Collecting Thoughts on John Paul II and a Future Pope: Pope Leo XIV

I hate "spring ahead" or "spring forward" or whatever the heck it is called. It's just someone's attempt at sardonic humor.

Why does everyone keep saying that Cardinal Arinze is papabile? He is not!!! It is not even desirable.

As time passes my assessment of John Paul II's pontificate grows more positive. It may be a reaction to "complex" reactions many on the liberal (secular, that is) side are having. I've seen JPII described as "polarizing," "very conservative," "medieval" etc. Well excuse me, I'm not exactly sure what he was supposed to do--change the church 180 degrees just because it is out of step with modern sensibilities?

The Church is a large ship, you don't turn it around on a whim. JPII made progress on several fronts, there's no reason to expect from any pope, the whole gamut of changes everyone wants. Also, unlike other many liberals, I don't see it as the job of the Church leadership to be be progressive or enact sweeping change that agitation has to come from elsewhere. Church leaders are charge with preserving and their job in my opinion is naturally conservative.

When change occurs, you can never go back. Changes in the Catholic church not only affect a billion people world wide, but also they have ramifications for centuries to come. There's never any reason for the Church to change on the simple turn of an argument or the development of certain cultural sensibilities. The Church has to be absolutely certain of what it is doing before it takes a step in the direction of change and reform. This is why I don't fault the Pope for not being progressive enough or for not embracing current contemporary views of things.

His pontificate was about one thing, Vatican II, and realizing that dream. Did he accomplish the realization of the dream? You'd have to say that he was succesful and now the Church moves on.

The one thing that displeased me greatly about the pontificate of JPII was that he failed to give direction and definition to the idea of culture of life and now we have a monster on our hands that will come back to bite the hierarchy and all clear thinking Catholics in the butt. I felt that he had an opportunity during the election year to make a point but was more concerned with the power of the hierarchy than the truth of what should be "pro-life." For me, this was not an insignificant failing. I don't think he or the Vatican realized the pandora's box they opened.

Another point of dissatisfaction stems from my hunch that the Vatican is looking to break the back of the liberal movement in the Catholic Church. I don't have any direct proof, it's just a hunch. There's a feeling among conservatives that the liberal nutcases from Vatican II's generation are dying out, that their liturgical abominations are now anathema, their theological spokespersons are largely discredited and muted, and they are now politically weaker than ever before. So I think there was a sense of the need to deliver fatal blows and rid the church of such a scourge.

Hey, if I was in the hierarchy and felt that certain currents in the Church were inimical to the soul of the Church, I am, not by any means, above nasty politicking and jujitsu to take care of business. So I say the man did his job.

On the other hand, I like him personally. I like the fact that he was a thinker, had two Ph.D.s, was dramatist, understood the importance of culture, was devoted to the youth, devoted to social justice and made important contributions to the social justic traditions. I like that he knew his mind and was comfortable in his own skin.

On MSNBC I saw some Rome priest, I think it was a Fr Williams, with the Legionaires of Christ university talking about this John Paul the Great thing. He noted how we have to "the greats" in Church history, St Leo and St Gregory. He further said that the acclamation "the great" is a grassroots thing. Now, here's the kicker. He informed us that the phrase Johannes Paulus II Magnus (The Great) was used in the official text at the Requiem Mass. That's Vatican grassroots for you.

This Fr Williams also said that "he is hearing" people call JPII, "Doctor Vertitatis," just as Aquinas is doctor angelicus, etc. You've got to be kidding me. I can get with the "Doctor" thing, but drop the "veritatis," that's dumb. If anything, it needs to be "Doctor Phenomenologicus" or the Phenomenological Doctor.

As for a next pope, I have no idea. I would throw up if we got an Italian. If we get a European, I'd be nauseous. For me, it has to be an African or Latino. I'd take an Asian too. I think the next pope can go two routes. One would be to give everyone a breather and try to heal divisions. IMHO, that would be a waste of time, because all sides are so hardened no healing is going to happen. On the liberal side, we are nice decent people who have tried honest dialog and see where that got us. On the conservative side, there are scorpion types, nuff said.

I think the next Pope should simply jump right in and do his thing, unless his thing is healing divisions, then don't jump in. The reason I see no middle ground is this. What exactly is the middle ground in contraception or women priests? There is reasonable middle ground on choice but the scorpion kings have poison for brains so there, so much for that. On condoms for HIV protection, there may be middle ground, but I don't see it. Gay marriage, there is middle ground but I doubt they'd take it. The via media here is actually a position I hold. The Church is under no obligation demanded by doctrine or prudence to call gay marriage sacramental, but the drive to exterminate the idea of gay marriage has been nothing short of inimical. The Church can do one of two things via-media-wise: it can halt its vocal and vicious opposition to civil gay marriage or it can reinforce the teachings of separating church and state. Either option can be done at no violence to traditional teachings, yet be conciliatory to the other side.

As for the new pope's name. I predict Pope Leo XIV. Why? Well There was John XXIII and then Paul VI, who did the Vatican II thing. Then came John Paul I who combined both names in order to do his predecessors homage. Then came John Paul II who wanted to continue John Paul I's legacy. Now, prior to John XXIII were the Pius's, X, XI, XII and a boring Benedict I think sprinkled in. Benedict is not memorable so the symbolic force of a Benedict name would be sorely lacking. Pius XI and XII are kryptonite because of the Nazi thing. John Paul III would not make sense because there really isn't a JPII legacy that begs for completion. So we have then to go back prior to Pius X and Leo XIII.

Now, Leo XIII is perfect because, he is fondly remembered for his St Michael prayer and his insightful encyclical Rerum Novarum that launched the modern Catholic social justice tradition. Also he came on the heels of the longest reigning pope, Pius IX, who reigned for 40 years: which would be similar to the situation of the next Pope. He basically launched a new direction and that's what a new pope may want to do. So I predict that the next guy would want to walk in Leo XIII's footsteps.

Lastly, the new Pope needs to stop by and interview with me so that I can give him my blessing and approval. That's the condition for my much sought after endorsement.