From: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
The conclave to elect the next Bishop of Rome could start between March 15 and 19, according to the director of the Holy See's Press Office.
“If everything goes normally, it could be envisioned that the conclave begins between 15 and 19 March,” Father Federico Lombardi said Feb. 13.
“At the moment, we cannot give an exact date because it falls to the cardinals to determine it.”
The Diocese of Rome will be “sede vacante” or vacant at 8 p.m. on Feb. 28, when Pope Benedict's resignation goes into effect.
The laws governing conclaves were laid down in 1996 in John Paul II's apostolic constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis,” and were modified by Pope Benedict. According to existing law, the conclave cannot start until 15 days after the Papacy becomes vacant, to allow all the cardinal-electors enough time to arrive in Rome.
Existing law also states that conclave must begin within 20 days of his date of resignation. This 15-20 day window corresponds to the conclave beginning as early as March 15 and as late as March 20.
On Feb. 28, the day the papacy will go vacant, 117 cardinals will be eligible to elect the successor to the Holy See. All the cardinals who are below the age of 80 will come to Rome to participate in the conclave. Most of these cardinal-electors have been appointed by Pope Benedict himself – 67 of the 117.
Under rules re-established by Pope Benedict in 2007, the conclave must achieve a two-thirds majority to elect the Bishop of Rome.
Recent conclaves have concluded quickly. Pope Benedict was himself elected in a 2005 conclave that lasted only two days. John Paul II was elected in 1978 after a three-day long conclave.
Once the Diocese of Rome is vacant, nearly all offices of the Roman Curia, the administrative offices governing the Church, are suspended, and will have to be reconfirmed by the next pontiff. One of the few that continues, because of its urgent nature dealing with issues of absolution and indulgences, is the Apostolic Penitentiary.
Showing posts with label Pope John Paul II. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pope John Paul II. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
Media Won’t be Sad to See Benedict Go
From: Media Research Center
It will be interesting to see if the media soften their almost uniform hostility to Pope Benedict XVI in the few remaining weeks of his papacy. It’s doubtful, since resigning his office won’t make Joseph Ratzinger any less Catholic. And his real sin, in liberal eyes, is just being too Catholic.
When the long, vigorously orthodox pontificate of John Paul II came to an end in 2005, liberals in and out of the Church hoped the next Pope would roll over on their most cherished issues: women priests, married priests, homosexuality and abortion. To say that Ratzinger’s selection was a disappointment is an understatement.
Since then, the media have maintained a relentlessly hostile narrative about Benedict XVII, his positions, his statements and his past. There are far too many incidents to include them all, but here is a quick list of highlights.
Extreme Conservative
Even before he became Pope, then-Cardinal Ratzinger was called “God’s Rottweiler” for his unapologetic defense of Catholic orthodoxy. Just two weeks before Ratzinger’s elevation to succeed John Paul II in April 2005, ABC’s Charlie Gibson said, "German-born Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is also mentioned, but his extreme conservative views and his age might be his undoing when votes are cast in the Sistine Chapel.”
Gibson’s misgivings were echoed again and again around the networks. Despite an ABC/Washington Post survey that found that 81 percent of U.S. Catholics approved of the selection, CBS’s John Roberts said, "Many Catholics...found nothing to celebrate." Roberts’ colleague Mark Phillips called the new Pope an “archconservative” and “the most polarizing figure in the Catholic Church.”
Journalists continued to play up Benedict’s conservatism, and continued to misunderstand his relationship to actual Catholics. Prior to the Pope’s 2008 visit to the United States, CBS’ Harry Smith asked Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George to "Explain the difference between the private man and the public Pope that some Americans are maybe even a little unsure or fearful of." ABC’s Dan Harris said Benedict was "sometimes controversial," a "hard-liner" for "strenuously condemning divorce, homosexuality, and abortion." The Pope, Harris said, is "more conservative than many American Catholics." Certainly more conservative than any American Catholics Harris might know.
In the event, the papal visit was a tremendous success. Massive and enthusiastic crowds greeted the Pontiff across the United States, leaving reporters mystified. ABC reporter Claire Shipman said "many Catholics are rethinking their views of [Pope] Benedict XVI." According to Shipman, "most [U.S.] Catholics" thought, at the time of his selection, that Benedict "might clash with American values."
But of course, what Shipman meant was “media values.” And Benedict never stopped clashing with those.
In December, 2008, Time magazine’s Jeff Israely wrote, with the Christmas season upon us, there is growing proof that the 82-year-old Pope is also quite willing to play the part of Scrooge to defend his often rigid view of Church doctrine.”
Hitler Youth
Perhaps NBC’s Katie Couric was looking for other ways to raise red flags about the newly installed Benedict XVII on April 20, 2005, when she asked liberal Father Andrew Greeley if Cardinal Ratzinger’s “past associations … will create a rift between Christians and Jews, and what can he do to fix that?”
Those past association are: As a German boy during World War II, Ratzinger was forced to join the Hitler Youth, and was then drafted into the German Army. He quickly deserted and was eventually captured by the Allies.
The connection, plus his defense of orthodoxy, makes it easy for liberals to deride him as a Nazi. And they have.
In 2009, one Allison Kilkenny used a Huffington Post blog to spew hate at the Church and the Pope, ostensibly over Catholic opposition to gay marriage. “In addition to preying on the fears and prejudices of the unenlightened masses, I have no tolerance for tax-exempt pyramid schemes that take money from poor people to build golden houses in Italy for a decrepit former Nazi youth, who now wears a funny hat and occasionally blathers in a dead language about hating gay people, suppressing women, and always -- always -- refusing to wear condoms.”
In 2011, in a public interview with Bob Balaban at the Hamptons Film Festival, left-wing activist and actress Susan Sarandon told an audience that she had sent a copy of a book to Pope John Paul II. She then said: “The last Pope, not this Nazi one we have now.”
In 2012, perpetually apoplectic liberal talk radio host Mike Malloy ranted, “You child-raping sons of bitches in the Catholic Church, I am so sick of all of you – especially your priests and your bishops and your scum, the Nazi Pope, I am so sick of all of you.”
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
In 2010, The New York Times published a series of articles about Benedict as seeking to protect the church at the expense of children's safety in various incidents of abuse in Germany, Ireland and here in the United States. The Times reported that as Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Benedict oversaw the transfer of a priest accused of abuse in the 1970s and 1980s to another parish where he again worked with children after he began therapy for his problems. A March 24, 2010 article, since heavily questioned, about a Wisconsin priest allowed to remain in the priesthood even after he abused 200 deaf boys from the 1950s through the 1970s placed the blame squarely on Benedict. The reporting was incomplete and biased. Ratzinger’s role in decision making about abusive priests was overstated. But there is no overstating the media feeding frenzy over the story.
During a two month period in 2010, the Times itself ran 64 stories on the allegations. Interestingly, the Times was far less curious in 2012 about similar questions regarding its incoming CEO, former BBC chief Mark Thompson.
The broadcast networks weren’t any less eager, broadcasting 26 stories about the allegations during Holy Week, 2010. In 18 of those stories reporters used language that presumed Ratzinger’s guilt.
ABC, CBS and CNN highlighted an American Catholic priest publicly calling for Benedict to resign over the charges. They called Father James Scahill "outspoken," "brave" and "gutsy." What they didn’t say is that Scahill is a leftwinger who dissents from Church orthodoxy on a number of issues, and has been honored by Voice of the Faithful, a liberal groups that, among other things, calls for an end to priestly celibacy.
At the Huffington Post, once columnist called for Benedict to be arrested, saying that “If Roman Polanski can be arrested on sexual abuse charges after 32 years of hiding, so can the Pope, holy or not.” Another asked if the Pope can be fired, calling the Church “diseased.”
The hits just keep on coming, right through 2012, when Benedict was attacked for once again defending traditional marriage in a “holiday hate speech.” Benedict will probably miss a lot of things about being Pope, but his portrayal in the media won’t be one of them.
It will be interesting to see if the media soften their almost uniform hostility to Pope Benedict XVI in the few remaining weeks of his papacy. It’s doubtful, since resigning his office won’t make Joseph Ratzinger any less Catholic. And his real sin, in liberal eyes, is just being too Catholic.
When the long, vigorously orthodox pontificate of John Paul II came to an end in 2005, liberals in and out of the Church hoped the next Pope would roll over on their most cherished issues: women priests, married priests, homosexuality and abortion. To say that Ratzinger’s selection was a disappointment is an understatement.
Since then, the media have maintained a relentlessly hostile narrative about Benedict XVII, his positions, his statements and his past. There are far too many incidents to include them all, but here is a quick list of highlights.
Extreme Conservative
Even before he became Pope, then-Cardinal Ratzinger was called “God’s Rottweiler” for his unapologetic defense of Catholic orthodoxy. Just two weeks before Ratzinger’s elevation to succeed John Paul II in April 2005, ABC’s Charlie Gibson said, "German-born Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is also mentioned, but his extreme conservative views and his age might be his undoing when votes are cast in the Sistine Chapel.”
Gibson’s misgivings were echoed again and again around the networks. Despite an ABC/Washington Post survey that found that 81 percent of U.S. Catholics approved of the selection, CBS’s John Roberts said, "Many Catholics...found nothing to celebrate." Roberts’ colleague Mark Phillips called the new Pope an “archconservative” and “the most polarizing figure in the Catholic Church.”
Journalists continued to play up Benedict’s conservatism, and continued to misunderstand his relationship to actual Catholics. Prior to the Pope’s 2008 visit to the United States, CBS’ Harry Smith asked Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George to "Explain the difference between the private man and the public Pope that some Americans are maybe even a little unsure or fearful of." ABC’s Dan Harris said Benedict was "sometimes controversial," a "hard-liner" for "strenuously condemning divorce, homosexuality, and abortion." The Pope, Harris said, is "more conservative than many American Catholics." Certainly more conservative than any American Catholics Harris might know.
In the event, the papal visit was a tremendous success. Massive and enthusiastic crowds greeted the Pontiff across the United States, leaving reporters mystified. ABC reporter Claire Shipman said "many Catholics are rethinking their views of [Pope] Benedict XVI." According to Shipman, "most [U.S.] Catholics" thought, at the time of his selection, that Benedict "might clash with American values."
But of course, what Shipman meant was “media values.” And Benedict never stopped clashing with those.
In December, 2008, Time magazine’s Jeff Israely wrote, with the Christmas season upon us, there is growing proof that the 82-year-old Pope is also quite willing to play the part of Scrooge to defend his often rigid view of Church doctrine.”
Hitler Youth
Perhaps NBC’s Katie Couric was looking for other ways to raise red flags about the newly installed Benedict XVII on April 20, 2005, when she asked liberal Father Andrew Greeley if Cardinal Ratzinger’s “past associations … will create a rift between Christians and Jews, and what can he do to fix that?”
Those past association are: As a German boy during World War II, Ratzinger was forced to join the Hitler Youth, and was then drafted into the German Army. He quickly deserted and was eventually captured by the Allies.
The connection, plus his defense of orthodoxy, makes it easy for liberals to deride him as a Nazi. And they have.
In 2009, one Allison Kilkenny used a Huffington Post blog to spew hate at the Church and the Pope, ostensibly over Catholic opposition to gay marriage. “In addition to preying on the fears and prejudices of the unenlightened masses, I have no tolerance for tax-exempt pyramid schemes that take money from poor people to build golden houses in Italy for a decrepit former Nazi youth, who now wears a funny hat and occasionally blathers in a dead language about hating gay people, suppressing women, and always -- always -- refusing to wear condoms.”
In 2011, in a public interview with Bob Balaban at the Hamptons Film Festival, left-wing activist and actress Susan Sarandon told an audience that she had sent a copy of a book to Pope John Paul II. She then said: “The last Pope, not this Nazi one we have now.”
In 2012, perpetually apoplectic liberal talk radio host Mike Malloy ranted, “You child-raping sons of bitches in the Catholic Church, I am so sick of all of you – especially your priests and your bishops and your scum, the Nazi Pope, I am so sick of all of you.”
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
In 2010, The New York Times published a series of articles about Benedict as seeking to protect the church at the expense of children's safety in various incidents of abuse in Germany, Ireland and here in the United States. The Times reported that as Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Benedict oversaw the transfer of a priest accused of abuse in the 1970s and 1980s to another parish where he again worked with children after he began therapy for his problems. A March 24, 2010 article, since heavily questioned, about a Wisconsin priest allowed to remain in the priesthood even after he abused 200 deaf boys from the 1950s through the 1970s placed the blame squarely on Benedict. The reporting was incomplete and biased. Ratzinger’s role in decision making about abusive priests was overstated. But there is no overstating the media feeding frenzy over the story.
During a two month period in 2010, the Times itself ran 64 stories on the allegations. Interestingly, the Times was far less curious in 2012 about similar questions regarding its incoming CEO, former BBC chief Mark Thompson.
The broadcast networks weren’t any less eager, broadcasting 26 stories about the allegations during Holy Week, 2010. In 18 of those stories reporters used language that presumed Ratzinger’s guilt.
ABC, CBS and CNN highlighted an American Catholic priest publicly calling for Benedict to resign over the charges. They called Father James Scahill "outspoken," "brave" and "gutsy." What they didn’t say is that Scahill is a leftwinger who dissents from Church orthodoxy on a number of issues, and has been honored by Voice of the Faithful, a liberal groups that, among other things, calls for an end to priestly celibacy.
At the Huffington Post, once columnist called for Benedict to be arrested, saying that “If Roman Polanski can be arrested on sexual abuse charges after 32 years of hiding, so can the Pope, holy or not.” Another asked if the Pope can be fired, calling the Church “diseased.”
The hits just keep on coming, right through 2012, when Benedict was attacked for once again defending traditional marriage in a “holiday hate speech.” Benedict will probably miss a lot of things about being Pope, but his portrayal in the media won’t be one of them.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Polish officials unveil statue of Ronald Reagan with Pope John Paul II
From: The Republic
Polish officials unveiled a statue of former President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II on Saturday, honoring two men widely credited in this Eastern European country with helping to topple communism 23 years ago.
A miniature stands in front of the new statue of former President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II that was unveiled in Gdansk, Poland, on Saturday, July 14, 2012. The statue honors the two men whom many Poles credit with helping to topple communism. The statue was unveiled in Gdansk, the birthplace of Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement, in the presence of about 120 former Solidarity activists, many of whom were imprisoned in the 1980s for their roles in organizing or taking part in strikes against the communist regime.
The bronze statue, erected in the lush seaside President Ronald Reagan Park, is a slightly larger-than-life rendering of the two late leaders. It was inspired by an Associated Press photograph taken in 1987 on John Paul's second pontifical visit to the U.S.
The photographer who took the picture, Scott Stewart, expressed satisfaction that one of his pictures has helped immortalize "a wonderful moment in time between the two men."
"In the news business we're used to having a moment and then that moment being gone a day later. This is one image that should last for a good long time," Stewart, who now teaches graphic design and photography at Greenville Technical College in South Carolina, said in a phone interview a day before the ceremony. "I'm happy that it's been chosen as the seminal moment to represent the relationship of these two people to Poland".
Reagan and John Paul II shared the conviction that communism was a moral evil, not just a bad economic system. And Lech Walesa, founder of the Solidarity movement that led the anti-communist struggle in Poland,has often paid homage to both men and told the AP in a recent interview that he deeply respected Reagan. "Reagan should have a monument in every city," Walesa said.
Poles widely credit the Polish-born pontiff's first visit to his homeland after becoming pope as the inspiration for Solidarity's birth. During a Mass in Warsaw in 1979, he used subtle language to suggest that Poles should try to change their system, a message not lost on the receptive nation. Poles also remember that when the communist regime imposed the martial law crackdown in 1981, rounding up dissidents and imprisoning them, Reagan lit candles at the White House to show his solidarity with the Polish people.
"When Reagan lit the candles, we knew we had a friend in the United States," said Czeslaw Nowak, a former Solidarity activist who was imprisoned for his activism in the 1980s. He leads an organization of former imprisoned dissidents that worked for about four years to raise 200,000 zlotys ($59,000) for the statue. The money was collected from former Solidarity members, many of whom are today living on small pensions and could only afford the smallest of donations.
Another member of the organization, Andrzej Michalowski, credited Reagan's arms race with Moscow with leading to the unraveling of the Soviet Union and its inability to keep controlling Eastern Europe. He said the monument was designed on a small scale so visitors to the park would feel John Paul and Reagan are still with them.
(Story distributed by The Associated Press
Polish officials unveiled a statue of former President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II on Saturday, honoring two men widely credited in this Eastern European country with helping to topple communism 23 years ago.
A miniature stands in front of the new statue of former President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II that was unveiled in Gdansk, Poland, on Saturday, July 14, 2012. The statue honors the two men whom many Poles credit with helping to topple communism. The statue was unveiled in Gdansk, the birthplace of Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement, in the presence of about 120 former Solidarity activists, many of whom were imprisoned in the 1980s for their roles in organizing or taking part in strikes against the communist regime.
The bronze statue, erected in the lush seaside President Ronald Reagan Park, is a slightly larger-than-life rendering of the two late leaders. It was inspired by an Associated Press photograph taken in 1987 on John Paul's second pontifical visit to the U.S.
The photographer who took the picture, Scott Stewart, expressed satisfaction that one of his pictures has helped immortalize "a wonderful moment in time between the two men."
"In the news business we're used to having a moment and then that moment being gone a day later. This is one image that should last for a good long time," Stewart, who now teaches graphic design and photography at Greenville Technical College in South Carolina, said in a phone interview a day before the ceremony. "I'm happy that it's been chosen as the seminal moment to represent the relationship of these two people to Poland".
Reagan and John Paul II shared the conviction that communism was a moral evil, not just a bad economic system. And Lech Walesa, founder of the Solidarity movement that led the anti-communist struggle in Poland,has often paid homage to both men and told the AP in a recent interview that he deeply respected Reagan. "Reagan should have a monument in every city," Walesa said.
Poles widely credit the Polish-born pontiff's first visit to his homeland after becoming pope as the inspiration for Solidarity's birth. During a Mass in Warsaw in 1979, he used subtle language to suggest that Poles should try to change their system, a message not lost on the receptive nation. Poles also remember that when the communist regime imposed the martial law crackdown in 1981, rounding up dissidents and imprisoning them, Reagan lit candles at the White House to show his solidarity with the Polish people.
"When Reagan lit the candles, we knew we had a friend in the United States," said Czeslaw Nowak, a former Solidarity activist who was imprisoned for his activism in the 1980s. He leads an organization of former imprisoned dissidents that worked for about four years to raise 200,000 zlotys ($59,000) for the statue. The money was collected from former Solidarity members, many of whom are today living on small pensions and could only afford the smallest of donations.
Another member of the organization, Andrzej Michalowski, credited Reagan's arms race with Moscow with leading to the unraveling of the Soviet Union and its inability to keep controlling Eastern Europe. He said the monument was designed on a small scale so visitors to the park would feel John Paul and Reagan are still with them.
(Story distributed by The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
The Beatification of John Paul II
From: National Review Online
The global Catholic family had gathered around John Paul II once again, as it had six years and 23 days before. Then, the task was to send him to his reward. Now, in a certain way, the task was to welcome him back and thank God for the gifts that had come to the world through his prayers for us at the Throne of Grace.
A QUESTION OF IMAGES
Four and a half weeks before Rome (in its semi-chaotic way) welcomed 1.5 million pilgrims determined to share in the largest beatification ceremony in history, I visited the Postulator of John Paul II’s cause, Msgr. Slawomir Oder, in his small office at the Vicariate of Rome, next door to the Basilica of St. John Lateran. Monsingor Oder, a Polish canon lawyer, had become a friend of mine over the past several years, and we were going to lunch together. After catching up a bit, he said he wanted to ask my opinion of something and showed me three photos. One of them would be selected as the pattern for the tapestry portrait of Blessed John Paul II that would be unveiled on the loggia of St. Peter’s just after Pope Benedict XVI pronounced the words of beatification. “Which would you choose?” Msgr. Oder asked.
I thought two of the pictures, from the pope’s last years, were inappropriate, being neither good photography nor very compelling. But the third, taken in 1989 by the Polish photographer Grzegorz Gałązka, was perfect: The pope had that characteristic slightly impish twinkle in his eye; his white zucchetto was a bit off-center, in a typical expression of his utter indifference to ecclesiastical finery; he showed some of the wear and tear of what was, at that point, an eleven-year-old pontificate that had changed the world and the Church decisively, but the ravages of Parkinson’s disease were still a few years in the future. It was him as I certainly wanted to remember him. So I said to Msgr. Oder, “I think this one.”
Rome — Two hours before the Mass of beatification for Pope John Paul II began on May 1, I looked up from our NBC platform near the Castel Sant’Angelo and saw a solid mass of humanity stretching in every direction: all the way up the length of the Via della Conciliazione to St. Peter’s; across the Tiber bridges and along the Lungotevere; around Hadrian’s tomb; spilling out past the Piazza Risorgimento. And the thought occurred: “There are a million people here who not only think this beatification wasn’t a ‘rush job’; they think it couldn’t have happened fast enough.” The voice of the Church’s people, which had been acclaiming John Paul’s heroic virtue since those cries of Santo subito! erupted at the end of his funeral Mass on April 8, 2005, was the voice of truth in all of this; those tiny, carping noises from the likes of Maureen Dowd, Hans Küng, and Richard McBrien had resonance only because they bounced around for a few days inside the world-media echo chamber.
A QUESTION OF IMAGES
Four and a half weeks before Rome (in its semi-chaotic way) welcomed 1.5 million pilgrims determined to share in the largest beatification ceremony in history, I visited the Postulator of John Paul II’s cause, Msgr. Slawomir Oder, in his small office at the Vicariate of Rome, next door to the Basilica of St. John Lateran. Monsingor Oder, a Polish canon lawyer, had become a friend of mine over the past several years, and we were going to lunch together. After catching up a bit, he said he wanted to ask my opinion of something and showed me three photos. One of them would be selected as the pattern for the tapestry portrait of Blessed John Paul II that would be unveiled on the loggia of St. Peter’s just after Pope Benedict XVI pronounced the words of beatification. “Which would you choose?” Msgr. Oder asked.
I thought two of the pictures, from the pope’s last years, were inappropriate, being neither good photography nor very compelling. But the third, taken in 1989 by the Polish photographer Grzegorz Gałązka, was perfect: The pope had that characteristic slightly impish twinkle in his eye; his white zucchetto was a bit off-center, in a typical expression of his utter indifference to ecclesiastical finery; he showed some of the wear and tear of what was, at that point, an eleven-year-old pontificate that had changed the world and the Church decisively, but the ravages of Parkinson’s disease were still a few years in the future. It was him as I certainly wanted to remember him. So I said to Msgr. Oder, “I think this one.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
