More on the “minority” Pope complaint

More on the “minority” Pope complaint

Just wanted to add a couple more points on the complaint that the white European-dominated Catholic Church disrespected the “minority” Catholics of the Third World (who are in reality the majority of the Church, not minority).

First, it’s an insult to say that only someone with a particular skin color or from a particular country can be aware of the needs of those people. It also lumps together disparate cultures and races. Are the needs of south Africans the same as the needs of north Africans and the same as the needs of Latin Americans and Asians and so on? By this calculus, no matter where the pope comes from, he will neglect the needs of the rest of the world. This is just ridiculous.

Second, it’s a false stereotype to say that white First World cardinals rejected any possible Third World candidate. Of the 115 electors, at least 40 were from Third World nations. Clearly, many of those electors voted for Pope Benedict in the conclave, if not most of them. This wasn’t a white Euro-pope selected by white Euro-cardinals, but a Holy Father who can address the needs of the whole Church and continue the legacy of Pope John Paul and who was selected by cardinals representing the entire Church.

  • Clearly, the opponents of Benedict XVI are Cardinals of Irish descent: Egan, McCarrick,Mahoney, Cormac-Murphy.

    Clearly, Cardinal Arinze was knocking on the doors or his African buddies.

    I assure you, that Cardinal Sin from the Philppines (absent due to illness) was on the phone with other Asians before the conclave pulling for Cardinal Ratzinger. Cdl Sin is orthodox to the MAX!!!!!!

    White Liberals from can’t stand the idea that only they themselves subscribe to their stupid ideas.

  • I fully expect Benedict XVI to butt heads with the European Union, and I assume that the EU has the press in their corner.  Is that what we are seeing here?  The first salvos?

  • I told my husband as we walked home from Mass on Tuesday afternoon, “I bet Arinze and Pengo and others were totally for Ratzinger, and Danneels, O’Brien, and the like were against him.” He snorted and nodded his head, the way he does when he agrees with me in a way that needs no elaboration. I added, “But the media and the secular west will never, never, never understand that.” Snort, nod.

  • No matter who they elected, if he was “conservative”, the media and talking heads would have found fault.  If Cardinal Arinze was elected, then the complaint would have been that the College neglected the former bastion of Christianity, Europe, and had ignored the needs of the Europeans.
    So, Dom, you hit the nail on the head.

  • I disagree, John.  There’s no benefit to appeal to rich, white, pampered, liberal Europeans that they were wronged.  If Arinze was elected, the buzz would have been, “How long before the Church – which we all know is mainly rich, white, pampered, racist conservatives – revolts because they don’t want to take orders from an African-American?”

  • Bravo, Dom, in smoking out the effort by liberal leaning, secularist members of the mainstream media to play the race card in this context.  As an Afro-American, I have grown very tired of the tactic to conflate diversity of ethnic, racial, or national identity with diversity of thought, breadth of sensitivity or compassion, and depth of understanding. Certainly, it is natural in our all too tribal world for people to root for those with whom they most easily identify, but the idea that the cardinals or the Catholic faithful in the southern hemisphere would welcome a pope who hails from below the equator simply by accident of birth or dint of complextion is to insult both their faith and their intelligence.

    My guess is that Cardinal Ratzinger gained the support of many cardinals from South America, Africa, and Asia because they believed he was the best man to continue the stewardship of the church in the fashion that John Paul II had established, and thus they voted for him, as Martin Luther King might have put it, less despite the color of his skin than more for the content of his character.

    That said, I do suspect that there is a considerable constituency, if not among the cardinals of the southern hemisphere than among the priests and laity from that part of the world, who would like to see the Vatican express more support for the sort of leadership that Archbishop Romero exerted in El Salvador.  Romero was not a Marxist nor an advocate of violent revolution but a supporter of the concept of universal human rights that the Catholic Church could advance by insisting that outlaw regimes comply with the dicatates of internatinoal law.

  • Chris,

    Just to be nit-picky: Cardinal Arinze is not African-American. He’s African. But then the media would probably call him African-American, just likethey called the Jamacian Olypmic runner the first “African-American” to win a gold medal in his event.


    I agree that Archbishop Romero’s style of leadership is desired. The nice thing is that Pope John Paul was a fan of Romero, praying at this tomb when he visited El Salvador. I wonder if he will be canonized under this pontificate.

  • (she gets into English professor mode)

    Chris, maybe you should have typed “African-American”.  Quotation marks would have avoided the confusion.

    Viva punctuation!

    (we now return to our regularly scheduled program)