Sandro Magister’s latest gives us some reason to reflect on this great pontifical feast of SS Peter and Paul. In “Roman Curia: The Reform that Isn’t There“, Magister makes plain that Benedict has put the reform of the curia, long anticipated and a job for which Benedict seemed well-qualified, on the back burner. After some early promising moves, such as collapsing the congregation or whatever-it-was for Interreligious Dialogue into the Pontifical Council or whatever-it-is for Culture, Benedict didn’t go much farther and has now even reversed course, bringing the Interreligious Dialogue losers back to life. The most positive spin on Benedict’s “progress” at reform thus far is that Benedict is biding his time, a tactic he learned from many years in the Curia. The less optimistic outlook is that Benedict isn’t going to expend his limited time (and, perhaps, political capital) on such an effort.

Some choice bits from Magister’s column:

On the bloated Vatican bureaucracy:

As for the pontifical council for migrants and itinerant peoples, this remains incorporated with “Iustitia et Pax,” but it continues to churn out symposiums and documents that immediately fall into disregard: the complete opposite of the expected simplification. Its latest product is a sort of catechism on the rules of the road presented to the press on June 19.

What he’s doing instead:

In the third year of his reign, it is by now evident that reform of the curia does not figure among the priorities on Benedict XVI’s agenda.

In part because of his advanced age, pope Ratzinger has drastically pared down the matters to which he dedicates himself body and soul: before all else, preaching, the liturgical celebrations, and the book “Jesus of Nazareth,” the second volume of which, on the passion and resurrection, he is already writing.

Further:

On these absolute priorities, Benedict XVI is not “biding his time”; on the contrary, he dedicates himself to them with a tireless passion equal to the crystalline clarity with which he formulates his theses. Pope Ratzinger never minces words on the controversial questions close to his heart. He clearly says what is the right thing to do: in the field of the liturgy as in the field of public ethics, for example on whether or not to receive communion if one maintains that abortion is permissible. But in the end, the pope wants to leave these decisions to conscience. More than issuing orders and establishing sanctions, he aims at educating, at convincing.

This is where I really wonder about Pope Ratzinger and, indeed, the whole direction of the post-Vatican II Church. Human nature hasn’t changed in 2000 years: sometimes, folks need to receive not just clear teaching and instruction, but also clear, unavoidable orders. And again, sometimes, if a habit of disobedience or ignoring orders has come to life, then the Pope needs to make examples of a few people by solemn, public excommunications. He needs to strip a few bishops of their dioceses. He needs to shake things up just a little bit to show people that he means business. Romano Amerio had called the current state of things, begun by Paul VI and very much continued through the reign of John Paul II, a breviatio manus Domini, a foreshortening of the hand of the Lord.

One simply cannot rule out, a priori, as it were, the use of correction and strict commands. While it would be preferable always to teach and instruct and thereby bring about the rectification of any misguided persons, this approach, when used exclusively, defies the facts of human nature. It defies the reality of the devil’s action in the world and his attempts to destroy the Church. Samuel Johnson put the point very well when speaking of the degree of severity a school master may use in disciplining his pupils: “Why, Sir, till you can fix the degree of obstinacy and negligence of the scholars, you cannot fix the degree of severity of the master. Severity must be continued until obstinacy be subdued, and negligence be cured.”

For Magister to say that Benedict would rather leave decisions over abortion to the consciences of the politicians seems to me not just foolish but positively negligent. We know and can see every day that Catholic politicians, whether in this country or in Latin and South America, are not listening. Benedict is teaching, but they’re throwing spitballs in the back of the classroom. Someone has to grab their attention. And, indeed, there will be cases where, despite thorough instruction and a great deal of attention on both sides, a politician (or bishop or theology professor) will remain convinced of his own rectitude and will adhere adamantly to his own views. This then is a heretic and must be dealt with accordingly: in the old days, we had the luxury of burning such people; today, many of us would be quite pleased just to see a solemn excommunication.

At least don’t allow them to remain at their posts (if they are bishops or theologians) while they continue to make a mockery of the Faith and give scandal to the whole world!