I hear there’s a good chance it might be a Canadian, Cardinal Ouellet.
Not really sarcasm as much as shock and disgust. Unless you’ve been there and seen it, it’s almost impossible to conceive of the sheer volume of artworks crammed - literally crammed, like your dotty grandmother’s living room - into room after room after room. It isn’t even properly displayed, museum-style; it’s just an ultimate version of storage unit wars. And I’m sure that even the extended tour I took doesn’t reveal a fraction of what’s contained elsewhere. Some of these works are relatively minor - I mean, a weathered stone head carved by a student of Michelangelo has a certain interest and value, but among literally hundreds of masterworks by the greatest names in art history, it’s just a bauble.
I will not be the first to point out that a microscopic fraction of those works could be auctioned for enough to feed whole continents, and I can’t imagine the line of thinking that believes it’s okay to hoard all that junk while people nominally under the oversight of the church - nevermind simply being part of the humanity they profess to revere - starve and die of treatable diseases. If Bill Gates can toss off billion-dollar checks, what’s stopping the Vatican?
My 86-year-old uncle, who spent 50 years ministering to the poor in the rural reaches of Haiti, is understandably less adamant about the topic but no better clued than I am. It would be unconscionable if it were Ari Onassis; it’s beyond that that such treasures are hoarded by such an institution.
Even if you think you have the votes for your chosen successor nothing is certain with secret ballots, especially with consecutive ballots.
My vote is for the Peruvian Cardinal simply because it would throw so many people into spasmodic fits that it’ll be fun.
They do, daily.
To expand a little, I don’t think Benedict would automatically revert back to being a Cardinal. Unlike priest or bishop, cardinal isn’t a ordaned position, so its more of a bureaucratic post then a permanent status.
Of course, until Benedict actually steps down, the rules are what he says they are, so there isn’t really anything stopping him from saying a Pope that steps down automatically gets a Cardinal’s hat.
Oh it would be a whole different world if I was.
Cardinals: How in the hell did we end up with a female, Canadian, Athiest Pope??
Me: cracks knuckles I don’t know but it’s clean up time baby!
I’m going to need a whole new security team though or I have a feeling they’d be reviving the popularity of poisoning Popes.
Not nearly to the extent they can. Not by a factor of 100 or more.
The vow of poverty seems to apply only to the rank and file. What a surprise.
I read one news story that said Benedict specifically timed this because he didn’t feel he was up to handling all the activity that surrounds Easter. If he’s gone at the end of this month, I expect they’ll have a new Pope before March 31. The last conclaves have only lasted a couple of days.
When the time comes, I have a modest selection of obnoxious hood ornaments I’d like to suggest for the new Popemobile. Some may even be bulletproof.
Or maybe an American; (Donald) Cardinal Wuerl?
When Bishop, he honked off so many people with how he gutted the ethnic parishes in Pittsburgh/Western PA that a Pastor friend claimed his greatest temptation was wanting to send the man a thank you card for making more Protestants than Martin Luther.
I read your first sentence and thought, “that person obviously never lived in Pittsburgh if they think Wuerl should be pope.”
Glad I kept reading.
My first thought was “Wow he is giving up being Pope, for Lent.” My second was "he just wants a 4 day weekend at Easter like everyone else. " All jokes aside, I really wonder about the timing. I mean, in (traditionally) a tenure for life position you are giving your notice… just barely 2 weeks and a couple of days… just before Ash Wednesday? I am not Catholic, nor a huge fan of the Catholic Church, but to me the timing is really off. If he had decided this earlier, there could have been a new Pope chosen before Lenten Season.
Perhaps the timing involves the ages of some of the more conservative cardinals who might not be elligibable to participate in the conclave if a new pope isn’t selected this year.
As badly damaged as this Pope is, how much moral authority has he got?
Never mind his anti-modern, anti-gay positions, the pedo thing kind of blew up in his face, and he WAS (as Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (nee Inquisition) the point man responsible for weeding out the bad apples.
If he is widely held as the guy who blew it re. pedo, will anyone give a rat’s ass what he thinks?
For those wishing to research his history, his name is Joseph Ratzinger. in case there is something not cross-referenced to his Papal name.
So, is this coming Election going to be an all-out death match, or has the selection a done deal already?
Look for a reform pope. The pattern tends to be Great Reformer followed by one or more “status quo” individuals. John Paul II was a major reformer; unsurprising that the next pope was very much a non boat rocker. The church is in deep trouble and needs a leader to fix the problems and regain their moral authority.
What vow of poverty is that?
Many religious Orders require vows of poverty, of course, but from what you wrote it sounds like you believe that every priest and bishop makes such a vow – that all the cardinals have taken vows of poverty.
Is that what you believe?
And of course you also seem to have some misconceptions about what the vow of poverty actually entails, but let’s tackle these one at a time.
You completely misread me. I said “rank and file” - which pretty obviously excludes all the brass hats from bishop on up.
If there are any orders or “unordered” priests who do not take a vow of poverty, I can’t think of them. All the ones I know of or have encountered did.
My entire point was that the upper ranks seem to have taken an opposite vow, all the way up to the Vatican hierarchy, which possesses so much wealth it may be incalculable. Why, say, the Jesuits who taught me or my uncle are bound by ethics and vow to give away all but the most meager possessions and the Vatican can stack Renaissance masterworks like cordwood… I’m sure there’s a very good reason.
My point being that many religious orders don’t require a vow of poverty – the Paulists, for example, or Maryknoll priests, or Missionaries of the Precious Blood, or Fraternity of St. Peter. These are Societies of Apostolic Life, as opposed to religious orders. And more tellingly, the single largest category of priests are diocesan priests, who ALSO take no vow of poverty.
Your statement suggested that the rank and file must live under a vow of poverty, but that this does not apply to the “brass hats.” In fact, brass hats who are members of an order are certainly bound by the vow; brass hats that are diocesan bishops, archbishops, or cardinals are not because they’ve never taken a vow of poverty, and this category is much more numerous than ordained priests, bishops, or cardinals in an order.
You say you can’t think of “unordered” priests – but in fact, the vast majority of priests in a diocese are not members of a religious order that takes vows of poverty.
I’d just like to make the College of Cardinals aware that my services are available, if so required.
Perhaps not being Catholic limits my exposure. (I went to a Catholic high school, my kids wandered in and out of various Catholic schools and my wife’s family has a Catholic branch.)
I consider myself fortunate to have my exposure been to those who do take such vows. I’m not sure how the others manage to shave.