--- Here's yet another example of why JPII isn't in control of the Vatican.
In a news conference to announce the release of a document aimed at
a crackdown on possible abuses in celebrating Mass, Cardinal Francis
Arinze was asked if a politician who supports abortion rights should be
denied communion.
"Yes. Objectively, the answer is clear," Arinze said. "The person is
not fit. If he shouldn't receive it, then it shouldn't be given."
Ok, now if you're not a Vatican watcher, this probably doesn't make any
sense to you. Let me attempt to explain. A little over a year ago, my
dad sent me an article that chatted about Cardinal Ratzinger's latest
instruction, which was that he wanted bishops worldwide to instruct
their Catholic parishoner-politicians that if they declared themselves
to be pro-choice, they were no longer Catholic by the definition of the
Church. The main example touted was the bishop of Sioux Falls SD---he
was supposed to get on Tom Daschle to stop saying he was Catholic. Ok,
so this apparently didn't go anywhere, but the culprit was out in the
open: Cardinal Ratzinger, who could kindly be described as
"reactionary" in terms of what he believes is correct and proper
behavior for a Catholic. This idea apparently went over like a lead
balloon in 2003, but it's an election year in the US. With a Catholic
contending for Big Cushy Seat #1. The idea morphed into sacrament
denial, and here we are---Brouhaha Central. Now, good ol Cardinal
Ratzinger is the dude in charge of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which, charmingly, used to be called The Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition. (He was also in the Hitler Youth when he was a kid, too.) I have a feeling Cardinal Ratzinger would prefer that the old name be reinstated. The Inquisition
just sounds like a better motivator to get Catholics to do what you
want them to. In my opinon, Ratzinger's a blowhard, but more
importantly he's an opportunist. And he's taking advantage of JPII's
Parkinson's to get his own agenda out there. JPII, in my humble
opinion, is a caretaker Pope. God bless the man, but he hasn't really
done diddly squat in terms of pushing the Church forward. One could
easily argue that he didn't feel the need to push the Church forward,
since he was from Poland and we all know how conservative Polish
Catholics are (heh!). I don't think so because he hasn't been afraid to
tackle some issues, like the death penalty for instance, or the evils
of communism. It's just that I think he realized from the very
beginning that he was in a touchy situation because JPI had died so
quickly. Any overt moves to the right, and all those assasination
theories would gain some momentum. But the Vatican does not move in
normal time. They've been around for 2000 years---they'll be around
another 2000. They can outlast their critics. I also think that the
attempted assassination took a lot out of him, to a certain extent, and
the pedophile scandal finished him. He liked things just the way they
were. Think about it. There haven't been any big changes in doctrine
since 1979. He's tweaked a few things, but that's about it. So the
question would be, why all of the new teachings? As you might have been
able to tell from website the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been busy publishing all
sorts of teachings, where there hadn't been too many before Ratzinger
took over. Why all of the instruction regarding how we Catholics are
supposed to feel about gays and lesbians, not to mention this bit about
pro-choice politicians? The idea may have been voiced by Cardinal
Arinze, but it's definitely Ratzinger's idea.
I would also really enjoy knowing why, if JPII is actually in charge of
the show, wasn't there a bit in this latest teaching about refusing
pro-death penalty politicans the sacraments? JPII does not like the
death penalty. He didn't want to visit Missouri in the late 90's
because the state was about to execute someone. Now, my father would
tell you that all of JPII's statements about the death penalty were
made "ex cathedra"---which means infalliabilty isn't attached.
According to Daddy, this also means these statements don't mean jack in
the scheme of things: no essential Church teachings have been changed
because the Pope spoke out against it. My reply was that if JPII made
these statements in front of a CNN camera, he was
teaching. Why all of the protestations over the death penalty if he was
actually for it in practice? It doesn't make sense, unless you take
into account that Ratzinger is in favor of the death penalty. And he
is. I'm not going to say that Ratzinger is the puppet master, but it
seems as if he's working a hand up JPII's vestments. JPII isn't in
charge. He's just too ill to rule effectively and Ratzinger, et.al. are
taking advantage of the situation. Which, you have to admit, is not
really flattering behavior in a priest. I don't care if he's a member
of the Curia. I don't care if he's il papabili.
I don't care if he's a Cardinal. When it comes right down to it he's a
priest---no more, no less. It seems wrong of him to take advantage of
the situation.