Habemus Papam!
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
That's not true and shows you haven't done research into the massive reforms that started decades ago. |
Anonymous
Do you know the difference between a movie and a documentary? |
Anonymous
Yes, this is true. https://www.politico.eu/article/cardinals-watch-conclave-movie-for-real-life-guidance/ Leo's brother reported he watched it too, just before the conclave started. |
Anonymous
Same- my large extended family are mostly registered Republicans from the 80s. We are all swing voters. |
Anonymous
| I’m pleased by this choice but even more pleased that Conclave is getting its due. That was a really great movie. I wish they had spent more time creating a Catholic theological rationalization for the twist ending as a though experiment though, because that would be totally in the Catholic tradition. |
Anonymous
Massive reforms? Show your work. More like minor reforms that have been unevenly applied. |
Anonymous
Sorry, but no. Cardinals are sequestered during conclave but not sworn to secrecy afterwards. The details of the movie, including how voting works in the chapel and how Cardinals interact and spend their time between voting sessions, was well researched and based on commentary from Cardinals and people who have worked in the Vatican and support the Cardinals during the conclave process. They don't discuss their votes or the details of what goes into the decision, but the process is known and the movie took pains to get that right even if the plot itself was fictional. They also based many of the characters on real Cardinals of the past and present, or amalgams of real people. And more broadly, Vatican politics are not a mystery. There are many reporters who work out of Vatican City and get to know the Church and its officials very well. The broad strokes of the politics in the movie, in terms of conflicts between traditionalists versus the more open-armed Franciscans who have more recently held sway. Also the deep social conservatism of the African Catholics and how that plays into decision-making. All of that is known and documented. This was not Oliver Stone inventing a conspiracy theory and passing it off as history. This was a clearly fictional story that the makers took great pains to ground in reality via meticulous research, down to what the Vatican dorm rooms look like or how meals are served or how votes are strung with a needle on a string before burning. |
Anonymous
Start locally: https://adw.org/about-us/resources/safeenvironment/ https://www.virtusonline.org/virtus/ Reforms begin in the 80s and are constantly reviewed and updated with best practices. The programs are the model used by other organizations because they were independently researched and created by experts. To say they don't care is ridiculous. |
Anonymous
You are both right. The shifts in the Church are incremental and uneven by global political standards, especially when compared to broader cultural shifts that have occurred outside the Church over the same period (especially as relates to views on women and homosexuality, as well as attitudes towards divorce and abortion). But given the age and traditions of the Church, the shifts could be considered "massive" -- some of the things Francis did and said were considered almost revolutionary within the Church, and remain very controversial among some corners of the Church, even if to outsiders it simply looks like a minor nod in the direction of modernity. |
Anonymous
Pope Leo IV has been in active ministry for about 40+ years. 25 of those years have been spent outside of the USA. His most impactful ministry has been in Peru where he would have his deepest connections to the state. His roles in the USA were relatively low profile where he wasn’t deeply interacting with secular leaders (in the way, say, a Bishop would). In other words, he is not well-connected in the USA. He chose to become a Peruvian citizen. He comes from the Augustinians. An order that was originally a mashup of a bunch of hermits in Italy (not actually founded by St. Augustine). Augustinians are respected academically but they keep a relatively low profile focusing instead on community service. There charism (crucial to understanding PLIV’s formation) is one of seeking truth and service. He chose to speak three different languages at his first address: the traditional Latin, a shout out in Spanish to his diocese he served in Peru, and Italian. With those choices, he went out of his way to signal that this is not about America. He is a canon lawyer by education. A curious educational choice for a young novice/deacon, but canon lawyers are rarely firebrands in the Catholic Church. Typically canon lawyers are people who are awesome no. 2 guys and gals serving behind the scenes. The cardinals know this. He wore the traditional, ornate vestments for his presentation from the Basilica balcony. Pope Francis famously eschewed those vestments. Read into that what you will. The Church is in greater crisis in Europe, right now. Particularly in Germany. If the Cardinal electors were looking for a political appointment to connect with the broader society, Europe is more important right now. Growth is in Asia and Africa, right now. That is more important. The Cardinals and Church do not see the world in polarities and the Church probably doesn’t view the USA as any particular special status or threat right now worthy of a response like the USSR in 1978. If the Church is going to wade into politics so blatantly like with the election of JPII, it will be over more than just the movement of migrants. Yes, the Church will advocate for migrants, but the threat needs to be more existential. If they really wanted someone to send a message to Trump and conservative American Catholics there were better American candidates available for that. Make no mistake, Cardinal McElroy being moved from San Diego to DC earlier this year was a clear message from the Church to Trump. To me, I just don’t see it. This screams to me that the Cardinals were looking for a unity Candidate who would also slow down change as a slight course correction to Pope Francis. I don’t think his status as an American citizen had anything to do with it. But time will tell. The first big signal to watch for is if he does anything with the TLM. The TLM is a hotbed of conservative Catholicism in the USA. If he further cracks down on it, then you may be right. If he relaxes the restrictions put on the TLM, then you’ll know this had nothing to do with MAGA. |
Anonymous
Did it get the process right? Sure. But the aircraft flew in Airplane, so there is that. But the politicking and backroom whispering? No. Nobody possibly knows enough to suggest that is accurate or not. The process would be a lot more deliberative and slower if that’s how it worked. |
Anonymous
Thank you for this informative post. People do not understand that the church is bigger than any individual nation. The U.S.A., although a factor, is one of many factors the Catholic church interacts with and influences. |
Anonymous
I never said it had anything to do with MAGA. Please actually READ my post. I don't think they picked him because he was born in the US or has challenged Vance or Trump on immigration issues. But I also don't think they were totally unaware of the significance of choosing someone who would be the first Pope born in the US with significant ties to the US. They are always aware of that. And with the US, the significance is large enough that it has been previously discussed by people high up in the church as to why there had never been a Pope from the US and why some thought there might never be. So it is simply not credible that they voted for Prevost with no thought given to his connections to the US. They knew, it had to factor into their decision in some way, even if the way it factored in was for them to decide it was acceptable to have an American pope right now whereas in previous conclaves (based on comments from previous cardinals) that would have been a mark against him if not wholly disqualifying. And yes, I think the fact that he hasn't lived in the US for a long time and conducted the vast majority of his ministry in Peru where he is also a citizen, would have been a factor as well, taking the edge off of his Americanness and allowing them to select him as a truly "international" pope, which is different that the message that would be sent if they had chosen one of the American Cardinals. You are arguing that they simply didn't consider his American heritage or his vocal opposition to Trump/Vance at all. That is not credible. They of course know he is American, they know choosing a Pope born in America will be viewed as significant both among American Catholics and those from other nations, and I am certain that many of the cardinals (especially those from the US or Western Europe) knew of his vocal opposition to Trump's immigration policies, which dates back to 2017, and either viewed this as fine and appropriate or at least did not find it disqualifying. |
Anonymous
|
One reason no American candidates for pope have been considered for a long time is that the US was hostile to the papacy until 1984 when Reagan established diplomatic relations with the Holy See.
This marked the beginning of the decline of Protestantism and the ascendancy of Catholicism in the USA. |
Anonymous
You have no evidence that his status as an American citizen or his opposition to Vance factored into the voting other than “it had to.” He has also forcefully opposed government officials on abortion. Do you think that means the Cardinals had to have taken that into account? He has also been forceful in opposition to LGTBQ depictions in mass media. Do think that means the Cardinals have taken that into account? If your point is that the cardinals were aware of his biographical history? Sure. If your point is that the cardinals are aware of his publicly stated positions? That is probably correct. But you’d be surprised how little cardinals know about each other. But that is where our knowledge stops. You insist that there is more because “it has to matter.” I’m saying to you the Catholic Church and the cardinals in particular have bigger and more important issues to worry about than the country of origin of the Pope (barring China) or a candidate who has staked out right down the middle of the fairway Catholic positions. Knowing what I know and reading the tea leaves, I simply don’t think it mattered. Perhaps if this was the PF or Pope Benedict conclave I’d be more open to your inferences. But this was the least Euro-Centric conclave in modern times. And the Euros are the most likely to worry about nationality. The prior cardinals are not the current cardinals so I’m not sure why you think speculations of prior cardinals carry the weight of tablets carried down from Mt. Sinai. The more likely explanation remains the most plausible to me. Provost was one of 4 or so plausible candidates to begin with and he was the best known personally to the voters because his prior role would have brought him into contact with voters and he seems to have had the least amount of baggage of the credible candidates/seen as the least divisive candidate. |