Friday, September 23, 2005

A Vote for Law?!

Well, an unnamed cardinal's "Conclave Diary" has been published -- I'm working on translating the Italian text -- and I don't know why it's causing so much hubbub about Bergoglio being the runner-up. Three weeks ago, observant readers will note that I wrote of
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Jesuit archbishop of Buenos Aires (and, if several reports are to be believed, the conclave's "runner-up")....
Ergo, no surprises here about that. If you didn't see it before, you haven't been paying attention. Then again, paying attention is my job.

But what amazes me is this:
[On the final ballot] three other cardinals also registered one vote apiece in the last round: Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, Italian Cardinal Giacomo Biffi and American Cardinal Bernard Law, according to the diary.
Whosoever voted for Law... you complete the sentence.



Blogger Papabile said...

LOL, Rocco.... touche.

23/9/05 15:27  
Blogger Tim said...

Rock, here's the one scoop you missed in regards to the voting.

23/9/05 16:10  
Blogger Jeff said...

I'll finish it...

"Whoever voted for Law..."

"...was probably named 'Law'."

23/9/05 17:32  
Blogger RCEsq said...

The hubbub should be that supposedly a cardinal chose to break his oath for the spurious reason that "history is entitled to know." Sounds like the same feeble reason Archbishop Dziwicz used not to honor Pope John Paul's request in his last will and testament to burn his personal notes. If there's really a cardinal who believed that the oath of secrecy was unconscionable, he should not have taken it, and should not have participated in the conclave. If the executor of a will cannot in good conscience carry out the testator's desires, he should refuse the assignment. Small wonder there's so much confusion in the Church, if people like this can act so hypocritically about promises they undertake voluntarily.

23/9/05 18:23  
Blogger Gene O'Grady said...

In response to rcesq, not sure what I thought about the cardinal "breaking his oath." But in regard to not burning JP II's notes, surely our erudite and cultured late pope was aware of a long of history of such requests being made in the expectation that party they were made to would not follow through on them -- Virgil and A E Housman being the names that come to mind, but I'm sure there were many others.

23/9/05 19:10  
Blogger RCEsq said...

Alas, there are many others, but since they're dead, we don't know, do we, if they expected their executors not to do what they asked. It seems that you're suggesting that John Paul didn't mean what he said in his will or was engaging in false modesty. Or perhaps you think he should've burned the notes himself to show his sincerity rather than trust someone else to do as he asked? The issue does remain, though, what happens to society if you can't rely on someone's word? Does everything, including oaths taken before God, come down to the cynical/realistic "trust but verify"? Isn't this the problem at bottom with the clergy abuse issue -- these priests didn't take their vow of chastity/celibacy seriously, but sort of kept their fingers crossed behind their backs, giving all sorts of justifictions for their behavior.

23/9/05 19:43  
Blogger Fungulo said...

For the good of Holy Mother Church, the cardinal who voted for Bernard Law must be found, isolated and taken out.

24/9/05 06:35  
Blogger Ada said...

as someone already mentioned,the one who voted for Law was either Law or a very disturbed Cardinal.How can one waste a vote for that man?
Oh,I have to make a correction : the Austrian Cardinals Name is not written Schoenborn but SCHONBORN!

24/9/05 15:26  
Blogger RC said...

Gotta wonder what's behind that vote: maybe a gesture of support for a cardinal that somebody thought was unjustly hounded from office?

Or maybe a protest from someone who opposed Cdl. Ratzinger, as if to say, I'd rather vote for Cdl. Law than for Papa Ratzi?

Either way, such a vote doesn't fulfill the vow to vote for the prelate whom one believes is best suited.

25/9/05 02:26  

Post a Comment

<< Home