Posted on 10/03/2003 10:43:18 AM PDT by sinkspur
Martino accused the United States of genocide in advance if it pre-eminently attacked Iraq.
Martino is a whack-job.
He is accurate, factually. The Reporter is also the only American Catholic newspaper to have assigned a full-time correspondent to Rome.
He has lots of sources, and many high churchmen will speak to him when they will speak to no one else.
Since he's on the ground, in Rome, he's also the "go-to" reporter for most of the major networks when there's a Rome story brewing.
I just read that in an article on another thread. I'll go find it and ping you to that thread.
Like St. Anthony of Padua...a Doctor of the Church?
Given his pro-Saddam stance (indeed, he opposes the war on terrorism), Martino would be a very unfortunate choice.
Zing!
Or Francis himself. Are we to suppose that history's first stigmatist has nothing to tell us about the nature of God? Radical integrity in its very self is a true icon and revelation, though perhaps too subtle for the wise.
I continue to pray for your intentions. Please stay in touch.
Thursday of last week, I believe:
The new cardinals' virtues
Pope John Paul II appointed 31 new cardinals on Sunday. Just about every news outlet in the world is united on two certainties about these new princes of the Catholic Church: They are all conservative, and they were named by the pope as part of his supposed plan to guarantee a conservative successor. The common wisdom is wrong on both counts. Not one of the new cardinals can qualify as a conservative. But even more unexamined is that the reforms of John Paul II all but guarantee that the next pontiff will be a progressive.
Very few traditions of the Church have been left untrampled in the 25 years of this papacy. Of ultimate significance will be John Paul II's uprooting of the 800-year-old mechanics for electing popes. Since 1179, at least two-thirds of the votes of the college of cardinals were needed to elect a new pope. In 1996, John Paul II lowered this requirement to a less definitive absolute majority, or 50 percent-plus-one vote. This innovation to papal elections is significant because the requirement for a two-thirds majority was designed to protect tradition.
At various times in history, it has been conceivable that a heterodox candidate could gain a majority, but it would be unlikely that two-thirds of all cardinals would ever vote for a revolutionary. Also in the past, cardinals had to live in primitive quarters during papal conclaves, an uncomfortable situation that was intended to force speedy votes that would prevent radicals from holding out to get their way. John Paul II has built a luxury hotel to house the cardinals for the next election.
It is an old Roman saying that no one is more conservative than a retired cardinal. The practical basis for this axiom is a history of hundreds of years of old cardinals voting for popes more faithful to tradition than those the same cardinals supported when they were younger. The logic behind the customary change in behavior is obvious. At the prime of a cleric's career, it is easier to climb the hierarchical ladder by playing politics and backing popular trends of the day than by standing firm to dogmas promulgated by men long-dead. Upon retirement, when there are no more honors or offices left to gain, and when old men are looking mortality in the face, many cardinals appreciate anew the need to protect the institution and time-proven traditions. In 1970, Pope Paul VI razed this rampart of conservatism by prohibiting cardinals 80 years old or older from voting for pope.
For a cardinal to be considered a conservative, the obvious minimal requirement is that he be congruous with the 2,000-year history of Church doctrine. The Second Vatican Council of 1962-65 made an explicit break from the past. All of the prelates elevated to the cardinalate on Sunday are members of the Vatican II generation, and swear allegiance to that revolution — which coincided with the high point of the secular liberal ascendancy.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the second most powerful Vatican official, was a radical leftist theologian during the council but is now considered the most conservative of the cardinals. His Eminence has admitted that he has not moved to the right in four decades, but that the world has moved so far to the left that even a progressive of his conviction looks traditional. The same goes for all of the cardinals John Paul II has appointed, except that they are even more liberal that Cardinal Ratzinger. It is this college that will pick the next pope.
So, I suppose this author thinks we ought to dig up some dead cardinals, just so there can be a "pre-Vatican II" representation at the next conclave?
Sheesh!
Nothing more glorious you can do with olives than marinate them in chilled gin, with just a hint of vermooth.
Do you have any connection to olives?
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.