I don't always agree with Barnett, but he is an interesting guy and I do like his books. But what really stood out was the intensity of his reaction to Ratzinger.
It's distressing how pleased Ratzinger looked when he announced his position to the throngs of supporters. Okay, so he's ultra-conservative and he's not going to change anything. I get that. I even understand the concern that he's just a stopgap. But when the most important areas in Catholic religion are the third-world, especially Latin America, you would think they might give a damn and elect a non-European.
Ratzinger looked a little bit like Robert Blake.. Anyway, After twenty some odd years of a Pole, there was a big move to get an Italian back in there, but speculation was rampant that because the Italians didn't agree amongst themselves (I think they have 21 or 22 votes), the Americans became flustered (the Americans would've voted as a bloc [11 votes] for an Italian).
I think we are still at least a generation away from seeing a non-European Pope.
I think if they would have elected a third world cantidate, it would have been Arinze (maybe that's just wishful thinking)from Nigeria. Thing is, he happens to be black and the world isn't quite ready for such a change. I think the reasons why Ratzinger was elected had to do with his closeness to John Paul II and his conservative stance regarding the Church doctrine, which has been attacked in recent years. I'm wondering about his stance regarding communicating with other faiths, especially Muslims. It seemed that several of the cantidates were willing to open the floor for talking with other religious leaders; this would be key in attaining some sort of peace in the Middle East, but he won't do it. In fact, he isn't open to exploring "religious relativism" at all, according to the New York Times. In other words, this might be an interfaith relations mistake, but a steroid for the Catholic Church. I just don't like the conservative lean the entire world seems to be taking...it reflects the decline of many economies and things
( ... )
I completely understand why he was elected. He was definitely the "safe" choice. And yeah, his lack of being open to other religions could be quite damaging in numerous ways. But I think it's a mistake to blanket the whole world as right-leaning. I think the problem the Catholic Church is facing, but doesn't want to admit, is it's declining loyalty in the West, especially in Europe. Yes, the French will say they are Catholic, but never turn up. Outside of Spain, Portugal, and bits of Italy, widespread devout Catholicism is hard to find, and even those places are essentially just hammered with Catholic Guilt anyway. Another John Paul II won't change anything. I think a Third World Pope would have changed a lot of things, and increased the already strong Catholic numbers in the impoverished areas in the world. Also, it would inevitably have brought about a more liberal agenda, and the possibility of condom advocacy in an AIDS-ridden world. Unfortunately, the Vatican is just as disconnected with the world as ever, and things
( ... )
Comments 5
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/001695.html
And this really throws out the adage, "you go into the Conclave a Pope and come out a Cardinal"
Reply
Reply
I think we are still at least a generation away from seeing a non-European Pope.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment