Pretty dreary. Instead of thinking about the Pope, I spent much of the time struggling (in vain) against software bugs. (I am trying to avoid having to pay a fortune to have my software repaired by an expert.) Still, I found a little time to meditate on this astonishing reign. It seems to me that, in the last century and a half, the Conclave never set a foot wrong; every Pope since at least Leo XIII has been a great leader and exactly what was needed at the particular period. Some criticism might be addressed at Pius X's reactionary views, but at the time when the heresy of Modernism was at its height, a resolute defence of dogma was just what the Church stood in need of. Without this series of brilliant leaders, the Catholic Church might have ended up like the Anglican body and the mainline US Protestant denominations, blown about by every wind of doctrine and wholly irrelevant in the world. Let us hope they get it right again. Personally, I think that John Paul II's papacy cannot and should not be repeated; they should look for a man of different gifts and character, although something of his ability to involve people on a personal level would be welcome indeed.
This man has been a solid presence for more than half my own life. I do feel nervous about the future and who shall replace him - especially when one thinks that people like Daneels, Lehmann and Mahoney will have a vote in the Conclave. In Mahoney's case, things in Los Angeles are at such a point that we might have a Prince of the Church voting in conclave for the next Vicar of Christ while being investigated or indicted at home for conspiracy and covering up paedophiles. And let us not forget that Bernard Law is still a Cardinal too. John Paul II, as I said elsewhere, really did make some bad choices in his eagerness to "balance" orthodox and liberal nominations.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-04 07:06 am (UTC)This man has been a solid presence for more than half my own life. I do feel nervous about the future and who shall replace him - especially when one thinks that people like Daneels, Lehmann and Mahoney will have a vote in the Conclave. In Mahoney's case, things in Los Angeles are at such a point that we might have a Prince of the Church voting in conclave for the next Vicar of Christ while being investigated or indicted at home for conspiracy and covering up paedophiles. And let us not forget that Bernard Law is still a Cardinal too. John Paul II, as I said elsewhere, really did make some bad choices in his eagerness to "balance" orthodox and liberal nominations.