she was healed from a particularly bad bout of pneumonia when she fell asleep and saw a vision of my corps officer's face in a dream--and he was just a Captain!)
After Francis is lauded as a great saint and laid to rest, the scandals will have largely been forgotten and everything will soon return to normal while the more snooty, arrogant type Cardinals (and even some of the humbler ones) will finally breathe a big sigh of relief while they put back on their campy vestments, Mitres, and prada shoes and hop into limousines chauffeured by younger priests and generally engage in all the other perks they've always been use to.
In the middle of it all, God's Holy Spirit will still be doing his thing redeeming the world unto himself through the lives of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and yes, probably even others as he has always done----including TSA!
Anyway, that's my take on it. Anyone else can think as they please. The important thing to me is that "Jesus Is Lord!" and always will be and the Christian Church is Christ's Church transcending all of the machinations of we fallible, sin prone human beings! Oh, and one other thing: God Bless TSA!
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home By the Way of the Cross, To Stand With Jesus In the Morning!"
To Daryl
I'm not sure what has propelled you into such an impassioned defence of the invisible here.
There's nothing in this article to allege any wholescale corruption at the top of TSA - nor is there anything I can see which warrants such an OTT response.
There's nothing in the article to even imagine Pope Francis' possible nefarious characteristics while getting to the top of his church. (I doubt it myself - he really does seem like one of the good guys).
As I read it, this rather innocuous article is just comparing present leadership styles between the two churches and suggesting that the RCs are so totally fed up with theirs that they welcome the Pope's intention to revise it, and to suggest that we Salvationists could do no worse than to revise some of ours.
Or do you think the organization is just peachy as it is and should stay like this for the next 100+ years?
Sorry but I never wrote any such thing. Note that I referred to several commenters to related articles in the past on this blog---and I wanted to make a statement before they started commenting again with this particular article.
As for TSA's future: I suspect it will change with the times slowly as it always has done so. As organizational changes go it has really been more progressive in some areas than many churches have been---but of course always slowly as organizational integrity has to be maintained. Everyone can't just be allowed to do anything they want to do or it will cease to an Army.
If one looks closely, it's actually amazing how much it has changed with the times already, in spite of the rantings and ravings of its malcontents. (Every group's got 'em btw. I only wish most of them would realize that their gripes usually have to do with an individual person or persons and not the whole organization! You'd think ature people should be able to separate the two!)
Daryl Lach
USA Central
Daryl Lach said 'I feel I have to step in and throw in my two cents worth before the whole darn thing gets way out of hand'.
Out of hand? By whose standards?
This is a forum for OPINIONS - plural - not just yours. Each of us who profess a Christian faith could claim the moral high ground on ANY subject, according how we see life. We claim we have convictions which are God-inspired, and yet we view some things much differently from other believers. Weird, or what?
But whether you agree or disagree with what's written, have you ever considered that your 'opinion' may just be a tad wrong - sometimes? I don't think you have, but then that applies to the rest of us mere mortals as well. If we all agreed with everything that was said, it would be most unhelpful. There would be no challenge, and no progression, only acceptance.
Despite my mild criticism, I do admire your energetic and purposeful comments.
Thanks for the admiration and yes, you are right and I agree with you that we all have our opinions---which is one of the reasons why Sven has opened this forum. But if you notice I always write that "I might be wrong" and that I'm just stating my own opinions from what I've read and experienced over the years.
Take care and God Bless You, mildly critical admirer, whomever you are!
Sincerely,
Daryl Lach
USA Central
Daryl you love to stir the pot, and always elicit an almost guilty enjoyment on the part of the reader.
However one is sometimes left admiring the work of the wordsmith, though not always being able to remember what was said.
The writing style is so unique that I can tell who the author is after reading the first one or two sentences!
Let me say you always deserve an A+ for your optimism, and your eternal hope that everything is going to turn out right in the end.
I am sure it has something to do with your eschatology, seeing that you don't march to the same drummer as most of your American counterparts.
Keep writing; no one could ever doubt your commitment to TSA, in spite of the fact that it doesn't agree with everything you have to say.
Perhaps the new General will be the Messiah, who will "make all things new"! Let's hope so.
From another one of your admirers.
daryl, what a brilliant, insightful, realistic, both feet firmly on terra piece --- A++
To the last several very kind commenters.....
Oh Lordy, WOW! I'm blushing and I NEVER blush! If I were a drag queen (or maybe even a Cardinal?) I'd be clutching my pearl necklace crucifix right about now.
But seriously, thanks for the encouragement friends. And when and where we do disagree, I have to tell you that it's really a lot of fun bantering back and forth with you guys. Take care and God Bless You.
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home By the Way of the Cross, To Stand With Jesus In the Morning!"
Daryl, This blog, just like any other internet blog is a lot of fun and not to be taken seriously. One can call it 'light relief' at the end of a busy day in real, down to earth, Christian ministry.
I must commend Sven for providing this so nicely for us at no cost!
Usually there is a lot of whipping up going on for others to take the bait. And if you are stupid enough to do this then you are lost.
I always find it fascinating how some people can get really passionately worked up about one or another pet issue of the day whilst others, with a different perspective are left largely indifferent or untouched by it.
This happens in nearly every aspect of secular and religious life except that the religious variety is usually less pretty, more petty and closed minded.
Such is life eh!
Go well
'This happens in nearly every aspect of secular and religious life except that the religious variety is usually less pretty, more petty and closed minded'.
The difference in the secular outlook as opposed to the religious is that the secular ends with this life - these people have nothing to be serious about because they don't believe in the hereafter. But despite the risk of incurring your wrath or prompting you to publish derisive and dismissive comments because something spiritual has been mooted, Christians DO take life more seriously because we realise there are consequences to our actions and thoughts, and mocking people who 'get really passionately worked up' about moral issues is not nice. These people hold sincerely-held convictions which are serious as yours are lightweight. We are all different and we should all respect each other.
"Christians DO take life more seriously because we realise there are consequences to our actions and thoughts"
Where is the evidence in real life for such diatribe? I think it is quite insulting and sensitive towards those who live and practice morally and ethically far superior lives outside the Judaic/ Christian moral and ethical boundaries that are largely based on 'you can not' rather than 'you can' ( btw - I am a Christian)
As if we have got the monopoly on morals and ethics! If that was the case then you and I have failed badly. Tut tut;);)
'sensitive' should of course read; 'insensitive'
I'm glad you added 'btw - I am a Christian'. you shouldn't have needed to, though - it should be evident in your writing - which it isn't - not to me, anyway.
My statement covered generality in outlook - not specifics in each person. 'Life' as a whole concept - not 'living' with its associated elements. Sorry if that wasn't clear, or if you didn't understand.
Who is the insulting one here, though? Joking about this site being free - people being stupid if they take 'the bait' whatever that is - insulting people by calling their contributions 'light relief' at the end of a busy day in real, down to earth Christian ministry', which makes you appear a really sanctimonious, pompous person engaged 24-7 in doing 'good works' - good on you if you do though. I suppose that would make you non-sanctimonious - whatever you are or are not, take it in the spirit in which the compliment (or insult) is given!
No - the only one 'whipping up' things is you. And it's not nice - it is, in fact, insulting to those who comment sincerely, and by commenting in your flippant way you are denigrating their contributions unnecessarily - in my humble opinion.
oh dear......;):)
Post a Comment