When I FLOATED the question of whether Cardinal O’Malley would be a plausible pope, I expected the objections that he’s a weak and vacillating administrator and that he was present at Kennedy’s funeral. But at this point I’ve gotten a dozen or more emails in addition to the comments in the thread below. The bottom line is not one of the notes suggests O’Malley has what it takes to lead, although the reasons why vary somewhat.
I’m not going to say more to diss the man, but I was taken aback to find out HOW MUCH he appears to have relied on a predictably progressive advisor and how EXTREMELY undisciplined the Church is in Boston generally. I was also surprised to learn of the possibility that O’Malley has been aggressively campaigning for the papacy through a high-paid PR staff seducing the secular American media. (I’m not clear why anyone would think that approach would work, given the ELECTORATE.) That would mean his lack of ambition and all that is a carefully cultivated APPEARANCE. Allegedly, this campaign is the true source of the BOOMLET.
I’ve even been accused of being duped by the Cardinal’s displays of personal piety and evangelical enthusiasm. Might be so, I admit, to a limited extent, but remember I put forward the question raised by the BOOMLET as a question. I have to add that I understand CHURCH politics and what really goes on within the institution even less than I understand AMERICAN POLITICS.
So if anyone thinks otherwise than the consensus of experts that have chimed in so far, he or she should contribute to this unique and utterly irrelevant POSTMODERN and CONSERVATIVE vetting process.
Another QUESTION: How ‘bout that CARDINAL SCHOENBERG?
