Posted on 04/06/2005 6:59:38 PM PDT by sinkspur
They ponder an election process invented in the Middle Ages
As preparations for the first papal election in 26 years get underway, cardinals addressed the need for better communication between the Vatican and local dioceses while batting away concerns that regional agendas would influence their voting.
Dialogue, not Disunity Among the most frequently cited concerns was whether the church could strengthen collegiality without compromising its universal doctrine. Church officials often use collegiality as a code word for the decentralization of Vatican power.
"How do you reflect the unity of the universal church and then figure out how to do that in our own back yard? That's a question for the church in the future to look at and figure out," Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington D.C. said in an exclusive interview with NCR April 5.
"With the universal church it is so important that we do have unity. Unity doesn't mean uniformity. But unity is so important," he said.
McCarrick said he had not spoken with other cardinals about increased collegiality since his arrival in Rome.
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, speaking to reporters hours later, said: "I think collegiality needs to be strengthened, because that means you strengthen the unity of the bishops. We can look for better ways to strengthen it. The conferences in various parts of the world are one way to do it."
George went on to say that collegiality did not imply a shifting of power from Rome to local dioceses, but rather a boosting of dialogue between the Holy See and the rest of the world. He cited John Paul's' world travels and synods as a means of doing this.
Collegiality "doesn't mean autonomy. It doesn't mean independence. It means just the opposite. It means you're together."
McCarrick, who spoke to NCR after addressing the media in English and Spanish, said John Paul's multilingualism had been "very useful, because he was able to bring everybody together."
George said that a multilingual pope would be "helpful," but stressed that a command of Italian was indispensable.
"The pope is the bishop of Rome, so he has to be at home here. That doesn't mean that he has to be Italian, but he has to speak Italian."
National alliances not welcome
Neither George or McCarrick believe that U.S. cardinals were likely to form a voting block and push a national agenda in the conclave. George said that any country whose cardinals present themselves as a united front risked being "resented."
"We're not going to try, I'm sure, to act as a group. That would be the worst possible thing to do," he said, noting that each cardinal had his own cultural baggage to sort through before entering the conclave.
"We live in a country that has been historically somewhat hostile (to the church), and that is for other reasons today. And you have to take that into account," he said.
"We have come to a point in our country where freedom also includes sexual freedom, and therefore the Catholic church's teachings are very resented."
Cardinals from Africa, meanwhile, told the Roman newspaper Il Messaggero that the idea of a black pope may still be too new.
"The West is not yet ready for a black pope," said Francis Arinze of Nigeria, a curial cardinal on many papabile lists.
Using almost identical language, Bernard Agre of the Ivory Coast said, "Psychologically and spiritually the west is still not ready for a black pope."
"Even if there's no need to exclude the possibility, this is the mentality of the people now."
Twenty-six years later
Another top concern among the cardinals was how the duration John Paul's pontificate would effect the dynamics of the conclave.
Without elaborating, Cardinal Armand Gaetan Razafindratandra of Madagascar told NCR the church needed a leader "who continues the work of Paul VI."
Asked what the biggest difference between the conclave that elected John Paul II and the upcoming one, McCarrick responded: "We are coming together for the first time in 27 years," tacking an extra six months onto the time that has elapsed between the now and the last conclave.
George also expressed concerns over how the college, which draws upon 117 eligible cardinals from virtually all points of the globe, would reach a consensus using an election process invented in the Middle Ages.
"We're all learning. People learn at different speeds, in different ways. I don't know how we'll all react. I'm trying to puzzle through it myself."
That guy should be in the state department. Just string words together which in the aggregate can mean whatever anybody wants them to mean.
Bishops are going to elect someone who respects them as equals and doesn't make them look over their shoulder every time they make a decision.
Maybe what that is what the guy meant. It probably is, given the extrinsic evidence. On its fact, the statement could be interpreted to mean that there needs to be more meetings, so the orders from the Vatican are clearer and more detailed, so nobody is out of step on any detail, no matter how small. Lawyers don't write that way, unless they are diplomats, and paid to drain words of content to please all.
Well now. Just what is wrong for liberal American, and French, and Belgium, and German, and etc. bishops to be subjected to permission from the Chair of St. Peter when issues of doctrine and dogma are broached?
Bishops are going to elect someone...
I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that the Bishop of Rome will ever be considered merely a first among equals?
As a former protestant who chose to become Catholic, I just hope they pick G*d's man and that he is as capable a Pope as JPII was.
I want someone who can continue to explain the truths of the Church without being influenced by polls or politicians. I think more conferences in various parts of the globe are a great idea. And more opportunity for Catholics to gather together in stadiums and arenas to have a Mass with the new Pope giving the homily and the Eurcharistic blessing.
I can hope.
Cardinal Georges idea of what unity means seems like the way the church was before Vatican II. In any event, John Allen has an audience to play to, one must not forget that.
That's the thing. It's not about "issues of doctrine and dogma." It's about silly things like postures at Mass, gold-plated chalices or crystal goblets for the Precious Blood, puffing up about washing women's feet on Holy Thursday.
The Curia writes norms for "liturgical reform" and 2/3 of the bishops ignore them.
The Pope chooses bishops he prefers, then keeps them on a short leash by makng them get permission for everything they do.
And if they screw up royally, as they did in the sexual abuse crisis, the Curia clams up like Sgt. Schultz: "We know nothing."
I suspect the cardinals are tired of getting decrees from Rome that treat them like children, and that they ignore anyway.
I fear you might be right. That's certainly done wonders for the Anglicans. American bishops in particular have demonstrated that they deserve autonomy.
Remember that one needs 2/3 of the 116 (Card. Sin of Philipines will not be present b/c of ill health). So whoever wins will be a consensus figure in many ways. And that's why I'm almost certain that the Cardinals will choose someone who comes close to a JPII clone: somewhat young; vigorous; intensely pastoral; intellectual; with both academic and pastoral experience. And I am SURE it will be a European. My Euros are on the Cardinal Patriarch of Venice, Scola. Of course, I will probably be wrong. But as my academic mentor always said, "Sometimes wrong, but never in doubt!!"
The same bishops who tell the laity that they must be obeyed?
Oh, I get it now.
It's about silly things like postures at Mass, gold-plated chalices or crystal goblets for the Precious Blood, puffing up about washing women's feet on Holy Thursday.
Certain postures during Holy Mass, the designation of the type and composition of chalices that will hold the precious Blood of Christ, and the delineation of appropriate gender roles in certain ceremonies, are not the least diminished by those who believe they are casually unimportant -- even if those folks happen to be bishops, or deacons in the present day church. Also, do we want every bishop, anywhere, to make their own decision on such issues or do we wish to continue to pray the Creed with the words, "one, holy, and apostolic church"?
To call these issues "silly" is to degrade them to the point of blasphemy. Do you really wish to get to that point?
He won't be 58 or even in his early 60s. The cardinals don't want another quarter century Pope, no matter how saintly or momentous he was.
They're doing it anyway. The Pope needs his curia to focus on important issues, like the shortage of priests, not whether a priest wears his stole under, or on the outside, of the chasuble.
Did you notice that, unlike last year, there was not a word of controversy as most bishops went back to washing the feet of women and men on Holy Thursday? Is it really "blasphemous" to include women in this ceremony?
Haven't we heard this somewhere before? In fact, hasn't it been a multi-level strategy to implement all manner of new practices without authority/permission, possibly beg forgiveness, then say it is the norm, and continue to do it.
Why have any rules at all or let's just call all rules passe and allow every Hunthausen, Gumbelton, Law, and Bernadin et al to do whatever they want with the liturgy and any remaining semblance of doctrine and dogma left in the church. Again, some may define certain matters as silly, some may call the fundamental notion what it is, blasphemy. At the least it flies in the face of the solemn vow of obedience. Oh, I guess that, too, is some trivial notion insofar as it pertains to those promulgations from Rome.
Only the Holy Sprit knows. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, if the next pontiff is theologically conservative but "pastoral", that he could create a seperate PAA for trad Catholics,also a rite that uses Traditional Anglican liturgy, free from the oversite of local Bishops.
My guess is that if traditional liturgical styles grow, and they will have a free hand under their own Bishops, that this will drain the suburban parishes of their homeschooling familes, and let the subruban/Amchurch parishes flounder.
I want someone who can continue to explain the truths of the Church without being influenced by polls or politicians.
I am also a convert who hopes for the same thing. I wasn't led to our church because it went with what was popular. I want a church that goes with what is right. I told my father (still a protestant!) in the car today that if the church suddenly starts to embrace gay marriage and etc, I will leave it.
Since the primary mission of the Church is evangelization I would suggest that some Cardinals may be off the mark with these 'concerns' There is unity among all obedient to the Magisterium -any divsion is but dissent and compromise but dilution of truth -hopefully the Holy Spirit will get through to these few Cardinals and clue them in before the 18th.
Cardinal McCarrick and others vigorously waving the pastoral banners of 'social justice' while all but abandoning evangelization do Christ and His Church a disservice --[they] feed, clothe and console the flesh while spiritually starving and sacrificing souls...
Considering some of the stuff that's come out of the NCCB in recent years, maybe someone DOES need to give them a little guidance.
A swift kick in the posterior was the only guidance that John Paul II was hestitant to employ. In my opinion, the ability to manage, execute, and discipline is what the majority of Cardinals guided by the Holy Spirit will be looking for in the new Pope...
By analogy -- John Paul II has taken Vatican II from visionary ambiguity to authentically defined policy -John Paul II has put the strategy in place, published the plan, restaffed and set the stage for growth e.g. new springtime. The next Pope will execute and enforce the plan -discipline will not be optional...
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.