The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionA papal contender grabs the spotlight
by John L Allen Jr on Oct. 28, 2011
Q: Have you had to learn to speak differently because of intense media attention here?
Rome saw a striking coincidence this week, which could be either simple luck or a sign of things to come. There were two big-ticket Vatican news flashes, Monday's note on reform of the international economy and Thursday's summit of religious leaders in Assisi. In both cases, the same Vatican official was a prime mover: Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
Turkson, still young in church terms at 63, was the chief organizer of the Assisi gathering, just as he was the top signatory on the document blasting "neo-liberal" ideologies and calling for a "true world political authority" to regulate the economy. During Vatican press conferences to present both, Turkson was the star attraction each time.
Can anyone say, papabile?
Before getting over-heated, however, three cautions are in order.
First, there's no sign of a health crisis around Benedict XVI. Granted, on Oct. 16, Benedict used a mobile platform in St. Peter's Basilica for the first time, but Vatican spokespersons said that was simply to make things easier for the 84-year-old pontiff rather than the result of any "medical indication." (For the record, the distance from the sacristy, down the main aisle and then up to the central altar is more than 100 yards. Every liturgy involves covering it twice, meaning the pope had to walk more than two football fields in heavy liturgical garb. Frankly, given the choice, I'd take the platform too.)
Second, we've been down this road before ... fascinated by a charismatic African cardinal in Rome, who seems a runner to become the first black pope. In their day, both Cardinals Bernardin Gantin of Benin and Francis Arinze of Nigeria were viewed that way. For that matter, some believe that if the next pope is to be an African, it's at least as likely to be Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, the 66-year-old president of Cor Unum, the Vatican's policy arm for Catholic charities.
Third, not everyone was thrilled by the developments involving Turkson this week. Neo-conservatives were dismayed by the note on the economy, and traditionalists howled over Assisi. (A colleague jokingly suggested the Vatican must have designated this the week to irritate the Catholic right, but that's another topic.) Being associated with a high-profile initiative, in other words, not only invites attention but controversy.
With those caveats, there are still four good reasons to keep an eye on Turkson.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
1. An 'African Moment'
First is the obvious point that Africa is the most dynamic spot on the Catholic map. During the 20th century, the Catholic population of sub-Saharan Africa swelled from 1.9 million to 139 million, a growth rate of almost 7,000 percent. An African pope would put a face on that burgeoning Catholic footprint, not just in Africa but across the southern hemisphere.
Turkson would be a fitting choice. His predecessor as Archbishop of Cape Coast in Ghana, John Kodwo Amissah, became the first indigenous African archbishop in modern times in 1957. Ghana is one of the few nations in western Africa with a Christian majority, and has traditionally played a leadership role in church affairs. (The headquarters of SECAM, the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar, are in Ghana's capital, Accra.)
Today, many African Catholics believe their historical turn has arrived. Two years ago, when a furor in the West broke out over comments by Pope Benedict en route to Cameroon to the effect that condoms make the AIDS problem worse, several African bishops half-jokingly said, "If they don't want the pope in Europe anymore, we'll take him here."
In the end, it may prove easier to bring Africa to the papacy than the other way around.
2. Roman seasoning
Turkson's early reputation was as a gifted spokesperson for the African church, but some wondered how he might hold up under the spotlight in Rome.
When Benedict tapped Turkson as the relator, or general secretary, for the Synod for Africa in 2009, at first those doubts grew. On the opening day, during a Vatican press conference, Turkson gave a rambling answer to a question about condoms and AIDS, prompting misleading, but understandable, headlines such as, "The bishop says yes to condoms." When Turkson made it known privately he didn't really want a Vatican job, it struck some as a laudable lack of careerism, but to others it suggested doubt about whether he was up to the challenge.
In the last two years, Turkson has improved on those early perceptions.
Signs of papal confidence now abound, including the fact that Benedict XVI made Turkson a member of the ultra-powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a year ago, and that last March, Benedict tapped Turkson as his personal envoy to Ivory Coast (though fighting around Abidjan made it impossible for him to get there). In effect, Turkson has been the principal exegete and publicist for Benedict's social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate.
Turkson has also impressed people as a thinker. A small, but telling, gesture came at the beginning of his tenure. His predecessor at the Council for Justice and Peace, Italian Cardinal Renato Martino, wanted to raise the office's profile, so he hired a publicist. By way of contrast, Turkson brought his own theological advisor, Jesuit Fr. Michael Czerny. Insiders saw that as an option for substance over PR.
3. Comfort level with diversity
Turkson is every bit an African, but also a well-traveled figure who knows languages and cultures, and his biography has given him a comfort level with diversity. For one thing, he comes from a Catholic father and a Methodist mother, so ecumenism is literally in his bones.
Turkson studied at St. Anthony-on-the-Hudson Seminary in Rensselaer, N.Y., in the 1970s. (It closed in 1989.) He put in two stints as a student in Rome, in the '70s and again in the early '90s. Turkson earned a doctorate from the prestigious Pontifical Biblical Institute, where he rubbed shoulders with scholars and future leaders from all over the world.
Turkson's exposure to Western pastoral models means that, unlike some prelates of a different generation, he's comfortable with collaborative decision-making, lay empowerment and an enhanced role for women. His under-secretary at the Council for Justice and Peace is actually an Italian lay woman, Flaminia Giovanelli.
His background as a Biblical scholar is also worth underscoring.
Some of the more interesting prelates around trained as biblisti, such as Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (formerly of Milan), and Patriarch Antonios Naguib of Egypt's Coptic Catholic church. As a rule of thumb, Biblical scholars often have an appreciation for nuance, a capacity to look beyond surface meanings, which can stand a future leader in good stead.
4. Not ideological
Turkson comes off as refreshingly free of ideological prejudice, at least as such things are measured in the West.
Because he runs the Vatican's office on peace and justice, there's a natural tendency in some quarters to assume that Turkson must be on the liberal side. In truth, people who know him say that in many ways, he's fairly conservative. For instance, when the Vatican moved recently to assert tighter control over Caritas Internationalis, the Rome-based umbrella group for Catholic charities worldwide, Turkson told people behind the scenes that maybe beefing up its Catholic identity wasn't a bad idea.
Turkson certainly does not feel bound by the canons of Western political correctness. He's bluntly said on several occasions, for instance, that theological dialogue with Muslims is basically impossible, so it's better to concentrate on solving social problems. During the recent Synod for the Middle East, Turkson was among the voices calling for a stronger challenge to Islamic governments to respect the rights of religious minorities.
At the same time, the Council for Justice and Peace under Turkson has quietly resisted efforts by some neo-conservative and free-market Catholic groups in the West, especially in the United States, to exercise greater influence on its work -- suggesting that he doesn't want the office to be captive to any particular ideological agenda.
Without doubt, Turkson sees himself as a tribune for Africa and the peoples of developing nations generally.
In a 2004 interview with Italian journalist Giuseppe De Carli, he said: "If European nations want to maintain their high standards of living, they can't ignore Africa. They can't just complain about immigration, and they can't pretend to live in splendid isolation ... What do we African bishops ask? An increase in ethics and morality. We ask this of the political class of the West. We ask that our agriculture not be strangled by miserable prices, that competition be fair and equitable, and that Africa not be submerged by debt. We ask the Western powers to stop assisting the inept governments on our continent, the incapable or dishonest politicians."
In other words, Turkson blends what would strike most Westerners as "conservative" and "liberal" positions, if they correspond with what he perceives as the realities on the ground.
A black pope?
In February 2010, I interviewed Turkson in his Vatican office. (It was a day Romans will remember, since the city was gripped by a rare snowstorm.) Like many journalists before and since, I wanted to pop the question about a black pope. Worried that he might be sick of talking about it, I sort of floundered around, trying to back into the subject.
In the end, Turkson saved me from myself. Here's how our exchange went, which I published at the time:
Turkson: Definitely. I've had to pick up a certain amount of circumspection. Sometimes I'll say things as a joke, but in the reporting the smile doesn't get presented. I've taught myself a small lesson about that.
I still approach this with a certain amount of, not innocence, but truthfulness. Of course, I could just give noncommittal statements, and in the end, you can't pin anything on me, but I've also said nothing. I've decided not to do that. I prefer to say what I want to say, and run the risk of having it taken out of context.
The other day, for instance, somebody asked me about a black pope. I told him that obviously anybody who becomes a priest can become a bishop, a cardinal, whatever. But I also said point-blank that unfortunately, our world today is too color-sensitive. This is the truth. Somebody could report that in a way that makes me sound racist, which would be unfortunate, but I think the truth needs to be said. When it comes to a black pope, a lot of people say it doesn't matter, but the truth is that it would matter a lot.
Is a black pope more or less likely because of that racial sensitivity?
I can't say what the cardinals might be thinking, but I can say this: I wouldn't want to be that first black pope. I think he'll have a rough time.
That was Turkson back in 2010. After the week he's had, one wonders if he still feels the same way.
I think it's 'way past time
I think it's 'way past time for someone other than a European to be Pope. Maybe a new and fresh outlook would be a good thing. I'm a 70 year-old Caucasian woman, and Pope JOHN 23 was my hero. He changed things!
I am hoping to see a change in the thinking that would bring women to the altar as priests. Would Pope John have done that? I'd like to think so. 5ucpfHasn't happened under a European papacy...could it happen under someone from a different background?
You are welcome to believe
You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but no, Pope John the XXIII would not have been for women's ordination-no Pope ever will be, because Christ is not for it.
Just when did Christ say
Just when did Christ say that? Too many people today put words into Christ's mouth that contradict his message of inclusion, compassion, and love!
He said it when he told
He said it when he told Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." JPII said the matter was closed.
Were the Church to teach something new, it would mean error had been taught before. Those who want a church that can teach error have the pick of more than 20,000 denominations to choose from.
"whatver you loose" ...
"whatver you loose" ... Sounds like the authority to change customs. Nothing sinful about women, or women priests.
Your church, over its long
Your church, over its long history, has changed and taught new things. Beginning in the early middle ages, your church taught that the Petrine office was inseparable from the secular function of Supreme ruler of Christendom from whom all other secular rulers owed their crowns and allegiance. To deny this risked one's life on the gibbet or heresy pyre, with excommunication in the bargin. Changed that thanks to the end of the Papal states. At the Reformation, your church taught (as the SSPXers still do) there was NO salvation outside Rome. Now the Catechism teaches that other "ecclesial bodies" have elements of truth and sanctity, and the heavenly door is not marked "RC only". These are fundamental substantive changes over which much blood was spilled in past ages.
I want my Church to accept
I want my Church to accept and remedy its error.
But considering it took until 1992 for Wojo to accept and remedy the Church's error on Galileo, I won't hold my breath.
Nevertheless, irrational fundamentalists who willfully ignore Galatians 3:28 are not going to run me off in the meantime.
If you think that everything
If you think that everything uttered by every pope in history is from God's lips, you really need to get back on your meds.
The 1864 encyclical "Quanta Cura" by Pius IX explicitly condemned freedom of religion.
And do you view the words from these guys to be God’s words?
• Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber
• Pope John XII (937-964), was said to have given lands to his many mistresses that include his father's concubine and even his niece. He made the sacred palace into a whorehouse and ordained many incompetent people bishops, including a 10-year old boy. His enemies accused him further of committing multiple murders. He was eventually killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife according to allegations.
• Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), whose father acquired the papacy for him when he was about 18, and who "sold" the Papacy St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest.”
• Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
• Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.
• Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism, had 7 illegitimate children while a Cardinal, and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.
• Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony
• Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Notice Jesus said "and what
Notice Jesus said "and what you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven". For some reason we seem to read past that part when we talk about Petrine authority.
Jesus is saying that if you tie yourself in a knot over an issue, I'm giving you the power to loosen it. Anything 'Peter' decides can later be changed. Jesus knows the Church is going to change from generation to generation and so will its needs. What might be appropriate for one era may not be in another.
So Jesus is saying you aren't bound by precedents. If a precedent is knotting up the Church, you can loosen that knot.
What the Church declared as 'bound' yesterday (no women priests) can be loosened tomorrow.
This why we can speak of papal infallibility at all, because a 'person' who can change his stance is never locked into an incorrect position. Papal infallibility doesn't mean the Church cannot err, it means it cannot remain in error.
Paul Schratz on Oct. 28,
Paul Schratz on Oct. 28, 2011.
You stated:
"He said it when he told Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." JPII said the matter was closed.
Were the Church to teach something new, it would mean error had been taught before. Those who want a church that can teach error have the pick of more than 20,000 denominations to choose from."
---------------------------------------------
Did Jesus really say that to Peter? Especially did Jesus say to Peter that he, Jesus, is building his Church upon Peter? The Jewish people had no word for "Church"----there is no Aramaic word for it----nor was there a word in Hebrew for Church. So why would Jesus use a word that didn't exist for his people, to explain that he (Jesus) was establishing a 'Church'?
Secondly, if Peter and the other Apostles really understood that Jesus was establishing a 'Church,' why would they have continued to worship God in the Temple in Jerusalem---even after Pentecost (where they had been 'Confirmed' in their mission to go "Baptize all" in the name of the Trinity)?
Instead, the followers continued to be Jews and to celebrat "the Meal" on Sundays---at homes----where presiders (often women) led all in the 'Breaking of the Bread" and in "drinking from the Cup" in memory of Jesus---where they would repeat his words and receive Jesus' Body and Blood.
Rather----AFTER Constantine made the Church the State Religion---that phrase was added to Scripture----because this is how Constantine would have conferred
authority to another. Who added this phrase to Sacred Scripture? St. Jerome, who translated Sacred Scripture from the Greek into the Vulgate---into Latin.
There was no ministerial priesthood in the Apostolic Age. There was a ministerial priesthood beginning to form in the early 4th Century (after the Edict of Milan 311 CE---when the Emperor Galerius issued a decree tolerating Christians. And after Constantine made Christianity the state religion---and church building began to be built---a ministerial priesthood began sans women.
Your concept that the Church would never teach error is laughable. The Church in the beginning tried many concepts of Christianity. The Church 'evolved' to become what it is. This did not begin all at once. For a few centuries there was no Vatican, no College of Cardinals, no Confession to priests inside of a dark box---this all evolved.
In trying to unify the body of believers---there were some heresies that the early Church had to deal with. Some heresies were condemned in one time period only to be adapted into law and practice in another time period. Gnosticism was condemned---only to have parts of its teachings included in our concept of priestly celibacy and in the teachings for centuries that made celibacy and virginity superior to married life.
Elements of the Donatist and Pelagian heresies are still with us today. Later, we had the Jansenists (named after Cornelis Jansen--1585-1638) condemned as heretics {they were really Catholic Calvinists}. But we have elements of this heresy well wound in with the neo-trads in the Catholic Church today.
Thank you, Little Bear. Well
Thank you, Little Bear. Well done.
I too want to thank Littel
I too want to thank Littel Bear for a quick trip into Church history.
Great history lesson for all
Great history lesson for all of the conservative, republican, catholics who want to take the church back to the Pre-Vatican II days or even to the Middle Ages.
Great history lesson for all
Great history lesson for all of the conservative, republican, catholics who want to take the church back to the Pre-Vatican II days or even to the Middle Ages.
When Jesus told Peter, "I
When Jesus told Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom..." Did he also mean that only Jewish men could be priests?? Something to think about.....
He said it through the
He said it through the infallible teaching of His Church. Women cannot become priests. Get over it.
How do you know what is in
How do you know what is in the mind of Jesus or what Blessed John XXIII would have done in regards to the ordination of women to the priesthood? Jesus never "ordained" anyone as this came later in the church. Times are always changing and the church can have another progressive pope in the wings.
Cardinal Turkson, like many
Cardinal Turkson, like many potential popes, will go into the next conclave pope only to come out a cardinal. Just as most papibili do. Benedict's successor, after s stormy,knock-down-drag-out conclave, will more than likely be an obscure Italian.
Let' leave the papal sweepstakes to others. Most Catholics should be about the business of reconstructing a modern, reformed Church from the ground up. Where the papacy is returned to its rightful place, amongst the ancient pentapatriarchy as the fount of Church governance, and not speculating who comes out of a conclave to preside at the dismantling of the Catholic Church's museum piece of a governing superstructure.
Zeitgeist, You are not with
Zeitgeist, You are not with the spirit nor the times. Get with it. I think the Spirit is moving faster than the papacy these days. Joe Geist
Women Priests - NEVER happen
Women Priests - NEVER happen !
Maybe not a bad idea to
Maybe not a bad idea to forbid women priests. Will help wither the church into a small right wing political religion. Kill off any missionary activities. The pope will disappear from headlines, unless he makes bizarre pronouncements.
Never say Never
Never say Never
Dear Bobbi Paxton, Why would
Dear Bobbi Paxton, Why would anyone want to change the work of Jesus Christ in any manner? When Jesus Christ established His Church He appointed Peter to be the "Rock" upon which His Church would be built and Twelve men chosen from among His Disciples consisting of both men and women. If Jesus Christ had wanted women He would have done differently! What I have written above I have not written to the denigration of women. I am one of eight children-three girls and five boys. We were taught to Love and Respect one another and to this day we hold true to these values. My Mother was a bulwark in our family and unfortunately died at a relatively young age. Our Family would not change our up-bringing nor our beliefs for anyone or anything. GOD IS GOOD!
tom warren on Nov. 02,
tom warren on Nov. 02, 2011.
You stated:
"Dear Bobbi Paxton, Why would anyone want to change the work of Jesus Christ in any manner? When Jesus Christ established His Church He appointed Peter to be the "Rock" upon which His Church would be built and Twelve men chosen from among His Disciples consisting of both men and women. If Jesus Christ had wanted women He would have done differently! What I have written above I have not written to the denigration of women. I am one of eight children-three girls and five boys. We were taught to Love and Respect one another and to this day we hold true to these values. My Mother was a bulwark in our family and unfortunately died at a relatively young age. Our Family would not change our up-bringing nor our beliefs for anyone or anything. GOD IS GOOD!"
-------------------------------------------------
1) Give me the Aramaic or Hebrew word for "Church", Tom.
2) You don't live your family life today the same way that you did as a
kid. The Church, like any living entity MUST change---or die.
3) The mission of the Twelve was unique to them. There were others who were
also considered "Apostles". Please see the 16th Chapter of Paul's Letter
to the Romans for this. By the way, Paul was writing about the
Christians, about the successes, failures, and the teachings of Christ,
and the Apostles BEFORE any Gospel was written. The first Gospels were
begun around 65-66 CE (Gospel of Mark). The Acts of the Apostles didn't
appear until after 80 CE (Luke wrote this AFTER he wrote his Gospel).
4) Paul (often called the Second Founder of Christianity) began writing his
major letters in the mid 50's CE. His writings give us the earliest
written picture of the life of the early Christian communities evolving
away from Jerusalem and comprised of Gentile converts to Christianity.
5) From his Letter to the Romans(and in the I Letter to the Cornithians where
he indicates that Chloe (a woman) is the leader of one Christian
community in the city)---Paul is indicating that Jesus, did
NOT HAVE PROBITIONS on the ministry activity of women---and that
included positions of leadership.
Tom, you asked a question of Bobbi Paxton----why indeed would the Church want to change what was established practice in the early days of Christianity (using the example of Jesus)? Apparently, a patriarchial society that considered Constantine as the THIRD FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY---with his very structured and imperialistic concept of how Christianity was to operarte. But please don't be mixing what Jesus said, did or wanted---with how the Church evolved after its connection with Constantine.
This is so tiresome. Do you
This is so tiresome. Do you honestly believe that Jesus made a mistake when he only chose men as his apostles? That's what you are saying when you demand that women are ordained as priests! If Jesus wanted women to be priests, who better than his mother to be, not only an apostle but the head of the Church instead of St Peter. Please get with it already.
Just like the Pope cannot consecrate beef and coke, instead of bread and wine, so he cannot ordain a women as a priest. Even if the Pope consecrated beef and coke, it just wouldn't work. Transubstantiation would not occur. Pray as much as he likes over them. The same is true for women ordination as priests. It just wouldn't happen.
So now lets move on already... Start obeying the truth of Sacred Tradition http://bit.ly/tiTkAa as given to us by Jesus and in turn the Apostles.
"In both cases, the same
"In both cases, the same Vatican official was a prime mover: Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace."
NCR's Winters, then, correctly scolds Weigel for calling this a minor church office rather than the central office it is, filled capably by this central figure.
I think we are a world wide
I think we are a world wide church and as such any bishop could be selected as Pope. Who knows what the Holy Spirit will do>
Wouldn't it be wonderful if
Wouldn't it be wonderful if she, the Holy Spirit, would reopen the windows that John 23rd opened? I feel that she is so fed up with the laity's polarizing and the hierarchy's dictating that we are pretty much on our own to continue making a mess of the whole picture. Jesus and Pope John 23rd were men of their times and acted accordingly. Neither one pulled in the wagons, pointed fingers or ostracized anyone.
I'd like to know who was at the last supper and can document that those men cooked and served their own meal so that they were the only ones commissioned "To do this in memory of me".
WHILE ROME BURNS ...
WHILE ROME BURNS ... John, the Roman clique is rapidly losing the spirtual ballgame, and you decide to focus on a minor league pitcher and on how many steps Mr. Ratzinger must take to walk roundtrip on the aisle. What about important matters like Nicholas Cafardi's trial balloon a few days ago to dump KC's Finn for inexcusably protecting an active child pornographer?
Cafardi apparently never before suggested dumping others who are subject to more serious reported credible cover-up allegations, like his old Pittsburg boss, Anthony Bevilaqua, or Bernard Law or Justin Regali or even Bevilaqua's Long Island canon lawyer nephew, John Alesandro.
When you next share cappuchino with the Roman clique, please ask them about these matters. I realize the Roman clique may be busy "organizing" their secret files before the arrival of the prosecutor from the International Criminal Court, but they can likely answer questions about the actual or potential prosecution of their fellow cardinals and bishops right off the top of their mitered heads.
As to Peter Turkson's potential, I wonder? His willingness to waffle on condoms to save millions of his fellow Africans' lives is the kind of moral plasticity that would likely appeal to many of the two-thirds of the European hierarchy, mainly Italians, who will decide the next papal election, probably next April when Ratzinger reaches his 85th birthday. Of course, his immediate predecessor proved a pope can remain in office long after he is physically unable to function as pope, since the Roman clique is always happy to act on his behalf.
As to Turkson's new financial policy statement, Turkson's call for more taxpayer funded bailouts for big banks disappointed the Occupy Wall Street folks, but should have pleased George Weigel and the wealthy 1% he seems often to speak for, a well as pleasing wealthy Catholic donors.
Ironically, as Turkson was issuing his utopian financial proposals in Rome, the USCCB's Lori was in Washington before a right-wing Republican-controlled House subcommittee, apparently with papal support, pushing the USCCB's effort to elect a "low-tax-on-the-wealthy", "weak regulation of financial instutions" Republican candidate to save the Bush Tax cuts that favor wealthy Catholic donors. This would also, of course, stiff the other 99%. You must watch closely what the hierarchy in fact does, and pay no more attention to their written propaganda pieces then they do, which too often is no attention at all.
As to Assisi, it is nice theater, almost as entertaining as Wojtyla's beatification extravaganza. But interreligious and interfaith efforts are sinking fast due mainly to Ratzinger's imperial theology and his drive to make the Church even more hierarchical and cult-like. As Reuters reported in detail, the recent papal visit to Germany was a disaster for the ecumenical movement, confirming the several gloomy recent statements of Walter Kasper, Ratzinger's principal protagonist for decades on authentic ecumenism.
Sorry, John, it does not appear that Turkson is ready yet for the major leagues.
For more information on Cafardi's call for KC's Finn to resign, please note the NCR comment under the comment heading, "WHY ONLY FINN?", accessible by clicking on at
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/law-expert-us-bishops-should-pe... .
For more information on a possible agenda for the next conclave, please note the NCR comment and crosslinks the comment heading, "THE RCC: MIGHT OR RIGHT?", accessible by clicking on at
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/who-made-decisions-church-through-y... .
For more information on the pope's apparent efforts to support electing a 2012 presidential candidate that advocates policies contrary to those championed in Peter Turkson's recent financial reform statement, please note the NCR comment and crosslinks under the comment heading, "LIBERTY OR POWER?", accessible by clicking on at
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishop-testify-congess-today-religi... .
LINK/2012 US PRES.RACE
LINK/2012 US PRES.RACE ......... ..The correct link to more information on the pope's interest in electing a Republican president is under the comment heading,"LIBERTY OR POWER?", accessible by clicking on at
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishop-testify-congress-today-relig... .
Please note Time Magazine's new related article entitled, "How Conservative Catholics Could Quietly Remake The Republican Presidential Race", accessible by clicking on at
http://swampland.time.com/2011-10-28/how-catholic-conservative-could-qui... .
Mr. Slevin, do you have your
Mr. Slevin, do you have your own blog somewhere? You really should. . .
And, let's be properly respectful here. It is NOT Mr. Ratzinger. For all of us he is Pope Benedict XVI. Is this too much to ask for and from Catholics in a Catholic press, at least? Reputable secular press does not belittle the Holy Father. Why should we stand for it here? It is just common courtesy.
I agree - nothing is gained
I agree - nothing is gained by disrespect.
Jerry, I dare you to
Jerry, I dare you to transcend your one note responses. Try it. Just once. Deal with the issues in the article rather then your tiresome raving. You can do it. I know you can.
TITLES;RAVINGS
TITLES;RAVINGS ...........Thanks, Fr. J for your almost civil comment and thanks to Northcountry 1, as well. The Roman clique has unlimited funds and legions of publicists, lobbyists, apologists, lawyers, professors et al. on the papal pad that non-stop create 24/7 mystical smokescreens to obfuscate the continuing Roman failure to protect defenseless children.
When the Roman clique and their apologists can't con the media, they take out full page advertisements, as Bill Donohue has done in the NY Times and is apparently trying to do in the Kansas City Star.
I can't afford ads, but I can blog. I will stop blogging and go back to playing golf badly when I no longer worry about my grandkids being raped by priests.
As to calling the pope "Mr", I will respect your sensibilities and henceforth refer to him by his full name, Joseph Ratzinger. As I have already explained in NCR comments, I mean no disrespect, but strongly believe we must reject medieval hierarcical titles, along with the coercive structure the titles support.
Jesus did well without any earthly title and Joseph Ratzinger is not above Jesus, even if he seems at times to think otherwise.
Thanks for the comments. While we may disagree at times, at least some of our goals appear to me to overlap occasionally.
LOL, so you think I am paid
LOL, so you think I am paid to call you on your ramblings? There is some kind of vast papal conspiracy? Yet somehow despite that the media and secularists continue to attack the Church without pause? Your grandkids stand a better chance of being raped by their teacher or coach. In fact it is your side with the money and resources. You are just a willing dupe that helps the bigots. Protecting kids has nothing to do with it. In a way you remind me of the way certain people talk about the "Jews." You just do it about us.
WILLING DUPE ? LOL
WILLING DUPE ? LOL .......... Fr. J, you also gave me a big laugh. I neither said nor thought you were on the papal pad. Why would you be? Your indiscriminate slurs, feeble analysis and constant non-sequitors are one of the most effective arguments for why the Church needs radical reform. If anything, I should be paying you for so often proving my case for me. Alas, I am not in a position to pay you but I, nevertheless, appreciate all your help.
Indiscriminate slurs, feeble
Indiscriminate slurs, feeble analysis and constant non-sequitors...you know yourself!
From outside of Europe, I
From outside of Europe, I would go for Sri Lanka's Ranjith.
Mr Allen
Mr Allen says
"traditionalists howled over Assisi."
NO pretty much everyone who is Catholic 'Howled' over Assisi
Singing and dancing with the protestants is not good for the soul!
Anonymous, I will pray for
Anonymous, I will pray for YOUR soul, particularly in reference to Luke 23:34.
What is good for the soul is
What is good for the soul is to confess the unwarranted bigotry about Protestants that that which you uttered above.
John, one thing is clear: any
John, one thing is clear: any conversation about papabile is a lightening rod, drawing strong currents from all over the horizon. Certainly this man could do no worse than the current pope or JPII.
I attended a major financial
I attended a major financial services industry conference in Sydney, Australia, on Tuesday, which was addressing at real depth the global financial situation. This was the day after Cardinal Turkson's statement promoting a global regulator to control the world economy. I had read news of the statement in the religious media, and was interested to see the response of the economic, banking and finance experts who spoke at the conference.
The response - absolutely nothing. My informal queries of conference speakers and participants could be summarized as:
- incredulity and humour, that anyone could promote such a bizarre and impossible idea; and
- cynicism and ambivalence, because a church, even a global one like the Roman Catholic Church, rarely makes a useful contribution to the real economic debate.
Cardinal Turkson's may well be an interesting palpable for the fbuteo get excited over that issue, but he probably represents the general disengagement of church leaders from the real debate on financial issues, both global and national. With the resources available to Rome, surely the church can come up with more real and practical ways to engage with politicians, regulators and financial markets, without losing the essential idealism and moral leadership that we expect of our faith leaders? Whatever happened to Lumen Gentium?
The Italians have not had the
The Italians have not had the papacy since 1978. In my opinion, they'll take it back next time. 30 plus years is WAY too long without an Italian. Ratzinger was elected in a fit of JPII nostalgia.
@Paul Schratz et al.
@Paul Schratz et al. 'Whatever you bind on earth will be bound also in heaven.' Until the 1870s the Vatican had its own guillotine, now the church is definitively saying the death penalty is unjustified and rightly so. Until the 1950s it was mortally sinful to eat meat on Fridays; then it wasn't. Pity about those poor souls who died the day before the sin was rescinded by the Vatican.
Let's face it Jesus was talking about sin, not culture. When I was an altar boy in the 40s and 50s it was a sin for anyone to touch any of the sacred vessels and I can remember having to go to confession for it. Give me a break. The Holy Spirit has been sending us meassages for forty years since Vat2 and the Vatican has not been listening.
Card. Turkson may equally
Card. Turkson may equally well end up as being thought far too valuable and efficient as an organiser to be elected Pope - he may be, or be considered to be, a natural Number Two: the kind of man who is too valuable in his place in an organisation ever to be promoted to the Top Job. We have a Pope - all this stuff about who is or may be *papabile* is a waste of time, IMO.
As for Assisi III; it's possible, just about, to put a good construction on it; but even at best, what was done is a wrong way of trying to attain a good end. Assisi I was an unrelieved scandal, and not the right kind of scandal, such as the scandal of the Cross. It scandalised Catholics, members of the Church to whom the Pope is meant to be a shepherd. Worse yet, if possible, it also scandalised Protestants, by giving a false idea of the Church and of her attitude to the Gospel. Scandal can't always be avoided, if it is the right kind of scandal - but this was the wrong kind. Assisi III was not so blatant a denial of the Faith as Assisi I, but it was quite bad enough.
Paddy's with ya, Mr.
Paddy's with ya, Mr. Allen:
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/current-affairs/the-next-pope?ev_oc_grp_id...
But, it should be noted....
http://www.olbg.com/news/18225234/Next+Pope+Betting+And+Odds+Has+Punters...
This kind of politicized
This kind of politicized analysis of the "papal sweepstakes" and indeed the politicized divisions of the Church these days are sooooo far from living the Gospel that's it's laughable, and painful.
Perhaps Cardinal Peter
Perhaps Cardinal Peter Turkson would be the first black pope - but maybe not. There have been three African popes in our history: Pope Victor I (189-198) who really stirred up the Quartodeciman issue of when to celebrate Easter, or not! He earned a rebuke from St. Irenaeus of Lyons for threatening to excommunicate the Eastern churches, even though Rome never had an Easter celebration in the first century. Every Sunday was Easter from their reckoning. He was also the first pope to use Latin - as the liturgy in Rome was always in Greek. Victor got the slave Callistus released from the Sardinian mines. Callistus got himself killed over allowing noble women to marry below their station, as long as the other person was baptized. Up to his time this was forbidden.
The second African Pope was Miltiades (311-314) who received the Lateran palace from Constantine as a papal residence after centuries of persecution and harassment. He took up the issue of the ordination of a bishop who was rejected for having a "traditor-bishop" as a co-consecrator. The case involved Donatus himself, who demanded rebaptism for "traditores." The Donatists tended to enforce a very puritan form of Christianity. Augustine had to contend with a large Donatist church in Africa - often larger than his own "orthodox" branch of Christianity. Their disputes ultimately led to the dominance of Islam in northern Africa - as the rivals often preferred Islamic rulers to members from the alternate side of Christianity.
The third African pope was born in Rome "ex natione aferensis", as it was noted. Pope St. Gelasius I (492-496) defended the two sword theory which defended the primacy of spiritual authority over secular authority - and ultimately led to Pope Gregory VII's "Dictatus papae," which held that the pope was the head of all rulers and the bishop of all bishops - in contrast to St. Cyprian of Carthage who denied that there was any such thing as a "bishop of bishops." He also demanded that both species (bread and wine) be used at Eucharistic celebrations.
Whether or not these African popes were "black Africans" requires more sources than I have at my fingertips.
Peter Cardinal Turkson. Next
Peter Cardinal Turkson. Next Pope? "Secundus Petrus Romanus" (Prophecies of st Malachy. Turkson is currently the only cardinal named Peter. Interesting.
Was John Allen in Assisi?
Was John Allen in Assisi?
First, far from ionizing
First, far from ionizing Card. Turkson to status as papabile, I would have thought that signing off on last Monday's white paper would have excluded him from serious consideration for any position in the Curia, let alone atop it.
Second, with all due respect, Bobbie Paxton's comment above reflects a mindset that is deeply troubling. John XXIII was her hero, she writes; why? "He changed things!" Seriously, I'm not making this up; Bobbie said that "chang[ing] things" made John XXIII heroic. I don't even know what to say to that, it's so far out of the realm of intelligence, faith, or reason. This will have to do: There is nothing inherently virtuous about change (virtue is judged by the content of change), and it's far from clear that John XXIII is guilty of the charge of change in the first place. I also think Bobby should retract her calumnious slander (one that contradicts her claim to lionize him) that John was a heretic.
A Black pope will drive
A Black pope will drive Repubs crazy in the party that is besotted with supremacist arrogant classist racism. Their heads will never stop exploding!!
In this century, women will be ordained priests. Already other Catholic-like Protestant religions(Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutherans) are doing it and being invited into the Catholic fold by BXVI. The Right Wing fundie Catholics will go crazy at first, then they will say something like: all hail and give all credit to BXVI, he began it by inviting those "near Catholic Protestants into the fold of Trad Catholicism. When we hated and targeted libs remind them that BXVI stood adamantly against women priests they will renew their hatred of us libs and admit to nothing, just as they did back in Galileo's day.
It certainly will be very interesting to watch more of their almost comic convulsions. Now they hate us libs and others, such as Blacks and Hispanics. IF the next pope is a Black pope they will begin to see the proof of what I/we have been talking about for so long,namely, about doing for others who are less fortunate as in these the least of HIS brethren. Something the Conservatives just hate.
If the next pope is a Black pope will he continue the Vatican's attack on us libs. Especially those of us who have never had abortions nor are homosexuals which is nearly all of us. But don't tell the pope or the bishops that. Their set on another Galileo course.
Finally I have been saying throughout most of this so called Pro-life and Family Values stuff is both a straw-man situation as well as a smoke screen for what is actually nothing but a money and power and an oil(the end of Peak/Easy oil and about Global warming)play by the Repubs and to some extent also a power play by the pope(s).
Please leave the republicans
Please leave the republicans and democrats out of this. It's a big world...not everyone is American.
We have already had three
We have already had three African popes. Two of them were black. Its just been a long time....
Uhh No! "A theological
Uhh No! "A theological discussion with Moslems, basically impossible...." Sorry, Turkson gets an F from me.
There's all kinds of excellent discussion possible with Moslems. For example, they absolutely believe in financially helping the poor and widows.
And they are opposed to banks' usual charging of INTEREST.
Right in sync with the OCCUPY folks! Definitely OPPOSING American banks' 2008-2011, nasty, filthy, charging of INTEREST!
Spare us Lord from a Pope Turkson....Now a WOMAN black Catholic leader from Africa...much more likely to be REAL vs. Pope-ish.
However...you know what? If Episcopalians had Popes, we would find the sound of these Episcopalian Popes old and stodgy!
Pope-ism IS old and stodgy. Out with the mono-ruler, and in with a multi-council.
We need a Catholic GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
I never did agree totally with Steve Jobs, but I do believe in, "Think Different."
After what we've read about
After what we've read about Africa and the treatment of women including religious I'd be fretting about any that came from that part of the world.
The junior seminaries full... my hair stands on end about that too.
Yeah, you know how THOSE
Yeah, you know how THOSE people (of color) are, right? They need the civilizing influence of liberal Europeans and Americans, right? They shouldn't be so uppity, right?
My hair stands on end at your racism and ethnocentrism.
I think it is a violation of
I think it is a violation of valid judgement to think that the next Pope may be black. It is possible, but it is a waste of time to speculate on something not likely to happen. Also it's abit morbid, considering that the present Pope is not ill, or suffering from any major illnesses as was John Paul II, who everyone knows was ill pretty much for the last 10 years of his reign. He had a variety of major illnesses, Parkinson's being #1, but also artheritis, the effects of a badly botched hip replacement surgery, and of course the lingering effects of the assasination attempt on John Paul II in 1981. But I also read that he also suffered from circulatory disease common in many elderly people, especially males over the age of 60.
That was a surprise considering his athletic past.
The liberal Catholic press is always hoping for a progressive/liberal Pope. They basically got one in John Paul II, but have been having a field day for the last nearly 7 years trashing Pope Benedict XVI for not being the same. It's unlikely that the next Pope will be liberal either.
For one thing, most of the rabidly liberal Cardinals are either now dead or over 80. The few remaining are close to 80. I can think of three right off hand whose time to participate in a conclave is running out....Re, Bertone, and Daneels.
As the crop of John Paul II electing Cardinals die off (either literally or thru passing the 80 year mark making them inelligible to vote for a new Pope), the less likely is an African Pope, or a liberal.
My bet for Pope, and many people think he has a very good chance, is Cardinal Mauro Piacenza,the present Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy.
There's another man who many are touting as supremely "Papabile" even though he's not even a Cardinal (yet). He's a Bishop of German extraction, but he doesn't serve in Germany..at present. He's barely into his 50's and a member of an ancient religious Order. Electing this outstanding man would be historic in more ways that electing an African Pope!
But Benedict XVI is in his
But Benedict XVI is in his mid-80's and is weakening (just look at photos of him from Assisi). So it's natural for some speculation of who may be the next Pope is natural, and has been going on for a century if not longer. It's actually rather fun, Kenijro, if you can appreciate the fact that no one I know of has been right about it. The Vatican itself is always full of "papabile" speculation and political shifting to form various blocs of voting power. As for "liberal" vs "conservative" popes, I would suggest that modern popes are neither, not once they get in office and are faced with all of the voices in the Church. I don't know of anyone who expected John XXIII to start reforms as he did, so who really knows what comes next? My bets are on.........
"It's actually rather
"It's actually rather fun"
Not if you admire Pope Benedict as much as I do. If more people would read his beautiful and inspiring messages (the actual documents...not the reports of them) I believe that the church would have a great renewal.
I pray that he is around for a long time.
How rich is this!! Allen says
How rich is this!! Allen says the man who heads the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace could well be the next pope, and George Weigel deems the same man so insignficant that he heads a "minor office in the Vatican". If you ever needed a clearer example of why John is the leading Vatican analyst and Weigel has become considerably less, this is it. John, I hope you will check out this blog post detailing Weigel's inconsistent statements on PCJP. It is a good addendum to this article you have done.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/11/8/113328/058/Front_Page/Weigel_...
Post new comment