Why African? What about a Latino Pope? 
Reading the article, I think that christianity doesn't mix well with abundance. It's natural that the rich and famous reject something as christianity, and the United States and Europe are very rich by now.
My vote for the next Pope is Cardinal Biffi.
Mark, re:
"I, for one, have never met a bad African priest"
it is my impression that the violations of celibacy we have seen here in the US is nothing compared to what is happening in Africa:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ope/
1234268.stm
You forgot about the African nun-raping priests whose depredations got teven the vatican's attention? Or Archbishop Milingo (who's more a fool than a knave)? Or the several emigrant Africans who turned out to be child molesters? But of course you didn't actually meet them.
I wouldn't mind seeing Cardinal Arinze elevated to the See of Peter. I met him last Good Friday, and none of my conservative freinds were upset at all to see him named as the new Prefect for Divine Worship and Discipline in the Sacraments.
I also wouldn't mind seeing Cardinal Rivera of Mexico elected as the next Pope. In any case, I just hope we continue with the wonderful legacy of 20th century Popes into this next century.
How has Christianity succeeded in Africa? Surely not by Nigerian bishops praying in Muslim mosques and saying "essentially, we all believe the same things."
While we are voting for next Pope, I am for Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos of Colombia (who just came out for the beatification of Isabella of Spain, another point in his favour).
An African Pope would be great at some point, but we must remember that the majority of Catholics live in Latin America.
Sandra:
I did not say "there is no such thing as a bad African priest".
Mark:
Law did not say "essentially we believe the same things."
Ben:
Arinze will never be Pope.
Patricio:
I could go for a Latino too, if they were like Oscar Romero.
I hope so too, Mark.
Why will Arinze never be Pope? Is he already too old?
First rule of Guessing Who Will Be the Next Pope is ignore everybody whom the media acclaim as "widely acknowledged as a possible successor to the present Pope."
Okay, Law didn't say "essentially we believe the same things." He said, "Yes, there are differences. But the starting point - and the most important point - is that we believe in one God." I would say this is a considerable downplaying of the major differences between Christianity and Islam. Cardinal Law doesn't seem to have used this opportunity, even obliquely, to preach Christ.
Mark:
Be realistic. Do you seriously expect him, as a guest, to stand up in the middle of the prayers and give the Sermon on the Areopagus? Have you ever stood up as the guest at the office party or the neighbor's Christmas hooptido and delivered a "come to Jesus" pitch? Have you crashed a local Seder and demanded the festivities halt while you discourse on the need for celebrants to repent and become Christians? Does anybody who is demanding this preposterous and unlikely behavior from Law have *any* history of doing anything like this with their Muslim or Jewish neighbors?
Tell me about your numerous evangelistic visits to the mosque before finding fault with this rather minor act of courtesy to Muslims.
No. First of all, I don't expect Catholic Cardinals to participate as worshippers in non-Christian religious services. I don't think this is an okay thing to do. Obviously, he is in no position to disagre with the content of Muslim prayers when he is participating as a guest at their service - which is why he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
There obviously are occasions where Muslim-Christian dialogue is acceptable - in a meeting on religious tolerance at a university or conference centre, for instance. In such a situation, I wouldn't simply say - "Hey, we both believe in one God, that's the most important thing." I would talk about belief in one God, tracing our faiths to Abraham, reverence for Jesus and Mary, etc., while also talking honestly, but politely, about differences (for example, the Muslim misconception of the Trinity).
Ask yourself this: do you think that a Catholic bishop in Sudan, Nigeria, Lebanon, or Pakistan would have bowed down to the chant of a Muslim Imam's prayers in a Mosque service? Or in those countries, where Christians pay for their religious differences with Muslims with their lives, would they likely be a little less cavalier about joint worship?
I don't know, and neither do you, what Law "bowed to". There is no liturgy in Islam. For all I know, Law entered the mosque, bowed in typical Muslim position (not an offense), offered a prayer in the name of the blessed Trinity--silently--and then did whatever the protocol called for next. That's my point. You don't know.
I've heard lots of different reasons--none terribly convincing--about why this was fundamentally incompatible with the Faith. I still don't see what the big deal is. I can buy that it might not be prudent--if I know more about the local circumstances. But it's the automatic and unthinking assumption that, of course, this is simply incompatible with the Faith that I don't buy.
Sorry to keep harping on this, but why have you said a couple of times that there is "no Muslim liturgy". Islam has a rigid liturgy - specific prayers to be said five times a day, mandatory congregational prayer every Friday, and special prayers for Ramadan and other holidays.
Cardinal Law was participating in the sunset prayers (Maghrib) of Ramadan preceeding the fast-breaking meal, or Iftar. I quoted from a Maghrib prayer such as the Imam may have said as Law was bowing down and praying. Of course, Cardinal Law could mentally pray whatever he likes - but by his actions, he was participating in Muslim worship.
This was not an act of courtesy, any more than an early Christian putting incense on the altar of Caesar would have been a mere courtesy to honour the ruler.
As I said before, if Law participated in this rite, then he was wrong. I can't tell from the article whether he did or not. I've been to Jewish weddings but did not participate in any meaningful sense in the prayers because they were in Hebrew. Prayers in the mosque are in Arabic, aren't they? Does anybody know what Law actually did at this besides bow and pray in some undefined way (based on the article)?
Mark S: the comment "Have you ever stood up as the guest at the office party or the neighbor's Christmas hooptido and delivered a "come to Jesus" pitch?" etc., as clever as it is, is actually a red herring. Law wasn't participating in an office party, he wasn't crashing an occasion: the man was at an explicitly and unabashedly *religious* location, in an unquestionably *religious* context, for the purposes of doing *religious* things. As pleasing as Law's comments were to the ear, and however broadly they may be taken they sound suspiciously like service to the culture, rather than to the King.
Right, Eddie. American culture is *wild* for Islam right now. Just look at how popular it is with the readers of my blog. The huge surge in popularity started in September 2001.
Well, regarding Islamic liturgy, people tend to forget that Islam, like Christianity, has more than a few differences to it ...
So was the mosque Law visited Sunni? If so, which sect? Malikiyyah, Shafi'iyyah, Hanafiyyah, Hanbaliyyah, or Wahhabiyyah? The differences between the liturgies within these sects is as different as the liturgical differences you'll encounter between a Church of Christ service and the Tridentine Mass.
Or maybe it was Shi'ite. Was it Imamiyyah (mainstream Shi'ism), Druze, Alawite, or Ismaili?
Of course, don't let the fact that there are differences between Muslim liturgies get in the way of various individuals' opinion of Law. I would also point out that there are some groups that say their prayers in English, in which case Law would know exactly what was being said.
Also, there are Maghrib prayers that do not even mention Mohammed but instead focus on what a swell God Allah is for giving His followers all of their possessions or asking for safety, deliverance from evil, and a happy new year. Assuming that this was an ecumenical imam, he likely would have respected Law as a Christian and chosen a non-sectarian prayer for the occasion. He and the other believers could have gotten around to talking about the Hegira or the Night of Power after Law left.
Dan:
My point exactly. The tiny amount of information in the article tells me nothing about any of this. So charity says to assume the best till we know otherwise.
Mark,
I'm all in favor of giving Law the benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand, I don't know of any example where Catholic prelates have ever expressed concern about who is at an ecumenical event or what goes on. For example, have you ever heard a Catholic bishop say: "I won't attend the installation ceremony of Episcopal bishop so-and-so because he (or she) is an advocate of abortion and homosexuality"?
No. Cuz I don't follow ecclesial news that closely. I have no idea who goes to what functions.
Since some of us are making predictions....how bout that old pope picker, St. Malachy's, that the next one will be "the glory of the olive" suggesting perhaps Lustiger:
http://www.hackwriters.com/Malachy.htm
Mark,
If there is a Catholic bishop in the US who limits his ecumenical involvment to churches that oppose abortion and homosexuality, I think we would hear about it.
Having come back from a week away for the holiday and reading all the many posts on Cardinal Law's visit to the mosque, I think everybody has missed an essential point. People with a technical interest in theology and canon law will attempt to make some coherent sense out of the Church's current teachings on ecumenism. But in everyday pastoral terms, the Catholic Church now communicates to the average Joe and Jane formal religious indifferentism. The Church has moral interests in society, to be sure; but about religion it has become practically speaking indifferent.
I'm pleased that you felt compelled to convert, Mr. Shea; I doubt Cardinal Law would have done very much to encourage you.
Here is an article about Law and Islam --
http://
www.chroniclesmagazine.or...wsST112902.html
Steve (11/30 at 6:41):
I read the article you suggested, and it seems to suggest that because Muslims have different conclusions about God they do not believe in the same God.
I think this misses the narrow point that several have tried to make: Muslims worship the one God, the same God Christians worship. Muslims do not believe in the Trinity, and many of their beliefs about God are incorrect, but that doesn't mean they worship a different God.
This also doesn't mean that Muslims' religious beliefs are correct or are of equal weight with Christianity. Muslims believe Christians are bound for Hell because of their religious beliefs, and Christians probably believe the same about Muslims, but that doesn't mean we're worshipping a different God.
Not surprisingly, Shea says it better than I can, but here's my take: without knowing exactly what prayers Law participated in, it is hard to criticize him. If he prayed prayers that were heretical for a Catholic, then he should be disciplined. Until we know exactly what he did, it's all speculation.
Commenting by HaloScan
