I would, however, echo the warning of Cardinal Ratzinger against claiming that the Holy Spirit chooses the pope, at least in a strict sense. When asked whether the Holy Spirit is responsible for the election of a pope, he said:
“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
He continued:
“There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”
Yes, I'll add clarification. God still wills good providentially of course even out of the elections where cardinals failed to cooperate with the graces for wisdom, prudence and wise governance and many have been good for the Church. I mainly wanted to answer relatives who cynically believe the Holy Spirit plays no part in the process by emphasizing that, as you quote: "the thing cannot be totally ruined" Too many people are despairing of that latter clause being true today.
I'm thinking through the messy political side of the conclave process where so many of the Church's sufferings have arisen over history I think this time around is probably the first time in centuries where the faithful do have the capacity to make a real impact on the results. Through the media landscape today we have virtually recreated the medieval Roman mob online. This is probably the reason that the conclave feels so much like a presidential election. Because so few of the cardinals know each other well, they are getting their information via "other sources" and this probably lends itself to psy-op campaigns by interested parties to sway the cardinals' views (as in the pro-Parolin and anti-Tagle ones that I think liberals are running to make Parolin look like a moderate compartively).
Has it felt that way to you, that certain parties are truing to influence the outcome by way of influencing Catholics in general?
This is a thoughtful and respectful farewell to Francis. Thank you for showing us some of the good
Thank you. I felt that I needed to ward off some of my less-than-charitable first inclinations...
Ironically, we can put off disputes about the state of the Chair of Peter for a month as I satirize here: https://irkutskice.substack.com/p/catholic-unity-achieved-as-everyone
For a brief moment, yes, we're all sedevacantists...!
Yes I had a good chuckle 🤭
Lots of good things in here; thank you!
I would, however, echo the warning of Cardinal Ratzinger against claiming that the Holy Spirit chooses the pope, at least in a strict sense. When asked whether the Holy Spirit is responsible for the election of a pope, he said:
“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
He continued:
“There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”
Yes, I'll add clarification. God still wills good providentially of course even out of the elections where cardinals failed to cooperate with the graces for wisdom, prudence and wise governance and many have been good for the Church. I mainly wanted to answer relatives who cynically believe the Holy Spirit plays no part in the process by emphasizing that, as you quote: "the thing cannot be totally ruined" Too many people are despairing of that latter clause being true today.
I'm thinking through the messy political side of the conclave process where so many of the Church's sufferings have arisen over history I think this time around is probably the first time in centuries where the faithful do have the capacity to make a real impact on the results. Through the media landscape today we have virtually recreated the medieval Roman mob online. This is probably the reason that the conclave feels so much like a presidential election. Because so few of the cardinals know each other well, they are getting their information via "other sources" and this probably lends itself to psy-op campaigns by interested parties to sway the cardinals' views (as in the pro-Parolin and anti-Tagle ones that I think liberals are running to make Parolin look like a moderate compartively).
Has it felt that way to you, that certain parties are truing to influence the outcome by way of influencing Catholics in general?
Well said. That does seem true.