On the Conclave and Papal Selections Redux:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a continuation thread of sorts to the previous post on the conclave.

I kinda have a feeling that a Cardinal that was made in 2003 will be Pope. Maybe Bertone? It's kinda "fun" guessing. Just wished it wasn't as serious as which person would be the next vicar of Christ, who has the responsibility of making sure that when Christ comes, there will be faith in the world.

Hi XXXXXXXX:

It is very difficult for me to see how a newly minted cardinal will be elected. History does not countenance it and the latter is instructive of the likely patterns that this conclave will follow. To start with, you have to have some cardinal experience as a rule first. (I will get to the exceptions in a moment.) It also does not hurt to trace out the recent history of who was elected to learn from the past. With that in mind, consider the past as a reference point:

--In 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla had been cardinal for eleven years, archbishop for fifteen years, and bishop for twenty years. He had also made a presence on the world stage since the third and fourth sessions of Vatican II -became close to Paul VI, and even preached the Lenten retreat for the Vatican in 1976. In short, he had made his presence known but even then, he would not have been elected if an Italian candidate (whose name I cannot recall at the moment){1} did not indicate after he became the conclave favourite that he would not accept if elected.{2}

--In 1963, Cardinal Montini had been a cardinal for five years. He had rejected the red hat in 1953 when Pius XII offered it to him and Tardini for their services in the Secretariat of State. I note this because actual history (as if often does) contradicts contra various so-called "traditionalist" lies about animosity between Pacelli and Montini.

Furthermore, by 1958, Montini had already built a reputation. He did this initially in the Curia as a future papablile -including as one half of the Montini-Tardini dream team in the secretariat who were influential for twenty-eight years as a duo.{3} Montini was also a very successful Archbishop of Milan (the second largest dioceses in Italy) for nearly nine years. He was the heavy favourite going in but it still took six ballots to elect him.

--In 1958, Cardinal Roncalli had been a cardinal since 1953, had long served in a variety of diplomatic posts from Propaganda Fide under Benedict XV to Nuncio of Bulgaria under Pius XI and as Patriarch of Venice under Pius XII. He was elected as a compromise candidate on the seventh ballot but would not have been elected if the Armenian Cardinal Peter Agagianian (one of the initial favourites in 1958) had not been viewed as being of too poor a health to serve.{4}

--In 1939, Cardinal Pacelli had been cardinal for ten years. He had also served in several posts of responsibility including as Secretary of Extraordinary Affairs at the Secretariat of State (the same position that Montini served in), as Cardinal Gasparri's right hand man in codifying the 1917 Code of Canon Law under Pius X, as nuncio of Belgium and then of Germany under Benedict XV, as Assistant Secretary of State to Cardinal Gasparri under Pius XI, and then as Secretary of State under Pius XI. He was also cardinal camerleno of the 1939 conclave and the heavy favourite -elected on the fourth ballot.{5}

--In 1922, Cardinal Ratti had been a cardinal for only a year. But do not let that deceive. Prior to that, he had had several posts with the Ambrosian Library and also the Vatican Library (he was eventually prefect of both), was apostolic visitor to Lithuania and Poland and then nuncio of Poland. He followed this up with a year as Archbishop of Milan. In the stormiest conclave of modern times, it took fourteen ballots to elect him for various reasons -which is too much to go into here.

--In 1914, Cardinal della Chiesa had been cardinal only three months. But again, he had a long career in service to the Holy See. He had served many years in the Secretariat of State much as Pacelli and Montini before him had. He also was assistant to Secratary of State Rampolla in the pontificate of Leo XIII from 1877-1901, was a consultant to the Holy Office from 1901-1906, and was Archbishop of Bologna for seven years after that.

Della Chiesa was elected after one of the stormiest conclaves in recent history{6} was accused of nasty crimes such as voting for himself and violating the rules of the conclave by those partisans of Pius X who did not like the fact that he was a student of Cardinal Rampolla and was of the Leo XIII outlook instead of the Pius X outlook. Nonetheless, it took eight ballots (if I recall correctly) ten ballots to elect him.

--In 1903, it took six ballots to elect Cardinal Sarto after the Austrian emperor vetoed the selection of Cardinal Rampolla (who was building momentum and was growing more likely of being elected). Cardinal Sarto had spent a good chunk of his earlier career in the dioceses of Treviso until 1884 when he was consecrated and appointed Bishop of Mantua. Upon being appointed cardinal in 1893, he was transferred to the patriarchial see of Venice which he held until he was elected pope.

--In 1878, Cardinal Pecci had been a cardinal for twenty-five years. He had a career of diplomatic posts and a few episcopal sees under Gregoru XVI who transferred him in 1846 to the see of Perugia. He was given the red hat in 1853 and was an influential cardinal for years prior to his election.{7} He was cardinal camberleno of the 1878 conclave that elected him.

--In 1846, Cardinal Feretti had been cardinal for six years.{8} He had consecrated to the bishopric of Spoleto in 1827 and was transferred to the see of Imola in 1832. (Interestingly enough, after Cardinal Feretti had been elected and had taken the name "Pius IX", the Austrian emperor's delegate arrived with his veto to the 1846 conclave against the very same Cardinal Feretti.)

As we trace the modern papacy out -and Pius IX was to some extent the first of the modern popes albeit he was a transitional pope ala Pius XII later on- a few things become quite clear. First of all, there usually has to be a long trackrecord of having status in the church before one is elected. Clerics from the Secretariat (as Benedict XV, Pius XII, and Paul VI were) have risen to be pope in the last hundred and fifty years. Likewise, Holy See nuncios (Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII) are good picks as well as cardinal camerlengos of contemporary conclaves (Leo XIII, Pius XII). And of course the archbishops of major sees such as Venice (Pius X, John XXIII, John Paul I), Imola (Pius IX),{9} and Milan (Pius XI, Paul VI).

With Italian picks (and everyone has to agree that Italians are to be favoured at the conclave), it has to be someone akin to the above position wise. That is why I picked as my default Italian pick the vicar of Rome Cardinal Camillo Ruini after Cardinal Ratzinger who as I noted previously is my non-Italian European pick and number one choice).

In the case of the pick of Cardinal Ratzinger, he was Prefect of CDF for 24 years and Archbishop of Munich (one of Germany's largest sees) for four years prior to that. I do not see it as likely that we will have a non-European this time around but if we did, I doubt it would be Cardinal Pell. The reason is because of where he is stationed (Australia) which is the smallest continent and much more remote than either Africa or South America which are themselves long shots even though they have the most cardinals voting in the conclave.

I know you can point to John Paul I as being a conclave surprise and indeed he was. But he had already been a cardinal for five years and he was patriarch of a major see -one that had seen two popes in the past hundred and fifty years elected. (Pius X and John XXIII.) It is also true that he was elected in four ballots as Pius XII was in 1939 (and this is akin to acclimation if you know the process) but a huge part of the reason was that the main pope maker in the conclaves of 1978 (Cardinal Benelli) just happened to find out that one of his ideological enemies (Cardinal Felici) was favouring Cardinal Luciani.

In other words, it happened to be a case of two ideological opposites with conclave influence viewing from the beginning the same candidate for different reasons. In the case of Benelli, he probably viewed Luciani as a holy man who would make a good pope -and someone he could manipulate to some extent. In the case of Felici, Luciani was a good friend of his (personally much more so than ideologically) and he probably viewed it as a case of "having the pope's ear." This was also a situation of manipulation yes but more of the classical Italian indirect kind of persuasion than that of Benelli who was viewed by many in the first conclave of 1978 as quite papabile: something that he destroyed before the second conclave for various and sundry reasons.{10}

On the other side of the spectrum (to use the woefully inadequate "spectrum" analogy), Felici was of the same general outlook as Siri and Ottaviani to some extent.{11} That contingent had long been able to manipulate Paul VI when the latter was undecided about something by appeals to "inviolable tradition." Usually this was merely them dressing their own whims and personal preferences up as "unviolable tradition" but that did not matter: it was a psychological manipulating of Pope Paul VI who for all of his innovations never sought to compromise tradition. (Felici and his allies knew this and used it to their advantage on the occasions where Paul was undecided to get their way.)

For those reasons, there was a four ballot election which as I noted already is as close to an acclimation as one can get in a conclave considering the diplomatic overtures and respect that have to be shown in the process to prepare the way for building a consensus for a candidate.

For example, the first ballot of conclave one in 1978 contained a large courtesy vote by some cardinals for Cardinal Siri out of respect for his age and consequent stature in the college.{12} This was also something that repeated itself in the second conclave of 1978 where Cardinal Wojtyla was elected on the eighth ballot. Those kinds of overtures were (and are) necessary to pave the way for consensus building in the conclave. It is highly unlikely in light of the polarization in the church today that you will have ideological opposites of great conclaval power starting off supporting the same candidate or limited pool of candidates.

Nonetheless, we will probably have a six to ten ballot election in the conclave. The media has made a big deal of the thirty-first (or thirty-fourth: I cannot recall offhand which it is) ballot being simple majority. Howeverm, the odds of getting that far without a candidate are darn slim if you know how the mechanics of the conclave tend to work. Anyway, these are just some points to ponder.

Notes:

{1} [Update: It was Cardinal Giovanni Columbo, Archbishop of Milan. -ISM]

{2} I note this for those who think a non-Italian is a given after the present papacy: the latter will still be a long shot for decades to come.

{3} From 1944-1954 they were the actual Secretaries of State contra the pious but inaccurate common assertions that Pius XII was his own secretary of state during that time.

{4} He outlived Roncalli by about eight years interestingly enough.

{5} The shortest papal conclave until the one which elected Luciani in 1978 which was also a four ballot election.

{6} And certainly among the nastiest along with the one in 1963.

{7} He is believed to have compiled many of the propositions that later made it into the 1864 Syllabus of Errors.

{8} He was reserved in peccatore at the 1839 consistory and this was published in 1840.

{9} Imola has not been a major player in the modern papal elections; however historically it had been prior to the election of Pius IX.

{10} Plus, let us not forget that Benelli was Pope Paul VI's hatchetman for ten years -before being shipped off to Milan and given the red hat- and thus was accustomed to getting his way.

{11} A gamut that ran from uncomfortable to downright hostile to the Second Vatican Council.

{12} Siri had been cardinal for twenty-five years and was the only cardinal to have partipated in the conclaves that elected John Paul I's two predecessors. Some have even opined that he was actually elected pope in 1958 before Roncalli. These run the gamut from those who think he was compelled to step aside for Roncalli (the crackpot fringe of the so-called "traditionalists") and those who believe he refused on account of viewing himself at the time as too young and the church needing an interim caretaker pope after the long reigns of Pius XI and Pius XII. (The latter is a theory that has been advanced to me by parties that on the surface veteran readers of this weblog may find surprising to say the least.)

Nonetheless, Siri was the senior cardinal at the conclaves of 1978 and protocol to some extent required that he be respected with a strong first ballot showing out of respect. (Something I might add that he got both times.)

"The Framers Know Best" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: This post was written in late March in the days prior to the death of Terri Schiavo -ISM]

It bears noting that the United States of America may well be a "nation of laws" but that many of the so-called "laws" promulgated in the name of "the law of the land" are in fact pseudo-"laws." For this reason, they are a gross perversion of the very notion of law in a just society. However, in this age of an increasingly poll driven public square, it needs to be noted that not only the law is perverted in this culture but also foundational perceptions which permeate the arena of ideas. The purpose of this post is to address one of these perceptions and set the record straight on it. In light of the national tension over the Terri Schiavo incident,{1} it seems particularly opportune to do this since so much of the opposition to her life being spared comes came from a flawed pair of societal lenses that her enemies happen[ed] to be wearing. These lenses skew the notion of the proper role of law in a just society, the proper role of the judiciary, and also the role of public opinion in the matrix. It is the latter that We want to focus on in this post at the present time.

For at Rerum Novarum the subject of judicial perversion has been discussed possibly more than any subject except the subject of the war on terror and war in general.{2} Nonetheless, as the "Kill Terri Contingent" (KTC) is trying to sought to spin this subject as a case of "most people" supporting her killing, it seems appropriate to note here two things (i) polling data can easily be manipulated and (ii) truth is not (and cannot be) determined by polls. And in dealing with the latter point, it seems appropriate to once again point out that this country is not a democracy but instead it is a representative republic -both in fact and also by the design of its Founders.

Now previously this was admittedly done in passing at this weblog.{3} However, at the current time, it seems appropriate to revisit this subject with a followup to the Framers Know Best series inaugurated on July 1, 2003 and (for a variety of reasons) not followed up with additional installments in the weeks and months subsequent to that initial installment.{4} The current circumstances dictate that the aforementioned series be resumed to settle this point at the present time; therefore, without further ado, let us get to it.

To start with, a consideration of the particular individuals whose views will be consulted seems to be in order. As one who believes in going back to the sources whenever possible,{5} this has been done with reference to an authoritative source often neglected today by those with pretentions to being knowledgable on these matters. We refer here of course to The Federalist Papers which were written by three of the most influential men in the history of the United States.{6} And two of those are the men to whom we will appeal on the subject of whether the United States of America was or was not a democracy -starting with Alexander Hamilton:

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: -- The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity -- The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union -- The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object -- The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government -- Its analogy to your own state constitution -- and lastly, The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention. [Alexander Hamilton: From Federalist #1 (circa October 27, 1787)]

Now then, for those who do not know of him, Alexander Hamilton (i) proposed the first Constitutional Convention to meet in May of 1787 where he and Jay were two of New York's three representatives, (ii) served as President Washington's first Secretary of the Treasury, (iii) was the primary influence behind the tiebreaking vote that determined the presidency of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, and (iv) was perhaps the most vigorous defender of the new Constitution among the original framers -equalled only by one of the other contributors to The Federalist Papers.

Alexander Hamilton defended the Constitution with a passion that few will ever remotely approach. As far as he was concerned, he saw the proposed Constitution{7} as (i) conforming to the true principles of republican government as well as (ii) as additional security of this very form of government. For these reasons, it is impossible to credibly argue that the first Secretary of the Treasury (and one who was not only involved in the drafting of the Constitution but was arguably its fiercest defender) saw that document as a governing instrument for a United States founded as a democracy. Now let us consider the view of James Madison:

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

...

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists. [James Madison: From Federalist #10 (circa November 22, 1787)]

In the above text, we have James Madison who (i) was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, (ii) served as the fourth President of the United States, (iii) is often referred to as "the Father of the Constitution", and (iv) is the only Framer with whom one could argue was a more zealous a defender of the Constitution than Alexander Hamilton was.

Essentially, there is no credible way to misconstrue what James Madison says about the proposed Constitution -his words on this matter are clear and unambiguous. For those who may believe that We have misconstrued the views of Alexander Hamilton in the short extract from Federalist #1, the following from an address he gave encouraging the state of New York to ratify the proposed Constitution should remove any doubts on the matter. And with that, on the subject of whether the framers of the Constitution (represented here in the two most zealous defenders of the proposed Constitution) saw the nation it was to serve as a democracy or as a republic, We as the prosecution opposing Ourselves to this common (but erroneous) presumption, will now rest.

I am persuaded, Mr. Chairman, that I in my turn shall be indulged in addressing the committee. We all in equal sincerity profess to be anxious for the establishment of a republican government on a safe and solid basis. It is the object of the wishes of every honest man in the United States, and i presume that I shall not be disbelieved when I declare that it is an object of all others the nearest and most dear to my own heart. The means of accomplishing this great purpose become the most important study which can interest mankind. It is our duty to examine all those means with peculiar attention and to choose the best and most effectual. It is our duty to draw from nature, from reason, from examples, the best principles of policy, and to pursue and apply them in the formation of our government. We should contemplate and compare the systems which in this examination come under our view; distinguish with a careful eye the defects and excellencies of each, and, discarding the former, incorporate the latter, as far as circumstances will admit, into our Constitution. If we pursue a different course and neglect this duty we shall probably disappoint the expectations of our country and of the world. [Alexander Hamilton: To the State of New York on the Adoption of the Constitution circa June 24, 1788)]

Notes:

{1} As this post was pretty much written prior to the death of Terri Schiavo, please excuse any present tense parts that were overlooked in retouching what was written then for posting at this time.

{2} A subject recently recapitulated at Rerum Novarum was that of the various war related threads which have been blogged at this humble weblog. Though not all of the threads were listed; nonetheless, the sixty-two that were give a good outline of how this writer has approached the subject of war in general as well as the war in Iraq. As it did not seem fitting to post this thread during the week leading up to Easter, it was "backdated" if you will to March 20th -a spot where a duplicate draft of a previous post happened to be located.

For those who wonder what else at this weblog has been "backdated" in posting, it was noted in that thread that this constitutes only the first time in two and a half years that your host can recall any post being "backdated" at Rerum Novarum. (With the exception of the occasional audiopost which posts a day or two after it was recorded. In the latter cases, this writer tries to backdate in those situations as close to the day and time of its recording as can be recalled.)

{3} We can only do so much at any one time here unfortunately.

{4} Essentially it was a private discussion thread that was formatted for posting to Rerum Novarum. The intention there was merely to make the point, not argue it with much in the way of evidences from founding sources.

{5} For a brief sketch of what is meant by the term ressourcement, see the post located HERE.

{6} To start with, all three were contributors to The Federalist Papers which (along with the writers themselves) were influential on the development and eventual ratification of the US Constitution. As it is, John Jay wrote only a few of the papers and in none of them touched on the subject we are currently discussing.

{7} The term "proposed Constitution" is used here because the Constitution would not be formally adopted as the law of the land until 1789. (The writings making up what is called The Federalist Papers were all penned in 1787 and 1788.)

On the Conclave and Papal Selections:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: The following with a few minor adjustments are from a private discussion thread and were originally written prior to this weblog post. While more than just this has been disclosed privately to select individuals, at the present time this writer is not certain how much of the other stuff will be blogged here at Rerum Novarum. Nonetheless, the following post will make clear the outlines of how this writer views the upcoming conclave as well as his picks to be the next pope. -ISM]

To start with, this writer is not sure the Church is ready for an African pope yet. It seems much more probable that they will elect an older pope this time -hopefully a non-Italian again. Our Italian brethren had four and a half centuries in a row and we need to make it clear in the coming decades that the Church is not Europe as much as some in the past opined that it was (i.e. Belloc). However, as it is doubtful that it will be a non-European this time around -and further as Europe is in the worst shape of all the continents faithwise- it will probably (and should probably) be a European though hopefully not an Italian.

Interestingly enough, while there has been only two curialists elected pope in the past hundred and fifty years (Paul VI and Pius XII) and only one who went straight to the papacy from the Curia (Pius XII), it is the sense of this writer that we may see an interim older pope from Europe but not Italy -and perhaps a curialist.

For Our part, We at Rerum Novarum would love to see Joseph Ratzinger be that pope because he was intimately involved with the papacy of Pope John Paul II and his strong interest in liturgical matters would make him likely to implement the new missal translations and enforce Redemptiones Sacramentum as they need to be done.

Futhermore, who better than a Pope Ratzinger (or "Leo XIV" perhaps) to:

---Put a first calibre theologian in the chair who could then slap the pseudo-"theologians" around with papal authority{1}

---Turn his supposed "theological opinion" about how to properly understand Ordinatio Sacerdotalis into an authoritative papal position by reiteration of it{2}

---Provide papal as opposed to merely theological weight to many of the positions he took in the 1998 CDF Doctrinal Commentary -particularly in the modern climate the subject of Anglican orders being invalid{3}

---Give papal as opposed to theological weight to many of his liturgical observations

---Put on the papal cathedra another highly influential prelate from the Second Vatican Council to assist in completing the implementation of said Council

---Put him over the wayward German episcopate (particularly Cardinal Kasper) who were continually snubbing JP II who was too nice to slap them around in his later years where they needed it{4}

---Give one final window of grace for the SSPX to straighten up and fly right by reconciling with the Church{5}

---Scare the hell out of all those pansy so-called "progressivists" who were scared of him as Chief Inquisitor ;-)

It helps to remember that Ratzinger has demonstrated an amiable personality in recent years which clashes with the stereotypes that were common in the first decade plus of his role at CDF. So it would not be a case of an unpersonable person succeeding Pope John Paul II. And as John Paul II's implementation of Vatican II remains incomplete, who better to give force to the documents of the pope's final years (including Dominus Iesus in the ecumenical sphere and Redemptiones Sacramentum in the liturgical sphere) than his right hand man for 24 of his 26 years.

Cardinal Ratzinger is 77 so we would probably have (if the past is an indicator) about seven years of papacy from him and then the path would be set for a non-European pope (such as a Cardinal Arinze) to reign. (The next pope will probably be a transitional one with a shorter reign than JP II or Paul VI.) Of course if Arinze is elected, We would hardly be disappointed of course -though if it is a Walter Kasper sort, Our mood would be anything but enthused to put it mildly.

In closing, a good friend of this weblog (Pete Vere) reminded the present writer on the Saturday after the papal funeral of the "glory of the olive" prediction of Malachy and has predicted that the next pope will be Cardinal Martini ;-)

Notes:

{1} While JP II was an excellent theologian, he was first and foremost a philosopher. Ratzinger by contrast is first and foremost a theologian and a non-Thomist theologian at that. On this front, the reissuing of the CDF Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian in the form of a papal apostolic letter would not hurt in Our opinion.

{2} This would also help to also undercut the attempts of those who sought to claim that Ratzinger's responsum on women priests was incongruent with the manifested intention of the previous pope. (The fact that they collaborated on the original apostolic letter and John Paul II gave explicit approval of His Eminence's interpretation of that text notwithstanding of course.)

{3} If the Anglicans want to continue to make dialogue difficult on their side, let us reaffirm Leo XIII's judgment in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae that they indeed are not valid priests. Certainly in light of the recent promotion on their part of an openly gay "clergy", it seems appropriate to give a swift kick of this sort to their pretentions of "apostolicity."

{4} Not to mention the rest of the European episcopate who are presiding over a dying Europe.

{5} This writer senses that anyone but Cardinal Ratzinger (or another cardinal involved with Ecclesia Dei) will seal the casket on any future reconciliation of the SSPX. For pastoral as well as personal reasons, We do not (at the present time) want to see that happen.

Addendum:

We should further add that in light of Italian dominance of the papacy in recent centuries that anyone going with a non-Italian should have one Italian as their choice in the event that recent history repeats itself. Ergo, while We have selected Our European non-Italian transitional pope to bridge pontificates of John Paul II and a future Arinze papacy, if that does not happen, Our Italian selection is Cardinal Ruini. For those not familiar with him, here are some articles from Sandro Magister's archive:

Exclusive Interview with Cardinal Camillo Ruini: "My Battle for Man"

The Religious Geopolitics of Cardinal Ruini

The Pope and His Two Consuls

Let it be noted that the "two consuls" in the above link were Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Ruini. It should go without saying that if either of the two are elected, it is Our hope the other one serves as CDF prefect for the new pope. (If Cardinal Christoph Schönborn OP is not selected to fill that role of course.)

Notes on Filibusters

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.
(On the Upcoming Conclave)

The words of my interlocutor will be in shale font.

Shawn,

Hello XXXXXXX:

As inappropriate as it may be, I can't help but be totally fascinated by the run up to the conclave and I cannot get away from speculating on whom our next pontiff will be. As a long-time Rerum Novarum fan, I would be very interested in knowing your take on the whole matter.

Well, I have been publicly silent on the matter up to now.

Of course, I certainly would understand if you had no interest in sending your thoughts out to just any unknown fan of your blog.

Most fans of a site are "unknown" to a certain extent initially. And many of the dialogues I have posted in the side margin and/or in the archives at Rerum Novarum are from people who were at one point "unknown" to me. A lot of what gets posted depends on my mood and what I want to discuss at a given time -though current events to some extent drive that determination. And as we have a conclave upon us, my thoughts have been on it in the days since the passing of Pope John Paul II (RIP).

For what it's worth, here's my quick and dirty take on the whole matter. Ratzinger is by far the best man for the job. However, his age may be an issue. The next Pope will have quite a load of work to accomplish, and Ratzinger may not have the strength to do it. I do not expect to see an Asian, African, or Latin American Pope yet. Maybe down the road, but not now. My guess is that the next Pope will likely be an Italian, not too old, not too young, intellectual, orthodox, with some working knowledge of both Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam. And so, I think Angelo Scola stands out as a very strong possibility.

Interesting analysis.

I think that many of the "top contenders" such as Tettamanzi, Hummes, Bergoglio, and Maradiaga really are not as strong as some seem to think. If I had to pick a Latin American, I would say Hoyos has the best shot. Arinze remains a strong candidate, but I wonder if his bluntness has turned some off. And as for the libs like Daneels, Kasper, et al., I don't think there's much of a chance. I doubt someone like Daneels could win even with a simple majority. Way too much of a loose cannon, and the Cardinals know it.

I do not see Danieels or Kasper being elected in this conclave. The latter has clearly been doing the kind of indirect "campaigning by not campaigning" in recent months. But he has too many public utterances that he has not distanced himself from (or qualified the context of) to be a likely heavyweight in this competition.

Of course these views are subject to frequent and radical change between now and the election of a new pontiff.

That is true. There is an old dictum that "whomsoever enters the conclave a pope leaves it a cardinal." But as there are 117 voting in the election (and even more who can be elected pope) so one of them has to be elected. The dictum though is worth considering because there have probably been more darkhorses elected historically than favourites.

Having noted all of that, though I had previously noted a probability of posting my previously enunciated private musings on this matter to Rerum Novarum after the election of the new pope, I will instead post at least some of them on Friday or Saturday. on or prior to Friday or Saturday. As they have been witnessed to by not a few people already, I could hardly pull a fast one by changing them now even if I wanted to.

All the best. Keep up the fine work on RN.

Thankyou XXXXXX for the thought-provoking analysis on the upcoming conclave. (And of course I extend to you and yours my best as well.)

I do not intend to say much on this weblog between now and the election of a new pope. Predictions of whom the new pope will be or will not be will be swirling about for a while -not to mention a predicted propaganda frenzy by so-called "progressivists" after this pope is buried to try and influence the election of his successor.{2} Much could be said and I will probably release my privately-circulated predictions (with accompanying rationale) on this subject after the election. For those who think I will only post it if I am right, worry not, being right would not be the determining factor in whether or not those predictions are blogged here.{3}

Also, your host would be remiss in not rectifying a long lacuna{4} of gratitude to Christopher Blosser of Against The Grain for noting what this weblog has been saying on the entire subject of fundamental rights in various strains of the culture war context.

Finally, this blog returns to quasi-dormant status for the time being but not before wishing a happy (recent) third blogoversery to Chris Burgwald of Veritas all things considered. Which reminds me...

[Lord] remember Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II). In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]



Notes:

{1} Though I may yet persuade a friend to write a complete overview of this pope's accomplishments, personality, and the like in that timespan.)

{2} Political machinations in these situations are of course to be expected. (Particularly for those to whom politics is their religion.)

{3} Though of course in the event of being right, I may have a bit more trumpet fanfare in blogging my predictions and analysis of course :)

{4} Yes it has been about five weeks but in the blogosphere and alternative media, five weeks is a long time.

Points to Ponder:

With the passing of Pope John Paul II a few hours ago, it seems fitting to post some of his words as the 140th installment of the "points to ponder" series at Rerum Novarum. With that in mind, here is the text from his final Easter message (delivered for him by Cardinal Angelo Sodano) circa March 27, 2005:

"Mane nobiscum, Domine!" Stay with us, Lord! (cf. Luke 24:29). With these words, the disciples on the road to Emmaus invited the mysterious Wayfarer to stay with them, as the sun was setting on that first day of the week when the incredible had occurred. According to his promise, Christ had risen; but they did not yet know this. Nevertheless, the words spoken by the Wayfarer along the road made their hearts burn within them. So they said to him: "Stay with us." Seated around the supper table, they recognized him in the "breaking of bread" -- and suddenly he vanished. There remained in front of them the broken bread. There echoed in their hearts the gentle sound of his words.

Dear brothers and sisters, the Word and the Bread of the Eucharist, the mystery and the gift of Easter, remain down the centuries as a constant memorial of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ! On this Easter Day, together with all Christians throughout the world, we too repeat those words: Jesus, crucified and risen, stay with us! Stay with us, faithful friend and sure support for humanity on its journey through history! Living Word of the Father, give hope and trust to all who are searching for the true meaning of their lives. Bread of eternal life, nourish those who hunger for truth, freedom, justice and peace.

Stay with us, Living Word of the Father, and teach us words and deeds of peace: peace for our world consecrated by your blood and drenched in the blood of so many innocent victims: peace for the countries of the Middle East and Africa, where so much blood continues to be shed; peace for all of humanity, still threatened by fratricidal wars. Stay with us, Bread of eternal life, broken and distributed to those at table: give also to us the strength to show generous solidarity towards the multitudes who are even today suffering and dying from poverty and hunger, decimated by fatal epidemics or devastated by immense natural disasters. By the power of your Resurrection, may they too become sharers in new life.

We, the men and women of the third millennium, we too need you, Risen Lord! Stay with us now, and until the end of time. Grant that the material progress of peoples may never obscure the spiritual values which are the soul of their civilization. Sustain us, we pray, on our journey. In you do we believe, in you do we hope, for you alone have the words of eternal life (cf. John 6:68). "Mane nobiscum, Domine!" Alleluia! [Pope John Paul II (1920-2005 RIP)]

Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Terri Schiavo, A Possible "Grace" From This Tragedy, Etc. --Part II

Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Terri Schiavo, A Possible "Grace" From This Tragedy, Etc. --Part I

Miscellaneous Mutterings:
(On Terri Schiavo's Situation, So-Called "Christian Fascism", and Communist Supporters of the Culture of Death)

It is good at the very least that Monsignor Malanowski was able to not only give Terri Schiavo Viaticum the other day but also the Sacrament of Anointing according to a recent piece by David Sommer. Let us pray that she is able to be saved before it is too late.

In other news, it seems that those who are protesting the treatment of Terri Schiavo have attracted people who are protesting them. To quote from Sommers' article briefly:

A handful of counterdemonstrators holding signs touting the ``Revolutionary Communist Party'' decried what they said was ``Christian fascism.''

As these vestiges of human debris parrot the common notion of fascism being the opposite of communism, it seems appropriate to remind the readers of Rerum Novarum that your host destroyed this putrid prevarication last year in a post to this very weblog. That point being noted, let us make a few more notations on this subject of so-called "Christian Fascism."

---There is nothing whatsoever that is "fascistic" about protesting the killing of an innocent human being.

---There is nothing whatsoever that is "fascistic" about a government seeking to protect the life of an innocent and defenseless person.

Indeed, though the Men Behind Hitler series was suspended at this weblog, the readers are reminded that what was covered already from that series is adequate to refute the kinds of idiocies being parrotted by the brainless twits of the Revolutionary Communist Party.

In reality, the only thing resembling fascism is the brownshirt brigage of judicial termites and judicial whores who are out to kill an innocent and defenseless woman. And that sort of violence to advance a cultural agenda happens to be the very raison_d'etre of communism and socialism which is communism before it reaches full development.{1} And as communism has failed every time it has been tried -and it only succeeds for a time by the violent destruction of those who are viewed as political "enemies", it makes perfect sense that these Revolutionary Communist Party sorts (who are worshippers of a cult of death) would be protesting those who would protest the killing of an innocent and defenseless woman!!! This writer cannot think of a more damning indictment than that so no more will be said on it at the present time.

Note:

{1} [P]rotectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]

Miscellaneous Threads of Possible Interest:

Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder (Nat Hentoff circa March 29, 2005)

Nat Hentoff of The Village Voice explains precisely what we are dealing with in the Terri Schiavo case: judicial murder. While We at Rerum Novarum have differences with Mr. Hentoff on some other issues; nonetheless, it is pleasing to see him in such fine form on this issue. For that matter, this writer would be remiss in not noting that Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada (Minority Leader in the Senate), Ralph Nader, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa are among those whom are often are at odds with the present writer but nonetheless he is pleased to have as allies in this fight.

Terri Schiavo, Requiescat in Pacem (By John Armor circa March 26, 2005)

It is practically a formality now; nonetheless, John Armor's article is also well worth a read.

Neurologists Say: Recording of Terri Shows She's Not PVS (By Rev. Reverend Robert Johansen circa March 25, 2005)

Please read Fr. Rob's most recent weblog posting above. Basically, he outlines why the assertion that Terri was in a "persistive vegetative state" (PVS) -something that the MSM asserted as a matter of fact throughout this whole ordeal- is a bald faced lie. While not the occasion to crow at yet another piece of evidence which discredits the MSM{1}, nonetheless this is something that cannot go without at least a mention in passing.

It's a Brave New World After Terri Schiavo Dies (By Timothy Birdnow circa March 28, 2005)

The above article{2} (courtesy of Kevin Tierney) points out certain movements which are remarkably silent in the face of what is happening to Terri Schiavo: movements that should be supporting her if they are interested in what they claim to be interested in.

And finally, The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated as of today. The subject covered in that new thread pertains to the Terri Schiavo case in a more indirect manner. Nonetheless, what is covered there is common to the kind of solipsisms which are put forward by so-called "progressivists" to justify their appeal to illogical emotional premises over and above fundamental logic and reasonable argumentation. For that reason, it seemed appropriate to deal with it at the present time.

In the coming days, there will be a new installment of the Framers Know Best thread (the first since July of 2003) added to Rerum Novarum along with an audipost on the Terri Schiavo situation and a few other tidbits as time allows for them.

Notes:

{1} To everything there is a season and this is not the season for celebrating more evidence of the MSM's slide into irrelevancy.

{2} The fact that Aldous Huxley saw Brave New World as being an increasing concrete reality in the 1950's (ergo his 1958 sequel Brave New World Revisited) aside for a moment of course.

Miscellaneous Musings on Key Fundamental Flaws in the Outlook of the "Kill Terri Contingent" (a duplicate of the audiopost from March 26, 2005)

Points to Ponder:
(From a fellow student of Claude Frederic Bastiat's The Law)

The first principle of a free society is that each person owns himself. You are your private property, and I am mine. Most Americans probably accept that first principle. Those who disagree are obliged to inform the rest of us just who owns us, at least here on earth.

This vision of self-ownership is one of those "self-evident" truths to which the Founders referred to in the Declaration of Independence, that "All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Like John Locke and other philosophers who influenced them, the Founders saw these rights as preceding government, and they said, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted."

The Framers of the Constitution recognized that while government was necessary to secure liberty, it was also liberty's greatest threat. Having this deep suspicion of government, they loaded our Constitution with a host of anti-congressional phrases, such as: "Congress shall make no law," "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated."

Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property.

Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!"


If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed. [Dr. Walter E. Williams (circa May 7, 2003)]

Miscellaneous Musings on Key Fundamental Flaws in the Outlook of the "Kill Terri Contingent"

An Appeal to Federalist #78 Southern Style:
(With additional musings from Rerum Novarum)

Yes, the contingent over at Southern Appeal have reminded people of the actual status of the judiciary in the Constitutional sphere of things by citing Federalist #78.{1} We at Rerum Novarum commend them for doing it for this is a text that seems to be unknown (or "conveniently ignored") to many of those in the Schiavo case who appeal to "the Constitution" in trying to see Terri Schiavo sacrificed on the altar of utility.{2}

In truth, the executive branch has the authority to refuse to execute the judicial overreach of the judicial branch of government. This is a concept that needs to be recaptured if we are to get a handle on the continual perversions of the law that have become commonplace in this society the past fifty years -particularly since 1973. But that is a subject to be handled in more detail at another time. In the meantime, kindly read and reflect upon the wisdom of the late great Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78 on the proper role of the judiciary. Hopefully then, those of good will will see the abominations taking place in Florida for what they really are.


Notes:

{1} To remind the readers of this humble weblog, this is something that We at Rerum Novarum covered in mid 2003. (In the inaugural and thus far only weblog thread from the Framers Know Best series.) Like Our posting of it then, Southern Appeal does so in the context of yet another perversion of justice from the judiciary in this country. Those who wonder why the subject of law and its role in a just society has taken up so much of Our efforts at Rerum Novarum need look no further than what we are seeing in the Florida courts right now.

{2} As far as the latter goes, the present writer has joined with a number of Catholics of the "Generation X" crowd in an open letter on this subject. Though written for publication in The Wanderer, Our friend Pete Vere has also posted it at Envoy Encore and at Catholic Light.

On Terri Schiavo and The Face of Evil:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I began to see quite clearly that there was corruption involved...that evil was not something you merely read about in newspapers and novels but that it was all around us. [Michael J. Mentzer]

I do not at the present time intend to reiterate anew why I have been right all along in recognizing the need of a consistent principle of social and ethical argumentation for combatting the sort of evil that we witnessed in recent days.{1} Nor do I intend to go into a long drawn out dissertation on subjects such as "lies, damn lies, and federalism" as occurred yesterday when The Secret One woke from his long blogging hibernation to rant justifiably on the aforementioned matters.{2} No, what I want to focus on at this time is the switch that was possibly thrown on over the weekend with the United States Congress and President Bush cutting their Easter vacations short to pass emergency legislation to transfer Terri Schiavo's case to federal jurisdiction.

After reading and listening to a plethora of complaints from some factually/logically/charitably-challenged persons the past couple of days, I started reflecting upon something that occurred to me upon hearing that the legislation passed and was signed by the president. The thought that came to mind at that point was the adage about evil and light.

A common theme that permeates the Christian traditions (as well as perhaps some other religious traditions) is the one about evil loving darkness and hating the light. That point was one that I was pondering late Sunday night into early Monday morning. And if society works its way back on track after this, it is possible that historians will point to this event as a kind of definitive watershed event in the entire paradigm shift. Having noted that, let us consider some of the ramifications of what recently happened.

To start with, it bears recalling that the late mass murderer (and all-around bastard) Joseph Stalin once noted that "one death is a tragedy and a million deaths is a statistic." And to some extent that applies in the situation we have here with Terri Schiavo. It also points out something that I blogged on in a different context last year about the problem with "humanizing" our formal enemies in the war on terror.{3} My concern at that time was the way the media was reporting on Saddam Hussein in ways that cloaked him with a bit of humanity. During war, one cannot take this approach with their formal enemies{4} if they hope to avoid being defeated. And it bears reminding that there is more to warfare than the utilization of armies, munitions, and the like.

Indeed, wars can be fought on the battlefields, in boardrooms, and in numerous other contexts. Pope John Paul II is one of several social commentators who has noted with no small amount of astuteness that we are engaged today in a war for the culture. This war is generally a war of ideas and how they are to be implemented in society. And the divergences cannot be starker in the example of those who are on opposite sides of the Terri Schiavo controversy. Setting aside for a moment the blatant hypocrisy of the Kill Terri Contingent (KTC){5}, what we have here is those seeking to protect her life and those who are seeking to insure her death. Much as Moses proclaimed to Israel "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse" (Deut xxx,19), we have in this case the same sides being drawn up.

Now it is true that oftentimes those who promote evil find a number of ways of applying camoflage to their (objectively true) positions. But Sunday night and into Monday morning, there was a stripping away of these coverings. We were able to see and hear (if following the congressional proceedings) the most horrifying of propositions from the KTC. Granted, they tried to hypocritically dress it up as a "states rights" issue but that is not the point I want to focus on here. No, I want to focus on the face of evil as it presented itself Sunday night and Monday morning. The arguments advanced by the KTC were among those which were uttered in the early twentieth century by those promoting eugenics, so-called "racial hygiene", and by the Nazi Third Reich{6} all the way down to the idea of making doctors the determiners of who lives and who dies.{7}

In other words, we had these promoters of a cult of death brazenly calling for this woman to be sacrificed at the altar of utility. And perhaps for the first time in recent memory, the face of evil was unmasked in all of its hideousness. It is uncertain at the moment how many people actually noticed this or how many people will realize it in the weeks and months to follow. But the grace of a genuine potential turning point was given to us in the final hours of Palm Sunday 2005. Let us pray that people of good will can be given sight on this matter and those of ill-will may be given the grace of repentence and conversion{8} before it is too late.

Notes:

{1} To say nothing of the numerous posts to Rerum Novarum at sundry times and in divers manners (on various subjects) which have filled in some (but nowhere near all) of the existing lacuna previously noted.

{2} A sample of which reads as follows:

...If leftists and nationalizers really think that federalism forbids savimg Terri's life, then let them say that federalism requires the immediate overruling of Roe -- and let them sic their ACLU attack-dogs on that job without delay. Let's see them stop crying for national "Brady Bills" and "Assault-Weapon Bans" and see them rebuke the gun-control lobby with talk of federalism. Let's see them hold hearings on the continued tenure of Supreme Court justices who use Finlandian jurisprudence to interpret the federal Constitution. Let's see the Senate's Democrats shut down the judicial-nominating process over those issues.

Until then, I say let the leftists and nationalizers live in the unitary national system they've so eagerly built. If this illegal, ridiculous mess of a government, created by 150 years of special pleading, moral jerrymandering, brute force, and disregard for the truly-republican vision of citizenship, can produce even one saved life, then more good will have come of it than was ever likely to... [Excerpt from SecretAgentMan's Dossier (circa March 21, 2005)]

{3} Miscellaneous Musings on the Media and the Humanizing of Formal Enemies (An Audio Post circa July 27, 2004)

{4} I go over the distinction between formal and material enemies in the audio post linked to footnote three.

{5} For some quick examples of this, consider the dissertation of The Secret One (linked to footnote two above) and also the most recent Points to Ponder thread from this humble weblog.

{6} It is true that I suspended the Men Behind Hitler series before the sections pertaining directly to Hitler and the Nazis were posted. However, for those who doubt my veracity here, those sections are in draft form at Rerum Novarum and ready for posting should I deem that the circumstances with the Terri Schiavo case again warrant it. (Meanwhile, what was posted thus far more than lays the foundation for defending your weblog host's assertions on these matters.)

{7} This was a subject that was to be covered in the aforementioned series that was suspended yesterday. Thus, if it is deemed necessary to continue that series, this will be covered in resuming that series (and in the very next installment at that).

{8} Repentence and conversion are after all a significant purpose of the Lenten season.

Points to Ponder:
(On "Civil Disobedience" and "Freedom of Religion")

If "civil disobedience" aimed at ending racial segregation was so praiseworthy in the world's eyes, then how much more so is it to save an incapacitated woman's life from a total and systemic perversion of justice — particularly when this perversity reaches even unto the denial of this woman's right to Viaticum and the other Last Rites? [Charles de Nunzio (circa 03/18/05)]

The Suspension of a Weblog Series:

I have decided in light of last night's actions by the United States Congress and the President (to provide for the saving of Terri Schiavo's life) to suspend the weblog series on The Men Behind Hitler for the indefinite future. Whether or not it is restarted will depend on how the judgment of the federal judge in the Schiavo case.

In the meantime, I will follow this notification up with a short "points to ponder" installment that really summarizes this entire issue. Basically, there is some serious hypocrisy at the foundation of the outlook of those who would have Terri Schiavo killed while they would chant the mantras of "liberty" or "freedom" in various other contexts. (Many of which are of a dubious nature at best.) But that will be touched on in the aforementioned "points to ponder" followup to the post you are currently reading.

Recapitulating Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

The following thread{1} is intended to outline in chronological order (from oldest to newest) a significant number of the threads posted to Rerum Novarum on the subject of war and war in general. While there are others in the archives of this weblog than these which are being posted, what is noted here is intended to show the broad outlines of the position of your web host on war in general and the war on terror (including the Iraq war) in particular.{2} Nonetheless, without further ado, let us get to it...

Tying Together Some Strands Viz. "Just War" Theory, Etc. (circa October 22, 2002)

Though this was not the first Rerum Novarum war post, it was nonetheless the one where your host first began explicitly noting some of the factors he was considering which were fundamental to the issue in question. The threads previous to this one were mainly public reflections on some of the several internal hurdles still in place at that time.{3}

Nonetheless, by the point of this post, your host with the benefit of hindsight sees the outlines of his realist perspective in this subject beginning to take a discernable shape -though admittedly more musing was needed before a definite position on the matter was to emerge.

Why I Am Becoming A Reluctant Hawk (circa January 25, 2003)

At the time of the above post, significant reflection had been given on the subject of the proposed invasion of Iraq by US forces. However, there were still a few hurdles to clear before this writer could support it without qualms. One of those was a review of the actual postitions of the United Nations on this matter in the form of their own resolutions. The UN's history of talking tough and doing nothing was by this time the stuff of legends. Nonetheless, the aforementioned review was taking place prior to the posting of the above thread. It would be completed in the days prior to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the UN.

Why Those Who Hold Out For Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Wrong (circa February 9, 2003)

At the time of the above post, all the threads were tied together in this writer's mind and all that was needed was a systematic exposition on the position that had taken shape. The readers can note that what was not focused on in the above post was any mention of Secretary Powell's "evidences" to the UN. Nor for that matter was the subject of WMD's mentioned except briefly in passing.

This is an important facet to consider because WMD's and whether they were there or not was never a fundamental constituent to your host's position on whether or not the United States should involve itself militarily in Iraq. And for those reasons, when various other commentators waffled on the aforementioned subjects -or at times made an aboutface as a result of aparent evidential controversions in those areas- We at Rerum Novarum were able to stand solidly in favour of the war option being utilized in Iraq.

Why I Disagree With the Pope on the War and Remain a Faithful Catholic (circa February 14, 2003)

The above post was viewed as a necessary complement to the previous thread outlining the war in Iraq position of your weblog host. (Because some very irresponsible Catholic commentators were positing the fallacious notion that there was a binding nature to the apparent position of Pope John Paul II on the war in Iraq; ergo seemed appropriate to Us to dispense in short order with that noxious prevarication before the outset of the upcoming conflict.)

On Possible New Ultramontanism With Lane Core Jr. (circa March 18, 2003)

The above post was posted in the days prior to the war. We sensed (much as Lane Core Jr. did) that several of those who were in favour of the pope's position were engaging in a modern form of Neo-Ultramontanism in trying to present their view as the only viable (or only "truly Catholic" one).{4} The latter needed to be nipped in the bud for the sake of the truth on the subject in question not being blurred by those who imprudently sought to dogmatize their particular positions on that issue.

Taking The JunkYard BLOG To Task on the Iraq War and the Vatican (circa March 23, 2003)

The above post was blogged to correct another extreme viewpoint on the war subject as it pertained to a properly Catholic assessment of the situation. Essentially, just as some had erred to one extreme (in dogmatizing the pope's personal opinion on the war's conformity to just war criteria as binding on Catholics), others had erred to the extreme of presuming that the pope's position against the Iraq was bereft of principles altogether. It was the latter extreme to which the above thread sought to dispatch with. At the same time though, it was viewed as necessary to point to the freedom that Catholics did (and do) have with regards to the subject of the war in Iraq and the prudence (or lack thereof) of that military action.

Iwo Jima Tribute and Some Points of Reflection on War in General (circa March 26, 2003)

The above post contains some reflections on the early stages of the conflict which were posted to provide some historical context for many critics who demonstrated a serious lacuna in that area.

War Musings on Possible Media Sedition (circa March 29, 2003)

The above post was intended to outline how many of those so-called "protestors" would have been viewed in the years when the US Sedition Act had the force of law. Basically, the letter and the spirit of that law were violated by many from the fringe of the antiwar movement: the intention of the above post was to make this quite clear.

The So-called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of the Braindead Communists and Their Sympathizers Progressives (circa April 13, 2003)

The above post intended to deal with the hypocrisy of certain antiwar activists (particularly so-called "progressives") on the subjects of the Iraq war and "freeing Tibet."

On JYB, Props for the Pope, Societal Problems, Etc. (circa April 13, 2003)

The above post contains a brief outline of the pope's predominent approach to combatting societal problems and a hermeneutical key to understanding the pope's war weltanschauung. Basically, the argument being advanced here was that the pope's analysis of the factors that create monsters like Hussein, Jong II, and others was not to be dismissed lightly just because his assessment of the Iraq war and its prudence or lack thereof might have some serious problems to it.{5}

On "Rights" and "Free Speech" Part I (circa June 27, 2003)

The above post was a response to someone who tried to posit a kind of "equivalence" between certain positions where such arguments were subject to no small number of problems. The war subject is covered very briefly in this post but what is noted is of no small significance.

"Lie to Me" Dept. (circa July 11, 2003)

The above post deals with the hypocrisy and blatant double standards of the Democratic party on the entire WMD issue: a subject that would be revisited in greater detail later on in other posts to Rerum Novarum.

The Canard of Conservatives Being "Opposed to Progress" (circa July 25, 2003)

The above post encapsulated a musing from your humble servant at the Libertarian Samizdata weblog circa October of 2002. (Which was found amongst drafts in his notebook and deemed appropriate for weblog posting at the time it was posted.) What is noted there highlights (in retrospect) a lot of the problems with the weltanschauung of the bulk of those who were opposed to US actions in Iraq.

"JunkYard Blog" Dept. (circa August 29, 2003)

The above post contained fourteen parts -seven of which pertain (or pertained) to the war on terror and various points which undermine the position of the extremist antiwar contingent.

Briefly on the War and "Manifest Destiny" Philosophies (circa September 15, 2003)

The above post contained a brief reminder post for those who were heavy war supporters to not go beyond the intention of fighting the war on terror militarily into philosophies of "manifest destiny." (Which some seemed to be doing.)

A Public Service Announcement for the Soldiers in Iraq (circa November 01, 2003)

The purpose of the above post was an unambiguous reaffirmation of this writer's support for the troops.

Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation (circa December 22, 2003)

The above post was intended to point out that Khadafi was only persuaded to do the right thing under the threat of military action being taken against him. Eighteen years between President Reagan's bombing of Lybia and President Bush's invasion of Iraq did nothing to persuade Khadafi to bring his nation into the family of man. But the threat of military action was the true deterring factor in persuading Khadafi to back down: a strong affirmation of President Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" philosophy of dealing with totalitarian dictators.

On David Kay and His Testimony (circa January 30, 2004)

The above post pointed out what David Kay actually said versus what the irresponsible MSM (and certain antiwar toadies who had frequent recourse to the latter in their public screeds) sought to contort David Kay's words to say.

On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, and Stephen Hand (circa February 05, 2004)

The purpose of the above post was to cover four different threads at once which were to a certain extent connected. It was also the first public acknowledgement on the part of Rerum Novarum pertaining to an unfortunate (but growing) trend with a friend of this writer.{6}

John F-word Kerry's Voting Record Revisited (circa March 12, 2004)

The purpose of the above post was to provide a template for assessing Senator Kerry on several significant election subjects. As far as the war subject goes, it is the 0-24 trackrecord on War and Peace on the part of Senator Kerry that pertains to the purpose of this current post.

On Al Queda, Spain, John Kerry, Etc. (circa March 15, 2004)

The above post covered some very discomforting information pertaining to many of those who were (and are) opposed to the involvement of the United States military in Iraq and the war on terror.

More on John Kerry, Spain, Terrorism, Etc. (circa March 20, 2004)

The purpose of the above post was to continue along the lines of thought from a previous posting. Though it was a followup to the previous post on "Al Queda, Spain, John Kerry, Etc", it also contained some additional information worth reviewing.{7}

Rerum Novarum Pays Tribute to Pat Tillman (circa April 28, 2004)

The above post was a bit of a tribute to a great man who made the ultimate sacrifice.

On Nick Berg and the Animals Who Killed Him (circa May 12, 2004)

The above post was dyspeptic thread of sorts providing an analysis of the enemies we are facing in the war on terror. There is also a bit of chastizing the extremists in the antiwar movement for their illogical idiocies and how they would (if followed) seal our defeat.

Briefly on the Iraqi Prison Scandal (circa May 15, 2004)

The above post deals with why so many of those who kvetch about Abu Ghirab were (and are) hypocritical in their attempt to moralize on this subject matter. (And frankly why Abu Ghirab -while not commendable- nonetheless was not the big deal that many in the media sought to make it out to be.)

Briefly on the UN and Their Latest Abomination (circa June 9, 2004)

The above post contains yet another reason why the UN should be shut down and fumigated.

On Paul Johnson and the Worthless Human Debris Who Murdered Him (circa June 18, 2004)

The above post was a followup to the Nick Berg post -and in some respects was an even more strident chastizing of those who continue to miss the forest for the trees.{8}

Miscellaneous Musings on the Media and the Humanizing of Formal Enemies --An Audio Post (circa July 27, 2004)

The above thread is to an audiopost where the dangerous trends in the media coverage of formal enemies in the war on terror -and why continuing that thrend would virtually guarantee an Islamo-fascist victory in the war on terror- are briefly enunciated.

On Democrat Lies and WMD's (circa August 04, 2004)

The above post serves as a reminder of what the Democratic leaders said about WMD's and Saddam Hussein prior to March of 2003. (And why those same people claiming that "Bush lied about WMD's" are a bunch of lying frauds bereft of credibility on this subject.)

More on President Bush and Arguments For His Re-Election (circa August 04, 2004)

The above post deals with arguments for President Bush's re-election from a liberal columnist who -though he admits to despising Bush personally- has the capability of seeing the forest for the trees a lot better than most of his ideological allies.

More on Democrat Lies and WMD's (circa August 5, 2004)

The above post is a sequel to the first thread on Democrat lies and also includes a timeline on the progress of that conflict for the sake of providing some badly-needed historical perspective for the extremists of the antiwar outlook.

On the War, Moral and Constitutional Principles, "Supporting the Troops", Etc. With SecretAgentMan (circa August 20, 2004)

The above post is a systematical defense of the war in Iraq against one of the very few intelligent interlocutors opposed to the war on principle.{9}

More on Extreme Ideologues (circa August 31, 2004)

The above post deals with the subject of finding weapons in Iraq -and highlights why those who were singing a "no WMD's" chorus were revealing their own facile understanding of history and postwar locating of weapons.

On the Media's Treatment of the Breslin Hostage Situation --An Audio Post (circa September 1, 2004)

The above thread is...well...somewhat of a livid rant on the part of this writer to put it mildly.

On the Breslin Hostage Situation and its Aftermath (circa September 3, 2004)

The above post was a recapitulation of the pathetic excuse for "reasoning" that permeates the outlook of the most vocal of the lunatic antiwar contingent.

Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words (circa September 5, 2004)

The above post was frankly intended as a direct refutation of Stephen Hand for his shameless abuse of the words of some of the Founding Fathers to defend an extremist antiwar position.{10}

A September 11th Confutation of Extremist Liberal Canards Viz. the War on Terror (circa September 11, 2004)

The above post was a dismantling of various canards commonly paraded about by those with an obvious hatred of President Bush, the military efforts in Iraq, and the war on terror in general using the lenses of history (in this case WW II) to point out why those who fail to learn from history will consign themselves to repeating it (cf. Santayana).

On the False Notion of "Equal Weight" Catholic Voting Issues (circa September 14, 2004)

The above post set forth to deal with the false notion (circulated even by some Catholics who pride themselves on being "party to the living magisterium alone") that all voting issues were of equal weight for Catholics.

The Iraq/Al Queda Connection, WMD's, Etc. (circa September 18, 2004)

The above post is another admonishing of those who were too quick to try and render a verdict on WMD's in Iraq. Oh, and for those who think that issue has been resolved, the above post points out why this issue is not as simplistic as most in the MSM (not to mention the antiwar zealots) would like it to be.

Miscellaneous Musings on War and Disarmarment --Part I of an Audio Post (circa September 19, 2004)

Miscellaneous Musings on War and Disarmarment --Part II of an Audio Post (circa September 19, 2004)

The above two threads deal with the core flaw in the weltanschauung of the antiwar/gun control/"nuclear freeze" crowd and why their approach is logical and actual suicide. Included in the above threads are examples from both the distant and recent past of where the gun control/antiwar crowd's approach were utilized with horrendous (and predictable) results.

Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I of an Audio Posting (circa September 22, 2004)

Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II of an Audio Posting (circa September 22, 2004)

The above two threads deal with (i) the manner whereby the war on terror was (and is) being dealt with in the media, (ii) the seditious behaviour of the so-called "progressivists" and the so-called "antiwar activists" in their disgraceful attempts to undermine a sitting president during wartime, (iii) the strengths and weaknesses of the blogosphere and the alternative media, and (iv) other related subject matter.

Briefly on the Vatican Diplomatic Corps and the War in Iraq (circa September 27, 2004)

The above post was directed towards those Catholics whose approach to the Vatican Diplomatic Corps shows a serious unfamiliarity with history. In this case, it was again Stephen Hand whom this writer had explicitly in mind in writing the above thread.

"Carthago Delenda Est" — What about Now? (circa September 28, 2004)

The above posting was a guest editorial on the war on terror by Charles M. de Nunzio. Though the posting of a guest editorial to Rerum Novarum is not contingent upon this writer's concurrence with the material posted; nonetheless, with this posting it seems appropriate to note for the record that We at Rerum Novarum to a large extent concur with what Charles had to say.

Briefly on Hanoi John Kerry, the First Debate, and What President Bush Needs to Do in the Second Debate (circa October 08, 2004)

The above post pointed out a key reason why Senator John Kerry would have made a horrible commander in chief.

Miscellaneous Threads For Viewing (circa October 18, 2004)

The above post includes a number of articles from other writers which are (to put it mildly) quite critical of the lunatic antiwar fringe protestors types.

"Anybody But Bush" Dept. (circa October 27, 2004)

The above post contains some more articles for voters to consider but also some commentary from your humble servant on his own ambivalence about President Bush being re-elected.

"Orwellian Doublespeak" Dept. (circa November 11, 2004)

The above post dealt with yet some more ignorant canards from the gallary of foaming-at-the-mouth Bush haters.

"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 11, 2004)

The above post sets forth a proposed revamping of the third party concept to make it truly viable in the future as an alternative to the Republicans and the Democrats.

"Post-Election Potpourri" Dept. (circa November 20, 2004)

The above post interacts rather irenically with a self-styled "progressivist" who is far saner than so many of his contemporaries on the election and why things went as they did.

Musings on the Election and its Aftermath (circa November 24, 2004)

The above post provides the kind of analysis of the election and its aftermath that you are unlikely to find anywhere else. (The war subject is touched on slightly in the above thread.)

"JunkYard BLOG" Dept. (circa November 30, 2004)

In the above post, eight of the ten threads apply either directly or by logical extension to Iraq, national security, the war on terror, and the imprudence of listening to Europe on anything of significance.

Points to Ponder on the United Nations (circa December 07, 2004)

The above post contains a summation of the UN that mirrors what this writer has long thought about that institution. (In light of how the UN factors into the war on terror, this thread can be considered a "war thread" insomuch as the position this writer takes on the UN amounts to as much.)

Miscellaneous Thoughts on the 9/11 Commission, the Bush Administration Appointees, and Two Examples of Blatant So-Called "Progressivist" Double Standards --An Audio Post (circa December 07, 2004)

The above post deals with a plethora of issues -some of which pertain to the war subject (ala a discussion on the 9/11 Commission and its recommendations).

Miscellaneous Notes on the Upcoming Inaugural, Recent Comments From President Bush About WMD's, and the Reform of Social Security --An Audio Post (circa January 17, 2005)

The above post involves a whole cornucopia of subjects which are opposed to those of the so-called "antiwar activists" -including a reaffirmation of the war position as enunciated at Rerum Novarum on February 9, 2003.

On Victor Davis Hanson, Donald Rumsfeld, and Why History is Not on the Side of the AntiWar So-Called "Activists" (circa January 19, 2005)

The above post is pretty clear on where this writer stands on the war subject and so-called "antiwar activists" who delude themselves into thinking they are on the side of history in this conflict.

On the Inaugural Speech, The President's Use of the Word "Freedom", and Self-Styled "Progressivist" Reactions Thereof --An Audio Post (circa January 21, 2005)

The above thread dispatches in audiopost form with the common pseudo-"progressivist" shibboleth of "freedom" and outlines why their appeal to being "promoters of freedom" is a facade.{11}

Political Potpourri (circa January 26, 2005)

The above post contains three threads that are solidly set against the position of so-called "antiwar activists" and the "anybody but Bush" crowd -one of which is a pretty good parody admittedly. But all three are worth a read by those interested in the "war on terror" and "war in Iraq" subjects.

Briefly on Iwo Jima at the Sixtieth Anniversary (circa February 25, 2005)

The above post is another perspective thread for those who continue to kvetch about the toll of lives in the military actions of Iraq and Afghanistan without seeing the bigger picture involved.

"JunkYard BLOG" Dept. (circa March 11, 2005)

In the above post, seven of the ten items directly pertain to the subjects of the war in Iraq, national security, Al Queda, "progress" in the war on terror, and the face of evil: none of which are to the benefit of those who believe that the Islamo-fascists can be "negotiated" with in light of the pitiful trackrecord of the past thirty odd years of trying to do just that.

Briefly on Iraq, WMD's, and Another Pseudo-"Progressivist" War Dogma Bites the Dust (circa March 14, 2005)

The above post contains some logistical "sixteen penny nails" for the coffins of the "Bush Lied" and "No WMD's" canards are supplied in the above post.


Notes:

{1} For the first time in the history of Rerum Novarum, a thread has been "backposted." The thread you are about to read was compiled little by little in spare moments starting around November of 2004 shortly after the election. The descriptions of each of the threads were written mostly in early to mid March except for two of them which were written on the day this thread was posted. (Though many of them were adjusted slightly on the day of posting as well.) It did not seem appropriate to post this thread either shortly after Easter, during the Terri Schiavo tragedy, or at the time of the death of the pope except in the following backdated format -essentially the date on which this post was started was left in the timestamp rather than being moved forward or pasted to a fresh "compose post" thread as is the standard approach for material posted some time after it was written. One of the purposes for this thread being compiled will manifest itself after the election of a new pope. Until then, that is all that this writer will say on the matter. [ISM 04/05/05 5:33pm ]

{2} The Afghanistan war preceded Rerum Novarum and (unlike the Iraq war) was supported without any degree of intellectual struggle whatsoever on the part of your weblog host.

{3} Including a reflection on the horror of war often overlooked by many who were itching a bit too much to go to war in Iraq in late 2002.

{4} Neo-Ultramontanism was a movement of the nineteenth century that held that the pope was virtually infallible in everything he says. This position was rejected by the First Vatican Council. Nonetheless, many Catholics opposed to the war in Iraq were showing signs of Neo-Ultramontanism in their publicly stated views on the war and giving the pope's presumed position on the matter an unwarranted dogmatization. On this point as it pertained to the war issue, one of the personages that your host had in mind was his friend Stephen Hand of TCR.

{5} For the record, this writer agreed with the pope's overall analysis and even with the pope taking the position he took for tactical reasons.

{6} Though this writer had Stephen in mind to some extent all along, it was in later months (after February 2004) when subsequent public statements by the latter really began to be matters for concern.

{7} Including a revisitation of some of the pointers which were set down by this writer in his February 2003 defense of the military intervention in Iraq by the United States and other coalition forces.

{8} Viz. the nature of the war on terror and what drives the enemy that we are facing.

{9} This is a rare commodity among the contingent of those opposed to the war in Iraq unfortunately.

{10} The present writer decided at the last minute to not mention Stephen by name in the above post; however for those who wondered whom it was directed at, they now have their answer. [Update: Since Mr. Hand has given this writer many reasons to wonder if he has any original ideas of his own, it was looked into sometime after this post was put up and discovered that the same kinds of pathetic arguments and abuse of the Founding Father's words were utilized by Patrick J. Buchanan - ISM 7/07/05 6:29pm]

{11} In light of the war on terror and our involvement in the Middle East in two recent wars, this thread pertains to the war subject as contents of the post make clear.