Black Pope could follow Barack Obama's election, says US archbishop

[Dale_M]

Was the praising of Obama victory in the archdiocese newsletter?

No. According to the article in the OP Archbishop Gregory made the comment to a reporter for the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

Here is the list of Archbishop Gregory’s columns which have appeared in the archdiocesan newspaper. georgiabulletin.org/sh/

 

[dawgfan]

I saying nothing about his heart. But I know, by his ACTION, that he cares more for the color of his skin than the unborn.

Can you deny it ?

The smart thing for him to do is to remain silent just as he was silent on abortion.

Yes, I’ll deny it.

Again with the silence.
I’m assuming that you are in the Atlanta archdiocese and have read everything he has had to written on abortion and attended any and all functions and heard every homily that he’s ever had on abortion and the unborn.

I haven’t (nor could I claim that about any Bishop from any area) but even in my far corner of the diocese I’ve heard enough from him to know that he considers the rights of the unborn to be the one issue above all else when forming one’s conscious about selecting leaders.

Was the praising of Obama victory in the archdiocese newsletter?

Of course not. I can’t pretend to know in what context the Bishop’s remarks were made but I do know how some reporters operate (first hand knowledge I’m afraid). Asking leading questions that portray more of the interviewers feelings rather than the interviewee is the modus operandi of some journalists. One could carefully craft a set of questions and incorportate them into their article in a way that could make anyone say that Mao, Stalin, or even Hitler were not such bad guys is really not so hard to do. Plus journalists always quote their subjects verbatim, right?

I’m sorry but I can’t jump on the bandwagon and judge anyone (not to mention come dangerously close to myself bearing false witness) based on quotes given to an Italian reporter and printed in the Times of London.

 

[jc-servant]

I saying nothing about his heart. But I know, by his ACTION, that he cares more for the color of his skin than the unborn.

Can you deny it ?

The smart thing for him to do is to remain silent just as he was silent on abortion.

If he’s good, he would think what the Obama victory would mean for the unborn, not about the color of his skin, and that was the first thing that comes out of his mouth.

Just cuz he was called to holy orders doesn’t mean I can’t criticized him for his stupid remarks.

You are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by this bishop’s career and public statements in the prolife movement based on one article from a foreign journalist. YOU don’t have any idea what “the first thing out of his mouth” was or the last because we don’t have a tape of what questions were asked and his exact answers in context. All we have is how his supposed words were stuck into this article.

You have made some “stupid” assumptions about a very holy man based on your own prejudices through which you have chosen to read this article. You are slandering a priest by your words by assuming that he puts race before all else. Shame on you for projecting your own biases onto this holy man.

 

[samthecat]

It would be a glorious day when a black pope is chosen - however, he will be chosen because of his views, not because of his race or cool factor. I read an interesting article on this just a few minutes ago that may be of interest:

fallibleblogma.com/index.php/2008/11/05/a-black-mark-on-our-history/

An excerpt:

"As much as I very strongly disagree with Barack Obama on many things, while watching his victory speech last night and reflecting on his story I couldn’t help but admire the guy. He’s come a long way and he did it against great odds. And it will forever represent one of the great moments in American history - our first black president.

But I also believe, unfortunately, that one day we will look back on this part of our history with great shame. Just as many of our founding fathers and early great leaders of American history are stained with the shame of slavery, many of our current leaders will be stained with the sin of abortion."

God bless you all - and our country!

 

[Lance]

You are basing your comparison of two people based on…location?

All I was trying to say is that Chicago is a very liberal arch-diocese and calling Obama’s election a great step for humanity follows that liberal thinking. With comments like this coming out of the leaders of the Catholic church it is no wonder people don’t really know where the church stands on issues.

 

[cathgal]

No. According to the article in the OP Archbishop Gregory made the comment to a reporter for the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

Exactly!

How else would he makes his voice heard if it’s not reported to the **Italian **newspaper with comment like

'"‘If Obama at the White House is like the first man on the moon, the same thing can certainly happen for the throne of Peter,"

Yeah, a black has conquered America.

Where should his next conquest be??

Where is God in all of these??

A man of God should not have this mentality, *especially *right after the Obama victory for God’s sake!

All he can think of is *power *for a black man! Shame on him !

 

[cathgal]

Yes, I’ll deny it.

Again with the silence.
I’m assuming that you are in the Atlanta archdiocese and have read everything he has had to written on abortion and attended any and all functions and heard every homily that he’s ever had on abortion and the unborn.

I haven’t (nor could I claim that about any Bishop from any area) but even in my far corner of the diocese I’ve heard enough from him to know that he considers the rights of the unborn to be the one issue above all else when forming one’s conscious about selecting leaders.

Of course not. I can’t pretend to know in what context the Bishop’s remarks were made but I do know how some reporters operate (first hand knowledge I’m afraid). Asking leading questions that portray more of the interviewers feelings rather than the interviewee is the modus operandi of some journalists. One could carefully craft a set of questions and incorportate them into their article in a way that could make anyone say that Mao, Stalin, or even Hitler were not such bad guys is really not so hard to do. Plus journalists always quote their subjects verbatim, right?

I’m sorry but I can’t jump on the bandwagon and judge anyone (not to mention come dangerously close to myself bearing false witness) based on quotes given to an Italian reporter and printed in the Times of London.

I’m referring to his recent ACTION. I’m sure you can do the same.

At a crucial time in our nation that an extreme pro-death person was elected for president, it was a great blow to the pro-life causes. Historic indeed.

The remarks from the bishop was stupid, imprudent, irresponsible, thoughtless, hasty and rash.

If you’re concerned about the press misrepresenting him, then see if the bishop will correct them or not. Until then, I stand by my criticism.

 

[cathgal]

You are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by this bishop’s career and public statements in the prolife movement based on one article from a foreign journalist. YOU don’t have any idea what “the first thing out of his mouth” was or the last because we don’t have a tape of what questions were asked and his exact answers in context. All we have is how his supposed words were stuck into this article.

If what was reported and false, I’m sure the bishop will correct it. If not, he’s guilty.

You have made some “stupid” assumptions about a very holy man based on your own prejudices through which you have chosen to read this article. You are slandering a priest by your words by assuming that he puts race before all else. Shame on you for projecting your own biases onto this holy man.

I didn’t blindly make an assumption you know. It was well founded. You’re the one making your own prejudice against me for reading an article that reports what the bishop said.

Now, I say it again, if it was false, the bishop should correct it because it’s bad press and bad for the Church as a whole.

 

[Dale_M]

All he can think of is *power *for a black man! Shame on him !

I think you profoundly misunderstand Archbishop Gregory’s comments.

He said election of Mr Obama was “a great step forward for humanity and a sign that in the United States the problem of racial discrimination has been overcome”… “My own election as head of the US Bishops Conference was an important signal. In 2001 the American bishops elected someone they respected regardless of his race, and the same thing could happen with the election of a Pope”.

The success of Obama in taking the highest office in America is something many blacks had never dreamed possible. It gives them hope for the future that more racial barriers will fall and that life truly will become less difficult. This is a significant advance in justice. It has nothing to do with power.

 

[jc-servant]

I think you profoundly misunderstand Archbishop Gregory’s comments.

He said election of Mr Obama was “a great step forward for humanity and a sign that in the United States the problem of racial discrimination has been overcome”… “My own election as head of the US Bishops Conference was an important signal. In 2001 the American bishops elected someone they respected regardless of his race, and the same thing could happen with the election of a Pope”.

The success of Obama in taking the highest office in America is something many blacks had never dreamed possible. It gives them hope for the future that more racial barriers will fall and that life truly will become less difficult. This is a significant advance in justice. It has nothing to do with power.

Exactly right, but you won’t be convincing someone who is determined to read the worst possible meaning into his statements.

 

[Contarini]

It is matters such as this, in fact the life matter in particular, which keep me a “dweller”- unable to cross the threshold and return to the Church.

That doesn’t make any sense at all to me. If there’s one thing that can be said about the Catholic Church, it’s that it is clearly and unequivocally opposed to abortion. Just because its leaders have some sense of diplomacy and courtesy is no reason to pretend that their stance is ambiguous. At that point I have to say that you are probably fooling yourself and manufacturing reasons not to return to Catholicism. (And quite possibly I do the same thing on other issues.)

To me the Catholic Church’s prolife (not just anti-abortion, but certainly with that as the single most important issue) stance is one of the biggest things drawing me toward Catholicism. I would so love to be part of a Christian community that was unambiguously prolife.

Edwin

 

[Lance]

I think you profoundly misunderstand Archbishop Gregory’s comments.

He said election of Mr Obama was “a great step forward for humanity and a sign that in the United States the problem of racial discrimination has been overcome”… “My own election as head of the US Bishops Conference was an important signal. In 2001 the American bishops elected someone they respected regardless of his race, and the same thing could happen with the election of a Pope”.

The success of Obama in taking the highest office in America is something many blacks had never dreamed possible. It gives them hope for the future that more racial barriers will fall and that life truly will become less difficult. This is a significant advance in justice. It has nothing to do with power.

I fail to understand how electing a pro-abortion person to be president of the US is “a great step forward for humanity and a sign that in the United States the problem of racial discrimination has been overcome”. I don’t care how you or the bishop spin it, Obama’s election is not “a great step forward for humanity” especially the unborn humanity. I would not want to try to explain to God how putting race before life is “a great step forward for humanity”. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Not surprisingly, Bishop Gregory was among the 200 or so American bishops who remained SILENT on the issue of abortion as the election approached. And now he seems to think that the election of a pope takes its cue from the whims of the American electorate.

But really, if Hitler were a black man, would his ascendancy to power be looked at as a great thing for humanity? Why wasn’t the appointment of another black man, Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court, hailed as a great day for humanity? Or when Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were given unpredented roles in the executive branch - roles that not even President Clinton extended to people of color in his administration - why were THOSE appointments not considered great moments for humanity? Why did Alan Keyes get short shrift for all these years?

It’s a terrible day for humanity, and it has nothing to do with the color of anyone’s skin. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been bedazzled by the glare of a world where virtue has run amok and become political correctness at any cost. A nation that still can’t wash away the guilt of slavery and segregation just validated the enslavery (embryo freezing) and murder (abortion) of millions of its own citizens, and this is a good thing?

When Obama signs FOCA, will Gregory call it a great day for humanity? When he orders gov’t funding of embryo stem cell research, will he call it a great day for humanity? When he stuffs the court with leftist, deconstructionist justices, will he call it a great day for humanity?

Benedict XVI, as a shepherd of all the world’s Catholics, properly congratulated the elected leader of the most influential nation in the world. Bishop Gregory is opening Obama’s cause for sainthood. One is protocol. The other is profane.

Very accurately stated. Thank you.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I think this was a “safe” statement for him to make, as people have been wondering we the Church will break the “race barrier”. The question becomes outside of Cardinal Arzine who has the experience and theological orthodox necessary to get the majority of the votes of the conclave.

Are you aware of what goes on during an election for the new pope? It isn’t what the Cardinals or Bishops want at all. There is much prayer and discernment. And it all comes from the Holy Spirit. In a room of silence, they pray. They may cast “ballots” a good number of times, without ever saying a word to let each other know who is even nominated. When the ballots all state the same name, during the same casting of ballots, then they accept that this particular Cardinal has been chosen by the Holy Spirit to be Pope.
It isn’t a political thing. It is a spiritual thing…and totally spiritual. It isn’t a popularity contest. It isn’t a contest at all. It isn’t even the choice of the cardinals. It is totally the will of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Digitonomy]

It isn’t even the choice of the cardinals. It is totally the will of the Holy Spirit.

This is a rather persistent idea that people bring up on a regular basis. Rather than point out what Cardinal Ratzinger and others have said which conflicts with your view, I’ll point out a few problems with the logic of it.

First, do the bishops lose their free will to disregard the Holy Spirit during the Conclave? If it’s entirely the Holy Spirit deciding things, why are there careful procedures in place to prevent anyone from casting more than one ballot? Why are cardinals over 80 prevented from voting, and until recently, prevented from participating and lobbying other cardinals at the Conclave? Why is there a need for multiple ballots? How could the Conclave ever be deadlocked - the Holy Spirit just hadn’t made up its mind yet? And of course, do we really think the Holy Spirit directly put into power some of the crooks and incompetents that have been pope?

 

[cathgal]

This is a rather persistent idea that people bring up on a regular basis. Rather than point out what Cardinal Ratzinger and others have said which conflicts with your view, I’ll point out a few problems with the logic of it.

First, do the bishops lose their free will to disregard the Holy Spirit during the Conclave? If it’s entirely the Holy Spirit deciding things, why are there careful procedures in place to prevent anyone from casting more than one ballot? Why are cardinals over 80 prevented from voting, and until recently, prevented from participating and lobbying other cardinals at the Conclave? Why is there a need for multiple ballots? How could the Conclave ever be deadlocked - the Holy Spirit just hadn’t made up its mind yet? And of course, do we really think the Holy Spirit directly put into power some of the crooks and incompetents that have been pope?

When things happen, can we discern if it’s the permissive of God or will of God?

We will never know, but one thing I can rightly say is God never will evil, only permit it.

So if we get a good Pope, it’s OK to say God will it.

God is still in control even if man has free will

 

[GodsGadfly]

1. As time goes on ( he wont’ retire till 2022, Wilton Gregory will come to be known as the Roger Mahony of the 2010s.
2. As for the next Pope, many people say Cardinal Arinze will be “too old,” but many said Pope Benedict was too old. But just to show how God determines the times and hours, I was expecting Archbishop Trujillo to " go places", and he did: (hopefully) to Heaven. Benedict could die tomorrow; so could Arinze.

But, while people say “An American could never be Pope,” I don’t know. We have Americans–Burke, Stafford and Levada–in three of the Vatican’s highest offices.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Does the nationality of the next pope REALLY matter? Isn’t what is important that he be CATHOLIC…which means Universal?

And just as important…that he be a TRUE Catholic?

I couldn’t care less what nationality or color he is…only that he is truly doing God’s will.

 

[Digitonomy]

Does the nationality of the next pope REALLY matter? Isn’t what is important that he be CATHOLIC…which means Universal?

Obviously it does to the Times, and probably to most of its readers. “African Pope Elected” sells more papers than “Catholic Pope Elected.”