You are here

Europe and the Popes

Here’s a post at my blog where I laid out many reasons why Europeans should be popes, as opposed to common liberal arguments in favor of a pope from the Third World.

http://thirdpositionreview.blogspot.com/2005/04/europe-and-popes.html

Forum: 
Share/Save

I read your blog entry, and agree with it.

The “common liberal arguments” for a non-European Pope are just that—common liberal arguments (as if liberals had any interest in the flourishing or life of the Catholic Church).

The basic liberal position towards all traditional institutions is that they should be gutted of all substantive content, and become ceremonial associations reflecting and endorsing the usual banal liberal pieties. Greeley is a good example of this: “A European Pope is racist on its face.” Sure Andrew, we hear you; we’ll be sure to institute a rotating quota system on the college of cardinals and the papacy post haste (Isn’t that what the US Supreme Court would require?).

Liberals think liberalism is both vertically and horizontally universal, that it embraces all human experience, all human perception, and all human participation. The liberal vision is therefore extremely truncated. Although laying claim to “humanism,” liberalism excludes large portions of the human experience. It can’t imagine human participation in or conversation with the transcendent, and therefore liberals are completely tone deaf when addressing issues or matters affecting institutions whose entire existence is devoted to the transcendent.

LIberals have no idea why the Catholic Church even exists, but if it does why shouldn’t it be just one more appendage to and reflection of the liberal mind? Liberals look at everything this way; the Catholic Church is no exception.

I was afraid nobody was going to comment on this.

One thing I forgot to mention was that many Third World Catholics are acting very childish on this issue. They act as if they’re entitled to having one of their own as Pope. If they’re going to act like that then they dont deserve to have of their own as Pope. I hope the election of Benedict XVI teaches them humility and respect!

Many traditionalists argued for a third world pope on the grounds the cardinals in that region are more hardline than many European
cardinals. That maybe true, but I fear that even the election of a traditionalist Third World pope is still in many ways a conecession to the liberals. They’ll find a way to hijack his election for their own purposes, as they’ve hijacked so much in the Church. If Vatican II taught us anything, dont give an inch to the Liberals cause they’ll take a mile. Plus, the election of a non-European would also be a concession to multi-culturalism and the liberals would play it up for all its worth.

As Ive mentioned, they moan that the church MUST elect a third world pope or else the Church will loose all spiritual value. Of course we know this is bull and just typical liberal rhetoric(didnt one liberal write a book titled “Christianity must change or die”?)

I wrote this because I was tired of the liberal arguments dominating the whole public debate about where the next Pope would/should come from and no arguments were made about why Europeans not only can but should still hold the seat of St. Peter. I heard some arguments here or there about having an Italian as pope, but they were hardly given the attention or presented vigorously as those for a Third world pope.

Thank you for your comments.

“Christianity must change or die.”

I think the good Bishop Spong wrote that book. Spong took over the Newark Diocese of the Episcopal Church and its membership plummeted during his tenure. Maybe Spong must change or his diocese will die.

Liberals like Spong equate liberalism with life itself. Hence, if an institution does not incorporate liberal pieties, it is destined for death.

Of course, all evidence is to the contrary. Institutions infected with liberalism wither and die (except those favored by government subsidy, like NPR or PBS). More traditional institutions (particularly churches) thrive.

For some reason, I wasn’t signed in properly when I posted the comment on Spong. But, it was my comment.

I’m a liberal, but I definitely agree with the proposition that Christianity SHOULDN’T change. There are certain ‘absolute’ truths that cannot be set aside. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, so says the Bible.

I disagree, however, on the view that liberal institutions wither and die. Take for instance democracy. Democracy is a liberal institution, but it is today, by far, the best institution the world has.

Jesuit Frank,

There are certainly those who would disagree with your assessment of democracy (including the liberals of today, who dread the prospect of majority votes on issues dear to their hearts; hence, their obsession with the Courts and court appointments). The liberals of today love “democracy lite,” in which majority votes control, except on issues that the liberals choose to exempt from the barbarity of majority vote; thus, liberals can lay claim to “democracy,” while avoiding the majority on any issue they happen to label a “right” (you can always bet that the next big initiative coming from liberals will implicate a “right,” thereby automatically disenfrachising the majority and gutting “democracy” of any substance). I, however, have no opinion on the question of the supremacy of democracy, however described, as I haven’t thought it through at all.

In a more general vein, I think your use of the word “liberal” and my use of the same term are referring to different concepts. When I use the term “liberal,” I’m referring to the advanced liberalism of today, as so admirably described and dissected by Mr. Kalb and his colleagues.

I agree that democracy was a liberal development, as that term was understood by someone like John Stuart Mill or Benjamin Franklin. But that liberalism has been dead for a long time, and, if it appears today, it is most likely to be labelled as “conservatism.”

It’s difficult to think of a personality on the left who embodies or expresses “classical liberalism.”

But europeans white,who no even knows the differences between orthodoy and catholicism,are entitled to Papacy!!!.
Your arguments are so void.

>Your arguments are so void.

How so?

My view is pretty simple- take the best man available, and if there are no good ones, take the least-bad. As a Traditionalist, I just don’t see a whole lot of strong options in the College; I would’ve picked Ratzinger, but from a very thin overall field. There basically are no real capital ‘T’ traditionalist Cardinals left; Cardinal Oddi is dead, and the Sticklers and Gagnons are heading there. Ratzinger is close, but not quite there. I’m happy he’s Pope, instead of some maniac that will make us relive the 70’s.

Democracy is a concept over 2,000 years old, and it actually existed in a form over 2,000 years ago. I do not know any liberal that actually believes in democracy in practice, not in preaching. What is democratic about “vote or die”? This seems to be the modern, the Bushian, idea of democracy Bush is imposing on Iraq.

I agree the tactic is sound. I just am not sure it is democracy.