More On The Roman Sede Vacante

For information, you can read up on the term sede vacante at the link.

I don’t want to spend much time on the current interregnum. Anyone who wants to can use the search function for words like “Ratzinger” “Benedict” and “Wojtyła”. What you’ll find is that I view both Benedict XVI and John Paul II as unorthodox in important respects—speaking from a philosophical standpoint. Bergoglio, of course, was a different animal who lacked any appreciation for history or the civilizational heritage of Christianity—not to mention an understanding of Christian faith itself. He was an intellectual and spiritual lightweight who was in over his head and probably lacked even decent human intentions. I speak in nuanced terms, but do your searches.

Today Charles Chaput, formerly bishop of Philadelphia, issued a statement. Chaput was a prominent—how shall I put it?—JP2 bishop. As such, I would have to regard his perspective as somewhat limited, despite my broad agreement with what he attempted to accomplish. For perspective on Chaput and his relations with the Vatican:

Though Chaput led a historically important see and his five immediate predecessors were cardinals, Benedict XVI did not appoint him a cardinal in his two 2012 consistories, nor did Pope Francis in any of his.

So here’s the meat of Chaput’s somewhat nuanced statement. Reading between the lines won’t be difficult:

… an interregnum between papacies is a time for candor. The lack of it, given today’s challenges, is too expensive. In many ways, whatever its strengths, the Francis pontificate was inadequate to the real issues facing the Church. He had no direct involvement in the Second Vatican Council and seemed to resent the legacy of his immediate predecessors who did; men who worked and suffered to incarnate the council’s teachings faithfully into Catholic life. His personality tended toward the temperamental and autocratic. He resisted even loyal criticism. He had a pattern of ambiguity and loose words that sowed confusion and conflict. In the face of deep cultural fractures on matters of sexual behavior and identity, he condemned gender ideology but seemed to downplay a compelling Christian “theology of the body.” He was impatient with canon law and proper procedure. His signature project, synodality, was heavy on process and deficient in clarity. Despite an inspiring outreach to society’s margins, his papacy lacked a confident, dynamic evangelical zeal. The intellectual excellence to sustain a salvific (and not merely ethical) Christian witness in a skeptical modern world was likewise absent.

What the Church needs going forward is a leader who can marry personal simplicity with a passion for converting the world to Jesus Christ, a leader who has a heart of courage and a keen intellect to match it. Anything less won’t work.

That seems fair enough. The tricky part will be finding someone with “a heart of courage and a keen intellect”. The eligible clergy appear mostly to be organization men who kept their mouths shut to go along and get along—based on the examples of those who stuck their heads out of their episcopal foxholes and suffered the consequences. The others are enthusiastic non-Christians.