Speaking of media coverage, some of them are having a hard time keeping their reflexive antipathy for the Holy Father’s teachings in check. Witness the New York Times in its announcement of the Pope’s death:
In the last few weeks before his death, he deteriorated to the point where he seemed, as his spokesman once said, to be ‘a soul pulling a body’ - an example, his supporters said, of the dignity of old age and the value of suffering. Some critics said it was a symbol of a papacy in need of rejuvenation.
Remember, when you hear “some critics,” it means that the reporter is either giving his own opinion, what he thinks is a common opinion, or what people who would rather not be quoted by name are saying. And what they’re saying here is that the next Pope needs to promote a liberal “modernizing” agenda, likely including a free reign for sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, women’s ordination, and the whole heterodox panoply. Sorry to disappoint them, but it’s not going to happen.
…“but it’s not going to happen.” Truer words were never spoken….
A local news channel here informed viewers to tune in to the 11PM news to hear what/how San Francisco’s gay and lesbian community has reacted to the Pope’s passing.
There was an article I came across that stated Pope John Paul II had a rigid management style that involved itself in the hands-on affairs of local dioceses.
Being that I have only basic cable, I have been watching NBC, and only them because I know George Weigal has a contract with them, and I always appreciate this fact.
However, as per usual, they also have been talking to the editor of America as well as some other former priest who can’t speak well of the dead.
I will say though, Matt Lauer has interviewed some extraordinary people there in Rome and even said that he himself was beginning to experience a stronger conncection spiritually as he witnessed the events and saw the throngs of people who loved the Pope. Too bad Katie’s not there with him.
“Truer words were never spoken…” Perhaps, but I’m still fighting anxiety nevertheless. I prefer to be pessimistic that the conclave will find the most liberal among them to elect (the press will call him “moderate”), so anything better will seem like an achievement.
Btw, I’m stunned that no one has yet pointed out that one of the Cardinal Electors is a certain priest named Bernard Cardinal Law. Does this really inspire confidence in you?
Cardinal Law is not the incarnation of evil among the cardinals. He is a good man who did a bad job in Boston. I’m more concerned about the bad men, including some of Law’s American colleagues.
Don’t forget the Holy Spirit can use bad men to bring about great things. We should pray that the Cardinals are open to His guidance and that God’s will be done. I’m also adding prayers for John Paul’s intercession in this matter. I think he will continue to help in the guidance of the Church he shepherded so long and so faithfully even more from heaven.
Regarding Cardinal Law, please keep in mind that the very priests who led the development of the Priests’ Forum and Voice of the Faithful(all on the advice of Fr. Richard McBrien) that demanded the resignation of Card. Law, were the very same priests who could have easily told Card. Law about what Fr. Paul Shanley was up to when Law first came on board in 1964. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Fr. Robt. Bullock, one of the founders of these organizations, had been the supervisor for Fr. Shanley and worked in the same office with him when Fr. Shanley was a “Street priest”.Fr. Bullock acknowledged that he took telephone calls for Fr.Shanley from parents concerned about their children’s behavior in acting out in same-sex sex acts. Fr. Bullock knew exactly the advice that these parents were given,namely, to give approval to their child’s behavior and to accept their “gay” lifestyle.( In fact, proof that Fr. Bullock,himself, gave approval to the “gay” lifestyle can be found later on,when Fr. Bullock used to go to the Sharon High School and join in on the Gay/Straight Alliance meetings to give them his approval(in Herald obituary of Fr. Bullock’s death)). Fr. Bullock made the statement in a TV documentary about the Fr. Shanley case that he never thought to check out what Fr. Shanley was doing when those involved in the gay scene, including Rep. Elaine Noble, said that they all knew that Fr.Shanley was taking kids into gay bars. This is all in the documentary! Since Fr. Bullock was a close friend of Fr. Shanley since seminary days in the late 1950s,early 60’s,
and Cardinal Law didn’t get appointed to the Boston Archdiocese until 1984. Certainly Fr. Bullock and his fellow priests, esp. Fr. John J. White, who knew what Fr. Shanley was up to, certainly could have warned Cardinal Law
about Fr. Shanley but neither Fr. Bullock nor his close friends said a word to Cardinal Law. This silence had devasting effects on the Boston Archdiocese. Rep. Elaine Noble was in tears in the documentary when she acknowledged her failure to alert any one about Fr. Shanley’s activities. Fr. Bullock didn’t show remorse. Instead he and Fr. Walter Cuenin, who is a strong supporter of PFLAG and the GLB agenda,
were determined to get rid of Card. Law and hold him totally responsible for the cover-up. Card. Law was certainly wrong in not acting to defrock Fr. Shanley and remove him from the priesthood. But,Fr. Robt. Bullock, who has since died and has met his Maker already, and Fr. Cuenin who is still leading parishioners into supporting the gay lifestyle, were never held accountable, themselves. So I think it’s important to look at the whole context of what was happening, not placing all the blame on Card. Law.
I’m more concerned about Roger Mahony than Bernard Law. Mahony is clever dissident, masquerading as a Catholic for years, while pushing, with great success and no intervention from the Vatican, a new age mythology that could very easily become what passes for the Catholic church in all our lifetimes.
Before you say “never happen”, recall that some where, some time, the same thing was said about no-kneelers, ICEL gender neutral language, altar girls, no-Tridentine Masses, liturgical dance, the “Lavender Mafia,” etc., etc…
I want desperately to be wrong, but I won’t be surprised if the next Pope is another left-of-center moderate. Though the thought of a Cardinal Arinze or Ratzinger is enough to give me hope…
Correction- I meant to say Card. Law came on board in 1984 (not 1964)! Sorry for the mistake!
Very True, MelanieS, very true. Also remember that when they picked Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, they seemed to pick a meek, mild mannered and simple (read “push over) man-and it was he, John XXIII who summoned the Vatican II Council. Remember too, that amidst arguements over two other Italian Cardinals, they finally named a little known Cardinal (read “No trouble from this guy) from Poland 26 1/2 years ago.
They may have agendas going into the elections, but the Holy Spirit was guaranteed to the Apostles and the Church.
Any suggestion of sites with information about more than the usual suspects? Do we know anything about the Austrian or Japanese Bishops? Or about the Italians, beyond Scola and Tettamanzi (and I could add Giordano, who has been involved in financial scandals as well in Naples)
Maybe I’ll ask again after Friday…