The Pontifical Secret.
There is some intrigue afoot after Tim Walker at the UK Telegraph reported that someone inside the Archbishop of Westminster’s house has leaked the contents of the terna which contains the short list of names to be submitted by the Papal Nuncio to the Pope as suggestions for succession to the Archbishopric of Westminster.
The candidates to succeed Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor as Archbishop of Westminster have been whittled down to three.
Mandrake hears that the names on the official list – the terna – are Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop Peter Smith and Bishop Arthur Roche.
“It will disappoint those who were hoping for someone outside of the current crop of bishops,” whispers my man at Archbishop’s House.
“Benedict XVI is not, however, obliged to pick one of the names that Archbishop Faustino Munoz, the Papal Nuncio, submits to him so we will have to wait and see.”
Now what is most intriguing about this is that the contents of the terna is no ordinary secret and leaking its contents no ordinary gossip. The terna is protected by the Pontifical Secret. To reveal the contents of such a secret, one would incur latae sententiae excommunication. Pretty serious business for someone in the Archbishop’s house. Granted, we have politicians up the ying yang walking around in a state of latae sententiae excommunication without a care in the world. No biggie, right? However, one would expect that someone with access to the terna would most likely know better.
This is why women can’t be the Pope or even Bishops, they would all be excommunicated! Imagine a conversation between one lady bishop and another:
Listen, I am not supposed to tell you this, but did you hear who is on the short list for Westminster? Now, I am not one for gossip, but this is just too juicy……Oh I know! I can’t believe that SHE is on the short list! Marge down in social services, who used to work for Her Excellency, told me that one time that she…..And did you see the shoes she was wearing at last weeks ordinations….I am not saying she is a tramp, but I would never wear those shoes…
See, God in His infinite wisdom chose only men for the priesthood simply to prevent all ordained women from being excommunicated.
Now I know what you are thinking, the article in the Telegraph referred to a “man” in the Archbishop’s house. Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that real men don’t gossip.
Oh by the way, did I tell you what I heard about….
April 29, 2008 at 12:14 pm
That’s one reason why women can’t be pope, but another is an effort to uphold the integrity of the office. Let’s face it, a guy isn’t going to accept the papacy merely because he ‘just has to have that pair of cute red shoes’.
😉
April 29, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Both of you should really stop and think before making such condescending and smug comments, even though I am sure you think they’re all in good fun. I read this blog every day, and I find these comments sophmoric and offensive. This type of attitude is part of the reason that Hillary Clinton is headed for the White House, and guess who her greatest constituency is? Catholic women.
April 29, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Anon,
You read this blog every day and you only just realized now that we are sophomoric?
Man, I guess we should have been trying harder!
April 29, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I read this blog everyday too, but don’t let your wife read this ok? Serious.
April 29, 2008 at 1:20 pm
If indeed, Hilary’s “greatest constituency is Catholic women”, it’s certainly not due to “sophomoric” commentary, but more the loss of a moral compass.
Keep up the good work, fellas! From a former feminist who recognizes irony-sarcasm-and-sophomoric-wit…and appreciates it!
April 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm
It’s a outrage!
April 29, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“This type of attitude is part of the reason that Hillary Clinton is headed for the White House, and guess who her greatest constituency is? Catholic women.”
Right. Middle-age-to-older, white, and upper middle-class, who tend to favor legalized abortion.
In other words, “bourgeois.” Real impressive.
April 29, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I was at a parish Lenten retreat a couple of months ago, and during the lunch break realized – much to my astonishment – that I was sitting with the “Hillary demographic”. They were white, working class women who in fact were opposed to abortion, but also opposed to the war, beaten down by the poor economy, wondering how they were going to send their kids to college, and of the opinion that men have made a mess of the country and it’s time to put a woman in office to clean things up. When I brought up the fact that abortion trumps all of these issues, they vehemently expressed their opposition to abortion, and began reciting stats on “collateral damage” in Iraq.
I don’t think you can make sweeping generalizations about the Catholic democratic vote in this country. Reading the bishops statement “On Faithful Citizenship” this year (the entire document, not the 2-page brochure) I suspect a lot of the bishops are leaning Dem too.
April 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Al Sharpton made me nearly fall out of my chair laughing. That is comedic genius, and he always says the same thing.
As for Anonymous and her defenders: Are you really equating the holocaust that is abortion to the current war and economy. Wow!
My problem with these social justice, peace and love, aging hippie women is that, if they are pro-life, you would never guess it from their words or actions. They tend to talk about how we are hurting our mother earth and sex education for 3rd graders.
April 29, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Anonymous,
“… men have made a mess of the country and it’s time to put a woman in office to clean things up.”
As if any old woman will do to fix the problems created by these damn men? No … not any old woman, but … Hillary Clinton…THE perfect woman to fix the man-made problems.
Anonymous, are you a sexist? Or is Hillary Clinton really a better presidential candidate than Obama or McCain?
April 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm
“I don’t think you can make sweeping generalizations about the Catholic democratic vote in this country.”
Neither do I. Which is why I narrowed my stereotype to a more believable segment of Catholic vote. (I don’t think there is such a thing as the “Catholic vote” in this election anyway.)
As to that ridiculous comment about it being time for a woman to clean house, and leaving aside Hillary’s disdain for being relegated to “baking cookies and serving tea,” I think comedian Chris Rock summed it up very well for all of us:
“I think America’s ready for a woman president… just not THAT woman. Being married to somebody doesn’t make you good at THEIR job. I’ve been with my wife ten years now. If she got up here right now, y’all wouldn’t laugh. At all. You get on a plane tomorrow, you want the pilot’s wife flying you?”
And if that’s not bad enough, remember who will be riding shotgun.
April 29, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I have never been accused of being sexist! McCain will of course get my vote, but I wish he knew more about economic issues and I’d feel more confident about him if he’d finished a little higher than 5th from the bottom of his graduating class. I’m also concerned about his temper. My point in all this is not to promote Hillary; the idea of the Clintons back in office makes me nauseous. The “Catholic” political position, though, ideally includes more than pro-life, and it bothers me that social issues are dismissed out of hand. If we ever unify the Catholic vote in this country I think it will be behind a pro-life Democratic candidate. That’s only happening in my dreams, though.
April 29, 2008 at 3:41 pm
The Catholic social position is that you don’t try to build utopias as the Democrats do. For Democrats it is a given that humans and their societies are perfectable and that the Democratic party is the way to achieve that perfection – or so they say. We Catholics know better. The liberal pie in the sky “social justice agenda” is an illusion and a way to grab power for themselves. It keeps us from concentrating on our essential earthly task of salvation. Catholics are bound by faith and the love of Christ to help the poor – not to vote Democrat.
April 29, 2008 at 4:37 pm
The goal of Catholic social justice teaching, as I understand it, is to build a just society which, by definition, is one that reflects the gospel of Jesus Christ. A society that reflects the gospel is one that contributes to the salvation of all, precisely because it is easier to focus on eternal concerns if temporal concerns are being met. I recall Peter Maurin’s apt phrase, that the responsibility of government, church, and each individual, is to work to build a society “in which it is easier to be good.” The mission of the Church is the salvation of all. Given that, the work of social justice is not peripheral to the mission of the Church, but integral and essential.
Two temptations to avoid: First, reducing social justice to altruism, which results in an effort to meet temporal needs without the preaching of the gospel. Second, mistakenly thinking that Christ came to save souls, and not persons (persons being body and soul), which results in an effort to meet eternal needs with little or no concern for temporal, as if the two could be separated in beings who are both body and soul.
Separating the temporal and the eternal is a false dichotomy among beings who are body and soul. This is one reason why faithful Catholics will almost always have difficulty finding a good, much less ideal, candidate for whom to vote. There are simply too few who are concerned about keeping the balance between eternal and temporal needs.
Bob Hunt
April 29, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Catholics who use Social Justice issues and the War in Iraq to outweigh abortion haven’t looked at the numbers very closely.
The total Killed in the War to date is between 83,000 and 91,000 according to Iraq Body Count site (www.iraqbodycount.com).
Since reinstatement of the Death Penalty in 1976, there have been 1,099 executions in the US as of October of 2007 (www.wikipedia.org)
For simplicity’s sake, let’s round these numbers:
100,000 deaths in the War
2,000 executions
Generously rounding in their favor: 102,000 deaths total vs. 1 Million deaths every single year!
What people fail to understand, is that Life Issues are afforded more weight than other social issues and are non-negotiable. You cannot claim otherwise in relations to ‘other’ social issues.
How do you justify: 1,000,000 babies killed through abortions each year vs. 101,000 Total deaths (5 years of war and 32 years of Capital Punishment)?
I’m sure these people mean well, but their position is simply indefensible under the lens of Catholic Social and Moral Teaching.
To continue to be obstinate in such matters pushes these people unfortunately outside the Communion of the Church along with many Catholics, tragically.
Point these people to the following document:
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
A Call to Political Responsibility from
the Catholic Bishops of the United States
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
This document is rather sensible concidering it came from the USCCB.
Please have them take the time to read this document and be sure to encourage reflection and to pray on its contents.
In Christ,
Mark
April 29, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Conservatives sound like a broken record. I’m a Catholic. I love my faith but I’ve seen too much suffering brought on by Republicans to ever vote for a Republican.
This might be some news to you but being Catholic doesn’t mean necessarily being a Republican. Following the example of Jesus means helping the poor, not just attacking women at their most vulnerable.
April 29, 2008 at 8:35 pm
“Following the example of Jesus means helping the poor, not just attacking women at their most vulnerable.”
And this happens… when????
April 29, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Anon,
If the Democratic Party changed their stance on Abortion, I would be compelled to change my vote based on Church Teaching… And in fact I would change my vote, even though I may not personally like ‘all’ of the other platform issues.
It’s not about the party, it’s about the issues and how they map out with respect to the Church’s Teaching.
Our responsibility is voting for the lesser of two evils.
Very few of us have, objectively speaking, a well-formed conscience. We must rely on the the Churches Teaching and careful discernment to make the proper choices we are faced with in life. This includes who to vote for in this coming year’s election.
In Christ,
Mark
April 29, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Republican caused suffering? Like what. However, we can blame the left for abortion, the normalization of homosexual behavior, the destruction of the family, and the de-humanizing welfare culture. (And Barbara Streisand!)
April 29, 2008 at 11:15 pm
She spells it “Barbra.” Don’t ask me why.