As I have indicated before, there are many cardinals positioning themselves to become the next pope. Cardinal Parolin is at the top of the heap of these cardinals.
In my most humble opinion, even the cardinals of like-mindedness, that Pope Francis has appointed, and without much vetting to begin with, more than likely would not see the ultra-polarization Pope Francis has caused in the Church in an incessant way since 2013 continue with the next Supreme Pontiff.
I think the cardinal-electors in the next conclave will want a pope that is actually a “pontiff”, a bridge to heal the polarization caused by Pope Francis. I do think that most, not all, cardinals have some common sense.
But this is what Cardinal Parolin said in the most diplomatic way possible as reported by the National Catholic Register:
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, has commented on the divided reaction to the Fiducia Supplicans document, amid a great backlash from episcopal conferences.
“This document has aroused very strong reactions; this means that a very delicate, very sensitive point has been touched; it will take further investigation,” Cardinal Parolin said on Friday, during a conference held at the Accademia dei Lincei in Rome.
The cardinal went on to say that “if these ferments serve to walk according to the Gospel, to give answers to today, these ferments are also welcome,” while reiterating that “the Church is open and attentive to the signs of the times but must be faithful to the Gospel.”
When asked in a follow-up question by an Italian journalist if the document was a mistake, the Vatican’s top diplomat responded curtly: “I do not enter into these considerations; the reactions tell us that it has touched a very sensitive point." (My comment: in the past, this is how popes spoke—it is very clear to me that Parolin is angry at this document as it has caused such polarization and the weakening of the Church’s, i.e. God’s, moral teachings on sexuality.)
1 comment:
Funny how the best way to position oneself is to say nothing of substance while speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. Calling such an exercise "diplomatic" or "nuanced" is nonsense of the same sort. Why is it we have bishops who cannot speak the truth plainly?
Post a Comment