Three candidates for Pope who are on few people's lists

I realize this is a dangerous article: recommending three cardinals who might be the best selections to replace Pope Benedict XVI.

It's called throwing the dice in some circles. Really, how can anyone know who the cardinals will elect? And even then, do any of us know enough about all of them to make a good judgment on who the Holy Spirit might choose for that heavy cross -- err, role?

But still, I’d like to have a go at it just to know I tried, and if one of these are indeed picked, it would be rather exciting.

These three, except for Burke, are likely on very few persons’ lists. But that makes it all the more interesting.

1. Cardinal Raymond Burke, 64 - Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura

OK, regular readers of LifeSiteNews.com could easily guess that this incredibly faithful, fearless, yet humble and holy former Archbishop of St. Louis would be one of our favorites. Having met Cardinal Ratzinger in person years ago, and Cardinal Burke a number of times in recent years, I have to admit there is a remarkable similarity in their personalities - both soft spoken, naturally warm and friendly, surprisingly humble, and not at all the pitbulls their critics make them out to be.

Like Ratzinger, Burke is also a man who would attempt to do what everyone knows needs to be done: to reform the Curia and many other aspects of the Church. I have not the slightest doubt that he would serve the Church and the world very well as Pope.

However, do the other cardinals see Burke in the same way? Hmm, so far I suspect he would not win a popularity contest among them, but then would even the real Jesus (Who severely challenged the religious leaders of His day) be any more popular with some of them? And of course, this selection has nothing whatever to do with popularity. Anything can happen though, especially considering the grave concerns for the future that exist at this time.

For a lot more on Cardinal Burke just enter his name in the LifeSiteNews search. Our website contains lots of articles – all good -- about him. Not that we were in any way trying to promote him. He has done and said a lot of newsworthy and positive things that were well worth reporting.

2. Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, 80

“You can’t be serious?” many will say. He is 80 years old, and is not even permitted to vote – but he is eligible. Yup. All the talk is about a younger pope who can take on the very heavy tasks we know are ahead. Well, Arinze is, unlike Benedict, still in good health – as far as I know.

The thing is, if the cardinals can’t agree on choosing any of the younger one of their brothers, it can happen, and has happened more than a few times, that they will opt for a safe, short-term papacy of an older cardinal – as they did with Cardinal Ratzinger. But more than that, they will do what the Holy Spirit leads them to do.

Arinze is also holy, humble, utterly faithful, and has shown he will do whatever has to be done. He is still a much more worthy and capable candidate than many of the other cardinals. Arinze would be certain to continue Pope Benedict’s and John Paul II’s reforms. Also look him up in the LifeSiteNews search.

Cardinal Arinze is comfortable with and liked by youth. He has a wonderful, engaging personality. See the video of his reaction to hearing in person of Benedict’s resignation announcement.

3. Cardinal James Harvey, 63 – an American from Milwaukee and from 1998 until this past November, Prefect of the papal household under Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. (Again see Wikipedia's entry here.)

This is a real longshot. Why would I mention someone who very few people have ever heard of and yet another American?

Cardinal Wuerl has just said that the Church should not elect an American. Also, Harvey was removed as Prefect of the papal household this past November following the Vatileaks scandal. He was the superior of the Pope’s butler who stole and passed on to Italian media large amounts of very confidential documents from the Papal apartment. It is said that Harvey was removed for badly failing the pope over this situation.

The scenario for Harvey’s dismissal sounds reasonable. Still, it is more than curious that Harvey was so very quickly made a cardinal by Benedict at a time when he knew he would soon be resigning the papacy. Benedict would have clearly understood that his former, supposedly negligent prefect would not only be voting for his replacement, but would also be eligible to become pope himself. Hmm.

Until last fall, I had never heard of James Harvey. Then, on our visit to Rome this past November, I got an earful about the exceptional qualities of this man and how faithful he has been to both Popes John Paul II and Benedict. Amongst the Cardinals, Harvey has a high level knowledge of the workings of the Vatican and its Curia and an intimate understanding of the minds and goals of the last two popes and what they endured.

If faithful reform (as opposed to what all the "progressive" dissidents and media are calling for) of the Vatican and the Church in general is seen as an urgent need at this time, it just might be that Benedict knew Harvey was well-suited for the calling – and is relatively young for a cardinal, with lots of energy and years ahead. And solid, faithful.

So there, I’ve had some fun. To be sure, this is all just pure guesswork and speculation and probably off by a country mile. God likely has a very different choice than any of these three in His mind for the next papacy. Rather than us spending much time on speculating or promoting one or the other He wants Catholics to above all just pray a great deal for the new pope.

However, related to the issues of greatest concern to LifeSiteNews readers, I am sure these three would be among the best who would valiantly work to restore a Culture of Life to the world.

Whatever the outcome, which no one can know, the next few weeks or month or so will surely be fascinating. The world is going through great change these days and the Catholic Church will continue to play a major role in the drama - with whomever is elected as its new “Rock,” who will be Peter.

If, by "socialism," you mean the Church's long-standing "preferential option for the poor," rooted in the Gospel of Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount, and in a series of encyclicals from Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum through Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno through Blessed John XXIII's Mater et Magister through Paul VI's Populorum Progressio through Blessed John Paul II's Laborem Exercens and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis and Centissimus Annus, then you misuse the term. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Read Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum as to how socialism, so defined, does not conform to Catholicism. Those Church sources have nothing much in common with Marx or Engels.

The Church, however, is not likely to adopt as dogma the salutary writings of Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich von Hayek. The Catholic Church is a universal Church. Just as it was a very bad idea to sit still for Democrats to reference the Church as "the Democratic Party at prayer" so also is it a bad idea for the Church to become the "Republican Party at prayer." Certainly many members of both parties would object to being regarded as Catholic simply because of their political affiliations. Likewise, many Catholics would object to being regarded as members of either party just because they are Catholic.

The Catholic Church was designed to be a far larger tent than the Demonrats or the GOP. Political parties OTOH and religious denominations OTO have different purposes and different functions which sometimes intersect and often do not. If political conservatives do not want government to be playing Santa Claus with other people's money, that is fine, and the churches, Catholic and otherwise, will tend to fill the resulting gap much more efficiently with money voluntarily raised. If private charity is insufficient to care adequately for the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the deranged, then, at some level, government is likely to make up the difference. The more charity that is dispensed via voluntary contributions to churches and other private institutions, the less charity need be dispensed from money forcibly taken by taxes from citizens as citizens.

At the end of your post, you reference the Catholic Church as "our very religion." We have had thirty five years since John Paul II was elected by the second conclave of 1978. Assuming that you are Catholic, do you not agree that the Holy Spirit can influence a positive outcome of the conclave very well without your input or mine as laymen? That the Holy Spirit knows far better than you or me? That the voting cardinals,each and every one appointed by John Paul II or Benedict XVI has no need of listening to what "we will not stand for," nor any need to hear what the "progressives" will not stand for, nor what the pro-aborts may stand for, nor what those comfy with abominable perversions posing as "marriage" will not stand for, nor what the women's "ordination" and pro-lesbian bishops' caucus may not stand for, nor what those committed to ending priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite may not stand for.

As a Catholic, I am quite satisfied to know that these matters will be decided consistent with the Teaching Magisterium of the Church as has been the case for nearly two thousand years. Veni Creator! Viva Cristo Rey!

God bless you and yours!

itssme:

Cardinal Turkson is NOT a person whom I would prefer if I were voting but I am not voting and I lack much of the knowledge possessed by those who will be voting.

I favor the view of a new Nigerian cardinal whose name I cannot keep in mind because it is soooo more African than even most African cardinals. Interviewed by the otherwise execrable National (anti-)Catholic Reporter, he stressed that the Holy Spirit has already chosen the next pope and that it is the task of conclave to figure out the identity of the man He has chosen. If that happened to be Peter Cardinal Turkson, who am I or you to disagree with the Holy Spirit???

As to Obozo, I did not vote for him first because I am Catholic and for many other reasons. I also did not vote for Romney who also had a track record (never mind the campaign rhetoric and lies) of enthusiastic baby-killing even at taxpayer expense, of cramming perversion posing as "marriage" down the throats of Massachusetts citizens, persecuting the Catholic Church and other pro-life churches and people by FORCING them to pay for abortion at any stage of pregnancy, to pay for abortifacient forms of birth control, to pay for non-abortifacient forms of birth control which the Catholic Church and many others also regard as an evil, to pay for elective sterilizations and for sex-change surgeries and therapies and a Satanic cornucopia of other intrinsic and civilization-destroying evils. My vote against Romney was also, first, as a Catholic, and then on other issues like gun-grabbing, envirowhackoism, gushy enthusiasm for gummint edjumakashun down at PS 666, etc., etc., etc.

The difference between Romney and Obozo was on SOME economics only. As a conservative, I would prefer capitalist solutions but we have always in our lifetimes lived in a mixed economy in the US in which socialistic programs like, social security, medicare, medicaid, housing programs, veteran's benefits, and a great many other government spending programs. When Dr. Ben Carson speaks favorably of medical savings accounts, I know that he is right and that we should adopt that program but we will, for quite a while, need medicare, medicaid and other programs for elderly folks and disabled folks for whom it is not possible to recast the realities of their lives as it is for those younger or healthier. To be conservative is not to be eager to trip over an endless number of dead bodies in the streets.

I am NOT as motivated by mere economics as are many other conservatives. Nor, to say the least, are most Americans as motivated by capitalist theory as are many conservatives. Romney was the candidate of the trust fund babies. Romney is the pathetic cartoon stick figure that a James Carville would trot out as reflective of Republican "greed" and of Republican disdain for those fellow Americans (or "illegals" for that matter) who have committed no crime more serious than being poorer and less "perfect" than Romney and his friends. Romney and his fellow members of the GOP-Elite care far more for building up Muffie's trust fund, protecting her right to have as many abortions as "necessary" to maintain thin-lipped "respectability" until safely married off to some Chatsworth Worthington XXXII and to protect her brother Bruce's options to marry Harry than any of them are concerned about the well-being of the nation much less of its ordinary citizens. The GOP has been beaten with this political ugly stick since 1932 when FDR took over from the noble Al Smith but the GOP NEVER learns.

Obozo IS a Marxist, likely an atheist (remember that San Fransicko fundraiser whining about bitter clingers to their bibles and guns?). Romney is no Marxist but you would be hard-pressed to be able to identify the difference between Obozo and Romney and other GOP-E except as to the interest of the latter in keeping THEIR share of $$$$ out of the hands of Obozo's gummint. Decent as that goal may be, it is not enough to motivate about 4 million of us who WERE regular GOP POTUS voters to come back home. If the party chooses another lavishly financed child of privilege for the next POTUS nomination, get ready for a new Demonrat POTUS because a lot of us have had quite enough of the subversion of our own party by $$$$$ and are a LOT more interested in the rest of the issues, the ones that REALLY matter.

If someone offered me $10,000 or even $1,000 to vote for either of these heathen (not a crack against the Mormonism which Romney poorly practices) SOBs, the answer would be no. Offer me $1,000,000 and I may be tempted to be only human so I guess we know what I may be ansd we are dickering over the price. At least, I know sin when I commit one.

My first GOP vote was for Nixon in 1968. I had to hold my nose. I voted for each and every other GOP nominee through McCain in 2008 and, except when voting for Ronaldus Maximus, I had to hold my nose to a greater or lesser extent each and every time. I am not holding my nose any more. I don't understand Catholics who voted for Romney any more than I understand Catholics who voted for Obozo. I don't have to. I am responsible only for my own soul when I meet Christ at the time of my death and have to give an accounting of my life.

I don't know that the Faithful are saying anything at all about any alleged "socialism" of Peter Cardinal Turkson. I don't know enough about him to complain. I have heard that he would like to see some sort of "new world order" as to finance and that certainly sounds as sinister as when the term was used by Bush the Elder (a noted rhetorical stumblebum who was nonetheless exposing his real goal), I don't want any "new world order" whether it favors the rich and privileged OR the poor and desperate. I still prefer a somewhat compassionate capitalism as the basic framework.

If you consider that the majority of Catholics are no longer found in the Northern Hemisphere but in Latin America and Africa where courses in capitalism are not common for those few who actually get an education, the faithful may be more economically ignorant than you suppose and may not be infatuated with capitalism. Maybe we in the Northern Hemisphere and in the West have a calling to patiently explain capitalism to our co-religionists and interest our own American economic elite in building capitalism in Africa and Latin America in such fashion as to benefit the poor.

So who is this "we" who will not stand for a socialist pope??? Neither John XXIII nor Paul VI were pillars of capitalism. Many who will be voting in Conclave are ecclesiastical conservatives but open to many socialist schemes. They are, on balance, a lot more sensible than many of their airhead predecessors who eagerly snuggled up (not to Vatican II itself but) to the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II."

To be a Marxist is to be an atheist. Whatever Peter Cardinal Turkson may be, he is no atheist.

There are numerous fine papabile. My preferences include Cardinal Ranjith of Sri Lanka, Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco of Genoa, Robert Cardinal Sarah of Guinea, a Spanish cardinal whose name escapes me but who is known as "little Ratzinger" and others. We need a pope who shows to the world the pleasant face and smile of John Paul I, the rock star personality and forceful policymaking ability of Blessed John Paul II, the intellect and doctrinal purity of Benedict XVI, the holiness and authoritarian steel of Pope St. Pius X, the insight and foresight of Leo XIII, and the firm hand of Pius XII in ruling the bureaucracy. I have every confidence that no papabile has ALL of those qualities but the closer the better.

Socialism??? What a silly and transitory movement! We, as a Church, have outlived and turned shovels of dirt onto the graves of many of its enemies including but by no means limited to: The Roman Empire which martyred Jesus Christ, Peter, and most of three hundred years' worth of popes before Constantine got together with Pope Miltiades through the good offices of future Pope Sylvester; the contemporary variety of murderous pagans and barbarians in places like India and Egypt ans elsewhere who martyred apostles; barbarian tribes during the early Middle Ages; the Islamic hordes who seized Spain and much of Austria and were routed eventually from Spain and promptly from Austria; Napoleon who jailed a pope and ridiculed him as "Citizen Pope;" Bismarck and his "Kulturkampf;" Adolf Hitler and his "Thousand Year Reich" which lasted a bit over 20 years instead; Lenin and Stalin and their successors who lasted 75 years as the, ummm, gold standard of Marxism until the USSR collapsed during the time of Blessed John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, demonstrating the answer to Stalin's old question: How many divisions has the pope? Answer: with help from Washington and London, enough to put an end to you and your Godless ideological kind, Mr. Djugashvili.

No institution which has lasted two thousand years through many of the worst scandals of human history, many of the worst persecutions, wars, normal human stupidity and venality and much more, cold possibly have lasted without God's protection. The gates of hell, as promised, have not, do not and never will prevail against it, as guaranteed on the very Highest Authority.

As Blessed John Paul II was so fond of saying in quoting St. Paul: Be not afraid!

To both of you:

God bless you and yours!

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.