 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| The Last Popes? By Antonio C. Abaya Written April 20, 2005 For the Philippines Free Press, April 30 issue So the 115 cardinals in the conclave did not follow my advice and elect Jorge Maria Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, Argentina to the papal throne. Instead, they chose Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger of Munich, Germany, who had a previews reputation as �God�s Rottweiler� and �Cardinal No.� Meaning No to birth control, No to divorce, No to women�s ordination, No to married priests, No to homosexuality, No even to rock music. No to the �dictatorship of relativism,� as he enjoined the conclaving cardinals at their opening session. How do you say that in Latin? Habemus Papam Rottweilerem Dei? Or Habemus Papam Nullum ad Dictaturam Relativismi? Whatever the correct Latin nomenclature, the Roman Catholic Church seems to have decided to circle its wagons against the buffeting that it has been subject to in recent years: secularism in Europe, anger over priestly sex abuses in North America, unrelieved poaching on its flocks in Latin America by Born-Again Protestant sects. Did the cardinals realize what they were doing? Attendance at Sunday Mass has appreciably thinned and priestly vocations have all but evaporated, even in predominantly Roman Catholic countries like Italy, Spain and France. Especially in matters affecting sexual and marital relations, there is a chasm between what the institutional Church teaches and what the broad mass of followers practice in their daily lives, and that chasm is widening. Electing an ultra-conservative Pope demolishes the few remaining bridges over that chasm. Months before the death of John Paul II, ferment among American Roman Catho lics over the Vatican�s unyielding position on birth control, divorce, women priests, and the perceived soft handling of priestly sex abusers, among other issues, was boiling over to proposals to separate the American Church from the Vatican. This is not an idle threat. In the 16th century, the Church of England, taking its cue from the reigning monarch, Henry VIII, split from the Roman Church over the issue of divorce. The death of John Pope Paul II and the media hoopla over the choice of his successor inspired a cottage industry in arcane and useless information about the papacy. The Associated Press, drawing from a book �Lives of the Pope,� by Rev. Richard P. McBrien, came up with the following tidbits: The Pope with the shortest pontificate was Urban VII (1590) who caught malaria and died 12 days after he was elected. The Pope with the longest pontificate was Pius IX (1846-1878) who reigned for 32 years. Pope John Paul II�s 26-year papacy (1978-2005) was only the third longest. Pope Innocent I was the first pope to succeed his own father, Pope Anastasius I (in 401). Pope Silverius was the last pope to succeed his own father, Pope Hormisdas (in 536). We have more or less adopted this dynastic papacy with the Manalo �popes� in the Iglesia ni Kristo. Pope John XI is said to be the first (and only) illegitimate son of a pope, Pope Sergius III, to be elected pope himself (in 931). Pope Sergius III is said to be the first (and only) pope known to have plotted the murder of his predecessor (in 904 or 905). A total of eight popes are said to have been murdered in office. The first to have been done in was Pope John VIII who was poisoned and clubbed to death (in 882) for reasons not stated by AP. The youngest pope ever was Pope John XII who was elected (in 955) at age 18. There is no truth to rumors that he originally wanted to be known as Pope Dude I. BBC World had its own list of popes who had mistresses and illegitimate children, but that is old hat. I was especially intrigued by, but failed to note down the name of, the pope who was so unpopular that the people of Rome sang and danced when he died. Of more interest may be the prophecies of Saint Malachy, an Irish bishop who visited Rome in 1139 to give an account of the affairs of his diocese to Pope Innocent II. While in Rome, he is said to have had visions of the long list of pontiffs who were to rule �till the end of time,� which list ominously stops at Pontiff no. 268, who would be the pope after the newly elected Benedict XVI, a.k.a. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Will the world end during the papacy of the pope after this one? These short prophetic phrases were said to have been discovered in the Roman Archives in 1590 but are suspected of being forgeries by �a school of Jesuits.� The list can be accessed in www.catholic-pages.com . Even assuming that all entries prior to 1590 were indeed forgeries, what of those from 1590 to 2005 and beyond? Most of the entries are a stretch, but a few are curiosities. Judge for yourself. Of Pontiff no. 240 � Pope Clement IX (1667-1669) � St. Malachy is said to have written Sydus Olorum or �constellation of swans.� It turned out that upon his election, this pope became the occupant of the Chamber of Swans in the Vatican. Pontiff no. 256 � Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) - De Balneis hetruriae or �of the bath of Etruria.� Prior to his election, he was a member of an order founded by Saint Romuald, at Balneo, in Etruria, present-day Tuscany. Pontiff No. 265 � Pope John Paul I (1978) � De medietate lunae or �of the half of the moon.� Born in the diocese of Belluno (beautiful moon). Elected pope on August 26, he reigned for only about a month, from a half-moon to the next half-moon. Pontiff No. 266 � Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) � De labore Solis or �about the labor or eclipse of the Sun.� He was born on May 18, 1920 during a solar eclipse. Pontiff No. 267 � when this list was compiled, Cardinal Ratzinger had not yet been elected pope. So Malachy�s Gloria olivae or �the glory of the olive� has an obscure significance, unless it can be shown that Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) has a fondness for dry martinis. The compiler, however, made the notation that �the Benedictine order (long associated with olives) traditionally said that this pope would be from their order,� not knowing that the next pope would choose the name Benedict XVI. Or, perhaps, Ratzinger, who does not belong to the Benedictine order, chose the papal name Benedict to make the Malachy prediction seem fulfilled. Pontiff No. 268 � would be the successor to Benedict XVI. The Latin from Malachy is too long to reproduce. The English translation goes like this: �In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Empire will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will lead the sheep through many tribulations; in the end the city of seven hills will be destroyed and the Formidable Judge will judge his people. The End.� This suggests that the pope after Benedict XVI will be a native or resident of Rome who will choose the papal name Peter, which current Church tradition does not allow. As for Rome being destroyed in the next 20 or so years, given the actuarial odds of the 78-yr old Benedict XVI, that is not a total improbability in the event that Armageddon does break out as foretold by the Bible, and some crazy fires a nuclear-tipped missile westward from somewhere in the Israel-Iraq-Iran cauldron, a mere 2,500 to 3,000 kms from Rome, which could be someone�s idea of ultimate revenge against the Crusaders. Christian fundamentalists believe that, after the coming carnage in Israel, 144,000 surviving Jews will convert to Christianity, and that will be the signal for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Will this indeed be The End? If the world does not end and Rome is not destroyed during or at the end of the papacy after Benedict XVI�s (which will be within the lifetime of most people now living), St. Malachy should be renamed St. Malarkey.***** Reactioons to [email protected] or fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �The Last Popes?� Dear Mr. Abaya; St. Malachy might escape being called St. Malarkey but for totally different reasons. End time beliefs of Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists are not difficult to dismiss from the viewpoint of disinterested or impartial biblical scholarship. You'll have to take my word on that for now since it would take half a book to explain. The near to medium-term threats to the world's way of life could come from: 1)A world economic recessionary or depressionary period for at least the next ten years primarily caused by excessive imbalances in world economics and finance. These imbalances include China and Japan on one hand as the engines of production while the US, on the other hand, is a heavily indebted profligate consumer. On top of world imbalances, the US has the following headaches anyone of which could unravel anytime: a) highly overvalued stock markets which I think would make a breathtaking plunge in 2006, b) consumer spending bubble, c )real estate mania in the east and west of the country, d) the bond carry trade that is being squeezed by rising interest rates, and e) an overvalued US dollar that could be subjected to massive selling. That could topple it from its reserve currency position or worse be discarded by OPEC as the oil currency. 2) The Coming Phenomenon of Peak Oil---Oil is a finite resource currently being produced from the earth's bowels at an astounding 83 million bbls. per day. Just google "peak oil" and read the ASPO site (Association for the Study of Peak Oil). There are other good sites available. The best supported study or studies have been conducted by ASPO and specifically by Dr. Colin Campbell who projects peak oil in 2008 but could happen sooner if demand growth stays high (5%/yr.) Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker, has also done good work on the subject. The kind of people we should tend to believe in this highly technical business should be petroleum geologists and reservoir engineers who are not beholden to political interests. Peak oil means the inability of the world to increase oil production beyond the peak which implies a gradual but continuous decline in supply. It means oil prices at a new higher order of magnitude. It could also be a recipe for more war. Both abovementioned eventualities are strong enough reasons for adventurist powers to go to war. Antonio Anciano, [email protected] April 25, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mister Abaya, Your write up is scary. But when I consider that a lot of "Testigos" want the world to end as fast as possible so that they can live a boring life of eternal happiness, when millions of American are waiting for Endtimes and that they are not skittish about a "final showdown", when people continue to talk about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, when Americans are shunning the priesthood, hence there are now many Filipinos who are Parish Priests even in San Francisco (they used to be just "assistants" when I arrived here in 1985), when so many Catholic Churches are being closed for one reason or another, when many Filipino Catholics in California, don't particularly care about the poverty of their fellow Catholics in the Philippines, frankly I don't know what to think. In the Philippines, how many "divine" groups do you have? It seems, the former Philippine College of Commerce has been responsible for providing two important religious leaders to our country who promise their followers heaven if... Of course, there are the fanatics of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. How would Catholicism and this new Pope deal with them? What of the Prophet's teaching about the "People of the Book". Cesar Torres, [email protected] April 25, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony , Thank you for your article "The Last Popes" -- I enjoyed it. Please read the Attached article "Rock of Peter". It is one of the best-expressed views on the new Pope that I have yet read. Goes beyond ephemeral journalism. Am sending it to YOU because I think you will also be able to "appreciate" it. God Bless! Impy Pilapil, [email protected] April 25, 2005 Rock of Peter They have called him names but the one that sticks is conservative. Ultra-conservative, even. But what do they expect? Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI, was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and dean of the College of Cardinals. His job was to hold the line, not just to keep the faith but to propagate it without changing, revising, amending, altering, or updating anything in dogma, doctrine and practice that would open the slightest crack to let in the smoke of heresy. Sure, in a changing world people change, but not the Church. Nonconservatives who wish for a liberal �modern� church might as well pray for a new religion to be born from breaking away from a 2,000-year-old institution that stands today, imperfect as it is, as mankind�s oldest monolith � a bureaucracy, a corporation, unchanging in its ways, unbending in its rules, eternal as the Rock of Peter, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. People who want the Roman Catholic Church and her cardinals and clergy to adapt to modern thinking fail to realize that when Ratzinger, the late Pope John Paul II�s closest adviser on theological matters, put his foot down on accommodating liberal interpretation of moral and ecclesiastical issues, he was acting not merely as a theologian but as a shepherd protecting the flock from harm, damage and destruction. *** It would have been so easy to lower the bar in the name of convenience and practicality � yes, ordain women because there aren�t enough good men entering the priesthood; yes, allow divorce and free millions of couples from marital misery; yes, gays have a right to form couples and families; yes, abortion can be performed safely � but what would such conveniences do to the Church? Holy Mother Church would no longer be recognizable, she would have to depart from the mould set by the Ten Commandments and Canon Law. Without the strictures of a basic framework or do�s and don�ts based on faith, what good is religious belief? If you don�t believe in the unchanging nature of God, what do you believe? *** Ratzinger has been called the �Panzer cardinal� because he is uncompromising and he is German (his father was a police officer). His intellect has been described as razor-sharp while he is known to come down hard on dissenters like a hammer. To converse with him in any of the 10 languages that he speaks is �to be in the presence of a super computer,� as one of his former students puts it. The public face that he wore as John Paul�s alter ego, according to the intimates interviewed by CNN, is different from the Ratzinger that they like: serene, sincere, with a sense of humor as befits the width and breadth of his �wisdom and knowledge� (in the words of George W. Bush). *** When, after 24 hours of sequestration behind locked doors, the 115 elector cardinals allowed white smoke to tell the world that �we have a pope,� guessing the identity of John Paul�s successor became easy to do. Obviously, the winner of the election was someone the cardinals from six continents knew better than anyone else, someone they would have dealt and communicated with, both formally and casually, someone they held in high respect and affection, someone with whom they connected � who else but one who worked in the shadow of the Pope, someone with a name and a face and an image (deserved or not, of an unsmiling guardian of orthodoxy), yet someone who would bear the burden and do the work of Peter with ice-cool poise and grace? Observe how regally Ratzinger carried himself when he presided over the funeral mass for his predecessor, yet how his homily was so simply worded. If the cardinals were looking for another John Paul II, why not his alter ego, a fellow European? If they were looking for a candidate from Africa or Latin America, were they ready to make a radical departure in a time of turmoil and tumult? Clearly and without a doubt, the cardinal from Florence, Italy who said, �The new pope has already been chosen by the Lord� one day before the election of Benedict XVI knew what he was talking about. Whether he was acting from intuition, or from polling a universe of 115, including himself, His Eminence spoke the language of angels. Every pope, good or bad, is the choice of God for his time, a hired hand serving �in the vineyard of the Lord.� In a world of changing morals and flourishing amorality, the people of God need a bulwark of faith, now and forever. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Just wondering, why do you insist on having a liberal marriage, priest getting married and even having women priests? Why is it important that people agree with the Pope? Would you choose a religion that get's bullied by public opinion? History has shown that not all things popular are correct. While I may not agree with all his stands, I agree, down with dictatorship of relativism. Truth is absolute, whether or not you or I will agree. I'd rather believe a pope who can make such a stand despite public opinion, than one who get's bullied by it. You see Mr Abaya, the Church is not like our government that needs to please everyone and yet does everything wrong. I dont know if it's necessary to mention, but I'm not even Catholic. I believe in absolutes, though there may be relatives on some things, there'd always be absolutes. Arthur Bhenedict King, [email protected] April 25, 2005 MY REPLY. You sound like you would have enjoyed living in Hitler�s Germany, Stalin�s Soviet Union, Mao�s China, Pol Pot�s Cambodia, Spain under the Inquisition�. where Truth was absolutely Absolute. Well, to each his own. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww My Dear Abaya, Your article on the new Pope really socks it to them. What an interesting history you have compiled of a thousand years of despotism. As an Atheist I have tremendous leeway to look at all sides, For over 500 years, I guess ever since Luther showed the world a better mouse-trap, the pundits have been predicting the end of Catholicism. To every thinking person�s amazement Catholicism has hung in, and the end is not yet in sight. It�s kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy. The Catholics will keep them poor and ignorant so the poor and ignorant need to remain Catholic. The recent election of the most right wing Pope possible, is not a coincidence. His views are vital to the future of the Church, as I will explain. There are two dimensions to Catholicism: one is the Business and the second is the Belief There is no doubt that the centre of the Catholic Money World is still Rome. That is the bottom line. They have to make damn sure that none of their money gets into the hands of the poor and desperate, by inadvertently electing a bleeding heart Liberal as a Pope. The Catholic Cabal is based on the modern business model. Outsource and diversify into the cheap labour to make a bigger profit. The poor are the Resource. This has been their business model for a thousand years. If they choose a Pope from one of the �Incompletely indoctrinated� non-European, or third-world countries, they would be in for unpredictable change. This can not be allowed to happen The Pope can never come from the Third-World, at least not until the European model fails.. Unbeknown, even to the Catholics themselves, is the cultural heritage of their religion. It has been totally and exclusively, for over a thousand years, a Money and Power machine used for funneling money from the masses to an exclusive �Central European� Elite of administrators, usually headed by a Pope/King or a Pope/Dictator, who knows how to run the Business, and will do whatever it takes to make sure that the culture is never diluted or diverted by liberal Free-thought. True Catholicism can never be translated completely into any other culture. The non- Europeans will always be �incomplete cultural Catholics� and dangerous to the future of the status quo. Even Poland was pretty far off centre, and may yet turn out to be a long term problem, which Ritzinger has been sent in to fix. Recently( circa May/June 2004) �Natural Sciences� Magazine published an in-depth discussion on why Religions and Organizations which have: Painful, onerous, difficult, outrageous, and etc rituals seem to maintain a very dedicated following. The reality seems to be that the more any religion liberalizes the weaker its following becomes. Their numbers may appear to be high but their dedication is very low and can not be relied upon for any loyalty. We know absolutely that the Masons and other secret societies, both good and bad, have a loyalty almost unto death. The rituals of the group have to be so difficult that no �fakes� can enter. Only the truly dedicated are prepared to make the ultimate commitment, �unto death�. Catholicism used to fit this criteria before the modern reforms which removed the Gobbledy Goop. John Paul II caused a Catholic disaster when he started to liberalize. The world loved him, but the reforms will come back to haunt them and could well be the beginning of the end of their Church. If the Catholic Church liberalizes, they will become just another badly funded, lack of conviction, �hail fellows well met�, trying to please everybody all the time group. The game will be over. The Business will go bankrupt. If they take on Women, Gays, Contraception, Abortion and Etc, the Belief will go Bankrupt and the Catholic Era will be over. God�s Rotweiler is already talking a smaller more dedicated Church. He appears to be a bright man and may realize their problems of liberalization. He will Kiss all his neighbours, praise their efforts, but never invite them home. The Church has to turn �Right� again if it is to survive. It will lose many millions of educated, intelligent and free-thinking followers (as are the American Pseudo-Catholics), but retain their main resource of; the poor, the ignorant, the destitute and the not-too-bright. Watch with interest. Graham Reinders, [email protected] April 26, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony If fornicators, adulterers, alternative lifestylers, murderers of babies, are expecting that the Pope (any pope) will cave in to their demands for the church to go with the times, to be liberal or to come down to earth, they will have to wait until their faces turn green and mouldy. The pope is there to guard the doctrines of the church and no pope will ever succumb to all these liberalism tide in order to ensure attendance at church or to increase the number of priests. If there are modern thinkers out there who believe that they can attain paradise because the head of their church gave his imprimatur, they are only kidding themselves. Paradise is not negotiable especially if we are going to ask one man to put his own soul on the line just so he can "go with the times". It is not going to happen. Take the example of Cory Aquino - did you ever wonder why she never lifted a finger to promote artificial contraception even if we are already bursting at the seams? It is called saving your own soul. She was not about to risk her own salvation just so Juan and Armida can happily copulate without worry of another mouth to feed. Cory would rather make programmes to help the poor as in the eyes of God, this is very acceptable. If there are catholics who cannot stand the stringent commands of God and the rules of the church, they are welcome to join other denominations which by the way, will still have the same rules. Why should the pope (any pope) be blackmailed into condoning all the acts of these "liberals" just so they can transgress with the blessings of the head of the church? Even if the pope will say today that one can fornicate left right and centre as long as one uses a condom to prevent terminating the life of an unwanted child - will this make the action right? We should do what our conscience tells us - we do not need anyone, even the pope, to tell us what is right or wrong. We do not need him to sanction an act just so we can feel at ease doing it. Remember what the angel said to Lot? If you can find one good person in the whole of Sodom and Gomorrah, I will spare the city. So if we catholics would like to get to heaven without working hard for it, we will all get barbecued - with salt to boot. Tina Berenguer Peralta, [email protected] April 28, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, 'The Last Popes?' article is not only well written but you went deep into your well of knowledge. Keep it up as you are educating and informing a lot of people, especially those of our less-informed generation. St. Malachy, least known of the saints, is hopefully wrong in his vision about No. 268. Rudy Ordonez, [email protected] April 28, 2005 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |