Daily Archives: March 7, 2013
You won’t be surprised to know that I don’t like the SNAP.
The so-called “Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests” (most of the victims are obviously killed, you know; hence “survivors”…) pretends to provide “support” for the victims of abuse by (mostly: homosexuals like this one) pedophile priests, but in fact promote the usual disgusting anti-Catholic, leftist, “liberal Catholics, dissenting, contraceptive, satanic agenda.
Now, the SNAP would obviously not let the Conclave go without making asses of themselves. This time, they have done it in two press releases: with the first they have informed us of which twelve Cardinals they truly do not want to see as Pope (Scola, Ouellet, and Turkson among them). With the second, they have informed us of which candidates they consider their favourites…
No wait! these people truly hate the Church! So they have called them “least worst”, as the idea of someone being a “good” candidate according to their standards is truly beyond the pale.
This time, I will give you the name: they are two Cardinals, Tagle** and Schoenborn, and one Archbishop, Martin of Dublin. I personally do not think Schoenborn has any chance (unless the Cardinal want a revolt of heretic priests on a planetary scale), Tagle I never liked and has even less chances, and Steve Martin is probably more likely to be elected than Diarmuid Martin.
Notice the following, though:
1) Three Cardinals among 115 were, evidently, not to be found.
2) SNAP think the world revolves around their gripe: they decide those who want and do not want to see as Pope merely based on their own whining attitude, with utter disregard of the countless other qualities a Pope should have, and challenges he will have to face. Me, Myself and I. The True Obama Spirit.
3) They think a Pope can only be bad. No escape from that. If they get their own dream candidate among the available ones (including all archbishops, it appears), then it will only be “least worst”. Gosh, that’s… that’s… insensitive!
SNAP might well be disappointed, as between them Scola and Ouellet account for a good percentage of the probabilities. I actually suspect our whining heroes have inserted in their black list a couple of the favourites, so they can cry very loud and get further publicity if one of them is elected.
If Ouellet or Scola make it, this will be good for some fun…
* stupid comments on the lines of “you condone abuses by priests” will be deleted faster than their authors can say “I am an idiot”.
** Errata Corrige: Tagle, not Ranjith. My apologies, post written several hours after reading the article and I got confused after answering a comment about Ranjith.
Rick Santorum thanked one of the biggest atheist organisations in the country (apparently there are several of them; Satan is having a laugh…) for putting huge images of himself on billboards, complete with Christian quote.
Santorum is not the only beneficiary of the action. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have also profited from the unexpected free advertisements, and we are told even the Pontiff Emeritus had the same honour.
The reaction of those so honoured are generally very positive. Santorum is clearly hoping the atheist campaign goes on, but it is highly amusing a certain Robert Jeffress, pastor of a mega church based in Texas (like Santorum's billboards) saluted the attentions of the atheists with the rather pertinent observation that every day they are attacked by atheist organisations must be considered a good day, then it shows they are doing something right.
Of course, to pay ads for Christians was not the original intent, and all the billboards invite the readers to “go godless instead”; the billboards were rather meant, we are told, to “expose” the Christians as “bigoted” and “backward”; but you can see here what the unintended consequences were.
I would be personally curious to see what impact analogous billboards targeting Islam and Muslim personalities would have instead. Would the recipients thank the generous billboard-donors so heartily? And what about the personal security of the initiators of the initiative?
I begin to understand why liberals want to ban weapons.
They'd be shooting themselves by mistake all the time…..
I am seriously beginning to think liberal journalist must pass an idiocy exam before being considered for the job, so that they match the IQ of their readers.
The “Washington Post” informs us there are fears Pope Emeritus Benedict might, after the election of the new Pope, influence his successor. Even the ghost of rivalries and divided loyalties is mentioned, with the excuse the Vatican excludes it. The circumstance Bishop Gaenswein will “work for both” is also found a rather disquieting element.
The Washington Post therefore instructs his readers about the following:
1) The Pope has resigned in order to influence his successor. His objective is, of course, that the new Pope does what he would be doing. That he would be doing If he were Pope, that is…. Aaarrgghhh!!!
2) It is clear to everyone with some perception now (though not to the WaPo readers, obviously) that the Pope resigned because he felt he could not be the Pope whom the Church now needs. After which, he would proceed to exert on his successor a strength of character and steely determination he never had in all his previous years. As they say, life begins at 86…
3) Catholics being a bunch of anarchists always ready to follow whomever wears a white tunic, there is a clear danger of division: cue the armoured troops of the “Benedictites”, attacking the Vatican at the cry “Papacy or death”. I can picture the former Pontiff surveying the troops, proudly riding his white purebread, his armour glittering in the Roman sun…
4) The new Pope can’t decide who his aides will be. Gaenswein is on the menu, and Gaenswein will have to be. The same as with a Mother-in-law, you get the whole package and can’t decide to deselect this or that from the, erm, list of standard equipment.
5) Gaenswein is a very powerful man. You get Gaenswein (which you must; see point 4) and you’re screwed. Pope Emeritus and he himself will cast a long shadow over your papacy. There’s no escape. You certainly can’t have these things as you like. Who do you think you are, the Pope?!
Seriously, those who like the WaPo should have their IQ measured. Wait…
On reflection, perhaps better not…
I know men are fallible and prone to all the mistakes and sins caused by their fallen nature, but I always thought the Church has disposed a series of measures meant to minimise, in the most varied circumstances, the effect of our impulses on our decisions.
One beautiful example of this is the Conclave. Isolation. Times for prayer. Total immersion in the task at hand. A kind of spiritual retreat aimed at electing a Pope.
Exactly this seems now what at least some Cardinals want to avoid, with the recent calls for postponement of the Conclave because no strong candidate has allegedly emerged from the “preparatory talks”. This means, in plain English, that the Conclave should only be little more than a formality, and the real game already decided at the moment of the extra omnes.
I allow myself to disagree. Exactly why we all know how fallible human nature is, the Cardinals should insist that the decision process takes place, to as big an extent as possible, during and not before the Conclave. I can't see why even the “meet and great” should not take place there.
Of course, this would mean that Conclaves go on for longer; but I fail to see the difference with preliminary talks going on for longer.
Also, please consider Cardinals and Archbishops aren't indispensable. Past Conclaves weren't exactly short, and whenever an Archbishop or Curial Cardinal dies suddenly, the structure he leads is certainly not paralysed.
“Ahh, but the Press, the Press!” – you might say – “They expect a fast decision! Otherwise the Church will give the impression of being divided!”.
Seriously: the Press will always slander the Church whenever they want to, and it is fitting for every Catholic to be aware a Pope isn't elected by angels, either. Let the Press write what they want, and the Church do what is good for Her.
I personally can only see with worry a climate in which the pre-conclave is becoming the real conclave, and the actual conclave little more than an investiture ceremony. If you ask me, the Conclave should start sooner rather than later and he who hasn't time for it should not have any need for a red hat, either. If I were a Cardinal I would vastly prefer to get to know my colleagues in a spiritual and prayerful environment during the course of some weeks, than having this kind of primaries – at the very least – that are taking place now.
I have always been taught that you see a good leader when you know he could be run over by a bus and his structure would continue to run as a well-oiled mechanism at least for the ordinary administration, and that the value of a leader is in his ability to take decisions, not in his being a micro-controller and head bean counter. I can't see why a conclave should be an exception.
I hope the next Pope is elected in a more prayerful manner, with a strong conclave and with a press embargo from the start.
I have reported about the primadonnas hoping for notoriety or useful PR work before the conclave, but it is fair to say I had missed the one who truly gets the biscuit: Cardinal Odilo Scherer of Brazil.
The good Cardinal is so concerned with “pastoral” work that he has sent out his PR men to ask the Brazilian press to put him in the best possible light, whilst the same men denied he felt he was a candidate.
I tend to despise stupidity even more than corruption; particularly concerning people in position of high responsibility and power, who will be exposed to temptations but are supposed to be at least smart.
This does not seem to be the case of the Cardinal, clearly thinking what the Brazilian press writes in the days leading to the Conclave has a bearing on who is elected.
I can now imagine an embarrassed Cardinal assuring his red-hatted colleagues it was all not his initiative; assuredly not!
And so goes another candidature; never a strong one, certainly the wrong one.
Notice all the strong men have avoided giving interviews. All but Ouellet, who might well regret it.