Posted on 04/19/2005 4:30:05 PM PDT by metalmanx2j
I hope you are right. Islam is a problem in Africa where bands of militants go into churches and kill people where they are praying.
Arinze already speaks as many languages as Ratzinger. And, I'm not sure what "experience" Arinze needs that he doesn't have. He's been in the Curia almost as long as Ratzinger, and has been a bishop longer than Ratzinger.
Well there must be a good reason for his appointment since it was a landslide appointment.
"Except for a few summer school classes, I went to private schools for all 19 years. I think I missed some of the required indoctrination."
Consider yourself lucky.
I think the MSM was successful in making the world believe that we were going to get a new Pope of Olive skin or from South America, at least, that is the impression I got from watching the news in the last 2 weeks on the Pope.
Sounds like Liberal useful idiots.
Thank you.
Still not sure what you want except young, but the no-no is reassuring.
We have BXVI.
I think the discussion about the nationality or skin color of the pope is interesting, but it's rather sad that it's an issue at all. I would think the character and philosphies would be paramount.
Since I'm not catholic, whether they choose to have a foodfight after this election is only a matter of interest to me, since I have no stake in it. I would prefer that everyone was happy, but fights make for better entertainment, and I don't mean that in a flippant way. Sometimes they are over important matters, and sometimes they're over trivial matters, but they're always news.
I would love to see an African as the next pope. Judging from the visiting African priests that have come to my parish, the Africans are very orthodox. A "conservative" pope with black skin would really get under the skin of the "progressives." Africa is also a fertile ground for vocations to the religious life. In the future African priests may come to represent Catholicism as much as Irish priests did in the early 20th century.
The former Soviet republics in the Caucasus region and in Central Asia should be Second World. In the post-Communist era, what determines if a country is part of the Second World? Once Second World, always Second World? Or does membership in NATO and the EU allow a country to join the First World? Some of the Eastern European countries are more First World than Turkey is. And why are Israel, South Korea and Taiwan considered Third World?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.