WI Joseph Ratzenberger wasn't voted Pope?

With the recent papal conclave, I wondered this...

What If Joseph Ratzinger WASN'T voted Pope? What would the implications for the church be in the ATL?

As you may know, Ratziner's rule was one of a dubious one.

What are your thoughts about this?
 
Last edited:
With the recent papal conclave, I wondered this...

What If Joseph Ratzenberger WASN'T voted Pope? What would the implications for the church be in the ATL?

As you may know, Ratzenberger's rule was one of a dubious one.

What are your thoughts about this?

Who do you suggest instead?
 
In the 2005 conclave, Carlo Maria Martini received a plurality of the votes on the first ballot. Behind Ratzinger was Camillo Ruini. The rest of the votes were dispersed. So one of them, perhaps? Though of course, Martini was sort of a liberal by Church standards.
 
In the 2005 conclave, Carlo Maria Martini received a plurality of the votes on the first ballot. Behind Ratzinger was Camillo Ruini. The rest of the votes were dispersed. So one of them, perhaps? Though of course, Martini was sort of a liberal by Church standards.

A liberal pope is just about a Tea Partyer, but it'd be nice to see the Vatican taking a bit more of a liberal stance. And if not liberal, perhaps libertarian?
 
With the recent papal conclave, I wondered this...

What If Joseph Ratzenberger WASN'T voted Pope? What would the implications for the church be in the ATL?

As you may know, Ratzenberger's rule was one of a dubious one.

What are your thoughts about this?

You mean Benedict XVI??
His name is RATZINGER not Ratzenberger... get your things right.
 
You seem to be confusing modern American politics with the inner workings of the Vatican. Economically, the Church is far left. Pope Benedict for instance was a big supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States and has pressured Catholic nations to increase their use of green technologies. Socially, the Church is far right except on the death penalty. They view that life is sacred above all things.

It is a reversal of the "social liberal, economic conservative" position that seems to be popular in America.

An ignorant American is embarrassed here. :eek:

It's even worse, then, that I'm Catholic. :eek: In this regard, I don't always agree with the views of the Church, but I think religiousness is a nice experience and a good social opportunity, especially for someone like me who dwells all day with a computer screen. ;)

I know about all the moral stances of the church (and actually agree with about half, I'm truly a moderate in that regard) but I've neglected the economic issues. Ah, well, learn from your mistakes.
 
Ratzinger well, retires. That's what he was planning to do, anyway. Maybe a few additional works on history and theology that would not be well known outside academia.
 
In the 2005 conclave, Carlo Maria Martini received a plurality of the votes on the first ballot. Behind Ratzinger was Camillo Ruini. The rest of the votes were dispersed. So one of them, perhaps? Though of course, Martini was sort of a liberal by Church standards.

You must always be carefull with conclave results, because we will never knew the full truth. Some other scource claim that Martini just got 9 votes in the first ballot. Okay, we also can´t confirm this, but personally I think the La Stampa results sound very doubtfull. Her Martini 40 - Ratzinger 38 results sound for me very much like: ITALY YEAH ITALY.

But many sources say that Ratzingers last serious opponent in the last two ballots was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Bergoglio. An Argentinian of italian heritage wouldn´t be the worse choice.
 
Really depends on who they chose instead. Since Ratzinger was intended in part to be a "safe" interim who would continue with the direction estabished by John Paul II and not make any major changes, I presume the cardinals would have elected someone similar.
 
Martini was too liberal to have any chance of becoming pope. If we Ratzinger fails then it will likely be a long conclave. Bergoglio is definitely a possibility. In a long conclave the Italian desire to regain the papacy might be factor but they did not have a strong cardinal to rally around. Perhaps Tettamanzi but he has weaknesses.

The biggest difference with either of them becoming Pope is likely to be that the negotiations with the SSPX are likely to be assigned a much lower priority which could avert the internal crisis within the SSPX. Connected with that there would be no Motu about the Tridentine Rite but with the Indult of JP II continued.
 
You must always be carefull with conclave results, because we will never knew the full truth. Some other scource claim that Martini just got 9 votes in the first ballot. Okay, we also can´t confirm this, but personally I think the La Stampa results sound very doubtfull. Her Martini 40 - Ratzinger 38 results sound for me very much like: ITALY YEAH ITALY.

But many sources say that Ratzingers last serious opponent in the last two ballots was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Bergoglio. An Argentinian of italian heritage wouldn´t be the worse choice.

Very ironic considering who just got elected Pope. Perhaps he gets elected in 2005 instead?

I doubt that any other cardinal would substantially change Church teachings, the whole lot of them are rather like minded on the big issues (abortion, homosexuality, etc...). The biggest probable difference is how hard they crack down on corruption and abuse.
 
Like arosenberger14 said while there is theological variance with the College of Cardinals it's within a relatively narrow range, on issues like homosexuality, the sanctity of life etc. the College is united. Unsurprisingly you don't get to be a Cardinal without signing up to the core tenets of Catholicism so don't expect any variation on that whoever is elected. Additionally the liturgical restoration while very important to a very small number of people isn't really going to change anything.
The only issue where a different Pope would change things is in tackling the deeply fucked up Roman Curia where a cultural of widespread corruption and covering up everything (i.e. kiddy fiddling) is entrenched. Obviously Benedict XVI didn't have the desire or willpower to really clean out the Curia but then none of the other papabile are much different. You don't end up a Cardinal by rocking the boat. Francis might turn out to be different but I won't be holding my breath.
 
In the 2005 conclave, Carlo Maria Martini received a plurality of the votes on the first ballot.

No, he received a plurality of the votes in the fantasies of liberal Italian journalists, who work in a branch of the print fiction industry. The notion that Martini was close to being elected Pope is farcical, he was an off the scale liberal by the standards of the 2005 college.

If it hadn't been Ratzinger it would most likely have been Bergoglio eight years earlier. What that would mean is largely unanswerable at this point until we've seen what the man does as Pope now.
 
Top