Papal candidates - Short List?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mh2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cardinal Tagle would be fine with me from what I know of him, we can always change our mind, I admire the Catholic Faith displayed by many from the Philippines. And I will add in an observation I made prior on this threads, on those giving odds in one article, they did not even list an Asian. But of course, that is the Secular world.
 
Just my two cents but I understand the appeal to a certain segment of the Church.
Lisa
Indeed, we will all have to just wait and see.

However caring for the poor of our world, does require a fairer world in terms of distribution of resources. Resources are unfairly distributed at the moment, very much so. Some of us have so much, while others on this planet have nothing. Do we (the privileged few) really deserve all the vast wealth we have when a great many more people go hungry through no fault of their own? There are far more people in the world living in complete poverty than there are people who have plenty. This situation is only going to get worse with a rising global population. A fairer world requires having the resources of our world distributed in a fairer way. You cannot redistribute resources without those that have the most ending up with considerably less, to enable those who have least to end up with more.

Anyway, we shall wait and see, and no doubt any of the cardinals who get chosen as our new Pope we will take to our hearts very quickly, as we always do. The Holy Spirit doesn’t make mistakes when it comes to choosing our Pope.
 
Indeed, we will all have to just wait and see.

However caring for the poor of our world, does require a fairer world in terms of distribution of resources. Resources are unfairly distributed at the moment, very much so. Some of us have so much, while others on this planet have nothing. Do we (the privileged few) really deserve all the vast wealth we have when a great many more people go hungry through no fault of their own? There are far more people in the world living in complete poverty than there are people who have plenty. This situation is only going to get worse with a rising global population. A fairer world requires having the resources of our world distributed in a fairer way. You cannot redistribute resources without those that have the most ending up with considerably less, to enable those who have least to end up with more.
So is it your position that the primary duty of the new Pope is to end world poverty?
 
Indeed, we will all have to just wait and see.

However caring for the poor of our world, does require a fairer world in terms of distribution of resources. Resources are unfairly distributed at the moment, very much so. Some of us have so much, while others on this planet have nothing. Do we (the privileged few) really deserve all the vast wealth we have when a great many more people go hungry through no fault of their own? There are far more people in the world living in complete poverty than there are people who have plenty. This situation is only going to get worse with a rising global population. A fairer world requires having the resources of our world distributed in a fairer way. You cannot redistribute resources without those that have the most ending up with considerably less, to enable those who have least to end up with more.

Anyway, we shall wait and see, and no doubt any of the cardinals who get chosen as our new Pope we will take to our hearts very quickly, as we always do. The Holy Spirit doesn’t make mistakes when it comes to choosing our Pope.
If you look at the world you will find that the “unfair” distribution of blessings is mostly the result of corrupt governments, not the greediness of the wealthy countries. Please acquaint yourself with some of the “side by side” comparisons. One country is prosperous with property rights and freedom. The country next door which shares the various geographical characteristics and natural resources is mired in poverty, the people are not free, a tiny elite controls the power and the resources. North and South Korea for an easy example. But you can look at the misery in Africa and it is not a result of greedy Americans or Europeans.

So while the Pope is the leader of the Church and must present our message of “good news for the poor,” marshall its own resources, personnal and the faithful to fulfill their duties, he cannot change the political realities on this earth. His real mission is the salvation of souls, not regime change in various countries.

Lisa
 
So is it your position that the primary duty of the new Pope is to end world poverty?
Not necessarily his prime duty, but pushing rigorously to have a fairer, more socially just world would seem to be very compatible with Catholic social teaching (as highlighted in Mater et Magistra, Gaudiun et Specs etc.) A Pope with a particular emphasis on this aspect of Catholic teaching would indeed be a great blessing,
 
Not necessarily his prime duty, but pushing rigorously to have a fairer, more socially just world would seem to be very compatible with Catholic social teaching (as highlighted in Mater et Magistra, Gaudiun et Specs etc.) A Pope with a particular emphasis on this aspect of Catholic teaching would indeed be a great blessing,
Yes, if that could work. But a lot of the Secularists are for Population Control and do you realize that even what you wrote could be seen by some as wanting a one world government? Now, I don’t want to put words in your mouth. All I am saying is that another Cardinal has been questioned concerning some statements he has made. It was likewise questioned as to whether that was your “Liberation Theology.”
…but pushing rigorously to have a fairer, more socially just world would seem to be very compatible with Catholic social teaching
But on the other hand, perhaps that is why a Cardinal from a developing nation could be helpful in this regard. We all know how poor so many are in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

It’s just what some people are cautious of. Yes, Christ wants us to help the poor, Christ may have been poor himself but all of the Cardinals should have this love for the poor and Catholic charities and hospitals already help millions of poor around the world every day and they feed the hungry as well.
 
Not necessarily his prime duty, but pushing rigorously to have a fairer, more socially just world would seem to be very compatible with Catholic social teaching (as highlighted in Mater et Magistra, Gaudiun et Specs etc.) A Pope with a particular emphasis on this aspect of Catholic teaching would indeed be a great blessing,
Thank you for responding. Would it be perfectly fine with you, then, if he prioritized Catholic social teaching over the virtual disappearance of Catholicism in most of Western Europe, and over the bleeding of Latin American populations into evangelical Protestantism, and over the deep divisions within the American Catholic Church, and over the increasingly visible heterodoxy in Canada, and over the yet-not-consolidated policies on addressing management of sexual abuse allegations (past, present, future), and over the disastrous global state of Catholic catechesis, by which more than half of baptized Catholics believe that “anything goes” in Catholicism?
 
It’s not an either/or, it’s both doctrine AND social justice. You can’t have one without the other, no matter what the politicians tell you.
 
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s encyclical on God is Love is very helpfu on the role of the Church and the role of the state. The state cannot dispense charity because there is never human love between the state and the citizen. The state can never take the place of the Church because there is never an end to the need for love…for charity. I thought this paragraph was particularly helpful:

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

I don’t know if Cardinal Tagle or any other cardinal truly sees the Church as a political power to bring about “one world order” or a “just society.” But as Elizabeth502 noted, there are far more critical issues facing us that the Church and only the Church can address. I don’t think there is the time, finances or will to change political order in the world.

Lisa
 
It’s not an either/or, it’s both doctrine AND social justice. You can’t have one without the other, no matter what the politicians tell you.
#1 - Is your username Brendan? (Didnt’ think so. ;))

#2 - nothing in my Reply said anything about “either/or.” The poster, not you, was asked about his own priorities in a Pope. I’m still waiting for his – nor your 😉 – answer.
 
#1 - Is your username Brendan? (Didnt’ think so. ;))

#2 - nothing in my Reply said anything about “either/or.” The poster, not you, was asked about his own priorities in a Pope. I’m still waiting for his – nor your 😉 – answer.
Oh Please, CoJuanco has good posts, I’ve been reading them and I’m not sure I agree with all of them, but let’s be civil. Let’s be polite, this is a forum, not a dialogue… that can be had in private messages.

Okay, so CoJuanco’s post may have been to me. I’ll take it.

Give me time to think on that!
 
It’s not an either/or, it’s both doctrine AND social justice. You can’t have one without the other, no matter what the politicians tell you.
Post #439 seems to address this.

It’s really an involved question, it’s something whole books are written on actually.
 
Pope Gregory XIV released a bull in 1591 imposing excommunication on Catholics who bet on the papal election. It was abrogated by the reforms of Benedict XV in the early 20th century with his new canon law, but never officially. On top of that the Archbishop of Westminster forbid Catholics from participating in betting on the 1978 papal elections of John Paul I and John Paul II because it was so widespread and scandalous.
Whenever new canon law comes in NOTHING from the old canon law stands. So, unless the excommunication was SPECIFICALLY reiterated in the new canon law it was abrogated - ie: no longer holds as law.

And unless a person is in the Archdiocese of Westminster then it doesn’t matter what the Archbishops of Westminster say.
 
Post #439 seems to address this.

It’s really an involved question, it’s something whole books are written on actually.
Well, of course it is.

The thing is, all of the Church’s teachings are part of a cohesive whole. For example, I think that life and marriage and family issues are an integral part of Social Justice (as defined by our Church, of course - no-one here is a Marxist), as with the preferential option for the poor, being responsible stewards of our environment, and so on.

Thus CST to the secular political mind can appear leftist or rightist, depending on the issue. This is especially true in America, where you see this split among advocates of CST. Maybe it has to do with the influence militant, anticlerical secularism and some varieties of Protestantism (no offense intended to our separated bretheren) has on politics. Contrary to what our media personalities advocate, the free market is not an untrammeled good, not even our model here in America (what is Planned Parenthood, after all, but industralists run amok?)

As to Lisa’s comments on regime change, priests and prelates have done that or attempted to through the ages, from Thomas Becket in England, to Bl. John Paul II in Poland, to Cardinal Sin in, yes, the Philippines. If that’s what the next Pope, whoever he is, does that, he’ll be in a long, authentically Catholic tradition.

BTW, it’s Cojuanco. One word, not two. It should actually be spelled Cojuangco, but I misspelled it a long time ago and it’s not my penname. 🙂
 
Well, of course it is.

The thing is, all of the Church’s teachings are part of a cohesive whole. For example, I think that life and marriage and family issues are an integral part of Social Justice (as defined by our Church, of course - no-one here is a Marxist), as with the preferential option for the poor, being responsible stewards of our environment, and so on.

As to Lisa’s comments on regime change, priests and prelates have done that or attempted to through the ages, from Thomas Becket in England, to Bl. John Paul II in Poland, to Cardinal Sin in, yes, the Philippines. If that’s what the next Pope, whoever he is, does that, he’ll be in a long, authentically Catholic tradition.

BTW, it’s Cojuanco. One word, not two. It should actually be spelled Cojuangco, but I misspelled it a long time ago and it’s not my penname. 🙂
Yes but Blessed John Paul II effected political change in the way Pope Emeritus Benedict noted. Not by interfering, redistributing, or getting involved with elections, but instead:

She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

The direction of this thread with respect to CST, Liberation Theology etc was with respect to what SOUNDED like a very aggressive approach to top down “social justice” class warfare and ginning up envy and resentment. I don’t think that is truly what is meant by wanting social justice.

Lisa
 
Yes but Blessed John Paul II effected political change in the way Pope Emeritus Benedict noted. Not by interfering, redistributing, or getting involved with elections, but instead:

She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

The direction of this thread with respect to CST, Liberation Theology etc was with respect to what SOUNDED like a very aggressive approach to top down “social justice” class warfare and ginning up envy and resentment. I don’t think that is truly what is meant by wanting social justice.

Lisa
Social justice is not class warfare, no matter what Barack Obama or Rush Limbaugh thinks it means. If anything, it is class collaboration. And nothing in this thread should be taken to support Liberation Theology. Involvment in politics, yes, but even in this country our bishops are the same (see the citizenship guides, the Fortnight for Freedom, the referendum in Minnesota).
 
Thank you for responding. Would it be perfectly fine with you, then, if he prioritized Catholic social teaching over the virtual disappearance of Catholicism in most of Western Europe, and over the bleeding of Latin American populations into evangelical Protestantism, and over the deep divisions within the American Catholic Church, and over the increasingly visible heterodoxy in Canada, and over the yet-not-consolidated policies on addressing management of sexual abuse allegations (past, present, future), and over the disastrous global state of Catholic catechesis, by which more than half of baptized Catholics believe that “anything goes” in Catholicism?
I am picking up what you are laying down there girlfirend. 😉 Them my priorities.
 
Social justice is not class warfare, no matter what Barack Obama or Rush Limbaugh thinks it means. If anything, it is class collaboration. And nothing in this thread should be taken to support Liberation Theology. Involvment in politics, yes, but even in this country our bishops are the same (see the citizenship guides, the Fortnight for Freedom, the referendum in Minnesota).
Given that I don’t listen to EITHER Obama or Limbaugh, I don’t know what they believe about social justice. The problem with that term is the many interpretations. For example our Social Justice Committee thought it was essential to pass out squiggly lightbulbs as a priority…let’s just say their “social justice” is very green. For others ‘social justice’ has a strong redistributive bent. This is the concern I had with respect to (at least!) one of the potential Popes. There is a segment of Catholicism that is very much Liberation Theology, Redistributiive, Class Warfare in focus. Father Pflager ring a bell? He is an ally of Jeremiah Wright and sadly I thought one of the Cardinals sounded a LOT more like Jeremiah Wright than Blessed John Paul II or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

It might be helpful to hear your definition of social justice. In my experience it’s not consistent in the Church or even within a Parish.

Lisa
 
Just redirecting the office of the papacy back to the Catechism definition…

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

Implied in that would naturally be adherence to the Gospels (and Catholic social teaching). However, his primary duty is to care for a Church united and universal, not more specifically or more preferentially a Third World Church.

From papacy to papacy, various popes have discerned their primary or most urgent roles differently, as times indicated. Naturally none of us knows what the new Pope will prioritize, but it is extremely doubtful that social justice in the Third World will be the first order of business. Any leader tends to tackle first the tasks in an organization which most threaten the survival or health of that (secular or religious) organization. I think it’s therefore safe to assume that Day One or Week One or even Month One will not include an address about social justice in the Third World, or any published agenda regarding that.

While serving social justice also has the potential to evangelize (!), do not assume that religions to which some 3rd-world citizens are turning are necessarily aiding the poor. Perhaps some are, but many are not. And the cold hard fact is that, while every head of every organization will seek to fulfill the organization’s mission/ideals (and that includes the Church, naturally), unless not prioritizing social justice is what is explicitly causing attrition of members (that isn’t what seems to be causing it – not in Africa, not in Latin America, not in the States anyway), then the head of an organization is more likely to try to plug up other holes so that he can prevent progress toward a Titanic.

Relative to Church fidelity and identification/loyalty, Europe is seen as much more of a crisis point than is the Third World, at least at present.

In addition, every leader of every organization needs to address internal strife, particularly if it’s near the top of the organization and thus threatens the efficiency of the very head. Apparently (I’m no Vatican expert, but some experts have written & spoken about this), there is strife in the upper echelons of the Vatican, which would profit from either merely a firm hand & confident administrator, or specifically a ‘Vatican Insider’ who gets the way it works.

Every new leader also seeks to ensure that he is in control and perceived as in control by the body as a whole. Thus, attention to divisions within the episcopacy, and perceived “independence” (of some bishops) from Rome, might be something a new Pope will priortize as well. A Church unfied cannot be achieved if there are competing messages coming from middle management. Separately (but relating to order), the U.S. is the highest profile country in the globe. Therefore, the messages, events, & publicity proceeding from the American Catholic Church have an imbalanced impact on the Church Universal, versus, for example, the larger and generally more homogeneous Church of Latin America. That is why I do not think that addressing dissension within the American Church will be the lowest priority of the new Pope, if he hopes to be an effective leader for the whole Church.

Finally, every organization benefits from all its members, or most of them, being very clear about the purposes of the organization and supporting those purposes – being aware of what the purposes are, being aware of facts about the organization. Correspondingly, every organization is hurt by (weakened by) its members being ignorant of the core message(s) of the organization. While the Church is gaining in some regions, it is losing at a faster rate in other regions, and it is virtually losing members when ignorance results in disloyalty or lukewarm membership (such as in the States). Therefore, I believe that both catechesis and evangelization together (they are interdependent anyway) will be one of the priorities of the new Pope.

Haha, just my worthless two cents… 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top