Regards, Ivan
Posted on 04/02/2005 3:16:40 PM PST by MadIvan
The Catholic Church was for a long time in awe of its superstar Pope, a man who fulfilled more than the wildest hopes and dreams of the cardinals who elected him one humid autumn afternoon in 1978. The papacy was in a severe trough at the end of the reign of Pope Paul VI, and in severe crisis hardly a month later when his successor, John Paul I, failed to wake from a night's sleep.
Paul VI seemed to have lost confidence in himself and his office after the rough ride that his encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae, received in 1968. His successor, John Paul I, had done little more than smile and wave warmly - and was widely said to have humanised this venerable institution just by doing so, which says a lot about the remoteness that seemed to mark the end of the papacy of Paul VI.
Then stepped forward Cardinal Karol Wojtyla from Cracow, John Paul II, who was never more at home than when in front of a huge crowd, beaming and waving as the thousands of young people who flocked to see him shouted cheery and sometimes cheeky greetings in a dozen different languages. He became the world's most famous man, without doubt. And yet the one criticism that was never levelled at him was that he had been over-promoted.
How do you follow that? The answer is that you don't. The clue to what will happen next lies in those few weeks after the death of Paul VI, the last time the Church's leaders calmly asked themselves what sort of papacy it was they wanted. It is unlikely that they will be looking for someone to fill the papal slippers of the superpope from Poland, the man elected in the altogether exceptional mood of despondency verging on panic brought on by the sudden death of the man the same cardinals had voted for hardly a month before.
The late Cardinal Basil Hume said, not long after the election of Albino Luciani, the Cardinal Patriarch of Venice, as the papal successor to Paul VI, that there was a calm conviction among the convocation of the cardinals - which he entirely shared - that they had made their decision (and after a mere three ballots) in accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for which, of course, they had ardently prayed.
Luciani was a nice enough man, holy certainly, but not about to set the world alight. His was a deliberately unambitious appointment, and all the talk was of a scaled-down papacy, less of a monarchy but more of a diocese, albeit first among equals. The Pope's primary title, from which all else flows, is Bishop of Rome - the capital of Italy, then ruled by an anti-clerical Communist council. Luciani's first job, it was said, was to reach out to the urban poor who had deserted the Church and regarded it as something of an enemy. Hence, Cardinal Hume told me when chatting about it afterwards, the new Pope had above all to be an Italian…
Instead, the Pope of the last 27 years has believed himself to be the parish priest of the world, and he immediately delegated his duties as bishop of Rome itself to a senior cardinal. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the last few months, despite all the respect with which John Paul II was held, many cardinals have muttered "Never again". The biggest factor in their determination to avoid such a repetition is not strictly theological but lies in the ability of modern medicine to keep old men alive into their eighties and beyond. They hardly need to be reminded of it: there are more than 60 cardinals still living - a third of the total - who are prevented by the age limit of 80 from participating in the election of the next pope.
Pope John Paul II's reign may be the third longest in history, but if the Church elects popes in their fifties - in many respects the best age to take on such a challenging task - that record may not stand for very long. Which is why the man the cardinals will soon be voting for is more likely to be in his sixties or seventies. This may at first seem a somewhat indelicate approach, but it does lend credence to the surprising rumour - and one that is a surprise to himself, certainly - that Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, is considered papabile by some of his eminent colleagues. He is 72.
It is widely held that the Catholic Church, because it is in practice a one-party state, needs a succession of popes, each of whom will balance and if necessary correct the tendencies of his predecessor. That means a change of leadership every 10 to 15 years.
If the cardinals were looking for a devolver, someone who will pass many of the powers now excessively concentrated in the Vatican down to episcopal conferences across the world, the Englishman with an Irish name and accent, and incidentally with impeccable ecumenical credentials (and in reasonably but not fantastically good health), could have wide appeal.
The alternative, likely to loom large if the cardinals are convinced that they need a younger man, would be to ask a papal candidate if he would be willing to retire by the age, say, of 75. They cannot extract a promise or make it a condition, but there is nothing to stop a candidate expressing a view.
Indeed, those cardinals such as Christoph Shönborn of Vienna who had speculated about the possibility of Pope John Paul II retiring will not have done their own prospects any harm, because they have signalled that they accept the principle. Not all the cardinals do, however.
"When we meet, we ask each other: 'How are you these days?' out of more than politeness," one of the cardinals remarked recently. After one of the shortest papacies ever, followed by one of the longest, age matters - and so does health.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
Indeed. Pray, pray and pray some more.
I am praying, however I am convinced they will not elect an American.
I would assume what is left out here is that these Cardinals are Italian. Too bad for them to be so short sighted. This man brought garnered more respect outside Catholicism than is likely to be witnessed again in any of our lifetimes. That should matter greatly to them.
No, the chances of that are slim to none at best.
We can only hope (they don't).
This writer seems materialist, to say the least.
You have issues with every American Cardinal?
Yes. But even conservative cardinals were not wild about JPII's tightly-controlled concentration of power in the Vatican.
That's why I believe the next Pope will be Dionigi Tettamanzi, a pragmatic Italian, 65, and very much a man of Vatican II.
This article strikes me as remarkably superficial and ignorant. "Never again," forsooth. I suppose you can always find a leaker or a talker who will say just about anything you want to hear. But this guy Longley has no inside pipeline into the college of cardinals.
I'd say the chances that the Archbishop of Westminster would be elected pope are virtually nil. The Church in England is in an even worse mess than the Church in America, and I haven't noticed that the new Cardinal is doing much to straighten things out. Quite the opposite.
By saying he is very much a man of Vatican II, I assume you mean he is conservative? I have seen enough liberalism in my parish to last a lifetime and no, I don't blame JPII for this but I just don't get it. And I now have what would truly be considered a conservative priest by today's standards.
Interesting ... not much information available on him, in English, but what what there is seems positive.
I sure don't see one that is pope material.
I'm not trying to be nasty, I mean this. How much do you really know about all of them?
I watch, read and listen.
So what do you think about Maida?
Maida is a fine cardinal....and there are several other fine bishops and cardinals. But, as I said, I do not see any American that I believe has the ability to be a good pope. My choice would be Francis Cardinal Arinze.
What about Cardinal Maida do you not find appropriate for the Papacy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.