Does Bush have anything to do with Ratzinger's election?

I don't like Ratzinger anymore than anyone else here, but I really don't see why the neocons would rig the voting to ensure he's elected or that he's a plant from Bush/Rove/etc. like some here have claimed. It was basically a given a conservative was going to be elected, there's no need for conspiracies here.

it was the whole abortion/communion thing.

There is such a thing as an overreaching conjecture that looks foolish. However, if Ratzinger begins supporting Bush's plans to go into Iran or other neocon foolhardy adventures, then I will eat crow here.

than we're all fucked, no matter what we do. I don't think they do, however, nor do I think they had any influence on the choosing of the new pope.

and despite his conservatism on many issues, he was no fan of Bush. Plus he was around far before the neocons started organizing. To claim that the election was rigged like some here is pretty insane.

I knew Ratzinger was going to be the next pope since the death of John Paul II. I don't mind most of the theories going around DU, but some of them are just too much.

That John Kerry actually won in November handily, why is this such a leap to make?

i.e. voting machine companies displaying an incontestable bias toward republicans, the very probable possibility they rigged the election, etc. I, for one, think is is a very very VERY long leap to suggest that the neoconservatives had any possibility, much less a hand, in swaying the outcome of the papal election. I also think it's completely unrealistic and I'm 99.999% sure the papal elections were conducted without outside interference.

the neocon wet dream for a pope would be either Schoboen (from Austria) or Azzinger (from Nigeria). That didn't happen. Just call Ratzinger an uncharismatic and hardnosed extension of JPII.

Was John Paul part of the neocon conspiracy? After all he selected almost the entire voting pool. If he was he sure had an odd way of showing it with what he said about Iraq. This is starting to remind me of the Chick tracts that claim the Catholic church created both communism and Nazism, started both World Wars and assasinated Abraham Lincoln.

nt

for the cardinals to defer to protestant American presidents.

when he went to the Vatican. So how many American Cardinals are there, and how influential are they? I know very little about this process, but I think that small voting blocs could be stitched together to make this come about. It can be safely assumed that the PNAC group would also be able to put THEIR thumb on the scale.

I also think that Ratziger is well beyond "conservative", and in all important categories. Don't expect to see much "compassion for the downtrodden" to come from him.

pnorman

and they aren't even remotely influential in the Vatican. By the way, as for 'bloc':

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05100/485886.stm

may not be quite the same. But 11 doesn't sound very much. But allowing for my open skepticism of organized religion, I stil believe that Bush made more than idle chit-chat with them. And he would know PRECISELY which buttons to push.

As I said, this goes well beyond conservatism, so I'll maintain my original suspicions of PNAC influence.

If I read him accurately, he's planning on reorganizing his Church on lines that seem decidedly military. And if it turns out to be a Faith-based Holy War, it WON'T be pretty. By comparison, Iraq would be pretty.

pnorman

Especially considering they were appointed by someone who was not a fan of Bush and almost all, if not all were appointed before Bush stole the first election? Sorry, but this sounds just as silly to me as Jack Chick's claims that the Catholic Church was behind both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

war sense are very, very different words. Ratzinger was AGAINST the Iraq war, in case you
didn't notice.

And, as has been said, a Catholic cardinal doesn't care what a Protestant politician says.

There'll be essentially no reaching out to unbelievers. And, correct me, if you can, but that includes Protestants. And with a Clear Sense of Mission, unclouded by any "moral relativsm". I saw a few observation here on DU that put that idea in my mind.

I didn't know he was explicitly against the Iraq invasion, but that doesn't surprise me.The only religious figures who seem to support that are our own fundie-screamers.

pnorman

Just asking this then: Do you think there is no way a conservative could be elected without outside interference? It was a given LONG before Bush came around that John Paul's successor would be a conservative. I have no clue why once one is elected some people need to see a conspiracy, but there's a bunch here who need to see a conspiracy in everything.

But Ratziger was easily the MOST conservative in the bunch. And of them all, HE would have been the most pleasing to BushCo. JPII may have appointed him and even favored him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he had intended him as successor. "Conspiracy"? There's the motive, and the means. and that PNAC gang has shown how powerful and effective they can be. Look at Ohio and Florida, for example. For that matter, look at Iraq, with Iran clearly in the offing.

If that's "conspiracy", I've seen a lot more flimsy than that. As I've said before, I'm NOT a Catholic --- I'm not even a card-carrying Christian. But I try hard to not offend people solely on the basis of their faith. Their actions are another matter.

pnorman

We knew for years before JP2 died--hell, for years before Bush was in office--that his sucessor would be conservative. JP2 was conservative and elevated only even more conservative bishops to cardinal status.

Edit: Why is it that in posts, only 1 is a yes, and the rest are nos, when Yes is beating No in the polling?

....washes the other....

He will be against war, for third world help, ect. But he will stay the same on abortion, womens involvement, gays, ect.

Social on some and conservative on others. Keep the orthadox church.

I didn't know that until someone posted that on another thread here in DU. In any case, BushCo can't be too happy with Pope Benedict.

The Supreme Pontiff of Crawford. MUCH, much more than Ratziger.

pnorman

JPII demonstrated that. The Vatican doesn't need the U.S. The RCC in the U.S. is more or less a thorn in the Vatican's side.

Besides, the RCC's bread and butter is in Latin America and various developing countries around the world, where Catholicism is growing at a large rate.

ya can't precisely predict precisely where these things are gonna go :evilgrin:

i'm almost sure, it's all just in our collective, paranoid heads :evilgrin:

peace

Think on what the church is most afraid of.

It'd be kind of difficult to sell invading Vatican City.

Kid files at your right hand what would you do with them? My guess that little trip over the ocean involved a gentle reminder. Then again, I am really upset right now over this Pope, so my 2 and only 2 brain cells are flailing around in that muck of my brain.

and they have very little influence.

Here's the question: Is it a suprise that a conservative was elected? That's the only reason I'd see for there to be a conspiracy theory. Occam's Razor people.

The idea that a US Presdent is going to exercise ANY influence on the selection of a Pope is not just absurd, it is MORONIC.

well now the nuttiness has gone full circle. First people thought the President would be under the Pope's control, now vice-versa.

Bush is pretty harmless. But the people BEHIND him? Do you think that, with HIS track record, he could have STOLEN an election by himself? and then do it again 4 years later?

pnorman

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

...Ratzinger was about 10 votes shy of the two-thirds majority, but Cardinal Diebold recounted the votes and then he won.

A. Ratzinger appears competent
B. Ratzinger had no involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal
C. Ratzinger has no oil/energy connections
D. Ratzinger is not a Born Again Christian

Keep in mind, the American form of the RCC is a bit more liberal than in other parts of the world. And the Vatican is trying to distance itself from the American church and the problems it's facing.

All the action's happening in Latin America and various Third World countries. Benedict XVI is their pope. Many American catholics are not going to be thrilled with this guy.