All of them are liberal? He ensured election of a liberal pope?

By Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. ( articles - email ) | Oct 01, 2003

I think the editorial writer at the Washington Times has gone off his meds. This editorial claims that not only are the 30 new cardinals appointed by the Pope not conservative ... every single one is a liberal. Or so they say. Archbishop George Pell, for one, is demonstrably orthodox, and probably the most orthodox of the lot. Sure some are actually liberal, but all of them?

And they claim that John Paul has ensured that a "progressive" will be elected the next pope, because of changes he made to the way a conclave works. Huh?

The editorial reads more like a tract from the SSPX or some other schismatic Rad Trad group than an editorial in a secular newspaper.

For a cardinal to be considered a conservative, the obvious minimal requirement is that he be congruous with the 2,000-year history of Church doctrine. The Second Vatican Council of 1962-65 made an explicit break from the past. All of the prelates elevated to the cardinalate on Sunday are members of the Vatican II generation, and swear allegiance to that revolution — which coincided with the high point of the secular liberal ascendancy.

To be considered conservative, you must reject Vatican II? No, rejecting Vatican II makes you heterodox and a schismatic. Perhaps, the editors at the Times need to actually read the documents of Vatican II rather than buy, hook, line, and sinker, the rhetoric advanced by the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd and the RadTrad crowd.

Maybe the Moonie owners of the newspaper decided to write in their own editorial this time. I don't know how else to explain this loony rant.