@JTT,
But JTT, the Church is historically a secular as well as a religious institution. Secular missions are necessary to promote the saving of the greater number of souls: real Christianity have died on the Cross. And historically the Church ran affairs as well. To prevent continuous warfare.
A constant tension exists as there does now with respect to "saving civilians". (When we can--gee!! I nearly forgot that). The Church might have died out otherwise and heaven remain underpopulated as seems to be happening as secularism sweeps onwards with its lure of permissiveness.
It was the abrogation of permissiveness that got us here (late 50s I mean). Who knows whether embracing permissiveness with enthusiasm will take us where we don't wish to go. Nobody on here is even prepared to read about such matters.
It is not only a grave error but an infantile one to pass the responsibility of the actions of the secular pragmatists in the Church onto the carriers of the Christian message because the latter tend to be a bit "out of it" or spaced and not much good with practical things such as one Jesuit studying nothing in a glass tube which started something really big.
Nobody on here ever dreams of wondering what sort of mental gymnastics are required to trash the Church's teachings on sexual matters on the grounds that the pragmatists did some evil things. The teachings on sexual matters stand alone. Suppose the pragmatists had never done any evil things--would the Church's enemies then accept the sexual behaviour teachings. It's like never having boiled eggs for breakfast because you had read that Hitler did do. It's baby stuff. The evil deeds of the pragmatists are just being used as an excuse to behave immorally from a Christian point of view. And as a justification. Ridiculous!! A structural defect it seems to me.
If there is no other method of saving mankind than the Christian one, as many say, then it is important to build an organisation powerful enough to promote it even if that does require some strenuous methods at times.
I only see Huxley's answer as an alternative and that was no answer really because its scientific methods were repulsive. Artificial biological stratification of intelligence spells doom to me. It lacks "bio-diversity".
In organisations which eschew nepotism the top is fed from the bottom on ability. The top can never feed itself as our middle classes are trying to do with their grip on education. It just eats itself up, along with everything else.
The confetti certificate system is in the direction of Huxley's vision. For blue-collar" read gamma. I won't dwell on the beta minuses, the betas and the beta plusses because whenever I do so my audience flees shouting insults and slamming doors.
Epsilons are the most important members of society because they shift the **** and if **** isn't shifted it just piles up higher and higher.
I think our leaders are loving this little fracas in Libya. Just loving it.
