Many times we read criticisms of our leaders from "armchair strategists." Do they think they know all the extraneous pressures people are under? Presently it's questioning why the pope told the USCB to stop plans regarding priestly sexual abuse. The reason why the stop was put on is that there's a global summit happening in February to discuss and plan actions.
I wonder. Do the critics miss the adjective global summit? Tell me, what would be the use of the U.S. bishops deciding on an action plan now and then having to change it in February?
As soon as I heard about the global summit I could understand the pope's ordering a halt. This was especially brought to mind the other day when I was reading about the role of the church during the French Revolution. The church almost died. Rome was occupied by the French. In fact, the French Revolutionists' aim was to get rid of Christianity and replace it with Reason. There were many Catholics, including religious, priests, bishops even, who agreed, or were at least resigned that the papacy was dying.
What happened was that Napoleon came to power. Napoleon saw a use for the church. He could use it as a unification factor. Anyway, the pope had to make some deals that certainly raised eyebrows. And today, I'm sure the media would be screaming their righteous objections. (Think agreements with China.) But we aren't privy to the big picture. After the French Revolution, the pope had to appoint bishops he didn't want, in order to advance the interests of the future church. And with what result? Eventually, after almost dying, by the next century, the church emerged stronger, more unified, and had more of a stronger sense of its own Christ's mandated vision.
No comments:
Post a Comment