You won't catch me agreeing with all those dreadful traddies on blogs like Rorate in criticising our Holy Father's splendidly crisp new system for getting rid of "bishops" he doesn't like.
Since the Roman Pontiff is in the strict sense the only true Bishop in the Church, it follows that other "bishops" are Romani Pontificis vicarii tantum et legati. Since the Spirit, who is always waiting to surprise the Church with new truth, reveals His New Things through the Pope, and since all "bishops" are under an obligation to follow this "Spirit who speaks through Francis" [Mgr Pinto], it follows that the Pope must have the inalienable right to mould and fashion the universal "Episcopate" so that, both corporately and individually, it expresses precisely the style and policy and culture which, guided by the Spirit, he wishes all the "bishops" to have.*
Having listened to ones "Bishop", one ought to be able confidently and joyously to proclaim [ex. gr.] Verba Vincentii, Vox Francisci!
Pope Francis' new motu proprio about getting rid of unsuitable "bishops", the title of which might be loosely but happily englished as Mummy loves you, truly and most admirably fills a gap in the Church's Law. Don't listen to Rorate; this legislation is to be warmly welcomed.
This also is the moment, I feel, to plug yet another lacuna in the Church's canonical armoury: the lack of a section in Canon Law headed De Pontifice Romano semovendo [Provisions for the Removal of the Roman Pontiff].
As we all know, reputable authors have for centuries been in disagreement as to whether
(1) a heretic pope ipso facto loses his Office - but then needs the Church authoritatively to declare that this has happened; or whether
(2) a heretic pope needs to be removed actu Ecclesiae before the Apostolic See is vacant.
This detail can easily be sorted out, and Bergoglio is just the man to do it.
I suggest that when a Pope is accused of doctrinal error or Narcissism or other grave misbehaviour, he should be tried by a Jury of 201 of his Venerable Brethren in the "Episcopate": fifty nominated by the Pope himself; fifty nominated by his accusers; and 101 selected (as in Ancient Athens) purely by lot. That's fair, surely?
In the text of a motu proprio which I have already carefully drafted laying out the appropriate procedures, my final section reads like this:
Qualora ritenga opportuna la rimozione del Papa, la Giuria stabilira, in base alle circonstanze del caso, se:
(1) dare, nel piu breve tempo possibile, il decreto di rimozione;
(2) esortare fraternamente il Papa a presentare la sua rinuncia in un termine di 2 giorni. Se il Papa non da la sua risposta nel termine previsto, la Giuria potra emettere il decreto di rimozione.
Anybody see any flaws in that? Italian grammar OK? Rather nicely drafted and crafted, don't'ya think? Or is potra a bit weak? Isn't fraternamente a lovely adverb? And esortare a beautiful verb?
*POST SCRIPTUM To avoid scandal, I ought to make clear that every single statement in my second paragraph is completely contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. I think I must have just been carried away by a Whimsical Spirit of Irony.