Modern Popes as CEOs

 

Even before this, however, another meaningful occurrence which might 
be very useful for the research I have suggested, should be mentioned. I quote from 

the Spanish What's Up (Que Pasa?) magazine, Vol. VII, No. 363, of December 12, 

1970: 


The famous and “regretfully” octogenarian Cardinal Ottaviani does not 
conceal his bitterness. 

In its issue of Thursday, November 26, in three columns on the first and 
second pages, The Messenger (It Messagero) from Rome, published a sensational 

interview with His Eminence Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani. The report is accompanied

 by a large photograph of this venerable prince of the Church. . . . 

According to the Pope’s November 24 Motu Proprio, beginning next 
January no eighty -year-old cardinal will be able to participate in the election 

of the Pontiff. Presently, these persons amount to twenty-five. Among them is

 saintly Cardinal Ottaviani, who celebrated his eightieth birthday on October 29, 1970. 

Question: What does His Eminence think about this decision of Paul 
VI? 

Answer: More important than my personal opinion, which could be 
deemed biased because of my age, I should like to convey the feelings of 
canons, prelates, and even renowned hierarchs who are unaware of the 
current problems of the Church. Undoubtedly they all are impressd by this 
unusual and expeditious way of enacting this grave disruption in the high 
ecclesiastical hierarchy. This radical change was implemented without 
previous consultation with experts and specialists, at least to observe the 
formalities to a certain extent. 

Question: Why did Your Eminence say "unusual?” Perhaps because 
no one expected such a big upsetting decision? 

Answer: It is unusual that, through a Motu Proprio, without previous 
advice, the pages of the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica and those of 
the Code of Canonical Law, which regulated the position of the cardinals, 
both as to the cooperation they owe the Pontiff for the rule of the world 
Church, and as to their most important ministry as top electors of the Head 
of the Universal Church, are suppressed. This Motu Proprio then, is an act 
of abolition of a multicentennial tradition. It rejects the practice followed 
by all ecumenical councils. Regarding the age limit [the Most Eminent 
Cardinal spoke calmly and composedly, without any sign of uneasiness], 
should old age be respected, we would be able to sow the seed whose fruits 
you yourselves would harvest. But here respect was laid aside. ... It is 
precisely the motivation of age which the Motu Proprio invokes to justify 
such a grave regulation. In fact, along the centuries, a principle was always 
deemed immutable, namely, that old people are a firm safeguard of the 
Church and its best advisors, for they are rich in experience, wisdom, and 
doctrine. If, in a given case, these gifts were not present, it sufficed to 
examine the circumstances concerning this particular person to determine 
whether disease or mental disturbance made him inept, this check 
belonging to skillful experts. In Holy Writ,” [the Most Eminent Cardinal 
was astonishingly bright], "the value of age and the aged are often 
mentioned. This shows how constructive are the cooperation and 
guarantee of advanced age in the administration of holy things and in right 
and efficient pastoral administration. In addition, let us not forget the 
glory of Pontiffs, who, in their old age, enlightened the Church with their 
wisdom and sanctity. Finally, when we cardinals are in our eighties, to our 
credit is a curriculum vitae full of merits, experience, and doctrines at the 
service of the Church. The Church cannot afford to lose these advantages 
by accepting only the cooperation of younger and less-experienced people. 

Question : Eminence, could not this discrimination of octogenarian 
cardinals by chance affect the Pontiff himself someday? 

Answer: Certainly, for the same criterion must be analogically 
applied to the case of the sovereign Pontiff, be he an octogenarian or be his 
acts questioned due to age. 

Question : Finally, Eminence: What was your impression about this 
decision of the Pope? 

Answer: You will see. I felt flattered each time Paul VI, verbally or 
in writing, called me u il mio maestro ” (“my master”), but now this act of 
laying me aside completely is openly contradictory with his autographed 
letter of October 29. In that, he congratulated me for my eightieth 
birthday, using affectionate phrases and flattering felicitations for my long, 
faithful, everyday services to the Church. 

STATEMENTS BY CARDINAL TISSERANT 

According to the November 27, 1970 issue of La Croix , 86-year-old 
Cardinal Tisserant, who enjoys full mental clarity and excellent physical health, 

answered questions on Italian Television (First Network). I quote La Croix: 

Rarely had an interview attained such importance and contained such 
interesting information. In just three minutes, the audience was informed about the 

Pope’s critical health condition (“he had to be held up on the way out of his Wednesday 

audience”), about the Cardinal’s excellent state of health, about Christ having founded 

His Church under the form of a monarchic state , and about the collegiality of the 

bishopric about which we have heard so much (“The more it is mentioned, the less it is 

exercised”). 

Apropos of Paul Vi’s decision to keep the election of the Pope in the hands 
of less-than-80-year-old cardinals, Cardinal Tisserant said he did not know the grounds 

thereof (though the Pontifical document stated them clearly), and that, undoubtedly, the 

Pope wanted to please young people , since “now, everybody wants old people to disappear 

Wednesday afternoon. Professor Alessandrini categorically denied the 
Cardinal’s words regarding the Pope’s health condition. 



SOME COMMENTS BY FATHER RAYMOND DULAC 

When Fr. Raymond Dulac was asked his opinion of Paul Vi’s decision to 
take away the right of voting in papal elections from cardinals 80 years and 
older, he made these statements: 

This decision taking away the right of voting in the papal election from a 
whole category of cardinals, is an enormous decision. Until now, the most 
important part of their function was this right. It commands and effects their 

beheading in the most accurate sense of this word; they keep their hats, but their

 heads are chopped off. This is what the ancient Romans called diminutio capitis, 

a lessening or amputation of their civil rights and, of course, of their personality. 

Let us not forget that the statute creating the cardinals’ right to elect the 
Pope dates back to the year 1059; that during the arduous course of this 
thousand-year period of history this rule was never questioned; that the 
“impediment” of advanced age has never prevented the creation of a cardinal 

or the continuing of a Pope once he became 80 years old, that it is contrary to the

 Catholic spirit and the Roman Tradition to suspend a law supported by such a 

time-honored custom without most grave reasons; and that this type of change, 

affected by the Pope in 1970 in such a sudden, personal, and suspicious way, will 

increase most people’s feelings of insecurity, instability, and the alienation which 
has contributed to de-sacralizing the Church and loosening its customs. 

Let us forget the inhuman, vain, vile aspects of this decision concerning 
the age of men whose sacerdotal ordination had separated them from mortal mankind as 

far as powers and dignities are concerned. 

After this blow and all the others of the past five years designed to 
naturalize and laicize the clergy, how could one have the heart to keep on telling the

 ordained young priests: ”7u es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech ?"

 Priest for all eternity? Of what order? Not of the carnal Levitical tribe, but of the orde

r of that astonishing, unique, ageless personage, Melchisedech, whose mystery is 

revealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, verse 3 of Chapter 7: “Without father, without

 mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but

 likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest forever.” 

This all being over, today’s priest is just like an official who, in due course, 
is “retired,” with a life pension, like a Swiss guard. 

Since Paul VI, without much of a preamble, has nullified a millenary 
legislation, it is important to know whether his Motu Proprio was not in fact, a 

Motu alieno. 

This most unusual act is an act of personal might on the part of a Pontiff 
who, so far as others are concerned, keeps on covering himself with the curtain 

of collegiality. We are sure this act has not been free. Should it be proven that it 

was free, there will be no need to nullify this act; as a matter of right, it will be null and void 

“For behold ... the Lord of hosts shall take away from Jerusalem, and 
from Juda . . . the strong man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and 

he cunning . . . and the ancient. The captain over fifty, and the 
honourable . , . and the counsellor . . . And I will give children to be their princes, and , . . 

the child shall make a tumult against the ancient ; and the base against the honourable

 (Is. 3:1-5). He who is able to understand let him understand [italics 
added]. 

This is Paul VI, living contradiction. On the one hand, he affirms; on the 
other, he denies. Many times, without even preserving appearances, he destroys with 

facts what he has built with words. Let the reader remember what the Pontiff wrote in

 his brief to Cardinal Lercaro when the Cardinal was almost eighty years old, wishing

 him a long life in the service of the Church. Then let him read the Motu Proprio, whereby

 he deprives octogenarian cardinals of their legitimate rights on grounds of age, not because

 of incapacity. Paul’s dialectics 
are incomprehensible and plainly destructive. 

Applying these dialectics, regulating our criteria by the principles of this 
Motu Proprio , we must conclude that the octogenarian Pontiff, John XXIII, was an inep

t pope, and his council was no real council, because, according to Pope Montini, one’s 

reason quits functioning when one is eighty years old, and one is no longer able to receive 

the light of the Holy Ghost. 

THE ARCHBISHOP OF GENOA , CARDINAL SIRI t SPEAKS 

In order to decipher the enigma of the current Pontiff, I believe it to be 
extremely important to quote the courageous statements of Cardinal Siri, 
Archbishop of Genoa. He did not speak directly about Paul VI, but I believe that what he 

said can be applied to Pope Montini: 

1. Opinions Replace Truth . 

In this world the first and fundamental doctrine of power consists of an 
affirmation that there is no truth. Saint Augustine said that the difference 
between the city of this world and the city of God consists of the former having a 

thousand opinions, while the latter has only one truth. The basic difference between both

 cities, therefore, is not based on the content, but on the very existence of truth. It suffices

 to remember the dramatic dialogue between Jesus and Pilate. 

What is most grave is that there is a technique to replace truth by opinions. 
This technique exists and is very useful. It suffices to look at present religious, literary, and

 philosophical productions. Opinions can be so cautiously expressed that it is impossible

 to get to know what the author’s thesis is, or even more paradoxical, doctrines that are

e mutually contradictory are juxtaposed as if they 
were consistent. 

Let us look at the words, “God is dead.’ 1 If the slogan were denial , 
everybody would be able to understand. However, here we have a subtly 
sophisticated idea through which “theologians” want to convey the deceitful impression

 they are preserving the most assayed and chemically pure idea of God . . . through its “

identification” with the most profound reality of man. 

Even the ambiguous terms “conservative” and “progressive” conceal the 
relativistic technique, which leads every doctrinal issue in the direction of right wing and

 left wing. Thus everything becomes relative; everything becomes a matter of opinions 

and an instrument of power. Relativity of truth and doctrine is the actual goal of these 

arbitrary developments of the Church’s present problems. 

Is not this measure, proclaimed even by bishops and cardinals among us, 
absurd and most unjust, as if it were an ideal to place us halfway between truth and error? 

2. Is Gnosis Reappearing? 

[To name the current errors in the Church, one speaks about a new 
Modernism and also the Protestantization of the Church, but the Archbishop of Genoa 

prefers to use the term Gnosis.] 

Let it be remembered that Gnosis, with its appeal to science and higher 
speculation, with its eagerness to understand mystery and to naturalize the Faith, was,

 during

 the second century, perhaps the worst danger in all the history of the Church. I 

believe that the complex of errors circulating today can be called Gnosis , systematically speaking. But ... do many people know what they are talking about? This is terrible, but they do not! 

One does not act on rational grounds, but on one’s excessive desire to 
adapt oneself to the world. Worldly power, however, has its own philosophy, and fashionable theologians translate fashionable opinions into theological language, not because they accept a doctrine as such, but because they accept these doctrines that flatter the powers of this world. 

The present times are grave, not because it is no longer a question of 
opposition or contrast between truth and error, but between truth and non-truth, between the order of truth and the dictatorship of public opinion. People believe they are free because this appears in juridical texts; as a matter of fact, this deceiving belief is evidence of their servitude. 

Is the Church also under the despotism of public opinion? Perhaps not the 
Church, but certainly many people within the Church are. The Church could not be

 deprived of its freedom without the Holy Spirit’s provoking powerful reactions. . . . 

The altercation around the Council was not intended by John XXIII, who 
suffered profoundly as a result of it; of this I am a personal witness. The real 

Christian greatness of John XXIII consisted of the serene Christian manner by 

which he humbly accepted his cross up until his death, fully realizing the tremendous 

gravity of the problems. 

3. What is Most Urgent? 

The most urgent work is to restore the distinction between truth and error 
in the Church. We have reached a point where any exercise of ecclesiastical 
authority is considered an abuse of freedom, as if authority were a denial of 
freedom! A thousand illegitimate powers severely and systematically curtail the 

conscience and liberty of people at a superficial level, while at the deepest level

 they detach them from the truth contained in the sources of revelation and 

Magisterium, I hope that just and authorized distinctions will be forthcoming. 

Pastoral authority is no art of compromise and concession, but the art of saving souls through the truth. 

This truth is many times obscured by abusive liturgical deformations. 
Today dangerous losses are discovered in the essential. Not only is the rite 
sacred, but also the presence in the rite of the meaningful reality. Once the rite

is mythologized the meaning of its contents is lost. No wonder that the Eucharist

 becomes for some a mere feast of human unity where God is just a spectator. This 

is no longer heresy, but apostasy. 

Right. The present situation in the Church is one of the most grave in its 
history, for this time the challenge does not come from outer persecution, but f

rom inner perversion. This is very grave. But the gates of Hell will not prevail.