This subject reminds me of this snip from: Who Shall Ascend?
...........Within the souls of those who reflexively shy away from ascribing any fault to the pope, there is a great sentimentalism. He is not only never to be blamed for anything, but he is to be given boundless sympathy, the reason being he is so weighed down with "the burdens of his office." So heavy, indeed, are these burdens, that it is right and Catholic to assume that no matter what emanates of the Holy See, if it is good, the pope deserves the credit; it it is bad, it it seems not good or unfortunate, then the pope is not responsible.
(1) HE IS A PRISONER!: Who are they who are holding him prisoner? Liberals? Communists? Masons? The Cardinals?
(2) He signed the bull without having read it: In the business world, one would lose one's position, would be forced to resign for a blunder of this sort. Are not the pope's papers more important than those of chairmen and executive officers?
(3) He was forced into signing these papers: By whom? It is of the existence of these "whom," that this book professes certitude. But we can find no evidence of any force being threatened or applied, nor can anyone else. Is it wrong that we should expect the pope to suffer martyrdom itself for the Church and its Faith, as many of his predecessors have? In truth, however, we see clearly that the Conciliar Popes have been the most willing players of them all.
(4) He has so much to do, that he cannot know everything that goes on: Really? How does the speaker know this? This suggests that there is a kind of rush to get things done. What is the hurry? Would it be excusable for the pope to injure the Church through hastiness or mismanagement?
(5) The man whom we see on television is not the real pope: Again, who are they who have managed this? Does the speaker say this only because he cannot accept the fact that the pope could very deliberately work against the welfare of the Church? Or is he one of those "conservatives," who thinks that the Doctrine of the Papacy means that it is an impossible thing for the office of pope to be taken for explicitly evil purposes? There is no such Catholic doctrine.
The pope, it seems, is the only chief executive officer in the whole world who is not to be held accountable for what happens in the institution which he is in charge of. In any corporation, large or small, the man at the top gets the credit and the blame for what happens: If the company makes money, he is congratulated and paid more money to stay on. If the company loses money, he is the one who must explain why this is -- and what he intends to do about it. And, even if he is not altogether responsible -- e.g., he cannot control the markets--he may very well be voted out for the obvious reason that the man the board of directors wants, the man the company must have, is the man who, no matter what the circuмstances, will put the company in the black. ...........