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

By Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. (articles ) | 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.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 4 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: John J Plick - Oct. 06, 2003 10:19 PM ET USA

    Vatican II may have been theologically correct in the formal sense but in the practical sense it expressed itself as an administrative nightmare, prematurely presented, badly promulgated and used as an occasion of sin for any real rebel or dissident that happened to need an excuse. To use "acceptance" of Vatican II as a standard of orthodoxy is like condemning a man for showing disgust for a thrill-seeker who drives his Corvette over a cliff, saying he does not appreciate cars.

  • Posted by: DCpa - Oct. 02, 2003 9:39 AM ET USA

    Domenico is right. This is an effort by Moonies to spread dissatisfaction with the Church, so they can capture "conservative" Catholics, looking for a new home. Recall their antics with Archbishop Milongo of Zambia. Their crocodile tears for him led to them getting him a "wife," and press against the Magisterium! They don't have the story of the election changes right either. The majority vote kicks in only after a week of 2/3 voting. It is a way to prevent the libs from deadlocking the conclave

  • Posted by: - Oct. 01, 2003 7:29 PM ET USA

    Actually, it was thoughtful and presented a unique perspective on the Cardinal-Electors, even if I disagree. For instance, if it's true that a two-thirds majority is no longer needed to elect a pope, but merely a simple majority, that's interesting and deserves some explanation and thought about how that will affect the process. And, if the cardinals will meet in luxury rather than sparse quarters that also deserves some reflection. Smears like "loony" and "RadTrad" aren't up to CWN standards.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 01, 2003 11:09 AM ET USA

    This calls to mind Monty Python's skit with the "Looney Detector" van. I believe that it was John Cleese, looking for a fish license, for his pet fish, Eric. Michael Palin was behind the desk. John Cleese had quite a loony rant.