The Pope's mixed signals

[fcgv]

The Pope’s mixed signals

Michael Walsh

A minor feature of Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the United States on 15-20 April 2008 was to highlight the awkwardness of George W Bush. The embattled president had already defied protocol by meeting the pontiff at the airport on his arrival, and then compounded embarrassment by hosting a party to celebrate Benedict’s 81st birthday, only to find that the Pope was otherwise engaged (though several Vatican functionaries turned up to represent him, thus to some degree saving Bush’s face).
Yet the “warmth of feeling for the Pope was tangible, and so was the good chemistry between the Pope and President George Bush”, remarked Michael Novak, the neo-conservative Catholic commentator in an interview for the rightwing Catholic news service Zenit. Indeed, the Pope’s reception in the US, on the streets as well as on the White House lawn, was warm and generous. Novak, as is his wont, contrasted the US response to what might be expected of Europeans whom he sees as cooler towards the papacy, and irredeemably more secular.

isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=18912

 

[Philothea53]

The Pope’s mixed signals

Michael Walsh

A minor feature of Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the United States on 15-20 April 2008 was to highlight the awkwardness of George W Bush. The embattled president had already defied protocol by meeting the pontiff at the airport on his arrival, and then compounded embarrassment by hosting a party to celebrate Benedict’s 81st birthday, only to find that the Pope was otherwise engaged (though several Vatican functionaries turned up to represent him, thus to some degree saving Bush’s face).
Yet the “warmth of feeling for the Pope was tangible, and so was the good chemistry between the Pope and President George Bush”, remarked Michael Novak, the neo-conservative Catholic commentator in an interview for the rightwing Catholic news service Zenit. Indeed, the Pope’s reception in the US, on the streets as well as on the White House lawn, was warm and generous. Novak, as is his wont, contrasted the US response to what might be expected of Europeans whom he sees as cooler towards the papacy, and irredeemably more secular.

isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=18912

And your point is?

 

[fcgv]

And your point is?

No point? Does one have to have a “point” in sharing an interesting article???

 

[Brendan]

The Pope’s mixed signals

Michael Walsh

A minor feature of Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the United States on 15-20 April 2008 was to highlight the awkwardness of George W Bush. The embattled president had already defied protocol by meeting the pontiff at the airport on his arrival, and then compounded embarrassment by hosting a party to celebrate Benedict’s 81st birthday, only to find that the Pope was otherwise engaged (though several Vatican functionaries turned up to represent him, thus to some degree saving Bush’s face).

Huh?

When the schedule was being devised, The Vatican made it clear from day one that the Pope was not going to be any State Dinner (Pope Benedict does not dine in public) It was hardly a surprise to anyone. So no ‘face’ needed to be ‘saved’.

And as far as meeting the Pope at the airport, that was an additional mark of honor being shown to the Pope by the President.

While Pres. Bush had never met another Head of State at the airport before, Ronald Regan met Pope John Paul at the airport, so it was hardly without precident

 

[Titus]

Huh?

When the schedule was being devised, The Vatican made it clear from day one that the Pope was not going to be any State Dinner (Pope Benedict does not dine in public) It was hardly a surprise to anyone. So no ‘face’ needed to be ‘saved’.

Why does His Holiness never dine in public?

 

[b_justb]

the neo-conservative Catholic commentator in an interview for the rightwing Catholic news service Zenit

Wow, that’s a mighty strong line for a “news” story

 

[Muzhik]

Why does His Holiness never dine in public?

I believe it’s a tradition left over from when the Pope truly was a “prisoner of the Vatican.” During the Wars of Unification, the new Italian republic confiscated all Vatican property outside of Rome. In protest, the Pope did not leave the Vatican; and when a new Pope was elected, he entered the Vatican never to leave. This situation remained until the Concordat was signed with Mussolini, returning some Papal land (including Castel Gandalfo) and recognizing the Vatican State as a separate country. However, the tradition remains that the Pope never dines in public.

<><

 

[JReducation]

Acually, popes, not jus this one, never dine with heads of state. Politically, this practice could be very compromising. That’s the nuncio’s job.

JR

 

[Harmony1988]

This Pope not dining in public and these irrational traditions are one of the things that keep adding to the ‘other traditions’ which conflict with scripture and get people to go away from the faith.

Jesus ate publicly with a lot of people and so did St. Peter. I can understand that the Pope would not wish to host a gala dinner, because millions would turn up and he’d probably get assassinated, but seriously…there is plenty of protection in the white house and it’s not like they are going to stare at him while he is eating.

 

[JReducation]

This Pope not dining in public and these irrational traditions are one of the things that keep adding to the ‘other traditions’ which conflict with scripture and get people to go away from the faith.

Jesus ate publicly with a lot of people and so did St. Peter. I can understand that the Pope would not wish to host a gala dinner, because millions would turn up and he’d probably get assassinated, but seriously…there is plenty of protection in the white house and it’s not like they are going to stare at him while he is eating.

Harmony, you missed what I said in post 8. Popes have not dined with Heads of State of Heads of Government for a very long time, because it’s politically compromising. Imagine the Pope having dinner at the White House and not Having Dinner with Fidel Castro in Cuba or the with Prime Minister of Israel. That would be very bad for the Church.

JR

 

[Eden]

Well, that’s interesting to know. I didn’t realize the Pope didn’t dine in public. Maybe there is a practical side to that, as well. His white cassock and mozzetta make for a powerful presence, but there is really little room for error when dining all in white!

 

[duskyjewel]

Yet the “warmth of feeling for the Pope was tangible, and so was the good chemistry between the Pope and President George Bush”, remarked Michael Novak, the neo-conservative Catholic commentator in an interview for the rightwing Catholic news service Zenit. Indeed, the Pope’s reception in the US, on the streets as well as on the White House lawn, was warm and generous.

This was what stood out to me. Bush is a Protestant, yet was warm, friendly, and welcoming to the Pope. He had nothing but good things to say about the Pontiff. And then there were people calling themselves Catholics picketing his appearances and screaming epithets…

Kudos to Bush.

 

[JReducation]

This was what stood out to me. Bush is a Protestant, yet was warm, friendly, and welcoming to the Pope. He had nothing but good things to say about the Pontiff. And then there were people calling themselves Catholics picketing his appearances and screaming epithets…

Kudos to Bush.

I don’t want to take anything away from Mr. Bush. He was all that was gracious to the Holy Father. But we must also remember that since the diplomatic relationship between the Vatican and the USA were re-established, every President has been more than gracious, Mr. Reagan, Mr. Clinton and now Mr. Bush II.

I believe that it is important for the United States to keep in mind that Catholics make up a large part of the constituency of this nation. We are no longer an insignificant minority. We have numbers and we have economic influence, which our parents did not have. Many of our Catholic anscestors were very poor, but such is no longer the case today. Most Catholics are middle class.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Well, that’s interesting to know. I didn’t realize the Pope didn’t dine in public. Maybe there is a practical side to that, as well. His white cassock and mozzetta make for a powerful presence, but there is really little room for error when dining all in white!

Now you made me laugh. The Pope only wears this outfit when on duty. Like all secular European priests, popes wear other clothing. He’s not a religious; therefore, the Dominican robe is not his habit. It’s a custom.

JR

 

[consumedconvert]

Now you made me laugh. The Pope only wears this outfit when on duty. Like all secular European priests, popes wear other clothing. He’s not a religious; therefore, the Dominican robe is not his habit. It’s a custom.

JR

Actually I recall reading an interview with the Pope’s personal secretary (can remember his face but not the name–he was always at his side in the US), who live in his residence. He said this pope almost always wears his cassock.

Don’t ask me to cite the article, I can’t remember!

 

[JReducation]

Actually I recall reading an interview with the Pope’s personal secretary (can remember his face but not the name–he was always at his side in the US), who live in his residence. He said this pope almost always wears his cassock.

Don’t ask me to cite the article, I can’t remember!

LOL

Don’t worry, I won’t ask you to cite an article on such a minor thing. I think that people love citations on every detail. It’s almost an obsession on CAF.

As to the wearing of the cassock, as you said, Benedict almost always wears it. It’s really his call. There is no rule about it.

I was just pointing out that fact. I suddenly remembered something silly, but funny. When John Paul was pope his ordered that a swimming pool be built at the summer residence, Gandolfo. The finance committe said that it would be too expensive.

John Paul had been told by his doctors to keep up his exercise. So he answered, “Electing a Pope would be more expensive.”

I don’t think he wore white swimming trunks.

JR

 

[consumedconvert]

LOL

Don’t worry, I won’t ask you to cite an article on such a minor thing. I think that people love citations on every detail. It’s almost an obsession on CAF.

As to the wearing of the cassock, as you said, Benedict almost always wears it. It’s really his call. There is no rule about it.

I was just pointing out that fact. I suddenly remembered something silly, but funny. When John Paul was pope his ordered that a swimming pool be built at the summer residence, Gandolfo. The finance committe said that it would be too expensive.

John Paul had been told by his doctors to keep up his exercise. So he answered, “Electing a Pope would be more expensive.”

I don’t think he wore white swimming trunks.

JR

Indeed. And the pool was built without further protest!

 

[CreatioNova]

Well, His white cassock and mozzetta make for a powerful presence, but there is really little room for error when dining all in white!

Lol Lol Lol - Ive had a brillant day today. Sorted out lots at work, spent quality time with my family, went to confession, said my prayers, logged on here, and ending the day with a laugh

PERFECT

 

[JReducation]

If we really want to blame a pope for mixed signals, let’s start with St. Pius V.

When he was elected pope he refused to leave his Dominican Order. He wanted to continue to be a friar. This was unheard of. Under the old custom, when a man was consecrated a bishop he left his religious order and was automatically secularized.

Pius V and Bonaventure were the only two known bishops, before the 1983 reform of Canon Law, who insisted that they would accept the episcopacy if the Pope made one exception for them. That being that they would continue to be religious Brothers. In both cases the popes accepted the condition.

When Pius was elected pope he is said to have told the college of cardinals the same thing. He would accept the election as long as he remained a religious Brother. This was unheard of, because there had never been a pope who was a monk or a friar.

Previous monks or friars elected pope had been secularized when they were ordained bishop.

Here comes Pope Pius V wearing his Dominican habit with the crozier, the papal ring, and the crucifix over the habit. The only time he dressed as a bishop was for liturgy.

His work on the liturgy, the breviary and the catechism was inspired by St. Dominic. The Dominicans are an order of preachers and their mission is to evangelize. Pius wanted to evangelize as he had done while he was with his community.

This very holy man looked around at his papacy and found something that needed fixed in the Church that was consistent with his vocation as a Dominican Friar Preacher.

It’s so unfortuante, that we take this holy man’s work and use it as an instrument to divide among Catholics. This was the furthest thing from his mind.

In fact, if we look at Quod Primum, he addresses every rank of authority and establishes that they may not change anything in the encyclical, but leaves out the Pope. The Pope is not mentioned in the list of people who may not change the liturgy, breviary or catechism. He even mentions cardinals.

This is very Dominican. St. Dominic and St. Francis wrote in their rules that the friars were never to question or disobey a pope. They were never to seek any power for themselves.

St. Pius writes his encyclical, explicitly lists those who cannot change it, but does not mention popes. He obeys Dominic and does not claim power over his sucessors for himself.

This was a holy man whom we should all venerate and immitate in his humility.

That’s why succeeding popes wear parts of the Dominican habit. Pius did send out a mixed message. You could be Pope and be a humble friar at the same time.

JR

 

[edwest2]

I don’t want to take anything away from Mr. Bush. He was all that was gracious to the Holy Father. But we must also remember that since the diplomatic relationship between the Vatican and the USA were re-established, every President has been more than gracious, Mr. Reagan, Mr. Clinton and now Mr. Bush II.

I believe that it is important for the United States to keep in mind that Catholics make up a large part of the constituency of this nation. We are no longer an insignificant minority. We have numbers and we have economic influence, which our parents did not have. Many of our Catholic anscestors were very poor, but such is no longer the case today. Most Catholics are middle class.

JR

Catholics were never an insignificant minority in the US. The problem is, going to Church and actually living like Catholics has decreased as more and more Catholics, for a number of reasons, are Catholic in name only.

I don’t think saying most Catholics are middle class is true. At one time, there were many middle class Catholics, but, especially recently, the middle class has shrunk. Immigrants from other countries like Mexico have shored up Catholic numbers in the United States.

My parents were immigrants with little education, but both found work, bought a house and raised a family.

God bless,
Ed