Only papal coherence can heal the wounds of ecclesial unity.
To the liberal Catholic Lord Acton (1834-1902) is attributed the phrase: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In democracies it has been concluded that power must be distrusted and therefore limited. For this reason, it is divided, among other things, through the recognition of fundamental rights, the separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judicial), subsidiarity and federalism, referendums, and term limits. Through a “social contract” of all citizens, the Constitution, political power is agreed to be shared in this way. But even this does not always restrain it sufficiently.
In the Church, the problem of power is even more pressing. There, not all the means mentioned exist to fragment power. Rather, according to the doctrine of the faith and the Code of Canon Law (CIC/1983), the Pope “by virtue of his office possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (can. 331).
The Pope therefore possesses absolute power. Does absolute power therefore corrupt absolutely within the Church? If the Church is considered only with human eyes, one would have to say: yes, it does. But if considered with the eyes of faith, this is not true. For there is one single “instrument” to limit papal omnipotence: unconditional obedience to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, to which the Pope is bound in conscience. Only because the Church as a whole and the Pope in particular are subject to this limitation of power is it possible to entrust absolute power to a man within her. Distrust of power is thus overcome in the Church because the faithful trust that the Pope knows he is bound, by unconditional obedience to the faith, in the exercise of his power, which in itself is unlimited.
This trust has been shaken in the Church; for many, it is destroyed. Pope Francis turned the indissolubility of marriage into a farce with “Amoris Laetitia.” It now applies only in theory. In practice, with a few “pastoral discernments”—on any basis and by anyone—one can live in adultery with a clear conscience. The Vatican’s extra-liturgical blessing of a few seconds for same-sex and extramarital couples (“Fiducia supplicans”) represents a further departure from Christian marriage. Ambiguous gestures such as the worship of Pachamama in the Vatican and the “Document on Human Fraternity” (Abu Dhabi Declaration) of 2019 have in fact denied the Christian universalism of salvation. The appointment of laypeople to leadership positions in the Vatican that involve the exercise of governing power constitutes a rupture with the Second Vatican Council (LG 21; Nota explicativa praevia 2). It undermines the sacramental-hierarchical order of the Church. This situation continues under the pontificate of Pope Leo XIV. Within the framework of “synodality,” the Apostolic See has published a document that attempts to justify the rejection of the Second Vatican Council (Final Report of Study Group 5 on the sacrament of order and the “potestas sacra”). Without comment—and irresponsibly—the Apostolic See has published a heretical text that relativizes the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family (Final Report of Study Group 9 on “complex issues”).
Even serious liturgical abuses are ignored or minimized by many bishops as well as by the Holy See. Yet the faithful who follow the extraordinary form are harassed. Priests are hindered or prevented from celebrating the Eucharist in this way. The laity are humiliated by being forbidden to celebrate this form of the Eucharist in parish churches. These faithful are driven into clandestinity or toward the Society of Saint Pius X, whose existence is then lamented.
The Pope allows the German bishops, who for years have been undermining the sacramental order of the Church with their “Synodal Way” and institutionalizing the blessing of same-sex couples, to continue acting in this manner. It is said that they have been spoken with. However, the Society of Saint Pius X is threatened with excommunication by means of absolute papal power. The Pope disregards the dogmatic constitution “Lumen Gentium” (no. 21) concerning the sacrament of order and demands acceptance of the liturgical constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” Both are documents of the same council. This double standard destroys the trust of many of the faithful.
The announcement by the Society of Saint Pius X to consecrate bishops on its own is a sign of the loss of trust in the Pope. And the acceptance of this act, which extends far beyond the followers of the Society, shows that for many, trust has given way to distrust. Too much has happened, and the consequences are devastating. Because more and more of the faithful realize that the doctrine of the Church is no longer the limit for the actions of the hierarchy. That is the disease from which the Church truly suffers. And it cannot be cured by exercising papal omnipotence through threats and excommunications. For if the unrestrained power of the strongest determines the Church, there is only one conclusion: that power must be limited. The consecration of bishops against the will of the Pope is ultimately the—admittedly problematic—attempt to limit papal omnipotence, when its limit is no longer the doctrine of the Church.
If schisms are not to continue limiting papal omnipotence, there is only one way: the Pope must heal the wounds inflicted on the doctrine of the Church. Only in this way can he confront distrust and restore trust. He will not achieve this with impositions, threats, and double standards. The Society of Saint Pius X is not the disease, but a symptom. This symptom can be combated with excommunication. Papal omnipotence certainly permits this from a legal standpoint. But the disease is not cured by it. It will continue to fester and divide and weaken the body of Christ, the Church. The Pope holds the key to healing the disease. He must use it and cannot evade the problem. For not to govern is also to govern. That too is a consequence that derives from papal omnipotence.