Last Oct. 22, on page 150 of this thread, I prefaced my posting of commentary by John Allen and Sandro Magister on Benedict XVI's choices for cardinals to name in his third consistory with the following:
Two Vaticanistas have posted their respective commentaries on the new cardinals named by Benedict XVI, but there is really little to say since the nominations speak for themselves:
- The Pope has a certain number of elector seats to fill (20);
- He has a certain number of Curial heads deserving of a red hat personally and by virtue of their positions, and
- For the remaining ten, he chose the most senior of the diocesan bishops that could be accommodated on this list, without violating the rule of not having two cardinal-electors from the same diocese.
The only choices on which the Pope exercised his full discretion, unhemmed by regulatory consdedrations, was in the over-80 prelates, and even here, except for the unheralded Spanish bishop who had worked with him on the Catechism for the Catholic Church, the Vaticanistas with the right contacts predicted 3 out of 4.
In the face of such obvious facts, speculation about why the 20 electors were named and not others, or what the Pope intended by his choices, is really idle and moot!
Well, I am glad that Bruno Mastroianni makes the general observation in his blog today - except that he goes beyond the topic of the consistory itself to the more general subject of distraction from the essential, which is not a fault anyone can attribute to Benedict XVI.
The uselessness of speculating
on the Pope's choices for cardinal
Translated from
Oct. 28, 2010
Last week, the news came of the November consistory in which Benedict XVI will name 24 new cardinals - promptly unleashing prognostications, analyses and considerations that were typically profane. Some even pointed out possible 'papabili' among them.
[An exercise I truly find in poor taste, as well as distasteful, uncalled-for, morbid and absolutely inconsiderate of the reigning Pope - who seems to be doing very well, including the state of his health, thank God!]
Come now, let's be serious! How is it possible that after so many experiences piled up, after so many episodes in the life of the Church (and the very Pontificate of Benedict XVI), that have belied the media's flat-out and most 'horizontal' arguments, some commentators can still be tempted to interpret the Conclave news through criteria that have proven so inappropriate [
DIM=8pt][and wrong]?
But this is a narrative that has been going on for some time. A pity! Because it distracts us from the important things.
For instance, last week, while the media indulged in various pseudo-political elucubrations about the new cardinals, they did not see fit to take note of the ongoing Special Synodal Assembly for the Middle East.
And yet, the assembly was discussing relations among Jews, Muslims and Christians, of dialog and peace, of political and religious freedom and coexistence. In short, the issues that for decades (or rather, for centuries) the future of a large part of the world depends.
But we should not be surprised. Bsaically, it is simply the nth spisode illustrating the fate to which this Pope seems destined: He works very hard on the things that really matter, while around him, attention is dispersed on relative trivia.
In a world afflicted by the extreme desire to draw attention (often placed before any other interest), the 'Ratzinger style', rather than a solitary fate he must 'endure', appears more and more an example to emulate.