Cardinal Burke has some words of wisdom on Islam

[illinigal]

7 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I've heard conflicting reports as to whether Benedict XVI actively campaigned during the 2005 conclave (you're technically not supposed to campaign, but people do all kinds of things they aren't supposed to). I'm inclined to say he did, because it seems logical that he would want to finish the work that he started under John Paul II, but he turned out to be really bad at it. Theological or ideological views aside, the main problem with the Benedict XVI papacy was that he didn't have any pastoral experience and, perhaps most importantly, he didn't know how to deal with the media. One of the most important ways that John Paul II transformed the institution of the papacy was in how he made the pope an international media figure. John Paul II had the ability to charm people who vehemently disagreed with him, which Benedict was unable to do; in many of Benedict XVI's public appearances, he looked like he didn't even want to be there, and seemed unable to handle the media (you may have seen footage of him when he was Joseph Ratzinger slapping a reporter asking about the abuse scandal, which should have been a sign of things to come). I think one reason Francis was chosen during the last conclave was because he knows how to work the media like John Paul II did, and after Benedict's tin-eared pontificate, all future popes will have to be media-savvy.

Here is an interesting blog post from a liberal Catholic scholar about the 2005 Conclave.  http://churchhistorysurprise.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-tale-of-two-cardinals-and-two-popes.html

The bottom line..  Of course he was.  And yes there was politics going on in 2013.  I am of the belief that these things are all politics. 

And it would have benefited everyone including Ratzinger greatly if he had remained in Bavaria and written obscure books or if at the very least he was allowed to retire to Barvaria and write obscure books in 2005.  He simply hated the entire glad-handing and baby kissing part of being pope, which as an introvert I get, but also don't apply for the job that is so heavily public.

As for Bergoglio, most Vatican insiders were shocked because he never did press as a Cardinal and was seen as a quite dour individual.  I think that it might have been partially smart politics for him to not do more media as a cardinal (i.e. not making waves) and that he really is enjoying himself as pope.

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

1 hour ago, illinigal said:

Here is an interesting blog post from a liberal Catholic scholar about the 2005 Conclave.  http://churchhistorysurprise.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-tale-of-two-cardinals-and-two-popes.html

The bottom line..  Of course he was.  And yes there was politics going on in 2013.  I am of the belief that these things are all politics. 

And it would have benefited everyone including Ratzinger greatly if he had remained in Bavaria and written obscure books or if at the very least he was allowed to retire to Barvaria and write obscure books in 2005.  He simply hated the entire glad-handing and baby kissing part of being pope, which as an introvert I get, but also don't apply for the job that is so heavily public.

As for Bergoglio, most Vatican insiders were shocked because he never did press as a Cardinal and was seen as a quite dour individual.  I think that it might have been partially smart politics for him to not do more media as a cardinal (i.e. not making waves) and that he really is enjoying himself as pope.

 

Thank you for the article. I enjoyed it but I disagree on Benedict's papacy not being a huge failure and on Burke's possibilities of being a kingmaker. Only once before in history a pope resigned and it became immortal as described by Dante Celestino V "che fece per viltade il gran rifiuto" (who refused out of cowardice). JPII lived the end of its papacy as a Calvary without resigning  and believers all over the world witnessed it and he was never as popular as when he was suffering. Benedict surrendered and with him many Catholics think an era definitely came to an end. Cardinals aren't stupid fools, should they choose someone of the likes of Burke it would be the end of the RCC as a big player in the wider world. Francis is hugely popular and yet he is sweating hard to regain popularity for the Church as an institution. The promoveatur ut amoveatur doesn't erase the fact that Burke and his ideas are hugely unpopular and a liability for the RCC.

[illinigal]

I will have to disagree.  JPII should have resigned.  He could not effectively run the Church at the end.  There needs to be an expectation that popes resign if they can no longer do the job.  With advances in medicine, popes can linger with illnesses for a long time.  There could definitely be a situation where a pope has dementia and is even more debilitated than JPII was.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

1 hour ago, illinigal said:

I will have to disagree.  JPII should have resigned.  He could not effectively run the Church at the end.  There needs to be an expectation that popes resign if they can no longer do the job.  With advances in medicine, popes can linger with illnesses for a long time.  There could definitely be a situation where a pope has dementia and is even more debilitated than JPII was.

I don't agree with it either, but that was how the majority of Catholics here perceived things at the time.

[Cleopatra7]

1 hour ago, illinigal said:

I will have to disagree.  JPII should have resigned.  He could not effectively run the Church at the end.  There needs to be an expectation that popes resign if they can no longer do the job.  With advances in medicine, popes can linger with illnesses for a long time.  There could definitely be a situation where a pope has dementia and is even more debilitated than JPII was.

I've actually wondered what might happen if a pope had a stroke or some other condition that would led him to be incapacitated and reliant on machines to live. Pulling the proverbial plug wouldn't be an option, obviously. But what if it happens to the next pope as well? There could theoretically be two or three popes on life support or in vegetative states that could live decades after the debilitating events in question, but none of whom officially relinquished their position. It's one thing to endure a difficult old age like John Paul II did, but quite another to be in a decision making capacity while you're that incapacitated. I suppose the reasons for Benedict's retirement will always be a mystery (I don't think simply be old was the real reason), but I agree that John Paul II really should have retired when it became clear that he wasn't mentally or physically capable of handling his position any more.