Cardinal Ouellet has given an interview (good Lord, is any Cardinal able to survive without giving interviews nowadays?) saying pretty much the same things Jim Hacker was saying in “Yes, Minister” before becoming Prime Minister: one feels there are other, more qualified candidates, and one is not desiring to candidate; but one would feel able to step in if one were required, etc.
The Cardinal also said he is “somewhat afraid”, which I think in pre-conclave parlance means “I do not want to sound arrogant, but boy, I am ready…”.
Cardinal Ouellet has, thankfully, not said how he desires to pander to feminists, or in which way the aggiornamento must be aggiornato, &Co. In this he shows himself, if you ask me, vastly more “papabile” than the recent primadonnas looking for an applause before the curtain falls, and basking in the attention given to them before all eyes are set on the new Pope.
It seems to me Cardinal Ouellet is saying: “Just ask, and I am your man”.
Good. I’d prefer one who does not give any interview in these crucial days and prepares himself with prudence and discretion for the scrutiny of the 115 who really count rather than the countless curious who don’t; but I personally like a potential Pope to be excited, not scared, at the prospective of being in charge.
In my modest opinion, not many are born leaders, and those who aren’t rarely grow to the task once they are required to lead. Personally, what I would prefer is one who feels ready for the task, and eager for battle; one who has spent years saying to himself ” If I were in charge, I’d put an end to (put here any one of the infinite problems caused by papal timidity, conciliar thinking, or straight inaction)”; one who dreams of a strong, assertive, pugnacious Church led by a strong, assertive, and pugnacious Pope.
Is Ouellet this kind of man? We can’t really know. A prudent Cardinal wanting to be a warrior Pope – or something resembling to it – would not openly advertise his intentions, but rather point out that, were he to be asked, he would, though probably not the best candidate, take the burden on himself, and so forth…
I notice in the meantime that to my knowledge neither Cardinal Scola nor Cardinal Bagnasco have given interviews directly touching their own chances; if they did, I missed it.
May it last until Monday, and then may the real decision be taken without any regard for the mood of the people, or of the press.
O Lord, please give us a strong and orthodox Pope.
Cardinal Sandri couldn’t resist the desire for a little posturing, and he now clearly presents his candidature through the pressand recurring to the appeal to the worst popular feelings. As he is there, he also slams the door right into Cardinal Turkson’s nose and offends the entire Catholic world. Not bad for a day of work.
It would be very good if Cardinals decided that no one of them will give interviews until after the Conclave. But again, if you think yourself a rockstar, or are desperate to be pushed by the press, this might be difficult.
Sandri is now openly pandering to the progressives, hoping his knowledge of the Curia – decades in Rome already, if memory serves – will propel him towards the coveted words, “non sum dignus”.
We are now informed the Cardinal is “calling for a greater role for women in the life of the Church”. You see, the Church is so dominated by… men! Who would have thought that!
So, how could this greater role look like? The Cardinal has a couple genial ideas.
1) offices in the Curia. Meet the new Prefectess of the Congregation For Women’s Equality. Among the vital changes for the life of the Church could be counted “aromatherapy for Catholics”, a new way to feel one’s Catholicism in a non-threatening, inclusive way; the liturgy might also be modified where sensible (“joy, love and peace be with you”) and in general, the Church might extend her pastoral activity to the great problem of the drowning of kittens in the Third World. A clear refusal of all wars and its substitution with afternoon tea discussion groups is also not improbable.
2) The Cardinal (who might, or might not, be homosexual; considering the way he thinks I wouldn’t bet my pint he isn’t) suggests women should get a “greater role” in priestly formation.
So, according to the Cardinal the average V II priest isn’t effeminate enough, and we do not have enough faggots among them as it is. No, we must make sure that they are screened, or at the very least formed, according to the preferences of a bunch of pious females. It beggars belief, but it is on “Catholic Culture” and I am not kidding you.
If a priest would dare to spit to my face stupid drivel like this, I would ask him to his face whether he is homosexual. In this case, I can’t avoid thinking that Sandri might have the same affliction as the very recently disgraced Cardinal O’Brien (yours truly has reported). At the very least, Sandri’s thinking is suspiciously effeminate without the shadow of a doubt.
Singularly, the very same O’Brien gave an extremely stupid interview of “progressive” tenor just a couple of days before being disgraced; possibly because he was being blackmailed, or else in an extremely naive last-minute attempt to obtain the protection of the Press. with this in mind, you never know what is behind Cardinal Sandri’s sudden enthusiasm for the colour pink…
Talking about colours, pink leads us nicely to… black (or rather, Black), where the good pink Cardinal accepts “diversity” in a loving but, sadly, decidedly mortal embrace. The Church is ready for a Black Pope, he says. Unfortunately, ” the world is not”, so please be kind and forget Turkson, will you?
The Cardinal therefore calls the entire Catholic world “racist”, after he has called it, fittingly from a feminist perspective, sexist. Truly, the bitching potential of a Pope Sandrina I cannot be overlooked.
We shall see how this pans out. A Pope like Sandri would let Paul VI look like Torquemada.
O Lord, please give us a strong Pope.
Fairly balanced article from John Allen, the only readable journalist at the National Schismatic Reporter concerning my favourite papabile, Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco.
You can forget the last argument against him, probably added merely for the sake of symmetry and because there was nothing else; certainly, the “caso Boffo” would be either unknown or not interesting for most foreign Cardinals.
The other points are, if you ask me, very fair.
I would add an element that he has not mentioned explicitly, though he touches on it: Bagnasco has the reputation of one you don’t want to have against you. Whilst he can smile, he can stab too, as he has amply proved with his decision to defenestrate Berlusconi. This was a decision I never thought right, but which showed a man who is not too shy for a fight. The same he did in the Englaro case, or in the controversy concerning the atheist advs on the buses not long thereafter.
These were all cases where the head of the Bishop’s conference could choose whether to meow or to roar. Bagnasco chose to roar. A national quarrel for atheist advs on buses: can you imagine Vincent “Quisling” Nichols even thinking of doing it? But again, Bagnasco clearly believes in God…
We never know what Cardinals do once they become Pope; but boy, this man can bite.
I would say this is, in these troubles times, exactly what the doctor ordered.
One of the many things that drive me mad of the secular press is this fashion of never mentioning the Church without mentioning the “scandals”.
Whilst the big problems are now around 30 years past, and the more recent problems (like Vatileaks) are embarrassing but nothing that will make Church history, it seems no journalist worth his hell can write an article about the upcoming Conclave without mentioning a Church “beset by scandals”.
Last time I looked, the last not one, but two German President had to resign due to a corruption scandal (Wulff) or grave controversies (Koehler). If this is not “beset by scandals”, I don’t know what is, and right at the top of the Institutions.
Or we want to say that the oh so anointed President of the United States is the political son (erm, bastard) of the most corrupt political machine existing in the United States, without any of his many admirers ever mentioning that he hails from Chicago, a town clearly “beset by scandals”.
In the meantime, France has a former President (Chirac) condemned to two years in prison (suspended, I grant, but you get the drift).
I will, for a human sense of patriotism, say nothing about Italy.
Summa summarum, it is not clear not me why the magic locution “beset by scandals” is almost never applied to the democratic institutions of modern abortionist Democracies, but is considered de rigueur whenever the Vatican is mentioned. Nor is this adjective applied very often to the BBC (whose men, women and people in the middle take the biscuit without discussion), or to the English educational system (worse percentage of suspected child abusers than the Church) or the so-called of England (same ballpark) or the NHS beset by malfunctions, scandals, and homicidal nurses. I will not even bore you with the Liberal Democrats, a party who seems to have made sexual perversion, creepy behaviour or perversion of justice a prerequisite to obtain positions of responsibility.
No, the NHS is such a great achievement of Socialism that it makes it to the opening ceremony of the Olympic games, but the Vatican can’t be mentioned without the “scandals” making it to the very same sentence.
I am, I must say, rather fed up. Particularly because this soundtrack will accompany us through the conclave, the election and the Easter celebrations which this year will, you can bet your pint, attract huge curiosity from the secular world because of the brand new Pope.
Seriously, the press office of the Vatican should say a couple of things on this, before the conclave begins.
I truly am sick and tired. Are you?
We have had sede vacante just for a few hours, and today strange rumours have reached the Italian press. Apparently, a group of Cardinals is forming who are ready to insist that the next Pope commits himself to die in office in order for them to give him their votes.
It is difficult to see how such a promise could be made in good conscience. If the Pope knows he is going to be put in a coma and might remain in that state for five or fifteen years, should there be no abdication? If the Pope knows he has dementia, should he leave the Church without his natural leaders perhaps for a decade or more? Whom would such a mentality help, if not the Curia and the local bishops’ conferences, free to enjoy a very large autonomy for many years at a time?
Besides, if confirmed this remark seems a very thinly veiled criticism of the former (heavens, how strange it is to write it…) Pontiff, and an attempt to prescribe to a Pope how to be Pope.
I have written already and repeat today that I do not think this is a fair assessment of Pope (emeritus) Benedict’s decision; but again this is more than criticism, this is ordering around…
How very Vatican II.
Personally, if I were to talk to any Cardinal entertaining such ideas I would suggest that he and his colleagues elect a very strong Pope. A strong Pope would be the best guarantee of having someone at the top who knows how to reign, and has the guts to abdicate if he think the step appropriate; but seriously, a prescribed behaviour – particularly in so important a matter – seems to me more than a tad out of line.
Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. the passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.
When I bet (which is rarely) I generally fix the limit at one pint, which I nowadays set at £4.
Whilst I have not made any bet on the next Pope (which I, and everyone else, could do in perfect good conscience, see above), I must say I am tempted to add one (or two) pints to the event.
Paddy Power has, as I write, here the betting page about the new Pope. Surprisingly for me, Turkson still leads the race. I am not a bookmaker, but I suspect what the people at paddy Power want is an army of people putting their three or five pound for the excitement of the “Black Pope”. I honestly think the odds are too much in the bookmaker’s favour.
If memory serves, the day Pope Benedict resigned Paddy Power had Cardinal Scola 11 to 1. I missed the occasion to bet then, because I simply forgot. A couple of days later (when they had started to read the Italian newspapers) Cardinal Scola was quoted a disastrous 11/7, basically an invitation to give them some money with which you don’t know what to do.
But today is different, with bets on three Cardinals offering interesting quotes: Ouellet at 7/1, Bagnasco at 9/1 and Scola already improving to a more inviting 4/1.
I am pleased to see “hug a heretic”/”protect-a-fag”-Schoenborn is in eight place, at a rather sceptic 20/1. Whilst the man is my nightmare scenario, I frankly do not think he has any chances in the real world; that is, outside of dissident wannabe catholic rags like the “Tablet” and, obviously, homos. A category, this one, which one would think will be totally absent from the Conclave, though recent events actually do not invite to much tranquility in this respect.
Other bets are either funny or meant to take money out of the uninformed. Richard Dawkins is at… 666/1, which is a very evident Christian joke on him (though with much truth in it). Still, if Paddy Power were to really take real money for real bets on him, this would seem to me a criminal abuse of public credulity.
Almost funnier is Archbishop Mueller at 200/1, and it’s fair to say this yogurt will get sour. Even Bono has a quote of 100/1, and one wonders how much money Paddy Power makes on bets like these, and how drunk are those who make them.
Cardinal Policarpo (already tired and emotional on so-called wymyn priests; then forced to retract but, it is fair to say, still a disgrace to his habit) is given at a sporty 100/1, and so is a funny guy some people believe to be a Catholic, Cardinal Lehmann, one of the many Germans Cardinals who lead you to doubt of the mental sanity of the Popes who gave them a red hat.
Cardinal Murphy- O’Connor is given at 150/1, but he will get zero votes as he cannot take part to the Conclave himself. Even Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, one who would have loved to see himself all in red entering the Sistine Chapel, is given better chances, though his name is clearly there because he is known by hearsay to most Brits who have no clue how his chances stand (answer: not much better than Dawkins’).
Sadly, Cardinal Burke, who is a real tough guy, is nowhere to be seen; which means either Paddy Power are scared of taking bets or, more probably, he is nowhere as far as election chances are concerned, too.
I will monitor the situation carefully in the days leading to the conclave, as the odds might also be an indication of how the perceptions have shifted. IN case of Bagnasco’s victory, it would be beautiful to have the Brunello bottle paid for by Paddy Power. Bagnasco is, among those given as papabili (again, Burke is nowhere to be… read), my very first choice, followed by Scola. I very much fear the election of Ouellet, who in my eyes would be another Pope Benedict; which, if true, would – I think – spell disaster.
At 7/1 he might be a good bet, though I am sure it would be a sad victory.
Not entirely reverent, but rather well-made video about how to become Pope.
(P.s.: I didn’t know one needs to be a bishop to become Cardinal. Actually I thought this is not a requirement).
I have this from Reuters and I cannot imagine this is a misunderstanding or an unchecked news. The famous explosive report is then destined to remain under key, and for the eyes of the next Pope only. Clearly there is the fear that the most interesting details may be (cough: will be) leaked.
Personally, I think it would have been much better that the Cardinal had been able to have access to the document before the Conclave, and I cannot see the damage from leaking as so big as the damage from not letting the Cardinal know what’s going on before taking such an important decision like the election of a new Pope. As they say, at some point oportet ut scandala eveniant.
In any case, I always thought it wise to think carefully before taking an important decision and then stick to it.
I often have the impression that God is allowing the Church in the West to go to the dogs to punish Her for the arrogance and ungodliness of most Conciliar Fathers, all of them coming from the (un)civilised West and all of them trying to blandish the Western masses.
In this perspective, I cannot avoid theorising that John Paul I would have been a great Pope, and The Lord took him away from us to allow the Church to pay the price of her own madness to the last penny. It is, in this perspective, as if the Lord would say: ” You made such a devastation of the Faith, and you now hope to get away with it with only fifteen or twenty years of suffering? Not so fast, boys….”.
Idle thoughts, I know; but thoughts with a certain logic to it, I think. We have seen in the history of the Church that whenever the Bride behaves very badly, the Bridegroom punishes her in an exemplary manner. The Great Schism, the Heresies of the XVI Century, even the traumatic Sack of Rome in 1527 can, I think, safely interpreted in this way. In modern days, the election and long pontificate of JP II led to a strong growth in Africa and Asia, but with a clear decay of Catholicism in the West. Wherever you look, society was so different then from today, and in 1978 you could still have called – abortion and all – Europe “Christian”, at least compared to today. As we write the year 2013, Catholicism is growing fast elsewhere, but is possibly in the eve of a big persecution in the West.
Live by the V II madness, die by the V II madness. The sins of the V II generation have fallen, and will probably continue to fall, upon the children and grandchildren of those who thought Christianity could be made conveniently sexy. This has happened already in form of countless broken families, rampant materialism, and advance of aggressive secularism; and this will continue to be the case – unless something intervenes – either in form of persecution or, if we manage to escape the latter, of even more lost souls caused by rampant heathenism and acceptance of every abomination. Asia and Africa might in fact be spared, and will – even with all the problems caused by Vatican II, like bad liturgy – actually continue to grow and possibly lead the charge for the Reconquista of the Western world to Christianity. They also are the continents whose clergy generally refuse to appease the secular sheep, which is probably why their sheep tend not to be very secular.
Again, idle thoughts; but if they make any sense at all, one wonders where we are now in the process. If the Lord in His infinite goodness has decided the impiety of V II has been paid harshly enough, we might slowly start to see Popes and attitudes of a different kind. If it is decreed in Heaven that the price of rebellion shall be paid in full, the decomposition of Catholicism all over the West will go on, and lead to even more devastation.
Our Lady of Quito said that the recovery will happen when everything seems lost, and one might argue in countries legislating in favour of abortion, euthanasia, and sodomy very much has been lost already. Still, no one would say the Church is in such bad shape that all appears lost, and there is reason to be afraid we have, by far, not seen the worst.
Only imagine what the election of a so-called “Benedict clone” would lead to, with the German bishops attacking Catholicism for the next fifteen years, undisturbed, and Vatican Archbishops going around asking that life be made “easier” for sodomites living in sin and scandal…
It doesn’t bear thinking.
Thinking of the coming conclave, this actually scares me not a little; but who knows, perhaps the Lord has decided in His mercy that we have paid a steep enough price already, and will move the Cardinals to sincere prayer and a courageous choice. This would be very difficult, though, as more than a few Cardinals must be afraid of the consequences for themselves if a strong and orthodox Pope is elected, and very many of them are, if looked closely at, part of the problem. This conclave is very important because it is fair to say the Church is more attacked now, and the situation has become far worse in the West, than in 2005. A great chastisement has been going on, and continues to cast his shadow all over the (un)civilised West.
Please Lord, please give us a strong, orthodox Pope.
I have renounced to write yesterday about the latest antics of that heretical troop we insist in calling German Catholic Clergy, because my doctor would not have approved; but the life of a blogger is such that he cannot escape the adrenaline and the anger (because he reads the news aggregators, and therefore all the heretical filth lands on his computer screen at some point), and will have to report on the very worst of what is happening around us.
Today is one of those days, and it is another day when the culpable inaction of the present Pontiff comes to light in its entirety.
The German bishops, united in counsel and heresy, have now decided a raped woman can receive the so-called “morning after pill”. The poor
men are confused or, more probably, disingenuous, and they still think or say they think that, for some reason we don’t know, an embryo isn’t an embryo until they say it is, and therefore the destruction of said embryo isn’t abortion until they please to call it so. En passant, they forget the Church is against contraception, too; but they are way past these minutiae, aren’t they now…
This is grave enough. This would also, of course, call for a prompt intervention of the Pope. Actually, it is fair to say the first duty of every Pope should be to prevent these situations to arise, and to correct the mistakes and punish those responsible when they do. As widely expected, we have seen nothing of the sort, once again reinforcing the impression that this papacy is a replay of Pope Paul VI’s one, plus Summorum Pontificum.
Alas, worse has happened since. Not only has the Vatican simply not acted – which was largely to be expected – but the present head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Bishop Carrasco, even agrees with them.
In doing so, Bishop Carrasco goes not only against logic, common sense and basic Catholicism, but he even openly contradicts a formal paper of his own organisation on this matter, published in 2000.
The text of this instructive document is published in its entirety at the end of this message for future reference, and because it is very sound reading.
Bishop Carrasco is obviously Pope Benedict’s choice for the job, exactly as Archbishop Paglia and Archbishop Mueller are. It is difficult to find another modern Pope so catastrophically wrong in his appointments, and it is even more difficult to find a justification for his inaction after his appointees, for whose action he will have to answer one day, conduct attack attacks to fundamental tenets of the Catholic church undisturbed. This, obviously, in addition to the attacks already daily moved to Catholic truth from the German clergy, from bishops and Cardinals he either appointed or allowed to remain in place unpunished and even undisturbed.
The sad reality, that I do not read often around the Internet but I think should be said, is that this Pope is the son of the same rotten Vatican II climate which produced the Muellers and The Meisners, the Lehmanns and the Zoellitschs, and the Woelkis of the world. You can take Pope Benedict out of Germany, but you can’t take Germany out of Pope Benedict. The proof of this is in front of our very eyes, with the offensive of the German clergy becoming now outright shameless, in the knowledge nothing will happen in Rome, where a Pope is still in charge, and therefore still responsible.
We can be accessory to other people’s sin by silence, which means that a terrible responsibility rests on the shoulders on this Pope; a responsibility that cannot be excused with an impairing disease, and therefore cannot be excused at all; then last time I looked, weakness in front of the enemy wasn’t a virtue.
I do not agree with those who mourn the end of this papacy. If you ask me, this papacy can’t end too soon. We need a strong Pope, which even the presently reigning Pontiff had at least to good sense to acknowledge.
We might, of course, end up with what they call a “Benedict clone” (God forbid!), and if things go really wrong we could even end up with a worse one (God forbid even more!). But I never thought that one should be satisfied or appeased with leaders being mediocre, just because they could be worse.
The German clergy has polluted the Church in the last fifty years. It is time this influence is stopped.
Please Lord, please give us a strong, orthodox Pope.
As is commonly known, the so-called morning-after pill recently went on sale in Italian pharmacies. It is a well-known chemical product (of the hormonal type) which has frequently – even in the past week – been presented by many in the field and by the mass media as a mere contraceptive or, more precisely, as an “emergency contraceptive”, which can be used within a short time after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, should one wish to prevent the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy. The inevitable critical reactions of those who have raised serious doubts about how this product works, namely, that its action is not merely “contraceptive” but “abortifacient”, have received the very hasty reply that such concerns appear unfounded, since the morning-after pill has an “anti-implantation” effect, thus implicitly suggesting a clear distinction between abortion and interception (preventing the implantation of the fertilized ovum, i.e., the embryo, in the uterine wall).
Fair Warning: If you think it inappropriate to discuss leaks from the Vatican, click away now…
Disturbing rumours from the Vatican in these anyway rather disturbing times.
It appears (but… I wasn’t there) that the report recently given to the Holy Father concerning the “Vatileaks” scandal contains prudently worded but clear references to what in common parlance is called a “gay mafia” operating within the very Leonine Walls. In addition, members of this group would be currently blackmailed by what in common parlance are called their lovers.
The allegations about the content of the report are now made by the biggest Italian newspaper, “Repubblica”, after already the “Corriere della Sera” had heavily hinted at the matter in the past. “Repubblica” claims sources near to those who wrote the report. I do not like “Repubblica” as a newspaper, but cannot imagine they would publish the rumours without being very sure of what they do.
The report seems to describe an environment characterised by infighting groups, of which the above mentioned homo mafia is the truly disturbing element.
Now, it is common for every organisation made of humans to have different groups thinking in different ways (say: Cardinal Bagnasco does not like Berlusconi and threw him out of the window; but Cardinal Sodano thinks he is the Church’s natural ally) and being human they can be certainly forgiven if they tend to entrench themselves a bit in their own positions; but to have a group of people acting in concert not to pursue what they think is the best policy for the Church, but to cover and aid each other in what concerns their common perversion is utterly disturbing.
We will probably never know whether this report is – as also rumoured – what moved Benedict to decide it was time to abdicate; I personally thinks the decision was taken before, and the Vatileaks scandal forced him to wait a bit longer; but certainly, the report must have definitely persuaded the Holy Father that he did not have the strength (both physical and of character, I think he is too harsh with himself when he says “spiritual”) to add this battle to the many Catholicism is now called to fight all over the West (sodomy, euthanasia, abortion, secularism and militant atheism come to mind).
It is certainly disconcerting that a Pope should leave in the moment when war must be waged. Does the report contain names, dates, facts? And if it is so, how can it be possible to go away hoping that one’s successor cleans the mess one hasn’t cleaned? On the other hand, if one partout does not have the energy to fight this fight (and Pope Benedict never had the energy to fight any meaningful fight; just think of the Wagner episode in Linz…) it is certainly better to abdicate and hope the next Pope is fit for purpose.
In a development of the latest hours, La Stampa informs us the dossier will now be made available to the Cardinals in the conclave. Whilst the Vatican (obviously) denies the rumours of sexual impropriety among high ranking officials, this move would seem the way Pope Benedict has assured that whilst he does not act, his successor will have to. This very proper cleaning of dirty laundry within the family of the Cardinals will make sure the necessity to get a strong man able to clean the mess is forcefully stressed, and remains in the mind of every Cardinal.
Let me say once again before I close that I have obviously not read the document, and it could well be in the end that this devil is not as bad as he is represented. Still, everyone who follows the affairs of the Church knows very well that homosexual infiltration is ripe at many levels of the Church, and should not be surprised to know that the filth has paved its way to the Vatican.
If you let the smoke of Satan enter the temple of God, be prepared for Satan to get to work with it.
Please Lord, please inspire the Cardinals to give us a strong Pope!
The concrete possibility that a Black Pope be elected moves me to some considerations that you may perhaps find of interest. Let us see them.
I. If such an event happens, it is extremely improbable that Turkson will be the first Black Pope. At least a couple of dozen Popes came from Africa already, from regions with mixed populations of Whites and Blacks. It does not appear realistic to think they were all white. If we have no record of the skin colour of most Popes of the first centuries it is not because they were all chosen among the Whites, but because nobody was interested in a Pope’s skin colour.
II. If you like trivia and superstitions, you might like to know in Italy (where I and many others have never read them, nor do we plan to) it is widely believed Nostradamus prophesies the end of the world during the reign of a Pope both black and choosing the name Petrus. In the second matter, perhaps I am confusing with St. Malachy, but again the element of “he has said it” remains. Cardinal Turkson if of course black, and his baptism name is Peter. I refuse to believe even one Cardinal would allow himself to lend any credence to a superstition, but if Turkson gets elected expect a lot of gloomy faces, particularly if he were to keep his baptism name as Pope…
III. Were Cardinal Turkson the chosen one, Conservative Catholics the world over would have great fun for many years. Imagine the pinko/sodo/liberal press having to attack a Pope who happens to be Black! Imagine the shock of the liberal masses at discovering Black Africans take Christianity seriously! The horror!
IV. All the daily accusations to the Church of being backward would have the rather embarrassing difficulty of explaining why this so backward organisation is so enlightened in matters of skin colour. Not an easy one, this….
We shall see. Exciting and perhaps dangerous times are upon us, and in Italy the excitement is compounded by the upcoming elections.
If you can’t wait,what you can do is pray…
I herewith declare very openly that I wish the next Pope to be Italian. Like most Italians, I regard an Italian Pope as something natural, and fitting. Italy has given the papacy a great number of excellent Popes, and one can legitimately say the Country has served the Church well. Besides, I can’t escape the impression Italians are more likely to have that common-sense approach, the so typical attitude you see in the population, traditionally hard on the defence of the rules, and soft with human weakness. I might go as far as to say that Italians have been so frequently in charge in the last centuries, because the traditional character traits make them so eminently suited for the job.
In short, what the Duce called “un popolo di poeti, di artisti, di eroi, di santi, di navigatori, di trasmigratori” is also, and blessedly so, a people of great Popes.
It is difficult to explain this to a foreigner living abroad, but I am absolutely confident this subtle difference, this “Italian approach” is very evident to every foreigner who has lived in Italy for some years. Italians have a no-nonsense approach given to them in the cradle, nurtured from the earliest years and underpinned by a remarkable similarity in the way they see life and in the values they share; all of this, make no mistake, shaped by a Catholicism utterly without religious rivals worthy of mentioning from time immemorial. It is the kind of mentality that mocks, say, even (for an Anglo-Saxon; Italians wouldn’t say “even”) vegetarians as funnily pathetic nutcases, but has a kind and soft approach even to the people it mocks. It is also, put in a different way, a sure-footed instinct for what is relevant, and for leaving aside inflexibility and exaggerations.
Just to make an example – I do not say it to criticise anyone; merely to point out differences in mentality and culture – on a well-known religious blog run by a priest I have read this question:
Do insect products count as meat products, and therefore prohibited on Fridays and other days of abstinence. I have heard of some instances where it may be used in artificial color products. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
I needed a couple of seconds to digest the question, and to even understand what was meant by it, so much is the question away from our thinking. Mind, I am sure the person who posed the question is a sincere Catholic; but in a circle of Italians this would have caused a burst of hilarity, and would have been remembered for years afterwards. Even the most orthodox Popes of the past (like Pius X or Pius XII) have probably spent an entire life without the question ever coming to their consciousness, and would have been rather worried for anyone having such problems.
This is exactly what I mean for sure-footed instinct: an orthodoxy that is, naturally, never Puritan, or lost in little details, or over-preoccupied, or over-complicated. Not so, alas, in countries where Protestantism plays or has played a role; so much so, that the question above,which sounds disturbingly ridiculous in Italy, would probably appear rather natural, if a bit on the picky side, in countries more influenced by a rigid Protestant culture.
Obviously, in the strange and disturbing times we live in even an Italian Pope could get it completely wrong, and you only need to search on this blog “Archbishop Paglia” to become fully aware of what kind of people are at present walking down the extremely beautiful corridors of the Vatican. Still, ceteris paribus I’d say the Italian would be the safer bet.
And now that I have finished to anger the vast majority of my seventeen readers, the only thing that remains to do is to look for a good trench and bury myself within .. 😉
I like those Fifty-style pictures with a punchy caption below. You see them on sale in several places in London, and probably elsewhere (though I never saw them in Italy or Germany; my bad, I am sure).
I like the old-school, conservative aura they have. Unfortunately, the caption of those sold in shops is often vulgar or irreverent; this spoils the pleasant conservative effect of the image, which probably is in these cases the desired effect.
This one, though, is very fine.
I have it from The Hermeneutic of Continuity and I think it very fitting for the coming days and weeks.
You may want to email the image to your friends, either to share a laugh or perhaps to make a point with them in a humorous but rather forceful manner.
In an age in which every conceivable Catholic outlet seems to see it as obligatory to agree with the Holy Father in everything, it is very refreshing to read that no less than a Cardinal says clearly that this was a weak papacy (ok, he says “not strong”; I am sure you get the drift…).
The Cardinal rightly praises Pope Benedict’s work in other fields, and mentions the strong work accomplished (even before becoming Pope, I add) to remedy to the pedophile priests scandal and help to prevent that they happen again. But there is no denying the Pope is elected to lead the Church, not to be a fine theologian, and the deficiencies in that respect are so clear you only need to read the news for some minutes to understand the scale of the problems, and the absence of a strong reaction to them.
Kudos to the Cardinal, then. I’d have preferred if he had added a blow for the Conciliar church, which is the first cause of the attitude and election of Popes of the good-uncle, no-fight sort like Benedict. But hey, in life you can’t have everything.
Cardinal Gomez will sit in the conclave, and it is obvious he will plead for a strong Pope.
Let us pray his voice will be heard.
If you needed an additional confirmation that the SSPX has realised Pope Benedict’s resignation equates to a big card reshuffle, you can click on this link.
Besides the obvious fact that Pope Benedict will, in all probability, not make any parting gift to the Society – it is not logical that he should do so; he has been planning his departure for some months, and if he had wanted to act he would have done it before lest he gives the impression he acts at the last minute to avoid the criticism to his decision – what is interesting in this interview is Fellay’s suggested roadmap for a reconciliation.
The good bishop is very clear in saying that whilst he does not expect from the next Pope that he proceeds to an open, outright condemnation of Vatican II, the new Pope can accomplish a lot smartly and quietly, proceeding to a series of adjustments apt to eliminate a good part of the problems. To quote (emphasis mine):
As far as Vatican II is concerned, just like for the Mass, we believe that it is necessary to clarify and correct a certain number of points that are either erroneous or lead to error. That being said, we do not expect Rome to condemn Vatican II any time soon. She can recall the Truth and discretely correct the errors, while preserving her authority.
The message is very clear. It would be more than enough if the Vatican were willing to work toward the repair of the edifice without any admission that, so to speak, the architect was on drugs and the building company straight out of Greece. Quiet and discreet action – starting with immediate action on the very worst – can accomplish a lot.
Note that in this interview there is no trace whatsoever of an alleged fear of the Society that some terrible punishment may be inflicted on them by the next Pope. There isn’t, because there is no terrible punishment the Vatican can even try to inflict on them without – besides not reaching their scope – inflicting a much bigger damage on themselves.The Vatican can, simply, not credibly strike at orthodox Catholicism, and spotless obedience.
No, the only way the Vatican can try to neutralise the Society is by trying to blandish, seduce and divide them, dangling the carrot of “reconciliation” in front of their eyes whilst waiting for the division and strife this would cause; a game, this, already tried in a massive and open way both in 1988 and in 2012; on both occasions clearly engineered by the current Pontiff; and parlously failed twice.
The SSPX awaits the outcome of the Conclave from a position of unprecedented strenght and prestige. The progressive – if too slow – rapprochement of the Vatican to the positions held before V II in so many matters is a vindication of Archbishop Lefebvre’s brave fight. As the ideology of Vatican II continues to slowly wither, Traditionalism will grow in prestige and authority; if you say Traditionalism properly intended (that is: not mere liturgical preference, but defence of the entire patrimony of Tradition), you say first and foremost SSPX.
An interesting article in the online version of Crisis magazine points out to a rather self-evident, if not explicitly admitted, fact: the power and influence the Church still holds in very many Western Countries.
The relentless energy with which the Church is misrepresented or outright slandered from the media (“Daily Telegraph”, or should I say “Daily Homograph”, obviously not excluded) is a thinly
veiled admission the Church is still a thorn in the side of the heathens (I do not count the Protestants here; they are largely extinct and few of the survivors who believe in God will show her the hostility of, say, the aiders and abettors of child abusers at the BBC). They are, therefore, doing their best to present the Church as a shop which must either radically change or die (a bit like, well, erm… the BBC).
As so often when the dark forces of secularism open their mouth, nothing can be further from the truth.
Firstly, it isn’t that the Church can really “change”, and the worst a Pope can do is to water down and sabotage the teaching; but as to changing, this is just not going to happen because no Pope would be allowed to.
You can see, if you want, the Church of Christ as a huge block of granite. A bad Pope may attack the block of granite with a screwdriver; have it painted all over if he thinks an aggiornamento is needed; wrap a pink ribbon around it to make it more “relevant”, and write over it all kind of shallow slogans to impress the masses. Still, at the end of all his efforts the block of granite, ridiculous as the bad Pope might make it look, would still have lost nothing of his substance, and we can hope that even if fewer people would feel awed by the block of granite, a vast number would still be fully aware of what lies behind the ribbon and the pink paint.
If these libtards knew how little a Pope can do for them, they would be rather scared.
Secondly, the article repeats a concept on which I insist with stubborn regularity: the Church is like a huge aircraft carrier with still – even after 50 years of very bad maintenance – an immense power of devastation. Particularly so in a democracy, because – as I have tried to explain in the past – democracies are in fact organised according to the wishes of organised minorities, and the Church can rapidly become the mother of all pressure groups in almost all European countries, let alone the United States. The Church is a giant on the world social scene, who has remained rather silent in the last fifty years because the Popes thought impolite (or uncharitable; or uncomfortable) to raise their voice. They have, therefore, limited themselves to some words of counsel – beautiful words, generally – happily ignored by politicians as soon as it became clear – as it always does – that they can do no real harm.
There is no way the liberals will get a Pope even vaguely similar to what they want. Even if they were to get one tenth of what they want, they would criticise him incessantly because of the lack of the other nine tenths. “The Pope is Catholic” is a concept that must be brought to them slowly, and with great prudence.
Oh, how I would like a Pope stronger and readier to fight them than in their worst nightmare! The supreme irony would be if Cardinal Turkson were elected, with a “Black Pope” far more difficult to attack.
Or they might invent a “Nazi Past” for (in this scenario) Pope Turkson. “Impossible”, you will say; “they can’t invent such a story without any real basis, surely?”.
Of course they can! All seen already!
The liberals will be certainly disappointed by the new Pope, because it is impossible that the they aren’t if the Pope is to be Catholic.
But the question remains whether the new Pope will really start to see the Church as an aircraft carrier ready for action, or whether the aeroplanes’ wings will continue to gather dust.
There is a great talk about the fact whether the Pope will influence the election of his successor, though his brother says this will not be the case.
I frankly think it does not even need to be the case, as it would be inelegant in the first place, and ineffective in the end, if the Pope would try to steer things in the direction he wishes.
We must reflect, though, that a Pope actually steers things in the direction of his own successor every day, in the sense that his choice of Cardinals will be directed by the thought of what these Cardinals will do when they are called to their most important task.
Pope Benedict has already appointed more than half of the Cardinals who will participate to the conclave, and therefore had not three weeks, but eight years’ time to steer things in the direction he wished. His appointments of Archbishops to the most important positions also show what his wishes and intentions are.
It seems to me, therefore, that Pope Benedict already has indicated – albeit in a wisely delicate way – who his own candidate of choice is: Cardinal Angelo Scola, a man almost uniformly ignored by the British press on Monday but whose name is appearing now, as the professional geniuses of the local press start to have the Italian newspapers translated and to talk with people who have a clue.
Pope Ratti (Pius XI) and Pope Montini (Paul VI) where Patriarchs of Milan. Pope Roncalli (John XXIII) and Pope Luciani (John Paul I) were Patriarchs of Venice.
Cardinal Angelo Scola was the Patriarch of Venice, and is now (by appointment of Pope Benedict) the Patriarch of Milan. Facts speak louder than words and this facts are, if you ask me, loud enough.
In my eyes, it is clear that Pope Benedict is saying “you decide this race, but please note I have put Cardinal Scola in the pole position”. Our man is also known to be one who is good at making friends and avoiding enemies, and from what IO read of him he isn’t the shy one who would – apart from the obligatory non sum dignus modesty – shun the responsibility. I personally think – from what I have read of him in the past – that he would not be the ideal choice, but the Cardinals could do much, much worse than picking him.
Still, in Italy they say he who enters the Conclave as Pope often gets out of it as Cardinal. I am sure he knows the saying too, which is why I expect the Cardinal to keep a very low profile in the next weeks. I do not doubt, though, he is willing and ready.
We learn from the always excellent Rorate Caeli that of the 117 Cardinals who will participate to the Conclave only eleven have celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass after the introduction of the Novus Ordo. This is a one figure percentage, a bit like saying the “Traditional Mass Party” is less represented within the Church than the Monti coalition is in Italy.
Of course, it can be that many of them are, so to speak, secret admirers and did not want to stand out with something so unashamedly Catholic as a Traditional Mass (we live in such times…). Others may be too old to want to start the re-learning (though one would say a Cardinal who is now 79 was only 71 in 2005, and certainly celebrated the traditional Mass for several years before the Great Neo-Modernist Mess). In both cases, we are probably not talking of warriors for Christ.
Still, you never know and every Italian knows (or should know) the more or less legendary anecdotes about Sixtus V, er papa tosto (“the tough Pope” in the Roman dialect), a man who kept a very low profile and (says the legend) led the other Cardinals to believe his health was very bad, and he himself a harmless old man, to be elected as a “transition Pope”. One of the many stories about him goes that when he accepted the election he stood up strong, threw away his stick, and started singing the Te Deum with thundering voice.
Like you, I keep thinking all the time what the Cardinals will do. Like you, I am scared stiff a truly bad man could be the choice. Like you, I draw some comfort from the fact that hopefully a good majority of the Cardinals believe in God, and might do the right thing or at least avoiding doing the very wrong one.
But seriously, only eleven have celebrated again the Traditional Mass. I think one is justified in being afraid, but I will try to think of some possible Sixtus V hiding among the Cardinals’ ranks; one who has never celebrated the Traditional Mass to make himself acceptable to the Neomodernist majority, and is now silently biding his time.
O Lord, please, please give us a good, strong Pope.