More food for thought for the Cardinal Electors

Some time ago I wrote that the Cardinal Electors, in the General Congregations and in the Conclave itself, have to consider – among other issues – the record of the man they may choose in regard to his handling (or lack of handling) clerical sexual abuse of minors.  This is more a factor for cardinals who have been diocesan bishops than it is for those who have only been in curial roles.

This isn’t the only factor they have to consider, but in this media day and age, it cannot be ignored.  The shoe hasn’t dropped in most of the world yet, as it has in these USA and a few  other anglophone places. If they choose someone who has not handled the issue well in his diocese, there will be a media maelstrom against him, whipped by by newsies and eager special interest groups, from the first day of the new pontificate.

I also opined that if the cardinals themselves are not perceived as squeaky clean, the mainstream media and interest groups will work to undermine the next Pope’s moral authority at every turn because he was elected by men who were perceived by them as tainted or whom they claim “didn’t do enough”.

Now I read in an AP story sent to me in email …

Abuse victims ask cardinals be kept from conclave
Published: March 5, 2013

SANTIAGO, CHILE — Advocates for victims of clerical sex abuse in Chile, Mexico and Italy asked Tuesday for three cardinals to withdraw from the papal conclave, accusing them of covering up crimes.

The victims in Chile say Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz failed to act on accusations that they were abused by the Rev. Fernando Karadima, who was long one of the country’s most popular priests. They say the cardinal, who will vote for the successor to Pope Benedict XVI, declined to carry out a probe and refused to even meet them.

“My clients say it’s incongruent and disrespectful to all the victims, not only Karadima’s but those of other priests who abused minors when he was an archbishop,” Juan Pablo Hermosilla, the victims’ lawyer told The Associated Press.

“It’s evident that he had knowledge of the complaints of abuse, which other priests believed to be true, and he did nothing,” Hermosilla said. “He could have stopped this at the time, but for some reason he didn’t. He looked the other way.”

In Mexico, meanwhile, advocates for victims of the disgraced Rev. Marcial Maciel and other priests said they were presenting a petition demanding that Mexican Cardinal Norberto Rivera stay away from the conclave.

“Norberto, covering up and not acting to prevent sexual abuses of children by pedophile priests strips you of the moral stature required to participate in the election of the new leader of the Catholic Church,” they said in a petition posted online by former priest Alberto Athie, co-author of a book denouncing pedophile clerics including Maciel, founder of the Legionnaries of Christ.

In Italy, victims of an abusive priest have launched a petition on www.change.org trying to keep Cardinal Domenico Calcagno out of the conclave.

Three men who said they were abused by the Rev. Nello Giraudo, a Savona-area priest, went on national television this week to accuse Calcagno of having known about the accusations and yet didn’t report him to police.

[…]

Remember: A new Pope will uphold the Church’s teaching faith and morals.  When he does, and when he upholds the Church’s important disciplines, various groups that advocate for the unnatural or who self-identify as victims (rightly or wrongly) or who are simply heretics and antinomians will say that the new Pope has no moral authority because he was elected by cardinals who “covered up” or “didn’t act” or “didn’t do enough” about this or that.

The Cardinal Electors are going to have to stand firm and, I think, act swiftly.  It is hard to stand at the focus of the MSM’s attention these days, but they have to man up and man up fast.

I fear the avalanche is just getting started.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Clerical Sexual Abuse of Children, Conclave and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to More food for thought for the Cardinal Electors

  1. Bender says:

    The next pope could be completely pure and perfect, yet there will still be a media maelstrom against him, whipped by by newsies and eager special interest groups, from the first day of the new pontificate.

    The last pope was repeatedly lambasted as being a Nazi. So people should not fall into this trap of thinking that the cardinals should pick someone that would avoid a hostile press reaction.

    Indeed, the Cardinal electors are earnestly exhorted “not to allow themselves to be guided, in choosing the Pope, by friendship or aversion, or to be influenced by favour or personal relationships towards anyone, or to be constrained by the interference of persons in authority or by pressure groups, by the suggestions of the mass media, or by force, fear or the pursuit of popularity.” (Universi Dominici Gregis 83) [They have to think about the good of the whole Church. Exactly the point.]

  2. Phil_NL says:

    A couple of remarks:

    – There are multiple degrees in how much has been done about the sordid scandals plaguing the church; a dichotomy between the anglophone world and the rest would be too crude. For starters, I fear the poisoncup hasn’t been fully drained yet in the anglophone world (e.g. card O’Brien). Secondly, the Dutch, Belgian and German dioceses aren’t far behind in terms of coming to grips with the issue. And then there are plenty of regions where the storm probably still has to break – and others where the problem may have taken on different forms (i.e. priests with affairs and fathering children rather than abusing minors). I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that any papabile would have be absolutely squeaky clean in his handling of such cases, but his country of origin would probably be a poor indicator. Not to say we have variables with more predictive power (and I sure hope the Vatican has; nuntios should have kept their eyes and ears open, one hopes).

    – We have now one cardinal who has absented himself. Mahoney and Danneels have, and as far as I can see rightly so, been called upon to do the same. The list would now be extended by 3 more. I’m all for these people – if they indeed failed in a disasterous way – to retire to a monastic life of prayer and penance instead of attending the conclave. But it would also set a precedent, which would be that with enough media uproar, one can ‘knock out’ a cardinal. If this mechanism would take root, it’s a question of ‘when’, rather than ‘if’, it will be abused against innocent cardinals who have too many enemies – and the good ones tend to have enemies by the bucketload (cf. Churchill: “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”).

    – It would be good for the cardinal-electors not just to consider the unimpeachability of the new pope’s record, but also his willingness to clean up shop among the cardinals themselves. The pope is not the only one who will face a media storm, chances are that a few cardinals will emerge from the conclave only to find that while they were locked away, some journalist has dug up some dirt – and didnt quite made the ‘deadline’ for the start of the conclave. And I would expect that in some cases, that would be genuine dirt. In other words, the new pope would likely have an immediate crisis (large or small) on his hands. That would require a firm hand, as the initial actions will paint the image of much of the next pontificate.

  3. catholicmidwest says:

    In a way, this almost smacks of Donatism, which is the belief that the sacramental or ecclesial acts of a clergyman who’s done something “non-pure” are somehow defiled by his “impurity.” This is very dangerous ground historically, and needs to be put down as gracefully and as quietly as possible. It has huge negative potential as a flashpoint. Just saying.

  4. acardnal says:

    According to a news report, one of the Cardinals, I think it was Cdl. Francis George, mentioned that consideration should be given to electing someone outside the College of Cardinals, too.

  5. jaykay says:

    Needless to remark, the media in Ireland was in on this sort of thing from the beginning, with calls that our Cardinal Brady should not attend. This from their veteran Rome correspondent:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2013/0220/1224330264783.html

    I should also remark that this man regurgitated word-for-word that fabricated article from La Repubblica concerning a homosexual coterie in the Vatican, which was accepted by his editor and published. That paper has sunk to the lowest depth of its 154-year history and is little more than an activist broadsheet for the soi-disant forces of “progress”.

    Note the same tactics here: “Vatican commentators yesterday suggested that Cardinal Brady might be the next church leader to find his right to vote in conclave contested.” Yeah, “commentators”, right… that’s YOU, Paddy (because anyone else couldn’t care less about one cardinal – who will shortly retire – from a two-bit island off the extreme western coast of Europe). The rest of the article is a smear-by-association with Cdl. Mahony, despite Cdl. Brady’s actions being nowhere remotely in the same league as Mahony’s. It’s basically a call to his ideological buddy-buddies in the readership of the IT to come yapping out of their kennels and get the (dung)ball rolling to “ban Brady”. Thankfully there were no comments below that article, as normally anything to do with the Church brings the trogs swarming out from their orc-holds.

  6. This is why (probably for the first time ever) an American pope is a real possibility. All of the American cardinals have been thoroughly investigated, and in many ways the Church in America is ahead of the curve in terms of dealing with the abuse scandal.

  7. Gus Barbarigo says:

    @ acardnal and PatrickThornton

    So there’s still hope for the drafting of Archbishop Charles Chaput!

  8. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    Isn’t it true that an “American” cardinal could hail from any one of dozens of countries in the Western hemisphere – North or South?

    Scholarly English-language publications such as Encyclopedia Brittanica that usually refer to this country as “the U.S.” or “the United States” and specify notable persons from here with the modifier “U.S.,” as in “U.S. President”; “U.S. author; “U.S. stateman”; “U.S. cardinal,” etc.

  9. KevinSymonds says:

    I may be raked over the coals for this statement but I must say it.

    Where in the conclave rules does it say “moral stature” is required to vote for the new Pope?

  10. catholicmidwest says:

    It doesn’t need to say it in the conclave rules, KevinSymonds. Growth in Christian virtue is the only indicator of growth in holiness, but it is enough. To intentionally elect a man not having a sufficient degree of holiness (and the advanced degree of moral development that always appears with it) would be a huge problem in today’s world.

  11. Stumbler but trying says:

    Just read this:
    http://ncronline.org/blogs/brief-prague-spring-north-american-college

    As I was reading the comments in response to said article, this caught my eye:
    Anonymous J…” SNAP is holding daily briefings on the abuse records of potential popes”
    I got to wondering how they would know on who to report? Might help if they just go ahead and scrutinize everyone as that will keep them busy and out of trouble. ^^
    So much to pray for and think about.

  12. BLB Oregon says:

    This suffering the Church is going through has not been in vain, because the bishops _have_ acted. Where there was sleep, there is now wakefulness, and the lamps are lit. May they remain so! It is inestimably more difficult for someone to take on the cloak of the Church in order to prey on the vulnerable and devastate the innocence of those whose guardian angels still look on the face of God. It would be enough to save the children and the young people from having their bodies violated, their hearts broken, and their faith ruined, but these changes will surely also save some would-be pedophile from acting on temptation, hiding lie upon lie and offense upon offense, and perhaps winding up in Hell. If that change is what happens because light fell on this dark corner, then no matter how much distress we feel over it, it will have been worth it all. Light that drives away evil is a good thing, and we cannot allow any embarrassing chorus raised by our enemies make us lose sight of that. Rather, we ought to pray that the bishops will be even more vigilant about keeping their eyes on the dark corners and in the closets, rooting out evil wherever it tries to hide as soon as possible, so that with God’s help nothing like this ever happens again.

  13. BLB Oregon says:

    –“Where in the conclave rules does it say “moral stature” is required to vote for the new Pope?”–

    To clarify what I’m hearing you to mean: it is to be hoped that the princes of the Church might always pursue moral stature in all ways, whether or not it is “found out” by the outside world. The question is whether some attempt at judging the “moral stature” of the cardinals can ever be accomplished in a practical sense except by what one hopes is implied by their relationship with the Pope and their peers and the direct conviction by the Holy Spirit already in place. If the cardinals and bishops do not submit themselves to these means of correction or scrutiny on a daily basis because they ardently want to please God and hope that in spite of their great responsibilities they will be found faithful at the Final Judgment, I don’t know what other “rule” will improve things, while many such possible “rules” would undermine the very office that the Church needs them to fulfill.

  14. acardnal says:

    Gus Barbarigo says:
    So there’s still hope for the drafting of Archbishop Charles Chaput!

    Works for me! If Cardinal Rigali were not a voting elector, Chaput would probably be a Cardinal now.

  15. Catholictothecore says:

    No matter who gets elected as the next Pope – squeaky clean or the not so squeaky clean, the media and the newsies will be at him from day one. He has to be strong, morally, physically, spiritually to withstand it all. Only with the grace of God can one be successful at it. As Cardinal Marc Ouellet once said, “this is not an enviable job.”

  16. Traductora says:

    I’m not sure there’s ever any way to be pure enough for the news media, which is rather ironic, considering that the things they are criticizing in the Church are the very things they are praising and urging in society and, in many cases, practicing in their own lives (homosexuality, pursuit of young teenagers of either sex, out of control sexuality in general, etc.).

    I don’t think either Mahony or Danneels should have attended – for the good of the Church, which I doubt really means very much more than a paycheck to them – and I think it would have been salutary had they simply been told not to attend. However, then there would be claims (by the liberals, since they are both raving liberals) that the conclave was invalid. O’Brien did the right thing and removed himself, showing that he might have some integrity left, but unfortunately most of the others don’t seem to hear their consciences calling them.

    That said, if we got into eliminating cardinal electors because the press or some SNAP related group was making claims against them, there’d be nobody left. I think somebody with moral authority should appeal to them to simply remove themselves from consideration for pope if they believe there is something that could be “found out” about them. And that doesn’t mean that the press won’t discover that decades ago, one of them was unaware of something that was going on in his diocese or mishandled it, or even that the press will dig up some “recovered memory” type to bring forth scurrilous charges. But we can’t let the press delegitimize the Conclave.

    I do think a US American or Canadian might be best at dealing with these issues. The Latin American Church is in too much turmoil, since it had been allowed to get completely out of control, between Liberation Theology and the rather amoral charismatic movement, and the good newer bishops haven’t had time to clean house or even know what needs to be done.

    Although, interestingly, the candidate that I hear the liberals and curial old guard will probably support is Scherer from Brazil, who is a Liberation Theology supporter in all but name and wants to go back to the good old days of JPII when the Pope was a popularly admired celebrity but didn’t govern the Church, thus leaving the field open for all the many others who seem to want to grab the tiller. He also hates the old mass and by extension, everybody involved in it, so even some US cardinals will support him. And while Brazil is a moral and financial mess, I’m sure the press will never find a bad word to say about him. So that’s another thing we have to bear in mind: any candidate perceived as even remotely conservative is going to be attacked hard from every side, no matter how innocent he is. What that person needs is a clear conscience…and incredible fortitude.

  17. Hidden One says:

    It is dangerous to pontificate about the worthiness of cardinals.

    Besides that, there but for the grace of God go I.

  18. JARay says:

    I would be delighted if Archbishop Chaput were elected. He would be just right. I also would like “my” Cardinal i.e. George Cardinal Pell. His election would bring howls from all the trendies who see him as a hard-liner. I am praying to the Holy Spirit because He knows, far better than I do, who the right man is.

  19. BLB Oregon says:

    “I’m not sure there’s ever any way to be pure enough for the news media, which is rather ironic…”

    Has humankind ever been different, in the whole? If Our Lord contended with this, what use is it to worry that the Vicar of Christ might suffer from the same thing? The main thing is to be found telling the truth and acting with actual love, and not worry about what “the media” says about it:
    “To what shall I compare this generation? It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is vindicated by her works.” Matt. 11:16-19

  20. Supertradmum says:

    What is new is the media, not sin. But, somehow, I think that many people knew what type of person John XII was in 955 or Innocent VII in 1484. Of course, we need a saint, a living saint for a Pope, and we should be very grateful for the last 175 years of popes.

    What is new is the media, not sin….

  21. Supertradmum says:

    oops, should be Innocent the VIII–sorry!

  22. Stumbler but trying says:

    ” O’Brien did the right thing and removed himself, showing that he might have some integrity left, but unfortunately most of the others don’t seem to hear their consciences calling them.”

    I was thinking about this comment and despite the sad situation of this particular man, it was good timing to be exposed before he could actually go to Rome and participate and then be exposed while there.

  23. Kathleen10 says:

    Traductora, you hit the point that fogs my brain cells as well, that the media hates on the one hand what it glorifies on the other, homosexuality. Seems they ought to have no problem with the scandals, since the media promote unnatural relations and sexuality is also promoted at younger and younger ages, so why have such a beef with the Church and priests? I don’t know, but it’s interesting. The dislike is palpable, but why! Really when you stop and think about it, it doesn’t make sense.
    I do not know exactly what our wonderful Pope Benedict XVI did about what was at the root of the scandals, in my opinion the pretty serious infiltration of homosexuals into seminaries back in the day, but I would guess he did as much as possible. I hope so. This seems to me a critical factor that we hear so little about. Nobody seems to want to take it on in discussion, so I have no idea. To me it is the big fat elephant in the living room, very serious. It is certainly possible to be homosexual and a saint, living out one’s life in chastity and holiness, but, we need to have well-formed men in seminaries, and my prayer is that our next Pope understands the issue and remains determined to do something about it.
    And by the way, the group SNAP was really discredited by the Catholic League. Their website probably has the information still. Plus I hear the group is fairly broke. When they are quoted in the media I often point that out. They are still the “go to” group for the media of course.

  24. MaryAlice says:

    My heart goes out to the Pope. God bless him and keep him.

  25. Pingback: Little-Known Facts about a Papal Conclave

  26. robtbrown says:

    Interesting article today from Magister.

    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350453?eng=y

  27. Traductora says:

    @kathleen10 -well, that’s good news about SNAP running out of money, at least! I wonder who was funding them in the first place. I guess they’ve served their purpose now and gotten all the headlines they’re going to get, so perhaps that’s why the money has dried up. Also, a few good bishops stood up to them and didn’t let them get a toehold in their dioceses, proving once again that what the bishop does as a shepherd really IS important.

    I think the reason the pro-homosexual or pro-pan-sexual media has such a conflicted approach to the Church is that they really know, deep down inside, that they’re in the wrong. Thus they want to prove that “everybody does it” and that the Church is being hypocritical, on the one hand, while also trying to get the Church to approve of their sin and relieve them of the need to feel that there’s something wrong with the way they are conducting their lives. And they ignore the fact that much of the supposed pedophilia was not that at all, but instead male adults pursuing young males. The genuine cases of pedophilia -the incidence of which is actually lower among the Catholic clergy than among the general population – were just used by SNAP and the media to discredit the Church and call into question Her moral authority.

    This is true in a number of areas, but homosexuality is the biggest administrative problem for the Church in part because the existence of same-sex institutions always attracts homosexuals, who often manage them to fill them with cliques and end up by taking over the institution and turning it to their purposes. The Church has always known this and been on guard, and that was why discipline used to be very strict in monasteries and seminaries. But it has had to be rooted out time and again. The practices of the medieval Inquisition may have been somewhat over the top, but one thing most people don’t recall is that much of it was devoted to rooting out sexual immorality as well as heresy, particularly among the clergy. So it’s a problem that has always been with us and always will be.

    Once again, good bishops are the key. If we’d had good bishops all along, we wouldn’t have to worry about bad cardinals now. BXVI did a lot to renew the episcopate, but it will be a while still before we see the results.

  28. Jim of Bowie says:

    robtbrown says:
    7 March 2013 at 5:27 am
    Interesting article today from Magister.

    I hope he’s wrong, but if not let it be Ouellet.

  29. JonPatrick says:

    I also found the Magister article interesting although troubling. If Cdl Scherer is chosen I fear that could undo everything that JPII and Benedict XVI have achieved in beginning to turn around the ship and bring her back on course.

  30. Blas says:

    This article is the look of the World. Since when “moral stature” is a catholic requirement? Had Peter, after his denial, the “moral stature” to be the first head of the Church?
    The Church is a comunity of siners, all of us are sinners, cardinals and popes. The moral authority of the Pope do not come from who elected him of how much saint or sinner he is, but from the fact that he received from Jesus the order to confirm his brothers in the faith.
    Let the World say what he wants, be catholics.

  31. robtbrown says:

    The two reactions make me wonder whether I linked to the right article.

    1. Magister made no prediction about the next pope.

    2. He said that the Italian curia faction (i.e., do nothing but hand wringing) are pushing Scherer. Bertone and Re are the ringleaders–neither are Ratzingerians.

    3. He said that those who actually want true reform (Ratzingerians) are presently backing Dolan.

    4. Scola has no chance. No surprise, that.

    5. Quillet is timid.

  32. acardnal says:

    One of my concerns with Dolan is his handling of the sex abuse cases he inherited when he became AB of Milwaukee. Controversial still.

  33. The Masked Chicken says:

    It seems really sad to me that when the Church history of the late twentieth-century is written, almost the whole of it will be taken up by two things: Vatican II and the Sex Abuse Crisis. Sometimes, I would like to read articles about what the Church has gotten right in the last fifty years.

    The Chicken

  34. OrthodoxChick says:

    robtbrown,

    Magister also mentioned in that article that Sean Cardinal O’Malley is as papbile as Dolan. Both are interesting to ponder, but for some reason, I just can’t picture either one of them (or any American) actually being elected. Although, if Magister is correct, Cardinal O’Malley has just demonstrated to the curia that he is (among others) comfortable interracting with the press. Would the curia consider that a strength, or a threat?

  35. Mary T says:

    “I think the reason the pro-homosexual or pro-pan-sexual media has such a conflicted approach to the Church is that they really know, deep down inside, that they’re in the wrong. Thus they want to prove that ‘everybody does it’ and that the Church is being hypocritical, on the one hand, while also trying to get the Church to approve of their sin and relieve them of the need to feel that there’s something wrong with the way they are conducting their lives. ”

    Amen and amen. Especially the part about “trying to get the Church to approve of their sin.”

    As for the moral authority of the next Pope if elected by “compromised” Cardinals (I’ve seen 7 mentioned in the media) – with a 2/3 majority required (what’s that? 77 Cardinals?) there will not be a 7-vote (or even 10-or-20 vote) difference between the winner and the final runner-up (sorry to borrow secular terms!). The pope will not be “elected” by the compromised cardinals.

  36. frahobbit says:

    to the media: It is probably no use to say it, yet I must, Get your nose out of my family business. Next they’re going to demand the general populace to vote for the next pope.

  37. Giuseppe says:

    The media is not conflicted about homosexuality. They are more angry about perceived concealment and ‘the closet.’ Once a celebrity is outed or comes out, there is much less attention to them. This fits in with the general pattern of most members of the media, who view secrecy or deception as cardinal sins. (Particularly secrecy or deception as it relates to sex.) “Put it on the front page” is the general goal of the media. If anything, the media’s greatest hypocricy is in viewing transparency as the highest virtue when their inner workings are anything but.

    The RC Church is a ripe target for the media because of the large number of homosexual priests, many of whom sincerely entered the priesthood with what felt to them to be a genuine calling in an era where open homosexuality was not accepted by society in general. When such a priest preaches against same-sex marriage or is found out to have same-sex activities, he is tarred as a hypocrite. I don’t think the media (or much of contemporary liberal Western society) has any qualms about homosexuality or feels much hidden or overt guilt (as Traductora and Mary T imply). There is no ambivalence in most of contemporary liberal Western society about the normality of homosexuality.

  38. acardnal says:

    Chicken wrote, “Sometimes, I would like to read articles about what the Church has gotten right in the last fifty years.”

    You may be waiting a looooooong time. ;-)

  39. An American Mother says:

    Giuseppe,
    I completely disagree. I grew up in the dance and art community, where homosexuality has been accepted “within the family,” so to speak, for many years. The homosexuals I know are not noisy, not activist, and do not give a rodent’s posterior what the rest of the world thinks of them (other than making fun of them for being prudes or getting in other people’s business).
    The media and the activists are a whole different breed of cat. They are noisy, preachy, and in everybody’s business, and actively campaigning for “rights” that your typical homosexual does not care about. (Response I most often hear – “Why in the )(*&*(&%^ would I want to get MARRIED?”)
    They are noisy precisely because a still, small voice is telling them that what they are doing is wrong. And they are playing the “hypocrite” card in somewhat hysterical fashion for the same reason.

  40. Traductora says:

    “Outing” by the media was not an expression of outrage at hypocrisy, but an attempt to force the person “outed” to adopt the homosexual agenda if he didn’t already do so, become a spokesman for it if he was a famous person, or delegitimize his criticism if he persisted in not wanting to be part of the homosexual campaign. The media is perfectly comfortable with both hyporcrisy and outright lying, if it benefits someone who shares their points of view, and will even go to great lengths to suppress the truth when it creeps out (witness the media’s protection of Obama).

    Furthermore, a homosexual now is no longer simply a person who may feel attraction to members of the same sex, but someone who adopts an entire worldview, relating not only to sex but to many other things, including life, that is incompatible with the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman values expressed in traditional Western society and thought. But there still exists enough of the latter for people who are now identifying themselves as “gay” to feel a little uncomfortable with it, and they want to undermine and destroy its best and last representative, the Catholic Church.

    This is also the reason “gay historians” go back over the centuries, desperately trying to prove that some literary figure, artist or political personage was “gay” long before this concept even existed. It’s obviously not outrage at hypocrisy; it’s a desire to swell their ranks and recruit spokesmen, even long-dead ones to whom they can attribute these ideas, thereby believing they are normalizing them.

  41. robtbrown says:

    The Masked Chicken says:

    It seems really sad to me that when the Church history of the late twentieth-century is written, almost the whole of it will be taken up by two things: Vatican II and the Sex Abuse Crisis. Sometimes, I would like to read articles about what the Church has gotten right in the last fifty years.

    It’s hard to imagine an article about the Church getting the liturgy right. If the Church had stationed men at the door of every church with clubs in their hands, hitting people intending to enter, it couldn’t have equaled the damage done by the liturgical changes (with a grateful nod to Malcolm Muggeridge).

  42. robtbrown says:

    OrthodoxChick says:
    robtbrown,

    Magister also mentioned in that article that Sean Cardinal O’Malley is as papbile as Dolan.

    More electable because less formidable.

  43. robtbrown says:

    Should be Ouellet, not Ouillet

  44. BLB Oregon says:

    –“This fits in with the general pattern of most members of the media, who view secrecy or deception as cardinal sins.”–

    “The Media”–meaning not all, but rather those who have made their living at spreading whatever gossip and speculation in whatever form will bring in the most money instead of disseminating information that the public actually has a need to know in a way that might actually profit the general populace–view anything approaching mere sense of privacy or any prudent standard of discretion as an affront. They’d publish every battle plan and dissect each one ever-so-helpfully before publishing it where any enemy could read it, if they could, provided that the enemy could be made to pay for the privilege and they could gain some fame for their thoughtless self-serving work. They’d publish private health records, disseminate classified documents, and wiretap every phone, and think nothing of it, and at the same time feel no quirk of conscience for turning around and accusing anyone in government who did the same to them!

    That is not all, but even those with higher standards find that the kind of news people actually need is not easy to sell to publishers. The public has themselves to thank for the media we have. It is about time for some social taboos against wanting to know what you have no business to know. Alas, social taboos are not much in vogue, save those “standards” that worship those who want to have license and approval to do whatever they please as openly as they please and the taboo against questioning anyone else’s self-definitions, no matter how far from reality they are. There are taboos against disapproval of that nature, but that is about all.

    The more the Cardinal Electors can distance themselves from the tentacles of that evil game of our times, the better.

  45. OrthodoxChick says:

    robtbrown,

    So is that how it works right now? There aren’t enough of the more progressive types in the curia to elect a cardinal of their ilk, but there are enough of them to block the election of a holy, but tough-as-nails (in terms of admin/governance) cardinal? Instead, the only sort of cardinal who is electable at this point in time is somone whom the curia types feel they can get over on. Am I reading the tea leaves correctly? This is the impression that I’m starting to get from some of these articles like Magister’s and the comments from others about them.

    Well, if we do somehow manage to end up with a hardcore “governance” Pope, then we can thank the Holy Spirit for having given us the “thinking” Popes for so many decades leading up to this.

    I just pray that we actually get the pope that the Holy Spirit prefers and not one that only the humans prefer. There’s no guarantee that a majority of cardinals will submit their will and the entirety of themselves to the Will of the Holy Spirit. We must pray, pray, pray without ceasing for them.

  46. robtbrown says:

    OrthodoxChick says:

    robtbrown,

    So is that how it works right now? There aren’t enough of the more progressive types in the curia to elect a cardinal of their ilk, but there are enough of them to block the election of a holy . . .

    Cardinals like Bertone and Re are not progressives, but for various reasons they favor the status quo. Some might call them neo-cons.

  47. acardnal says:

    Let’s see, 115 electors and two-thirds needed so minimum 77 votes needed to elect next Pope.

  48. Stumbler but trying says:

    “there are enough of them to block the election of a holy, but tough-as-nails (in terms of admin/governance) cardinal? Instead, the only sort of cardinal who is electable at this point in time is somone whom the curia types feel they can get over on. Am I reading the tea leaves correctly? This is the impression that I’m starting to get from some of these articles like Magister’s and the comments from others about them.”

    Just read an interesting article where is it being reported Sodano and Bertone have “mended the fences” in order to try and control the mood of the conclave. Granted, that may be sheer speculation but it did not sit well with me. The thought of the next pope being someone whom they can control is a very upsetting thought indeed.
    http://www.johnthavis.com/us-vs-the-curia-has-become-story-line-in-rome

    “Well, if we do somehow manage to end up with a hardcore “governance” Pope, then we can thank the Holy Spirit for having given us the “thinking” Popes for so many decades leading up to this.
    I just pray that we actually get the pope that the Holy Spirit prefers and not one that only the humans prefer. There’s no guarantee that a majority of cardinals will submit their will and the entirety of themselves to the Will of the Holy Spirit. We must pray, pray, pray without ceasing for them.”

    Amen to what you are saying…I continue to pray and hope along with all of you.

  49. OrthodoxChick says:

    Stumbler and robtbrown,
    Thanks for the replies. I usually just disregard what comes from most of the msm, but I don’t know how to take these articles when they are written by people who represent themselves as being more “in the know”. I don’t want to buy into conspiracy theories, but I also realize that no one is immune to temptation and sin, and the Enemy must certainly go after those at the top of the Church hierarchy with a vengeance. I wouldn’t want to trade places with any of them.