Some Cardinals Get Chatty After Conclave

Cardinals were sworn to silence about everything that happened during deliberations in the Sistine Chapel to choose a new pope. But within hours of the conclave, some German cardinals - delighted about the choice of their countryman, Joseph Ratzinger - spilled some of the secrets.

Cardinal Joachim Meisner told reporters Tuesday night that the new Pope Benedict XVI was elected on the fourth ballot - the first of the afternoon session. He added that Ratzinger got more than the required two-thirds support.

``It was done without an electoral battle, and without propaganda,'' the archbishop of Cologne told reporters at a residence for German priests in Vatican City. ``For me it was a miracle.''

There was spontaneous applause as soon as cardinals realized Ratzinger had won, Meisner said.

Meisner and three other German cardinals spent about 45 minutes answering questions about the conclave and didn't seem worried about commenting despite their vow of silence - which Ratzinger led himself, as dean of the College of Cardinals, when the conclave began Monday.

One by one, cardinals filed up to a Book of the Gospels and placed their right hands on it. Ratzinger's admonition read, in part: ``We promise and swear not to break this secret in any way...'' To guard against high-tech leaks by cellular phones, there were even electronic jamming devices under a false floor in the chapel.

One query the cardinals wouldn't answer is exactly how many votes Ratzinger garnered.

``We've already said enough,'' said Cardinal Georg Maximilian Sterzinsky, the archbishop of Berlin.

Meisner gave a few clues about the new pope's emotional reaction on being named. He said Benedict XVI looked ``a little forlorn'' when he went to change into his papal vestments in the Room of Tears - which earned its nickname because many new pontiffs get choked up there, realizing the enormity of their mission.

``I was worried, because when he came back dressed in his white vestments, I thought he had forgotten his skullcap,'' Meisner said. ``But then I realized his hair is as white as his skullcap.''

Meisner added: ``By the time dinner came around, Ratzinger was looking much better and very much like the pope.''

The new pope asked cardinals to dine together on bean soup, cold cuts, a salad and fruit, Meisner said. The nuns who prepare their meals didn't have time to plan a special menu, so there were only two special treats - ice cream and champagne.

New York Cardinal Edward Egan, who worked for years in Rome and at the Vatican, was asked whether the new pope had the support of Catholics in Latin America and Africa.

``Obviously, he must have had support from the Third World,'' he responded. Going into the vote, there was much speculation about the possibility of a pope from the developing world, where most Roman Catholics live.

Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali, who worked for more than two decades in Vatican diplomacy, said the decision to choose Ratzinger was not made in the days leading up to the conclave or as a result of Ratzinger's moving homily at Pope John Paul II's funeral.

``Decisions like this are not made on how a person impresses you in the last five minutes, the last hours, the last days,'' he said.

Rigali said the cardinals in the conclave thought about what John Paul had accomplished. Ratzinger was close to the late pope.

``We were looking for a successor of (St.) Peter,'' the first pope, Rigali said. ``We were looking for a successor of John Paul II. All of us were talking about the incredible qualities of John Paul II, knowing the world is calling him 'The Great.'''

The most damaging allegations against Cardinal Mahony concern the case of Rev. Michael Stephen Baker, accused of molesting boys as young as 5 years old. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Baker described going to the offices of the archdiocese in 1986 and telling Mahony of his problem with sexual abuse. He said that in one meeting, an archdiocese lawyer suggested calling the police but that Mahony said no….. Baker continued to have frequent access to children over the next 14 years while he was assigned to nine different parishes. Six of the churches where Baker worked had elementary schools adjacent to the rectory… In an interview last month, the cardinal said the archdiocese had few options in dealing with Baker because the allegations against him were unproven. ‘Our biggest problem was that ... he wasn't found guilty of a criminal act,’ Mahony said. ‘That's a big problem.’” So, just in case you missed it, Cardinal Mahony knew that Baker was a child molester and refused to inform the police, and then gave Baker continued access to children on the grounds that Baker had not been convicted of molestation. Hard to believe, isn’t it? But wait, there’s more. Not only weren’t the police informed, but the victims’ parents, and even the other parish priests, were not informed that Baker posed a danger. Some additional details, courtesy of the LA Times: Two years ago, Cardinal Mahony authorized a secret 1.3 million dollar settlement with two brothers who complained that Baker had molested them for years. However, Mahony was still trying to keep the case from the police: “But leaked e-mail correspondence between top archdiocese officials reveals that Mahony was reluctant to turn over Baker's name to police as recently as late March.” By the way, the idea that Cardinal Mahony’s hands were tied due to lack of a criminal conviction is ludicrous. There is absolutely no requirement that the Church wait for a criminal conviction before removing a priest from his post or defrocking him. In fact, clergy who challenge Church authority are routinely sent to posts in isolated places or defrocked, even though they have done nothing worse than exercise their freedom of speech.

YES! Thank you so much. I was ready to start sifting through FR's archives. Do you have the misfortune of being in his diocese? Years ago, he came right out in an article and admitted to aiding and abetting illegal aliens. When the Times used to show pics of society parties and charity events, there was his Eminence cutting a rug, and hanging with the beautiful people. He also has political clout, and his candidates are not mine, and probably not any freepers. Oh yeah, there's that "cathedral" he had built. Ugly as sin, pardon the pun.

People think I'm too hard on ol' Rog. The article you linked to, just about says it all.

Hey, NYer. I spoke with my dad last night and he told me that he watched Bishop (Howie) Hubbard's reaction on the news there in Albany last night. My dad said he was cracking up watching Hubbard try to dance around and praise the new Pope. He said Hubbard made some sort of comment about how he had some "differences" with the Pope on some issues. Actual quote: "At times, my position may have been different than his, ... but we must all rally behind him today."

Hey, Howie, there's a reason why you've been stuck as Bishop of Albany for nearly three decades and you're not going anywhere now, either! Too bad you snuck in just before JPII came to power and we couldn't have gotten a real Bishop for Albany instead.

Just take a look at what the Albany Times Union ran today:

Hubbard, who is considered a progressive bishop, took exception to reports that described Ratzinger as a dogmatic hard-liner and a staunch conservative who may be prone to cracking down on the liberal attitudes of American Catholics on issues such as gay rights, contraception, abortion and the role of women in the church.

No wonder the subhead of the articles was "Choice surprises Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard"

I'll tell you who else today must be feeling a little bit in the doghouse is my Cardinal here in D.C., McCarrick. Overall, he's not too bad, but he crossed Ratzinger last year during the presidential campaign on the issue of communion for pro-choice politicians. Article on "Oops, I crossed the next Pope" follows below:

McCarrick tempered letter on pro-choice politicians
By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 7, 2004

Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick downplayed a letter to the U.S. Catholic bishops from the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog on whether priests should refuse Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent his letter in early June to Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in the context of dealing with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic whose positions on several issues, including abortion, contradict church teachings.
But its full text, which was published Saturday in the Italian newspaper L'Expresso, contains much stronger language than Cardinal McCarrick used last month at a meeting of the country's Catholic bishops near Denver.
Cardinal McCarrick's nuanced speech during the meeting from June 14 to 19 paraphrased the Ratzinger letter to say that the Vatican had left the issue of Communion in the hands of the U.S. bishops.
As the chairman of a task force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, it was his job to convey what Vatican officials had told him during meetings in Rome.
"I would emphasize that Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path" of denying Communion, Cardinal McCarrick told the bishops in his speech, the text of which is posted at the U.S. bishops' Web site, on www.usccb.org.
"The question for us is not simply whether denial of Communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent," the cardinal said.
As a result, bishops voted 183-6 on a compromise statement allowing each bishop to decide whether to give Communion to pro-choice politicians.
Before the meeting, 15 bishops had released statements suggesting that pro-choice politicians refrain from taking the Eucharist, and four bishops forbade such politicians from doing so.
However, the Ratzinger letter says that denial of Communion is obligatory "regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia."
Cardinal Ratzinger also says a priest should warn "the person in question" of the consequences, including the denial of Communion.
If "the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it," Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.
The letter's last paragraph also takes on Catholics who vote for candidates because of their pro-choice stance.
"If he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," that Catholic too "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion," it reads.
That statement supports Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan, who on May 1 sent out a letter to his diocese saying Catholics who vote for candidates who support abortion, stem-cell research or euthanasia also should not take Communion.
But Catholics who vote for that politician on other grounds should not be penalized, the Ratzinger letter adds.
"Ratzinger's letter was stronger and firmer than we were led to believe," said Michael Novak, a Catholic theologian and author of many books on the church, who is in Italy this week. "It's pretty dynamite stuff."
Before leaving for Italy, he had heard of "dissatisfaction" in Rome over how Cardinal McCarrick was representing the church's teachings.
"I had heard Rome was much tougher than Cardinal McCarrick was letting on," he said. "Some people in the Vatican were upset that McCarrick was putting on too kind a face on it."
Cardinal McCarrick was out of town yesterday, but a spokeswoman released a statement saying he had not read L'Expresso reporter Sandro Magister's report on the letter.
"From what I have heard, it may represent an incomplete and partial leak of a private communication from Cardinal Ratzinger, and it may not accurately reflect the full message I received," the cardinal said.
"Our task force's dialogue with the Holy See on these matters has been extensive, in person, by phone and in writing. I should note I was specifically requested by the cardinal not to publish his written materials, and I will honor that request."
Raymond Flynn, the ambassador to the Vatican from 1993 to 1997, said American prelates often downplay the Vatican's instructions.
"The American church has been reluctant to speak out forcefully on a lot of these issues, whereas Pope John Paul II has instructed the Catholic Church to be more assertive," said Mr. Flynn, a conservative Democrat and former mayor of Boston.
"A lot of these American bishops aren't willing to get involved because of the backlash, because it's not politically correct, and the criticism they will receive from the liberal media," he said.

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.