Not a happy day for some cardinals

Not a happy day for some cardinals

Also in that same New York Times article, we see that the liberals’ favored candidate going into the conclave, Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium, wasn’t too happy.

But already, there was at least one voice of careful reservation. Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium, one of the most liberal cardinals, who has been critical of Cardinal Ratzinger, skipped the dinner specifically to hold a news conference.

He would not disclose his own vote and did not criticize Cardinal Ratzinger directly. But he was not effusive in his praise, either, saying that he had “a certain hope” based on the choice of the name Benedict. Benedict XV, who appealed for peace during World War I, “was a man of peace and reconciliation,” Cardinal Danneels said.

But, he said, “We have to see what’s in a name.”

I’m guessing “Ratzinger” wasn’t on Cardinal Danneel’s ballot. In fact, I bet after the first ballot, the cardinal was less than interested in the rest of the proceedings. That he also skipped the special dinner to complain to the press and express “his hope” apparently that Benedict is not the man he has always been says a lot about Danneels.

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
  • My guess, too, is as they interview folks what will be mistaken for hesitance about Pope Benedict XVI’s type of rule and so called conservatism is actually a reeling and coming to terms that our beloved Pope JohnPaul II is gone and we have a new Papa.  Just a lot to take in and get settled with.  Me, I’m glad, but I don’t yet have the connection with him that so many of us have had with his predecssor.

  • I’ve never been able to take him seriously anyway, just because of his name.  I always hear W.C. Fields in my head drawling “Godfrey Daniels!”  Rather like “Cardinal Sin,” only a bit more esoteric.

  • hmm sounds like someones bucking for a promotion, umm demotion to arch priest of some tourist church.

  • Last night I caught the encore presentation on EWTN.  When the archdeacon announced who the new pope was, the response I heard wasn’t just a cheer.  It can only be described as a roar.  The audio was turned down when it happened, but one could still pick up on that, regardless of how much wax was in their ears .  I could almost hear the surrounding buildings shake, it was so strong.  It’s something I’ve very seldom heard for anybody or anything.

    The NYT saying they’re not sure if Benedict is popular seems to me to be so much sour grapes  

  • The Italian woman on the chair was probably disappointed that the new Holy Father was not Italian. Many Italians have not yet come to grips with non-Italian Popes.

    But it is changing. They usually refer to the Holy Father by his last name, as in: Papa Montini, Pacelli, Sarto, Roncalli etc. This gives them an intimacy – a “he’s one of ours” kind of feeling.

    But one Italian paper reported yesterday that some are already referring to the Holy Father as “Papa Ratzi” (not to be confused with papparazzi…!).

    It takes awhile for everyone to ‘warm up’ to a new Pope – especially when the previous one served for a long time. I didn’t ‘take’ to John XXIII right away after the long reign of Pius XII. But in a short time I was ‘won over’.

    Each new Pope brings his own special gifts to the office – which people will come to appreciate as time goes on.

  • While it is idle to speculate, I would opine that Cdl. Ratzinger was likely not at the top of Cdl. Mahony’s list, but WAS at the top of Cdl. Law’s.

  • I didn“announcement at the end of Mass” here the Holy Father seemed particularly perspicacious about the evangelization opportunity presented by his predecessor’s passing, which the Church received as a grace from the Holy Spirit, perhaps due in part to John Paul’s offering his final sufferings for the spread of the Gospel (which he said on Good Friday). 

    I will also note that it was striking to see the Holy Father celebrate Mass with such a small group. 

    Lastly, however, I must point out that the most stunning part of the text was:

    Thus, in full awareness and at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome that Peter bathed with his blood, the current Successor assumes as his primary commitment that of working tirelessly towards the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers. This is his ambition, this is his compelling duty. He is aware that to do so, expressions of good feelings are not enough. Concrete gestures are required to penetrate souls and move consciences, encouraging everyone to that interior conversion which is the basis for all progress on the road of ecumenism.

    While many wished the 264th successor of Peter would focus “more” on the poor and social justice, others were hoping for “life issues”, still others for a move to purify the liturgy and crack down on dissenters, it appears that the Holy Father has made up his mind.  The focus of his pontificate will be nothing less than the reunification of Christendom. 

    One could not hardly think of a better goal, and it is indeed the same goal for which Our Lord Himself prayed the day before his own Good Friday.

  • “That he also skipped the special dinner to complain to the press and express ing some of the more outrageous things I see in the media about Pope Benedict, not because it upsets me, but because it’s just so funny to see how they try to spin what is a triumph into a defeat, not for their ideology and worldview, but for ours.

    To that end, The New York Times, trying to find the cloud around the silver lining in the wildly cheering crowd in St. Peter’s Square is reduced to making one up.

    “It was not clear, however, how popular a choice he was on St. Peter’s Square. The applause for the new pope, while genuine and sustained among many, tapered off decisively in large pockets, which some assembled there said reflected their reservations about his doctrinal rigidity and whether, under Benedict XVI, an already polarized church will now find less to bind it together”

    How does the applause “taper off decisively”? That seems like a judgment call to me. If the observer is intent on defining the end of applause in that way, that’s how they see it. For my part, watching the coverage on TV, it appeared that people applauded wildly, not just for a brief time, but for minute after minute.

    And the “some assembled there” who had reservations? One was an American girl who wasn’t saying she didn’t like Benedict, but was (accurately, it seems) predicting how his election would be spun. The other was a lone Italian woman standing on a chair who said, “This is the gravest error.” This is the best they could do? In fact, despite their claim that “Pope Benedict’s views are upseting to many Catholics in Europe and among liberal Americans,” they quote more people in the article who are happy about the choice than they do people who are unhappy. Why do I get the sense that the unhappy liberal Americans are found mainly on the Time’s staff?


    2005-04-20 10:54:51
    2005-04-20 14:54:51

    2005-04-20 12:33:24
    2005-04-20 16:33:24
    The NYT has been known to use the same “man on the street” person in separate articles for the quotes they want.  Seems the individual was related to staff—I always sense a Jayson Blair moment when I read their “random” individuals’ comments.