Show me where Ratzinger was the odds-on favorite in 2005? Some momentum was just beginning to turn toward him but he was by no means the clear favorite going in.
>>>> Show me where Ratzinger was the odds-on favorite in 2005? Some momentum was just beginning to turn toward him but he was by no means the clear favorite going in. <<
I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. I CLEARLY remember that conclave and Cardinal Ratzinger’s name was mentioned in the news and floated about 10 times more than any other Cardinal. He was JPII’s right hand man and considered a “natural successor” since JPII left such a huge legacy, they wanted someone who would be able to pick up naturally and carry on the same policies.
Anyone else had long odds. The only slim doubt of Ratzinger not becoming Pope had to with a few people speculating that the Cardinals would be reluctant to elect a second non-Italian in a row because there were so many Italian Cardinals that figured the papacy was traditionally theirs, and because of what you’re saying now that “he who enters Pope, emerges Cardinal” argument said Ratzinger’s “inevitable” odds would cause a backlash once the conclave started.
Try some of these articles for starters:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/18/pope.betting/index.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/17/210036.shtml
http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-131459196/ratzinger-seen-as-favorite-to-become-next-pope