Posted on 03/13/2013 7:06:22 AM PDT by marshmallow
Journalists are floundering because they cannot see beyond the dichotomy of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’
I am asked by a non-Catholic friend for comments on the conclave. It’s difficult to comment because the media interpret everything along the line of bipolar oppositions, and of course it’s much more complicated than that. But anyway, here is my five cents worth for those who are interested.
1. Do not believe anything along the lines of a conservative/progressive clash. From the point of view of the secular world, all the cardinals are conservative: there is just not going to be a pope who changes Catholic doctrine, because popes are chosen among people who are Catholics. The question is: what kind of conservative is he likely to be?
2. The real standoff is between the curial cardinals and those who want reform. But the reformers are “progresssive” only in the sense that they want to clear out corruption and incompetence in the curia. In doctrinal terms they tend to be both conservative and “evangelical”, ie marked by a willingness to be more confrontational with regard to the aggressively secular, western elites.
3. The curial cardinals, traditionally styled as conservative by the media, are conservative only in the sense they want business as usual: ie for power to remain in their hands. Having not much in the way of convictions, they are not conservative in any ideological sense; indeed, the pugnacious attitudes of those I have termed “evangelical” make them nervous, because they are trained as diplomats and power brokers and they like to avoid confrontation with the above-mentioned secular elites, among whom they feel at ease.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
I am getting the sense that this conclave is going to be a little bit longer.
What a concept!
How many ballots do they have to go through before a simple majority is required?
Gird your loins!
They’re made from the same cloth. There is no radical among them. There will be no surprise.
One thing is certain, unlike one conclave that last 3 years, this one should not last too long.
That conclave I had mentioned took place during the middle ages.
Great article, excellent analysis. Thanks for posting.
Circa 1300 would be a better time frame.
The church has a messy history and the last few years in particular with the "hiding" of so many perverted priests.
But I have faith.
Buy a shotgun.
I am just surprised that Cardinal Mahoney is even in Rome to begin with.
The media cannot think in philosophical or spiritual terms. They are only capable of filling up the space between the mattress ads in their papers or broadcasts.
The church will continue to be a force for good in the world and that is what upsets the liberal mind. they want the church to be a puppet with them pulling the strings.
Is there evil inside the church? Of course there is. The church is composed of humans, fallible and weak, but the vast majority are good and holy people.
God will direct the conclave to choose a man who will follow the Word and show the way to those who care to see.
That 'conclave' wasn't a conclave but it is the reason that we have conclaves now.
This is the best single analysis I’ve read over the past 3 weeks, and I’ve read many dozens. Thanks for posting.
I agree.....a disgrace...
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.