<< HISTORY IN PICTURES VIII ~ MAIN ~ ROOTER >>
POPE SURVIVOR PROGRESSES TO ELIMINATION ROUND
The Pell for Pope push is fading as Pope wannabes provoke the Vatican’s version of a red state/blue state split:
A battle for the soul of Catholicism was unfolding in the Vatican yesterday as progressive cardinals struggled to head off a conservative victory in next week’s conclave.
Two main groups have emerged from within the 115 cardinals eligible to vote for the successor to Pope John Paul II when they meet under “lock and key” in the Sistine Chapel on Monday.
The first group, referred to by some cardinals as the integristi - the integrators or conservatives - is falling in behind Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
But the riformisti have yet to concede defeat, say insiders. They believe that they also command up to a third of the votes, but their main weakness is that they have no credible candidate.
So? That never stopped John Kerry! (Erm, wait a second ... ) Anyway, Ratzinger is judged a clear early leader:
La Repubblica newspaper said Cardinal Ratzinger could already count on at least 40, if not 50, votes from among the 115 cardinal electors who will take part in the conclave. To be elected, a candidate must win two-thirds of the vote, or 77 votes.
Cardinal Ratzinger is reportedly particularly eager to find the 264th successor of Peter quickly, and La Repubblica reported that he would withdraw his “candidacy” if he fails to garner the two-thirds majority needed on the first day.
Which might set up Pell for a Bradbury-style victory. In which case Jane Fraser predicts mixed feelings locally:
If he is elected pope, as the Italian newspaper Il Giornale has suggested he may, Pell’s haters will sound bells and blow whistles to celebrate the departure of their enemy from these shores. But they will be incandescent with rage at the thought of him getting the top job. Then there’s the matter of what name Pell would take should he succeed; his friends think Pope Bruce has a nice ring to it. Go, George!
Meanwhile, Spiegel Online reports (via David Kaspar) that German green Antje Vollmer has a bold new theory:
The US government set the Catholic pedophilia scandal in motion because it wanted to weaken an already frail pope. That’s also why it made Poland its chief partner in the Iraq war: to make the Vatican look bad.
It makes sense, once you remove your frontal lobe.
“Two main groups have emerged…when they meet…on Monday”
What kind of “news” story is this? They’re now forecasting the news? Even for the Telegraph, this is a little pretentious. They’ve got the story line figured out, so just go ahead and report on it, never mind it hasn’t happened yet.
What news bias? Never mind, move along, nothing to see here!
“A battle for the soul of Catholicism.” How pathetic. Invent the news and cast your invention as a battle for the soul of Catholicism. Delusions of grandeur, that.
And the actual interest these cats have in the actual health of the soul of Catholicism? Nil. Simple observation of reality suggests that one ought to have an idea of the mission of the Church - to make Christ known to the nations and worship Him. They have no clue, having long ago abandoned any sense of transcendence beyond themselves; how then are they fit to intelligently judge the Church’s deliberations about who is to be Pope? It’s like criticizing a painting with your eyes closed.
I don’t know what a good Pope name is, but I know one that isn’t.
Yeah, I know I’m going to hell.
Posted by G Hamid USA on 2005 04 14 at 04:57 PM • permalinkThe US government set the Catholic pedophilia scandal in motion because it wanted to weaken an already frail pope. That’s also why it made Poland its chief partner in the Iraq war: to make the Vatican look bad.
Fuck, this theory tops the lot. The war in Iraq wasn’t about oil, it was about weakening the Pope!!!
This is your brain on drugs.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 14 at 05:15 PM • permalinkThe US government set the Catholic pedophilia scandal in motion because it wanted to weaken an already frail pope. That’s also why it made Poland its chief partner in the Iraq war: to make the Vatican look bad.
That Karl Rove really is a Machiavellian god. That leads us to one of the great rhetorical questions of our time: is it possible for Karl Rove to create a conspiracy so big that even he can’t lift it?
Posted by Randal Robinson on 2005 04 14 at 05:27 PM • permalinkFirst, in Sept. 2002, then-Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. Then came Andreas von Buelow, the former federal education and research minister whose 2003 conspiracy theory alleging the CIA and Israeli intelligence were responsible for the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington made for a best-selling book. Now Vollmer comes along, implying that the US government chose to draw attention to the Catholic pedophilia scandal not because of the crimes in and of themselves, but because Washington wanted to weaken the pope. (...)
This is all hate speech. They should all resign and be made to attend diversity workshops.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 04 14 at 07:12 PM • permalinkIt makes sense, once you remove your frontal lobe.
Hmm, I’m dubious.
Nyyyyyargh!
Nyo. Nyo, yit styill dyoesn’t myake yany syense.
Nyow hyow dyo yi pyut thyis thying byack?
Yoh, ryight.
Pllllyorp.
Wow, that was weird. I had this hideous compulsion to join a protest march and read Webdiary.
Hope the glue holds…
just had a reply from media watch about the sherrif line. Media watch says they wont expose the abc’s and sbs’s continued propogation of this myth “because the story started in the Bulletin”. I s it just me or does that make no sense?
Posted by Astonished on 2005 04 15 at 01:13 AM • permalinkYoungy,
They aren’t sworn to secrecy yet. Their oath of secrecy (and the threat of excommunication) relates to the conclave itself.
For the moment, they have unanimously agreed not to avoid giving interviews to the press and have invited the press not to ask for comments.
It’s quite likely that some of them are still chatting “off the record” to some journalists (mostly to spread disinformation and destabilise support for others).
We should take anything appearing in the Press with a grain of salt, especially in the mainstream press running stories based on wire reports. Most of the current reporting is stories about what today’s Italian newspapers are reporting.
I was always told the hand of God selects the Pope. Is God on vacation or is he at the ranch in Texas?
Posted by The Bastard on 2005 04 15 at 05:17 AM • permalinkThe 2/3rds vote is only for the first 30 votes. If they go 30 votes without a Pope a majority (half + 1) can now call for a majority to select the Pope.
So if any one majority can agree on one man then they wait for it.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on 2005 04 15 at 08:11 AM • permalinkSo if any one majority can agree on one man then they wait for it.
In that case, I suspect that some of those voting for other candidates would jump to the majority candidate pretty quickly as they can see what’s coming after 30 ballots when the 2/3s requirement drops, and I doubt anyone wants to extend this thing for days and days if there’s a clear-cut front runner right from the start.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
In other news, John Kerry decried phone calls to the Cardinals, telling them “Ratzinger supporters vote on Tuesday, Ratzinger opponents vote on Wednesday.”