Naming Pell to Bishops would be a landmark move [John Allen]

[Catholic_Press]

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome

I’m in Rome at the moment, preparing to leave early Tuesday on Pope Benedict XVI’s May 11-14 swing in Portugal. Ecclesiastically speaking, Rome is very much a company town, so speculation about who’s in line for what job is always in the air. These days attention is focused on possible successors to Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, who’s held the job for the last ten years and who is now 76.

Recently, the well-connected Italian Vatican writer Andrea Tornielli reported that Pope Benedict XVI has found his man for the job at the Congregation for Bishops: Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia. Pell, who’ll turn 69 in early June, has been the Archbishop of Sydney since 2001 and a cardinal since 2003.

Trying to predict appointments is a notoriously hazardous enterprise, and until the daily bollettino from the Holy See Press Office appears with Pell’s name on it, nothing’s for sure. Yet if Pell is indeed the new prefect, it would be a landmark move for at least four reasons.

More…

 

[manualman]

Translation from NCR-speak into plain English:

1. Pell actually believes in the catholic faith, the kind that would be recognized as THE catholic faith by believers from nearly any century. He’s not a subscriber of the hijacked vision of Vatican II that reduces the faith to essentially “God loves you, go and be nice.”
2. Pell prefers clarity to diplomacy. Not that being nice isn’t important, but telling the truth unambiguously is moreso.
3. He speaks the same language as the Church’s harshest critics and isn’t afraid to take 'em on.
4. He says what he’s thinking

Bottom line: good news for catholics. Bad news for those who’ve been attempting to steal the catholic church from within for several decades.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

He’s well known to the pope, and openly campaigned for the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger during the conclave of April 2005.

So a good friend of a leader who also campaigned on his behalf is getting an important central goverment position. Chicago style politics has invaded the Vatican! LOL

 

[JReducation]

I’d like to know how people outside the conclave know so much about what happens inside. I’ve been a religious for ever. I have worked in Rome. I was there when John Paul II was elected. I never heard any official source (Cardinals in the conclave) speak about what went on within.

I’m wondering if people get snippets of information and begin to extrapolate. It would not surprise me of Cardinal Ratzinger had been a favorite of Cardinal Pell. Nor is it offensive. But to believe that Cardinal Pell or any other Cardianl would openly say that Cardinal Pell campaigned for Cardinal Ratzinger is hard to believe, not becuause they don’t get along. They seem to get along fine. It’s hard to believe becasue the Cardinals are not the indiscrete.

Where do people get this “inside” information, when those of us who have lived and worked in Rome were as much in the dark as anyone else? I remember everythiing that was said about how John Paul II was elected. I remember laughing, because those of us who were there never heard any of this. I returned to the USA and suddenly there were people who knew things that we who were in Rome had never heard. I began to wonder when did the CIA take up to bugging the Cardinals’ quarters or the Sistene Chapel.

The Cardinals are not even allowed to take cell-phones to the election, no comptuers and no beepers. They have no way of communicating with the outside world and they are sworn to secrecy before the conclave begins.

How much of this is someone trying to sound like they know it all and passing out information that cannot be confirmed?

I would not trust this information, unless Cardinal Pell said so himself. I’m glad that he’s being considered. I believe that he is a good man, very intelligent, and very balanced. He’s actually very much like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, a middle of the road kind of guy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Non_Serviam]

The article makes him sound like a good choice for the job. This is definitely a key appointment given the recent resignations who will need to be replaced. It was also good to see that his communications people are being proactive and providing information to the media on his role in combatting abuse-transparency goes a long way to favourble coverage and public confidence. A good sign for those looking for change.

 

[Petergee]

I’d like to know how people outside the conclave know so much about what happens inside. I’ve been a religious for ever. I have worked in Rome. I was there when John Paul II was elected. I never heard any official source (Cardinals in the conclave) speak about what went on within.

I’m wondering if people get snippets of information and begin to extrapolate. It would not surprise me of Cardinal Ratzinger had been a favorite of Cardinal Pell. Nor is it offensive. But to believe that Cardinal Pell or any other Cardianl would openly say that Cardinal Pell campaigned for Cardinal Ratzinger is hard to believe, not becuause they don’t get along. They seem to get along fine. It’s hard to believe becasue the Cardinals are not the indiscrete.

Where do people get this “inside” information, when those of us who have lived and worked in Rome were as much in the dark as anyone else? I remember everythiing that was said about how John Paul II was elected. I remember laughing, because those of us who were there never heard any of this. I returned to the USA and suddenly there were people who knew things that we who were in Rome had never heard. I began to wonder when did the CIA take up to bugging the Cardinals’ quarters or the Sistene Chapel.

The Cardinals are not even allowed to take cell-phones to the election, no comptuers and no beepers. They have no way of communicating with the outside world and they are sworn to secrecy before the conclave begins.

How much of this is someone trying to sound like they know it all and passing out information that cannot be confirmed?

Also Canon Law strictly prohibits the Cardinals conducting a “campaign” for anyone to be pope, or doing anything resembling such. Or even treating anyone as a “candidate” as if it were a political caucus. And strictly prohibits anyone from ever divulging any details of the papal election such as who got how many votes, who he voted for etc.

This comment is unworthy of John allen, who is usually by far the best of a bad bunch at NCReporter.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Also Canon Law strictly prohibits the Cardinals conducting a “campaign” for anyone to be pope, or doing anything resembling such. Or even treating anyone as a “candidate” as if it were a political caucus. And strictly prohibits anyone from ever divulging any details of the papal election such as who got how many votes, who he voted for etc.

From what I’ve heard from various bishops I’ve run across over the years, all of these thigns happen in “round about” ways. Details of the conclaves come out in bits and pieces to the Italian press and as time goes on to other areas as well. See:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170278,00.html

This comment is unworthy of John allen, who is usually by far the best of a bad bunch at NCReporter.

Those kinds of statements depend wholly on the reliability of the reporter. Do you trust the reporter to have acurate and good unnamed sources?

 

[manualman]

So a good friend of a leader who also campaigned on his behalf is getting an important central goverment position. Chicago style politics has invaded the Vatican! LOL

Since you appear to be from out of town, let me fill you in a bit. Chicago-style politics is NOT about appointing and hiring those whom you already know and trust to positions of great responsibility. That is HUMAN-style politics. It is universal to the species.

Chicago style politics is when you arrange for lucrative government contracts for supporters who make big money contributions to your campaign or help you acquire your home or adjacent lands for well under market value. In short, it’s all about getting rich by making your friends rich so that they will do the same for you when nobody is looking.

As noted by others, if John Allen has “unnamed sources” who fill him in on the happenings at conclaves, then those sources are, by definition, the kind of men who don’t take their sacred vows seriously. Do you really want to put a whole lotta stock in what such men say? If merely talking about it is a moral violation they’ve promised not to make why would you ever believe a word they have to say? In other words, a thief is likely to be a liar too.

 

[Digitonomy]

As noted by others, if John Allen has “unnamed sources” who fill him in on the happenings at conclaves, then those sources are, by definition, the kind of men who don’t take their sacred vows seriously… If merely talking about it is a moral violation they’ve promised not to make why would you ever believe a word they have to say?

I’d have to review the exact rules, but I believe most apply only once the Conclave has formally begun, and I think it’s at that time that cardinals take the applicable vows. So while the level of gossip originating in the College of Cardinals may not entirely go away at that time, it’s much less than during the earlier part of the interregnum, and Allen was probably using “conclave” in the more general sense and referring to this earlier phase.

Here are a couple of articles that illustrate his familiarity with the process and the players.
Handicapping the conclave

Three cardinals emphasize collegiality

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Since you appear to be from out of town, let me fill you in a bit. Chicago-style politics is NOT… Chicago style politics is,

Relax, it was a joke.

As noted by others, if John Allen has “unnamed sources” who fill him in on the happenings at conclaves, then those sources are, by definition, the kind of men who don’t take their sacred vows seriously. Do you really want to put a whole lotta stock in what such men say? If merely talking about it is a moral violation they’ve promised not to make why would you ever believe a word they have to say? In other words, a thief is likely to be a liar too.

Believe whatever you want. Leaks about what happens in Papal conclaves are as old as Papal Conclaves. In modern days, the Italian press seems to get them first and then it snowballs from there. If you want to believe that there’s no campaigning done through “round about” ways, fine. If you want to believe that Cardinals don’t leak tid bits here and there and that certain reporters don’t put all the tid bits together to paint a picture, fine. But for 2000 years the Church hasn’t been an ideal society of everyone doing everything they’re supposed to do or not do at all times and that’s not going to change any time soon.

If you get the chance, have dinner with an old time cleric from Italy. They can say volumes about all sorts of things and people without ever really saying anything at all.

 

[manualman]

Relax, it was a joke.

Believe whatever you want. Leaks about what happens in Papal conclaves are as old as Papal Conclaves. In modern days, the Italian press seems to get them first and then it snowballs from there. If you want to believe that there’s no campaigning done through “round about” ways, fine. If you want to believe that Cardinals don’t leak tid bits here and there and that certain reporters don’t put all the tid bits together to paint a picture, fine. But for 2000 years the Church hasn’t been an ideal society of everyone doing everything they’re supposed to do or not do at all times and that’s not going to change any time soon.

If you get the chance, have dinner with an old time cleric from Italy. They can say volumes about all sorts of things and people without ever really saying anything at all.

Oh absolutely the Church has AlWAYS had its fair share of knaves and scoundrels. Jesus’ own hand-picked apostles were 1/12th traitors. And that’s my point. Sure there are leakers. But the kind of man who leaks information in violation of the promises he made is not the kind of man I’m interested in listening to when it comes to forming opinions about bishops and Cardinals. In short, I’m against gossip.

 

[Petergee]

From what I’ve heard from various bishops I’ve run across over the years, all of these thigns happen in “round about” ways. Details of the conclaves come out in bits and pieces to the Italian press and as time goes on to other areas as well.

And the details of the different versions supposedly “leaked” often flatly contradict each other. The Italian press is notorious for making up a story out of next to nothing for political purposes.

See:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170278,00.html

For a fine debunking of this story, see:chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/40137?eng=y

As for anonymous diaries, the greatest caution must be exercised here – and even more so when these are currents of opposition directed against the present pontiff.

 

[JReducation]

Oh absolutely the Church has AlWAYS had its fair share of knaves and scoundrels. Jesus’ own hand-picked apostles were 1/12th traitors. And that’s my point. Sure there are leakers. But the kind of man who leaks information in violation of the promises he made is not the kind of man I’m interested in listening to when it comes to forming opinions about bishops and Cardinals. In short, I’m against gossip.

Most of these “leakers” are not scondrels. They are human beings. As Father rightly said, people often talk and let things slip that they don’t realize. Often you think that a snippet of information is just that. But the person whose listening has many snippets and begins to weave a tapestry. Other times the speaker may say nothing in particular, but you can extrapolate from what he does say and from what he leaves out.

I did something like that about a week ago. Don’t worry, it had nothing to do with confession or a conclave. Someone asked me a question about the new bishop. I knew the answer, but was not sure if I was at liberty to say. Not wanting to lie I simply said, “I think some people are going to be happy on that score and some are going to be disappointed.” The person looked at me and said, “I’m so glad.” I never gave a direct response to the question. I simply did not deny or affirm. Obviously the person read into my answer what he wanted to hear. He extrapolated from there. I’m not going to say on the internet whether he extrapolated correctly or not. He’ll find out soon enough.

I’m using this as an example of how very good people often give out snippets of information, which they consider to be very innocent. There is no intention to break any promises or violate confidentiality. That’s why priests do not talk about confessional matters and spiritual directors do not talk about direction matters, It’s too easy to say one word that can lead people to weave an entire story, which may or may not be correct. But the bottom line, it’s none of their business. I do a lot of spiritual direction and I never use case studies when I teach at the seminary. It’s too easy to slip. I stick to the methodology and to the great spiritual directors in Church history.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Digitonomy]

I looked up the oath initially taken by the College of Cardinals at its first meeting following the death of a pope, as stipulated in Universi Dominici Gregis:

We, the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, of the Order of Bishops, of Priests and of Deacons, promise, pledge and swear, as a body and individually, to observe exactly and faithfully all the norms contained in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, and to maintain rigorous secrecy with regard to all matters in any way related to the election of the Roman Pontiff or those which, by their very nature, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, call for the same secrecy.

That doesn’t seem to prohibit campaigning. I recall one cardinal said something like “The Church shouldn’t be looking for another John Paul” during a homily that was reported by the press. Now maybe he was just trying to help the faithful come to terms with the fact that the next pontiff wouldn’t be a former Polish actor who enjoys skiing. The reporters, however, took it as a statement against Cardinal Ratzinger.

Apparently the cardinal had been at odds with Ratzinger on some issues in the past, so this seemed like a fair interpretation. It may also be that the cardinal had discussed his preferences for the direction of the Church and the next pope in previous months, before taking any oath of secrecy at the Conclave.

 

[manygift1spirit]

I recall one cardinal said something like “The Church shouldn’t be looking for another John Paul” during a homily that was reported by the press. Now maybe he was just trying to help the faithful come to terms with the fact that the next pontiff wouldn’t be a former Polish actor who enjoys skiing. The reporters, however, took it as a statement against Cardinal Ratzinger.

Apparently the cardinal had been at odds with Ratzinger on some issues in the past, so this seemed like a fair interpretation. It may also be that the cardinal had discussed his preferences for the direction of the Church and the next pope in previous months, before taking any oath of secrecy at the Conclave.

I think this illustrates Br JR’s point quite nicely. My knee-jerk reaction to that comment was about being a globetrotter who payed less attention to administration. But YMMV of course. And that is part of the point.

One major form of journalistic bias which gets short shrift on CAF is a penchant for conflict. That helps explain their take too.

 

[Petergee]

I looked up the oath initially taken by the College of Cardinals at its first meeting following the death of a pope, as stipulated in Universi Dominici Gregis:That doesn’t seem to prohibit campaigning. I recall one cardinal said something like “The Church shouldn’t be looking for another John Paul” during a homily that was reported by the press. Now maybe he was just trying to help the faithful come to terms with the fact that the next pontiff wouldn’t be a former Polish actor who enjoys skiing. The reporters, however, took it as a statement against Cardinal Ratzinger.

Apparently the cardinal had been at odds with Ratzinger on some issues in the past, so this seemed like a fair interpretation. It may also be that the cardinal had discussed his preferences for the direction of the Church and the next pope in previous months, before taking any oath of secrecy at the Conclave.

UDG sets out how the election is to be conducted - the Cardinals are to pray a lot about their decision and they can discuss with each other who would be a good pope, but not campaign among the electors, e.g. “vote for X, if he becomes pope he promises he’ll do Y”.

It seems the press read an awful lot into that simple statement by the Cardinal. I remember one very common observation was “one thing we can be sure of is that they won’t elect another 58 year old athlete” i.e. somone who would have a similarly very long reign. Also that JP2 was a uniquely saintly man and we should not expect to find anyone like him. I think these are more likely interpretations of the Cardinal’s comment.

 

[JReducation]

I looked up the oath initially taken by the College of Cardinals at its first meeting following the death of a pope, as stipulated in Universi Dominici Gregis:That doesn’t seem to prohibit campaigning. I recall one cardinal said something like “The Church shouldn’t be looking for another John Paul” during a homily that was reported by the press. Now maybe he was just trying to help the faithful come to terms with the fact that **the next pontiff wouldn’t be a former Polish actor who enjoys skiing. ** The reporters, however, took it as a statement against Cardinal Ratzinger.

Apparently the cardinal had been at odds with Ratzinger on some issues in the past, so this seemed like a fair interpretation. It may also be that the cardinal had discussed his preferences for the direction of the Church and the next pope in previous months, before taking any oath of secrecy at the Conclave.

The bold is mine. I wish you would refrain from making statements like this. There was much more to the John Paul II. He was an excellent theologian and philosopher. He was one of the best youth ministers in the papacy. He increased the number of religious orders in the Church to almost double by approving over 100 orders of brothers around the world, because he was afraid that the number of brothers was at a dangerous low and the Church could not exist without brohters and erected more than that in orders of sisters. He was convinced that without consecrated religoius men and women, the Church’s spiritual life was doomed.

He negotiated a preaceful conclusion the the Communist hold on Eastern Eurpe. He rewrote Canon Law, which has been in progress since Pius XII and was never finished. He expidited canonizations that were pending for years. He wrote some of the greatest works of contemporary Mystical Theology in the 20th century. He opened the doors for dialogue between Muslims and Catholics and Jews and Catholics. He lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox and got them to lift the excommunication against us.

It was he who authorized Cardinal Ratzinger to take over the priest abuse investigations, because the traditional system was too slow and ineffective. Cardinal Ratzinger could not do what he did without John Paul’s permission. Also John Paul changed the rules for suspending and excommunicating clergy. He made it less cumbersome.

He eliminated Liberation theology from seminaries and novitiates in Latin American. He negotiated a treaty between the Vatican and the United States. Prior to him the Vatican did not recognize the government of the USA and the USA did not recognize the govt of the Vatican. The Vatican referred to the govt of the USA as the American Heressy.

Aside from all of this, the Church has recognized that he lived a heroic life of Christian virtue and is worthy of veneration for his holiness.

Yes, he was an actor and an athlete. Benedict XVI was a teacher and a musician. John XXIII was a historian and a diplomat. Paul VI was a lawyer. Julius was an artist and Gregory was an astronomer. Pope are not born popes. They have histories like everyone else. That have personalities, likes and dislikes. They have different skills.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Digitonomy]

The bold is mine. I wish you would refrain from making statements like this. There was much more to the John Paul II.

I hope no one has misunderstood my post. My intention was not to minimize John Paul’s accomplishments, which we all agree were many. Instead, I was trying to make light of a simplistic interpretation of the cardinal’s remarks. A ridiculously reductionist description of the former pontiff was something no one would take seriously, and I hoped readers would see how turning a blind eye to deeper meaning in the cardinal’s homily was likewise naive.

 

[manygift1spirit]

The bold is mine. I wish you would refrain from making statements like this.

I understand your concern but think you may have misinterpreted that post. I took it as a speculation to why the Cardinal said not to expect another John Paul. He was putting speculative words in the Cardninal’s mouth, much like my comment about being a globetrotter.

Perhaps a better way to make the original point would have been to say we won’t be getting a carbon copy of John Paul. This allows everyone to see their own image of what he was. But I think there was nothing uncharitable about that actual statement.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for the clarification. I feel better. Sorry if I offended.

No you cannot get a clone of any pope. They are all very unique men with their own personality, gifts, and agendas. I mean agenda in the good sense. I believe that what happens is that each pope brings an agenda not only according to the needs of the Church at that moment, but also according to his strengths. There is no need to take on a problem that you don’t know how to solve or a ministry for which you’re not cut out.

Benedict has taken on orthodoxy, because that’s his strength. His the consummate professor. Even when he preaches, he teaches. However, it’s very obvious that he does not feel relaxed around youth. He is very kind to them and appreciates their attention. But youth ministry is not his thing. Thus we don’t hear him speak too much about religious and priestly vocations to the young people. Whe he does, he is very brief.

John Paul, was the peitome of a youth minister. He felt comfortable with the young. Had spent many years as a youth minister. He felt very comfortable promoting vocations to the priesthood, sisterhood and brotherhood among the young. Thanks to him, many new religious orders were founded and many older orders began to reform their way of life. Also many seminaries began to get vocations after being ghost towns duing the 1970s and 1980s. The priests, brothers and sisters of the John Paul II generation, as my order calls our younger men, are great guys.

Before him we had Paul VI who was the great lawyer. Paul was the person who began the rescript of Canon Law. He died before it was finished. John Paul II signed the finished version. But Paul VI is the brain behind much of what’s in the new code and what was taken out. He was a lawyers by profession. This was the strength that he brought to the papacy. The laws of 1917 were obsolete or very confusing. They did not address many modern issues. They had to be reworked.

I believe that every pope has been given a mission by the Holy Spirit, even if it’s just to drive the Church bananas for a while to test our patience.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF