Thursday, May 19, 2005

Now Does This Mesh?

Thanks to Rich for sending me this piece from the American Spectator. It's an interesting analysis, but a slanted one -- more slanted than me, to be sure.

Roger McCaffrey -- who visits Rome regularly, allegedly -- says, "San Francisco Archbishop William Levada came from nowhere to get [the CDF] post." No, he didn't -- if you read this blog, you knew it was coming while the cons screamed "RUMORS! RUMORS!" I haven't been to Rome in years and had this story; "it's not rocket science," as Harry Caray used to say.

Yet here again do we have an example of Benedict's reputed "base" (at least, they're his base when he makes them happy) undermining their man. Excuses are still being made to almost make B16 look bound, or at least something less than free, to choose his own person to succeed him as prefect -- do some of you really see your Pope as being that weak?

As if it wasn't before, it's really getting ridiculous now. Heterodox and hypocritical, too.

McCaffrey says:

"My theory: during the conclave, Cardinal Ruini of Rome, said to have been the kingmaker, suggested to the crucially important American cardinals that the time had come for one of their own to be in one of Rome's top two dicasteries. Naturally, Ruini would go on, the new Holy Father had to decide the details and it would be wrong, very wrong, for him to even mention this to his man during the conclave."

This implies that, in conclave, Joseph Ratzinger did not have the moral credibility to stand head-and-shoulders above the College and had to go scrounging for votes like it was a Philadelphia judicial primary or something. That's an almost scandalous indictment of the Pope, simply outrageous. And, regardless, Cardinal George was the American ringleader in the making of Benedict XVI.

Elsewhere, McCaffrey asks:

"So who is new, under Benedict? No one. It is the same team we had under John Paul. Everyone was asked to stay, the rough equivalent of a new president asking pre-election cabinet officers to stay on."

This is a case in point of the gross error of applying American political culture to the Holy See -- Tom Reese got his head on a silver platter for exactly this, the cons' favorite pasttime. Only when one realizes that the Vatican is a completely different milieu for which there is no comparison on this earth can one begin to comprehend how it operates.

Obviously, I still have a mission ahead of me yet.

People looking for Curial heads to roll will be intrigued to know that it wasn't until 1985, a full seven years after his election, that John Paul II had reshuffled the prefects he inherited from Paul VI and John Paul I. It was another four years -- 1989, eleven years in -- before all the appointees at superior level (i.e. prefect/president, secretary, undersecretary) were his own.

I've spoken about this before, but one of my favorite con games -- and it really is one -- is how the John Paul fan club completely worshipped the man, absolutely loved everything he did, but felt free to unleash venom on any bishop who didn't meet their standards. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Well, who the hell put your bishop in office? Stop spinning -- with few exceptions, John Paul did.

I loved JPII more than words could say, but it is impossible to criticize a bishop without the logical progression to the man whose assent put him there. Wojtyla was saint, hero, visionary, prophet-god to me and my generation, but something had to give in all of that, and what gave was the daily minutiae of the church's governance, particularly in the appointment of bishops. That explains a lot behind the choice of Ratzinger.

Come on, Cardinal Law as advocate of a culture of life? Culture of Deceit, sure. Culture of DeLay, absolutely. But not Culture of DeLife. This goes for many others.... And John Paul, God rest him, must take some blame for this -- just because a man is pope means he is not immune from bad decisions. But if he is to be called to account for them, it must be done from a mature, analytical vantage, not rabble rousing of the smoke of satan....

To say such a thing is a disservice to the church and another hole in the bark of Peter. We should be able to expect better from the self-described "fan club."

Sounds more like a "sham club" to me.



Post a Comment

<< Home