African Cardinal Sarah sets ultra-conservative tone, in apparent prep for next conclave

Does the Catholic Church need conservatives like the African cardinal Sarah to lead her after Francis?
According to some, the answer is not only straight-forth yes but also highly desirable.

spiritdaily.org...

The battle to preserve the roots of mankind is perhaps the greatest challenge our world has faced since its origins.” —Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, speaking to an American audience of more than 1,000 in Washington D.C. at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Tuesday morning, May 17

“Today we are witnessing the next stage — and the consummation — of the efforts to build a utopian paradise on earth without God. It is the stage of denying sin and the fall altogether. But the death of God results in the burial of good, beauty, love and truth. Good becomes evil, beauty is ugly, love becomes the satisfaction of sexual primal instincts, and truths are all relative.

My idea is not to lead a discussion with cardinal Sarah (born 1945 in Guinea, now 70) who most likely won't read here and won't answer here. My question is whether the billion wide catholic church needs people like Sarah to determine her way, people who will practically lead her back to pre-Vatican 2 council.

After al, he doesn't say anything wrong. He stays within the hardline doctrine. The problem is that doctrine itself, that is not a dogma, should have evolved for 1-2 centuries so far and especially in 21st century. The last and biggest attempt for the contemporary church doctrine to evolve, was made at the last Church council called Vatican II.

As cardinal Martini said, the late Jesuit archbishop of Milan, "God is not Catholic". Martini gave strong reasons why in our ages is permissible for a woman with a child to find a second chance in life after being rejected by a selfish husband. That was said the last interview of cardinal Martini several years ago, before he passed away. Himself candidate for papacy, being one of the best theologians cardinals, he retired in the shadow of his age and during the ailing John Paul II when it was not very clear who run the course of Vatican.

Now we have another Jesuit who holds the highest office of the Catholic Church. I criticized Francis on many instances. Sometimes I supported his advanced positions on Climate change, social justice, or acceptance of extraterrestrials. He is 79 and even if he continues another 5-7 years the time will come inevitably when he will either step down or pass away.

What we see today among cardinals and bishops is the struggle not only should the divorced and remarried couples receive Holy Communion, but also personal struggle and that of agendas who will inherit Bergoglio-Francis.

More is expected by a Catholic Church who pretends to know God's ways not only on this earth, but even glimpse at planets with possible inhabitants. What if some of them are androgynous, and still want to be baptized, i.e. to enter the flock of saved ones leaded by the Catholic Church? Of course,t he problem is not for the green men, the problem is first and foremost for the billion wide Church, who seems doesn't find its proper place even after the last 2 conclaves, changes of views, new encyclicals, and cleansing among ranks.

Do we need the first pope outside the Malachi list to hold the views expressed by cardinal Sarah, no matter if he would be born in Africa, India or Latin America? A question to be answered in first place by the devote catholics and their shepherds.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Cardinal Sarah and other African bishops reportedly torpedoed the attempts of 2 years Synods to reform the Catholic practice of no-divorse and no lawful second marriage, despite they were minority among predominant majority of bishops who wanted changes but who bowed down by the idea the church must not divide. That contemporary moral teaching is not a dogma and is not rooted in the early church teaching. Other more orthodoxal sister Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, allow for 2,3 divorces to be followed by lawful marriage in Church. Moreover, they allow married priesthood that the Catholic Church still don't. (despite the fact St Peter was married and the Gospel says that clearly).

Catholic Church's own history knows of popes having children (card. Cesare Borgia son of pope Alexander 6th). The strict moral standard set by centuries old institution, hardly could be explained by the words of Jesus of very much rewritten gospel, when Jesus said, it is not lawful for man to abandon woman...except for adultery...That exception was skillfully rewritten in OUR DAYS in modern Catholic translations into "except for unlawful marriage"...There is a long way between committing adultery once married, and "unlawful marriage". That is one instance of how outdated and even deliberately seducing are those conservative front-runners who want the status quo more than the love of God expressed in the Gospel.

The problem is how one minority of bishops, leaded by people like card. Sarah, takes over any idea of reform of centuries old rules that are not dogmas. How could we expect any fresh air to come into the Catholic Church if those people will stop any such attempt before it ever started? Sure they will not baptize aliens, but that is not our problem at the moment. Most of those local churches are poor, and do not have the problems of the West.

On contrast, the Argentinian Bergoglio-Francis, the Honduran card. Maradiaga, despite they come from poorer parts of the Catholic Church, seem to be quite more advanced when it comes to change that is overdue.

If the current trend continues until the next papal election, I can see the Roman Church bitterly divided (as it showed on the two Synods) with a minority represented by South and South-East that may even walk out of the conclave for whatever reason. History knows such cases. I didn't quote the entire interview of card. Sarah but it is striking in its entirety, in its ultra-fundamentalist style. Few contemporary cardinals express such style in public. It belongs to another era. The perspective that kind of mentality to be the rule in post-Malachi papacy, is terrifying.

No matter if you like or dislike pope Bergoglio-Francis, after several years he will inevitably vacate the see of Peter one way or another. May be sooner than later. He has illnesses that no one talks loudly. Moreover, his reform is near dead.

The question of what happens after the last pope on the list of Malachi, is not rhetorical. We have to know what the Catholics and the world has to choose. (even if the choice is set to be made by 120 elders). A soon to happen Second Coming is something I desire most of all. But we know the warning of Jesus, not even the angels in Heaven know, nor the Son but only the Father. So to speculate of antichrists, there were and are so many that practically we can see one in every 10 years. After Francis there might be a number of popes, even if they do not call themselves popes. It would be a tragedy, it would be a total disaster if people with past ages mentality take it over.

a reply to: 2012newstart

So are you suggesting the African continent shouldn't be represented because they are too traditional for your taste? I don't see anything in your OP other than a dislike for people that don't share your vision of progress.

a reply to: 2012newstart

The notion that the modern Church defied somehow God's commandments being too liberal, and therefore are needed more men like card. Sarah to return its fundamental character during the Middle Ages...

should step aside before the urgent need to return the Church not to the Middle ages, not even to Constantine's time, rather to Her Original Roots in the first century.

Speaking of moral norms to be preached to 1.2 bln people, one has to know exactly what moral norms Master Jesus followed himself. Was he married, as not few ancient books speak about. Did he have male friends, as John speaks about, and how that should be redefined. Friendship is all but absent from our church communities busy with fund rasing for whatever noble needs. What it means to be friends today, is it the same what it meant in Jesus' time, when a friend comes in night and knocks on the door, to stand up and open it?

Another question that was put aside since the early church fathers, is, what were the first Christian communities "AGAPE". I don't know, I don't make suggestions. We as Christians must know what our forefathers in faith have done following Jesus' commandment of love. If it were feasts with drink only, why don't we do it today.

Because we lost the authentic spirit of the early communities, and substituted it with a bunch of medieval rules what is right and what is wrong. That Jesus never preached in first place. Along with the entire Church structure that was established much later.

On such background, words of card. Sarah and all others like him, sound no more "going back to the roots", they sound terribly well known medieval tones.

a reply to: Metallicus

No, I don't suggest such thing. And I said it plainly.

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: Metallicus

No, I don't suggest such thing. And I said it plainly.

No, if you had done it plainly it wouldn't have taken you three posts.

I still see someone who doesn't like traditional conservative Catholic values who is suggesting that people of a certain continent not be represented.

Good luck with that...

You are entitled to your view to see conspiracy in my three posts. it would be good if you discuss DETAILS within my three posts instead, and give your interpretation that may be no worse than my own.

I feel obliged to make it public something that not so many people outside of closed Catholic circles will notice. While the cardinal along with number of traditionalists defends unquestionable family values, that I myself support wholeheartedly, he is doing that rather conservative. As I understand it was done on hi level gathering in USA. What better platform for someone who wants to inherit the progressive liberal Francis.
I will put one more quote.

"Do we not see signs of this insidious war in this great nation of the United States?” Sarah asked. “In the name of ‘tolerance,’ the Church’s teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the human person are dismantled. The legalization of same-sex marriage, the obligation to accept contraception within healthcare programs, and even ‘bathroom bills’ that allow men to use the women’s restroom and locker rooms. Should not a biological man use the men’s restroom? How simpler can that concept be?”

Here, I agree at least of half of his sayings. But...let ask frankly, were there female restrooms at Jesus' time? Were there teachings of Jesus or of the Apostles, or of the Church fathers, that separate restrooms must be used as precondition of some kind not to fall into sin? There weren't restrooms at that time at all! Even today in poorer countries you may see ONE restroom cabin made of wood and without running water, and the people both male and female would wait for their turn to use it...Don't we use ONE cabin in the airplanes not labelled with genders? What so problematic in the restroom case in USA today? Did USA forget 200 year old history seen from perfect quality films that show how the forefathers of today's proud Americans have lived their simple lives? The Western standard, along with material progress that cannot be denied, made quite much effort to dogmatize what is not a dogma, in this case, separate sets of restroom cells. In other cases it goes to clothing etc. At the same time, real sexual intercourse means almost nothing for adults who would give consent.

That is what I criticize in cardinal Sarah's approach, and not the mere defense of family values. He puts it in terms of "war" for God or against God, to promote his own understanding of it.

Having the background I already spoke of, that is NOT a conspiracy neither a secret for those who follow the struggle in hi levels of Catholic hierarchy, it is easy to make the conclusion: Sarah is making his election platform for a year or 3 years from now when inevitably successor of Francis should be elected.

Everyone who watched Francis' US visit, would have noticed the great esteem of the public for cardinal Dolan's words, that eclipsed the cheers given to pope's own words. Everyone who watched Francis in the Philippines would notice the powerful presence of cardinal Tagle, who talked longer than the pope himself. There is nothing bad in all that. And they didn't talk of toilets as being part of war against God... We have to understand, As we speak we witness a campaign of who the next Petrus will be, campaign that is not officially announced and does not take the TV screens as the US presidential campaign. Unlike the US presidential 4 year term, the papal unrestricted term in office could change rules for millenia far outrunning one's own lifespan. The struggle is for principles and agendas.

So I make it available to the unbiased internet user reader of this forum, to know what it happens inside the enclosed circles of the Catholic Church and not to be surprised on the next White smoke on ST Peter's with the words "Habemus papam" followed by name that will shock many. As many were shocked in the last two elections.

I doubt cardinals like Sarah have any chance in 21st century to be elected popes. But that trend should be noticed and labelled correctly. The billion wide Church half of all Christians, must set aside fanatic positions as those of Sarah that endanger to go back to Galileo time in the name of holy wars, in the name of God, as happened many times in history.

Because, in the time of discovery of Galileo's satellites, perhaps also no one expected in the "modern age" for that time of Renaissance, to have the burning at stake of Giordano Bruno and even the holy monk promoting chastity Fr Savonarola. But it happened. At the same time, when appeared the new image of Jesus' painting after cardinal Cesare Borgia, son of pope Alexander VI. Rome has proven it could play double standards.

What we saw during most of pontificate of Francis, were exactly struggles of people like Sarah with the rest of bishops who wanted changes. Instead of getting a better church in those 3.5 years, we reached a dead end pouring all energy in those 2 absurd Synods that didn't decide anything. People like Sarah cheer the succeeded while being minority. But you see, they don't stop there. They continue their attack on the rest of the Church, proposing that their own fundamental interpretation is the real one. If they are left unchallenged, they will make their way further, up to the papal throne. Think of what a doctrine might do, that sees a sin in using common toilets at different time, seeing the devil in the fact homosexuals existed always in history and mostly within the ranks of the Catholic Church itself. I will ask again without expecting any answer here: let reread John's Gospel and label more appropriately the apparently intimate relation between John and Jesus. (although it might have been without any actual sex). Let label better Mary Magdalene's role, before those fanatics try to judge today's behavior or men and women who want to follow God in the way their fate or their inherited genes put them in. It is easy for someone dressed in purple and red to say "I am for the fundamental family values and everything else is from the demon, is a war against God". It is terrible to imagine what such fundamental position would bring to the 1/5 of humanity if allowed to be promoted to the highest levels of Catholic hierarchy. Sarah, together with other conservatives, already take positions hi enough. They were not changed quickly after the election of Francis. Instead, they seem to be setting a new conservative tone that goes much far back in time than Vatican II. The least what one sane reasoning catholic or non-catholic could do about that, is to say publicly they are WRONG in a time when we enjoy free internet.

I use the occasion to reiterate the need of new rules of election pope. More representation of the billion common catholics, and not only 120 elders. The option of those 120 to be dominated by outdated agenda and to elect someone who would turn the church back centuries, is terrifying to say the least.

If we look at the canonical sister churches of the East, being more orthodoxal than the Roman church, they offer a bigger representation of all layers of society in their councils that elect the new patriarchs. The Coptic Church even uses a lot to choose between the 3 final candidates. Today's Coptic patriarch of Alexandria was former engineer who became simple monk in his 40s. The conclave system of Rome is not inherited from Peter and Paul. On contrary, we know from history, that Paul installed the next bishop after Peter, Linus, without having any council to do that. I.e. Paul acted as the sole cardinal at that time.

We need fixes in the system if not overall change. May be we don't need public vote as today is modern to do in secular societies. But progressive change, definitely yes. And when I say "we" I mean not only the billion catholics but also the rest of the world for which the pope is not necessarily direct spiritual leader but definitely someone who determines great part of international policy.

Every pope gives some heritage to the next election. Thus John Paul Ii fixed the election code in lengthy document. Benedict with his resignation set a new tone, and actually prepared the process of election of Bergoglio. Francis on his turn must prepare for what is inevitable, even if he doesn't intend to resign. If we are talking of progressive succession that leads humanity somewhere better road, and not leading to some protestant-envisioned End times with burning cities and falling fire, with antichrist presiding over Rome.


Appointing new cardinals outside the circle of senior archbishops is a must if any change is to occur during Francis' pontificate. Usually, there is at least one scholar that is just a priest elevated to cardinal since the time of John Paul II. That is good as precedent and not enough a number. More priests or even lay people (as happened in history) must be elevated to cardinals and participate actively in the ruling of the church. The current status quo of eternal struggle between conservatives (very conservative ones) and liberals (mild conservative ones) cannot lead to anything good. The entire idea of resigning of Benedict and the need to elect a new one outside Rome, was meant to bring change in the scheme.

Today's senior cardinals, many of whom are the smartest persons in the Roman Church, may be unhappy that the ultimate power of election new pope would go a little farther from them. But they must also understand that is in their own best interest. Because are they themselves who actually cast votes, or interests beyond scene that rule also themselves, their positions and actions? The interests of 1 bln people are beyond that. We need a new start and we need it now, not after 20 years when the current college of cardinals will probably enjoy the eternal rewards. If they want to leacve after them a renowned Church. If not, sure Christ's Church on Earth will find ways to survive the current deepest crisis, in something new form to resemble better the early years of Christianity on planet Earth. It will have very little or nothing in common with today's absurd structure that is not found anywhere in the Gospels.