Currently the Pope selects and appoints Cardinals who follow his line of thinking, and who swear fealty to him as a tenant in olden days swore loyalty to a feudal lord. This, I do not think, will be approved by Christ who came to set all humans free by proclaiming the Glorious liberty of God's children. The cardinals serve their time at the Pope's pleasure. The pope is the absolute monarch for life. And when he dies, the new pope is elected by secret ballots in a secret conclave by cardinals appointed by him. Thus the vicious cycle is complete. The pope is not accountable to the members of the Church. Interestingly all this is done in the name of God. According to a self-serving theology, this is the way God wills things. Of course anyone who differs from this peculiar theology is going against the will of God! There is no Godly reason for this. There is no need for this. Things do not have to be this way. I cannot see Christ approving this anachronistic feudal system discredited long ago. This system has to go. The hand-writing on the wall is very clear. Organizations clamoring for reform in the Catholic Church are springing up in different parts of the world. A news report recently (Indo-Asian News Service, New Delhi, December 13, 2012) stated that over hundred countries and organizations declared their support to rebels fighting the autocratic government of the dictator, Bashar Al-Assad, in Syria. Now it is a question only of time as the international community is going to exert its will on this dictatorship. Autocrats rarely leave their power on their own. They have to be forced out. There is no need to bring an out-dated theological system in the Catholic Church to prop up an out-dated autocratic system. A patriarchal, autocratic system and a spiritual dictatorship that unjustly keep out about half of humanity, women, from its power structure cannot carry on in the name of Christ. It is clearly unthinkable in this day and age.

             Fear of the devil was strong in the minds of the Catholics especially in the 16th century. Misogyny in the Middle Ages has its origin in the thinking that woman, the daughter of Eve, plays the diabolical role of tempting men to evil. When I was initiated into religious life in the Jesuit Order in 1958 at the age of 18, there were clear guidelines with regard to modesty and custody of the eyes, and what part of the body of a woman to look at and what part to avoid when one was in the presence of a woman. There was a certain fear of and preoccupation with sinning. Woman obviously was considered to be a temptress who would occasion sin for men. And most of the sins were related to sexuality anyway! This kind of negative spirituality and thinking dealt a big blow to the equality of men and women. It also diminished responsibility for a man's intention and action. Ultimately it did no good to women or men. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking persists in some form even today, and plays some role in not ordaining women to priesthood. A woman priest with her body contours and curvatures could be a distraction for men. Why should not a nice-looking male priest be equally distracting to women? In my clinical practice I was made aware that the intensity of female libido (sexual drive) is not really any less from that of a man. The libido in men and women is expressed differently. Except male-dominated tradition there is no cogent theological reason against the ordination of women.

             Pope John XXIII through the Second Vatican Council attempted to open the tightly shut windows of the Catholic Church to let in some fresh air. Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, who is the present Pope, shut in effect the very partially opened windows in that no substantive and meaningful reforms in the Catholic Church took place. They played lip-service to the much anticipated reforms while all the time appeasing and catering to the reactionaries. Persons who vowed obedience and celibacy are leaving religious organizations and hierarchical priesthood. Young persons do not feel inspired to take their places. In fact I am really surprised at myself for saying things that it would have been unthinkable for me to say a few months ago. Everything that I write comes after prayerful discernment. I have spent 25 years of the most important years (from 17 years of age to 42 years) of my life under the vow of obedience and celibacy (chastity). Most religious who leave do not leave on account of the vow of poverty. I do not expect the bishops and the pope to like what I am writing. But the truth needs to be told. The possibility of rejection by this world should not stop anyone from telling things for what they are. The reality as I discern God's will is that the present pope and the magisterium are not truly responsive to the needs of the members of the Catholic Church. They are not representative of the members of the Catholic Church and as such they are illegitimate. They have lost their credibility. There is no theology that can legitimize them. The current theology of the pope being the Vicar of Christ, who does not represent the collective will of the members, is going to go the same way the theology of the divine right of kings. We need to accept in awe that the sincere, discerning will of everyone is created by the same one God.

Papal Charism

            It is difficult to trust the judgments of popes. Except for Pope John XXIII, the modern popes have not provided effective and needed leadership. Pope John Paul II with all his charism failed to usher the Catholic Church into the 21st century. He was successful with his native Poland, but failed miserably with 1. Liberation theologians who were fighting the dictators in Latin America and 2. Progressive Catholics who were advocating reforms. His successor is his carbon copy. Historically many popes have not lived a life of creativity and holiness. They either encouraged or condoned many evils. They were mostly silent or ignored the tragedy of Jewish Holocaust, perhaps the greatest tragedy for humanity in the 20th century in Christian Europe. They waged crusades. They encouraged or condoned inquisition, witch-hunts, racism, colonialism, apartheid. Some of their actions precipitated great and still unhealed divisions (Catholic-Orthodox, Catholic-Protestant) in the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XI, for instance, rebuffed Mahatma Gandhi, perhaps the greatest spiritual soul in the 20th century, by not giving him audience when he, with the permission of British Colonial Powers, visited Rome with the explicit intention of seeing the Pope. Obviously the sympathy of the Pope was with the colonial, oppressive powers ruling India. Interestingly St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits and one of the greatest defenders of papacy, was forbidden to preach Christ for 3 years by the evil Inquisition controlled by the Dominican Friars as he was suspected of being not faithful to the Catholic doctrine. Also St. Theresa of Avila and the Jesuit saint Francis Borgia were censured.

            Many prominent religious persons were condemned and put to death for merely voicing their theological or moral views. Savonorola, who was burned at the stake, worked for deposing Pope Alexander VI, one of the most immoral popes in history. Ironically the very Society of Jesus was suppressed by Pope Clement XIV due to political pressure and greed of those who could not stomach the spiritual works of Jesuits. The suppression lasted for 42 years. The most qualified members of the Jesuit Order who vowed special obedience to the Pope were put out of commission. A Pope could not have been more self-destructive than that. Popes condoned immoral slavery, a curse of humanity. How could they speak against it as they came from among the powerful who benefited from it? How could they oppose colonialism as his emissaries and missionaries benefited from the colonial powers? How could the king of France support the Jesuits against the suppression of the Society of Jesus when his own mistress was angry with the Jesuits for not absolving her in confession for living with the king? Jesus called Herod, the king in his days, a fox. Can we think of any pope calling a powerful monarch in the Europe of medieval times like that? Quite a few popes came from powerful political or royal families. Quite a few popes owed their appointment to kings.

            From 17 years of age till the present (72 years of age), I have made religious life, spirituality, and the Catholic Church my main preoccupation. And I have not compromised any way in this regard. I can marshal many facts to expose bad judgments of Popes and their advisors in the past. In other words, I do not think any objective person evaluating events theologically, spiritually, and psychologically can give many popes of the past passing grades. Edmund Burke, a philosopher, stated: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I want to remember humanities nightmares, horrors, and traumas of the past, and I do not want to repeat them. I do not see popes in the past as advancing the Kingdom of Christ. The way popes and their magisterium govern the Catholic Church at present, I do not trust in their ability to govern this body, the Catholic Church, spiritually in keeping with the teachings of Christ. And that is the precise reason that Pope Benedict XVI at 85 years of age, having spent out his steam in the 20th century fighting progressive theologians should peacefully pave the way for a Third Vatican Ecumenical Council that would among other things also create a wholesome democratic power structure. Pope Benedict XVI as Josef Ratzinger in his liberal, reform-minded days wrote in his 1968 book, Introduction to Christianity that the pope has a duty to listen to differing voices within the Church. At that time he also downplayed the centrality of the pope.