What does “governance” mean?

In running a company, governance is the system by which an organisation is directed and held to account. It is usually the board’s job. The board approves the company’s strategy and holds managers to account for carrying it out. For example, the board of a technology company might approve a five-year plan to expand into AI-based services, and then check revenue, product milestones and risks every quarter.

Although governance literally means steering, in organisational jargon it is not the same as management. One sets the direction and checks that we are on course. The other runs the day-to-day work within that framework. Back to the ship: the board names the destination and checks that the vessel is on the right course, while managers work out how to get there and sail the ship day to day. The first side asks: “Is this the right direction, and are we on track?” The second asks: “How do we reach our goals?” Politics works in a similar way: politicians set goals, and experts show how to reach them.

Good corporate governance rests on three pillars that can be verified: accountability, transparency and disclosure. Accountability needs three things: clear standards, information on how we meet them, and sanctions for breaking them.

The author of the thesis also describes governance through three elements: mechanisms, compliance and performance. Effective mechanisms and compliance with the rules are meant to lead to better results, whether these are measured by returns to investors, company value or strategic goals.

The author also notes that governance is not the only factor affecting results. Strategy, resources, the state of the industry and the external environment also matter. Good governance, however, creates conditions in which management can work effectively within those constraints.

Why organisations bother?

Which problem does governance answer? It exists because a company’s owners rarely run it personally; they do it through managers. The literature calls this the principal–agent problem (agency theory). Managers know far more about the company than its owners do, and their goals, especially if they are hired for a few years, may differ from the owners’.

The Gospels know this conflict. In the parable of the talents, the master goes away, entrusts his property to servants, and on his return demands an account (Matthew 25:14–30). In the parable of the tenants of the vineyard, men who were entrusted with a vineyard refuse to hand over the produce to the owner and kill his son, hoping to seize the inheritance (Matthew 21:33–39).

In business, this conflict takes different forms. After the 2007 financial crisis, the UK’s Walker Review and the De Larosière Report for the European Commission pointed, among the causes, to weak boards of directors and an incentive system that rewarded greed and excessive risk.

The aim of governance is to reduce the risk that a manager will act for personal gain. With it, managers should run the organisation honestly and in line with the owners’ goals, in the hope that this also brings better results. The assumption is this: since markets have developed practices that protect against known mistakes, a firm that follows them should make fewer of those mistakes and, on average, perform better.

Does it work?

Surprisingly, research does not give a clear answer to whether governance improves company results. Some studies find a link, others do not. One large analysis combining dozens of studies found no significant link between board structure and company results (Dalton and co-authors, 1998, as cited by Pfang).

There are several reasons for the dispute. First, it is hard to measure how transparency, board structure or accountability translate into results, and to separate their effect from other factors. Second, nobody knows which way causality runs: do good boards make good companies, or can good companies afford good boards? Third, governance concerns human behaviour, which is hard to observe and measure. Every teacher knows that a pupil who wants to will find a way around the rules. The question is whether regulations can make even a bad person act well. A lot depends on motivation.

There are also purely practical reasons. Board meetings take place behind closed doors, so researchers rarely see what happens in them, and studies use financial indicators as the measure of results. Despite the inconclusive statistical findings, regulators and investors still insist on corporate governance.

Is governance relevant for the Church?

Corporate governance, board of directors, financial results: this is not vocabulary we are used to in the Church. These concepts were not created in the context of the Church or for it. And yet questions about governance keep coming its way.

The rules of corporate governance were designed for listed companies, which have shareholders and financial indicators and aim at profit. The Church’s mission is different: the salvation of souls. That is a goal that is hard to measure.

Why, then, is governance discussed in relation to the Church? First, because the Church has its own law, which imposes management-type duties on the administrators of Church goods. Canon 1284 of the Code of Canon Law says that administrators are to act “with the diligence of a good householder,” keep books, pay their obligations and invest surpluses. This is not yet governance in the sense of oversight of those who govern, but it shows that the Church does not regard sound management as something unnecessary. The Church must also obey civil law on employment, taxes and safety.

Second, scale matters. According to Vatican statistics, baptised Catholics make up about 17.8% of the world’s population, an estimated 1.4 billion people, and the Church is led by more than five thousand bishops. Add schools, hospitals and charitable institutions. Such complexity makes oversight a practical necessity, not only a theological problem. It is hard even to take stock of it all, let alone check whether the actions of bishops and parish priests comply with the rules and the policy of the Holy See.

Third, for years there has been loud talk of scandals in the Church. The most visible concerned sexual abuse, but the media also report cases involving mismanagement, debts and conflicts in dioceses. Authors critical of the current system of oversight stress the need to introduce corporate governance. They are cited by Pfang (they wrote between 2003 and 2006):

• Cafardi (2004) warns that if Church leaders do not accept accountability, society will force them to answer, through civil lawsuits or criminal proceedings.
• Doost (2003), in a paper pairing Enron and the Church, argues that the Church, as the largest Christian denomination, should have a system of corporate governance at an acceptable level.
• Post (2003) claims that the governance failures of 21st-century companies pale beside the way the Church handled the scandals. He proposes democratic principles, stronger accountability of the clergy, which would limit the almost absolute power of bishops, and greater financial accountability.
• Gluck (2003) points to the lack of an effective system for measuring performance, planning mechanisms and human resource management.
• Martin (2006) stresses the need for financial transparency.

The mere fact that they are cited does not mean they are right. I do not analyse the causes of the scandals here, and neither does the author of the thesis, and I do not claim that better governance would have prevented them. Business research does not even allow us to claim that governance prevents corporate collapses.

A diocese is not a soulless corporation either, and the faithful and priests are not human resources. It has no shareholders and no board of directors in the corporate sense. There are advisory bodies, such as the presbyteral council (the council of priests), the finance council and the college of consultors, but in most matters they have only an advisory voice. There is no collective responsibility for decisions, because responsibility rests with the diocesan bishop. A diocese is also not a firm whose main purpose is to make money. Some of the faithful look with disapproval at the Church’s wealth. The Church needs resources for its work, yet it teaches that one cannot serve both God and mammon (Matthew 6:24) or store up treasures on earth (Matthew 6:19). Financial indicators give an easy way to assess a market firm. A wrong choice of measure, however, could be disastrous for the Church’s mission if the only criterion becomes not the good of souls but, say, a financial surplus.

The key difference between a firm with corporate governance and a diocese is, according to the author of the thesis, that in the Church responsibility is personal. All the power, but also all the responsibility, rests in the hands of the bishop. Not an anonymous “supervisory board” but “Bishop X Y” answers for the state of the diocese. Although he is appointed by Rome, he leads his diocese independently, in his own name. Above all, he answers to God. As for earthly accountability, the author of the thesis (on the basis of research in England) argues that canon law does not impose on the bishop a general duty to explain his decisions to his “stakeholders”, that is, priests and the faithful. The bishop is, however, required to report “upward”: every five years he submits to the Holy See a report on the state of the diocese.

What follows from this?

The real question is not whether to transplant solutions from market firms into the Church one to one. It is: what could accountability for decisions look like in a sacred institution whose mission is the salvation of souls? How can we introduce mechanisms that would help to avoid abuses without blurring the bishop’s responsibility and without standing in the way of the mission of leading souls to salvation? Would we feel more at home or more at work in a Church with corporate governance? Solving this will certainly take a great deal of prudence.

Frequently asked questions

What is corporate governance? It is the system of rules, relationships and oversight through which an organisation is directed and held to account. It is usually the job of the board of directors, and rests on accountability, transparency and disclosure.

What is the difference between corporate governance and management? Governance sets the direction and checks that the organisation is run properly and honestly. Management delivers those goals day to day, running operations within the framework the board has set.

Does the Catholic Church have corporate governance? It has structures that serve similar functions: the bishop’s authority, advisory bodies and law on managing Church goods. According to one study of dioceses in England, however, accountability runs mainly upward to Rome, not to priests and the faithful.

I: The Mystery of the Church

II: On the People of God

III: The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church, Particularly Concerning the Episcopate

IV: The Laity

IV: The Call of the Whole Church to Holiness

V: Religious

VII: The Eschatological Character of the Pilgrim Church and Its Union with the Heavenly Church

VIII: The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and the Church

Corpus Statistics

This corpus has 8 documents with 107,205 total words and 3,120 unique word forms.

Document Length:

• Longest: ch1 (26135); ch2 (22972); ch3 (18759); ch4 (13106)
• Shortest: ch8 (3519); ch7 (5612); ch6 (7291); ch5 (9811)

Vocabulary Density:

• Highest: ch8 (0.263); ch7 (0.230); ch6 (0.212); ch5 (0.186)
• Lowest: ch1 (0.119); ch2 (0.128); ch3 (0.141); ch4 (0.166)

Average Words Per Sentence:

• Highest: ch7 (57.9); ch6 (49.3); ch1 (48.7); ch3 (48.0)
• Lowest: ch4 (42.1); ch8 (44.0); ch5 (45.4); ch2 (47.9)

Readability Index:

• Highest: ch3 (10.689); ch2 (10.479); ch1 (10.343); ch4 (10.262)
• Lowest: ch8 (9.701); ch7 (9.864); ch6 (10.169); ch5 (10.245)

Most frequent words in the corpus:

• church (1042); god (1040); christ (968); life (400); holy (393); spirit (378); mother (375); faithful (327); faith (308); lord (300); world (287); charity (259); virgin (256); people (255); men (253); body (252); way (248); son (224); love (222); blessed (208); father (204); salvation (201); holiness (187); glory (186); jesus (184); mary (182); things (181); called (181); grace (176); word (173); divine (172); bishops (171); let (164); power (160); sacred (156)

Distinctive words (compared to the rest of the corpus):

• ch1: laity (31); peter (20); roman (17); bishops (55); visible (16); successor (12); college (11); priests (22); believe (10); children (13); ministry (19); successors (9); nations (9); teaching (12); covenant (6); likeness (4); appointed (8); serve (11); religious (25); shepherd (15); means (15); bread (5); preach (7); exercise (14); bishop (14); authority (22); symbolized (3); risen (3); proclaim (6); peoples (6); morals (6); legitimate (6); israel (6); govern (6); pontiff (20).
• ch2: laity (31); peter (18); roman (17); bishops (54); successor (11); college (11); priests (22); visible (10); children (13); successors (9); ministry (18); believe (8); appointed (8); teaching (11); religious (25); preach (7); nations (7); exercise (14); bishop (14); morals (6); legitimate (6); govern (6); pontiff (20); churches (20); authority (20); shepherd (12); means (12); covenant (4); flock (18); orders (11); peoples (5); parts (5); israel (5); infallibility (5); collegiate (5).
• ch3: laity (31); roman (17); peter (16); bishops (52); college (11); successor (10); priests (20); successors (9); ministry (17); religious (23); bishop (14); visible (6); govern (6); teaching (8); pontiff (19); authority (19); shepherd (11); exercise (11); preach (5); morals (5); legitimate (5); infallibility (5); collegiate (5); appointed (5); accordance (5); counsels (17); teachers (7); serve (7); secular (7); function (7); children (7); orders (10); episcopal (10); flock (16); profession (15).
• ch4: laity (31); religious (20); counsels (17); secular (7); profession (15); evangelical (14); children (5); temporal (7); freedom (7); christians (6); activity (6); function (4); spiritual (20); service (9); daily (9); apostolate (9); society (5); priests (5); follow (5); hierarchy (8); state (17); teachers (3); social (3); ordinary (3); occupations (3); diversity (3); creator (3); affairs (3); become (7); authority (7); use (4); sharers (4); sanctification (4); participation (4); orders (4).
• ch5: counsels (17); religious (15); evangelical (14); profession (13); priests (5); service (7); use (4); follow (4); state (13); daily (6); institutes (5); grow (5); become (5); authority (5); sharers (3); participation (3); means (3); manifested (3); labors (3); hardships (3); working (4); vows (4); particular (4); hierarchy (4); chosen (4); bride (4); bond (4); bishops (4); spiritual (8); lives (8); greater (8); good (8); communion (8); walk (2); society (2).
• ch6: religious (15); counsels (14); profession (12); evangelical (11); institutes (5); authority (5); state (9); vows (4); communion (7); hierarchy (3); consecration (3); consecrated (3); believers (3); city (6); vocation (5); strengthened (5); working (2); welfare (2); undertaken (2); support (2); structure (2); states (2); stable (2); spiritually (2); service (2); rules (2); purpose (2); proven (2); progress (2); particular (2); ought (2); one’s (2); multiple (2); liberty (2); hierarchical (2).
• ch7: communion (7); praise (4); dead (4); closely (4); strengthened (3); resurrection (3); present (3); pilgrim (3); lamb (3); greater (3); good (3); evil (3); worship (2); won (2); witness (2); wayfarers (2); triune (2); teach (2); sufferings (2); signed (2); restoration (2); real (2); purified (2); practice (2); perfectly (2); offers (2); martyrs (2); majesty (2); lives (2); hand (2); groan (2); genuine (2); fuller (2); end (2); dwells (2).
• ch8: zealously (1); wrinkle (1); world (5); works (1); work (6); words (4); word (14); wonderfully (1); wonder (1); women (1); womb (1); woman (5); wishing (1); wish (1); wise (1); wisdom (1); willed (1); wherefore (3); ways (2); way (5); wavering (1); wandering (1); visit (1); virtues (2); virginal (3); virgin (30); viii (1); victory (1); victim (1); veneration (1); venerated (1); venerable (1); various (2); vain (1); used (1).

What is the SSPX?

The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is a traditionalist Catholic organization founded in 1970 by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The society exclusively celebrates the traditional Latin Mass and maintains theological disputes with certain teachings and reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

Timeline of Key Events

1970-1975: Foundation and Early Conflict

• 1970: Archbishop Lefebvre founds SSPX in Switzerland with initial Vatican approval
• 1975: Vatican suppresses the SSPX; Lefebvre refuses to dissolve it
• 1976: Lefebvre suspended a divinis (forbidden from priestly functions)

1988: The Schismatic Break

• June 30, 1988: Lefebvre consecrates four bishops without papal permission
• July 2, 1988: Pope John Paul II declares automatic excommunication for all five bishops
• The act is deemed schismatic under canon law

1991-2009: Separation and Dialogue

• 1991: Archbishop Lefebvre dies while excommunicated
• 2000: SSPX leads large pilgrimage to Rome for Jubilee Year
• 2007: Pope Benedict XVI liberalizes traditional Latin Mass (Summorum Pontificum)
• 2009: Benedict XVI lifts excommunications of four SSPX bishops

2012-2021: Failed Reconciliation

• 2012: Vatican offers canonical structure; SSPX rejects it
• 2015-2017: Pope Francis grants limited sacramental faculties
• 2021: Francis restricts Latin Mass again (Traditionis Custodes)

2024-2026: Current Crisis

• April 21, 2025: Pope Francis dies; Pope Leo XIV elected May 8, 2025
• 2024-2025: Two SSPX bishops die, leaving only two elderly bishops
• February 2, 2026: SSPX announces plan to consecrate new bishops July 1, 2026 without Vatican permission
• February 12, 2026: Emergency Vatican-SSPX meeting scheduled

2 Theoretical Frameworks: How Space Functions as Power in Papal Leadership

3 The Cardinal Zen Critique: Manipulation or Method in Pope Francis’s Synod?

4 Organizational Research: Lessons on Spatial Power and Conflicts of Interest

5 Ecclesial Implications: Competing Interpretations Within the Catholic Church

6 Critical Analysis: Measuring the Power of Arrangement - Research Questions

7 Broader Implications: The Politics of Space for a Religious Leader

8 Future Trajectories for Catholics: The Long-Term Stakes for Pope Francis’s Vision

9 Conclusions: The Ambiguous Power of Spatial Arrangement

The Vatican’s decision to move the 2023-2024 Synod on Synodality from theater-style rows to round tables demonstrates how spatial arrangements function as power instruments—capable of democratizing participation or enabling sophisticated control depending on how they are deployed. Cardinal Joseph Zen’s allegations that organizers practiced skilled manipulation and defenders’ claims that round tables enabled authentic dialogue both contain truth. The format created possibilities for both genuine discernment and subtle channeling; determining which occurred requires examining not just seating but accompanying procedures, facilitator practices, synthesis methods, and accountability mechanisms.

Research from educational psychology, organizational behavior, and communication studies consistently demonstrates that spatial arrangements significantly impact who speaks, who listens, and how ideas circulate. Round tables promote more equitable participation, facilitate face-to-face dialogue, and reduce hierarchical power differentials embedded in theater-style configurations. But round tables also enable facilitators to guide discussions subtly, organizers to control outcomes through agenda-setting and synthesis authority, and power players to dominate through rhetorical skill rather than positional authority.

The seating controversy reveals that spatial arrangements are never neutral within the Catholic Church or any institution. Theater-style rows make power visible—everyone sees who holds authority and through what channels it operates. Round tables potentially obscure power through facilitation, agenda control, and synthesis mechanisms that operate less visibly. Each arrangement distributes power differently with different accountability requirements.

For the Catholic Church specifically, the round table innovation embodies tensions between hierarchical authority and participatory governance that synodality attempts to navigate. The format could enable genuine consultation while preserving magisterial discernment authority. Or it could provide progressive cover for predetermined conclusions while creating the appearance of broad deliberation. The theological and practical viability of synodality depends partly on developing accountability mechanisms that enable participants and observers to distinguish between these possibilities.

For secular organizations, this experiment offers cautionary lessons. Spatial lateral communication enablement signals commitment to participation but guarantees nothing. Round table meetings can empower previously marginalized voices or channel them toward predetermined outcomes. The difference lies not in furniture arrangement but in procedural design, facilitator practices, synthesis methods, and accountability mechanisms.

Looking forward, key questions remain: Will round table formats cascade through ecclesial structures or remain confined to Vatican assemblies? How will accountability mechanisms evolve to address legitimate manipulation concerns? Can digital platforms replicate round table dynamics while enhancing transparency? Most fundamentally: Can institutions committed to hierarchical authority genuinely embrace participatory governance, or does spatial lateral communication enablement necessarily constitute either ineffective theater or covert agenda implementation?

Cardinal Zen’s critique and defenders’ responses both illuminate truth: spatial arrangements powerfully influence outcomes in religion and politics, which is precisely why they become contested when stakes are high. Organizations claiming to democratize through participatory formats bear responsibility for implementing accountability mechanisms that enable verification of genuine participation rather than sophisticated manipulation. Without such mechanisms, skepticism about round table reforms—whether in Church and political contexts or corporate settings—remains rationally warranted rather than cynically obstructionist.

The kind of leadership that Pope Francis demonstrated in implementing round tables at the synod represents a different leadership style from traditional papal approaches. Whether this pastoral approach to types of leadership within the Catholic faith proves effective depends substantially on how implementation proceeds at local levels—among Catholics in parishes, within Catholic diocesan structures, and across the Catholic clergy who will ultimately determine whether spatial innovations translate into cultural transformation.

10 References

Vatican and Synod Sources:

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). (2023). Inside, outside: Synod to focus on the church and its role in the world. Retrieved from https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/inside-outside-synod-focus-church-and-its-role-world

Vatican. (2024). XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops - Final Document. Retrieved from https://www.synod.va

Wikipedia. (2024). Synod on Synodality. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Ordinary_General_Assembly_of_the_Synod_of_Bishops

Catholic Saskatoon News. (2025). Vatican publishes document on Synod’s final phase. Retrieved from https://news.rcdos.ca/2025/07/08/synods-final-phase/

Catholic News Agency (CNA). (2023). Synod ‘setting the stages for future changes’ on role of women; first woman presides over assembly, https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/synod-setting-the-stages-for-future-changes-on-role-of-women-first-woman-presides-over-assembly?redirectedfrom=cna

Educational and Organizational Research:

Edutopia. (2025). Research-Based Tips for Optimal Seating Arrangements. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/research-based-tips-for-optimal-seating-arrangements/

Fernandes, A. C., Huang, J., & Rinaldo, V. (2011). Does where a student sits really matter? The impact of seating locations on student classroom learning. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 10(1), 66-77.

Hayashi, K., Mochizuki, T., & Yamauchi, Y. (2022). A case study of process performances during a small-group activity: comparison between a round-shaped and a crescent-shaped seating arrangements in studio-style learning spaces. Learning Environments Research, 25(3), 805-824.

Kemp, F. (2024). The 4 Power Positions and How to Use Them in Meetings. Retrieved from https://frankiekemp.com/the-4-power-positions-and-how-to-use-them-in-meetings/

Marx, A., Fuhrer, U., & Hartig, T. (2000). Effects of classroom seating arrangements on children’s question-asking. Learning Environments Research, 2(3), 249-263.

Psychology Today. (2012). The Power Seat: Where You Sit Matters. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/digital-leaders/201210/the-power-seat-where-you-sit-matters

Wasendorf, A. et al. (2023). Do seating arrangements have an impact on student learning? Professional Learning Board Research Review.

Xihamontessori. (2025). Effective Classroom Seating Arrangements: How To Improve Learning Spaces For Students? Retrieved from https://xihamontessori.com/classroom-seating-arrangements/

Organizational and Meeting Dynamics:

Experteer Magazine. (2024). Power Dynamics – Sitting Strategically at the Conference Table. Retrieved from https://us.experteer.com/magazine/power-dynamics-the-best-seating-strategies-for-the-conference-table/

The Events Calendar. (2025). 7 Types of Seating Arrangements for Better Interaction. Retrieved from https://theeventscalendar.com/blog/types-of-seating-arrangement/

Wrike. (2018). Is Your Career Riding On Where You Sit? Retrieved from https://www.wrike.com/blog/conference-room-seating-dynamics/

Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. Classroom Seating Arrangements. Retrieved from https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/teaching/teaching-resource-library/classroom-seating-arrangements

Additional Research:

Benedict, M. E., & Hoag, J. (2004). Seating location in large lectures: Are seating preferences or location related to course performance? Journal of Economic Education, 35(3), 215-231.

Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice (3rd ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books.

Sommer, R. (2002). Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Bristol: Bosko Books.

Zhu, R., & Argo, J. J. (2013). Exploring the impact of various shaped seating arrangements on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 336-349.

Exemplary URLs for Further Research:

1. Vatican Synod Official Site: https://www.synod.va/en.html
2. USCCB Synod Resources: https://www.usccb.org/synod
3. Yale Center on Classroom Seating: https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/teaching/teaching-resource-library/classroom-seating-arrangements
4. Edutopia Seating Research: https://www.edutopia.org/article/research-based-tips-for-optimal-seating-arrangements/
5. Power Positions in Meetings: https://frankiekemp.com/the-4-power-positions-and-how-to-use-them-in-meetings/
6. Wrike Conference Room Dynamics: https://www.wrike.com/blog/conference-room-seating-dynamics/
7. Learning Environments Research Journal: https://link.springer.com/journal/10984

Artistitle’s Politics

Aristotle explains that phenomena as follows:

Hence it is also possible to meet in this way the question which some persons investigate and put forward （for some raise the question whether the legislator desiring to lay down the rightest laws should legislate with a view to the advantage of the better people or that of the larger number） in cases when the situation mentioned1 occurs. And ‘right’ must be taken in the sense of ‘equally right,’ and this means right in regard to the interest of the whole state and in regard to the common welfare of the citizens; and a citizen is in general one who shares in governing and being governed,

[1284a] [1] although he is different according to each form of constitution, but in relation to the best form a citizen is one who has the capacity and the will to be governed and to govern with a view to the life in accordance with virtue.

But if there is any one man so greatly distinguished in outstanding virtue, or more than one but not enough to be able to make up a complete state, so that the virtue of all the rest and their political ability is not comparable with that of the men mentioned, if they are several, or if one, with his alone, it is no longer proper to count these exceptional men a part of the state; for they will be treated unjustly if deemed worthy of equal status, being so widely unequal in virtue and in their political ability: since such a man will naturally be as a god among men. Hence it is clear that legislation also must necessarily be concerned with persons who are equal in birth and in ability, but there can be no law dealing with such men as those described, for they are themselves a law; indeed a man would be ridiculous if he tried to legislate for them, for probably they would say what in the story of Antisthenes1 the lions said2 when the hares made speeches in the assembly and demanded that all should have equality. This is why democratically governed states institute the system of ostracism, because of a reason of this nature; for these are the states considered to pursue equality most of all things, [20] so that they used to ostracize men thought to be outstandingly powerful on account of wealth or popularity or some other form of political strength, and used to banish them out of the city for fixed periods of time. And there is a mythical story that the Argonauts left Heracles behind for a similar reason; for the Argo3 refused to carry him with the others because he was so much heavier than the sailors. Hence also those who blame tyranny and Periander’s advice to Thrasybulus must not be thought to be absolutely right in their censure (the story is that Periander made no reply to the herald sent to ask his advice, but levelled the corn-field by plucking off the ears that stood out above the rest; and consequently, although the herald did not know the reason for what was going on, when he carried back news of what had occurred, Thrasybulus understood that he was to destroy the outstanding citizens); for this policy is advantageous not only for tyrants, nor is it only tyrants that use it, but the same is the case with oligarchies and democracies as well; for ostracism has in a way the same effect as docking off the outstanding men by exile. And the same course is adopted in regard to cities and races by the holders of sovereign power, for example the Athenians so dealt with the Samians and Chians and Lesbians5 （for no sooner did they get a strong hold of their empire than they humbled them in contravention of their covenants）,

[1284b] [1] and the king of the Persians frequently used to cut down the numbers of the Medes and Babylonians and the other races that had waxed proud because they had once been head of an empire. And the problem applies universally to all the forms of constitution, even the right forms; for while the divergent forms of government do this because their regard is fixed on their private advantage, nevertheless with the constitutions directed to the common good the same is the case. And this is also clear in the field of the other arts and sciences; a painter would not let his animal have its foot of disproportionately large size, even though it was an exceptionally beautiful foot, nor would a shipbuilder make the stern or some other part of a ship disproportionately big, nor yet will a trainer of choruses allow a man who sings louder and more beautifully than the whole band to be a member of it. Hence as far as this practice goes nothing prevents monarchs from being in harmony with the cities they rule, if they resort to it when their own personal rule is beneficial to the cities. Therefore in relation to acknowledged superiorities the argument for ostracism has a certain element of political justice. True, it is better for the lawgiver so to constitute the state at the outset that it does not need this medicine; but the next best course to steer, if occasion arises, is to endeavor to correct [20] the constitution by some such method of rectification. But this was not what happened with the states, for they were not looking at what was advantageous for their proper constitution, but their acts of ostracism were done in a revolutionary spirit. In the divergent forms of constitution therefore it is evident that ostracism is advantageous and just under the special constitution, though perhaps it is also evident that it is not1 just absolutely; but in the case of the best constitution there is much doubt as to what ought to be done, not as regards superiority in the other things of value, such as strength and wealth and popularity, but in the case of a person becoming exceptionally distinguished for virtue. It certainly would not be said that such a man must be banished and got out of the way; yet nevertheless no doubt men would not think that they ought to rule over such a man, for that would be the same as if they claimed to rule over Zeus, dividing up his spheres of government. It remains therefore, and this seems to be the natural course, for all to obey such a man gladly, so that men of this sort may be kings in the cities for all time.(Aristotle 1944)

In Australia and New Zealand, the phrase “tall poppy syndrome” is used to describe the tendency to criticize or undermine successful people.

Bible: The Return from Egypt

¹⁹ When Herod had died, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt ²⁰ and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” ²¹ He rose, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. ²² But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go back there. And because he had been warned in a dream, he departed for the region of Galilee. ²³ He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.” (Mt 2:19–23)

It seems that St Joseph understood the story of the poppies exactly. If Herod was a tyrant, then Jesus was the first poppy to be cut short, proclaimed by the wise men as the future King of the Jews. That is why St Joseph chose to keep a low profile, even though he was from a royal family, the House of David. He chose a simple village and a simple occupation; they didn’t distinguish themselves through their clothes, speech or customs. They blended in with the other poppies in the field. This enabled him to keep Jesus safe until He was ready to reveal Himself to the world.

Compare: The crab mentality

Why?

Searching for words in the Bible is very important, not only for exegetes, but for every believer. In the field of church leadership, the ability to check all occurrences of a given word allows for independent interpretation. First, it allows for a deeper understanding of certain topics in the Bible. For example, if you want to know what the Bible says about loving your enemies, you can compare the Pentateuch, the Historical Books, and the New Testament and see how the understanding of this love has evolved. Second, such a search allows for contextual analysis. We believe that the Bible is the Holy Scripture inspired by God, and that every word has a meaning intended by Him that needs to be discovered. Although different books were written by different authors, they have one divine Author—the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it can be said that the Bible interprets itself.

In practice, this means that if, for example, the word “lamp” appears in Revelation and it is difficult to understand what it means from the context, you can check where else in that book the word is used. Then you can look up where the word appears in the New Testament or the entire Bible. Each occurrence of the word has a different context, which allows you to learn new aspects of its meaning. For example, the word “faith” can appear in different contexts, in one meaning an attitude — trust, and in another a set of beliefs about the structure and origin of the universe. Thirdly, for those translating the Bible, such an analysis allows them to choose the right word to use in the translation. On the other hand, it allows those reading the Bible to check whether a “new translation of the Bible” is justified. For example, does the Bible refer to foolish virgins or imprudent virgins?

From the point of view of church leadership, this is also very important. Faith is based on Scripture and Tradition, so by manipulating the translation, one can influence the content of people’s faith and attitudes. Having the tools and procedures to examine the original text allows one to arrive at the original meaning in a factual manner. It is also an excellent exercise in searching for and verifying information based on sources, which protects against manipulation. Especially today, when the public space is flooded with content generated by artificial intelligence and it is often very difficult to distinguish reality from fiction, the ability to verify information is invaluable.

Video description

Below is a video showing how you can use a sample Bible program to check for occurrences of the word “boat” in the Bible. First, the word “boat” is searched for. (59 occurrences) Then, the original word (πλοῖον) is checked, as well as how the word has been translated in different places in the Bible.

Searching for passages that contain the word “boat OR ship” yields 131 results.

Next, you can look at the prepared lists describing ships and boats in the Bible, which contain all the Greek and Hebrew words used to describe ships and boats, as well as the words used in their translation, including passages in which it was inferred based on the tense used.

It is possible to generate and present all occurrences of the word “πλοῖον” in graphic form. In the last passage, additional criteria are added to the search: search for passages only in the Gospels and places where Peter is mentioned. As a result, three passages are obtained, which were presented in the previous entry.

Author

Fr. Dr. Tomasz Włodarczyk

© 2026 Fr. Dr. Tomasz Włodarczyk. All rights reserved.

Examples of feedback:

What is the feedback mentioned in the introduction? Feedback has become a permanent part of the English language, especially in large corporations. “I’m waiting for your feedback!” and “I need to gather feedback on my report!” are phrases that can be heard very often, but what do they mean?

In this context, the word comes from cybernetics and is used to describe the basic mechanism of decision-making, which consists of several steps: impulse, input, action, result–output, information, decision, feedback, reiteration.

In the case of a report that I have to prepare for my boss, the impulse is the boss’s first instruction, along with the input information; the action is writing the report; the result–output is the report, which forms the basis for the input information for the boss’s evaluation; the decision is a comparison of the expected report with the completed one; and the boss’s criticism is feedback, i.e., information about the result of my action, so that I can improve my action in the next round. In the case of the cybernetic pope, like any helmsman, the goal is to stay on course. The helmsman looks at the current and the wind, turns the rudder (action), receives feedback in the form of the ship’s position, and corrects the rudder. The Pope therefore makes the simplest decisions, such as helping Haiti (impulse—earthquake, decision to help build schools, information about the effect of the aid, new decision), to more serious ones, such as the decision on how to respond to modernism, Marxism, or AI.

The Vatican is an interesting subject of analysis because, as an ancient institution, it faces modern challenges.

Historical background:

What loops do we have?

So, we have different loops. For example, bishops and bureaucracy loops, related to scientific conferences. We have formal ones, such as synods and consistories, and informal ones, such as social media.

We have loops in network or hierarchical systems. Loops in a hierarchy are clearly defined, communication is simple. In a network, you can get answers from many directions, but the amount of information can be overwhelming, selection can be ‘by feel’ and ultimately random.

Summary

It can be summarised that feedback loops are an important element in the governance of the Church.

These feedback loops consist of receiving information about the effects of one’s decisions and actions after the decision has been made, and, on this basis, further decisions and actions are taken. The problem arises with the amount of new information. Traditional methods of information processing are becoming insufficient, which creates pressure to seek new solutions.

The Alternative:

Let’s look at the alternative posed in the title. On the one hand, we have the parable of the Ship of State, where the disobedient crew considers the navigator to be a useless theorist who has nothing to say to them. They claim that anyone can steer the ship, and throw out the one who looked at the stars, condemning themselves to blindness and steering only from wave to wave, with no hope of reaching land.

On the other hand, there is a strong image of Peter’s boat, from which Jesus taught, in which He called Him, which can be interpreted as the Church. It is steered by Saint Peter, a fisherman who knows his craft and loves his Master dearly, but, in terms of education, he is more like the helmsman in Plato’s parable, blind and lame, than a philosopher-navigator.

However, he is able to do what Plato’s navigator would never do, namely to get out of the boat and walk on the waves after Jesus. Interestingly, in the Gospels, the boat appears in a storm as a situation that exceeds the capabilities of the boat and the fishermen. What does this mean for contemporary leaders and ordinary citizens? Well, it shows us what mistakes not to make, and how to steer the boat in increased complexity and be guided not only by science, but also by something more, or not to neglect the crew.

Two approaches:

Practice:

What does this mean in practice? How does this translate into leadership outside the context of the Church? Plato’s approach can be compared to an expert approach. As a result of a theoretical analysis of the world of Ideas, we find the ideal proportions and solution. Then, the theorist proclaims this truth to the crew, for whom it is beyond their reach, and therefore they reject it. Specialists experience this very often: when scientists optimize, while politicians reject it without understanding it or trying to please the demos. Peter’s approach is different. He does not know the solution, and cannot hope to arrive at it theoretically. So, he seeks advice from others, gauges opinions, and throws out ideas to see where they will lead him. As for the rule that guides Peter’s conduct, it is based on faith. This is not to belittle Peter’s abilities. St. John Chrysostom, in his sermon, shows that he can be considered a greater philosopher than Plato.¹

Plato, who uttered much nonsense during his lifetime, is now silent, while this man proclaims his teachings everywhere; not only among his compatriots, but also among the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, in India and in all parts of the world, to the ends of the earth. Where is Greece now with its great pretensions? Where is the name of Athens? Where is the nonsense of the philosophers? The one from Galilee, the one from Bethsaida, the uncouth peasant, has defeated them all. Are you not ashamed—admit it—of the very name of the country that defeated you? But if you hear his name and learn that he was called Cephas, you will hide your faces even more. You did not follow the path you should have chosen, but you left the royal road, so easy and smooth, and entered the difficult, steep, and arduous path. That is why you did not attain the kingdom of heaven.

Why, then, he asks, did Christ not influence Plato and Pythagoras? Because Peter’s mind was much more philosophical than theirs. They were, in fact, children, tossed about by vain glory, but this man was a philosopher, capable of receiving grace. Peter wonders what Jesus Christ would have done, and also asks the Holy Spirit for an answer. Plato’s Helmsman, on the other hand, is guided by facts, ideas, and reason. Can we say that Peter’s style is more democratic and Plato’s more hierarchical? Not really. Both styles have something of hierarchy and something of democracy. Plato tries to reach a solution through dialogue, and Peter does the same. Plato’s authority comes from secret knowledge, Peter’s from Revelation and practical experience.

Conclusions:

– In the history of the Church, we have different approaches to leadership. – The two mentioned in this text refer to the two foundations of the Church, symbolized by two cities: Athens and Jerusalem. - Rome was able to integrate these two approaches. - These models are applicable to other social systems, so translating them into the language of management may prove useful.

The old sailor in Joseph Conrad’s Chance, said: “No ship navigated . . . in the happy-go-lucky manner . . . would ever arrive into port.”¹.

Below, in Figure 1, you can see the same problem that Plato once described in a contemporary democracy. The people will more often than not choose the “candy shopper” who promises sweets than the physicist who alerts them to the necessity of painful therapy.

A bird’s eye view

The Pope acts like a ship’s navigator who must respond to changing conditions at sea. If he notices a change in the wind or a dangerous wave, he must, on the one hand, adjust the position of the boat accordingly so that it does not capsize, but on the other hand, he must not miss his destination port. This was the case in the 19th century. In response to the dire situation of workers, socialist movements emerged. Leo XIII saw the evil of the Marxists, but he also saw the tragic plight of the workers, whose difficult situation was the result of a radically liberal approach to the economy. Looking at the direction of the winds of history, the pope had to turn the rudder to be able to sail in the same direction. A similar challenge now faces his successor, Pope Leo XIV. Currently, that challenge is artificial intelligence (AI). AI is used almost everywhere, from schools to the military and even in liturgy, and the pace of change is dizzying. Again, there are at least two options: reject AI or accept it unreservedly. This is too obvious. A radical choice of either option is like a sudden movement of the rudder, which can end badly for the crew, the boat, and the journey. In this sense, the pope must be a skilled helmsman and navigator.

What does this show?

Firstly, it shows the Church’s ability to adapt to changing conditions. Although these reactions are often delayed, this delay allows for an adequate response to change and the proposal of a solution. The slowness may be dictated by the fact that the Church is not a motorboat, but a transoceanic ship. As before, it is the Pope who acts as the helmsman, who must navigate using changes to maintain constancy. Like a gyroscope, which, thanks to being constantly in motion, maintains remarkable stability. This rule applies not only to the Church, but also to other institutions and even all living organisms: in order to survive and remain oneself, one must change. What the Church has shown so far is an amazing ability to preserve its identity despite changing conditions.

Summary

In this short post, we have looked at the Pope not only as a priest and head of state, but also in his role as a helmsman whose task is to maintain the course set by Christ amid the changing waters of history. Certain analogies with previous historical challenges have been shown. These analogies allow us to understand institutional adaptation, but also serve as a warning for future decisions. The Pope is a helmsman, and the experience of the Church can point to remedies for today’s situation, which contains both new and old elements. On the other hand, developments in the science of institutional management can also point to solutions that are beneficial to the Church. The role of this blog will be to answer the question of what this means in particular and what tools contemporary science provides for improving communication and better orientation in the surrounding environment. What do you think the current situation of balancing identity and adaptation in the Church looks like, and what other analogies do you see between Leo XIII and Leo XIV?

Conclusions

• The Pope’s task can be seen as a control problem.
• This approach to the papacy is in continuity with the entire Church tradition.
• Recalling this analogy allows us to use cybernetic concepts to analyze contemporary pressures for adaptation.
• It provides a starting point for questioning what this theoretical framework reveals about contemporary challenges.

Matthew 14:24-33

The first passage mentioned here describes the scene when Jesus walks on water:

24 Meanwhile the boat, already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it. 25 During the fourth watch of the night,* he came toward them, walking on the sea. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified. “It is a ghost,” they said, and they cried out in fear. 27 At once [Jesus] spoke to them, “Take courage, it is I;* do not be afraid.” 28 Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29 He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. 30 j But when he saw how [strong] the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” 31 Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith,* why did you doubt?” 32 After they got into the boat, the wind died down. 33 * k Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, “Truly, you are the Son of God.”

– Mt 14:24–33

John 21:3–8

Finally, the closing scene of the Gospels, “The Risen Lord Appears Beside the Sea Of Galilee”:

3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We also will come with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.b 4 When it was already dawn, Jesus was standing on the shore; but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.c 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, have you caught anything to eat?” They answered him, “No.”d 6 So he said to them, “Cast the net over the right side of the boat and you will find something.” So they cast it, and were not able to pull it in because of the number of fish. 7 So the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he tucked in his garment, for he was lightly clad, and jumped into the sea. 8 The other disciples came in the boat, for they were not far from shore, only about a hundred yards, dragging the net with the fish.

– Jn 21:3–8

In each of these passages, Jesus himself solves the problems of the Apostles, which they were unable to deal with on their own.