Laurie Goodstein and Ian Fisher report in today's New York Times that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger -- Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith -- is the front-runner to be the 265th Pope, reflecting the conventional wisdom in the Italian press that Ratzinger is supported by as many as 50 of the 115 elector cardinals. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus reports hearing the same thing in the Rome rumor mills -- see his Rome Diary blog (HT to Hugh Hewitt).
Goodstein and Fisher write:
Based on Cardinal Ratzinger's record and pronouncements, his agenda seems clear. Inside the church, he would like to impose more doctrinal discipline, reining in priests who experiment with liturgy or seminaries that permit a broad interpretation of doctrine.
Sounds good to me!
The NYT contrast this with dark horse candidate Carlo Maria Martini, the retired archbishop of Milan:
But Cardinal Martini appears to control far fewer votes. He has said he has not ruled out changes to priestly celibacy or the bans on contraception and on women serving as deacons. He has a form of Parkinson's disease and, unlike Cardinal Ratzinger, is not considered an active candidate. Experts say that while he respects Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Martini does not support his vision of the church.
"Martini," said Alberto Melloni, a papal historian, "thinks that if the church does not move on in terms of doctrine, it is condemned to lose the content of Christian truth."
Sounds bad to me!
While it's basically a good, informative article, it suffers from the same defect as other secular MSM stories -- namely, the reporting spirit is so secular. I genuinely believe this handicaps the coverage provided by MSM monoliths like the NYT. MSM reporters, being overwhelmingly secular or non-religious in their world view, tend to view the conclave as a fancy smoke-filled room where party bosses pick the next Pontiff. Roman Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is at work in the conclave, but MSM reporters (my gut suspects) view that belief as a lot of superstitious hocus-pocus. Which is why you'll see little mention of it during conclave coverage, except in a detached, patronizing tone more suited to an anthropologist discussing the superstitions of primitive tribes.
Comments