I've been hearing a lot of folks profess the need for "another John Paul II." Is this a widespread view? Even JPII himself said he was a less than ideal administrator for the Church. Given that a lot of our current problems are very much a product of poor administration, why do we need another mediocre pontiff in that role?
The reasoning I get is that we need another big, pastoral (whatever that means) presence that will bring in converts. Let me be frank by repeating something I said on another message board. The best evangelism tactic the Church could use right now is by electing a pope that will clean house and cast out all the abusers, heretics, and other corrupt persons that have been sabotaging the Church's mission. That will bring in (and back) more people than anything else.
Sometimes Machiavelli's advice should be heeded. It is occasionally better to be feared than loved. A pope who is feared now and does what should be done will be beloved for generations to come.
1 comment:
True, but remember Machiavelli's other advice to the prince - appoint a tough lieutenant to do the actual governing, thereby allowing the prince to be the "good guy" when the expendable lieutenant wears out his welcome among the people. Hence, a pastoral Pontiff is fine, provided he picks a tough lieutenant for Stato.
In this vein, a Turkson, Tagle, or Ranjith would be fine so long as they appointed a kick-ass Sec'y of State to clean out the Curia for good, or at least until the institutional wheel turns from renewal to routine to corruption once again. The Italians in the Curia fear and do not understand the Americans. Let the toughest American be the new Stato.
Post a Comment