Ship of Fools: Is Pope Francis a surprise to the cardinals?

Thread: Is Pope Francis a surprise to the cardinals? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025500

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

Let me preface by saying I'm a total outsider when it comes to RC politics. All I know is what I see on U.S. news outlets which is to say, not much.

Based soley on that information, Pope Francis seems like a humble guy that's more interested in washing the feet of the poor than slipping his own into a pair of Prada. That seems to be exactly the kind of person one would like to see as the pope yet so opposite of what I've seen in my limited exposure to previous Popes. Don't get me wrong, I didn't see PJP2 or Benny as bad guys, but I didn't see them living a simple life either. Nicknames like "The Prada Pope" don't come around for no reason. I've seen several news articles about Pope Francis that make it sound like his way of shunning the royal lifestyle of the papacy is a total surprise to the cardinals. Most recently, this Reuters article about a concert "snub". From what I know (again, U.S. news outlets) he was pretty much the same in Argentina when he was cardinal Jorge Bergoglio.

Did the cardinals know what they were getting with this pick? If not, how could they have missed that? If so, why do they look surprised by his less-flashy lifestyle? Is it a media slant to make Pope Francis look good and the cardinals/curia look stupid? If so, to what end would the major media outlets want to do this? Am I being snowed by highly effective Vatican spin doctors while Pope Francis secretly enjoys $1200 haircuts and weekends at the Burj Al Arab? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Good for Francisco. At last a worthy successor to John Paul I...

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Most recently, this Reuters article about a concert "snub".

He probably skipped the concert rather than have to sit on that horrid throne.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
I've seen several news articles about Pope Francis that make it sound like his way of shunning the royal lifestyle of the papacy is a total surprise to the cardinals.

A slight semantic quibble. The pope is a monarch (the absolute monarch of Vatican City), so however he lives is by definition a "royal lifestyle".

It always gets confusing when actual kings don't live like proverbial kings.

[ 26. June 2013, 00:40: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Meh, what's the point of being an Absolute Monarch and professing Ultramontanism if you can't do what you want now and again, like sacking the Sistine Screamers* and replacing them with the choir from Westminster Cathedral?

Papa Frankie (to Sistine Screamers): "I'm the Pope, therefore I'm right by definition, you lot are dreadful and I'm not putting up with you any longer.

...

*flips out papal cellphone*

Papa Frankie: "Hello, ++Westminster? Yeah, Frankie here. You remember when you offered me you choir at the conclave? I'm taking you up on you offer.

*The Vatican's poor excuse for a choir.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Evidently the Vaticans ambassadors ere in Rome & HH decided more could be gaimed by talking with them as oppossed to going to a concert arranged for his predecessor.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Good for Francisco. At last a worthy successor to John Paul I...

Amen. I liked him, too. May Francisco's reign go more happily.

[Votive]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Good for Francisco. At last a worthy successor to John Paul I...

Amen. I liked him, too. May Francisco's reign go more happily.

[Votive]

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

Three cheers for the Polyester Papacy. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Three cheers for the Polyester Papacy.

This thread is already starting to sound like the Wedding Disco one in all it's most predictable ways.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

Yeah, but I didn't mean for it to go that way...

I'm genuinely interested to know. I can be fairly cynical and that makes me think that when a bunch of guys (any bunch, not just those in red) pick their own leader from amongst themselves, they'll pick someone that doesn't rock the boat and make them look bad. The more charitable side of me hopes that the cardinals willfuly chose a man whose compassion for the poor and dismissal of luxury was well known and was a major reason why he was chosen, with the hopes that he could lead them and the rest of the church to be more like that.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Too true, Enoch. But noteworthy in the Wedding Disco thread are several posters who say 'it's not my style and I'd hate it, but if it worked for them, all well and good.' We need to get beyond the yah-boo-sucks party politicking and back to the heart of the Gospel. Which I believe Papa Francesco is helping us to do.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Yeah, but I didn't mean for it to go that way...

I'm genuinely interested to know. I can be fairly cynical and that makes me think that when a bunch of guys (any bunch, not just those in red) pick their own leader from amongst themselves, they'll pick someone that doesn't rock the boat and make them look bad. The more charitable side of me hopes that the cardinals willfuly chose a man whose compassion for the poor and dismissal of luxury was well known and was a major reason why he was chosen, with the hopes that he could lead them and the rest of the church to be more like that.

I like to think that the cardinals knew quite well what they did not want. Probably more than they knew, they are quite aware of the growing distance between the externals of the church's authorities and the expectations of a growing majority of believers, a growing distance between the scholarly European culture in which church leaders develop and the lives of most RCs, and a growing understanding of the impact of the sexual abuses scandal on the authority of the church. And, of course, that these phenomena were not going away, so business as usual was not an option.

Winnowing down the options, Frank came out on top. My own suspicion is that the cardinals are going to be comfortable with this, but many of those about them (and in the Vatican) will be less so.

In short, they knew what they thought they wanted and they knew what they were getting. Like other voters in all sorts of elections, they might have second thoughts later, but that might be another thread.

Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on :

I agree that those who were promoting him early knew exactly what they were getting, and wanted it, others who came on board probably knew what they were getting but may be surpised by the degree. Most of the Curia probably opposed him until the very end for the very reasons others wanted him.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

originally posted by monkeylizard

they'll pick someone that doesn't rock the boat and make them look bad.

There's more to humility than not liking the luxury and ceremony. Assuming he is a humble man, he won't want to make them look bad, but would rather people said good things about the church as a whole than said how good he was compared with the rest of them. I'll be interested to see how he goes about it, as it seems to me it will be more difficult than giving up apartments or red shoes.

Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
There's more to humility than not liking the luxury and ceremony. Assuming he is a humble man, he won't want to make them look bad, but would rather people said good things about the church as a whole than said how good he was compared with the rest of them. I'll be interested to see how he goes about it, as it seems to me it will be more difficult than giving up apartments or red shoes.

Very good point about more to humility than not liking the luxury and ceremony. Not sure about your assumption that as a humble man he won't want them to look bad. He may not want to make them look bad but he may have to make them look bad. He is going to attempt a thorough scrubbing of the house (the curia) and he may be forced to expose some of their corruption if they fight going out. A humble man won't do it gratuitously, but only a weak man won't do it if it is necessary.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence:

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
There's more to humility than not liking the luxury and ceremony. Assuming he is a humble man, he won't want to make them look bad...
Not sure about your assumption that as a humble man he won't want them to look bad. He may not want to make them look bad but he may have to make them look bad.

A humble man is disinterested in making himself look good by making others look bad. But a humble man is honest, a truth teller, and that includes truth about the ways he is good and the ways others need to change.

Jesus said some things about himself that would be arrogant boasts if not true, and made some people look really bad with things he said about or to them. But his goal was truth, not relative status.

Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on :

well said.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I think I read somewhere that Francis was second when Benedict was elected; so, given Francis health, it was only natural to give the papacy to him. He is also a reluctant pope, up until he was elected he was praying someone else would have been selected.

In spite of my cynicism of the College of Cardinals, I truly think the Holy Spirit used a decrepit body to elect the right Holy Father for the time.

I would like to see this pope give more power to the laity. Let them elect who will be in the new College of Cardinals, or at least give them the power to elect their own bishops who then elect the college of cardinals.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In spite of my cynicism of the College of Cardinals, I truly think the Holy Spirit used a decrepit body to elect the right Holy Father for the time.

And the previous time? Or the time before that? Or is the Holy Spirit involved when the outcome is one Gramps49 approves of?

BTW, were you seeking to be intentionally offensive in calling the College of Cardinals a "decrepit body", or does it come naturally?

quote:
I would like to see this pope give more power to the laity. Let them elect who will be in the new College of Cardinals, or at least give them the power to elect their own bishops who then elect the college of cardinals.

Why?

quote:
Wishful thinking, I know.

No, just a case of: "If horses had gods, then gods would be horses."

[ 27. June 2013, 09:55: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Was I being offensive when I called the College of Cardinals decrepit? Frankly, I find the College of Cardinals offensive. It is an affront to the community of the laity. It amounts to a plutarchy that is selected only by the Holy Father.

Not saying the Holy Spirit did not work through the college before, just saying the Holy Spirit got the college to select the right person for the times the church is going through now.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I do not know if it helps to mention that there have been lay cardinals in the past and that, although canon law currently requires ordination, this can be dispensed with. Indeed, there is a strong legend (I am not sure if it be true) that Paul VI planned to name lay theologian Jacques Maritain to the college to make the point. While there might be a strong clericalist sentiment in the RCC which could be called an affront to the laity, the cardinals themselves are not the problem, just a symptom.

In any case, it's more of an oligarchy than a plutarchy, but I've just finished editing a document so am feeling a bit persnickety, for which I ask forgiveness.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I thought lay cardinals were ordained when they got [Cardinalised? Cardinated? Cardained? Incarnidined?]

Though I'm pretty sure that in the distant past cardinal deacons really were deacons but not priests - more recently I think those appointed to be cardinal deacons have been bishops already. So it might be legally possible to appoint a man a cardinal and ordain him deacon but not priest.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I thought lay cardinals were ordained when they got [Cardinalised? Cardinated? Cardained? Incarnidined?]

Though I'm pretty sure that in the distant past cardinal deacons really were deacons but not priests - more recently I think those appointed to be cardinal deacons have been bishops already. So it might be legally possible to appoint a man a cardinal and ordain him deacon but not priest.

Two questions for the amateur canon lawyer! In mediaeval and renaissance times, lay cardinals were tonsured to minor orders-- the reason for this was that they could marry to continue a dynastic line if need be (and, every now and then, mode of life was just not reconcilable to clerical status--at this period, that took some doing). Until the 1800s, some primarily bureaucratic administration cardinals were simply ordained to the diaconate and stayed there (I think Antonio Matteucci, who died in 1866, was the last, but I am not certain).

Since John XXIII, all cardinals need to be made bishops if they aren't bishops already--- a few older priests (such as Avery Dulles SJ) were dispensed from this at their request. The requirement for ordination is entirely dispensable, should the pope du jour wish it.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

This professional canon lawyer has tried pretty hard, AtA, but I can't find the two questions in there.

Gramps49, either you're easily offended or you don't understand Catholic ecclesiology...or both, as Peter Cook used to say. In what way is the College of Cardinals offensive to the lay faithful?

[ 27. June 2013, 17:30: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Have another go at it Trisagion!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Apologies Trisagion, I was being flippant.

From Ken's post, I interpreted:
1) lay cardinals were ordained at their investiture.
2) generally, ordination questions around cardinals.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

That's even more [Confused]

All I was saying is that as far as I know there have been no lay cardinals for a long time. But Trisagion is the expert, not me. I just watch lots of late nght documetnatries on digital cable channels.

There are cardinal deacons, cardinal priests and cardinal bishops, who, as far as I know, once were are deacons, priests, and bishops of various churches in and around Rome. But nowadays all of them, I think, are bishops of somewhere else already. So Cardinal Deacon X of St So-and-sos in Rome has some sort of honorary appointment as a deacon at St So-and_sos but is also consecrated bishop of another diocese (which may v ery well have had no Roman churches in it for the past twelve centuries)

But there is nothing particular lay about them. And woudln;t be even if they were not bishops. As far as the RCC is concerned deacons are not laymen.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

The Cardinal Bishops, of whom there were originally seven, were the Bishops of the so-called suburbicarian dioceses of Rome, that is of the neighbouring dioceses to Rome. These diocese now have their own Bishops but the now six Cardinal Bishops (the senior one, called the Dean, holds his own and Ostia) have a titular connection with them. They are now almost all very senior - often retired - Curial officials. For example, before his election as Pope in 2005, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was Cardinal Bishop of Velletri-Segni and, because he was Dean, of Ostia.

The Cardinal priests were, originally, the parish priests of the parishes of Rome. Bishops from dioceses around the world and who are made Cardinals and who remain in their dioceses are almost always Cardinal Priests and have a titular parish in Rome, which still has its own Parish Priest (or Pastor).

The seven Cardinal Deacons were the deacons to whom the administration of the seven areas of Rome was committed. Today the Cardinal Deacons are heads of Curial offices.

The role of the College in electing the Bishop of Rome stems from these origins as the clergy of the diocese.

Until 1917 it was possible to be a Cardinal whilst only in minor orders. However, the 1917 Code of Canon Law required that a Cardinal be a Bishop or at least a priest and the 1983 Code of Canon Law requires that a man who is not already a Bishop should receive episcopal ordination as soon after he is named to the College. This is a matter of positive ecclesial law and can, therefore, be dispensed with by the Pope, as happened with Avery Cardinal Dulles. Newman was another who was not made a Bishop. Reginald Pole, the last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, was 17 years a Cardinal - and one of the three Presidents of the Council of Trent - before being ordained priest and bishop on successive days following his election to Canterbury. Thelast non-priest Cardinal, Teodoro Mertel, was created in, I think, 1858, when only in minor orders. He was ordained deacon shortly thereafter and lived until 1899.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Oh I have a pretty good idea of Roman Catholic Ecclesiology. However, I am more of a congregationalist. It is the congregation that should extend the call to the priest. It is the local body of congregations that should be able to elect the bishop. The college of Bishops could then elect the Cardinals. I think that way the Bishops and Cardinals would be more responsive to the people, not beholden to the pope.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0