Posted on 04/26/2025 8:30:47 AM PDT by ebb tide
[Read our previous piece on the Conclave here.]
The spectre of the coming conclave hangs ever over the heads of more than 130 cardinal electors and 1.2 billion Catholics. Speculation is rife. Will the next Pope be like Pope Francis or more ‘conservative’, like Pope Benedict?
This question is crucial. The Vatican is dealing with grave financial problems. Pope Francis has not been able (or willing) to solve this problem, in spite of the fact that it was part of the reform mandate he received in 2013. The Vatican has also become rather discredited on the foreign policy level. Even worse is the risk of schism resulting from the radical German bishops and their allies in Belgium and Switzerland The Anglican church was torn apart by disagreements over homosexuality. Only an orthodox Pope can ensure this doesn’t happen to the Church of Christ.
The stakes are even higher due to the extension of the Synod on Synodality. The ‘ecclesial assembly’ in Rome in 2028 risks (further) disempowering the bishops of the Catholic Church and creating a new governance structure, where the Pope and (handpicked) laymen and laywomen (and activists) call the shots. Early in Francis’ pontificate progressives, and even some moderates, were hoping for greater collegiality between Rome and local bishops’. Instead, the opposite happened. Francis’ divisive policies and unfinished curial reforms have destabilized the Curia itself and raise the possibility of laywomen serving as prefects and providing dictates to the bishops of the world.
The next Pope will need knowledge of canon law, theology and the inner workings of the Curia. Who is up to the task? What heretics or corrupt figures might be put forward? Rorate Caeli has previously warned of a repeat of the 2013 conclave, where false candidacies and rumours were used to distract from the real progressive candidate, Jorge Bergoglio. Who could the real candidates be and who are the false leads?
For years, Louise Tagle from the Philippines was touted as the likely successor to Pope Francis and as another liberal Pope. The ‘Asian Francis’ he was called. He has supported allowing married priests and communion for the divorced remarried. Tagle’s candidacy was greatly handicapped, however, by revelations of scandals and poor management in his running of Caritas International. He was criticized for being incompetent and enabling scandal, even by his fellow liberals. His inaction in the Caritas scandal was followed by renewed scrutiny of his role in handling abuse by Luk Delft, a Caritas leader in Africa. His star has waned ever since (though this hasn’t prevented mainstream media from pretending he is still a prominent candidate).
Lastly, Tagle had supported Parolin’s controversial deal with China. Cardinal Tagle specifically came to the fore in defending the deal with China shortly after its renewal, when he’d recently been made pro-prefect of the Dicastery of Evangelization. Additionally, as a Cardinal from the Philippines who has proudly spoken of his Chinese ancestry and as head of the Congregation for Evangelization, Tagle’s opinion was especially relevant.
He might still be the secret candidate for the left, as Bergoglio was in 2013, but if not, who is left on the left?
While open radical modernists from Western Europe such as Hollerich and Grech have sometimes been touted as papabile, they have little real chance of actually being elected. Hollerich, from Luxembourg, never had a chance, because he openly called Catholic doctrine on homosexuality wrong. Also the fact that he would be the second Jesuit Pope in a row could work against him.
Grech had somewhat of a chance till 2022, when he decided that criticizing legitimate ‘dubia’ regarding the heretical German Synodal Path (signed by more than a 100 bishops from all continents) was a good idea and that advocating for a ‘rainbow’ church where doctrine is locally determined was a smart move.
As bishop in Malta Grech was criticized by members of the clergy who in 2014 wrote a letter to Cardinal Marx, warning him that Gozo bishop Mario Grech was a “bully” with a “manifest attachment to material wealth.
His involvement in a care home scandal in Malta also breeds skepticism as to whether he’d be a good reformer.
To get some other progressives out of the way who have zero chance, but might be touted in some media outlets anyways, there are Fernandez, any American progressive cardinal (Cupich, Tobin, McElroy), almost any Latin American cardinal and probably Roche of the Dicastery of Divine Worship, too, his heavy-handed bullying of Latin mass friendly bishops won’t have made him many friends, if it ever had any to begin with.
Modernists with some chance
Two Italians seem to be at the forefront, Zuppi and Parolin. Neither of them had the appeal Tagle had as the first Asian Pope in over a 1000 years. With them the focus is on a return to the Italian Pope. Yet, the rivalry between the two weakens both their chances as it decreases the chances of a unified Italian block. Recently, a third Italian candidate has been toured, the ever enigmatic Gugerotti, prefect of the dicastery for Eastern churches. This could split the vote even further. Zuppi and Parolin will draw from much of the same left and moderate left voting block more generally.
Parolin represents institutionalist, and in a certain sense ‘moderate’, Bergoglianism, while Zuppi represents a more avant-garde, populist and quite possibly crypto radical Bergoglionism. Parolin’s ‘moderatism’ does not prevent him from being very dangerous. He was key in signing the deal with communist China, which threw the underground Catholic Church under the bus. Also, he was suspected to be involved in the scandals involving his right-hand Becciu.
Zuppi is indeed somewhat more tolerant of the Tridentine Mass and enjoyed showing this off, back when he was subtly distancing himself from Francis, (till he aligned himself again with him and became his envoy to deal with the war in Ukraine). This is the only issue, however, where he’s less of a threat to traditionalists. On every other issue he is even worse than Parolin. On foreign policy he’s been too pro-Russia, even for Parolin, while being equally soft on China. He is also far worse on ethical and doctrinal issues, as well. While Parolin has pragmatically turned against radical progressive bishops, Zuppi has not distanced himself from the gay lobby, at all. He even supported the Italian translation of James Martin’s pro-LGBT book. He has also supported allowing the divorced remarried to receive communion, based on Amoris Laetitia.
Zuppi however is progressive on these issues, without being willing to commit to this or letting it define his public image. Hollerich, and since late 2022, Grech have been openly and consistently supportive of the German agenda of a ‘rainbow church’. Zuppi has consistently tried to (unsuccessfully) downplay or deny his own extreme modernism. He lied very unconvincingly about allowing a gay couple to be blessed in his Archdiocese in 2022 (the first such blessing n any Italian Catholic Church).
Cardinal Zuppi has been accused of trying to please all sides. This trend seems to have continued with Zuppi recently allowing a conference in defense of Humanae Vitae being held in his archdiocese, without attending it himself. However, he did sent a contribution to the conference that seemed to suggest theologians could possibly go beyond the prohibitions of Humanae Vitae, something pushed for by the controversial archbishop Paglia current president of the Pontifical Academy of Life.
Zuppi’s close ties to Paglia were recently highlighted when Paglia specifically referenced Zuppi’s and not cardinal Ladaria’s take on Humanae Vitae. Paglia also drew attention to an article on the site Churchmilitant about Zuppi’s stance regarding Humanae Vitae as shown on twitter. Both prelates are also members of the controversial Community of Sant'Egidio.
Recently, the Community of Sant'Egidio has become more controversial. Specifically its stance regarding Russia. Even reports favourable to Zuppi have highlighted their (and Zuppi’s) continuing close ties with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Additionally Zuppi has been criticised for following Paglia in seemingly accepting - and even appearing to endorse- Italy’s 194 law that ensures legal abortion, by claiming that nobody wanted to change it and even calling for opponents of abortion to go beyond a clear position against legal abortion to one focused on some vague compromise or understanding.
The election of Zuppi as Pope might even entail a wholesale re-examination of Catholic doctrine regarding sexuality. This would risk a schism between different regions of the Church similar to what has happened within Anglicanism.
In short, Zuppi can be described as the worst possible option, as he’d likely preside over an Anglican style schism and Parolin is a close second, promising the heavy-handed imposition of moderate liberalism, anti-traditionalist uniformity and possibly more corruption. Zuppi may be yet another distraction, or possibly Parolin is. Zuppi has been framed as the moderate regarding the Tridentine Mass, while Parolin as more moderate on matters such as homosexuality. Neither can be trusted to implement proper financial reforms, or to deal with the gay lobby.
Additionally, the Portuguese cardinal Mendonça, prefect of the Dicastery of Education and Culture, is occasionally mentioned. He has no experience as a diocesan bishop or nuncio, and his curial experience is relatively limited, too, but… actually that about sums him up. He has virtually no missionary experience, meaningful knowledge of canon law, relevant role in any synod, nor noticeable intervention in political or humanitarian matters. He has also been rumoured to be gay and supported a book by Teresa Forcades, a pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality nun. After becoming prefect his only real noteworthy role was the fact, that he was willing to give approval for radical modernist German theological father Martin Lintner, a supporter of gender ideology and homosexuality, to be allowed to teach, while Cardinal Ladaria, the then prefect of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith fought it tooth and nail.
Whether he is a dark horse progressive candidate or serves the purpose of a red herring can likely be determined in the next few days, depending on how much media attention he receives in the coming days.
Possibly crypto liberals
Gugerotti deserves a brief analysis. Gugerotti is an experienced diplomat and member of the Curia. Having spent most of this century outside of Rome, he was not involved in most of the scheming, scandals or controversies of the last three pontificates. He is closer to Parolin than Zuppi; the question is how close. Gugerotti became a member of the Congregation for Oriental Churches during the 1980s, shortly after he was ordained a priest. The congregation came to be led by future Sankt Gallen cardinal Silvestrini in the early 90s. Gugerotti became undersecretary in 1997. It is this period under Silvestrini that has resulted in speculation about Gugerotti being a protégé of the controversial cardinal. This was mainly propagated in the dubious book ‘Gone with the Wind in the Vatican’.
Silvestrini represented a less radically pro-gay, but still insidious, branch of the Sankt Gallen mafia. Parolin at least is a protégé of Silvestrini. This raises the question, whether Gugerotti is actually, as well, and what connection they share.
Both Parolin and Gugerotti have taken a more critical stance regarding the pro-Russian policy pursued by Francis and Zuppi, but this much is simply basic common sense. Beyond this, however, Gugerotti was initially rumoured by some to support a plan in 2024, pushed by Parolin and the secretary of the Dicastery of Divine Worship Viola, to ban the Traditional Latin Mass. Recent rumours suggesting he’s becoming a papabile, said he’d be more friendly towards the Traditional mass; and so Gugerotti remains a mystery, befitting of a diplomat.
Besides Gugerotti there are roughly half a dozen of likely centrist candidates, who may or may not, continue or expand on the current pontificate, depending on whether they secretly hold more radical views. These are Prevost, You Heung-Sik, Brislin, Aveline and Kikuchi.
Kikuchi from Japan was only made cardinal last year. He is politically left-leaning, supporting legal migration (to Japan) and ecology. At the same time he has been critical of legal abortion.
More controversial has been his stance on "LGBT" issues. Kikuchi inherited some LGBT positive ‘pastoral’ care, when he became Archbishop of Tokyo. He kept this in place (although he initially questioned whether they actually dissented from Church teaching). When the Japanese Bishops’ Conference gave a pastoral function to pro-LGBT protestant pastor Taira, Kikuchi contributed to his book and even spread it in dioceses. The contribution itself simply referenced and affirmed Church doctrine against unjust discrimination.
After he was announced as cardinal, Kikuchi in interviews with the National Catholic Register defended this pastoral care, but emphasized it had to remain within the doctrine of the Church. He emphasized the need for doctrinal unity on issues such as women’s deacons and defining synodality, too, suggesting this was opposed to giving too much leeway to the Germans on key doctrinal issues. Whether this presents genuine moderate views is hard to tell, when little is known of his views from before he was made a cardinal.
Kikuchi has mostly been inactive in disciplining dissidents and made sure he’s seen as pastorally inclusive, without directly undermining Church doctrine. As such it’s highly doubtful he’d discontinue the pro-James Martin policy at the Vatican. It also makes it questionable, whether he’d act decisively against liturgical blessings of gay and other extramarital unions in Belgium and Germany.
Brislin from South Africa isn’t in any way part of the Bergoglian clique. His connections and expertise appear largely limited to South Africa. He has no curial experience, nor played a noticeable role in any synod in Rome. He’d likely be a moderate all around. He initially opposed the South African branch of the heretical WeAreChurch movement, but when they acted nice, he relented and let them meet on Church property. In the current situation he might prove far too moderate, however. Maybe as the successor to Pope Benedict he would have been a somewhat adequate Pope, but in the current situation he cannot be trusted to deal with the de facto schism in Germany. While someone like Gugerotti lacks diocesan experience, Brislin lacks international knowledge and experience in Vatican politics.
Prevost likely suffers from a similar, though possibly milder, form of handicap. His curial experience is limited. Appointed only a little over two years ago, all reports indicate he wasn’t Pope Francis’ first, and probably not his second choice as new prefect for the Dicastery for Bishops. His actual influence in the appointment of important (arch)bishops seems somewhat small, too. Pope Francis’ important ally, Brazilian bishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, whom Francis made secretary of the Congregation of Bishops in 2013, was Francis’ first choice to become the new prefect (and who was claimed by Vigano to secretly be homosexual), has held outsized influence on important appointments, already under Prevost’s predecessor Ouellet.
He has some experience as a diocesan missionary bishop in Peru. His time there was largely unremarkable, except for several accusations of mishandling abuse complaints. As a priest of American origins, his Twitter activity showed he was friendly with both sides of the American ecclesial spectrum, but the fact that he specifically follows Cupich and Tobin on Twitter could raise eyebrows.
He appears to have played no meaningful role during the Synod on Synodality and has not weighed in on many important controversies, such as priestly celibacy and homosexuality. His statement on giving doctrinal authority to episcopal conferences was also somewhat vague. On October 23, 2024 he stated, "Each episcopal conference needs to have a certain authority in terms of saying, 'How are we going to understand this [doctrine] in the concrete reality in which we are living?'"
This statement leaves it somewhat ambiguous how much wiggle room he’d give to the German or Belgian bishops when it comes to dissenting from Catholic doctrine in practice.
As a prefect he has avoided the limelight and not rocked the boat too much, either cause he didn’t want to or wasn’t able to. While he seems to be neither very right-wing nor left-wing, there is a significant possibility prelates like Cupich could influence him to various extents.
Aveline, much like Brislin, has limited experience outside his regional context and appears to be a moderate who’s at risk of being influenced by radical cardinals. His candidacy has suddenly been touted a lot recently, while he was quickly chosen as the new president of the French bishops’ conference. It’s not improbable that he is touted to distract from the real candidates. He has actually been friendly towards the Traditional mass.
But he demurred in responding to questions regarding priestly celibacy, and has spoken of decentralization within the Church, without explaining the exact implications. He has also been accused of religious indifferentism. His exact stance on Fiducia Supplicans is also not well known, unlike with several other French bishops. As such, it’s difficult to predict whether he’d side with the German Synodal Path, or put a stop to it.
Cardinal You Heung-Sik from South Korea, current prefect of the Dicastery of the Clergy is occasionally touted as possible papabile. Cardinal Heung-Sik had a book published in 2023 ‘As the lightning comes from the East’ with a foreword written by Pope Francis. He may very well serve as a moderate ‘compromise candidate’. Yet, he also might have a couple of issues working against him.
First there is his rather unclear and undefined stance regarding many of the controversial topics being proposed by the Synodal Path in Germany in their attempt to change the Catholic faith. He has not provided a clear stance on female deacons, the blessing of homosexual relationships or lay governance. He has, however, supported greater influence of women in formation in the seminaries and called debates regarding pastoral care for the divorced in Europe sterile, saying such cases should be dealt with according to the highest value: love. If this means, that love also involves a call to repentance or that it means a redefinition in sexual ethics, is again not entirely clear.
Secondly comes his equally unknown perspective regarding reforms in the Vatican and the fight against child sexual abuse.
Thirdly, You Heung-Sik might suffer from the same foreign policy handicap that hangs over Tagle and Zuppi: his support for the deal with China.
You Heung-Sik has been more closely involved in interactions with Communist regimes, including North Korea. He crossed the border with North Korea several rimes as part of Korean Caritas delegations. According to ‘As the lightning comes from the East’ some circles in South Korea thus consider him as a ‘red bishop’. It seems rather paranoid to deem a bishop ‘red’ for making peace trips to North-Korea, but the decision to highlight his belief that he was in fact ‘called’ to do this, in this autobiography, might raise questions for some. Especially considering the current foreign policy dilemma’s facing the Vatican. Specifically regarding North Korea’s powerful backer China, which has stepped up the persecution of Catholics and sidestepped the deal with the Vatican. More important, however, is the fact that Cardinal Heung-Sik himself has spoken in favour of the agreement with China. While Cardinal Zen had already forcefully spoken out against the betrayal of the underground church earlier in 2018, then bishop You Heung-Sik strongly praised it and was overjoyed that it allowed two Chinese bishops (one state-appointed) to attend the Synod on Youth in 2018.
You Heung-sik could possibly be the most conservative of the centrist candidates, yet, might also turn out to be one of the most dangerous.
He has strongly defended priestly celibacy and has seemed moderate to orthodox throughout the years, but in his recent autobiography he suddenly sounded more modernist and described worldly priests concerned with status as traditional. He also ambiguously implied he could support communion for the divorced remarried.
Last but not least, a special mention goes to Sturla Berhouet, from Uruguay, whom has recently been touted. Besides cardinals Rocha and Tempesta from Brazil, he’s been one of the only Latin Americans to be occasionally mentioned as a future Pope. This primarily started after he criticized Fiducia Supplicans, almost immediately after it came out. It has led to some listing him amongst conservative candidates. Yet, for many years he was an important Latin American ally to Pope Francis and he supported allowing some divorced remarried to receive communion based on Amoris Laetitia. He accepted the reality of legalized abortion and gay marriage in Urugay, only recently taking a more militant stance against similar attempts to legalize euthanasia. A couple of years ago he even openly stated he’d sit out a referendum organized by conservative Catholics that would repeal an anti-discrimination law that supported LGBT and even the transition of underage teens, earning praise from Newwaysministry.
Two unlikely centrists who need a quick mention are Bo from Myanmar (made cardinal by Pope Francis) and Turkson from Ghana (made cardinal by Pope Benedict).
Bo is strongly anti-China and on this front close to Cardinal Zen. He’s been anti-abortion and generally not too concerned with progressive politics. During the Synod on the Family, however, he suggested a rather radical change in doctrine on communion for the divorced remarried, speaking of couples that were faithful for years (to their new adulterous partner) as a reason to allow them to receive the sacraments, completely ignoring Christ’s words on the topic. He has also not taken a clear stance on Fiducia Supplicans, what synodality should entail, or whether doctrine can change.
Turkson is the more conservative candidate of the two. In 2012 and early 2013 he actually had a rather right-wing profile, blaming the abuse crisis on homosexuality, defending African laws against it and warning of the risk of Islamic invasion of Europe. After Francis became Pope, Turkson focused on condemning racism and xenophobia, but he never rejected his previous Islam-critical stance.
He is economically more left-leaning and anti-Capitalist; yet, this is also connected to his anti-globalist stance. Truly his most left-leaning stance are his environmentalism (he went so far as to praise Greta Thunberg) and the way he watered down his stance on homosexuality. Under Francis he came to criticize African laws against homosexuality, suggested homosexuality was a human condition and that Africa needed more education on the subject. He did defend the 2021 CDF Responsum that prohibited the blessing of gay unions and continued to oppose gay marriage, but for a while it seemed unclear, whether he still viewed homosexual acts as sinful.
Recently, when criticizing another anti-LGBT law in Africa (drawing ire from his fellow Africans) he did affirm homosexual acts were sinful. He even suggested acts could be outlawed, but not identities. Yet, he also suggested outlawing homosexuals acts could still be imprudent, since it would be imposing a particular religious viewpoint on the whole nation. Worse, he also claimed LGBT identities were known before Western colonialism, though he did still criticize Western countries for interfering in such internal matters.
He has largely stood behind Humanae Vitae throughout the years, but suggest condoms, when one married partner had Aids, could be acceptable. He caused some upheaval, however, when he spoke of the need for certain kinds of birth control, without being explicit enough; he was only referring to natural methods (providing clarification later).
He defended priestly celibacy during the Amazon Synod, yet, has also ‘framed removing the requirements of clerical celibacy as one of many solutions to the shortage of priestly vocations’.
Finally, when Cardinal Burke and several other orthodox cardinals asked critical questions regarding Amoris Laetitia, he supported establishing a broader dialogue, where bishops across the world would compare guidelines.
Turkson can be summed up as moderately supportive of Church teachings on contraception, celibacy and, under Pope Francis, also on homosexuality. Mild, ineffectual and semi-flexible rather sums up Turkson. Furthermore, he doesn’t seem to be a very competent administrator and managed to get replaced by Francis (with Jesuit cardinal Czerny, no less) as head of the Dicastery for Integral Development. One source (a moderate conservative who is guy friendly) described him as ‘an idiot’.
Finally, a possible centrist, possible conservative is Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. He has been touted a lot recently, because of his strong and brave diplomacy in the complicated situation in the Middle East. Beyond this (which is very good) he doesn’t actually have much speaking in his favour.
Pizzaballa is by modern standards very young. Furthermore, while clearly an excellent diplomat for the Middle East, not much is known about his stance on Russia, China, the USA, migration, the environment, what form synodality should take and the big doctrinal controversies of women’s ordination, homosexuality and doctrinal decentralization.
Conservative papabiles and the chance for restoration
Traditionalists and hardcore conservatives don’t seem very ambitious. Burke isn’t trying to get elected.
The only hardcore conservative papabile is the highly respected Cardinal Sarah from Guinea, Africa, former prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. His age (on the 15th of June he will turn 80) might actually prove to be an advantage, if cardinals desire a ‘transitional’ Pope. He is well-known due to his popular books dealing with complex themes of faith and spirituality. Cardinal Sarah is praised for his prophetic voice and personal sanctity. He has criticized Western cultural developments and political influence on gender ideology, reproductive health issues and mass migration. More specifically, he has a strong pro-life stance and defends the Church’s teachings on homosexual acts, divorce, polygamy and priestly celibacy. He also has extensive curial experience and was close to Pope Benedict XVI.
The other candidates tend to be moderate conservatives who could restore stability in the Curia, while ensuring the German bishops don’t cause a schism.
Cardinal Ranjith, from Sri Lanka, stands out as someone with extensive experience as a diocesan archbishop, a nuncio and (adjunct)secretary for both evangelization and divine worship in the Curia. He works well with his fellow native bishops and is knowledgeable regarding both liturgy and international politics.
Cardinal Erdö, from Hungary, might be the most standout candidate. He is respected by both liberals and conservatives, played a strong moderating role during the Synod on the Family, in 2014 and 2015, has taken a cautious political stance regarding Viktor Orbán and a similar moderate stance on migration, even supporting Ukrainian refugees. His extensive knowledge of canon law might prove decisive for cardinals, as many of Francis’ reforms and populist stunts have left gaping holes in canon law and legal uncertainty for bishops and members of the curia.
Cardinal Eijk, from the Netherlands, can, however, also not be counted out. He has been very effective in fighting child sexual abuse, produced a moderate, yet clearly orthodox, response to Fiducia Supplicans with his fellow bishops, has proven a countercultural voice in one of the most secular countries in the world and is an expert in bioethics. Furthermore, he was willing to fraternally correct his neighbouring Belgian bishops, when they introduced liturgical prayers from gay couples.
Finally, Cardinal Goh from Singapore, originally made archbishop by Pope Benedict, and then cardinal by Pope Francis, also deserves to be kept in mind. He is orthodox, yet pastoral, presides over flourishing vocations, able to navigate dialogue and tensions in a highly pluralistic country and supportive of traditional liturgical practices such as communion on the tongue. He has also been wiling to take a more cautious oppositional stance regarding China, that’s bound to please other Asian cardinals.
Let us pray daily that an orthodox and experienced prelate can bring about the much needed return to normalcy for the Church and the faithful.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Ping
Church Conclave needs to elect Vigano to survive.
Then for a long shot there is Shedeur Sanders. Since the Arizona Cardinals and the rest of the NFL didn’t pick him in the first three rounds maybe the College of Cardinals will. :-)
Thanks for keeping us on topic. We sometimes wander in the weeds on miscellaneous.
Are Jesuits considered unique somehow? Why would being a Jesuit work against a papal candidate?
From my limited understanding, the Jesuits are priests, but not all priests are Jesuits.
The supply of true conservative Cardinals looks depleted. Things look pretty dark.
Let’s not repeat the same mistake.
I’m sorry he’s dead but glad he’s gone.
btt
For the sake of your church, I hope it’s not Retired Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio elected as pope.
But still in favor of the teachings of Vatican II, correct?
Pizzaballa is clearly a brave man (offering himself as a hostage), and is supposed to be a liturgical conservative, friendly to the TLM.
He's on my list, after Sarah, Burke, and Erdo.
He’s 87, and that would be a “hard sell” even if he were an unimpeachable paragon of virtue.
Let us pray daily that an orthodox and experienced prelate can bring about the much needed return to normalcy for the Church and the faithful
######
Yes!
Trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
There are "Jesuit lay brothers," who are Jesuits, but not priests.
So most priests aren't Jesuits, and not all Jesuits are priests.
The Jesuits' own constitutions discourage them from seeking offices like bishop or (even moreso) Pope.
So then is it like a special honor , to be a Jesuit or a Franciscan or one of those? Does that enhance their status in the faith?
Pardon my ignorance.
I actually went online to try to find some answers, but was unsuccessful learning about different orders such as Jesuits, and why that would make a difference to ordained clergy in the Catholic faith.
A (possibly poor) analogy ... it's asking "so is everyone in the Navy a SEAL? Is everyone in the Army a Ranger?" Being a SEAL is an honor, but not in the sense of a "reward". You have to survive the selection & training process.
To be admitted to the seminary to study for the priesthood, a man has to be sponsored by either a diocese or religious order; there are no "lone wolves". In either case, he would have to get through a vetting & qualification process. In an order, that's usually part of what's called "novitiate".
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.