One detail about the conclave idea is that diocese would have no masses or sacraments until the conclave is finished? Or is there a way to work around that?
Overall it seems directionally correct, which is the best kind of correct these days.
Good point, probably should have talked about this some in the piece!
I view it as similar to a diocesan presbyteral assembly. We just had ours last week. Confessions were unavailable throughout at least most (maybe all?) diocesan parishes from Tuesday through Thursday, all Masses at the parishes I'm familiar with were cancelled (replaced by priest-free Communion services), and a few priests from outside the diocese shipped in to cover essentials. This happens once every two years or so.
However, I don't think *every* priest was at the assembly, as would be the case at a diocesan conclave, and they *could* be called away in case of an emergency. I also have no idea how they make provision for Last Rites during the assembly, which obviously can happen at any time and cannot be rescheduled. Surely somebody handles it, but I don't know who. Also, there's always a risk that a conclave will last longer than three days, although this has become a rarity. Sunday Mass could be a little sticky!
So, on the one hand, I think our bureaucracy already has some experience dealing with things like this. On the other hand, a conclave would bring additional challenges that I don't know are solved. On the other other hand, if we had smaller dioceses, it would be easier to manage these challenges using priests from neighboring dioceses.
Heck, if we had smaller dioceses, the answer to some of these questions might be as simple as "drive into the next diocese and get shriven there." Right now, for me, "the next diocese" is a 22-mile drive, over the border in Wisconsin, and I'm relatively close to a diocesan border. It would not be great to ask penitents to go so far for the full length of a diocesan conclave. If my diocese were split into 25 dioceses, however, the nearest diocese would be *at most* 4 miles away, and I *already* make that drive for Sunday Mass on a fairly regular basis when I'm going over to my parents' house for dinner.
None of this is a definitive answer, but the short version is that I think sacraments would be *limited* during a diocesan conclave, but not unduly so, and nevertheless *available*, particularly to the needy / dying. Clearly, we can't indefinitely suspend the sacraments in a diocese, so, one way or another, this would need to be addressed!
The problem with overhauling/shrinking the Curia is, as you observed, that as soon as a new Pope is elected, the curia "gets its hooks" into him.
Which brings up the second problem: No cardinal goes into a conclave knowing with any degree of certainty that he will be elected Pope, Therefore, no one has a meaningful opportunity, and no real incentive, to make plans to overhaul the curia, an effort that would take much time and would have to be done virtually in secret, starting from the moment the previous Pope dies or resigns, and for all but one cardinal, would be wasted effort.
In fact, the election of the Pope by the cardinals is a kind of "feedback loop" effect, as each Pope chooses the cardinals who will elect his successor. (I believe George Orwell in "1984" made that exact observation).
The proposal that I like much better would be the "diocesan conclave" of priests, neighboring bishops including the Metropolitan, and carefully selected laity, to elect a bishop.. BTW, I wonder if the handful of dioceses in France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland that elect their own bishops, have fared better with respect to the sexual abuse crisis?
"In fact, the election of the Pope by the cardinals is a kind of "feedback loop" effect, as each Pope chooses the cardinals who will elect his successor."
Yes, exactly, and this is a major problem with much Church governance today: everyone at the top of the system is a product of the system and only the system, so why would they change the system? This is, again, a RECENT development, because the ecclesial government used to have a LOT of push-and-pull with the secular Catholic powers. There were a lot of bad aspects to this, so I'm not saying let's bring it back, but we did lose something when that went away and the system became hermetically sealed.
"BTW, I wonder if the handful of dioceses in France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland that elect their own bishops, have fared better with respect to the sexual abuse crisis?"
N=a very small number, so I don't know how much statistical power we could get out of this, but it's still a very interesting question I don't know the answer to.
"Therefore, no one has a meaningful opportunity, and no real incentive, to make plans to overhaul the curia, an effort that would take much time and would have to be done virtually in secret, starting from the moment the previous Pope dies or resigns, and for all but one cardinal, would be wasted effort."
New pitch: the Heritage Foundation, but for the Church. "Mandate for Papacy: Project 2025," coming to an Ignatius Press bookshelf near you!
I have a minor bone to pick with your intended order of operations. I would not recommend announcing an end to the College of Cardinals until after you have made the necessary changes to how you would be replaced.
I, on the other hand, am most terrified of a plan having an Achilles' Heel, particularly one where the lynchpin is me staying alive long enough to finish the job, when steps in the plan may incentivize my assassination.
Given that cardinals are not required to be bishops (historically speaking), why would you eliminate them rather than demote some/elevate others, and adjust their powers? Seeing as you would intend to set up a body of electors.
To be sure, I'd only set up a different body of electors temporarily. Ultimately, I'd be transitioning to the diocesan election model.
One *could* make those electors cardinals, but that would make it impossible for any of them to be women. Cardinals don't have to be bishops, and they don't even have to be priests, but they do have to be ordained to at least the diaconate. Since the college of cardinals is just made up anyway, I *could* change that law, allowing women to be made cardinals *without* ordination to the diaconate... but, at a certain point, it just seemed simpler and cleaner and less confusing to the laity to just blow up the college and call the (temporary) replacement something else.
My sense that this was the right move were redoubled when I realized that I would not retain *any* current cardinals. I just don't trust the college at all, so, even if I retained the title of "cardinal," I'd be doing a wholesale replacement, and, again, it seemed cleaner and less confusing to just call the new thing by a different label.
Prudent minds may disagree about this, but that's why I pulled the trigger.
When I read Footnote 1 I was expecting a link to https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/. Australia did not come out of the Pell trial looking especially great but the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse took a very hard look at how all institutions enable it, rather than being focused just on one particular institution, and since that's the point you were making in Footnote 1 I expected you to cite their work.
I would like to have a fancy response to this, like, I thought well of this commission report in general but didn't feel comfortable linking it without having actually read all 17 volumes. Or, I thought the report was too focused on standards and paperwork and didn't always get to the pith of the matter.
But I have no such educated response to this because the true reason I omitted it is because I forgot both the report and its contents, although I'm sure I've seen it before, almost certainly because you posted it!
I'm glad you've posted it here, even though I have no intelligent commentary on it.
My only comment (which I'm certain I've made before to you) is that it should have served as a kick in the pants for the Catholic Church to reform itself and set an example (because some organisation should have set an example; I wouldn't personally have cared which) to every other group examined by the Commission that it is in fact possible to implement reforms to curb this abhorrence. Maybe some of the reforms would have been specific to the nature of the Catholic Church (like devolving governance to be closer to individual parishioners) and could not have been implemented in other organisations but it still would have shown that it is possible.
(The Commission did have its own thoughts about the possible nature of those reforms, but they were the sort of polite suggestions that a modern secular government would make to a religious organisation and not the sort of thing a professor of moral theology at Wittenberg would have written in 1517.)
Anyway the whole thing is really a great example of the depressing story of Nobody, Everybody, Somebody and Anybody:
A team had four members called Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. There was an important job to be done. Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it.
Nobody realized that it’s Everybody’s job. Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
I am confused. You advocate getting rid of the college of cardinals. If you do that, however, how does a pope get elected? Did you explain that at some point and I missed it?
Almost at the very end, I propose that the Bishop of Rome be elected like any other bishop under my august reign as pope: in diocesan conclave. It's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it bit, though:
> I see no obstacle to electing the pope in the same way, except that, in lieu of local bishops, it seems fitting for the pope’s election to be confirmed and consecrated by his fellow patriarchs. By adopting this reform, I would, in all likelihood, be making myself the last non-Roman pope…
So that would be my new papal election method to replace the cardinals.
German here, nope sex abuse seems about equally bad, independent of how the bishop is picked.
The mode of appointment may or may not make a difference on the theological conservative/liberal axis. Bavarian bishops (who are picked by basically the global system) tend to be more conservative than bishops in the rest of Germany (where Rome sends three names and the cathedral chapter picks one of them). But that might also be a matter of regional culture rather than appointment procedures, and also being theologically conservative or liberal doesn't make any difference to covering up sex scandals either.
I think there are two Swiss dioceses where Rome can only veto (rather than pick) the candidates but those are super-exceptional. The common system is "chapter picks from trias sent by Rome". In some states and not others the concordate also provides that at least one of the three candidates must be a priest from the diocese.
That the Catholic Church has been around for long enough that this statement isn't laughable serves to explain why getting rid of the corruption within it is so hard, thanks to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
I just posted a lengthy essay on some very similar notes - including some of the same structural problems in the episcopacy (particularly in the west). I also think the seminary system is an antiquated disaster (based on my experience).
Oh, I'm going to read that! I also think seminaries are a mess, but I was never actually a seminarian (I just knew a lot of them) so I have a hard time figuring out exactly what the problems and solutions are. Cheers!
One detail about the conclave idea is that diocese would have no masses or sacraments until the conclave is finished? Or is there a way to work around that?
Overall it seems directionally correct, which is the best kind of correct these days.
Good point, probably should have talked about this some in the piece!
I view it as similar to a diocesan presbyteral assembly. We just had ours last week. Confessions were unavailable throughout at least most (maybe all?) diocesan parishes from Tuesday through Thursday, all Masses at the parishes I'm familiar with were cancelled (replaced by priest-free Communion services), and a few priests from outside the diocese shipped in to cover essentials. This happens once every two years or so.
However, I don't think *every* priest was at the assembly, as would be the case at a diocesan conclave, and they *could* be called away in case of an emergency. I also have no idea how they make provision for Last Rites during the assembly, which obviously can happen at any time and cannot be rescheduled. Surely somebody handles it, but I don't know who. Also, there's always a risk that a conclave will last longer than three days, although this has become a rarity. Sunday Mass could be a little sticky!
So, on the one hand, I think our bureaucracy already has some experience dealing with things like this. On the other hand, a conclave would bring additional challenges that I don't know are solved. On the other other hand, if we had smaller dioceses, it would be easier to manage these challenges using priests from neighboring dioceses.
Heck, if we had smaller dioceses, the answer to some of these questions might be as simple as "drive into the next diocese and get shriven there." Right now, for me, "the next diocese" is a 22-mile drive, over the border in Wisconsin, and I'm relatively close to a diocesan border. It would not be great to ask penitents to go so far for the full length of a diocesan conclave. If my diocese were split into 25 dioceses, however, the nearest diocese would be *at most* 4 miles away, and I *already* make that drive for Sunday Mass on a fairly regular basis when I'm going over to my parents' house for dinner.
None of this is a definitive answer, but the short version is that I think sacraments would be *limited* during a diocesan conclave, but not unduly so, and nevertheless *available*, particularly to the needy / dying. Clearly, we can't indefinitely suspend the sacraments in a diocese, so, one way or another, this would need to be addressed!
"on the other other hand. . .".
From our previous conversation in the last post about the "Pournelle reference", that's called "the gripping hand". 🙂
The problem with overhauling/shrinking the Curia is, as you observed, that as soon as a new Pope is elected, the curia "gets its hooks" into him.
Which brings up the second problem: No cardinal goes into a conclave knowing with any degree of certainty that he will be elected Pope, Therefore, no one has a meaningful opportunity, and no real incentive, to make plans to overhaul the curia, an effort that would take much time and would have to be done virtually in secret, starting from the moment the previous Pope dies or resigns, and for all but one cardinal, would be wasted effort.
In fact, the election of the Pope by the cardinals is a kind of "feedback loop" effect, as each Pope chooses the cardinals who will elect his successor. (I believe George Orwell in "1984" made that exact observation).
The proposal that I like much better would be the "diocesan conclave" of priests, neighboring bishops including the Metropolitan, and carefully selected laity, to elect a bishop.. BTW, I wonder if the handful of dioceses in France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland that elect their own bishops, have fared better with respect to the sexual abuse crisis?
"In fact, the election of the Pope by the cardinals is a kind of "feedback loop" effect, as each Pope chooses the cardinals who will elect his successor."
Yes, exactly, and this is a major problem with much Church governance today: everyone at the top of the system is a product of the system and only the system, so why would they change the system? This is, again, a RECENT development, because the ecclesial government used to have a LOT of push-and-pull with the secular Catholic powers. There were a lot of bad aspects to this, so I'm not saying let's bring it back, but we did lose something when that went away and the system became hermetically sealed.
"BTW, I wonder if the handful of dioceses in France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland that elect their own bishops, have fared better with respect to the sexual abuse crisis?"
N=a very small number, so I don't know how much statistical power we could get out of this, but it's still a very interesting question I don't know the answer to.
"Therefore, no one has a meaningful opportunity, and no real incentive, to make plans to overhaul the curia, an effort that would take much time and would have to be done virtually in secret, starting from the moment the previous Pope dies or resigns, and for all but one cardinal, would be wasted effort."
New pitch: the Heritage Foundation, but for the Church. "Mandate for Papacy: Project 2025," coming to an Ignatius Press bookshelf near you!
I like that pitch!
I have a minor bone to pick with your intended order of operations. I would not recommend announcing an end to the College of Cardinals until after you have made the necessary changes to how you would be replaced.
A fair quibble. I'm just terrified of bureaucratic capture, so my inclination is toward panicked haste.
I, on the other hand, am most terrified of a plan having an Achilles' Heel, particularly one where the lynchpin is me staying alive long enough to finish the job, when steps in the plan may incentivize my assassination.
Given that cardinals are not required to be bishops (historically speaking), why would you eliminate them rather than demote some/elevate others, and adjust their powers? Seeing as you would intend to set up a body of electors.
To be sure, I'd only set up a different body of electors temporarily. Ultimately, I'd be transitioning to the diocesan election model.
One *could* make those electors cardinals, but that would make it impossible for any of them to be women. Cardinals don't have to be bishops, and they don't even have to be priests, but they do have to be ordained to at least the diaconate. Since the college of cardinals is just made up anyway, I *could* change that law, allowing women to be made cardinals *without* ordination to the diaconate... but, at a certain point, it just seemed simpler and cleaner and less confusing to the laity to just blow up the college and call the (temporary) replacement something else.
My sense that this was the right move were redoubled when I realized that I would not retain *any* current cardinals. I just don't trust the college at all, so, even if I retained the title of "cardinal," I'd be doing a wholesale replacement, and, again, it seemed cleaner and less confusing to just call the new thing by a different label.
Prudent minds may disagree about this, but that's why I pulled the trigger.
When I read Footnote 1 I was expecting a link to https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/. Australia did not come out of the Pell trial looking especially great but the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse took a very hard look at how all institutions enable it, rather than being focused just on one particular institution, and since that's the point you were making in Footnote 1 I expected you to cite their work.
I would like to have a fancy response to this, like, I thought well of this commission report in general but didn't feel comfortable linking it without having actually read all 17 volumes. Or, I thought the report was too focused on standards and paperwork and didn't always get to the pith of the matter.
But I have no such educated response to this because the true reason I omitted it is because I forgot both the report and its contents, although I'm sure I've seen it before, almost certainly because you posted it!
I'm glad you've posted it here, even though I have no intelligent commentary on it.
My only comment (which I'm certain I've made before to you) is that it should have served as a kick in the pants for the Catholic Church to reform itself and set an example (because some organisation should have set an example; I wouldn't personally have cared which) to every other group examined by the Commission that it is in fact possible to implement reforms to curb this abhorrence. Maybe some of the reforms would have been specific to the nature of the Catholic Church (like devolving governance to be closer to individual parishioners) and could not have been implemented in other organisations but it still would have shown that it is possible.
(The Commission did have its own thoughts about the possible nature of those reforms, but they were the sort of polite suggestions that a modern secular government would make to a religious organisation and not the sort of thing a professor of moral theology at Wittenberg would have written in 1517.)
It only became more urgent for it to be demonstrated that reforms are possible (and thus more damning that it didn't happen) after the revelations a few years later about clerical sexual abuse in Southern Baptist churches: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Southern-Baptist-sexual-abuse-spreads-as-leaders-13588038.php
Anyway the whole thing is really a great example of the depressing story of Nobody, Everybody, Somebody and Anybody:
A team had four members called Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. There was an important job to be done. Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it.
Nobody realized that it’s Everybody’s job. Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
I am confused. You advocate getting rid of the college of cardinals. If you do that, however, how does a pope get elected? Did you explain that at some point and I missed it?
Almost at the very end, I propose that the Bishop of Rome be elected like any other bishop under my august reign as pope: in diocesan conclave. It's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it bit, though:
> I see no obstacle to electing the pope in the same way, except that, in lieu of local bishops, it seems fitting for the pope’s election to be confirmed and consecrated by his fellow patriarchs. By adopting this reform, I would, in all likelihood, be making myself the last non-Roman pope…
So that would be my new papal election method to replace the cardinals.
German here, nope sex abuse seems about equally bad, independent of how the bishop is picked.
The mode of appointment may or may not make a difference on the theological conservative/liberal axis. Bavarian bishops (who are picked by basically the global system) tend to be more conservative than bishops in the rest of Germany (where Rome sends three names and the cathedral chapter picks one of them). But that might also be a matter of regional culture rather than appointment procedures, and also being theologically conservative or liberal doesn't make any difference to covering up sex scandals either.
I think there are two Swiss dioceses where Rome can only veto (rather than pick) the candidates but those are super-exceptional. The common system is "chapter picks from trias sent by Rome". In some states and not others the concordate also provides that at least one of the three candidates must be a priest from the diocese.
Sorry, this was meant to be a reply to Phil H's comment above and probably looks a little weird now that I accidentally posted it at the top-level.
No worries! I got it from context, and I'm sure other readers did, too.
"The college of cardinals is a medieval novelty"
That the Catholic Church has been around for long enough that this statement isn't laughable serves to explain why getting rid of the corruption within it is so hard, thanks to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
I just posted a lengthy essay on some very similar notes - including some of the same structural problems in the episcopacy (particularly in the west). I also think the seminary system is an antiquated disaster (based on my experience).
Oh, I'm going to read that! I also think seminaries are a mess, but I was never actually a seminarian (I just knew a lot of them) so I have a hard time figuring out exactly what the problems and solutions are. Cheers!
(Link for curious bystanders: https://jacobx.substack.com/p/deconstructivating-the-catholic-seminary )
I would love any thoughts of yours!
Well, I'm only 8 pages in, but I'm already kicking myself that I didn't find you in time for my old Seminarian Testaments series: https://ropersanchor.jamesjheaney.com/2018/11/28/call-for-seminarian-testaments/
You suggest that you were the only one, and maybe at SCB that was true, but, nationally, I know it wasn't.
Well, this ended in 2017, but I only finished the essay last month.