Papal candidates - Short List?

[GraceSofia]

He said an American would be too influenced by the American value of Wall St

Sheesh. How insulting. I doubt a Capuchin friar cares about Wall Street.

 

[Brendan_64]

Thank you for this. It has become more than a bit tiresome to me.

I’m simply drawing attention to the Catechism of or Church in relation to assertions by some posters (who brought it up in the first place) that the Church is somehow opposed to Socialism. If you don’t like it, then don’t read or reply to it.

 

[CMatt25]

Heard on one of the papal preference websites Turkson is a favorite among the public. I wonder if because of his interest in ecumenism with his mother and uncle having Methodist and Islamic backgrounds. And with his interest in economic social justice. I know at the last Catholic Mass I attended, which was celebrated by a priest also from Ghana, we were led in prayer intentions for government to help the poor. At the same time a Turkson election would not be threatening to those cardinals most concerned with abortion and SS marriage matters.

 

[CMatt25]

That would probably be in terms of doctrinal and liturgical reform.

Cardinal Scola is very conservative on doctrine, but progressive on social policy. Which would, in my opinion, make a very good balance for a Pope wanting to stand firm to our core doctrine and liturgy, but at the same time actively promote Catholic teaching on social issues (poverty etc.). Cardinal Scola is also very open to constructive dialogue with Islam, which in today’s climate can only be a good thing.

Brendan, how would he differ from Turkson? They sound similar in that case.

 

[CMatt25]

Sheesh. How insulting. I doubt a Capuchin friar cares about Wall Street.

You do realize it was the spokeman for Catholics United who made the statement which I merely passed along. I was not being insulting.

 

[Elizabeth502]

An Italian reporter today on CNN said Dolan and O’Malley seem to have support of reformers and Scola of the non reformers. Not sure what he meant by reform.

You sure you weren’t watching MSNBC? (Those comments, as well as the rest of yours, were on the MSNBC program I watched.)

What I understand by “reform” is a matter of both emphasis in content (issues of Church concern, as well as theological emphases) and style or approach. “Ways of doing things,” including the pace and bureaucracy and openness of that, would be included in style.

Naturally it’s not a matter of doctrine, but more of communication.

A spokeman for the organization, Catholics United, said however an American pope would not necessarily be the best choice for reform. He said an American would be too influenced by the American value of Wall St

I agree with this, and also agree with certain other negatives of "Americanism.’

and that the Church needs to spend more time on matters such as the poor and climate change. Less time on contraception and SS marriage. No doubt this forum disagrees.

And that would include me in the disagreement. The secular world is speaking plenty, and sometimes effectively, on climate change, although less so, and less consistently so, on the poor. However, the secular world is also speaking extremely forcefully and manipulatively on SS marriage, with insuffiicent opposition. No way should the Church back down on this, or muffle its voice in the slightest.

 

[Brendan_64]

Brendan, how would he differ from Turkson? They sound similar in that case.

There are similarities in terms of being doctrinally conservative and progressive on social policy.

However I think Cardinal Turkson shot himself in the foot with his comment that child abuse by the clergy was less in Africa, because society they didn’t tolerate gay people there. The Church should (and does) welcome all types of people, homosexual’s included.

 

[CMatt25]

You sure you weren’t watching MSNBC? (Those comments, as well as the rest of yours, were on the MSNBC program I watched.)

I agree with this, and also agree with certain other negatives of "Americanism.’

And that would include me in the disagreement.

You could be right on that one, Elizabeth. I watch both CNN and MSNBC among the cable news networks. Switching back and forth. And today I found my channel surfing to be at an unusually frequent pace. So indeed I could have had MSNBC on at those moments. I even went to EWTN at one point but it was going to be a half hr before they covered Vatican news and then I forgot about it. Once in awhile I even switch to FOX News to get their perspective. But when I did today, they weren’t covering the papal conclave when I had them on.

Did you catch Chris Jansing refer to the Holy Spirit’s role in her live report? Is she with MSNBC?

Your disagreement with the Catholics United spokeman doesn’t surprise me.

 

[CMatt25]

There are similarities in terms of being doctrinally conservative and progressive on social policy.

However I think Cardinal Turkson shot himself in the foot with his comment that child abuse by the clergy was less in Africa, because society they didn’t tolerate gay people there. The Church should (and does) welcome all types of people, homosexual’s included.

Good point.

 

[RobbyS]

That is a matter of opinion, your opinion. The fact is that the Church is not opposed to Socialism per se, but rather the atheism and totalitarianism that is associated with certain forms of “socialism”. Whether or not you think that Socialism has many bad exemplars (or even if it has) is not the issue. Democratic Socialism, as seen in the Labour movement in the UK, Europe, and elsewhere (even in the USA) is NOT condemned by the Church. So long as Socialism is not atheistic or totalitarian in nature, the Church has no issue with it.

CCC 2425 also states “A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable”. I don’t know, but I have met some very ‘successful’ capitalists who do in fact appear to regard profit as the exclusive and ultimate end of economic activity. I think that it was this issue that Cardinal Tagle was addressing during his sermon in Quebec.

It is a bit tiresome when people try to imply that somehow the Church is naturally aligned with the Right. The fact is that the Church is aligned with neither the Right or the Left.

There is no “socialism per se.” that is not hostile to religion. Ditto, the laissez faire liberalism that animated the actions of the Liberals in German and Italy in the 19th century, because EACH reduces men to economic animals. The pope have taken on “comsumerism,” but this is pushed by socialist governments as much as governments dominated by business interests. The idea that human happiness is determined by their material well-being, is however, an integral part of socialist government. Just look at the actions of the present French government. At bottom is a long tradition of anti-clericalism and irreligion reaching back to the French Revolution. Pope Leo in his encyclicals sought to come to terms with the modern world, but in his approach to socialism and to liberalism, said neither. He furthermore rejected the aggressiveness the modern state, who tolerated no rivals for its affection. He did so, however, with a realistic appreciation of the power of national government, which had the ability to destroy the freedom of the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Did you catch Chris Jansing refer to the Holy Spirit’s role in her live report? Is she with MSNBC?.

She is with MSBNC, yes.

As to Catholics United, I did not say I entirely disagree with them. I disagree with everything they happened to say today, except for their mention of the poor, which I do think the Church should be more vocal about, but not at the expense of the other doctrinal issues (it doesn’t have to be), nor in some kind of formulaic response. I would prefer that the Church focus on religion/governmental alliance in addressing issues of poverty, because in Third World regions, this is what has proven to be most effective. When gov’t and religion are at odds or merely not cooperating, the poor are ineffectively served, and individuals get the impression that “government is taking care of it.” (Often not!)

 

[Tigg]

He (Pope Leo) did so, however, with a realistic appreciation of the power of national government, which had the ability to destroy the freedom of the Church.

…which, as we see today, it is ardently trying to do.

May our new pontiff be ever wise as to the hidden agendas of governments.

 

[_Abyssinia]

When Benedict XVl retired, there was a lot of talk about Cardinal Tagle or Cardinal Turkston’s chances being high for either to become Pope and that talk has dissipated and opinion now seems to neither have a major chance. What happened?

 

[Brendan_64]

When Benedict XVl retired, there was a lot of talk about Cardinal Tagle or Cardinal Turkston’s chances being high for either to become Pope and that talk has dissipated and opinion now seems to neither have a major chance. What happened?

Nothing has happened. Nobody knows what is going on in the Sistine Chapel apart from the Cardinals there. It’s all media speculation based on nothing more than reporters hunches.

 

[CMatt25]

As to Catholics United, I did not say I entirely disagree with them. I disagree with everything they happened to say today, except for their mention of the poor, which I do think the Church should be more vocal about, but not at the expense of the other doctrinal issues (it doesn’t have to be), nor in some kind of formulaic response.

Okay well what they said today is what was referenced.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Okay well what they said today is what was referenced.

No. Refer back to your own post (i.e., “what was referenced”). You included attention to the poor (by Catholics United). I am addressing that.

 

[CMatt25]

No. Refer back to your own post (i.e., “what was referenced”). You included attention to the poor (by Catholics United). I am addressing that.

Yes. I included that because it was one of the things said today. And refer back to your own post where you said you disagreed with everything they had to say today except that. Certainly not worth any more of my time arguing with you over what you said though.

 

[Elizabeth502]

A spokeman for the organization, Catholics United, said however an American pope would not necessarily be the best choice for reform. **He said an American would be too influenced by the American value of Wall St and that the Church needs to spend more time on matters such as the poor **and climate change. Less time on contraception and SS marriage. No doubt this forum disagrees.

I agree with this…

The secular world is speaking plenty, and sometimes effectively, on climate change, although less so, and less consistently so, on the poor.

As to Catholics United, I did not say I entirely disagree with them. I disagree with everything they happened to say today, except for their mention of the poor, which I do think the Church should be more vocal about, but not at the expense of the other doctrinal issues (it doesn’t have to be), nor in some kind of formulaic response. I would prefer that the Church focus on religion/governmental alliance in addressing issues of poverty, because in Third World regions, this is what has proven to be most effective. When gov’t and religion are at odds or merely not cooperating, the poor are ineffectively served, and individuals get the impression that “government is taking care of it.” (Often not!)

Refer back to your own post (i.e., “what was referenced”). You included attention to the poor (by Catholics United). I am addressing that.

^ As anyone can plainly see, there is no contest here. I have been clear. And the issue of poverty is ironically one that CMatt keeps preaching on, yet when another CAF’er affirms the need for the Church to care for the poor, he dismisses the poster and denies the poster’s position, because of other issues he disagrees with the poster on. It comes across as frankly petty.

Again:
The Church’s need to address the problems of the poor is a signficant and major issue. It’s a Gospel issue and an ecclesial issue.

 

[CMatt25]

^ As anyone can plainly see, there is no contest here. I have been clear. And the issue of poverty is ironically one that CMatt keeps preaching on, yet when another CAF’er affirms the need for the Church to care for the poor, he dismisses the poster and denies the poster’s position, because of other issues he disagrees with the poster on. It comes across as frankly petty.

Again:
The Church’s need to address the problems of the poor is a signficant and major issue. It’s a Gospel issue and an ecclesial issue.

Oh my goodness. You said and I quote that you “disagree with everything they happened to say today, except for their mention of the poor”. All I had said and I quote, “your disagreement with the Catholics United spokeman doesn’t surprise me.” You had said you disagreed with everything else they said today. And it turns into this huge thing. That’s what I find petty. But as you wish Elizabeth. In any case if it makes you feel better, I affirm your position of the Church needing to care for the poor.

 

[LisaA]

When Benedict XVl retired, there was a lot of talk about Cardinal Tagle or Cardinal Turkston’s chances being high for either to become Pope and that talk has dissipated and opinion now seems to neither have a major chance. What happened?

Listening to George Wiegel now. Cardinal Tagle was brought up when he wasn’t on Weigel’s short list. He thinks Cardinal Tagle is too young at 55 to be seriously considered.

No comment yet regarding Cardinal Turkson.

Lisa