Forever is a long time
So much for those vows of perpetual secrecy...
Although the cardinals swore an oath of perpetual secrecy about what occurred in the conclave, many began to talk about it on Wednesday. [WaPo]
Kieran Healy writes:
I know it’s impossible to properly conceive of eternity within the finitute of the human mind, but you’d think the Cardinals might have done better than “about 24 hours after the Conclave.” Still, the article is worth a read for its glimpse of the politics of the Church at its highest levels.
Interesting facts contained therein:
1. Ratz played the age card. He promised everyone he wasn't going to hog the papacy for the next quarter century, unlike like some people he could name.
2. American cardinals are astonishingly willing to talk about super-secret stuff on the record. I wonder if God's Rottweiler will have to excommunicate them now?
3. Opus Dei's going to be calling in a lot of favors.
4. Ratz served chicken cordon bleu at his electoral banquet and kicked everyone out early. General opinion was that JP2 threw a better party with more singing.
Wow--it's significantly harder to get inside gossip out of the Supreme Court (and almost all of it comes from clerks...)
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | April 22, 2005 at 03:59 PM
Am I the only person who doesn't think 78 is knocking on Death's door? Doesn't the Pope have access to some pretty damn good health care?
Posted by: Steve Brady | April 22, 2005 at 04:03 PM
He'll have solid gold feeding tubes filigreed by the Old Masters.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | April 22, 2005 at 04:06 PM
Didn't Ratzinger have a coronary a few years ago?
Posted by: Auguste | April 22, 2005 at 07:04 PM
Ratzinger had a stroke that I know of, I don't know about the heart attack.
Posted by: Flint | April 22, 2005 at 09:51 PM
It reminds of of Yuri Andropov taking over after Brezhnev. He looked rough and tough for a few years, and then his health failed.
Maybe this guy will be hale and hearty into his 90's. No way to know. I doubt he'll be logging the kind of miles on the Popemobile that JPII did.
Apparently the idea is that popes are supposed to keep at it as long as they live, and die in the saddle (this was certainly JP's take on it). This strikes me as both midieval and risky when applied in the modern context. How long till they have an alzheimers pope? Or one that has one of the other forms of dementia that often hit in old age? People live longer these days, but not everybody makes it to the end with all their marbles. Is there a protocol for removing an obviously incompetent pope? How infallable can a pope be who spends his days drooling into his tapioca, or muttering nonsense under his breath? I think the Catholic church has been lucky so far not to face these issues.
Posted by: jimBOB | April 22, 2005 at 11:03 PM
Is there a protocol for removing an obviously incompetent pope? How infallable can a pope be who spends his days drooling into his tapioca, or muttering nonsense under his breath?
The British monarchy seemed to handle it well enough. The CW is that Ratzinger was running the show anyway, right? Plus they have the whole "possessed by the Holy Spirit" cover.
Posted by: Steve Brady | April 23, 2005 at 12:04 AM
Im definitely diggin the I Love Unions label. It's scandalous I haven't put one up.
Posted by: Mathias | April 23, 2005 at 12:25 AM
The tradition is, despite the modern push among the more liberal minded Catholics -- particularly in the U.S. -- has been, once a pope, you're a pope until you die. Despite some contrary revisionist viewpoints on the matter (http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/schism.html) there actually has been a historical precedence (http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs008.htm) of some folks that took the mantle and just wouldn't give it up...even if they lost their mental faculties and other popes came around to usurp them. Thus the creation of the "antipope" by the church in hindsight...usually by the supporters of the non-antipope.
Anway, all in all...once a pope, forever a pope. Then again, what do I know, I'm not a Catholic.
Posted by: anorpheus | April 23, 2005 at 07:54 AM
Imagine a friend who says: "I've a double-layer chocolate cake that is so good its sinful, but I've gained weight this year so I've decided I will never, ever again eat a chocolate cake. I vow to God that I will not." A few hours later the friend says: "Okay, I think I've waited long enough. Now I'm going to eat the cake." And then they eat the cake.
Such a lack of restraint is amusing and endearing in a close friend. It's something else in a Cardinal.
Posted by: Lawrence Krubner | April 23, 2005 at 12:02 PM
As far as secrecy goes, since Ratzinger was the person that swore them in, I'm fairly certain that if he gave them permission to talk about it (since it was obvious that the catholic population wouldn't be overjoyed) then their solemn oath would be void and they could talk about it. As for the one pope for that pope's life, from JPII's diaries, they've found that his thinking on the matter was that if a pope retired, even though they no longer have the job, people would still think of him as the pope and look to him for guidance. That sort of split authority could be bad, so, he felt it was better for a pope to be incapacitated and have a trusted advisor hold on to the reins then to retire.
Posted by: Adam | April 27, 2005 at 03:57 PM
The geek shall inherit the earth. Thanks good site.
http://fgopdl.007webpro.com/a0092a/map.html
Posted by: [*names.txt*] | October 30, 2007 at 05:33 AM