Who will be Ratzinger's Ratzinger?


#1

Anyone?


#2

I heard that it could be an American Bishop from San Francisco!


#3

[quote=mark a]Anyone?
[/quote]

Cardinal Levada’s name has been mentioned in one of the threads


#4

I live in the San Francisco bay area and Archbishop William Leveda is our metropolitan, so there has been a lot of rumor about it. Leveda worked under Ratzinger for a little over a year in Rome at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (in 1981-1982), and the two have been great friends since. Their views are very similar on issues of faith and morals, and Leveda is a personal confidant of Ratzinger. Leveda is already one of the five archbishops serving in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in addition to being Archbishop of San Francisco. Thus, Leveda has great pastoral and curial experience.

Don’t be surprised if he gets picked-- Benedict XVI already called the Archbishop to Rome for a personal meeting with Leveda about a week ago, and some Vatican officials have leaked that “it’s a done deal”.


#5

Fidei, since you live in the Archdiocese, could you shed some light on something for the rest of us? I have read that Archbishop Levada extended spousal benefits to gay “partners” of employees within the Archdiocese. Is there any truth to this?


#6

[quote=Dr. Colossus]I have read that Archbishop Levada extended spousal benefits to gay “partners” of employees within the Archdiocese. Is there any truth to this?
[/quote]

Quite the contrary. In fact, Archbishop Levada has firmly opposed this idea. The following is from the National Catholic Reporter. Once you read it, you can witness Archbishop Levada’s brilliance and his unwavering faith:

[quote=National catholic Reporter]In late 1996, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring entities contracting with the city [San Francisco] – profit and nonprofit alike – to extend health insurance and other spousal benefits to registered lesbian, gay or unmarried “domestic partners,” a category created under a 1990 referendum. Levada requested that Catholic agencies be exempted from the requirement, claiming it created a “problem of conscience” regarding Catholic teachings on homosexual activity.

“This requirement,” Levada argued, “amounted to government coercion of a church to compromise its own beliefs about the sacredness of marriage and seemed to violate the First Amendment protection guaranteed to religion by our Constitution.”
[/quote]


#7

[quote=Fidei Defensor]Quite the contrary. In fact, Archbishop Levada has firmly opposed this idea. The following is from the National Catholic Reporter. Once you read it, you can witness Archbishop Levada’s brilliance and his unwavering faith:

Quote:
Originally Posted by National catholic Reporter
*In late 1996, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring entities contracting with the city [San Francisco] – profit and nonprofit alike – to extend health insurance and other spousal benefits to registered lesbian, gay or unmarried “domestic partners,” a category created under a 1990 referendum. Levada requested that Catholic agencies be exempted from the requirement, claiming it created a “problem of conscience” regarding Catholic teachings on homosexual activity.

“This requirement,” Levada argued, “amounted to government coercion of a church to compromise its own beliefs about the sacredness of marriage and seemed to violate the First Amendment protection guaranteed to religion by our Constitution.”*

[/quote]

A point of curiosity: Did the good Archbishop’s arguments carry the day?

  • Liberian

#8

Good question–Catholic Charities in California is complying with the Contraceptive Equity Act as far as I know. A protest is great, but what if it fails? Back to the thread, I have often read that Card. Schoenborn of Vienna would be the next Prefect of Doctrine. Hard to imagine an American in the job, but who knows.


#9

Well… Im not that busy…


#10

Cardinals Schoenborn of Austria and Francis George of Chicago have also been under speculation, but the prevailing sentiment is that Benedict has already chosen Archbishop Levada and it is only a matter of time before the announcement is official.

[quote=Liberian] A point of curiosity: Did the good Archbishop’s arguments carry the day?
[/quote]

The case was taken to the California State Supreme Court, where the court unfortunately ruled against the Archdiocese. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and I haven’t been aware of any rulings by the USSC on this issue yet.

[quote=Fortiterinre]Hard to imagine an American in the job, but who knows.
[/quote]

Actually, an American is a logical choice because Levada has first hand experience in dealing with the sexual scandal; the S. Francisco Archdiocese dealt with several sex abuse claims over the past few years, with claims of abuse going back 30-40 years. Levada is an excellent choice.


#11

definitive answer: it’s Levada! Habemos Fidei Defensor

nytimes.com/2005/05/13/international/europe/13cnd-pope.html?hp&ex=1116043200&en=10f1b3ebe37b8d01&ei=5094&partner=homepage

bottom of the page gives the papal announcement!


#12

[quote=Fidei Defensor]Quite the contrary. In fact, Archbishop Levada has firmly opposed this idea. The following is from the National Catholic Reporter. Once you read it, you can witness Archbishop Levada’s brilliance and his unwavering faith:
[/quote]

Thanks, that definitely puts my mind at ease, whether or not he was successful in convincing the courts.


#13

"It is likely that under Levada, the Vatican’s uncompromising opposition to abortion, euthanasia, ordaining women, homosexuality and lifting the celibacy requirement for priests will remain.

Levada has voiced opposition to same-sex marriages and has said priests should ask bishops for guidance on whether to refuse a Catholic politician communion if the politician supports abortion rights."

Source : news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050513/ap_on_re_eu/pope;_ylt=Avh7UOF5VC9GupcuErJw9KCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MTQ3MTFjBHNlYwN0cw–


#14

Congratulations to all American Catholics ! :thumbsup:


#15

Official Vatican announcement: 212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/d3_en.htm


#16

[quote=Fidei Defensor]Official Vatican announcement:
[/quote]

Caution:
that’s not the vatican site. it’s the work of a con artist
official vatican’s ip is 212.77.1.243


212.77.1.243/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/d3_en.htm
has nothing to do with Levada

if you open both [/phome_en.htm3/phome_en.htmand 212.77.1.24[size=3]5[/size]](“http://212.77.1.243/phome_en.htm”)the 243 one says “Search on site” and the 245 one says “new search engine” however if you click on it , then else where, the 245 one changes to “Search on site”

if you move your mouse over the alpha and omega sign in the real site the icon changes to “the liturgical year” however on the phony site it doesn’t change, so are other icons


#17

[quote=abcdefg]Caution:
that’s not the vatican site. it’s the work of a con artist
official vatican’s ip is 212.77.1.243

212.77.1.243/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/d3_en.htm
has nothing to do with Levada

if you open both 212.77.1.243/phome_en.htm and 212.77.1.24[size=3]5[/size]/phome_en.htmthe 243 one says “Search on site” and the 245 one says “new search engine” however if you click on it , then else where, the 245 one changes to “Search on site”

if you move your mouse over the alpha and omega sign in the real site the icon changes to “the liturgical year” however on the phony site it doesn’t change, so are other icons
[/quote]

How very strange - I passed my cursor over both icons: both had “The Liturgical Year” underneath.

Why would anyone want to make a copy of the Vatican’s web-page ? It seems an odd thing to do, just for the hell of it ##


#18

then maybe it’s due to my slow connection or they just update it. anyway that piece of news is a fake


#19

Both of the indicated servers belong to the Vatican.


#20

[quote=davidc2]Both of the indicated servers belong to the Vatican.
[/quote]

if you ping www.vatican.va it directs you to 243. there’s no need to create a similar but still different site to cause confusion


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.