One of the narratives I keep hearing repeated regarding Pope Francis’ papacy is the reform of the Curia. This keeps getting repeated like this is the highest priority and of the upmost importance.
Now of course I realize the Curia needs reform. We all are in need of reform daily and this can be said of any bureaucracy. The Curia has no dispensation from original sin and is filled with all forms of human stupidity. The Curia has generated many unforced errors especially in regard to communication with the media and lacking simple due diligence in research (sometimes even a simple Google search could have saved heartburn).
So surely the Curia needs reform and possibly even an outsider to the Curia might be able to further advance such reform. I am not sure if that statement is true or not in this case, but an outsider can be more immune to “This is the way we have always done it.”
Regardless, what if the Curia was perfectly reformed and actually became a well functioning bureaucracy (if that is not a contradiction in term)? What would it really give us? Sure it would be nice to prevent unnecessary headlines and actually have a more unitive message among the Secretary of State and various congregations and tribunals.
Still when I look at the problems the Catholic Church faces, the Roman Curia is not at the top of the list of what needs to be addressed. The problems of secularism and the fact that many believers act in their daily lives as if God did not exist is of much more concern. There has never been a perfect time in Church history when all the believers actually acted as if their faith was true. Maybe it was always a mistake to divide territories and to describe some as mission territories. Evangelization never ends with the conversion. This is the point Catholic soteriology makes in that salvation is a process. Conversion that is not continuous is no conversion at all.
This emphasis can come under the heading of the New Evangelization which can be simply described by:
“It is an old story that, while we may need somebody like Dominic to convert the heathen to Christianity, we are in even greater need of somebody like Francis, to convert the Christians to Christianity.” –G.K. Chesterton “The Dumb Ox”
Maybe one of the reasons for so much focus on the Pope and the Curia is that in many ways we have become dependent on structures. Instead of going out and evangelizing ourselves we hope for a higher organization to fix those problems for us. Just as in politics increased Federalization to solve problems is akin to this attitude. If only we had such and such dicastery with such and such prefect in charge of it everything would be better. We want a charismatic Pope to evangelize for us, so we don’t have to do it ourselves.
Now as a great believer in both/and I don’t mean to throw things into opposition. It is not a case of either the Pope doing something or ourselves. It is also not the case of whether we evangelize or instead reform some aspects of the Curia. Really I am quite thankful for the great catechists and evangelizers I have been lucky to have as popes during my lifetime (even when I didn’t appreciate it). I am just ranting at the idea of an idealized Curia and the transferring of what are also our personal responsibilities to others. Most of all I have to rant at myself for falling into this same trap.
10 comments
Agree, and if we do not take responsibility for our own holiness. especially as adults. it will not just happen like magic-it will NOT happen.
Growing up into an adult appropriation of the Faith means not relying merely on the hierarchy. It is somewhat like parents raising children in the Faith and then sending them out into the world to live as Catholics. So, too, the Pope helps us, but we must do our grown-up part.
Well, yes and no.
We need curial reform so that all the OTHER reforms can take place without undue impediment.
Are you sure it cannot be put the other way around? Can it be that we need the other, more personal reforms so that the the Curia can be reformed in the right direction?
Well, Joe G. beat me to it.
When I think of curial reform, I’m not thinking fixing the Borgias. I’m thinking of the forces inside the curia that stonewalled Pope Benedict’s reforms and programs and forces that might withhold important information and protect miscreants.
I agree totally, and I have seen this done also at the local level: “Isn’t there a diocesan or parish committee for that?” We need to realize that Christ’s invitations and expectations are towards US, not someone, somewhere. Of course it ain’t easy, but there is no point in shifting the responsibility.
What most of the people who are pushing for “Curial Reform” *mean* by that (though they don’t often spell it out for you) is that much of what the Curia does, (they think) should be farmed out to the National Conferences of Bishops. This would obviously be a huge mistake, because, for one thing, National Houses of Bishops are not any part of the essential structure of the Church. They have grown up in modern times and assumed a huge role especially since V2 but it has not been a benign role – think especially of the immediate rejection of Humanae Vitae by the Canadian House of Bishops. Think also, more recently, of the German and Swiss Houses of Bishops approving a “Morning After” contraceptive pill. The rise of the National Houses of Bishops represents an attempt to destroy the unity of the Church – it’s as simple as that. And the purpose of this attempt is to undermine and “bypass” the Church’s moral teaching “in practice” – since they can’t seem to get Peter’s successor to do it for them. So you have to be very careful who is calling for this “Reform” and really try to pin them down on what it is specifically they think needs reform, and what exactly is the “right” thing (in their opinion) to do about it. Otherwise the word “Reform” is just as empty as “Hope & Change” – and we all know where that got us!
[…] Montage of Pope Francis’s Inaugural Mass – Edward Pentin, NCReg Curia and Curiouser – Jeffrey Miller, The Curt Jester Did Pope Francis Say Women Are Unfit for Political Office? […]
[…] Montage of Pope Francis’s Inaugural Mass – Edward Pentin, NCReg Curia and Curiouser – Jeffrey Miller, The Curt Jester Did Pope Francis Say Women Are Unfit for Political Office? – […]
Hey! I resent the implication that Dominicans can’t convert Christians to Christianity. . .we’ve brought many a Jesuit and Franciscan back into the flock. . .whether they liked it or not.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
Recently I read somewhere that the two Curia departments, if you will, NOT in need of reform of those at the very heart of the Church and its prime mission of getting as many souls into Heaven as possible:
the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith (CDF)
the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWds)
Interestingly, the Curial departments with serious issues of inefficiency, incompetence, corruption, and possibly power-mongering are those with counterparts in secular government. This should not surprise us.
My concern, however, is that progressives have been clamoring for “reform” of both the CDW – which they always liken to its so-caled predecessor (the Office of the Inquisition) and the CDWDS. Their demands are ratcheted up higher than ever, now that they see a possibility that they can reverse the liturgical reforms of Benedict XVI and the advance of orthodoxy by both Benedict and John Paul II.
Pope Francis’ friendships with Cardinals Humes and Kasper are of great concern. Even though Hummes is to old to accept a Curial post, he still may exert great influence on such appointments.
Pope Francis made a very positive reference to a book by Kasper he is reading, although he gave the disclaimer he didn’t intend to promote it. That disclaimer won’t forstall the fanfare inevitably raised to promote both Kasper, his views overall, and those of his allies.