Cardinals turn on Pope Invisible

[Deacon_Ed_B]

If this information is from Time magazine, my first reaction would be to dismiss it, the second would be to relegate the magazine to a building on a farm in the country with a little shed with a moon on the door.

 

[JReducation]

Like everything else in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It is no secret that Benedict XVI is a theologian. Other theologians have also been elected pope, such as John Paul II. However, Ratzinger is the consummate theologian. He has a passion for theology as a way of life. He didn’t just go out and get a doctorate in theology as some previous popes had. I find it believeable that he spends a great deal more time on theology than his predecessors. There is not surprise there.

He lacks pastoral experience because he spent more years in the classroom and in the Sacred Congregation than he did being a diocesan priest and bishop. Therefore, he is not going to be the best administrator in the world. No surprise there.

He did not want to remain at the Vatican. He had submitted his resignation several times to John Paul II. He probably accepted the election out of obedience to the Will of God, not because he wanted a new job. No surprise there either.

He is a very shy man and a very simple man who probably prefers to remain out of the public eye as much as he can avoid it. So spending time alone is not a big deal. Besides, we have had monks elected popes and they continued to live their monastic lives while in the Vatican. So why can’t this pope be called to solitude like some of his predecessors?

Has he committed political blunders? That depends on what side of the issue you stand on. Traditionalists thought John Paul committed blunders when he prayed with Muslims, Buddhists and others. Now liberals believe Benedict has committed blunders because he is not always politically correct. We are never going to have a pope that is going to please everyone. We’re only going to have some popes that are more popular than others.

It’s time the world grew up and accepted that life is not always fair and people are not perfect.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[saieditor]

I read the whole article, and I find it to be sour grapes generally.

It is a lot of opinions, and verbatim quotes allegedly from other Cardinals. Then there is the criticism of others in the Vatican who are described as ill-informed and bumbling fools.

I rather think the author of this has been talking to the discontented and made up an article for a slow news day.

The Pope’s job is to lead, and few on Earth, if any, are qualified to critique him or guide him.

After all, leadership is based on vision, skill, ability and the overarching purpose of the Organisation. Papal Leadership is also statesmanship, as John Paul II so elegantly showed us all.

I don’t find Benedict an inelegant statesman, nor an inept leader. Where is this trash journalist’s criteria for criticising the Pope’s leadership? Do other people’s opinions form the foundation of objective assessment?

 

[saggal]

Folks:

This isn’t from Time Magazine, it’s from the magazine section that runs with the Times of London.

At least rant at the correct media outlet.

 

[bpcatholic]

I find it interesting how people will critisize the Church to be too political, yet critisize the pope for not being political enough.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Folks:

This isn’t from Time Magazine, it’s from the magazine section that runs with the Times of London.

At least rant at the correct media outlet.

At least we vented our feelings about TIME.

 

[Stephentlig]

unless its source is Catholic I dont beleive it.

these secular articles do nothing but run Catholism into the ground. the article clearly tryed to convey our Holy Father as a rich ignorant pig, who is interested more in what he eats than the people. therfore the people who read it will be even more disgusted with the church than they already are. because guess what? if the cardinals are showing contempt towards their Pope then what does that lead the lay people to think?

its a horrible sight to see but I do not care whether he eats his food off gold plates or the floor, I am going to be obedient to his decisions for obedience to our holy father is obedience to Christ.
he was chosen by Christ to sit in Peters chair therefore he must be doin his job right.
for the Holy father is infallible in his decisions.

I despise the secular medias ideas I really do.

God bless you
Stephen.

 

[JReducation]

unless its source is Catholic I dont beleive it.

these secular articles do nothing but run Catholism into the ground. the article clearly tryed to convey our Holy Father as a rich ignorant pig, who is interested more in what he eats than the people. therfore the people who read it will be even more disgusted with the church than they already are. because guess what? if the cardinals are showing contempt towards their Pope then what does that lead the lay people to think?

its a horrible sight to see but I do not care whether he eats his food off gold plates or the floor, I am going to be obedient to his decisions for obedience to our holy father is obedience to Christ.
he was chosen by Christ to sit in Peters chair therefore he must be doin his job right.
for the Holy father is infallible in his decisions.

I despise the secular medias ideas I really do.

God bless you
Stephen.

The bold is mine.

You have to be careful with this assertion. Just because a pope sits in the chair of Peter does not mean that he is doing a good job. We have had popes who did a horrible job.

Additionally, the Holy Father in not infallible in his decisions on the day to day matters of the Church. Infallibility applies to faith and morals, not to the executive aspects of his job.

This is not criticism of Pope Benedict, just a clarification for any non Catholic who may be reading this.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[mystagogia]

If this information is from Time magazine, my first reaction would be to dismiss it, the second would be to relegate the magazine to a building on a farm in the country with a little shed with a moon on the door.

You would profane your bum this way?

 

[Stephentlig]

The bold is mine.

You have to be careful with this assertion. Just because a pope sits in the chair of Peter does not mean that he is doing a good job. We have had popes who did a horrible job.

Additionally, the Holy Father in not infallible in his decisions on the day to day matters of the Church. Infallibility applies to faith and morals, not to the executive aspects of his job.

This is not criticism of Pope Benedict, just a clarification for any non Catholic who may be reading this.

Fraternally,

JR

which is why we pray that he will make all the right decisions right?

I praise God for the correction

Proverbs:12:1 ‘‘He who loves knowledge, loves discipline, stupid the man who hates correction.’’

God bless
Stephen

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

You would profane your bum this way?

Gosh, I never thought of it this way. Better to throw it in and have a target.

 

[JReducation]

**which is why we pray that he will make all the right decisions right? **

I praise God for the correction

Proverbs:12:1 ‘‘He who loves knowledge, loves discipline, stupid the man who hates correction.’’

God bless
Stephen

Bold is mine.

Yes, we do pray that he will make the right choices and that those to whom he entrusts certain duties to perform in his name will also make good choices.

The Vatican is a very interesting place, not just historically and architecturally, but also politically and organizationally. It is a very different organization from that of most countries. Because it is a “religious” state, religion and politics cross over each other like railroad tracks at a junction.

There are some offices that run the day to day affairs of the City. The are other offices that run the day to day affairs of the Church. And their are other offices whom no one seems to know what they do.

Hypothetically, they all act in the name of the Pontiff. The fact is that the Pope has no knowledge of what half of these offices, departments and congregations do on a day to day basis. He gets updates, like any other monarch, on a scheduled basis. Just as the Queen of England meets with the Prime Minister every week and has to approve his activities and those of Parliament, so the Pope meets with the different heads.

Many times the reports he gets are of events and decisions that have been made and executed. When running a nation as large as the Vatican, which governs almost two billion Catholics in hundreds of countries around the world and over 25 different rites and churches, people can’t sit and wait for the meeting with the Pope to make decisions. They make the best possible decisions on their own and inform him after the fact. No one expects the Pope to have his pulse on the finger of everything any more than we expect the President of the USA to have his finger on the pulse of every federal agency.

That’s why it is very unfair to accuse the Pope of every failure, weakness, and mistake made within the Catholic Church. Besides China, where else do we have a leader of so many people?

I imagine that the Pope must shudder when he meets with the department heads and secretaries of the different branches of the Holy See and the Vatican. He never knows what he’s going to have to deal with. Even with the Holy Spirit on your side, you’re still human. I would probably bury my head in a theology book too.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Digitonomy]

saieditor:

The Pope’s job is to lead, and few on Earth, if any, are qualified to critique him or guide him.

After all, leadership is based on vision, skill, ability and the overarching purpose of the Organisation. Papal Leadership is also statesmanship, as John Paul II so elegantly showed us all.

Are you suggesting that no one has any grounds to criticize any pope for anything, ever?

Since the pope’s job is to lead an earthly organization of mortal men, how he manages that organization can properly be compared with other organizations, as well as to his predecessors. One aspect of the job that’s been done poorly is the anticipation and management of press coverage, as we’ve discussed before.

As for John Paul, can you be more specific? He certainly was more skilled at public relations. I don’t think his management of the curia, on the other hand, was very impressive. One of the biggest blots on his reign was how long it took him to respond effectively to the worldwide pattern of priest sex scandals. Benedict is a much more effective bureaucrat, and is likely to get the ball rolling much earlier in the various dicasteries so that ultimately there is an appropriate solution to whatever problem arises, and that the dicasteries end up on the same page. He just does a poor job communicating it in many cases.

 

[Layman]

Vulgar side note:

Don’t use printed paper to wipe yer bum. I read years ago one chap did that for most of his life and died as a result of absorbing the ink from the print. The ol’ rectum is quite absorbent, y’see. I vaguely recall it re-aborbs water from yer waste.

This has been a public service announcement.