Reply to Habemus Papam!

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Habemus Papam!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…[/quote]

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited. [/quote]
Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?[/quote]

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics  — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass. [/quote]

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world. [/quote]

DP:  I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front.  The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump. [/quote]

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least  part of the thought process. [/quote]

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries. [/quote]

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics